Saddam Has Been Captured

1568101114

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 269
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    *ahem* we gave support to saddam *cough*





    You should get some medicine for that.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 142 of 269
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gon

    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.







    I think what the Iraqis want is more important. Europe didn't want to free Iraq from Saddam. Why should they be trusted with Saddam now?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 143 of 269
    Quote:

    originally posted by ShawnJ



    *ahem* we gave support to saddam *cough*



    Right. We did. But we weren't the only ones. Let's begin the list. The Soviets (before the US and after), the French (chemical components), the Germans (um, more chemical components), oh yeah the British. The major players in the industrial world is responsible for this monster.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 144 of 269
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    *ahem* we gave support to saddam *cough*



    Against Iran during the Iraq-Iraq war. We also gave support to Iran during that same war. So? You still haven't explained why anyone would need to rig a trial against Saddam.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 145 of 269
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    I think what the Iraqis want is more important. Europe didn't want to free Iraq from Saddam. Why should they be trusted with Saddam now?



    Europe? What part of "international" don't you understand? Oh Scott you're having a good day.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 146 of 269
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Against Iran during the Iraq-Iraq war. We also gave support to Iran during that same war. So? You still haven't explained why anyone would need to rig a trial against Saddam.



    Because it's a strawman argument. "Rigging the trial" has nothing to do with any of the issues we're talking about.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 147 of 269
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LiquidR

    Right. We did. But we weren't the only ones. Let's begin the list. The Soviets (before the US and after), the French (chemical components), the Germans (um, more chemical components), oh yeah the British. The major players in the industrial world is responsible for this monster.



    Yeah but we're bad.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 148 of 269
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Because it's a strawman argument. "Rigging the trial" has nothing to do with any of the issues we're talking about.



    Then what ARE you talking about if not the need for a fair trial?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 149 of 269
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    If it's true....



    the hague!



    What are the chances it could be an impostor?






    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Europe? What part of "international" don't you understand? Oh Scott you're having a good day.





    Scott, you missed that odd Canadian in there..
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 150 of 269
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Why wouldn't Hussein be tried by his peers? Why would he have to go to the Hague? I mean, I'm all for a common code of justice throughout the lands, but do we lack the trust in this system? Do we think it impossible to get him a fair trial? Do we think it impossible for Iraqis to give a fair trial? Not sure why anyone would distrust the locals so much. I mean, international support/help/coaching on both sides is of course welcome, but why would anyone but his peers actually handle the trial -- judges, juries, lawyers, witnesses, etc? I think Powerdoc has the right idea.



    Both sides of the war debate could use this as a means of reconciliation and do the right thing. Instead, we just take sides.





    ____

    PS: the old Hussein/Rummy clip is old news and irrelevant. Isn't this another so-called strawman? We find plenty of these people who also opposed the war in the exact same position, so who looks worse? Everyone involved has some skeletons in their closet. Condemn them all if one is really so exalted. Let's not settle for the usual everyone make an end run for extreme positions and make raspberries.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 151 of 269
    The ICC doesn't have jurisdiction anyway.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 152 of 269
    (link)

    Quote:

    What crimes will the Court try?



    The Court has a mandate to try individuals rather than States and to hold them accountable for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community - genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and, eventually, the crime of aggression. A common misperception is that the Court will be able to try those accused of having committed such crimes in the past, but this is not the case. The Court will have jurisdiction only over crimes committed after 1 July 2002, when the Statute entered into force...



    What is the relationship between the international Court and national courts?



    The Court's jurisdiction is very carefully set out in the Statute. The entire premise of the Court is based on the principle of complementarity, which means that the Court can only exercise its jurisdiction when a national court is unable or unwilling to genuinely do so itself. The first priority always goes to national courts. The International Criminal Court is in no way meant to replace the authority of national courts. But there may be times when a State's court system collapses and ceases to function. Similarly, there may be governments that condone or participate in an atrocity themselves, or officials may be reluctant to prosecute someone in a position of great power and authority....



    (my emphasis)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 153 of 269
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    Why wouldn't Hussein be tried by his peers? Why would he have to go to the Hague? I mean, I'm all for a common code of justice throughout the lands, but do we lack the trust in this system? Do we think it impossible to get him a fair trial? Do we think it impossible for Iraqis to give a fair trial? Not sure why anyone would distrust the locals so much. I mean, international support/help/coaching on both sides is of course welcome, but why would anyone but his peers actually handle the trial -- judges, juries, lawyers, witnesses, etc? I think Powerdoc has the right idea.



    Both sides of the war debate could use this as a means of reconciliation and do the right thing. Instead, we just take sides.





    BuonRotto, there's absolutely no sense in restating my arguments again. If you want to really understand where I am coming from, read the three articles I linked to:



    Try Saddam in an International Court (IHT Editorial

    Iraq: Justice Needs an International Role (HRW article)

    Iraq: Law Creating War Crimes Tribunal Flawed (HRW article)



    That's why.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 154 of 269
    Iraq is not a signatory. And jurisdiction applies, I think, only to those that signed.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    The ICC doesn't have jurisdiction anyway.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 155 of 269
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by majorspunk

    Iraq is not a signatory. And jurisdiction applies, I think, only to those that signed.



    Right, but I don't think we're talking about the ICC specifically.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 156 of 269
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Right, but I don't think we're talking about the ICC specifically.



    Then what are we talking about?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 157 of 269
    Quote:

    Originally posted by majorspunk

    Iraq is not a signatory. And jurisdiction applies, I think, only to those that signed.



    Even if they were a signatory, the ICC still wouldn't have jurisdiction.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 158 of 269
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Then what are we talking about?



    An internationally-led trial in Iraq or one held elsewhere.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 159 of 269
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Right, but I don't think we're talking about the ICC specifically.



    Edit:



    Since you were talking about "The Hague", that's exactly what you're talking about.. Unless, you don't know what you're talking about..
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 160 of 269
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by majorspunk

    Edit:



    Since you were talking about "The Hague", that's exactly what you're talking about.. Unless, you don't know what you're talking about..




    I was talking about 'The Hague' and I have since moved on to just an international court. Anything will do, even an international-led court in Iraq which is not, you know, "The Hague." Were the Human Rights Watch articles all about "The Hague" too? RTFA next time.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.