|
The Saddam Trial: Justice or Farce?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
| quote: | In the months after Saddam Hussein's capture, one pledge rang out. George Bush declared that Saddam would receive the justice he had "denied ... to the people of Iraq". Paul Bremer foresaw "the kind of justice he denied his own people". Dick Cheney guaranteed "the justice he denied to millions". Similar words from different politicians are not necessarily false. But a statement promising justice while presuming guilt is worth scrutinising - and the closer one looks, the more dubious it seems.
The most ardent apologist for the Iraqi special tribunal would admit that it has teething troubles. To characterise its dismissals, resignations and assassinations as such is, however, to underestimate the problem. The courtroom drama is less farce than tragicomedy; and history offers countless reminders of what Iraqis might expect for a denouement.
[...]
The most significant legacy of 1945 is not the platitude that Saddam will get the justice he denied his people. It is a warning uttered by Robert Jackson, the US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg: "If you are determined to execute a man in any case, there is no occasion for a trial. The world yields no respect to courts that are merely organised to convict." Events in the Green Zone have, it seems, become precisely what Jackson reviled: a ritual aimed at prosecuting Saddam very publicly to death.
[...]
To laud Saddam's trial as a humanitarian milestone is a politician's lie. Iraq's invaders opened up an inferno, including notions of justice as foreseeable as they are loathsome. The prosecution will never symbolise the rebirth of the rule of law. The hanging to come will signify nothing but sleight of hand. A more fitting tribute to the tragedy unleashed by Operation Iraqi Freedom would be Saddam's head, shot through the temple and stuck on a pole, with nary a human-rights lawyer in sight. But that's just a legal opinion. |
Full article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1746292,00.html
Saddam isn't going to get any sympathy from me, regardless of the verdict, but I think this article raises some good points. There have been several occasions throughout the trial of Saddam Hussein where the process has been legally dubious at best (for instance not allowing Saddam to talk with his defence team, continuing the trial in the absense of Saddam and his lawyers etc.) and this - for me - undermines the legitimacy of the entire trial. Where the verdict seems almost pre-ordained, and attempts are made to prevent Saddam Hussein from properly defending the charges raised against him, the televised procedings seem almost farcical and are antithetical to the "Iraqi justice" that this trial is supposed to be demonstrating to the world.
It's fairly clear that Saddam is guilty of the charges brought against him and I've got no doubt that in a fair, thorough trial this would be the eventual verdict. The question therefore has to be, why aren't more attempts being made to ensure that Saddam Hussein is receiving at least the most basic of legal rights (presumption of innocence, right to proper counsel etc.)? If failing to grant him these rights just detracts from the legitimacy of the outcome, surely it is in the interest of those staging the trial to ensure they are granted to the former dictator in full? |
|
|
| tranceNlife |
Farce.
Send Bush to Geneva for War Crimes. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceNlife
Farce.
Send Bush to Geneva for War Crimes. |
send you to the mods :)
renegade, you honestly think he will get what he deserves in Iraq? i doubt it STRONGLY. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
that made less sense posting than your swiss-cheese brain processing nerve signals at your current state of mental invalidity. who says i'm an immigrant and how am i a peasant? coming from someone from india who lists his occupation is "doing drugs" and interests as "drugs" and who gets banned to come back with a new account and make it obvious. i only hope to one day possess your intelect and sly wit ;)
wait i forgot, you can't read and comprehend. so i'm just wasting my time. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
:wtf:
what does that have to do with anything |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
Damn you Renegade!
I just posted this superb article myself!!!! |
|
|
| tranceNlife |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
:wtf:
what does that have to do with anything |
Nothing. Just wanted to get the message across. |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
Lol. You have got to be kidding, the "verdict" of this "trial" is already set in stone. You think they are going to find him not guilty?
"Holy Crap! Sorry about that Saddam, guess we were wrong all along huh?
But anyways no harm no foul right? Here is your country back; we uh kinda screwed it up, but you can fix it right? Just kill some Kurds, that always seems to work."
Lol. The whole thing is a freakin' farce and a worthless media sideshow. We already declared war on his country, invaded and deposed him. Now we have to put him on trial?? Um wtf. This isn't Nazi Germany where we have to find out who exactly did what. Just execute Saddam already, stop going through the freaking motions. This "trial" claiming "justice" is just a slap in the face for "justice". |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceNlife
Send Bush to Geneva for War Crimes. |
Replace "Bush" with "Saddam" and I'd agree entirely. Saddam is guilty of war-crimes and as such he should be tried by a war-crimes tribunal at the Hague. Turning him over to an Iraqi court for trial, especially given the state of the country right now, makes about as much sense as having the Germans trying the Nazis or the Yugoslavians trying Milosevich. At the very least, a European tribunal would be far more adept at carrying out a just trial than the kangaroo court in Iraq is at the moment.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
renegade, you honestly think he will get what he deserves in Iraq? i doubt it STRONGLY. |
If by "get what he deserves" you mean "get the death penalty", then yes: he will get what he deserves. I think that was decided from day one and that's what I'm taking issue with. |
|
|
| Michael19 |
It is a bit of a farce. Considering the Iraqi War was about giving the country freedom and democracy(*s-n-i-g-g-e-r*);) to not have a "western" trial does make it a bit stupid.
He will be found guilty, and he is. But to avoid all the hassle of trying to give him a fair trial they probaly should of just shoot him when they found him and said it happened in a gun fight. |
|
|
| vitamin v |
Not letting him talk to his lawyers and seek some sort personal council that every human has a right to, when they are detained, regardless of their convictions, is seriously not right.
What ever the crime, or the verdict, even if the verdict seems obvious.. and of he will be charged guilty...
Every person on trial anywhere in the would, under any judicial system deserves a FAIR trail.
In saying this though... it's kind hard to try and even begin some sort of "fair" trial with Saddam, because the whole entire universe and ajoining mini - universes know he IS guily. There is too much bias right from the beginning... so there was really no hope a decent fair trial, right from the start.
*post approved by renegade* |
|
|
|
|
