Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,679

    Silencing the tyrant

    Another Sunday column from Eric...

    [SIZE=5]Silencing the tyrant[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=3]Saddam's Soviet-style show trial is a travesty of justice designed to justify Iraq invasion[/SIZE]

    By Eric Margolis


    Saddam Hussein's trial in Baghdad has become a circus. The presiding judge refuses to return to court, and defence lawyers have been murdered.

    What to make of this spectacle? Emotionally, it's good to see the tyrant who terrorized so many on trial for his life. But morally and legally, Saddam's trial is a travesty of justice. This is an old-fashioned Soviet-style show trial set up by U.S. occupation authorities.

    Its goal is not to determine Saddam's guilt or innocence, but to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- which, by the way, was a blatant violation of international law.

    The court lacks any legal basis, being created by the puppet regime installed by the U.S. after the invasion.

    Saddam has no proper legal defence. Witnesses remain secret and beyond cross-examination. Defence witnesses risk murder by Shia hit squads.

    Pre-trial publicity -- the vast propaganda campaign by the U.S. to demonize Saddam -- and Iraqi TV programs (controlled by U.S. authorities) about Saddam's alleged crimes, would trigger a mistrial in any proper legal system.

    In short, a kangaroo court, designed to find Saddam guilty and probably order his execution.

    Dead dictators tell no tales. If allowed to fully testify, Saddam would reveal the whole sordid story of America's long, intimate collaboration with his regime, and how the U.S. and British governments of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher encouraged, armed and financed Iraq to invade Iran. ...

    ...Those citing the World War II Nuremberg trials as precedent for Baghdad's kangaroo court should read the magisterial words of that court's Chief Justice, Robert Jackson: "No political or economic situation can justify the crime of aggression." Please take note, President Cheney and VP Bush.

    complete column...http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/Colu...2/1405427.html

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation: FrankBooth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,071
    Eric Margolis - Columnist with dissenting views, often based on little-known background information.

  3. #3
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,679
    not really...he's a west pointer who served as a private in viet nam (its a long story, but he's the cause of why 200 fewer graduates came out in one year in the 60's)...everything in this article has been well known for years, i just like the way he connected the dots in this.

    he wasn't always dissenting, just aware that there are always 3 points of view, his, theirs, and the truth

  4. #4
    the cool nerd
    Reputation: sportsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8,637
    legal shortcomings aside...

    It takes balls to have anything to do with that trial, the trial should've probably been held in the Hague..

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •