Is an objective trial really necessary?

[ermoore]

I mean, if there's one thing both left and right can agree on it's that Saddam was an asshole and that he was responsible for (at least) hundreds of thousands of deaths (and untold other horrors). I doubt that Saddam will get a very fair trial, but does that matter? Cause I also have no doubt at all that he is guilty (and after all, isn't that the point of a trial?)

Does anyone really contest that Saddam is guilty? And while there might be some disagreement on the exact number of innocent people he's murdered, that doesn't really matter either. Who cares if it was 750,000 or 1,750,000? He's still gonna get either life or the death penalty.

[blondeatlast]

1. Yes, indeed it is.

Without it, we become mirrors of his tyranny. I would hope even bushit wouldn't aim that low.

Edit: A strange question, IMHO. What do you think should be done instead?

[thebigidea]

2. never misunderestimate the depths to which Bush can sink

[blondeatlast]

It's pretty hard to understimate it. But one can (and does) hope.

[Djinn]

4. yes

for the same reason that I think Nazi's, fundies and Rush Limbaugh all deserve freedom of speech - because you don't just allow it for people you like/agree with.

[rbnyc]

13. Yep!

You said it.

[ermoore]

14. Do the best we can.

I'm not saying that I think a fair trial isn't desirable, but I just don't think it's possible. Perhaps my choice of words was poor . . . In Iraq it will be impossible to find an objective jury (or rather tribunal), but I'd suspect that it would be pretty impossible to find an objective jury (or tribunal) anywhere in the world (I suppose you could go out into several rural places and pick up some people who've never heard of Iraq, but that's not really feasible is it). Yeah, I should never have used the word "fair," cause I do think that Saddam will get a "fair" trial (in the sense that he'll get what's coming to him), but it won't be objective.

I suspect that any of us could predict the outcome of any trial. He will be found guilty (b/c he is), and he if the death penalty is an option he'll be put to death, otherwise, life imprisonment.

What do I think should be done? Oh, we both probably agree here, but I think he should be given as fair and objective a trial as possible. I also think that afterward he should be put to death, which a great many of you probably disagree with, but let's get into that another time.

[Junkdrawer]

3. And what if Reagan, Bush I or Bush II were shown to be complicit?

Should they get the same treatment? Or are they above justice?

[blondeatlast]

5. Absolutely the same treatment, absoleffin'lutely.

I hope the asshole sings like Pavarotti. That would ruin the BFEE.

[thebigidea]

7. are you serious? OF COURSE the Bushes are above justice.

They seem to think they ARE justice incarnate.

[Junkdrawer]

11. We've come a long way since Nuremberg, eh?

A long way down.

[Don Claybrook]

6. Is an objective trial really necessary? You're really not joking?

There are a few prereq's here: first, what will he be charged with? And by whom? In what court? These questions aren't as pointless as they may seem on the surface.

Do you wish for the converse? Do you want a kangaroo court? A show-trial? No trial, just a bullet in the back of the head?

Lack of an objective trial would be the style and hallmark of the Bush Administration, so OF COURSE we should have an objective trial.

[blondeatlast]

9. My point exactly. I'm still curious as to OP's alternatives.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. If that's the case then why have a trial?

Why not just publicly execute him? :eyes:

[rbnyc]

10. Yes.

The point of the law, and the point of a fair trial are not simply to determine guilt or innocence. The point of the law is to allow society to process injustices with the greatest degree of impartiality possible, to protect justice from our feelings and desires in heated times. The law is there to protect us from ourselves. The law is there to make sure our vision of what is right and fair survives the horrors that we face. If you think that an unfair trial is of little consequence if we know a man is guilty then you do not recognize the true importance of the law.

Five members of the Supreme Court believed that Bush won election 2000. They made a terrible mistake when they concluded that the precision and integrity of the law was less important than the need to reinforce this perception.

Let me quote Elaine Jones, President and Director-Council for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, when she spoke at a forum on the impact of the PATRIOT Act on the judicial system: "We are removing important underpinnings that enable us to right wrongs among ourselves. It was the law which has enabled us as a people to move forward and still hold together as a nation as we deal with these tough social issues.”

If you want to beat someone, you don’t rip your arm off to do it.

EDIT: typo

[welshTerrier2]

12. are you serious?

i'm afraid you're not seeing the big picture here ...

does it matter whether Saddam gets a fair trial?

OF COURSE IT MATTERS ... Saddam is not the only one on trial here ... don't you understand that? America is on trial ... the whole world's watching ...

Our system of jurisprudence is on trial ... if we arrogantly proclaim our society to be superior to all others and then impose a guilty verdict without "objectively weighing all the evidence", no matter how obvious the outcome may appear, we are committing the very crime Saddam himself is accused of ... summary execution without a fair trial ...

Yes, it matters ... you cannot argue that you want to bring American values to Iraq and then fail to do so ... we teach that the rule of law must prevail ... and it must prevail no matter how heinous the accusations are against an accused ... the U.S. should play no role in Saddam's trial ... this is business for the Iraqi people or the World Court ... but if we do play a role, it damned well should faithfully represent values entrenched in our Constitution ...

[hlthe2b]

15. We want the true and total history to come out-- including US' role

in creating this dictator/monster.

For many, though, the sentence is a given. For them, I suppose the trial is simply a formality.

[Moderator]

16. Locking.

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.