It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Saddam Hussein Pleads 'Not Guilty'

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Kushi, to answer your question:

Saddam is on trial for this case because its the easiest case for the prosecution to prepare for. Any of the other major crimes Saddam carried out would take literally decades to compile enough evidence to get him convicted. The trials would also take years, hence in the interest of brevity they picked a smaller open and shut case with which to see him executed.




posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
There's also the thorny issue of Executive immunity. Would the President of the United States be allowed to go on trial by an occupying power? For crimes that occurred inside the United States and outside the jurisdiction of the occupying power? Would the American people recognize the authourity and juridiction of any interim government set up by an occupying power?


The precedent was already set 59 years ago in the NUremburg trial. The top Nazi's were tried for crimes committed inside Germany before the Polish excursion in 1939.
As for Iraqi
s recognising the authority for such a trial, it depends on the person. People who suffered under Saddam have no problem with his trial whereas peoples patroned by him would.


Its a legal minefield if you ask me and I have no illusions that Saddam's trial will be fair or that he will be found 'not guilty'. The only contentious topic, really, is whether or not he will be executed. I believe he will not be executed due to the United States fence mending with Europe. If the United States wants any European cooperation within Iraq, or subsequent invasions, it would do best not to execute Saddam.


I can't see him escaping the gallows, that would be a slap in the face to most Iraqi's. I hardly think the US will try and appease Europe by saving him from execution, why should they care if he's executed or not ? Should Europe tell the Iraqi's how they should dispense justice - I don't think so.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
I can't see him escaping the gallows, that would be a slap in the face to most Iraqi's. I hardly think the US will try and appease Europe by saving him from execution, why should they care if he's executed or not ? Should Europe tell the Iraqi's how they should dispense justice - I don't think so.

Should the United States tell the Iraqi's that he should be executed? Infact should the United States tell Iranians that Shariah law is barbaric?

Yes I believe Europe will care if he is executed or not and I think the United States should recognize that the practice is illegal in the majority of countries nowadays. The United States invaded Saddam for flouting the will of the World and then it goes and replaces the old boss, same as the new boss when it comes to respecting the "will of the World". A little consistency please.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Yes I believe Europe will care if he is executed or not and I think the United States should recognize that the practice is illegal in the majority of countries nowadays.


You might want to check your facts on which countries still allow the death penalty. Here I will save you time



86 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes;

11 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes;

24 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice: they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions, making a total of 121 countries which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.

75 other countries and territories retain and use the death penalty, but the number of countries which actually execute prisoners in any one year is much smaller.
web.amnesty.org...


Kindly note that only 86 have completely ablolished the death penalty for ALL crimes, therefore technically there are still 100 that either have it or can use it under certain circumstances.

Also allow me to point out at least he is getting a trail by judges with lawyers unlike when he ruled where he was the judge and jury without lawyers and just sentenced people to death all on his own


[edit on 10/31/2005 by shots]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Kushi, to answer your question:

Saddam is on trial for this case because its the easiest case for the prosecution to prepare for. Any of the other major crimes Saddam carried out would take literally decades to compile enough evidence to get him convicted. The trials would also take years, hence in the interest of brevity they picked a smaller open and shut case with which to see him executed.


Ok. That sucks. He should be tried for what he's been searched for. Why weren't they after him for that BEFORE the whole 9/11 incident?




top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join