First question. Once his trial starts, what are the charges?
Second question. Can the US expect to enforce domestic law on international citizens and governments?
Third question. Can the US hold domestic trials for foreign citizens (and leaders) it captures?
So, basically, the charges we launched the war against Saddam for turned out to be false. Had this been a domestic raid, the charged would have to be released for lack of evidence (and could probably sue for a great deal based on wrongful arrest. Given that the Bush Admin has pretty much given the ICC the finger, that hardly seems an option (even though it was designed for just such circumstances). Previously, peoples charged with war crimes were tried at international tribunals. This seems to not be the case here.
All I can see is them trying him for killing the Kurds - but that raises its own legal questions. As SimonX pointed out in another thread, it isn’t murder if it is done executing a legal order.
So, what’s up with the trial of Saddam? How will the rhetoric of defending Freedom hold up to a military trial on vague charges?
We may be setting some pretty important precendents for international law here, and I think it needs to be discussed.
Afaik, the US isn’t trying Saddam…the Iraqi’s are.
Don’t know exactly…probably crimes against the Iraqi people, murder, extortion, etc. Take your pick. I don’t think this has been set yet.
Whats the point of this question? Again, afaik the Iraqi’s are trying him locally…the US isn’t involved in the process in any meaningful was. As far as CAN the US do so, its the 800 lb gorilla…it can do nearly anything it wants to I suppose. So can most of the other members of the UNSC for that matter.
Can it? Sure it can…it has. However, again, its a moot point (or maybe in your case its a mute point). The Iraqi’s are doing the trial, not the US.
I doubt the Iraqi’s were going to use the US charges of violations against the UN in any case. I’m pretty confident they will find SOMETHING to charge him with, given the mass graves we’ve been finding scattered about, and the other abuses that have been uncovered.
No, it was decided to let the Iraqis try him themselves, instead of do a war crimes tribunal. I think this was a smart thing to do, as THEY have more at stake in it than the international community does.
It won’t, as it won’t be brought up. He’ll be tried for his crimes against the Iraqi people BY the Iraqi people…and most likelyl executed by the Iraqi people in the end. I doubt the charges will be ‘vague’ in any way, shape or form…the guy was a monster.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the US is going to be trying Saddam…your post is totally oriented that way. Maybe you want to do a bit more research on this subject before starting your next OP.
xtisme, “the Iraqi’s” are not holding any trials. There is no Iraqi government or judicial system. Whatever government gets set up there will obviously be created by the United States, with whatever input from the Iraqi people that the United States deems suitable. The United States was very heavily involved in designing the Sierra Leone Special Court, with the idea in mind that it would serve as a model for an Iraqi war crimes tribunal. (This was before we even invaded Iraq, by the way.) This model is a “hybrid court,” with control shared by the United Nations and some Iraqi authority, which in this case will be appointed by the United States. Trials will be low-budget and quick. The U.S. government will be concerned with a protracted trial which will inevitably allow evidence of its support of Hussein and his crimes against humanity.
Zagadka, I have never heard anyone suggest that he be tried in U.S. courts. The U.S. courts would not have jurisdiction over his crimes.
I’m sorry…I should have been clearer. I didn’t mean to imply an Iraqi government would be doing the trials. My understanding though was that the Iraqi people would be doing this under provisional authority. I should have looked this up before getting into this thread, as I’m working mostly from memory on stories I read months ago, but I’m at work and its easier to do drive by’s here than real research. I still contend that the OP’s position is false, as SH is not going to be tried under the US court system, and that the charges brought against him will stem from ‘crimes against the Iraqi people’, not violations of the UN charter or charges brought by the US. I think its safe to say that there will not be a shortage of such charges against Saddam, so nothing needs to be trumped up, as the OP implied.
If by “the Iraqi people” you mean “Iraqis selected by the U.S. government,” then your statement is somewhat correct. There is no reason to think these officials will represent the will of “the Iraqi people.” The tribunal would probably be established under the UN’s Chapter VII powers and would include Iraqi and international officials.
You are the first person to bring up the UN Charter. Violations of the UN Charter are not relevant, since it only deals with the conduct of states and cannot be used to established criminal liability for an individual.
To understand the types of charges that would be brought and their legal bases, look at the ICTY, ICTR, and Sierra Leone Special Court. Charges might include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc., whose basis is in international humanitarian law. He might also be charged with crimes under Iraqi law, if his immunity as head of state does not protect him.
Not that I doubt you as its been a long time since I read stuff on this, but I thought the UN was to be involved in the selection process, and that the Iraqi’s were also to have input into it. Perhaps you are right and the US will in fact select or appoint them…I was unaware of this, and if true I withdraw my statement.
Even if I’m right (which seems doubtful now) and the UN in conjunction with Iraqi input (and probably US also) appoints the representatives of the tribunal, its no assurance they would ‘represent the will of the Iraqi people’ in any case. But then again, I’m unsure if there IS a ‘will of the Iraqi people’ on this subject.
I’m aware of this chula. Perhaps I misread the OP, but I thought he was implying that the US would be trumping up charges based on our invasion of Iraq.
Things like this gave me the impression this was being implied:
Certainly SOME of the charges used to launch the war against Iraq stemed from UN resolutions (ok, not the Charter, I need to think through my posts more :smack: ). Perhaps I’m reading too much into this and seeing things that aren’t there.
Well, I’ll have to look into this. My understanding was that he was going to be charged with crimes against the Iraqi people under local Iraqi laws, not international crimes against humanity. If he’s being charged under international law, then he SHOULD be taken to the ICC.
No matter how you may take my intent (based on other threads and posts), I was really asking the above questions out of desire to know. I did not know how we intended to handle Saddam. I did imply that it would be a bad idea to try to do a US-based trial or tribunal, but that is my primary concern (which can be justified, since that is precisely what we have been doing with the people captured in Afghanistan and Iraq thus far).
I agree, it wouldn’t be hard to find enough dirt on him to put it all to rest anyway, and I wasn’t implying that anyone would have to trump up charges. He’s done enough on his own.
An international tribunal might be a better forum, but it wouldn’t be legally more credible or necessary. One of the fundamental principles of war crimes and crimes against humanity is that since all peoples are theoretically injured by them and have an equal interest in their prosecution, all sovereigns have the equal right to try individuals accused of those crimes. This is true even if those crimes occurred in different locales or prior to the existence of the forum state, as was the case with Eichmann and Israel.
The ICC is out of the question. Iraq is not a party, and there is no jurisdiction for crimes committed prior to its inception.
I have to admit I haven’t read up on this issue recently either because I had not heard any announcements made. My knowledge was based on what experts on international justice have been saying for years. Here is a good listing of news articles written on the subject. It seems that they are focusing on creating the appearance of being an Iraqi court, rather than an international or hybrid court, and are prosecuting crimes under Iraqi law and international law. A director, judges, and prosecutors have already been appointed, so obviously there will be no input from the UN or any kind of democratic Iraqi body.
The ICC has no juridition for what happened or is happening in Irak. If you wanted an international court to try Saddam, it would have to be an ad hoc court.
I actually DIDN’T realize that (I didn’t realize you had to be a signator to get your case heard). Thats why I love this board…you learn something new literally every day. Thanks chula.
Actually, I just checked and that might not be right. Generally, the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of a state party or by a national of a state party. But Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute seems to indicated that a non-party can accept the jurisdiction in specific cases.