Baloney. Anybody remember this?
He was allowed to get cocky again when he realize he was in civilized custody. He's a real tough talker all right, just as long as he's safe. But let's not ever forget, this is the real Saddam.
Posted on 07/03/2004 3:53:59 PM PDT by Pokey78
Saddam Hussein's response to being brought before the Iraqi court which will try him for the thousands of murders he committed when he was President of Iraq has helped the world to understand how he managed to rule that country for 35 years.
He has not been cowed or intimidated, and has shown no sign of a sense of humiliation, still less guilt. He has swaggered in front of the Iraqi court, his glistening contempt for the proceedings evident in every word he said. His unrepentant demeanour is evidently being extremely well received by many Arabs. Those Iraqis who remain sympathetic to the fallen dictator have revelled in his court-room bluster.
George Bush and even the former lawyer Tony Blair may now both think that it would have been better, and certainly a lot easier, if the Butcher of Baghdad had been "shot while attempting to escape" when he was captured. Saddam has a masterful ability to manipulate procedures of any court, tribunal or international body.
Saddam notoriously used the procedures of the United Nations to frustrate concerted and effective UN action against him. That the invasion of Iraq happened in 2003 without the explicit authorisation of a vote from the UN Security Council clearly took him by surprise: he apparently told his American captors that he believed he could delay any move against him indefinitely. Had he been dealing only with the UN, he would have been right.
During his trial, we can expect Saddam to employ the same kind of tactics that he used against the UN: he will try to bamboozle and to divide the judges presiding and to exploit arcane points of procedure. He will claim that the invasion was an illegal attack on the sovereignty of the Iraqi people which should never have happened and which should not be allowed to stand. He has already insisted to the presiding judge that he is still the legitimate president of Iraq, and that the court - which he regards as the mere instrument of the "foreign invaders" - has no right to hold him, the president, to account.
That argument will cut no ice with those who believe that Saddam's blood-soaked reign of terror, torture and mass murder, together with his violation of the peace treaty ending the 1991 Gulf War, gave the rest of the world ample justification for forcibly removing him from power. It will, however, give those attached to the procedures of international law an uncomfortable pause for thought.
Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, advised the Prime Minister that the invasion was justified under international law - but very few international lawyers agree with him. By far the majority of specialists have argued that, in the absence of an explicit resolution from the UN security council authorising it, the invasion of Iraq could not be legally justified.
That view has unwelcome consequences. One is that if the war was illegal, then Saddam should still, in law, be president. That would mean that the court now trying him is exactly what he says it is: the illegitimate tool of an illegal occupation.
The fragility of arguments justifying the invasion under international law, and the lack of consensus on what that law permits or prohibits, is one very good reason for being sceptical of its use in international affairs. Saddam, fortunately, is not being tried under international law: the depressing experience of the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, which has been running for a year and still has only just begun hearing Milosevic's defence, will not be repeated in Iraq. The presiding judge in Baghdad (a former judge under Saddam) is thought to be eager to ensure that the trial is brought to a rapid conclusion. The trial will be under Iraqi law, which means that there will be no jury, only a panel of judges empowered to impose the death penalty - and the standard of proof will be lower than "beyond reasonable doubt".
Will Saddam get a fair trial? "Iraqi justice", as presently constituted, does not pass many of the tests held up by international lawyers. It is hard, however, to see how the normal procedures of criminal justice could be adapted to try crimes as exceptional, and as well publicised, as his. In practice, the verdict on Saddam has already been passed in the court of global opinion: his association with such atrocities as the gassing of thousands of Kurds at Halabja, means that a "Not guilty" verdict is not possible, and would be perverse if it were given.
His trial may have a cathartic effect on the Iraqi people, but it will not reconcile them or the judges to him or his actions. If any murderer deserves the death penalty, it is Saddam Hussein. A trial was the only alternative once the opportunity to shoot him "while he was attempting to escape" was lost. That trial should, however, produce the same result: the death of one of history's most imaginative mass-murderers. His is not a death which anyone should mourn.
Mark Geragos... Paging Mr. Mark Geragos... please pick up the white coutesy phone in the lobby... Mr. Mark Geragos...
Ya know... I like to think of myself as a relatively sophisticated cynic. I hadn't even thought that the Hildebeast might have her talons in this cookie jar. Very interesting.
But I'm sure Danny Glover, Ed Asner, Mike Farrel, Michael Moore, Harry Belefonte, and all the other usual suspects will.
I daresay I can hazard a few guesses at who is REALLY chewing their nails over this. I'm sure that it is Saddam's fondest wish, before he is sent to his reward, to regale the world with the compleat history of his business dealings abroad; starting with his blood brother, frere Jacques and so on down the list (no doubt including some US companies and politicians as well). I hope his guards are being extra careful. The list of people who would like him to do a Hermann Goering is doubtless a very long one.
you never know....
the whiffle ball bat could come out at any time.....
Baloney. Anybody remember this?
He was allowed to get cocky again when he realize he was in civilized custody. He's a real tough talker all right, just as long as he's safe. But let's not ever forget, this is the real Saddam.
The Europeans are slowly but surely going collectively insane. In the years leading up to the invasion, Hussein fired hundreds of missiles at both American and British pilots. If the Europeans no longer consider the firing of missiles at some country's air force to constitute an act of war, then the Europeans might as well do away with any pretense of ever again attempting to defend themselves from anyone who might ever decide to fire weapons at them.
Reports said that troops were just seconds from tossing a grenade down that rat hole....should have done it.
I hope that your words are remembered by our boys when they finally capture bin Laden.
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.