Re: The Lynch Justice
 

[ 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?

MMMMMM Justice........Doh!
 

[ 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

My View And Elaboration
 

[ 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.

Re: My View And Elaboration
 

Whoops I guess that makes me the dummy, apologies.

Mack

Re: My View And Elaboration
 

[ 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.

Re: Justice Served
 

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? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Vae victis
 

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.

\"That\'s the reason they\'re called lessons ...\"
 

"...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.