Please, I am not interested if he should be, but assuming he is captured, is there any circumstances where he could be tried for his life - by either a US or international court. If, so is it likely? I suppose the Nurmeberg tribunal would say yes, but Milosovic isn’t being tried for his life, and I suspect the UN would be reluctant to put someone to death nowdays?
Before the International Criminal Court, clearly no. Its Rome Statute enumerates the penalties the ICC may impose in Article 77:
Clearly this came up as a result of the international movement advocating the abolition of the death penalty. Most of the nations that ratified the ICC treaties have abolished the DP long ago.
Death creates martyrs. The last thing anyone would deliberately choose for Saddam is martyrdom.
The world community has largely repudiated death as a penalty for any crime, however heinous. In any event, depriving Saddam Hussein of his freedom and subjecting him to the will of prison guards would be a much more fitting punishment for a man of his personality. Disgrace, humiliation, total submission and ultimate oblivion are far preferable to martyrdom anyway.
What crime would Saddam be tried for in a U.S. court? Even under international law, what crime would he been tried for? Rhetoric aside, I think that the allegations are that he poses a risk to U.S. interests.
Since the two previous posters seem unable to keep politics out of their answers:
As schnitte says, if convicted by the ICC, Saddam could not be put to death, as the ICC does not recognize that as an acceptable punishment. In general, same goes for UN tribunals. Neither seems likely to be the case, since the US does not recognize the ICC, and the war in Iraq is not a UN-sanctioned action (though perhaps he would go before the ICC if captured by British or Aussie troops).
As far as viable options assuming he is captured by US troops, he could potentially be brought back to the US, where the death penalty would of course apply (though I’m not sure what he would be charged with, since the US does not prosecuted crimes committed by people who are not US nationals against people who are not US nationals on foreign soil). Or possibly the new Iraqi government could try him, which may or may not have the power to put convicts to death - but most likely would since it would be set up by the US and would probably actually be run by the US for a year or two.
And by “previous two posters” I meant DG and FG, since Cerowyn’s post was not there when I was writing my own.
IMHO, the best chance for justice is for Saddam Hussein to stay in Iraq (under heavy guard, of course) and be tried in open court. I’m sure Saddam’s own subjects could quickly devise a suitable punishment for him.
The ICC doesn’t have a death penalty. What a travesty of justice, that people are murdered for talking out against governments all over the world but massive dictators will look at 30 years to life in a humane prison. People are given 30 years to life for stealing pizza in california under the ‘3 strikes’ laws.
mmmmmm pizza.
where was I -
Yes I suspect he will be tried by a court in his own country, This would absolve the US of getting it’s hands dirty and guarantee the DP for SH.
In which case you’re wrong. My point addressed the OP precisely. Sorry if you had trouble following it.
If, so is it likely?
No it is not likely. He will not be tried for his life, because…
I’m assuming that includes everyone of all political persuasions, from Saddam himself all the way to Bush.
I suppose some Middle Eastern extremist might love a new martyr to rally the cause, and not be overly bothered with Sadaam’s death, but they’re not really going to be the ones doing any prosecutions.
So politics are not the issue.
Mightn’t he be hidden away in a US base somewhere and tortured? I make no moral judjement about that.
It doesn’t seem that likely - I’d guess the political advantages from putting him on trial would outweigh anything gained from his that how. But possible, apparently.
And what data do you have to support that answer?
Sure, none of those men were executed, but I didn’t see anything in those links that supports the idea that they specifically weren’t executed because no one wanted to create martyrs of them.
Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Sauckel, Jodl, Seyse-Inquart, Göring, Bormann.
You were saying?
I prefer my more recent examples.
Why, because the concept of martyrdom was unknown to international criminal courts fifty years ago?