FOX No Shortage of Evidence Against Saddam
FOX Defiant Saddam Refuses to Sign Charges
CNN Saddam in court: 'This is all a theater'
BBC Defiant Saddam appears in court
AlJ Defiant Saddam appears in Iraqi court
Theater? Fair trial? kangaroo court? Is the outcome really in doubt? Potentially imbarrasing for certain western leaders/nation if they dig into the relationship between them and Saddam?
I do hope they don't start showing this daily on the telly.
Trial of Saddam
Well, in what sense? Certainly they will find him guilty of /something/. The question of course becomes will they find him guilty of all charges? Will the prosecution only charge him with those crimes they have iron clad proof of?Is the outcome really in doubt?
If I were the prosecuter, I would consider throwing in some charges I knew were kind of bogus just so that you had "proof" that the trial was on the up and up.
_
Cain is a Whore
Instant Cash is a Slut
Cain is a Whore
Instant Cash is a Slut
-
Ancient History
- Demon
- Posts: 6550
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 5:39 pm
I count 2 "kill him," 2 "whatever, as long as he's gone," 2 "trial is good as procedure," 1 "keep him alive so he suffers more," 1 "no comment," and a "gee, I guess punish him if he did something wrong, but did he?"What I found interesting, is the diversity in the Iraqi's opinion of Saddam's trial.
To me that looks like 7 people sure of his guilt and ready to see him brought to justice, 1 person who doesn't comment, and one person who lived in a cave in Norway for the last 30 years.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
Fair enough. It's only nine people, after all, probably selected out of more responses by a reporter for whatever reason. I just think you have an interesting idea of diversity.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
Let me rephrase; That's totally not what I expect. I expected them all to roundly agree on hanging him from the highest tree. So, that said, I think that out of 9 handpicked people, I still think it's suprisingly diverse compared to what I suspected.Marius wrote:Fair enough. It's only nine people, after all, probably selected out of more responses by a reporter for whatever reason. I just think you have an interesting idea of diversity.
-
Ancient History
- Demon
- Posts: 6550
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 5:39 pm
Thirty-eight states and the nation as a whole still have the death penalty.We could make him an honorary Texan. They still have the death penalty, don't they?
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
-
Salvation122
- Grand Marshall of the Imperium
- Posts: 3776
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:20 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
Well I can't say for certain, but yes the death penalty could be adminstered in a federal prison that was in a state where the death penalty was not used.And I'm assuming federal prisons are in states who support the death penalty or are death penalties carried out in states that don't support the death penalty?
Federal property is not, legally speaking, within the state it physically resides in (At least I think). Example, in my home town, Wright Patterson Air Force Base is not subject to Ohio Law.
_
Cain is a Whore
Instant Cash is a Slut
Cain is a Whore
Instant Cash is a Slut
-
Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
Generally that answer is no DV8. It is in theory possible. Call it whatever, but for whatever reason generally the construction of Federal prisons that have death rows has been in states with the death penalty.
An example of this just happened not long ago in Michigan. Some guy was out hunting 20 some odd years ago, and he murdered his two buddys (Not so much of a buddy was he?) and got rid of their bodies. id on't think he got death, but if he would have there was all sorts of speculation about whether he would be executed in michigan-and then they realized the only Fed joint in MI is a minimum security camp style prison.
An example of this just happened not long ago in Michigan. Some guy was out hunting 20 some odd years ago, and he murdered his two buddys (Not so much of a buddy was he?) and got rid of their bodies. id on't think he got death, but if he would have there was all sorts of speculation about whether he would be executed in michigan-and then they realized the only Fed joint in MI is a minimum security camp style prison.
-
FlakJacket
- Orbital Cow Private
- Posts: 4064
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: Birminghman, UK
If the crime falls under federal jurisdiction rather than state for whatever reasons, then they're tried in a federal court. If found guilty and sentenced to death they're then shipped to the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute. Apparently they have a seperate section called the Special Confinement Unit that deals with just death row inmates sentenced by federal courts.DV8 wrote:If the nation has a death penalty, does that mean that the death penalty gets handed out in...what?...a federal court? If so, then where does the execution take place?
The 86 Rules of Boozing
75. Beer makes you mellow, champagne makes you silly, wine makes you dramatic, tequila makes you felonious.
75. Beer makes you mellow, champagne makes you silly, wine makes you dramatic, tequila makes you felonious.
Wait, there's something unusual here. I think Saddam's a bag of dicks, but if the crimes he commited are against Iraqis, how can one reasonably expect the victims to function as a fair and impartial jury?
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing left to pursue." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
Well, it's not a question of guilt in this case. More a case of how much they can prove to the courts satisfaction. And given the fact that this will be an Iraqi court, most likely stacked with people from the "hang him" category of Iraqis, I would be surprised by anything less than either life imprisonment or death. So it's really just a question of wether or not Saddam will be spending life behind bars, or get the mother of all hair-cuts.
The fun thing will be to see how he tries to defend himself, and also how much crap he can expose before he's sentenced.
The fun thing will be to see how he tries to defend himself, and also how much crap he can expose before he's sentenced.
Geneticists have established that all women share a common ancestor, called Eve, and that all men share a common ancestor, dubbed Adam. However, it has also been established that Adam was born 80.000 years after Eve. So, the world before him was one of heavy to industral strength lesbianism, one assumes.
-Stephen Fry, QI
-Stephen Fry, QI
1. Most of his "victims" are dead, so they probably won't be on the jury.ak404 wrote:Wait, there's something unusual here. I think Saddam's a bag of dicks, but if the crimes he commited are against Iraqis, how can one reasonably expect the victims to function as a fair and impartial jury?
2. Any jury trial for crimes against the state would face the same conundrum, so this can't be "unusual," [except inasmuch as there aren't that many prosecutions for "crimes against the state"] although I agree it's probably pretty tough. This is effectively a billion times worse than, say, OJ, and that was a mess. Finding Russians who could be impartial about Stalin would probably have been tough, too.
-
FlakJacket
- Orbital Cow Private
- Posts: 4064
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: Birminghman, UK
Actually the guy had, and still does have, a large base of popular support. Weird as it may seem. I just write it off as a Russian/cultural thing.3278 wrote:Finding Russians who could be impartial about Stalin would probably have been tough, too.
The 86 Rules of Boozing
75. Beer makes you mellow, champagne makes you silly, wine makes you dramatic, tequila makes you felonious.
75. Beer makes you mellow, champagne makes you silly, wine makes you dramatic, tequila makes you felonious.
Er, by "victims," I meant kith and kin, that sort of thing. Granted, the outcome of this 'trial' will never be in doubt. What'll be interesting is to hear how much shit the other countries Saddam'll let out - which won't mean much, since this isn't an international tribunal - and to see which high-ranking members of the Ba'ath party'll sell out first.
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing left to pursue." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
-
Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
Up until you said russian I thought you were discussing Mr. Hussein there Flak. There are apparently people and factions who still support him.FlakJacket wrote:Actually the guy had, and still does have, a large base of popular support. Weird as it may seem. I just write it off as a Russian/cultural thing.3278 wrote:Finding Russians who could be impartial about Stalin would probably have been tough, too.
Which makes sense. Some people thrived under his rule-admittedly their riches weren't always legitmately gained.
-
FlakJacket
- Orbital Cow Private
- Posts: 4064
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: Birminghman, UK
Oh there are even some sections of the poor that liked/like him. It's that whole "Well he was a strong ruler" thing mainly. Saw some interviews on it today- was quite mind boggling until stopped trying to look at it from a western/democratic viewpoint.
The 86 Rules of Boozing
75. Beer makes you mellow, champagne makes you silly, wine makes you dramatic, tequila makes you felonious.
75. Beer makes you mellow, champagne makes you silly, wine makes you dramatic, tequila makes you felonious.
Sure they might be hard to find or dig up. But they had families that miss them, he didn't wipe out whole families (ok he might have done that from time to time but not all the time).3278 wrote:1. Most of his "victims" are dead, so they probably won't be on the jury.
They did mention something on the news that the iraqis didn't get the sound version of the trial, just pictures. How's that for censorship. Apparently they didn't want him to make speeches. The sound version we got to hear was courtesy of the US Military.TLM wrote:The fun thing will be to see how he tries to defend himself, and also how much crap he can expose before he's sentenced.
But yes I think that could potentially be interesting if he starts to "tell all". It could potentially blow up in a lot of peoples faces.
He looked pretty good thou, compared to the spiderhole pictures and before. Prison diet?
Oh, Saddam will be well taken care of until the trial is over, don't you worry. He'll be well fed and well treated (relatively, of course). No-one wants him to have any real complaints about his treatment in US custody, after all. It's all part of showing the Iraqi people (and the rest of the world too) that Saddam is just a man. A total and utter bastard, of course, but still just a man who's going to get his comeuppance.lorg wrote:He looked pretty good thou, compared to the spiderhole pictures and before. Prison diet?
Unfortunately, this could backfire.
Geneticists have established that all women share a common ancestor, called Eve, and that all men share a common ancestor, dubbed Adam. However, it has also been established that Adam was born 80.000 years after Eve. So, the world before him was one of heavy to industral strength lesbianism, one assumes.
-Stephen Fry, QI
-Stephen Fry, QI
-
Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
Could you source this please? I haven't heard anything like this at all.Lorg wrote:They did mention something on the news that the iraqis didn't get the sound version of the trial, just pictures. How's that for censorship. Apparently they didn't want him to make speeches. The sound version we got to hear was courtesy of the US Military.
Last edited by Serious Paul on Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BBC Saddam fights back in court
First I had heard it on the news last night so it took some diggin' around ... but in the text just below the headline 'Iraqi suspicions' one can read:
BBC Lawyers 'denied access' to Saddam
This is also kind of annoying.
First I had heard it on the news last night so it took some diggin' around ... but in the text just below the headline 'Iraqi suspicions' one can read:
That the new sound version was courtesy of the US military was said on the news so I don't have a link for that (yet).The judge on Thursday banned the sound of Saddam Hussein's voice on television - but that merely gave the impression he was being gagged. And then some of the sound was made available anyway.
BBC Lawyers 'denied access' to Saddam
This is also kind of annoying.
-
Chopper
- Tasty Human
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 10:11 pm
- Location: Devil's Playground, Hells Kitchen
Illegal to what? The old Iragi constitution?Tim Hughes wrote:The [new] Iraqi constitution is illegal,
For some reason, this lawyer thinks the old laws are still in effect because the new constitution wasn't approved by a parlament. Where do these morons come from? I really hope guy becomes Saddam's lawyer.
Last edited by Chopper on Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Insane or not, Saddam is still entitled to a lawyer. Or he should be. Having a fair and impartial legal system means that no matter how horrible your crimes have been, and no matter how obvious the guilt is, you are still entitled to have legal councel present to defend you. Even if it's only going to be a show-trial (here he is, here's the evidence, he's guilty, kill'im, time for lunch) a legal councel should be present. Makes things more neat overall.3278 wrote:Why? They're not even his lawyers. And they're fucking insane, so far as I can tell.
As for the trial being illegal, well... That's a gray area that depends very much on your point of view. If they have the time, they should wait until after the elections to hold the trial, so that a properly elected Iraqi sovereign government can ratify the new constitution. If they charge ahead now, Baathists can later claim that their "O great and Glorious Leader" was murdered by a Quisling government put in place by the infidel Americans, and back it up. It'll be tenuous evidence, sure, but some people will believe anything, especially if they can blame someone else for their own misery. After all, it would seem that Osama bin Laden has no trouble finding followers.
Geneticists have established that all women share a common ancestor, called Eve, and that all men share a common ancestor, dubbed Adam. However, it has also been established that Adam was born 80.000 years after Eve. So, the world before him was one of heavy to industral strength lesbianism, one assumes.
-Stephen Fry, QI
-Stephen Fry, QI
Well, to answer that, Chopper...
I assume his lawyer was denied access to the court.
Al-Jazeera wrote: "How do you bring me to this place without any defence attorney?"
---
Saddam had no lawyers to represent him at the arraignment. Formal indictments may not be ready for months.
BBC wrote: Saddam Hussein refused at the end to sign legal papers confirming that he had been read his rights and understood the case against him, saying he wanted his lawyer in court.
CNN wrote: Saddam refused to sign court documents that said he understood what took place in court, noting that he wanted his attorney present.
Saddam did not have legal representation at the hearing.
So in Saddams case, either no lawyer has been appointed for him, he's not been allowed to see a lawyer, or he has a lawyer who was denied access to the court. One of three, take your pick. Too bad they didn't say one way or the other. There's a lot of referrals to this 20-man strong defense team, but no mention of if he actually has a lawyer at present.FOX News wrote: Saddam didn't want to be in court without a lawyer and did not want to sign any papers without his lawyer present
I assume his lawyer was denied access to the court.
Geneticists have established that all women share a common ancestor, called Eve, and that all men share a common ancestor, dubbed Adam. However, it has also been established that Adam was born 80.000 years after Eve. So, the world before him was one of heavy to industral strength lesbianism, one assumes.
-Stephen Fry, QI
-Stephen Fry, QI
-
Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
Bit of a tricky question that. I believe that Saddam is going to be found guilty, no question, because there's to much evidence for any lawyer to explain away in legalese. No sane court anywhere would aquit him. But just because that's true, it doesn't mean that due process should not be followed. In fact, it's my opinion it should be followed to the most minute detail, to try to show the Iraqi people that this isn't a kangaroo court, and even people like Saddam is protected (to an extent) by the law.
Still, Saddam's going away one way or the other, kangaroo court or not. The non-kangaroo court option sounds best to me. But that could just be me.
That isn't a real answer to the question you posed, though, Paul: What good is a lawyer in a kangaroo court? Very little. But they look nice and official.
Still, Saddam's going away one way or the other, kangaroo court or not. The non-kangaroo court option sounds best to me. But that could just be me.
That isn't a real answer to the question you posed, though, Paul: What good is a lawyer in a kangaroo court? Very little. But they look nice and official.
Geneticists have established that all women share a common ancestor, called Eve, and that all men share a common ancestor, dubbed Adam. However, it has also been established that Adam was born 80.000 years after Eve. So, the world before him was one of heavy to industral strength lesbianism, one assumes.
-Stephen Fry, QI
-Stephen Fry, QI
-
Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
see, I figure here is a case where a guy is getting what he has coming. This fullfills my nebulous sense of justice. Maybe it won't be as pretty as we'd like, and maybe doing this won't let us call ourselves fancy names like "Humanitarians" or whatever, but sometimes you just have to Cowboy up.
No one can seriously believe this isn't a kangaroo court, whether they're in Iraq or not. But so what? We know the guy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being a pretty fucking nasty guy. His guilt really isn't in question-its his sentence that is.
And while the image that everyone in the new Iraqi government/regime is equal under the eys of the law, I think they'd be better off starting that after they shoot mr. Hussein. (Or hang him, or chop his head off, or whatever form of Arab capitol punishment is in this week...)
If they're smarrt they'll kill him. Kill him fast and not give him a chance to become some sort of cell block demigouge, or misrepresented symbol of Arabic oppression by Americans.
None of this may make me a nice person-but I think sometimes you have to action. Right or wrong. Law or not. Sometimes right is right, and wrong really is wrong.
One last thing I noticed, and this is a total aside here, am I the only one who thinks of hima s Mr. Hussein? I mean I don't know the guy, so Saddam seems a bit personal. I think its just my weird sense of propreity.
No one can seriously believe this isn't a kangaroo court, whether they're in Iraq or not. But so what? We know the guy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being a pretty fucking nasty guy. His guilt really isn't in question-its his sentence that is.
And while the image that everyone in the new Iraqi government/regime is equal under the eys of the law, I think they'd be better off starting that after they shoot mr. Hussein. (Or hang him, or chop his head off, or whatever form of Arab capitol punishment is in this week...)
If they're smarrt they'll kill him. Kill him fast and not give him a chance to become some sort of cell block demigouge, or misrepresented symbol of Arabic oppression by Americans.
None of this may make me a nice person-but I think sometimes you have to action. Right or wrong. Law or not. Sometimes right is right, and wrong really is wrong.
One last thing I noticed, and this is a total aside here, am I the only one who thinks of hima s Mr. Hussein? I mean I don't know the guy, so Saddam seems a bit personal. I think its just my weird sense of propreity.
Good question.3278 wrote:I'm curious if the Iraqi interim constitution even specifies the right to a lawyer.
So, the answer is yes-- the right to counsel is indeed specified.Article 15 [Rule of Law, Search, Seizure, Arrest, Fair Trial]
(A) No civil law shall have retroactive effect unless the law so stipulates. There shall be neither a crime, nor punishment, except by law in effect at the time the crime is committed.
(B) Police, investigators, or other governmental authorities may not violate the sanctity of private residences, whether these authorities belong to the federal or regional governments, governorates, municipalities, or local administrations, unless a judge or investigating magistrate has issued a search warrant in accordance with applicable law on the basis of information provided by a sworn individual who knew that bearing false witness would render him liable to punishment. Extreme exigent circumstances, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, may justify a warrantless search, but such exigencies shall be narrowly construed. In the event that a warrantless search is carried out in the absence of an extreme exigent circumstance, the evidence so seized, and any other evidence found derivatively from such search, shall be inadmissible in connection with a criminal charge, unless the court determines that the person who carried out the warrantless search believed reasonably and in good faith that the search was in accordance with the law.
(C) No one may be unlawfully arrested or detained, and no one may be detained by reason of political or religious beliefs.
(D) All persons shall be guaranteed the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, regardless of whether the proceeding is civil or criminal. Notice of the proceeding and its legal basis must be provided to the accused without delay.
(E) The accused is innocent until proven guilty pursuant to law, and he likewise has the right to engage independent and competent counsel, to remain silent in response to questions addressed to him with no compulsion to testify for any reason, to participate in preparing his defense, and to summon and examine witnesses or to ask the judge to do so. At the time a person is arrested, he must be notified of these rights.
(F) The right to a fair, speedy, and open trial shall be guaranteed.
(G) Every person deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall have the right of recourse to a court to determine the legality of his arrest or detention without delay and to order his release if this occurred in an illegal manner.
(H) After being found innocent of a charge, an accused may not be tried once again on the same charge.
(I) Civilians may not be tried before a military tribunal. Special or exceptional courts may not be established.
(J) Torture in all its forms, physical or mental, shall be prohibited under all circumstances, as shall be cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. No confession made under compulsion, torture, or threat thereof shall be relied upon or admitted into evidence for any reason in any proceeding, whether criminal or otherwise.
It's "special or exceptional" clause also seems to suggest that Saddam can't be tried until a full national judiciary is up and running, and that he'll be able to take full advantage of it, including having his case thrown out on a technicality, if one exists.
Also, it claims no laws will be retroactive, lending credence to Saddam's claim that all his acts were lawful as the sovereign of Iraq, and that the charges are illegal.
So,yeah, it's a pretty good bet that the interim constitution will largely be ignored.
Also, it claims no laws will be retroactive, lending credence to Saddam's claim that all his acts were lawful as the sovereign of Iraq, and that the charges are illegal.
So,yeah, it's a pretty good bet that the interim constitution will largely be ignored.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
-
FlakJacket
- Orbital Cow Private
- Posts: 4064
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: Birminghman, UK
Faintly amusing. We come to bring you law and justice! What? You mean we can't prosecute him? Shit. I'm sure they can rustle up an international court along the lines of like they did for all the Balkan bastards if the local trial fall through. Although I'm pretty sure that the Iraqi's wont give him up now, they'll probably just have to politely ignore some bits.
I'm sure they can rustle up an international court along the lines of like they did for all the Balkan bastards if the local trial fall through. Although I'm pretty sure that the Iraqi's wont give him up now, they'll probably just have to politely ignore some bits. The 86 Rules of Boozing
75. Beer makes you mellow, champagne makes you silly, wine makes you dramatic, tequila makes you felonious.
75. Beer makes you mellow, champagne makes you silly, wine makes you dramatic, tequila makes you felonious.
Even if the court found that Saddam does have immunity from prosecution for acts committed while head of state, they can still try him for crimes he committed *before* he became the head of state. There is still plenty of room for the prosecution to manouevre.Marius wrote:Also, it claims no laws will be retroactive, lending credence to Saddam's claim that all his acts were lawful as the sovereign of Iraq, and that the charges are illegal.
From an Iraqi blogger
The majority of Iraqis have expressed their desire to see him hanged publicly as soon as possible to mark an end to his era and to move on. A few said they didn't care anymore and that they were more interested in their future, and an even smaller group (from the Sunni areas) said they were against the trial. The Arab media (Al-Jazeera to be exact) focused on the last group. They already had a reporter at Al-Oja, Saddam's home village near Tikrit, interviewing members of Saddam's tribe to 'prove' that Iraqis were against trying their 'leader'. Today, they reported a small rally of about 50 kids in Sammara carrying posters of Saddam demonstrating against the trial of the 'honourable hero'. Al-Jazeera described them as 'crowds of demonstrators' even though the opposite was very obvious.
However, many Iraqis were disappointed in the secrecy surrounding the whole procedures. Only 3 minutes of the half hour session were displayed with audio, the room was apparently not designed to be a courtroom, and something was definitely not 'right' about the whole thing. The judge looked young and a bit nervous, the back of his head was glistening with sweat, and he stopped just short from addressing Saddam by Sayyidi (as he was always addressed before). I admire his bravery though. Saddam also shouldn't have been allowed the opportunity to give a sensational speech. I believe he made a fatal mistake by defending his invasion of Kuwait and calling Kuwaitis 'dogs'. The list of charges also raise some questions. There are no
penalties for crimes against humanity in Iraqi criminal law as far as I know, so there is some confusion here.
Maybe the new government is gauging the reaction of the Iraqi street, but a live public and transparent trial was promised, though I doubt anything is going to convince the enemies of the new Iraq who are now clinging to human rights excuses. They say the court is illegitimate. Where they legitimate under Saddam? If yes, then Saddam is going to be judged by his own Revolutionary Command Council amended laws, according to which he should face the death penalty for desertion and abandoning the battlefield when he was General Commander of Armed Forces last April.
-
Chopper
- Tasty Human
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 10:11 pm
- Location: Devil's Playground, Hells Kitchen
crone, please fix the link.
Here is an article that I think you will all appriciate. BBC will soon compete with Al Jazeera.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040624 ... -2783r.htm
Here is an article that I think you will all appriciate. BBC will soon compete with Al Jazeera.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040624 ... -2783r.htm