Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

eklipse · Mar 28, 2004, 04:27 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3576587.stm

A controversial French lawyer appointed by Saddam Hussein to defend him has said a fair trial would be impossible.

Jacques Verges, who made his reputation defending some of the world's most notorious figures, told the BBC he feared for the ex-Iraqi leader's life.

....

In an interview with BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend, Mr Verges said it was unjust that no formal charges had been presented, so that Saddam Hussein knew neither what he was accused of, nor where he would stand trial.

Saddam Hussein has been held at a secret Iraqi location since his capture in December and little has been heard from him since.

He was visited in February by the Red Cross, which is responsible for overseeing the treatment of prisoners of war worldwide.

Mr Verges has not met Saddam Hussein and does not know where he is being held, but he told the BBC he believed the Iraqi leader had been drugged by coalition forces and that he was likely to be killed before he came to trial.

He said that if a case did begin, US leaders should be in the dock as well.

When asked why he had spent his career defending notorious figures, Mr Verges said it was his job.

"In a democracy, everybody has a right to be defended and in a democracy, nobody can be called guilty before a judgement by a fair court," he said.

Does anyone actually think they should bother with a trial?

If so, should US officials be called as witnesses?

angaq0k · Mar 28, 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3576587.stm

Does anyone actually think they should bother with a trial?

If so, should US officials be called as witnesses?

I think the people of Iraq, as well as the international community ought to be fully aware of the extent of the madness of that man, and of those who fed him.

I also think he should face "his" people and submitted to the punishment they will decide.

We did so in Nuremberg. We should do that for him. Otherwise the grieving process will not be completed.

I don't know what kind of defense he can get, as I don't see anything to defend. But acusations have to be public and process should be public as well.

imho.

ghost_flash · Mar 28, 2004, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3576587.stm

Does anyone actually think they should bother with a trial?

If so, should US officials be called as witnesses?

Yes, it is necessary that a trial be held, and it should be televised.

lil'babykitten · Mar 29, 2004, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by eklipse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3576587.stm

Does anyone actually think they should bother with a trial?

If so, should US officials be called as witnesses?

There's not much point in the trial, we all know what the verdict will be. Not sure if it's possible to even have a 'fair' trial! But it has a symbolic value to the Iraqi's that want to see him held accountable for his crimes.

I wonder how the US will deal with it. If the trial allows for US officials to be called it could provide some interesting revelations!

Anyone read Saddam's lawyer's biography? (lol)

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 29, 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I wonder how the US will deal with it. If the trial allows for US officials to be called it could provide some interesting revelations!

Obviously, I don't know anything about Iraqi law. I'm guessing, though, that Iraqi law wouldn't permit completely irrelevant testimony any more than an American court would. I'm thinking that relevancy would be determined by how it relates to the question of guilt or innocence of the charges against the accused.

What testimony do you think there might be that could seriously be relevant to exhonerate Saddam of the charges against him?

lil'babykitten · Mar 29, 2004, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What testimony do you think there might be that could seriously be relevant to exhonerate Saddam of the charges against him?

I don't think there would be much to exonerate Saddam. I believe he will be found unquestionably guilty. Hussein, amongst other things, is an intelligent man. If given the chance, he will most likely highlight some potentially embarrassing facts about certain Western's government's relationships with Iraq from prior to the Iran-Iraq war.

Hussein knows what sort of position he's in right now, but I'm sure he'll make quite an impact during his trial, even more so with such an experienced lawyer defending him.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 29, 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
If given the chance, he will most likely highlight some potentially embarrassing facts about certain Western's government's relationships with Iraq from prior to the Iran-Iraq war.

Which has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence, and which therefore would probably be excluded as irrelevant.

Of course, it depends on the court. Milosovic was allowed to turn his trial into a circus. So it can happen.

Logic · Mar 29, 2004, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Which has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence, and which therefore would probably be excluded as irrelevant.

Of course, it depends on the court. Milosovic was allowed to turn his trial into a circus. So it can happen.

I will not question if this is true, but shouldn't the Iraqi people(and the world) get all the facts about who supported this tyrant? Don't they have the right to know that the US did this and that to help SH, that France did this and that and what all other western nations did to support him?

Wouldn't it be relevant who gave him the WMD's that he used on the Iranian military as well as his own population? Shouldn't it be made certain that those who provided him with the capability didn't know that he was going to use it against his own population? And to check what their responsibility is in all of this?

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
I will not question if this is true, but shouldn't the Iraqi people(and the world) get all the facts about who supported this tyrant? Don't they have the right to know that the US did this and that to help SH, that France did this and that and what all other western nations did to support him?

Wouldn't it be relevant who gave him the WMD's that he used on the Iranian military as well as his own population? Shouldn't it be made certain that those who provided him with the capability didn't know that he was going to use it against his own population? And to check what their responsibility is in all of this?

Everyone knows that Iceland gave Iraq the WMDs. Wait, I was thinking STDs. Never mind.

All of a sudden they had WMDs?

lil'babykitten · Mar 29, 2004, 09:37 AM

What Logic said.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 29, 2004, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
I will not question if this is true, but shouldn't the Iraqi people(and the world) get all the facts about who supported this tyrant? Don't they have the right to know that the US did this and that to help SH, that France did this and that and what all other western nations did to support him?

Wouldn't it be relevant who gave him the WMD's that he used on the Iranian military as well as his own population? Shouldn't it be made certain that those who provided him with the capability didn't know that he was going to use it against his own population? And to check what their responsibility is in all of this?

Of course, Iraq can at some point have any kind of national inquiry into the Baathist regime that they want to. But that isn't what Saddam's trial would be. He's going on trial, not anyone else.

lil'babykitten · Mar 29, 2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Wait, I was thinking STDs.

I'm glad you manage to laugh at all the 'jokes' you post here, cos I haven't found any of your 'jokes' funny yet.

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 09:40 AM

"In his long career, Mr Verges has defended Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, Carlos the Jackal and says he has represented former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic."

Should be a Circus. :/

Meanwhile on the NATO front: More and more eastern block countries are joining Nato.

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

I'm glad you manage to laugh at all the 'jokes' you post here, cos I haven't found any of your 'jokes' funny yet.

At least I'm not boring like you.

Logic · Mar 29, 2004, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Of course, Iraq can at some point have any kind of national inquiry into the Baathist regime that they want to. But that isn't what Saddam's trial would be. He's going on trial, not anyone else.

OK, I'm no lawyer but perhaps you could tell me if the following scenario is correct or not.

I give a gun to someone I know has murdered before. I know he is in a bad mood and will probably use the gun I gave him.

Well, he kills a few people and gets arrested.

In the trial it is very likely that I will be called as a witness.

Yes or no?

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
What Logic said.

Like, I'm just a cheerleader. Ok? I mean. Like, <finger in cheek> Ok?

<Think dumb blond joke>

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
OK, I'm no lawyer but perhaps you could tell me if the following scenario is correct or not.

I give a gun to someone I know has murdered before. I know he is in a bad mood and will probably use the gun I gave him.

Well, he kills a few people and gets arrested.

In the trial it is very likely that I will be called as a witness.

Yes or no?

You are joking right? I find it quite "funny" how liberals need to "simplify" events in order to grasp them better and to suspend a point that makes little sense.

Let's say, I give you a computer and internet access, then you write something stupid, but you have been known to write stupid things in the past. Can I be blamed for the stupid things that you do with you new computer?

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 29, 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
OK, I'm no lawyer but perhaps you could tell me if the following scenario is correct or not.

I give a gun to someone I know has murdered before. I know he is in a bad mood and will probably use the gun I gave him.

Well, he kills a few people and gets arrested.

In the trial it is very likely that I will be called as a witness.

Yes or no?

Bad analogy. Are you really suggesting that foreign governments colluded with Saddam to kill in his torture chambers? Or to displace the Marsh Arabs, or massacre them and the Kurds when they rose up after the first Gulf War? How about the murders he committed with his own hands? Did foreign governments participate in that?

All of those things he did all by himself. He can't shift the blame to others, and trying to do so wouldn't be a defense. It would just be a circus, and a smart judge would probably exclude it.

Logic · Mar 29, 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Bad analogy. Are you really suggesting that foreign governments colluded with Saddam to kill in his torture chambers? Or to displace the Marsh Arabs, or massacre them and the Kurds when they rose up after the first Gulf War? How about the murders he committed with his own hands?

All of those things he did all by himself. He can't shift the blame to others, and trying to do so wouldn't be a defense. It would just be a circus, and a smart judge would probably exclude it.

What about the gassing of Kurds? You "forgot" that.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 29, 2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
What about the gassing of Kurds? You "forgot" that.

He did that by himself too. It was his army that gassed them. Nobody else's. He gave the order. No foreign government forced him to do that.

Logic · Mar 29, 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He did that by himself too. It was his army that gassed them. Nobody else's.

Who gave him the technology to produce the WMD's used there, the technology to deliver it etc? He had used WMD's already on Iranian forces. Shouldn't the court try to see if he got that equipment before or after that? And try to see what role western governments played in that massacre that happened while he was our "friend"?

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 29, 2004, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Who gave him the technology to produce the WMD's used there, the technology to deliver it etc? He had used WMD's already on Iranian forces. Shouldn't the court try to see if he got that equipment before or after that? And try to see what role western governments played in that massacre that happened while he was our "friend"?

None of that would have anything to do with the question of his guilt or innocence. He gave the order to gas civilians, nobody else did.

The only thing here that would be relevant would be evidence that he didn't give the order. That might absolve him. But any allegations about who supplied him is irrelevant.

Logic · Mar 29, 2004, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
None of that would have anything to do with the question of his guilt or innocence. He gave the order to gas civilians, nobody else did.

The only thing here that would be relevant would be evidence that he didn't give the order. That might absolve him. But any allegations about who supplied him is irrelevant.

Fair enough.

I still think they have the right to know who supported him, and IMO his trial would be the best place for that to start. They have the right to know who his accomplices were.

Millennium · Mar 29, 2004, 10:51 AM

Fiend though he is, he deserves as fair a trial as can be held for him. I doubt it's going to be easy -it may even be impossible- to find a truly impartial judge or jury, but as close as can be found, should be found.

OreoCookie · Mar 29, 2004, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Fiend though he is, he deserves as fair a trial as can be held for him. I doubt it's going to be easy -it may even be impossible- to find a truly impartial judge or jury, but as close as can be found, should be found.

The ICC, anyone?

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 29, 2004, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
The ICC, anyone?

The ICC has no retroactive jurisdiction. Also, Iraq isn't a signatory. Also, the crimes all took place in Iraq and the victims were Iraqi. That gives Iraq jurisdiction. Moreover, even if the ICC had jurisdiction, it can't act where the country with jurisdiction is willing to prosecute. Iraq is willing to prosecute. So by all of the ICC's own rules, it has no business interfering in this Iraqi domestic matter.

Also for Millennium, I don't believe that Iraq's criminal justice system uses juries. It's really only common law countries (the UK, US, Canada, Australia, I believe Israel) who do. Most countries decide guilt by a panel of judges.

Millennium · Mar 29, 2004, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
The ICC, anyone?

I spoke of an impartial judge or jury, not an impartial body. Frankly I find the ICC to be a terrible idea anyway, but that's besides the point.

It's been long accepted that the only way to really find an impartial judge or jury is to find a group of people that doesn't know the defendant, and ideally has never heard of the defendant. This is a problem, because everybody knows who Saddam Hussein is, and everyone knows what he's done.

OreoCookie · Mar 29, 2004, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
I spoke of an impartial judge or jury, not an impartial body. Frankly I find the ICC to be a terrible idea anyway, but that's besides the point.

It's been long accepted that the only way to really find an impartial judge or jury is to find a group of people that doesn't know the defendant, and ideally has never heard of the defendant. This is a problem, because everybody knows who Saddam Hussein is, and everyone knows what he's done.

Really?
Do I have to be blinded of history or news to be impartial? I don't think so.

When the ICC is so terrible, why did the US press for Milosevic to be tried at its predecessor? Why wouldn't the same thing work for Hussein?

Doesn't an impartial body include the other two?