Does Saddam Hussien deserve a trial?

[pasadenaboy]

Does Saddam Hussein deserve a trial? If not, were the Nuremburg trials wrong? Is it wrong to try Milosivich?

Who agrees with Kerry, Lieberman, et al that we should execute people without trial?

[goobergunch]

1. All criminals deserve trials, even Saddam. (n/t)

[seventhson]

2. Definitely a trial

I disagree with Dean's Newsweak interview (or Time) today where he says Osama should just be "offed" if found.

Ludicrous IMHO.

Just when I think he has balls he says something to make me question my own support.

Justice requires due process.

The Osama family was in business with the Bushes.

Offing Osama helps the Bushes.

TRY Osama if you can get him. Saddam too and especially since he was in business with the CIA and Rumsfeld.

God we are an ignorant and mean-spirited people - forgive us.


Dean is no Satyagrahi

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. I agree that he deserves a trial for a couple reasons

The main being that international law requires it and we are setting a very poor example by saying international law does not apply to America...we could lose our dominance as a superpower given CHina's strength and where would the Bush doctrin leave us?

Second, there are situations such as the gassing of the kurds that are conflicted by the evidence that exists.

If punished, he should be punished by the irrefutable evidence against him.

Finally, as with the germans..the Bush family and their energy and MIC cohorts have made their billions by trading with the enemy. This should come out in any trial... Saddam is a terrible person and anyone who did business with him AFTER evidence was available is just as culpable in his war crimes..they are accomplices.

[Military Brat]

4. It isn't a question of "deserve" or "not deserve"

Trial by a jury of one's peers is one of the few remaining remnants of civilization. The world and Saddam's victims demand answers which may only be obtained through a trial, if at all.

Please supply link that Kerry, Lieberman, et al. are advocating execution without a trial.

[cornermouse]

8. Kerry on Face the Nation, this morning.

I was rather shocked. I thought trial by jury was one of the foundations of our government and a distinguishing characteristic of this nation. Apparently Kerry disagrees.

[Terwilliger]

12. if he actually said that, then he can forget about EVER getting my vote

EVER

the "get over it" and "George Bush is a good man" shit was bad enough!

[wuushew]

17. Face the Nation transcript

BURRELLE'S INFORMATION SERVICES / [phone] / [phone]

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you think it would be dangerous to have Howard Dean as president?

Sen. KERRY: Well, How--listen, Bob, it's up to a lot of other voters to make decisions about this race. What I'm trying to do is point out that for us to beat George Bush, we need a candidate who has theability to go face to face with him on the issue of national security.

George Bush himself has said national security will be the central issue of this campaign. And it's very clear that--that Howard Dean has been all over the place. I mean, if you don't know that Saddam Hussein is guilty and you think he has to have a jury trial, if you make statements suggesting that we can't protect ourselves without the permission of the United Nations, that we have to prepare for the day when America is not the strongest military in the world, that we're not safer with Saddam Hussein captured, I think those will raise serious doubts in the minds of Americans about whether or not this is the Democratic Party of retreat and confusion or whether it is the Democratic Party in the tradition of Roosevelt and Truman
that knows how to make America safe.

I know how to make America safe and fight a war on terror that does not overextend our troops, that does not put America at greater risk. And we need a nominee about whom there are no questions on the subject of national security.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/28/ftn/main590384.shtml

[Terwilliger]

18. un FREEPING believable

Kerry is a fuckhead. Bye bye, Johnny.

[blm]

23. Get real. He said that IF you think Saddam needs a trial to find out if

he's guilty, then you reinforce the doubts of Americans on national security.

If Dean is able to posit a theory of Bush's guilt which he backtracked later, then why can't someone say that Saddam is guilty now based on documents already in evidence? Saddam's crimes HAVE been documented and that is why war was always an option since 1991.

Read it the way Kerry said it, not the way you're twisting it.

[wuushew]

25. How am I twisting it? I just posted the transcript verbatim

n/t

[Terwilliger]

26. so, guilt is up to the victim?

lets just throw away American jurisprudence...everybody's guilty!

[salin]

30. Then help clarify its meaning

I didn't hear it - and this is the first I have read it. Kerry is one of my top choices (not that my vote matters in a May primary...) But it does seem to read as if there doesn't need to be a trial.

[blm]

35. You need a trial to SAY he's guilty.

Kerry is discussing Dean's gaffes, NOT due process of law.

Didn't anyone notice that the original post took that comment out of context and declared that Kerry believes in executing people without a trial?

Odd considering Kerry is against the death penalty. Guess the poster doesn't know that.

[wryter2000]

5. His victims deserve a trial, too

Trials don't just benefit the person on trial. They provide a forum for the victims to speak out and educate the rest of the world, too.

I don't see that giving Saddam a trail does him any good.

[Wwagsthedog]

6. Trials are good for the most part

Saddam's trial might even cause some embarrassment in Washington.

If guilty, prison is good. Executions are bad.

[glitch]

7. His co-conspirators deserve that he be tried

Which is why this is even an issue. Rule of law would've applied to anyone else, but because of what Saddam can tell suddenly whether or not he gets a trial is an issue.

Interesting isn't it? Even more interesting is noting who is saying he doesn't need a trial.

And his victims deserve that he be tried. They deserve the full justice treatment or airing of grievances and pronouncing of sentence, not some cheap tin pot dictator execution.

[bowens43]

9. Yes.

Anyone accused of a crime , no matter the severity, deserves a trial and they deserve to be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.

[ChemEng]

10. Yes, to document the evil of his regime. Then his fate should be

left to the Iraqi people to decide.

[Terwilliger]

11. oh, crap...they actually said that?

tell me they didn't say that!

[blondeatlast]

13. I need citations, please, as well as context.

I can't believe they just outright said (and meant) that.

Yes, his VICTIMS deserve a trial, and so does he.

[dbt]

14. Oh, HELL yes!

A PUBLIC trial--in which his side of the story gets to be told. Don't you know that would have bu$h sweating BBs!

There were a lot worse fuckers than Saddam who got their days in court. What could be so bad about the Iraq situation that would justify offing him without a fair trial?

:evilgrin:
dbt

[Nikia]

15. He needs to be tried

It might cast the U.S. in bad light if it will really cover all his "crimes" since before he even took power. Until right before Desert Storm, the U.S. government was an accomplice to whatever crimes he committed then. Perhaps, that's why people in the U.S. government might want him to be executed without a trial. The truth needs to come out.

[ET Awful]

16. Yup, he deserves a trial and it should be an international court

You don't let a victim try the perpetrator, you'd never get a fair trial.

It has to be a trial by an international court.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. The victim

That is ridiculous. That means no society can try anyone who tries to harm it.

The Iraqi people have every right to try Saddam and they can and will.

[PSR40004]

19. Yes

[RebelOne]

20. Definitely. Just hope he sees the inside of a courtroom.

And does not have a convenient heart attack or commits "suicide" before he is tried. There is so much he would have to say to incriminate the Bush cartel.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

21. Only if the Chimpster is named as a co-defendant. Then again,...

...maybe the Chimpster should be tried separately.

[0007]

24. Absolutely!

[quaker bill]

27. This is not something new for Kerry

DISARRAY IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OVER FACING SADDAM HUSSEIN;
HEARING OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE;
10:37 A.M. EDT TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1999_h/990928-iraq-sfrc.htm

SEN. KERRY:

It seems to me that a Saddam Hussein who has the ability to develop potentially more threatening weapons of mass destruction -- and notwithstanding -- I mean, it was the show of force and the determination of the United States that really took away from him that option, previously. If the determination is not there, then the use that he put it to previously, in other circumstances, could become far more attractive again in the future, which I think is the bottom line of what you are saying.

So I think we're -- and I thank the chair for having this hearing. I mean, I think we're talking about a very significant, large strategic interest of the United States that for various reasons has been second-tiered to sometimes more emotional and certainly of-the-moment perceptions of other issues that don't rise to the same strategic, longer-term interests of our country. So I think it's important for us to be thinking about where we go, because I've said, and I think you and others have said, there's an ultimate time -- as long as he's there, and it may well be that the Iraqi people will settle that. But as long as he is there, I think most people understand that that threat remains and it's real. So -- and there's a time of confrontation. So I think we're better to do it
sooner rather than later and to be real about our resolve.

<<end>>

Kerry has been convinced of Saddam's guilt, evidence notwithstanding, for at least 4 to 5 years.

[blm]

36. Yet you think it's OK

that Dean is against due process for American citizens.

Get real. Saddam IS guilty of serious crimes against huumanity. So is Usama Bin Laden. Kerry is sayoing you can acknowledge it without a trial, he's not saying there SHOULDN'T be a trial.

[Minstrel Boy]

28. If the war was based on a lie, why is he even in custody?

No, he's not a good man. Yes, he was a cruel leader. But the question of trying him betrays moral and legal blind spots, IMHO.

[kcwayne]

29. What crimes should Saddam be tried for, let alone executed for?

Everyone seems to be bandying around the idea that Saddam is guilty and should be executed.

But for what crimes, and on the basis of what proof?

It is clear that Saddam ordered the invasion of Kuwait, but is that an executable offense? Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada, and Johnson ordered the invasion of Viet Nam, should they have been tried for a capital crime?

All of the other issues Saddam is accused of are just accusations. Have we reached the point where we should execute people on the basis of an accusation.

Remember in the first Gulf war when the daughter of a Kuwaiti ambassador testified before Congress about Iraqi soldiers taking newborn babies out of incubators and stealing the incubator, leaving the child to die? This horrific event was reported as "the truth" by our incredibly stupid media, who didn't even check out who the person was that was making the claims (and the obvious conflict of interest since Kuwait was trying to get us to go to war to protect their kings), let alone check out the veracity of this claim.

Just because the media or the government says Saddam did something awful, does not make it so. That is why a trial is needed to determine what truth lies in the accusations made against Saddam.

[salin]

31. Retractions and clarifications drive some folks nuts... I understand

the occaisional mis-speak and gaffe. I am hoping that this will be one of those times. Suggesting that no trial is needed is very problematic. I respect the Senator - and really hope this is one of those items that gets quickly "clarified".

[Terwilliger]

32. he made similar sentiments suring the debate

saying that no one should question the guilt or innocence of Saddam or Osama. Hell, I haven't seen the FIRST evidence that Osama was involved in 9/11.

[rbnyc]

33. The People deserve to live in a world where we do not....

...punish people without a trial. It has nothing to do with what Sadam deserves.

[blm]

34. Can you provide a quote where Kerry says we should EXECUTE people without

a trial?

Or are you twisting his remarks about Dean's gaffe statements into being about due process?

[Moderator]

37. Locking.

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.

4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator