This will be quick. I just grabbed this
story on RealCities via RawStory and it just jumped out at me.
Read on...
We all know Saddam is a bad guy. Don't take that the wrong way, I'm still against this war and think it's a sham any way you look at it.
Regardless, here we are in a war, a nation building effort, a quagmire, and we're trying to help Iraqi's form a constitution. We want Iraq to be a fledgling democracy, right? Not neccesarily modeled after the United States, but modeled after other succesful democracies in the world.
What do democracies have? Among the many things we have are rights, freedoms, and protections. We also have due process. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law either by a judge or by your peers.
So why is this?
Saddam Hussein could be executed before the Iraqi Special Tribunal finishes charging him with all his alleged crimes, a source close to the tribunal said Sunday.
Sure, he may be guilty. But he's going to be killed before he's even been charged with all his alleged crimes? Did I miss something here? Has he been convicted yet?
His first trial, along with seven co-defendants, is set to begin Oct. 19. It will weigh charges that they massacred 143 people in Dujail, a predominantly Shiite town north of Baghdad, in 1982 after a failed assassination attempt. If convicted, Saddam could be sentenced to death.
On Sunday, officials began releasing more details of how the court will operate. Instead of a jury, a five-judge panel will hear the case and one will be the presiding judge. The defendants will be charged together, unlike in U.S. courts.
In our democracy, don't you have a choice typically on if you want a trial by jury? And what about charging defendants together? Honestly, I don't know as I'm not legally savy but - is that how it operates here?
This part right here, though, stuck out like a sore thumb to me and perhaps to you, too.
So far, the Iraqi public has heard little about the case other than pleas by Saddam's lawyer for more time. In an interview last month with Knight Ridder, Saddam's lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, said the proceedings would be "a political trial and not a legal trial."
Not a legal trial? Aren't we trying to convert what is basically a lawless country into a law-abiding country? I don't see how it's relevant whether the person being charged is a politician or not. Shouldn't they (Saddam or not) be intitled to fair, due process and as such, shouldn't the US be pushing for a more transparent trial?
There's a little more information in the article that I haven't addressed. One point in it is whether he will be charged for all alleged acts and whether he will be executed before he has been before a court on all his alleged charges in various areas of the country.
I'm curious for feedback on this situation. Speak up.