Saddam's Fate

[Flatlander]

This question was inspired by another thread.

What do you think should happen to Saddam now? Should he be tried in the US, Iraq, or by the UN? What would be an appropriate punishment for him?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I think the UN would be the best court for him to be convicted in.

 

[MisterMike]

Probably just keep him locked up and throw away the key.

Maybe there will be some openings at Abu Ghraib.

 

[Taimishu]

I think the UN would be the best court for him to be convicted in.

Going by this there is no need for a trial.

His crimes, if any, were against Iraq and its people so they should be the ones to try him.

Ok before you all start I know he is as guilty as hell but what happened to innocent until proved guilty and what happened to a fair impartial trial?

David

 

[MA-Caver]

Going by this there is no need for a trial.

His crimes, if any, were against Iraq and its people so they should be the ones to try him.

Ok before you all start I know he is as guilty as hell but what happened to innocent until proved guilty and what happened to a fair impartial trial?

David

You're right, Iraqis and Kurds should be the ones to try him because the crimes were committed against them ... not us. Evidence is showing that Bush was wrong about Saddy's involvement (if not support) for 9-11. So basically we don't have the RIGHT to try him by our laws.

Innocent until guilty.. those are our laws. Dunno what it's like over there. I'm just glad to be living here.

it's kinda like the same question of what/who would've judged Hitler if he was caught alive back in '45. Would the U.S. try him... he wasn't attacking us (yet), the Brits and Ruskies? The Jews? Chexs? French? Poles? There was no UN back then.

So basically whom he committed the crimes against should be his judges. Yeah, he's gonna lose but justice ( :idunno: ??? :idunno: ) will have been served.

 

[michaeledward]

A couple of thoughts:

Well, certainly, he should be indicted by some legal authority. What crime or crimes is he going to be tried for? The United States can't bring him to trial for violating UN resolutions by possessing "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraqi legal system really has self-destructed (perhaps with U.S. assistance) over the past year. Is it really fair to build a new legal system, and try Hussein under laws that were not in effect when he committed his acts of ... well, for whatever he is going to be tried?

Lastly, "innocent until proven guilty" is an American concept, which may not be relevant in Iraq. Should Hussein be entitled to this protection?

Again, my most prominent thought .... with what crime is he going to be charged.

Mike

 

[Flatlander]

He could be tried for Crimes Against Humanity for gassing the Kurds, or for torture against his own people, under the UN.

 

[Taimishu]

Lastly, "innocent until proven guilty" is an American concept, which may not be relevant in Iraq. Should Hussein be entitled to this protection?


Whos concept? ever heard of the British?

Yes everyone should be entitled to this protection more so if they have a track record like Saddam.
Without this protection we could end up no better or worse that the terrorists we are fighting.

Just my 1p worth.

David

 

[PeachMonkey]

While, as many posters have alluded above, the United States really has no jurisdiction to try Saddam, both the International Court of Justice in the Hague and Iraq's on justice system should have shots at him.

In the end, I think we'll find it highly unlikely that Saddam will be successfully tried in the Hague; such a trial would undoubtedly draw the media's attention to the complicity of the United States and other Western countries in Saddam's war crimes against Iran and acts of genocide against the Kurds (in particular, that the United States and others continued to sell Iraq chemical and biological weapons components even when it was clear that they were being used as weapons).

 

[Flatlander]

Which brings the question, If we can assume that the US has no interest in having Saddam tried by the Hague, and if they have no jurisdiction at home, and if the Iraqi system is not yet ready to deal with him, what should be done with him?


Where is he now, by the way? I'm not sure.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Which brings the question, If we can assume that the US has no interest in having Saddam tried by the Hague, and if they have no jurisdiction at home, and if the Iraqi system is not yet ready to deal with him, what should be done with him?

Then he should be held by the United States as a Prisoner of War (not an "unlawful combatant") until Iraq is prepared to try him.

 

[Cryozombie]

If Saddam was the Dictatorial leader of his country, who created and controlled the laws, could anything he did there really be illegal, at the time he did them? and if not, how could they give him a trial...
:idunno:

 

[Flatlander]

That's an excellent point. So if, then, based on the assumption that he hasn't broken any "Iraqi" laws, the only jurisdiction where he has would be internationally. Therefore, the Hague would be appropriate. Perhaps for crimes against humanity?

 

[PeachMonkey]

Saddam was a dictator, but Iraq was *ostensibly* a parliamentary democracy, with voters selecting council candidates and even Saddam himself (although there was no real choice provided).

Iraq also had a system of laws. Murder was illegal, for instance. On that alone, Iraq could easily try him.

Moreover, victors in conflict have a way of devising trial systems to pursue "justice" even if violations in question may not have been in place, or agreed to, beforehand. The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg tried members of Germany's Nazi party and the Wehrmacht for both crimes that were clear (War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, as well as treaty violations) but also for "waging a war of aggression". Every nation on the tribunal had taken part in wars of aggression both before and since since the trial, but that's another topic altogether.

There's little doubt in my mind, therefore, that both the people of Iraq and the courts at the Hague will have plenty of fodder for dealing with the crimes of Hussein. I'll be curious to see how much of the West's complicity in his crimes will become front-page news.

 

[Flatlander]

Yes, I too am curious to see how public that becomes, and whether there will be any blame shifting, finger pointing, or outright lying by those who were complicit, should these things come to light.

 

[Makalakumu]

Can anyone say Mussolini? No trial. Mob Rule. If Saddam is released, there will not even be a pretense of justice in Iraq. He will be torn to peices. These legal questions could take years to answer...

 

[michaeledward]

Who's concept? ever heard of the British?

Yes everyone should be entitled to this protection more so if they have a track record like Saddam.
Without this protection we could end up no better or worse that the terrorists we are fighting.

Just my 1p worth.

David

Thank you David, for drawing this to my attention. And yes, I have heard of the British. Perhaps you could expand on the British concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'. I admit, that my knowledge of the origin of this practice is (apparently) limited. While I do recall the 'Magna Carter' set out a number of individual rights, I do not recall the presumption of innocence.

Certainly, 'innocent until proven guilty' is not a phrase that would be common in the lexicon of the arabian penninsula.

Curiously - Mike

 

[jfarnsworth]

When I was on the elliptical machine this morning CNN said that we were going to give Saddam to the iraqi's within the next couple of days. However saddam will be guarded by american forces until tried. I still don't know whether it's good or bad.

 

[PeachMonkey]

While I do recall the 'Magna Carter' set out a number of individual rights, I do not recall the presumption of innocence.

Actually, the Magna Carta does not discuss presumption of innocence; neither does the US Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html).

Presumption of innocence is *not* a uniquely American concept; it is one inherited from English jurisprudence, which inturn inherited it from the jurisprudence of Europe.

Presumption of innocence was only relatively recently codified in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, its International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. It was *not* listed in the Magna Carta, the Constitution, or the English Bill of Rights.

For more information, I recommend this excellent treatise:

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/classes/his381/InnocentuntilGuilty.htm

For more on the Magna Carta, see:

http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/magna.html

 

[Taimishu]

PeachMonkey thankyou, you beat me to it.
As the American system of justice is based on the British (you colonials nicked everything from us ) It cannot be an American idea.

David