This will be the news for months. But should Saddam get a fair trial? What defines a fair trial? When I was in grade eleven, our history class ran the Nuremburg trials and I was Goebbels. I got myself off but my good pal Bruce, mock chief justice and now head of social studies for the entire province, had the common sense to hang me anyway. [In my heart I knew he was right...]
What if Johnny Cochran acts for him, turns whatever process is chosen and were to do an OJ? Get him off. Think of this. Self-styled prominant Canadian lawyer Eddie Greenspan has called the trial of Milosovic a lynching due to the lack of procedural rights for the defence. I am quite comfortable with how it is going, with the likelihood of Slobo, murderer of friends of friends, sitting in a small Dutch brick cube for the rest of his days along with other state criminals. Others skipped the trial. Fourteen years ago, Romania rid itself of its tyrant in swift fashion, putting Nicky and the wife up against the brick wall. Made my day hearing her last words were "I think they are really going to do it". On Christmas, too. Perfect.
So what do you do? If you have a trial, really, it should be just. Otherwise call it something else. But do you honestly love justice enough to give him a chance to be found not guilty? Or does the trial get held in a corner of Cuba where they seem to make up the law as they go along, not really bothering with defence lawyers, law 'n stuff.
Comments
Wayne - December 15, 2003 7:42 am
Has the U.S. signed on to the World Court? Does this new World Court have jurisdiction in crimes before 2001? Do Iraqis have enough experience in International law to put trial on? What if Americans wanna cut a deal with Saddam?...a disgusting habit lawyers have in U.S..Any World Court trial wil take too long to ge started, and drag on. I wanna see him judged in a court of his peers with United Nations appointed observers. And, face the death penalty.
"Hang on, it's gonna be a hell of a ride!"
Alan - December 15, 2003 8:31 am
Do the Americans have enough experience in international law to put a trial on? If they haven't signed up for the world court, can they rely on the case law and process as it will likely have bits they reject. Do they get to choose only rules they like?
Wayne - December 15, 2003 3:55 pm
Good point. I just hope those opposed to the death penalty excuse themselves from the preceedings.
Craig - December 15, 2003 6:44 pm
Shrub certainly made his views clear today at the news conference. What concerns me the most is I found myself actually warming to the little dolt. This can not be good.
Alan - December 15, 2003 7:01 pm
But the Iraqis do not have a government of their own until hand over by the US which is scheduled to happen next June. A trial before that is a trial by the US even if the court is staffed by Iraqi born people. They will be effectively picked by the US as there will be no soverign body to administer it other than the US.<p>The question from the Arab world is why is a white European due international law while a captured Arab tyrant gets tried by the occupier. Another question arises with Iran's plan to bring a case in international court - say what you like about them but a hefty share of the million killed in Saddam's first international aggression were Iranians. Why will the US protest. The US backed Saddam and Rumsfeld's company was a supplier. Unpleasant evidence to come out.<p>The the end, choice of venue and choice of procedural law is half the battle and, my prediction, the US will pick both, stack the court, pretend that it is justice, refuse all evidence that Saddam was a US puppet and have him killed. Everyone will feel good.
Craig - December 15, 2003 7:55 pm
or they could just kill him and save a lot of money, time and torment. (No Alan, I don't mean it)
Alan - December 15, 2003 8:35 pm
That is what the Romanians did and I am not heart broken. It is a funnny thing about dictators and me.
Alan - December 15, 2003 8:41 pm
Canadian Justice Louise Arbour is kinder than me and thinks a tribunal in Iraq could do the job. She ought to know.
Wayne - December 15, 2003 9:32 pm
The U.N. does not support capital punishment, so that leaves them out. What about Texas? Kuwait can also bring charges, and so can Kurds. Who gets him first? I would vote for the place that has a death penelty. Would the trial need a venue outside Iraq to guarantee it is fair? Where could it go to get a "fair" trial? Would an outside court be accepted in Iraq?
Some Arabs will claim he deserves an International Tribunal, others would claim a wrong if he gets it. Either way, they will claim an insult or injustice against Muslims/Arabs, we know that.
Do they have a government in June when they get a constitution, or only after elections?
Alan - December 19, 2003 12:45 pm
More exact information on the Rumsfeld/Saddam linkage likely to come out at a trial over events durnig the 1980's Iran-Iraq war.