How do the photos effect Saddam's trial for war crimes?

I am not sure but it would seem pretty difficult to have Saddam on trial for some of the same kind of stuff that people under Bush have done. Sounds kind of hypocritical to me. And I think Bush was planning a Saddam show trial right before the election too. This may change all of that?

Don

will make much difference. Just because we've behaved badly doesn't let Saddam off the hook. He's still a despicable creature regardless of what we've done.

MzPip
:dem:

I hadn't thought of that. Guess they'll have settle for "He gassed his own people!"

2 wrongs don't make a right. The oldest saying in the book.

His trian needs to be focused on him and actions he personally ordered and he personally carried out himself. That will be enough to condemn this man, as well it should.

Heyo

Saddam's war crimes and Bush's war crimes are related to each other as red herrings. One cannot be used as justification for the other.

Should Bush ever be tried for his crimes in Iraq, he will no doubt use Saddam's crimes and, even more ridiculously, the September 11 attacks to justify all that he did. Neither Saddam nor Osama forced Bush to abrogate the United Nations Charter by launching a preventive attack against a state that was no immediate threat to anyone nor abrogate the Third Geneva Convention.

It was aggressive war, pure and simple.

Bush's doctrine is mislabeled "pre-emption". Under international law, there nothing wrong with a pre-emptive attack. If one nation is under immanent threat from a foreign power and strikes first, that is a pre-emptive.

For example, let us suppose that Saddam actually had a biochemical arsenal. With Anglo-American troops massed on Iraq's border with Kuwait and Mr. Bush refusing to take No for an answer, he would have been fully justified in using them against the invading force. That would have been a pre-emptive attack.

As it was, Saddam had no such weapons and had only at most crude plans to construct any. If Iraq actually possessed such weapons, she would be a threat. However, the threats would not materialize for some time. In no way could the threat be called immanent. The invasion was carried out to prevent that from happening. Such an attack is preventive.

A preventive attack is not justified under international law. It is, as you say, an aggressive war, pure and simple.

There is a possibility that a jury trial may not convict him. How would that look in the eyes of the world? How will it look if Bush refuses to turn Saddam over to the new government on May 30th? Will they request that he be tried by a jury of his "peers"? I don't think so. My guess would be that Mr Saddam is not long for this world. It's time for an Iraqi fanatical to do his job...

Or at least be ashamed by it. It's been a hallmark of the maladministration to ruthlessly pillory opponents by accusing them of the same things they themselves do. They've never been the least bit concerned with their own hypocisy. Guilt doesn't matter when you're on god's team, and the ends justify the means, etc.

It undoubtedly gives critics some valuable ammo, but Bush will go ahead with the show trial - its diversion is urgently needed so that Bush can remind us what a bad, bad man Saddam is. And if it plays badly, or even backfires, they can sweep the whole production off the stage and set up the next diversion.

difficulties."

Doesn't let SH off the hook but shrubco will not want this to be in the news because it will only highlight US malfeasance in this misbegotten war.