|
Post by Merkuri on Dec 15, 2003 14:28:34 GMT -5
See, the problem with Iraq trying Saddam (as opposed to an international court) is that essentially it will be America running the courts. At least, that's the way it'll look. Unless, of course, we wait to try him until Iraq is completely independent again and coalition forces have moved out. That won't happen for a while and just about everybody is pushing to try Hussein ASAP. I think an international court would be best. It would have the best chance at being impartial (isn't that what having a trial is about?) and Hussein has committed crimes against more people than just the Iraqis. Iran, for example, is trying to push charges against Hussain. An international court would be in the best interests of everybody, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Dec 15, 2003 22:52:49 GMT -5
As much as I believe in a fair trial and all, I don't believe that a court that has laws banning unhumanitarian (cruel or unusual) punishment will be able to punish him effectively.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Dec 16, 2003 2:09:36 GMT -5
It's interesting to see how many people want to go for this eye for an eye route. Hussein is an evil monster for torturing people, so we want to torture him? Hmmm, can you spell hypocrisy boys and girls? Pinochet got a fair trial. Milosevic got a fair trial. Yet, everyone seems to have bought into this idea that Hussein is somehow worse than every dictator in the past. Boys and Girls, let me tell you, he's no worse than any of them. Did he wipe out 1/3 of his population? Well, then he's not as bad as Pol Pot. Did he execute 30 million of his own people? Well, then he's not in Stalin's league. Stop buying into Fox news and start thinking for yourselves. Just because Dubbya says Hussein's Satan, doesn't make it true.
|
|
|
Post by nonameapparent on Dec 16, 2003 9:42:49 GMT -5
one thing I can`t understand is that people go saying that they hate Saddam and that he should be executed, then I ask myself how can anybody hate someone they never even meet. I don`t hate Saddam, though I am disgusted by his actions, but he might be a very nice guy to his wife and children hell even Hitler was nice to his secretary, the worst thing you could do in such matter is to let your emotions carry you away. I convinced that if the US gave Saddam to the iraqis, he would be dead before they even came to court, and since USA don`t recognise the international court in Haag, it will probably be a USA controlled court in Iraq, the funny thing is that when Saddam is trialed he will probably have some pretty embarrassing information about USA`s dealings with him fx. Rumsfeld has even shaked Saddam`s hand...
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Dec 16, 2003 11:07:30 GMT -5
*nods to Hussar*
The point of a trial is to determine if he's guilty. If we take the American philosophy of law (which, I believe, is shared by most of the world, but I may be wrong) we have to assume that Saddam is innocent until he is proven guilty by a fair trial. But the media and the American public (at the least) are convinced that he is guilty. It doesn't matter that he probably is guilty or if you believe that he is guilty, we have to treat him like he is innocent. I tried to avoid condemning terms in my other post, but I think I failed. Saddam is ACCUSED of genocide, torture, etc. He hasn't been convicted yet by any trial, and so must be presumed innocent for the moment.
I don't believe in the death penalty, and even if I did I would still push for an international trial. Even Hitler deserved a fair trial (although he took his punishment into his own hands before anybody could even think of trying him). We need a FAIR and IMPARTIAL trial to determine Saddam's guilt and his punishment.
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Dec 16, 2003 17:51:46 GMT -5
*nods to Hussar* The point of a trial is to determine if he's guilty. If we take the American philosophy of law (which, I believe, is shared by most of the world, but I may be wrong) we have to assume that Saddam is innocent until he is proven guilty by a fair trial. But the media and the American public (at the least) are convinced that he is guilty. It doesn't matter that he probably is guilty or if you believe that he is guilty, we have to treat him like he is innocent. I tried to avoid condemning terms in my other post, but I think I failed. Saddam is ACCUSED of genocide, torture, etc. He hasn't been convicted yet by any trial, and so must be presumed innocent for the moment. I don't believe in the death penalty, and even if I did I would still push for an international trial. Even Hitler deserved a fair trial (although he took his punishment into his own hands before anybody could even think of trying him). We need a FAIR and IMPARTIAL trial to determine Saddam's guilt and his punishment. Naturally. A fair trial and an appropriate punishment are ideals that any just government strives for. However, assuming that he's guilty (simply for the sake of the argument), will a scale that's been off-balanced ever mete out an acceptable punishment for an immoral man? In the case of the Iraqi trial, the court would be off-balanced by revenge, and the punishment will be harsher than expected. In the case of either the American or the Geneva courts, the trial will be off-balanced and softened by morals, resulting in an insufficient punishment. Granted, Hussein didn't even meet the standards of other dictators of the past, but are the lives of 10,000 of any less worth than the lives of 10 million? Is the life of 1 any less important? People are not potatoes to be weighed and measured, and anyone who commits a murder should receive the same.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Dec 16, 2003 21:44:28 GMT -5
I don't think killing Saddam will bring any of those people back. And I don't think killing him will deter any other would-be dictators, either. There's no logical, unbiased reason to kill him, as opposed to, say, simply locking him away for life.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Dec 16, 2003 22:00:16 GMT -5
One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic - Stalin.
Thing is, other than a couple of middle eastern countries and China, most of the world condemns the death penalty. It's interesting what bedfellows politics make when the US, Syria and China agree on an issue.
I would much rather see this guy dropped into a maximum security center for the rest of his life. That way, he can be held up as an example of international justice. Execute him and you make a martyr. Toss him in jail after a fair and impartial trial, and you make him just another failed man.
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Dec 16, 2003 22:48:32 GMT -5
After crawling out from that hole into the hands of American justice, there's very little we can do to make Hussein not a martyr. He came out as bedraggled as a common man, but still powerful to the end (recall that he proudly exclaimed who he was and asked to negotiate). America might put him in a prison but what's to stop him from being active while in prison? Who knows how world events might turn out? Naturally, he's neither the most powerful nor the most dangerous man in the world, but I bet that Osama bin Laden will be watching the trial, and I'll bet that how we punish Hussein, either leniently or harshly, will affect our relations with Al Qaeda.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Dec 17, 2003 1:38:50 GMT -5
See, that's why it can't be AMERICAN justice. This MUST be done through an international body. If he goes to an American court, there is obviously a conflict of interest and any verdict handed down will be tainted by that. In other words, the people arresting cannot be the people trying. Hand him over to the Hague and let the international courts try him. Put a Middle Eastern judge or two on the panel and make the proceedings as open as possible. That's the only way the Americans are going to come out of this looking even halfway legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Dec 17, 2003 9:41:24 GMT -5
EK, we can't win this one. If we (and by "we", I mean whoever does the trial, whether it's America or Iraq or an international tribunal) put him to death then we make him a martyr. The terrorists will point and say, "See what they did to this great man? We must punish them!" If we lock him up in a maximum security prison they'll point and say, "See how weak they are? They can't even execute one man! We are stronger then them!" The only good way to figure out which avenue is the right one is to set up an impartial international trial and have it decide.
But one thing I'll say is that we won't scare anybody by putting Hussein to death. These guys do suicide runs all the time. Death doesn't scare them. I don't think Bin Laden will look at Hussein's death sentence and say, "Oh, gee, these guys mean business. I better give myself up now."
|
|
|
Post by Loki3 on Dec 17, 2003 13:51:10 GMT -5
I think the answer here IS NOT executing the man, make him a Martyr especially in that part of the world and you would be furthering the cause and long term drive of terrorism more than anything......
Key here is Just what most here have said. PUNISHMENT....
try him internationally, make an EXAMPLE of him then slap in in one of those Supermax facilities and let him spend til his end of days thinking of what he did. He may not profess publicly regret but in his heart he would be regretting what he did, or possibly not WHAT he did, I think more he would regret not taking Syrias original offer of offering a place to exile to.
Killing Saddam makes us no better than Saddam.
FAIRLY and METHODICALLY trying him in an INTERNATIONAL court, for all to see.... a place for all of his attrocities, all his sins, all his evilness can be shown to the international community in such a way as to leave NO DOUBT of the truth of it..
Now that would be the best way to go.
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Dec 18, 2003 10:08:42 GMT -5
personally, I'm all for subjecting him to a bit of good ol' Iraqi justice. Let's do to him for 5 minutes what he did to his citizens for the term of his dictatorship. Guarantee he'll be crying like a baby before 5 minutes is up.
At this point, the reality of the situation is that he's been a martyr since this whole thing started! Publishing pics of his dead kids on the front pages on damn near every newspaper in the world didn't help. By unilaterally making the decision to attack/invade Iraq, we're already the bad guys, and nothing anyone does is going to fix it.
What do we need to do now? Get the Iraqi infrastructure up and running. Period. That's all we can do to make things better in the eyes of the world. We're there, we're supposed to be running the show, so get to work already! Get the oilfields up so they can get back to exporting goods; get the schools back so the kids can learn; get the water and electricity back so that people can have a reasonable standard of living. That's what we need to do. Whether Saddam is executed or not isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things; even the Iraqis are saying "whoopie, he's been jailed, but that's not putting food on the table or money in my pocket."
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Dec 18, 2003 10:21:46 GMT -5
Whether Saddam is executed or not isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things; even the Iraqis are saying "whoopie, he's been jailed, but that's not putting food on the table or money in my pocket." I agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by Shura on Dec 18, 2003 17:09:44 GMT -5
I'm for iraqi justice, or at least with iraq as part of an international trial. Iraq must start to think and act like a free state and a big part of that should be deciding Saddam's fate.
|
|