Saddam Hussein arrested

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I can agree with that.

I think almost everybody in the west can agree with that. I don't see Chirac say publicly
"We are dreaded by the capture of Saddam Huseein, for it is sure we have lost a client and the payback of a huge debt now"

[East Street Trader]

A rather nice little compliment to Uncle Sam that Saddam was clutching the remnants of his wad in US bills.

And somehow I couldn't help feeling (wholly unexpectedly) a twinge of pity for him when the pictures showed that the one bit of his appearance he had struggled to keep up down in that hole was the black die to his hair.

[lord of the mark]

JRR Tolkien, The Simarillion.

"and all of the pits of Morgoth were broken and unroofed, and the might of the Valar descended into the deeps of the earth. There Morgoth stood at last at bay, and yet unvaliant. He fled into the deepest of his mines, and sued for peace and pardon; but his feet were hewn from under him, and he was hurled upon his face. Then he was bound with the chain Angainor which he had worn aforetime, and his iron crown was beaten into a collar for his neck, and his head was bowed upon his knees."

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Agathon
There is no way Iraq will be a real democracy if the US has its way. They just want a friendlier dictator. Real democracy would either result in civil war or a pro-Iranian regime that would be sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves.

Yep the US is going to do what it always does, its going to set up a US controlled puppet dictator just like it did in Germany and Japan after WW2..................

Wake up and smell reality sometime.

[Lord Merciless]

Without our invasion, Saddam would not be gone.

You can't have everything perfect.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I disagree. I think the US wanted to act against a "rogue country", to have one more country follow the rules of the New World Order, or the Pax Americana depending how you name it.

The New World Order is shaking more and more, but it's not the US who outright attack it. On the contrary, they defend it, but with wrong ways.

You are right that the US attacked Iraq to defend the "New World Order". However I think it is way to early to say whether or not it has weakened the order or not. It may apear that way now, but it could just be one step backward before taking two steps forward. In otehrwards, so far we have seen the price of the US actions, but we have yet to see the payoffs, politically, economically, security-wise, etc. Im not saying it will pay off, but it is naive to say it wont. There simply has not been enough time, and i dont care how smart you think you are, there are just two many variables and possibilites to predict the future

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Ramo


Shrub is forging a new international order. Iraq is the perfect "rogue state" to attack - its neighbors hate its gov't, which is run by a homicidal manic who used to be our boy, but stopped listening to us. Invading Iraq is intended to force the other states of the world to get in line.

Invading Iraq was intended to force Iraq to get in line. If other states see that as a message and decide 'to get in line', then that is just a positive bonus to all this

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, don't you think that anything less than an impartial international court would have the apparent legitimacy that the US desires so badly?

So you'd want to create an International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq? Mostly just to try one man?

Whoops, dumb***k Bush nixed the ICC. This would be the perfect opportunity for him to reconsider. It would be a sachet of instant legitimacy and no one could complain.

ICC would have no jurisdiction. Like I said, all the accused crimes happened before the signing of the Rome Statute, and thus would be immune from prosecution.

Then again, what is the problem of having national courts uphold international law?

[Ned]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
me is against the 'war' in Iraq but good that they captured him.

about where to trial:
for the crimes against the Iraqi people in Iraq

and i know it is impossible to go to the ICC but for the war crimes against Iran and Kuweit it might be better to trail him in an international court

not that you can give life sentence to some one that is already hanged and quartered by the iraqi`s

I think the primary purpose of international war crimes trials is to document the crimes of perp and to vindicate international law.

The condemnation of the Iraqi courts for violation of international law would be nice. But the condemnation of the World through an international body authorized by the United Nations would be a lot better in this regard.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't think he can, aaglo . After all, most international law disputes have been taken up by national courts.

When is the last time the US tried in a war crimes trial in US courts? The last time the question became before the Supremes they held that US courts had no jurisdiction. This was determined in the case of the Japanese war criminals who tried to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

[Ned]

It is amazing to continue to read a lot of conspiracy theories about why we invaded Iraq. Why don't you guys ever take things at face value? Why can't the reason stated and argued to the UN and to the American people be the real reason?

[MrFun]

I wonder how we are going to face the fact that United States and Saddam Huissen used to be buddies??

[Ned]

Mr.Fun, I still think we should have an international trial and invite the Iranians to sit in judgment.

I understand that certain very interesting facts concerning diplomacy or the lack thereof came out in the trial of NAZIs. Apparently war was avoidable.

Our own complicity with Saddam should be explored.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The last time the question became before the Supremes they held that US courts had no jurisdiction. This was determined in the case of the Japanese war criminals who tried to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

US CIVIL courts. The US military tribunals had jurisdiction. And when tribunals were set up, naturally US domestic courts had jurisdiction taken away from them by Congress.

When is the last time the US tried in a war crimes trial in US courts?

Does torture count for you? Then probably this year or last. Under the Alien Tort Claims Act, torture is something that has been litigated and won in the US judicial system.

[Ned]

Imran, Congress has no power to take any jurisdiction away from the Supreme Court.

Torture may be a violation of US statutory law. The issue is whether US courts may entertain a criminal prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity?

First, the Supremes decided it had no jurisdiction to review the prosecutions of the Japanese war crimes tribunal even though many of the crimes were commited against Americans and we were party to the trial.

Second, International criminal law is not necessarily law in the United States because in the US treaties are not self executing. Thus, any trial in US courts would not be a trial under international law, but a trial under US statutory law.