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.

 

Saddam's New Judge is Native of Gassed Kurd Town

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

THE court trying Saddam Hussein has replaced its chief judge a day before the former dictator returns to the dock.

The Iraqi Special Tribunal yesterday named Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman, a Kurd from Halabja, where 5,000 died in a gas attack during an offensive by Saddam’s forces, to succeed Rizgar Amin.

Continued....


In yet another act of injustice the Court created, and controled by the occupational forces has appointed a judge whos bias against Saddam cannot be in doubt.

Instead of an illegitimate lynching of Saddam we should turn him over to a court that has some legitimacy.

Either within the Iraqi Justice system, or the ICC, but not this independent entity within the Iraqi government that the Iraqis had no say in creating, and cannot get rid of without overthrowing their elected government, and kicking out the foreign judges and advisors of the Rogue Court.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by ArchAngel]




posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Why does it matter, he is known for what he did. Which were many terrible things, among those gassing an entire town, mudering hundreds to thousands of people. He was a mass murderer. Plain and simple, it doesnt matter who the judge is, if they look at the evidence and have any common sense he will either be jailed for the rest of his natural life or put to death. Hopefully he'll get a life sentence, I dont want him getting the easy way out.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Why does it matter, he is known for what he did.


If it were a trial in America the Judge would step down due to his bias because he would not want the conviction thrown out.

It matters because Saddam was head of STATE before the invasion.

It matters because the court is not Legitimate.

Precedant is being established, and it does not look appealing.

Invaders take over, create a court and appoint judges[maybe even foreign judges] to try the former leaders.

That is a lynching, not justice.

We will be judged on what Justice we allow for Saddam.

A court formed by, and answerable to the Iraqi people should be created.

This independent entity holding abosolute power within the Iraqi government that the people had no say in creating, and the government has no say in disposing of is unprecedented is world legal history.

You really should read the statute of the special tribunal with the belief that America did not have the best of intentions when creating it.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Saddam is going to die. I was surprised to see an ongoing PBS segment called "Saddam's road to hell".

Everyone is going to be better off without him. Especially the Iraqis because they wont have to live in fear that he might come back.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Dronetek]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
arch being from that town isnt bias, everyone knows he is guilty and any bias doesnt change the facts anyways.

why would you defend him?

lynching him is justice to the iraqis who suffered under him.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by namehere]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
Saddam is going to die. I was surprised to see an ongoing PBS segment called "Saddam's road to hell".

Everyone is going to be better off without him. Especially the Iraqis because they wont have to live in fear that he might come back.


While I don't doubt that will be the results how it happens could be very important.

If he is tried, conviceted, and executed in a court created by occupiers with Judges appointed by occupiers who have bias against Saddam we could turn him into a great marytr.

Instead why not let the Iraqi Judicial system put him on trial, or the ICC?

Is there any reason NOT TO?

Even if the chance is small why risk it?

Let the international community, or the Iraqi government try him instead.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
arch being from that town isnt bias, everyone knows he is guilty and any bias doesnt change the facts anyways.


Guilt should be determined by a legitimate unbiased court, not this sham.

How can you say that this man is not biased?

How could you say the court is legitimate?


why would you defend him?


I wish Justice on Saddam, and you, and me, and everyone else.

This is not justice.

The court is illegitimate, and the judge is biased.

Give me one good reason to NOT hand him over to the ICC, or the Iraqi Government?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a martyr? a martyr to who? when he dies iraqis will have parades and celebrate by the thousands.

secular muslims who murder other muslims dont make martyrs.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel the Iraqi Government?


the iraqi government is the one trying him....

saddam deserves no justice, he deserves eternal hell with those he murdered torturing him.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by namehere]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by ArchAngel the Iraqi Government?


the iraqi government is the one trying him....


This is FALSE.

The Iraqi Special Tribunal is trying Saddam.

It is an independent entity created BEFORE the under-handed hand-over of power.

We really gave it to them....



THE STATUTE OF THE IRAQI SPECIAL TRIBUNAL

SECTION ONE

The Establishment, Organization and Competence of the Tribunal



PART ONE

Establishment and Competence of the Tribunal



Article 1.



a) A Tribunal is hereby established and shall be known as The Iraqi Special Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). The jurisdiction and functioning of the Tribunal and its associated bodies as defined in Article 3 below shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute. The Tribunal shall be an independent entity and not associated with any Iraqi government departments.


Why would Paul Bremer demand that Foreign Judges could be appointed if the intention was not to use it?


PART THREE

The Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber

Article 4.

d) The Governing Council or the Successor Government, if it deems necessary, can appoint non-Iraqi judges who have experience in the crimes encompassed in this statute, and who shall be persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity.


Note that it says 'Successor Government' not 'Successor Governments'.

The Successor government was the 'interim' government of allawi, our favorite unelected puppet.

The Iraqi people never had a chance to vote on this, nor did any Iraqi elected government, and they never will unless they throw out the court, and the foreign judges.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

This is FALSE.


an iraqi judge is trying him, an iraqi cant try him if its not for the iraqi government, its under iraqi laws, courts and judges.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   

an iraqi judge is trying him, an iraqi cant try him if its not for the iraqi government, its under iraqi laws, courts and judges.


Oh... but an Iraqi can try him in a court created by occupiers under laws created by occupiers.

The laws are NOT Iraqi.

The Iraqi people never got to vote, and neither did any elected Iraqi Government.

The courts are NOT part of the Iraqi judicial system.

The laws are NOT part of Iraqi legal code instead being created by the occupiers.

The judges were NOT appointed by any elected Iraqi official, nor the Iraqi people.

The current Iraqi Government does NOT have the power to do anything about the court other than to pass laws required for its purposes.

It is not legitimate, and Foreign 'advisors' are inside most likely along with Foreign Judges.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
the Iraqi High Criminal Court is under pressure from some Iraqi government officials to hold a quick trial and to impose and carry out punishment..

www.humanrightsfirst.org...

the special tribunal was dissolved in 2004 and the case handed to iraq under the iraqi high criminal court.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
While there can be no doubt of his crimes or how heinous they were (and would continue to be were he still in power), if the stated goal in Iraq is to forge a quasi-democratic pluralistic government under the rule of law, then the execution of the law must be equal and unbiased for all defendants, regardless of their crimes or who they are.

Saying that one "deserves" something and that they are thereby excluded from whatever contemporary legal structure is being established in the country isn't law or justice; it is biased arbitration. Contrary to seemingly (and increasingly) popular belief, justice is not punishment or vengeance. Justice, if conducted under rule of law (the stated goal in Iraq), is a weighing of facts and establishment of guilt or innocence before an unbiased and fair court, even if - as it is in this case - it is a mere formality.

Sentences handed down are not supposed to be for the purpose of punishing the guilty, bur rather, protecting the innocent from the guilty.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
arch, update yourself on this, the cpa was dissolved, the special tribunal was dissolved and reconstituted under iraqs govt as the high criminal court, its old rules no longer apply.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
so since it happened all over iraq, by the bias argument, the whole system is bias, is it not?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Not necessarily, though if that is indeed the case, then there's little more that can be done than what is being done.

It is likely that there are people in Iraq who are capable of impartiality, though. This man may be one of them. Who knows? It seems doubtful, though.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by AceWombat04]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
arch, update yourself on this, the cpa was dissolved, the special tribunal was dissolved and reconstituted under iraqs govt as the high criminal court, its old rules no longer apply.


Why does Law of The Iraqi Higher Criminal Court reference the LAW OF ADMINISTRATION FOR THE STATE OF IRAQ FOR THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, which was created by the occupational puppets, and not the ratified Constitution of Iraq?

The Special Court was simply re-nammed, and a few rules[that would have to be apporved by the court] were added.


Law of The Iraqi Higher Criminal Court

Pursuant to what has been approved by the National Assembly and in accordance with Article No. (33) Paragraphs A and B and Article No. (30) of the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period.


Its authority comes from the occupiers, not the people of Iraq.

The current constitution of Iraq was approved by an October 15, 2005, the court was re-named on October 9, 2005.

It is not legitimate.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Is it just me or is ArchAngel the only one thinking befor they talk on this thread? I have never seen such a disgusting thread in my whole time at ATS.
THe amount of people on this board with "who cares, everyone knows his guilty" attitude, are completely wrong and are not following the goal of this board. To deny ignorance.
Im assuming that the majority of you on this thread are american, and the whole reason that you pro-war people claim for going into iraq was to give the iraqi people democracy and freedom. Yet now you are more than willing to let a corrupt independent iraqi court try saddam. This court case should represent how democracy beats a dictatorship. Yet we are letting it became a dictatorship under the shame of democracy.
If people are guilty befor tried, then are we not doing the exact same as saddam was doing himself? The court is biased, and corrupt. Saddam does not have a fair trial, if we are to be better than him, then we MUST prove it through a fair trial of saddam.

Please people think befor you write.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I am by no means a supporter of Saddam, but believe in the interest of all that he should be tried in a manner that stands the test of international justice. It is typical of Americans to demand "off with his head" when the person in question is of an opposing viewpoint but to demand the utmost in justice when one of their own is in question.
If the reports of his wrongdoing are true then he should be dealt with severly. His case will receive international media attention because the American administration and by extension it's military is interested in securing access to the world's second largest oil reserve. If the strategy was focused on peace and democracy and saving Iraqis' from a brutal dictator why is that legit for Saddam and not for Edi Amin and countless other African dictators who killed many million more of their own people. Unfortunately Amin was not sitting on an oil reserve that Bush jr. wants access to before the Chinese get their hands on it.

And BTW who do you think is more guilty Saddam or the American administration that murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then about 30 years later dropped Agent Orange and napalm on Vietnamese school children and stood proudly by as the skin melted from their little defenseless innocent bodies.

What nation has killed the most people over the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years? There is only one answer; the most savage and violent society that the world has seen, the only nation to use nuclear weapons against their fellow man..... of course all in the interest of peace and democracy. What a joke for only the most ignorant and naive to believe.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by walter32]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join