I saw it on Al Arabiyah.
The court is more like a debate since he is allowed to object and talk at his leisure, well almost.
No comment as of now, but from what i saw, hes made of pretty solid material.. ~;p
Printable View
I saw it on Al Arabiyah.
The court is more like a debate since he is allowed to object and talk at his leisure, well almost.
No comment as of now, but from what i saw, hes made of pretty solid material.. ~;p
Tell me everything I do not know about the trial because I do not speak Arab. What is Saddam's defense? Is he sending hidden or overt messages to his remaining Sunni followers? What is the atittude of the judges?Quote:
Originally Posted by faisal
What a waste of time and money. I mean, does anyone really think that he will be found anything but Guilty? No, it's a just a few more million dollars down the drain in the name of "liberty".:dizzy2:
In some instance you must follow the procedure. For the new government of Iraq to have any authority it must at least give the semblance that even the most obvious guilty person will be given his day in court.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
To do otherwise is a worse crime then what Saddam has done. It removes even the illusion of hope of a better government for the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Well I watched a littl CNN today for just that reason. It seems that its going to be a very interesting trail - One of the subjects covered today was just the reading of charges - and it seems Saddam refused to identify himself to the court.
Its now at the Aljazeera site
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
Going to read it for thier prespective.
I hope he gets life in prison. A man that lived in opulance for all these years while he tortured and caused so much suffering to his people deserves to live in a dark cell so he has to be reminded of what he did. No reason to make him a martyr.
Exactly.Quote:
In some instance you must follow the procedure. For the new government of Iraq to have any authority it must at least give the semblance that even the most obvious guilty person will be given his day in court.
To do otherwise is a worse crime then what Saddam has done. It removes even the illusion of hope of a better government for the people.
Also exactly.Quote:
I hope he gets life in prison. A man that lived in opulance for all these years while he tortured and caused so much suffering to his people deserves to live in a dark cell so he has to be reminded of what he did. No reason to make him a martyr
Eek. Agreeing with BOTH Redleg and Dev Dave? better log off at once.
Make you want to take a hot shower huh.~DQuote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
A cold shower might work to shock yourself back to normal...~:eek:
I also agree with both of you.
I agree that ideally the new Iraq should get off on the right footing by not indulging in revenge, but by making a deliberate attempt to break the cycle of revenge and violence that kept Saddam in the saddle for so long. It is a good thing if they grant Saddam a fair trial, do justice to his crimes and let justice be seen to be done.
Also ideally, the new Iraq should use the occasion of Saddam's trial to clear up lots of facts of its recent history, because after all the distortions, censorship and imposed restrictions under Saddam and his predecessors the Iraqis are bound to have a huge backlog of questions about it.
Thirdly, it will be worthwhile to find out exactly how his regime operated all those years, for both historical and political reasons.
In practice, of course, there is a serious risk that the trial will be politically manipulated.
Just so long as it doesn't take 4 years, like the Milosivec circus. I don't understand how he faces 14 separate trials though, but then again perhaps the concept of double-jeopardy hasn't established itself there.
Woo, Saddam. Maybe they'll let him out and give out a reality TV show. I can just picture Saddam on the Apprentice...
Seriously, though, I was wondering if he was ever going to have a trial. I wouldn't be surprised if he was smuggled out of the country before its completion.
LOL, I can just imagine it. If you look back at the footage of Saddam's rise to power it is quite reminscient of Trump. Can you imagine, he takes over the boardroom, tells trump he's fired, and then sends everyone outside where a shooting squad is waiting for them. Those were the days... :help:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
Good to see you again Black Ship!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Ship
Yup, don't ever let a bunch of sissy Euros in powdered wigs run a trial. And people wonder why the US won't judge the International Circle jerk known as the Hague.:dizzy2:
Well at least the sissy Euros are giving the option of a trial...
PFFTQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Sound was muffled, court seem frustrated as they started with the first case of a mass murder he ordered in Dujail, an iraqi town.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Also the recording shown was heavily edited by the iraqi government before they handed in to news channels, allawi attested to that, he also said he wanted to be at the trial but but couldn't attend it, also in the interview he was heavily disapointed with the trial, but didn't give a very clear reason.
As for Saddam, so far no hidden messages, he did protest that there was no evidence and also said he was not guilty, rest of the trial his voice got muffled again.
Giving fair trial to a dictator / war criminal is important to establish once and for all his guilt. In 100 years, muslim extremists may mock the legitimacy of this court, but they won't be able to say that Sadam was lynched out of revenge.
Just because his guilt is clear to us now doesn't mean it will be in 100 years.
I would say that a successful trial of Saddam is one of the most important things to restore Iraq's national identity and pride. I would even rate it more important than the elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Why frustrated? I heard it was the most clear-cut case (of his personal responsibility, black on white) they had up to date.Quote:
Originally Posted by faisal
Wasn't there a 20 minute delay between proceedings and news feed to ensure Saddam could be censored by the Iraqi government?Quote:
Also the recording shown was heavily edited by the iraqi government before they handed in to news channels (..)
Please report anything you find remarkable over the coming days or weeks, Faisal.
Shukran :bow:
I'm not fond of theoretical applications.. Something that has no use, which is a one-way direction, is fooling people.
Being given a chance of trial for Saddam : Choose your worst backroom slang for me to define it...
Kurdish judge and Shiite jury.. Who were the ones yelling out with a cool Hollywood cue saying "Gentlemen...We got'm.." ? Americans.. So whose job is it to judge Saddam?
And if Saddam is a war criminal (sp?), why is not he given the trial on international platform (I could'nt figure out the name of international tribunal established to judge war crimes)
If he was someone who had a "wanted" poster all around by USA, why is he handed into the hands of Kurds and Shiites for trial ?
If Saddam was the aim, tell me how the USA's internationally-accepted excuse to invade Iraq that was searching for nuclear and bio-chemical wepaons turns out ? If there is no international acceptance of this invasion, then USA has to face what was obliged to Turkey after Cyprus issue of '74.. (theoretically, of course)
Once more, USA patriots will get frustrated with me but which angle ever I try looking on the incident, I get "bully-boy-of-the-hood" results..
P.S. Saddam was a terrorist-minded despot. His deeds are way out of the borders. He has nothing to be backed in my opinion.
Saddam could either be judged by the Americans like the Nuremburg trials.
Or judged by the new government of Iraq much like many dictators have had to in the past.
the soenits are only one that know whats going on...the koerds (sp?) just want Kurdistan, the shi'íts just want revenge...theyre the extremist moslims that you guys kicked out of Afghanistan, and now youre putting them back on the throne.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
~:handball:
This application of law on Saddam by the interm government of Iraq is an important step in resolving the sovergnity of the Iraq Naiton. So the theoretical application of the law must be done - to provide closure and legimenticy to any government in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Some could call it a Kangeroo Court - it hasn't broken down to that yet from what I have seen in the news - but it very well could which will not provide legimacy to the new government.Quote:
Being given a chance of trial for Saddam : Choose your worst backroom slang for me to define it...
Hate to correct you here - but according to the news media - no Jury is going to be involved. Its going to be a trail in front of a 5 judge panel in which the head Judge is Kurdish. Not sure about the other judges ethnic and religous background. But why does the ethnic makeup of the judge matter if he is able to rule according to procedure and weigh the evidence according to the facts? The people who are best suited to judge Saddam for crimes committed against the Iraqi people - are the people who lived in that country.Quote:
Kurdish judge and Shiite jury.. Who were the ones yelling out with a cool Hollywood cue saying "Gentlemen...We got'm.." ? Americans.. So whose job is it to judge Saddam?
The Hague is what I believe you are refering to. Who is to say that the government of Iran won't pursue that course of actions in regards to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. That is a seperate issue from what the current charge under trail is. He is currently being tried for crimes against the Iraq people that he had committed agaisnt them while he was dictator. The Hague would of been an option - or one could try them in the country they committed the crimes.Quote:
And if Saddam is a war criminal (sp?), why is not he given the trial on international platform (I could'nt figure out the name of international tribunal established to judge war crimes)
He was handed over to the interm Iraq government in which it seems intially the minority religious group decided they wanted nothing to do with. Again why shouldn't Saddam be tried for crimes committed against the Iraq people in Iraq by Iraq citizens?Quote:
If he was someone who had a "wanted" poster all around by USA, why is he handed into the hands of Kurds and Shiites for trial ?
Different issue then Saddams trail - worthy of discussion but that is the actions of the United States not Saddam.Quote:
If Saddam was the aim, tell me how the USA's internationally-accepted excuse to invade Iraq that was searching for nuclear and bio-chemical wepaons turns out ? If there is no international acceptance of this invasion, then USA has to face what was obliged to Turkey after Cyprus issue of '74.. (theoretically, of course)
Honest questions deserve honest responses. Not frustrated at all.Quote:
Once more, USA patriots will get frustrated with me but which angle ever I try looking on the incident, I get "bully-boy-of-the-hood" results..
And he should be held accountable for his actions by the International community, Iran and the citizens of Iraq. A trail in Iraq gives the Iraqi people closure and a trail to show that the despot has been tried in accordance with their laws.Quote:
P.S. Saddam was a terrorist-minded despot. His deeds are way out of the borders. He has nothing to be backed in my opinion.
Well I read the jury being Shiites in a newspaper..Whatever..Quote:
Hate to correct you here - but according to the news media - no Jury is going to be involved. Its going to be a trail in front of a 5 judge panel in which the head Judge is Kurdish. Not sure about the other judges ethnic and religous background. But why does the ethnic makeup of the judge matter if he is able to rule according to procedure and weigh the evidence according to the facts? The people who are best suited to judge Saddam for crimes committed against the Iraqi people - are the people who lived in that country.
In such a state, it does matter, I think. Kerbela Massacre agains the Kurds and the Shiite rebel expelled with some brutality. Iraq has an ethnic makeup consisting of Sunni Arabs and Turkmens as well.
There are still Saddam-favoring Iraqi population. It's not an obvious statement that can be assigned to the idea of whole Iraqi nation.
I'm not defending Saddam fanatics. It's all about the situation before and after USA's invasion. USA does not still receive a total acceptance in Iraq.
The judge and the jury's ethnical and religious backrground (if there is) does not look such a neutral selection.Quote:
He was handed over to the interm Iraq government in which it seems intially the minority religious group decided they wanted nothing to do with. Again why shouldn't Saddam be tried for crimes committed against the Iraq people in Iraq by Iraq citizens?
Prof. Dr. Emre Kongar 's views on USA 's "democrization" plans over Iraq (not an exact translation or something, just the summary in my words):
USA tried to do the "democrization" steps as they did in Japan and Germany. Japan's constitution after WWII carries MacArthur's views while Germany's constitution was composed by sociologists in order to prevent fascims thriving again.
It worked, yes it did. But applying the same tactic in Iraq was a total disaster. Iraq has a feodal and religious society - the two very hard obstacles that turn this move into a failure. USA will never succeed in Iraq.
they wont if they continue like that and stop the shi'íts from taking control over there. the people dont want democracy or what they considere the filty western culture (most definitly the shi'its not)
Well if there is a Jury planned then I will await to see the actual makeup of the Jury before voicing an opinion. However I have not seen a report as of yet saying there is a Jury.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
So if a judge from each of the major subgroups was present on the judge panel that is trying Saddam would that make it more representive?Quote:
In such a state, it does matter, I think. Kerbela Massacre agains the Kurds and the Shiite rebel expelled with some brutality. Iraq has an ethnic makeup consisting of Sunni Arabs and Turkmens as well.
Well the majority opinion of the nation is what counts - the court nor the trail will be able to satify the whole nation.Quote:
There are still Saddam-favoring Iraqi population. It's not an obvious statement that can be assigned to the idea of whole Iraqi nation.
I don't see the trail as an acceptance of the United States - but an acceptance that the interm government of Iraq will act in the best interests of the people of IraqQuote:
I'm not defending Saddam fanatics. It's all about the situation before and after USA's invasion. USA does not still receive a total acceptance in Iraq.
Well the United States does not need succeed completely in Iraq - what is needed is to establish the conditions that a new democratic government will be able to have success once it establishes itself under popular will of the people of Iraq.Quote:
The judge and the jury's ethnical and religious backrground (if there is) does not look such a neutral selection.
Prof. Dr. Emre Kongar 's views on USA 's "democrization" plans over Iraq (not an exact translation or something, just the summary in my words):
USA tried to do the "democrization" steps as they did in Japan and Germany. Japan's constitution after WWII carries MacArthur's views while Germany's constitution was composed by sociologists in order to prevent fascims thriving again.
It worked, yes it did. But applying the same tactic in Iraq was a total disaster. Iraq has a feodal and religious society - the two very hard obstacles that turn this move into a failure. USA will never succeed in Iraq.
I am fairly certain that the majority of the Iraqi Shia Muslims do want democracy, ‘western culture’ however, that’s a whole different matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Religious fundamentalism is generally less common among the Iraqi Shia Muslims than, say, the Iranian Shia Muslims. And Ayatollah Al-Sistani was imported to keep the hardliners in, well, line.
Afwan ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Well, nothing much happened as of yet, besides that Saddams lawyer was kidnapped by shiite gunmen or so the news claim, pretty weird.
Also frustration stems from the debates that went on back and forth, a dissapointed Allawi (he said he was in the phone call interview on al arabiya), and a defiant Saddam. Saddam mentioned a few verses from the koran and said a dua'a (can't recall what he said though), could be a subliminal message, things of religious context do fire up muslims ~;p
Also on the censoring, i'm not sure, it wasn't live, so probably the iraqi government were already done with everything before things were broadcasted.
In something slightly related, Sunni protests were fired up after the broadcast, particularily in sunni dominated areas and especially in tekrit, shiite protests as well but anti-saddam. kurdish regions seem quite enough, but things don't look good right now, as it could spark more inter-religious conflict.
yup youre right, the iraqi muslims arent the most diehard muslims around though the shi'its are worse from what i've seen/heard/noticed...not that i hate them or have sumthing against them, but if it continues like this,....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh