Just makes you wonder if this guy was offered protection in the Greenzone for the duration of the trial. If he wasn't, that is a very poor statement on the legal system and any hope of justice.
The Belmont Club has another piece relevant to the trial. The topic discusses the question of how the trial can be legitimate by looking at the Nuremburg trials for context. I find his summation of the arguments quite astute.
The view at this point is that the Iraqi court that is trying Saddam is a puppet to the victors. That makes it illegitimate. I don't agree with that. Trying a known and easily provable mass murderer by the victor isn't a travesty of justice.
If the ICC wishes to perform a trial, that is fine, but it will have to be done in Iraq. And the Iraqi people will maintain custody of Saddam during the trial. Expecting the victims of Saddam to come forward to the Hague for his trial is just ludicrous. I would think that vast majority of Iraq would prefer to see Saddam's throat cut rather than hand him over to the ICC.
A defense lawyer in Saddam Hussein's mass murder trial who was kidnapped has been found dead, his body dumped near a Baghdad mosque, a top official in Iraq's lawyers' union said after talking to the man's family.Mind you that the trial won't be seen as anything but a kangaroo court by the vast majority of the Muslim world. But then the trial is more for the people of Iraq than for other Muslims.
The Belmont Club has another piece relevant to the trial. The topic discusses the question of how the trial can be legitimate by looking at the Nuremburg trials for context. I find his summation of the arguments quite astute.
(Speculation alert) I wrote earlier that any trial of Saddam Hussein would automatically bring in recent history as a co-defendant. I guess that the "internationalists" feel they are the only ones with the moral authority to judge the former President of Iraq. To the question 'what law applies', their answer will be the 'international law' they have been at pains to construct. Any law but those of who at all events have disqualified themselves from the power of judgment by removing Saddam Hussein by force. Yet the "internationalists" cannot hold themselves entirely blameless. Implicit in Saddam's trial is another question: 'how did such a monster carry on for so long in the face of an international system that pretends to civilization'? And would Saddam, even now, be gassing Kurds and throwing living human beings into woodchippers if any but those whose moral qualifications are now doubted not acted against him?The various arguments against the legitimacy of the trial are a bit frightening. In combination, I see no way that state organized and led mass murders can be tried, unless it is in international court, that has a codified and agreed upon legal basis. The problem is, who codifies the international law, and who must approve them? If not everyone is on board with the concept, then they can't be seen as valid.
The view at this point is that the Iraqi court that is trying Saddam is a puppet to the victors. That makes it illegitimate. I don't agree with that. Trying a known and easily provable mass murderer by the victor isn't a travesty of justice.
If the ICC wishes to perform a trial, that is fine, but it will have to be done in Iraq. And the Iraqi people will maintain custody of Saddam during the trial. Expecting the victims of Saddam to come forward to the Hague for his trial is just ludicrous. I would think that vast majority of Iraq would prefer to see Saddam's throat cut rather than hand him over to the ICC.
No comments:
Post a Comment