Saddam Hussein arrested

[lord of the mark]

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

When Saddams on trial in an IRAQI court, what will be the point of that

Iraqi prosecutor: Did you execute so and so?
Saddam:Yes, but the US was giving me intelligence on the Iranians at the time
Iraqi prosecutor: What the F*ck does that have to do with what I asked?

[Zylka]

SADDAM SAYS THERE WERE NO WOMD'S

CASE CLOSED

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zylka
SADDAM SAYS THERE WERE NO WOMD'S

CASE CLOSED

he also says kuwait is by right a province of Iraq.


And that the kurds were gassed by Iran, not by Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

he also says

"'When I came in the Iraqi people were barefoot and hungry. I fed them and bought them slippers'," "

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
he also says kuwait is by right a province of Iraq.

Before Iraq was conquered by the Persians (and then the Turks), it was. So we're talking about five hundred years ago.

And that the kurds were gassed by Iran, not by Iraq.

The first part of that statment is true. The second part, is not.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


When Saddams on trial in an IRAQI court, what will be the point of that

Iraqi prosecutor: Did you execute so and so?
Saddam:Yes, but the US was giving me intelligence on the Iranians at the time
Iraqi prosecutor: What the F*ck does that have to do with what I asked?

Precisely. Which is why we have to form an international tribunal to try violations of international law such as waging aggressive war, etc.

But that raises the sticky issue of whether the US is also guilty by backing Saddam in an illegal war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
he also says kuwait is by right a province of Iraq.

Before Iraq was conquered by the Persians (and then the Turks), it was. So we're talking about five hundred years ago.

And that the kurds were gassed by Iran, not by Iraq.

The first part of that statment is true. The second part, is not.

I assume from this, Che, that the Iranians would not want to be party to the War Crimes Tribunal because they may be placed on trial as well?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Zylka
SADDAM SAYS THERE WERE NO WOMD'S

CASE CLOSED

OMG OMG OMG, at least this certainly coincides with the evidence so far.

BuT WE ALL KNOW SADAAM SET US UP THE BIO BOMB!
OMG OMG THIS ROXOR MY BOXOR. HID!!11!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I assume from this, Che, that the Iranians would not want to be party to the War Crimes Tribunal because they may be placed on trial as well?

Depends, really. If the court is broadly convened to discuss the Iran-Iraq war, then I would think they'd boycott it. If it's dealing specifically with the Ba'athist regeim, than I think they'd want to be part.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Ned
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.

Does the killing of your own people in your own country as a war crime? So in that light this Iraq thing is different from what you are referring to (either that, or I didn't understand your post )

[Zylka]

Originally posted by monkspider


OMG OMG OMG, at least this certainly coincides with the evidence so far.

BuT WE ALL KNOW SADAAM SET US UP THE BIO BOMB!
OMG OMG THIS ROXOR MY BOXOR. HID!!11!

The "evidence" of not being able to find an equivalent (X)million pounds (or less) of colored dirt hidden IN some land the size of California?

Oh - or destroyed via incredibly basic processes. BUT HOW CAN YOU HIDE/DESTROY WHOLE BOXCAR LOADS OF CHEMICALS??! IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE

[Zedd]

lord of the mark for the excellent tolkien ref.

RE: kramerman's previous post...

Ithink the Bush administration had three reasons for this war, WMD's, the general brutality of Sadam's regime, and the hope that a new democratic State could be created from a "liberated" Iraq. None of these options alone supported a war but with all three a possibility they took a chance. While I grieve for the men and women we have lost and will yet loose, and I grieve for the Iraqi's who have suffered and died, I rejoice at the fall of a terrorist leader. I also rejoice at the opportunity to bring freedom to the Middle East. No matter what type of Gov. the Iraqi's choose the US will see to it that it is a representative gov of a free people. and If Iraq, one of the larges and most powerful of the middle east States can be made into a prosperous free nation, then other middle east countries will follow suit.

In a decade or so when Iran is electing its first president we will all see this as a turning point where the middle east ceased to be a desolate war-torn region and became what it always had the potential to be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Congress most definetly has the power to take away jurisdiction from federal courts (aside from that specifically given in the Constitution) and has done so on many occasions (often times in the middle of an appeal... leading to the appelate court .. sometimes the SCOTUS.. to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction due to the change in the law).

The issue is whether US courts may entertain a criminal prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Yes. If you don't believe me look at Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 4 of the Constitution: Congress has the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations". And Congress has done so with the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA).

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.

Because another tribunal had been set up, which was declared not subject to SCOTUS review. Under the Act of State Doctrine, US courts generally do not sit in review of other country's courts, so why would the SCOTUS decide to sit in review of an international tribunal?

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.

Who says treaties aren't self-executing under US law? Some are, some aren't.

And customary international law is considered to be federal common law (the few federal common law left after Erie).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Precisely. Which is why we have to form an international tribunal to try violations of international law such as waging aggressive war, etc.

But that raises the sticky issue of whether the US is also guilty by backing Saddam in an illegal war.

I dont see why that means an international tribune is necessary. Saddam is an Iraqi - he commited crimes against Iraqis - you think that he should go before an international tribunal because such tribunal is MORE likely to get distracted by irrelevant side issues?

Sticky - not at all. 1. Hes likely to be tried for specific atrocities and murders, NOT for aggression against Iran.

2. Even if he were, that would not implicate the US. Iraq having attacked Iran- without US support or consultation - the US had real national security reasons to not want Iran to win. In any case lots of other countries are far more implicated in supporting Saddam during the 1980's.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Zylka


The "evidence" of not being able to find an equivalent (X)million pounds (or less) of colored dirt hidden IN some land the size of California?

Oh - or destroyed via incredibly basic processes. BUT HOW CAN YOU HIDE/DESTROY WHOLE BOXCAR LOADS OF CHEMICALS??! IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE

OMG WHERE U AT ALL I SEE IS FISH.

I'm sure evidence of millions of pounds of deadly chemicals being destroyed would be fairly easy to detect.