Will Saddam ever be convicted?

[crocodile deathroll]

Sure he will be convicted, but what about the question of whether he will ever get a fair trial?????
Well I believe the simple answer to that question is no.

Here's Why (http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,226353,00.html)
CDR

[Zep]

Posted this comment elsewhere:

No, Saddam will not appear in public again, and will not even go to trial. That is because there's the possibility that his defence team will reveal the involvement and culpabilty of many Western governments in assisting him with his dastardly deeds of yore. And they don't want THAT sort of stuff brought to light today. So better to sweep it all under the rug by simply keeping him in another hole somewhere else until he dies.

My prediction for the end of 2003.

[shuize]

Will Sadam ever get a fair trial ....
Oh, man. Now there's something else that's going to keep me up late at night worrying over ....

[KelvinG]

If Saddam can get Johnny Cochrane and the rest of OJ's defense team he might actually have a chance of getting off.
I'm sure they can suggest that the atrocities supposedly commited by Saddam were actually an elaborate conspiracy perpetrated by the American government in an attempt to frame Hussein and provide a reason to invade his country.

I can just see Cochrane in court. "I don't see any weapons of mass destruction. Do you see any weapons of mass destruction?"

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Sure he will be convicted, but what about the question of whether he will ever get a fair trial?????
Well I believe the simple answer to that question is no.

Here's Why (http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,226353,00.html)
CDR

I don't see it that way.

The world already assumes the US "armed" Saddam.

Evidence of US aid to Saddam in the 80s seems to be well known.

What I do think might come out...

The tremendous involvement of many EU countries like France in arming Saddam (far greater than the US). I suppose this might make it harder for some in the EU to constantly wag their finger at the US for supporting dictatorships when the huge amount of miltiary hardware sold to Saddam, etc. is made public.

But then again, I doubt the facts would really matter...
It is much easier to belive in slogans.

[crackmonkey]

yep. ITA.

[peptoabysmal]

One thing is for sure, Saddam will get a fairer trial than he ever granted to any that he imprisoned.

Saddam's daughter is pushing for an "international trial". I doubt that this is because she feels that Saddam will get a fairer trial, but rather that the U.N. international court will not impose a death sentence unless the U.N. reneges their condemnation of the death penalty.

It is my hope that the trial will be conducted in Iraq under the supervision of international advisors and is made exceedingly public. I also hope that US involvement and support of Saddam prior to Gulf War I will be an item covered in the trial. I am confident that the world would then have little excuse to defend Saddam's actions and US history of involvement with Iraq would be shown to be, in reality, far less sinister than some would like to believe.

How should the death penalty be implemented? A military style firing squad is appropriate for traitors, despots and other scoundrels and therefore elicits my endorsement.

Edited due to a spelling mistake.

[Skeptic]

Oh, dear, the world's biggest living mass murderer might "not get a fair trial"...

The horror! The horror!

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh, dear, the world's biggest living mass murderer might "not get a fair trial"...

The horror! The horror!

Fair trials are important, right, Skeptic? I mean, I've heard about this guy for years and years. Who is he? A dictator we supported when we deemed it in our best interests to do so. Now, he's been transformed into the personification of evil. But rushing him through a drumhead trial would make a mockery of justice, no matter how guilty we all think he is.

If he's denied a fair trial it would be just the sort of thing for which we claim to hold him in contempt.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh, dear, the world's biggest living mass murderer might "not get a fair trial"...

The horror! The horror! When we catch a mass murderer - or maybe 'serial killer' is the correct expression - we civilized people tend to give them a fair trial. Or murder and rape someone in public, with hundreds of eye witnesses, and you'll still get a fair trial.

I guess it must be something about this kind of justice system we believe in.

What makes this case different? :confused:

Maybe we should make a list of what types of alleged criminals deserve a fair trial, and what types don't? :(

[BTox]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh, dear, the world's biggest living mass murderer might "not get a fair trial"...

The horror! The horror!

Exactly. He'll get a fairer trial than any of his 400,000 plus victims.

[Skeptic]

When we catch a mass murderer - or maybe 'serial killer' is the correct expression - we civilized people tend to give them a fair trial. Or murder and rape someone in public, with hundreds of eye witnesses, and you'll still get a fair trial.

Indeed so. And he SHOULD get a fair trial, of course. Where did I say he shouldn't?

However:

1). CD never gave the slightest reason why he wouldn't, except for the usual anti-USA conspiracy theory;

2). I would be a bit more impressed with the moral status of those now claiming that "civlized people don't do this sort of thing" if they ever showed remotely as much concern for Saddam's victims;

3). Suppose he did not get a fair trial... is that really a reason to worry too much? Is THIS what you save your "moral outrage" for? What a evil, corrupt system: murder a few millions and, all of a sudden, you can't get a fair trial in this town. Shocking.

[KelvinG]

Actually, I think it's extremely important that Saddam get a fair trial. A high profile case such as this needs to be a showcase for fairness and justice. Those are the qualities that seperate us from barbaric countries who would have dragged Saddam out of his hiding hole, shot him in the head, and put his head on a stick for all to see.

Now, I'm sure some of you bloodthirsty types might have wanted that, but a civilized society doesn't dispense justice before due process is exercised. And that right must be extended to everyone. And yes, you can make the silly argument that Saddam extended no such rights to his victims so why should he be given such benefits.
Again, that is what seperates our system from dictatorships like Saddam. We respect the rules of law that give everyone a fair shake, no matter what crime(s) they committed, or how much we hate them.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Indeed so. And he SHOULD get a fair trial, of course. Where did I say he shouldn't? You just don't seem worried if he gets one or not. I am.

However:

1). CD never gave the slightest reason why he wouldn't, except for the usual anti-USA conspiracy theory;

2). I would be a bit more impressed with the moral status of those now claiming that "civlized people don't do this sort of thing" if they ever showed remotely as much concern for Saddam's victims; How on Earth do you know anything about my concerns for his victims?

3). Suppose he did not get a fair trial... is that really a reason to worry too much? Is THIS what you save your "moral outrage" for? What a evil, corrupt system: murder a few millions and, all of a sudden, you can't get a fair trial in this town. Shocking. See above. Not much worried it seems?

As for 'moral outrage': I can't read it in my post - but I wish Americans would stick to their value system, including criminals' right to a fair trial, even when most of us think the guy in question is guilty as hell - re the rapist caught red-handed.

What makes you think one can't feel for the rapist's victim (which, of course, didn't get a fair chance) and at the same time stand by a system that guarantees his right to a fair trial?

If not, who gets to pick the ones that don't? Dubya? You? The mob? :confused:

[Skeptic]

Please, Bjorn, spare me the "moral outrage". I never said Saddam should not get a fair trial (he should) not that it isn't important (it is, for practical reasons). But I am deeply suspicious of the "moral" argument in this case. I just find it incredible to think that it REALLY bothers people too much if Saddam Hussein gets a fair trial or not from the moral point of view (the practical one is something different). Of all the injustices in the world, this is the one you find unbearable? The possible violation of the precious rights of a mass murderer?

I don't think you do. I think it's a show-off: "look at me! I am SO COMMITTED to the principles of justice and equality I REALLY CARE if this monster gets a fair trial! I'm a CIVILIZED PERSON--unlike YOU people!". But do you really care... or are you just saying the right things in order to make the right impression?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Please, Bjorn, spare me the "moral outrage". I never said Saddam should not get a fair trial (he should) not that it isn't important (it is, for practical reasons). But I am deeply suspicious of the "moral" argument in this case. I just find it incredible to think that it REALLY bothers people too much if Saddam Hussein gets a fair trial or not from the moral point of view (the practical one is something different). Of all the injustices in the world, this is the one you find unbearable? The possible violation of the precious rights of a mass murderer?

I don't think you do. I think it's a show-off: "look at me! I am SO COMMITTED to the principles of justice and equality I REALLY CARE if this monster gets a fair trial! I'm a CIVILIZED PERSON--unlike YOU people!". But do you really care... or are you just saying the right things in order to make the right impression?

Well, call me weird Skeptic, but I actually care if he gets a fair trial. But, I'm kind of odd that way. I think everyone has the right to a fair trial, no matter who they are.

And I find it odd that you are saying for practical purposes Saddam deserves a fair trial but not from a morale point of view. Huh?? One of the principles behind a fair justice system is the belief that it is morally right to give everyone who stands trial a fair shake. You can't abandon that position just because it's Saddam Hussein.

There are mass murderers in your country. (ie. serial killers) Do you think we should deny them rights to a fair trial simple because their crimes are so reprehensible?

And the bottom line is that giving Saddam a fair trial makes any sentence he should receive totally legitamite. It sends a message to the world that we are civilized and just when it comes to such matters, and we won't sink to the level of barbarous depravity like that of Saddam and his regime.

If you abandon such logic in a high profile case like this then what meaning does justice and fairness really have?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Please, Bjorn, spare me the "moral outrage". I never said Saddam should not get a fair trial (he should) not that it isn't important (it is, for practical reasons). But I am deeply suspicious of the "moral" argument in this case. I just find it incredible to think that it REALLY bothers people too much if Saddam Hussein gets a fair trial or not from the moral point of view (the practical one is something different). Of all the injustices in the world, this is the one you find unbearable? The possible violation of the precious rights of a mass murderer?

I don't think you do. I think it's a show-off: "look at me! I am SO COMMITTED to the principles of justice and equality I REALLY CARE if this monster gets a fair trial! I'm a CIVILIZED PERSON--unlike YOU people!". But do you really care... or are you just saying the right things in order to make the right impression?

You can call it 'showing off'...but some of us really mean it.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Please, Bjorn, spare me the "moral outrage". I re-read my posts, again, and can't really see any outrage at all. Basically, I'm saying that a fair trial is what we should give alleged criminals.

I hope you agree - or make a list of those who shouldn't get one.

I never said Saddam should not get a fair trial (he should) not that it isn't important (it is, for practical reasons). Again, if you think it is important, why did you post:

Oh, dear, the world's biggest living mass murderer might "not get a fair trial"...

The horror! The horror!Maybe, if we leave some open spots where one can insert whatever criminal type we hate the most:

Oh, dear, the world's biggest ..... .......... ........... might "not get a fair trial"... Any specific category you wouldn't like to see inserted? Why?

But I am deeply suspicious of the "moral" argument in this case. I just find it incredible to think that it REALLY bothers people too much if Saddam Hussein gets a fair trial or not from the moral point of view (the practical one is something different). Of all the injustices in the world, this is the one you find unbearable? The possible violation of the precious rights of a mass murderer? I think the correct term is alleged mass murderer. Always.

Honestly, I have no good vibes for Saddam at all. If he had commited suicide or had been shot in a gunfight I would have thought he got what he has been asking for. However, from the moment he was taken prisoner, we should treat him exactly as we should treat any other person accused of serious crimes: Give him a fair trial. As we give the child molestors fair trials.

I don't think you do. I think it's a show-off: "look at me! I am SO COMMITTED to the principles of justice and equality I REALLY CARE if this monster gets a fair trial! I'm a CIVILIZED PERSON--unlike YOU people!". Sorry - can't help you there. You can think want you want about me showing off or not and there is no way of proving you right or wrong. Just as if I had said the same about you - maybe you're just showing off imaginary muscles, showing how tough you are. Well, I never said that.

But do you really care... or are you just saying the right things in order to make the right impression? Impression on who? Some screen names that I never ever met in person? Is that why you are posting here?

[Troll]

By his standards? He'll get the fairset trial ever had in 35 years in Iraq. 'nuff said

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Please, Bjorn, spare me the "moral outrage". I never said Saddam should not get a fair trial (he should) not that it isn't important (it is, for practical reasons). But I am deeply suspicious of the "moral" argument in this case. I just find it incredible to think that it REALLY bothers people too much if Saddam Hussein gets a fair trial or not from the moral point of view (the practical one is something different). Of all the injustices in the world, this is the one you find unbearable? The possible violation of the precious rights of a mass murderer?

I don't think you do. I think it's a show-off: "look at me! I am SO COMMITTED to the principles of justice and equality I REALLY CARE if this monster gets a fair trial! I'm a CIVILIZED PERSON--unlike YOU people!". But do you really care... or are you just saying the right things in order to make the right impression?


I'm sure there are people in the world who would've preferred a different outcome than Saddam captured and revealed as the coward he truly is.

While they would never admit it----I'm sure they would've preferred a Saddam who remained free and led a resistance
movement than eventually drove out the evil US aggressors
in the name of Allah.

I'm not just referring to the Palestinians either.

For some individuals--the #1 item on the agenda always gets back to the same thing. The evil imperialistc US or the US,Zionist conspiracy for world domination & cheap oil.

Even when it's irrelevent to the topic at hand-----someone will jump in with a "yes--but look what the US did in.........."........


These are the people who will refuse to recognize the point you're trying to make------"yes he should be given afair trial....but there's just a certain moral absurdity involed when you're talking about "playing fair" with a man who tortured and murdered millions".

I'm sure many of Saddams victims(those that survived) would agree that "yes--he should be given a trial" but at the same time are trying not to puke at the thought of "playing fair" with a man who ordered a loved one to be placed in a vat of acid......

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zep
Posted this comment elsewhere:

No, Saddam will not appear in public again, and will not even go to trial. That is because there's the possibility that his defence team will reveal the involvement and culpabilty of many Western governments in assisting him with his dastardly deeds of yore. And they don't want THAT sort of stuff brought to light today. So better to sweep it all under the rug by simply keeping him in another hole somewhere else until he dies.

My prediction for the end of 2003.

Yes--let's not hold Saddam responsible for the horrors that occurred. It's obviously the US who's at fault here.

There's clearly some deep dark conspiracy going on here that the US wants to suppress.


Considering what's at stake should this nefarious plot be revealed to the world...............why you suppose they didn't just order the troops to "shoot him while trying to escape" (wink-wink).??...............


My prediction. Saddam will go on trial. During the trial there will be some minor technicalities irrelevant to Saddams actions and the defense will argue for a mistrial. He won't get it and a few idiots will start screaming bloody murder about the "injustice of it all".

Within a year of Saddams execution.......the "There was no holocaust--Hitler wasn't such a bad guy" contingent will be making the same argument about Saddam & his regime.....

[Tmy]

Its impossible for Saddam to get a fair trial. Even if it were theres now way we'd let that happen. Wopuld they try him in Tikrit? Of course not, cause there'd be a chance hed get off.

What ever the trial ends up being (if there is one) its just a sham to parade him around the world stage. Its sort of like "will give you a fair trial befor we find you guilty".

What exactly will he be cahrged with anyway? I think it'll focus on the gassing of the Kurds.

And whats with the 400,000 victims??? I heard alot of them where dead Irainians. Since he was at war with Iran can you count that agianst him? As a war crime??

[Luke T.]

I'm sure that if Adolf Hitler were captured alive, there would be numb nuts somewhere trying to connect him with American politicians in some kind of smear attempt.

I say let it all hang out. America has nothing to fear. All this bull is just wishful thinking on the part of those who like to always blame America first.

I guess this is the cue for someone to post the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand now...

:rolleyes:

[Luke T.]

There is a long line of other countries who have a lot more to worry about what might come out of Saddam's trial in front of America. We are at the back of the line.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.
There is a long line of other countries who have a lot more to worry about what might come out of Saddam's trial in front of America. We are at the back of the line.

Quite so, but Saddamn doesn't have the same interest in trying to smear them.

You don't expect that sociopath to tell the truth, do you? (Note, that question is RHETORICAL, guys.)