Question: Why isn't Saddam being tried in an international world court?

[Danieljay]

If its crimes against humanity, shouldn't he be tried in a world court? Is the Bush administration afraid of what might come out as a result of our past hand holding (literally Rumsfeld) when we were providing them weapons and chemical precursors? Please inform me.

[SlipperySlope]

1. Because there is no "world court" that has recognized jurisdiction.

There is no world court that has any valid claim to jurisdiction over this case (AFAIK). However, the so-called "people" of Iraq have the authority to try Saddam, under the theory that all government flows from the people.

I think that is probably the logic...

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Because "we" didn't want it that way

[FloridaPat]

3. That's my guess. They would have to add Bush 1 and Reagan

to the trial. The amazing thing is, Saddam is on trial for killing 180 people who tried to overthrow him after GW1! This was the uprising Bush1 told the people he would support militarily but pulled out at the last minute. We invaded a country because the leader defended himself.

[gratuitous]

4. That's a real good question

After all, Milosevic was tried in The Hague for his crimes against the people he was nominally the leader over. It seems mickle strange that Saddam, who was for all intents and purposes the government of Iraq during his ruthless reign, would be tried by that same government. Since a dictator's word is law, it's difficult to understand what Iraqi laws he will be accused of breaking at his trial.

International laws and human rights conventions, however, are easily transgressed by dictators, and just as easily prosecuted -- in the proper venue. Although such procedural niceties might seem esoteric (A crime's a crime, isn't it?), it's important to realize that Saddam's brutality was not just against the Iraqi citizenry, but an offense against world order and peace. The world should try Saddam and hold him responsible.

But that sort of thinking makes certain people in our nation's capital very uncomfortable. And for very good reason.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. because Bush wouldn't sign on to the World Court

is my guess. Bush would also be afraid that Saddam would be able to bring into evidence embarrassing details like how the US gave him support, including nerve gas.

[Burning Water]

6. My guess would be

that it is crimes against the Iraqi people, such as murder and rape rooms, rather than the more generic "crimes against humanity" than the powers that have him want punished.. The ICC didn't capture him so they have no real leverage.

Besides, the Hague doesn't punish with the death penalty. This is probably the real reason. Saddam will hang, or be shot, without a doubt.

[Danieljay]

10. Well we are in charge in Iraq now and that crap is STILL going on?

Who do we blame now?

[Burning Water]

11. I'm not quite sure of

the relevance of your reply to the question???

[Mr Rabble]

13. Thats not what he is charged with.

There is no mention of rape rooms in the court docs.

[Burning Water]

14. What about murder, then?

The ICC had nothing to do with his capture. And while I'm sure we would all rather see the international community handle this, in the real world, the US forces captured him and turned him over to the Iraqis. There's no reason to be surprised about this. Or disappointed, either. And I don't know about you, but I have little sympathy to waste on Saddam.

[EFerrari]

7. Because he might get a fair trial. nt

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

8. See the HRW-nicknamed "Hague Invasion Act"

(New York, August 3, 2002) A new law supposedly protecting U.S. servicemembers from the International Criminal Court shows that the Bush administration will stop at nothing in its campaign against the court, Human Rights Watch warned today.

U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.

In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution. At the same time, these provisions can be waived by the president on "national interest" grounds.

(...)

The law is part of a multi-pronged U.S. effort against the International Criminal Court. On May 6, in an unprecedented move, the Bush administration announced it was "renouncing" U.S. signature on the treaty. In June, the administration vetoed continuation of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Bosnia in an effort to obtain permanent immunity for U.N. peacekeepers. In July, U.S. officials launched a campaign around the world to obtain bilateral agreements that would grant immunity for Americans from the court's authority. Yesterday, Washington announced that it obtained such an agreement from Romania.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm

[applegrove]

9. Because the ICC would do a good job.

[MiniMe]

12. Because the truth would come out. nt