Should Saddam be tried at the Hague instead?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

"Posthumously executed" being a euphamism for "desecration" I presume?
You can't kill someone who's already dead after all... I've always thought there was something more than just slightly pathetic about digging up a couple of skeletons and smashing them up, but maybe that's just me.

Oh and that sort of weirdness wasn't quite as rare as you might think... the idea of corpses being somehow untouchable is a pretty modern idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not even close to being accurate except in extremely simplistic terms and even then not very...
Then again most of what's said about Cromwell isn't close to being accurate, but gets remembered anyway (a couple of sieges by English troops on cities being defended by other English troops in Ireland being the best example...) a product of several centuries of libel and propaganda. In recent years, schools [in England at least] have taught a much more balanced view of the various civil wars, revolutions and political strife in the 17th century.

[Emsworth]

Oh and that sort of weirdness wasn't quite as rare as you might think... the idea of corpses being somehow untouchable is a pretty modern idea.

I believe that, in sixteenth century Scotland, the idea of posthumous punishment was carried to an even greater extreme. In one case, a dead man was summoned to face charges of high treason; his bones were exhumed, presented at the bar of the court, and endured a posthumous trial and execution.

[Bono]

BTW, what is Mr. Hussein's defense?

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

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

Dave

Do you really believe that you stinkin papist?

[opebo]

BTW, what is Mr. Hussein's defense?

His defense, obviously, PrudeBrunsel, is that he is being illegitimately 'tried' by a kangaroo court.  He may have slaughtered tens of thousands, but such is the ordinary business of government, and it is absurd to charge him with a 'crime' as a head of state.

Of course he will be lynched by the stooges of the christians regardless, so what does it matter?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I believe that, in sixteenth century Scotland, the idea of posthumous punishment was carried to an even greater extreme. In one case, a dead man was summoned to face charges of high treason; his bones were exhumed, presented at the bar of the court, and endured a posthumous trial and execution.

Interesting; I had thought that that was a sort of urban myth. Seems not. I suspect the reason for that sort of thing (and the public executions as well) was down to society in general being much more brutalised than it is now.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not even close to being accurate except in extremely simplistic terms and even then not very...

I disagree. As history graduate, my simplistic terms though simplistic are fairly accurate. Scotland remained an independent nation until the Act of Union in 1707, we just shared the same monarch from 1603 onwards. Whetever was approved by the English parliament had no effect in Scotland and therefore the execution of Charles I was not approved by any Scots body whatsoever. England therefore not only executed it's own monarch, but a foreign monarch too.

Cromwell had no jurisdiction over Scotland until the invasion after the alliance with the Scottish Covanteers broke down.

EDIT: I also find your dismissive tone slightly offensive.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Scotland remained an independent nation until the Act of Union in 1707, we just shared the same monarch from 1603 onwards.

True. Sort of. Also note that the Civil War basically started in Scotland what with the fuss* over the Prayer Book and all that.

*See? I can use euphamisms too!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Charles was handed over to Parliament by the Covenanters though...

...now if you were complaining about Cromwell turning up in Scotland and routing the Covenanters you'd have a better case to be complaining about

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but by the end of the War (actually since the Prayer Book fiasco) it's not like Charles had much either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry about that, it's unintentional; I've seen far too much nationalist re-writing of Scottish and Welsh history sadly (the former is more irritating than the latter as it's entered the mainstream), and I tend to get a bit snappy when I see something that resembles it even slightly.

[afleitch]

The academics of Scottish history in their own opinions are righting wrongs. I know a particular bugbear about the traditional teachings of the English Civil War is that it seems to gloss over anything that happened outside of England (with the exception of Ireland) Even the term English Civil War is misleading. Scottish history is rebuilding itself from a nationalist perspective yes, but at least hasn't resorted to the mind-numbing political correct nonsence that seems to have permeated English history. So while English history (at high school level) wrongly downplays the benefits of Empire, Scottish history revels in it showing the contribution Scotland and Scotsmen made to the structure of the Empire. It also is a bonus becasue it makes Scotland responsible for the British Empire too and shoots the English-hating nationalists in the foot at the same time:)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The academics of Scottish history in their own opinions are righting wrongs.

By committing new ones? Not that that's at all unusual with historians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. And I wish they would focus more on that rather than bemoaning the abolition of a Parliament that only allowed about 2500 out of a million or so people vote in elections for it...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is a shame. Nothing wrong at all with a patriotic perspective, but (judging from the published stuff I've seen, which may be too small a sample) a lot of the stuff coming out of Scotland recently is unreadable unless you share the Nat viewpoint (and the same is the case with all the old Whiggish stuff published down here).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You need to stop reading the Daily Mail

I'd say that most developments in English history recently have been pretty good (especially the longterm decline of Whiggery) and the fact that what's been published over the past few years (books, journals, everything) has been a lot better (overall) than even twenty years ago pretty much proves that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No... it doesn't actually. It hardly covers the Empire at all; slavery (and the tendency is to focus almost as much on America as the Empire) is pretty much the only exception.
The problem is a pretty simple one; no matter what angle is chosen a lot of people will get very, very angry (one side won't accept talking about what benefits there were, the other side just goes into a fit whenever the Empire is presented as anything other than positive). I'd like to see it get taught more though; but from a fairly objective viewpoint.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I had noticed that. A pretty recent development actually and a suprisingly honest one (much better than the whole cult of victimhood that reigned supreme from the '30's until the '80's or so).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh, I should also add that the amount of attention that goes on slavery is insufficient...

[afleitch]

Oh, I should also add that the amount of attention that goes on slavery is insufficient...

I agree; in particular non-black slaves, who are often neglected, like the million or so white slaves of the Ottoman Empire and the caste system in India.

Oh and I would never read the Daily Hate Mail. I would be letting the gay side down if I did

[they don't love you like i love you]

Oh and that sort of weirdness wasn't quite as rare as you might think... the idea of corpses being somehow untouchable is a pretty modern idea.

It's happened in modern times too. After the Duvalier regime was overthrown in Haiti the people dug up the elder Duvalier's body and beat the crap out of it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's happened in modern times too. After the Duvalier regime was overthrown in Haiti the people dug up the elder Duvalier's body and beat the crap out of it.

Not quite the same; in this case it was the state that smashed up some skeletons. But, yes, Haiti is a pretty brutalised and morbid society so that makes sense.

[Democratic Hawk]

BTW, what is Mr. Hussein's defense?

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

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

Dave

Do you really believe that you stinkin papist?

Wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it and for the record I'm Church of England

Dave

[Richard]

No.  I wouldn't even give him a trial because it will obviously be a kangeroo court.  Just execute him tomorrow morning.

[Democratic Hawk]

No.  I wouldn't even give him a trial because it will obviously be a kangeroo court.  Just execute him tomorrow morning.

I agree, Saddam Hussein shoud have been given the Ceaucescu treatment. Why go through all the expense of holding a trial?

Dave

[they don't love you like i love you]

No.  I wouldn't even give him a trial because it will obviously be a kangeroo court.  Just execute him tomorrow morning.

I agree, Saddam Hussein shoud have been given the Ceaucescu treatment. Why go through all the expense of holding a trial?

Dave

Ceaucescu did have a trial.

[Democratic Hawk]

No.  I wouldn't even give him a trial because it will obviously be a kangeroo court.  Just execute him tomorrow morning.

I agree, Saddam Hussein shoud have been given the Ceaucescu treatment. Why go through all the expense of holding a trial?

Dave

Ceaucescu did have a trial.

Granted, but it wasn't a long-drawn out affair. Justice was vented on Ceaucescu very swiftly

Dave