Key Saddam trial evidence

Human Rights Watch says it is likely crucial evidence for the trials of Saddam Hussein and other former Iraqi officials has been lost or tainted.

Human Rights Watch alleges that the coalition's failure to prevent or minimise the looting and destruction of government buildings in April 2003 led to the widespread removal of state archives, which are now virtually impossible to trace.

So let's hear some opinions: will he be able to receive a fair trial for the "disappearance" of Iraqi citizens who displeased him during his time as dictator? What will happen if there isn't enough evidence to try him; could he possibly be released?

source

If he faces trial in the 'new' Iraqi rule, he will allmost cretainly face the death sentance if he is found guilty.

The only problem is finding concrete evidence that he actually had a part in the mass murders that he is accused of. He had a lot of underlings that could have decided the fate of these people, therefore taking the blame from him. ie they acted on there own.

We only have media evidence as to what crimes he commited, but i sincerely hope he is found guilty of even the smallest crime.

I dont hold out much hope for him though.

That is entirely the problem. There is no legal evidence, he would have been prosecuted by now. As of yet, they have been unable to find the mass graves where "thousands of people" are buried.

Originally posted by Kriz_4
That is entirely the problem. There is no legal evidence, he would have been prosecuted by now. As of yet, they have been unable to find the mass graves where "thousands of people" are buried.

Actually, the graves *have* been found. For example:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. forces have exhumed a mass grave in northwestern Iraq and uncovered the remains of hundreds of people. Many of the bodies found at the site near al-Hatra are believed to be the bodies of Kurdish women and children thought slaughtered by the Saddam Hussein regime.

The problem is this:

The coalition subsequently failed to put in place expertise and assistance needed to ensure proper classification and exhumation procedures. In some areas, it says, coalition soldiers watched as villagers or families of people who disappeared during Saddam Hussein's rule dug up remains at mass grave sites. The unprofessional manner in which the graves were unearthed, says the group, made it impossible for many relatives to identify the remains, or to keep those remains intact and separate.

I guess my question is this: will a lack of physical evidence really matter? Or is Saddam's fate sealed, with or without proof?

We were told that Saddam was responsible for a "genocide" of kurds, that he was responsible for "hundreds of thousands" of deaths. No proof.

As your source says, hundreads of bodys were found and thought to be "slaughtered by the Saddam "regime"."

Again, no proof. We were led along the garden path.

There is a huge difference between hundreads and hundreads of thousands. Again, I say, the reason Saddam has not been sentenced, is because there is no evidence of anything that he can be sentenced for.

If you ask wehther we need proof...Is that really a serious question?

[edit on 4-11-2004 by Kriz_4]

Originally posted by Kriz_4
We were told that Saddam was responsible for a "genocide" of kurds, that he was responsible for "hundreds of thousands" of deaths. No proof.

"Hundreds of thousands"? I think you might be exaggerating just a bit. As for proof, google "Halabja;" enough there to give you nightmares.

As your source says, hundreads of bodys were found and thought to be "slaughtered by the Saddam "regime"."

Let's see: hundreds of bodies, shot in the head and bulldozed into a mass grave. How do *you* explain that? Just another rough Saturday night in Baghdad?

Again, no proof. We were led along the garden path.

Ease down, big guy. This wasn't meant to be a referendum on the war; I didn't and don't support it, either.

There is a huge difference between hundreads and hundreads of thousands.

Obviously; however, that point has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

Again, I say, the reason Saddam has not been sentenced, is because there is no evidence of anything that he can be sentenced for.

Silly me. I thought it was because his trial hasn't even started yet, and probably won't for at least another year.

If you ask wehther we need proof...Is that really a serious question?

No, I asked whether or not *physical evidence* was really needed, with all the eyewitness testimony that is sure to be presented. Not to mention the fact that he'll be tried by people who don't like him all that much....

sandge

I don't think any evidence will be needed.

He knows too many secrets involving his old buddies in the CIA, US Gov't etc.

There will never be a public "open" trial where he is allowed to talk. He will never be released for the same reasons.

If he does not "die" in custody there will simply be a "show" trial and he will be quickly executed.

Just my opinion...

Originally posted by Gools

He knows too many secrets involving his old buddies in the CIA, US Gov't etc.

Hadn't thought about it along those lines, Gools, but that makes perfect sense.

If he does not "die" in custody there will simply be a "show" trial and he will be quickly executed.

Frankly, that's my opinion, too. But when I started reading articles saying there would be a problem with evidence, I began to wonder if there was a chance that he might never go to trial at all, or might even be acquitted.