Printable View
Ah well, i thought they would do a better job..
What is strange is that the convict only worry seems to be that he will be #1000 , the other convict who was going to be #1000 had is execution cancelled because it turned out that the authorities disposed of the evidence after he was convicted ?????
Send them all to the Hague , its quicker ~D ~D ~D Oh but there is no death sentance , but at least they won't die of old age while they are waiting for the sentance to be carried out .~;)
Basically.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
There's none (of course I'm speaking for me here). It is a disguised lynching, a trial as a "rational" fachade, maybe to appear more moral before the public.Quote:
So tell us: should there be a trial at all? Why go through the motions of justice instead of merely establishing his identity and executing him? What is the difference between your approach and a lynchmob?
They're not only formalities, many obstacles are there to protect *ANY* individual from the penal power, they function always, they're absolute, because they look to defend the human dignity and integrity. The only one that could be acceptable is the jurisdiction matter considering that there was a war in Iraq, but any other violation to procesal rules has terrible effects in the human dignity.Quote:
I suppose people think it's real tough to pretend they don't care about the formalities in Saddam-like cases. I think it's real dumb and callous as well, because it implies that they don't care about the demand for justice, truth, and long-suppressed information.
As far as they want. The media should be free and consumers should have a right to choose one over the other as their source of information. If people will rather go blind by watching FoxNews than by masturbating, it is up to them. In my own case I would go pretty far and my readers have come to expect this from me. However, I am always 'transparent' as we call it in The Neds. Meaning that in my articles I give people a sense of where I come from politically, what sources I use and why, and precisely where my knowledge stops. Needless to say I am better in my job than I am in any Backroom posts, much more careful and moderate, although hopefully not without humour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
If people will rather go blind by watching FoxNews than by masturbating, it is up to them.
But maybe they will go blind by masturbating while watching Ann Coulter on Fox ~D
Correction follows.Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that in your view the Saddam trial is nothing more than a (needlessly debilitating) extension of the firing squad.
So tell us: should there be a trial at all? Why go through the motions of justice instead of merely establishing his identity and executing him? What is the difference between your approach and a lynchmob?
First, Nuremburg. I confess my knowledge of the jurisprudential basis of the Nuremberg tribunal does not go much beyond the "intelligent layman" level. (some may question "intelligent") But my impression is that in conventional international law terms the jurisdiction was highly questionable. And yet, trials happened, reasonably fairly, and sentences were passed.
The meaning of my comment about law happening and not worrying about it is that after a point if it looks like a trial and it quacks like a trial it is a trial and the fact that Professor Buggins can't find a basis for it in his Public International Law textbooks is not something that need worry a normal person.
That is not the same as saying trial, lynchmob, so long as they end up dead who cares, obviously. All of the expected procedural safeguards can (and should) be present in a Nuremberg style trial so that, internally to the trial process, it is impeccable. My point is that if it is also the case that externally to the trial process there seems to be no jurisdiction, we shouldn't really worry.
Put it another way: if public international law tells you there is no jurisiciction, and yet a fair trial takes place and a verdict follows, then the correct conclusion is that public interbnatiional law is wrong, not that the trial didn 't take place.
I think that that deals with "why have a trial" as well.
As for whether the saddam trial is going to be needlessly extended, well, time will tell. As I posted above were I the prosecutor I would be concentrating on a few of the more alarming abuses of his regime in order to deliver the valid guilty verdict that the trial system is well designed to produce, rather than attempting a comprehensive overview which , as I said above, is properly the provinance of journalism or history.
I say again, someone needs to read the transcripts of Hitler's trial after Munich.
And yet, trials happened, reasonably fairly, and sentences were passed.
Some sentances were passed EA ....some. "You invaded Poland in a war of agression " errr..."so did you" .....oh bugger , case dismissed .
"you drew up the plans for the final solution and the industrialised slaughter " errrr...."where's the documentary proof from the conference with my signature on it ?" ....oh bugger , case dismissed .
Speedy trials with dodgy jurisdiction and failure to find , examine and present the evidence eh ?~;)
Well I'm not saying I think Nuremburg was well conducted. All I am saying is the lack of any proper jurisdiction didn't stop trials happening. And I'm beginning to wish I hadn't said that...
I don't really understand where AII is coming from on this one to be honest. Possibly I am getting too hung up on the monstrous difficulties it would present for the legal teams, but why a court of law is a good venue for a blow by blow account of everything Saddam ever did, going on for years and with the evil old barstid taking every chance to announce on prime time arab TV that George Bush is a ladyboy and Uncle Saddam is the Arab's friend I just don't get.
For heavens sake, do him on specimen charges and get it over with. Its what you would do to any other prolific criminal.
Ironic really, we have a journo desparate to have the lawyers deal with it and a lawyer saying leave it to the journos
I don't know much about this trial, but it seems to be a losing situation for just about everyone concerned.