The Risks of A Trial (I love make people fallin' asleep :)

[Guest]

The Risks of A Trial

What we have seen in the photos of the past few hours is not the trial of Saddam Hussein.It is merely a prologue, after the manner of the preliminary hearings before a grand jury, contemplated in the law of English-speaking countries. The event was staged by the new Iraqi government, a few days after the transfer of power, to show the world the full extent of its sovereignty. The real trial will begin in a few months' time, when American investigators and prevalently non-Iraqi judicial experts have gathered the necessary documentation for the hearing to start. In the meantime, many will wonder whether this is really the best way to try Saddam. Thanks to the treaty of Rome, there already exists an international criminal court at the Hague. Would that not have been the most appropriate place to try a man accused, among other things, of war crimes against Kuwait and Iran? Perhaps it would. But after taking up residence at the White House, Mr. Bush canceled the provision with which his predecessor had asked Congress to ratify the treaty.
If he had handed Saddam over to this new international court, the president would have implicitly acknowledged its competence, and would have been in contradiction with himself. In principle, there was the formula of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, a court made up of American, British, and Polish judges - from the three main belligerent powers - before which Saddam would have had to answer for police repression and war crimes. But the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials have never ceased to provoke arguments and protests. They were accepted, albeit with many reservations, because at the time they appeared morally justified by the gravity of the crimes committed. However, in the revisionist climate of recent years, "victor's justice," would have stirred up criticism, especially after the creation of the international criminal court.
Having discarded both hypotheses, America decided to agree to the Iraqi requests, and allow the former dictator to be tried by his fellow citizens. It is probably the best of the choices available. We now know how arduous it is to entrust to international justice a statesman who has, at times, governed with the consensus of his fellow citizens. The British did well a few years ago to get rid of Pinochet, and the Americans were probably wrong to insist that the Belgrade government hand over Milosevic to the tribunal for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. His trial had two negative effects. It allowed the accused to transform the courtroom into a political platform, and it created a dangerous sense of nationalistic self-pity in Serbia. Doing justice after the collapse of a dictatorship is a delicate problem that cannot be tackled using abstract moral criteria, and ignoring what might happen in the country concerned. In many cases, it is better to let matters be settled "in the family," according to local custom, with a short trial, a summary verdict, and an outcome that is, if possible, swift and sharp. The murder of Ceausescu and his wife allowed Romania to turn the page. Mussolini's firing squad had the merit of avoiding a long trial that would have prolonged the climate of civil war. The mistake in that case was not the firing squad; it was what Republican life senator Leo Valiani once called the "Mexican butchery" of Piazzale Loreto.
It remains to be seen, however, whether Saddam's trial will present these characteristics. Above all, it will not be rapid, and neither will it be, it seems, entirely Iraqi. After the preliminary hearing, it will be necessary to gather the evidence and draw up a list of witnesses. It will not be enough to dig up the mass graves, and question the survivors. It will have to be proved that every crime was desired and ordered by Saddam. It will not be enough to refer to the massacre of the Kurds. It will be necessary to explain why, after those events, so many governments continued to maintain intense diplomatic and economic relationships with the dictator. It will not be enough to document the repression of the Shiite revolt in 1991. It will be necessary to explain why George Bush Senior, the father of the current president, allowed Saddam to use helicopters in the south against the Shiites, and prevented him from doing the same thing in the north against the Kurds.
That is not all. The Iraqi magistrates have neither the means nor the competence to build the castle of evidence and judicial argument. The judicial police will be American, the investigators will be American, the experts will be mainly non-Iraqi, and the prisoner will continue to be, in all probability for the entire duration of the trial, in the custody of the occupying forces. There is a risk, then, that this Iraqi trial will be considered by many to be an American affair, which is to say yet another example of "victor's justice," albeit in a different guise. This would be acceptable in a land that was defeated and pacified. It would become intolerable if the Americans were unable to defeat the cartel of resistance movements, and the new Baghdad government was unable to offer proof of genuine independence.

Sergio Romano http://www.corriere.it

[chadtm80]

I find it to hard to bring myself to read your posts even when there only a sentance long.. No way im going to read all the drivel above

[FWBHurricane]

A Liberal! OMG I dont know how i missed it.....Paolo is a flamming Liberal....GAH! :: Smacks himself ::

[streetsoldier]

And, to keep the proceedings going along, the magistrate has to place pressure on the defense advocates to restrain their clients from "grandstanding" outbursts, admonishing them to address ONLY issues pertinent to the specific charges, etc., under pain of either being found in contempt of court and/or being escorted out of the court to view the trial via CCTV in a secure environment.

Order and the rule of law MUST be kept, or it may well become a "theater", as is the Milosevic debacle in the Hague.

[george_r_1961]

I find it to hard to bring myself to read your posts even when there only a sentance long.. No way im going to read all the drivel above

My sentiments exactly

[rainstorm]

he should have been shot when he was found. quick and painless. kill em first, ask questions later.

[CaluWxBill]

A Liberal! OMG I dont know how i missed it.....Paolo is a flamming Liberal....GAH! :: Smacks himself ::

I thought a liberal was an irrational, political terrorist. That actually sounded logical and made perfect sense, and he just outlined the problems that such a trial could have. Great write-up Paolo.

[rainstorm]

lets give saddam some psychological torture before he is hanged. take him down the hall, blindfold him, put a noose around his neck and start reading out his execution order. then, at the last minute, tell him the iraqi govt granted him a reprieve. also, have screams coming from down the jail in arabic, and bring what looks like bloody corpses on stretchers past his cell. finally, have a "prisoner" whisper to saddam, "watch your food, i heard they are going to slowly poison you"

[Kiko]

Chad, watch this:

http://bigmixup.com/rockpapersaddam/

I promise there're not too many big words.

What's going to be bad about this trial is when they start testifying as to where the chemicals came from that he used to gas the Kurds in '88.

Unka Ronnie sold them to him. Or will the prosecution try to blame that on the French?

[Lindaloo]

I find it to hard to bring myself to read your posts even when there only a sentance long.. No way im going to read all the drivel above

AMEN!! **yawns**

[Lindaloo]

A Liberal! OMG I dont know how i missed it.....Paolo is a flamming Liberal....GAH! :: Smacks himself ::

He is not a liberal. He just hates anything America stands for. BIG difference.

[chadtm80]

[mf_dolphin]

Chad, watch this:

http://bigmixup.com/rockpapersaddam/

I promise there're not too many big words.

What's going to be bad about this trial is when they start testifying as to where the chemicals came from that he used to gas the Kurds in '88.

Unka Ronnie sold them to him. Or will the prosecution try to blame that on the French?

The fact that we gave chemical technology to Saddam is no secret. At the time he was the balancing force against Iran. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he used them to commit genocide against his own people.

[Kiko]

No?

Well does the fact that all the underdog nations wishing to do great things are now emulating Ronald Regan's arms policies (and economic policies) to sell/buy wmd? He set a wonderful example when the wall came down. They saw how well it worked, a hero for the world.

Now by beefing up their own defences, they can do the same? Be the threat the U.S. allowed it's allies to be in order to end all threats?

A good example today would be our ally Pakistan selling nukes to Iran, Libia, N.Korea.

That's ok as long as it's to 'balance the force'? Worry about the genocide after it happens?

Look Marshall, I believe that the U.S. is the greatest nation on earth. But when we see where a policy has lead us, it's time to change course when that policy is being used for the very evil we condemn in a new day and age.

p.s. I don't think it's fair to attribute the opening post to Paolo's poor ability with written English. He posted the source link at the bottom, possibly run thru an online translator.

Blame the technology, not the poster.

[Lindaloo]

Same old story different day.

It is obvious that foreign policy in the past got us nowhere but attacked on our own soil. I think Bush is doing a great job in regards to foreign policy. It is working because we have not been attacked again. Think about that!!

Worry about genocide after it happens? Unreal!!

[chadtm80]

Chad, watch this:

http://bigmixup.com/rockpapersaddam/

I promise there're not too many big words.

Uh, ya.. Welcome back.. I missed you

[Kiko]

Paola, this current U.S. administration will do everything in it's power to discredit the ICC, even while begging the UN for support in Iraq. Support which would appease some, but just makes others even angrier.

Believe me, they ain't going there...

Subject:
Bush & Co. Fear Prosecution in the International Criminal Court

To:
President George Bush
Vice President Richard Cheney

June 13, 2004

Bush & Co. Fear Prosecution in the International Criminal Court

by Marjorie Cohn

http://www.globalresearch.ca 25 September 2003

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/COH309B.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overcoming Impunity with the International Criminal Court

Non-governmental organizations and individuals from sixty-six different countries have filed 499 "communications" – or complaints – with the International Criminal Court (ICC), between July 2002 and July 2003. Many of them urge the ICC to investigate the United States conduct in the war on Iraq. The primary charge is that the U.S. committed an act of aggression against Iraq. The ICC has jurisdiction to punish the crime of aggression. However, this crime remains undefined in the ICC’s statute due to disputes among the states parties about how to define it.

The United States is not a party to the ICC treaty. The Bush administration has vigorously opposed it, for fear that U.S. military officials and personnel could be subject to "politically-motivated" prosecutions for war crimes.

In an unprecedented move last year, George W. Bush removed Bill Clinton’s signature from the treaty. A few months later, Bush signed into law the American Serviceman’s Protection Act, which restricts U.S. cooperation with the ICC and prohibits military assistance to states parties to the treaty unless they sign bilateral immunity agreements with the U.S. States which sign these "Article 98" agreements – referring to the section of the ICC statute that addresses treaties between countries – pledge not to hand over U.S. nationals to the ICC. The United States has reportedly extracted these agreements from 60 countries – primarily small nations, or fragile democracies with weak economies. And the U.S. has withdrawn military aid from 35 nations that refused to be coerced into signing Article 98 agreements.

The U.S. has also demanded express immunity from ICC prosecution for American nationals. This demand delayed the passage of several peacekeeping resolutions in the Security Council. But in 2002, the Security Council capitulated when it unanimously passed Resolution 1422, which called for one year of immunity for peacekeepers from countries not party to the ICC statute, and provided that immunity could be renewed in subsequent years. The resolution was renewed in June. But this time, the U.S. was unable to achieve unanimity. France, Germany and Syria abstained from the vote.

Ninety-one countries have signed on as parties to the ICC treaty. So why has the Bush administration resisted it so vehemently? Bush’s handlers were likely prescient about how the world would react to the United States’ illegal invasion of Iraq, which was not executed with Security Council approval or in lawful self-defense. They evidently knew they and their boss might be vulnerable to prosecutions for the unlawful killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the destruction of the civilian infrastructure, and the use of weapons of mass destruction – cluster bombs and depleted uranium – by "coalition forces."

A Preemptive War is a War of Aggression

The United States has sought to ensure the ICC’s legal processes do not jeopardize its role as global superpower by subjecting U.S. leaders to prosecution. It has consistently resisted definitions and jurisdictional provisions that may challenge U.S. impunity for wars of aggression.

Many ICC parties favor a definition of aggression set out in 1974 in General Assembly Resolution 3314, passed in the wake of Vietnam: "Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition."

Bush’s new doctrine of "preemptive war" is a license to prosecute wars of aggression. It runs directly counter to the United Nations Charter’s prohibition on the use of armed force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. A preemptive war is a war of aggression. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" falls squarely into this category.

More than 50 years ago, Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, one of the prosecutors at the Nuremberg Tribunal, wrote: "No political or economic situation can justify" the crime of aggression. He added: "If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." An impartial international criminal tribunal is necessary to prevent "victor’s justice," where only the vanquished are subject to prosecution.

Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes

Under the treaty, the ICC can take jurisdiction over a national of even a non-party state if he or she commits a crime in a state party’s territory. The U.S. vehemently objects to this. But it’s nothing new. Under well-established principles of international law, the core crimes prosecuted in the ICC – genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression – are crimes of universal jurisdiction.

That means that an alleged perpetrator can – and always could – be arrested anywhere. Indeed, the United States itself has asserted jurisdiction over foreign nationals in anti-terrorism, anti-narcotic trafficking, torture and war crimes cases. Even Resolution 1422 notes that states not party to the ICC statute "will continue to fulfill their responsibilities in their national jurisdiction in relation to international crimes."

However, the U.S. has not fulfilled its responsibilities to seek justice for international crimes. It has refused to extradite four terrorists – right-wing Cuban exiles trained by the CIA – who were convicted more than 20 years ago in Venezuela for blowing up a Cuban airliner in 1976. The U.S. similarly refuses to extradite John Hull, an American CIA operative indicted in Costa Rica for the 1984 bombing of a press conference which killed five journalists in a Nicaraguan border town. It has also refused to extradite former military officer Emmanuel Constant for trial in Haiti. Constant, who worked closely with the CIA, is believed to be responsible for the murder of more than 5000 people under the Haitian dictatorship in the early 1990s.

The ICC statute adds a special safeguard to the venerable principle of universal jurisdiction. It promises the ICC will only prosecute when the alleged perpetrator’s native country cannot, or will not, prosecute one of its nationals. The U.S. should not then fear ICC prosecution, especially in light of the Article 98 agreements it coerced – and continues to coerce – from a multitude of countries. Unfortunately, however, these agreements contain no guarantee that an American national accused of an international crime would be tried if handed over to the U.S.

In June, Belgium indicted Bush, Tony Blair, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, and Condoleezza Rice for war crimes during the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan, which predated the effective date of the ICC. The indictment was issued under Belgium’s universal jurisdiction law, which gave Belgian courts the right to judge anyone accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, regardless of where the crimes were committed. Four Rwandans have been convicted in 2001 under Belgium’s law for their participation in the 1994 genocide which left more than one million dead.

The government of Belgium, fearing a backlash, decided to refer the cases against Blair, Bush and the others to London and Washington, making trials unlikely. Even so, Donald Rumsfeld threatened to move NATO out of Brussels unless Belgium changed its universal jurisdiction law. Belgium capitulated, and its Court of Cassation has asked for the dismissal of the war crimes indictments.

Belgium isn’t alone in indicting Bush and Blair for war crimes. In July, Greece’s Athens Bar Association filed a complaint in the ICC against the two for crimes against humanity and war crimes, this time in connection with their war on Iraq. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" began after July 2002, the effective date of the ICC.

The Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks occurred before the ICC went into effect. Two years later, a Spanish judge charged Osama bin Laden and nine alleged Al Qaeda members with terrorism and murder under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

U.S. Undermines War Against Terrorism

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Argentine Chief Prosecutor of the ICC, has decided to begin the work of the Court by investigating possible genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity for the recruitment and use of children as soldiers and sex slaves in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Moreno-Ocampo’s selection of the Congo for his maiden investigation was made partly with an eye to the credibility of the ICC because, he says, "the Congo was a clear case."

But, John Shattuck, the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, wrote in the Washington Post in September that the United States has "so far played a passive and sometimes negative role in the region." Just two days after the Security Council adopted a resolution on July 28 which imposed an embargo on "the direct or indirect supply" of arms or assistance to "armed groups and militias operating in the territory," the U.S. lifted its own embargo on weapons sales to Rwanda, which has armed its clients in eastern Congo.

Moreno-Ocampo, who has described the genocide in Congo as the "most important case since the Second World War," plans to investigate businesses in 29 countries, including the United States, suspected of financing ethnic violence in Congo.

Ironically the Chief Prosecutor, an attorney with extensive experience investigating atrocities and prosecuting officials in Argentina, says that the United States’ refusal to work with the ICC will undermine the International Criminal Court’s role in the U.S. efforts to fight terrorism.


Marjorie Cohn, a professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, is executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild.© Copyright Marjorie Cohn, 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.

http://congress.org/congressorg/bio/use ... d=95166301

[Lindaloo]

So what do you want kiko? Do you want us to bring Saddam Insane to trial here in the United States? Or are you saying he does not need to go to trial at all?

[stormie_skies]

The fact that we gave chemical technology to Saddam is no secret. At the time he was the balancing force against Iran. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he used them to commit genocide against his own people.

It has a LOT to do with it, because our support didn't stop or even slow after Saddam gassed the Kurds. In fact, Rumsfeld met with Saddam less than a week after that happened.... shook his hand and promised him more funding....how dare we pretend to be outraged about that incident now??

It is obvious that foreign policy in the past got us nowhere but attacked on our own soil. I think Bush is doing a great job in regards to foreign policy. It is working because we have not been attacked again. Think about that!!

Ummm.....Im sure Ive said this on here before, but there were no attacks in the mainland US from 1993 until the end of Clinton's second term in office. I know you aren't going to give his foreign policy credit for that .... so lets stop pretending that domestic attacks are the only measure of successful foreign policy.
Better measuring factors would be the number of attacks on Americans, US interests and our allies in total (which have gone up since we invaded Iraq, to the highest level in decades).
It took the planners of 9/11 years to prepare for a successful attack. Just because there hasnt been one HERE and NOW doesnt mean there wont be one LATER .... and there have been more and more attacks worldwide, so an eventual attack here is more likely than not....

[Kiko]

Same old story different day.

It is obvious that foreign policy in the past got us nowhere but attacked on our own soil. I think Bush is doing a great job in regards to foreign policy. It is working because we have not been attacked again. Think about that!!

Worry about genocide after it happens? Unreal!!

Oh dear, Lindaloo. It is happening... Sudan ringing any bells yet? Ruwanda taught us nothing?

Before we point the finger of blame, it is worth recording the sheer magnitude of hellishness which is unfolding inside Sudan. In recent months, some 30,000 black Sudanese Muslims have been deliberately butchered by Arab militias known as the Janjaweed, apparently backed by government forces. Some of the systematic murders are carried out with ancient medieval barbarity: gun, knife, sword and club. Others are processed by modern, industrial methods: villages are bombed from the air. Those women who survive are usually raped. Whole villages are being eradicated and fields and wells despoiled. As a result, one-fifth of the population in an area the size of France is fleeing for its life. Tens of thousands of refugees have already escaped to neighbouring Chad, where they subsist on desperately limited international aid.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... =577302004

Now that's a Muslim state and an Arab dictatorship. Dare we step on any toes? Or let a million refugees starve to death for fear of disenfranchising our Saudi allies?



Very unreal.