Saddam, Day 2

[Adrian II]

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...

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

[Strike For The South]

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

[Adrian II]

Adrian come on dont you know Im an accomplished linguist 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?

[Strike For The South]

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?

[Adrian II]

EDIT: Where the hell is the professer smiley?

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Adrian II]

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.

(..) 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...

[Tribesman]

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
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
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 .

[Devastatin Dave]

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).

[Soulforged]

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.

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.

[English assassin]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[Soulforged]

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.

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

[English assassin]

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...

[Adrian II]

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.