It’s just an underlining.
It’s worth noting that people full of slack do not fill mass graves with their fellow human beings. (They may fill their beds with their fellow human beings, though. 
)
Tell us more…
I dunno. They could certainly charge him with murder. The fact that he was president, and wouldn’t allow the charge to stick to him before doesn’t mean it doesn’t have legal applicability.
You know, I’lll be pretty happy when all these santicmonious people end their suddenly found fling of pretending to care about human rights and about opposing dictators for the week.
Although, I’d be much happier if it eventually did became sincere, and we could really and truly embark on a national policy against dictators and for human rights.
The Geneva Convention is a treaty, not an organization.
And as I recall, in WWII, it wasn’t illegal under German law to execute Jews and cripples. Since the victims were civilians, not combatants, there was no reason to prosecute the surviving German govt. for those guys’ deaths, right? So, the same should go for Iraq, right?
And the proper jurisdiction over “Crimes against Humanity” is, surprisingly enough, considered somewhat nebulous. As Amnesty International says,
…of course, Amnesty International isn’t a governing body, either. The closest thing we have is the ICC. And they won’t even have jurisdiction over non-signatories to the Rome Statute until their next review in 2009. (Maybe. They might not get increased jurisdiction in 2009)
Letting Saddam go uncharged isn’t justice; nor would it even be following a moral “high ground” in following the letter, but not the spirit, of Geneva. It would be pettifogging.
Well thank you, sir or madam, you’ve shown me the error of my ways.
…Never again will I dare to arrogantly think of the Iraqi people and the new Iraqi government as allies and partners with the United States, or to so flippantly include them and the U.S. in a collective “we.” At least, not without a good sentence or two of explanation and apology over my insensitive use of a two-freaking-letter-word.
Whoever tries Saddam, I hope it is a thorough trial, so that we can find out exactly what he has done - separate the truth from rumour and have it documented.
Would the new Iraqi legal system be able to cope with something as big as this?
I agree with that, though I’m not sure if you’re having a go at me or agreeing with me…
but, as far a I’m concerned:
Pinochet was every bit as bad as Allende.
or:
Allende was every bit as bad as Pinochet.
Knowing the idiocy of the international community, they’d probably let Saddam off scot-free and instead decide to file charges against Bush.
Well, maybe that’s a little exaggerated.
While I don’t believe in the death penalty, I think it would be useful to try him before a court that had a death penalty available, so we could perhaps get him to talk as part of a deal to spare his life. In the meantime, he should be tortured by any and all methods available to us. If putting acid in somebody’s eyes is apparently the Islamic notion of sound justice, then nothing we do to torture him could seem inhumane compared to that perverse religion.
If we keep him alive, I like the idea of humiliating him as much as possible. Maybe keep him in a secure cell at the zoo, right next to the monkey cages so they can throw feces at him.
Ever heard of The Spanish Inquisition?
Yeah, the Spanish were pretty brutal there, and they were fighting Islam at the time too, so I can imagine that was one conflict where you’d rather die than get captured.
I don’t think the Spanish are that way anymore though, so they would probably be just as shocked and apalled at the “acid in the eyes” thing.
**
Yes, I know. Sorry if I didn’t explain myself clearly. What I meant to ask was whether the jurisdiction properly fell to an international court under the terms of the Geneva Convention. (Which you answered below.)
But as I understand, no Nazi ever went before a German court to be tried for his crimes. (I may be wrong about this-- please elucidate me if I am.) They were tried by a multi-national court.
Why would it be better for the Iraqis to try him. I think at this point, the sentance is a foregone conclusion. The guy’s going to die, no matter who presides over the court.
Its my opinion that the entire world should be able to voice their condemnation for these kinds of acts, rather than restricting it to the Iraqis. After all, it’s alleged that other countries suffered from his rule. (Alleged payments to Palestinian suicide-bombers, for example.)
Personally, I think a worse penalty for his crimes would be to have to live in prison (especially an Iraqi prison) for the rest of his life, rather than a swift, painless death.
I hope he’ll be confined to an iron cage in the courtroom, as “Citizen X” (the Russian serial killer) was in his trial. The dehumanizing, degrading symbolism would be significant – and justified.
Actually, Iran might have a legitimate case for taking Saddam to an International War Crimes trial, as it’s been fairly well-established that he authorized the use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80’s. cite from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute This action also violated the Geneva Convention, to which Iraq is a signatory.
Of course, Iran will probably not get a chance to try Saddam, although the UN may well want to take up their cudgels on the matter.
re. the potential for internationalist complications posed by Iran and Kuwait wanting to press war-crimes charges: The Hague doesn’t allow for the death penalty. OTOH, those parties might be pressing for disclosure of the results of our interrogation of SH, as part of a quid pro quo for allowing a future Iraqi government to try him in-house.
There is no YOU in WE.
You think!?!?!?!!?
:smack:
:wally
Thanks awfully. Glad you could spare the time in, say, the hunt for WMD at Sadam’s Palaces, or in those tunnels around Tikrit, or, or, or, . . .
Sam Stone, I’m sure you’re a lovely fella but, as you demonstrate every single week, real-world politics ain’t your strong suit.
Thanks anyway.
A bit more recently than you might think. The garotte as execution implement was only outlawed in Spain in 1974.
We can wring our hands all we want about ‘Islamic’ justice, and fret about whether the Iraqi legals system is up to the task.
But it’s fairly plain that Bush has nailed his colours to the mast. He was going to do this alone and without any international organisation if need be, and he was doing it for the peoples of Iraqi. Whoops, we’ll just let the presentation about the WMDs shuffle quietly off the stage and hope everyone’s forgotten it.
If he lifts Saddam out of Iraqi to face external justice, be it US or international, he will have once more changed the tune that the American occupation is marching too. Frankly I wouldn’t put it past him, but it would be the end of his little charade in Iraqi if he did. Taking him to the US will draw international condemnation and the disgust of the Iraqis. It would be a trial for Daddy Bush’s benefit.
Any trial he does face in Iraq I think will involve international and US advisors and observors anyway. Everyone will expect to be there to see justice done. It will be a long and massive undertaking. He will not simply be led in the front of a closed court and then taken out the back and shot.
The Iraqis may choose not to kill him. But if they do, no matter how we feel about capital punishment (I’m firmly against it) we have absolutely no come back on them while we have not raised any objections to it’s routine use in other countries and, ahem, the US.
I echo Lissa: What actions of Saddam are or were illegal under Iraqi law?
I suspect that the primary charge will simply be that of murder, perhaps of his political enemies way back when he took power. This will be the easiest to prove, and the most difficult for his lawyers to defend by questioning the court’s jurisdiction.
I would be very surprised if it was illegal under Iraqi law to fire missiles at enemy planes or bullets at enemy soldiers. Furthermore, if it is international law we are talking about, then Saddam himself was the target of several missile strikes aimed at his assassination: who is prosecutable for these infractions?
On a strictly legal basis, my guess is that Saddam cannot be prosecuted in Iraq for his crimes against humanity, only for his mundane murders of specific people. Similarly, the ICC at the Hague could only prosecute him for the crimes against humanity such as his alleged genocidal campaigns against the Kurds or the Marsh Arabs, not simply “being a tyrannical dictator”.
Well, maybe ol’ Saddam might use this defense:
Dear kindly, Mr. Bushie
You’ve got to understand
It is my bringing uppie
That gets me out of hand
My mother dated rabbis
My father is a schmeck
Holy Moses, that’s why I’m a wreck!
Dear President Bushie, I’m really upset
I’ve never got the love that ever Shiite should get
I am not dictator, I’m misunderstood
Deep down inside me there is good! (there is good!)
There is good, there is good, there is untapped good
Deep in side, the worst of me is good!
(That’s a mighty touching story)
(I’ll tell it to the world!)
(Just tell it to the Hague!)
Dear kindly, judge, your Honor,
My soldiers are no fun.
Hid the weapons of mass panic,
I’ve only got a gun.
Though unanimously chosen,
Approval can’t be had!
Golly Cripey, that’s why I’m so bad!
Right! President Bushie, you are such a square
This kid don’t need a judge, he needs an analyst’s care.
Hey, President Bushie, haven’t you heard?
He’s psychologically disturbed! (I’m disturbed!
I’m disturbed, I’m disturbed, I am most disturbed.
Yes, I’m psychologically disturbed.)
(Hear ye, hear ye! It is the opinion of this court that Saddam here is depraved on account he ain’t got a normal home.)
(Hey, I’m depraved on account I’m deprived!)
I gassed all of the Kurdies
Most people don’t have work
I rigged my own elections
Most think that I’m a jerk
I’ve guzzled all my aid funds
Our living standard’s less
It’s no wonder that I’m such a mess
You! President Bushie, you are such a slob
This boy don’t need a shrink he needs a good honest job
Out of his palace, to work with a kick
‘Cause he’s sociologically sick! (I am sick!
I am sick, I am sick, I am sick, sick, sick
Like I’m sociologically sick)
(In my opinion this boy don’t need his head shrunk at all. He has a sociological disease)
(Hey, I have a social disease!)
(So send him to a social worker!)
Dear Mrs. Social Worker, they say go get a job
Like working for Al Quaeda, or maybe run a mob
I am not antisocial, I’m only antiwork
Holy Moses, that’s why I’m a jerk
Eek! President Bushie, you’re too soft again!
This boy don’t need a job, he needs a year in the pen!
He is a delinquent, not misunderstood
Deep down inside him, he’s no good! (I’m no good!
I’m no good, I’m no good, I’m no earthly good
Deep inside, I’m totally no good)
The problem is he’s lazy
The problem is he drinks
The problem is he’s crazy
The problem is he stinks
The problem is he’s growing
The problem is he’s grown
Bushie, I’ve got problems of my own!
Dear President Bushie, I’m down on m’knees
No country wants a leader with a with social disease
Dear President Bushie, whate’er shall I do?
Someday, President Bush, I’ll…bomb you!