Printable View
"I maintain my position as the constitutional president of Iraq," he told the judge, Kurdish jurist Rizgar Mohammad Amin. "And I have the right to remain silent about my identity. You know me. You know who I am but I do not recognize your authority. I did not hire you."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
Must have some goooood drugs in the Middle East! :D
Hey, I'd plead not guilty too. The man might be a homicidal dictator, it doesn't mean he's suicidal.
Could plead insanity....who would argue that one?Quote:
Originally Posted by F L E S H
As vile as Hussein is, he's correct.
Under international law and the U.N. Charter, the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by "coalition" forces is illegal.
Resolution 1441 did not explicitly authorize the use of force. In fact it was only unanimously passed after former U.S. U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte assured the Security Council that it contained "no hidden triggers" for military action. Thus the resolution was passed merely stating that Iraq would face "serious consequences" if the council decided its weapons declaration contained "false statements or omissions" and if Iraq failed to cooperate with inspectors. The resolution didn't describe those consequences and the Security Council never acted further.
W pointed to Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 as additional precedence to use military force. 678, adopted in 1990, preceded the first war and authorized the use of "all necessary means" to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait and - important for current events - "to restore international peace and security in the area." 687, adopted shortly after that war ended, imposed economic sanctions and called on Iraq to surrender biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and related materials, among other demands.
The U.N. Charter only permits the use of force for two reasons: self-defense and when the Security Council authorizes action to counter a threat, typically understood to be imminent. It's ridiculously easy to argue that since Iraq never attacked us and there were virtually no caches of WMD found in Iraq, 678 and 687 worked and there was no need to invade as Iraq had no WMD and and no ability to disrupt "international peace and security in the area."
With that in mind, the war and outcome were both illegal and Saddam Hussein is still the rightful leader of Iraq, whether you like it or not. He's a terrible man, no doubt, but the law is the law. And that's also why he's being tried in Iraq rather than before the World Court where those like Milosevic have faced justice. In front of the World Court, there would be a very real possibility that Hussein's ousting and capture would be ruled unlawful.
That would all be well and good if some of the "veto power" nations weren't getting kick backs from the Food For Oil Program. It'll be nice to see him swinging from a rope in Bagdad!! :D
I don't see how that's relevant being that the ICJ doesn't operate in any way like the U.N.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
His trial, as it stands now, lacks legal legitimacy. The law by which he's being prosecuted under hasn't even been signed yet. And that's totally forsaking the fact that as president, real Iraqi law probably doesn't allow for his prosecution for anything.
I read a long article about his first day in court. What a day! His behavior reminded me of an elderly person that likely has some sort of mental disease or defect. Is it possible he is just crazy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemonboy
gee,ya think?? i say they turn him loose in a market center in Basra and let the games begin.
Well, I think that's a better solution than attempting to hold a crazy person for trial. I guess we'll see what happens when the recess ends.
no, the trial must go on. the world is going to see first hand the mass murder and genocide committed by his unelected regime. its gonna be great.
So when is Bush going to be held accountable for the mass murder and genocide committed by his unelected regime? Oh right, I live in Bizarro World.