If the war in Iraq was considered illegal,does that means that.S. Hussein can get off the trial scott free?
96557
Again... HOW MANY TIMES DOES IT HAVE TO BE SAID???? (And yet again, look at the one below me, typical of the uber-left, ignoring the facts and still spewing the garbage)\n\nThe war was not illegal. Once Saddam and his regime violated the terms of the cease fire agreements handed down at the end of hostilities in the 90's war action, continuing the war action was completely justified.\n\nBesides that, Saddam's trial is based off of murder crimes. Those crimes are against the laws of the new and completely legitimate government that is in Iraq. The military actions of the US have no bearing on that process.
955694
John, You ask serious questions and you deserve serious answers -- even though they may not be what you want to hear.\n\nThe tribunal that convicted Saddam was not set up by the Americans, it was set up by the Iraqis themselves under provision of extant Iraqi law.\n\nTo group the rest of your questions together: \nIt's very important that Saddam by tried by his countrymen, and not by the World Court, or any other international tribunal. To try him there would have been an admission that the Iraqis lacked the ability to administer justice in their own land.\n\nWhether you or I agree with the whole Iraqi invasion is irrelevant. The fact is, now, it is imperative to do whatever it takes to send the message that the Iraqi government is in charge of its own destiny. How else can the fledgeling government claim any credibility at all if it fails to take on the responsibility of prosecuting this heinous criminal? \n\nAs to the release date of the sentence -- that date was established months ago when the verdict was announced. I doubt there was any connection between the announcement and the election in America. The new government in Iraq has been eager in recent months to demonstrate as much distance between their actions and the desires of the Americans as possible (consider the recent order by the government for the Americans to pull down blockades in Sadr City) I just don't believe they would be willing to be used like this.\n\nAnd finally, it really is worth noting -- you're correct, Saddam may have been tried by (what you call) "politcal/ethnic opponents;" but he was convicted on the basis of overwhelming amounts of unimpeachable evidence as to his active complicity in genocide. We owe it to ourselves to remember that.\n\nCheers, mate.
246100
The US Invasion of Iraq is illegal. Wether we like him or not, Saddam Hussien is still the Legitimate President of Iraq, even though he was a dictator, but he was elected by his people in elections in 1995 and 1990 and 2000. He was also recognised as the leader of Iraq by the International Community. If there was anyone to remove him, it should have been the iraqi people themselves, not the Americans. for a simple reason, People must earn thier independence and not have other people earn it for them. \n\nThe US should have liberated Palestine from Israeli occupation if it cared about people in that region of the world. Now the UN issued MANY resolutions ordering Israel OUT of PALESTINE. Why do you think Palestinians are resisting the occupation? because the US is supporting Israel, if the US told Israel to shut it's torture camps of Palestinians in the Negev Desert and told it to allow all the refugees living in absolute MISERY in refugee camps, back to thier country of Palestine, then there will be NO terrorism, the REGION didn't have terrorism before the greedy colonial Zionist Jews (They don't represent TRUE Judaism!) started invading Palestine with the help of the British then the unfortunately the US.
983882
i think investigations by the UN and Hague officials should be carried out.  no way that's gonna happen tho.  GW and his merry band of war profiteers will get away Scott free.  they'll gleefully take their blood money and live in the rest of their evil lives in the luxury to which they've become accustomed.   GW's arrogant smirk isn't on his dullard face for no reason.
298546
It's called justice. No sentence without trial first.\n\nTo incarcerate someone without a trial is the kind of thing I would expect of Saddam H. I would like to think the United States is a long way from that kind of human rights abuse.
887998
Actually, the bigger problem (assuming your'e talking about the US) is the changes made by the Military Commissions Act.\n\nIt retroactively changes the definition of war crime, so that even if a US official did something that was a felony war crime when the committed it, they cannot be prosecuted now.\n\nIt's like making child molestation no longer illegal, and even if you did it while it was illegal, you cannot be prosecuted anymore.
925100
Of course not. How could you possibly know?\n\nI know the following story: in 1962 an Algerian student in the USA was accused of "threatening behavior" against another motorist and was arrested. \n\nAs it happened, Algeria had become independent a few days earlier and his father had been named Algerian ambassador to the USA.\n\nIt took an hour or so to prove that fact, and he was released by reason of diplomatic immunity.\n\nThere are thousands of hypotheses that could make an "illegal" alien non-deportable. The most common is the Geneva Refugee Convention (1950). Only a judge can determine if an alien is deportable. You cannot.\n\nAnd read this: \n"A Border Watcher Finds Himself Under Scrutiny\n"A man who boasted of capturing 12,000 illegal immigrants faces lawsuits accusing him of harassing and unlawfully imprisoning people."\nhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/us/24border.html
709816
WE are not hanging him .\nThe Iraqi people are , after a fair trial .
925262
I think we should let him free!  Just drop him off in the northern Iraq area where all the Kurds are.  Make sure the families of all the people he gassed are there and give them weapons.  Then just drop off Saddam with nothing but the clothes on his back.  They would certainly take care of him.
193570
simple answer: he shouldn't be tried outside of Iraq. IF he's a criminal, that should be judged by Iraqi law, by Iraqi judges under scrutiny by Iraqi people.\n\nThis can't happen outside Iraq or while Iraq is under occupation.
802864
the trial of Saddam was not done by Iraqis but by the stooges of the USA. every man who has brains know his trial was not transparent.
960981
I agree with the second guy. There is no way to charge Bush with a war crime (and I believe that crimes against humanity is a war crime) because of some international legal bullsh'it. I can't remember how it goes since it gets a little complicated, but bottom line, it can't be filed.\n\nGermany's going in the right direction though. They filed criminal charges against Rumsfeld but can't try him. All this is to create a precedent against Bush and his cronies. Good job, Germany.
14451
This is not exactly a Law & Ethics question.  Nevertheless, no, Iraq is not bound for its own self-destruction, at least no more so than when Saddam Hussein was running the country and slaughtering his own people.
854164
Well international law only declares war illegal when the act (usually an invasion of one country's territory by another) hasn't been authorized by the UN Security Council.  War however almost ALWAYS starts with one country invading another, hence I doubt that any regime intent on overrunning the boarders of another gives a damn about what that corrupt, inept and morally bankrupt organization says therein!
866402
Yes it was just. Saddam Hussein illegally invaded another country with the intent of stealing their oil and land.\nThe world united against him for this unjust act he committed.\n\n    This is in no way relevant to todays war.
827902
yes......... it has little to do with us, believe it or not...\n\nhe was found guilty in an Iraqi court by Iraqi people and the law in Iraq is the death penalty for these sort of crimes.... its was his country, his rules... if he was tried in the UK, there is no way he could have had the death penalty
542662
When Saddam invaded Kuwait to control their oil, the world was up in arms, attacking and throwing he and his army out.\n\nNow the US is doing the same thing to Iraq, but with two dfferences:\n\n1. Saddam's soldiers didn't do the things they were accused of (eg. throwing babies out of incubators).\n\n2. The US *IS* doing the things they accused Saddam of doing (eg. imprisonment without trial, torture, use of WMDs, etc.)\n\nFor those who think Saddam facing a war crimes trial and not Shrub, wait a few years.  Soon enough, there will be a war crimes trial and execution for Shrub and his cronies.