Location: Blogs Law Library Life |
 | | Posted by: Brian Baker | Wednesday, January 03, 2007 7:10:35 AM | Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe Saddam Hussein (SH) and his sons did some awful things to the people of Iraq when he was in power. That said, I have been against the war in Iraq from the start. I knew I was being lied to from the beginning. I did not oppose the war in Afghanistan however as they, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, were responsible for 9/11.
My questions revolve around why this trial was held in Iraq at all, was it a fair trial, and why was there such a rush to execution.
In the recent past, the US has gone to war (or at least had police actions) in Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Somalia. In at least two of those actions/wars we have worked to have leaders suspected of genocide removed to be tried at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). With the Iraq war the US deliberately avoided sending SH to the ICJ. Why? Was the US not sure that SH could be convicted by the ICJ?
The ICJ could be impartial and has structured rules for prosecuting cases of genocide. Why would we avoid using the ICJ? Very curious.
During the trial at least two defence counsels were murdered and a number of defense counsel staff members were murdered as well. In addition, the presiding judge, the one that oversaw most of the trial quit. When a replacement was brought in that showed some sympathy to SH, and refused to tow the party line, he was removed immediately and another judge brought in. These events should, by any legal measure, constitute a mistrial.
Why was a new trial not granted?
Why didn't the US see the injustice and move the trial elsewhere - preferably to the ICJ?
Once the verdict was approved on appeal, the US turned SH over to the Iraqi government who executed him within 24 hours.
Despite Iraqi Constitutional Law that forbids the execution of prisoners on religious holy days, the Shia majority rushed SH to the gallows and executed him on the holy festival of Eid ul-Adha, during the Hajj.
What was the rush? Why did the US not want SH tried before the ICJ? What was everyone afraid of.
Now we have given the Sunni's in Iraq, Saudia Arabia, and Syria a reason to rise up and fight. Removing SH to the ICJ would have been the smart move. Unfortunately, there have been very few smart moves in this dismal war.
| | | Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (6) Add Comment
|
Re: The execution of Saddam Hussein - was it fair? | By Carlyn on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:25:33 PM | Yes - I think it was fair. I think the timeing of the execution was perfect.
I have witnessed first hand people from that part of the world. On more than one occasion. Their anger errups - I have seen them punch holes in walls and throw furniture in a hospital, terrorizing all inside, in Burbank Calif. - security went crazy...... It seems to be the general MO. (lets not forget Kuwait and the gasing of so many people and their children.)
I have seen a man in his homeland attire in our Fresno neighborhood sitting outside of their domain swinging and throwing a large curved knife at people walking by.The fact that it was done between holy days, would most likely keep the majority from exploding and haveing time to digest what took place. It was best he was judged by his own. |
| |
Re: The execution of Saddam Hussein - was it fair? | By Peter.Wall on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:26:07 PM | Those aren't particularly difficult questions, so long as one is ready to accept disturbing answers.
If we submitted to the ICJ, then it would violate the exceptionalist spirit that pervades the present administration (and huge swaths of the population). How can we believe that everything we do is the best if we submit to international adjudication? The last thing many Americans want, including the ones in power, is to have an international tribunal second-guessing them. We are, after all, in many of their eyes, a "Christian Nation," and "a city on a hill." We can do no wrong because, even if we use unpleasant means, we fight for Freedom and Democracy and Jesus. Those other nations of the world, bunch of wicked heathens that they are, cannot be allowed to criticize the things we do in pursuit of those goals.
If you express real skepticism about the American exceptional ideal, you will not ascend to the powerful offices. The U.S. government will not submit to the ICJ until the empire has collapsed and it would be utterly laughable to claim we are better than everyone else. |
| |
Re: The execution of Saddam Hussein - was it fair? | By Peter on Thursday, January 04, 2007 12:29:47 AM | Funny, I've also seen "white" people do things like you describe, Carlyn. And Mexicans. And people of African descent. I've read about some pretty nasty incidents in the local Hmong community, too. At the law firm where I work, I have seen accounts from our clients of shocking and abusive conduct from people of other ethnicities, too.
Race and culture are not the problem. Violence and irrationality cross all racial and cultural boundaries. Many people who call themselves civilized are not much different; they have just learned to mask their savagery with less overt conduct. Instead of killing or maiming bodies, they go after psychological well-being or bank accounts. I have seen uninjured, able-bodied victims of psychological abuse who are in far more suffering than people who are physically injured or disabled. But we will gladly live next door to people who wreak psychological havoc in the lives of others day after day, while calling down wrath on those whose damage is only slightly more overt.
People are irrational and violent, physically or otherwise, because they have never discovered for themselves the substantial benefit of more cooperative strategies. Those people are not just Muslims or Arabs or Middle Easterners. They live here, too, and they are all different colors.
If you want to see a world with fewer people like Saddam Hussein, or like the ones you describe, then your best bet is to promote the rational, cooperative approach to life; making inflammatory and racist statements will not help. Telling irrational and violent people that they are irrational and violent will only make them angrier, no matter which part of the world they come from. If you would rather fight those people with punitive measures and verbal abuse in the form of inflammatory diatribes, then you are not much better than they are, if any. |
| |
Re: The execution of Saddam Hussein - was it fair? | By Craig Tristao on Friday, January 05, 2007 12:52:30 AM | The international crime court has certain standing and procedure requirements. One of which is that it does not try to stand in place of a national tribunal, despite an international law having been broken within the nation.
My analogies are thus. Iran could bring suit for atrocities against Iraq for acts done by its government, with particular emphasis on Saddam as leader. That would be a proper venue for the ICC. This is along the lines of the Bosnia and Herz trials.
For Saddam being tried for acts in his own country the trial of Mengistu Haile Miriam is a better standard. Men was the socialist/communist leader of ethiopia who committed attrocites in Ethiopia and Somalia. The Ethiopia trial is in its later stages, (it has been over a decade) with death sentences for leaders, and most likely for Mengistu. The Ethopia trial has taken so long due to evidence issues,and trying all acts at once as opposed to seperately. This was less difficult in Husseins trial as the evidence was not difficult to find and present, and it is one trial among many for various acts. However, another reason for Ethiopias trial length was to not give a sense that it is the same as trials under communist rule.
Iraq is following the Men model, in which case the ICC was not the venue. I can see how the Suddam trial appears no different than the sophisticated but corrupt courts in place while Saddam was leader-defense attorneys were killed. However, the Iraqi court did give him representation, and an appeal. So, although not perfect, there were elements of due process. I admit this seems laughable.
But, if that is laughable we must look at the overall picture. The governent with the power to choose whether or not the ICC be involved, Iraq, did not so choose. (The US Can not file ICC claims on Behalf of another sovereign nation, especially when we are not apart of that court system) The most likely reason, they wanted to kill him. The ICC would find him guilty, there is no real question of that, just a lower kill rate for defense attorneys given the remote location. However, the end result would be Saddam in prison for life. Arguably not a punishment befitting of the act. Most surely not the punishment the country wanted. |
| |
Re: The execution of Saddam Hussein - was it fair? | By Brian on Friday, January 05, 2007 12:59:44 AM | I will start out with the disclaimer that I know very little about International Law.
It is my understanding, however, that the court system currently in place in Iraq is not one borne of tradition that needed to be adhered to. It was created, or cobbled together, by Paul Bremer when he was the US person in charge of Iraq, right after the "war" ended.
So, in effect, the country that got what it wanted, Saddam's death, was the US.
That begs a different question to me. If saddam was on trial for the gassing of thousands of Kurds after an assination attempt, as I believe was the case but I'm not 100% sure was the indictment he was convicted on, shouldn't it have come up that the US, through Donald Rumsfeld, gave the gas to Saddam and approved its use as part of Iraq's war on Iran - the Kurds sided with Iran (the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I believe).
Was Saddam put to death quickly so that all the secrets of US involvement would die with him?
Sure, in my heart of hearts I'm a conspiracy theorist, but it seems like questions should be asked along these lines. |
| |
Re: The execution of Saddam Hussein - was it fair? | By Craig Tristao on Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:27:46 AM | If that is the case then Iraq, and possibly Iran, can attempt to bring claims against the US for War Crimes-even the Daily Show has footage and information on Rumsfiel conversing with Suddam, his death would be a mild impediment. However, Donald Rumsfield was not a commander of the Iraq army, or decision making member of its government, so it would be a grasp at straws. Arms dealing would have to be a war crime, and all countries are guilty of that.
With respect to Paul Bremer. The tribunal statute was created by the coalition provisional authority and accepted/amended by the government of Iraq. So, he had a role in its development. The Tribunal statute uses standards of international law in compliance with the sovereign law of Iraq. Current media rhetoric maintains that Muqtada has more influence than the US over the Iraqi government. In either event, SH was not going to the ICC. The US is not a member of the ICC.
Conspiracy theories are fun. This is similar to Che Guevarria's demise.
|
|
|
|
| | |