Will Saddam Hussein get a fair trial?

[eyez0nme]

Sadly, I don't think so; He will reap what he sowed, for has He ever given a fair trial?

[Masa the Masta]

You're probably right, he'll get a shitty trial..

Even so, he complains a buttload about how they're treating him. He still thinks he's the head of the government. :p

[Mechs]

I think he'll get a fair trial. It's just we all know whats going to happen in the end cause...well hes Saddam :rolleyes:.

[setrict]

I hope so. Even the appearance of an unjust trial would bring cause all kinds of trouble, like undermining the new government's legitimacy, and reinforcing the hate. He seems to be an easy mark, so I can't see any reason why they shouldn't go out of their way to make a fair and legal trial. They have 13? trials planned... you can only be executed once :p

[Monkey]

It's not going to be a fair trial. A fair trial would acknowledge the possibility of him walking free.

That is not going to happen.

If he was capable of walking free it would also mean that the war was wrong, that Bush and everyone else who ordered the invasion are the ones who are war criminals.

Can you see that actually happening? Him walking free and getting his country back? Of course not. Even if there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, it would destroy the current US government (and a couple of others) if he actually walked free.


Therefore there isn't and never has been the possibility of him walking free.


As such, it can not be called a fair trial.

[more cheerios]

It won't be a fair trial. And honestly, I could care less in this case.

[CanisKil]

Let's remember all the fair trials he held while he was in power. Personally, I really don't care if his trial is fair as long as justice is served in the end.

[dzee]

Sadly, I don't think so; He will reap what he sowed, for has He ever given a fair trial?
what's with the uppercase for the guy? He, indeed :rolleyes:

fair or not, he won't go free. that's really all there is to it, i feel. you can hit my head if he does, though.

[Bobbybirdtree]

Someone should just run up to him and shoot him in the chest like Oswald. Save's time and money.

[conners]

Fair trial doesn't mean there has to be a chance of him walking free. Say I walk up someone in front a dozen witnesses and a running news camera and blow some's head off. I get life in prison with no parole. There was never any chance of me walking, yet you can't say the trial was unfair. Fair trial means the court, jury and prosecution followed the laws and the punishment fits the crime(s) of which you are convicted. So long as Saddam's trial follows the rules set the Iraqi government the trial is fair. Hopefully they'll work faster than the UN Misolevic trial.

[Lea]

Who cares? No one is going to want to listen to what he has to say anyway becasue it's obvious he is going to be severly punished for the remainder of his life.

[Exclamatio]

why is he even still alive

[Pierrot le Fou]

There is nothing 'fair' about a foreign power removing the leader of a sovereign country and putting him on trial for being a dictator of a sovereign country.

There is nothing 'fair' about a trial which is established by a foreign power under rules that weren't previously present for the sole sake of trying one man whose rules they didn't like.

So will the trial be fair? Potentially, but the rules and causes of the trial aren't.

Yes he's scum, but for crissakes, I just don't like the precedent.

[B MacD]

There is nothing 'fair' about a foreign power removing the leader of a sovereign country and putting him on trial for being a dictator of a sovereign country.

Clarification: He is not on trial for "being a dictator of a sovereign country". He is on trial (at the moment) for his role in the torture and killing of more than 140 men and boys 23 years ago in the mostly Shiite town of Dujail. (Paraphrased and copied from CNN).

There is nothing 'fair' about a trial which is established by a foreign power under rules that weren't previously present for the sole sake of trying one man whose rules they didn't like.

He is being tried because his actions were violations of widely adopted international law, namely the Geneva Conventions, to which Iraq is a party. Specifically, crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. These are punishable offences. Under Saddam-era Iraq, it is highly improbable that an Iraqi court would exist for punishing people for these actions. Therefore, the previous lack of rules against such actions isn't really a valid defense as to why his trial won't be fair.

So will the trial be fair? Potentially, but the rules and causes of the trial aren't.

Yes he's scum, but for crissakes, I just don't like the precedent.

Such a trial is hardly precedent setting. The Nuremberg Trials were conducted in a similar way.

That said, I highly doubt his trial will be fair. It smacks of victor's justice, with inexperienced judges and court officials, and severe lack of protection for defense attorneys. (I believe 2 or 3 have been killed already). It definately should have been referred to an international body for prosecution, most likely the International Criminal Court.

Problem is, most Iraqi's don't care about a fair or legitimate trial. They want him executed as quickly as possible. I suspect they'll get their wish in the not too distant future.

[Jon885]

I'm not sure..but what if he's found not guilty on all charges? That would mean he would be set free. That would be funny if he became the leader of Iraq again.

[Jay]

I think he should get a fair trial. Why should the western world stoop to the same kind of acts as a totalitarian dictator? I've always preferred fair play over dirty tactics, and even in the case of Saddam Hussein, those feelings immediately come to the front.

That's not to say I believe he should in any way be TREATED with fairness. He should be punished to the full extent of the law and beyond for his acts. I just believe that he should get a fair TRIAL, and when he's found guilty for the acts that they have evidence on him for, should be slowly and painfully executed.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Clarification: He is not on trial for "being a dictator of a sovereign country". He is on trial (at the moment) for his role in the torture and killing of more than 140 men and boys 23 years ago in the mostly Shiite town of Dujail. (Paraphrased and copied from CNN).

He's being tried because he was the dictator. The only reason they can't try him for that is because it isn't technically a crime. So instead they tried to get around the whole ex post facto thing by charging him with murder. They want him to fry, this was an easier way to do it.

He is being tried because his actions were violations of widely adopted international law, namely the Geneva Conventions, to which Iraq is a party. Specifically, crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. These are punishable offences. Under Saddam-era Iraq, it is highly improbable that an Iraqi court would exist for punishing people for these actions. Therefore, the previous lack of rules against such actions isn't really a valid defense as to why his trial won't be fair.

International law has no teeth. They are not punishable unless the country in question is a signatory to this whole ICC thing, which I sincerely doubt Iraq is. Hell, the whole concept of international law trumping national sovereignity is a sore point for much of the world, and it is certainly not 'widely adopted' as you seem to suggest.

Such a trial is hardly precedent setting. The Nuremberg Trials were conducted in a similar way.

Incorrect. The German surrender gave the Allies authority of German law, meaning they could construct laws (and charge the criminals ex-post facto) without much of a problem. That certainly isn't the case in Iraq which never formally surrendered or turned over power to the US or the 'coalition forces' in any formal legal capacity.

To suggest that a country can invade another country, topple the government, create a court to try the former sovereign leaders of that country, is CERTAINLY a scary precedent.

This is equivalent, in precedent, to invading the US, and putting Bush and Congress on trial for invading Iraq (which was certainly not something international law was so gung-ho about having happen), without so much as a formal surrender by the US or a transfer of power to the occupying forces.

[chgu]

Just a quick fact. Some of the Iraqis actually asked if he could run in the presidential election coming up. They're saying things were MUCH better when he was in power.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C12%5C01%5Cstory_1-12-2005_pg4_14

[B MacD]

He's being tried because he was the dictator. The only reason they can't try him for that is because it isn't technically a crime. So instead they tried to get around the whole ex post facto thing by charging him with murder. They want him to fry, this was an easier way to do it.

If he had been a benevolent dictator, there would be no issue here. They are trying him for murder because that’s what he is responsible for. The fact that he was a dictator is not the point. Had he been elected in a democratic fashion and committed these acts, he could very well be in the same position, much in the way Mr. Milosevic is now.

International law has no teeth. They are not punishable unless the country in question is a signatory to this whole ICC thing, which I sincerely doubt Iraq is. Hell, the whole concept of international law trumping national sovereignty is a sore point for much of the world, and it is certainly not 'widely adopted' as you seem to suggest.

Countries do not need to be signatories to the ICC for international law to be applicable. The Hague Tribunal was created by the UN Security Council for trying war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. All UN members are obligated to cooperate with it. Iraq is a member of the UN. I see no reason why such a similar tribunal could not have been created for trying Iraqi crimes against humanity. In the case of The Hague Tribunal, it was created to hand out punishments for (among other things) grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. So while a given convention/protocol may lack teeth, bodies can be legally created and empowered to enforce them.

International law often trumps national sovereignty. In some cases were national and international laws are concurrent, international law can be viewed to take precedent, if it is in the interest of justice to do so. (Typically in regards to grave breaches of international law/Geneva Conventions, or where national courts have collapsed, are corrupt, etc). One only need to look at WTO rules and their impacts on sovereign states to see much more common examples. I agree in that in general this is a sore point, but it does happen often.

Incorrect. The German surrender gave the Allies authority of German law, meaning they could construct laws (and charge the criminals ex-post facto) without much of a problem. That certainly isn't the case in Iraq which never formally surrendered or turned over power to the US or the 'coalition forces' in any formal legal capacity.

Irrelevant. When territory is “occupied” by adversary forces, that is, when the government of the occupied territory is no longer capable of exercising its authority, and the attacker is in a position to impose its control over that area, occupying power status (in the form of a belligerent occupation) is recognized. This is laid out in The Annexed Regulations to Hague Convention IV of 1907, and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Iraq and the US/UK are party. The entire country need not be conquered before an occupation comes into effect as a matter of law, and a state of occupation need not be formally proclaimed, as General Eisenhower did in the Second World War. As pursuant to the 4th Geneva Convention, certain changes to local laws pursuant to good governance during occupation are permitted. War crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, committed prior to or during the course of the conflict, are prosecuted in accordance with the principles of international criminal law, and may be prosecuted by the occupying power.

To suggest that a country can invade another country, topple the government, create a court to try the former sovereign leaders of that country, is CERTAINLY a scary precedent.

This is equivalent, in precedent, to invading the US, and putting Bush and Congress on trial for invading Iraq (which was certainly not something international law was so gung-ho about having happen), without so much as a formal surrender by the US or a transfer of power to the occupying forces.

Agreed. If another country were to achieve occupying power status in accordance with the terms I mentioned above (and it were party to the above mentioned Conventions) then, under international law, this would be legal. Of course, it would have to be proved that the administration and Congress’s actions would fall under the scope of the 4th Convention provisions regarding modifications of local law, and/or their actions were a violation of the laws against war crimes, genocide, etc.

[Komachi Angel]

The article posted is so loose it's a wonder anyone accepts it at all. Ordinary Iraqis? Given that it is the main arguing statement of the article, it provides absolutely no detail whatsoever.

How many iraqis? And what is ordinary? Are we talking about 2 terrorists who walked up in civies to make a point, or a huge mob of hundreds rallying? If they don't post details like this, it smacks of being edited to change the way it sounds.

If, of 2,000 citizens random in Iraq, two of those (being 'ordinary', or whatever that means) think Saddam was great, you can still qualify the above statement. It doesn't tell you anything else.

Given the emotive, one-sided and biased writing, not to mention complete utter lack of any proper detail, it's nothing worth quoting.

I jump on PLF's side on this one.

[jindojim]

I don't see any reason to argue against PLF. It's pretty much common knowledge I'd say that what he's saying is true. Saddam's forced extrication from power (considering that America put him in power in the 1st place -_-) is just an example of America showing off its position as the world's superpower.

In my opinion, the pretenses of his extrication are a facade. The charges are a facade. The trial itself is a facade. His sentence will be a facade (he will be sentenced guilty and sent to prison). I'm not saying Saddam isn't guilty of crimes against humanity. But it's just secondary to what is really going on. His capture and subsequent trial are just ways that the Bush administration is attempting to justify America's presence in Iraq and the sacrifice of American troops.

[Miyo]

I HOPE HE DIES AND BURN IN HELL!!

I hate him...... He killed alot innocent people, including Kurdish people

[Kass]

Technically, Saddam wasn't a dictator. There were elections. He was elected. Of course, anyone who might have opposed him disappeared along with their entire family.

I also do not find the death of tens of thousands of people and attempted genocide irrelevant to any discussion. He is on trial for being exactly what he is--a sadistic, murderous butcher.

Besides, he has a former US attorney general on his side. Arguably, that is some of the best representation money can buy. He isn't even paying for it either. His trial will be an exercise in fairness. The judges will bend over backwards to make sure that he is not denide any legal backflips to which he might be entitled.

Oh, and according to the news, some of the defense attorneys declined protection. Whether they were the ones who got killed, I don't know. I guess they thought since they were defending Saddam, the insurgents would think they were on their side. Kind of like people thought Muslims wouldn't blow up their own mosques.

[Unactuality]

The existence of single party elections hardly makes Saddam unworthy of being (rightly) described as a dictator.

Similarly for a host of other modern tyrants who look to democratic farce for legitimacy.

[Kass]

See, that is the irony of it all. He was duly elected once and that is one of the arguments against removing him from power.

Of course, I still find the arguments about his political legitmacy laughable in the face of his VERY public crimes against humanity. He never attempted to hide what he was doing in his own country, yet in the interests of political righteousness, the rights of people to live have been declared moot.

People cry for the insurgents who have been killed. They hold VOLUNTEER soldiers up as sacrifical lambs. No one holds up Hussein's victims. They might as well have nver existed; they have been declared irrelevant by nearly everyone. Whenever they are brought up, they are dismissed as not important. Everyone remembers weapons of mass destruction, but forget that these people were equally why Iraq was invaded.

Who cries for them?

[Anders]

Saddam is certainly going to get the worst penalties possible. He will probably be executed and to be quite honest, I don't really care that he dies for his crimes. There are other country leaders who share the same abuses of power that Saddam is infamous for. Take a look at Singapore for instance. While their country is not based on the same set of human rights as other countries, the dictator that runs Singapore has no problems using his authority to make sure he stays in power for as long as he lives. He has done everything from censorship to imprisoning political opponents for both his office and the offices of his party members in parliament. Since he is getting pretty old, he is gearing his son up to take over for him once he dies. The "positive" aspect of this style of government is that it allows foriegn companies a very good place to relocate to. Huge profits can be made there because there are virtually no restrictions. Do you think jr. will invade Singapore next to overthrow their corrupt government and free the Singapore citizens from tyranny?

[Buckwheat]

Saddam and codefendants realize they have no chance of fairness in these proceedings. One of them said in court,"Why don't you execute us now and end this farce".

[eyez0nme]

I still don't get it: is Saddam a serial killer--a murderer or is he a dictator?

What's the difference between the two.

[Psychochink]

I still don't get it: is Saddam a serial killer--a murderer or is he a dictator?

What's the difference between the two.

"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."

That's the difference. At the end of the day, history is written by the victors. (Not that I'm necessarily saying this is a bad thing). If, by some almost inconceivable series of events, Iraq had won the war, then America would be portrayed only as an aggressive, imperialistic nation seeking to overthrow the sovereign government of Iraq in a poorly justified war of aggression.

Now, while there are some proponents of this attitude at the moment, by the time this war becomes properly the realm of 'history', the only people that will care about that point of view will be - historians.

In the final analysis, the difference is - he lost.

[Komachi Angel]

I am not terribly up on details with the trial, but are the only charges they are bringing against him the deaths of those people some time back? It was a terribly thing indeed, but there is something else in there as well, right?

[Kass]

Saddam is certainly going to get the worst penalties possible. He will probably be executed and to be quite honest, I don't really care that he dies for his crimes. There are other country leaders who share the same abuses of power that Saddam is infamous for. Take a look at Singapore for instance. While their country is not based on the same set of human rights as other countries, the dictator that runs Singapore has no problems using his authority to make sure he stays in power for as long as he lives. He has done everything from censorship to imprisoning political opponents for both his office and the offices of his party members in parliament. Since he is getting pretty old, he is gearing his son up to take over for him once he dies. The "positive" aspect of this style of government is that it allows foriegn companies a very good place to relocate to. Huge profits can be made there because there are virtually no restrictions. Do you think jr. will invade Singapore next to overthrow their corrupt government and free the Singapore citizens from tyranny?

He hasn't killed about 100,000 people and attempted genocide yet, has he? He hasn't tried to develop chemical and biological weapons, has he? He hasn't actually gassed his own citizenry, has he?

The leader of Singapore, while a bastard, isn't anywhere near Saddam Hussein.