21 Dec 05
The trial of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and seven former colleagues has resumed after a two week hiatus.
The former Iraqi leader told the court in Baghdad that he had been beaten and tortured by the Americans.
Saddam Hussein had refused to take the stand two weeks ago and concerns have continued over the security of his defence team.
He and his seven former colleagues are on trial on charges relating to the deaths of 148 men in Dujail, north of Baghdad, in 1982 following an assassination attempt on the former president.
Do you believe Saddam Hussein’s allegations? Will he receive a fair trial in Iraq?
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYeah, I saw this story on BBC world last night.
The trial of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and seven former colleagues has resumed after a two week hiatus.
The former Iraqi leader told the court in Baghdad that he had been beaten and tortured by the Americans.
Saddam Hussein had refused to take the stand two weeks ago and concerns have continued over the security of his defence team.
He a ...[text shortened]... president.
Do you believe Saddam Hussein’s allegations? Will he receive a fair trial in Iraq?
I have to say that I actually do believe that he probably was beaten and tortured by the US. If the US are (self-admittedly) willing to use torture methods to extract information from other detainees then it seems unlikely that they wouldn't do the same to Saddam.
I also think it's extremely unlikely that he will recieve a fair trial. Under normal judicial process a person has to be found to be guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. I very much doubt that Saddam will be afforded that courtesy. Imagine, if you will, if Saddam could not be proven to have done anything seriously wrong. Do you think he'd walk free? No, he'll swing either way. I can't see people believing anything he says, even if it is the truth, if it doesn't coincide with what they want to believe.
21 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI have no way of knowing about Saddam's allegations of physical mistreatment; they should be investigated as the allegations of any prisoner should be.
The trial of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and seven former colleagues has resumed after a two week hiatus.
The former Iraqi leader told the court in Baghdad that he had been beaten and tortured by the Americans.
Saddam Hussein had refused to take the stand two weeks ago and concerns have continued over the security of his defence team.
He a ...[text shortened]... president.
Do you believe Saddam Hussein’s allegations? Will he receive a fair trial in Iraq?
As for the "fair trials" issue, Amnesty International released a report in May 2005 that was highly critical of the Iraqi Special Tribunal, the court which is trying Saddam. A part of the introduction of that report is given below:
The Iraqi Special Tribunal (the Tribunal) has been created to try nationals and residents of Iraq suspected of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. When the Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal (the Tribunal Statute) was finally made public, it became apparent that trials by the Tribunal would fall short of international standards of fairness. It was hoped that the many omissions and deficiencies of the Tribunal Statute would be remedied by the Rules of Procedures and Evidence (the Rules). However, while the Rules did contain some welcome improvements, neither the current Rules nor the Tribunal Statute are fully consistent with international law and standards. They also do not adequately reflect the important steps achieved in the development of international law in this area, particularly through the existing documents and jurisprudence relating to other special tribunals and the International Criminal Court (ICC). This report contains a detailed analysis of the Tribunal Statute and the Rules and highlight the areas where these fall short of the requirements of international law.
The provisions of the Tribunal Statute and the Rules include many positive guarantees of fair trial. These include provisions ensuring the independence and impartiality of judges and allowing for the appointment of non-Iraqi judges to the Tribunal (Article 4(d) of the Tribunal Statute and Rule 11). The envisaged creation of a Victims and Witnesses Unit (Rule 31) and Defence Office (Rule 49) are also to be welcomed, despite some concerns which are outlined in this report.
However, there are important deficiencies in the Tribunal Statute and the Rules. These include limited jurisdiction and a failure to ensure that provisions relating to criminal responsibility and defence are consistent with international law. Essential guarantees of the right to fair trial, such as the prohibition of the use of statements made as a result of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, have been omitted and there are irregularities in the process and criteria for appointing and removing judges and prosecutors. Of particular concern to Amnesty International (AI) is the inconsistent and inaccurate translation of the Arabic version of the Tribunal Statute and Rules into English which could cause confusion and undermine fair trials.
AI is calling for these omissions and irregularities to be addressed before further investigations are carried out or trials commence. This can be done through amendments to the Tribunal Statute or Rules, or by the adoption of other documents which adequately define the elements of crime. (3)
The involvement of Iraqi jurists and others in organs of the Tribunal, often at great personal risk, is a testimony to their courage and commitment to justice. The international community has a shared responsibility to ensure that any new or existing court, that has jurisdiction over crimes under international law committed in Iraq, is not only scrupulously fair, but is also seen to be fair.
This report aims to provide practical recommendations for the administration of the Tribunal and all those involved in the process, including the Iraqi government, judges and lawyers, in order to help ensure that trials by the Tribunal conform with international law.
AI is concerned that even before the Tribunal has been established, those detained who are expected to be tried before the Tribunal – and who therefore may be at risk of the death penalty -- are being denied fundamental rights that are essential to a fair trial. They were initially held incommunicado by the occupying powers and, following the handover of power to the Iraqi Interim Government on 28 June 2004, are now held by the Multinational Force in Iraq (the MNF-I).(4) They have had limited access to lawyers, to their families, to medical treatment and to a judge with the authority to review the legality of their detention. In addition, there are disturbing reports of deaths in custody, torture and other ill-treatment of people detained by the occupying powers, the Iraqi police and the MNF-I.(5)
The full report is at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140072005?open&of=ENG-IRQ
Amnesty International was a long standing, harsh critic of Saddam's human rights violations.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat would the US gain by torturing Saddam? They already have
Yeah, I saw this story on BBC world last night.
I have to say that I actually do believe that he probably was beaten and tortured by the US. If the US are (self-admittedly) willing to use torture methods to extract information from other detainees then it seems unlikely that they wouldn't do the same to Saddam.
I also think it's extremely unlik ...[text shortened]... ything he says, even if it is the truth, if it doesn't coincide with what they want to believe.
most of his co-horts. Also, do you seriously think Saddam
did NOT commit the acts he was proported to have done?
Why are they trying him at all? Why don't they just cover him
in hamburger and let some wild dogs go after him. Its all
he deserves.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderA.I. would have said the same about the Nuremberg Trials.
As for the "fair trials" issue, Amnesty International released a report in May 2005 that was highly critical of the Iraqi Special Tribunal, the court which is trying Saddam...
It's the very nature of the beast (Tribunal) not to be regarded
as a court in the true sense.
I believe Saddam Hussein, et al will receive as fair a trial as
deserved.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeWho cares? Let him suffer.
The trial of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and seven former colleagues has resumed after a two week hiatus.
The former Iraqi leader told the court in Baghdad that he had been beaten and tortured by the Americans.
Saddam Hussein had refused to take the stand two weeks ago and concerns have continued over the security of his defence team.
He a ...[text shortened]... president.
Do you believe Saddam Hussein’s allegations? Will he receive a fair trial in Iraq?
22 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by xsI assume you didn't bother to read hardly any of the Report, which gives specific recommendations for improving the Tribunals. AI does not oppose war crimes and other human rights violations tribunals, per se; it's truly absurd to suggest they do. They are interested in creating ones that are as procedurally fair as possible which should be a goal of any legal system.
A.I. would have said the same about the Nuremberg Trials.
It's the very nature of the beast (Tribunal) not to be regarded
as a court in the true sense.
I believe Saddam Hussein, et al will receive as fair a trial as
deserved.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeDon't forget, this is only the FIRST trial. There will be a lot more
The trial of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and seven former colleagues has resumed after a two week hiatus.
The former Iraqi leader told the court in Baghdad that he had been beaten and tortured by the Americans.
Saddam Hussein had refused to take the stand two weeks ago and concerns have continued over the security of his defence team.
He a ...[text shortened]... president.
Do you believe Saddam Hussein’s allegations? Will he receive a fair trial in Iraq?
waiting in the wings.
23 Dec 05
It is probably impossible for Saddam to receive a 'fair trial'.
But fair or not, can anyone imagine a situation where a verdict of 'not guilty' will be the outcome. I certainly can't.
The verdict will be guilty. No two ways about it. Why? because everyone is already convinced what a badass he is and how many innocents he has despatched. The trial is only a charade to give the impression of fairness because the western powers cannot be seen to string him up without any trial at all - no matter how much they would like to!
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by ShallowBlueMy grief about it is that the man was mainly a puppet and the people who were pulling his strings in the 80's (when he was gassing people) are not going to be held accountable.
It is probably impossible for Saddam to receive a 'fair trial'.
But fair or not, can anyone imagine a situation where a verdict of 'not guilty' will be the outcome. I certainly can't.
The verdict will be guilty. No two ways about it. Why? because everyone is already convinced what a badass he is and how many innocents he has despatched. The trial ...[text shortened]... annot be seen to string him up without any trial at all - no matter how much they would like to!
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderdo you think for yourself or simply post the opinions of others?
I have no way of knowing about Saddam's allegations of physical mistreatment; they should be investigated as the allegations of any prisoner should be.
As for the "fair trials" issue, Amnesty International released a report in May 2005 that was highly critical of the Iraqi Special Tribunal, the court which is trying Saddam. A part of the int ...[text shortened]... Amnesty International was a long standing, harsh critic of Saddam's human rights violations.
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenIf you care to address the point of the thread, feel free. The AI report (which I read) enumerated a number of problems with the presently constituted Tribunal, so I cited to it to raise the issues it discusses. In order to determine if Saddam can get a "fair trial", it is necessary to discuss what the components of a "fair trial" are as the term without further explanation is rather vague. I agree with almost all of AI's criticisms; would you care "to think for yourself" and discuss the deviations from what is normally considered a "fair trial" mentioned by AI?
do you think for yourself or simply post the opinions of others?