wouldn’t the Semi-Christ be “333?” Anyway, welcome to the Straight Dope, 665!.
I think Saddam and his kids have done quite enough to justify a “guilty” verdict, whatever the charge. They really don’t need any extra help from Washington, unless you believe that the tales of torture, rape, gassings and murder are complete fabrications.
Can’t say as I disagree.
Can’t say as I care, either.
They will file so many charges against Saddam that he will be charged of something in the end. Be it evading taxes or killing kurds.
Now if they sentenced him to a short prison time… now that would be embarrasing !
He grew up a Man… a male person.
Loving his dick, his balls and POWER.
He was, (Thank God, errrr, Alah) born in Iraq.
Oh, don’t we love the sight of him (Saddam) shooting off a rifle on the balcony of some residence?
Oh, we do…we do…
Saddam hiding out in a “spider hole”?..
Is this saying something significant?
A leader of a country, on the run from the most powerful country on the planet…and he runs…and he HIDES…?
Gosh…who’da’thought’?
OK
Let’s go after the thugs in South America?
NO?
Let’s go after the thugs in Africa…
Well…no…
They don’t have OIL nor any other natural resource we may exploit.
Then they will try the “one armed despot”.
I dont see how either of these have jurisdiction. The US courts would definately not, on the same grounds that they dont hvae jurisdiction over prisoners held in Cuba, namely that its not the USA. No international court has the jurisdiction either. The ICC could not exercise jurisidction as neither Iraq or the USA are signatories to it. What would have to be set up would be a UN Tribunal on Iraq, the problem with that is that double jeopordy is also an accreddited principle of international law. Not to mention that the USA and the Governing Council have ruled out any international court being involved.
Re: the legitimacy of his trial,the fact that defendents arent allowed lawyers or any other representation suggests to me that the IGC is intent on delivering a pre-determined outcome, and dont want any oversight of it internationally.
Or to put this another way…What the hell can the U.S. charge him with? Has he done anything criminal against the U.S? I am sure the Iraqis can charge him with many crimes, or perhaps an international court could for crimes against humanity or such. But, I don’t see what the U.S. could charge him with…except maybe that attempted assassination of Bush Senior and I don’t know what kind of evidence they have on that.
jshore and Zcrysis: Saddam has committed war crimes punishable under 18 U.S. Code 2441 wholly separate from any crimes committed against those of other nationalites, as have the Guantanamo detainees. The fact that they cannot currently avail themselves of the U.S. Court system is immaterial to the fact that they could be brought into federal court in the United States within the time it takes to put them on a plane should the executive so choose.
Similarly, Iraq’s not being a signatory to the ICC could be rectified with the stroke of a pen, although admittedly a UN tribunal would be the better course. The crimes Saddam has committed are of such a nature that the could be tried by the court of any sovereign in the world, should he find himself within its borders. Genocide, torture, and some other serious crimes are subject to universal jurisdiction. Jursidiction is concurrent between any State that can exercise jurisdiction over the individual and an international penal tribunal, like the International Criminal Court. Crimes against humanity affect the interest of all States and are subject to absolute universal jurisdiction, meaning every State has the right to prosecute these crimes against any alleged perpetrator found in or subject to their jurisdiction, regardless of who the victims may have been. The snooty latin term is hostis humani generis, enemies of all mankind, because all States have a common interest in the apprehension and prosecution of individuals who perpetrate these crimes.
The concept originally comes from those said to violate the “Law of Nations”, e.g. those committing the crime of piracy. Pirates were regarded as having attempted to place themselves beyond the laws of all nations, effectively declaring “war on humanity”. As such the crime of piracy was punishable by any State who could lay hands on the offenders. These concepts guided modern trials for crimes against humanity such as those at Nuremburg and Jerusalem.
According to your cite this code only applies to offences by or against US servicemen. Most of the offenses most commonly charged to Saddam are against Iraqis, Kurds and Iranians.
That cite is a bit long and I haven’t time to read in detail, but I think that it says that any state can establish laws to try such crimes. That is not the same as saying that any state could, at this moment in time, try Saddam if he happened to come into their jurisdiction. I’m not sure what at all he could be tryed for under British law for example.
I’ve heard that he can be sentenced to death if trialed either by the Iraqis or USA, but if it’s a world tribunal ten he can’t.
Is this true, and could somebody explain it. 
Of course what I meant to say was that if it’s a world tribunal then he can’t.