Don't cases about crimes against humanity go to the Hague?

[russian33]

I thought (and granted with these idiots all laws go out of the window) that when a dictator is put on trial for crimes against humanity, that's handled by the Hague Tribunal? I mean that's what they did with Milosevic. Saddam was a brutal dictator no quesiton about it, but to think that he will get anything close to a fair trial in Iraq, is just absurd. Granted, if they are going for the same kind of 'fair' that Faux news is, they'll get it.

[trotsky]

1. If America stands for true justice,

then EVERYONE - even Saddam - deserves a fair and open trial.

But because links to the CIA, Reagan, and Bush I would come out in an open trial, rest assured we'll do everything we can to prevent it.

[cthrumatrix]

4. Bingo....they don't want US aid in his crimes to be "heard"...it

would make bush look bad.

[Baltimoreboy]

6. He committed his crimes in Iraq

He belongs to the people of that nation.

[readmylips]

8. Pinochet and Molosobic commited crimes in their country....

but the Geneva Convention (made up of world leaders) called for them to be tried at the Hauge. Don't forget, bush made himself supreme being of the world and took a shit on the Geneva/world leaders.

So bush, if you broke it, you own it! Not having a trial for Saddam at the Hague, will guarantee for sure, more violence in Iraq and more dead US kids.

[Baltimoreboy]

11. Not to be practical,but Saddam has to die

Anything less, and he remains a threat to return.

The only people with the nerve to do that are the ones he abused for decades.

I am all for the Hague trying him IF Iraq does not, but I see no reason why their trial should supercede the one in Iraq.

[bryant69]

2. I don't know

I mean I can see arguments on both sides; certainly one reason to keep it out of the hague is that Saddam would talk about the financial and other support he got from the good old USA. On the other hand it's hard to imagine any trial (fair or not) which doesn't end up with Hussein getting the harshest sentance the court can apply. Can the Hague give the death penalty?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LibLabUK]

3. Can the Hague give the death penalty?

No.

It's outlawed under EU law.

[bryant69]

5. Than it's unlikely there would be widespread

desire to send Hussein there.

[Mike Daniels]

7. Since Iraq doesn't belong to the EU then there's no justification

to send him to the Hague.

Most of Saddam's victims were Iraqi's anyway. They deserve to have first crack at him.

[htuttle]

9. The EU?

The EU has nothing to do with the Hague. The Hague is where the International Court of Justice, aka the World Court, is located. It's the main judicial body of the United Nations, so they would certainly have jurisdiction:
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/International_Resources/icj.htm

I think the main reason Hussein's not there is that the US is preventing him from going there.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. There are 2 international courts

The International Court of Justice, aka the World Court, is, as you say, the judicial body of the United Nations. As such, it is not responsible for prosecuting individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc. It settles suits against countries.

The International Criminal Court, only recently set up, is not part of the UN, and is for prosecuting individuals who are not prosecuted by their own countries, or countries that have a reasonable claim to prosecute. They would always defer to Iraqi courts anyway; but since Iraq neither signed nor ratified the convention for it (and Bush withdrew the USA signature with no ratification), he was always extremely unlikely to end up there.

[LibLabUK]

15. The death penalty.

The death penalty is outlawed throughout the EU, so trials held at The Hague will not result in death sentences, as it would be impossible to carry out, or even extradite for execution.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. The issue of trying Saddam

As noted in post 12 (see below), national courts are to be preferred to international tribunals. If Saddam can be tried for his crimes in an Iraqi court, then he should be tried for his crimes in an Iraqi court. An international tribunal would come into play only if the Iraqi courts are unwilling or unable to dispense justice.

There are two good arguments for turning over Saddam to an international tribunal. First, in spite of all the hoopla this week, Iraq is not a sovereign state. It is a US colony. There are no Iraqi courts that are responsible to the Iraqis. These courts are responsible to American administrators. Second, that being the case, Saddam should be put in front of an international tribunal to protect his rights. Saddam is guilty of many crimes, but even he deserves a fair trial. He should not be placed in the situation of being tried by those who invaded Iraq without provocation. Part of the idea behind international law is to sweep aside the concept of victor's justice -- which was no justice at all -- and replace it with an equitable system of international jurisprudence. Saddam should have the benefit of such a situation. I have no concerns about the end result of a fair trial for Saddam would be his freedom; I have no doubt that, given a fair hearing before an impartial international tribunal, Saddam will be found guilty and sentenced to spend the rest of his natural life in prison.

[The Icon Painter]

10. Why Did We Let Go of Him?

If, as Beloved Leader and his faithful companion - f'ing Dick - keep saying, Saddam was ultimately behind the attacks on the WTC and thus committed a crime against this country, why aren't we trying him?

[readmylips]

16. Why? bush and criminals used propaganda to get Saddam....

so that they could get into Iraq and steal their oil, finish a war his poopy started, and get elected president.

The whole thing against Saddam was propaganda, now the bushes have to let him go instead of bringing justice to the families of the dead 911 citizens, and to the country. It's ok that Saddam helped kill over 3000 American citizens, now bush will do nothing about it. If Saddam was behind 911, bush would not let him go. bush can no longer hold on to the lie. What a fucking christian, #1 Lier.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Not necessarily

First of all, it would be better if an international tribunal did not have to be convened at all. If national courts can resolve the matter, then national courts should be used. Only if national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute the accused should an international tribunal be convened. For example, if Bush, on his way out of office, were to issue blanket pardons for himself and his aides so that they could not be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act of 1996, then an international tribunal should be convened.

Second, by The Hague Tribunal I assume you mean the International Criminal Court. The US does not recognize the ICC or the Rome Statute, but that would not be a serious obstacle to prosecuting Bush and his aides for war crimes if the world at large really has the will to go forward with such a plan. Every rogue leader -- Saddam, Milosevic, Bush -- has thought himself above the law and didn't think international law could touch them. Such people are not about to sign on to an agreement like the Rome Statute. There are two ways around this.

The first way around the fact that the war crimes suspects do not recognize the authority of the ICC is to convene a special tribunal to try the specific offenses. Two such tribunals are still operating: one for crimes in the Balkans and one for the Genocide in Rwanda. The Rome Statute took effect on July 1, 2002, and, under it provisions, has no jurisdiction for crimes that took place before that date, such as the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and the Genocide in Rwanda. Many of Mr. Bush's questionable acts took place or were established before that date (for example, the establishment of a semi-secret Gulag for detaining "illegal combatants" without rights in violation of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions was part of a series of executive orders signed in October 2001). That could make the special tribunal route the better one.

The second point is that one does not have to recognize the Rome Statute in order to be tried by it. The ICC was established to save start up costs of international tribunals. The ICC is simply a permanent tribunal ready to take on the most heinous crimes. Since tyrants aren't expected to recognize any authority beyond themselves, the Rome Statute provide ways under which those acting for non-member states may be tried. These are outlined in Articles 12 through 15 of the Rome Statute.

Bear in mind that most of the crimes over which the Rome Statute has jurisdiction were long part of existing international law before its adoption. The reader is referred to Articles 5 through 8. Were Bush and his aides to be charged under the Rome Statute, the fact that the US has not ratified it would be a lame defense. The Rome Statute incorporates that which Bush and his aides would be charged: the Third Geneva Convention (violation of the rights of prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva convention (violation of the rights of combat detainees not entitled to rights under the Third Geneva Convention and violation of the rights of protected persons in occupied territory), the Convention against Torture (use of torture as a means of interrogation) and the UN Charter (waging an illegal war of aggression against Iraq).

The Rome Statute does not cover the last point very well. It leaves the crime of aggression to be defined at a future date. Nevertheless, any act justified with nothing more than Bush's policy of preemption, which is actually a policy reserving the right of the US to wage a preventive war, would be a war of aggression.