Saddam trial, death sentence 'unfair,' rights group says
- Thread starter CBC News
- Start date
Hussein didn't get a fair trial. So what?
Do militarily disposed leaders normally get fair trials?
Would Hussein getting a fair trial change anything?
Do militarily disposed leaders normally get fair trials?
Would Hussein getting a fair trial change anything?
Saddam Hussein was tried, convicted, and sentenced, by what could only be described as a kangaroo court. Saddam was no more guilty than a good number of other Arab leaders. The Saudi royal family publically beheads a couple dozen people a month while sharing that countries oil wealth mainly among the family. Interesting that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi but Iraq was invaded.
I was listening to a program on NPR where they were interviewing a legal scholar on the trial, and he said that, for the most part, the trial was fair, not to mention open and transperant. I believe it was broadcast on television.
Listen to the interview here
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6441761
Listen to the interview here
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6441761
Americans trained Iraqi judges? Didn't they have a judicial system before the invasion? The man was president of Iraq when the invasion began. The invasion was not sanctioned by any international body. The country has been for all purposes destroyed. I can't applaud that trial. There was a perfectly good international criminal court that was the only place to try Saddam Hussein.
So, in other words, you're upset that Iraqi sovereignty was denied via the invasion, yet you want to deny Iraqi sovereignty over the trial of an Iraqi President whom the same human rights group said was responsible for the disappearance of 200,000-300,000 Iraqis?
Yes. I was upset that sovereignty was denied to Iraq by the invasion. I was upset that the infrastructure in almost every city in Iraq was destroyed. I was upset that tens of thousands were killed by the bombing, and about a million perished because of the sanctions. This Goddamned war was originally touted as "Operation Iraq Freedom", which is another joke. The civil war will fester for another twenty years, by which time Iraq as a country will be finished.
Fair enough.
So why would you want to deny Iraqis their own sovereignty to try their own President who committed horrendous crimes against his people in their own courts? If political issues should be resolved within sovereign countries, i.e. the removal of Saddam as Iraqis see fit, why should judicial issues not also be resolved within sovereign countries, i.e. the trial of Saddam as Iraqis see fit?
So why would you want to deny Iraqis their own sovereignty to try their own President who committed horrendous crimes against his people in their own courts? If political issues should be resolved within sovereign countries, i.e. the removal of Saddam as Iraqis see fit, why should judicial issues not also be resolved within sovereign countries, i.e. the trial of Saddam as Iraqis see fit?
I have to agree with you on this one Juan.
Iraq and the ME, was better off with Saddam in charged. A necessary evil as it were. Albeit, an ugly one, but neither the illegal action of invading Iraq nore his diposition and subsequent trial, will fix anything. Just prolong the blood shed and the destruction.
No post war plan.
I'd have to side with you too Juan.
Perhaps the intent wasn't completely nutz (assuming I ignore for a moment the whole oil factor) in ousting Saddam, but the shake-up to regional -though fragile and tense- stability is unforgivable.
The whole of the middle east will never be the same, and I can only hope that other Islamic and Arab nations will not condemn all "western" countries to the same category as the mind-bogglingly difficult situation the States have placed themselves.
Somehow I hope it will come out in the wash. How many more months of Bush? I'm still surprised Gore didn't win. (It takes me a long time to get over things...)
I'd have to side with you too Juan.
Perhaps the intent wasn't completely nutz (assuming I ignore for a moment the whole oil factor) in ousting Saddam, but the shake-up to regional -though fragile and tense- stability is unforgivable.
The whole of the middle east will never be the same, and I can only hope that other Islamic and Arab nations will not condemn all "western" countries to the same category as the mind-bogglingly difficult situation the States have placed themselves.
Somehow I hope it will come out in the wash. How many more months of Bush? I'm still surprised Gore didn't win. (It takes me a long time to get over things...)
The US violated international law and the UN Charter when it invaded Iraq. Yet the UN didn't issue a single word condemning the US.
So what if a kangeroo courst executes Hussein?
Will that change the fact that the American foreign policies have killed more people in the last three years than Hussein did in the previous decade?
Will that change the fact that George Bush is responsible for more violent American deaths than Osama Bin Laden?
Will Hussein's execution stop the Iraqi civil war?
In the overall scheme of things, the death of another Iraqi changes nothing. At least Hussein deserves death more than other Iraqis who died as a result of America's war crime.
Speaking of people convicted of torture and murder, when is Bush going to be tried for committing the same types of crimes as Hussein?
So what if a kangeroo courst executes Hussein?
Will that change the fact that the American foreign policies have killed more people in the last three years than Hussein did in the previous decade?
Will that change the fact that George Bush is responsible for more violent American deaths than Osama Bin Laden?
Will Hussein's execution stop the Iraqi civil war?
In the overall scheme of things, the death of another Iraqi changes nothing. At least Hussein deserves death more than other Iraqis who died as a result of America's war crime.
Speaking of people convicted of torture and murder, when is Bush going to be tried for committing the same types of crimes as Hussein?
Bush's Crimes
Since George W. Bush came to power, he has systematically flouted international agreements that the US had previously signed up to.
While previous US administrations might not be able to claim much better records, it is clear that Bush is not even making an attempt to stick to these numerous treaties, laws and obligations.
Rogue State
List of International Obligations violated by George W. Bush
US as nuclear rogue</B>
International Law Relating to nuclear weapons:</B>
International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
Non Proliferation Treaty
Geneva Conventions Protocol
UN Charter
US Constitution.
(source: IEER)
Environmental Agreements:
Failure to Ratify Kyoto Agreement on Climate Change:
(source: NRDC)
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control</B>
http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php
The west has a long history of treating Muslims and Arabs poorly. The illegal invasion of Iraq is just a recent example.
Read this section and try to find a single good thing for Muslims and Arabs resulting from contact with the west:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East#European_domination
good bye sadam
I agree with all who say George Bush made a "huge" error in judgement by invading Iraq
George Bush is truly an "idiot", a ignorant person, who somehow landed that job as president, how could
that ever have happened, I guess it almost didn't, as Al Gore probably was the legal winner of that
election. I certainly hope, when the next president is elected, he has some knowledge of the international
affairs, and is familiar with the operations and habits of other countries, Bush knew nothing, that is
why he hired Condoleeza Rice, as she is the expert on foreign affairs, and without her, he would have
been lost, and "all" would have know early on, how ignorant he is. It's a shame that the most powerful
country in the world elected him as their president, just a dirty rotton shame.
But now, after the fact, so many people are dead, from many walks of life, we are now at the point in
time where Sadam Hussein has to be held accountable for "his" crimes, and he should.
He did do those horrible things to the people of iraq, and he has to pay, he is guilty. Where were those
human rights people when he was commiting those crimes, the iraqi criminal system is handling his case,
and they do things in "their" way, which might not be exactly ours, but it is their country, and it is
their decision.
I agree with all who say George Bush made a "huge" error in judgement by invading Iraq
George Bush is truly an "idiot", a ignorant person, who somehow landed that job as president, how could
that ever have happened, I guess it almost didn't, as Al Gore probably was the legal winner of that
election. I certainly hope, when the next president is elected, he has some knowledge of the international
affairs, and is familiar with the operations and habits of other countries, Bush knew nothing, that is
why he hired Condoleeza Rice, as she is the expert on foreign affairs, and without her, he would have
been lost, and "all" would have know early on, how ignorant he is. It's a shame that the most powerful
country in the world elected him as their president, just a dirty rotton shame.
But now, after the fact, so many people are dead, from many walks of life, we are now at the point in
time where Sadam Hussein has to be held accountable for "his" crimes, and he should.
He did do those horrible things to the people of iraq, and he has to pay, he is guilty. Where were those
human rights people when he was commiting those crimes, the iraqi criminal system is handling his case,
and they do things in "their" way, which might not be exactly ours, but it is their country, and it is
their decision.
What a joke. Did all the people he had murdered have any sort of trial?? He's getting what he deserves.
I agree. Hussein didn't get a fair trail and there's no reason to expect that he would get a fair trial. All I'm saying it would have been a surprise if he got a fair trial.
Now I think its time to move on to other leaders who are responsible for the same scale of death and destruction in Iraq as Hussein.
The biggest cause of deaths in Iraq over the last decade resulted from economic sanctions, which were supposed to be lifted after Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. Its clear now that these sanctions were kept long after Iraq got rid of its WMDs. UNSCOM Chief Inspector said Iraq was more or less free of WMDs back in 1998.
Albright herself admitted the Clinton adminstration had a criminal lack of concern for Iraqis.
It was common knowledge before the invasion that Iraq probably did not possess WMDs. No one could say this with 100% certainty, because the non-existance of something can never be proven with 100% certainty.
Instead of recognizing Iraq did not possess WMDs, the US refused to allow the economic sanctions to be lifted or even loosened until Iraq proved the unprovable.
The real reason the US wanted the weapons inspections to continue was that by 1998 UNSCOM had become a front for US espionage in Iraq and to soften Iraq up for the 2003 invasion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/301168.stm
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html
Then there was the illegal 2003 US led invasion of Iraq. Based on lies and and half truths, the Bush administration convinced the American people that Iraq was a serious threat and involved in the events of 9/11 so they wpould approve their plan to commit war crimes.
At the rate people are dying in Iraq, the Bush administration will soon be responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Hussein.
Since the Iraq war was as illegal as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait or Iran, shouldn't the architects of this war be held to the same standard as Hussein?
Hussein's cruel use of chemical weapons is as well documented as America's equally cruel use of napalm, cluster bombs, phosphorous bombs and depleted uranium.
The Bush administration routinely authorized killing innocent Iraqi civilians:
With these results:
WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES OF IRAQ WAR
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
Also, soldiers who fought against the US have been tortured (waterboarding), murdered and denied rights guaranteed by Geneva conventions, international laws and the UN Charter.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866
Since the Bush administration like the Hussein administration approved war crimes, crimes against humanity and other atrocities, shouldn't they also be held accountable just like Saddam Hussein?
Seems hypocritical to favor holding Hussein responsible for his atrocities yet ignore Bush's atrocities.
Now I think its time to move on to other leaders who are responsible for the same scale of death and destruction in Iraq as Hussein.
The biggest cause of deaths in Iraq over the last decade resulted from economic sanctions, which were supposed to be lifted after Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. Its clear now that these sanctions were kept long after Iraq got rid of its WMDs. UNSCOM Chief Inspector said Iraq was more or less free of WMDs back in 1998.
Albright herself admitted the Clinton adminstration had a criminal lack of concern for Iraqis.
It was common knowledge before the invasion that Iraq probably did not possess WMDs. No one could say this with 100% certainty, because the non-existance of something can never be proven with 100% certainty.
Instead of recognizing Iraq did not possess WMDs, the US refused to allow the economic sanctions to be lifted or even loosened until Iraq proved the unprovable.
The real reason the US wanted the weapons inspections to continue was that by 1998 UNSCOM had become a front for US espionage in Iraq and to soften Iraq up for the 2003 invasion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/301168.stm
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html
Then there was the illegal 2003 US led invasion of Iraq. Based on lies and and half truths, the Bush administration convinced the American people that Iraq was a serious threat and involved in the events of 9/11 so they wpould approve their plan to commit war crimes.
At the rate people are dying in Iraq, the Bush administration will soon be responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Hussein.
Since the Iraq war was as illegal as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait or Iran, shouldn't the architects of this war be held to the same standard as Hussein?
Hussein's cruel use of chemical weapons is as well documented as America's equally cruel use of napalm, cluster bombs, phosphorous bombs and depleted uranium.
The Bush administration routinely authorized killing innocent Iraqi civilians:
With these results:
WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES OF IRAQ WAR
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
Also, soldiers who fought against the US have been tortured (waterboarding), murdered and denied rights guaranteed by Geneva conventions, international laws and the UN Charter.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866
Since the Bush administration like the Hussein administration approved war crimes, crimes against humanity and other atrocities, shouldn't they also be held accountable just like Saddam Hussein?
Seems hypocritical to favor holding Hussein responsible for his atrocities yet ignore Bush's atrocities.
I have absolutely no problem with Saddam getting his due. The problem is the fact that other tyrants have committed just as much evil if not more without getting their just due. The Saudi's Fauds, the Turkish killing of Kurds, Russian killing of Chechens, etc.
It is justice only when applied on a uniform basis. That is not to say that Saddam didn't deserve what he got. Only that others need their just desserts as well.
I figure Saddam should have got his due where they found him. Four words would have saved writing millions: "Fire in the hole!"
Wolf
Wolf