Why are they being tried in Iraq and not an International court such as the Hague where Milosovic is being tried for pretty much the same crimes?
Can they really expect to receive a fair trial now that the US govern Iraq and its courts?
2006-09-14 02:13:56 · 11 answers · asked by Ellie29uk 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
RobbieF1999... isn't everyone entitled to a fair trial... isn't that just the kind of freedom that we Westerners fight for?
2006-09-14 02:25:38 · update #1
Agent 86.... how about I admit to being clueless if you admit to being a racist. Ok sweetie?
2006-09-14 22:49:15 · update #2
Like maybe apples and oranges. Does Ellie29 really mean Ellie29 U Klueless?
Milosevic commited cross border genocide and war crimes.
Saddam committed crimes on his own soil against his own people.
Instead of posing to be an intelligent question asker and always trying to steer your answers with your anti-american slant, just go on a leftwing blog site and you can rant and rave with all your other foiltopped friends.
2006-09-14 03:21:16 · answer #1 · answered by Munster 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In Iraq, Saddam couldn't be tried, let alone even be accused of crimes, until recently. Today, The People of Iraq have the ability to hold the trial, they want to hold the trial and have introduced "fair" into their trial system. Do you think Saddam gave anyone a fair trial? They deserve the right/responsibility to punish Saddam for crimes against them.
S. Milosevic is dead and D. Milosevic is being tried in the Hague, because that is where the Int. Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, is located.
Iraq, unlike Yugoslavia, still exists. Saddam couldn't be tried there because his crimes were committed in Iraq, not in the former Yugoslavia.
2006-09-14 03:22:42 · answer #2 · answered by askthetoughquestions 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If America wants Iraq and other countries, to have democracy, then they must lead by example!
Saddam is entitled to a fair trial, in the Hague!
We at least gave a fair trial to the Nazi heirachy at the end of WWII! And they were accused of crimes far worse than Saddam has been charged with!
2006-09-14 08:30:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The international tribunal is empowered to act only when the country with primary jurisdiction refuses to act. Milosevic was brought to trial in the Hague because Serbian authorities would not try him in Serbia.
As to Saddam, however much a piece of human garbage he is, there is no question but that the trial is just for show. It's like the war crimes trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo after World War II. The vanquished will be put to death, but not without the pretense of a trial, so that we can tell ourselves that we've done it "fairly."
That having been said, I won't be weeping for Saddam when they put him to death.
2006-09-14 02:35:06 · answer #4 · answered by x 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is because the crimes he is actually being accused of are from his own people.
This is a shrewd move to make sure that he never gets away with anything he has done,should the impossible happen and he walks free then he will be arrested again and tried for international war crimes, this is really all about politics.
Milosoviv is being tried for international war crimes, hence the international court.
2006-09-14 02:39:10 · answer #5 · answered by mentor 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are not meant to have a fair trial,in case they make statements involving the us & Britain in their atrocities against Iran.That's why they are only being charged with certain crimes committed with-in Iraq,& the invasion of Kuwait.
2006-09-14 02:22:40 · answer #6 · answered by michael k 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
that's actual that George bush has dedicated crimes against humanity yet yet you may no longer carry him as he's the president of u . s . (despite in case you do no longer handle him so). Now you may have understood the version between greater international locations and arising international locations. international locations that are greater can exercising their ability on the arising international locations. despite if i think of that george bush is feeling as though he's the only guy or woman who can eliminate terrorism in this worldwide. for this reason he's appearing like that. I nonetheless ask your self why he has have been given a 2d term as president of u . s .. possibly he has executed no blunders different than preserving wars on different international locations. Going by utilising the present events, i think of that Pakistan is next in line for an attack by utilising u . s . ( George Bush)
2016-11-07 07:36:33 · answer #7 · answered by overbay 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In theory, since the invasion was illegal anyway (confirmed by the UN general Secretary), he is still the president so it is the foreign troops and mercenaries that should be on trial.
Perhaps we should use the same logic of a quick trial for Olmert, Blair and Bush.
2006-09-14 02:38:52 · answer #8 · answered by Nothing to say? 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't really matter where Saddam is tried. He is as guilty as hell and he'll be found guilty wherever the trial takes place.
2006-09-14 02:18:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sadams guilty no matter what but you could say bush id just as guilty of the same
2006-09-14 04:18:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋