Saddam Vows No Return to 'Unjust' Court

[arnisador]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_trial

Saddam Hussein shouted Tuesday that he will not return "to an unjust court" when it convenes for a fifth session the following day. As the end of the session, when the judges decided to resume the trial Wednesday, Saddam suddenly shouted: "I will not return. I will not come to an unjust court! Go to hell!"

[...]

Saddam also complained that he had no fresh clothes and had been deprived of shower and exercise facilities. "This is terrorism," he said.

Terrorism, indeed. Sheesh!

At the intelligence headquarters, they put two clips in my ears," the witness said, adding that he was told that if he lied, he would be given an electric shock. When he answered a question, the shock was administered, he said.


"In prison they used to bring men to the women's room and ask them to bark like dogs," he said. "My father died in prison and I was not able to see him." He added that his father, who was 65 and had heart problems, was kept in a room about 50 yards from him.
That prompted an outburst from Saddam, who complained of his own conditions in detention. He said the court had time to listen to the witnesses' complaints "but does anyone ask Saddam Hussein whether he was tortured? Whether he was hit?"

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe he just doesn't get it?

 

[Ping898]

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe he just doesn't get it?

He doesn't get it, but last I heard he still thinks he runs Iraq so he is in a court he thinks has no authority over him.....personally I got to wonder if he's got some mental problems going on there too cause he is in some deep denial....

 

[arnisador]

Or, of course, he may feel that being 'difficult' is an effective tactic. I don't know. But after reading his response (above) to people who were tortured by his administration, I find it hard to feel sympathy for him because he can't shower every day.

 

[mrhnau]

Or, of course, he may feel that being 'difficult' is an effective tactic. I don't know. But after reading his response (above) to people who were tortured by his administration, I find it hard to feel sympathy for him because he can't shower every day.

indeed... would justice be to install some electrodes in the showers? LOL

seriously though, complaining of no fresh clothes is a bit much... it could have been brought up in a different forum, though perhaps they were ignoring his request for clothes? Do you think he -should- be provided fresh clothes, since he kept most of his nation in poverty while he was living in palaces? Are years of persecution worth a fresh set of clothes and a shower? Then again, we claim to espouse "innocent until proven guilty"...

MrH

 

[rutherford]

Or, of course, he may feel that being 'difficult' is an effective tactic. I don't know. But after reading his response (above) to people who were tortured by his administration, I find it hard to feel sympathy for him because he can't shower every day.

Well, his defense lawyers are also doing a lot of comparisons with the current situation. Yesterday when a woman reported she had been forced to strip at Abu Grab, the defense asked her if the Iraqi guards took pictures of her or had her mauled by dogs . . .

But you know what they say about two wrongs.

 

[JAMJTX]

"This is terrorism," he (saddam) said.
That's the same thing John Kerry said about the U.S. Military.
Maybe when we're done with the saddam trial we can see kerry charged with treason - which is actually his second offense.

 

[michaeledward]

The statements of the accused should have no bearing on how the court conducts itself. It is most important that the trial advances according to the laws of the country.

That Mr. Hussein still views himself as the rightful leader of Iraq, I think, is not an unreasonable position for him to hold. He has not signed a surrender after the invasion of his country. From his point of view, it would seem that all that has occured in the last two and a half years, is the machinations of a puppet regime.

His point of view, has no bearing on the actions of the court. The court must act with integrity and must give the appearence of acting with integrity.

We must assume the country has set up rules to try Mr. Hussein in abscentia.

I do know, there are many more cases lined up against Mr. Hussein, all of which are expected to proceed before he can be executed (assuming he is found guilty).

 

[Makalakumu]

The statements of the accused should have no bearing on how the court conducts itself. It is most important that the trial advances according to the laws of the country.

The only problem is that when Saddam was ruler of the country, he broke no laws. So what laws did Saddam actually break? International laws? Really? Since when were people held accountable to those?

That Mr. Hussein still views himself as the rightful leader of Iraq, I think, is not an unreasonable position for him to hold. He has not signed a surrender after the invasion of his country. From his point of view, it would seem that all that has occured in the last two and a half years, is the machinations of a puppet regime.

Under the laws at the time of his "arrest" he was the rightfully "elected" ruler of Iraq. Since when were laws applied ex-post-facto?

His point of view, has no bearing on the actions of the court. The court must act with integrity and must give the appearence of acting with integrity.

I have no idea how this court can even try Saddam? To call the legal questions in this case messy is the mother of all understatements.

We must assume the country has set up rules to try Mr. Hussein in abscentia.

If one assumes this, then one assumes that there is an overarching set of "laws" that one is supposed to abide by...and further, Saddam somehow broke these laws. Who made these laws? Where did they come from? What is the precedent? Who enforces these laws?

All of the answers to these questions raise a thousands more questions.

I do know, there are many more cases lined up against Mr. Hussein, all of which are expected to proceed before he can be executed (assuming he is found guilty).

This trial is a joke. And I think it will end up being a PR nightmare. While the cry to KILL! KILL! KILL! gets louder and louder, I think the questions raised by thinking individuals will resonate just as loud.

Unfortunately, it would have been far better for the US to just put a bullet in him and be done with it. Saddam was the US's scumbag, bought and paid for, and putting him down like a rabid dog would have been justice enough. This legal justice claptrap is nothing but a sham and is probably going to backfire...and I'm just being honest.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Kane]

The only problem is that when Saddam was ruler of the country, he broke no laws. So what laws did Saddam actually break? International laws? Really? Since when were people held accountable to those?



Under the laws at the time of his "arrest" he was the rightfully "elected" ruler of Iraq. Since when were laws applied ex-post-facto?



I have no idea how this court can even try Saddam? To call the legal questions in this case messy is the mother of all understatements.



If one assumes this, then one assumes that there is an overarching set of "laws" that one is supposed to abide by...and further, Saddam somehow broke these laws. Who made these laws? Where did they come from? What is the precedent? Who enforces these laws?

All of the answers to these questions raise a thousands more questions.



This trial is a joke. And I think it will end up being a PR nightmare. While the cry to KILL! KILL! KILL! gets louder and louder, I think the questions raised by thinking individuals will resonate just as loud.

Unfortunately, it would have been far better for the US to just put a bullet in him and be done with it. Saddam was the US's scumbag, bought and paid for, and putting him down like a rabid dog would have been justice enough. This legal justice claptrap is nothing but a sham and is probably going to backfire...and I'm just being honest.

upnorthkyosa

What international laws did Stalin break? None by most standards, unless you count crimes against humanity as a law beyond international law. Tell me would you really buy into his whining and complaining for second when you think how many people he killed and how brutally he did it.

Heck when the Allies tried Nazis for crimes against humanity, did they give a crap on how these criminals felt? Does Saddam even deserve any good treatment at all? He is whining and complaining about fresh clothes, but does he deserve one? Perhaps that baby that was thrown against the wall by Saddam's bath party police would say he does not. Perhaps the thousands and thousands of people he killed would disagree. Perhaps the thousands as well as the millions who hate Saddam because of his crimes against humanity would disagree.

Does Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or any of those monsters deserve a fresh pair of clothes? Do they deserve any special treatment at all? NO!

Seriously at least for once I would put your anti-war stuff aside and realize that regime America overthrown was one of the cruelest regimes in history. If you read the amount I have read or watched as many documentaries as I have watched on the reign of Saddam Hussein you would not look at Saddam as a mere "criminal". You would look at him like he was related to Hitler or Stalin. I really find it hard to sympathize with such a monster.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I think it would have been better for all concerned if they had simply investigated, tried, and executed him on one of the many murders he committed rather than having a show trial for "crimes against humanity" (which he certainly committed). This is a lose, lose trial for the United States. As for Saddam, there should be ample evidence to convict him on a capital crime rather than draw this out to our detriment - and likely Iraq's as well.

 

[Andrew Green]

What international laws did Stalin break? None by most standards, unless you count crimes against humanity as a law beyond international law. Tell me would you really buy into his whining and complaining for second when you think how many people he killed and how brutally he did it.

Well, if you admit that he commited no crimes how do you get him to guilty? By applying current western views?

I'm not going to defend him and say he was a swell guy, but, try to take cultural context into this just a little.

Was Cristopher Columbus a brutal criminal? He's an American hero, but he did some really nasty stuff to the natives... Same goes for a lot of American Hero's of that era.

American Civil War - The American gov't killed a lot of American people in really nasty ways, where the leaders war criminals that didn't deserve a change of clothes?

Only one country has used Nuclear weapons offensively, that's a rather large WOMD, should the people in charge of dropping it been treated as Sadam is?

This trial is a joke, defence lawyers are getting killed, In a sense legally he is still the ruler of the country, and definately was when he was captured. He wrote the rules and broke none of them. He should have been killed on site, taking it into courts is going to do nothing but create a mess.

Who's right and who's wrong is determined by who wins. The battle was won, it should have ended there, Saddam should have just "dissapeared" and things would have gone over a lot smoother.

But you can't play the lawful side when the laws don't back you.

 

[Makalakumu]

What international laws did Stalin break? None by most standards, unless you count crimes against humanity as a law beyond international law. Tell me would you really buy into his whining and complaining for second when you think how many people he killed and how brutally he did it.

Heck when the Allies tried Nazis for crimes against humanity, did they give a crap on how these criminals felt? Does Saddam even deserve any good treatment at all? He is whining and complaining about fresh clothes, but does he deserve one? Perhaps that baby that was thrown against the wall by Saddam's bath party police would say he does not. Perhaps the thousands and thousands of people he killed would disagree. Perhaps the thousands as well as the millions who hate Saddam because of his crimes against humanity would disagree.

Does Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or any of those monsters deserve a fresh pair of clothes? Do they deserve any special treatment at all? NO!

Seriously at least for once I would put your anti-war stuff aside and realize that regime America overthrown was one of the cruelest regimes in history. If you read the amount I have read or watched as many documentaries as I have watched on the reign of Saddam Hussein you would not look at Saddam as a mere "criminal". You would look at him like he was related to Hitler or Stalin. I really find it hard to sympathize with such a monster.

I'm not defending Saddam. However, I question the legality of the trial and I'm wondering about precedent.

Crimes against humanity? Really? Would buying all of the water out from underneath peasent farmers and forcing them off their land count as a crime against humanity? If so, see Bechtel and Bolivia. Who holds them accountable?

 

[michaeledward]

The challenge is that the court must appear to act in an 'above board' manner, and it must actually act in an 'above board' manner. What the defendants did, or did not do, is not a justification the court to behave irresponsibly.

It may very well be true that trying these people for past acts against current laws can never equal a just outcome. But, the world will be satisfied, I believe, if the court behaves in a way that seems fair and is fair.

One fact that will disappoint many, is that Saddam Hussein must be present in all of the court cases brought against him. I believe there are currently 27 separate cases against Hussein. The current trial concerns the gassing of a Kurdish town in 1982. Even if (when) he is found guilty, sentencing will not be carried out until all of the other cases have been brought before the court, or dropped. It is, I think, highly unlikely that Saddam Hussein will suffer the sentence of capitol punishment. More likely, he will die a) of old age or b) an assissin like Jack Ruby.

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't think it will get that far. Saddam is going to spill some stuff that is going to be very embarrassing. I think we'll see "Jack Ruby" sooner then later.

 

[mrhnau]

The challenge is that the court must appear to act in an 'above board' manner, and it must actually act in an 'above board' manner. What the defendants did, or did not do, is not a justification the court to behave irresponsibly.

It may very well be true that trying these people for past acts against current laws can never equal a just outcome. But, the world will be satisfied, I believe, if the court behaves in a way that seems fair and is fair.

One fact that will disappoint many, is that Saddam Hussein must be present in all of the court cases brought against him. I believe there are currently 27 separate cases against Hussein. The current trial concerns the gassing of a Kurdish town in 1982. Even if (when) he is found guilty, sentencing will not be carried out until all of the other cases have been brought before the court, or dropped. It is, I think, highly unlikely that Saddam Hussein will suffer the sentence of capitol punishment. More likely, he will die a) of old age or b) an assissin like Jack Ruby.

With regard to the court behaving reponsibly, I agree with you. It needs to remain above the problems. From my understanding of the specifics, the lawyers of SH asked for some clothes, and the judge requested it in writing, which they did not do. So, my understanding of the situation now is that its a procedural thing... I've heard this via word of mouth, yet to find a reputable source on this, so take it with a grain of salt until I can provide a link. I'll start looking for proof on that.

Regading trying based on current laws... That ones a bit tricky... How can we justify the Hagge? How can we justify enforcing basic human laws being applied to any world leader who simply does not like them? Should we just smile when tyrants start ruthlessly killing their own citizens, dropping nuclear/biological weapons on their neighbors and torturing masses due to differing political/religious views? I'm sure he is going to be found guilty of something, but I do hope it is a fair trial. Regardless, some people will still not like any guilty verdict it seems...

Regarding the multiple trials, do we know for sure all trials will happen? I'm not familiar with the Iraqi courts. It would seem a bit redundant to get 23 death penalties, or 1000+ years of imprisonment. How old is Saddam? His health? He will likely be spending the rest of his life in court unless they do enforce a death penalty verdict. I'd not be -too- suprised if a death penalty verdict comes across that other trials are put on hold pending appeals for the one death penalty trial. Wonder how many appeals are allowed in Iraqi courts? This already the highest court I assume? If so, would appeals be possible?

I think he wants this court to be a stage... He could have gone down fighting like his sons, but chose rather to hide. I wonder how much leeway he will have for getting his points across? With this perspective, do we want Osama to undergo the same type procedure? Think Osama would ever allow himself to be captured? He seems to be more of a religious figure, so think "martyrdom" would suit him better and inspire more than a "martyrdom" of Sadaam?

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

Regardless, some people will still not like any guilty verdict it seems...

No doubt, Saddam has done (ordered) some terrible things and their is no doubt that he is guilty. However, guilt in a legal sense, implies laws...and that is just a mess. Whose laws are they and do they apply to everyone?

There are lots of terrible things happening in this world. There are lots of people from a variety of places committing these terrible things. If Saddam can be found "guilty", so can others...

 

[arnisador]

Only one country has used Nuclear weapons offensively, that's a rather large WOMD, should the people in charge of dropping it been treated as Sadam is?

If, somehow, the U.S. had lost the war after having done that, you can certainly bet that it wouldn't have gone well for those in charge, and the history books would treat them as mass murderers of the worst sort.

 

[arnisador]

Well, he made good on his threat to not return, but the trial continues anyway:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051207...gNX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[rutherford]

No doubt, Saddam has done (ordered) some terrible things and their is no doubt that he is guilty. However, guilt in a legal sense, implies laws...and that is just a mess. Whose laws are they and do they apply to everyone?

There are lots of terrible things happening in this world. There are lots of people from a variety of places committing these terrible things. If Saddam can be found "guilty", so can others...

Well, Iraq is the birthplace of codified law, if not the birthplace of human life. The laws which make up the IHC are primarily laws which were on the books while Saddam was in power, with some International Law added in.

International Law, particalarly the concept of Universal Law first appears in print during the Nuremberg Charter, but the drafters of the charter were very clear that they didn't come up with the idea and used the precedent of Pirates who were labeled ''hostis humanis generis,'' or enemies of mankind. Universal jurisdiction is based on the philosophy that when a person violates international law in such a, all states have an obligation to prosecute.

Finally, all immunity of prosecution may be removed by the issuing body. Much like the Impeachment process for American Presidents, heads of state can certainly have their immunity from prosecution removed by their own country.

 

[Kane]

I'm not defending Saddam. However, I question the legality of the trial and I'm wondering about precedent.

Crimes against humanity? Really? Would buying all of the water out from underneath peasent farmers and forcing them off their land count as a crime against humanity? If so, see Bechtel and Bolivia. Who holds them accountable?

Your kidding me right? Are you that intoxicated in your anti-war stuff that you have even decided to deny the thousands Saddam killed in a very brutal manner? Hey maybe your right. Perhaps Pol Pot did not kill anyone either. Maybe Stalin never created gulags and perhaps the haulacast was actually a haulahoax! Hitler may have been innocent all along.

Please tell me you are not being serious when you say that statement upnorthkyosa! Seriously! Saddam is one of the most cruelest human beings of modern times. I don't mind if you are anyone else is oppose to war, this is a little extreme!