Skip to main content

View Diary: Saddam's Execution - Conversation with his Appeals Court Judge (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yep (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gogol, ivorybill, bayside

    Shrekk explains the point above. Certain crimes like Torture are subject to "universal jurisdiction" which means any signatory to the Torture Treaty can prosecute in the event their home country is unwilling to do so.

    In-country or at least outside Hague tribunals are the best solution provided they are seen to be impartial. The Rwanda genocide tribunals are effective. Four people are currently the suject of an extradition case in London.

    The problem with Saddam's trial is that it descended into farce. From what I could see, the evidence presented did not meet the standards of proof that we would expect. There is also now no chance for the Kurds to get justice for the gassings. That could be the reason for the White House to want to hurry things along. His second trial would have concentrated on the gassings that were at best ignored by Rumsfeld a few months after when he warmly greeted Saddam and at worst the US provided the materiel for the production and delivery of the gas.

    Kneejerk reactions do not come from knees.

    by londonbear on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 06:20:30 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Having any old country prosecute is a bad idea (0+ / 0-)

      That kind of policy leaves prosecution too open to politics. Prosecution is better left to the country where the crime took place, the country of citizenship of the perpetrators (but only in rare circumstances), or The Hague.

      Thwarting the forces of idiocy since 1978. -6.38, -6.00

      by wiscmass on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 07:08:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site