Saddam trial ........... why not in the same court as Milosovich?

[bobbieinok]

....

[Cleita]

1. Because it would make too much sense.

By now you've got to realize that this administration marches to the tune of a different drummer than the rest of us.

[bobbieinok]

5. That's what I thought.

Also haven't bushco used all sorts of threats so that no American can ever be tried there???

A trial there would simply underline so many problems for bushco.

[stopthegop]

2. because the death penalty would not be an option there..

and it's a chance for the new Iraqui system to work

[Donna Zen]

3. For several reasons:

Kosovo & Bosnia were NATO combined actions, so the International Court makes sense. Also, Hollbrooke said yesterday that the IC is not working well.

The action in Iraq was not one with strong international consent. The crimes committed by Saddam are against the people of Iraq. To move the venue to the Hague would not create any positives and would certainly stir the negatives.

The US regime of course wants the death penalty, something not offered as punishment in the Hague.

Personally, I believe the death penalty for Saddam will only make matters worse.

[adriennel]

4. because

there is no death penalty if he's tried like Milosovich
and
the US can't be charge.

[bobbieinok]

6. I heard that the US set up a 'no death penalty' Iraqi legal system.

That left me stunned.....the same people who just love the death penalty in the US set up a system in Iraq without it????

The comment I heard yesterday went on to say that the Iraqi system would 'probably' be 'changed soon.'

[LawSchoolLiberal]

7. Well...

The main goal of the group that wants to avoid handing him over to the UN is to provide some additional legitimacy to the new Iraqi governing body by allowng them to apply their laws against Saddam.

That's a reasonable goal, but it's also worth noting that a desire to work with the judicial branch of a government is NO reason not to avail oneself of the additional tools which are available. Given that this is a new set of laws, the best defense attorneys for Saddam are likely not Iraqi or American, but rather a multi-national goup made up of those who have served with the international court for several years. They'll be more familiar than anyone with how to handle a trial of the necessary scale, as well as what will and won't make a viable defense. Similarly, even if the Iraqis want their own team of procecutors, there's no reason to think that the Court's people wouldn't be able to offer useful advice on tactic and technique. Just because there are social benefits to using another venue doesn't mean the trials have to be cut off altogether, even if that is what people in Shrub's administration will want to do.