Can they really convict Saddam of anything?

[halik]

Thinking about the whole trial thing it just occured to me that there is a big possibility that Saddam could get off.

I mean they'd have to prove that he was the one giving orders to do all the murders and atrocities, without that key part it's all just circumstential evidence and he's be guilty of neglicence (if even that).

Right now it seems they're having witness acccounts of what happened, but not who made that happen. If Saddam was any smart, there will be no hard documents proving it was him that gave the order to do so (a la Hitler and the final solution) and assuming his top people are still loyal, the'll never convic him of anything

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: halik
Thinking about the whole trial thing it just occured to me that there is a big possibility that Saddam could get off.

I mean they'd have to prove that he was the one giving orders to do all the murders and atrocities, without that key part it's all just circumstential evidence and he's be guilty of neglicence (if even that).

Right now it seems they're having witness acccounts of what happened, but not who made that happen. If Saddam was any smart, there will be no hard documents proving it was him that gave the order to do so (a la Hitler and the final solution) and assuming his top people are still loyal, the'll never convic him of anything

Ahhh... So you think this is a real trial...

 

[Witling]

Three things. (1) Saddam is a scumbag. (2) One of the White House aides was quoted as saying that if he gets off here they'll bring more charges for different incidents, and (3) As Mao said, "Power grows out of the end of a gun barrel." By the third point I mean, if you're the biggest gorilla on the planet, who's going to correct you if you break the law?

 

[Genx87]

If they can get his subordinates to testify they were given orders to carry out executions, torture ect. Then they will most likely convict him.

There are plenty of incidents to draw from so if he somehow gets through this they will charge him with another crime from another incident. With so many deaths from him something will eventually stick or he will die of old age as they keep trying.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Ahhh... So you think this is a real trial...

lol, that's what I was going to say. Saddam will be convicted and executed regardless of anything that happens at that trial.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The standard of justice in Iraq does not have to be the same that is used in the US.

They may use our guidelines, but do not have to follow them to the letter.

It is their courts, their justice system and their people doing the evaluating.

Saddam acting like an idiot does not help his case at all.

 

[Aimster]

The trial is a joke

Saddam ordered people from his own government to be executed. It was on a black and white tape. He called names and they were taken outside and shot. They begged him but he just stood there looking at them.

Nice.

They should put Saddam in a room and call his name and take him outside and kill him.

 

[daddyphatsax]

I want to know how laws can be retroactively applied to crime? Saddam's actions were not illegal when committed. We should have tried every president since roosevelt (fd, not t) for killing millions of non-whites throughout the world.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: daddyphatsax
I want to know how laws can be retroactively applied to crime? Saddam's actions were not illegal when committed. We should have tried every president since roosevelt (fd, not t) for killing millions of non-whites throughout the world.

Crime against human rights doesnt have a timeline.
If that was the case then the Nazis after Germany fell would have been free to go along with their business.

 

[Steeplerot]

The difference between saddam and bush sending someone off to die?

bush will laugh at your pleads for mercy.

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
The difference between saddam and bush sending someone off to die?

bush will laugh at your pleads for mercy.

It's obvious that the whole Iraq situation is a cleverly disguised mass execution plan.

You are an idiot.

 

[Steeplerot]

Where did I say anything about iraq, idiot conclusion jumper... :roll:

I was speaking of his being gov. in texas, good job.

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Where did I say anything about iraq, idiot conclusion jumper... :roll:

I was speaking of his being gov. in texas, good job.

I wasn't aware that Bush was responsible for framing, convicting, and executing these people in Texas. My mistake.

 

[randalee]

Yeah, you're going to have to clarify here. I'm lost.

 

[irwincur]

If we were to simply kill him we (or more accurately) the new Iraqi government would be no better than he was. The trial may for the most part be for show but it serves a few purposes.

1. Builds a legal system in a country that for a long time has not had one.
2. Builds confidence in this new legal system and the rules and procedures that it represents.
3. Gives the people a chance to see Saddam as a sad, depressed, shell of a man. A powerful image when you consider where he was just a few years back.

 

[MadRat]

New legal system? The new one is built on the old one. It dates back to the first written laws. How is that new?

 

[daddyphatsax]

"Crime against human rights doesnt have a timeline.
If that was the case then the Nazis after Germany fell would have been free to go along with their business. "

The world (ie the US) decides who to prosecute for crimes against human rights, even though we have committed many of the same atrocities in our history that Saddam did. Have we ever had a US citizen tried for war crimes (maybe Vietnam?) And Saddam's trial is an Iraqi trial, not an international trial, so effectively, they are retroactively applying national law.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: MadRat
New legal system? The new one is built on the old one. It dates back to the first written laws. How is that new?

The Iraqi people have lived with no proper legal system for the past 20-30 years.

For them it is a new system.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daddyphatsax
I want to know how laws can be retroactively applied to crime? Saddam's actions were not illegal when committed. We should have tried every president since roosevelt (fd, not t) for killing millions of non-whites throughout the world.

Crime against human rights doesnt have a timeline.
If that was the case then the Nazis after Germany fell would have been free to go along with their business.

Not to go all lawyer on you here, but Saddam is being tried in an Iraq court under Iraqi laws that didn't exist when he broke them. If we tried him in an international court, that would be different. But I'm not sure about Iraqi national laws. Although as others pointed out, this isn't a traditional trial, so maybe some leeway should be allowed here. It IS important for the Iraqis to bring Saddam to justice for what he did, because they were mostly the victims, but it's also important that it's not a total sham.

 

[compuwiz1]

Saddam has a guntlet of charges they could throw at him. If he gets out of this, something else will be found to charge him with, and he will be comvicted of something, at some point. I don't see how this creatin is facing anything but execution.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: MadRat
New legal system? The new one is built on the old one. It dates back to the first written laws. How is that new?

The Iraqi people have lived with no proper legal system for the past 20-30 years.

For them it is a new system.

No, you're over simplifying what people consider law and the influence culture has on law. Local cultures are where the everyday contact with the law is for the majority of Iraqis and this explains while such bestial customs such as honor-killing victims of rape can still be practiced.

And Iraq as a nation has sustained the ancient code of laws even under Saddam. Everything that Saddam has done as far as murder is justified by those ancient texts. The fact is Saddam is going to be hung, the truth is that its not the Iraqi laws that are going to hang him. Rather Saddam's cavalier behavior is going to make him a martyr and then all hell is going to erupt from the Sunnis.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: MadRat
New legal system? The new one is built on the old one. It dates back to the first written laws. How is that new?

The Iraqi people have lived with no proper legal system for the past 20-30 years.

For them it is a new system.

No, you're over simplifying what people consider law and the influence culture has on law. Local cultures are where the everyday contact with the law is for the majority of Iraqis and this explains while such bestial customs such as honor-killing victims of rape can still be practiced.

And Iraq as a nation has sustained the ancient code of laws even under Saddam. Everything that Saddam has done as far as murder is justified by those ancient texts. The fact is Saddam is going to be hung, the truth is that its not the Iraqi laws that are going to hang him. Rather Saddam's cavalier behavior is going to make him a martyr and then all hell is going to erupt from the Sunnis.

IRaq isn't Pakistan or Afghanistan.

 

[MadRat]

Its tribal law that allows honor killing. And it is happening in Iraq as well as virtually every other developing country in the the Middle East and Northern Africa.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Its tribal law that allows honor killing. And it is happening in Iraq as well as virtually every other developing country in the the Middle East and Northern Africa.

That is Afghanistan and Pakistan. We can go on all day long, but I hvaen't hear of waves of "tribal honor killings" from IRaq. I'm sure there HAVE to be some, because via stats you can get anything anywhere...but in general Iraq does not have tribal killings, so please do not start labeling every Muslim country as "a honor killing country". I agree with you that the middle east has a bias against women and it needs to be rid of, but Iraq's biases doesn't lean that extreme

 

[Thump553]

I'm not aware of any place in the world that uses a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" burden of proof. In the US (for criminal actions) the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is significantly different. The factfinder can, in theory, have some potential doubts about the accused's guilt and still convict-they just should not have any doubts that a reasonable person would accept.

As others said above you cannot assume that the US legal standards and those used in Iraq are the same. Only the burden of proof required under Iraq law is relevant.