The TRIAL OF SADAAM HUSSEIN


jimmoyer
#1
The fact that the court is starting with a smaller incident, the 1982 massacre of more than 140 Shiite men in the village of Dujail, is a good sign: The investigators do have witnesses, there is documentary evidence, and the story of Dujail is easier to tell than that of more complicated crimes, such as Hussein's genocide campaign against the Kurds or the Shiites of the south. Far from rushing or politicizing the trial, today's hearings will probably be followed by a delay, so more evidence can be gathered.

In the end, it is by the quality of that evidence, and the clarity with which it is conveyed, that this trial should be judged. The result is irrelevant: Quite frankly, it doesn't matter whether Saddam Hussein is drawn and quartered, exiled to Pyongyang, or left to rot in a Baghdad prison. No punishment could make up for the thousands he killed, or for the terror he inflicted on his country.

But if his Sunni countrymen learn what he did to Shiites and Kurds, if the Shiites and Kurds learn what he did to Sunnis, if Iraqis come to realize that his system of totalitarian terror damaged them all, and if others in the Middle East learn that dictatorships can be overthrown, then the trial will have served its purpose. That, and not an arbitrary standard of international law, is how the success of this unusual tribunal should be measured.

applebaumanne@yahoo.com
 
jimmoyer
#2
Sadaam Hussein would still be there if it was up to the world.
So would be Milosovec of Uber Serbia as well.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#3
I'm not trying just to be difficult here

but the U.S. military has killed more innocent civilians than anyone since Adolph Hitler, or Joseph Stalin. Saddam Hussein is rather small potatoes by comparison. Americans only care about genocide when someone else is doing it.
 
manda
#4
hey juan, I agree with you...W should be sent to the Hague and tried with war crimes too
 
Nascar_James
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

I'm not trying just to be difficult here

but the U.S. military has killed more innocent civilians than anyone since Adolph Hitler, or Joseph Stalin. Saddam Hussein is rather small potatoes by comparison. Americans only care about genocide when someone else is doing it.

Juan, what Saddam was doing, deliberately killing innocent civilians who disagreed with him was criminal. There was no excuse for it. However during a war (like the current war on terrorism), civilian casualties will occur. They cannot be avoided and have occured in all our past wars. Innocent casualties of war are not crimes under the rules of warfare (Geneva Convention), however what Saddam was doing in deliberately killing innocent women and children is.
 
jimmoyer
#6
And so Saddam would still be there, as you can see from the posts.

So would have Milosovec.
 
Jo Canadian
#7
Saddam has had a history of being a .

But with all of the problems going down with the corruption abuse and lies for going to Iraq in the first place, why is the frist ...first response to the whole mess in the first place is, "Saddam was a bad guy, so that makes us the good guy" Mentality.

Whitewashing a problem to give y'all the Good Guy image is image alone, it can't change the fact that the government that is going after the bad guys has become no better than those they hunted... or if you are an evolutionist: They are at the top of the food chain so they are the best predator.

There's plenty of Bad guys out there that needed to be dealt with, so why the moral authority to get it on with Saddam? Well most are aware of why, but that's a question that never gets answered anyways without having to revert to: Saddam was a brutal Dictator, he killed "__fill blank here__" civilians... why the Fu*k do you have to chase your tails with a question that has many answers that you are afraid to confront?


This whole trial wouldn't seem as much of a mockery of the world justice system if those that have Sadamm took him to an actual world tribunal...you know the international one that's still functional that Milosavec* went too??? Why with such an internationally known despot does he have to go to a trial for the states and by the states and organized by the states*. Haven't you learned anything since Salem.






*Pardon the spelling
*And don't go saying that it's for and by the people of Iraq that answer is been regurgitated enough already, especially by those running the show.
 
jimmoyer
#8
Good points, Joe Canadian.

But still it does not cancel the need to have Saddam be tried, and I'm not sure the Hague would give the Iraqis any sense of justice either, since most of those countries have not entirely forgiven the debt Saddam contracted with them.

But if his Sunni countrymen learn what he did to Shiites and Kurds, if the Shiites and Kurds learn what he did to Sunnis, if Iraqis come to realize that his system of totalitarian terror damaged them all, and if others in the Middle East learn that dictatorships can be overthrown, then the trial will have served its purpose.
 
moghrabi
#9
I would love to see Saddam, Sharon and Bush being hanged by the balls for their crimes. But Bush doesn't have any balls anyways.
 
peapod
#10
All you do is justify the real reason your in Iraq jimmy, your there to steal another country's natural resources, very distasteful to try and use sadam as your excuse, and also transparent as saran.
 
moghrabi
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Good points, Joe Canadian.

But still it does not cancel the need to have Saddam be tried, and I'm not sure the Hague would give the Iraqis any sense of justice either, since most of those countries have not entirely forgiven the debt Saddam contracted with them.

But if his Sunni countrymen learn what he did to Shiites and Kurds, if the Shiites and Kurds learn what he did to Sunnis, if Iraqis come to realize that his system of totalitarian terror damaged them all, and if others in the Middle East learn that dictatorships can be overthrown, then the trial will have served its purpose.

Why are you so worried about the Shiites now? You always hated their guts sine the Iranian revolution. They are still chanting "Death to America". Why is this strange love all of a sudden.

How come you are in love with the Kurds. You left them to die under different administration and now you are saying that the great America is there to help. What a piece of Sh*t you are preaching. Any grade one knows the truth about the USA nowadays. You only look for your own profits and gains.

I would love to see the US invading the countries in Africa. But there is no oil and they are poor. So why bother?
 
Mad_Hatter
#12
I wonder if perhaps part of the reason saddam is not being tried by the Hague is because the hague will not permit the death penalty? There are a good number of Iraqis and Americans alike who want to see him dead.
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#13
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
 
Reverend Blair
#14
Quote:

I wonder if perhaps part of the reason saddam is not being tried by the Hague is because the hague will not permit the death penalty? There are a good number of Iraqis and Americans alike who want to see him dead.

The lack of the death penalty at the Hague may be part of the reason. The single biggest driving force to Hussein not being tried in an international court is because the United States does not want him to be.

There are two reasons for that.

The first is that if the US cannot retain control over the trial, then instances where they were complicit in Hussein's crimes against humanity will be brought to light.

The second is that US, under the Bush regime, see international law only as convenience to be used when it is politically advantageous for them to do so. While they have no trouble insisting that others follow international law, they have shown themselves unwilling to do so time and again. Recognising the legitimacy of an international court for Hussein's trial would have greatly highlighted that hypocrisy, especially in light of the first point.
 
jimmoyer
#15
Ya know what Rev, I think you're dead on right about that. Especially since the Hague would petition for American held papers and stats on the matter at hand.

Regardless, the Iraqis no more trust the Americans than they do the weasel Europeans who trucked with Saddam and who still have not forgiven all debts to give this country a chance, and nor do they trust the decision making of Europeans concerning Saddam.
 
Reverend Blair
#16
A fair and honest trial would go a long way toward repairing the Iraqi (and greater Middle Eastern) view of bot the United States and Europe though, Jim.

It would also serve the purpose of forcing the US and Europe to examine their own actions over the past few decades.

As for the debt owed to Europe (and the US too) by Iraq and other countries where dictators have been funded to the detriment of their people, try Googling "odious debt".
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote:

Nascar wrote:
Juan, what Saddam was doing, deliberately killing innocent civilians who disagreed with him was criminal. There was no excuse for it. However during a war (like the current war on terrorism), civilian casualties will occur.

James, it is only the the U.S's military might that prevents successive U.S. governments from being hauled before the World Court and sent to prison for their crimes against humanity. You wanna tell the World Court that the bombing and killing of three million VietNamese civilians was an accident? Or the million in Cambodia? Or the half million in Laos? Or the hundred thousand in Iraq? Bull!
 
pastafarian
#18
Quote:

To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.

The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.

Saddam was largely a creation of US realpolitik. When he "Gassed His Own People", he was most likely using US sattelite targetting data aimed at Iran when his US-provided chemical weapons missed their mark, or the wind changed and several thousand Kurds (who incidentally neither considered themselves, nor were they considered by Saddam as "his people"), died. He did target Kurds who were believed to be collaborating with Iran in the war and possibly after the war in reprisal for their disloyalty. At the time, the US was happy with their boy, though.

Quote:

According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.

Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

Quote:

As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979.

Emphasis added.

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=7673&fcategory_desc=In%20Case%2 0You%20Forgot%20 [/size]]
Source of the quotes and good synthesis of the available information.


What bugs me is that Saddam will have been tortured, brainwashed, threatened or otherwise incapacitated so that his testimony will not reveal US complicity in his crimes.

To be clear, it's only the part after "so that" that bugs me. There is no punishment sufficient for his crimes.

Point is, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are lying when they try to make their war seem noble in any way. The DU ravaged babies, the napalm or chemical weapon victims of Fallujah and who knows how many other places, the torture victims from Abu Grahib and others places in the US Gulags, the civilians massacred in "shock and awe", the sanction-related dead, those massacred because Bush I didn't have what it took to kill or capture the monster when there was no better time. Who asked them whether this latest atrocity was "justified"?

It makes me sick that there are still people dumb and/or inhumane enough to justify this obscenity.

This trial will barely scratch the surface...
 
moghrabi
#19
Quote:

It makes me sick that there are still people dumb and/or inhumane enough to justify this obscenity.

Are you talking about our friend Jim here?

Good analysis though. Thanks.
 
pastafarian
#20
"Are you talking about our friend Jim here? "

Actually, as I typed it, I was thinking of an interview Jon Stewart did with right-wing propagandist William kristol, but "if the cap fit..."
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by pastafarian

"Are you talking about our friend Jim here? "

Actually, as I typed it, I was thinking of an interview Jon Stewart did with right-wing propagandist William kristol, but "if the cap fit..."

 
peapod
#22
They are the one who should be put on trial, 12 good people, 3 africans, 3 arabs, 3 native americans, 3 central american indians..



.
 
Canucklehead
#23
Has anyone else thought that maybe...just maybe... the U.S. has one of the six other 'Saddams' and the real one is hanging on the beach in Grand Cayman drinking a marguerita? Now THAT would be a wonderful blow to the U.S.R. and solidify their 'credibility' in the eyes of the world
 
moghrabi
#24
As a matter of fact, I was reading something to that effect. That the guy we see on TV is not Saddam being tried. Hard to prove but it is possible with the US game planning.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#25
Quote:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Gunmen shot two lawyers defending Saddam Hussein's co-defendants in a trial for crimes against humanity on Tuesday, killing one and slightly wounding the other, police and defense team sources said.

The attack followed the murder of another defense lawyer who was shot the day after the trial started in Baghdad on October 19 and was certain to stoke controversy over whether the former president can get a fair trial amid Iraq's daily violence.

The defense team had already threatened not to turn up for the next hearing on November 28 unless measures are taken to protect them.

Police and defense team sources said Adil al-Zubeidi was killed when the two lawyers' car came under fire in the western Baghdad district of Hay al-Adil, while Thamer Hamoud al-Khuzaie was wounded.

Both men were on a team defending Saddam's brother Barzan al-Tikriti and former vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan, legal sources said. Khuzaie was among the lawyers who appeared in the televised trial sitting at the same front bench as Janabi, lawyers who know both men said.

In last month's attack, Saadoun al-Janabi, representing another of the eight defendants, was kidnapped from his office and shot by armed men who local people said identified themselves as employees of the Interior Ministry on October 20, the day after his court appearance at the start of the trial.

The government has denied involvement in Janabi's death but the killing renewed accusations of sectarian violence involving government forces and pro-government Shi'ite militias ranged against Saddam's fellow minority Sunni Arabs.

IRAQI FORCES HIT

The latest high profile assassination came as bomb attacks aimed at Iraqi security forces killed at least nine people the day after a suicide car bombing claimed the lives of four U.S. soldiers and their Iraqi translator.

As U.S. and Iraqi troops pushed ahead with an anti-insurgent operation near the Syrian border, violence continued unabated just over five weeks before December 15 elections Washington hopes will set Iraq more firmly on the road to peace and democracy.

In one of the worst of Tuesday's attacks, four Iraqi soldiers were killed and a fifth critically wounded when a bomb blew up near their patrol car in the small town of Dali Abbas, northeast of Baghdad, police said.


with all this chaos , how is this to be a "fair trial"??? Wrong location.......and under the wrong legal system for something like this. Why is it that the u.s. has to fecking make a mess out of just about everything now?? How can anyone take this "trial" seriously??? ...... one cannot.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#26
The trial of Saddam Hussein is a tasteless joke, and a tasteless joke is just what the U.S. under Bush has become. A gang of illegal invaders cannot set up anything but some laughable kangaroo court that has no basis in law. The international court is the only venue for this trial but Bush and his cronies would also have to stand trial for their crimes and face the same punishment.
 
moghrabi
#27
The US is determined to have Bush be indicted in Iraqi court so Saddam does not have a chance to open his mouth about the what he knows. He will be tried and killed in Iraq.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#28
I really don't understand why Saddam is on trial anyway.

Like George Jonas, I think trying the man simply exaggerates his importance. We all know what he did. We all know he is guilty. There is no question.

He is a rabid monster.

Drag him out in a public square and shoot him once behind the ear.
 
no1important
#29
Well Colpy no matter who the person is or what they are "alleged" to have done they are innocent until proven guilty and deserve a fair trial even though he is an evil man.

Quote:

Like George Jonas, I think trying the man simply exaggerates his importance. We all know what he did. We all know he is guilty. There is no question

The same could be said about "W" and I even say "W" deserves a fair trial if he ever goes to trial for the crimes he committed.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote:

He is a rabid monster.

Drag him out in a public square and shoot him once behind the ear.

I think G.W.Bush deserves at least a trial.
 

Similar Threads

27
Hussein Is Dead
by Hotshot | Jan 1st, 2007
38
Saddam Hussein verdict
by Kreskin | Nov 7th, 2006
0
Hussein Featured in GQ
by The Philosopher | Jun 20th, 2005
5
Is Saddam Hussein really in custody?
by Andem | Jul 17th, 2004