Don't Look Now But I Think Saddam Is Going To Win His Trial.

[Solomon]

Not only is he rational and intelligent, but every day the violence that occurs in Iraq seems worse than the violence under Saddam.

[MadisonProgressive]

1. Unfortunately for him it's a Kangaroo Kourt

[Coexist]

2. Just FYI - all the apolitical people are I are fuming about this trial

being a joke and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Don't quite know what this means -but they HATE it.

[Dr.Phool]

3. He's using the GWB defense strategery

"If the president does it, it's not illegal".

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. He has a bit of a point there

140 men and boys were arrested for conspiracy to assassinate the President of Iraq, they were convicted in an Iraqi court, and they were sentenced to death. The prosecution is now in a position where it has to explain why the jurisprudence that led to their conviction and execution is wrong, or extra-judicial; they have to prove that the trials were so flawed that assenting to the execution constitutes a crime against humanity. Hell, by that standard, half the governors in these United States would be on the dock.

It looks to me like the prosecution walked into a trap here: their best evidence was Saddam's written and verbal assent, the "signing of the death warrant" so to speak. But that same assent presupposes that at least the minimum standards of internal Iraqi jurisprudence was followed in all the case, yielding Saddam the damn good argument "How was any of this illegal?"

In fact, the very trial form they are using to try Saddam is the same as the form of law used to try the "conspirators." This produces the devastating irony: in order to convict Saddam, the court will have to say that its own form is improper jurisprudence! In order to sentence Saddam to death, the court will have to say that it cannot sentence anyone to death, since to do so would violate - what? some internaional law, or the very law they are applying against Saddam?!?

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. They hate it because we couldn't just kill him the way we killed

his two sons? This court is making Sadaam look more humane than Bush?

Sad thing is that it can be both of those things and they wouldn't even blink an eyelash when they acknowledge it.

[Solomon]

4. Just for the sake of theoretical argument, let's imagine that the Iraqi

people, having been blessed by democracy given them by Bush, er, I mean God, decide to acquit him and re-instate him as president.

Since we have now gone down to our last excuse for wrecking Iraq, i.e., that the world is better off without Saddam, what would we do if they re-instated Saddam?

Would we take him down again, or respect the wishes of the Iraqis?

[Toots]

18. Bush* claims the Power to have anyone killed at his request

Any doubt that a man that would stick a firecracker up a frog's ass would hesitate to order the death of someone?

[ladjf]

5. It doesn't appear that he broke Iraqi law to order the execution

of those convicted of attempted assassination. American Presidents have signed death order against people who where convicted of spying.

[SoCalDem]

7. As dictator, he DID have the authority to do what he did

As a Human, he had no right...BUT who knows how the court will decide...Maybe the people will revolt and the court will just dismiss the whole thing..:shrug:

[Solomon]

9. But isn't this true about Bush too. As president he has authority to do

things but as a Human, he does not?

[SoCalDem]

11. True..but the court system is about "legality"

and holding a dictator to legality is a conundrum

[Solomon]

14. I might be wrong but I thought Iraq did have a set of laws, and they did

go through the pretense of having elections. Having a dictator doesn't mean you are totally lawless. In fact, I read where Saddam invoked Iraqi law to defend himself.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Indeed - there was a veil of legality that is now the major problem

Americans are childish this way: they hear dictator and think it mean one thing, where the actual day-to-day governance in a dictatorial society works quite differently. Iraq had laws; Iraq had specific rules of jurisprudence; Iraq had legal professionals, etc.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. But that's the point: he did not "dictate" the killings

according to the evidence. The men and boys from the town were convicted in Iraqi courts of conspiracy to assassinate the President, and they were all sentenced to death. A number were killed in custody, but no evidence shows Saddam ordered this. The only evidence is that Saddam signed off on the "death warrants" produced by the trials.

Now, certainly, the Iraqi courts were kangaroo courts of first order, but the thing has a much different shape than the initial stories. There was at least the veil of legality and due process. So, now the argument to be made by the prosecution is that Iraqi courts and law is insufficient to sentence people to death. Do they really want to go down that road? It would yield a rather paradoxical result, since they are trying to sentence Saddam to death by using essentially the same system of jurisprudence!

[benburch]

20. On kangaroo court...

...reviewing the actions of another.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Indeed

And this is the paradox that the prosecutors are faced with. Not only is it one kangaroo court reviewing another, to the extent that the principles of jurisprudence remain in place in the Iraq Court system, such that the very procedures used to convict the men and boys from the village are the SAME as the legal procedures being used in the case against Saddam. This could be read as delicious irony for Saddam, but it hardly provides the space for a legitimate tribunal. The paradox is thus heightened further, since it is essentially one kangaroo court reviewing itself!

Of course, paradox is only for people who demand some sort of reasonable consistency. Kangaroo courts, by definition, have no such quibbles. They are about power, pure and simple. In the last kangaroo court, Saddam and the Baathists had the power; in this one, the Shiites and their American clients have the power. Ta da! No paradox at all. Get it?

[Caution]

8. Let's hope not.

the guy was a monster. period.

[madokie]

10. you are talking about bush*,,, right

[Solomon]

12. Just asking, but was he a monster because he wanted to be or a

monster because he had to be?

[northzax]

15. does it matter?

did order the summary trials and executions of thousands of people because he wanted to or because he had to? who cares, he still did it.

[Solomon]

22. Of course it matters. Ordering a death for a reason is much different

than ordering a death for personal gratification. We accept the proposition all the time, as in, better to shoot the plane down, than let it crash into a building full of people.
The person ordering and shooting the plane down is being a monster, but because he has to be, not because he wants to be.

[Robeson]

17. Why don't we just call it even, and send he and Bush to the Hague...

...to be put on trial, legally and properly. Maybe they could be cellmates.

[bmbmd]

21. Saddam aquitted.

Restored to power. Americans leave. Rosy scenario?

[Solomon]

23. I wouldn't say it's a rosy scenario. I'm just speculating about what us

americans would do if he were acquitted. Would definitely put us in a pickle. Having waxed eloquent about Iraqis right to decide for themselves what kind of government they want, as opposed to our reason for invading, "Saddam was a brutal dictator who gassed his own people".

[no_hypocrisy]

26. Waiting for Saddam to use one of two defenses:

1. He denies having committed genocide against his citizens.
2. He admits having conspired to murder certain members of certain groups which he will claim were going to kill him first, you know, preemptive strike . . . He'll claim his actions kept the country from civil war by keeping a lid on the Shi'ites.

[NV Whino]

24. If he's acquited

he beats the first death penalty and will face more trials, which may drag Bush, Rummy and friends through the merde.