Why wasn't Saddam and his co-conspirators sent to The Hague for prosecution like we normally do?

[NNN0LHI]

I have some thoughts on this but I am not sure? Any ideas?

Don

[Captain Hilts]

1. The Bush Admin doesn't believe in that touchy-feely Hague stuff. nt

[Kagemusha]

2. Iraq's Shiites want blood. The admin is happy to give them Saddam's head

They insisted on a "proper" trial to demonstrate the superiority of post-Saddam justice of course but, in the end it's all the same: a Hague prosecution would not have guaranteed conviction and this is outcome-based war crimes prosecution. Everyone knows Saddam is guilty. At any rate, it's more viscerally satisfying for Shiite and Kurdish Iraqis for them to execute Saddam themselves rather than trust the task to foreigners.

[NNN0LHI]

7. I was thinking it might have more to do with the possible co-conspirators involved

With what I have read and seen some folks from the Reagan and Bush1 administrations might qualify for a seat in the dock along side of Saddam.

Don

[Kagemusha]

8. They don't realistically fear it.

Because the US military will be used to prevent such a scenario.

[bahrbearian]

14. Exactly , you control the puppet ,you control the trial.

[jaysunb]

20. Bingo !

n/t

[conscious evolution]

3. IIRC

the Hague does not have a death penalty anymore for warcrimes.
Can't allow Saddam to live to talk about what really goes on,now can we.
Dead men tell no tales.

[Gregorian]

4. The Hague has it's own requirements. I want to know what they are.

Pol Pot, Pinochet and a handful of other Bush-like creatures were never "interviewed" by the Hague.

They don't just take on every or any case. And I would like to know just what their requirements are. Or if it's something that is instigated elsewhere. Such as, by judiciaries within the originating or offended countries.

[H2O Man]

11. It would appear

to be that Pol Pot, Pinochet, and Saddam committed crimes on a largely domestic scene, where the Hague is geared for international criminals.

[Gregorian]

16. Then they have already met one requirement.

Thank you.

And if the Magistrate's post is accurate, then I can see why the Hague is not as busy as it could be. If our federal courts are as packed as I imagine, we may not see a meaningful trial of the criminals who designed the Iraq invasion.


Being that I have two days left as a juror on call, I have to admit my embarrassment at the flagrant statements I've made on this forum. That we've all made. During juror selection, the judge was inspiring when he reminded us of suspending all judgment until the verdict was made. I suppose with this administration, it is particularly difficult to see these politicians as innocent until that time of verdict.

[H2O Man]

21. When a person is going

to serve on a jury, the court is supposed to make sure (as sure as they possibly can) that the person has not made a determination on guilt vs innocence. It is important that the person not have been exposed to information on the case that makes it unlikely or indeed impossible for them to be objective. More, the court attempts to uncover any previous experience that could reduce the chances of the juror being objective and fair.

That does not mean a person can't have heard anything about a case. Nor does it mean that a person put away "common sense." The majority of people arrested and brought to court are indeed guilty. That doesn't mean that all are, nor does it lower the need for an open-minded, objective group to serve as jurors.

Finally, the "innocent until proven guilty" concept applies only within the context of the judicial system. We are not wrong to watch the news, or read a news account of a crime, and think of a person as being guilty as charged. I will say, for example, that I am 100% convinced that Scooter Libby is guilty as charged. More, I know that VP Cheney is guilty, though uncharged.

[Gregorian]

27. I appreciate your reply.

Enlightening comments.

I continue to learn how to learn and think. And how our system works. How to even sift through the lies.

What I want to say about forums such as this one is that the power lies in the strongest members. This is in contrast to the weakest link principal. And it is a wonderful thing. I'm grateful for having access to the hard working and brilliant people here.

[leesa]

40. Like Bush...

[DrDebug]

30. They have no jurisdiction over anything prior to July 2002

That little line was of course inserted on purpose. (Yugoslavia and Rwanda)

[Nite Owl]

5. Because it would have been a

real trial that would have been very uncomfortable for this administration. Rummy and gang would likely have been called to testify, some actual truths about US involvement in Iraq would have been taken under oath. It just wouldn't have been nice for them at all. Just my thoughts.

[A Simple Game]

22. I agree with your thoughts. n/t

[leftofthedial]

6. the bushies can't go to the hague without being put on trial themselves

plus, the LAST thing they wanted was an actual trial with independent judges, lawyers and press coverage

[Joanne98]

9. Because BUSHCO didn't want to follow international law....

Bush wanted his OWN court. It's a joke.

[formercia]

10. When the US was convicted in the Nicaragua mining

case, the US refused to accept the validity of the court and its rulings. To send people to the Hague would acknowledge its validity.

[Jcrowley]

12. Lot's of reasons

[The Magistrate]

13. The International Court At The Hague, Sir

Has jurisdoiction only when a nation's own courts will not undertake credible proceedings against its nationals who have committed crimes against humanity. Since courts of the present puppet regime in Iraq were willing to proceed against Hussein, the issue that would trigger Hague jurisdiction did not arise.

[Solon]

24. In addition to that...

Even if no credible proceedings could have occurred in Iraq, it still wouldn't be heard before the ICC, simply because the United States doesn't recognize the ICC, and Saddam would never have been surrendered to the Hague. At best the ICC could have convened to try Saddam "in absentia" but it would have been purely symbolic and therefore, by and large, useless.

The fact of the matter is that the trial in Iraq was purely for show, Saddam was going to be found guilty and sentenced to death since the first shots of "shock and awe" were fired off in 2003, we all know that.

[silverlib]

15. Isn't there a statute of limitation?

And I think the genocide for which he was tried was outside the statute under Hague rules.

Seems like I read this on DU sometime ago, but I could not find it in a search.

[madrchsod]

17. the problem is that the united nation may not recognize

the trial as meeting international standards. the main problem in setting up this trial was the lack of qualified judges. i do not think iraq meant the international standards. but it`s their country so why should we give a shit? so now is`t it time for the troops to leave ?

[EstimatedProphet]

18. Because he's a trophy

He's a spoil of war, and the administration and the bumblefuck shitheels that pound their chests and scream "USA! USA!" at every chance want to parade him through the streets in shackles and poke him with sticks and throw rotten food at him. They'd like to do that to everyone, if they had the chance.

[MrPrax]

19. US doesn't recognize it...

The US, like Britain or Rome, has a empire and part of empire-building requires that you replace one's own nation's standards and practices and remake the colony in your own image. It is also to ensure that 'new' ideas and "foreign" philosophies and approaches

The US doesn't recognize most international standards whether it be the metric system, currency, accounting practices or international law. The key of course is the US Constitution, which makes any international agreement moot as it MIGHT abridge US laws and the rights of US citizens.

Of course people who want to believe otherwise will tell you that the US empire is 'new' and as such it's rationale for imperialism are different than say 'old Europe' and mumble shit about "nation's own courts will not undertake credible proceedings against its nationals who have committed crimes against humanity" when they articulate one prinicple of deceitful propaganda, but then refuse to hand over nationals to that same 'jurisdiction'; which is consistent with American jurisprudence that literally suggests that an American can only be judged by his peers.

The whole idea is to create a de facto international system that confers a different set of values on American citizens than non-American citizens in the world.

It will always come down to whatever the US 'thinks' is it's national security anyway....and that changes as frequently as the US changes Emperors...new Emperor, new religion, new enemy...a never ending quasi-religious historical void of living in the imperial moment and viewing the world as hostile to God's Creation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Because the US does not recognize the International

Court of Justice

Milozovicz was because he was arrested in a Nato country by a NATO force and all of Nato, except us, recognizes the International Court

We should, definitely we should, but that is a whole different ball of wax

[librechik]

25. they can't recognize the Hague as legitimate or they themselves

would be liable for prosecution. Therefore they do everything possible to de-legitimize and discredit the Hague's authority.

[Critters2]

26. WE don't normally do that

WE--that is the US--don't trust anyone else to run our kangaroo courts.

[NNN0LHI]

28. Bush was all for Slobodan Milosevic going there

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/28/milosevic.court/

Milosevic jailed in The Hague

June 29, 2001 Posted: 2:04 AM EDT (0604 GMT)


>>>Leaders of the countries that went to war against Yugoslavia praised the arrest of Milosevic. U.S. President George Bush said it showed Belgrade was moving "toward a brighter future as a full member of the community of European democracies." British Prime Minister Tony Blair called it "thoroughly a good thing."<<<

[mdmc]

29. This is above international law

we are making new rules...

[NashVegas]

31. Whatdoyoumean, "We," Kemosabe?

Have you forgotten the Hague Invasion Act?

[haymark]

32. Milosevic's trial was a joke

It dragged on for years. Milosevic fillerbusted regularly, had lots of breaks due to his illness, was elected to Parliment durning his incarsiration and died (committed suicide or killed) of unauthorized drugs. At the time of his death he was still presenting his defense.

[mdmc]

33. kick

:patriot:

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. He HAD to die before April. A little known Iraqi law says no one 70 years old and older can be

executed. Saddam's birthday would have been in April. Had they let The Hague handle the trial, he would have lived past April and they would have lost their photo-op. That's my take on it.

[northzax]

36. interesting

of course, the law also says that executions cannot be carried out during Eid ul-Adha, which started on SAturday for (I think) the Shiites.

[in_cog_ni_to]

37. No. That's not a "law", but an expected, unspoken time of respect

for the holy days. It's just always been done that way, but isn't a written law. I heard a Muslim on CNN say that.

[northzax]

38. ahh, thanks, I was going off this morning's Times

which said it was a law. thanks for the clarification.

[madokie]

35. This was all about silencing a voice not hearing it

[mdmc]

39. never considered this

:kick: for the thought.