Judge says "Saddam not a dictator"

Just one day on from the prosecution asking for the chief judge in the trial of Saddam Hussein to step down, the chief judge has now told the former Iraqi leader "You were not a dictator ". The remark was made during Saddam's questioning of a Kurdish witness.



It's not hard to see why this judge has been accused of bias, can this man really be trusted to give a balanced trial? on the evidence above he seem's to be just a little to friendly with the former Iraqi leader for my likeing. Surely they have to be seen to be having a balanced trial if peace is ever to be had within Iraq? if one side is seen to be favoured it will only inflame tensions even more than they are at the moment.

I see now. Saddam the semi-Dictator must be it. I recall when he became President and semi-dictator.. he stood on the podium and rabbled off names and as he did the people he named in his congress rose ( per his instructions) walked to the exit, then escorted out never to be seen again. Gosh.. good thing in some way Saddam had only become an absolute President and semi-dictator..

Could anyone imagine the Man being given a life sentence rather than the chopping block.

Dallas

For some reason that doesn't surprise me... What was he if he wasn't a dictator?

The prosecutor has demanded that this judge be removed immediately. I hope that happens. I am not sure if the judicial system in Iraq has such a provision, though I suspect that it does.

Such obviously biased remarks should not be allowed. Get rid of him.

So if the Judge doesnt rule according to your wishes he must be a bad judge?

It seems that Saddams farce of a trial isnt following the script .
In the very unlikely event that Saddam gets off scot free and he faces no jail time I doubt that he would be alive for very long in the current climate in Iraq.
Saddam trial reminds me of the NAZIs going on trial at Nuremberg many of the true facts didnt come to light till long after the trails were over.


[edit on 15-9-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 15-9-2006 by xpert11]

That's great.

First, his trial was a farce because of his behavior, now it's a farce because of the judges behavior.

It doesn't matter whether or not the judges find him innocent or guilty, to have such a biased opinion before the trial is finsihed is very unprofessional, and he ought to be removed.

You decide something in a trial long before the conclusion of the trial, and you stick to it, that often means you are unwilling to listen to anything else from that point on. It's hard not to have opinions, but to make a decision before everything has been laid on the table....sheesh, who does he owe a favor to?

My question is this. Who makes the final decision for the judge to be pulled? In a democratic society, the judge would normally have the final word, correct? After recieving a fair trial, (if you could call it that when you take into consideration how many people have been killed with thies to the trial) would he be free to walk out of the courtroom and continue his life? If he was found not guilty, would he be forced into another trial, or possibly assassinated by the injured party?

While I think Saddam deserves a cruel and unusual death, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'll be watching this close.

Judge removal
Judge removes himself
Though petitions with higer up law makers, like the Supreme Court?

Its the same way they get rid of potential jurors. You get a certain ammount of strikes (people you can off on the trial, and it's your job to get those out who are likely to be hard to persuade to your side.

It's set up so anyone can be removed without endangering the trial because if you can decleare mistrial:

Q. When a case goes to trial and the result is a mistrial, what's the next step in the legal process? -- Anonymous

A. A mistrial occurs when the court ends a trial before its natural conclusion. Among the more common reasons for granting a mistrial are improper, prejudicial evidence coming before the jury or the jury being unable to reach a verdict. A mistrial can be granted by a request of the defendant or the prosecution or by the Court on it’s own initiative.

When a mistrial is declared, the jury is discharged, and, depending on the reason for the mistrial, the Court either will direct that the trial begin again with a new jury or dismiss the charges.

The determination of whether a new trial or dismissal is granted is based upon the Double Jeopardy clause to the U.S. and state constitutions, which provide that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense, and that a defendant has the right to have his trial determined by the original jury.

Generally, if the defendant requests the mistrial, a new trial will be ordered. If the prosecution requests the mistrial, the defendant only will be ordered to stand trial again if the mistrial resulted from some kind of manifest necessity. A manifest necessity is something that happens during the trial that makes it impossible for justice to be obtained.

A deadlocked jury is an example of a manifest necessity. In this event, the defendants right to have the trial concluded by the original jury is considered outweighed by the public interest in allowing the prosecution one full opportunity to present its case.

When the mistrial occurs from prosecutorial error, usually the defendant can be retried. The exception, however, is in cases where the prosecution deliberately provokes a mistrial. If the prosecution intentionally commits misconduct because of a belief that the trial isn’t going well and the defendant is likely to be acquitted, the Court will not allow the prosecution to potentially benefit from its misconduct through a retrial. If this happens, the charges should be dismissed.

A second exception, but only in some states, is where there has been gross negligence by the prosecution or the judge. -- Jeralyn Merritt

There is the risk that if the judge is in favor of the nutcase too much, mistiral can be called due to his behavior, and this mess begins again. To remove the judge would expediate the matter.
Court trials are so much more difficult than laymen are expecting.

Originally posted by nephyx
So if the Judge doesnt rule according to your wishes he must be a bad judge?

He hasn't ruled on anything yet. Making comments slanted towards either the prosecution or defense is unprofessional and grounds for recusal. You should know that; it's elementary.