Justice Served

[ACPlayer]

What would you look for from the Saddam trial to decide if this is a kangaroo court or a legitimate trial?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

First of all, I think he is guilty and should be sentenced, but I think it is impossible to get a fair trial since his opponents and now judges seems to hate him (with good reason). He claims to have immunity due to Iraqi law, and I think a much better signal to give to dictators would be to grant him this immunity, but then prosecute him in th international court to show that national law/ nationally granted powers does not allow you to breach human rights. The latter would imply that Donald Rumsfeld should be prosecuted and convicted for Guantanamo though, so it won't probably be to popular within the occupation power.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
What would you look for from the Saddam trial to decide if this is a kangaroo court or a legitimate trial?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Is the trial held in secret, or televised?
2. Does the defendant have the right to cross-examine accusatory witnesses and call witnesses in his own defense?
3. Does the government put on enough evidence that a bunch of Martians who had never heard of Saddam before would be convinced that he committed the crimes he's accused of?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I think he is guilty and should be sentenced, but I think it is impossible to get a fair trial since his opponents and now judges seems to hate him (with good reason). He claims to have immunity due to Iraqi law, and I think a much better signal to give to dictators would be to grant him this immunity, but then prosecute him in th international court to show that national law/ nationally granted powers does not allow you to breach human rights. The latter would imply that Donald Rumsfeld should be prosecuted and convicted for Guantanamo though, so it won't probably be to popular within the occupation power.

[/ QUOTE ]

International tribunals (at least wimpy modern int'l tribunals) can't impose the death penalty.

What international crime do you think Rumsfeld is guilty of? Torture? He's not immune from prosecution for that under US law. Plus I'm sure there's been sufficient investigation of any allegations to take the case out of ICC jurisdiction, even if the US was a party to that flawed construct.

[MMMMMM]

There's simply no chance he isn't guilty.

Sentence first, verdict afterwards.

[Beer and Pizza]

Saddam is clearly guilty and they allow death by hanging as a punishment. We will know if the trial is legitimate when Saddam hangs by the neck until dead.

Squirm baby, squirm. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Meech]

I tend to believe that martyrdom is too good for SH. Let him live like a rat in a cage for the rest of his life. The only protein allowed is pork.

[ QUOTE ]


I tend to believe that martyrdom is too good for SH. Let him live like a rat in a cage for the rest of his life. The only protein allowed is pork.



[/ QUOTE ]

Sir, I like your attitude! I've always wanted SH locked away somewhere for the remainder of his miserable life. I like the idea of him being exposed to and surrounded by whatever scum they throw in their jails.

I like the thought of Big Achmed (no discourtesy toward Iraqi names intended), who stands about 6-4, weights in at no less than 360, has a 14" Johnson, and a perpetual hard-on (figuratively and literally), winding up in SH's cell immediately finding SH attractive and demonstrating his attraction. Frequently. On a daily basis. Day after day after day after...

If SH is hung, not only will I be denied the above wounderful thoughts, he may very well be considered a martyr by a number of Arabs. I don't think many of the clerics will.

I'd like him to be on view for this and the next generation of Iraqis. Proof positive they will not tolerate the behavior he demonstrated. Anyone who thinks he's a great man would be allowed visitation rights. Of course, Big Achmed would be present.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
There's simply no chance he isn't guilty. Sentence first, verdict afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why try him at all? Why not execute him before a firing squad or hang him as soon as possible?


..."The more we fight them, the more we become like them".

[Cyrus]

In order to have a fair trial, anywhere, for any reason, the least one should expect is the following.

- the laws under which the defendant will be tried must have been applicable at the time that the crimes for which he is been accused were allegedly committed

- the defendant must be allowed to freely choose his legal representatives and, if he refuses to have one, the court must appoint a lawyer who is competent and neutral (or even sympathetic) to the defendant's case

- the defendant and his lawyer must be allowed prior access to all the prosecution's documentation and testimonies in regard to the charges

- the defendant and his lawyer must be allowed to rebutt all arguments made by the prosecution, challenge the witnesses and have the closing argument

- the presiding judge must be a competent person who has no overt personal, social or political relationship to either the prosecutors or the defendant and his lawyer

- people must be allowed to enter the court room and watch the trial's proceedings, on a free and first-come-first-served basis.

I am not a lawyer but this much I know.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's simply no chance he isn't guilty. Sentence first, verdict afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]



So why try him at all? Why not execute him before a firing squad or hang him as soon as possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. Why do you think?

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
There's simply no chance he isn't guilty. Sentence first, verdict afterwards.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm in a small minority, I don't support the death penalty even for this guy. Your suggestion of a guilty until proven innocent based justice system makes me sick.

Far from moderate.

Mack

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's simply no chance he isn't guilty. Sentence first, verdict afterwards.


[/ QUOTE ]



I guess I'm in a small minority, I don't support the death penalty even for this guy. Your suggestion of a guilty until proven innocent based justice system makes me sick.


[/ QUOTE ]

A little elaboration on my part is apparently called for.

"Sentence first, verdict afterwards" is an intended literary reference to Lewis Carroll's (Charles Dodgson's) little masterpiece, Alice In Wonderland, with its perfect caricature of a kangaroo court trial. The accused Knave of Hearts, the proceedings presided over by the King of Hearts ("Do you take me for a dunce?"), and the accompanying cast of characters and scenery, has left an indelible impression upon my memory.

My reference had two thrusts, besides an attempt at facetious humor: that Saddam most assuredly is guilty; can anyone seriously doubt it?--hence the trial is indeed all for show purposes.

Whether that makes it an actual kangaroo trial is another question, though: my view is that it is important for the Arab world to be shown exactly the extent of the crimes of Saddam, in part as a rebuff to Baathist ideology and to totalitarianism--the Arab world desperately needs to move away from such political models. What better way to help accomplish that than serious public expose? That was why I asked the question of Cyrus: to what purpose the trial? Not to DISCOVER whether he is guilty or not, but to PROVE it publicly.

I certainly don't support the kind of justice system you inferred from my post, and sorry for not making that clear. However, I don't apologize for casting aspersions on the misguided notion that Saddam might not be guilty (if anybody here thinks that he really might not be). ACPlayer in his initial post seemed to subtly suggest that Saddam might not get a fair shake (and thereby be wrongly found guilty). If Saddam gets railroaded, that would only matter in public view, not in terms of his actual guilt--as anybody with half a brain already knows. Still, I support a full and fair trial for him. But practically speaking, in Saddam's case, it might as well be "Sentence first, verdict afterwards"...regardlesss of whether the trial is fair or not.

[mackthefork]

Whoops I guess that makes me the dummy, apologies.

Mack

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Whoops I guess that makes me the dummy, apologies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really; I didn't elaborate at all until now;-) I can see how some could have easily taken it otherwise than I meant. Sometimes I try to go for the pithy because the full version kind of kills the fun of posting for me. Same reason I sometimes hate explaining jokes;-) But this was more my fault than yours; I can't expect everyone to have read Alice perhaps a dozen times, as I have, over the years.

[ACPlayer]

OK. I see where you and a couple of others stand.

No surprise from you. Results over process - if the hand is a winner the band selection was good. When are you going to play poker in a game with me? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[lehighguy]

This should all be allowed. But I think the following should be added.

The jury should be one of his peers. So other Iraqis. And whatever sentence they want should be carried out, even teh death penalty.

[Cyrus]

"...because they lessen from day to day."

[ QUOTE ]
Alice In Wonderland ... has left an indelible impression upon my memory.

[/ QUOTE ]We knew that already --- from the way you change the meaning of words as you go along. The Ann Coulter/Canadians-in-Vietnam thread was priceless.

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam most assuredly is guilty; can anyone seriously doubt it?--hence the trial is indeed all for show purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]
To show what ? If you wanna show that Saddam lost and that the Ameircans won, then, yes, it's fair game. If you wanna send a political message, as you claim later on, then different rules apply.

[ QUOTE ]
It is important for the Arab world to be shown exactly the extent of the crimes of Saddam, in part as a rebuff to Baathist ideology and to totalitarianism--the Arab world desperately needs to move away from such political models.

[/ QUOTE ]
The political message of the Saddam trial (at least, the way it has been set up so far) is plain and simple:

PRIMARY MESSAGE: We won, you lost, your leader goes on trial. We can do this because we stronger than yous.

SECONDARY MESSAGE: Your fearsome and might leaders are mere humans. They can be done away with! (Which, admittedly, is not a bad message as messages go! Nonetheless it is a limited message. Read on.)

But if the trial is not conducted in a way that will demonstrate to the Arab world the superiority of the western system of justice, a way that will (yes!) start with the presumption of innocence and then endeavor to ascertain guilt, then the main political message that should have been sent will not be sent. The opportunity will be lost.

The message of course should be: (Who cares about an individual, even if it's Saddam Hussein?) The superior political system is that of western democracy, where every person is free and, when in court, innocent until proven guilty.

And if this means that (even someone like) Saddam walks, then he walks.

...The notable (and amusing) fact in the indictment is that Saddam Hussein is accused for a very limited number of bad things. Nowhere in his list of alleged crimes will you find something that will make him start mouthing off about the role of the United States in Iraq's affairs and the connections of Saddam Hussein's regime with America. Heaven forbid.