O/T Hussein's Trial

[Jack Mitchell]

While symbolically pleasing, the decision to transfer Saddam Hussein into Iraqi legal custody raises as many questions as it answers.

Like the invasion and occupation, the Bush administration has chosen style over substance. Once again, it has glibly underestimated the difficulty and cost of a legitimate war crimes trial. But one thing is certain - a show trial conducted by a kangaroo court in Baghdad will provide a fitting finale for an administration that has worked so valiantly to undermine international law.

The former Iraqi dictator will be the most significant war crimes defendant since Hermann Goering took the stand at Nuremberg in 1946. The mass graves, torture chambers and execution videos leave few doubts about the moral guilt of the fallen Iraqi dictator. But as Slobodan Milosevic has recently demonstrated at the Hague, moral guilt and legal guilt are not the same. Milosevic was careful to insulate himself from his regime's horrific acts and, after months of cross-examinations, he remains defiant. Nuremberg's International Military Tribunal could not reign in Goering, nor could the Hague court do the same to Milosevic. What realistic chance does the Iraqi war crimes court have in both controlling Hussein and giving him a legitimate trial?

The Iraqi war crimes court is yet another aspect of the occupation controlled by discredited Pentagon con man Ahmed Chalabi. Appointed by the Iraqi Governing Council to head the trials, his nephew Salem Chalabi promises that the courts will abide by international law. How can Iraqi judges, after decades of dictatorship, conduct fair trials of this complexity? Only a few months ago, Salem Chalabi irritated his Pentagon handlers by announcing that the trials would probably not begin this year. The White House had other ideas. Given his uncle's remarkable fall from grace, Salem Chalabi is in no position to ignore yet another last-minute Bush audible.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has replaced distinctions like "soldier" and "civilian" with messianic constructions like "good" and "evil." According to this logic, the victor has no obligation to extend a wide array of civil rights to the vanquished. Given that the White House has explicitly rejected the Geneva Conventions and condones the use of torture as a matter of U.S. policy, why not simply execute the Iraqi leaders?

 

by Peter Maguire as published on Thursday, July 1, 2004 by Newsday / Long Island, New York.

 

I started this thread and forgot to place O/T in the header - my bad.

 

Regards, Jack

[crazy^millman]

You still can just edit that and the header will pop again and you can add o/t no problem

 

 

HTH

[Jack Mitchell]

Thanks Ron, always learning don't ya know! - as borrowed from one of my all time favorite movies - Fargo.

 

From the viewing angle that most of us had today, (Saddam only - then the back of the judges head from about 3 feet).

 

I would estimate the judge to be in his mid thirties and no doubt an expert in international law as well.

 

I never in a million years would have thought that Saddam would be given the opportunity to speak in public or in a court room - interesting days/months/years lie ahead.

 

 

Regards, Jack

[gcode]

quote:

---

I would estimate the judge to be in his mid thirties and no doubt an expert in international law as wel

---

He is also an extremely brave man. Every nut job in Iraq will be gunning for him.

[Tim Johnson]

Screw the international war crimes. Let the Iraqis judge him on what he did to his own citizens. That alone should put him under about 1000 lbs. of two pound rocks.

[Rekd™]

+1000 Tim!

[Phil Orenstein]

Jack, Newsday often misses the boat with it's alligator tears for terrorists and obsessive compulsive fear that our civil liberties are being thrown away. That's why I cancelled Newsday along with the other NY Slimes, oop I mean Times. One other critical reason to hand over the trial to the Iraqis is to prevent the UN from getting a hold of it to pump up their own corrupt and vacant ICC agenda (the venue for sentencing American soldiers). If a world body can't even define terrorism how can they judge it? Remember, they're the ones who issued resolutions condemning Israel for the Jenin massacre the same day Israel suffering huge suicide bombing attacks and then later on quietly admitted that there was no massacre in Jenin.

 

Phil

[Rekd™]

[Harryman]

Let me see if I can understand this.

 

Moral guilt = actual guilt = guy did crime

 

Legal guilt = actual guilt - N(technicalities) = guy did crime but someone else gets blamed so that libs feel process was fair.

 

Harryman teh, I morally hit a Jeep with my bike last week but the guy who painted the car I was gawking at needs to pay. WOO HOO!

[KJS]

Some say we've lost our civil liberties after 9-11. How come I haven't noticed? I guess it's because I'm not a terrorist planning attacks on innocent Americans. I dont feel any law abiding American has lost any liberties.

[Dan_AKA_ROY]

Hi Jack, how goes it? I'll comment on a quote of yours and give you my prespective.

 

quote:

---

Once again, it has glibly underestimated the difficulty and cost of a legitimate war crimes trial. But one thing is certain - a show trial conducted by a kangaroo court in Baghdad will provide a fitting finale for an administration that has worked so valiantly to undermine international law.

---

I agree it has its shortcomings. I believe the importances in it outweigh the roadbumps along the way. The new Iraqi gov't needs international support. The world needs to recognize them as a sovereign entity. This is a critical step in stabilizing that part of the world. The Iraqi gov't will gain credibility among its own people. By and large, the majority of Iraqis loathe Hussein. By condemning this tyrant - in the eyes of most Iraqi citizens - their new gov't will gain in popularity. This is very important as their first elections are due later this year or early next year. And, in my opinion Jack, this is exactly what the extremists fear most.

 

One other thing: gcode remarked about that Iraqi judge being brave. And how! I give a lot of credit to those Iraqi leaders in these perilously dangerous times!

[wtsylvester]

I'm waiting for the movie. I hope they get Clint Eastwood to direct it. I like to see it called "Hang em high" tho I think that name has already been used...... gosh I might loose some of my liberal viewpoints saying something like that

[Charles Davis]

Of course, if the U.S. tried him, I'm sure people would be bit^&ing that we weren't allowing/trusting the Iraqi's to manage thier own trial.

 

As I recall, courts and law started in Iraq; I think they can handle it. It is important that the Iraqi's conduct this trial.

 

I'm sure he will be given a fair trial and then taken out and shot; which is justice.

[Phil Orenstein]

For the first time in history an Arab Middle Eastern state is putting one of it's very own tyrants on trial is an historical milestone unlike any other. Let the Iraqi's 'Hang em High'! How about a public stoning - call it "Stone 'em Low".

 

Phil

[Mark Lovelace]

My guess is that the US is having Hussein tried by an Iraqi court for a number of reasons:

 

1) It is good and proper, as his crimes were against the Iraqi people, not the US.

 

2) It looks good at a time when the US is trying to convince its citizens and the world that Iraq is now a 'sovereign state.'

 

3) Iraq's legal system, presumably, does not allow the accused the same rights that he might have under a US system, and thus may prevent him from tying the proceedings in knots. On the other hand, it may be easier for him to turn it into a circus (as happened with Milosevic).

 

4) Similarly, Iraq's legal system may make it less likely that any of Hussein's 'insider info' regarding those who helped him along the way (Reagan and Rumsfeld) is aired in public.

 

5) If and when Hussein is found guilty, Iraq is far less likely to take heat from the world community for executing him, even if they use barbaric methods.

 

6) No Johnny Cochran.

[crazy^millman]

I can just see that xxxx hussien now if the glove dont fit then I am not that idoit so you must give me back all my Sh??

 

Sorry but this person needs to die needs to die.