Posted on 06/30/2004 10:08:15 PM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, courts counted for nothing, while fear, death and vengeance were the only laws of the land. A new Iraq must be built on more solid foundations: democracy and the rule of law. One of the first challenges will be bringing Saddam Hussein to justice. His trial can be a significant step toward the rule of law or a detour back to the rule of revenge. He should have a fair trial under an elected government applying the relevant principles of Iraqi and international law.
Mr. Hussein and 11 top associates will be formally charged today with crimes against humanity before a special tribunal established by the American occupation authorities last December and led by Salem Chalabi, a nephew of Ahmad Chalabi. Trying the accused properly will take many months and not just because the accused need time to prepare a legal defense. These trials are an opportunity to unravel the mysteries and crimes of the Baathist era, including the secret mass graves and the true story of unconventional weapons programs, to determine where criminal responsibility rests in the chain of command.
The actual trials should not begin until an elected government takes power, a step planned for next January. Starting them sooner might produce political dividends for the appointed Iraqi interim government or the Bush re-election campaign. But it would not serve justice or help restore Iraq's standing in the international community.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Did the NYT make a similar stink in 1989 when we invaded Panama, captured their dictator, brought him to the US for trial and incarceration? No. It wasn't an election year.
lol When has the "LAW" ever applied to bjclinton?
Bttt
Trial in Sept, verdict on Sept 11th.
Precisely. Saying that we, or in this case, the NYTimes, can dictate to the judicial system of a once again sovereign country simply feeds the myth that we are still in control, and the handover was, as Alcee Hastings put it, "a myth."
They have no problem using the problems in Iraq to produce negative "political dividends" to the Bush reelection campaign, and put a damper on the positive developments, so why should something as significant and overdue as the trial of Saddam be verboten?
It is so embarrassing, I am even feeling a bit sad for them.
Really a bunch of sad, sad last-straw-graspers.
Are you series???
Ok, I'll go out on a limb; FRANCE.
I hope the Iraqis get started right away!
(Will make for much better TV watching than Laci and Kobe and the dems will go nuts.)
Liberals want the U.S. Constitution to be a "living document" remember? The term "living document" means a document that is interpreted any way the Liberals say at any given point in time.
So, this concept carries over into the re-organization of Iraq as well.
Palestine.
WHOA, WHOA, WHOOOOOOA! HOLD ON, STOP THE FREAKIN' PRESSES!
Excuse me New York Times, but, uh....had there been elections yet in Germany when the Nuremburg trials started?
Uh, Punch, this isn't about you or your pal Kerry. It's an Iraqi trial of an Iraqi criminal. You flat-out have no business having a voice in the matter.
Maybe Chirac needs to tell the NY Times to mind their own business and quit trying to tell Iraq what to do.
Brokaw for Kerry VP?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.