NationStates Jolt Archive

Not questioning his guilt, but do you people consider is trial fair? And how do you think it will end? His saddam right asking to get on with it and shoot him?

Click (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/05/saddam.hussein.trial/index.html)

Click (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=fundLaunches&storyID=2005-12-05T210850Z_01_RID565743_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-SADDAM.xml)

All these questions are in my mind totally illegitimate

This man is a monster and should not be afforded additional protection by things like the UN and amnesty international which he himself mocked and reviled

Im wondering how in the hell this guy will get a fair trial.

Even the most douchey of douchebags deserve one.....right before you shoot him.

This would of been much simplier if those soldiers who found Saddam in his spidy hole had just SHOT him and said that it was self defence.

The only people who would of questioned it would of been the French of course (but no one cares about them anymore).

Every time sadaam or his brother speak out of turn or raise their fingers to declare something, they should be smacked across the face with a fish.

He ought to be treated in accordance with the system he maintained for all those years- not the current one that affords due process.

As long as the trial is held in Iraq, doubts about how fair the trial process is will always be raised. I'm not saying that the trial is actually unfair, but to get rid of this doubt and get a smooth trial going, I think we do need to have the trial somewhere else.

I doubt it will be very fair as they have already denied his lawyers chances to make their counterpoints on some things apparently- though I heard the lawyers staged a walk out because of this and when the trieal resumed they were allowed to make their points.

I think he should be treated fairly if only to throw in his face and his supporters the differences of how he is being treated versus how he would treat someone else. IN other words to show how much better the new system is versus the old one. We are trying to show that there has been in improvement right?

This would of been much simplier if those soldiers who found Saddam in his spidy hole had just SHOT him and said that it was self defence.

The only people who would of questioned it would of been the French of course (but no one cares about them anymore).


I give the soldier that DIDNT snuff this fucker sadaam when they found him a lot of credit. It speaks volumes on his code of professionalism.

I mean, this cocksucker was already buried in his hole- minimal thought and effort were needed to put a few rounds in his stomach and leave him their to gasp to death.

The best reason for him to live is to show him a little humility before he goes to rot. He needs the fish across the face daily.

Maybe have a woman do it.

He's not going to get a fair trial - imagine him being cleared of all charges and walking outta there...

If the US was confident that he would be convicted and punished, they wouldn't have organised the trial and they wouldn't be running it as we speak. Pretty much the entire personnel involved is American, the only Iraqis are those that actually sit in the court room.

Even in Nuremberg there were people who got out without punishment because the evidence was simply not enough.

I like the picture though...I can't help but think that if Saddam had lived in Hollywood, he'd have a rather large female fan community. That time in the hole and then his diet and "healthy lifestyle" in prison did well.

It was a kangaroo court to begin with and it just kept getting more and more ridiculous every day. You could improv a full-length movie just off this trial.

He's not going to get a fair trial - imagine him being cleared of all charges and walking outta there...

That is a non sequitor. A chap could be caught near a murdered body, covered in blood, with a knife in his hand, 14 witnesses had seen him stab the victim (not one of which was a prostitute, drunk, or junkie), and his first words to the Police being "I'm glad I killed the bastard!"

Such a man's conviction is a certainty. It doesn't mean that he won't, or can't get a fair trial.

Such a man's conviction is a certainty. It doesn't mean that he won't, or can't get a fair trial.
So you obviously don't believe for a second that his defence case may be valid?

Weren't there cases of trials being put on hold because of public opinion being to skewed one way or another?

I said "imagine" - he probably is guilty, but there is simply no way in hell we'll ever find out, because he's the only guy the US has been able to grab in the past four years, and because everyone demands to see blood.

Im wondering how in the hell this guy will get a fair trial.

Even the most douchey of douchebags deserve one.....right before you shoot him.

This is being done for cathartic reasons, which could be done better in another way.

It would be easier, simpler, and far more satisfying to have a documentary made about how nasty he was, do it in Arabic, and air it on Iraqi national television so everyone can be satisfied that we've covered every accusation.

Then, after the program, we switch to live coverage of him and his cronies being horsewhipped, stoned by crowds, and ripped limb from limb.

Then, after the program, we switch to live coverage of him and his cronies being horsewhipped, stoned by crowds, and ripped limb from limb.
:headbang:

(but no one cares about them anymore).

anymore?:D

Then, after the program, we switch to live coverage of him and his cronies being horsewhipped, stoned by crowds, and ripped limb from limb.
Irony is a bitch.

He is guilty, pure an simple. He should not be allowed the protection of the U.N. Let's let the people he has murdered, tortured, and utterly opressed over the past few decades, decide his fate. ;)

In other words, let the new Iraqi goverment choose either his right to a trial, or 3 9mm bullets in his skull. :eek:

In my opinion, I would let him speak on behalf of the evidence against him. But, instead of a re-make of the weak american judicial system, giving him years to sit in prison, have him either confirm or deny the charges. Confirm=Death by method of his choosing (Sadaam) Deny=gather a general petition of 6,000-125,000 to sign, oredering the death of the former opresser.

Wow, just wow. Nearly no one in this thread knows anything about this trial other than that Saddam is in it.

Wow, just wow. Nearly no one in this thread knows anything about this trial other than that Saddam is in it.
Wait, Saddam is in it???;)

Wow, just wow. Nearly no one in this thread knows anything about this trial other than that Saddam is in it.

would you like to enlighten us, o mighty pantless poster, or will you just be condescending?

Saddam deserves a fair trial. It shows we are better than him. The trouble is, just about every Iraqi judge is biased against him. Saddam has asked to be tried in an international court, because that is his only chance of survival.

Of course, if Saddam WERE tried internationally and acquitted, the first act of the Iraqi government after defeating the insurgents and saying farewell to the Americans would be to demand his extradition.

The trouble is, just about every Iraqi judge is biased against him.

Proof?

Saddam has asked to be tried in an international court, because that is his only chance of survival.

Saddam Hussein was charged with crimes committed in Iraq, against Iraqis. Iraq has the right to try people for crimes committed in Iraq. There is no need for an "international" trial, and no indication that such a trial could work.

So you obviously don't believe for a second that his defence case may be valid?

Irrelevant. Anyway you didn't answer the question. Could you say the hypothetical man I described would not get a fair trial, knowing only what I put down?

Weren't there cases of trials being put on hold because of public opinion being to skewed one way or another?

I think there were, but these were cases were tried before juries, and therefore the public opinion angle is relevant because the jury would be drawn from the public. In a trial before a judge, these considerations are not relevant.

because he's the only guy the US has been able to grab in the past four years, and because everyone demands to see blood.

Virtually all the "pack" (in the animal sense, and the playing cards sense) have either been caught or killed.

Yes, I think it's a fair trial. What is more fair than Saddam being tried by the very people he oppressed? Yes, they're maybe a bit biassed, but that's perfectly fair. He's trying very hard to make it look like it's disorganized and unfair, but that's not surprising. He denied the authority of the court to try him to begin with.

I'm sure he truly believes he is above the law, and makes the laws, and I'm sure he believes he had a right to do everything he did, and he did it with the best of intentions. Maybe not the best of intentions for the people slaughered, but the best of intentions for himself and "his" country. I mean, if he'd allowed dissidence, the country would not have held together under his rule, right? So from his perspective, I'm sure he IS in fact innocent, and the trial is unfair.

Every time sadaam or his brother speak out of turn or raise their fingers to declare something, they should be smacked across the face with a fish.

He ought to be treated in accordance with the system he maintained for all those years- not the current one that affords due process.
IF you don't support "due process", then how is your justice system any better than theirs?

Then, after the program, we switch to live coverage of him and his cronies being horsewhipped, stoned by crowds, and ripped limb from limb.

Saddam is that you? Sure sounds like him.

If he is to be given a death sentence, just do it and get it over with. Hanging, firing squad, whatever. Drawing it out like that only proves you aren't any better than him.

Killing his lawyers, as is going on there, albeit by who is unknown, isn't really a step forward either.

Saddam is that you? Sure sounds like him.

If he is to be given a death sentence, just do it and get it over with. Hanging, firing squad, whatever. Drawing it out like that only proves you aren't any better than him.

Killing his lawyers, as is going on there, albeit by who is unknown, isn't really a step forward either.


Deep Kimchi seems to enjoy killing people. I don't think he is any better.

I personally hope he gets a "short drop and a sudden stop", but trying him fairly is important because ignoring due process would 1) further belief that the U.S. has installed a puppet government and destabalize the country and 2) make his executioners no better than him. And he is on trial because we ARE better than him- I doubt any poster here has enough screws messed up in their brains to be capable of the horrendous acts he has committed.

Saddam is getting the most fair trial he can get. His crimes were committed in Iraq, where he is a citizen, so he should be tried there. He may qualify for an international trial based on "crimes against humanity" or ethnic cleansing, but those charges are secondary to those being sought by the people who have him. (possession being 9/10ths of the law-the Iraqi's have him, they get to try him first) If he is unwilling to aid in his defense, and seeks only to disrupt the trial, he should be treated like any common thug who attempts to do the same- he should be gagged and his lawyers should do the talking. (just like Larry Flynt- who I happen to agree with in his case, but he can just be an annoying ass)

Irrelevant. Anyway you didn't answer the question. Could you say the hypothetical man I described would not get a fair trial, knowing only what I put down?
Even a guilty man can be convicted by an unfair trial.

In a trial before a judge, these considerations are not relevant.
I would think the public has something of a stake in the issue nonetheless.

Virtually all the "pack" (in the animal sense, and the playing cards sense) have either been caught or killed.
Well, I guess we should hold Saddam to be one of the lucky ones then? :rolleyes:

It's hard to say whether he'll get a "fair" trial. When it comes to Hussein*, most people either want to gut him or want to protect him. Everyone has their different reasons for doing either, but it's hard to find a neutral party.

The whole thing is a farce right now as it is. The man just sounds insane, filibustering the whole legal process by acting like a loon. I think he'll probably die of old age before a verdict is reached in any court.

*Why does everyone call him Saddam? It's his first name. When people refer to Hitler or Stalin, they don't call them Adolf or Joe. People do the same thing with Bin Laden as well. Why is it Middle Easterners are referred to by their first names in the West?:confused:

*Why does everyone call him Saddam? It's his first name.

Because in the Arab Muslim world, practically every fifth person has Hussein in his name somewhere. If you're in a history class and discussing political leaders, you say Saddam because there just happens to be a whole ruling family in a neighboring country who happen to be Husseins.

Because in the Arab Muslim world, practically every fifth person has Hussein in his name somewhere. If you're in a history class and discussing political leaders, you say Saddam because there just happens to be a whole ruling family in a neighboring country who happen to be Husseins.
Oh. Well ya learn something new every day.:p

I really ought to take a Mid East history course. If only they offered them here... Sigh.

When people refer to Hitler or Stalin, they don't call them Adolf or Joe.
His name wasn't "Joe", his name was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili "Stalin" (meaning "The man of Steel" I heard).

Not questioning his guilt, but do you people consider is trial fair?

Not in any sense of the word.

But, then, who takes me seriously?

:D .... :) ... :p

Even a guilty man can be convicted by an unfair trial.

Maybe, but the only "argument" made by people who think the trial is unfair is that the judges are Iraqi, and therefore cannot try a case involving crimes committed in Iraq, which is absurd.

I would think the public has something of a stake in the issue nonetheless.

The public aren't judging this, therefore, it isn't relevant to the trial itself.

Oh Shit. We are in trouble, folks. Saddam's defense team just called Mark Fuhrman to the stand.