Kbzon59 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Nullum penae sine lege. What I mean is that Saddam cannot be executed, not even trialed, if teh criems he comitted were not recognized by the law as crimes by the time they were comitted. Since Saddam made the laws that will be used against him, I seriously doubt that there is anything in them taht can actually be held against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 The criminal code under Sadaam Hussien outlawed crimes such as murder. A simple charge of murder under Iraqi law could do, with regards to the gasing of the Kurds. I don't see any legal defence he could make against that other than to argue that as president he was above the law. It appears he believes he is and was, i doubt a court would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Well, he can tell his actions happened in war time. You know: his people versus kurds invaders. The war argument seems to work for Bubba W. Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 The war argument won't cover the dropping of chemical weapons on civilians, that's outlawed even in war time. 'Kurds invaders' ? Just where were they invading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Nowhere, I just said teh above in teh "everybody is against me" spirit taht Saddam is most likley to be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 I see what you were getting at. But legally he's still pretty screwed, even under his own laws that sort of thing was pretty naughty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Yes just kill him. Why didn't the soldiers that found him kill him on the spot? Ok they had to do DNA testing, but why not then? Seriously would they be punished if they had done so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted July 23, 2004 Author Share Posted July 23, 2004 that would unfortunately make him a martyr. making him surreder shows to the whole world what a coward he really is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Think he'll get beheaded, or somethign like a western execution? (lethal injection) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted July 23, 2004 Author Share Posted July 23, 2004 if the trial takes place in Iraq, he will probably stoned to death, or slapped with shoes to death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 a death would matar him People of iraq should be invited to see him on a parade and do whatever they like, so people realise how bad he was, seeing him weak would remove any sympathy for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted July 23, 2004 Author Share Posted July 23, 2004 will two wrongs makes thing rite? don't think so. however bad saddam was (is), doing that would be a fundamental breach of human rights which the west , Particulary US takes so much pride in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 OK for the sake of not making him a marter, i agree with you. But what other purpose is there really to keep him alive? I can see my point is not being well recieved, so maybe i should rethink my view, but let me try to clarify one time. My reason for thinking he should die has nothing do with an eye for an eye. If you want to keep him alive to see him suffer doesn't that make YOU a supporter of the eye for the eye idea? MY reason for wanting him dead is the simple reason that i see no purpose in letting him live. His life wouldn't be a life, it would be just letting him finish out his chemical reactions in a confined place. Waste of time if you ask me. NOW on the otherhand if you want to keep him alive to study his psyche to discover ways to prevent men like him rising again-- that would be a purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Saddam is not a sick man whose psyche need to be studied, nor is he one of those great wrongdoers that will be forever remembered. He is no Hitler and he is no Vlad the Impaler. There is not much to be studied in him. He is only a man affected by power. He is not a good "people like him" example. I am not saying he was a good ruler, but he certainly wasn't mad. If the purpose that Navajo proposes is to be used, then Saddam can very well enter an insanity-plea. I don't agree with the death penalty. However, if he is found guilty and the crimes he comitted are recognized by iraquian law (not american or american dictated or new americanized) as deserving of DP, then he must be executed, just to respect iraquian state of law. However, if the laws that will put Saddam on trial were written by himself, during his ruling, then those laws should not be applied. Why? Because Saddam was an illegitimate ruler, hence what he does must be removed. So new laws will have to be dictated. The only problem with this is that those new laws will be totally americanized, and most likely, will use the Commonlaw system, instead of the vastly superior Roman germanic system. The new laws will probably be a carbon copy of american laws, and that, under any point of view, is wrong. Other problem would be that, for a new, totally iraquian set of laws to be written, at least 3 or 4 years might be needed. I am sure that, one way or another, Saddam will be executed, legally or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Uh, and other thing, life (no matter whose) is not supposed to have a purpose. It just is. If that is your philosphy(life must have a purpose), then we might very well kill all people on welfare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now