My comments are not superficial, Bernard Kouchner, former official representant of Uno in bosnia, is for a trial in Iraq also. He will have suported La Hague, but since it won't happen, he prefer Iraq.
Technically a international lead trial will be better, but it's not the only point to consider.
My comments are not superficial, Bernard Kouchner, former official representant of Uno in bosnia, is for a trial in Iraq also. He will have suported La Hague, but since it won't happen, he prefer Iraq.
Technically a international lead trial will be better, but it's not the only point to consider.
Do i smell a drop of patronizing here ?
Powerdoc I am not sure what Shawn is trying to do by being rude to you but no fear your wisdom is seen clearly with each of your posts in this thread.
This WILL help our ability to gather intel because now Iraqis won't be as afraid to come forward. I don't know how much it will affect the attacks on our soldiers, though. With or without Saddam, Baathist deadenders don't have much of a future in a new Iraq. They attack us because they've done the calculus. It's really that simple.
My comments are not superficial, Bernard Kouchner, former official representant of Uno in bosnia, is for a trial in Iraq also. He will have suported La Hague, but since it won't happen, he prefer Iraq.
Technically a international lead trial will be better, but it's not the only point to consider.
Do i smell a drop of patronizing here ?
Just technically better?
I'm not really sure I understand Bernard Kouchner's position. He would have supported an international trial over an iraqi-led trial, but since the first won't happen, he supports the second? It's not really saying much beyond a trial is better than no trial.
(No, no patronizing. The superficiality of allowing iraqi's to try saddam themselves was a point made directly in the article..)
I'm not really sure I understand Bernard Kouchner's position. He would have supported an international trial over an iraqi-led trial, but since the first won't happen, he supports the second? It's not really saying much beyond a trial is better than no trial.
(No, no patronizing. The superficiality of allowing iraqi's to try saddam themselves was a point made directly in the article..)
I perfectly understand that in a lawyer point of vue, an international court is better. There is no discussion here.
My point is for the future of Iraq, an iraqi trial is better.
if i caricature my opinion :
" it's better to screw up Saddam's trial, than to screw up Iraq"
Ok it's just a caricature, a good trial will be much better than a parodic one. It's important to suceed it. But i don't think it's the priority number one. There is no risk there to condamn an innocent, and he was less bright than let's say Milosevich for hidden his direct implication.
I perfectly understand that in a lawyer point of vue, an international court is better. There is no discussion here.
My point is for the future of Iraq, an iraqi trial is better.
if i caricature my opinion :
" it's better to screw up Saddam's trial, than to screw up Iraq"
Ok it's just a caricature, a good trial will be much better than a parodic one. It's important to suceed it. But i don't think it's the priority number one. There is no risk there to condamn an innocent, and he was less bright than let's say Milosevich for hidden his direct implication.
OK. We both agree then on the meaty part. I guess it's harder to prove what's best for the future of Iraq, you know? I think we'll have to agree to disagree
Eh. I railed against "pride" and "therapy" in the first place. What's wrong with trying him in an international or internationally-led court is really the question.
Eh. I railed against "pride" and "therapy" in the first place...
And I railed against trying him in the Hague as being little more than therapy. Why would the Iraqis feel tempted to not hold a fair trial? The truth will be damning for Saddam.
Any of you internationalist ponder how you are going to get all the 10 of thousands of Iraqis that need to testify to the Hague for a trial? Maybe it's better to just do it where he did the crimes.
BTW France and Germany lost their best business partner in Iraq today.
Because it's the U.S., not Iraqis that are in charge.
The Iraqis will be the ones to try Saddam, not us. But even if we did, why would WE be tempted to not hold a fair trial? Saddam has a grisly record. Do you really think anyone would need to rig the trial?
Any of you internationalist ponder how you are going to get all the 10 of thousands of Iraqis that need to testify to the Hague for a trial? Maybe it's better to just do it where he did the crimes.
BTW France and Germany lost their best business partner in Iraq today.
...........Hold the trial in.............. IRAQ!
There were two options, and one of them was an internationally-run trial in Iraq.
The Iraqis will be the ones to try Saddam, not us. But even if we did, why would WE be tempted to not hold a fair trial? Saddam has a grisly record. Do you really think anyone would need to rig the trial?
Any of you internationalist ponder how you are going to get all the 10 of thousands of Iraqis that need to testify to the Hague for a trial? Maybe it's better to just do it where he did the crimes.
Look at the big picture. How often do we need to judge former dictators?
We can afford to do that the best way possible. No need to skimp. A bit like the debate about death penalties for domestic crimes - cost should not be a factor in that.
The point isn't that Saddam needs a fair trial, the point is that if you make exceptions in "obvious" cases, you'll soon make them in cases that are not quite so obvious.
Quote:
BTW France and Germany lost their best business partner in Iraq today.
Comments
Technically a international lead trial will be better, but it's not the only point to consider.
Do i smell a drop of patronizing here ?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
My comments are not superficial, Bernard Kouchner, former official representant of Uno in bosnia, is for a trial in Iraq also. He will have suported La Hague, but since it won't happen, he prefer Iraq.
Technically a international lead trial will be better, but it's not the only point to consider.
Do i smell a drop of patronizing here ?
Powerdoc I am not sure what Shawn is trying to do by being rude to you but no fear your wisdom is seen clearly with each of your posts in this thread.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Powerdoc I am not sure what Shawn is trying to do by being rude to you but no fear your wisdom is seen clearly with each of your posts in this thread.
Fellowship
Thanks.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
My comments are not superficial, Bernard Kouchner, former official representant of Uno in bosnia, is for a trial in Iraq also. He will have suported La Hague, but since it won't happen, he prefer Iraq.
Technically a international lead trial will be better, but it's not the only point to consider.
Do i smell a drop of patronizing here ?
Just technically better?
I'm not really sure I understand Bernard Kouchner's position. He would have supported an international trial over an iraqi-led trial, but since the first won't happen, he supports the second? It's not really saying much beyond a trial is better than no trial.
(No, no patronizing. The superficiality of allowing iraqi's to try saddam themselves was a point made directly in the article..)
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Powerdoc I am not sure what Shawn is trying to do by being rude to you but no fear your wisdom is seen clearly with each of your posts in this thread.
Fellowship
Tough it out, killer.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Pride: "We captured Saddam!"
Therapy: "Didn't it feel good trying him in the Hague?"
What's wrong with that?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Just technically better?
I'm not really sure I understand Bernard Kouchner's position. He would have supported an international trial over an iraqi-led trial, but since the first won't happen, he supports the second? It's not really saying much beyond a trial is better than no trial.
(No, no patronizing. The superficiality of allowing iraqi's to try saddam themselves was a point made directly in the article..)
I perfectly understand that in a lawyer point of vue, an international court is better. There is no discussion here.
My point is for the future of Iraq, an iraqi trial is better.
if i caricature my opinion :
" it's better to screw up Saddam's trial, than to screw up Iraq"
Ok it's just a caricature, a good trial will be much better than a parodic one. It's important to suceed it. But i don't think it's the priority number one. There is no risk there to condamn an innocent, and he was less bright than let's say Milosevich for hidden his direct implication.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
What's wrong with that?
Justice is not therapy.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I perfectly understand that in a lawyer point of vue, an international court is better. There is no discussion here.
My point is for the future of Iraq, an iraqi trial is better.
if i caricature my opinion :
" it's better to screw up Saddam's trial, than to screw up Iraq"
Ok it's just a caricature, a good trial will be much better than a parodic one. It's important to suceed it. But i don't think it's the priority number one. There is no risk there to condamn an innocent, and he was less bright than let's say Milosevich for hidden his direct implication.
OK. We both agree then on the meaty part. I guess it's harder to prove what's best for the future of Iraq, you know? I think we'll have to agree to disagree
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Justice is not therapy.
Eh. I railed against "pride" and "therapy" in the first place. What's wrong with trying him in an international or internationally-led court is really the question.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I think we'll have to agree to disagree
I agree with that
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Eh. I railed against "pride" and "therapy" in the first place...
And I railed against trying him in the Hague as being little more than therapy. Why would the Iraqis feel tempted to not hold a fair trial? The truth will be damning for Saddam.
Speaking of which, when do we get to see the old blond broad interview him? You think she can get him to open up and cry?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Why would the Iraqis feel tempted to not hold a fair trial?
Because it's the U.S., not Iraqis that are in charge.
BTW France and Germany lost their best business partner in Iraq today.
Originally posted by bunge
Because it's the U.S., not Iraqis that are in charge.
The Iraqis will be the ones to try Saddam, not us. But even if we did, why would WE be tempted to not hold a fair trial? Saddam has a grisly record. Do you really think anyone would need to rig the trial?
Originally posted by Scott
Any of you internationalist ponder how you are going to get all the 10 of thousands of Iraqis that need to testify to the Hague for a trial? Maybe it's better to just do it where he did the crimes.
BTW France and Germany lost their best business partner in Iraq today.
...........Hold the trial in.............. IRAQ!
There were two options, and one of them was an internationally-run trial in Iraq.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The Iraqis will be the ones to try Saddam, not us. But even if we did, why would WE be tempted to not hold a fair trial? Saddam has a grisly record. Do you really think anyone would need to rig the trial?
*ahem* we gave support to saddam *cough*
Originally posted by Scott
Any of you internationalist ponder how you are going to get all the 10 of thousands of Iraqis that need to testify to the Hague for a trial? Maybe it's better to just do it where he did the crimes.
Look at the big picture. How often do we need to judge former dictators?
We can afford to do that the best way possible. No need to skimp. A bit like the debate about death penalties for domestic crimes - cost should not be a factor in that.
The point isn't that Saddam needs a fair trial, the point is that if you make exceptions in "obvious" cases, you'll soon make them in cases that are not quite so obvious.
BTW France and Germany lost their best business partner in Iraq today.