The Grand UKRM Saddam-sweep

I agree completely.

How about handing him over to the Hague for a proper trial? Sure it
would go on for years but it wouldn't have given the impetus to the
insurgents that this may.

30 more dead and counting.

Unlike many of my posts, this isn't one looking for reactions. It's one
where whilst I'm convinced that I'm right I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

 

Not with the balaclavas. Which is the point, I suppose.

You could try asking darsy.

 

"I know people with Sanskrit"

Yes, I know Iraq doesn't use Sanskrit but whatever their script is
called it doesn't scan as well.

 

You snipped and avoided my point.

 

From a biased media. There are plenty of supportive comments too.

You know **** all about my politics other than I support Capital
Punishment in certain circumstances.

 

"in public"

 

How is the Hague a proper trial?
This wasn't Europe.

 

or can't, stuff it in a pipe.

 

"I have mates with hemp ropes"

Arabic.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

HTH

 

Whether it was in Europe or not is totally irrelevant.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 as a
permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The ICC is
designed to complement existing national judicial systems: the Court
can only exercise its jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling
or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes, thus being a "court
of last resort". Primary responsibility to exercise jurisdiction over
alleged criminals is therefore left to individual states. The court
can only prosecute crimes that were committed on or after 1 July 2002,
the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court, entered into force.

You'll see from the above why it couldn't be used against Sadam unless
they dropped earlier charges and found something to try him for after
2002. The other alternative would have been to change the rules so he
could be tried by the ICC but that wouldn't be in the best interests
of Iraq or the so-called coalition forces because they would have
possibly felt they couldn't withdraw from Iraq until the trial was
over.

 

It won't.

I've also posted the relevant bits but he'll be selective.

 

Sure Saddam predates the ICC but my point was rather more no part of the
Arab world is likely to accept the ICC. There has been some promotion of
it from Jordan but it's a long way off. Post liberation justice is local
business.

The basic idea of the ICC is pretty good, just the execution that leaves
something to be desired. It would not try and respect Shariah law in
this respect for instance. The natives might regard that as a bit
Colonial.

 

Surely the point of invading (after claiming the oil) was to
westernise the natives?

 

Nice choice of words there...

Dave

 

HTH!

 

I'd say that in hushed tones around Bagdad.

You don't really think oil was at the root of it? well not directly. Our
mates in Kuwait, Saudi, Jordan, UAE and Israel thought Saddam was
becoming too much of a threat.

 

In message

No closure with that scenario

 

"This is ukrm" )

 

The Older Gentleman wrote

I think Maggie Beckett summed it up with her, "The British gummint is
against hanging but he was tried somewhere else." Sort of said it all
really.