Suppose..Saddam is found innocent.

[Marley23]

I think there’s zero chance Saddam would be acquitted, but last I heard, the Milosevic trial wasn’t going very smoothly at all for the prosecution. I’m not quite sure why, though.

I remember reading a recent NYT article about Saddam’s interrogation in which it sounded like his mental state was questionable. I think one of the American officials commented that he probably thought he was still in charge of Iraq.

[SentientMeat]

last I heard, the Milosevic trial wasn’t going very smoothly at all for the prosecution. I’m not quite sure why, though.

For precisely the same reason, actually. “Genocide” is a monumentally difficult thing to prove at the level of President (or equivalent) - they simply don’t leave a paper trail of signed orders to exterminate whole villages. Even the worst atrocities and massacres are often cited as being militarily necessary in a time of civil war. Add to this all the problems with the health of the judge and the defendant and the sheer mass of evidence and one can understand why the old monster is calling for a retrial.

[UncleBeer]

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.

Saddam’s attorney is Reeder?

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

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?

So be it.

But we’re debating about what would happen if it snowed in hell. Perhaps an intreguing intellectual excercise, but of no real practical import. He’s gonna be found guilty. If ever there was a case with a foregone conclusion, this is it.

[Spiff]

@SentientMeat

If all he were to be convicted of was invading a sovereign state without UNSC approval, it could prove very embarrassing!

Wait a minute, I thought we were talking about Saddam, not G.W. Bush.

[smiling_bandit]

Depending on one’s POV, he committed no legal crime. I think the Iraqi constitution was suspended indefinitely, wasn’t it? So, weve already thrown out legalistic guilt anyway. Anything after that is just Nuremburg icing.

[pravnik]

A head of state can still violate the Law of Nations by committing crimes against humanity, despite the fact that he has entered into no treaty and has violated no law of his own sovereign.

The notion of crimes against humanity, although evolving, is not at all new and did not originate with Nuremburg and Eichmann. The concept is called hostis humani generis, or “enemy of all mankind”, and originated with the Romans in reference to piracy (“Pirata est hostis humani generis”). A pirate has in effect declared war against all of humanity and attempted to place himself beyond the reach of all laws, and thus placed himself within the jurisdiction of all, wherever he may be found. This has been the prevailing view for centuries:

LASTLY, the crime of piracy, or robbery and depredation upon the high seas, is an offense against the universal law of society; a pirate being, according to Sir Edward Coke, hostis humani generis. As therefore he has renounced all the benefits of society and government, and has reduced himself afresh to the savage state of nature, by declaring war against all mankind, all mankind must declare war against him: so that every community has a right, by the rule of self-defense, to inflict that punishment upon him, which every individual would in a state of nature have been otherwise entitled to do, any invasion of his person or personal property.

Blackstone’s Commentaries, Book 4, Chapter 5: “Of Offenses Against the Law of Nations.”

By way of example, Congress is empowered by the Consititution to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations,” i.e. crimes of such international scope so as to invoke universal jurisdiction. The Alien Torts Claims Act of 1789 allows any individual to flie civil suit against any preson who commits an offense against another in violation of the Law of Nations or any international treaty; it is still in force today and is still filed under. The modern definition of hostis humani generis has grown to include, among other things, genocide, torture, and slave trading. Any violation of the Law of Nations is a crime everywhere and is punishable by any government.

[Engywook]

If Saddam would be extradited to Kuwait if he’s found innocent, the trial’s a farce, isn’t it?

This is why we don’t have double jeapordy… you can’t put somebody on trial over and over again until you get the guilty verdict you’re looking for. If you could, any trial that returns a not guilty verdict is meaningless.

Of course, IANAL or a constitutional scolar…