Saddam Arrested

[Natoma]

If the Iraqis say they can do it, let them try. If they succeed, the better. If they don't, then we step in. But the point is to let them try. They say they can do it, let's let them try. We gotta leave them sometime.

And I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt, as well as a savings on our end and theirs.

 

[pax]

The world court is a much better venue than courts of other nations if those same americans are caught commiting crimes in those countries. You can clamor kangaroo all you like it can be ascribed to any court... There is no evidence the WC would be such a political venue. Its also a public court to be under public scrutiny .

I guess if an american commits a crime in the US he gets his ass slapped in court. If he commits a crime in another country the us constituion must protect him from prosecution?

Really? As the "most powerful member of all" supports all the ideals of the UN or even the concepts for which it is based. Even you admit the US have been far more against the UN then for it in recent times

Of course it has been far more against the UN thats the point. The US vetoed UN resolutions in the 1980's against the use by Iraq of gas attacks against the kurds and iranians for ex... Its individual members opposition to humanitarian goals of the UN that have rendered it ineffective.

You wish it had never been created... as if it was the cause of problems. What would you of had in its place?

 

[Legion]

The world court is a much better venue than courts of other nations if those same americans are caught commiting crimes in those countries.

A great number of the UN member nations could easily jump at the chance to take a shot at the US by railling against its citizens whether or not they are guilty. Asserting their bias won't affect their judgement is a bit naive don't you think?

To be judged by one's peers would require to be judged within the country by fellow citizens.

You can clamor kangaroo all you like it can be ascribed to any court... There is no evidence the WC would be such a political venue. Its also a public court to be under public scrutiny .

Oh come now, there is plenty of evidence. You yourself have suggested the corporate interests of the largest nations of the UN. Aside from this there are a large portion of tyrannical dictatorships within the UN. Who will try them and their leaders? Would they be exempt. How would they, as members of a legal group, function? What can of precident are you setting here?

I guess if an american commits a crime in the US he gets his ass slapped in court. If he commits a crime in another country the us constituion must protect him from prosecution?

Pax that is a hypothetical asserting the invidual actually committed a crime in the first place. Yes, i would say he ought to be brough back to the US to stand trial or have american representation present. There is n reason why a body of unelected political representatives of other nations should have even the slightest involvement with said trial.

Of course it has been far more against the UN thats the point. Its individual members oppostion to humanitarian goals of the UN that have rendered it ineffective.

No, its apathy. The invidual members may have valid reason for opposing "humanitarian" goals of the UN but over all it may have to do a lot with finacial restrictions.

 

[RussSchultz]

There is no evidence the WC would be such a political venue. Its also a public court to be under public scrutiny .

Not withstanding the fine gentlemen who tried filing war crimes charges against Blair and Bush over the recent Iraq war. I'm not sure exactly where that went, but it made at least one news cycle.

No, not political at all. Nope.

 

[Tahir2]

An Iraqi minister on the BBC Newsnight show said that if he was tried in Iraq (and he wants that) then the death penalty would be a possible punishment. He also added that his crimes were commited in public, in daylight and for everyone to see. The death penalty would be a 'mercy for him.'

He also said that the Iraqi judges were indeed affected by his rule and menace but even so it would be the best cause of action for the Iraqi people to judge him.

A legal advisor to Rumsfeld on the same programme stated that the former President should be tried in Iraq as an international trial like that of Milosevic would distance the feeling of justice to the Iraqi people due to the trial being hundreds or thousands of miles away from the people he affected the most and the language would be foreign of the judges etc. Also the Rwanda trials showed that the IC rulings meant that the top people avoided the death penalty whilst the tier 2 and tier 3 persons involved and guilty of war crimes were executed. This is a possibility if Saddam goes on trial in the IC and I personally hope this is not the end result of a 'fair trial' where a persecutor is brought forward to strangers rather than his own people.

 

[pax]

Well not everyone who brings up charges will be considered of course... We see all kinds of attempts in regular courts to charge someone for somthing flimsy and usually they are thrown out.

In any case whats to keep the US from making use of the WC for the same political purposes?... If such a weakness was present in the WC its pretty obvious to me other countries would have oppposed it. I think the western legal tradition is strong enough to sustain a WC. I think therefore its pretty obvious the current admin doesnt want the WC for other reasons than fear of americans being falsely accused...

 

[Legion]

For once i agree with you Tahir. It is the the people of Iraq's turn to have justice. Not to have some unelected puppet official judge Saddam by their own agendas.

 

[Legion]

Well not everyone who brings up charges will be considered of course... We see all kinds of attempts in regular courts to charge someone for somthing flimsy and usually they are thrown out.

But then there will be those who will be considered and have a strictly political agenda. I am more than sure they'd selectively indict those they think they can nail.

In any case whats to keep the US from making use of the WC for the same political purposes?...

absolutely nothing. The same reasoning applies. This doesn't validate your argument Pax. The fact that US citizes could do this aswell hardly levels the playing field or makes the WC any more a valid legal agent .

If such a weakness was present in the WC its pretty obvious to me other countries would have oppposed it.

Unless of course it suited their purposes?

I think the western legal tradition is strong enough to sustain a WC.

you think? This is hardly relevant.

I think therefore its pretty obvious the current admin doesnt want the WC for other reasons than fear of americans being falsely accused...

You think therefore its obvious.....

Seems to me there are many valid reasons to believe the political agendas of the UN would taint the WC. It would be pretty hard to argue against their corruption when you yourself agree corporate corruption is rampant in the UN.

 

[pax]

Im not trying to validate my argument with it. If the WC was as conducive to politics surely itd be easier for the US to influence it there than some small country. Its probably partly because such influence cant be had or at least not easily as courts are usually setup with the idea and structures of ethical independance that the US has no interest in it.

I didnt say corporations ran rampant at the UN is simlpy gave an ex of the problems with the UN are corporate like because you are blaming the UN for failures of the members and especially the leader members of the UN.

 

[Sxotty]

Here is my 2 cents

Try Saddam in Iraq, for his cromes against Iraqis

Then try him in something like WC for crimes against Iranians, and kuwaitis. Afterall that would make sense. He can only be killed once so...

 

[Legion]

Im not trying to validate my argument with it.

Then you should have considered it irrelevant and omitted it. It doesn't serve your position for any reason other than to provide filler for a rather weak argument.

If the WC was as conducive to politics surely itd be easier for the US to influence it there than some small country.

Not necessarily true. Iraq is a good example that the UN's opinions can't always be swayed by the US no matter how valid Americas reasoning.

Its probably partly because such influence cant be had or at least not easily as courts are usually setup with the idea and structures of ethical independance that the US has no interest in it.

Its rather apparent establishing the WC as an ethical and objective body would be impossible in its current state. THe US shouldn't have to establish it as an independant ethical body. If the US did that it wouldn't really be independant. Ironically it wouldn't be able to survive without the US though.

I didnt say corporations ran rampant at the UN is simlpy gave an ex of the problems with the UN are corporate like because you are blaming the UN for failures of the members and especially the leader members of the UN.

Pax the UN is a group. That group is made up of people. As an entity the UN is all of those members combined. Nothing else. The UN must take responsibility for allowing despots in as members.

 

[pax]

My god you're thick. The argument I was making is not the one you think I made. I already answered this in my last post. Read it again.

Why would the US shy away from anything that would provide a venue for its politics? Your arguement is so weak here it makes no sense.

Oh so when the UN brought resolutions against Iraq's war crimes and gassing that the US vetoed in the 80's it was the UN's fault of course?

Its not the current members who came into the group after 45 who are repsonsible for the makeup of the UN legion, Its the FOUNDING members who made up the rules for membership...

 

[Legion]

My god you're thick.

I don't think anything compares to your rantings concerning racial hatred in American or American fears. But of course your "observations" are consistantly proven correct.

The argument I was making is not the one you think I made. I already answered this in my last post. Read it again.

At this point i think you are arguing for sake of your ideology.

Why would the US shy away from anything that would provide a venue for its politics?

Perhaps because of the possible political backlash or the obvious realization that the US wouldn't benefit from the WC.

Your arguement is so weak here it makes no sense.

Seldom does reason penetrate your semipermiable skull Pax.

Oh so when the UN brought resolutions against Iraq's war crimes and gassing that the US vetoed in the 80's it was the UN's fault of course?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It would depend on the reason's for the veto and the reasoning behind resolutions.

Its not the current members who came into the group after 45 who are repsonsible for the makeup of the UN legion, Its the FOUNDING members who made up the rules for membership...

Pax its these new, unelected officials and their respective nations who continue to condone the existance of these despot regimes. Your reasoning is absolutely daft. The UN isn't a sentient being Pax. Its a foundation. A foundation comprised of members. Nothjng more nothing less.

You can continue this insipid and completel superfluous line of reasoning Pax. Arguing with you now is as pointless as it was back when i argued with you over mispresentation being one of the many definitions of the phrase "to lie".

 

[London Geezer]

Arguing over semantics again? :|

anyway, to break this up a bit

Not to mention it was European countries who brought slavery to North America

errrrmmm.... Like we brought everything else? I find it funny that Americans always blame Europe for "bringing" the bad stuff over there... While they never give us credit for the fact that since we brought everything there (and killed the former occupiers of the american territory before becoming America BTW), we also brought the good stuff.
However we have to give credit to the USA for all the good that they're doing to the world? again => :|
There were no original Americans, or sould i say there were before being slaughtered by us. Blame us for that, not for whining about behaviours that are sometimes worth the cringe of a lifetime....

Americans are Europeans. Get over it.

 

[o.d.]

YES! WE SHOULD HAVE STAYED OUT MILITARILY.

That does not mean that we should have not tried to change Iraq. I would not be opposed to the CIA assasinating Saddam if it ahd to be done. But, there are much better ways of going about changing things. It would have taken a lot longer, but the end result would likely be much better.

Hmmm, let's see. The UN tried for over 10 years to "help" Iraq. In that time how many thousands/millions suffered or died? Damn you are cruel.

I REALLY hope you see the irony in this.....

I believe it is documented somewhere that civillians in the TENS OF THOUSANDS died due to lack of basic chemicals for clean water etc etc... depleted uranium diseases (children born with abnormalities)....

Yes Saddam was a bad man and I am HAPPY he is gone, as are several of my Iraqi friends, but the US (well administration at least) IS NOT a 'good' guy.... rather, just someone trying to make it best for themselves, no matter who they got to kill....

 

[o.d.]

ok, what would you say if China atacked Iraq before the US? How about next they start atacking south american, then african countries that are ruled by dictators. What if, in the process, the killed thousands of civilians for no reason? Assume that China then put in place it's own pseudo-democratic puppet government. What would you say then? And how is it different from what the US is doing?

I wouldn't say nothing if then the usa was allowed to get in on contracts to rebuild and make tons of money. Which is the only reason other countrys are pissed off.

My God.... talk about true colors shining through....

 

[London Geezer]

ok, what would you say if China atacked Iraq before the US? How about next they start atacking south american, then african countries that are ruled by dictators. What if, in the process, the killed thousands of civilians for no reason? Assume that China then put in place it's own pseudo-democratic puppet government. What would you say then? And how is it different from what the US is doing?

I wouldn't say nothing if then the usa was allowed to get in on contracts to rebuild and make tons of money. Which is the only reason other countrys are pissed off.

My God.... talk about true colors shining through....

"As long as we make a profit out of it either in the short or in the long term, drop the bombs!!! If they're chinese bombs, EVEN BETTER so we don't have to waste money on our own bombs, we just get there when all that's left is ashes and start making big fat profits out of contracts!!!! YAY!!!"

 

[pax]

Its pretty useles to argue with you Legion. You simply dont understand where this ease of membership of dictators comes from. Rules arent easy to change especially when some countries have veto power and constantly uses it. And the US is as guilty if not more of keepign such dictators in the club...

We both agree on reform. But the kind of reform you and I want is not the kind the US and some others with elite memberships so far wants. To make the UN a purely democratic institution. Both in its member states and elected representatives.

 

[London Geezer]

It's called "double standards" pax...
No worthy reasoning here i'm afraid... Sad thing is that Legion and some others are the "many" in the US. Or that's my feeling, actually, i might be wrong although i don't believe i am. :|

At least they are only few out of many on here...

 

[pax]

Well my posts are gonna slow down a bit for a while anyway... Holidays and Im in ROTK mode right now . Hard to think politics. So things will get a bit more quiet. We all need a break hhe...