Saddam, Day 2

I have tried to follow the news about Saddam's second day in court as best I could. He played the sovereignty card rather brilliantly today, for a man in his position that is. He managed to divert the proceedings and provoke the judge into a discussion of his allegedly coarse treatment by his American guards. When the judge said he would 'speak' to the guards about it, Saddam asked why he couldn't 'order' them, saying 'You are an Iraqi judge, this is an Iraqi courtroom and Iraq is a sovereign nation, isn't it? Then why aren't you in charge of your own court room?' He may not have made an impression on the judge, but I am sure he must have made an impression in Iraqi living rooms.

The first witness for the prosecution was a dead man. His testimony, caught on video, was shown even though the prosecution must be aware that it stood very little chance of being accepted because a dead man can not be questioned.

Weird... ~:handball:

Faisal, Dariûsh and others who speak the lingo, where are you? Please enlighten, explain, elaborate.
:bow:

Adrian come on dont you know Im an accomplished linguist~:rolleyes: Why isnt he dead yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

Adrian come on dont you know Im an accomplished linguist~:rolleyes: Why isnt he dead yet.

---

Good answer, wrong question, professor Strike. Saddam is dead meat anyway, but it looks to me as if this will be the worst conducted trial against a mass murderer ever. I may be very wrong, but the judge, the prosecution, the government and just about everybody else don't seem to be up to the job.

Why don't they get their act together?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Good answer, wrong question, professor Strike. Saddam is dead meat anyway, but it looks to me as if this will be the worst conducted trial against a mass murderer ever. I may be very wrong, but the judge, the prosecution, the government and just about everybody else don't seem to be up to the job.

Why don't they get their act together?

---

Gah I say he will end up using this as PR. The man knows he has no shot of being innocent. So he figures If I go Im taking America with me. He will pull more shit like the western dog is crapping on morals blah blah. This is one of those times where cut brake cables would be dandy. But hey a speedy tial for all right.

EDIT: Where the hell is the professer smiley?

The first witness for the prosecution was a dead man. His testimony, caught on video, was shown even though the prosecution must be aware that it stood very little chance of being accepted because a dead man can not be questioned.

No it stands little chance of being accepted because it was conducted without legal representation and there is no cross examintion on the video , if there was then the fact that the witness is now dead would be irrelevnt .

Why don't they get their act together?
Well they are in a way , they have changed many things so that his defense can no longer claim that the court and the charges are a violation of the 4th Geneva convention , but that has made the job of the court more difficult on the more serious and complicated charges he should have been facing , so they wil convict him on the simple one they can easily prove for now , then execute him and forget the rest of the charges .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No it stands little chance of being accepted because it was conducted without legal representation and there is no cross examintion on the video, if there was then the fact that the witness is now dead would be irrelevant.

---

Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

(..) they wil convict him on the simple one they can easily prove for now, then execute him and forget the rest of the charges.

---

How can you be so sure? Don't forget this is a 'Shiite' court (i.e. established by a predominantly Shiite government) with its own priorities. As long as Saddam's ramblings support their anti-American policies they may decide to let him live for years and allow him to testify and testify and testify...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

EDIT: Where the hell is the professer smiley?

---

:scholar:

As long as Saddam's ramblings support their anti-American policies they may decide to let him live for years and allow him to testify and testify and testify...

Ah , good thinking there, perhaps that may explain the non diplomatic diplomatic meeting between the US ambassador and Iranain nondiplomat diplomats . Maybe they are asking the Iranians to tell their Iraqi friends to get a move on with the trial before too much comes to light ~D ~D ~D
They should bring in Ollie , he knows how to get a good deal out of the Iranians , perhaps he could arrange for the execution to happen just before the mid-term election~:cheers:
It was always going to be embarasing worrying about what might be revealed over the gassing of the Kurds wasn't it , I wonder if the Ayatollahs will play ball .~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I wonder if the Ayatollahs will play ball .~;)

---

The old farts weren't above a little gassing in their time, so why would they get their robes in a twist over Saddam's? If they have the 'goods' on the U.S. concerning Halabja and other episodes, I am sure they will be looking for a deal.

EDIT
Oh, and Ollie, that's a good one. If only he had the old Contras to siphon the money and wea.... wait, isn't there a ready-made Contra movement in Venezuela yet?

wait, isn't there a ready-made Contra movement in Venezuela yet?
Nah they got caught , those that were not deported got really really heavy sentances , up to 4 years ~:eek: , you can tell he is a mad dictator as a sensible dictator would have shot them .~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

wait, isn't there a ready-made Contra movement in Venezuela yet?
Nah they got caught , those that were not deported got really really heavy sentances , up to 4 years ~:eek: , you can tell he is a mad dictator as a sensible dictator would have shot them .~D

---

You mean those conspirators who were allowed to walk by a Supreme Court that was packed with landed autocrats, unreconstructed fascists and dandies with huge cardboard signs around their necks that said 'I'm for sale and I give discounts to military personnel!'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

but it looks to me as if this will be the worst conducted trial against a mass murderer ever.

---

You are right, the Hague should hold the trial since they have done such a wonderful job with Milosevic (or FOR Milo as some would argue).~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I have tried to follow the news about Saddam's second day in court as best I could. He played the sovereignty card rather brilliantly today, for a man in his position that is. He managed to divert the proceedings and provoke the judge into a discussion of his allegedly coarse treatment by his American guards. When the judge said he would 'speak' to the guards about it, Saddam asked why he couldn't 'order' them, saying 'You are an Iraqi judge, this is an Iraqi courtroom and Iraq is a sovereign nation, isn't it? Then why aren't you in charge of your own court room?' He may not have made an impression on the judge, but I am sure he must have made an impression in Iraqi living rooms.

---

In fact he's well protected by procedimental guarantees, wait I should say "he should be". The impartiality of the court is at fault. This is an special convention (as the one made to judge nazis back then), wich has always the political pressure behind, therefore it can't be impartial. This guarantees are recognized by the Convention of the Human Rights. It doesn't matter if you consider he's the devil, he's just another person and should be treated as such, not a political enemy. The result is evident, conviction and the worst possible, the trial is just a fachade.

Quote:

---

The first witness for the prosecution was a dead man. His testimony, caught on video, was shown even though the prosecution must be aware that it stood very little chance of being accepted because a dead man can not be questioned.

---

Of course. And it's right.

Quote:

---

This guarantees are recognized by the Convention of the Human Rights. It doesn't matter if you consider he's the devil, he's just another person and should be treated as such, not a political enemy.

---

Soul, I'll agree that the lawyer in me says this is right, if YOU agree that the human in you finds the idea of a completely unrepentant mass murderer showboating and haranging the court just a touch offensive?

As for why the trial is being badly conducted, I suppose the lack of a civil society for 30 years and the fact that anyone associated with the trial is under threat of death is probably not helping things. If I were conducting the prosecution, god forbid, I'd concentrate on the two or three incidents that were easiest to prove and that would guarnatee the death penalty and bollocks to the rest.

This isn't hollywood, he's not going to break down in tears if you read every last one of his crimes out. Get the job done and get out would be my approach.

And as for the judge not being soverign in his own court, he needs to shut a certain Mr S Hussein up in my opinion. Trials can perfectly fairly be conducted in the absence of the defendant if the defendant disrupts proceedings. Someone needs to warn him what happened in Hitlers trial after the beer hall putsch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

If I were conducting the prosecution, god forbid, I'd concentrate on the two or three incidents that were easiest to prove and that would guarnatee the death penalty and bollocks to the rest.

---

Yes, I was going to post something to this effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

If I were conducting the prosecution, god forbid, I'd concentrate on the two or three incidents that were easiest to prove and that would guarnatee the death penalty and bollocks to the rest.

---

If I were conducting the prosecution I would try to investigate and establish the facts about the most important episodes in Iraqi history in which Saddam & Co. were closely involved, because Saddam's victims and the survivors of his regime deserve to know the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Soul, I'll agree that the lawyer in me says this is right, if YOU agree that the human in you finds the idea of a completely unrepentant mass murderer showboating and haranging the court just a touch offensive?

---

Yes I know, but the impartiality serves all for equal (well it's impartiality). If I only gave impartiality to my friend that wouldn't be any achievement. Many people may be thinking that he must be hanged, but I say let's be rational here, we don't want vengeance or another evil, we want simple justice.

Quote:

---

And as for the judge not being soverign in his own court, he needs to shut a certain Mr S Hussein up in my opinion. Trials can perfectly fairly be conducted in the absence of the defendant if the defendant disrupts proceedings. Someone needs to warn him what happened in Hitlers trial after the beer hall putsch.

---

That's truth.

Edit: spelling

Quote:

---

If I were conducting the prosecution I would try to investigate and establish the facts about the most important episodes in Iraqi history in which Saddam & Co. were closely involved, because Saddam's victims and the survivors of his regime deserve to know the truth.

---

Uh-huh. That's history, not law. The legal process isn't really designed to elucidate history.

What you REALLY mean is if you were a journalist that is what you would do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Uh-huh. That's history, not law. The legal process isn't really designed to elucidate history.

What you REALLY mean is if you were a journalist that is what you would do...

---

No, the consideration I mentioned is one (important) reason why societies need justice. Retribution is another one.

Establishing guilt, establishing the truth about horrible episodes if possible, is essential to the functioning of a just society. Not in the interest of journalists, but in the interest of society as a whole.

In South Africa, Desmond Tutu founded his truth and reconciliation commission on the principle that establishing the facts about the past is even more important to society than retribution and punishment of the perpetrators. The latter point obviously reflects his religious stance, but I will grant him that in order for a society to move beyond the legacy of a horrible regime it is essential to know what happened during the regime, to know who did what to whom and for what reasons.

Quote:

---

Establishing guilt, establishing the truth about horrible episodes if possible, is essential to the functioning of a just society.

---

Yes but, there you go again, "guilt" and "the truth about horrible episodes" are two completely different things. They ought to be related, of course, but they are different.

As I understand it the key principle behind the success of the truth and reconcilation process was exactly that it did not establish guilt. (in any legal context) Consequently people could speak of what they had done freely and, if you like, atone , which enabled society to move on.

As you say, the Bish approached the problem coloured by his religious background, I cannot put aside my legal prejudices, and your take on the matter, and a perfectly good take it is too, is coloured by your vocation as a writer of "the first draft of history".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

As I understand it the key principle behind the success of the truth and reconcilation process was exactly that it did not establish guilt. (in any legal context) Consequently people could speak of what they had done freely and, if you like, atone , which enabled society to move on.

---

Exactly, he told me so verbatim in 1994 when I interviewed him, and this is fully in line with his religious view that human justice is far inferior to God's judgment and that God's commandments to seek and grant forgiveness are more important than earthly considerations.

Quote:

---

(..) your take on the matter (..) is coloured by your vocation as a writer of "the first draft of history".

---

Sure, and a lousy draft it is most of the time. That is why society should not rely on journalists and the mechanism of justice is so important as a check.

Besides, one function of journalists is that they act as a sort of 'living memory' for citizens who, due to their daily commitments, can not afford to follow news all day and separate fact from fiction, sense from nonsense, and put developments in some sort of historical perspective. To give a simple example of this, when a politician starts saying 'A' after having said 'non-A' for many years, journalists will immediately look up his exact quotes on 'non-A' from years past and confront the politician with them.

Everybody relies on media. Even the ones who eternally lament the 'bias of the media' rely on certain media themselves. To each his own, of course. Ask yourself: if you look at the media you trust most, what is it that you look for in those media? Is is not that they put ongoing developments into perspective (i.e. carefully connect them with relevant facts from the past and present) in order to give you a handle on these developments?

That is essentially the same thing that a court case like Saddam's should do for us, and first of all for Iraqis of course. Help them to put past and present developments into perspective because it (hopefully) allows them to get on with their lives.

Anyway, that is enough rambling from this biased hack.. :bow:

A question to you law types, where is the difficulty in prosecuting a defeated enemy, of proving their connection to warcrimes? It's proven difficult, slow going when it comes to convicting people in the Hague, and it's promising to be a ponderous trial for Saddam too. Where do the problems lay, particularly when viewing the relative speed of convictions at something like Nuremberg? It's a situation I find hard to understand as an outsider to the process of applying law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Everybody relies on media. Even the ones who eternally lament the 'bias of the media' rely on certain media themselves. To each his own, of course. Ask yourself: if you look at the media you trust most, what is it that you look for in those media? Is is not that they put ongoing developments into perspective (i.e. carefully connect them with relevant facts from the past and present) in order to give you a handle on these developments?

---

As a journalist, how far do you feel the media should go when it comes to putting things in perspective? I'm somewhat divided of opinion as to how biased the media is, with some aspects thereof being more so than others, but if there's one thing the media in general as a balance to the news provided by governments can't afford to lose it's its credibility.

Wow, Buddy, you asked a mouthful, as Raymond Chandler might say. Short answer and long answer.

Short answer:

I don't know, but Dick Cheney does.

Long answer

If I had to answer in one word, jurisdiction. As the former head of a sovereign state, to exactly what criminal law, and to the jurisdiction of what criminal court, is Saddam Hussein answerable about actions committed whilst in power? That is not a trivial question.

Nuremburg is an interesting case, since the jurisdiction of that tribunal is far from obvious. Though after a point you do have to stop worrying about these things and say, well, the trials took place, people were found guilty and punished (not that many but that is another story) so we can say "law" happened, and ipso facto there was jurisdiction. That wouldn't satisfy a law professor but then law professors don't live in the real world where law is actually used.

I also suspect that in Saddams case they have made the tactical error of trying to prove every last thing he did (that will bring down any large trial as the UK serious fraud office has learned), and of course the fact that anyone involved in the case may be murdered at any moment can't exactly be helping.

So it really does complicate matters if Saddam refuses to recognize the new Iraqi constitution and government, since he still views himself as the legal ruler of Iraq? In the case of Saddam (and Milosevic for that matter) it'd be nice to see a merciless, convincing prosecution, rather than allowing the court to be bullied about; I guess it's the price to pay for wanting the trials to be completely by the book, and stopping him from making himself a martyr. Thus far that approach seems entirely impractical

It looks like most of the current problems are due to the decision to hold the trials in Iraq, by the Iraqis. As you said the atmosphere there is hardly conductive to an effective and fair trial. Ideally the trials would be quick and decisive affairs, according Saddam the same (lack of) priviledges as his opponents in the past; however this would lead to outcries of an unfair trial, possibly justifiably so. But is safe PR worth an overdrawn and almost farcical set of trials, dominated by details when the crimes are obvious?

And mass charges certainly aren't the way to go, since presumably the defence would only have to topple one to make the whole case seem a sham. Back to square one.

the trials took place, people were found guilty and punished (not that many but that is another story) so we can say "law" happened,
An interesting point there Assasin , another story indeed , a rush job to put in front of the cameras so they could say they were delivering justice . Far to many suspects walked free and far too many serious charges were dropped because ...well it was too much effort .... have a quick trial , a few sound bites a couple of quick executions and forget about it .

So you may get the occasional moron who will say something likeYou are right, the Hague should hold the trial since they have done such a wonderful job with Milosevic (or FOR Milo as some would argue). they completely ignore the scale of the charges the legal complications and the sheer amount of evidence to be got through , they just want instant justice and forget about how many other guilty people involved get away with it as long as the big fella gets a good hanging .
For a comparisson on time scales , how long does it take from the start of a trial to execution on a simple case somewhere they have the death sentance , like someone shooting a cashier in the head while robbing a gas station or liquor store for example ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Though after a point you do have to stop worrying about these things and say, well, the trials took place, people were found guilty and punished (not that many but that is another story) so we can say "law" happened, and ipso facto there was jurisdiction.

---

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?

Maybe an .org member from Romania could tell us how he liked the 1989 summary execution of Nicolae Ceauşescu. No formalities, no charges, no questions asked. Well to be quite fair they did, for the record, ask him 'Are you Ceaucescu?' before they shot him and his wife in the corner of some nondescript army barracks. The identity of the executioners remained unknown for quite a while and the 'live' televised lynching was fake because the actual execution had taken place earlier.

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.

Hate to dissapoint, but no comment on this case, except that Saddam got balls.

To be honest, they cut it alot, somehow some words saddam said was not meant for the public, but regardless it turned into a circus.

Best take the case to an international court.

EditDamn how did that happen , innacurate post went through ....see below

Best take the case to an international court.
No thats a waste of time they take forever , they even aquitted two alledged Kosovan terrorists today , oh.... but they convicted another .

Send Saddam to get some swift punishment where they know how to do quick justice , there is a man who may be executed this friday . He killed his wife 17 years ago , there is no doubt of his guilt , the evidence was all very simple , but 17 years later they still aren't sure if they are going to carry out the sentance yet .~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Best take the case to an international court.
No thats a waste of time they take forever , they even aquitted two alledged Kosovan terrorists today , oh.... but they convicted another .

Send Saddam to get some swift punishment where they know how to do quick justice , there is a man who may be executed this friday . He killed his wife 17 years ago , there is no doubt of his guilt , the evidence was all very simple , but 17 years later they still aren't sure if they are going to carry out the sentance yet .~;)

---

eh thats... sloppy..

Ah well, i thought they would do a better job.. ~;p

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 .~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

---

Basically.

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?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

As a journalist, how far do you feel the media should go when it comes to putting things in perspective?

---

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.

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

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?

---

Correction follows.

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.