Yes. And plenty of other countries would also have police officer knocking at your door in the middle of the night and you wouldn’t be heard of ever again.
Besides places like North Korea, could you name some of these countries?
Everyone deserves a fair trial, no exceptions. It’s just the right thing to do. As a human, he does deserve one but whether he gets one is quite questionable. I think it’s a foregone conclusion that he will be found guilty and executed.
‘Deserve’ is a loaded word; we have simply decided that, until tried, we cannot absolutely decide whether or not a person is guilty; everybody deserves a fair trial because nobody ‘deserves’ a fair trial - it’s just something everyone should get.
If you decide that someone is an exception to this, then in making that decision, you already gave them an unfair trial.
I agree. We don’t treat people fairly because they “deserve” it but because we are a civilized, decent people (at least we’re supposed to be.) We don’t let emotion or outrage change that.
The true character of a people or nation can be determined by how they treat their most reprehensible criminals. If we can stay true to our ideals even when faced by a criminal whose acts make our blood boil or our stomach turn, then we know that we are truly civilized.
I think everyone will agree that the verdict in Saddam’s case is pretty much a foregone conclusion. The only thing this trial will do is sort out the rumored atrocities from what really happened. (Throwing Kuwaiti babies from incubators and putting people in a plastic shredder, for example.)
Oh, that would have been tracking down all those WMD’s. You’ll notice he didn’t get a single shot off as far as those are concerned.
Well said. Giving a fair trial even to a man whom everybody knows is the scum of the earth, helps to ensure that you or I will get a fair trial if we’re ever charged with a crime. It is absolutely integral to liberal democracy and the rule of law.
That said, I also think that the verdict is virtually a foregone conclusion. From what I’ve read, there’s plenty of evidence to support a guilty verdict. However, if Saddam’s acquitted of these charges, there are plenty of other horrible, murderous things he did that he hasn’t yet been charged for.
Saddam’s hidden them all in his pocket. He’ll have the last laugh come sentencing time…
Yes, but is this “unfair”. You believe he’s going to be found guilty because you know about all the horrible, horrible things he’s done in his years as totalitarian dictator of Iraq. Those things weren’t just made up by Dick Cheney to make Saddam look bad and justify the invasion, they actually happened and there’s all sorts of evidence that they actually happened. There are literally tens of thousands of deaths that Saddam could be charged with.
The fact that we know in advance that Saddam had thousands of people killed and buried in mass graves doesn’t mean he won’t have a fair trial if he’s convicted of his crimes. Everybody thinks he’s guilty before his trial because he IS guilty.
Yes, legal presumption of innocence is a cherished part of our civil rights, and rightly so. That doesn’t mean that obviously guilty people get an unfair trial when they’re found guilty, that would be ridiculous.
Can someone remind me what, specifically, are the charges against Saddam? I mean, if it’s “He’s got illegal WMDs,” you might as well just let him go already. And “being an asshole leader of a nation” is a slippery one to hang a case on, given how many other nations in the world have asshole leaders as well.
Massacring 146 Shi’a as retribution for an assassination attempt in 1982.
At the very least, the trial process itself documents crimes and atrocities, whereas totalitarian regimes like Saddam’s were careful to destroy records and accounts and allow nothing disturbing to be left untouched, unaltered and unsanitized, at the whim of the thugs in charge.
Whatever possible negatives a trial might have, it beats a memory hole by a mile.
Here’s a question. Is his life so sacred that we have to protect it even though the lives of all his lawyers are just shrugged off ?
We say, oh the lawyers took on the risk of being killed when they took on the case.
Why not say the same for Sadam? When you duel with armies you should expect to die when you lose. And in fact I’m sure he did.
He deserves all the considerations he gave his subjects/enemies.
Funny me, and here I thought the good guys were supposed to be better than the bad guys.
Speaking as someone who in the “Ramsey Clark” thread is calling Clark a traitorous, Stalinist tool, I firmly assert here that Hussein deserves a fair and honest trial.
And if acquited, he should at least have the decency to go golfing with O.J.
While looking for the real genociders, of course.
But the reality is that if Saddam beats the rap on this particular charge, there are plenty of other crimes against humanity he’s ordered. And even if he beats a couple thousand murder trials in Iraq, he could also be extradited to Iran…
No, Saddam doesn’t deserve a fair trial…but Iraq does. Then NEED to have as fair and unbiased a trial as they can, sticking as close to the law as is humanly possible. Iraq needs to make the rule of law their cornerstone if they are to have any chance at all of surviving as relatively free nation.
-XT
Two d’s in Saddam, mate. And no, that’s not the expectation of most world leaders. If the US should have somehow lost the war in Iraq when it was a full-scale conflict, God knows how, would the Iraqis be justified in killing George Bush, Tony Blair and their cabinets?
How is this not a violation of human rights?
Who gives a fuck? The man was an animal and he ‘deserves’ to be shot in the head and tossed to the dogs. However, had you read the rest of my post (did that knee jerk of yours hurt btw?) you’d see that IRAQ ‘deserves’ to HAVE a fair trial for the guy and to pose him for gun fire after crossing all the T’s and dotting all the I’s.
-XT