The protections against double jepardy are a provision of the US Constitution. There are many legal systems in the world (and not just in banana republics) where this particular protection is not provided.
If I recall correctly, that’s one of the criticisms of the International Criminal Court…
Because this is the ‘new’ Iraq with a fair court system instead of a fear based and corrupted court system like the old one. This is supposed to set a precedent.
Following any other aquittal he would be returned to his position of power with full back pay plus compentation for time spent in a hole. Then the Iraqi Death Squads would kick into high-gear trying to take care of the backlog of Iraqis they were supposed to kill.
This of course, would be followed by thousands of Iraqis filling “wrongful death suits.” And when the Death Squad catches up with their workload, these citizens would be promptly killed.
If it were to happen, and there’s no way in Hell, he’d be tried again in either the U.S. court system or the International Court in the Hague. Different sovereigns, each with their own laws that they can prosecute under.
Recall that the OJ case was also a slam dunk, sure-fire thing.
I’m not sure what to do with Saddam if he is aquitted. He obviously couldn’t be reinstalled as president of Iraq. I imagine Iraq will be a very different place by that time. I suppose he’d just have to retire to some South American country.
I dunno, I was thick in El Lay during the entire OJ trial, and I never got the impression it was a “slam dunk, sure-fire thing.” There are some compelling arguments to be made for the defense, such as the vial of blood that took an unannounced side trip to Brentwood for two hours. But that’s a different thread.
Plus, he probably wouldn’t be able to assemble Cochran, Shapiro, etc. like OJ did to defend him.
Another question: what would happen if he somehow tampers with (pays) the Judge and gets probation or community service or some other farcical sentence instead of death?
A better analogy than the O.J. trial would be the Rodney King beating trial. If by some miracle/travesty he were accquited in an Iraqi court, no way on Earth would he just plain walk out a free man without being tried again in the court of a separate sovereign jurisdiction i.e. an international court.
I’m a little surprised that this is being argued when no one, including the OP, has presented any idea as to what the specific charges might be. How can we discuss guilt or innocence when the specific charges are not yet defined?
That said, of course he’ll be found guilty of whatever it is he’ll be put on trial for. Given the lack of anything other than acaretaker committe for a government, and the absence of any precedent body of humanitarian law in post-Saddam Iraq, does anyone seriously doubt that the prosecuting body will simply make up definitions of charges, and their attendant penalties, based on whatever is most likely to stick in arguments before the court?
Cochran:…Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, you must now decide whether to let Saddam go. I know he seems guilty, but ladies and gentlemen {pulls down a picture of Chewbacca}, this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one moment, that does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man’s life is on the line? Why? I’ll tell you why: I don’t know.
It does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor and does not make sense, you must acquit!
There is absolutely, positively 0% chance of Saddam not being executed by the Iraqi people. The question is whether he’ll face a rope (doubtfull), a firing squad (maybe), a sword (likely) or my personal favorite, an industrial shredding machine, feet first!
If acquited he will retire to a 1 room apartment in France (gas heat of course) overlooking the Arch-de-triumph where he can eat his spam in peace for the remainder of his days.
> How can we discuss guilt or innocence when the specific
> charges are not yet defined?
The OP was unconcerned about the potential charges or the actual guilt or innocence of Saddam. The question was simply what to do with him if he is not convicted.
Now, I’ll grant you that there is no way in hell that he won’t be convicted of something or another. But, some thought has to be given as to what to do with him.
In fact, what do we do with him if he is convicted? He will undoubtedly be convicted of many crimes in many arenas. Who gets to lock him up or execute him? A lot of people want a piece of him.
The lack of WMDs means the Bush Administration ended up with egg on its face. Ergo, letting Saddam live in exile is no longer an option, for he has committed the cardinal sin of embarassing George W. Bush by telling the truth.