Saddam Vows No Return to 'Unjust' Court

[Makalakumu]

Your kidding me right?

Nope. I'm not. Here's a little homework assignment. Please list the laws that Saddam broke and please list the government that enforces them.

Are you that intoxicated in your anti-war stuff that you have even decided to deny the thousands Saddam killed in a very brutal manner?

First of all, are you so certain that Saddam personally killed anyone? It can easily be verified that he ordered people to be killed. And it can easily be verified that Saddam took military actions that killed civilians. Could there be others in this world that have done the same? Why not hold them accountable to the same "standards (whatever they are)" that Saddam is being held to?

Hey maybe your right.

For a change...

Perhaps Pol Pot did not kill anyone either.

Maybe he didn't. However, I know he ordered people to be killed and ordered military actions that killed civilians.

Maybe Stalin never created gulags and perhaps the haulacast was actually a haulahoax! Hitler may have been innocent all along.

Is a haulacast something one does in Hawaii? Perhaps this is when they chuck people into volcanoes...

holocaust

Seriously, this is rediculous. Can anyone name the logical fallacy in use?

Please tell me you are not being serious when you say that statement upnorthkyosa!

I seriously recommend that you go back and reread this thread.

Seriously!

Seriously.

Saddam is one of the most cruelest human beings of modern times.

Saddam is a bad dude, no doubt, but I think this assertion suggests may be a bit far fetched. Lest just try to keep it real, eh? The bottom line is that Saddam was just a two bit, US backed, dictator doing what two bit, US backed, dictators do.

I don't mind if you are anyone else is oppose to war, this is a little extreme!

Opposing the war and questioning the legality of these legal proceedings have nothing in common. Pass the kool aide...

 

[7starmantis]

I dont see a distinction in killing someone and making someone kill someone. Does one deserve lesser punishment? Also, I suggest those holding that SH never killed anyone do some reasearch. He started quite young.

The laws he broke are quite evident and enforced by both other countries and the UN.

7sm

 

[Phoenix44]

There is such a thing as international law. And tyrants and corrupt leaders are tried and prosecuted after the fact--the past few centuries of French history probably illustrates that. But I think upnorthkyosa brings up a few interesting points, and I don't believe that necessarily means he thinks Saddam is a nice guy, or that he doesn't deserve what he gets.

Saddam is a thug, but he is our thug--we produced him, paid for him and armed him.

I don't believe America or any supposedly civilized country should ever behave in the manner of those we claim to abhor--and that means we should have fair trials; open and honest elections; humane treatment of prisoners--even if the prisoner is Saddam. (No, I don't think a prisoner warrants designer suits or four-star dinners.)

Do I think the trial is fair? No, I think it's a sham. Will I feel bad when he's convicted? No.

 

[Kane]

Nope. I'm not. Here's a little homework assignment. Please list the laws that Saddam broke and please list the government that enforces them.



First of all, are you so certain that Saddam personally killed anyone? It can easily be verified that he ordered people to be killed. And it can easily be verified that Saddam took military actions that killed civilians. Could there be others in this world that have done the same? Why not hold them accountable to the same "standards (whatever they are)" that Saddam is being held to?



For a change...



Maybe he didn't. However, I know he ordered people to be killed and ordered military actions that killed civilians.



Is a haulacast something one does in Hawaii? Perhaps this is when they chuck people into volcanoes...

holocaust

Seriously, this is rediculous. Can anyone name the logical fallacy in use?



I seriously recommend that you go back and reread this thread.



Seriously.



Saddam is a bad dude, no doubt, but I think this assertion suggests may be a bit far fetched. Lest just try to keep it real, eh? The bottom line is that Saddam was just a two bit, US backed, dictator doing what two bit, US backed, dictators do.



Opposing the war and questioning the legality of these legal proceedings have nothing in common. Pass the kool aide...

Actually Saddam killed his first man when he was around 10 believe it or not. He has been murdering ever since he was young. In fact one major difference many historians have made between him and Hitler is that Saddam actually witnessed the ones he killed and even a few killed.

But let's put that extremely irreverent point aside. So Hitler isn't criminal either is he? Nah, he didn't kill anyone. He only ordered people to kill, that's not a crime. Stalin sat up late at night with a list of people he would send to the gulag. Did he do a crime? Nah, he just ordered the killings.

I just can't understand how you can think the way you are thinking. Its ok, we all have are opinions but I feel as if I'm talking to a Stalin sympathizer, no offence . Saddam ordered the deaths of thousands, that is a crime against humanity I think in most people's eyes. Hitler, Pol Pot, and a whole host of dictators deserve the name mass murderer.

 

[Makalakumu]

The laws he broke are quite evident and enforced by both other countries and the UN.

Oh really? Would you mind listing the laws that Saddam broke?

 

[Makalakumu]

Saddam ordered the deaths of thousands, that is a crime against humanity I think in most people's eyes.

I'll buy that, however, in order for a law to exist, a government must exist. If it is a "crime" against humanity, then somewhere, there must exist a governing body for humanity.

chirp chirp chirp.

That is the sounds of the crickets that appear everytime I ask someone to point to where a "governing body for humanity" exists.

Laws people. What laws did Saddam break? And if indeed he broke those laws by ordering people's deaths and ordering military actions that killed civilians, then why aren't others held to those same standards?

 

[Makalakumu]

Hitler, Pol Pot, and a whole host of dictators deserve the name mass murderer.

Would a leader who ordered a military action that killed between 20,000 to 100,000 civilians also be a mass murderer?

upnorthkyosa

ps - will I feel bad when Saddam is executed? No. Good riddance.

 

[Makalakumu]

See this thread...

Will Saddam get a fair trial?

 

[rutherford]

Oh really? Would you mind listing the laws that Saddam broke?

Here's an overview of the cases. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0510/saddam.charges/frameset.exclude.html

As for citing actual codified law, that's a bit hard for Americans who don't speak the language or know much about Iraqi law. But, Iraqi officials had said Saddam could face as many as 500 charges. That's the number they were talking about cut down to a more manageable number for which prosecutors can amass the most direct evidence.

And, a lot of people are upset about things for which Saddam won't be tried. He has not been charged with the massacres of Kurdish civilians in the 1980s, of the Shiites who revolted against his rule after the first Gulf War, or the use of poison gas during the Iran-Iraq war and the first Gulf War.

 

[Makalakumu]

See the link to the other thread I posted. In it, a law professor examines the laws in which Saddam is being held accountable. Basically, it's all ex post facto. As far as international law is concerned, the laws are not being applied consistantly. Saddam is being held to standards that others are not.

 

[mrhnau]

As far as international law is concerned, the laws are not being applied consistantly. Saddam is being held to standards that others are not.

So, I apply the same logic to another situation. I see ALOT of people speeding in their vehicles. However, one day I get a ticket. So, I can go to the police, and tell them that this ticket is invalid since its not applied consistantly? A murderer gets caught. He can get out of things by claiming there are alot of non-caught murderers, so he should not be held liable? Alot of Nazis escaped to South America and elsewhere and were hunted for decades. Was the Hagge invalid since not everyone was brought to justice at the same time? I fail to see the logic here.

Sure, there are lots of international laws being broken in the world. Just because not every one is being enforced does not mean they should not be prosecuted. Perhaps in time more criminals will be brought to trial. I hope they are. Does not invalidate claims against Saddam.

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

So, I apply the same logic to another situation. I see ALOT of people speeding in their vehicles. However, one day I get a ticket. So, I can go to the police, and tell them that this ticket is invalid since its not applied consistantly? A murderer gets caught. He can get out of things by claiming there are alot of non-caught murderers, so he should not be held liable? Alot of Nazis escaped to South America and elsewhere and were hunted for decades. Was the Hagge invalid since not everyone was brought to justice at the same time? I fail to see the logic here.

So do I.

The analogy is illogical. It doesn't accurately portray the situation. A nation that engages in certain behaviors that are against "international law" is not like an individual who does something against the law. Nations are highly visible entities and when they break "laws" it is highly visible.

Also, the whole concept of "international law" is a doozy. International laws only apply to nations that agree that they apply. There is no overarching entity that can force international law onto nations that do not agree...unless you are willing to say that the US is now this entity. In which case, that opens up an new can of worms entirely.

Sure, there are lots of international laws being broken in the world. Just because not every one is being enforced does not mean they should not be prosecuted. Perhaps in time more criminals will be brought to trial. I hope they are. Does not invalidate claims against Saddam.

At the time that Saddam committed the "crimes" in question, what laws of his country did he break? At the time that Saddam committed the "crimes" in question, was Iraq bound by international laws that would make his actions crimes? In essence, what "laws" did Saddam break?

btw - An inconsistently applied law is useless tyranny...guess whose quote that is?

 

[mrhnau]

So do I.

The analogy is illogical. It doesn't accurately portray the situation. A nation that engages in certain behaviors that are against "international law" is not like an individual who does something against the law. Nations are highly visible entities and when they break "laws" it is highly visible.

I used several analogies. Some personal/local, some international. You disagree with the analogy of the Nazis? Its quite accurate. I would have prefered Hitler to have been taken out before his war machine was in full swing.

Also, the whole concept of "international law" is a doozy. International laws only apply to nations that agree that they apply. There is no overarching entity that can force international law onto nations that do not agree...unless you are willing to say that the US is now this entity. In which case, that opens up an new can of worms entirely.

yes, it is a doozy. from my understanding, the UN was formed shortly after WW2 to prevent another country getting totally out of control. The problem the UN now is powerless. It makes claims, but does nothing. Its not an obvious tool of enforcement. Enough claims were brought against Iraq, but nothing was done. The US filled that gap.

Now, the whole point of the origin of the UN was to prevent attrocities and tyrants such as Hitler from rising up again. So, according to your train of thoughts, if Germany was to leave the UN, claim it no longer holds its tenents, then they are free to do anything they want and invade any nation they seem fit. The UN should sit back and smile, regardless of what attrocities happens.

Another scenario. Suppose Iraq decides to invade another country that is in the UN. Since Iraq is not a full member of the UN, we should do nothing? Suppose Iraq has huge oil deals with Russia, which sits on the UN with veto power. Russia/France/Germany don't want their financial deals disrupted with Iraq, so we can't do ANYTHING since Russia/France/Germany made deals with Saddam. Sounds like a winner to me!

At the time that Saddam committed the "crimes" in question, what laws of his country did he break? At the time that Saddam committed the "crimes" in question, was Iraq bound by international laws that would make his actions crimes? In essence, what "laws" did Saddam break?

What laws did Hitler break? What laws did Stalin break? With a tyrant/total monarchy, they make your own laws and violate previous laws at will. The UN (at least in theory) is supposed to prevent these bullies from getting completely out of control. Bush Sr. should have finished up the job when he went in.

btw - An inconsistently applied law is useless tyranny...guess whose quote that is?

Pray tell. Note, the quote is not international law. I think the driving laws are tyranny, since I don't get a ticket everytime I speed. Down with driving laws! heheh. Quote that to the UN. Ask how Iraq can happily violate international law and they not enforce or approve the use of force. They have no muscle. Iraq was aware of the bought veto votes.

MrH

 

[mrhnau]

All this being said, I do think the more proper venue for this trial would be something similiar to the Hagge, an international court. However, I imagine that the crimes were greatly against their own citizens and something any normal country would have laws against, that they wanted the trial in their own courts... perhaps just the sense of justice staying close to home. I did not follow the proceedings for determining who would try Sadaam... I hear alot of Kurds are watching every word of the trial with much interest...

MrH

 

[rutherford]

See the link to the other thread I posted. In it, a law professor examines the laws in which Saddam is being held accountable. Basically, it's all ex post facto. As far as international law is concerned, the laws are not being applied consistantly. Saddam is being held to standards that others are not.

Actually, I didn't see any of that. In fact, the law professor is only talking about Fairness and as I read it he says he thinks both that the trial will be fairer than he expected and that in the end, fairness doesn't matter a whole lot.

The only person to mention ex post facto in that thread was Arnisador.

No law is applied consistently. In order for a law to be applied, somebody must be willing to enforce the law. Lots of crimes remain unprosecuted, even though the nature of the crime is common knowledge. That's not even close to relevant.

Finally, please stop putting the work on your debating partners. Its unfair of you to make a point and say, "This is how it is, go do the research if you want to prove me wrong." This is called a Burden of Proof fallicy.

 

[rutherford]

The analogy is illogical. It doesn't accurately portray the situation. A nation that engages in certain behaviors that are against "international law" is not like an individual who does something against the law. Nations are highly visible entities and when they break "laws" it is highly visible.

Also, the whole concept of "international law" is a doozy. International laws only apply to nations that agree that they apply. There is no overarching entity that can force international law onto nations that do not agree...unless you are willing to say that the US is now this entity. In which case, that opens up an new can of worms entirely.

But it's only relevant because you want it to be relevant. You've lost sight of the fact that this is an Iraqi court who is trying an Iraqi citizen.

The Iraqi court says that International Law applies, so it does. Nobody has forced it on them, and they have shown remarkable independance.

At the time that Saddam committed the "crimes" in question, what laws of his country did he break? At the time that Saddam committed the "crimes" in question, was Iraq bound by international laws that would make his actions crimes? In essence, what "laws" did Saddam break?

btw - An inconsistently applied law is useless tyranny...guess whose quote that is?

There's that question again, and we'll be able to answer them after the trial. I assume the details of the convictions will be widely available. In the meantime, why don't you do some of your own research.

 

[7starmantis]

Saddam is a thug, but he is our thug--we produced him, paid for him and armed him.

This is a mindset I do not understand. Because you have some type of "relationship" with someone means your responisble for everything they do in the future? If you sell me a handgun you are then responsible for me killing someone with it 20 years later? Guilty by association? If I meet you at a resturant, we talk a bit about martial arts (we both have that in common) and then I go on a killing streak that night are you then somehow guilty or responsible? Something that seems good at one moment can be used for bad at a later one.

Next, the idea of "no law broken" because he was in power is illogical and is basically sticking your head in the sand. What laws he broke are of little consequence to me. Law is a very subjective word. If I make the laws, I can't be caught. Does that mean I'm not to be held responsible for my actions? Beating, torturing, raping, disfiguring, and killing go beyond what local laws are present. These are the ambiguous "crimes against humanity" and the governing body is humanity. This was supposed to be the UN and we see how they have failed. Is it then wrong to step up and take up the slack? If I saw a police woman trying to arrest a man who overpowers her and then begins to beat and rape her, should I just shrug and say if she wanted it stoped she would stop him? If other cops were watching and laughing should I just shrug and say if it was wrong they would stop it?

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

Thus far, nobody has provided any legal basis in which to try Saddam. No one has provided a single law in which he could be held accountable to at the time of his "crimes". There is no (real) overarching world government that enforces so called "crimes against humanity." That whole catagory is subjective. Heck, many people think that war itself is a crime against humanity. Where are the definitions? Where are the standards, the power, and where is the consistency?

BTW - if one wants to cite the UN as the body that contains these laws, fine, but know this, there are some profound implications. According the UN laws, the war in Iraq is illegal. The UN never gave permission specifically for an invasion. Now we have 25,000 to 100,000 civilians dead and more on the way...for an illegal war. Who else is a war criminal?

This is moral relativism at its best. Isn't it wonderful!

Comparisons of Saddam and other nasty dictators of the 20th century are accurate...but the problem is that the same questions that I'm raising now, could and would, were raised whenever one of these people were held accountable. The bottom line is that the side who won determined who was right and who was wrong. There never was any real legal justification...even for Nuerenburg.

That is why the pretense of a trial is a sham. It's completely symbolic and it could be easily done away with. Saddam will be executed because he lost, not because of any laws that he supposedly broke.

And even though justice will be served by his death, "justice" in a legal sense will never be attained.

 

[mrhnau]

Thus far, nobody has provided any legal basis in which to try Saddam. No one has provided a single law in which he could be held accountable to at the time of his "crimes". There is no (real) overarching world government that enforces so called "crimes against humanity." That whole catagory is subjective. Heck, many people think that war itself is a crime against humanity. Where are the definitions? Where are the standards, the power, and where is the consistency?

Lets try this with just one law. Murder. Certainly we can agree that murder is going to be in the previous legal system. People simply can't go around murdering.

BTW - if one wants to cite the UN as the body that contains these laws, fine, but know this, there are some profound implications. According the UN laws, the war in Iraq is illegal. The UN never gave permission specifically for an invasion. Now we have 25,000 to 100,000 civilians dead and more on the way...for an illegal war. Who else is a war criminal?

So, we can only go to war if the UN gives us the nod? Then, every war is illegal. Every single one. Those horrible nations.

On a side note, if the rebels there would just chill out for a few months, allow us to rebuild, we would get out. Most of hte civilians killed are not from our actions, but a result of Iraqi insurgence.

This is moral relativism at its best. Isn't it wonderful!

Comparisons of Saddam and other nasty dictators of the 20th century are accurate...but the problem is that the same questions that I'm raising now, could and would, were raised whenever one of these people were held accountable. The bottom line is that the side who won determined who was right and who was wrong. There never was any real legal justification...even for Nuerenburg.

Nuerenburg is illegal now So, what do you suggest we do with tyrants. Allow them to wreck havoc in the world?

That is why the pretense of a trial is a sham. It's completely symbolic and it could be easily done away with. Saddam will be executed because he lost, not because of any laws that he supposedly broke.

And even though justice will be served by his death, "justice" in a legal sense will never be attained.

Now, if Saddam had not broken any laws, I might agree with you. If he had not murdered and endorsed the murder of thousands of people, I might agree. Now, I do agree that the trail is a bit of a sham, but I see a few trials as shams when guilt is blatantly obvious.

How do you suggest we serve "justice in a legal sense"... can we not convict him of anything? give him his country back and allow him to resume his normal daily activities? Lets just stamp him as "innocent" and dismiss the trials.

Give me some ideas here... what do YOU suggest. Give me something positive. You are consistently demeaning the process, suggest how we fix it.

MrH

 

[arnisador]

Lets try this with just one law. Murder. Certainly we can agree that murder is going to be in the previous legal system. People simply can't go around murdering.

Well...no. But the government can (death penalty, war). Maybe he'd claim that was the situation?