Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

October 20th, 2005

Tags

,

Comments

18 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Outrageous

With Saddam Hussein’s trial in the news, it’s worth recounting this true story.

In early 2004, Iraq requested the UN help train the judges and lawyers who would staff the tribunal that was preparing to charge Saddam.

Sounds like a great way for the international body to help out. But the United Nations refused on the grounds that Iraqi government officials insisted the death penalty be retained as an option for Saddam. (Get that? Retained… as an “option.”)

You have got to be kidding me.

Comments to this entry

bp32
October 20, 2005
12:29 pm
In all fairness, "retained as an option" was and is shorthand for "retained as the option as soon as he is found guilty". This was not something that was up for discussion--everyone knew it. Not that I am siding with the UN on this one. I see nothing wrong by retaining the death penalty and using it for only the most heinous crimes--Hussein seems to fit that category
Saru
October 20, 2005
1:18 pm
Curzon - Amen to that. And don't even get me started on the UNHRC...
Chirol
October 20, 2005
4:19 pm
Just another example of the UN catering to the left and discrediting its last miniscule shred of legitimacy. Also worth noting is that Europe has a similar policy about not extraditing people to the US who may get the death penalty. Better to leave criminals and terrorists alive. Remember one of people involved in 9/11 was left in Germany because he would have 100% been executed in the US (can't recall the name atm).
theCardinal
October 20, 2005
4:34 pm
Mexico has a similar policy regarding capital cases. As for the UN, let me quote Nat Hentoff for the third time this week - it's useless. I have to check out Saru's site because anyone who hates the UNHRC as much as I do can't be all bad.
Mutantfrog
October 21, 2005
4:04 pm
theCardinal: Is there anyone who really LIKES the UNHRC? Plenty of people like the idea and official purpose of the UNHRC, but the actual organization? And incidentally, Saru and I are co-bloggers (and I feel dirty for even using a word like co-blogger).
Grendel
October 21, 2005
8:44 pm
Chirol:
"See this Wikipedia article":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelghani_Mzoudi
The US hindered his prosecution.
Dan tdaxp
October 21, 2005
9:50 pm
Grendel,

The US hindered his prosecution.


An original interpretation. German's court system had serious troubles processing him without allowing RBS a public forum. Given the less-than-competent ability of European courts in general to do this (witness Milosevic in the Hague), it's not surprising.. but still disappointing.

Mutantfrog,

Is there anyone who really LIKES the UNHRC?


May I introduce you to Big Cheese, my pro-UNHCR prof?

As I'm sure you know, the UNHCR is an innocent organization continaully persecuted by the West

/sarcasm
Grendel
October 21, 2005
10:22 pm
Tdaxap, it's not actually my interpretation. In Germany, and probably European courts as well, hard facts, proof is needed for a conviction. Hence the outcome of the two trials. I mixed up Mzoudi with El Motassadeq though. In any case, with the latter, the US refused to have Binalshibh testify and with the former, the Department of Justice didn't want information to be used in the trial against Mzoudi. At least that's what I recall from newspapers, but you'll find info on the net I'm sure.
Dan
October 22, 2005
1:51 am
it's not actually my interpretation. In Germany, and probably European courts as well, hard facts, proof is needed for a conviction.


We're fighting them in a war -- it makes just as much sense to assume that terrorists should be tried in criminal courts as it does to have attempted to try the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor.

Unless Germany is just hoping to ignore the war and sit this one out. Certainly better than their behavior earlier this century...
Chirol
October 22, 2005
8:50 am
Indeed Dan, and this comes back to the central difference I've mentioned time and time again between Europeans and Americans. Europe today is where the US was in the early 40s.

We knew the Europeans were fighting a bit, but didn't think it was too serious and thought it better to stay out as it couldnt possible affect us. We were wrong.

How much longer will it take until the Europeans realize this isn't a small localized or one time thing, it's a world war and they can't sit this one out. Ask the Spanish or British how well it worked.
Grendel
October 22, 2005
8:43 pm
We're fighting them in a war

...and that means you outlaw certain groups because law as it is is not far-reaching enough? Guantanamo and the like are inacceptable. Law and order has to be upheld, but you can't do that by circumventing the former.

Europe today is where the US was in the early 40s.

...and countries allowing capital punishment are not in their (14)40ies?
scnr ;-)

IMHO there's a general misconception that Europe sits around and waits for the US to 'do something', but the contrary is the case. The means to fight terrorism and their way of implementing them are quite different. The people on the street watch CNN and see Iraq, i.e., but what's decided in Bruessels to curb terrorist actions is not nearly as widely published. I've been in a session in parliament when control and suppression of financial support for terrorism has been discussed. Quite complex matter and not at all easy to translate for the public. Nevertheless important. If you considered trying to find out what Europe does to fight this war, you'd find enough information. The problem I see here, though, is that prejudice leads to passivity and continuous lamentation about "pre-911 thinking", based on a lack of information and interest to look it up... there's lots of stuff happening behind the curtains, not hidden, but not overly publicized either.
Dan tdaxp
October 22, 2005
11:29 pm
...and that means you outlaw certain groups because law as it is is not far-reaching enough?

Certainly recognizing the National Reich Church and State Shinto as Enemy religions and proceeding accordingly seems to have worked out.

Guantanamo and the like are inacceptable.

Why?

Law and order has to be upheld, but you can't do that by circumventing the former.

Perhaps, but that would imply that there exists some true "Law" that encompasses all situations, which clearly doesn't exist.

...and countries allowing capital punishment are not in their (14)40ies?

Well, as two leading countries on the globe (the United States and Japan) utilize capitalize punishment, I'd say not.
Grendel
October 23, 2005
12:17 am
Guantanamo and the like are inacceptable.

- Why?

Law and order has to be upheld, but you can't do that by circumventing the former - that was already the answer why. And I didn't say or imply that laws work 100%, but if it doesn't help in a given situation, it needs to adapt. Exempt are above mentioned cases that implode for want of evidence - not law, but something else was missing there. To nullify law is basically the opposite, where's the difference to anarchy? No protection from arbitrariness by any given government is just what you can witness every day in nations lacking constitutional legality. Not the way to go, and certainly nothing I'd support.

You live in a free country I may presume, but it's only free as long as you're treated like everybody else by the law in your country. If you're really supporting outlawing elements of any society, chances are, it hits you sooner or later, too. On a sidenote, your weblog suspicously looks like you burn the declaration of independence, quite unpatriotic. Just wait and see what happens when Stasi methods come into fashion in your area... what, you allude to the first amendment? That was yesterday, welcome to Arbitraria, where law and order apply to everyone and no-one. ;-)

One last comment: The only thing I could find outrageous is that a minority that supports capital punishment finds the U.N.'s position 'outragous' - no international body is ever going to assist in such matters.

[I have to apologize, I'll have to cut short on my participation in debates due to time constraints, even if they're interesting as this one]
Curzon
October 23, 2005
1:38 am
Grendel -- Isn't it also outrageous that the anti-death penalty minority in places like Britain, France, Australia, and much of Europe enforce their policies over the objections of the pro-capital punishment minority? (On a related note, "see here":http://volokh.com/posts/1117919854.shtml for a missive on the origins of Germany's capital punishment laws -- strongly opposed by a majority of the German public at the time.) That you support the UN's refussal to help Iraq's struggling new government put the sordid Saddam affair behind is additionally outrageous, if not revolting.

Thanks for warning Dan of the impending abolition of the first amendment in the American midwest. But Guantanamo is in Cuba not the US, "conditions are Spartan but decent,":http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C10%5C18%5Cstory_18-10-2005_pg7_53 and some were released "prematurely.":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2004/09/30/cominganarchy/

But putting aside are documented political differences for a moment, congratulations on Grendel Jr., and all the best.
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
October 24, 2005
12:04 am
My guess is that it is a blessing in disguise that the UN is not involved in Iraqi trials. I hope it will be a short trial - a fair hearing about a limited number of heinous crimes, and if that is enough, no need to waste time on all the rest....
lirelou
October 24, 2005
1:19 am
Grendel, Wouldst that we were fighting a war at present, but we are not. Those who have volunteered for military service are engaged in combat operations, but the Adminsitration has never seen fit to seeek the legal cover of a war, despite the fact that they had a good chance to do so in the wake of 9/11. Thus for everyone else, they are legally in a state of (anxious) peace. If the administration can't make the decision to draw a dividing line between war and peacetime contingency operations, why should they be able to legally define the difference between enemy combatants and terrorist criminals, and treat them accordingly?
Kushibo
October 24, 2005
7:31 am
I want Saddam's trial to last a long time. Let the whole world, especially the Arab world, hear and see all that murderous person has done. Make it clear that the man is no hero to anyone. Really let it sink in.

But, I think it is a mistake to have him executed. God knows he deserves to be executed, but by leaving that "as an option," it is now that much harder to ever get a dictator or warlord to give up the fight: a likely execution provides no incentive to lay down one's arms when the shit has hit the fan.
Curzon
October 24, 2005
3:56 pm
What's good about it lasting a long time? See the facts and get it over with. There's nothing worse that letting these things drag out and then let the bastards get off because they're too old (Pinochet, Milosevich). Saddam should be shot and Iraq should be allowed to put his regime behind them.

And your point about dictators giving up is a lost one -- if "deterrent" is even a factor here, which I doubt it, plenty of nasty guys have gotten off by fleeing the country. Had Saddam ducked out in exile to Egypt or elsewhere he would have escaped prosecution ala Charles Taylor. The lesson here is, if the international community is coming to kick your ass with guns, leave and you might get away with it.