The trial of Saddam - who and where?

[Kylaer]

The U.N., after opposing the removal of Saddam from power, is now clamoring for the chance to try him for his crimes.

Unfortunately, the U.N. doesn't have the best track record of successfully or efficiently prosecuting such cases, with glowing examples such as Slobodan Milosevic being elected to the Serbian parliament while on trial.

I personally believe that Saddam should be given a trial by his fellow Iraqis; they were the ones who suffered under him, as opposed to the U.N., which considered Saddam a cash cow and reaped a nice profit off the oil-for-food program. The U.N. will give Saddam a stage from which he can speak to the world for years to come, as the have with Milosevic; the Iraqis will give him a reasonable trial and a well-deserved death sentence.

[Fabricated]

Depends on when they want to have it really. If you think the judicial system here in the states is slow as hell you haven't seen nothing yet.

Saddam will probably die in prison before they get around to putting him on trial if they're waiting for Iraq to be totally self-governed first.

[Lunkwill_Fook]

I say fuck it and just send the man to a Texas prison.  CAN YOU TOSS THE SALAD, SIR?

[DarkDryad]

Well the I raqis really need to have a firm constitution in place before moving into a court and having trials et al. Id say that he should be tried at the hauge with a tribunal of Iraqi makeup. Try him on universal war crimes charges and  human rights issues and either toss him in a pokey for years upon years or kill him.
I am 100% positive that the US should have absolutly nothing to do with the trial however. This excludes all of the clammoring about how we just wanted to see him dead if he gets the death penalty , which is highly likely.

[Triforcer]

It'll probably happen in Iraq.  We will see.

[Snowspinner]

Saddam being tried in Iraq would be tricky, because it would involve retroactive laws.

Since there is, to date, one country that has demonstrated a willingness to try people not only based on retroactive laws, but furthermore for crimes that actually took place before the country existed, I reccomend that Hussein be tried there.

[Slayerik]

I think he should be tried by an Islamic Tribunal of anti-Semitic, pro-EU French Muslims.

EDIT: As an aside, watch what happens if Osama is captured by someone other than us, particularly the French or British.  That whole "no extradition to countries where the death penalty is a possible penalty, keke ^_^" thing might cause quite a stir.  101st Airborne invading Paris, anyone?

No its more like an extremely paid inmate or guard would happen to gun him down. Or be poisoned. Or get shanked. I don't see paratroopers dropping on France again anytime soon :)

[Triforcer]

Saddam being tried in Iraq would be tricky, because it would involve retroactive laws.

Since there is, to date, one country that has demonstrated a willingness to try people not only based on retroactive laws, but furthermore for crimes that actually took place before the country existed, I reccomend that Hussein be tried there.

Right, I forgot that the U.S. ran the Nuremberg Trials totally by themselves.

[Snowspinner]

Nuremberg was not run by a country - it was done by the international community at large, and as such had a better claim for jurisdiction than Israel did with Eichmann, which was what I was actually referring to.

[Kylaer]

Saddam being tried in Iraq would be tricky, because it would involve retroactive laws.

Since there is, to date, one country that has demonstrated a willingness to try people not only based on retroactive laws, but furthermore for crimes that actually took place before the country existed, I reccomend that Hussein be tried there.

Trying Saddam in Israel? That'd be a bad idea. Israel's already #1 on the Islamic hate list; trying Saddam there would just boost his credibility and status as a martyr.

[Snowspinner]

Saddam being tried in Iraq would be tricky, because it would involve retroactive laws.

Since there is, to date, one country that has demonstrated a willingness to try people not only based on retroactive laws, but furthermore for crimes that actually took place before the country existed, I reccomend that Hussein be tried there.

Trying Saddam in Israel? That'd be a bad idea. Israel's already #1 on the Islamic hate list; trying Saddam there would just boost his credibility and status as a martyr.

Well, sure, if you want to use reason and sense. =P

[Kylaer]

If it was a choice between trial in Israel and trial at The Hague, I'd say go for Israel; at least there you can expect him to be convicted, unlike the Hague (Milosevic, anyone?).  There's just no reason to hold the trial in Israel when Iraq will work perfectly well. The Iraqis have the best claim anyway.

[DarkDryad]

True they have the best claim but no official constitution under which to try him. Also remember he wrote most of the laws they had before this so its probably a safe bet hes immune from all punishment

[Tebonas]

Tricky one that. First pick would go to Iraq, his crimes being against his own people and that. No other country has any business trialing him. Least of all Israel. There could be made a case for the USA, because they invaded his country and later arrested him. Den Hague would be an international tribunal which would be a good compromise, but their track record is less than stellar. I would be for an Iraqi trial under international supervision, if the Iraqi laws provide the means for a fitting punishment.

Its really really easier when your own country revolts and the people shoot you in some backyard behind your palace.

[Vercingetorix]

[...]
Unfortunately, the U.N. doesn't have the best track record of successfully or efficiently prosecuting such cases, with glowing examples such as Slobodan Milosevic being elected to the Serbian parliament while on trial.
[...]

Dude, I think it speaks more about the fucking mo-fo's sipping coffee on sunny afternoon downtown plazzas, while their 'Army' is busy raping & looting the neighboring provinces. And then (re-)electing the asshole who started the whole shit. Fuck the Serbs*. Really.

[...]
Its really really easier when your own country revolts and the people shoot you in some backyard behind your palace.

Agreed. Unfortunately.


-------
* OK, not *all* of them.
Another thing : The Hague Tribunal has no jurisdiction on national lawcodes, nor does its accusations/condemnations have any repercussions on a person's civil rights, such as eligibility in his own country, unless the local lawmakers include that in their code of laws.

[personman]

<=== Saddam is the ultimate personman... :)

Too much political fallout and negative justification for other nonsense is guaranteed if the trial is held anywhere but Iraq.  I'm all in favor of the UN or World Court holding a separate trial but I'd want Saddam to physically stand in Iraq.

Asking the UN to conduct the trial feels wrong.  It's a body of mostly tyrants of all flavors and their history of holding other tyrants accountable is at best slender.

If we want to put pressure on the ME to reform to representative governments fully engaged with the world economy we put Saddam on trial in Iraq.

Archie: Winners, like North Vietnam?
Otto: Shut up. We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie.
Archie: [going into a cowboy-like drawl] I'm tellin' ya baby, they kicked your little ass there. Boy, they whooped yer hide REAL GOOD.

[HaemishM]

Israel would have some justification for trying Saddam, since during Gulf War 1, he did attack them with Scuds and shit. Not to mention Kuwait, which got fucking invaded starting off this whole shitstorm. Or hell, just drop him into the Kurdish New Year's Eve party tied up with a bow and a video tape of the shit he did with chemical weapons in 1988. Or even Iran, if you want to go back to the start of it.

It isn't like this fuckhead was confined to fucking with his own people; he did a good bit to other sovereign nations as well.

He will have to be tried in Iraq by his own people or by the UN. Nothing else will be politically palatable.

[Snowspinner]

The problem I have with Iraq is that I don't think a new constitution and judicial system should start off with punishing people under laws that didn't exist when the crime was committed.

Which means the UN or the Hague.

That or just shoot him in the face and call it a day. Because, frankly, if we try him in Iraq, it's going to be a kangaroo court, and they're strapped for cash, so let's save them the money on that one.

[CrashCat]

Calling it a kangaroo court is really a stretch of technicalities to the point of making common sense beg for mercy.  Do you really think the court will need the kind of laws an established nation like the US would have in order to determine guilt on things like torture and murder?  I'm no lawyer, but as a human I can tell you that I don't need a book of revised code to tell me that he did things that were wrong.  The "I didn't know torturing and murdering my own people was wrong because it wasn't illegal in the law books I created when I was ruler" defense is pretty sad crap.

[Romp]

Saddam being tried in Iraq would be tricky, because it would involve retroactive laws.

Since there is, to date, one country that has demonstrated a willingness to try people not only based on retroactive laws, but furthermore for crimes that actually took place before the country existed, I reccomend that Hussein be tried there.

wouldnt need to involve retroactive laws really, if he is tried for crimes against humanity, genocide etc, these are laws of universal jurisdiction in international law.

I think he should be tried by the ICC, thats what its there for.  There's no way he's getting off for gasing the Kurds

[Arnold]

Try him on universal war crimes charges...

I'm not denying the fact that Sadaam was a bad man, but how on earth could you consider charging him with war crimes?  He didn't do anything during our conquest of Iraq.

[Romp]

yea but he could be tried for using chemical weapons in the Iran Iraq war, genocide against the Kurds etc etc

[TheTick]

Heh.  A trial.  

Nice concept, but we could save a whole lot of money by just dropping him off on a busy street corner in Iraqi Kurdistan.  If you're big on documentation, you could have a camera running when you do it.

B.

[Snowspinner]

Calling it a kangaroo court is really a stretch of technicalities to the point of making common sense beg for mercy.  Do you really think the court will need the kind of laws an established nation like the US would have in order to determine guilt on things like torture and murder?  I'm no lawyer, but as a human I can tell you that I don't need a book of revised code to tell me that he did things that were wrong.  The "I didn't know torturing and murdering my own people was wrong because it wasn't illegal in the law books I created when I was ruler" defense is pretty sad crap.

And, see, if that's the opinion of the entire jury, then it's not a trial.

A trial assumes an impartial judge and jury - at least, impartial until the evidence is presented.

If your mind is made up that he's guilty, then you shouldn't bother with a trial. You should just execute him.

[daveNYC]

I say we give him to Iran.  They're still pissed off about that whole mustard gas thing.

[koboshi]

Nice concept, but we could save a whole lot of money by just dropping him off on a busy street corner in Iraqi Kurdistan. If you're big on documentation, you could have a camera running when you do it.

 Put a little more into that I think you could pitch it to Hollywood...


   -Establishing shots of Baghdad-

   {Breaks squeal}

   A black van accelerates out of frame revealing a man sprawled on the sidewalk. He's an un-groomed man with long hair and a beard reaching almost to his belly. The beard covers most of his obviously new shirt. He scampers to the mud brick wall on the other side of the sidewalk.  He stares intently at the eyes of the passers by, studying them.

   -P.O.V. Sadam-

   Men and women pass back and forth paying little heed to the scruffy looking man with curiously clean clothes.  Finally one face catches his eye. He watches as curiosity grows into… recognition.

   -Close Sadam-

   He runs off frame left. Camera holds while murmurs grow to shouts and people start to run through frame.

   -title overlay fade in-

   Saddam

   -fade background to black-

   Announcer: This July fourth, they'll celebrate Independence Day, over his dead body.

   {Sadam screams}


I think we have something here.

[CrashCat]

The "I didn't know torturing and murdering my own people was wrong because it wasn't illegal in the law books I created when I was ruler" defense is pretty sad crap.

And, see, if that's the opinion of the entire jury, then it's not a trial.

A trial assumes an impartial judge and jury - at least, impartial until the evidence is presented.

Ok, that makes more sense than what I was reading before.  The "committing crimes that weren't crimes when they were committed" is a cheap cop-out, but I have to admit finding someone who doesn't already think he's a scumbag out there ought to be pretty damn hard.  On the other hand, we manage to find enough ignorant people around the USA to make a jury for even really high-profile cases.  I've got to imagine that even they have enough people to make up that jury, although they've also got to worry about the people who still want Saddam to come back and worship at his feet.  It could be tricky though, sure.  

I thought you were trying to go down the 'how the hell would he know they were crimes' road, which just seems silly to me when he did a lot more basic evil things than just make missiles that reach too far.  I think no matter what religious or secular values they agree on over there that things like murder and torture are against them.

[Snowspinner]

No, no, I was trying to go down the straight-up jurisdiction line. Generally, applying laws retroactively is considered a bad thing in a legal system. In recent history, the only two times it's happened that are remotely accepted as good ideas by the world at large were the Nuremberg trials and Israel trying Eichmann.

If Iraq were to try Hussein, they would be creating a constitution, creating a bunch of laws, and then applying those laws to a point in time before they were established. That's, in terms of the establishment of precedent and the establishment of a fair judiciary, a bad thing. Because it really establishes that your laws do not exist to govern the population, but rather to allow you to punish and execute whomever you want. It would make the point of the trial be getting Saddam rather than applying the rule of law/

Saddam Hussein is already liable under international law, and trying him in the Hague doesnt' present any of those problems. But if you're going to try him in Iraq, well, Iraq's legal system would probably suffer far less fundamental damage if he were just executed as an enemy of the state after a secret trial than if he were given the same sort of trial an Iraqi citizen might expect.

[AOFanboi]

yea but he could be tried for using chemical weapons in the Iran Iraq war, genocide against the Kurds etc etc

And if he denies it, you could just call in the American and British companies that sold him the materials in the first place as witnesses. Plus whatever CIA personell trained the "nice" Iraqi in the use of the chamical weapons against the "evil" Iranians.

[Romp]

thats an interesting point actually, American government woudlnt want prosecutors calling Rumsfeld or other American officials who were involved in the US-Iraqi relationship in the 80s as witnesses.  Could be very embarassing.

There wouldnt be any retroactive law problems with doing it in Iraq anyway.  In fact there already has been an Iraqi Special Tribunal for Crimes Against Humanity established by the Governing Council specifically for the purposes of trying former Iraqi leaders:

http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/domestic/iraqispecialtribunal.htm

If the issue arose then I would imagine that it would be a fairly simple argument that the acts were illegal under Iraqi and international law at the time they occurred.  Iraq had signed the Geneva convention.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/07/1078594234340.html?from=storyrhs

From this article it seems that the decision has already been made to try him in Iraq, with Iraqi prosecutors but that America and allies would be gathering evidence to help the prosecutors.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

Who: humanity
Where: four feet beyond a rifle barrel

[daveNYC]

Who: humanity
Where: four feet beyond a rifle barrel

No, no, no.  First we give him a just and fair trial, then we shoot him.

[Dark Vengeance]

Regardless of whether or not they try him, they should put him in the next "celebrity boxing" against Bush I. Maybe if we're lucky, they'll catch Osama and we can make it a tag team matchup with W.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............