PDA

View Full Version : Light touch paper and withdraw to a safe distance?


Garp
30-12-2006, 12:05
The deed is done, one less former dictator in the world. A cause for celebration surely? Not really, it would have been better if he'd have been able to see the error of his ways and repented, but they've just ensured that will never happen.
Justice served? Hardly. A Mickey Mouse court operation, a legal defence team stymied at every turn; never allowed to see all the evidence being used against him, a Judge appointed and trained by the US for the explicit purpose of this case who from the very start declared Saddam "Guilty", done in a court set up and controlled by the United States (illegal under the international humanitarian law in the Fourth Geneva Convention); A tribunal who obscured justice at all stages, first declaring no evidence existed from the Dujail trial, and then later allowed the prosecution to use evidence from it whilst simultaneously refusing the defence team access to any of the records; who refused to even tell the defence team the charges being raised against the defendants until the trial had already been going for 8 months.

Justice? Yeah right. The United Nations independent review found it unjust in its final opinion back at the start of September http://international-lawyers.org/Documents/WGAD%20Final%20Decision.pdf and had even told both the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal and the US government that things needed to be improved, and as importantly what needed improved, over a year prior to that.

Light the touch paper and withdraw to a safe distance? We'll be lucky if that distance even exists on this planet. All they've done with this pathetic excuse for Justice is sign the death warrants of many hundreds of innocents, not just in Iraq but across the world, both foreign citizens and their own, and they've sent a clear message to the Iraqis that they cannot look to the law or the occupation government to defend themselves, cannot look to them for fairness, freedom and justice; the self same rights that supposedly form the corner stones of western society. The protests and the violence that we'll see come out from this will likely be unbelievable. How many hundreds of thousands of innocents must die before a country will accept that its actions abroad are causing them?
This whole farce gets me so annoyed. There was no reason for it to be done this way. The coalition had all the opportunity to ensure it got done the right way, 100% visible to the world. A chance to show the world that the coalition forces still stood on the side of justice. Instead they proved themselves to be little better than savage dictators, dispensing their idea of right and wrong with no thought to justice at all.

I don't claim Saddam was innocent, I'm quite confident that he was probably very much guilty of the crimes he got tried for, and many more beyond it; but you can't expect others to grant justice to yourself and a fair legal trial and not allow it to others. Small wonder groups like Amnesty International were protesting about Saddam's trial, the self same group who have campaigned so hard to see him brought to one. http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-281206-statement-eng

Feek
30-12-2006, 12:12
I am not sad he is dead.

Perhaps it would have been better if the people who found him, cowering and hiding had just put a round through his head and walked away to leave the body to be discovered by someone else.

Garp
30-12-2006, 12:45
Perhaps it would have been better if the people who found him, cowering and hiding had just put a round through his head and walked away to leave the body to be discovered by someone else.

It would have been so simple to make it look like suicide too...

Zirax
30-12-2006, 14:55
I can see all hell breaking loose in Iraq now, more so than before. Although this trail would have been a good thing, the way Saddam spun the trial to make himself a marter is a terrible thing to allow to happen. Regardless of the US wanting to kill him, its been exposed that the whole thing was a complete pile of tripe from the start.
"I am ready to die a Marter" Saddams words a couple of days ago.

I think we will leave troops there permenantly, we'll have to. Not just to secure the oil, but even with a large force there... how the heck will we gain control? At the moment now the war is ongoing and the coalition forces are being pushed back by a now much more organised militia force.

Think of all those weapons that "vanished" back when they first went in. I remember reading daily that weapon caches had been emptied recently (ie within a few months) and these were in the region of 300t of weapons a time.

Desmo
30-12-2006, 19:56
VERY good post there Jarp.

Justsomebloke
30-12-2006, 20:04
I cannot understand why they did it today as today is Eeed (sp?) there Holiest of days.
Personally i cannot be happy about anyone being murdered no matter what they have done.
This will fuel terrorists for the next 30 years it's just history repeating itself once again, will we never learn.

Flibster
30-12-2006, 22:41
Considering that the UK and US put him into power in the first place....

Well done - you've just made him a martyr and a idol to any wannabe terrorist agaist the UK or US

We will have troops there for many years - I can alo see it getting MUCH worse over the next few weeks.

Simon/~Flibster

Matblack
31-12-2006, 00:05
Interesting

I've never seen SH as an idol for terrorists, certainly not Islamic ones, he was always pretty non religious when he was in power, a figurehead for Baath party insurgents certainly but I don't think his execution will have a huge effect on international terrorism either positive or negative.

That is not to say I believe this has been done in the right way, it most certainly hasn't I just don't think it will have the effect that the original post suggests.

MB

killerkebab
31-12-2006, 00:12
Maybe Saddam isn't a figurehead for terrorism, but the way the US and UK are seen to bully the area and 'impose' these things is hardly helping. That and the entire world was told Saddam would be trialled and it just wasn't done properly.

Feek
31-12-2006, 00:35
He could never get a 'fair' trial. He was too high profile.

Lets face it, the guy was guilty, does anyone seriously believe he wasn't? I think that any trial would have been called a farce, no matter how it was conducted.

killerkebab
31-12-2006, 19:19
He could never get a 'fair' trial. He was too high profile.

Lets face it, the guy was guilty, does anyone seriously believe he wasn't? I think that any trial would have been called a farce, no matter how it was conducted.It would have been called a farce, but the least which could have been done is no make it look like a farce on top of that.

mejinks
01-01-2007, 23:22
A fair trial would have had a different outcome. One where America may have had egg on its face and looked like the world bully that it is.

We have only now seen the end of violence from the IRA and now the government has ensured continued fear through terrorism. Who are the real terrorists you have to ask?

If I ever get into a position of power, both Blair and Bush will be indicted for war crimes, genocide and abuse of human rights and thats just for starters.

I for one now want to distance myself from Bush and his cronies as well as the current pathetic labour government for ensuring I spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder. This situation does nothing for the credibility of the West and only heightens anti Islamic and Anti West tensions still further.

Zirax
10-01-2007, 10:57
Something that has occurred recently which is really starting to annoy me. With the spin doctors in full force they clearly heard that the public view on the execution was negative. Cue Brown condeming the execution of Saddam, now Blair jumps on the bandwagon and is condeming it.

Now where were these two nitwits before the execution occurred? They certainly were not saying anything about the execution beforehand. I distinctly remember Blair saying the trial was
"In the hands of the Iraqi people" (so you mean the Americans then).

Its all well and good condeming the execution. But when you only start complaining after the guy is dead.... you look like an idiot.

Another thing is why the hell is the trial still carrying on??? The guy is dead, you can't get more of a permenant solution then that. Normally you pass sentence on someone at the end of the trial, not kill him half way through then listen to the rest of the evidence

Mark
10-01-2007, 11:11
It was reported that several world leaders had called for clemency before the execution, so I can't entirely rule it out. Wouldn't have been Bush, obviously, but Blair, dunno.

Anyway, I missed this first time round. My opinion is that it was a show trial put on for the media and to bolster coalition egos. In both respects it backfired.

I, like a lot of other people, supported the war originally, and I still support our troops. I still support the toppling of Saddam too, but I certainly don't support the way it was done - no preparations, no planning, no thought - let's just go in there and bash some brains and they'll kneel before us like we're some sort of deity. Yeah, right.

semi-pro waster
11-01-2007, 16:18
This is somewhat related I suppose, Bush has said "Blame me for the mistakes in Iraq" (http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=2326965). Very big of him no doubt but I already did blame him for most of them and it seems they are going to be sending another 20,000 odd troops in soon.

My opinion on the trial is an absolute farce from start to finish, admittedly that wasn't helped by Saddam himself but with the result in no doubt right from the off they could certainly have made more of an effort with the trial to expose all the evidence and make the trial as fair as possible. A neutral location with experience in such matters would have been a good start e.g. the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague.

Mark
11-01-2007, 19:53
For everyone else, The Hague would have been ideal, even preferred, but the Iraqis would never have accepted an independent location, just as now they're not accepting the presence of the coalition (well, that's one way of putting it anyway). Their country, their rules, their way.

The ideal compromise might have been to have a Hague-style trial run by the Iraqis, but I just don't see that would ever have been possible - there's too much hostility, on both sides.