![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redneckgaijinHussein trial "fundamentally unfair", says Human Rights Watch
Well, yes. But consider:
(1) Saddam Hussein's trial was conducted under the laws of Iraq as they were under his rule. Courtroom procedures, standards of evidence, etc. were as he had wanted them when he was in charge. Yes, these standards are probably unjust- but he's being hoist by his own petard here.
(2) Saddam Hussein deliberately sabotaged his own defense. By using his every appearance in the courtroom as an opportunity to give speeches denouncing the court, denouncing the American occupation, denouncing even his own defense attorneys on occasion, he made it impossible for his counsel to give any coherent defense. In America, the trial would have been declared a mistrial... and Hussein would not have been permitted into the courtroom on the retrial.
(3) Saddam Hussein's insurgent followers sabotaged Hussein's defense. By threatening everyone involved with the trial- including the people trying to defend the former dictator- the terrorist Sunni insurgents organized by former Baathist government members and military officers severely crippled any attempt anyone could have made at a fair trial.
(4) It is politically impossible for Hussein to be tried in any other fashion. Hussein must be tried by Iraqis. Otherwise- if Hussein is taken before the World Court or into American courts to face war crimes charges- any possible result short of settng Hussein free would be tainted by accusations of "victor's justice."
No, there's no hope of a fair trial for Saddam. There's also no doubt that he started two wars, ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own subjects, and committed graft and peculation on a truly massive scale. There's further no doubt that Hussein is uninterested in any fair trial- either as defendant or as ruler.
And there's definitely no doubt, based on his past history, of what Hussein would do if he were ever set free. He's an ongoing threat to the lives and freedom of other people- a mass murderer on an appalling scale. He's the exact type of person that America retains the death penalty for. When the civil war in Iraq comes- which will be not later than one month after the final US withdrawal of occupation troops, probably a lot sooner- a live, imprisoned Hussein will in short order become a freed Hussein with the probability of returning to power. He is just too dangerous to risk his ever re-entering society again.
Fair trial? Probably not.
As fair as any trial he can ever get? Almost certainly.
Fair sentence? Oh yes, yes indeed.
Well, yes. But consider:
(1) Saddam Hussein's trial was conducted under the laws of Iraq as they were under his rule. Courtroom procedures, standards of evidence, etc. were as he had wanted them when he was in charge. Yes, these standards are probably unjust- but he's being hoist by his own petard here.
(2) Saddam Hussein deliberately sabotaged his own defense. By using his every appearance in the courtroom as an opportunity to give speeches denouncing the court, denouncing the American occupation, denouncing even his own defense attorneys on occasion, he made it impossible for his counsel to give any coherent defense. In America, the trial would have been declared a mistrial... and Hussein would not have been permitted into the courtroom on the retrial.
(3) Saddam Hussein's insurgent followers sabotaged Hussein's defense. By threatening everyone involved with the trial- including the people trying to defend the former dictator- the terrorist Sunni insurgents organized by former Baathist government members and military officers severely crippled any attempt anyone could have made at a fair trial.
(4) It is politically impossible for Hussein to be tried in any other fashion. Hussein must be tried by Iraqis. Otherwise- if Hussein is taken before the World Court or into American courts to face war crimes charges- any possible result short of settng Hussein free would be tainted by accusations of "victor's justice."
No, there's no hope of a fair trial for Saddam. There's also no doubt that he started two wars, ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own subjects, and committed graft and peculation on a truly massive scale. There's further no doubt that Hussein is uninterested in any fair trial- either as defendant or as ruler.
And there's definitely no doubt, based on his past history, of what Hussein would do if he were ever set free. He's an ongoing threat to the lives and freedom of other people- a mass murderer on an appalling scale. He's the exact type of person that America retains the death penalty for. When the civil war in Iraq comes- which will be not later than one month after the final US withdrawal of occupation troops, probably a lot sooner- a live, imprisoned Hussein will in short order become a freed Hussein with the probability of returning to power. He is just too dangerous to risk his ever re-entering society again.
Fair trial? Probably not.
As fair as any trial he can ever get? Almost certainly.
Fair sentence? Oh yes, yes indeed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Oh come now,
Date: 2006-11-21 03:47 am (UTC)ME, I'da just taken him back, around behind the barn, and shot the S.O.B., or dropped a couple a' Grenades down in his little Hidey Hole.
But that's me...I'm eevil.:D
Re: Oh come now,
Date: 2006-11-21 04:26 am (UTC)You see, in ancient days, when a king or prince (or pretender to the throne) was killed in battle, no matter how far the battlefield was from the home country, no matter how stinky and swollen it was by the end, the corpse was brought home for public display- either as a state funeral or as a head on a pike. The reason for this was simple: everybody had to know he was dead, and -how- he died, and had to have absolute proof it was him who was dead. Every time this wasn't done, never mind the reason, there would be one person after another claiming to be the dead king/prince/pretender/whatever in an attempt to gain the throne.
A quick anonymous death, especially turning him to chum via grenade down the spider hole, wouldn't have put an end to Saddam; it would open the way for three or four new Saddams. For that one reason alone I'm glad he was taken alive. This way there's no doubt whatever about what's happening to him...
no subject
Date: 2006-11-21 08:05 am (UTC)I doubt that a death sentence is a wise thing, it may be fair but it will give the resistance a martyr, a hero killed by the invaders rather than one less pest on the planet, perhaps a life imprisonment would be ignominiously better if it wasn't for the fact that they want him dead ASAP and that he would keep babbling from wherever the hell they could put him in.
A dead martyr or an imprisoned leader, that's the question...