where should hussein be tried?

[zimv20]

the iraqis want to try him for war crimes in iraq. should they be allowed to?

should it be a secret or public trial?

[Ugg]

IMO it should be either in Iraq by the Iraqis or at an international court like Milosevic.

The trial should be public. There is no advantage to the Iraqis for it to be secret. The only people it would serve by being secret would be those in the WH and the Pentagon. The war was fought for the sake of the Iraqis, wasn't it?

[G5ROCKS]

Ugg,
Nothing like an open trial with evidence of Saddam's atrocities to reinforce the belief that removing him by force was the right thing to do. This benefits the White House. It would, however, serve the French if it was a secret trial.

I would prefer to see included on a panel of jurists with member from several regional countries in addition to Iraq. Kuwait certainly comes to mind. If it was just a question of guilt, they could try and execute him for his crimes against their country. This isn't so much a trial to determine guilt, but to display the extent of his guilt, to bring his atrocities to light.

[mactastic]

A public trial might just bring some embarrasing moments of previous administrations to light. I know Bush II would not be pleased to have all the dealing of his hero Ronald "Ray-Gun" Reagan and Saddam brought to light, nor the dealings his father, Bush I, had with him as head of the CIA and then again as president.

There might be some talk about where Saddam got all the precursor materials for his chem/bio program in the 80's. There might be evidence presented that Saddam was given the go-ahead to invade Kuwait by a US ambassador acting on behalf of the Bush I White House. There might be evidence of CIA involvement with Saddam going back to the late 70's/ early 80's. (I know we all think it was evil and awful for an agent of Saddam to meet with an agent of al Qaeda, but I'm sure we think nothing of an agent of Saddam meeting with an agent of the US, nor of Rummy actually shaking hands with such a bastard.)

Personally I think there is no choice but to have a public trial. Trying SH in secret would just make for more conspiracy theories. But trying him in public will allow him to put on a defense where he tries to make the US look as bad as possible, and with the lawyers he can afford I imagine he will be able to do a pretty good job of it. Thus I doubt he will be tried outside US control. So my guess is a US-led tribunal inside Iraq, with a swift sentence of death passed upon him.

[Sayhey]

I'm sure it will be a public trial in Iraq. First, it is to the advantage of everyone (except for the old Baath party stalwarts) that his crimes against the Iraqi people are the centerpiece of a trial. This will give greater legitimacy to whatever government takes over in Iraq. Second, the other options, a trial before a US military tribunal or before the International Court of Justice are not politically viable. The US military option would open the Bush administration to attacks from too many sources. The International Court is not a option because Bush would not let them have jurisdiction for his own political reasons.

The interesting aspect of it will be when will it take place - before or after a hand over of power? I'm sure there are many in the current ruling council who would like to hurry up the trial, but I also think that others like Sistani would like it to be left to the new authority.

It will also be of interest to see how much Saddam's defense is limited in a trial. I would expect him to use the trial to indict the US occupation forces and the US conduct in the region over the years. How much that is allowed and how it is limited will be fascinating to watch.

I don't think it will be a quick trial and execution because whatever authority is in place, it is in their interest to differentiate between Saddam's methods of "justice" and their own. I do think he will be eventually put to death.

[IJ Reilly]

This article lays out the issues pretty well, I think:

Iraqi-Run Trial Holds Promise and Peril
The nation could grow as a democracy if it adheres to the rule of law -- not vengeance.

By Alissa J. Rubin and Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writers

Saddam Hussein most likely will be tried in Iraq under terms set by a war crimes tribunal created by the Iraqi Governing Council last week and sanctioned by occupation authorities.

Experts say a clean trial could afford Iraqis both a way to confront their bloody past and an opportunity to take crucial steps toward building a democracy governed by law rather than brute force. It will be a crucial test of the ability of Iraq's new leaders to run the country and could help them establish legitimacy in the eyes of their people and the rest of the world.

However, an Iraqi-run trial is likely to face serious obstacles. The country lacks a tradition of rule of law and has little experience using the internationally accepted rules of evidence and due process that would be necessary to make the trial credible in Iraq and the Arab world, international legal experts say.

Prosecutors also must avoid taking shortcuts in a trial in which the former Iraqi leader will probably face the death penalty.

"The capture of Saddam provides an opportunity that either will continue the cycle of revenge or begin the rule of law," said Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch, a nonprofit group that gathered evidence for a genocide case against Hussein for the mass killings of Kurds.

There are also political considerations in how the trial is organized. With Hussein now being held by the Americans and due to be interrogated for weeks, it is crucial that the proceedings not be seen as a victor's justice manipulated by the United States. If that happens, it could end up generating sympathy for Hussein.

"The image of him in the dock day after day will become a human symbol of the humiliation many Iraqis feel their country is being subjected to," said Harold H. Koh, a Yale law professor who served as assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor in the Clinton administration. "The way they structure the trial will have to be sensitive to those images."

The rest (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-justice15dec15,1,1757083.story)

[Durandal7]

A public Iraqi trial is the only viable option. The fact is that a great number of Iraqis do not believe Saddam has been captured and many believe that Hussein will return to power, letting the Iraqis hold a public trial will alleviate these fears. It would also be a great way to demonstrate that a government is in place and that the rule of law has returned to Iraq.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
It would, however, serve the French if it was a secret trial.

Why do you so hate the French? What is it that a Frenchman ever did to you to make you react with such disdain, scorn and snide comments?

Like the US never sold weapons or gave money and support to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. :rolleyes:
We gave him more than he could have asked for.

And don't forget the French never gave Osama bin Laden $3 billion dollars.

[Gymnut]

I highly doubt he'll receive the death penalty more over life in prison without parole but where should he be held? If he's held in Iraq, it's amost assured his followers will try to break him. Then again if he's held in the U.S. or another U.S. ally, that country might as well wear a larger bullseye. Personally, I think the Bush administration would have rather have had him turn up dead.

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
And don't forget the French never gave Osama bin Laden $3 billion dollars.

Supplying $3 billion to the Mujahedeen is different then supplying bin laden $3 billion. The latter of which the US never did.

bin laden was not a leader of the Mujahedeen.

Staying on topic here, Hussein should face trial in Iraq.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Durandal7
a great number of Iraqis do not believe Saddam has been captured

i hadn't heard that.

[huntsman]

Based on what I've heard, and it's certainly no surprise, the Iraqi legal system is a shambles. They can barely run a trial lasting two days, let alone the months that would be required for a proper trial, and the US has shown little respect for the rulings of Iraqi judges. The US could provide "assistance" for this particular trial, but it'd then be an Iraqi trial in name only.

The best way to try him would be via an international criminal tribunal, a la Milosevic, of some form. This probably means in The Hague. Being such an experienced "debating society", the UN knows how to run an open and fair trial that would have international credibility. After all, Saddam's crimes are not just domestic--his regime invaded two contries and it is accused of war crimes in both cases.

But I don't think an independent international tribunal is going to happen. First, as has been mentioned numerous times before, it could allow Saddam to dispense with information particularly embarassing to the US and other Western countries--the kind of information that would normally take fifty years to be declassified and become public knowledge, by which time it would be of little consequence outside the academic world. Second, the US does not like to submit to international institutions. Third, a dour tribunal that drags on for months is probably not dramatic enough for some people.

BTW, just to play the pedant for a moment, "Hussein" is not Saddam Hussein's surname in the Western sense. "Saddam" is the accepted short form.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by huntsman

BTW, just to play the pedant for a moment, "Hussein" is not Saddam Hussein's surname in the Western sense. "Saddam" is the accepted short form.

noted. thank you.

[manitoubalck]

The Hague War Crimes Tribunal is where he should be tried, as has been done with Slobber.

"The country lacks a tradition of rule of law and has little experience using the internationally accepted rules of evidence and due process that would be necessary to make the trial credible in Iraq and the Arab world, international legal experts say." from IJ Reilly

Some may say the US lacks this as well, since it has no regard for due process in the international sence. (war in Iraq, camp X-Ray in Cuba, the list can go on) The Hague is where all war crimes should be tried, the trial can still be open, but atleast there it is in a neutral location, void of public opinion.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by zimv20
i hadn't heard that.

Unfortunately it is so. The opinion among some in Iraq as well as countries like Egypt or Palestine is that this is either an American trick using "special effects" or that we have caught a double of Saddam.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Durandal7
Unfortunately it is so. The opinion among some in Iraq as well as countries like Egypt or Palestine is that this is either an American trick using "special effects" or that we have caught a double of Saddam.

Someone can always be found to express any given opinion. I think the question is whether this is a widely-held belief among Iraqis.

[mactastic]

Once Saddam takes the stand there will be no doubt whether it's him or not. In that respect, it is most excellent that he will be tried in a court of law instead of turning up dead. Bush may not like what he says, but at least no one will be able to claim with any veracity at all that it is not Saddam Hussein, and that he has been humiliated and his larger-than-life image shattered.

[Sayhey]

I think it will be an amalgam of both Iraqi courts and international law. There will have to be international aid in this trial for it to stand up to scrutiny. The sticking point will come over the possibility of the death penalty. It is not used in International Courts and there will be a understandable push from many Iraqis (not to mention 'hang 'em high' Georgie) to execute Saddam. As I said before the timetable will be very interesting. The provisional council will likely want a fast trial so that he is seen as being judged by them. For many that will be the same as a trial by the US and will be unacceptable. We will see how it plays out, but he deserves whatever he gets. The most important thing to remember is that the critical factor is what is best for the Iraqis.

[Code101]

Originally posted by manitoubalck
The Hague War Crimes Tribunal is where he should be tried, as has been done with Slobber.


No way! I don't want to let the UN WCT to have anything to do with Saddam. He should be tried by the people of Iraq. He is accountable to them not the UN fools who never even helped us get him in the first place.

If an offence takes place in the US, we send that person to a State or Federal court. Saddam did what he did in Iraq. Iraq should get him after we are done with him.

It's funny how France, the UN and Democrats in America want all power to be turned over to the people of Iraq so fast but when it comes to putting Saddam up to be tried, they say do it in the Hague. It's kind of like saying the people of Iraq arn't smart enouth to administer justice.

The UN is out of it. Time to let the UN and it's little sub programs go for good.

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by Code101
The UN is out of it. Time to let the UN and it's little sub programs go for good.

"Truth, Justice, and the American way." Cough chough, quite ultra conservative

The UN is take 2 of the League of nations first set up after WWI. The world needs to have the impression of a global council, even if it has no real power. Other wise we would see many many more wars, fought over much less than Iraq.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by manitoubalck
"Truth, Justice, and the American way." Cough chough, quite ultra conservative

The UN is take 2 of the League of nations first set up after WWI. The world needs to have the impression of a global council, even if it has no real power. Other wise we would see many many more wars, fought over much less than Iraq.

Not so many years ago, "Get the US out of the UN" was the mantra of the John Birch Society, an organization considered so radical in their politics that they were monitored by the FBI. So have these views now crept into the mainstream of American political thought?

[Code101]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Not so many years ago, "Get the US out of the UN" was the mantra of the John Birch Society, an organization considered so radical in their politics that they were monitored by the FBI. So have these views now crept into the mainstream of American political thought?

Yes! and for good reason.

[vniow]

Which is?

[Code101]

Originally posted by vniow
Which is?

Well in the most general way possible, the UN hurts the US but is good for other countries in the world. Why, because other countries have nothing to loose and everything to gain from the resources of the US being divided up through out the world.

More and more Americans are learning of this and will fight to get us out of the UN. It's a simple no brainer unless you just flat out hate America.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Code101
Well in the most general way possible, the UN hurts the US but is good for other countries in the world. Why, because other countries have nothing to loose and everything to gain from the resources of the US being divided up through out the world.

More and more Americans are learning of this and will fight to get us out of the UN. It's a simple no brainer unless you just flat out hate America.

Man, you need to take a look at some numbers that are based in reality before you go spouting off.

Link (http://www.un.int/usa/fact2.htm)

Myth: The United States pays for almost all of the United Nations' programs and peacekeeping operations.

Reality: The U.S. pays 22% of the UN's regular budget and about 27.2% of the peacekeeping budgets._ It also pays about 25% of the costs of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Former Yugoslavia.
_ * * * * *
Myth: The U.S. pays too much to the UN. Other countries are getting a free ride.

Reality: UN membership dues, known as assessments, are based primarily on each nation’s share of the global economy._ The U.S. economy represents about 34% of the global economy._ The U.S. therefore benefits from the 22% ceiling on assessments for the regular budget._ Many countries actually pay more in assessments than their share of the global economy.
_ * * * * *
Myth: The U.S. spends a large portion of its federal budget on UN policies/programs.

Reality: Total U.S. payments to the entire UN system (including the World Bank and IMF) amount to less than one quarter of one percent of the federal budget._ For 2002, for example, the U.S. paid almost $300 million as its share of the UN’s regular budget._ All told, U.S. contributions to the entire UN system, including those for peacekeeping missions, amounted to more than $3 billion in 2002.



[Also see the United Nations Fact Sheet.]
_ * * * American Military Support

Myth: Too many American soldiers are serving in UN peacekeeping operations. The U.S. provides most of the military men and women involved in UN peacekeeping operations.

Reality: 23 American military men and women are currently serving in UN peacekeeping operations. Americans therefore represent less than 1% of the approximate total of 36,407 soldiers serving in UN peacekeeping operations.
_ * * * * *
Myth: Serving in UN peacekeeping operations means that Americans are serving under the command of the UN or a foreign government.

Reality: As Commander-in-Chief, the President never gives up his command authority over American troops. Although the U.S. sometimes allows temporary operational control to be given to the UN or a trusted ally, the President always retains ultimate command authority over our troops.
Updated December 2003
_

Considering the fact that the UN is based in New York and that UN reps are notorious for their love of fine food, cars and clothes, my guess is that the US contribution to the UN is dwarfed by the money that is fed into the NY economy by foreign diplomats. Of course UN reps are notorious for not paying parking tickets, but you can't have everything.

As you can see from the above official figures from the US mission to the UN, the US contributes only a small fraction of total soldiers to peacekeeping efforts and has continually failed to contribute its fair share to the general budget.

Dude, you need to look at facts before you start spouting fallacy.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Code101
More and more Americans are learning of this and will fight to get us out of the UN. It's a simple no brainer unless you just flat out hate America.

Are Americans stupid enough to believe flat out lies? And does stupidity mean that one automatically hates America?

Maybe all of us who look at facts and figures rather than relying on some FAUX news report really do hate the way many Americans are willing to believe such lies.