Saddam Hussein arrested

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I can agree with that.

I think almost everybody in the west can agree with that. I don't see Chirac say publicly
"We are dreaded by the capture of Saddam Huseein, for it is sure we have lost a client and the payback of a huge debt now"

[East Street Trader]

A rather nice little compliment to Uncle Sam that Saddam was clutching the remnants of his wad in US bills.

And somehow I couldn't help feeling (wholly unexpectedly) a twinge of pity for him when the pictures showed that the one bit of his appearance he had struggled to keep up down in that hole was the black die to his hair.

[lord of the mark]

JRR Tolkien, The Simarillion.

"and all of the pits of Morgoth were broken and unroofed, and the might of the Valar descended into the deeps of the earth. There Morgoth stood at last at bay, and yet unvaliant. He fled into the deepest of his mines, and sued for peace and pardon; but his feet were hewn from under him, and he was hurled upon his face. Then he was bound with the chain Angainor which he had worn aforetime, and his iron crown was beaten into a collar for his neck, and his head was bowed upon his knees."

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Agathon
There is no way Iraq will be a real democracy if the US has its way. They just want a friendlier dictator. Real democracy would either result in civil war or a pro-Iranian regime that would be sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves.

Yep the US is going to do what it always does, its going to set up a US controlled puppet dictator just like it did in Germany and Japan after WW2..................

Wake up and smell reality sometime.

[Lord Merciless]

Without our invasion, Saddam would not be gone.

You can't have everything perfect.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I disagree. I think the US wanted to act against a "rogue country", to have one more country follow the rules of the New World Order, or the Pax Americana depending how you name it.

The New World Order is shaking more and more, but it's not the US who outright attack it. On the contrary, they defend it, but with wrong ways.

You are right that the US attacked Iraq to defend the "New World Order". However I think it is way to early to say whether or not it has weakened the order or not. It may apear that way now, but it could just be one step backward before taking two steps forward. In otehrwards, so far we have seen the price of the US actions, but we have yet to see the payoffs, politically, economically, security-wise, etc. Im not saying it will pay off, but it is naive to say it wont. There simply has not been enough time, and i dont care how smart you think you are, there are just two many variables and possibilites to predict the future

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Ramo


Shrub is forging a new international order. Iraq is the perfect "rogue state" to attack - its neighbors hate its gov't, which is run by a homicidal manic who used to be our boy, but stopped listening to us. Invading Iraq is intended to force the other states of the world to get in line.

Invading Iraq was intended to force Iraq to get in line. If other states see that as a message and decide 'to get in line', then that is just a positive bonus to all this

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, don't you think that anything less than an impartial international court would have the apparent legitimacy that the US desires so badly?

So you'd want to create an International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq? Mostly just to try one man?

Whoops, dumb***k Bush nixed the ICC. This would be the perfect opportunity for him to reconsider. It would be a sachet of instant legitimacy and no one could complain.

ICC would have no jurisdiction. Like I said, all the accused crimes happened before the signing of the Rome Statute, and thus would be immune from prosecution.

Then again, what is the problem of having national courts uphold international law?

[Ned]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
me is against the 'war' in Iraq but good that they captured him.

about where to trial:
for the crimes against the Iraqi people in Iraq

and i know it is impossible to go to the ICC but for the war crimes against Iran and Kuweit it might be better to trail him in an international court

not that you can give life sentence to some one that is already hanged and quartered by the iraqi`s

I think the primary purpose of international war crimes trials is to document the crimes of perp and to vindicate international law.

The condemnation of the Iraqi courts for violation of international law would be nice. But the condemnation of the World through an international body authorized by the United Nations would be a lot better in this regard.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't think he can, aaglo . After all, most international law disputes have been taken up by national courts.

When is the last time the US tried in a war crimes trial in US courts? The last time the question became before the Supremes they held that US courts had no jurisdiction. This was determined in the case of the Japanese war criminals who tried to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

[Ned]

It is amazing to continue to read a lot of conspiracy theories about why we invaded Iraq. Why don't you guys ever take things at face value? Why can't the reason stated and argued to the UN and to the American people be the real reason?

[MrFun]

I wonder how we are going to face the fact that United States and Saddam Huissen used to be buddies??

[Ned]

Mr.Fun, I still think we should have an international trial and invite the Iranians to sit in judgment.

I understand that certain very interesting facts concerning diplomacy or the lack thereof came out in the trial of NAZIs. Apparently war was avoidable.

Our own complicity with Saddam should be explored.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The last time the question became before the Supremes they held that US courts had no jurisdiction. This was determined in the case of the Japanese war criminals who tried to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

US CIVIL courts. The US military tribunals had jurisdiction. And when tribunals were set up, naturally US domestic courts had jurisdiction taken away from them by Congress.

When is the last time the US tried in a war crimes trial in US courts?

Does torture count for you? Then probably this year or last. Under the Alien Tort Claims Act, torture is something that has been litigated and won in the US judicial system.

[Ned]

Imran, Congress has no power to take any jurisdiction away from the Supreme Court.

Torture may be a violation of US statutory law. The issue is whether US courts may entertain a criminal prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity?

First, the Supremes decided it had no jurisdiction to review the prosecutions of the Japanese war crimes tribunal even though many of the crimes were commited against Americans and we were party to the trial.

Second, International criminal law is not necessarily law in the United States because in the US treaties are not self executing. Thus, any trial in US courts would not be a trial under international law, but a trial under US statutory law.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MrFun
I wonder how we are going to face the fact that United States and Saddam Huissen used to be buddies??

When Saddams on trial in an IRAQI court, what will be the point of that

Iraqi prosecutor: Did you execute so and so?
Saddam:Yes, but the US was giving me intelligence on the Iranians at the time
Iraqi prosecutor: What the F*ck does that have to do with what I asked?

[Zylka]

SADDAM SAYS THERE WERE NO WOMD'S

CASE CLOSED

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zylka
SADDAM SAYS THERE WERE NO WOMD'S

CASE CLOSED

he also says kuwait is by right a province of Iraq.


And that the kurds were gassed by Iran, not by Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

he also says

"'When I came in the Iraqi people were barefoot and hungry. I fed them and bought them slippers'," "

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
he also says kuwait is by right a province of Iraq.

Before Iraq was conquered by the Persians (and then the Turks), it was. So we're talking about five hundred years ago.

And that the kurds were gassed by Iran, not by Iraq.

The first part of that statment is true. The second part, is not.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


When Saddams on trial in an IRAQI court, what will be the point of that

Iraqi prosecutor: Did you execute so and so?
Saddam:Yes, but the US was giving me intelligence on the Iranians at the time
Iraqi prosecutor: What the F*ck does that have to do with what I asked?

Precisely. Which is why we have to form an international tribunal to try violations of international law such as waging aggressive war, etc.

But that raises the sticky issue of whether the US is also guilty by backing Saddam in an illegal war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark he also says kuwait is by right a province of Iraq.

Before Iraq was conquered by the Persians (and then the Turks), it was. So we're talking about five hundred years ago.

Quote:

And that the kurds were gassed by Iran, not by Iraq.

The first part of that statment is true. The second part, is not.

I assume from this, Che, that the Iranians would not want to be party to the War Crimes Tribunal because they may be placed on trial as well?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Zylka
SADDAM SAYS THERE WERE NO WOMD'S

CASE CLOSED

OMG OMG OMG, at least this certainly coincides with the evidence so far.

BuT WE ALL KNOW SADAAM SET US UP THE BIO BOMB!
OMG OMG THIS ROXOR MY BOXOR. HID!!11!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I assume from this, Che, that the Iranians would not want to be party to the War Crimes Tribunal because they may be placed on trial as well?

Depends, really. If the court is broadly convened to discuss the Iran-Iraq war, then I would think they'd boycott it. If it's dealing specifically with the Ba'athist regeim, than I think they'd want to be part.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Ned
When is the last time the US tried in a war crimes trial in US courts? The last time the question became before the Supremes they held that US courts had no jurisdiction. This was determined in the case of the Japanese war criminals who tried to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Does the killing of your own people in your own country as a war crime? So in that light this Iraq thing is different from what you are referring to (either that, or I didn't understand your post )

[Zylka]

Originally posted by monkspider


OMG OMG OMG, at least this certainly coincides with the evidence so far.

BuT WE ALL KNOW SADAAM SET US UP THE BIO BOMB!
OMG OMG THIS ROXOR MY BOXOR. HID!!11!

The "evidence" of not being able to find an equivalent (X)million pounds (or less) of colored dirt hidden IN some land the size of California?

Oh - or destroyed via incredibly basic processes. BUT HOW CAN YOU HIDE/DESTROY WHOLE BOXCAR LOADS OF CHEMICALS??! IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE

[Zedd]

lord of the mark for the excellent tolkien ref.

RE: kramerman's previous post...

Ithink the Bush administration had three reasons for this war, WMD's, the general brutality of Sadam's regime, and the hope that a new democratic State could be created from a "liberated" Iraq. None of these options alone supported a war but with all three a possibility they took a chance. While I grieve for the men and women we have lost and will yet loose, and I grieve for the Iraqi's who have suffered and died, I rejoice at the fall of a terrorist leader. I also rejoice at the opportunity to bring freedom to the Middle East. No matter what type of Gov. the Iraqi's choose the US will see to it that it is a representative gov of a free people. and If Iraq, one of the larges and most powerful of the middle east States can be made into a prosperous free nation, then other middle east countries will follow suit.

In a decade or so when Iran is electing its first president we will all see this as a turning point where the middle east ceased to be a desolate war-torn region and became what it always had the potential to be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Congress has no power to take any jurisdiction away from the Supreme Court.

Congress most definetly has the power to take away jurisdiction from federal courts (aside from that specifically given in the Constitution) and has done so on many occasions (often times in the middle of an appeal... leading to the appelate court .. sometimes the SCOTUS.. to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction due to the change in the law).

The issue is whether US courts may entertain a criminal prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Yes. If you don't believe me look at Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 4 of the Constitution: Congress has the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations". And Congress has done so with the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA).

the Supremes decided it had no jurisdiction to review the prosecutions of the Japanese war crimes tribunal even though many of the crimes were commited against Americans and we were party to the trial.

Because another tribunal had been set up, which was declared not subject to SCOTUS review. Under the Act of State Doctrine, US courts generally do not sit in review of other country's courts, so why would the SCOTUS decide to sit in review of an international tribunal?

International criminal law is not necessarily law in the United States because in the US treaties are not self executing. Thus, any trial in US courts would not be a trial under international law, but a trial under US statutory law.

Who says treaties aren't self-executing under US law? Some are, some aren't.

And customary international law is considered to be federal common law (the few federal common law left after Erie).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Precisely. Which is why we have to form an international tribunal to try violations of international law such as waging aggressive war, etc.

But that raises the sticky issue of whether the US is also guilty by backing Saddam in an illegal war.

I dont see why that means an international tribune is necessary. Saddam is an Iraqi - he commited crimes against Iraqis - you think that he should go before an international tribunal because such tribunal is MORE likely to get distracted by irrelevant side issues?

Sticky - not at all. 1. Hes likely to be tried for specific atrocities and murders, NOT for aggression against Iran.

2. Even if he were, that would not implicate the US. Iraq having attacked Iran- without US support or consultation - the US had real national security reasons to not want Iran to win. In any case lots of other countries are far more implicated in supporting Saddam during the 1980's.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Zylka


The "evidence" of not being able to find an equivalent (X)million pounds (or less) of colored dirt hidden IN some land the size of California?

Oh - or destroyed via incredibly basic processes. BUT HOW CAN YOU HIDE/DESTROY WHOLE BOXCAR LOADS OF CHEMICALS??! IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE

OMG WHERE U AT ALL I SEE IS FISH.

I'm sure evidence of millions of pounds of deadly chemicals being destroyed would be fairly easy to detect.