NationStates Jolt Archive

I remember 2 or 3 months ago, after we captured Saddam, his trial in Iraq started. But thats all I know. I havent heard anything else about it. Has anybody else heard or seen anything else? Please dont turn this into a debate on whether or not we should have gont into Iraq.

I think that was just an arraignment hearing.

I believe they are going to wait for the new government before the full trial.

The trial is illegal under UN laws, that is why he is under trial in Iraq and we havent heard much..

The trial is illegal under UN laws, that is why he is under trial in Iraq and we havent heard much..

Why is it illegal under UN laws?

Why is it illegal under UN laws?

Didn't you get the memo from the UN. Everything to do with Iraq is illegal now the oil for money scam is over.

No, I never got a memo from the UN.

No, I never got a memo from the UN.

Geez, those people are useless.

Basically it said that everything to do with Iraq is illegal.. blah..blah blah. I don't know if it mentioned the trial or not. What I do know is it was the reason that every two minutes people keep on yammering about an "illegal" war - like there can be such a thing, stupids.

In any event, his trial is scheduled to start next year. Between now an then watch out for some good stuff about how key "evidence" was lost because the US campaign was mismanaged or something. (And like there is not already enough evidence a million times over to condemn the man anyway).

Thanks. Do you know about which month next year?

The trial is predominantly illegal becuase he was taken under false pretences and by an invading countryan invading country is not allowed to arrest the leader of the country its invading under un laws at least i think thats correct... if its not plz do say so

key "evidence" was lost because the US campaign was mismanaged or something.
The key evidence was lost due to the iraqies looting almost everything and anything during the anarchy that followed the destruction of husseins regime and anything that has been 'tampered with' cannot be used as evidence in court.

The trial is predominantly illegal becuase he was taken under false pretences and by an invading countryan invading country is not allowed to arrest the leader of the country its invading under un laws at least i think thats correct... if its not plz do say so

There is no such thing as an illegal war. If a country invades another, they can arrest who they want. Thats like saying that we cant arrest Usama bin Laden because he is the one who ordered the attacks on 9/11

The key evidence was lost due to the iraqies looting almost everything and anything during the anarchy that followed the destruction of husseins regime and anything that has been 'tampered with' cannot be used as evidence in court.

Say what?

The key evidence was lost due to the iraqies looting almost everything and anything during the anarchy that followed the destruction of husseins regime and anything that has been 'tampered with' cannot be used as evidence in court.

What about the thousands of people that he slaughtered without a second though. Each one of them is a piece of evidence.

Thanks. Do you know about which month next year?

I don't think it's been set yet.

The key evidence was lost due to the iraqies looting almost everything and anything during the anarchy that followed the destruction of husseins regime and anything that has been 'tampered with' cannot be used as evidence in court.

I think there is still plenty to convict him with.

Say what?

After Saddam's regime fell, there was nobody in power, and they looted the museums and stuff like that.

I think there is still plenty to convict him with.
There is indeed still plenty to charge him with, however the mass gravesites have been searched by family members to try and identify the bodies and find heirlooms etc. This therefore voids the evidence in court.
There is no such thing as an illegal war. If a country invades another, they can arrest who they want. Thats like saying that we cant arrest Usama bin Laden because he is the one who ordered the attacks on 9/11
The war itself was not illegal but the laws that we have created for trials state that the trial of saddam is illegal. And its Osama with an O

Just to make it clear i'm not attempting to stick up for him or get him out of trial, he deserves to die. i'm just stating facts so people arent in the dark.

And its Osama with an O

It depends on what News Network you watch :P The U happens to be from Fox News.

But, the graves can be used as evidence, because the whole world knows about them. We all know that they were killed because of him.

The trial has been postponed until Bush can figure out which seat in his cabinet to appoint Saddam to. Right now he's just taking advice privately about how to structure the government.

do you agree with fox news after they lied to make bush the president? (accordin to michael moore's fahrenheit 9/11, whether this is true or not is debatable)
and yes we do know about them, but it is still hard evidence ruled out becuase of tampering. I had this debate with a friend a few weeks ago, and took the viewpoint you have, i lost.

do you agree with fox news after they lied to make bush the president? (accordin to michael moore's fahrenheit 9/11, whether this is true or not is debatable)
and yes we do know about them, but it is still hard evidence ruled out becuase of tampering. I had this debate with a friend a few weeks ago, and took the viewpoint you have, i lost.

You still have eye-witness testimony of thousands of people.

And what do you man by "tampering"?

That the bodies were planted or something.

I explained this b4, the relatives of those in the pits have been there to try and identify their loved ones and find any heirlooms that they may have had in their possession. Eye witness accounts are not the same as the actual evidence.

Why is it illegal under UN laws?
Because Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac wants his $20 billion back before they execute the son of a bitch.

Almost every thing in Fahrenheit 9/11 was proven wrong.

Back to the point. Just because the people who were slaughterd family's removed them from the graves doesnt mean that Saddam cant be charged with it. Tampered with or not, its evidence. And yes, what about the whitness, have they been tampered with also? There are test that can be preformed on the dead bodies and surely that can be used as evidence too. Also, what about how he used the Oil for Food program? That should be used as evidence too.

I explained this b4, the relatives of those in the pits have been there to try and identify their loved ones and find any heirlooms that they may have had in their possession. Eye witness accounts are not the same as the actual evidence.

Eyewitness accounts, given under oath, are evidence.

In fact, without a witness, material evidence cannot be authenticated. You have it back to front.

bump

It depends on what News Network you watch :P The U happens to be from Fox News.

But, the graves can be used as evidence, because the whole world knows about them. We all know that they were killed because of him.

Actually, "Usama" is the proper way to spell it in Arabic. It was actually mis-read when being transcribed to English back in the '80s and the bad transcription stuck.

The trial is illegal because the war is illegal. That's like saying you can march into, say, Germany, take control of their government and arrest their leader. You can't do that, because he was the leader of a soverign nation. Only after he (/she) abdicates/looses an election/voluntarially leaves leadership and the new leaders coöperate with the arresting country, then can a leader be arrested.

The illegality has nothing to do with what he did, or what he's charged with. It's the fact that he was arrested at all that was illegal.

However, because there's no other choice now, they must try him, illegal or not.

I don't think any trial has begun, at any point, because charges haven't been filed... he's just being interrogated by various U.S. and U.S. allies.

Your right, there was just an araignment (sp, sorry) where he was essencially (sp, wow bad day) shown to the world, that he was caught.

Almost every thing in Fahrenheit 9/11 was proven wrong.


By whom? Did they collect the money that was offered by Michael Moore for any proof that his information was incorrect? Or do you mean, "Lot's of people THINK Fahrenheit 9/11 was wrong"?

The U.S has to be really careful about how accountable they hold heads of state or government officials in cases where atrocities were committed. Clearly, if there is evidence that Saddam personally murdered people, his guilt will be easily proven. However, if he is guilty of ordering murders verbally, with no written proof, it becomes more problematic. For one thing, it's harder to convict him of these crimes. For another, there is a long tradition of political immunity for heads of state. This is changing (re: Slobodan Milosevic and Pinochet), but leaders don't want to make it too easy to be prosecuted for the things they do while in power. One notable political figure in the U.S that could be hurt by loss of immunity is Henry Kissinger, who during his stint as Nixon's national security adviser, was involved in a plan called Operation Condor, which effectively used CIA backed coups to install military dictatorships throughout the southern cone of South America. He himself did not murder or disappear people, but the governments he helped come to power in Chile (3000) and Argentina (30,000) etc did. If the invasion of Iraq was really declared illegal by the international community, would Bush be indicted as a war criminal? These are things no leader or political figure wants to face, and so they have to be careful when creating international laws that hold heads of state (and their cronies) accountable for actions they did not physically commit themselves. It could come back to bite them.

It was in a story with a reporter from MSNBC talking with Michael Moore. The reporter rebutted most of the "facts" from the movie with true facts. Ultimatly leave Michael Morre nearly speechless.

Link us up and name the reporter. I don't want to just take your word for it, sorry!

Saddam has not been tried because an Iraqi jury will not convict him. It is going to be tricky to have him tried by the Iraqi people and make it look like a fair trial, while ensuring that he will lose. IF they had a random jury like in America there is no way he would lose. Like half of Iraqis in polls say he should be set free. Out of 12 jurors you would statistically get 2 or 3 sunni Iraqis who glorify him. Only one juror supporting Saddam would keep him out of the noose.