Why is Saddam on trial?

[wellard]

Originally posted by Dedzy: Yes, enough of the spelling corrections please. I've been following several interesting opinions from all of you and then all of a sudden it sinks to ridiculing other peoples' spelling. Let's get back to the topic at hand. My guess is he's going to pull a Milsovic "I don't recognize this court" angle and do whatever he can to embarass the U.S. Of course, there is plenty of room to criticize previous bad U.S. policy for arming Saddam back in the day. Still, he did what he did and hopefully the Iraqi people will be able to watch on TV in full detail all the things Hussein did to the Iraqi people.

Thankyou Dedzy ... you should post more often [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] A sober voice of reason is much needed

I thought it was a fascinating question by Donut. And *cough* Davros I was aware of the irony involved in his post, I just wanted to move on [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

I thought it was a fascinating question by Donut.

Funny, I only thought it was a sarcastic rhetorical question. I mean, the notion that, "If he's guilty why is he on trial" presumes a lot of things. One is the FACT that he is in fact guilty -- which can only be determined by a trial.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Dedzy: Yes, enough of the spelling corrections please. I've been following several interesting opinions from all of you and then all of a sudden it sinks to ridiculing other peoples' spelling.

Do you mean "people's spelling" or are you insinuating I am correcting a whole nation?

BTW - I did say that I never usually comment on spelling, life's too short.

[ 07-15-2004, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: I thought it was a fascinating question by Donut.

Funny, I only thought it was a sarcastic rhetorical question. I mean, the notion that, "If he's guilty why is he on trial" presumes a lot of things. One is the FACT that he is in fact guilty -- which can only be determined by a trial. [/QUOTE]Well it wasn't meant to be sarcastic. There are a number of questions here, I had hoped people may explore them. I'll be more specific.

If I commit a murder and am found not guilty am I guilty of the murder?
Do you think that any trial is necessary for Saddam or does it have to be a "fair" trial?
Does he deserve a "fair" trial?
Is it possible for him to get a "fair" trial?
Why aren't we allowed to hear the procedings in full?
Why are only US journalists allowed into the courtroom?
If he is entitled to a "fair" trial should he be allowed a lawyer?
What will happen if his lawyers call on senior foreign politicians to testify?

None of these questions are in the least bit rhetorical so please feel free to reply whether you have any expertise in the law or not.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Dedzy: My guess is he's going to pull a Milsovic "I don't recognize this court" angle and do whatever he can to embarass the U.S. Of course, there is plenty of room to criticize previous bad U.S. policy for arming Saddam back in the day. Still, he did what he did and hopefully the Iraqi people will be able to watch on TV in full detail all the things Hussein did to the Iraqi people.

I guess that his defence will be along the lines of having immunity because he was the head of state.

I, too, hope that the Iraqi people will be able to watch, but I think they'll only get edited highlights.