What if the new Iraqi government just announced that he was going to be executed for losing the war, that they don’t need specifics other than he orderd his armies to kill the people who won, and that everybody knows it and they don’t need prior deeds at all.
Would that be so bad?
And also, that turn about is fair play - he put a death warrant on his predecessor’s head with a trial.
I’m trying to think of a good reason for denying somebody a fair trial, but nothing springs to mind. So I’m going to say it would be bad. Summary execution is exactly what Saddam would do, so I’m inclined to think it’s not the thing to do.
A fair trial might be a good idea. Just remember that “fair” will not mean “balanced”. A fair trial will see him condemned to whatever punishments the court sees fit to impose, and rightly so.
What would have been the point of the invasion if summary executions are still going to be the favoured form of dispensing justice?
Getting back to the wording of the OP, I’d say, no he doesn’t deserve it. But it’s definitely in the best interests of the Iraqis and the US if he gets a fair trial. And even though I rarely make pronouncements about what’s moral for others to do I might even go out on a limb and say it’s the moral thing to do.
Wouldn’t it be better to charge him with that in a fair trial than to use that as an excuse to sink to his level?
Is anybody worried the case against him isn’t strong enough and he’ll walk, so we have to “cheat” to make sure he gets convicted?
The counterexample, I guess, would be the Milosevic trial, which has dragged on for years.
Personally, I think that the American concept of an adversarial trial isn’t all that fair. Plenty of other countries wouldn’t let people off the hook for trivialities.
Just because there are two sides to any trial doesn’t mean both sides are honest.
And I find it appaling that former Attorney General Clark is over there now trying to find a way to spring him. It just gives American justice a bad name. The concept that it is a game to be fought over like politics. Instead of scorning attorneys who knowingly get murderers off on whimical theories, we make them celebrities, and fodder for late night monologs.
What trivialities did you have in mind?
I don’t think anyone’s suggested that was the case.
By definition, everyone deserves a fair trial. It’s unfair to do anything less than that.
I don’t consider getting off on an obvious technicality to be either fair or just, but it is Constitutional and protecting that is even more important.
I don’t know that he deserves a fair trial on certain levels. But he needs to be given a fair trial or it’ll be all kinds of ugly.
If the evidence against him is so strong, then it shouldn’t be a problem to prove his guilt in a fair trial. It’s not a question of “deserving” it, the state has a moral responisbility to PROVE a person is guilty of a crime. Period.
I would totally oppose giving him the death penalty, though.
Of course he deserves a fair trial. What kind of democracy loving American would even question that?
That being said.
I think there are thing in Iraqs and Americas past dealings that the US would not like to be widely known. I actually think there will be some kind of plea bargain before they get real deep into the facts.
Yes, Saddam deserves a fair trial. Everyone deserves a fair trial. Even Henry Kissinger.
What kind of monster saddam was goes without saying. But he deserves a trial as much as anyone else(hell, we gave the Nazis fair trials and they were committing genocide). If the jury hands down the death penalty, so be it(though it might be more interesting to make his punishment to be handed over to Iran or Kuwait for trial and sentencing, or maybe just the latter).
Of course, I do wonder how he’s going to get as fair trial, considering very few people see him as anything other then a pretty horrible person. And I do question why anyone would want to defend him. It’s one thing to be appointed to defend a scumbag, it’s another to volunteer.
I think that simply in the interest of honor the answer would be yes, he does deserve a fair trial. On an emotional level, I am sure that most of us—even just on the sidelines of his atrocities—wouldn’t mind seeing him just thrown to a pit of hungry wolves. However, since one think I believe we are fighting against is that that very type of overemotional, mobbish nonsense (abroad and at home), lynching would, in the end, would only temporarily sate our thirst for punishment but permanently scar our true ideals.
A trial, givin in this case the mountain of undeniable evidence, would of course be one-sided. It would still be considered fair, as long as we stick to the truth. I do think such a trial would be necessary for the sake of laying bare, on the record, all of his crimes. The only real case for debate would be his punishment.
Except for one small problem. You haven’t taken into account that the defense counsel might not be able to properly prepare for this case given the insurgency terror inflicted on those who are participating in this court case
I don’t support the death penalty in any case but I also wouldn’t necessarily go so far as to say I’d “oppose it” in this case. I’ll definitely be able to rest easy knowing he won’t go to the gallows an innocent man (and it’s all but certain Hussein dies for his actions in my opinion.)
Dude, there’s a whole lot you don’t understand. If you ever find yourself on trial for a crime you didn’t commit, I hope you remember having written this.
The purpose of a fair trial, and of making sure that all defendants receive a vigorous defense, is so that–god forbid–if a person is falsely accused he will have a chance to make that known. I think it’s pretty damn clear that Saddam is guilty as hell, but you can’t decide that BEFORE a trial. You can’t say, let’s have one kind of trial for guilty people and one kind of trial for innocent people–because first you’d have to have a trial to determine which kind of trial you’d get.
The nature of the “adversarial trial” is one of the most fundamental basics of American democracy. Without it, the rest of the Constitution wouldn’t be worth so much toilet paper.