Saddam Hussein arrested

[Gangerolf]

he's not a prisoner of war. the war is over

[Snotty]

Then what is he?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Winston
GePap,

It's just that all we've heard all along from the left, foaming at the mouth and all, is how this is not about the liberation of Iraq, the toppling of Saddam, bringing stability, democracy and a new sense of hope to the Middle East.

The left made it a mantra that it's about oil, big business and the re-election of that evil President.

But not today, apparently...

And we have heard it all form the wirhgt about how this was all about fighting terrorism and ending the WMD threat before the war itself...but not after, apparently....

It is that kind of gross generalizing, both of the other side's motives, and your sides motives that leads to worthless debate.

[Gangerolf]

a prisoner?

[Pekka]

Snotty, Good point. I don't know.. I think we should just screw around with it a little and say he's not a war prisoner. Well, he kind of isn't POW, he's just a criminal against humanity and all that. And it's not that far fetched. Besides, active part of war is already over anyway.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Pekka
he's just a criminal against humanity and all that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

What Iraqi courts?

The interim Iraqi Council has set up a war crimes tribunal that was preparing to try Saddam in Absentia. Now it appears they will actually be trying him.

Comparing me to Winston doesn't insult me, either. He's a rather good poster.

The interim council could set up a court trying Micheal Jackson for child abuse as well..does not mean that the court has valid jurisdiction, or that it can ignore claims of other courts (plenty of other courts do). Those are things to be worked out. I think the possible sentence for Saddam, how much of the trial is public, and the quality both of the prosecutors and defense will be the biggest factors in determining who gets the case, as well of course as political considerations.

An international tribunal would have better access to evidence and higher quality of judges and lawyers involved..but it might not be able to give a death penalty-and how public the trial can, or must be, is also a question...I agree that the US would push for an Iraqi court- but of course, in theory there is this thing called a coolition in Iraq right now....

[Snotty]

the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party

From http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

The convention still applies even if America says the war is over.

I've got no issue with showing pics of Saddam, and I think its really important for the Iraqi people. As you say, it's a special case and he wasnt shown being mistreated etc.

[Theben]

Good.

Originally posted by Winston
The left made it a mantra that it's about oil, big business and the re-election of that evil President.

And how has that changed?

[Ming]

Just reported... at Noon Eastern time today, Bush will hold a press conference. It should be interesting.

[VetLegion]

@ the picture Mad Monk

[Drake Tungsten]

The interim council could set up a court trying Micheal Jackson for child abuse as well..does not mean that the court has valid jurisdiction

How could an Iraqi court not have jurisdiction over the actions of an Iraqi dictator?

You're grasping at straws here...

[Winston]

GePap,

I wasn't aware that I was generalizing. The left's arguments on Iraq have been like a broken record in many aspects.

As to your points about the right's motives: The Iraq campaign has little to do with fighting terrorism. Ending the threat of Iraqi WMD's was a contributing factor which hasn't changed in my view.

Anyway let's be happy that for at least one grey day in December, the war wasn't about oil.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The interim council could set up a court trying Micheal Jackson for child abuse as well..does not mean that the court has valid jurisdiction

How could an Iraqi court not have jurisdiction over the actions of an Iraqi dictator?

You're grasping at straws here...

Actuall, under what LAWS? Right now no new code of laws has been made, has there? A law must have a source of legitimacy, which is the point of creating a new consitution for Iraq. Right now the legitimacy of the governing council comes from the occupation forces-so how distinct would a court run by the interim council be from a court run by the occupation forces? What is the threshold of evidence? What are Saddam's rights?

Whenis the last time a dictator was tried in his own country? It really never gets to that point, now does it? So we are talking perhaps a lot of new case law being created. Do you have anything more than one sentence answers to what are complex legal questions? The politics here is a lot simpler that the law.

[Shi Huangdi]

GePap: **** the law. Nobody gives a **** about the law. Nobody cares about venue or whatever, and there is no chance he will be tried in Iran or Kuwait. He is going to be tried before Iraqis, and will either be executed in Iraq or spend all of his days in an Iraqi prison.