Nov. 20, 2006 - For more than a decade, numerous human-rights organizations have forcefully made the case that Saddam Hussein is guilty of crimes against humanity. So when his case was the first to be brought before the Iraqi High Tribunal, the court set up to try those considered responsible for decades of rights violations, it was no surprise the trial itself was considered a victory for rights advocates. So why then, when the former dictator was found guilty Nov. 5, would any of these same groups object?
Because Hussein’s trial, which resulted in a sentence of death by hanging for his complicity in the 1982 murders of 148 people in the Shiite town of Dujail, was "fundamentally flawed," says Human Rights Watch, a leading advocacy group. In a new 97-page report, "Judging Dujail," the New York-based organization says the trial's verdict is unsound and should be thrown out—marred by a torrent of procedural and substantive flaws. "The tribunal squandered an important opportunity to deliver credible justice,” said Nehal Bhuta, an international justice fellow at Human Rights Watch and author of the report, which was released Sunday. He spoke with NEWSWEEK’s Jessica Bennett.
Excerpts: NEWSWEEK: So Saddam Hussein didn’t get a fair trial. How do you respond to people who say, “He’s a murderer; so what?”
Nehal Bhuta: If you really want to make a break from the old regime then you need to start making a point of applying human rights for all, whether you like them or not. And indeed the idea that some people, because they’re enemies, or because we think they’re morally reprehensible, aren’t entitled to basic human rights is in fact exactly the kind of logic of the previous government. So really, if the point is to create an Iraq that doesn’t repeat these kinds of mistakes, then you need to ensure that the rules are applied consistently.
I don't think Bennito Mousellini, got a fair trial, now that you mention it. Maybe if Jesus Christ had a fair trial things would be very diferent today.
It's the same thing when they say that when ever a Republican wins any political office it's voter fraud and irregularities. When it's Democrats (like this election), clean as a whistle with no problems whatsoever.
Does this "rights group" talk about what Saddam did to the Marsh Arabs? The Kurds? The hundreds of thousands of shia in mass graves? The systamatic rape of little girls by his sons? The exacuted political prisoners? The childen prisons? The tourture chambers?
IP: Logged
10:21 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 37933 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Does this "rights group" talk about what Saddam did to the Marsh Arabs? The Kurds? The hundreds of thousands of shia in mass graves? The systamatic rape of little girls by his sons? The exacuted political prisoners? The childen prisons? The tourture chambers?
quote
Originally posted by Nehal Bhuta: If you really want to make a break from the old regime then you need to start making a point of applying human rights for all, whether you like them or not. And indeed the idea that some people, because they’re enemies, or because we think they’re morally reprehensible, aren’t entitled to basic human rights is in fact exactly the kind of logic of the previous government. So really, if the point is to create an Iraq that doesn’t repeat these kinds of mistakes, then you need to ensure that the rules are applied consistently.
From all reports, he was indeed a very bad man. But Human Rights Laws must be applied to ALL, regardless of the person, or crime. Otherwise, they are meaningless.
From all reports, he was indeed a very bad man. But Human Rights Laws must be applied to ALL, regardless of the person, or crime. Otherwise, they are meaningless.
Saddam got better treatment then his victoms. He got a trial wich is more then his victoms got. He got rights. He was guilty he was convicted and now he will be taken out of this life. Not every one deserves to live. He should have been shot in his hole and then backfilled with concrete.
IP: Logged
10:56 AM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20399 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
Because Hussein’s trial, which resulted in a sentence of death by hanging for his complicity in the 1982 murders of 148 people in the Shiite town of Dujail, was "fundamentally flawed," says Human Rights Watch, a leading advocacy group. In a new 97-page report, "Judging Dujail," the New York-based organization says the trial's verdict is unsound and should be thrown out—marred by a torrent of procedural and substantive flaws. "The tribunal squandered an important opportunity to deliver credible justice,” said Nehal Bhuta, an international justice fellow at Human Rights Watch and author of the report, which was released Sunday. He spoke with NEWSWEEK’s Jessica Bennett.
Haha, what a joke! They want to have the case thrown out, and have Hussein tried again? So the supposed "human rights" advocates want to deny Hussein the right to a speedy trial, and subject him to double-jeopardy.
How much more two-faced can you get? I think the real reason they called the trial "fundamentally flawed" was because their "pet dictator" was actually found guilty.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 11-21-2006).]
Originally posted by Phranc: Saddam got better treatment then his victoms. He got a trial wich is more then his victoms got. He got rights. He was guilty he was convicted and now he will be taken out of this life. Not every one deserves to live. He should have been shot in his hole and then backfilled with concrete.
Exactly what I was going to say.
IP: Logged
03:17 PM
lurker Member
Posts: 12342 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
Originally posted by IEatRice: Exactly what I was going to say.
i agree, the trial was flawed. not that i disagree with the verdict or sentence, just that there were serious procedural errors.
these proceedings were not about his numerous other abuses, only about the slaughter of kurds. my guess is they were holding other charges in reserve, just in case he somehow survived this trial.
boondawg's point about equal application of human rights is valid. if any humans have certain rights, all humans have them. it's called equal justice under the law, a concept which tyrants routinely ignore.
[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 11-21-2006).]
