Saddam Vows No Return to 'Unjust' Court

[sgtmac_46]

He's being pretty smart. If he accepts the authority of the Court over him he loses his best line of defence and best opportunity to cause delay which is to claim that the Court is in itself illegal, and/or that it has no jurisdiction over him for acts he commited as Head of State.

Tactically it is in his best interests to delay proceedings as long as possible as his situation can't get much worse than it is now. If he is convicted at present he knows he is likely to face the death penalty, on the other hand Iraq is unstable and potentially faces a civil war so his best chance of survival is to hang on and hope that the political situation changes enough for him to bargain his way out.

Also by refusing to accept the authority of the Court he ensures that he builds a better case for becoming an martyr figure should he be executed. The worst thing he could possibly do is enter a plea of "Not Guilty", by refusing to plead he shows defiance of the Court, causes delay,and diminishes the perception of legitmacy of the judgment the Court ultimately hands down.

A nasty piece of work by any standards, but definitely not a stupid man.

No, he didn't get and maintain power by not being audacious and creative. Also, a year ago I wouldn't have believed there was any chance he would survive, much less return to power. Now, i'm not so sure. If the left in this country has anything to say about it, Saddam Hussein may yet occupy the palaces of Iraq.

 

[sgtmac_46]

He's being pretty smart. If he accepts the authority of the Court over him he loses his best line of defence and best opportunity to cause delay which is to claim that the Court is in itself illegal, and/or that it has no jurisdiction over him for acts he commited as Head of State.

Tactically it is in his best interests to delay proceedings as long as possible as his situation can't get much worse than it is now. If he is convicted at present he knows he is likely to face the death penalty, on the other hand Iraq is unstable and potentially faces a civil war so his best chance of survival is to hang on and hope that the political situation changes enough for him to bargain his way out.

Also by refusing to accept the authority of the Court he ensures that he builds a better case for becoming an martyr figure should he be executed. The worst thing he could possibly do is enter a plea of "Not Guilty", by refusing to plead he shows defiance of the Court, causes delay,and diminishes the perception of legitmacy of the judgment the Court ultimately hands down.

A nasty piece of work by any standards, but definitely not a stupid man.

No, he didn't get and maintain power by not being audacious and creative. Also, a year ago I wouldn't have believed there was any chance he would survive, much less return to power. Now, i'm not so sure. If the left in this country has anything to say about it, Saddam Hussein may yet occupy the palaces of Iraq.

 

[Dan G]

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.

Nuremburg is the most recent precedent, but probably the earliest and closest precedent is the trial and execution of King Charles I of England in 1649. The Court faced very similar problems to the current situation in Iraq in trying to define in domestic law a crime that could be committed by a ruler that was himself the source of all law.

The government of the day had similar objectives, they could have easily and legally executed Charles I under the rules of martial law, but after a bloody civil war they wished to have a trial that would establish once and for all the limits of a ruler's power in order to ensure that the rights of a people against a dictator would be established and preserved.

The indictment spelled out the duties of ruler (even a King) being:

"Trusted with a limited power to govern by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise: and by his trust, oath and office being obliged to use the power committed to him for the good and benefit of the people, and for the preservations of their rights and liberties"

It went on to state:

"Much innocent blood of the free people of this nation has been spilt, many families have been undone, the public treasury wasted and exhausted, trade obstructed and miserably decayed, vast expense and damage to the nation incurred, and many parts of this land spoiled, some of them even to desolation."

It created the concept of command responsbility:

"Charles Stuart has been and is the occasioner, author, and continuer of the said unnatural, cruel and bloody wars, and therein guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars or occasioned thereby."

And created the crime against natural justice of "Tyranny"

"And the said John Cooke on behalf of the people of England does for the said treasons and crimes impeach the said Charles Stuart as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and a public and implacable enemy to the Commonwealth of England and prays that the said Charles Stuart, King of England, may be put to answer all and every of the premises and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, sentences and judgements may thereupon be had, and as shall be agreeable to justice." [Quoted from The Tyrannicide Brief - Geoffrey Rpbertson (2005) - a book on the life of John Cooke and the reforms he pioneered]

It might be old law, but it was (briefly) good law based on an embryonic philosophy that was later to inspire the US constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[heretic888]

The problem with so-called "moral relativism" or "cultural relativism" is that they're still intrinsically absolutistic beliefs. In essence, they are cognitive self-contradictions that deny to all others that which they claim exclusively for themselves.

It's absurd, of course, but no less absurd than any other form of moral absolutism. Any form of moral absolutism is just a thinly-veiled attempt to pass of the morals and values of one's own culture (or sub-culture, as it were) as "the" truth, to the exclusion of all others. It is ethnocentrism at its best.

What is better understood, rather, is that morality (as with any form of "truth") is essentially contextual in nature. It does not stand on its own, magically independent of context, interpretation, or observation. Instead, morality exists in webs upon webs of understanding that define its very being. It is inevitably contextual.

Contextualism is important, in that it frees us from the intellectual lunacy of relativism, but also helps us realize that our values and viewpoints are not some divine Final Truth that everything absolutely must be judged against. Even the philosophy of contextualism itself exists in broader contexts, so at no point do we find an "omega point" that we can go and judge the whole world by.

In fact, you can only make value judgements with a proper understanding of context in hand. Without it, you're just stamping your feet and puffing up your chest about nothing.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The problem with so-called "moral relativism" or "cultural relativism" is that they're still intrinsically absolutistic beliefs. In essence, they are cognitive self-contradictions that deny to all others that which they claim exclusively for themselves.

It's absurd, of course, but no less absurd than any other form of moral absolutism. Any form of moral absolutism is just a thinly-veiled attempt to pass of the morals and values of one's own culture (or sub-culture, as it were) as "the" truth, to the exclusion of all others. It is ethnocentrism at its best.

What is better understood, rather, is that morality (as with any form of "truth") is essentially contextual in nature. It does not stand on its own, magically independent of context, interpretation, or observation. Instead, morality exists in webs upon webs of understanding that define its very being. It is inevitably contextual.

Contextualism is important, in that it frees us from the intellectual lunacy of relativism, but also helps us realize that our values and viewpoints are not some divine Final Truth that everything absolutely must be judged against. Even the philosophy of contextualism itself exists in broader contexts, so at no point do we find an "omega point" that we can go and judge the whole world by.

In fact, you can only make value judgements with a proper understanding of context in hand. Without it, you're just stamping your feet and puffing up your chest about nothing.

Laterz.

Very well put. Your point about the often self-serving nature of morally relativistic arguments is well made.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Nuremburg is the most recent precedent, but probably the earliest and closest precedent is the trial and execution of King Charles I of England in 1649. The Court faced very similar problems to the current situation in Iraq in trying to define in domestic law a crime that could be committed by a ruler that was himself the source of all law.

The government of the day had similar objectives, they could have easily and legally executed Charles I under the rules of martial law, but after a bloody civil war they wished to have a trial that would establish once and for all the limits of a ruler's power in order to ensure that the rights of a people against a dictator would be established and preserved.

The indictment spelled out the duties of ruler (even a King) being:

"Trusted with a limited power to govern by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise: and by his trust, oath and office being obliged to use the power committed to him for the good and benefit of the people, and for the preservations of their rights and liberties"

It went on to state:

"Much innocent blood of the free people of this nation has been spilt, many families have been undone, the public treasury wasted and exhausted, trade obstructed and miserably decayed, vast expense and damage to the nation incurred, and many parts of this land spoiled, some of them even to desolation."

It created the concept of command responsbility:

"Charles Stuart has been and is the occasioner, author, and continuer of the said unnatural, cruel and bloody wars, and therein guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars or occasioned thereby."

And created the crime against natural justice of "Tyranny"

"And the said John Cooke on behalf of the people of England does for the said treasons and crimes impeach the said Charles Stuart as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and a public and implacable enemy to the Commonwealth of England and prays that the said Charles Stuart, King of England, may be put to answer all and every of the premises and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, sentences and judgements may thereupon be had, and as shall be agreeable to justice." [Quoted from The Tyrannicide Brief - Geoffrey Rpbertson (2005) - a book on the life of John Cooke and the reforms he pioneered]

It might be old law, but it was (briefly) good law based on an embryonic philosophy that was later to inspire the US constitution and Bill of Rights.

Most new law is based on old law. We developed American law, in many instances, on English common law older than this.

 

[Dan G]

No, he didn't get and maintain power by not being audacious and creative. Also, a year ago I wouldn't have believed there was any chance he would survive, much less return to power. Now, i'm not so sure. If the left in this country has anything to say about it, Saddam Hussein may yet occupy the palaces of Iraq.

If too weak in enforcing the law and maintaining the security needed for the rule of law to exist then he has a fair chance of living to run/ruin at least part of his country again.

If too hard on controlling the security, too restrictive on the power of the replacement government or too focused on taking short term pragmatic decisions at the expense of rule of law, then government legitimacy and constitutional safeguards never get securely etablished, and someone very much like him will be running the place before long.

To my mind it isn't about left/right it is about getting it right. Easier said than done. :idunno:

 

[sgtmac_46]

If too weak in enforcing the law and maintaining the security needed for the rule of law to exist then he has a fair chance of living to run/ruin at least part of his country again.

If too hard on controlling the security, too restrictive on the power of the replacement government or too focused on taking short term pragmatic decisions at the expense of rule of law, then government legitimacy and constitutional safeguards never get securely etablished, and someone very much like him will be running the place before long.

To my mind it isn't about left/right it is about getting it right. Easier said than done. :idunno:

I honestly don't believe the majority of the populace is concerned with how hard or restrictive we or the Iraqi government are in dealing with insurgents in restoring order. Having lived under Saddam for decades, they are used to 'pragmatism'.

They will only chaffe it, at the same time, we attack their culture and religious convictions. The British learned this through centuries of dealing in that region.

As I noted earlier, they are used to firm and decisive responses to threats. They merely wish their religious and cultural beliefs be left in tact. They don't chaffe at torture and violence as a means to regain control, many of them believe we are weak and ineffective at dealing with the insurgents, they merely want us to leave as quickly as possible so that they don't feel as if they have to rely on us.

In other words, it isn't the 'torture', it's who it's blamed on. That's why there was no real general outcry that the Iraqi government was operating a 'torture' house. They expect that as a form of government (thought hopefully they learn another way). They would prefer we crush the insurgency quickly and decisively, and then, GET OUT.

Instead, we have become bogged down in rules of engagement. Oh well, western warfare meets middle eastern culture. We're not the first to misunderstand them.

 

[Dan G]

Most new law is based on old law. We developed American law, in many instances, on English common law older than this.

Whilst we threw away the chance to make similar developments and allowed the over romanticised oxygen thief Charles II back in 1660, with all our best and bravest legal and constitutional reformers either being brutally executed, imprisoned or forced to flee the country taking their talents to America or Europe. A wasted opportunity that set Britain back at least 150-200 years, and a classic example of what happens if change is not accompanied by longterm security and stability.

 

[Makalakumu]

I cant believe we are saying "well since their culture accepts rape, murder, genocide etc. we should just accept it because to them its right."

Our country is full of people and descendants of people who left many of those countries because they didnt accept that idea. Why bother stopping the Holocaust? The Germans thought it was right, who were we to say otherwise and impose our will on them?

Do I think stopping the holocaust was wrong? No. Did the US invade Europe to stop the holocaust? No.

I guess the way I see it is that there are no firm lines drawn in the sand on cultural issues of right or wrong. Some cultures have abomidable practices in them, but I don't think that we should invade their countries and impose our will and culture on them. However, sometimes, in some circumstances, I might feel differently.

When do you feel it is right to invade another country and impose our will/culture on the people of that country?

 

[Makalakumu]

Pope Benedict disagrees with moral relativism, and so do I.

http://nationalreview.com/novak/novak200504190839.asp

In the same vein, a culture of absolutism eventually burns itself out in attempting to make everyone believe the same dogma. With absolutism, one will never have peace because one can NEVER force everyone into the same mold. The bottom line is that peoples morals are relative and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

 

[Makalakumu]

I guess you'll remember that the next time someone tries to rob you or steals your car. They aren't wrong, they just hold a different moral view than you. Just write it off.

I mean, you really have no right to impose your will on them, and certainly society doesn't, right? It's funny how quickly discussions of moral relativism go to the way side when confronted by reality.

The bottom line, we have an obligation to ensure that or beliefs get propagated for the very reason outlined...i.e., if we don't someone may eventually impose theirs on us, much as we'd like to believe otherwise. Better to fight when you're strong, than wait until you're weak.

If I have the power to stop them then I will. If I have lots of people who agree with me and we democratically choose to make stuff like that illegal and we hire people to enforce those laws, I have no problem with that.

 

[Makalakumu]

No, he didn't get and maintain power by not being audacious and creative. Also, a year ago I wouldn't have believed there was any chance he would survive, much less return to power. Now, i'm not so sure. If the left in this country has anything to say about it, Saddam Hussein may yet occupy the palaces of Iraq.

I would like to see you lay out a scenario where this could happen. I don't think Saddam will live out his trial.

 

[mrhnau]

I would like to see you lay out a scenario where this could happen. I don't think Saddam will live out his trial.

1: We leave
2: Bathist return to power, or others sympathetic to Saddam

1: We leave
2: Country falls into civil war
3: Saddam gets "rescued" by loyalist.

1: We leave
2: Al Quida or other similar group risks a few hundred lives in an attempt to break Saddam out.
3: Civil war ensues, and in the chaos, Saddam regains power.

1: Saddam is found innocent and vindicated, and the UN finds some ridiculous way to install him. (doubt US would allow reinstallment though if still occupying)

So, the most reasonable methods for Saddam regaining power would require our abscence. I suppose Civil war would not require our abscence, but if it were to start, I think we would get Saddam out ASAP. The scale of offensive currently required to get Saddam out while we control him would be beyond the ability of Al Quida I think...

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

Most of Iraq is Shia muslim and they hate everything to do with baathists and Saddam. They will not allow him or the baathists to return to power no matter what some outside power says. Saddam's military power has been destroyed so there is no way that he could take the country back over himself. At best, the baathists, sunni and Saddam, if he could even form such a coalition anymore, could expect a civil war...and that would end with their extermination.

Oh yeah, Al Qaeda despises Saddam. He is a secular infidel. They wouldn't help him.

 

[mrhnau]

Most of Iraq is Shia muslim and they hate everything to do with baathists and Saddam. They will not allow him or the baathists to return to power no matter what some outside power says. Saddam's military power has been destroyed so there is no way that he could take the country back over himself. At best, the baathists, sunni and Saddam, if he could even form such a coalition anymore, could expect a civil war...and that would end with their extermination.

He obviously had some followers and some loyalty, otherwise he would not have lasted as long as he did. Uprisings were quelled with mass murder. Intimidation and mass murder tend to keep you in power even if people don't like you. I'd not be suprised to see the same tactics reprised were he returns in some fashion. Regardless, most of his military is disbanded, so it would be a difficult road. Not impossible, but difficult.

Oh yeah, Al Qaeda despises Saddam. He is a secular infidel. They wouldn't help him.

Really? They do have a few unifying principles, such as a vile hatred for Israel and the US occupation. They would probably favor a reinstallation of Saddam just to snub the US. Then again, I don't have the mind of Al Qaeda, my brain does not work that way.

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

He obviously had some followers and some loyalty, otherwise he would not have lasted as long as he did. Uprisings were quelled with mass murder. Intimidation and mass murder tend to keep you in power even if people don't like you. I'd not be suprised to see the same tactics reprised were he returns in some fashion. Regardless, most of his military is disbanded, so it would be a difficult road. Not impossible, but difficult.

The question of how Saddam maintained his power is veeeeeeeeeery interesting and very embarrassing for the US and allies.

Saddam acheived power through superior military might. That is the only way a minority can dominate a majority. Saddam does not have that anymore and neither does the minority. That is why he will never get back in power.

Really? They do have a few unifying principles, such as a vile hatred for Israel and the US occupation. They would probably favor a reinstallation of Saddam just to snub the US. Then again, I don't have the mind of Al Qaeda, my brain does not work that way.

The bottom line is that Saddam was a secularist and Al Qaeda would never support anyone like that.

 

[mrhnau]

The bottom line is that Saddam was a secularist and Al Qaeda would never support anyone like that.

As I said, I don't have that kind of mind... I'd swallow and do it if it meant furthering my ultimate goal. Use him as a temporary pawn to embarrass the US and allies. Your point regarding how he maintained power is well made. We've had our fingers in that mess over there for a long time. I don't think we had a perfect match in supporting Saddam, but we did not like the alternative. So, in that way, the US was thinking of temporary pawns in a fashion that Al Qaeda will not... an interesting twist.

MrH

 

[7starmantis]

So, I guess what your saying is that 'nothing means nothing to this discussion' ... except for what you believe and want to claim.

You want proof, and yet, when I post the links, you don't read them.

Your dislike for me and my post is clouding your reading of them. I said nothing of the sort, please re-read my post as you are misunderstanding the point I was making.

As for not reading your links, thats quite an assumption to make....point of fact I did read them. Dont be so quick to let your assumptions of others bleed through into your public posts of them.

Sorry if I have offended you, but I haven't seen any proof of official acceptance or mandating of rape....none. Until that has been proven, your "Tools of War" argument is lacking.

P.S. And yes, I will confirm that I am an athiest, still ... but remember the Bible says that even the devil can quote scripture to further his argument. Becareful when I start using Biblical texts in my heathen manner.

:idunno: Not sure I understand what your saying here. Are you saying that you know your quote is out of context, yet you use it because the devil can? I honestly dont understand your point and what it has to do with this discussion, would you please explain?

7sm

 

[michaeledward]

Your dislike for me and my post is clouding your reading of them. I said nothing of the sort, please re-read my post as you are misunderstanding the point I was making.

As for not reading your links, thats quite an assumption to make....point of fact I did read them. Dont be so quick to let your assumptions of others bleed through into your public posts of them.

Sorry if I have offended you, but I haven't seen any proof of official acceptance or mandating of rape....none. Until that has been proven, your "Tools of War" argument is lacking.

Not sure I understand what your saying here. Are you saying that you know your quote is out of context, yet you use it because the devil can? I honestly dont understand your point and what it has to do with this discussion, would you please explain?

7sm

I make no statements about my personal feelings or thoughts concerning you.

If Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations are not enough proof for you, nothing ever will be sufficient.

I am obviously in a discussion with an ideologue.