Wow, he just said that he IS still the president of Iraq, and refuses to stand up when spoken to by the judge. He says that he doesn’t recognize the court…
:bravo:
While he may have committed many heinous crimes, I respect his dignity and the position he’s taken in that regard. After all, many intelligent, well-educated people around the world (and a few posters on forumosa) feel the US-led invasion of Iraq was an unlawful violation of international law. If that’s the case, then maybe he’s right.
Maybe the US had no legal right to invade, lock him up, dismantle the goverment of Iraq and institute proceedings to form a new government, so legally speaking he IS still the President of Iraq and the court has no legal basis to try him (the Hague war crimes tribunal might have such a right, but maybe not this hokey, kangaroo court in Iraq).
In any event, regardless of what he did in the past, the stance that you describe is clearly the most dignified response possible in the humiliating position that he’s now in. If I were his attorney I’d be proud of him for his handling of the legal situation at this point.
I hope I can check it out on TV.
:bravo:
While he may have committed many heinous crimes, I respect his dignity and the position he’s taken in that regard.[/quote]I don’t agree with the show that’s being made of this, but I think your statement goes too far. Respect his dignity? I find it difficult to be sympathetic or respect the dignity of a bastard who among other things had some of his own people gassed. Any imposition upon his dignity made by this trial is nothing compared to what he visited upon many of his own people. Whether or not the US and Britain were right to invade makes no difference to his guilt. He’s a brutal murderer. Any trial anywhere would be a procedural show because his guilt is already as crystal clear as it’s ever going to be. I wouldn’t be too upset if the show were skipped and the Iraqi’s just strung him up tomorrow.
He knows he’s in deep trouble. If he had dignity he wouldn’t have lived like a mole for months. I guess if I were in his shoes I would be defiant too…he’s in trouble no matter what. Some people kiss @ss to judges, some know that it doesn’t matter how they act, the verdict would be the same.
:bravo:
While he may have committed many heinous crimes, I respect his dignity and the position he’s taken in that regard.[/quote]I don’t agree with the show that’s being made of this, but I think your statement goes too far. Respect his dignity?[/quote]
It’s called “professional courtesy”. Sort of like doctors treating each other’s kids free.
Sure, who needs the rule of law anyway? Maybe all governments should just round up suspected criminals, dissidents and other unpopulars and string 'em up without trial. After all, it worked for Saddam, right?
Sure, who needs the rule of law anyway? Maybe all governments should just round up suspected criminals, dissidents and other unpopulars and string 'em up without trial. After all, it worked for Saddam, right?[/quote]
What sort of trial do you suggest, MT?
Another one bites the dust… :dance:
As fair and transparent as possible. If he’s really guilty, the new government should demonstrate how just, fair and civilized it is by giving him a decent trial where he has the right to an attorney, the right to present evidence and call witnesses if he wishes, the right to cross-examine the other side’s witnesses, just as trials are done in civilized nations, and unless he has the extreme fortune of pulling a rabbit out of a hat as OJ did with his dream team defense, he will be found guilty based on such due process, can be sentenced according to a fair procedure, and if he is then condemned to be executed, so be it. The world will then see that things have changed in Iraq and there is a potential for civilized rule of law. If he really is guilty of the alleged crimes his conduct was despicable, but the new government should try to be better.
Regardless, Saddam is right to question whether this court really does have a lawful right to try him, and there’s also the question of whether it’s capable of conducting a fair and reasonable trial, although such questions pale beside the far larger questions surrounding the future of Iraq.
What is unfair about this trial? How does it lack transparency? You seem to have judged the trial before it has delivered its own judgement.
Sure, who needs the rule of law anyway? Maybe all governments should just round up suspected criminals, dissidents and other unpopulars and string 'em up without trial. After all, it worked for Saddam, right?[/quote]
It’s obviously better for the PEOPLE of Iraq to see what this man has been accused of, and how he defends or does not defend himself. They deserve to hear what the Court has to say.
No doubt in my mind that he’s a first class bag of fecal matter; but put him on trial…a first class trial. No lynch mobs. No Kangaroo Court. What good did that do for the Romanians after Nicolae Ceausescu was gunned down?
Not at all. I never even suggested this trial is unfair. I know very little about it. I was simply responding to your comment that maybe he should be strung up without a trial and your question what kind of trial I felt he should receive.
KANGAROO COURT.
Why can’t the likes of Sharon be tried for crimes.
Oh yeah. The key witnesses for him all died in mysterious car bombs.
Even if this was at the Hague, I wouldn’t trust it.
There is an agenda here and they want Saddam’s carcass.
You can understand because the situation in Iraq is unwinnable for the US.
So why can’t Bush be held accountable for his lies? ANd the thousands who have died as a result?
So called victors never go on trial do they.
Not at all. I never even suggested this trial is unfair. I know very little about it. I was simply responding to your comment that maybe he should be strung up without a trial and your question what kind of trial I felt he should receive.[/quote]
Eh huh.
So it’s just fine for him to flout the authority of this court just because the court puts him “in a humiliating position?” Something tells me that if he were a murderer on trial in a US or British court and he did what he did today, the judge(s) wouldn’t be so tolerant as the ones Hussein is standing before. What you seem to be saying is that while you aren’t questioning the fairness of this trial, it’s a fine and respectable thing if he pisses all over the authority of the court just because standing in that court is humiliating? Tell me, would that fly in a US court?
I’ll give Hussein his due, though. He is one clever fucker and I predict that he is going to have at least some success with making a mockery of this trial from start to finish. The guy lives for the spectacle. He also looks a lot more handsome now than when he was in power. I think the suit and the slimmer figure look a hell of a lot better than the pot belly and military uniform.
Not at all. I never even suggested this trial is unfair. I know very little about it. I was simply responding to your comment that maybe he should be strung up without a trial and your question what kind of trial I felt he should receive.[/quote]
He should be given the same kind of trial he gave others. And then be fed into one of his paper shredders.
So it’s just fine for him to flout the authority of this court just because the court puts him “in a humiliating position?” [/quote]
I wouldn’t put it that way. I’d say that he has raised what seem to be good and logical legal arguments (although they’ll clearly fail): that this court has no legitimate basis to exist and to try him, because he was the president of a sovereign nation until the US unlawfully invaded his country, dismantled his government, locked him up while this court was created in order to try him. If some foreign nation invaded the US or UK and put Bush or Blair on trial I would expect them to make the same reasonable point – that the court lacks legitimacy and they therefore won’t extend full courtesies to it (although I’m guessing that he will also raise defenses to the allegations).
Nonsense. My understanding is that he didn’t cause any turmoil. He didn’t act crazy, try to escape, attack the bailiff, shout obscenities or anything like that. He simply stated that he is president of Iraq and doesn’t recognize the authority of the court. Those seem to be perfectly reasonable statements, part of a reasonable defense strategy, and I would expect most judges to allow him to make those reasonable objections on the record.
[quote=“cake”]KANGAROO COURT.
Why can’t the likes of Sharon be tried for crimes.
Oh yeah. The key witnesses for him all died in mysterious car bombs.
Even if this was at the Hague, I wouldn’t trust it.
There is an agenda here and they want Saddam’s carcass.
You can understand because the situation in Iraq is unwinnable for the US.
So why can’t Bush be held accountable for his lies? ANd the thousands who have died as a result?
So called victors never go on trial do they.[/quote]
Sharon can’t be tried because he is good at what he does. Saddam is being tried because he was good for a while, but eventually he fugged up. Like all those greedy tinpots usually do.
The Hague Court: Sucks beyond belief. If they wanted to have him dead, it would have went down like it did with his sons. On Saddam’s side, you know that is burning a hole in his heart. He’s gonna go down fighting. And why Not.? He’s a damn brutal dog, and I hope he gets gassed. I’m sure lots of Israelis wouldn’t mind. Nor the Kurds.
I really hope the Iraqi people speak out on this issue. They are the ultimate judge and jury in this issue. And that it gets propagated thruout the world’s media.
MT, have you really lost all sense of proportion? Your respect for the rule of law is admirable: respect for the defiance of a mass murderer is not.
Regardless of what you think of US military intervention in Iraq, Saddam is still no one who deserves the slightest sympathy or respect. Had the invasion been legitimate in your eyes, Saddam would still be defiant. Dictators do not recognize the rule of law no matter how fairly it is applied. That he may in fact be correct in challenging the legitimacy of this court is entirely beside the point.
I hope your words were meant only to piss off certain elements of Forumosa and not your true thoughts on this matter.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]
Nonsense. My understanding is that he didn’t cause any turmoil. [/quote]
Your understanding is incorrect. He repeatedly and rudely interrupted the leading judge. I don’t think many judges in the US or Britain would tolerate that. I don’t see how that is worthy of respect.
[quote]
nytimes.com/2005/10/19/inter … anted=2&hp
That has opened the tribunal up to intense criticism from Western human rights groups, who accuse the judges of being political pawns and of flouting international standards of fair justice. Few legal organizations outside of Iraq and the United States accept the trial as anything more than a display of “victor’s justice.” Both Human Rights Watch and the International Center for Transitional Justice, respected groups based in New York, issued statements this month condemning the shoddy research and shaky legal framework that form the backbone of the trial, apparently pieced together for expediency’s sake.[/quote]
Hmmm…in short some experts think it is a kangaroo court.