Who has the right to try Saddam Hussein? Were his alleged crimes offenses against the previous Iraqi state? I think not. Are they offenses against the present Iraqi constitution? Even if they were, this would be a case of “ex post facto”, or trying a person on something that wasn’t illegal when he did it – which is against the US Bill of Rights, I assume, because it’s unjust. This said, why is he being tried in Iraq?
It seems to me there is a proper court to try him in: the International Court in the Hague. Only they have the authority to do so, unlike either the US (also ex post facto) or either Iraqi government.
It seems Bush is stepping on others’ rights in his zeal to prosecute Saddam. Unless it is an ad hoc court as the post-Nazi court seems to have been – called into existence in the name of justice by the powers of the civilized world. In this case, is the US "“the civilized world”?
Does anyone think Saddam is being tried in the wrong venue?
Yep, I certainly do. As much as a bastard Saddam is, I believe he does have a point about the court being illegitimate–as it was setup by an occupying force.
It would have been much better if he was tried in the Hague. Saddam wouldn’t be able to use the defense he is apparently going to use.
Of course the reason is obvious as to why he is being tried in an Iraqi court…symbolism. I agree that it makes for better symbolism if Saddam is tried by the people he oppressed but it does not make the most sense legally. Like you said, this trial would be better handled by an International court.
Where symbolism comes in, it seems to me it might be better if the international community which took the action of taking Saddam out should determine the agents of his trial – and hence the International court would be an appropriate choice.
And as for being judged by his people, I’m not sure if it’s right to be tried by your victims, and not by a court in the third-person.
Well I agree, but what I meant to say is that the way the trial is now, it is better symbolism for the Iraqis and the mission in Iraq itself–at least on the surface. When you look deeper I think it was another mistake, as it allows Saddam to argue on a technicality that he might be right about.
Well as for being tried by his people, I don’t think they are victims, per se. The case against Saddam is mainly concerning the murders that occured in a Shite village after an assassination attempt on Saddam’s life there in 1982, I believe.
Put it this way, if China invaded the US (could happen, they’ve got enough troops to defeat your country without a shot being fired), set up a new government with new laws then tried all of you under the new laws (which of course your broke while under the old laws) would you feel that the court was legitimate?
No, of course not. That’s why we need a World Court. Who is it that keeps blocking the World Court? Oh yes, it’s the US…
Unbelievable. What about the other random murders? The parties where the entertainment was the torture and murder of random people kidnapped off the streets? The environmental warfare against the marsh Arabs? (Diverting their rivers and converting their land into desert). Those pesky non-existent WMDs which managed to wipe out Kurdish towns? The constant air warfare against the Kurds? (There’s a reason why we had a no-fly zone - it was to keep Saddam’s helicopters from attacking unarmed towns). You’re forgetting an awful lot that Saddam’s guilty of. Just because something is legal (and in Iraq, Saddam was the law) doesn’t make it right. The notion of crimes against humanity is firmly rooted in the notion of objective ethics - that some things are just wrong, no matter what your cultural excuses for it are.
Why a more appropriate choice than the Iraqi’s? The international community doesn’t, and didn’t give a crap about Saddam or his abuses. How could they be expected to take this trial seriously?
How so? First they’d have to get here, which is no easy trick with our Pacific Navy and Air Force in the way. Then their infantry would have to resist merciless bombardment by air, and armored vehicles by ground. Infantry hasn’t been much of a heavy-hitting force since the Korean war - our tanks and fighting vehicles have gotten too good. Unless they are in an urban environment, they’re helpless against long range armaments.
[/quote]
I do. I think the right venue to try Saddam is through his uncany face.
And what exactly are they gona do without a shot being fired? Use soldiers’ balls instead? China invading America… what era are you living in man, pre WWII? This is the nuclear age for the gaints, my friend. It’ gona be a mushroom firework.
Unbelievable? I’m forgetting? No, I think you are confused.
I merely stated what I believe Saddam is actually being tried for. If you don’t like what he is being tried for I suggest you write a letter of complaint to the Iraqi court. They made the decision to try him for this incident, not me.
China could bankrupt the US by landing most of their troops on the east coast then surrendering. The sheer number of prisoners of war the US would then have to deal with would sufficiently disrupt and damage the economy that they’d have to surrender.
Of course it might not work like that in practice…
I don’t know if your cat is con or not, but surely a cat that says mao instead of mIao lives in an abnormal family. And what does your rat say? “I want you, cheesecake”?
Most military analysts don’t think China is even capable of defeating Tiawan, FWIW. They have numbers, but they lack the materials and means to project that infantry power much beyond their own borders. How are they gonna reach America- swim?
