UK GUARDIAN/VIA DRUDGE -
The UN said yesterday said that Saddam Hussein's trial would never satisfy international standards because of ongoing violence and flaws in Iraq's legal system. John Case, the UN's human rights chief in Iraq, said the murder of two defence lawyers, continued threats against judges, lawyers and witnesses and weaknesses in the Iraqi justice system had caused grave doubts about the trial's legitimacy."We're very anxious about the tribunal [trying Saddam]," he told Reuters in an interview. "The legitimacy of the tribunal needs to be examined. It has been seriously challenged in many quarters."The Left-wing bureaucrats of the UN are still trying to abort democracy in Iraq before it is born. WHAT SCUM.
3 comments:
Technically, they do have a valid point. If the judges feel they would be killed if they give a verdict of innocent, then they will probably give a verdict of guilty regardless of the truth, which means it is not a fair trial.
On the other hand, Saddam is clearly guilty of killing thousands of people (probably hundreds of thousands, but way too many whatever the number is), so I'm not sure what the point of the trial is. The only question seems to be whether he should be executed or sent to prison for the rest of his life.
The important trials will be for the people lower down in Saddam's power structure. Some of them must have been involved in the brutality, but some of them were just working for the government. Some of them may have even been opposed to his policies and working in parts of the government not responsible for killing people. There are thousands of former government officials that deserve a fair trial. I think the only benefit of having an actual trial for Saddam is that the evidence will be useful in determining who else was involved.
James
james,
why would the intimidation make the judges more likely to convict rather than exponerate!?!?!?!?
sheesh.
getting thjeBIGGIEs is paramojnt.
not the small fish.
it never happened ANYWHERE the way you describe.
not after WW2: not germany. not france.
you8 get my howeird dean award for commenter most often most wrong about most things.
Given that some defense lawyers have been killed, I assumed the threats were against judges if they didn't convict Saddam. If they are the other way around, then they would make it more likely that the judges would let him go. The article just says they recieved threats, not which way the threats were intended to influence the trial. Either way, if the lawyers and judges are being threatened and killed, it is unlikely to be a fair trial.
Saddam will be found guilty when the trial is over. I don't think anyone with a functioning brain doubts that. But he did not act alone. Everyone involved should be put on trial. As I see it, there are only two purposes to putting Saddam on trial: determining an appropriate punishment and gathering evidence against his aides. His guilt has already been determined (I think he even admits to most of the charges and just claims that it was legal for him to do everything he did), so a trial for him is mostly just a procedural thing.
James
Post a Comment