PDA

View Full Version : Do you think Saddam Hissein is receiving a fair trial?


ivanovic
Dec 24th, 2005, 01:05 AM
I'm about to write a political feature article for a news-site and it will be on Husseins trial.
I just wanted to see what do you guys think of this trial he is receiving is it fair or not?

I was surprised to read that the UN Human Rights Watch were actually defending Saddam and I got this impression that the UN assumes Hussein is the victim or something.

I mean has the world gone mad - this man delivered a brutal brand of justice to Iraqis during his 24-year reign, he should be glad he's getting any day in court and didn't wind up like his two sons when cornered, dead on a mortuary slab.

He carried out a massive massacre at Dujail - killing so many innocent ppl - and the fact that these bodies were actually found - i have no doubt that he and his men did it. Besides the witness testemonies are extremly powerfull.

So anyway what do you guys think of all this - your opinions will really be usefull.

btw, another small thing that really annoys me abput Saddam and this trial is the fact that he is being so rude to the judges.
I know this is kinda of topic but the way he ALWAYS complains about smething - like about having to walk up the stairs in chains because the elevator was broken, the way he prays in court when he's acting moody, the way he calls the judge names and points his finger in the air in a threatening
motion - and then you have these Judges that are like totally appeasing his wishes - I think he is receiving more then a fair trial.

marmite1
Dec 24th, 2005, 01:08 AM
Its Hussain.

ivanovic
Dec 24th, 2005, 01:17 AM
Its Hussain.

typo - not heee

r u being a smart arse or just plain ignorent. :)

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 24th, 2005, 01:19 AM
You ask whether he's receiving a fair trial and then proceed to argue that he is based on what a bastard he is. Sorry, but that's irrelevant. You might want to argue that there are good political reasons not to give him a fair trial by Western standards, but that is different from arguing that he actually is being given a fair trial by those standards.

From the articles I've read, he is almost certainly not getting a fair trial by the standards used in, say, Australian or British courts.

ivanovic
Dec 24th, 2005, 03:29 AM
You ask whether he's receiving a fair trial and then proceed to argue that he is based on what a bastard he is. Sorry, but that's irrelevant. You might want to argue that there are good political reasons not to give him a fair trial by Western standards, but that is different from arguing that he actually is being given a fair trial by those standards.

From the articles I've read, he is almost certainly not getting a fair trial by the standards used in, say, Australian or British courts.

The facts proving him a "bastard" are overwhelming - what I dont understand is the double standard by the UN - first they spend years hunting him down - trying to bring him to juctice for the grusome crimes he carried out - and now that they have him, they're trying to defend him - i dont get it.

I dont think it really matters under what laws he is been prosecuted under - I think he should be VERY glad that it is his own constitution judging him - if he was in Hague or somewhere in Washington he would be hanged by now - dont you think? I mean I struggle to find one world leader that doesnt want Hussein to be sentenced to death or life in prison. He should be glad that the Iraqi judges are so soft on him - because his courtroom behaviour is totally unneceptable even by Iraqi standards.

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 24th, 2005, 04:39 AM
^But your question was about whether he is getting a fair trial. There's no "double standard" in using resources to hunt down a vicious criminal while also ensuring that his trial follows scrupulous standards of fairness. That's exactly how our justice systems are supposed to work in Western nations. The only double standard is when we say that we will have lesser standards of procedure, evidence, and burden of proof for Saddam than we would apply to a local serial killer or brutal rapist (say).

I'm not being political about this, just trying to explain the concepts. I don't even mean to sound patronising about it. Maybe some of the other lawyers here can explain it better than I'm managing to do.

ivanovic
Dec 24th, 2005, 06:32 AM
^But your question was about whether he is getting a fair trial. There's no "double standard" in using resources to hunt down a vicious criminal while also ensuring that his trial follows scrupulous standards of fairness. That's exactly how our justice systems are supposed to work in Western nations. The only double standard is when we say that we will have lesser standards of procedure, evidence, and burden of proof for Saddam than we would apply to a local serial killer or brutal rapist (say).

I'm not being political about this, just trying to explain the concepts. I don't even mean to sound patronising about it. Maybe some of the other lawyers here can explain it better than I'm managing to do.


we have lawyers at wtaword are u serious. Lol

Crazy Canuck
Dec 24th, 2005, 06:37 AM
we have lawyers at wtaword are u serious. Lol
Yeah, you would be amazed. Some people here actually know how to spell too :eek:

ivanovic
Dec 24th, 2005, 06:49 AM
Yeah, you would be amazed. Some people here actually know how to spell too :eek:

no seriously - is n e 1 here like a lawyer or a doctor??

marmite1
Dec 24th, 2005, 06:55 AM
Yeah, you would be amazed. Some people here actually know how to spell too :eek:

:lol: Yes im serious Hissein/Hussein is spelt Hussain.

marmite1
Dec 24th, 2005, 07:01 AM
The facts proving him a "bastard" are overwhelming - what I dont understand is the double standard by the UN - first they spend years hunting him down - trying to bring him to juctice for the grusome crimes he carried out - and now that they have him, they're trying to defend him - i dont get it.

Thats the point. They are defending his right for a fair trial, there is no hypocrasy involved in that. Basically, they are letting a jury/judge (not sure how the system theyre using goes) decide whether or not he is guilty without assuming, before the trail is over, that he is.


I dont think it really matters under what laws he is been prosecuted under - I think he should be VERY glad that it is his own constitution judging him - if he was in Hague or somewhere in Washington he would be hanged by now - dont you think? I mean I struggle to find one world leader that doesnt want Hussein to be sentenced to death or life in prison. He should be glad that the Iraqi judges are so soft on him - because his courtroom behaviour is totally unneceptable even by Iraqi standards.[/QUOTE]

Why should be he be glad? He has a right to a fair trial just as much as anyone else. MMmmm wait for the outcome? The trial isn't over and so how do you know he won't be executed?

Just because you abhor him and he as purportedly acted in a cruel and wrong way doesn't mean that we should decide that he should be hung without actually considering the possibility he might not be as guilty as others have said.

marmite1
Dec 24th, 2005, 07:02 AM
we have lawyers at wtaword are u serious. Lol

Lawyers can like tennis aswell you know :lol:

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 24th, 2005, 11:33 AM
no seriously - is n e 1 here like a lawyer or a doctor??

Several people here have law degrees. Well, I can immediately think of three (denise, kiwifan, and myself), but I seem to remember that there are some others who are maybe not so well known as posters on this board. All three whom I've mentioned have actually practised law professionally or still do. Why is that so odd? :confused:

Chris 84
Dec 24th, 2005, 11:43 AM
I don't think that Saddam can ever receive a "fair" trial in the way that a normal person would, for the simple reason that everyone knows who he is and what he is supposed to have done. I am sure that he is guilty of many crimes, and so will the judges be, and this will inevitably prejudice their decision. One is supposed to go into these trials with an objective mindset, and in his case that is impossible.

...and I've got a law degree as well :p

Monica_Rules
Dec 24th, 2005, 11:52 AM
I think hes getting a percectly fair trial!

Everyone he massacred over the years nevere got a fair trail they didn't even get a trial of any kind. Most of them were just innocent memebers of the population anyway.

I think most Iraqi people think he should just be killed straight away.

bee
Dec 24th, 2005, 02:30 PM
NO!!
His country was invaded by another country...
Over the premise that he got WMD...
They found nothing...

I know he is no saint..
But with this kind of trial...
He has no chance at all...

Lord Nelson
Dec 24th, 2005, 03:10 PM
NO!!
His country was invaded by another country...
Over the premise that he got WMD...
They found nothing...

I know he is no saint..
But with this kind of trial...
He has no chance at all...
I see that law and maybe history is not your thing. Saddam is being tried not for WMD but for attacks on Dualji. This attack is one of numerous brutalities on the Iraqis that are blamed on the Saddam regime. The question was not whether or not the war was right but whether or not Saddam is recieving a fair trial. Saddam made it easier for the prosecution to have a case against him including with the present case where he videotaped excecutions. Compared to other trials in the developing world including the
Philippines, he is getting royal treatment. With the history thing, are you aware of Saddam's brutality when he was a dictator? You may be young and thus not know much about the chap. But he was evil incarnated.

Wigglytuff
Dec 24th, 2005, 04:04 PM
i dont think he is getting a fair trial. but i dont think its anything to be sad about. in fact i think his getting an unfair trial is only fair. :shrug:

creep
Dec 24th, 2005, 05:24 PM
Its Hussain.

Hissein, Hussain. Those guys all lookalike to me anyway.

marmite1
Dec 24th, 2005, 05:37 PM
Hissein, Hussain. Those guys all lookalike to me anyway.


:tape:

Meesh
Dec 24th, 2005, 05:38 PM
The "man crib" he sits in is pretty funny though. :lol:

I'm not sure if it's possible for him to get a fair trial anywhere. I need to catch up on the trial. This week sucked.. .everyone was on vacation and our office was slammed! I hope Nancy Grace isn't the one covering it for Court TV :tape:

Ryan
Dec 24th, 2005, 08:21 PM
I could care less if he had a fair trial. It's not like he can be proven innocent of any of the major charges, so it seems a bit silly to me. Shoot him/drug him/hang him, just get it over with.

Chris 84
Dec 24th, 2005, 08:22 PM
I see that law and maybe history is not your thing. Saddam is being tried not for WMD but for attacks on Dualji. This attack is one of numerous brutalities on the Iraqis that are blamed on the Saddam regime. The question was not whether or not the war was right but whether or not Saddam is recieving a fair trial. Saddam made it easier for the prosecution to have a case against him including with the present case where he videotaped excecutions. Compared to other trials in the developing world including the
Philippines, he is getting royal treatment. With the history thing, are you aware of Saddam's brutality when he was a dictator? You may be young and thus not know much about the chap. But he was evil incarnated.

That isn't relevant to whether or not he's getting a fair trial. Even vile serial killers and child molesters have to be given fair trials, the crime they have supposedly committed shouldn't influence the fairness of the trial.

K.U.C.W-R.V
Dec 24th, 2005, 09:14 PM
Its Hussain.

Its Hussein.

In the case of someone like Saddam what is a fair trial? Does anyone suggest he is inncocent? Do normal judicial rules really apply? Are we going to let him off on a technicality should one arise? The man is a genocidal mass murderer, he knows it, we knows it, so lets stop the sorry chirade & have his evil head on a platter sooner rather than later please!

His death will close once & for all the most bloody chapter in Iraqi history. Fingers crossed it will also make it easier for the current blood-soaked chapter to be closed & for Iraq to edge toward better days.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Dec 24th, 2005, 09:17 PM
He doesn't deserve a fair trial and neither do his former "statesmen".

marmite1
Dec 24th, 2005, 10:27 PM
Its Hussein.

In the case of someone like Saddam what is a fair trial? Does anyone suggest he is inncocent? Do normal judicial rules really apply? Are we going to let him off on a technicality should one arise? The man is a genocidal mass murderer, he knows it, we knows it, so lets stop the sorry chirade & have his evil head on a platter sooner rather than later please!

His death will close once & for all the most bloody chapter in Iraqi history. Fingers crossed it will also make it easier for the current blood-soaked chapter to be closed & for Iraq to edge toward better days.

Ok my bad.

marmite1
Dec 24th, 2005, 10:27 PM
He doesn't deserve a fair trial and neither do his former "statesmen".

:rolleyes:

BUBI
Dec 25th, 2005, 12:31 PM
Trial is not fair, but punishment will be.

azdaja
Dec 25th, 2005, 01:01 PM
NO!!
His country was invaded by another country...
Over the premise that he got WMD...
They found nothing...

I know he is no saint..
But with this kind of trial...
He has no chance at all...
he wouldn't have a chance on a fair trial either, so it is a bit sad that this trial isn't fair. if it were fair it could be seen as a triumph for justice and as a symbol of change. unfortunately this trial is not only not fair, it is a politically motivated show trial.

Vass22
Dec 25th, 2005, 03:38 PM
No way. His trial goes against certain articles of international law, so it's not a fair trial.

matthias
Dec 25th, 2005, 03:54 PM
not fair
but the question is does he deserve a fair trial? after all the cruel he did?

justine&coria
Dec 25th, 2005, 04:45 PM
not fair
but the question is does he deserve a fair trial? after all the cruel he did?
In democracies (what Bush said he brought to Irak), every one even the worst person deserve a fair trial.
Anyway, as many said it, I don't care if he's having a fair trial or not. He deserves to be punished. However i hope he won't be sentenced to death. First I'm against it, because we're not God to decide who should live or not, and secondly because if it's the case, some people will start pitying him.

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 25th, 2005, 08:54 PM
he wouldn't have a chance on a fair trial either, so it is a bit sad that this trial isn't fair. if it were fair it could be seen as a triumph for justice and as a symbol of change. unfortunately this trial is not only not fair, it is a politically motivated show trial.

Well put.

*JR*
Dec 25th, 2005, 09:17 PM
"Like all human efforts, the attempt to measure the conduct of the defeated by moral standards is an imperfect one – I have no disposition to claim it faultless. But I do say that the utter and irreparable collapse of the doctrine that might makes right is the most significant feature of the Nurnberg trials.

Whatever other shortcomings we representing the victors may have – and they are numerous – we do not adhere to the doctrine that because we have power we can do no wrong. If we did, there would be no trial. We are patiently – too patiently many think – examining the acts of the Nazi leaders.

We are trying dispassionately – too dispassionately many think – to test those acts by the principles which must prevail in a sound and peaceful international order, principles by which hereafter the conduct of the victors, no less than of the vanquished, will be tested by world opinion."

From US Supreme Court Justice (and Nuremburg War Crimes Trial Prosecutor) Robert Jackson's Christmas Eve speech there in 1945.

CondiLicious
Dec 25th, 2005, 10:07 PM
His "trial" is a freak show. He should be tried at The Hague, like that other twat Milosevic.

ivanovic
Dec 26th, 2005, 12:25 AM
Ok my bad.

haha - owned. :)

ivanovic
Dec 26th, 2005, 12:30 AM
Thanks guys - every1's opinions were great and heaps usefull :)

ivanovic
Dec 26th, 2005, 12:43 AM
Several people here have law degrees. Well, I can immediately think of three (denise, kiwifan, and myself), but I seem to remember that there are some others who are maybe not so well known as posters on this board. All three whom I've mentioned have actually practised law professionally or still do. Why is that so odd? :confused:

its just odd that a lawyer would waste time blogging on WTAworld - thats all. I thought lawyers had no time to even go to the toilet - damn I watch Boston Legal too much. :)

Scotso
Dec 26th, 2005, 12:54 AM
I'm sure his trial is as fair as a trial can be for a known tyrant and murderer.

RVD
Dec 26th, 2005, 01:25 AM
It will be nearly impossible for Saddam to receive a fair trail, but that's just one man's opinion.

Please allow me to preface my reasons so that you understand my position on this.

1. If you immediately approach this case from a biased position as ivanovic, as well as most people familiar with this case did, then of course he won't receive a fair trail... but the guise of one.
2. Saddam's actions have been widely publicized by the media, and thus, one-sided. In such a case, where is the balanced coverage or reasoning that even a cowering madman should receive?
3. If we assume that Saddam killed everyone that we think he did, then the reason why must be addressed. We cannot simply make a leap to judgement and then prosecution. That is not the laws that most civilized societies (are supposed to ) operate under.
4. Just as my own President has killed the innocent thousands of innocents for personal reasons, Saddam should receive no less consideration for the atrocities that he's purportedly committed.
5. Even in foreign courts a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty, then proven innocent. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, for I've read anything anywhere to the contrary.
6. Last, and although this may have no bearing on the final sentencing...
It must be noted that Saddam received military training, munition, WMDs, biological weapons, strategic assistance, from the United States and other world powers. Therefore, all involved should indeed share in the responsibility of these senseless deaths. :angel:

P.S.
I playing the devil's advocate here.
Also, no one knows the backroom dealings that most definitely have conspired between the United States government and other world powers and Iraq. To jump to conclusion simply based on what we think we know is to be ignorant and hypocritical of the political world structure. :wavey:

RVD
Dec 26th, 2005, 01:33 AM
Its Hussein.

In the case of someone like Saddam what is a fair trial? Does anyone suggest he is inncocent? Do normal judicial rules really apply? Are we going to let him off on a technicality should one arise? The man is a genocidal mass murderer, he knows it, we knows it, so lets stop the sorry chirade & have his evil head on a platter sooner rather than later please!

His death will close once & for all the most bloody chapter in Iraqi history. Fingers crossed it will also make it easier for the current blood-soaked chapter to be closed & for Iraq to edge toward better days.Isn't this what a trial is meant to discover. :shrug:

RVD
Dec 26th, 2005, 01:35 AM
he wouldn't have a chance on a fair trial either, so it is a bit sad that this trial isn't fair. if it were fair it could be seen as a triumph for justice and as a symbol of change. unfortunately this trial is not only not fair, it is a politically motivated show trial.I completely agree with this post.

RVD
Dec 26th, 2005, 01:44 AM
"Like all human efforts, the attempt to measure the conduct of the defeated by moral standards is an imperfect one – I have no disposition to claim it faultless. But I do say that the utter and irreparable collapse of the doctrine that might makes right is the most significant feature of the Nurnberg trials.

Whatever other shortcomings we representing the victors may have – and they are numerous – we do not adhere to the doctrine that because we have power we can do no wrong. If we did, there would be no trial. We are patiently – too patiently many think – examining the acts of the Nazi leaders.

We are trying dispassionately – too dispassionately many think – to test those acts by the principles which must prevail in a sound and peaceful international order, principles by which hereafter the conduct of the victors, no less than of the vanquished, will be tested by world opinion."

From US Supreme Court Justice (and Nuremburg War Crimes Trial Prosecutor) Robert Jackson's Christmas Eve speech there in 1945.Which will prove to be the ultimate deciding factor in this, or any politically driven (international) case.

Yet another great post *JR*. :worship: