Saddam Hussein discussion

Talk about the debates as they progress and after they conclude.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38659
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by spot »

Welcome to the Westcliff Debate on Saddam Hussein. Please use this thread to comment on the debate as it progresses and after its conclusion.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38659
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by spot »

RedGlitter and I are going to try Saddam Hussein all over again. This thread's open to anyone to discuss it, the other thread's just for the two of us.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by koan »

should be interesting.

Does the membership get to be the jury afterwards and decide which case was more convincing?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38659
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by spot »

That doesn't seem particularly fair on anyone, I never liked scoring debates. Even asking "what was your view / what is your view now" isn't satisfactory. They're meant to be fun. I'm looking forward to joining in the discussion though.

It's odd how different it is to creating a normal post though. In a normal post I aim never to stretch beyond one screen. What I'm fighting at the moment is references to facts, they so get in the way of making it readable. I'll be hours before I have my first post ready though. Busy day so far.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
charles_r51
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by charles_r51 »



from your variuos posts, you seem like a big supporter of CLINTON and OBAMA :D :yh_rotfl
charles_r51
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by charles_r51 »

koan;672903 wrote: should be interesting.

Does the membership get to be the jury afterwards and decide which case was more convincing?
only if we can be part of the firing squad afterwards! :yh_kiss :yh_devil
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by RedGlitter »

Careful now, or we won't let you watch. :D
User avatar
JacksDad
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:00 pm

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by JacksDad »

Watching.....

Waiting.....:yh_hypno
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by koan »

You've got your work cut out for you Red. Good on you for accepting the challenge.
RedGlitter
Posts: 15777
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by RedGlitter »

koan;674363 wrote: You've got your work cut out for you Red. Good on you for accepting the challenge.


Thanks, Koan. I blanched when I saw what Spot had prepared. I have no idea how I'm going to compete, but I'm fixing to. It won't be much longer.

You guys can watch me flop around like a fish out of water! :wah: :o
User avatar
CARLA
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:00 pm

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by CARLA »

Red you have my support for even accepting the debate with Spot. Bloddy hell women he is a master with words. Your courage is impressive. ;)



[QUOTE]Thanks, Koan. I blanched when I saw what Spot had prepared. I have no idea how I'm going to compete, but I'm fixing to. It won't be much longer.

You guys can watch me flop around like a fish out of water! [/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!

MOTTO TO LIVE BY:

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.

WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"

User avatar
spot
Posts: 38659
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by spot »

I'm sure RG will put an array of additional information in her opening post, but surely it's more a matter of facts than of presentation, Carla? I'd be delighted if anyone were to correct anything I wrote, the discussion thread's a perfect place to do it. What did I get wrong?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
CARLA
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:00 pm

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by CARLA »

I'm sure RG will give a good debate Spot she is also very good with words. I will watch and wait to see just how this debate goes.

For me it is simple Sadam is dead, debate over. :wah:
ALOHA!!

MOTTO TO LIVE BY:

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.

WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"

User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15897
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Whilst he was undoubtedly tried and convicted by a Kangaroo Court in a political show trial I feel that an International Court would have found him guilty of the use of an outlawed poison gas.

Whether the CIA consider it expedient to blame Iran or Iraq is immaterial. The use of chemical weapons has been banned by international treaty since the first world war.

That the CIA ever claimed that Iran might have been responsible has been condemned as shameful by most independent observers and denied by no less that GWB himself.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38659
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by spot »

CARLA;674530 wrote: For me it is simple Sadam is dead, debate over.I must say I find it distressing that anyone can find this sort of question simple. Someone is dead so all the questions must immediately stop? That, I think, is half the point of having killed him so quickly - to avoid people asking him embarrassing questions. Gore Vidal describes the country of his birth as the United States of Amnesia and one immediately grasps what he means by it.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Chookie
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:55 am

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by Chookie »

To me this debate is based on the presumption that a head of state is above the law. This is idiocy, heads of state, by the fact that they are heads of state, should be held to a higher standard than us normal people.

From Spots' recitation of Pinochets' appeal - which should have been made to the International Court of Justice rather than the 'British' House of Lords:-

The fact that acts done for the state have involved conduct which is criminal does not remove the immunity.


A criminal act is a criminal act, no matter who performs that act, also, heads of state, strangely enough possess no diplomatic immunity (as they are not, technically, diplomats).

Indeed the whole purpose of the residual immunity ratione materiae is to protect the former head of state against allegations of such conduct after he has left office.


Not so, the whole purpose is to ensure that the former office holder cannot be charged as a war criminal.

A head of state needs to be free to promote his own state's interests during the entire period when he is in office without being subjected to the prospect of detention, arrest or embarrassment in the foreign legal system of the receiving state.




"A head of state needs to be free to promote his own state's interests "

True, but without breaking international and humanitarian laws.



The conduct does not have to be lawful to attract the immunity.


Unlawful conduct should attract the penalties appropriate to such unlawful conduct.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
User avatar
Chookie
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:55 am

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by Chookie »

Now the other position:-

RedGlitter;687092 wrote: To have let Hussein live, albeit in prison, would have left open the possibility of his return to power, jeopardinzing not only the lives of Iraqis but the United States' national interest.


To mention "United States' national interest" is a non sequitur.



When Napoleon was exiled, he returned causing anarchy and war.


Exile cannot be equated with life imprisonment.



In the matter of Hussein not receiving a fair trial, in a domestic criminal trial, the procedure's main and simple function is to minimize the likelihood of an innocent person being sent to jail.


Hussein did not receive a domestic criminal trial. The Iraqi legal system - which was not Sharia law - did not allow application of the death penalty.



Saddam Hussein was not an ordinary criminal defendant and so did not warrant the criminal defense protections that fairness provides ordinary criminal defendants.


As Hussein was, palpably, not an ordinary criminal, he should have been surrendered to the International Court of justice, not been submitted to a botched up Kangaroo court.



Some will argue that he deserved no fairness protections at all.


Non sequitur - all persons brought to court deserve the presumption of innocence until the opposite is proven.



The function of criminal procedural protections is to prevent wrongful conviction of an innocent person, then as we know Hussein was not innocent, there was no reason to apply these procedures to him. The argument is purely political.


This is advocating lynch law.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Saddam Hussein discussion

Post by gmc »

There is no way Saddam was going to be handed over to an international court of law.

Both Iraq and the United States voted against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998. ( along with China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) Since both refused to accept the jurisdiction of the international criminal court handing him over would have presented them, and the US in particular with a rather ticklish problem. You can hardly advocate trial and punishment for all those committing human right violations unless they happen to be American and expect not to be called hypocritical. You can try Saddam but not any American citizen was hardly an option and having Saddam tried in an Iraqi court dodges making the issue a public one for debate in the US.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/us.htm

Immunity of a head of state from trial for their crimes in an international court has long been the norm. Until recently there was no international court where such individuals could stand trial anyway-and there still isn't and won't be until said court is in a position (i.e. have the backing of all states) to have it's rulings upheld.

Perhaps only those in whose country the crime was committed in should have jurisdiction anyway. At the end of the day nations need to sort out their own problems.

Similarly with Pinochet there was no international court where he could have stood trial. To say he should have been handed over sounds great but to where? Says a lot about the UK that Thatcher couldn't stop the house of lords debating the issue-much as she would have liked to. For all it's faults there is a long tradition of independence from political control in the UK legal system.

posted by chookie

A criminal act is a criminal act, no matter who performs that act, also, heads of state, strangely enough possess no diplomatic immunity (as they are not, technically, diplomats).


A criminal act is one that has been defined as such by a body with the authority to decide what a criminal act consists of. (slavery for instance used to be perfectly legal throughout the world. Nowadays most would think it morally wrong and also a crime as opposed to being perfectly legal but morally wrong )

In most nation states nowadays that is a legislature elected by the population. As opposed to a king deciding and chopping off the head of anyone who disagrees or a religious leader deciding based on the way he interprets a holy book and chopping off the head of anyone who doesn't like it.

Crimes against humanity is term coming in the aftermath of the second world war when mankind first learned the meaning of total war in the industrial age. We do not have an international structure where criminals can be brought to trial for the simple reason it means nation states must accept the superiority of an international court over their own in passing judgement on it's citizens and be prepared to hand over it's citizens for judgement.

In a very real sense we live in a time here such a change and general acceptance of the concept of crimes against humanity is developing but is still not fully accepted by all.

What is a war crime? There is no such thing as a cosy little war where all play by the rules and nobody but the bad guys gets hurt. When push comes to shove morality goes out the window and it's kill or be killed. In the west we have the good fortune to be a people that are very good at warfare. We have industrialised it and can now kill people wholesale-if we need to.

I would put it to you that a war crime is that which is defined by the victors as being a war crime. Was Saddam Hussein innocent? probably not IMO but to put him on trial outside of Iraq was not a viable option given the circumstances. Was the trial fair-no of course not, too many skeletons in the cupboard for that to happen.

Incidentally the British used mustard gas on the kurds long before Saddam did.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 08,00.html

Who said shock and awe were a new idea

Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job.


Course we had an empire then and such things were perfectly acceptable for the greater good don't you know.

Return to “Discuss”