Saddam Vows No Return to 'Unjust' Court

[michaeledward]

On a side note, if the rebels there would just chill out for a few months, allow us to rebuild, we would get out. Most of hte civilians killed are not from our actions, but a result of Iraqi insurgence.

I am wondering why you would believe these statements?

Why on earth do you think "we would get out"?

And, I would question the claim that 'MOST" of the Iraqi civilians have been killed by insurgents. Getting accurate death counts has been difficult in this conflict, however, what information is available shows the United States Military has created quite a bit of collateral damage.

www.iraqbodycount.net

 

[sgtmac_46]

Thus far, nobody has provided any legal basis in which to try Saddam. No one has provided a single law in which he could be held accountable to at the time of his "crimes". There is no (real) overarching world government that enforces so called "crimes against humanity." That whole catagory is subjective. Heck, many people think that war itself is a crime against humanity. Where are the definitions? Where are the standards, the power, and where is the consistency?

The Iraqi people will make that determination. As you point out, Saddam did not break any laws while he was in power. Likewise, this court needs to more legal standing that Saddam did while he was in power. It's really very simple. Saddam is now in the hands of those he formerly persecuted. The idea that they somehow need 'legal standing' anymore than Saddam needed legal standing when he was in power, is simple legal double-speak coming from a segment of political ideology that simply wants to throw a monkey wrench in the whole works. It is best ignored.

I guess, however, if you want to stick with legal standing, we could allow the Kuwaitis to try Saddam Hussein.

BTW - if one wants to cite the UN as the body that contains these laws, fine, but know this, there are some profound implications. According the UN laws, the war in Iraq is illegal. The UN never gave permission specifically for an invasion. Now we have 25,000 to 100,000 civilians dead and more on the way...for an illegal war. Who else is a war criminal?

The UN is not a law giving body. As you pointed out earlier, there is not really any such thing as 'international law'. There are a lot of variously binding agreements between nations. That's a big difference.

This is moral relativism at its best. Isn't it wonderful!

The world's a complicated place.

Comparisons of Saddam and other nasty dictators of the 20th century are accurate...but the problem is that the same questions that I'm raising now, could and would, were raised whenever one of these people were held accountable. The bottom line is that the side who won determined who was right and who was wrong. There never was any real legal justification...even for Nuerenburg.

Of course not. That's all irrelavent, however...unless you want to argue that we should let Saddam Hussein be.

That is why the pretense of a trial is a sham. It's completely symbolic and it could be easily done away with. Saddam will be executed because he lost, not because of any laws that he supposedly broke.

That is nothing more than your attempt to distort the nature of what is being done. Saddam has committed countless crimes against the Iraqi people. Your only concern, however, is how to cast this in a bad light to embarass the administration. Moreover, you're not really doing anything but channeling Ramsey Clark.

And even though justice will be served by his death, "justice" in a legal sense will never be attained.

Following the logic of what you said, there is no such thing as 'justice' in a legal sense, as all you've claimed is that no matter, what, trials are a sham, because they are conducted by those in power. If that's all you have to add, then you really don't have anything to add.

Again, that is the paradox you have created. Because you dislike the US administration, you are in the unenviable position of having to cheer for a despotic murderer (which, i'm sure, you will rationalize as not being the case). It's nothing more than 'Saddam may be a bad guy, but he hates Bush too, so he can't be THAT bad' thinking.

Ironically, if you had told me three years ago that Saddam Hussein might have a hope of returning to power, i'd have called you crazy. Now, however, with the push to leave Iraq, I can foresee a scenario where Saddam MIGHT be able to return to power (If the left has it's way). Wouldn't that be ironic.

 

[Makalakumu]

Lets try this with just one law. Murder. Certainly we can agree that murder is going to be in the previous legal system. People simply can't go around murdering.

The definition of "murder" is subjective. If Saddam was destroying his enemies or "killing the terrorists" then it wasn't murder. The justification at the time matters.

So, we can only go to war if the UN gives us the nod?

When we agreed to the UN charter we agreed to certain terms. One of those terms regarded our ability to go to war.

Then, every war is illegal. Every single one. Those horrible nations.

That does not follow. The UN has approved of various wars in the past. Some of them, IMO, have been worthy and some have not been so worthy...like Vietnam.

On a side note, if the rebels there would just chill out for a few months, allow us to rebuild, we would get out. Most of hte civilians killed are not from our actions, but a result of Iraqi insurgence.

Check your facts. Also note that the insurgency wasn't killing people before we took action. We destabilized the region btw.

Nuerenburg is illegal now

I never said it was illegal. I pointed out that the same questions of precedent and law existed during those trials. There is a big difference.

So, what do you suggest we do with tyrants. Allow them to wreck havoc in the world?

We agreed to the UN charter and that has certain provisions for dealing with nasty dictators. When we went to war, we broke our word to that charter. Whose going to call the toughest guy on the block on it? No one.

Now, if Saddam had not broken any laws, I might agree with you. If he had not murdered and endorsed the murder of thousands of people, I might agree. Now, I do agree that the trail is a bit of a sham, but I see a few trials as shams when guilt is blatantly obvious.

I want to be sincere for a moment. In no way am I defending anything that Saddam did. I think that killing, gassing, torturing, raping is wrong. In my opinion, Saddam deserves death...and I am not even a big fan of the death penalty. However, when we bring up the topic of laws, all I want to do is point out that it opens a huge can of worms. To call it messy is the mother of all understatements.

How do you suggest we serve "justice in a legal sense"... can we not convict him of anything? give him his country back and allow him to resume his normal daily activities? Lets just stamp him as "innocent" and dismiss the trials.

Saddam is not innocent by any means. However, he may not be "guilty" of breaking certain laws. There is a difference.

Give me some ideas here... what do YOU suggest. Give me something positive. You are consistently demeaning the process, suggest how we fix it.

I don't know if we can fix it without instituting some sort of world government. The tin hatter in me sees this trial as a way to illustrate the current problems and advocate for a world government. I don't think I know enough to actually contribute something positive, however, I do know enough to see a mess when I see one.

FWIW

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

It's really very simple. Saddam is now in the hands of those he formerly persecuted.

Exactly. Saddam lost. He dies.

The idea that they somehow need 'legal standing' anymore than Saddam needed legal standing when he was in power, is simple legal double-speak coming from a segment of political ideology that simply wants to throw a monkey wrench in the whole works. It is best ignored.

Sorry Mac. One can't ignore "international law" and then cite it to hold another accountable. I can see why a certain ideology would advocate ignoring that. It certainly makes them look bad...and I don't have to do a thing but point it out.

I guess, however, if you want to stick with legal standing, we could allow the Kuwaitis to try Saddam Hussein.

That actually is a pretty good idea. Extradate him to Kuwait and let him die there.

The UN is not a law giving body. As you pointed out earlier, there is not really any such thing as 'international law'. There are a lot of variously binding agreements between nations. That's a big difference.

We are in agreement on this!

The world's a complicated place.

And this!

Of course not. That's all irrelavent, however...unless you want to argue that we should let Saddam Hussein be.

Oh come now, you are the pragmatic one. The side who wins determines what is right and wrong. They determine who is a war criminal and who is a hero. Saddam lost. He dies.

That is nothing more than your attempt to distort the nature of what is being done. Saddam has committed countless crimes against the Iraqi people. Your only concern, however, is how to cast this in a bad light to embarass the administration. Moreover, you're not really doing anything but channeling Ramsey Clark.

I'm not distorting anything. I'm only pointing out the reality of the laws and implications of citing various laws. I'm sorry if it puts your ideology in a bind...and btw I don't have to say a thing to cast the administration in a bad light.

"Your doing a good job Brownie."

Following the logic of what you said, there is no such thing as 'justice' in a legal sense, as all you've claimed is that no matter, what, trials are a sham, because they are conducted by those in power. If that's all you have to add, then you really don't have anything to add.

Justice in a legal sense and justice as an ideal are often (sadly) two different things. As an LEO, I would assume that you might have experienced this a time or two.

Again, that is the paradox you have created. Because you dislike the US administration, you are in the unenviable position of having to cheer for a despotic murderer (which, i'm sure, you will rationalize as not being the case). It's nothing more than 'Saddam may be a bad guy, but he hates Bush too, so he can't be THAT bad' thinking.

Oh please. That is a bit much, don't you think? You are just a little miffed because I've got a point. Haven't I been saying from the beginning that it would have been much easier for the US to take him dead?

Ironically, if you had told me three years ago that Saddam Hussein might have a hope of returning to power, i'd have called you crazy. Now, however, with the push to leave Iraq, I can foresee a scenario where Saddam MIGHT be able to return to power (If the left has it's way). Wouldn't that be ironic.

I predict that Saddam will not live through his trial...enter Jack Ruby.

*putting on the tin hat and the Dale Gribbol sunglasses *

upnorthkyosa

 

[sgtmac_46]

The definition of "murder" is subjective. If Saddam was destroying his enemies or "killing the terrorists" then it wasn't murder. The justification at the time matters.

What do we call torturing olympic athletes for not winning? 'Motivational therapy'?

When we agreed to the UN charter we agreed to certain terms. One of those terms regarded our ability to go to war.

We certainly did, but as you noted, loose knit agreements between states aren't really laws.

That does not follow. The UN has approved of various wars in the past. Some of them, IMO, have been worthy and some have not been so worthy...like Vietnam.

The UN has done a number of things in the past, many of them nutty, some not so nutty.

Check your facts. Also note that the insurgency wasn't killing people before we took action. We destabilized the region btw.

No, before we took action, Saddam was killing people. Now, the insurgents are killing people in Saddam's name.

I never said it was illegal. I pointed out that the same questions of precedent and law existed during those trials. There is a big difference.

Well, Saddam has set the precedent in Iraq. He's fortunate their actually trying to follow a precedure instead of following Iraq 'Legal Precedent'.

We agreed to the UN charter and that has certain provisions for dealing with nasty dictators. When we went to war, we broke our word to that charter. Whose going to call the toughest guy on the block on it? No one.

How does the UN deal with nasty dictators? Oh, that's right, it takes bribes from them and makes them head of the Human Rights commission.

I want to be sincere for a moment. In no way am I defending anything that Saddam did. I think that killing, gassing, torturing, raping is wrong. In my opinion, Saddam deserves death...and I am not even a big fan of the death penalty. However, when we bring up the topic of laws, all I want to do is point out that it opens a huge can of worms. To call it messy is the mother of all understatements.

Are we to assume this means you haven't been being sincere? Laws are what the people of Iraq decide the law is. Your presumption is that there is such a thing as objective law, which is no where evidenced. Law is what Iraqis decide it is. We didn't invade Iraq with the stated intent of bringing the rule of law, we attacked with the stated intent of bringing Democracy and Liberty. Whether those are attainable goals, they are different than 'The Rule of Law'. Saddam had the backing of 'The Rule of Law' (whatever that objectively means).

Saddam is not innocent by any means. However, he may not be "guilty" of breaking certain laws. There is a difference.

Ok, so he's only guilty of half of what he's charged with. He only has to be guilty of one capital crime (they can't hang him twice).

I don't know if we can fix it without instituting some sort of world government. The tin hatter in me sees this trial as a way to illustrate the current problems and advocate for a world government. I don't think I know enough to actually contribute something positive, however, I do know enough to see a mess when I see one.

lol. Here we go with the 'one world government' solution. I'm sure only a socialist government will do, as well, correct?

 

[7starmantis]

Exactly. Saddam lost. He dies.

The side who wins determines what is right and wrong. They determine who is a war criminal and who is a hero. Saddam lost. He dies.

Its not a question of who won or lost. There have been many "losing sides" throught history and many of them still see torture, rape and murder as "wrong". He's not going to die (I would highly doubt we do anything to him at all the way things are going now) because he lost, but because of how he treated his people. You can spin the reasoning any way you like it, but the fact is; with or without law in place forbidding his murderous and rapist actions, they are "wrong" and deserve consequence. The absence of "law" is only the excuse for refusing responsibility. He is responsible for what he did, law or no law, governing body or no governing body.

7sm

 

[sgtmac_46]

Its not a question of who won or lost. There have been many "losing sides" throught history and many of them still see torture, rape and murder as "wrong". He's not going to die (I would highly doubt we do anything to him at all the way things are going now) because he lost, but because of how he treated his people. You can spin the reasoning any way you like it, but the fact is; with or without law in place forbidding his murderous and rapist actions, they are "wrong" and deserve consequence. The absence of "law" is only the excuse for refusing responsibility. He is responsible for what he did, law or no law, governing body or no governing body.

7sm

If it were us, we'd just just add him to our rogues gallery collection in our federal prison system. He could trade notes with Manuel Noriega. No, it's the Iraqi people who are going to try Saddam Hussein, if he is convicted they will do it, and if he is executed they will build the gallows, make the rope and tie it themselves.

Upnorth imagines some bizarre foundation of international law, or some legal precedent, or some other bizarre legal concept. This is only a ruse.

Saddam Hussein will be held responsible for his crimes against the Iraqi people, in the Name of the Iraq BY the Iraqi people....there is no greater foundation in law. To claim there is any greater legal justification than this is pure fallacy.

 

[Makalakumu]

I agree with both of you. My only point is a legal one. Saddam deserves to be punished for his actions because they were wrong...even though there were no laws that specifically said they were wrong. This is why I see the trial as a formality. It is symbolic for the Iraqi people and for the world...even if its legal basis is questionable.

 

[7starmantis]

I agree with both of you. My only point is a legal one. Saddam deserves to be punished for his actions because they were wrong...even though there were no laws that specifically said they were wrong. This is why I see the trial as a formality. It is symbolic for the Iraqi people and for the world...even if its legal basis is questionable.

Legal basis is trite. There are absolutes, there are wrongs outside of law. Its not because someone in power said "You can't kill" that makes him deserve death, its because he took others lifes (and more). The basis of some defined law is moot, laws are made by those in power....he was in power....he didn't break his own law.

Are you suggesting we not hold others outside our nation to justice because they may not want to "play along" and "be nice" and rape and kill people? The people of Iraq are holding him accountable for crimes he committed against them....what say have we?

7sm

 

[michaeledward]

There are absolutes, there are wrongs outside of law.

Are there?

This statement is a question that has been asked for millenia. I did not think there has been a 'definative' answer to it yet.

Only a Sith speaks in absolutes

 

[Makalakumu]

Only a sith speaks in absolutes.

:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

We certainly did, but as you noted, loose knit agreements between states aren't really laws.

Then how can they be cited in order to hold someone legally accountable.

No, before we took action, Saddam was killing people. Now, the insurgents are killing people in Saddam's name.

Think about how many people are dying each day in Iraq. Saddam was not killing people on that scale. Hell, many Iraqis have said that they were safer under Saddam then they are under the Americans. Iraq is an absolute mess now...and it is our fault...according to popular opinion across the middle east.

Are we to assume this means you haven't been being sincere?

Yes. Sometimes. I was on the debate team in high school and college and I regularly defended opinions that in which I did not agree. This debate started in my head when I read a story about Saddam's trial and wondered what his defense attorneys would say. And then I wondered whether or not anything that they did say would be published in the media over here...

Laws are what the people of Iraq decide the law is. Your presumption is that there is such a thing as objective law, which is no where evidenced. Law is what Iraqis decide it is. We didn't invade Iraq with the stated intent of bringing the rule of law, we attacked with the stated intent of bringing Democracy and Liberty. Whether those are attainable goals, they are different than 'The Rule of Law'. Saddam had the backing of 'The Rule of Law' (whatever that objectively means).

I don't have to presume anything. All I have to do is look for a world governing body that makes laws that holds everyone equally accountable...and not find anything like that. There is no objective law.

lol. Here we go with the 'one world government' solution. I'm sure only a socialist government will do, as well, correct?

Yes, absolutely!

 

[7starmantis]

Are there?

This statement is a question that has been asked for millenia. I did not think there has been a 'definative' answer to it yet.

Well, actually outside of Star Wars World, there are. Rape and torture leading to disfigurement and murder is wrong, absolutely wrong. Spin it any way you like, but those actions require consequences. We dont need to have the absolute debate here, to understand what I'm saying....his actions deserve punishment.

Think about how many people are dying each day in Iraq. Saddam was not killing people on that scale. Hell, many Iraqis have said that they were safer under Saddam then they are under the Americans. Iraq is an absolute mess now...and it is our fault...according to popular opinion across the middle east.

This isn't a question of quantity of people killed. It doesn't matter who felt safe under his regime....the fact is he raped and murdered and needs to be held accountable by those he tortured. The supposed crimes of others have no bearing in his "trial".

On a side note, I think many people felt more "safe" under Englands rule than that new America place many years ago. Safe is a subjective term....safe can mean forgotten as well.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

murder is wrong, absolutely wrong.

Wouldn't he say it was government-sanctioned killing, as we have in the U.S. with the death penalty? Heck, we leave most of that in the hands of governors rather than the chief executive of the nation.

To describe killing as 'murder' is already to suggest that it was inappropriate, unsanctioned killing. But when a government goes to war, it authorizes the killing of others (presumably non-citizens) and takes action to make that happen. Did George Bush order the murder of Timothy McVeigh? Could he be tried for that?

I'm all for Saddam Husseing swinging by his neck, but I don't think the legal situation is quite as simple as all that.

 

[7starmantis]

Wouldn't he say it was government-sanctioned killing, as we have in the U.S. with the death penalty? Heck, we leave most of that in the hands of governors rather than the chief executive of the nation.

To describe killing as 'murder' is already to suggest that it was inappropriate, unsanctioned killing. But when a government goes to war, it authorizes the killing of others (presumably non-citizens) and takes action to make that happen. Did George Bush order the murder of Timothy McVeigh? Could he be tried for that?

I'm all for Saddam Husseing swinging by his neck, but I don't think the legal situation is quite as simple as all that.

So your implying that disfiguring torture leading to rape and eventually death is not inappropriate? Or is at some time appropriate?

7sm

 

[arnisador]

So your implying that disfiguring torture leading to rape and eventually death is not inappropriate?

Yes, you've understood me perfectly. :idunno:

 

[Makalakumu]

So your implying that disfiguring torture leading to rape and eventually death is not inappropriate? Or is at some time appropriate?

7sm

That all depends on the definition of your terms, the context of cultural norms, and the justification behind them.

For instance, some cultures believe that mutilating parts of an infant boy's penis is perfectly acceptable...however, this practice may be taken as disfiguring torture by others.

And then there are those who advocate that a government should castrate sex offenders and chop the hands off of theives as punishment. This may be taken as justice by some and by others as horribly disfiguring torture by others.

I'm afraid that Obi-wan was right. Here's why...as soon as one accepts that absolutes exist, one ceases to see any points of view but their own. An absolute law is nothing but an exertion of the self's point of view on others who disagree.

 

[michaeledward]

Seems to me I saw a headline the other day about how Most Americans think there are times when torture is appropriate. Now, I was quite ashamed of this opinion. But many have posed the 'ticking bomb' question to justify the actions of which the United States Military have taken in Abu Ghraib, and the CIA has taken at its 'black sites' around the world.

Rape is a common tool of war.
Torture is also a common tool of war.

If these things are absolutely morally wrong, can a war ever be prosecuted that is not absolutely morally wrong?

 

[mrhnau]

Rape is a common tool of war.
Torture is also a common tool of war.

If these things are absolutely morally wrong, can a war ever be prosecuted that is not absolutely morally wrong?

Is rape used as an officially endorsed tool? Is torture used as an officially endorsed tool? Or are you dealing with a few individuals who have some psychological problems?

Get to the depth of the problem. If its rooted all the way to the top of the administration, then root it out there. Prosecute away.

If its a pandemic, and seen everywhere, you must have a common factor... So, how wide spread were these problems? I think this might help get some insight...

MrH

 

[shesulsa]

I'm afraid that Obi-wan was right. Here's why...as soon as one accepts that absolutes exist, one ceases to see any points of view but their own. An absolute law is nothing but an exertion of the self's point of view on others who disagree.

artyon: