Saddam Husseins Trial

Hey all,
Unless you have been living in a hole in the ground for a while, (pun intended), then you can't have helped but see that the Saddam Hussein and certain others are due to appear in court to hear the faces they will be charged with.

I have heard that the defence may rely on the point of the invasion of Iraq being illegal and therefore any charges brought should be invalid.

This may or may not be fact but I would like to pose the questions:

1) If Saddam Hussein is acquitted how will the US deal with this?

and

2) Does the pressure on the Iraqi government to find this man guilty determine the outcome of such a trial?

Many lives have been, and still are being lost in the attempt to bring stability and democracy to this country. After so costly an effort I don't believe the US could or would find an acquittal by the court acceptable.

How then might they react? The choices would be very restricted. This is a government only recently place into power and then mainly by the US. An unpopular decision reguarding the outcome of Saddam Husseins trial surely cannot lead to the US deposing the newly appointed government. After all, even the initial invasion was, at best, coldly recieved by many nations. Any such further action would then be unthinkable.

In reguards to my second question, then if so and the opportunity of a fair trial does not exist this attempt becomes no more than a farce, making a mockery out of the civilized worlds legal system.

Even then though, if this is the case, what other option is their left open?

(PS: I am in no way trying to defend this man. It is my personal opinion that the world should have accepted it's responsibilities, and he should have been removed from power, many years ago. Instead the western world happily continued dealing with him, supporting his reigeme even to the extent of arms sales. The only justification given for this is that of political strategy, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. A decision which has returned to haunt us leaving a very bitter taste.)

Jack

[edit on 1/7/04 by JAK]

Saddam Hussein will not come out of this a free man. Too many Iraqis want to see him executed for crimes he committed against them. The US administration is banking on that.

Gotta love how tightly they are controlling this kangaroo process. Don't think for a minute it has so much to do with security (which it does, to a degree), but moreso it is to control the information that slips from the dictator's lips. He has information that could totally implicate Bush I and Rumsfeld in his nefarious deeds. It was they who largely supplied him with all that nasty poison gas, remember. And that's just one thing they did for him. There's much more. He knows too much.

And by the way, Hussein will not be allowed to call those two as witnesses. That's pretty underhanded, if you ask me. Goes to show they have much to hide and answer for.

And we can't forget.. during the sanctions, Saddam gave re-building contracts to none other than Dick Cheney's Halliburton. That was ILLEGAL as HELL. But hey - when you're Dick Cheney, you are simply above the law.

There's a word for his actions: TREASON

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Here's an article on his appearance from MSNBC:

In court, Saddam says �real criminal is Bush�
Ex-Iraqi dictator rejects war crimes charges, calls Kuwaitis �dogs�

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:03 a.m. ET July 01, 2004BAGHDAD, Iraq - A defiant Saddam Hussein rejected charges of war crimes and genocide against him in a court appearance Thursday, telling a judge "this is all theater, the real criminal is Bush."
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Here's an article on his appearance from MSNBC:

In court, Saddam says �real criminal is Bush�
Ex-Iraqi dictator rejects war crimes charges, calls Kuwaitis �dogs�

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:03 a.m. ET July 01, 2004BAGHDAD, Iraq - A defiant Saddam Hussein rejected charges of war crimes and genocide against him in a court appearance Thursday, telling a judge "this is all theater, the real criminal is Bush."
www.msnbc.msn.com...

He also said that Kuwait was part of Iraq. You don't really take the rantings of that madman seriously, do you?

If you research the history of Mesopotamia (going back to the Sikes-Picot agreement) you will see that Kuwait, in fact, was a part of what we now call Iraq.

I don't think anyone in the western world is going to seriously listen to such rhetoric. He is a mass murderer.

I find quotes such as:

"Please allow me not to sign until the lawyers are present. ... Anyhow, when you take a procedure to bring me here again, present me with all these papers with the presence of lawyers. Why would you behave in a manner that we might call hasty later on?" - Saddam Hussein,

just laughable considering the justice that prevailed when he ruled the country. How ironic that now he should try to request proper legal codes of behaviour after what he has done.

My initial questions though were:

1) If Saddam Hussein is acquitted how will the US deal with this?

and

2) Does the pressure on the Iraqi government to find this man guilty determine the outcome of such a trial?

(If so and the opportunity of a fair trial does not exist this attempt becomes no more than a farce, making a mockery out of the civilized worlds legal system.)


The only way I can see for the US to come out of this happy is that either:

The US is certain that the result of this trial will be an acceptable outcome, and I mean it is absolutely guaranteed,

or if this is not the case,

If it looks like he will be shown any leniency Saddam will end up dead before an unsatisfactory verdict has time to be delivered.

Originally posted by JAK
I don't think anyone in the western world is going to seriously listen to such rhetoric. He is a mass murderer.

Rhetoric? The vast majority of people around the world consider George W. Bush to be a mass murderer.

I find quotes such as:

"Please allow me not to sign until the lawyers are present. ... Anyhow, when you take a procedure to bring me here again, present me with all these papers with the presence of lawyers. Why would you behave in a manner that we might call hasty later on?" - Saddam Hussein,

just laughable considering the justice that prevailed when he ruled the country.

So what? You want a sham trial? Let the facts speak for themselves in open court. Anyone who would argue otherwise is afraid of the case being made against him. For example, the whole case is in question because of the invasion was illegal under International law; therefore, it could be construed as illegitimate from the get-go.

1) If Saddam Hussein is acquitted how will the US deal with this?

He would probably die of "cancer" or he'd be assassinated.

2) Does the pressure on the Iraqi government to find this man guilty determine the outcome of such a trial?

Much of the pressure is coming directly from Iraqis who were abused and traumatized by him. Outside pressure most likely matters little. They'd probably kill him with their own bare hands if they could.

In fairness to all parties seeking his punishment and for the fairest, most transparent trial, Saddam should be tried before an international tribunal.

An international show trial would solve nothing. It's up to the Iraqi people to try Saddam and nobody else.
It's funny how ECK will always spew forth his rhetoric about how Iraq should be left to it's own affairs and yet when it comes down to dealing with his hero, the Iraqis aren't capable. Hand him over to an international court? Why the hell would anyone want to do that? Could it be that you want to see old Saddam spared from the death penalty that he is most certainly going to receive?

Personally, I couldn't give a crap what they do with Saddam. To deny his guilt is the delusion of a fool. The argument of wether or not he will get a fair trial is just a technicality. As long as he can never return to cause the misery that he has done in the past, they can gut and fillet him, or send him to live in ECK's spare room.

You will probably find that because the whole world is watching, Saddam will get a fairer trial than any man in the whole of the Middle East has ever received. Mind you, the fact that he's getting a trial at all shows that things have progressed - most of his victims got a bullet in the back of the neck and had no recourse to a system of justice whatsoever.


Let the Iraqis deal with him as they see fit.

East Coast Kid,

The rhetoric I was referring to was the fact of Saddam shouting about other points while trying to avert the focus of the trial away from what crimes he is being prosecuted for. Not whether what he was saying was fact or not.

As for you point:

"So what? You want a sham trial?"

I would have hoped that the impression gained from my first post was demonstrative of the concerns I have for exactly that:

"Does the pressure on the Iraqi government to find this man guilty determine the outcome of such a trial?

...if so and the opportunity of a fair trial does not exist this attempt becomes no more than a farce, making a mockery out of the civilized worlds legal system."

I was questioning the possibility of a fair trial in such a case, the point being that the facts might not be allowed to speak for themselves in open court due to the size of this case.

I see the expression of such concerns as far indeed from wanting a sham trial, just the opposite in fact.

To rephrase one question I posted, the trial might not be able to ba a fair and correct one taking place where it is, therefore -

"In fairness to all parties seeking his punishment and for the fairest, most transparent trial, Saddam should be tried before an international tribunal"

- yes I agree, infact this might be the only acceptable way of a guaranteed fair trial.

Jack

Why does Saddam even get a trial when so many do not? If you put him on trial and charge him with a crime, I say do the same for everyone else.

Whom else would you like to see put on trial, curme?

Originally posted by jsobecky
Whom else would you like to see put on trial, curme?

Gitmo prisoners, Abu Ghraib prisoners, and countless others we don't know about both here and abroad. Well, first I'd like to see them get charged of a crime, then get a trial, but I guess that's implied.

I wonder if Saddam can call witnesses? Bush? Rumsfeld? Former Iraqi Ambassador April Glaspie?

Originally posted by Leveller

It's funny how ECK will always spew forth his rhetoric about how Iraq should be left to it's own affairs and yet when it comes down to dealing with his hero, the Iraqis aren't capable. Hand him over to an international court?

Well Leveller, it's nice to see you're as full of hor# as ever.

I said, to be fair, it would be good to see the him tried dually. Other countries have a right to prosecute him as well. I don't expect you to grasp that concept, tho.

I fought for this country AGAINST Saddam Hussein. What have you ever done besides sit behind your little moniter picking your nose and whining about things you know nothing about - while the grown ups go fight for you?

NOTHING!

Chill, people.

Discuss the trial, or don't comment.

There have been some who made an issue of Saddam's refusal to sign anything without a lawyer present. I think that it show's he is not completely loco.

The French, our wonderful allies, are putting together a team of lawyers to assist in his defense.

FOX News talking head mentioned that it might be realistic that one of Saddam's former henchmen, like Tariq Aziz, might turn on him to spare his own life. This would counteract Saddam's defense of sovereign rule when he killed the Kurds.

yeah well he had his day in court, still claiming to be the "president" of iraq, trying to justify invading kuwait (turning women into prostitutes constitutes a declaration of war and invasion? jeez and some people thought bush's lies about WMD was bad??? talk about a bull# exuse, at least bush had a better cover story.)

he was being defiant and wanted to argue and even refused to the signs the paper only stating what he was being charged with. he kept claiming he shouldnt be treated like a common criminal because he's "president" and blah blah blah.


kangaroo court? as opposed to the "due process" he gave hundreds of thousands of those he had put to death? yeah i'm really concerned saddam gets a fair shake. christ even kids know what the guys has done and he hasnt been bashful about it until now. does anyone and i mean anyone on this board really think he's innocent?

he was being defiant and wanted to argue and even refused to the signs the paper only stating what he was being charged with. he kept claiming he shouldnt be treated like a common criminal because he's "president" and blah blah blah.

This sounds like the future of George W Bush. The analogies are quite striking.

Hmm...

Would be great if he got up and smacked the judge.
He's doing extremely well for his age.
Obviously they haven't fed him as the reporters are saying he's lost around 20lb.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

I fought for this country AGAINST Saddam Hussein.

Yeah. Sure you did.


The dual trial notion stinks.
As you've stated time and time again, ad infinitum that Iraqi politics and justice is the property of the Iraqis alone, I find your argument hypocritical to say the least.

Why would other countries have the right to prosecute him anyway? You've argued time and time again that he's done nothing wrong.

The vast majority of the people who were murdered by Saddam were Iraqis. It therefore stands to reason that the right of trying him belongs to the Iraqi people. If Kuwait and Iran are happy to go along with this, what right do you have to interfere in the affairs of the Iraqi people?