Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richyrich03867
Goober, you are inferring that Iraq under Saddam's government respected rule of law. Absurd.
The news coverage of his trial give it the appearance of a farce. At the end of the day, however, it will not be difficult to prove in court he engaged in extrajudicial murders.
|
It isn't the coverage that makes the trial a farce, it's the trial.
Iraq is not a sovereign nation, it is under military occupation and the occupation forces control the police and military forces.
According to the Iraqi Constitution, the president has immunity from prosecution fro crimes that occurred during his term of office, so under Iraqi law, Saddam cannot be prosecuted. Not only does the constitution promulgated by Saddam say that, but the 1957 constitution says that, so even if you strike out the later constitution, the earlier one would also grant the President immunity.
The rule of law is about process, in the US, "obviously" guilty people are released when illegally collected evidence is suppressed, the rule of law is not about the result, it's about the process.
To charge Saddam with a crime for which he is immune from prosecution violates the Iraqi constitution that was in force at the time of the incident.
Saddam should be brought to a venue where he can be legally charged, such as the Hague.