Saddam is apparently going to be tried by a tribunal of his peers.
What happens if he is found innocent?
It could happen you know.
Look at OJ.
He’ll move to the US and take up golfing.
Gee I don’t know Reeder do you have an opinion on the matter?
Unless it is a secret proceeding I wouldn’t want to be a member of the tribunal that voted to condemn him.
And if it’s a secret tribunal we can’t be sure it’s a fair trial.
He’ll be extradited to Kuwait and found guilty there.
Next question?
So if the Iraqi court finds him not guilty there would be no repercussions over our invasion and occupation?
Not guilty of what? Not guilty of gassing the kurds? Not guilty of draining the southern marshes? Not guilty of rounding up political dissidents and shooting them in the back of the head? Not guilty of ordering the invasion of Kuwait?
Saddam has done SO MANY evil, illegal things, many of which are beyond dispute, that there is no chance of him being ‘not guilty’. He might manage to dodge one or two of the charges, but there’s more than enough stuff that is beyond dispute and which warrants hanging the bastard that no one would take a ‘not guilty’ verdict seriously. They would just assume the tribunal was threatened or bought off, and Saddam would be extradicted to a foreign court in Kuwait or the U.S.
Have they made clear with what crimes Hussein is going to be charged? And on what legal theory? The Nazis tried at Nuremberg argued that their actions were legal because they were authorized by an independent sovereign state; the Allied military authorities rejected this and found some of them guilty of “crimes against humanity.” This implies reliance on some legal authority superior to the law of a particular state. In Hussein’s case, he was, like Hitler, the sovereign authority in his country at all times when the acts he is accused of were allegedly committed. If he is to be tried by a court which exists by the authority of the new Iraqi interim government, will they try him for generical “crimes against humanity” or violations of pre-war Iraqi law or violations of post-war Iraqi law? (The latter, of course, would be ex post facto.)
Seeing as we supplied him with the gas that he used against the Kurds, which has not been proven beyond a doubt that he did yet, and turned a blind eye to a lot of his war crimes against Iran…shouldn’t the US be complicit in some of his crimes?
The Chalabi family’s handling the whole affair.
If he’s found innnocent, I’ll post fawning praise of you every thread for a month.
Why ask such a ridiculously unlikely question?? I have better odds of being struck by lightning while carrying the winning lottery ticket after the great meteor strike hits on my way to being sworn is as the next Pope.
I can’t even imagine such an occurance that Saddam is found innocent. He may dodge one or two charges…I’ll give you that. But found innocent? No chance at all. Hell will freeze over first. After I win that lottery.
-XT
Senseless murder of human beings is universally recognized by the rest of the world as being illegal. Like Piracy on the high seas, it is a lawless act that other nations have the right to punish even if it doesn’t occur on their jurisdiction.
Just because he’s guilty of a lot of things doesn’t mean he can’t be acquitted. An Iraqi jury might let him off just to spite the US.
As long as we’re throwing out wild hypotheticals, what if he’s not only acquitted, but the new Iraqi “democracy” decides to vote him in as president. How freaking funny would that be?
And, Mace, what if Iraq, as a newly sovereign democracy, refuses to allow extradition anywhere else. Are we going to take him again by force, thereby undermining all of our rhetoric about respecting the wishes of the Iraqi people?
This is all completely absurd speculation, of course, I just wonder hypothetically what the US would do if the Iraqi people wanted to reinstall Saddam as head of state.
Saddam will be found guilty. His only hope is a Pinochet-style claim that he is “unfit” to stand trial. I don’t see that he is holding that card. BTW, Saddam’s lawyer was on 60 Minutes last night and he seemed to indicate that his strategy was not so much to demonstrate Saddam as innocent than to implicate America and the West with his crimes.
What precisely is he guilty of under Iraqi Law? Given that he was the sole arbiter of Iraqi Law during his incumbency, the prosecution might well have to appeal solely to those international treaties Iraq is party to.
The charge of genocide actually might well not stick. We all hear of him “gassing the Kurds” but there is evidence suggesting that the gas used at eg. Halabja in 1989 was actually Iranian in origin, or at least that the civilians were caught in the chemical crossfire of both armies.
The brutal repression of the uprising after Gulf War I entailed thousands of summary executions, but this could certainly not be termed “genocide” and the legality of extrajudicial punishment in a dictatorship, while dubious, might not be outright criminal.
As for the Marsh Arabs, again, it was an act of gross insensitivity which destroyed the homes and livelihoods of up to 150,000 and gunships were allegedly used to bomb and strafe, killing some 30,000 (US figures), but this was also part of the same political repression - if Saddam argued that this was a necessary act of civil war then it would be difficult to conclusively prove otherwise.
The invasion of Kuwait was really his only clear violation of international law. If all he were to be convicted of was invading a sovereign state without UNSC approval, it could prove very embarrassing!
I am not an expert in Iraqi law. But I would be amazed if Iraqi law actually had a written loophole that exonerates Saddam Hussein of any murders he had committed. Dictatorships invariably have lovely consititutions and laws on the books that would not be out of place in Switzerland. Those laws and constitutions are routinely ignored of course.
I don’t know why you couldn’t find Saddam Hussein guilty of any number of murder convictions. What about the famous Baath party conference meeting video, where Saddam orders “traitors” to be dragged out for summary execution, to the terrified cheers of the Baath party members?
Sure, you probably won’t be able to convict Saddam of every execution carried out by the Iraqi police while he was dictator. Probably lots of them had a show of an open arrest, a trial of sorts, and an execution. But of course there are plenty of summary executions too…where Saddam orders his goons to go kill such and such a person.
In order to find a crime Saddam was guilty of, all you’d have to do is start on page one of the Iraqi criminal justice code and go down the list. I imagine it would be rare to find something Saddam DIDN’T do.
Where are they going to get the tribunal of psychopathic despots?
Who knows what’s gonna happen. Maybe Martha Stewart will get the gas chamber and Saddam will get a talk show. I’m rarely surprised anymore at the twists and turns confronted on the road of politics and the media.
Could Saddam be found not guilty of whatever the charges might be? Sure he could.
Would he be set free? I doubt it. If he’s found not guilty at the first trial, there’s other charges and/or trials in other countries and plenty of things he might be convicted of.
So, when is the trial? (if ever)
Besides all that…GW ain’t gonna let him get loose. He threatened and actually attempted murder on Poppy Bush. No, Saddam ain’t going free. He’ll commit suicide before that ever happens.
I’m sure he’ll swear to spend to rest of his life looking for the real tyrants.
We would have to let him go.
On Friday, at noon, at the (booming tractor-pull voice) CIVIC AREEEEENA! Arena! Arena!