Can Saddam be fairly/legitimately tried for the crimes he's charged with?

[BurtWorm]

I do not think the trial he is facing will do justice--literally--to the crimes Saddam is charged with. Most people in the world probably agree with me. My main objection to this tribunal is that it comes under the auspices of the US's illegitimate authority in Iraq and is therefore doomed to render an illegitimate verdict. The Bushists are clearly impervious to this reasoning, but I don't hear any criticism of the process from the Democrats either.

If Saddam is actually guilty of the crimes he's charged with, shouldn't we care about the legitimacy of the process by which he's tried? Shouldn't we care that an illegitimate system will render an illegitimate verdict, and an illegitimate verdict is not justice? How can this awful state of affairs possibly be rectified?

[sabra]

1. Considering the judges are noting the state of his moral being low

and about his potential convictions. He was guilty from day one.

[ET Awful]

2. He's definitely a criminal, whether he can get a fair trial is the real

question. I don't think he can. He's long since been tried and convicted in the minds of millions if not billions of people, among whom are the people who will sit in judgment.

[Crankie Avalon]

3. Who decides when the trial will finally take place?

Is it a television programming decision to keep the trial in reserve for when Bush's apporval rating dips below 35%?

[BurtWorm]

9. It does seem to be following the Rove schedule.

When the American public is in doubt, roll Saddam out.

[geek tragedy]

4. Kind of a moot point.

Even if the procedures are fully fair, he has no chance of avoiding conviction.

Which only makes sense, as he's obviously guilty.

Mussolini was strung up by a mob, and nobody seems terribly upset with the process there.

[BurtWorm]

7. You don't think a trial that would carefully lay out the evidence

of his guilt would be of more benefit than a kangaroo court or a lynch mob? Should we adopt kangaroo courts and lynch mobs in the US justice system, then too? Why have trials for people who are obviously guilty, right? Just string them up. Right?

[geek tragedy]

10. I have no doubt that they're going to lay out the considerable evidence

against him--as they should.

I'm saying that the outcome is already a given, and laying all that evidence out would be just for show anyways. Everyone already knows his regime was horrible and committed numerous atrocities.

Process and justice are two different things.

What happened to Mussolini was justice. What happened to Ceaucesceau was justice. Iraqis hanging Saddam will also be justice.

[BurtWorm]

13. Is that what all trials are? Just show?

This one is going to be just show. On that point I agree with you.

[geek tragedy]

14. Not all trials are just show, but not all defendants are this obviously

guilty or this famous. It's impossible for him to have a "fair" trial--but his conviction and punishment will be fair nonetheless.

Was there any doubt what was going to happen to Adolf Eichmann when the Israelis got their hands on him? That was still justice.

[BurtWorm]

15. Are there exceptions in any legal system for the "obviously guilty"?

Any legitimate legal systems, I mean.

[geek tragedy]

17. What's the alternative--set him free?

As I said, they'll follow all sorts of rules and procedures. But the outcome is already known, because his guilt is beyond reasonable debate.

But, as I said, it's a moot point when everyone knows he's guilty anyways.

[BurtWorm]

23. That is what I'm asking. What is the alternative?

Why not just shoot Saddam and spare us the show, if we really give that little shit about the facts and evidence against him? This trial is doomed to be viewed as propaganda. Is that how the Nazi crimes were treated?

Mind you, I don't think Saddam's crimes are equal to the Nazi crimes (and I do believe he was guilty of something). But I do believe that justice is not served by show trials.

[geek tragedy]

25. Well, show trials are what you get when someone's crimes are as

huge and notorious as Saddam's.

A trial is nothing more than an attempt to learn the truth. The truth here is known.

As I said, there will be tons and tons and tons of evidence presented. There won't be any doubt of his guilt afterwards. None.

So, why the hand-wringing? A guilty man is going to be found guilty.

[BurtWorm]

27. The truth here is not known, I'm sorry.

The witnesses are not all very reliable, and the facts have been contradicted.

I'm a firm believer in due process, no exceptions. It's been built into me as an American. One of the few truly great things about being an American in my opinion.

[geek tragedy]

28. You have doubts about Saddam's guilt?

Oy. Make that a double-oy. Oy oy.

[BurtWorm]

31. You have doubts about due process?

Talk about oy!

[geek tragedy]

35. What part of due process will be lacking? eom

[BurtWorm]

37. We shall see.

One part that is lacking now is that Saddam has no access to his lawyers. That's a little fucked up.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

32. You're still confused about that legal concept known as...

..."innocent until proven guilty", aren't you?

That is a very important underpinning for any democracy, wouldn't you agree?

[geek tragedy]

34. That is a LEGAL concept, not an intellectual one

One may privately form whatever beliefs and opinions one chooses.

The LEGAL SYSTEM has to treat someone as innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean that one has to ignore the evidence in front of one's face.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

43. And how do you determine whether or not the evidence is real....

...and not trumped up by the Iraqi puppet government?

You can choose to accept what you're being told by the captive mainstream media, or you can choose to do your own homework.

Do you also believe that the Iraqi puppet government has the authority to conduct a trial and then to execute the person who has been pre-ordained to be found guilty?

[geek tragedy]

50. Uh, there is TONS and TONS of evidence that Saddam's regime engaged

in all kinds of horrible crimes that isn't in the hands of US puppets. The evidence has been around for decades.

I mean, look at what he did to the Marsh Arabs. No sane person can deny his guilt there.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

56. Right. I guess you're going to also attempt to state that the US...

...didn't support Saddam's rise to power and then provide enough equipment and arms to keep him there.

Want to say something else about Saddam not being at the beck and call of the US until he screwed up and invaded Kuwait?

[geek tragedy]

57. If you want to try the Reagan administration, along with the British, USSR

Chinese, and French officials of the time for all aiding and abetting Saddam's atrocities, you'd have my blessing.

There is no contradiction in being anti-Saddam and anti-Bush.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

65. The question is one of legitimacy. The NeoCons, a fascist rightwing....

...political group, illegally took control of this country. They then took control of Iraq, another sovereign and independent country, by an illegal invasion and occupation. They have recently established a puppet government in Iraq to carry out their wishes, and to rubber-stamp their actions.

This current puppet government of Iraq has no more legitimate authority to try Saddam than our NeoCon Junta has to govern us.

No sane person would argue otherwise.

[geek tragedy]

Except for that election. One can't just point at it and yell "Neocon

quislings" and make it go away.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

73. To which illegal election are you referring? The one in which....

...the NeoCon Junta seized control of this country in December 2000?

Or could it be the elections of 2002 and 2004 in which the Junta consolidated their power in the US?

Or perhaps you're referring to the sham "election" held in Iraq that established the NeoCon's Iraqi puppet government, a government that loses people on a daily basis to those whom the NeoCons call "insurgents"?

Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by "election"?

Perhaps you could tell me your definition of the word, "legitimate".

[geek tragedy]

74. I'm talking abou the one that drew 8 million Iraqis to the polls

and which saw Bush's puppet, Allawi, completely humiliated.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

84. LOL! Do you really believe that the current Iraqi government....

...DOESN'T consist entirely of "Bush's puppets"??

Are you serious?

Don't you understand that the NeoCons backed ALL of the eventual "winners" in the Iraqi "election", regardless of who won or lost?

[geek tragedy]

88. Sistani is not a Bush puppet. The suggestion is laughable. eom

[Media_Lies_Daily]

92. Oh, please. I can't believe anyone honestly believes what you just wrote.

[geek tragedy]

96. Uh, most informed people believe what I just wrote.

Do you know who Sistani is?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

106. Well, the NeoCons believe what you wrote...do you consider them....

...to be "informed people"?

And yes, I know Sistani...the real question is, do YOU know Sistani?

Perhaps this article will provide you with some badly needed information:

The Sistani Puzzle
Did The Grand Ayatollah Collude With The US Assault On Najaf?
<http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6139>

[LynnTheDem]

122. Could you post the link to your source of "most informed people" please.

Thanks.

[LynnTheDem]

66. The British started the Marshland draining, and Hussein continued it.

Using Britain's plans.

Yep, there is no doubt about that at all.

So let's just shoot him.

Americans don't really believe in "essential, fundamental right of presumption of innocence and a fair and independant trial".

We just say we do.

[geek tragedy]

71. Gee, Saddam's #1 fan at DU shows up with more lies

The drainage in the Marshlands started in earnest in the early 1990's, as a form of collective punishment for those who dared oppose him.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm

http://www.unep.org/vitalwater/26.htm

Now go run along and play with your peers at the IHR.

[LynnTheDem]

76. So you're calling me a liar about Britain's plans to drain the marshlands.

That would make you wrong.

And that's a fact. :)

[geek tragedy]

77. Uh, no. He was not "continuing them."

The drainage began in the early 90's. It was not a "continuation" of British policy--it was a new policy aimed at destroying an entire civilization.

He was engaging in genocide and collective punishment, all the while bringing about a tremendous environmental disaster.

Ergo, your statement that he was merely continuing British policy is a lie.

He deserves to hang for what he did to the Marsh Arabs alone.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

81. You need to read the link you provided a little more closely.

[geek tragedy]

82. Which one?

They both show the claim that Saddam was merely continuing British policy to be a bald-faced lie.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

90. Don't play games GT...and don't waste my time. The quote was from...

...the first link you provided.

[geek tragedy]

94. Your selective quoting of text doesn't change the fact

that the effort to completely drain and destroy the wetlands began in the early 90's.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles347.htm

<snip>
Abbas Oweid stood next to what was left of Saddam's dam and swept his hand across the grey desolation of sand, dust and broken homes to the north. "I knew all these villages" he said. "Take this down in your notebook; you should remember the names of these dead villages: Mahamar, Manzan, Meshal, Daoudi, Djezeran Nakbia, Zalal, Abu Talfa, Jdedah, Ghalivah, Um al-Hamadi, Al-Gufas, Al-Khor, Al-Hammsn ..."

It was too much. I couldn't keep up with Mr Oweid. The sheer scope of Saddam's destruction of the Marsh Arabs had outpaced the speed of my handwriting. But then, far across the rubble of bricks and broken doorframes and dried mud, there came the cry of a bird.

Mr Oweid's face broke into a smile. "Where the birds are, there is the water," he said, and rested on his heels, a man ­ the Arabs like this ­ who had found the right aphorism for the right moment. But it was true. The birds are returning because the water is trickling back into the thousands of square miles that Saddam drained for 10 years.

You can hear it, gurgling, frothing, sucking its way into old ditches and dried-up streams and round the little dirt hills upon which the Shia Muslim Marsh Arabs built their homes before Saddam decided to destroy them.

I sat on a little boat here yesterday, puttering up the broad Salal river, and saw an old mud and concrete house with a new roof and new palm trees planted around it and a small, green boat pulled on to the dirt embankment. The bullrushes and reeds are gone and there is no tree higher than three feet. But one family has come back. Even Mohsen Bahedh, whose family fled to the safety of Iran during the long and terrible self-imposed drought that Saddam inflicted on his people, is thinking of returning.

He sat beside me in our little boat, his left hand holding a Kalashnikov rifle, his right resting on the head of his five-year-old son, Mehdi. "There were 12,000 families here and they all left," he said. "We had fish and fruit and vegetables and birds and water buffalo and our homes, and Saddam dried us out, took all our water away, left us with nothing."

Our boat slowed at one point because the water level rose six inches in front of us, a literal ridge of higher water that fell back to the river's normal level on the other side. "Underneath us are the remains of a Saddam dam," Mohsen said. "It makes the water run over the top of it. So we can still see the dams, even when they are no longer here."

Saddam's destruction of the Marsh Arabs was widely condemned outside Iraq, although you have to come here to appreciate his ruthlessness of purpose. After the Americans and British encouraged the Shia Muslims of Iraq to rise up against Saddam in 1991 ­ then betrayed them by doing nothing when he wiped out his opponents ­ deserting Iraqi soldiers and rebels who wanted to keep on fighting retreated into the swamps of Howeiza and Amarah and Hamar where the Marsh Arabs, deified in Wilfrid Thesiger's great work so many decades ago, gave them sanctuary. Iraqi helicopters and tanks could not winkle them out.

So Saddam embarked on a strategy of anti-guerrilla warfare that puts Israel's political assassinations and property destruction ­ and America's Vietnam Agent Orange ­ into the shade. He constructed a set of dams, hundreds of them, to block the waters flowing into the marshes from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. He diverted the water through new artificial waterways ­ one of them was called the Mother of All Battles river ­ which irrigated the towns and cities that remained loyal to him. The only water allowed into the marshes were the runoffs of fertilised fields, so the Marsh Arabs' cattle walked into the centre of the streams to find fresh water. In the end, there was no water left.

An entire Sumerian society, whose reed and wood homes were modelled on those of the ancient Sumerians, and whose brides were brought to their weddings in flower-covered boats, was destroyed. Almost.
<snip>

[Media_Lies_Daily]

98. "Selective quoting"? The quote came from the first article you linked....

...on this subject. Would you like to see that quote again?:

"The government's agricultural plans for the marshlands date back to the early 1950s. A major project begun in 1953, known as the Third River project, involved the construction of a massive drainage canal aimed at rendering large tracts of land between the Tigris and the Euphrates arable through desalination.20 The construction of the canal, which came to be known officially as the Saddam River, was still in progress during the 1970s and 1980s, but its 'focus gradually shifted from building an irrigation drainage system to marshland reclamation. Concrete engineering proposals were developed to drain the marshlands proper.'"

You stated that the article proved that Saddam started the marsh draining project in the 1990s. The quote noted above came from that very same article...how can you claim that it was "selective quoting"?

You can't have it both ways, GT.

[geek tragedy]

102. Not the same project.

It explicitly changed from providing irrigation to destroying the marshlands.

[LynnTheDem]

104. Notice the constantly moving goal post?

;)

[LynnTheDem]

91. You're wrong. That's a fact.

Britain drew the plans to drain Iraq's marshlands because of high malaria and other diseases.

"The government's agricultural plans for the marshlands date back to the early 1950s. A major project begun in 1953, known as the Third River project, involved the construction of a massive drainage canal aimed at rendering large tracts of land between the Tigris and the Euphrates arable through desalination."

Google it. Or not. It's much more fun for you to just call me a liar, I'm sure.

[geek tragedy]

97. No, you're still peddling bald-faced lies.

<snip>
Abbas Oweid stood next to what was left of Saddam's dam and swept his hand across the grey desolation of sand, dust and broken homes to the north. "I knew all these villages" he said. "Take this down in your notebook; you should remember the names of these dead villages: Mahamar, Manzan, Meshal, Daoudi, Djezeran Nakbia, Zalal, Abu Talfa, Jdedah, Ghalivah, Um al-Hamadi, Al-Gufas, Al-Khor, Al-Hammsn ..."

It was too much. I couldn't keep up with Mr Oweid. The sheer scope of Saddam's destruction of the Marsh Arabs had outpaced the speed of my handwriting. But then, far across the rubble of bricks and broken doorframes and dried mud, there came the cry of a bird.

Mr Oweid's face broke into a smile. "Where the birds are, there is the water," he said, and rested on his heels, a man ­ the Arabs like this ­ who had found the right aphorism for the right moment. But it was true. The birds are returning because the water is trickling back into the thousands of square miles that Saddam drained for 10 years.

You can hear it, gurgling, frothing, sucking its way into old ditches and dried-up streams and round the little dirt hills upon which the Shia Muslim Marsh Arabs built their homes before Saddam decided to destroy them.

I sat on a little boat here yesterday, puttering up the broad Salal river, and saw an old mud and concrete house with a new roof and new palm trees planted around it and a small, green boat pulled on to the dirt embankment. The bullrushes and reeds are gone and there is no tree higher than three feet. But one family has come back. Even Mohsen Bahedh, whose family fled to the safety of Iran during the long and terrible self-imposed drought that Saddam inflicted on his people, is thinking of returning.

He sat beside me in our little boat, his left hand holding a Kalashnikov rifle, his right resting on the head of his five-year-old son, Mehdi. "There were 12,000 families here and they all left," he said. "We had fish and fruit and vegetables and birds and water buffalo and our homes, and Saddam dried us out, took all our water away, left us with nothing."

Our boat slowed at one point because the water level rose six inches in front of us, a literal ridge of higher water that fell back to the river's normal level on the other side. "Underneath us are the remains of a Saddam dam," Mohsen said. "It makes the water run over the top of it. So we can still see the dams, even when they are no longer here."

Saddam's destruction of the Marsh Arabs was widely condemned outside Iraq, although you have to come here to appreciate his ruthlessness of purpose. After the Americans and British encouraged the Shia Muslims of Iraq to rise up against Saddam in 1991 ­ then betrayed them by doing nothing when he wiped out his opponents ­ deserting Iraqi soldiers and rebels who wanted to keep on fighting retreated into the swamps of Howeiza and Amarah and Hamar where the Marsh Arabs, deified in Wilfrid Thesiger's great work so many decades ago, gave them sanctuary. Iraqi helicopters and tanks could not winkle them out.

So Saddam embarked on a strategy of anti-guerrilla warfare that puts Israel's political assassinations and property destruction ­ and America's Vietnam Agent Orange ­ into the shade. He constructed a set of dams, hundreds of them, to block the waters flowing into the marshes from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. He diverted the water through new artificial waterways ­ one of them was called the Mother of All Battles river ­ which irrigated the towns and cities that remained loyal to him. The only water allowed into the marshes were the runoffs of fertilised fields, so the Marsh Arabs' cattle walked into the centre of the streams to find fresh water. In the end, there was no water left.

An entire Sumerian society, whose reed and wood homes were modelled on those of the ancient Sumerians, and whose brides were brought to their weddings in flower-covered boats, was destroyed. Almost.
<snip>

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles347.htm

<snip>
Tens of thousands of army deserters, political opponents and others sought shelter in the remote marshes, Human Rights Watch says.

Repression was stepped up in the southern Shia towns and the Iraqi regime began large-scale hydro-engineering projects in the marshes, building dams, canals and embankments. Water levels began to drop.

In 1992 and 1993 reports emerged of a military campaign to flush out the wetlands.

Refugees fleeing to Iran described artillery and aerial attacks on civilian areas, arrests and executions, mine-laying and the destruction of homes and properties.

They said the Iraqis used napalm and chemical weapons and poisoned the marsh waters, although the accusations have not been confirmed.

In August 1992, US, UK and French forces imposed a no-fly zone to stop attacks on southern Iraq from the air, but offensives continued on the ground.

"The army's favourite tactic is to blow up villages selectively and then sow mines in the water before retreating," wrote the Observer journalist Shyam Bhatia, who visited the marshes in 1993.

Iraq said its engineering programmes were for reclaiming agricultural land and that it was running a relocation programme for the benefit of the marsh dwellers.

But the UN special rapporteur on Iraq, Max van der Stoel, concluded in 1995 that he had found "extremely little evidence" of successful land reclamation and "indisputable evidence of widespread destruction and human suffering".
<snip>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm

This is not something that honest and rational people dispute.

[LynnTheDem]

101. You should read your own links.

The British began construction on canals to drain Iraq's marshlands. In the 1950s.

That's fact.

[geek tragedy]

103. The British construction was not intended to DESTROY the marshlands

in their entirety as a form of collective punishment.

Saddam's actions were intended that way.

The actions that destroyed the Marshlands BEGAN in the 1990's and were specifically targeted at crushing opposition to Saddam's rule.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/ArtCulture/2004/09/article01.shtml

<snip>
The media has recently focused on the Mesopotamian marshes and their inhabitants, known as the Marsh Arabs. The reason for all the attention the marshes have been getting lately is the recent attempt to partially restore the drained marshes.

The formerly vast marshes, which originally covered an area between 15,000 and 20,000 square kilometers (5,800 – 7,700 square miles), were ordered to be drained by Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War in 1991, in an attempt to flush out the Shiites who revolted against him and were hiding in the marshes and as a punishment to the Shiite Marsh Arabs who aided them.

The drainage project diverted water from the Euphrates River that fed the southern half of the marshes, while the northern and eastern parts of the marshes were deprived of water from the Tigris River. Previously the largest wetland in the Middle East, 95 percent of it had disappeared by 2003.

Mudheef from inside

The result was devastating for the Marsh Arabs who now had no means of living, their existence being largely dependant on fish and birds living in the marshes which were now gone. The ground was converted to dry, salt-encrusted earth or mud, depriving Iraq of much-needed agricultural land and leaving no place for the water buffalo that the marsh dwellers herded to roam. The reeds from which their homes were built died as well.

With nothing left for them, the Marsh Arabs were forced to leave their and their forefathers’ beloved home and become refugees or internally displaced persons. Tens of thousands escaped to Iran leaving only 50,000 marsh inhabitants by 1993. . .

In 1990, an estimated 300,000 people lived in the Mesopotamian marshlands. Prior to the drainage project, the Marsh Arabs led a distinctive way of life and had a rich and fascinating culture. Also known as the Ma’dan, they are an indigenous people who are believed to partly be the descendants of the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians. Their unique way of life and culture, a 5,000-year-old heritage, was passed on through the ages relatively unchanged.
<snip>

[LynnTheDem]

108. And the goal post moves yet again.

The British plan was to drain the marshlands because of the health hazard of malaria, etc, and to dry the land out for agricultural use.

They began draining in the 1950s and 1960s.

The British plans called for total draining. Those are the plans Hussein used.

I can see both sides to the argument; destroying wetlands is something I'm opposed to, whatever the reason. But preventing the spread of malaria etc is also of prime importance. With the population increasing as it is, I can also understand the importance of reclaiming land for agricultural use.

But some "progressives" prefer knee-jerk emotions to objective unemotional discussion of facts. And calling others liars.

[geek tragedy]

112. Dear lord, your Baathist propaganda is descending into self-parody

Saddam's draining of the Marshlands was meant to stop malaria and reclaim it for agricultural use?

Bwwwaaaahhhaaaahaaaa!!!!

Apparently Baghdad Bob posts on DU.

[LynnTheDem]

113. LOL!!!

You're going right over the top, now.

:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

115. Uh, no. Try talking to someone from the UNEP or any human rights

agency and try to claim that Saddam drained the Marshlands to protect the people there from malaria or to produce arable land.

Sorry, but you are in deep denial about Saddam. I suggest therapy.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

109. Right. Producing arable land from the marsh was not going to...

..destroy it. So, what do you think was happening to the marsh?

Just curious, but what does the phrase "arable land" mean to you?

[BurtWorm]

119. I have to agree with geek here on this one point:

Saddam's assault on the marsh was not intended to rid the Iraqi people of malaria. It was to rid the marshes of Marsh Arabs, who, he seems to have thought, might be sympathetic to the Iranian revolution. He used munitions to accomplish his eradication. In other words, he murdered thousands.

Unfortunately for the Marsh Arabs, Saddam, while he may wind up dangling from a rafter, will never pay for his crimes, thanks to George W. Bush's illegitimate war in Iraq, and the illegitimate judicial system set up in its wake.

[LynnTheDem]

133. Of course his intent was nasty. No doubt. Britain's intent was making $.

The malaria justification was just that; a justification, although something does have to be done about the situation, especially in Iraq.

Britain's reasons for draining the marshlands was economics. Profits.

Hussein's was to prevent his enemies hiding in the swamps, and as revenge on the Arabs.

But in fact, as I'd posted & got called a liar for, the Brits planned the drainage, the Brits started the drainage, and Hussein used the Brits' plans to finish it. The difference between the two was the intent.

[BurtWorm]

144. Well, geek has already had Saddam's trial in his head

and is now probably fantasizing the execution. It keeps him busy. What with that and calling other DUers liars and Baghdad Bobs, there just aren't enough hours in the day.

[LynnTheDem]

150. You forgot "#1 Saddam fan"

:D :D :D

[geek tragedy]

124. The British plans were never meant to destroy 90% of the Marshlands

It was Saddam who decided to destroy the entire region.

[BurtWorm]

78. Your tactics border on the Saddamian.

Shame on you for equating Saddam's crimes with the holocaust. Shame on you.

[geek tragedy]

79. You're outraged at the comparison of genocide to genocide?

I myself save my outrage for people who lie and say that the genocide never happened. Doesn't matter if the victims are Jews or Marsh Arabs or Kurds.

But those are my values.

[BurtWorm]

83. I'm not the only person outraged by that comparison.

Deborah Lipstadt, I'm confident, would be outraged by it as well.

Do you also hold it against the US government in the 19th century that they had a policy of exterminating native Americans? Was Hiroshima, which killed in a matter of hours the number Saddam is said to have taken years to kill, an act of genocide?

Or do you want to just stick with the subject at hand and leave the Holocaust and Nazis out of it as well?

[geek tragedy]

87. If you paid attention, you'll note that I wasn't comparing Jews to Marsh

Arabs, but rather apologists for one form of attempted genocide to apologists for another form of attempted genocide.

Again, save your outrage for those who LIE and pretend that the attempted genocide of the Marsh Arabs never happened.

[BurtWorm]

93. So now you're apologizing for the genocide of Native Americans

and the people of Hiroshima. Why dismiss it otherwise? What makes you different from those who dismiss genocide anywhere?

[geek tragedy]

95. I'm not pretending that those didn't happen.

I'm not claiming that the US didn't intend to wipe out the Native Americans or people of Hiroshima.

There are some people, for whatever misguided reason only they know, try to minimize and deny what Saddam did.

They are liars, and need to be refuted.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

110. Tsk. Tsk. More name-calling. That's all you have, isn't it?

[geek tragedy]

116. If people are going to lie, they need to own up.

There is NO doubt amongst informed people about what Saddam did to the Marsh Arabs. None. Zip. Zilch.

People who pretend that he had benign motives for draining the marshlands are either fools or Baathist liars.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

80. I find it interesting that when backed into a corner some people choose...

...to launch baseless personal attacks.

Additionally, from the link you provided, this seems to indicate that the marshlands were being drained in earnest as early as 1953:

"The government's agricultural plans for the marshlands date back to the early 1950s. A major project begun in 1953, known as the Third River project, involved the construction of a massive drainage canal aimed at rendering large tracts of land between the Tigris and the Euphrates arable through desalination.20 The construction of the canal, which came to be known officially as the Saddam River, was still in progress during the 1970s and 1980s, but its 'focus gradually shifted from building an irrigation drainage system to marshland reclamation. Concrete engineering proposals were developed to drain the marshlands proper.'"

[geek tragedy]

86. I recommend this graphic:

and this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1066282,00.html

<snip>
For centuries, the three huge marshes covering southern Iraq were impenetrable and beyond the law. During the 1980s, they provided a hide-out for army deserters from the Iran-Iraq war. After the failed Shia uprising in 1991 following the Gulf war, encouraged and then abandoned by George Bush senior, rebels disappeared into the complex of waterways and tall reeds with the help of their fellow Shia Marsh Arabs.

With brutal efficiency, the regime laid siege to the marshes and built a series of canals and drained the water, reducing the Middle East's largest wetlands from 7,500 square miles by 90 per cent
<snip>

[BurtWorm]

105. The Baathists brutal treatment of the Marsh Arabs

was not begun by England. The drainage of the marshes clearly were, but if the Baathists had only drained the marsh it's not likely many people would know or care. When European style colonialists and imperialists implement culture-killing, they've learned to be very subtle about it. Saddam's methods were not so subtle. His assault on the marshes were in retaliation for the Iranian revolution of 1979. In effect he waged war on the Marsh Arabs, as though they were a foreign army.

[LynnTheDem]

117. Yep, I agree.

The Baathists brutal treatment of the Marsh Arabs was indeed brutal. But as you said, the plans for, and the draining of Iraq's marshlands was begun by the Brits.

The Brits were also the first to gas the Kurds. And the Shia.

But don't mention the facts! That makes you a #1 Saddam fan and a "liar. :D

[BurtWorm]

121. Why call the Brits and the US to the carpet when you can just string up

an Arab and the problem will magically go away?

:evilfrown:

[LynnTheDem]

123. Well I do see the convenience of doing that, honestly, but unfortunately

I have this integrity thing that insists objectivity and fairness to ALL, even the crappy dregs of society, is the right thing to do.

And no matter how hard I try, I just can't get rid of that integrity thing. :shrug:

[geek tragedy]

126. Because the British didn't wipe out 90% of the Marshlands in an

exercise of collective punishment--Saddam did.

[BurtWorm]

129. A proper trial of Saddam would investigate how he did what he did.

Who colluded? Who were his accomplices, aides and abettors? And that would include such qestions as where did he get all those WMDs he had once upon a time anyway. So we get the full picture of the crimes, and are not content to hang a scapegoat and wash our hands of it.

[geek tragedy]

130. There is no other party possibly guilty in the draining of the marshlands

but Saddam.

[BurtWorm]

132. Yes, m'lord.

:eyes:

[geek tragedy]

135. I'm just stating the plain and obvious truth.

Your issue is with the facts, not me.

The facts are pretty much known--and what is known is more than enough to convict him.

[BurtWorm]

138. Sure, m'lord.

:eyes:

My problem is with the legitimacy of the system that will try him.

As we've already long ago established, the legitimacy of the system is of no concern to you. It is to me, and I've explained why, and you haven't heard me. So why you've been on my back throughout this thread failing to hear my major point and seeming to believe I care about yours is beyond me.

[geek tragedy]

140. The legitimacy of the system is in doubt, for certain.

That doesn't mean that Saddam shouldn't face justice anyways.

For a villain like Saddam, victor's justice is still justice.

[BurtWorm]

141. Yes, m'lord.

:eyes:

[geek tragedy]

127. They WER NOT THE SAME PLANS.

The British plans did not call for the destruction of the entire marshlands and turning them into a wasteland.

Saddam's efforts were designed with the purpose of destroying the Marsh Arabs.

[LynnTheDem]

137. Haigh Report. 1951.

Same plans, different intent.

One for profits. One for revenge.

Of course this is just me spreading more lies & misinformation;

The first major marsh-draining scheme was proposed in the 1951 Haigh Report, "Control of the Rivers of Iraq," drafted by British engineers working for the Iraqi government. "The report describes an array of sluices, embankments and canals on the lower reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates that would be needed to 'reclaim' the marshes." The study's senior engineer, Frank Haigh, felt that the standing marsh water was being wasted

Various international organizations such as the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the International Wildfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau, and Middle East Watch have been monitoring the Iraqi situation.

All have found evidence to indicate that the Iraqi Government has been attempting to force the Ma'dan people from their homes through water diversion tactics copied from the Haigh Report.

http://www.american.edu/TED/ice/marsh.htm

[geek tragedy]

139. So you concede that Saddam is guilty as charged as far as his crimes

against the Marsh Arabs are concerned.

P.S. Iraq was independent in 1951.

[LynnTheDem]

142. I don't concede anyone guilty until they are declared guilty in a fair and

independant trial with unbiased and objective judges, just as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states.

PS; Britain was still running Iraq in 1951; Britain ruled Iraq from 1917-1958.

PPS; bush says Iraq is now independant.

[geek tragedy]

143. You just said that Saddam destroyed the marshlands as a form of

revenge against its inhabitants. If that's the charge, haven't you just said he's guilty?

I really don't understand why you can't just say he's guilty. You're not on the jury.

[LynnTheDem]

147. Nope, that's just my opinion of one part of the whole issue.

He used the same plans the Brits designed and started to implement.

His intent was not the same, IN MY OPINION*, but the final result was.

I'm not qualified to judge whether that is a hanging offense.

*As I'm not blessed with the ability to read people's intentions, my opinion could be dead wrong. A fair and independant trial with ALL sides of the issue examined would be required before coming to conclusions.

[LynnTheDem]

64. The alternative is a fair & independant trial.

The ICC.

[geek tragedy]

72. The ICC lacks retroactive jurisdiction. Next.

[Yupster]

19. The Nuremburg Trials

were done under direct occupation, but I can't seem to generate a whole lot of tears for the convicted there either.

[LynnTheDem]

67. The Nuremburg Tribunals were done with full due process and the judges

were not Germans or people who were victims of the Nazi regime.

[gratuitous]

5. This is an excellent point

And the fact that Saddam was the maximum leader of Iraq for the time of his crimes, there's a legitimate ex post facto argument to be made in his defense. That is, as the dictator of Iraq, he certainly couldn't violate his own laws because his word and his will was the law of Iraq when he was committing his atrocities.

The proper venue, of course, is the International Criminal Court in The Hague to charge Saddam with crimes against humanity. But the U.S. isn't interested in giving the ICC too much (or any) credibility, because the corrupt bastards running our country right now might have to do some in-depth explanation for some of their actions should the ICC come a-calling at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Is this just lawyerly over-consideration for the niceties of the law? In part. But the overriding concern is for the legal redress of crimes committed under the color of government by an impartial court. If Saddam is guilty, and I'm pretty sure he is, I want him convicted where the introduction of error or prejudice is minimized as far as possible. I want him tried and convicted fairly, with a sentence commensurant with the evidence so that no one can say later that he was victimized by people jealous of his success or who couldn't get the better of him in any other way. A fair trial and conviction also sends the message across the planet that even ruthless dictators are subject to a higher law than their own word, and that fair treatment of the populace is not just an expectation but one of those inalienable rights Thomas Jefferson was gassing on about back in 1776.

[geek tragedy]

11. Uh, that ex post facto argument is total bullshit.

Just ask the Nuremberg defendants.

And the proper venue is in Iraq in a trial conducted by Iraqis--with no interference by the US or anybody else. His ass belongs to them.

The ICC also lacks jurisdiction as a legal matter, as well as a moral one.

[BurtWorm]

16. Which Iraqis own his ass?

Does the authority of this court come from the Iraqis really? If it comes from the US, do the Iraqis really own Saddam's ass?

[geek tragedy]

20. Yes, authority does come from the Iraqis.

You can BET that the Shiites want to handle this their own way.

Ironically, one would think that the best way would be to try him after the US troops leave. However, it's the Iraqis that want him tried now, while the US is trying to delay.

[BurtWorm]

24. The Shiites

are not "the Iraqis."

You seem to be advocating a kind of vengeance justice. Do you want that for the US as well, or just for those people way the fuck over there?

[geek tragedy]

26. The Shiites are the big force in Iraqi politics.

Of course, the Kurds and even the Sunnis also have grievances against him.

There will be a trial.

There will be evidence introduced that establishes his guilt well beyond any reasonable doubt.

He will be convicted of the crimes he did commit, and punished appropriately.

That's justice.

[BurtWorm]

29. For you. But your standards don't seem quite as high as someone

who cares about justice probably should be. With all due respect.

[geek tragedy]

30. The man's guilty, the process will show he's guilty, and he will be found

guilty.

Justice is about people getting what they deserve.

The outcome will be the right one.

[BurtWorm]

33. So what kind of justice do you think Bush will get?

Out of curiosity, as you're the expert on people's guilt.

[geek tragedy]

36. Bush won't face justice. But that has nothing to do with the subject at

hand.

[BurtWorm]

39. I'm afraid it does.

Because Bush is the one who lay the groundwork for this trial. If Bush had not illegitimately invaded Iraq, Saddam would not be in an American prison awaiting trial by a court set up under the illegitimate authority of the US. But according to you, as Saddam is guilty, none of that matters. In my book, this means there will be no justice for Bush.

[geek tragedy]

41. Seriously, why are you so concerned about the fate of an obviously guilty

monster?

If the trial evidence demonstrates his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, will you then cease to have concerns?

[BurtWorm]

44. It's not Saddam I am concerned about. It's the justice system.

You're content to be a member of the mob. Fine. I'm not. I believe in rational, blind justice.

[geek tragedy]

48. If the trial produces overwhelming evidence of his guilt, will you

be satisfied?

[BurtWorm]

54. It depends on how the trial is conducted.

It really does. As I said elsewhere to you, I'm inclined to believe Saddam is guilty of atrocities. But as a firm, unshakable believer in Enlightenment-derived justice, I believe all humans charged with crimes are entitled to due process. I don't think only the accused benefit from fair trials. I believe the victims also benefit, more than they do from frontier "justice," which is utterly illegitimate and untrustworthy. Would you rather have an impartial judge rule guilty or a prejudiced gasbag rule it? Does the guilty mean the same coming from a prejudiced gasbag as it does from an impartial jurist? To you, apparently. To me it degrades the system.

[geek tragedy]

55. The impartial jurist is a bit of a myth.

The judges at Nuremberg weren't impartial. Do you really think they looked at Goerring and had no preconception of his guilt?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. And my worry is, how long before we see that process here in the US?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. So, you think that the puppet government of an illegally occupying....

...army has the authority to dispense justice. Interesting.

I seem to recall the puppet governments established by Nazi Germany that also staged show trials for people they had already deemed guilty. The puppet governments also carried out the executions.

I also recall the puppet governments established by the old Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. They conducted show trials, too.

And how about the Chinese, Cambodians, and other governments throughout history that have conducted show trials in an attempt to give an air of legitimacy to their own governments?

[geek tragedy]

42. Except that Saddam is actually guilty. eom

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. And you've already determined that? Thanks for proving my point.

[geek tragedy]

47. Yes, I have. I have no doubt that he has the blood of thousands on his

hands, and that he is guilty of truly horrendous crimes.

I am puzzled by anyone who could think otherwise.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

61. I'm puzzled by anyone that believes that the NeoCons' puppet....

...government in Iraq has the authority to conduct a trial for any purpose.

I'm also surprised that you evidently believe that the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by US forces under NeoCon control establishes the right of that Iraqi court to try Saddam.

You do understand that if the NeoCons had decided not to invade Iraq, that Saddam would still be in power, that his country would not be almost completely destroyed, that close to one hundred thousand Iraqis would not be dead, and that the US would not have lost 2000 or more dead as well as who knows how many wounded? You do understand that, don't you?

[geek tragedy]

62. Of course I understand that.

But, Saddam has to be held accountable. It's not like the right thing would be to put him back in charge.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

68. The "right thing" would have been to have never invaded Iraq...

...The "right thing" would have been to allow all of those people that have been killed, wounded, and maimed to date not to have had that happen to them.

Trying Saddam does NOT excuse, condone, or justify what the NeoCon Junta has done at any level. It is a farce at best.

[geek tragedy]

70. You're arguing against a straw man. I never claimed any of that. eom

[DemonFighterLives]

107. Don't confuse him with facts

My goodness the Geek is ready to be judge, jury and executioner.
Go get em tiger!
In the America that I grew up in, whether someone believes a person guilty or not has nothing to do with the right to a trial.
We can't just leave him to the Iraqis for justice either. We caused the quagmire in the name of bringing democracy to the natives. We cannot shirk our responsibilities to show them what happens in a true democracy.

[BurtWorm]

49. Why don't we just send you over there with a revolver, m'lord.

Since you know what's best for Saddam. :eyes:

Better yet, go talk to Bob Grant or Sean Hannity. I'm sure they'll be perfectly receptive toward your take on issues of justice.

Really, geek. You've made your position clear, and you've made it clearer that you're not going to change it, or change anyone else's mind. We get it. Thanks for your participation. :hi:

[geek tragedy]

51. Oh Jesus what a load of bullshit.

Any reasonable person can look at the historical record and conclude that Saddam's regime was responsible for horrible crimes.

In fact, it takes a truly bizarre mindset to look at the record and find it inconclusive.

[BurtWorm]

59. No one has said it is inconclusive.

But you're advocating mob justice and I'm advocating due process. We're not going to get any closer on this.

[geek tragedy]

60. How am I advocating mob justice?

There will be a trial, and that trial will have procedures in place, and at that trial there will be overwhelming evidence introduced.

That's how a trial works.

[LynnTheDem]

69. There we go! A new system of law; let the VICTIMS be judge & jury!

Excellent! Hope we do that here in America soon!

Our current system of presumption of innocence, a fair & independant trial with unbiased and independant judges is just SOOOO pre-2001.

As for Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and the ICRC and their silly Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 11 that calls for fair & independant trials and presumption of innocence and independant judges, screw that!

We'll just CHERRY-PICK like we do with every other law.

USA! USA! USA!

[geek tragedy]

75. That's what happens when the victims include the whole damn country.

If your Saddam hadn't been such a brutal, murderous thug, he wouldn't be having this problem.

But, then again, you're more concerned with the well-being of fascist dictators than their victims, so I guess we're just operating from different value systems.

[LynnTheDem]

111. LOL!

You don't have a clue, do you.

My value systems include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.

Yours don't.

So yes, we are indeed operating from different value systems. I'll stick with mine. ;)

[geek tragedy]

118. Yours is:

Whatever is good for Saddam.

You've spread pro-Saddam lies from the beginning, trying to spread misinformation about his record.

My values mean I won't lie on behalf of a mass-murdering dictator.

That's where we differ.

[LynnTheDem]

125. ROTFL!!!

"You've spread pro-Saddam lies from the beginning, trying to spread misinformation about his record.

My values mean I won't lie on behalf of a mass-murdering dictator."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Every "lie" I've posted is very well-documented and was posted with sources. WOW sure a lot of "pro-Saddam" liars! :rofl:

[geek tragedy]

128. Why did Saddam drain the Marshlands? eom

[LynnTheDem]

131. There goes that goal post again! You called me a LIAR for saying

the British started the draining of Iraq's marshlands.

You called me a LIAR for saying Hussein used Britain's plans to continue the draining of Iraq's marshlands.

If and when you have the integrity to apologize for your personal attacks on me, when in fact I was not lying, then we can move onto Hussein's reasons for why he carried on with Britain's drainage plans.

Now that's fair, wouldn't you say? ;)

[geek tragedy]

134. When did the British start draining the Marshlands?

I see the earliest date being the 1950's. Do you have a different 'fact?'

[LynnTheDem]

148. 1953. And yes, Britain still ruled Iraq at that time.

British rule; 1917-1958.

Google it.

[geek tragedy]

151. Which explains why Iraq supported Germany during WWII.

[LynnTheDem]

156. ROTFL!!!

Fact, like it or not; Britain ruled Iraq from 1917-1958.

But hey, I'm just a liar. ;)

[BurtWorm]

12. Very well said.

:toast:

It's as if the Nazis had been tried by Judge Judy.

[Spazito]

6. The bush cabal should be forcing a transparently fair trial

but they won't. They can't, imo, because a fair trial would bring out evidence that would incriminate many in the 'inner circle' along with incriminating Saddam.

If they had nothing to hide, the bush cabal would be making sure a fair trial took place if only for PR reasons, it would make them look 'fair' at least in this instance.

[Vanje]

8. Is it a figment of my imagination, or...

wasnt Saddam ealier under some sort of legal proceeding.....like a TRIAL, presided over by the nephew of former Bush favorite, Achmed Chalabi? (I remeber news footage of Saddam wearing a well-fitting suit and looking old, but much better than he'd looked when he was pulled out of the spider-hole, they'd planted him in for the Dec 03 photo-op.)
We stopped hearing about the proceedings about the time that Achmed Chalabi fell from favor with Bush Admin over his apparent working for Iran, and the "judge" of the case (Chalabi's nephew) was indicted for murder.Yes. Murder!

At that time the story, went away, and the Chalabis were never mentioned by the media again, and everyone started pretending that Saddams "trial" had'nt already started.

Tell me I didnt imagine all this.

[NoPasaran]

18. It happened

I don't think it was a trial, though... more of an arraignment. Of course, given the fact that Iraq doesn't have a constitution tehy're probably making up the legal system as they go along.

[bpilgrim]

21. with the US in charge No and HELL No

the UN should be overseeing this as well but the Dictator with the most Nukes apparently TRUMPS everyone else.

peace

[SteppingRazor]

22. Now that they've expedited the process...

Anyone notice that this is coming up just in time to replace the Michael Jackson trial? :tinfoilhat:

Of course, the real reason it's being expedited is to drop the 500 or so crimes that we would have been complicit in, but never mind that. In any case, the man is practically guilty prima facie. Can he get a fair trial, not by our standard of a fair trial, no. But that's only because of the massive size of his crimes. So screw Saddam. I won't lose a lot of sleep over what happens to him.

[Taxloss]

38. No.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he met with an accident as soon as he goes into Iraqi custody.

[patcox2]

46. A trial in such a case is just a ceremony; not at all related to justice.

Bad as he was, Saddam was the sovereign. In cases such as this, the accusations, the "crimes," the process, its not a "trial" in anything like the sense we use the term. For example, our principles of justice presume that you can only be punished for violating a law that covers you, and which was in effect at the time you broke it.

In cases such as this, where a sovereign is "tried" after being deposed, what generally happens is the new leaders, who rule by right of force, simply make up laws and apply them retroactively in order to justify their actions in deposing the old boss.

Its not necessarily a bad thing. The real jury is history. The Nuremberg "trials" did basically the same thing, made up laws and procedures ex post facto, but the judgment of history was that this was not unjust or an abusive process.

Saddam's case is more complicated. Here you have a dictator being tried by a puppet. The puppetmaster (the US) probably spilled more blood putting the puppets in power than the dictator did in attaining his power. Right now, the puppetmaster and the puppet army are killing more people daily in order to keep the puppets in power than Saddam ever had to do, except during uprisings against him. So now the puppets who are only able to rule by killing those who won't accept their legitimacy, get to judge the dictator, who they are accusing of killing those who didn't accept his legitimacy.

[geek tragedy]

53. For the truly guilty, victor's justice is justice nonetheless, no?

Here, everyone knows what justice is. The only qualms people have are those delivering justice.

[LuPeRcALiO]

136. "truly guilty" of what? Hiding WMD?

Yes, everyone knows what justice is, and kangaroo courts are not it.

[geek tragedy]

145. Ask the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds. eom

[LuPeRcALiO]

146. When the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds initiate a legal proceeding

against Saddam in or under the auspices of the UN, I'll ask them.

[geek tragedy]

149. You asked what he was guilty of. I told you to ask his victims.

And now you don't care because they didn't start the proceedings?

There will be PLENTY of testimony from those two groups. Be sure to pay attention and inform yourself.

[LuPeRcALiO]

152. When his "victims" bring the charges, I'll ask them.

Any testimony rendered in a kangaroo court is farcical.

[geek tragedy]

153. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Just admit you don't care what Saddam did, and that the lives of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs he destroyed are meaningless to you.

Oh wait, that's right. You don't think that Saddam did anything to those people, and you'll consider anything they say at his trial to be a farce.

[LuPeRcALiO]

154. I see plenty of evil in Iraq right now.

And I don't see Saddam as the source of it.

[patcox2]

155. Saddam killed dissidents to retain his power.

Okay. Group A was in power, its authority was resisted by group B, so group A killed members of group B who resisted, in order to remain in power.

Now, by use of overwhelming military force, Group B has been placed in power. Members of Group A are resisting. Group B is now killing large numbers of group A resistors, in order to remain in power.

Now why am I supposed to think that the leader of Group A is categorically evil for killing those who resisted him, but the leaders of Group B are good? The peaceful Kurds and the innocent, gentle Shiites, only the Sunni are evil, is that how it goes?

This is just a seesaw, and now its Saddams turn in the barrel. Thats what passes for a political system in the middle east, whoever can grab power and retain it through repression and violence, is the leader, and he will be, until someone else grabs it, and so on and so on.

[DemonFighterLives]

114. Best explanation here

:thumbsup:

[Inland]

58. One of those occupational hazards of being a dictator.

The next dictator gets to try you for being a dictator, and you don't get to complain about legitimacy.

If Saddam had wanted a fair, legitimate government to obey legal standards, he probably should have installed one while he was powerful rather than wishing for one after his fall.

[geek tragedy]

63. Very well said. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Yes. And, he should be hauled before the ICC to prosecute the case.

Instead of the kangaroo court he's facing.

[geek tragedy]

89. The ICC lacks retroactive jurisdiction. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. Huh? Please explain. n/t

[geek tragedy]

100. The ICC treaty explicitly states that it only has jurisdiction for crimes

that were committed after it went into effect.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

120. Only because of US opposition to the ICC.

The Security Council could refer the case to the ICC but the US would veto it.

That being the case, a "hybrid" court could be created with UN backing and Iraqi and International judges could be used.

As it is now, Saddam is likely to be a martyr because of the obvious American influence on the court.