Saddam 'may not get fair trial'

A LEADING rights group has warned that the special Iraqi tribunal set up with US sponsorship to try Saddam Hussein may not be able to give the former dictator and his top aides a fair trial. Saddam, now 68, will be in court today along with three former top lieutenants and four regional officials of his Baath Party. The men are accused of killing 143 people from the Shiite village of Dujail in 1982, allegedly as revenge for an attempt on Saddam's life, in the first of a series of trials for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Saddam is also likely to face charges for much larger atrocities, including the gassing of 5000 Kurds in March 1988; the slaughter of Shiites during a 1991 uprising, and the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, during which around one million people were killed. Yet the controversial legality of the Special Tribunal, set up especially to try crimes against humanity, war crimes and charges of genocide committed between July 1968 – when Saddam's Baath party came to power – and May 2003, when he was ousted, may undermine the legitimacy of any trial outcome.


The tribunal was set up in December 2003 by the US-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority. The Parliament elected in January 2005 is due to legitimise the court and rename it the Iraqi Higher Criminal Court. The tribunal will use a mixture of Iraqi law and international law to try the accused. The New York-based Human Rights Watch however is not convinced it can be a fair forum, and has issued an 18-page report detailing the tribunal's shortcomings.

"From an early stage, the US consistently opposed an international tribunal or mixed Iraqi-international court under United Nations auspices" that would have given the process more legitimacy, the rights group wrote. The CPA "insisted on an 'Iraqi-led' process – without establishing a transparent process to consult Iraqis or assess Iraqi attitudes towards issues of justice and accountability", the report reads. The rights group, which documented atrocities committed during Saddam's decades in power, worries that evidence was not protected following Saddam's downfall in April 2003 after the US-led invasion and has been compromised.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16967619%255E1702,00.html

:puke:

put enough chimps in a room with typewriters.....

Actually, his typewriters had the F1 to F12 keys replaced with:
* 9/11
* Terrorist
* Freedom
* War on terror
* Iraq
* Iran
* Nuculer (no, not nuclear)
* Afghanistan
* Zarqawi
* Osama
* That stupid laugh of his
and
* Ongoing Investigation

the whole process by picking cases the US was not involved with. For sure the man deserves a trial on any of the 1000s of crimes he committed. And by picking only a sample of cases - the magnitude of all Saddam did will be lost. I can see the US not wanting to get into the Iran Iraq war thing - that will never be allowed to happen.

The people deserve more than just a few "test cases". They deserve a huge sample.

Judge Roy Bean and prosecutor Roland Friesler will charge and prosecute him on things that are internal by nature. This trial is about reprisals for an attempted assassination that was a truly internal Iraqi thing, and if they can get a conviction and off him quickly, they'll do so. It's incredibly transparent.

For Saddam to admit collusion with the United States, he'd have to give up all hopes of being a pan-Arab strongman/martyr. If he had a whiff of sense, he'd do so, but his ego and primitive masculinity probably precludes that. People in analogous positions simply don't tend to blow the whistle on those who destroy them; their legacy is too important. Did Cliff Baxter leave documents to implicate those who killed him? Nope.

He's a cagey fuck, and he has information that could ratfuck the Bush family forever, but to do so would lessen his self-perceived place in history. It's sad, but it's the nature of the alpha asshole male, and it'd be a shock if anything else happens.

I heard that the trial will be broadcast on a 20 minute delay, too; I don't know if that's true, but it sounds perfectly in keeping with the tenor of things.

I'm sure he won't get a fair trail because there's a lot of stuff that would embarass certain players in the current administration. But I hadn't considered the "alpha male" perspective. Maybe so, but I'd bet Saddam has lots of incriminating evidence that he'd like to expose to the world on the duplicitous nature of US Republican foreign policy.

for prosecuting Saddam Hussein types. It's so generous of you to draw a parallel between his victims and Saddam Hussein. I'm sure they'd appreciate the magnificent way in which you're honoring their memory.

I know it's important to work in Nazi parallels wherever we can, no matter how ridiculous, inaccurate, and obscene. Perhaps you could compare Saddam to an innocent Jewish baby who was shot by a Sonderkommando!

A fair process is the ultimate test of what the US proclaims to bring to the world. The rule of law. It is what we are trying to sell, but won't be able to based on situations like this.

this is a complete travishamockery ! ! ! !

seriously, if ANY american was being tried similarly, the outrage from the pundits screams would echo through the streets. and it is NOT 'iraq led' either. not remotely. this is a soviet-style show trial, nothing more.

The whole Milosevic trial has soured many people on the idea of a central court to try this kind of stuff. Last I heard, the current projected end date for that one is 2010 and it's already been going on for several years.

Aside from Saddam himself, not one major interest has proposed that Saddam is innocent. It's been well known for decades that the guy was a brutal thug who routinely killed his people and ran the country like it was his own personal property. His atrocities have been recorded by the United States, the United Nations, and countless human rights groups...including the one that issued this warning. His guilt isn't in question here. The guy is guilty as hell, and his eventual execution is a foregone conclusion, so the argument that he might not get a fair trial because the chain of evidence is contaminated seems rather moot.

"moot" hoot--->
At the Hague Saddam would at least get to sing about U.S. involvement.
People really need to know that this guy was best friends for over 2 decades with the US govt and when he decided to stand up a bit against the corporate oil pigs from the U.S. he was "eliminated"-

-only problem is that his "elimination' involved the sensless slayings of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens--a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY

What's is worse? the "solution" or the original "problem"?

Bush to the Hague

too much US baggage he could unload...

Starting with his television appearances after invading Kuwait, he's got a huge list of evidences right to his actions, why are we fighting to make this a proper court?

Don't you care that he can prove what an inhumane shit Rumsfeld is?

Don't you care that the hierarchy of the US Administration is in this
up to their elbows?

Don't you care that he can show Americans the facts that the world
has known for years?

That's why people should fight to make this a proper court, fight to
get the 20 minute delay taken out of the broadcast cycle, fight to
ensure that the truth isn't quietly smothered below the shouts of
"He's guilty so just kill him quickly".

to answer your questions. Listen don't hitch your wagon to Saddam Hussein for crying out loud. He is guilty as hell for this crime as well as others. Were members of the Bush administration involved with him throughout the years? Yes. Was the US (CIA? Yes. But this isn't the fight you want to pick.

> Listen don't hitch your wagon to Saddam Hussein for crying out loud.

I'm not. Neither am I hitching it to the "just get it over with" crowd.

> He is guilty as hell for this crime as well as others.

Have I said otherwise? Am I defending him against the charges?

> But this isn't the fight you want to pick.

"These are not the droids you are seeking"?

Just be aware that (even more of) the world is seeing "American Values"
for what they really are.

We tell the Iraqis: sorry guys, you can't pass judgment on the tyrant who ruled your country for the last 3 decades, we need him to convict the US of A.

So the Iraqis get to watch a bunch of white judges preside over trial of their old leader at the Hague. A trial that has NOTHING to do with Saddam but everything to do with the US.

Finally, in 2012, after the not-guilt verdict is rendered, Saddam will get a cozy job - EU President, Secretary General of the UN? Maybe he'd hang out with Bono and the Hollywood A-List as they campaign against, well, whatever they are campaigning against 7 years from now.

Saddam belongs in Iraq. We keep arguing the occupation should end and Iraqis should govern their own affairs. This is how it starts.

> We tell the Iraqis: sorry guys, you can't pass judgment on the
> tyrant who ruled your country for the last 3 decades, we need him
> to convict the US of A.

Since when has the "US of A" been on trial? Who is doing the lazy
trick of confusing "the US administration" with "the country" now?
"You" have been telling the Iraqis exactly what to do, what not to
do and how many children to bury every day for YEARS.
Why the sudden change of heart?

> A trial that has NOTHING to do with Saddam but everything to do with
> the US.

Hmmm ... remind me, *who* is charged with murder here?
What I'd like to see is that his *accomplices* are prosecuted.
What you appear to support is that they get off scot-free (again).

> Finally, in 2012, after the not-guilt verdict is rendered

???? :eyes:

> Saddam will get a cozy job - EU President, Secretary General of
> the UN? Maybe he'd hang out with Bono and the Hollywood A-List as
> they campaign against, well, whatever they are campaigning against
> 7 years from now.

You are completely off your trolley ...

> Saddam belongs in Iraq.

Saddam has always belonged in Iraq. Like it or not he kept the country
in a f*cking sight better state than anyone since him. The only thing
that is "starting" now is the whitewash.

You have been telling the Iraqis exactly what to do, what not to
do and how many children to bury every day for YEARS.
Why the sudden change of heart?

I'm not part of this "coalition". I concur, Iraqi should have been left to the Iraqis. And, I may have used some negative exaggeration in my assessment of the International Criminal Court, but any trial would still drag on a long time and given an anti-American spin.

BTW: Saddam's French and Russian accomplices would also be unhappy if he told all his tales.

Where have I heard those words before? NOT an enigma.

With this administration, I'm not going to hold my breath, I don't need to add brain damage.