The trial seems to be running much better now that they have a Kurdish judge.

I agree we should have ended it as soon as we found the coward in the hole. Bang Bang Oops.. we didn't know it was Saddam....

Actually, the Iraqi constitution says that no charges can be brought against a person for crimes that occurred while that person was President of Iraq.

Not only does the constitution that Saddam put in place say that, but the constitution of 1957 also says that.
So legally, the charges against Saddam should be dropped.

__________________
"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember --I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"
-- George W. Bush, asked if the tide is turning in Iraq

Those constitutions were illegitimate and in any case, not upheld by Saddam anyway.

So what was the governing constitution then?
If you are claiming Saddam broke the law, what law did he break?
These questions aren't important for dictators and tyrants, but the rule of law is supposed to be based on law, it's not about the result, it's all about the process.
If Saddam was brought to the Hague, he could be tried as a war criminal, and imprisoned, but in Iraq he has constitutional immunity, legally anyway, if this court doesn't recognize the law, then it's not a court of law, it's just a show trial, to be followed by victor's justice, not unlike a Roman Triumph.

This may not make a difference here in the US, but in the Middle East, it will be seen as the infidel nation, invading an arab homeland, and killing it's legitimate leader, denying him his legal rights, treating him and by implication all the people of the region as inferior subjects, not entitled to rights under the law.
Nice way to swell the recruitment lines for the big Jihad.

__________________
"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember --I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"
-- George W. Bush, asked if the tide is turning in Iraq

two mils (again) Of course it is a shambles. he should have been turned over to the Iraqis, and the US keep it's cotten-picken hands off and out of it. But instead we have a US sanctioned do-nothing court

__________________
A mugawump is a bird who sits on a fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other--[COLOR="red"][B]
A fence sitter-upon[/B][/COLOR] IE: a moderate/independent:

[COLOR="Blue"]Any fool can find fault, but it takes a thinking person to find the appropriate solution[/COLOR]

He should have been turned over to the Hague. If we are going to introduce the rule of law to a region, then following the law is a good place to start.

__________________
"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember --I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"
-- George W. Bush, asked if the tide is turning in Iraq

So what was the governing constitution then?


Iraq was a dictatorship. There was no law in Iraq other than Saddam's.

If you are claiming Saddam broke the law, what law did he break?
These questions aren't important for dictators and tyrants, but the rule of law is supposed to be based on law, it's not about the result, it's all about the process.


The Nuremburg precedent established all the Iraqis need.

If Saddam was brought to the Hague, he could be tried as a war criminal, and imprisoned, but in Iraq he has constitutional immunity, legally anyway, if this court doesn't recognize the law, then it's not a court of law, it's just a show trial, to be followed by victor's justice, not unlike a Roman Triumph.


The Iraqis don't want him to die a natural death while his trial drags on for ten years. Or even worse, found innocent due to a politically motivated tribunal wanting to make a statement about the war.

This may not make a difference here in the US, but in the Middle East, it will be seen as the infidel nation, invading an arab homeland, and killing it's legitimate leader, denying him his legal rights, treating him and by implication all the people of the region as inferior subjects, not entitled to rights under the law.


The Iraqis are doing it their way. This is Arab justice, and the Arab peoples understand it.

On the contrary, I think that denying them their justice will create far more anger.

He should have been turned over to the Hague. If we are going to introduce the rule of law to a region, then following the law is a good place to start.

The Hague proved they aren't capable in the Milosevic trial.

You are just plain wrong on everything here.
Iraq had a constitution, it was a member of the United Nations, they even had elections. They had courts, judges and laws.

According to the Nuremburg principles, it should be Bush on trial for his life, he is the war criminal that started an unprovoked war of aggression.

This isn't Arab justice, it's victor's justice, and this court is alienating the US even further from the arab street.

__________________
"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember --I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"
-- George W. Bush, asked if the tide is turning in Iraq

You'd rather us alienate the Iraqi street by denying them their justice?