Poll: Where Should Saddam be Tried?

[Junkdrawer]

I'd suggest The Hague. Remember Nuremberg? Or is Saddam worse than the Nazis? Or have we become worse?

[bryant69]

1. That will be tough

I think the hague is the best option, and it would do a lot to show the rest of the world we are willing to play ball, but I doubt that is what will happen.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Silverhair]

2. The Iraqi people have first claim.

An ionterantional forum can have him when they are through, if they feel like a trial for a corpse.

[Snivi Yllom]

8. Defintiely give the Iraqi people the first shot

There is no reason there cant be an international war crimes trial after he is tried in Iraq by the people who suffered under him.

[pnorman]

17. WHAT is "the iraqi people"??

That handpicked "Iraq Governing Council"?? Nothing would further confirm in the eyes of the world the idea that America will rule Iraq through Puppetocracy in a permantly occupied land.

The Quisling regimes of WW2 had a far firmer basis in their respective country than this band of hand-picked opportunists. As window dressing, the "left" is represented" via the Baath-opponent Iraq Communist Party. But the Military Occupation showed it's colors recently by attacking an Iraqi labor union office, and arresting 8 labor leaders.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"U.S. Troops Arrest 8 Iraqi Labor Leaders,
Attack and Damage Union Headquarters

By Harry Kelber

A contingent of U.S. soldiers, using a force of about ten armored cars, attacked the temporary headquarters of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) on Dec. 6 in the Karkh district in Baghdad. They arrested eight of their leaders, handcuffed them and took them away to an unknown destination.

The attackers ransacked and destroyed IFTU's property, tearing down banners and posters, using black paint to deface the entry to union headquarters and smashing windows, without giving any reason or explanation for their actions.

The IFTU strongly condemns "this unjustified terrorizing act by the occupation forces, which targeted trade unionist cadres and leaders who are well known for their struggle against the hated dictatorship."

The labor federation called for the immediate release of their leaders from jail, declaring that the attacks on trade unions "constitute a blatant violation of democracy and human rights."
http://www.laboreducator.org/jlirqlab.htm

[IndianaGreen]

3. Saddam didn't break any US laws, so you can't try him here!

Iraq doesn't have a government, so you can't try him there.

The International Crimes Court is the only proper forum to try Saddam. The problem is that if Saddam gets a good lawyer, evidence could be introduced about American complicity in Saddam and Baathist crimes going back to the 1960s.

Can Americans handle the truth about America's crimes? I don't think so!

[Silverhair]

39. He tried to kill Bush v1.0. Even if you hate him, he is still a USA

citizen. That's enough for our law to try him.

[ithacan]

4. in a US-free Iraq

it should be done in Iraq by Iraqis, but not by the US puppets, and not while the US is running Iraq.

The ENTIRE truth has to come out, including the huge role played by the Republican Party in Saddam's coming to power, staying in power, persecuting his own people, and the war against Iran.

For the dirty details, see: "U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990"
http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

[IndianaGreen]

6. You cannot try Saddam under an ex post facto Iraqi law!

Iraq doesn't have a government, and no legal system to speak of. It would take Iraq years to be competent to conduct a fair trial for Saddam. Two problems, any law that is passed to cover Saddam's crimes would be an ex post facto law. Iraq could try Saddam under existing Iraqi law at the time the crimes were committed, and I don't know how such prosecution could be conducted.

The only proper forum is the International Crimes Court.

[theboss]

7. Not necessarily ex post facto

Torture, murder, extortion, theft, etc are crimes under any concept of common law that you can devise. I doubt the criminal code in Iraq explicity stated that Hussein and his Ba'athist cronies were exempt from such crimes. They simply were never going to be charged under that regime.

The "law" does not stop applying to a country because there has been a change in government. If a common Iraqi had committed a murder in December of last year; I don't think you would argue that the current government (whatever it's form) was powerless to prosecute.

[Beaker]

34. why not?

Does the Iraqi Constitution prohibit it?

[Junkdrawer]

35. They have a Constitution? Damn a Constitution, Elections, I need to...

get out more often.

[Beaker]

38. That's my point-

people seem to project the protections in the U.S. Constitution to other people in other countries.
If the Iraqi's have no laws, then they have no laws against laws of ex post facto.

[Junkdrawer]

41. So Iraq has no constitution, no rule of law except that imposed...

by us as an occupying power, and yet the "Iraqi People" are going to try Saddam.

So, where do you think he should be tried?

[Beaker]

43. same place as slobo.

unless they can hurry up and pass some "after-the-fact" laws in Iraq.

DEFINITELY NOT in the U.S. or gitmo.

[Junkdrawer]

44. Couldn't agree more. n/t

[pnorman]

19. Here's another great website,

with much of it primary sources: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

[Guaranteed]

5. The Iraqi people would seem to have first claim,

but wouldn't that be like the parents of a murdered person trying the accused themselves? I think we need someone a little more removed from the situation.

[Silverhair]

9. Why? n/t

[rooboy]

10. On Judge Judy.

Everything else has been done for entertainment, why not the trial?

[dansolo]

11. Iraq, according to US precedent

The United States objects to the ICC because they feel that U.S. citizens will be subject to political prosecutions, and has even gone so far as to demand that any U.S. citizens that are accused of war crimes be allowed to be tried only by U.S. courts. By the standards set by the U.S., the Iraqi courts should be where Saddam should be tried.

[sidwill]

12. Iraq

The Iraqis should try him, without interference from us.

[Bridget Burke]

18. We're currently interfering in Iraq.

Any trial there--in the near future--would be under the US appointed puppets.

[freeforall]

13. International Court

Although I would normally agree that the Iraqis should try him, right now they are not set up to do so.

With the US occupying their country, I think any trial would be heavily influenced by the US, and would turn out to be a farce.

I think the only place he'd get anything like a fair trial would be at the Hague. He may be a badass, but the war was still illegal, and -- is * much better?

[youngred]

14. The ICC

However I shan't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[tritsofme]

33. He cannot be tried at the ICC

since both Iraq and the US are not signatories to the Rome Statue, and either way the ICC can only try crimes that were committed after 2002.

[Gringo]

15. The Iraqi council are Bush-toadie stooges

It should be the Hague. I saw the Iraqi council on TV the other day, and sure enough, there was convicted felon Chalabi, who hasn't lived in Iraq since 1958. NOT a trustworthy body, IMO.

[Zero Gravitas]

16. The Hague

His crimes deserve the worst penalty the Civilized World can bestow: life in prison. Get it over with quickly so they can start on *'s trial. (I can dream can't I?)

[Blue_Chill]

20. Iraq sounds good to me

These cries that 'the council in Iraq are US selections' mean nothing to me. I don't care who is in power, Saddam is going to be found guilty no matter what or where. Might as well let the country he totured have first crack at him.

[Junkdrawer]

21. "cries that 'the council in Iraq are US selections' mean nothing to me"...

Wow. Could you explain why charges of a puppet kangaroo court wouldn't haunt us? Haven't we done enough by unilaterally invading a sovereign nation and not finding the WMDs we claimed were there?

[Junkdrawer]

22. UPDATE: Bush now says the US will work with Iraqis so that Saddam...

will be tried IN IRAQ. Let's see how the world reacts to this.

[sistersofmercy]

23. Not kindly I'm sure

Bush* is like the bratty child on the playground who goes around kicking dirt at other kids trying his best to start a fight because he knows he's got better back up. He's just a little shit disturber.

[rucky]

25. This Kangaroo Court will have no credibility in the Intl community

but it will be quite a show.

* put himself in a box again. He's burnt too many bridges w/ the international community & now he has committed to the PNAC doctrine.

I doubt he's losing a minute of sleep over this.

[Junkdrawer]

26. Check out his press conference. He's REALLY out of it.

I mean, his moment of triumph and he's more defensive and confused than I've ever seen him!

[ithacan]

37. kangaroo court if US forces still occupying Iraq

they'll be sure to prevent anything that makes Shrub and his buddies look bad.

[Uzybone]

24. International court....

but in Baghdad. No way he should be tried by a hand picked "Iraqi" council, which is what will probably happen.

[Junkdrawer]

27. Why in Baghdad? n/t

[Uzybone]

28. Modeled after the Nuremburg trials...

and I know the Hague didnt exsist in 1945. But I think a trial in Iraq by an international panel would be a fine middle ground.

[Junkdrawer]

29. I could live with that - assuming it's not a Bush "60 nations" type..

sham of an "international" court.

[Junkdrawer]

30. "All Things Considered" just did an piece - The Hague wasn't mentioned...

So it looks like "All Things" cannot be "considered". :(

http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfId=1549472

[RebelOne]

31. In Iraq, of couse.

Let the Iraqi people decide his fate.

[Junkdrawer]

32. "the Iraqi people" --- So, they've had elections already?

And the people here said it couldn't be done.

[alfredo]

36. Trying Saddam in Iraq could inflame the population. A civil war is

not out of the question. All the atrocities committed by the Sunni will be out in the open. Dredging up all that pain will do nothing to stabilize the nation.

Put him on trial before the ICC. That way there will be less appearance of US manipulation, and less passions aroused.

[MODemocrat]

40. It will depend on what the charges are against him

N/T

[TexasMexican]

42. He should face the death penalty.

If the Hague also had the option of death penalty I would have no problem with them overseeing a trial done in Iraq.

Since they do not I'm forced to say that our Iraqi puppet government should conduct the trial.

IMO the real question is what form of execution he should have?

I know under his rule in Iraq they had all kinds of de facto forms of execution. I think he should be executed in the de jure method that is used for common murderers. I'm not exactly sure what that method was.

I may not be a Clark supporter, but he is right on this issue.

Another good question is will this trial be televised. I'm sure it will be quite the circus.