 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
If Saddam Hussein had been killed during the war, or in one of the raids on terrorist camps, well that's covered under the rules of war. Somewhere, I would imagine.
If Saddam Hussein has truly been captured alive, he's a civilian prisoner. Under whose laws will be be tried, and what would be the charges?
Ian
Discussion is locked
Or he would charge the Los Angeles police department with discrimination. He would sue us for billions! And win!
I would hope they would let the Iraqis try and execute him. I suppose there are some security issues that we can assist with, but I don't think the Hague is the place for justice for Iraqis. For one thing, Milosevic is STILL on trial over there. His trial started like how many years ago?? (over 2 years -- July 2001) And the death penalty is off the table there.
I think I heard even prior to this that the governing council is beginning to convene a war crimes tribunal, so there are signs that the process is already moving forward.
Evie 
...but it seems according to FNC this AM that the death penalty was abolished in post-Saddam Iraq at the behest of the U.S., citing its use by Saddam as an instrument of repression. Some members of the Iraqi Governing Council are calling for an exemption to be made in "special cases" - presumably like this one.
A case against Saddam following the Nuremburg guidelines for crimes against humanity should be easy to put together; just visit any of the mass graves and the dead will speak more clearly than can the living. The prosecution, however, must, IMO, be an Iraqi one. We cannot be seen in the Islamic world as persecuting a Muslim; besides, the Iraqis suffered greatest under Saddam's lash, and they can do this fairly, within Islam's rules for such things, and swiftly administer punishment.
... any international tribunal will be a farce.
I hope they can try him in Iraq WITH a death penalty.
Watching Kerry on Fox News Sunday as I type. Please let this man never be President! Admittedly it must be tough to come on and slam Bush with this morning's news.
Evie
take him to some area of Iraq that is anti Saddam or better yet, to Kurdistan which lies North of Iraq and hand him over in chains, to the local authority.
Let them have some fun with him like an old fashioned blood letting for all the blood he caused to be shed.
after all the good Book does say 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'.
it will be a classic institiution of Natural Justice.
and a whole lot less expensive.
david williams
the fact that the Death Penalty is against the International Human Rights?
So you seem to be able to advocate the death penalty and the right to life for EVERYONE at the same time, right? Well, sorry! It doesn't work Evie!
Right to life ... hmmm ... interesting how euthanasia is legal and practiced in the home of the Hague. And the UN is one of the biggest advocates for aborting innocent life as a means of birth control.
Sorry Charlie. The right to life has nothing to do with death as penalty for criminal behavior. It does have to do with the cases I mentioned, but this just shows how bogus any international convention of this sort really is.
AFGHANISTAN LESOTHO
ALGERIA LIBERIA
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA LIBYA
ARMENIA MALAWI
BAHAMAS MALAYSIA
BAHRAIN MAURITANIA
BANGLADESH MONGOLIA
BARBADOS MOROCCO
BELARUS MYANMAR
BELIZE NIGERIA
BENIN NORTH KOREA
BOTSWANA OMAN
BURUNDI PAKISTAN
CAMEROON PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
CHAD PHILIPPINES
CHINA QATAR
COMOROS RWANDA
CONGO (Democratic Republic) SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS
CUBA SAINT LUCIA
DOMINICA SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES
EGYPT SAUDI ARABIA
EQUATORIAL GUINEA SIERRA LEONE
ERITREA SINGAPORE
ETHIOPIA SOMALIA
GABON SOUTH KOREA
GHANA SUDAN
GUATEMALA SWAZILAND
GUINEA SYRIA
GUYANA TAIWAN
INDIA TAJIKISTAN
INDONESIA TANZANIA
IRAN THAILAND
IRAQ RINIDAD AND TOBAGO
JAMAICA TUNISIA
JAPAN UGANDA
JORDAN UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
KAZAKSTAN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
KENYA UZBEKISTAN
KUWAIT VIETNAM
KYRGYZSTAN YEMEN
LAOS ZAMBIA
LEBANON ZIMBABWE
Nice gang you have here, right?
And here is another gang, the countries who officially have aboloshed the death penalty(some of these countries may still practice death as a form of penalty, but they have officially aboloshed it)! There is a slight difference, right?
Andorra
Angola
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Canada
Cape Verde
Colombia
Costa Rica
C
the death penalty Charlie. Certainly not Article 3 which denotes basic rights of law abiding people while Article 5 (which deals with punishments which strangely enough is EXACTLY what the death penalty is) certainly doesn't mention it.
Article 11 does imply that if the death penalty is not the common penalty at the time of the crime it can't be invoked after the fact.
Since you are so interested in "International Law" and "International Human Rights" Might I drqw your attention to Article 16 which would definitely preclude "Homosexual Marriage".
so is the unneccessary taking of human life that was the speciality of Saddam Hussein.
I see that as always you make unsubstantiated statements.
where is the link or is there in fact some sort of Statute perhaps in The Hague or the UN that specifically states this?
Hi, Evie.
Speculation I've heard (from the TV "talking heads") is that that tribunal will try him, with UN observers.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
He was titular head of the country and its military and never surrendered the country nor its military.
Although "major combat" was over several months ago, combat has continued and the coalition has not announced any cease fire.
He was captured as the target of a military operation by military forces.
He is entitled to no more nor less than any other captured prisoner of war. Matter of fact since he threw aside his uniform and apparently has used his disguised appearance to wend his way through the civilian community he could be treated as a spy if the coalition so desired--all in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
As a matter of course though he will probably be tried in Iraq for both "war crimes" and his "crimes against humanity" while leader of the country.
I thought the "war" had been declared over by the USA President, and it was now the "reconstruction" phase.
??
Ian
No.
Bush stated the major combat was over and it was.
Does that answer your question?
was this a war? IE, Declaration of War approved by the House etc.
What defines when the war is over?
thx
Ian
It's a clear case. He must be tried in an international court. The question is also if a country has the right to go in to another country to overthrow a government and take their leader... No comparison with the WWII since that was a case of invading other countries.
Article 1 in the UN International Law says "Every State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other State, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.". Don't get mem wrong though. I am also happy that Saddam has been captured, but I think one has to look at HOW all this has taken place and if the USA has done everything (re:invasion of a foreign country) according to the international laws.
... advocating the US try him.
The Hague is bogus.
As for invasion, you seem to forget that the US with a coalition drove Saddam back from Kuwait. That war never ended, there was just a cease fire that Saddam repeatedly refused to comply with the terms of.
Let the Iraqis have at him. Our only role should be to help them keep the process legitimate. Then off with his head!
That could happen in Law West of the Pecos if the rope is too long.
JR
Remember that guy in Washington state (if memory serves -- pretty sure Pacific NW) that porked up while on death row and then claimed hanging would lead to decapitation and thus qualify as cruel and unusual punishment? Wonder whatever happened to him!
Evie
1. Iraq (Saddam and post-Saddam) is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court Treaty;
2. Neither is the U.S., giving the new Iraqi government as Saddam's successor and the U.S. as the occupying power the right to determine how and whether to try officials of the old regime. The post-WWII trials were NOT under the auspices of the UN; they were under the auspices of the U.S., Britain, France and the Soviet Union;
3. It is the Iraqis who, while not the only ones to suffer as a result of Saddam, were certainly the primary victims. Therefore, it only stands to reason that a post-Saddam government should try Saddam for the slaughter of his own countrymen, anong other things;
4. Have you followed the Milosevich prosecution? that farce is so tied up in knots that it's very possible that old Slobo will skate away a free man - and what a tragic injustice that would be.
5. Any prosecution by an entity perceived in the Islamic world as "Western" - and the ICC is certainly so viewed - would result in a fresh wave of terror, this time directed at Europe and the UN as well as the U.S. We already have the deadenders attacking UN facilities in Baghdad, after all. Best that the practicioners of Islam try a fellow Muslim - however apostate to his faith he may be.
No, Charlie, best to leave the prosecution of Saddam to Iraqis with the American role strictly limited to gathering evidence and providing security.
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic