Zeppistan
16-12-2004, 17:17
for you gift... here, have a lawyer.
Yes, after being held in custody for a full year since his capture last December 13th, Saddam FINALLY got to meet his legal team (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20041216/ts_nm/iraq_saddam_dc)
In other words, he has been held for over a year without counsel, but yet already forced before a panel of judges to give testimonial evidence once.
Let's all try and count how many ways he might wind up having legal recourse to dispute any proceedings under the Interim Iraq Constitution: (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/iz00000_.html)
Article 12 [Equality, Life, Liberty, Personal Security]
All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law. Discrimination against an Iraqi citizen on the basis of his gender, nationality, religion, or origin is prohibited. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with legal procedures. All are equal before the courts.
Article 15 [Rule of Law, Search, Seizure, Arrest, Fair Trial]
(A) No civil law shall have retroactive effect unless the law so stipulates. There shall be neither a crime, nor punishment, except by law in effect at the time the crime is committed.
(B) Police, investigators, or other governmental authorities may not violate the sanctity of private residences, whether these authorities belong to the federal or regional governments, governorates, municipalities, or local administrations, unless a judge or investigating magistrate has issued a search warrant in accordance with applicable law on the basis of information provided by a sworn individual who knew that bearing false witness would render him liable to punishment. Extreme exigent circumstances, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, may justify a warrantless search, but such exigencies shall be narrowly construed. In the event that a warrantless search is carried out in the absence of an extreme exigent circumstance, the evidence so seized, and any other evidence found derivatively from such search, shall be inadmissible in connection with a criminal charge, unless the court determines that the person who carried out the warrantless search believed reasonably and in good faith that the search was in accordance with the law.
(C) No one may be unlawfully arrested or detained, and no one may be detained by reason of political or religious beliefs.
(D) All persons shall be guaranteed the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, regardless of whether the proceeding is civil or criminal. Notice of the proceeding and its legal basis must be provided to the accused without delay.
(E) The accused is innocent until proven guilty pursuant to law, and he likewise has the right to engage independent and competent counsel, to remain silent in response to questions addressed to him with no compulsion to testify for any reason, to participate in preparing his defense, and to summon and examine witnesses or to ask the judge to do so. At the time a person is arrested, he must be notified of these rights.
(F) The right to a fair, speedy, and open trial shall be guaranteed.
(G) Every person deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall have the right of recourse to a court to determine the legality of his arrest or detention without delay and to order his release if this occurred in an illegal manner.
(H) After being found innocent of a charge, an accused may not be tried once again on the same charge.
(I) Civilians may not be tried before a military tribunal. Special or exceptional courts may not be established.
(J) Torture in all its forms, physical or mental, shall be prohibited under all circumstances, as shall be cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. No confession made under compulsion, torture, or threat thereof shall be relied upon or admitted into evidence for any reason in any proceeding, whether criminal or otherwise.
I mean, hey, we all know that it is going to be a show trial where much evidence is held back from public consumption. But it's still fun to point out hypocricy when you encounter it.
Some quick and dirty ones:
-How many of his palaces were searched without warrants? Can any evidence gathered then be deemed admissable?
-Who issued a legal arrest warrant for him? And when?
-How can he be deemed to have received speedy due process when not allowed to visit counsel for over a year?
-Did he have executive powers to make laws? and if so, what exactly were the laws in place at the time that he supposedly violated them? If so, be specific. A generic "war crimes" claim is rareley applicable to internal matters nor is Iraq signatory to Geneva anyway.
-has he had the right of recourse to contest his arrest? If so, why was no counsel provided?
-has the rhetoric of the legislative branch given any impression that he is being deemed "innocent until proven guilty"?
Hey, I think the guy should fry for his actions. But I'm also going to enjoy sneering at the failures of due process that are being (and will continue to be) foisted upon him.
Just take him out back and shoot him. It's what is going to happena anyway. Why bother going through the farce of a show trial? Be upfront and tell the people: We've got him, we're going to kill him, come on down and enjoy the show. It's not like the Iraqi's need to be told what a prick he was.
But I bet that Court TV covers it.... probably on Pay-per-view.... and I bet that the show is heavilly geared towards the US audience to continue to try and justify the invasion. You'll know that that's the case when the discussion on where he got his CBW's is stopped as being irrelevant to the trial at the time they are discussing their use.
Yes, after being held in custody for a full year since his capture last December 13th, Saddam FINALLY got to meet his legal team (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20041216/ts_nm/iraq_saddam_dc)
In other words, he has been held for over a year without counsel, but yet already forced before a panel of judges to give testimonial evidence once.
Let's all try and count how many ways he might wind up having legal recourse to dispute any proceedings under the Interim Iraq Constitution: (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/iz00000_.html)
Article 12 [Equality, Life, Liberty, Personal Security]
All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law. Discrimination against an Iraqi citizen on the basis of his gender, nationality, religion, or origin is prohibited. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with legal procedures. All are equal before the courts.
Article 15 [Rule of Law, Search, Seizure, Arrest, Fair Trial]
(A) No civil law shall have retroactive effect unless the law so stipulates. There shall be neither a crime, nor punishment, except by law in effect at the time the crime is committed.
(B) Police, investigators, or other governmental authorities may not violate the sanctity of private residences, whether these authorities belong to the federal or regional governments, governorates, municipalities, or local administrations, unless a judge or investigating magistrate has issued a search warrant in accordance with applicable law on the basis of information provided by a sworn individual who knew that bearing false witness would render him liable to punishment. Extreme exigent circumstances, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, may justify a warrantless search, but such exigencies shall be narrowly construed. In the event that a warrantless search is carried out in the absence of an extreme exigent circumstance, the evidence so seized, and any other evidence found derivatively from such search, shall be inadmissible in connection with a criminal charge, unless the court determines that the person who carried out the warrantless search believed reasonably and in good faith that the search was in accordance with the law.
(C) No one may be unlawfully arrested or detained, and no one may be detained by reason of political or religious beliefs.
(D) All persons shall be guaranteed the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, regardless of whether the proceeding is civil or criminal. Notice of the proceeding and its legal basis must be provided to the accused without delay.
(E) The accused is innocent until proven guilty pursuant to law, and he likewise has the right to engage independent and competent counsel, to remain silent in response to questions addressed to him with no compulsion to testify for any reason, to participate in preparing his defense, and to summon and examine witnesses or to ask the judge to do so. At the time a person is arrested, he must be notified of these rights.
(F) The right to a fair, speedy, and open trial shall be guaranteed.
(G) Every person deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall have the right of recourse to a court to determine the legality of his arrest or detention without delay and to order his release if this occurred in an illegal manner.
(H) After being found innocent of a charge, an accused may not be tried once again on the same charge.
(I) Civilians may not be tried before a military tribunal. Special or exceptional courts may not be established.
(J) Torture in all its forms, physical or mental, shall be prohibited under all circumstances, as shall be cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. No confession made under compulsion, torture, or threat thereof shall be relied upon or admitted into evidence for any reason in any proceeding, whether criminal or otherwise.
I mean, hey, we all know that it is going to be a show trial where much evidence is held back from public consumption. But it's still fun to point out hypocricy when you encounter it.
Some quick and dirty ones:
-How many of his palaces were searched without warrants? Can any evidence gathered then be deemed admissable?
-Who issued a legal arrest warrant for him? And when?
-How can he be deemed to have received speedy due process when not allowed to visit counsel for over a year?
-Did he have executive powers to make laws? and if so, what exactly were the laws in place at the time that he supposedly violated them? If so, be specific. A generic "war crimes" claim is rareley applicable to internal matters nor is Iraq signatory to Geneva anyway.
-has he had the right of recourse to contest his arrest? If so, why was no counsel provided?
-has the rhetoric of the legislative branch given any impression that he is being deemed "innocent until proven guilty"?
Hey, I think the guy should fry for his actions. But I'm also going to enjoy sneering at the failures of due process that are being (and will continue to be) foisted upon him.
Just take him out back and shoot him. It's what is going to happena anyway. Why bother going through the farce of a show trial? Be upfront and tell the people: We've got him, we're going to kill him, come on down and enjoy the show. It's not like the Iraqi's need to be told what a prick he was.
But I bet that Court TV covers it.... probably on Pay-per-view.... and I bet that the show is heavilly geared towards the US audience to continue to try and justify the invasion. You'll know that that's the case when the discussion on where he got his CBW's is stopped as being irrelevant to the trial at the time they are discussing their use.