Will Saddam be found innocent?

Ok, go with me here for a second. In Iraq, before it was invaded there were no laws concerning what was illegal for Saddam to do. I mean, it was HIS country. Now, we invade them, install a new government, complete with constitution and all.

So theres new laws which he is going to be tried on? Is that legal? He didnt break any of "new" Iraqs current laws did he? No. Did he break any of old Iraqs laws? Nope. He may actually get off. Think about it...

So if you were pissed off when OJ and MJ got off, imagine how its going to look if hes sent free. You may think this is far fetched, but I dont think so. Think of it like this. If they passed a law tommorow saying shoes were illegal, could you be arrested for wearing them YESTERDAY? not a chance. I think the same might apply here.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by spliff4020]

The first trial taking place is in regards to an attack Hussein ordered on a Shi'ite village home to some folks who had just botched an assassination attempt against Saddam.

This is a little strange, and a little ironic.

Strange because while it's a cut and dry case, it's by no means airtight, and there is a clear explanation for Hussein's actions under the circumstances. ("They were trying to kill me!" ..and they were.)

Ironic because arguably one of the reasons we invaded Iraq was revenge for Hussein's attempt(s) on George Bush's life. That assassination was, of course, in retribution for an invasion.

Anyone see where I'm going with this?

I'm sure they'd charge him with counts of torture, but that would be incredibly hypocritical, not to mention embarassing (when information surfaces regarding the torture being used TODAY to elicit information from the resistance).

It will be interesting to see where the trial goes. I, for one, hope they fingerprint him in open court and dispel the rumors about his identity.

(Edit:I got mixed up, and the information provided by Seeker made we remember. I initially said Kurds, but the first trial is for murders in a Shi'ite village. Sorry for the disinformation. Mea culpa. )

[edit on 18-7-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Well it is a very real possibility Spliff. He is still claiming that he is still the leader of the country and that he was removed illegally.

What concerns me is the amount of time he has now been held and yet a trial has not taken place. I am fairly sure they have made charges, but if the evidence is so damning, why have they not convicted him?

I am sure his actions would be illegal in International law, but as you said they can't have been illegal in his country. Did Iraq have to follow said International laws? I don't know if I am honest.

Is it possible they do not have sufficient eveidence to convict him? Possibly. However I cannot see how he can be let free, the coalition will not allow it. I mean how would that make the whole concept of the invasion look? The premise that Saddam had to be removed from power was the final justification, after the first ones were found to have little validity. Is there another reason that we have not yet been told about? I doubt it.

All in all, whatever the outcome, I cannot see him going free any time soon.



[edit on 18-7-2005 by Kriz_4]

I think it is very possible actually. It was his country so in theory, he could do wahtever the hell he wanted, so if we find him guilty, why not Mugabe? He does stuff just as worse.

he will most likely die of a 'heart attack' or similar before too long - problem solved then

maybe someone will do the decent thing and kil him and save a whole load of money getting wasted on the trial.

Come on, spliff4020, what kinda question is dat?

So theres new laws which he is going to be tried on?

There are no "new" laws for which he will "be tried on" or by. There is simply international law; the rule of nations, that he will be tried by. Obviously, some will undoubtedly say that the charges, or some of them, are trumped up charges.

Below is a list of some of the charges against Saddam. There are 12 total that hhe has been charged with.
Charges against Saddam revealed

Specifically, the crimes the tribunal says Saddam committed are:

* Executing at least 50 Iraqis in 1982 in the Shiite town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, in retaliation for a failed assassination attempt against Saddam.

* Killing and deporting 8,000 members of the powerful Kurdish Barzani tribe, of which the current Kurdistan Democratic Party leader, Massoud Barzani, belongs.

* The 1988 chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja that killed an estimated 5,000 people.

* Executing prominent religious and political figures.

* Ordering the seven-month occupation of Kuwait that was ended by the 1991 U.S.-led Gulf War.

* The 1991 suppression of a Shiite uprising in southern Iraq.

For more information:
list of charges against Saddam
list of 12 charges against Saddam





seekerof

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Seekerof]

``

Your right, that he did not break any of 'his' laws & rules of conduct,

but there is still the larger World Court view & the precidents laid
out at the Nuremberg Trials, which set the standards of crimes against humanity...which i think supercede any temporary laws a dictator may impose...while their regime is in power.

~~~~~~~~~

A very good & forcefull team of defenders for Saddam..just may be able to
get Saddam a life imprisonment sentence instead of a death penalty.

if only, just because a lot of evidence won't be made public...why ?
On this link: news.bbc.co.uk...
i noted the insert box listing potential charges:

* Dujail killings 1982
* Massacre of Barzani tribe 1983
* Killing of religious leaders 1974
* 'Ethnic cleansing' of Kurds 1988
* Gassing Kurds in Halabja 1988
* Invasion of Kuwait 1990
* Crushing the Shia and Kurd uprising 1991
* Killing political activists

even these charges against Saddam seem to be muddled with
US, CIA, (and others) covert involvements, and possibly even setting up conditions
for Saddam to commit crimes against humanity

i donno, its a toss up imo

Seeker,

How exactley does International law work in cases like this. Does a country have to sign up and agree to these laws? Is it a form of treaty? Who decides these laws and ultimately who is allowed to enforce them?

You do realize that those charges against Saddam amount to 'crimes against humanity,' correct? How much more international does that have to be? He will be tried by an "Iraqi Special Tribunal," a war crimes trial. Though seemingly not a true international tribunal, international law will have a bearing.

The trial will be monitored by segments of the international community, including the UN. The crimes or charges were committed in Iraq, hence his trial taking place in Iraq, just as Germany's war crimes trials were held in Germany, and judged by the victors; the Allies. Are some of you aware that Iran wanted Saddam tried in Iran for crimes committed during that Iran-Iraq war? The point of this mention is that the trial is sought in the nation where the offence(s) occurred.

International law will have a guiding factor in the trial of Saddam.





seekerof

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Seekerof]

I thought Iran decided not to charge Hussein with the gas attack because they couldn't be sure if it was their gas or his gas that killed the victims? They did use the same weapons, so it's entirely possible, no? I remember reading something to that effect, but I didn't save it, anyone know what I'm talking about? It was an article quoting an interview with an Iranian government official, who said, in so many words, "We're not sure, but it could have been our fault."

Am I mistaken, or did they want to charge him with something else? Perhaps something he did when we were supporting him? Sort of as a swipe at the US? That would make sense, because they'd kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Now I'm curious...

Seekerof-- I thought he was going to be tried in international court, but since hes not, do international laws apply? If hes being tried by iraqis, in iraq, then I dont think he commited any crimes....


this is a fine line we walkin on with him. I think he just might walk....


or the heart attack thing...thats a real possibility...lol

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Ironic because arguably one of the reasons we invaded Iraq was revenge for Hussein's attempt(s) on George Bush's life. That assassination was, of course, in retribution for an invasion.

This is a flagrant lie. While in my opinion, an assassination attempt on a US President is good enough reason to go to war, that is not the reason the US invaded Iraq.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think my point is being missed. Im not defending him or his actions, but I am wondering on what legal grounds he is being prosicuted on. How can a NEW government charge him? What NEW laws has he broken?

If they were to try him in an international court like the Hague, then sure....
But in a new Iraq? How? There doesnt seem to be any legal ground for him to be tried on.

How huge of a slap in the face would it be if he was found innocent, the case was thrown out, or worse, they returned him to power. Could they? He is Iraq's prisoner, not ours.

It'd all be very nice if the gleaming regular white-toothed moustachio'ed short haircut real Saddam was the one up for trial
As we've seen the person going in the dock is a snaggle-toothed underbiting long-haired and bearded old Sham Saddam in Underpants
The real one was spirited away on a Russian airplane from Baghdad airport shortly before the fall of Baghdad proper and under the Auspices of US Command, as reported in the Tehran Times at the time
Sorry, the trial is yet another illusion

He's guilty of mass murder, mass rape, mass torture and stealing
billions from the Iraqis (Oil for Food). He's guilty and will be found
guilty as long as the trial is by the Iraqis and not the corrupt UN.

So you're saying there was no assassination attempt? I could have sworn there was one..yup, sure was.

And you know what else? When someone tries to kill your dad, you seek revenge. You going to tell me George Bush isn't human?

Just because Wiki doesn't say it, doesn't make it false.

I maintain, one could argue the assassination attempt on Bush Sr. was a factor in Bush Jr.'s decision to invade that country. In fact, one is arguing it, One even.

Originally posted by soapydodger
maybe someone will do the decent thing and kil him and save a whole load of money getting wasted on the trial.

I agree with this tactic becasue it would save bunches of money all the way around. If I may add two other outcomes:
1. Let the people of Iraq try him on their soil
2. Provide Saddam with a dose of cyanide, becasue it would be a waste if someone put a bullet behind his ear.
He should be made to write a letter to everyone he ever hurt and after that, he should the rest of his natural life at hard labour.

Saddam's rise to power in that Third World countty was American-funded. Saddam has been a CIA asset since the 1950's. Really. The guy is practically an American himself. The only thing he's missing is his US passport.

The US just turned on him when he became more of a nuiscance than an asset.

Saddam has been invaluable in turning the Middle East into a valuable Western marketing ground. Iraq is buying American goods at an astonishind clip.

Originally posted by AlienAntFarm
Saddam's rise to power in that Third World countty was American-funded. Saddam has been a CIA asset since the 1950's. Really. The guy is practically an American himself. The only thing he's missing is his US passport.

I heard that theory, it makes sense. The problem is, you say they turned on him when he became a nuiscance. No. They turned on him for the oil.

spliff
Who's OJ and MJ ?

[edit on 21-7-2005 by joyouslyhumored]