Should Saddam be tried at the Hague instead?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:48:08 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Should Saddam be tried at the Hague instead?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Should Saddam be tried at the Hague instead?
#1
yes
 
#2
no
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 31

Author Topic: Should Saddam be tried at the Hague instead?  (Read 3805 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 23, 2005, 10:28:23 PM »

Yes. That's where he belongs, a legitimate court and legitimate world body, not this kangaroo court in a nation under military occupation in the middle of civil war.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2005, 03:10:16 AM »
« Edited: October 24, 2005, 04:15:29 AM by Senator Al »


No. It would take forever. You know that in the Milosevic trial the orginal Judge (Richard May) died before the prosecution (or was it the defense? See this has been going on so long that...) even began?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's illegitimate about the current court?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's illegitimate about Iraq?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

How exactly is it a kangaroo court? Yes, Saddam will be found guilty and executed; but this isn't because the trial is a stitch up. It's because he's as guilty as hell and (seeing as his defense is a new version of the classic "Tyrant's Defense") he knows it.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevent. The Nuremburg trials happend in a country under military occupation. Were they illegitimate?

You need to understand something here; most Iraqis want to see him swing. Now they probably aren't happy this isn't being done in the traditional Iraqi way (ie; drag him through the streets of Baghdad, cut him into little pieces and hang up what's left from a bridge) but they seem to have accepted this way of doing things. Most Iraqis wouldn't trust an alledgedly impartial international body to try Saddam and probably would see such a trial as illegitimate in some way.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2005, 04:13:42 AM »

The illegitimate court is that one in The Hague.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2005, 10:13:18 AM »

The vast majority of Saddam's crimes were committed against his own people--and thus it is only fitting that the Iraqi people are the one to hang him from the yardarm.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2005, 11:39:20 AM »

Saddam should be freed with an apology and reinstated with reparations.  Failing that, the Hague is less of a joke than this American stooge 'court'.
Logged
MissCatholic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2005, 11:44:47 AM »

The moment you take the case to the hague, rumsfled would have to testify and disclose info about their meetings. the trial would become a farce.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2005, 08:38:42 PM »

No, he should not. Iraq has not accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court--and rightfully so. I do not see why it should give up its sovereignty to some international body.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2005, 08:43:04 PM »

This is a fairly ridiculous thread. A BRTD classic.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2005, 03:20:18 PM »



No, he should be tried by his own people. 
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2005, 04:11:23 PM »

No, he should not. Iraq has not accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court--and rightfully so. I do not see why it should give up its sovereignty to some international body.

It can't 'give up' its sovereignty - that was stolen by force by the USA not so long ago.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2005, 04:15:14 PM »

International organizations have absolutely no legitimacy of their own--all their power is conditionally derived from sovereign entities, and can at any time be withdrawn.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2005, 04:49:22 PM »



No, he should be tried by his own people. 
I agree. Theres nothing wrong with where he is now and I hope they give him life. (in jail, that is.)
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2005, 06:11:45 PM »

BTW, what is Mr. Hussein's defense?
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2005, 06:16:35 PM »

Unfortunately, there is no legal possibility of trying him in the Hague. To begin with, there isn't much horrible he did after July 1, 2002 - and the ICC (I guess, you refer to that) has no jurisdiction over anything that had occured previously. Then, of course, Iraq hasn't signed or ratified the treaty (neither did Iran - in fact, in the entire region there is only one country that did, and it is Jordan), so the only way he'd be subject to the jurisdiction is upon the referral by the security council - but still, I believe, the July 1, 2002 date would be operative.

The only real possibility would be for the Security Council to set up an ad hoc tribunal (like the Yugoslavia tribunal in the Hague, or the Rwanda tribunal in Abuja).  Could be done, in principle, and, in fact, there is nothing in the US position rules out doing something like that for similar cases now or in the future (in fact, such ad hoc tribunals are whoel-heartedly supported by the US, including this administration). Perhaps, China and Russia could have been induced to vote for this, or even to abstain (UK, US and France would have no trouble voting in favor here - though, of course, UK and France would not agree to set up an ad hoc tribunal for post-2002 cases).

However, I guess, it has been decided that giving the guy to Iraqis to roast was better local PR - which is, probably, right.  Without knowing how it plays out in Iraq, there is no way to tell whether this was the right decision, but it does not strike me as a major mistake in any case, though I might be wrong.  An international tribunal could be set up to have more legitimacy among at least some of the Sunnis, perhaps.

Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2005, 06:53:48 PM »

[hussein] I didnt do it! I swear![/hussein]

lol
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2005, 07:18:08 PM »


[Hussein]Can't we all just get along?[/Hussein]
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2005, 09:57:09 AM »

No. It's only right that the Iraqi people try and convict Saddam Hussein. In fact, to hell with the expense of even holding a trial

I don't normally approve of the death penalty but his fate ought to have mirrowed that of Romania's Nicolae Ceaucescu, who was dealt with swiftly and effectively

Dave
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2005, 11:10:28 AM »


As I understand it, his defence is that he is the President of Iraq and under the terms of the Iraqi constitution (as it was when he was in control) he is immune from suit. He claims the court is improperly constituted, and he does not recognise it as having the legal jurisdiction or authority to put him on trial.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2005, 12:20:30 PM »

I don't normally approve of the death penalty but his fate ought to have mirrowed that of Romania's Nicolae Ceaucescu, who was dealt with swiftly and effectively

He did get a trial though. One quite similar to this one. Hence the point of it being a kangaroo court. Of course both were obviously guilty anyway, but it would've been more appropiate to deal with them in a more legitimate manner.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2005, 12:25:22 PM »

I don't normally approve of the death penalty but his fate ought to have mirrowed that of Romania's Nicolae Ceaucescu, who was dealt with swiftly and effectively

He did get a trial though. One quite similar to this one. Hence the point of it being a kangaroo court. Of course both were obviously guilty anyway, but it would've been more appropiate to deal with them in a more legitimate manner.

What is more legitimate than a trial infront of your peers?  It's being televised around the world, and he is receiving both domestic and foreign council.  Any sign of a kangaroo court will be seen before millions of people, but I doubt that will happen since there is so much evidence against him.  He's getting a fair shake, unlike what he did with so many of his citizens over the years.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2005, 01:33:20 PM »


As I understand it, his defence is that he is the President of Iraq and under the terms of the Iraqi constitution (as it was when he was in control) he is immune from suit. He claims the court is improperly constituted, and he does not recognise it as having the legal jurisdiction or authority to put him on trial.

As JFK spotted a while ago that's amusingly similer to the one used by Charles I after the English Civil War. We all know how that worked out Grin
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2005, 02:04:55 PM »


As I understand it, his defence is that he is the President of Iraq and under the terms of the Iraqi constitution (as it was when he was in control) he is immune from suit. He claims the court is improperly constituted, and he does not recognise it as having the legal jurisdiction or authority to put him on trial.

As JFK spotted a while ago that's amusingly similer to the one used by Charles I after the English Civil War. We all know how that worked out Grin

Indeed. But while it didn't work out for Charles, in the end it didn't work out for those who tried him either. Wink
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2005, 08:22:49 AM »


As I understand it, his defence is that he is the President of Iraq and under the terms of the Iraqi constitution (as it was when he was in control) he is immune from suit. He claims the court is improperly constituted, and he does not recognise it as having the legal jurisdiction or authority to put him on trial.

As JFK spotted a while ago that's amusingly similer to the one used by Charles I after the English Civil War. We all know how that worked out Grin

The difference being since Charles I was a God-annointed King, he was right

Dave
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2005, 08:30:02 AM »


Indeed. But while it didn't work out for Charles, in the end it didn't work out for those who tried him either. Wink

Yes, Oliver Cromwell was deservedly hung, drawn and quartered. His severed head was put on display for all to behold he who committed the heinous act of regicide

Dave
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2005, 09:54:50 AM »

Cromwell was unusually 'posthumously' executed, he was dug up in 1661 and given the old hung drawn and quartered treatment.

In Scotland he is not fondly remembered. Charles I was our king too, Scotland was still an independent nation and there was no right to have executed him and then invaded Scotland.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 13 queries.