NationStates Jolt Archive

As many of you know, the first trial of Saddam Hussein on charges of crimes against humanity has begun. He has been accused of attacking a Shia village after an assasination attempt. But, this is just the first salvo for the prosecution. There will be many more charges levied against him.

My question is, Is Mr. Hussein guilty or innocent, in general, of the charges that have been and will be levied against him?

Probably guilty, but I don't have access to testimony and evidence. The court does, however, have jurisdiction, as presidential offices do not confer immunity against charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes, especially not if the government is a despotic one. It wouldn't have worked as a shield for Hitler, and it won't work for Saddam.

Probably guilty, but I don't have access to testimony and evidence. The court does, however, have jurisdiction, as presidential offices to not confer immunity against charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes, especially not if the government is a despotic one. It would have worked as a shield for Hitler, and it won't work for Saddam.

I heard that was a main pillar of his defense. He states that, as the "Head of State in exile", he has immunity from prosecution.

Thats what he says, at least.

He should've been sent before the ICC or to the Hague.

I heard that was a main pillar of his defense. He states that, as the "Head of State in exile", he has immunity from prosecution.

Thats what he says, at least.

Well, it of course won't fly.

He should've been sent before the ICC or to the Hague.

The ICC has no jurisdiction in this matter, and it is already in the Hague. There is no other court, in the Hague, that I am aware of that would have jurisdiction over war crimes in Iraq.

I am often at variance with public opinion in my country, but on this one I have to agree. It will be proven that he is guilty of crimes against humanity.

It doesn't matter - it's a kangaroo court.

I think he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. So, for now, he's innocent.

For the poll I pick "Other"

Ahh...you forgot to put it !

Innocent until proven guilty. I have no place to say. The only information ANYONE here has to go on is what the media has been feeding us, and thus we have virtually no facts.

That biased court is, of course, working under a 'guilty forever' belief, however. We could dig up evidence which proved that Saddam really didn't have anything to do with what he has been charged with, and he would still be executed.

I had no idea his innocence was ever in question. I always considered the trial to be a mere formality. Does the court have a right to accuse and judge him? If it's in Iraq, yes. If it's in the World Court in Brussels (or wherever), yes. If it's anywhere else, obviously not.

We are all aware that the procedings will be overseen by a judge of Kurdish provenance, which hence negates any possibilty of a legally just trial. Admittedly, Saddam ought to be hung at the least, yet doing so as an internal affair, with internal prejudices, seems somewhat inappropriate.

Legally just by whose laws?

Does the Iraqi Constitution rest the burden of proof with the Prosecution or the defense?

You all have to remember that this is an internal Iraqi affair and lets face it the laws and protections that we are used to in the West may not exist under the current iraqi law.

In the US yes he'd be innocent until proven guilty but he is not in the US, he's not in the Hague he's not in the ICC.

Lets face it he killed a lot of his own people, they got a hold of him and now they are punishing him under their law, which from my understanding is rather harsh.

Oh, he's guilty, no question. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal maxim that does not mean that he is not yet morally guilty of the crimes he undoubtedly committed.

As far as legal guilt goes, there's lots of evidence that he did most of what he's charged with. And his defense is pretty flimsy; arguing before a court that the court lacks jurisdiction over you almost never works. So it's only a matter of time before the legal fact of his guilt is established.

Did I mention it was a kangaroo court? I believe so.

It is being tried in an Iraqi court by, I believe, an Iraqi jury, presided over by a Kurdish judge (who by Iraqi law can rule guilt if evidence is "satisfactory"), and a combination of Iraqi and American law and anti-Saddam influence.

The court is biased, but he is guilty.

He was guilty already when the USA gave him weapons in the 80's.

I think he is guilty. However, the court has no authority whatsoever.

He should've been sent before the ICC or to the Hague.

Exactly, which is why I voted "Niether, the court does not have authority to charge him"

Exactly, which is why I voted "Niether, the court does not have authority to charge him"

The ICC has no jurisdiction here! And there is no other court in The Hague that would be in position to try crimes against humanity/war crimes in Iraq.

The ICC has no jurisdiction here! And there is no other court in The Hague that would be in position to try crimes against humanity/war crimes in Iraq.

Well this would actually be true, as the ICC will not hear retroactive cases. I am aware of where the ICC is, it just didn't seem important enough to point it out for the sake of the discussion. I suppose an international tribunal of some sort should of been done though for Saddam, I agree what is going on in Iraq is nothing more than a kangaroo court. It's also why the USA won't join the ICC, they'd be in front of it as we speak.

As many of you know, the first trial of Saddam Hussein on charges of crimes against humanity has begun. He has been accused of attacking a Shia village after an assasination attempt. But, this is just the first salvo for the prosecution. There will be many more charges levied against him.

My question is, Is Mr. Hussein guilty or innocent, in general, of the charges that have been and will be levied against him?

Saddam Hussein is guilty in my opinion.

He should've been sent before the ICC or to the Hague.

1) Iraq didn't sign the ICC.

2) This is an Iraqi matter.

The ICC has no jurisdiction in this matter, and it is already in the Hague. There is no other court, in the Hague, that I am aware of that would have jurisdiction over war crimes in Iraq.

It isn't at the Hague Fass. It is being held in *gasp* Baghdad!

I think he is guilty. However, the court has no authority whatsoever.

Why?

I suppose an international tribunal of some sort should of been done though for Saddam, I agree what is going on in Iraq is nothing more than a kangaroo court.

Prove that it is a Kangaroo Court please!

It's also why the USA won't join the ICC, they'd be in front of it as we speak.

Doubtful however, that is one reason why we are not. It'll turn into a political witch hunt. Besides that, we try our own criminals.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9816584&postcount=16

Well, it of course won't fly.
Only because Iraq isn't a superpower. Or a semi-superpower.

Like any other trial of international stature (even though technically, the Iraqis are trying him), there will be a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging.

It isn't at the Hague Fass. It is being held in *gasp* Baghdad!
No, Fass means the ICC is in the Hague, not Saddam's trial. Sheesh.

Like any other trial of international stature (even though technically, the Iraqis are trying him), there will be a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging.
:D

Just think of it this way folks...remember when they acquited those cops who beat Rodney King? The response to that would be NOTHING compared to the response if somehow Saddam were let off.

Doubtful however, that is one reason why we are not. It'll turn into a political witch hunt. Besides that, we try our own criminals.


Which is implying what exactly? That people in other countries don't try their own criminals which is why they need to sign on the ICC? Pfft. Typical American hypocrisy.


Regards Saddam, however, I beleive it is an Iraqi matter...I do hear they are going to hang him if guilty...now that is just bad karma. Exile him, sentence him for life, but hanging? Publically?

It won't be good for the nation, that's something thats going to lurk in their history for the long term.

Which is implying what exactly? That people in other countries don't try their own criminals which is why they need to sign on the ICC? Pfft. Typical American hypocrisy.

Most don't. However, we'll take care of our own people. No Universal Jurisdiction for us. We'll take care of our own criminals as well as those that violate the law in the United States. Besides that, we also enjoy our soveriegnty to much and ratifying the ICC would be a violation of the US Constitution.

Regards Saddam, however, I beleive it is an Iraqi matter...I do hear they are going to hang him if guilty...now that is just bad karma. Exile him, sentence him for life, but hanging? Publically?

Here here. Lets hang the bastard.

It won't be good for the nation, that's something thats going to lurk in their history for the long term.

Hussein is going to lurk in there history for a very long time.

Exile him, sentence him for life, but hanging? Publically?

What's wrong with public execution? I bet it will give the Kurds and Shiites immense satisfaction to see him publicly executed.

As for me, I'm all for bringing back drawing and quartering. I would want the screaming to go on and on and on before he actually expired.

Saddam belongs in The Hague, together with Bush and the rest of the Cheney gang.

Why?
Why would it? There is a system of international law, there is a prescribed action against defendants, and an Iraqi court would be enforcing a retroactive ruling (not really acceptable practice), aside from being under the suspicion - I mean, a suspicion tenable in court - of influence from a foreign influence and the occupant. Ponder this as well: who is to make sure that Americans helping Saddam throughout the 80s will be held responsible?
I also disagree with trials where the penalty is capital punishment. Not to mention him being in a cage. I am apalled about how acceptable practice has turned on its head - I am Romanian, and (although I resented the person) I was shocked at Ceausescu's trial and execution. It seemed that the whole "civilized" world was thinking the same back then...

I think he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. So, for now, he's innocent.
How very "P.C." of you.:rolleyes:

Saddam belongs in The Hague, together with Bush and the rest of the Cheney gang.

I think it's appropriate that the Iraqis try Saddam themselves.

As for Bush and Cheney, can you point to a current indictment and warrant that would bring them to the Hague in the first place?

I bet they could visit the place for tourism, but there aren't any outstanding charges against them, except in your head.

I was shocked at Ceausescu's trial and execution. It seemed that the whole "civilized" world was thinking the same back then...

Speaking as a member of the civilized world, I thought his execution was comedic but fair justice.

He got more justice than most of his victims, which is saying a lot. The fact that the executioners finally got exasperated, dragging him outside and gunned him down with no fanfare was quite appropriate.

Saddam belongs in The Hague, together with Bush and the rest of the Cheney gang.

This is rich. Very very rich. And what charges will you bring since they haven't violated International law.

Why would it? There is a system of international law, there is a prescribed action against defendants, and an Iraqi court would be enforcing a retroactive ruling (not really acceptable practice), aside from being under the suspicion - I mean, a suspicion tenable in court - of influence from a foreign influence and the occupant. Ponder this as well: who is to make sure that Americans helping Saddam throughout the 80s will be held responsible?

Not our fault for what Saddam did. Saddam is totally responsible for his actions. He is finally getting what he deserves. This will be a fair trail and conducted properly.

I also disagree with trials where the penalty is capital punishment. Not to mention him being in a cage. I am apalled about how acceptable practice has turned on its head - I am Romanian, and (although I resented the person) I was shocked at Ceausescu's trial and execution. It seemed that the whole "civilized" world was thinking the same back then...

I am one of those that don't question how they treat prisoners at trial. If that is their custom, then fine. Of course, if he pulled the stunt he pulled in an american court, he would've had contempted court charge leveled against him to go with all the other charges. Death to him I say. Though I could be totally inhuman and have him stripped naked and put on display in a zoo.

Personally, I hope they hang him, the executioner fucks up when tying the knot, his neck doesn't break, and he slowly chokes to death. And I hope he shits himself when he dies, and the world sees it.

Did I mention I voted guilty?

Speaking as a member of the civilized world, I thought his execution was comedic but fair justice.

He got more justice than most of his victims, which is saying a lot. The fact that the executioners finally got exasperated, dragging him outside and gunned him down with no fanfare was quite appropriate.
Yeah, well, not quite. Many have made more victims than Ceausescu did and gone unpunished (beyond empty rethoric, and this not to excuse him, he, his wife and their collaborators - many persons who have not stood trial - are responsible for 200 victims tops; not to forget: in an interesting parallel, Ceausescu has also been backed by the US). The story about the "dragging" is just myth.
My ultimate point is that I do not consider execution "fair" under any circumstances.

Yeah, well, not quite. Many have made more victims than Ceausescu did and gone unpunished (beyond empty rethoric, and this not to excuse him, he, his wife and their collaborators - many persons who have not stood trial - are responsible for 200 victims tops; not to forget: in an interesting parallel, Ceausescu has also been backed by the US). The story about the "dragging" is just myth.
My ultimate point is that I do not consider execution "fair" under any circumstances.

It was a comical video to watch - the execution. It evoked the "how the mighty are fallen" even with the sound off.

It was a comical video to watch - the execution. It evoked the "how the mighty are fallen" even with the sound off.
I don't see the fun in it, but that's just me. I guess there are better ways to illustrate the point.

Oh crap, in my absent-mindedness I clicked 'Innocent' >_<
Guilty, I say!!!

How very "P.C." of you.:rolleyes:

I wasn't aware that believing in due process was "P.C." ... you must be a fascist.

Not our fault for what Saddam did. Saddam is totally responsible for his actions. He is finally getting what he deserves. This will be a fair trail and conducted properly.
I am one of those that don't question how they treat prisoners at trial. If that is their custom, then fine. Of course, if he pulled the stunt he pulled in an american court, he would've had contempted court charge leveled against him to go with all the other charges. Death to him I say. Though I could be totally inhuman and have him stripped naked and put on display in a zoo.
The things I indicated in my previous post would've made him walk right out of an American or any other national (not international) tribunal. Check the grounds again: retroactive national law (not tenable), refusal of fair trial - court under suspicion of outside influence and manu militari (again, not tenable), refusal of implication of associates-in-crime (what was Saddam to gas Kurds with if not American weapons? Oh, wait: America is not at fault, since they gave them to Saddam not for this purpose, BUT TO USE ON IRANIANS. My mistake).That's WHY there is international law with generic, universal, over-riding principles (that and pushing aside "quaint-but-it's-the-habit-of-the-land" crap procedures).

I wasn't aware that believing in due process was "P.C." ... you must be a fascist.
Yep, and I eat babies and torture kittens too! At least I'm not a walking contradiction though. Saddam = innocent, but Delay = Guilty? HHMMMMmmmm

We are all aware that the procedings will be overseen by a judge of Kurdish provenance, which hence negates any possibilty of a legally just trial. Admittedly, Saddam ought to be hung at the least, yet doing so as an internal affair, with internal prejudices, seems somewhat inappropriate.

Who has more of a right to try and to judge than the people that the crime was commited against ! Thats horsecrap that it negates anything .

Who has more of a right to try and to judge than the people that the crime was commited against ! Thats horsecrap that it negates anything .
Where is the presumption of innocence? You state that "the crime was commited against X, so X must be deciding on it".

Where is the presumption of innocence? You state that "the crime was commited against X, so X must be deciding on it".

You tell me where the presumption of innocence is . He commited his alleged crimes against Iraqis . The Iraqis have more right than anyone to judge his guilt or innocence . Its asinine to say otherwise .

I think he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. So, for now, he's innocent.
A jury of his peers? Now we have to round up other despotic heads of state? Damn it...and Pinochet is so old, he'll probably die enroute...

You tell me where the presumption of innocence is . He commited his alleged crimes against Iraqis . The Iraqis have more right than anyone to judge his guilt or innocence . Its asinine to say otherwise .
Why not have post-War Germans judge Hitler? Back then, you Americans liked the idea of interntl. court, and we all built on it till you changed your mind.
The "Iraqis"? Can you please explain that ethos to me? Are the Iraqis Sunni, Shia or Kurds? Which is to say: victims of Saddam's are still targets of Sunni ideology. "Iraqi" is a nice euphemism, and the Bush administr. uses it ad nauseam to hide the notion that there is no will from inside Iraq to be associated with a 1920s British fantasy (which is what "the nation of Iraq" is) and the obvious fact that the US have most unlikely allies in the Shia community - while taking a harsh stance on Iran, which is like saying "I'm not going to be hanged, I'm gonna hang myself". Face it: idiocy in US policy does not reality make.

Who has more of a right to try and to judge than the people that the crime was commited against ! Thats horsecrap that it negates anything .

I assure it is not. A judge and arbiter of Kurdish origin is unlikely to be capable of enacting a fair and entirely infallible trial. If the wolrd proposes to prosecute Saddam fully, he ought to have been tried at the Hague.

Guilty, and I'm all for throwing him in jail for life.

But no death penalty, and the court really is a big show - the Iraqis are in the court room, but the support staff for all sides is US Military.
Don't think there could be a genuine chance of him being let off, the sentence was already passed when the US invaded the place.

Yep, and I eat babies and torture kittens too! At least I'm not a walking contradiction though. Saddam = innocent, but Delay = Guilty? HHMMMMmmmm

I never said Delay was guilty.

A jury of his peers? Now we have to round up other despotic heads of state? Damn it...and Pinochet is so old, he'll probably die enroute...

*snicker* That's not what's meant by "peers" :D

Is there such a thing as "Crimes against Iraqity"?

He was illegally Disposed by a bogus invasion so he should get a get out of Jail free card.
This Card should include....
-An Apology from Dubya and America
-An Apology from Bumboy Blair
-An Apology from Sherriff Howard
-The return of Iraq to its rightful owner plus Tibet as compensation.
-3 more Palaces
-The return of his sons
-Also the White Horse that was taken and probably turned into dinner.

It isn't at the Hague Fass. It is being held in *gasp* Baghdad!

I was referring to the ICC already being in The Hauge, and the superfluousness of saying "the ICC or The Hauge." Now if only reading what I had written hadn't been superfluous to you...

Even a facistic tyrant like me must make it quite clear that hes guilty until proven innocent [Which will never happen]
Erm...Im in the UK, what channel is the trial on ?

Erm...Im in the UK, what channel is the trail on ?
They talked for about 40 minutes or so, then they decided they'd take a break for 40 days. Making Law is exhausting.

And they complain about the Milosevic trial taking so long...

Saddam is guilty, of that there can be no doubt, except the official doubt required in court.

There is no reason to try Saddam in Holland because the crimes for which he is being tried took place in Iraq, and were not connected with war.

As for the charge of ex-post-facto law, the charge is not applicable. Of course any law that tries Saddam Hussein will be ex-post-facto, because at the time Saddam committed the crimes, he made the law. Furthermore, murder is a crime, full stop, there need not be a legal code for it to recognise it as a crime. No one who says "murder is a crime" follows that statement "because the Commonwealth Crimes Act says so".

Those who mindlessly advocate a so-called "international court" have refused to address the Milosevic case. Milosevic has turned the court into his own circus. He even ran for office from the dock! The so-called international process is a proven farce.

Justice must be done, and by that I mean done, I mean a process which can work and provide a judgement as quickly as possible. Speedy trials are an important legal right. Without them, the state could hold someone in gaol in perpetuity be producing a filibuster of a case. They need not find him guilty, they only need to show that he should be remanded rather than bailed. If Milosevic is innocent (and he isn't), then those trying him have effectively locked him up without a trial.

Those who say that Saddam Hussein cannot be fairly tried by a Kurd are racists, they have also failed utterly to provide a scrap of proof that the individuals judging this trial are not fit to do so. Until such evidence is posted here, racist attacks on their integrity are not justified, or appropriate.

Why not have post-War Germans judge Hitler?

Because they tried to get post-war Germans to judge the leaders of Germany during WW1, and it became a farce.

The "Iraqis"? Can you please explain that ethos to me? Are the Iraqis Sunni, Shia or Kurds?

Kurd and Sunni usually mean the same thing. The vast majority of Kurds follow the Sunni type of Islam. Anyway, such racist/sectarian sentiments have no relevance.

Which is to say: victims of Saddam's are still targets of Sunni ideology. "Iraqi" is a nice euphemism, and the Bush administr. uses it ad nauseam to hide the notion that there is no will from inside Iraq to be associated with a 1920s British fantasy (which is what "the nation of Iraq" is) and the obvious fact that the US have most unlikely allies in the Shia community - while taking a harsh stance on Iran, which is like saying "I'm not going to be hanged, I'm gonna hang myself". Face it: idiocy in US policy does not reality make.

What rubbish. Saddam Hussein's rule was a minority within the Sunni Arab minority, a small Mafia centred around Tikrit.

That there is will inside Iraq to remain as Iraq has been shown by every group in the country. Even the Kurds aren't seeking independence.

If you think the Shia Arabs have any regard for the Persians, you're dead wrong. Racism is deeply rooted in Arab culture, which is why they have persecuted every non-Arab group they have ever come across. The only reason the Shia Arabs ever got involved with Persians is that they both opposed Saddam Hussein. What you're saying is like saying Churchill and Stalin were best friends, and very loyal to each other, true, one was the conservative PM, and the other was a communist dictator.

Guilty, and I'm all for throwing him in jail for life.

But no death penalty

He'll be killed for what he's done anyway, whether an execution after a trial, or killing in prison unofficially.

the Iraqis are in the court room, but the support staff for all sides is US Military.

What's wrong with that? If the lawyers are all Iraqi, that's all that counts, the lawyers can get better support from the US armed forces than inside the Iraqi government.

I assure it is not. A judge and arbiter of Kurdish origin is unlikely to be capable of enacting a fair and entirely infallible trial.

I just love racists, they make me feel talented.

If the wolrd proposes to prosecute Saddam fully, he ought to have been tried at the Hague.

The world doesn't, the Republic of Iraq does. The only othe nations with a legitimate claim to being able to try Saddam Hussein are Kuwait, and Iran.

Hey guys, Saddam has 8 lawyers right ?
Wrong.
Yesterday evening, one of them was kidnapped, and they found him dead this morning !
[I know this is old news, but what the heck]

Those who mindlessly advocate a so-called "international court" have refused to address the Milosevic case. Milosevic has turned the court into his own circus. He even ran for office from the dock! The so-called international process is a proven farce.
If the man knows how to work the process, than he's entitled to do so. Until he's proven guilty, we should really assume him innocent, which means he should be allowed most things (except those that would interfere with the trial).
He's the one who's lengthening the trial by using his own defence plan. He chose to do it, and so it's at least partly his choice.

Because they tried to get post-war Germans to judge the leaders of Germany during WW1, and it became a farce.
That's because in WW1, there were no "war-criminals" as such. Germans at least didn't see the need to trial their leaders - they had already stepped aside when they lost the war.

Anyway, such racist/sectarian sentiments have no relevance.
To the people in Iraq they obviously do. Otherwise I don't know what all this "autonomy" business is in the constitution.

If the man knows how to work the process, than he's entitled to do so. Until he's proven guilty, we should really assume him innocent, which means he should be allowed most things (except those that would interfere with the trial).
He's the one who's lengthening the trial by using his own defence plan. He chose to do it, and so it's at least partly his choice.

He's being allowed to do it, which is exactly my point.

To the people in Iraq they obviously do. Otherwise I don't know what all this "autonomy" business is in the constitution.

Even nations which are far more homogeneous than Iraq, and have had less tensions built by a government like Saddam's, have desires for regional autonomy. Is that not the case in Germany, with its various lander? Its certainly the case in Australia.

Even if the divisions weren't there, federalism is a good thing, the competition between different jurisdictons for people and capital makes things better. It is the reason Australia states don't charge death taxes. It is unfortunate the current government has undermined federalism.

He's being allowed to do it, which is exactly my point.
Meh, the defendant should have what he wants, afterall he's risking his life here.
What I personally think about Milosevic or Hussein is really irrelevant, for I know what the risks are if we fast-track the due process.

Even nations which are far more homogeneous than Iraq, and have had less tensions built by a government like Saddam's, have desires for regional autonomy. Is that not the case in Germany, with its various lander? Its certainly the case in Australia....
Bah, I hate Federalism. For Germany at this point it's creating nothing but trouble. It's a good thing both major parties, now with a grand coalition and a big majority, are bent on reform.
But other than Bavaria in 1919, no German state (if you really wanted to use the German Word, either say "Länder", or "Laender") has ever actually tried to leave the country.
There's rather open talk (and there has been for years) of an independent Kurdistan. And I can only speculate about the motives of the Shia, who are now set to get the fattest oil reserves, leaving the Sunni with nothing.

And by the way: Do you like Anarcho-Capitalism? I made a thread about Anarcho-Societies.

Meh, the defendant should have what he wants, afterall he's risking his life here.
What I personally think about Milosevic or Hussein is really irrelevant, for I know what the risks are if we fast-track the due process.

So, if someone is being tried for bestial capital crimes, you're OK with him walking out. That is after all, what most of them want.

The point is that justice must be done.

Bah, I hate Federalism. For Germany at this point it's creating nothing but trouble. It's a good thing both major parties, now with a grand coalition and a big majority, are bent on reform.

They're hardly bent on it. Germany's experience as a centralised state wasn't exactly positive. Its done far better as a Federal Republic.

There's rather open talk (and there has been for years) of an independent Kurdistan. And I can only speculate about the motives of the Shia, who are now set to get the fattest oil reserves, leaving the Sunni with nothing.

There's always been talk of secessionism, but they've rejected it for the very pragmatic reason that they don't want to excessively anger the Turks, who will see an independent Kurdistan as a threat. In this case, federalism provides a compromise.

Hey guys, Saddam has 8 lawyers right ?
Wrong.
Yesterday evening, one of them was kidnapped, and they found him dead this morning !
[I know this is old news, but what the heck]
It is news to me.

Why not have post-War Germans judge Hitler? Back then, you Americans liked the idea of interntl. court, and we all built on it till you changed your mind.
The "Iraqis"? Can you please explain that ethos to me? Are the Iraqis Sunni, Shia or Kurds? Which is to say: victims of Saddam's are still targets of Sunni ideology. "Iraqi" is a nice euphemism, and the Bush administr. uses it ad nauseam to hide the notion that there is no will from inside Iraq to be associated with a 1920s British fantasy (which is what "the nation of Iraq" is) and the obvious fact that the US have most unlikely allies in the Shia community - while taking a harsh stance on Iran, which is like saying "I'm not going to be hanged, I'm gonna hang myself". Face it: idiocy in US policy does not reality make.

Iraqis are the people that constitute the nation of Iraq . Just because you may live in a racist society where different groups cant live toghether doesnt mean its like that in other areas . Iraq is not the Balkans . You guys are so used to commiting genocide over in Europe you think its a normal state of being . Kurds , Sunni and Shiite have lived toghether for centuries without mass graves ..that seems to be a European fad those mass graves , that were imported by a self styled Stalinist like Saddam . You tell the millions that voted that they do not have a country called Iraq . If I were you I would concentrate on cleaning up the mess you have in Europe before I attempted to screw up any more countrys in other areas...US idiocy ? What was Kosovo ? Is that how you celibrated the end of the cold war ? Where was Europe when hundreds of thousands maybe millions were raped and murdered for YEARS in there own back yard . Europeans need to keep reading about their history ...maybe you guys should be paying reparations for screwing up North Africa and the middle east with your colonization...you have the balls to talk about idiotic policy !

Kurd and Sunni usually mean the same thing. The vast majority of Kurds follow the Sunni type of Islam. Anyway, such racist/sectarian sentiments have no relevance.
What rubbish. Saddam Hussein's rule was a minority within the Sunni Arab minority, a small Mafia centred around Tikrit.
Saddam Husseim was representing a minority (Mafia-like, I agree) that was Arab secular to begin with. With the decay of Pan-Arab policies, it identified with the fear of more-or-less religious Sunnis (the privileged middle class) and started assuring them that they would not fall pray to outside forces. Those people may not have liked Saddam, but they are the only ones believing there should still be an Iraq - so as not to be exposed as the minority they in fact are.
That there is will inside Iraq to remain as Iraq has been shown by every group in the country. Even the Kurds aren't seeking independence.
Compare with:
If you think the Shia Arabs have any regard for the Persians, you're dead wrong. Racism is deeply rooted in Arab culture, which is why they have persecuted every non-Arab group they have ever come across.
It looks like you are contradicting yourself: you are using national vs. national and religious vs. religious where it suits you. Because, otherwise, we all know about Kurds being Sunni (and some Shia, and some Christian). This was about Sunni Arabs vs. Iraqis, if I didn't make myself clear. I do not agree with generalities such as "racism is deeply rooted in Arab culture", simply because the concept of race is lacking - even Arab on Kurd can only be explained through a default inheritance from Ottoman violence, and is the responsability of Imperial powers (Britain, mainly) creating borders and nations after WW1. (Also, I do not know where you get the impression that "the Kurds" - again, a generalisation, "them on the whole" - "do not seek independence". They have an autonomous region now that is hardly part of Iraq and the fact that they are still part of that country on paper is only due to a compromise with the US - so the US would not seem to have interviened in Iraq in order to rectify borders, and so that Turkey would not get alarmed.)
The only reason the Shia Arabs ever got involved with Persians is that they both opposed Saddam Hussein. What you're saying is like saying Churchill and Stalin were best friends, and very loyal to each other, true, one was the conservative PM, and the other was a communist dictator.
The reason they "got together" is a most logical alliance: being Shia (it wasn't sectarian identity, but they had secularists and Sunni targeting them as enemies - it has become such an identity). There is no other point to make in this respect, and no observation about "racism" or whatever would make sense (it would be based on generic impressions for which you could quote no independent source or on extrapolated events).

This is rich. Very very rich. And what charges will you bring since they haven't violated International law.
Well, there IS the whole invading a country without permission from the United Nations Security Council (and before you tell me about Res 1441, the damn thing states "serious consiquences" and makes clear that a breach would be reported to the Security Council for Council action. The US doesn't get to decide on its own what serious consiquences are. http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf ), but of course since new resolutions have been passed, the US occupation is legit. There's also violations in regards to treatment of prisoners of war, but I'm sure that was just a few bad apples and not direct orders from President Bush.

I really question the ability of the court to render verdict that is not vendictive. It's going to be a sticking point for a while on how the court performed and if it was a legit court.

As to his guilt, THAT'S harder to prove. Not that I don't think he was a bastard, but he's a clever bastard and unless someone heard him directly state "Let's kill Kurds" it will be hard to prove beyond a doubt that he gave the orders to do so. He can always claim a few bad apples did it after all and he never ever meant for it to happen and he was shocked, SHOCKED at the actions.

Saddam Husseim was representing a minority (Mafia-like, I agree) that was Arab secular to begin with. With the decay of Pan-Arab policies, it identified with the fear of more-or-less religious Sunnis (the privileged middle class) and started assuring them that they would not fall pray to outside forces. Those people may not have liked Saddam, but they are the only ones believing there should still be an Iraq - so as not to be exposed as the minority they in fact are.

Yet Iraqis voted for the constitution.

It looks like you are contradicting yourself: you are using national vs. national and religious vs. religious where it suits you.

Looks like you are using the cookie cutter approach without any justification.

This was about Sunni Arabs vs. Iraqis, if I didn't make myself clear. I do not agree with generalities such as "racism is deeply rooted in Arab culture", simply because the concept of race is lacking - even Arab on Kurd can only be explained through a default inheritance from Ottoman violence, and is the responsability of Imperial powers (Britain, mainly) creating borders and nations after WW1.

There is no reason other than racism for Arab violence against the Kurds.

They have an autonomous region now that is hardly part of Iraq and the fact that they are still part of that country on paper is only due to a compromise with the US - so the US would not seem to have interviened in Iraq in order to rectify borders, and so that Turkey would not get alarmed.)

"Hardly part of Iraq" is relative. The Kurds are a part of Iraq. Incontrovertable fact. They made this decision of their own accord.

The reason they "got together" is a most logical alliance: being Shia (it wasn't sectarian identity, but they had secularists and Sunni targeting them as enemies - it has become such an identity). There is no other point to make in this respect, and no observation about "racism" or whatever would make sense (it would be based on generic impressions for which you could quote no independent source or on extrapolated events).

Nonsense. The theory of why they made an alliance that requires the least useful terms (Occam's Razor) is simply a common enemy making it necessary to cooperate. We know that both had a common enemy. We do not know that they felt any affinity for Persians. They never have before.

Iraqis are the people that constitute the nation of Iraq . Just because you may live in a racist society where different groups cant live toghether doesnt mean its like that in other areas . Iraq is not the Balkans . You guys are so used to commiting genocide over in Europe you think its a normal state of being . Kurds , Sunni and Shiite have lived toghether for centuries without mass graves ..that seems to be a European fad those mass graves , that were imported by a self styled Stalinist like Saddam . You tell the millions that voted that they do not have a country called Iraq . If I were you I would concentrate on cleaning up the mess you have in Europe before I attempted to screw up any more countrys in other areas...US idiocy ? What was Kosovo ? Is that how you celibrated the end of the cold war ? Where was Europe when hundreds of thousands maybe millions were raped and murdered for YEARS in there own back yard . Europeans need to keep reading about their history ...maybe you guys should be paying reparations for screwing up North Africa and the middle east with your colonization...you have the balls to talk about idiotic policy !
"Iraq is not the Balkans ." - that is the funniest attempt at an insult I have ever heard! You use the most absurd cliche that is somehow meant to establish a hierarchy with America on top, but you forget that, no matter where "we, the Balkans" (btw: a gross generality, disregarding facts) stand in this chart (that neither I nor the Iraqis asked for), the Iraqis where meant to be beneath us. Clue: the cliche is that the Balkans are "bad" because they are Oriental-influenced (with a spoonfull of "Muslim cruelty"); Iraq IS the Orient!
(Incidentally, in geographical terms Romania is not a part of the Balkan Peninsula - not that I would mind if it where; the Balkans being "a civilisation", a "way of thinking", an "attitude to life" or something of the sort is something that has no purpose outside of literature. Neither does "being European".)
The millions that voted in Iraq did so because they selected one of the few options they were left with: nobody would allow seccesion, least of all Americans (see my other posts: USA wants no antagonizing of Turkey, no border-revisionism as the way).
If you want to challenge me again, at least take a look at a map of the world.

"Hardly part of Iraq" is relative. The Kurds are a part of Iraq. Incontrovertable fact. They made this decision of their own accord.
It IS relative, fine. But the Kurd activists had been fighting for independence since the 1960s (in some cases, since the 1940s), and they convened with the US not to ask for it directly/anymore/until later because of Turkey and so that America does not seem to be bending borders.

Nonsense. The theory of why they made an alliance that requires the least useful terms (Occam's Razor) is simply a common enemy making it necessary to cooperate. We know that both had a common enemy. We do not know that they felt any affinity for Persians. They never have before.
Here's a "before": some Arabs where converted to Shia Islam by the Safevids! Most Shia Arabs where protected by the Safevids against the Ottomans!
I think I used Occam's blade in a most suitable way. It means this much (not more) to be Shia: you are a victim of Saddam, because you are thought to be a friend of the enemy! (if you think that Saddam had any other reason to persecute them, please elaborate)

It IS relative, fine. But the Kurd activists had been fighting for independence since the 1960s (in some cases, since the 1940s), and they convened with the US not to ask for it directly/anymore/until later because of Turkey and so that America does not seem to be bending borders.

Is that a refutation? You've confirmed what I've said, the Kurds decided to remain as a part of Iraq.

I think I used Occam's blade in a most suitable way. It means this much (not more) to be Shia: you are a victim of Saddam, because you are thought to be a friend of the enemy! (if you think that Saddam had any other reason to persecute them, please elaborate)

You wouldn't know Occam's Razor if it cut your head off. That they of the same sect is no reason for them to form an alliance. Having a common enemy is, and it has been historically that groups, even if they are ordinarily implaccably opposed to each other, will form alliances if there is a common enemy, as evidenced by Churchill sending large amounts of war material to the USSR, a state he once tried to destroy.

Here here. Lets hang the bastard.
Is that the approved Methodist way to resolve the issue?

If so, perhaps the court should prepare a few more nooses for Saddam's US accomplices?

If so, perhaps the court should prepare a few more nooses for Saddam's US accomplices?

Here here. Lets hang the bastards. ;)

"Iraq is not the Balkans ." - that is the funniest attempt at an insult I have ever heard! You use the most absurd cliche that is somehow meant to establish a hierarchy with America on top, but you forget that, no matter where "we, the Balkans" (btw: a gross generality, disregarding facts) stand in this chart (that neither I nor the Iraqis asked for), the Iraqis where meant to be beneath us. Clue: the cliche is that the Balkans are "bad" because they are Oriental-influenced (with a spoonfull of "Muslim cruelty"); Iraq IS the Orient!
(Incidentally, in geographical terms Romania is not a part of the Balkan Peninsula - not that I would mind if it where; the Balkans being "a civilisation", a "way of thinking", an "attitude to life" or something of the sort is something that has no purpose outside of literature. Neither does "being European".)
The millions that voted in Iraq did so because they selected one of the few options they were left with: nobody would allow seccesion, least of all Americans (see my other posts: USA wants no antagonizing of Turkey, no border-revisionism as the way).
If you want to challenge me again, at least take a look at a map of the world.

first off I could care less who is on top . Secondly it is the height of arrogance to suggest that to get justice Saddam must be tried outside of Iraq.
Thirdly ..No country in Europe has the moral ground to stand on to attempt any critisism of how Iraq is constituted and how justice is meted out by Iraqis whether they are Kurds or martians , as long as they are IRAQIS its their right .
The Balkans are in EUROPE . In Europe people from different races cook each other in ovens and make lampshades out of those who are inferior races..or just use them for slave labor . or do you have amnesia ? The genocide commited there recently went on for years right under the noses of a Europe , who you would think would have learned better by now . BTW for those who wish to try Saddam in the world court...how exactly are you making out with the trial you have going on now for genocide ? You waiting for him to die from old age ? nice example being set there .http://hague.bard.edu/video.html

Iraq is not the Balkans ...simply means that kurds sunni and shiite can live toghether with Christians in IRAQ ..unlike in the Balkans . Nothing more . Why do you consider it an insult ?

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/11/750x750_europe_m.gif&imgrefurl=http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-577604-map_of_europe-i&h=535&w=713&sz=424&tbnid=-ZVkEBaQC70J:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Deurope%2Bmap%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&oi=imagesr&start=3

Is that the approved Methodist way to resolve the issue?

If so, perhaps the court should prepare a few more nooses for Saddam's US accomplices?

Your Military Assistance Quiz For The Day

The T-55 and T-62 and T-72 tanks that were the standard for the Iraqi Army were manufactured and sold by what country?

The MiG-25 and MiG-29 aircraft flown by the Iraqi Air Force were manufactured and sold by what country?

The Mi-8 helicopter and Hind-A helicopters flown by the Iraqis were manufactured and sold by what country?

The AKM rifle, the RPK light machinegun, and the PK machinegun, all the standard weapons of the Iraqi Army, along with billions of rounds of 7.62x39mm were manufactured, sold, and even designed by what country?

The SA-2, SA-7, SA-8, and SA-14 missiles used as the standard air defense of Iraq were designed, built, and sold by what country?

The Thompson-CSF air defense radar network that formed the entire air defense radar network for Iraq was designed, built, and sold by what country?

Shall I continue?

Someone has previously posted that 1 percent of Saddam's arsenal was provided by the US - the vast majority of it came from - other countries - in fact, from two countries that were the most vehement in opposing the war - France and Russia.

Care to try for what's behind Door Number Two?

Your Military Assistance Quiz For The Day

The T-55 and T-62 and T-72 tanks that were the standard for the Iraqi Army were manufactured and sold by what country?

The MiG-25 and MiG-29 aircraft flown by the Iraqi Air Force were manufactured and sold by what country?

The Mi-8 helicopter and Hind-A helicopters flown by the Iraqis were manufactured and sold by what country?

The AKM rifle, the RPK light machinegun, and the PK machinegun, all the standard weapons of the Iraqi Army, along with billions of rounds of 7.62x39mm were manufactured, sold, and even designed by what country?

The SA-2, SA-7, SA-8, and SA-14 missiles used as the standard air defense of Iraq were designed, built, and sold by what country?

The Thompson-CSF air defense radar network that formed the entire air defense radar network for Iraq was designed, built, and sold by what country?

Shall I continue?

Someone has previously posted that 1 percent of Saddam's arsenal was provided by the US - the vast majority of it came from - other countries - in fact, from two countries that were the most vehement in opposing the war - France and Russia.

Care to try for what's behind Door Number Two?

Dont present facts you will only confuse them ! :D

Is that the approved Methodist way to resolve the issue?

hehe. Apparently someone doesn't recognize sarcasm.

Dont present facts you will only confuse them ! :D

Unfortunately, you are right. Apparently, they don't like to look at the facts no matter how right the facts are.

I do wonder if he will be tryed for the illegal invasion of Iran, and then if convicted, given another death sentence, since it would not bode well for Busah and Blair if he was.

I do wonder if he will be tryed for the illegal invasion of Iran, and then if convicted, given another death sentence, since it would not bode well for Busah and Blair if he was.

Last time I checked the history books, Bush and Blair had nothing to do with Iran.

Last time I checked the history books, Bush and Blair had nothing to do with Iran.

Indeed, not. Well actually, Spizania thinks everything else is Bush's fault, including 9/11, so we could ask him:p

I actually implied that if he is legally convicted and senetcned to execution for illegal invasion, then both Bush and Blair ought to similarly be executed.

Indeed, not. Well actually, Spizania thinks everything else is Bush's fault, including 9/11, so we could ask him:p

I actually implied that if he is legally convicted and senetcned to execution for illegal invasion, then both Bush and Blair ought to similarly be executed.

Since the invasion of Iraq wasn't illegal, executed for what?

Since the invasion of Iraq wasn't illegal, executed for what?

Legally it was. The UN, and international law, directly interdicts the use of regime change as a viable excuse for invasion, ergo the invasion is illegal, the fact it is a waste of British blood notwithstanding.

Legally it was. The UN, and international law, directly interdicts the use of regime change as a viable excuse for invasion, ergo the invasion is illegal, the fact it is a waste of British blood notwithstanding.

Sorry but the Iraq war is 100% legal in accordance with the Rules of War and International Law.

Sorry but the Iraq war is 100% legal in accordance with the Rules of War and International Law.

I assure it isn't, or so I am informed.

Personally, I fail to see why we cared anyway, if Saddam wishes to oppress fellow muslims and pre-occupy potential terrorists, let him, I dont care.

I assure it isn't, or so I am informed.

You were most definitely were misinformed. Under the Rules of War as well as International Law, you violate a cease-fire war picks up where it left off. In this case, Saddam violated a cease-fire and we moved back in and took him out.

It is Customary to resume firing as well as war when a cease-fire is violated. Custom is International Law.

Personally, I fail to see why we cared anyway, if Saddam wishes to oppress fellow muslims and pre-occupy potential terrorists, let him, I dont care.

I do. He violated International Law and deserved what he got. He violated International Law by breaking a cease-fire. A cease-fire that he agreed too no less.

So, if someone is being tried for bestial capital crimes, you're OK with him walking out. That is after all, what most of them want.

The point is that justice must be done.
Whether or not their crimes are bestial or not shouldn't make a difference for the way their trial is held (except that some bestial killers may need to be strapped to a stretcher...)
And I would count walking out as one of those things that impede the way the trial is conducted, so they're not allowed to do that.
But if the bestial killer wants to use all the loopholes he can to lengthen the trial, then he should be allowed to do so just like any other person (I wonder how long the Tom DeLay trial will take...)

They're hardly bent on it. Germany's experience as a centralised state wasn't exactly positive. Its done far better as a Federal Republic.
Both the CDU and the SPD have explicitly said that they wanted to reform the way things are done - there have been serious disagreements between the states and the federal government about education reforms, effectively stalling them at a time when they're really necessary.
As far as past experiences go - unless you think we're somehow likely to repeat history (which I assure you is an impossibility), no one is talking about a completely centralised government.

I assure it isn't, or so I am informed.
You certainly are better informed than the Corny one.:)

Personally, I fail to see why we cared anyway, if Saddam wishes to oppress fellow muslims and pre-occupy potential terrorists, let him, I dont care.
How else would the US get their hands on Iraqi oil?

It is Customary to resume firing as well as war when a cease-fire is violated. Custom is International Law.
That's a new one, I was under the assumtion that international law was based upon treaties not custom. In any event, since the cease-fire was done under the UN and the UN Security Council's name, it behoves the Security Council to declare breach of and their responce, again the US has no right to decide so on its own.

He violated International Law by breaking a cease-fire. A cease-fire that he agreed too no less.
Reason... what number are we on now? Reason whatever the hell number for invading Iraq. :rolleyes:

Still, the point being is that he isn't charged with violation of a cease-fire, he is charged with Crimes Aginst Humanity, which is going to be a whole hell of a lot harder to prove.

You certainly are better informed than the Corny one.:)

I just happen to know what the rules of war as well as international law is in regards to violations of Cease-fires. Unlike you, I actually do my homework in this regard.

How else would the US get their hands on Iraqi oil?

HAHAHA!! WHere's the oil then?

That's a new one, I was under the assumtion that international law was based upon treaties not custom.

Its both.

In any event, since the cease-fire was done under the UN and the UN Security Council's name, it behoves the Security Council to declare breach of and their responce, again the US has no right to decide so on its own.

They have. Several Times. However no one did anything about it till now. Once a Cease-Fire is violated, war resumes where it left off. That is custom and law.

Reason... what number are we on now? Reason whatever the hell number for invading Iraq. :rolleyes:

Read the Congressional War resolution.

Still, the point being is that he isn't charged with violation of a cease-fire, he is charged with Crimes Aginst Humanity, which is going to be a whole hell of a lot harder to prove.

Read the congressional war resolution. He was.

HAHAHA!! WHere's the oil then?
On fire, I think. :p

Actually, come to think of it, I haven't heard or read anything as of late on oil production and/or sabotage of the same in the last couple of months. Anyone have an answer before I go swim in Google?

They have. Several Times. However no one did anything about it till now. Once a Cease-Fire is violated, war resumes where it left off. That is custom and law.
Again though, that means that the UN Security Council should have picked up again as it did in Gulf War I. The US started the action WITHOUT UN clearence, in violation of international law (which again is a non point as subsquently the UN Security Council authorised the actions of the US and allied forces).

Read the Congressional War resolution.
Resolutions of the Congress of the United States of America does not constitute Inertnational Law, no matter WHAT it may think. ;)

Read the congressional war resolution. He was.
Nor was the Congress sitting in court, which it can only do in certian situations, so its war resolution does not act as proof of crimes against humanity. My point being that proof of such crimes is hard to come by, not that the crimes happened (the mass graves DID kind of give that away), but that the orders came from Saddam himself. He's a clever bastard and I doubt he actually wrote such orders or gave them out word for word. Plasuable deniability in other words. That's what's going to be hard to prove.

The bastard is guilty. He should be hung by his testicles, then stoned to death. So should a lot of people, but this is one of them that’s in a position to receive that punishment.

Showing the rest of the Arab world that its possible to take down one of their despots and try them for their crimes can only be a good thing . Seeing Iraqis in the proccess of meting out justice will help the guy on the street in Egypt and Syria and Iran and the rest of the area to believe in the possibility of democracy and the rule of law .

Guilty as H-E-double hockey stick!

There should have been an option for "Other". What exactly Saddam is guilty of, I couldn't say, but I definitely don't consider him to be innocent.

Is that a refutation? You've confirmed what I've said, the Kurds decided to remain as a part of Iraq.
The point is yhat, once the US is out, the notion of "Iraq" will favour no one. It's not made into an identity if it's being kept by opportunism. So there is no point to "Iraqi people" having the same perspective on things. And the expectance of that is just trust in propaganda.

You wouldn't know Occam's Razor if it cut your head off. That they of the same sect is no reason for them to form an alliance. Having a common enemy is, and it has been historically that groups, even if they are ordinarily implaccably opposed to each other, will form alliances if there is a common enemy, as evidenced by Churchill sending large amounts of war material to the USSR, a state he once tried to destroy.
Look, again, the real conflict was Shia vs. Sunni. If not, then enlighten me as to why Saddam would persecute Arab Shias in Iraq - if the conflict is national, then why didn't it work to say "we're all Arabs"? Note that this was during the Iran-Iraq conflict! Your perspective would only work if Shias had been persecuted together with all the population and had taken an easy way out. That would just be an obvious lie.

Iraq is not the Balkans ...simply means that kurds sunni and shiite can live toghether with Christians in IRAQ ..unlike in the Balkans . Nothing more . Why do you consider it an insult ?
First of all, I considered the simple definition of the Balkans in the terms you proposed as an insult. Note that most of the Balkans have had relative peace between communities, even Bosnia up to the 1940s (relative, yes - but ethnic cleansing has been practiced by Americans just as well, with no European impertus, towards the Native Americans for 300 years).
The reson American troops got in Iraq was that Sunnis, Shias and Kurds were living under too much peace (I'm exagerating, of course): the terror imposed by Saddam had established an unfortunate and artificial armistice in a state that is, otherwise, an image of no importance to Kurds or Shias. These are all well-known facts, but the US is, as usual, trying to deny that the wheel has already been invented and will make a new one just because it can. American policy is this really loud and akward PE teacher that will let no one smoke.
And if you think they're living in peace (amongst them or with the occuping power), you need to watch other channels beside FOX.

During his rule, he wasn't exactly Mr. Nice-Guy; sure, he ordered the gassing the Kurds and had those who plotted against him executed.

So did most other US-supported despotic dictators;Augusto Pinochet wasn't much better either. Did the US ever invade Argentina to 'liberate' its people?

The unfortunate fact remains that say all you like about 'International Law' ; but in this case (military) Might has over-ridden Right. Saddam Hussein is probably right know being held prisoner by US and collaborator-Iraqi government, and he doesn't stand a chance of being aquitted then anyone who had to stand in Stalin's Show Trials.

Guilty. Very guilty.

We are all aware that the procedings will be overseen by a judge of Kurdish provenance, which hence negates any possibilty of a legally just trial. Admittedly, Saddam ought to be hung at the least, yet doing so as an internal affair, with internal prejudices, seems somewhat inappropriate.
The problem with holding the trial in an Iraqi court is that because of the bias of all involved, the trial appears as a mere formality, and his fate is certian. He would get a fairer trial in the Hague.

So did most other US-supported despotic dictators;Augusto Pinochet wasn't much better either. Did the US ever invade Argentina to 'liberate' its people?

Lol, Pinochet ruled Chile, not Argentina. I agree that supporting him was a shameful part of history.

The bastard is guilty. He should be hung by his testicles, then stoned to death. So should a lot of people, but this is one of them that’s in a position to receive that punishment.
Do you think that a man's testicles would have the strength to hold up his whole body? Or would the body rip off and fall to the ground?

The problem with holding the trial in an Iraqi court is that because of the bias of all involved, the trial appears as a mere formality, and his fate is certian. He would get a fairer trial in the Hague.

But he won't get the Death Penalty at the Hague and you know it.