⁂Asterism - astral thinking...
Thank you for that post Salam. Well said.
The United States ships people to be tortured. The United States detains people without legal evidence, without a means to prove innocence, and without access to trial.
I'd like to point out here that this is not the normal standard of justice in this country. I don't deny that this happens, especially in the current geo-political climate...but this is not the standard exercised under US law on US citizens on a daily basis. The fact that it is not mainstream is no excuse, mind you...but the US, like every other country, can hardly be called perfect.
The United States executes jeuveniles and mentally incompetent individuals.Yes, the US does execute jeuveniles that have committed crimes so heinous, that they are charged (and tried) as adults. They are also tried by a jury of their peers and sentenced in accordance with the law. So, when death penalties are handed down, it's usally the result of careful consideration by the prosecution (for making it an option), the jury, and ultimately, the judge. There's also a long, well established appeals process in this country for death-row inmates to challenge their sentence.
The US does NOT however (at least as the law is practiced in this country) execute the entire family of an idividual who's been convicted of an assasination attempt in retribution....and such an attempt would be just as much a "National Security Issue" here as it would be in Iraq. So, while comparisons can be drawn, to claim they are somehow equal is simply asinine.
Do I think that American morals are superior? HELL NO. Do I think Bush is more moral than Saddam. A MOST RESOUNDING NO. Do I think that Saddam should be tried by Iraqis, and be held to Iraqi moral standards? ABSOLUTELY. And hopefully, he will be.
That doesn't mean, however, that I, as an American, cannot show my disgust for a man who committed truly evil acts against his own people...a man who brutally oppressed an entire culture...a man who is, in large part, the result of American meddling in Middle East politics. I have no illusions about his history...or ours. My disgust is equally spread among all those involved.
Visiworks, the blogger I quoted is making the point that Saddam is using the same defense that Bush uses to justify his actions.
I personally would not dictate to America how it should try minors and the mentally ill and America should not dicatate how Saddam is to be tried and under what laws. From your reply I do not think you would accept British judges to coach American judges on the death penalty. Or even British media to criticise your legal system.
Yet this is exactly what is happening in Iraq. The judges were appointed by American advisors and trained by America, Britain and Australia. As if Iraq as a nation does not have the moral authority to deal with its own criminals.
I agree that you should show your disgust for Saddam but that does not mean that America as a nation can insist that Saddam is tried according to its standards. Or you risk others turning the mirror and judging American standards by their own.
Salam,
You are correct here:
From your reply I do not think you would accept British judges to coach American judges on the death penalty. Or even British media to criticise your legal system....though, media from around the world do criticize American jurisprudence...and sometimes this is helpful. The media doesn't bother me so much....but yes, I do agree that judges from other countries should not coach American judges about our laws...anymore than we, Americans, should be coaching Iraqi Judges on Iraqi law. Hell, we have a hard enough time dealing with corruption in our own country...(hence, Bush is still president).
This does bring up a genuine question though. Under what laws is Saddam being tried? Are they Iraqi laws written pre-Saddam or laws written during Saddam's time?
Good question. An overview can be found here. The significant section is:
The judges were trained and educated in Iraqi law but were not familiar with the humanitarian and war-crimes laws involved. That was the predominant area of training provided by outsiders, the officials said.So there is a veneer of Iraqi law but where the new humanitarian and war-crimes laws came from is anybody's guess.
So...based on this overview:
Indeed, they insisted that despite the U.S., British and Australian technical training, which included advice from Case Western Reserve University law professors, the trial will be run entirely by Iraqi judges.it sounds as though the basis will be bound more in international law than in specific Iraqi law? I may not have read this correctly...but my take is that the training the judges needed had specifically to do with humanitarian and war crimes law. And my impression is that this training was needed because such law did not previously exist in Iraqi law? If that's the case, I guess one could be right to question the legitimacy of the court. Afterall, Bush would not be subject to International Law. If he were, he'd have been impeached long ago.
The judges were trained and educated in Iraqi law but were not familiar with the humanitarian and war-crimes laws involved. That was the predominant area of training provided by outsiders, the officials said.
Iraqi judges have also been trained in Jordan, Italy and The Netherlands.
Commenting by HaloScan
