Hussein Court Hearing

[Comrade Latino]

What did you guys think about it. Did anyone watch it? Here is a link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19746-2004Jul1.html)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I think he had a point when he said it was a theatre.

I think for the people in the West, it is. Clearly, for the Iraqi people he has to go on trial so they can uncover their history and see the evil they've been subjected to.

I also thought some of the things he said were hilarious! When asked about the Halabja gassing he said "Yes, I heard about that". And he said "I am Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq". Gotta laugh at that!

However it is a theatre that he will surely happily act in. And he started today. This will be a long drawn out case which will last months and months and will go on further for years to come. We know what he's done and he knows we know. The case is just incidental and it is something to excite us in the West who weren't really subjected to his wrongdoings.

However for the Iraqi people it must go on and every piece of evidence must be uncovered and presented.

[Intifada]

saddam should only be on trial when a legitimate government has been elected by the iraqi people. the trial he is getting at the moment is not fair. the strings are being pulled by the US.

the man is a criminal and tyrant who deserves to be tried for the crimes he has been charged with, however, bush and his administration should be tried alongside the dictator.

the whole trial is a showcase. the americans have overall control of the supposedly "iraqi" court. they decided there would be no microphones in the room. they only allowed one iraqi journalist in. they won't even allow the iraqis to hear what saddam had to say.

iraqi sovereignty sure does rule. :rolleyes:

[abigratsass]

well the obvious thing that hes he's a tyrant and crimnal blah blah thats all known.... but putting him on trial like this doesnt serve anything , ok i mean if i was one of his victims and got my finger cut off or a realtive died because of him id like to see him put on trial because of what he did not for some show , to serve american purposes in the region and all that shit!!!

[renwan]

FREE SADDAM! thats an illegal Trail, under an Illegal Goverment started by an Ilegal War, Saddam is the President of the Republic of Iraq!! Liberty to You Saddam, i will go to fight for you!

[Comrade Latino]

Saddam killed way too many people, you should not defend him. What you should do is fight to get the U$ out of Iraq not to help a murderer.

[renwan]

if he is free iraq will revolt and kick american's ass!

[Latin American Socialist]

Saddam killed way too many people, you should not defend him.

Thats the same thing i hear everyday when i tell people in the U$A that i support che. exept change saddam and switch it to che.


Che killed way too many people, you should not defend him.

[Take the Power back]

Che wasn't a genocidal ruler of a nation. Don't ever compare Saddam Hussein to Che Guevara. Bush and his cronies shouldn't be supported, but neither should Saddam and his!

[Skeptic]

The trial is a farce Comrades, it is similar to the trials by U.S. puppet hooded judges by Fascists in Peru. --Skeptic

Media Blocked From
Saddam Hearing
By Claire Cozens
Press and Publishing Correspondent
The Guardian - UK
7-1-4

Much of the world's press has been excluded from Saddam Hussein's court appearance today following an extraordinary decision by the Iraqi judge hearing the case to allow just one western newspaper to attend.

John Burns of the New York Times will be the only journalist from the western print media to witness today's historic hearing, which is being held in top secret - with even the judge's identity remaining confidential.

Bizarrely, his copy will not be made available to other newspapers under the usual pooling arrangements.

Instead, Burns plans to hold a press conference in Baghdad immediately after the hearing where newspaper correspondents from around the world will be given the chance to ask questions.

CNN and al-Jazeera were the only two broadcasters at the hearing, with CNN's Christiane Amanpour one of only a handful of journalists allowed into the courtroom.

But plans for broadcast media seemed equally confused, with the BBC apparently unaware of the arrangements as the hearing began in Baghdad this morning. Even those who were present were unsure when they would be able to use their footage.

Not live footage of the hearing could be shown, and broadcasters will have to wait for the approval of the Iraqi authorities before they can show anything.

"It's a moveable feast - we were given a plan last night but I understand that has now changed," said one source.

"There's a lot of confusion, 'no one really knows what's going on. We've just had a call from the BBC saying even they're not sure who the pool reporter is."

Read the rest of the short article at:

MediaGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,1...1251616,00.html (http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1251616,00.html)

[(*]

All the information we get from the "trial" will of course be edited by the Americans. Saddam Hussein knows WAY too much info about Bush I & Bush II as well as a whole bunch of other dirty secrets of American relations in the Middle East.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Exactly.

That is why America isn't waiting for an elected government to carry the trial out properly. Saddam can spill the beans on Daddy Bush and then it'll be all tears for Dubya.

I don't think anyone is taking renwan's comments seriously are they?
I mean, ok, we hate Bush, he is a criminal, he needs to be stripped of power. But Saddam Hussein is a mass murders and a genocidical repressor of his own people. If your going to defend him because your disapproval for George Dubya is blinding you, then you have issues.

But hats off to Hussein for the hilarious comments. It gives those of us who can see the funny side of things a treat. " Yes, I heard about it". What a comment.

And also, whoever was suggesting Saddam Hussein actually warrants as much respect as Che Guevara is an idiot. Your comment makes it sounds like people are wrong about Saddam, JUST like they are wrong about Che. Which is ludicrous.

Get Saddam locked up and let him rot in a prison cell. Don't give him the satisfaction of a release from grief into martyrdom. For every Iraqi person he killed and every Iraqi family he tore apart, the people of Iraq need to know he is getting his just deserts in a jail cell.

[DaCuBaN]

Your comment makes it sounds like people are wrong about Saddam, JUST like they are wrong about Che. Which is ludicrous.


I've got to play the devil's advocate here, simply in the name of fair and open discussion. You've already stated that you too are 'in the west' and it's almost unanimously agreed that the trial will be a farce as it's being run by a 'puppet' government.

We all agree the trial needs done, but we do not truly know what Hussein has done. A fair trial would find out, this one will not. We can never take anything this trial shows us as 'fact', and hence we may as well not be having it.

[Intifada]

this is just a propaganda play by bush.

after all, it is election year.

[hawarameen]

i cant believe what some of you are saying, well done you've attained the highest level of stupidity possible.

[h&s]

Saddam Hussein can never get a fair trial. Everyone in Iraq, and the vast majority of the rest of the world have an opinion on him. If the evidence was released to the public during a normal trial the judge would be forced to stop it.
Everyone has seen the evidence of what Saddam has done, so unless you get some nomadic horse-herders from Outer Mongolia to sit on the jury, it shouldn't happen.

[Intifada]

i cant believe what some of you are saying, well done you've attained the highest level of stupidity possible.

why can't they try him in the hague?

the iraqi government is not legitimate as it was not elected by the iraqis. the whole iraqi government was picked by the coalition.

what kind of sovereign country has it's trials controlled by the US military? why did the americans decide that only one iraqi journalist was allowed to witness the proceedings, and then be kicked out? how come the US decided that none of the iraqi people were allowed to hear what this man had to say?

for fucks sake, the man wasn't even allowed to have his lawyers present!

the trial is simply not fair.

and at least explain why we are being so "stupid".

[hawarameen]

sorry, i wasn't exactly talking to you specifically.

on your post-
what do you exactly describe as fair? the gassing of 5000 villagers, the disappearance of approx.200,000 people, the unnecessary murder of millions in a pointless war with Iran, shall i go on?

so I'm not really bothered that the trial isn't fair. is the trial there to establish if these acts actually happened? obviously not, they happened and they happened while Saddam was president, hence he is accountable.

the trial is bollocks, a chance to rub his atrocities further in the faces of his victims, 'halabja, yes i heard about that in the media'. the man is bringing out the sadistic streak in me i never knew i had.

and I'm sure you will be glad to know that there may even be a chance he could stretch it out for years and maybe even get away with it, yes that would be really good wouldn't it?

and people like redstar can rejoice in the fact that they were right and they could say i told you so. i would really like to know how many people here would rather be proved wrong about the situation in Iraq and how many would rather see as many Iraqi deaths as possible and America go home with their tails between their legs just to say wow i was right all along (aside from redstar who has pretty much admitted it)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Exactly.

This is Saddam Hussein. There is no need to be skeptical. You cannot say that Halabja, the Shi'ite revolt supression, the killing of activists were nothing to do with him. The mass graves, the Kuwait attack, the Iran war. These were all illegal attrocities that could not be created or sugar coated for the Western public.

There are times when we can be over-skeptical to a point where it's ridiculous and too many people are on this one. We can't be skeptical and throw around our own petty arguments just because we hate America; not when there are millions of Iraqis who have been killed and had their families torn apart. And when there have been thousands and thousands of Kurdish people killed and their lives made hell by this man and his regime.

These are truths that cannot be denied and the man should rot.
The stupid thing is this trial is going to drag on longer than Milosevic's because the proceedings are being made too much like a theatre. They are over-doing the "fair trial". He needs to be exposed for what he has done and sentances. That is as far as the political correctness should go. They are deliberatly making it too fair to show the skeptics of the West that they are credible.

[Intifada]

what do you exactly describe as fair?

he should at least have his lawyers present. i don't have a problem with charging the man with atrocities which we know he committed, or was responsible for, i just believe that he is right to say that this "trial" is "theatre".

i would like to see him on trial after a legitimate government has been elected solely by iraqis.


I'm sure you will be glad to know that there may even be a chance he could stretch it out for years and maybe even get away with it, yes that would be really good wouldn't it?


no i wouldn't be glad if he was let free. the man deserves to die.

at the moment, this "trial" is only going to portray saddam as a hero and symbol of anti-americanism in the arab world. this is not the message we want to send out is it?

[socialistfuture]

its all so simple

[hawarameen]

why should he have lawyers present? so he can get away with things on technicalities to reduce his sentence?

if we know he's guilty then why the facade? why the theater? the trial is as much about image as it is anything else, its about distinguishing yourself between good and evil, 'we are good because we give this murderer of millions a fair trial'.

if milosovic's trial is anything to go by then he's as good as got away with everything.

Gas the bastard, slowly.

[Intifada]

if we know he's guilty then why the facade? why the theater?

like i have said, this is an election year, and bush wants to make it seem as if iraq is a free country that is trying saddam in a fair and just way.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 1 2004, 08:04 PM

Thats the same thing i hear everyday when i tell people in the U$A that i support che. exept change saddam and switch it to che.


Dont compare the two. Che Guevara never owned palaces throught countries full of people who are suffering.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 06:50 PM
saddam should only be on trial when a legitimate government has been elected by the iraqi people. the trial he is getting at the moment is not fair. the strings are being pulled by the US.

I bet you they are, and what makes me mad is that the US govt, was real quick on helping this asshole get his trial, when meanwhile, our prisons are bursting at the seams with people who are still yet to get a fair trial for something way less then war crimes and genocide.

I dont know who they are trying to fool with this fair trial mess. What is the sentance going to be? In the US people die on death row and sometimes they find out you were not guilty, and we know exactly what Saddam Hussein is guilty for. They go on and on about whats patriotic and whats not, if anything is treason, its giving a tyrant a fairer trial then the children who are rotting in the "justice system" in your own country.

[h&s]

if we know he's guilty then why the facade? why the theater? the trial is as much about image as it is anything else, its about distinguishing yourself between good and evil, 'we are good because we give this murderer of millions a fair trial'.
The very fact that we know that he commited these crimes is the reason why he won't get a fair trial. If the jury already know of the crimes he commited they will already have made their judgement about him.
I admit that it would be a travesty if he got off without life imprisonment, but he will have to be tried for things people don't know about for the trial to be fair.

[hawarameen]

you missunderstand my point, there is no need for the trial to be fair, why does it have to be fair he does not deserve a fair trial.

[h&s]

Then why does anyone deserve a fair trial?
Why don't we just scrap the justice system and have government-backed vigilante lynch mobs?

[hawarameen]

because your everyday murderer doesn't kill millions of people and anyone with a brain the size of my little toe knows that he is guilty.

so what would this fair trial entail? a chance for him to prove his innocence, to try and convince the judges that all these atrocities never actually happened or that he wasn't the leader of Iraq all along?

as it is he may even get away with all/most of his crimes on technicalities, now that would be a huge endorsement of the justice system.

[h&s]

No, he has already admitted in court of invading Kuwait "to keep y generals busy so that they have no time to plot against me," which is a severe crime in Iraq.
If he had a fair trial he wouldn't get away with it, bt if we decide that he doesn't deserve a fair trial, we may start deciding that others do't deserve one either, then before we know it, there will be no such thing as a fair trial.