Chief Judge to Saddam at his trial: You were not a dictator

Thorgrim · 09-14-2006, 08:22 AM

"I wonder why this man (the witness) wanted to meet with me, if I am a dictator?" Saddam asked.

The judge interrupted: "You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator."

"Thank you," Saddam responded, bowing his head in respect.

Judge: Saddam 'not a dictator' - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

This trial is a joke at so many levels, at this point I'd rather have an "accident" happen, he escapes, and he gets shot by an iraqi we hire

beez · 09-14-2006, 09:43 AM

I think everyone involved knows it's utter bullshit. Saddam knew from the start which is why he's been making a mockery of the whole trial.

JaJae · 09-14-2006, 10:04 AM

They also need to appease him so that he doesn't go on one of his episodes again and they can progress. Which is just insane. If he doesn't want to defend himself they should allow him that right and try him anyway.

kinggovernor · 09-14-2006, 10:06 AM

maybe the judge doesn't want to show bias

, anywho this shit is taking too long someone should just shoot him

7960 · 09-14-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

maybe the judge doesn't want to show bias , anywho this shit is taking too long someone should just shoot him

"not show(ing) his bias" would have been saying "answer the question" and not "You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator."

beez · 09-14-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

"not show(ing) his bias" would have been saying "answer the question" and not "You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator."

Well - it may have been some sort of insult that didn't translate properly. Either way the judge is biased for saying that.

Publius · 09-14-2006, 11:31 AM

I'm curious if perhaps some sarcasm was lost in translation? Either way, it shows a definite pre-judgment by this judge.

motivez · 09-14-2006, 04:25 PM

I still think it's ridiculous to allow the Iraqi's to try him when they're in a state of civil war caused by ethnic and religious tensions, and the new majority is the ethnic group that was oppressed by Saddam.

Say what you want about the Hague taking too long or whatever, but at least it's fair. I think he's guilty, but if we want other people to embrace our culture of the rule of law and democracy and whatnot, fair trials rather than kangaroo courts need to be something we use

He'll never get a fair trial in Iraq.

beez · 09-14-2006, 04:38 PM

Yeah but the point isn't to give him a fair trial. It's to have a show trial followed by some sort of (semi-)public execution.

7960 · 09-14-2006, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by beez

Yeah but the point isn't to give him a fair trial. It's to have a show trial followed by some sort of (semi-)public execution.

He will not be executed.

beez · 09-14-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

He will not be executed.

I think he will be. The death penalty is on the table for him and his co-defendants.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-14-2006, 05:07 PM

Why are we trying him at all? Why did we try to blow him up at the start of the war, but then a few months later give him a trial? Because the war was over? Even at the time he was hiding, there was an insurgency, no? And presumably he had a part in it...so why not just kill him like any other insurgent leader?

7960 · 09-14-2006, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Why are we trying him at all? Why did we try to blow him up at the start of the war, but then a few months later give him a trial? Because the war was over? Even at the time he was hiding, there was an insurgency, no? And presumably he had a part in it...so why not just kill him like any other insurgent leader?

because the troops made the mistake of finding him before he got blowed up, and because of the fucking embedded reporter policy

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-14-2006, 05:29 PM

Does anyone think it's a coincidence that Saddam wound up alive and on trial, but his sons wound up dead and displayed publically?

lew · 09-14-2006, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

This trial is a joke at so many levels, at this point I'd rather have an "accident" happen, he escapes, and he gets shot by an iraqi we hire

DosEquis · 09-14-2006, 08:08 PM

He is basically filibustering the court with his ranting and raving. They should be able to end this. Defend yourself or your case is done and we move to verdict/sentencing.

archangel003 · 09-15-2006, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

I'm curious if perhaps some sarcasm was lost in translation? Either way, it shows a definite pre-judgment by this judge.

Judge Judy style.

archangel003 · 09-15-2006, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Does anyone think it's a coincidence that Saddam wound up alive and on trial, but his sons wound up dead and displayed publically?

Which conspiracy would require saddam alive and his sons dead?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-15-2006, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by archangel003

Which conspiracy would require saddam alive and his sons dead?

Well, if we just look at what the US would want ideally, it would a dog and pony show trial, while the rest are dead and prevented from causing problems. No elaborate conspiracy here, just a pragmatic approach to managing a newly formed state and its former tyrants. I find it hard to believe that we couldn't have killed Saddam if we really wanted him dead. I think it's naive to think Saddam's trial is some unforseen, necessary consequence of rules or regulations. This was part of a plan...you think the same people who orchestrated Saddam's statue being torn down would also not orchestate a kangeroo court to convict him?

motivez · 09-15-2006, 11:51 AM

Another thing with The Hague, couldn't we potentially get some other European countries interested in helping out if we showed a little credence to the ICC in a case like this, where a foreign leader needed to be tried for crimes against humanity?

I don't understand why a simple step like that isn't taken. I mean, yeah, it'd be great if the Iraqi's could try him and get justice for themselves, but it just seems far too chaotic and insecure for it to really happen.

When you have lawyers getting killed or the families of judges being threatened, seems like the prudent course of action would be to say 'Welp, the country isn't quite ready for this, and there's already an established international court set up to do this, so we'll go there.'