• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Saddam Trial

Saddam Hussein's trial venue should be?

  • Saddam Hussein should indeed be tried in Iraq.

    Votes: 17 63.0%
  • Saddam Hussein should be tried before an International tribunal.

    Votes: 10 37.0%

  • Total voters
    27

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
On 28 November 2005, the trial of Saddam Hussein and seven high-ranking Ba'ath officials continues in Iraq. They are charged with the execution of 148 Shi'ite's in the town of Dujail in 1982.

Today (21 October 2005) defense lawyer Saadoun Sughaiyer al-Janabi was found murdered in Baghdad with two bullet wounds to the head. It is not known if the killing was an attempt to postpone the trial by Saddam loyalists, or a case of vendetta. Trial security remains a major concern for the judges, the defendants, and the prosecution and defense teams.

The trial judges are all either Shi'a or Kurd. The prosecutor is Shi'a. No matter what you personally think of Saddam Hussein, he is entitled to due justice. But what justice and who's justice? Can Saddam Hussein receive a fair and impartial trial in Iraq, or would an International judicial venue be more appropriate in this extraordinary case?

Comments are welcomed and a poll is open to all...

~Tashah~
 

quietrage

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Melrose Park and Milwaukee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
While Hitler and his ilk were tried before an international tribunal they started a world war and tried to exterminate Jews and others they did not like from other countries. Saddam while he did gas the Kurds and torture many people, they were all Iraqis. This makes it an Iraqi problem not an international one.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Saddam will get a fair trial, but will also get a fair hanging, and the people of Iraq should be the ones to string him up!
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Having the Iraqi's try Saddam is indeed the right course of action, this will lift doubts from the international community that this is just a U.S. show trial. This trial may also have other benefits as well, such as; galvonizing the Iraqi people and uniting them under their shared hatred of Saddam. Remember this is the first time in the history of the entire middle east that a tyrant has been held accountable by the people who he has persecuted.

Just a side note: I'm really glad that they decided to televise the trial, while I had no interest in watching the O.J., Jackson, or Peterson trials this one will definately keep me glued to the television set.
 

Quid Pro Quo

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Riley, KS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I actually think that it deserves to be an International Trail. Hitler's atrocities were not created in Germany alone, and nor were Saddam's. During his entrance into Kuwait, and especially during his retreat...Saddam ordered every building burned, every person killed, every animal slaughtered, and every oil well set aflame on their path back to Iraq.

When we landed in Kuwait before entering Iraq in January, we went along the Highway of Death...which was the destruction by Coalition forces of much of the Iraqi Weaponry by Coalition Forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death

What you won't see is the countless Kuwaiti civilian vehicles lay destroyed, some with skeletons still sitting in them that were killed by Iraqi's as they retreated. Further up the road is where you will see the Iraqi Vehicles destroyed.

Sorry for rambling, but that is one point of why it should be international and not just an Iraqi trial.

Also, Iran has a LARGE stake in this trial and with Saddam.

But the main reason this b*tch needs to be hanged: Halabja.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The trial judges are all either Shi'a or Kurd. The prosecutor is Shi'a. No matter what you personally think of Saddam Hussein, he is entitled to due justice. But what justice and who's justice? Can Saddam Hussein receive a fair and impartial trial in Iraq, or would an International judicial venue be more appropriate in this extraordinary case?

Comments are welcomed and a poll is open to all.
As far as I am concerned, the only thing Sadam is entitled to is a bullet in his head and what ever else the Iraqi people want to do to him.Let the Iraqis do justice their way regardless if those with weak stomachs see it only as vengeance.I do wonder why he is not being tried for any of the other crimes he committed.
 

Quid Pro Quo

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Riley, KS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
jamesrage said:
As far as I am concerned, the only thing Sadam is entitled to is a bullet in his head and what ever else the Iraqi people want to do to him.Let the Iraqis do justice their way regardless if those with weak stomachs see it only as vengeance.I do wonder why he is not being tried for any of the other crimes he committed.
He is being tried for other crimes, they are just going one at a time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3320293.stm

Here is a list of charges levied against him, excluding the ones that Iran just sent to the Iraqi Courts.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hmmm... I am still not completely convinced that this war is not for oil. I also would like to know what we were doing supporting Saddam during the 1980s while he committed alot of these crimes. As one poster put on one of the threads: TRY THEM ALL. Try Saddam and all international leaders who supported him. Let's have REAL JUSTICE rather than a victor's justice. Hmm, where do I find the picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussien shaking hands back in the 80s?
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hmmm... I am still not completely convinced that this war is not for oil. I also would like to know what we were doing supporting Saddam during the 1980s while he committed alot of these crimes. As one poster put on one of the threads: TRY THEM ALL. Try Saddam and all international leaders who supported him. Let's have REAL JUSTICE rather than a victor's justice. Hmm, where do I find the picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussien shaking hands back in the 80s?
This thread is supposed to be about that rat Saddam getting justice,not republicans good democrats bad or democrats good republicans bad.
 

Quid Pro Quo

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Riley, KS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
jamesrage said:
This thread is supposed to be about that rat Saddam getting justice,not republicans good democrats bad or democrats good republicans bad.
Amen......
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think if anyone is to "try" Hussein on charges of mass murder (based upon an authoritarian principle) and proliferating a dictatorship; Well then perhaps our president should also be "tried" on the same supposition.

Bush is sending our troops to be mass murdered because of his industrial amibition, his fathers unfinished business, and his resound lies.

Bush also is trying to force democracy upon a country which is not democratic. Hitler attempted to force fascism on countries that were not fascist. The political implications are complex but a dictator is a dictator is a dictator.

We never went to Iraq to liberate it... at least that wasn't the claim then. Case in point. Flip Floppin'. Pants Droppin'.

Oh and for the extreme right wing conservatives whiners; I am not liberal so spare me your partisan redundancy.
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Deegan said:
Saddam will get a fair trial, but will also get a fair hanging, and the people of Iraq should be the ones to string him up!
I see you believe in due process like you believe in the concept of "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Guess what. No one has been proven guilty. Ironic how it is your type that proclaims to be upholding our constitution. You are doing nothing but spitting on it. You think you are being patriotic with your toady quip. I think you're just being a toad. God forbid you would understand the concepts of nobility and intergrity combined.
 

Quid Pro Quo

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Riley, KS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Conflict said:
I see you believe in due process like you believe in the concept of "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Guess what. No one has been proven guilty. Ironic how it is your type that proclaims to be upholding our constitution. You are doing nothing but spitting on it. You think you are being patriotic with your toady quip. I think you're just being a toad. God forbid you would understand the concepts of nobility and intergrity combined.

I see we have another butthead on the forums. I think it was stated clearly enough above that the purpose of this conversation was to the validity, or even the right, of the world to have a piece of Saddam at this trial. Not the politics of why America is in Iraq, Not GWB's agenda...but the trial and it's platform. Attempt to keep it there. God forbid you would understand the concepts of a topic and staying on it combined.
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Quid Pro Quo said:
I see we have another butthead on the forums. I think it was stated clearly enough above that the purpose of this conversation was to the validity, or even the right, of the world to have a piece of Saddam at this trial. Not the politics of why America is in Iraq, Not GWB's agenda...but the trial and it's platform. Attempt to keep it there. God forbid you would understand the concepts of a topic and staying on it combined.
Try not to get your panties in a bunch over my relevant comparison. At the same time try not to delve to deep into your esteemed ad-hominem. Next time refute my concepts and not my character. I suppose your self perceived wit is quite satisfying? Yet you cite topic. Am I the topic?

Where is the composure when the nerve is struck?
 
Last edited:

Quid Pro Quo

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Riley, KS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Conflict said:
Try not to get your panties in a bunch over my relevant comparison. At the same time try not to delve to deep into your esteemed ad-hominem. Next time refute my concepts and not my character. I suppose your self perceived witt is quite satisfying? Yet you cite topic. Am I the topic?

How can you attempt to dodge a post that was put up to put you back on the smart street and into the light of what this topic was about? And to do so with such blatent spite? Quite unbecoming, but I've come to expect such from a few here.

What it boils down to, rugrat, is the topic...which has a title and a beginning post...needs to be adhered to, as I am sure Tasha set it up for that purpose. Especially not for you and I to be arguing about your angst and inability to efficiently and maturely stay the course.

Try it bud, you might actually make some friends here. And post what you will from here, I won't respond unless it has some relevance to the topic it is posted in.
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Oh Golly. I understand the topic. Hussein was overthrown by a supreme power (dictator) who relishes over his oil commodity. So... well then... now he's the bad guy. He would never had been on trial if not for the grand ol party..... The right wing, overzealous, kill-now-ask-later-because-were-american-superpower-nukewelding-profiteering-elitist-sycophants who want nothing more than to drag the population of the planet down with us.

My point was clear. Saddam and George aren't all that indiferrent. You didn't touch that though, did ya?

I will accept your quick concession. I have nothing further your honor.
 
Last edited:

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Quid Pro Quo stated

quidproquo(sycophantes aeqqus) said:
What it boils down to, rugrat, is the topic...which has a title and a beginning post...needs to be adhered to, as I am sure Tasha set it up for that purpose.
That's what happens when idiot savants think they are sure. They elucidate their true character... their essence. Congratulation. Keep reading....

Okay so Tashah set this thread up only for conformative views. But wait, there's more....

Tashah states in the first post and i quote....

Tashah said:
Comments are welcomed and a poll is open to all...
Funny, I didn't here anything about strict adherence or subjective conformation from her. Seems like you are the one whining.

flip floppin' pants droppin'

No, REALLY your honor, that is all. Unless the savant has anything more to say to refute his own claims. The offense rests it's case.

You were saying (butthead)?
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Quid Pro Quo:
I see we have another butthead on the forums.
What do you mean by that?
 

Quid Pro Quo

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Riley, KS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am finding it extremely amusing how you answer my post, saying let's squash it...and then edit your post after we've squashed it to make yourself look like some sort of intelligent being. I've watched you edit your post 3 times since my last one, all adding to your mental incapacity to hold a candle in this forum. So, no holds barred.

First off, you uppity little *****...don't come to any place, being the new kid on the block, and start spouting names at people. I'm sure Deegan, who I don't even know, didn't appreciate it and I sure as hell don't. Old Italian saying: First you go along, then you get along. Learn and live it.

Secondly, be a man and keep your posts true. Don't edit after the fact to try and make yourself look intelligent. I promise you it won't gain you any credibility or respect here. In fact, I'd say you're batting about 0% right now.

Third, I don't know Tashah. I do think, however (something obviously you have failed to do), she would appreciate if her topic remained on it's intended path so as to quench her thirst for the debate she so started. Show some respect to her in that manner.

Last but not least, don't ever assume anyone is going to back down from some teenage internet thug. You ain't crap here until you've earned it, and in terms of how long some of these people have been here...neither of us have our golden ticket.

Show your intelligence on some debates, allow everyone to see you actually have something worth reading, and perhaps you may make it.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The lone witness
By Fatih Abdulsalam Azzaman, October 21, 2005


The tribunal trying the former leader Saddam Hussein failed to produce what was said to be the only witness to the charges he was being tried for.

The witness, Waddah al-Sheikh, a former intelligence official, said to be dying of cancer, has reportedly agreed to testify in the trial.

Al-Sheikh was working for Mukhabarat, the main intelligence agency, in 1982 when 143 people were killed in Dujial.

If Al-Sheik is the key witness in the trial, how come the tribunal could not have him testify inside the court?

The judges and prosecutors could have had him interviewed before the trial in the presence of defense lawyers and produced the evidence in court.

To suspend the proceedings because the key witness could not appear did not go down well with the millions of Iraqis who were glued to their television screens on Saturday.

Iraqis have been anxiously waiting for the trial only to find that the tribunal which has been preparing for the event for nearly two years fails to bring along the necessary testimony.

Do we only have one witness for the atrocities of Saddam Hussein and his regime?

There are thousands and thousands of Iraqis who would have rushed to the court and testified without fear against Saddam Hussein.

The proceedings raise more than one question mark. Iraqis wonder why the court insists on trying Saddam only for the Dujail killings at a time the list of his crimes is too numerous to be counted.

Many Iraqis say the killings in Dujail were connected with the members of a party in power currently in Iraq. This is why, they add, the authorities have focused on Dujail.

Saddam Hussein executed thousands of ordinary Iraqis who were members of no political party or faction. It was better for the court to start with these cases at least to do justice for the hapless relatives of these victims.

In this case no one would have attempted even to allege that the proceedings were somewhat politically orchestrated.

The killings in Dujail are a crime and any one involved in them must be tried and punished.

But to only try Saddam for these killings sends the wrong message to the relatives of tens of thousands of other victims.

And now the court itself goes to what it has described as the only witness on Dujail killings.

Al-Sheik will testify from his death bed hospital in seclusion without the glare of media cameras and most probably in the absence of defense lawyers, raising even more questions about the whole trial.


http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news2005-10-21566.htm
I would have thought he would be charged with more than the killings in Dujail. After all the rehearsels and tutoring leading up to this trial the Prosecutors have received from US law experts in the Administration, you would think there would be more charges than this.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
As the initiator of this thread and poll, I appreciate the followup commentary but would ask that all comments and insights be directed to the thread question. Can Saddam receive a fair and impartial trial in Iraq, or would an International judicial tribunal be more appropriate in this case?

Can Saddam recieve due justice in Iraq, or is this simply just a show-trial... ornate window dressing for tribal vengence? What Iraqi law applies here, pre-occupation or post-occupation? Sharia law or Anglo-Saxon law? Why were Sunni judges excluded from the trial bench? Can a murderous dictator be tried fairly in his native land? The questions are numerous and involved. Perhaps what it all philosophically boils down to is this...

No matter what horiffic crimes Saddam is guilty of, if it is perceived by the global Muslim community that this is a mere show-trial orchestrated by a puppet Iraqi government and that impartial justice was abbrogated... Saddam will be remembered by many as a martyr. In this light then, the trial means are certainly as important as the verdict rendered.



 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Billo_Really said:
I would have thought he would be charged with more than the killings in Dujail. After all the rehearsels and tutoring leading up to this trial the Prosecutors have received from US law experts in the Administration, you would think there would be more charges than this.
This is the first prosecuted charge in a rather large indictment portfolio. Dujail was perhaps the first public example of Saddam's 'style of governance' after he formally assumed the Iraq presidency in 1979.

Saddam visited Dujail and as he was about to depart, an unsuccessful assassination attempt was lanched. After Dujail was secured by Iraqi forces, Saddam returned and personally questioned the town residents. This questioning by Saddam was filmed and captured on videotape. This visual evidence thus places Saddam at the very scene of the massacre.



 

gwynn

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Tashah said:
Can Saddam recieve due justice in Iraq, or is this simply just a show-trial... ornate window dressing for tribal vengence? What Iraqi law applies here, pre-occupation or post-occupation? Sharia law or Anglo-Saxon law? Why were Sunni judges excluded from the trial bench? Can a murderous dictator be tried fairly in his native land? The questions are numerous and involved. Perhaps what it all philosophically boils down to is this...

No matter what horiffic crimes Saddam is guilty of, if it is perceived by the global Muslim community that this is a mere show-trial orchestrated by a puppet Iraqi government and that impartial justice was abbrogated... Saddam will be remembered by many as a martyr. In this light then, the trial means are certainly as important as the verdict rendered.
To try him in Iraq is a mistake by my way of thinking.

First, I think that it will come across to some as a show trial. Maybe not to those in the mainstream in that part of the world, but surely to those on the radical fringes. In short it becomes another recruiting tool for some terrorist organisations and another reason for some to dislike the west.

Some concerns include the occupation forces and impartiality of jurists. I would be very surprised if anyone here had significant doubts of his guilt, but this is not important. The trial must be seen by those in the area as fair and impartial.

Also, I'm not familiar with the specifics enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution, but in most other countries you cannot be convicted of doing something that was not illegal when you committed the act, regardless of how the law later changes. It would not surprise me if this was included and if under Saddam's laws he was above the law. Seems a bit off for the first large scale trial to break such laws ( no matter how ridiculous thay may seem ).

On the other hand, it seems just as unlikely that any broad based international tribunal would be seen as impartial either. It would also make the trial much more difficult, as there are impediments to American forces providing information to international war crimes courts. I believe this was cited as one of the reasons he was not sent to existing tribunals in Rwanda, which is unfortunate because that is one of the few places you might be able to avoid the accusation of bias. I don't see the US government pushing through agreement with an international war crimes court just to see Saddam get a fair trial though.

I do not know what the best solution to this is, but it seems that having him tried in Iraq is a quick way to appease both the Iraqi government and the majority of the population. It will have some long term negative consequences, but democracies tend to ignore those sorts of things.
 

Quid Pro Quo

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Riley, KS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gwynn said:
To try him in Iraq is a mistake by my way of thinking.

First, I think that it will come across to some as a show trial. Maybe not to those in the mainstream in that part of the world, but surely to those on the radical fringes. In short it becomes another recruiting tool for some terrorist organisations and another reason for some to dislike the west.

Some concerns include the occupation forces and impartiality of jurists. I would be very surprised if anyone here had significant doubts of his guilt, but this is not important. The trial must be seen by those in the area as fair and impartial.

Also, I'm not familiar with the specifics enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution, but in most other countries you cannot be convicted of doing something that was not illegal when you committed the act, regardless of how the law later changes. It would not surprise me if this was included and if under Saddam's laws he was above the law. Seems a bit off for the first large scale trial to break such laws ( no matter how ridiculous thay may seem ).

On the other hand, it seems just as unlikely that any broad based international tribunal would be seen as impartial either. It would also make the trial much more difficult, as there are impediments to American forces providing information to international war crimes courts. I believe this was cited as one of the reasons he was not sent to existing tribunals in Rwanda, which is unfortunate because that is one of the few places you might be able to avoid the accusation of bias. I don't see the US government pushing through agreement with an international war crimes court just to see Saddam get a fair trial though.

I do not know what the best solution to this is, but it seems that having him tried in Iraq is a quick way to appease both the Iraqi government and the majority of the population. It will have some long term negative consequences, but democracies tend to ignore those sorts of things.
*applauds you feverishly*

Finally! Someone with some substance! Welcome to DP, hope to see you around alot more.
 
Top Bottom