Saddam to Sue Bush and Blair

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I doubt this will gain any momentum, but I thought it was pretty interesting news. I wonder whose side you guys are on.



Saddam to sue Bush and Blair

Jan. 25, 2006 at 12:01PM
Defence lawyers for Saddam Hussein Wednesday distributed copies of a lawsuit against President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair for destroying Iraq.

The suit accuses Bush and Blair of committing war crimes by using weapons of mass destruction and internationally-banned weapons including enriched uranium and phosphoric and cluster bombs against unarmed Iraqi civilians, notably in Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, al-Kaem and Anbar.

The Amman-based legal team had said Sunday that the ousted president intended to start legal action against the two leaders of the Iraq war in the International Criminal Court in the Hague, but the text of the suit was made available Wednesday.

The suit also accuses the U.S. president and British prime minister of torturing Iraqi prisoners, destroying Iraq's cultural heritage with the aim of eliminating an ancient civilization, and inciting internal strife.

Bush and Blair were also accused of polluting Iraq's air, waters and environment.

The lawsuit demanded that Bush and Blair appear before court to answer the charges filed against them and requested the harshest punishment in line with Dutch legislation and the rules of international and humanitarian laws.

It also requested compensation for all material and moral damage inflicted on the Iraqi people.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20060125-111155-3468r.htm

[Columbia]

What are the rules for "standing" in this Court? As he has no special office (except one that he gave himself) presumably enyone could make such a suit. Why can't an American of Iraqi decent living in Iraq sue on the same basis. What about an Iranian having to live next door, as it were.

I only feel sorry for the guy because he's a third rate Hitler.

Pathetic

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Columbia+Jan 26 2006, 07:20 PM--> (Columbia @ Jan 26 2006, 07:20 PM) What are the rules for "standing" in this Court? [/b]

You have to be a celebrity. :lol:


Originally posted by Columbia+--> (Columbia)As he has no special office (except one that he gave himself)....[/b]

Only someone completely oblivious to the history of twentieth century Iraq would contest that Saddam Hussein "gave himself" his "office".

Try again.


[email protected]
I only feel sorry for the guy because he's a third rate Hitler.

And America supported him and funded his rise to power. :o

What were you saying about freedom???


Columbia
Pathetic

Not so.

Saddam Hussein is (technically) still the President of Iraq. Therefore if the crimes that the article listed have been committed, he should bring them before the Hague.

However, I wasn't aware that America even recognised the International Criminal Court. Does it?

[VonClausewitz]

They really should just shoot the guy and be done with it. The world knows what he did, he knows what he did, why all the wrangling and allowing him to spout shit like that. Would people have supported the aforementioned Adolf if he'd lived, in sueing the rest of europe for bombing the shite out of his country ?

[Abood]

First of all, Even though I'm Kuwaiti and should be the first one against Saddam, I'm not.
No one knows what his intentions were except himself. He might've been like Stalin and wanted a socialist country through power and force. Saying that, that does not mean I do believe either Stalin or Saddam have those intentions, but those could have been their intentions. I believe that he should be given a fair trial, and if he's found guilty, he should be given the punishment he deserves.

About the lawsuit, I do hope it proceeds. World leaders like Bush and Blair use their power and forget that there are rules, even in wars. But Saddam suing them is very ironic, seeing what has happened in Iraq during his reign.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 26 2006, 08:41 PM
However, I wasn't aware that America even recognised the International Criminal Court. Does it?
No, it does not.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz+--> (VonClausewitz)The world knows what he did....[/b]

Well actually it could be that the "world" doesn't know " what he did. As I understand it, there is some evidence that suggests he may not have gassed as many Kurds as previously thought, he may not have gassed any at all.

If I remember correctly, the hypothesis goes that Iranian Army, whilst retreating, gassed the Kurds. I'm pretty sure that some of the gas used has been shown to have been the make of gas use by the Iranians.

Getting Saddam (and Rumsfeld) off the hook.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Would people have supported the aforementioned Adolf if he'd lived....

Poor analogy.

For a start, Saddam Hussein isn't Adolf Hitler. Secondly, after the Second World War there was no resistance movement with the aim of bringing back Hitler, in Iraq, there is a resistance movement that wants Saddam Hussein back.

Saddam Hussein was no worse than Churchill. In my opinion, he was actually a little bit better than Churchill.


RedFaction
No, it does not.

Didn't think so.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 26 2006, 07:41 PM
However, I wasn't aware that America even recognised the International Criminal Court. Does it?
Actually, they do. Of course only when it suits them. Take Milosevic and other Serbians being persecuted by the West for being anti-West. The US is directly behind it, and supports it. But if Washington doesn't want an individual tried in the International Criminal Court, then the individual will not be tried.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jan 27 2006, 06:30 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Jan 27 2006, 06:30 PM)
RedFaction
No, it does not.

Didn't think so. [/b]

Actually, they do.

No, they do not:


The General Assembly called the "United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court", in Italy, where the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on July 17, 1998. Almost all states participating voted in favor of the Statute; only the United States, Israel, People's Republic of China, Iraq, Qatar, Libya and Yemen voted against. Israel went on to sign the Statute just before the statute was closed for signatures but later nullified its signature. The United States under Bill Clinton signed the treaty, but never submitted it for ratification. When George W. Bush took office shortly afterwards, he nullified the signature amid bipartisan consensus on the matter.


As of October 2005, the following 100 countries have ratified or acceded to the ICC Statute:

* In Europe: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Georgia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom

* In Africa: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia.

* In the Americas: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

* In Asia: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Jordan, Mongolia, South Korea, Tajikistan

* In Oceania: Australia, East Timor, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Samoa

In addition to the above states, there are 41 other states which have signed but not ratified the treaty. Signing has some legal consequences from customary international law. A state is expected not to sabotage a treaty it has signed although it has not ratified it. Therefore the USA and Israel "unsigned" the Rome treaty, after which the USA engaged in bilateral agreements which undermine the obligations of states who have ratified.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court)