Guilty as charged
The Verdict, the Sentence
On November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein was "convicted of crimes against humanity" by a Baghdad court and sentenced to death by hanging. He was found guilty over his role in the killing of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail in 1982.
"His brother Barzan al-Tikriti was" also sentenced to death, as was Iraq's former chief judge Awad Hamed al-Bander
"Former vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan got life in jail" and three others received 15 year prison terms.
"Another co-defendant, Baath party official Mohammed Azawi Ali, was acquitted".
And I did read on a Blog of some repute that this trial of Saddam should have been held at the Hague or world international court; I couldn’t agree more but there are certain regulations governing that factor; this trial did not fit into this category so I read at the time BUT always one of those eh I quote "The International Criminal Court (ICC) brings to trial those who commit large-scale political crimes – genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity"
Building on the UN’s special tribunals and on new legal precedents of universal jurisdiction, the ICC takes an important step towards global accountability for all, including political and military leaders.
One has to consider this also
The US Opposition to the International Criminal Court
The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The Clinton administration participated actively in negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty, seeking Security Council screening of cases. If adopted, this would have enabled the US to veto any dockets it opposed. When other countries refused to agree to such an unequal standard of justice, the US campaigned to weaken and undermine the court. The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition.
So as you can see the US Government is not exactly what it would have us the world to believe; still I guess most of us would have been very naïve to believe otherwise I certainly am not and I’m sure most feel like me.
I guess it all boils down to and I quote "to the victor come the spoils"
Washington Post
5.11.06
I guess we all knew the outcome
Guilty as charged
The Verdict, the Sentence
On November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein was "convicted of crimes against humanity" by a Baghdad court and sentenced to death by hanging. He was found guilty over his role in the killing of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail in 1982.
"His brother Barzan al-Tikriti was" also sentenced to death, as was Iraq's former chief judge Awad Hamed al-Bander
"Former vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan got life in jail" and three others received 15 year prison terms.
"Another co-defendant, Baath party official Mohammed Azawi Ali, was acquitted".
And I did read on a Blog of some repute that this trial of Saddam should have been held at the Hague or world international court; I couldn’t agree more but there are certain regulations governing that factor; this trial did not fit into this category so I read at the time BUT always one of those eh I quote "The International Criminal Court (ICC) brings to trial those who commit large-scale political crimes – genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity"
Building on the UN’s special tribunals and on new legal precedents of universal jurisdiction, the ICC takes an important step towards global accountability for all, including political and military leaders.
One has to consider this also
The US Opposition to the International Criminal Court
The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The Clinton administration participated actively in negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty, seeking Security Council screening of cases. If adopted, this would have enabled the US to veto any dockets it opposed. When other countries refused to agree to such an unequal standard of justice, the US campaigned to weaken and undermine the court. The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition.
So as you can see the US Government is not exactly what it would have us the world to believe; still I guess most of us would have been very naïve to believe otherwise I certainly am not and I’m sure most feel like me.
I guess it all boils down to and I quote "to the victor come the spoils"
Washington Post
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment