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 ]
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.

[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?

[MMMMMM]

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

Sentence first, verdict afterwards.

[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".

[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.

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