You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Arab lawyers plan Saddam defence
2004-01-09
"Grab your turban and your briefcase, and come on down for the Trial of the Century™!
A group of Arab lawyers are planning to defend Saddam Hussein if the former Iraqi president stands trail for alleged crimes committed in office.
I think I'd find somebody named Cohen or Shapiro, myself...
The Union of Arab Lawyers invited legal experts from Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan to Cairo on 4 January to discuss forming a defence committee. At the end of the meeting, they concluded that Saddam should be treated as prisoner of war, and his whereabouts must be disclosed.
Obviously well-grounded in their profession, aren't they?
They demanded that the International Committee of the Red Cross Thingy be allowed to visit him to ensure proper imprisonment conditions. And they agreed that as he is still the constitutional president of Iraq, the US cannot legitimately incarcerate him.
Guess you don't need the visit by the Red Thingy, then...
The lawyers also accused the US of breaching international law by occupying Iraq and arresting Iraqi citizens without a warrant from an international body. Hasan Umar, the Egyptian international law counsel told Aljazeera.net that according to international law, US forces had kidnapped the Iraqi president.
Brilliant! Sign him up for O.J.'s next trial...
"In 1960 the UN criminalised occupation by military force, and considered occupation as an anti-human rights act. Resolution 3013 of the General Assembly considers any foreign forces on another country's soil as mercenary units." He added: "Accordingly, such units are not allowed to take prisoners of war, so what they are doing is actually kidnapping people."
A vertiable Blackstone...
Daniel Joyner, an international law expert at Britain's Warwick University, told Aljazeera.net that he agreed the Iraq war was illegal. But he is not convinced there is any authority the Arab lawyers can appeal to.
Try the UN. Or Belgium, maybe...
He said: "It's a serious point that I understand, but who can they make this point to, the International Court of Justice? First of all, it would have to be the government of Iraq bringing the case. "If Saddam Hussein from his jail cell were to write a letter to the Hague saying he wanted to bring a case then you would get an interesting legal battle. They would first have to decide if he was still the legitimate leader before they studied the legal merits of the case." However, Joyner dismissed the assertion that Saddam was kidnapped because UN General Assembly resolutions cannot proscribe international law. But he agreed that Saddam should be afforded POW status. "The US has so far denied any POW status," he said. "The reason is obvious - it's so they can interrogate him longer. But I think he should be protected by the 1949 Geneva Convention."
Not as a head of state nor in his capacity as a member of the regime...
He added: "International law is not one big regime - there are different sources of law. The question of the legality of war itself can be separated from questions about what happened after the occupation began. As long as Saddam Hussein is afforded POW status his arrest should be governed by international humanitarian law."
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#9  Shipman, you're right. How can a defendent get a fair trial in a country where he summarily executed a million people. (I guess I should have tried to fit an allegedly in there somewhere.)
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-1-9 11:35:38 PM  

#8  Demand a change of venue. Move the circus to SF.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-1-9 6:45:03 PM  

#7  But he is not convinced there is any authority the Arab lawyers can appeal to.

Bingo! Legislation without the capacity to enforce is meaningless.
Posted by: phil_b   2004-1-9 5:17:33 PM  

#6  Maybe we should give him a trial in the same way he 'tried' those he sent to the mass graves? (i.e. line him up before a trench and shoot him.)

*boom*

Yup! looks like your guilty!
Posted by: CrazyFool   2004-1-9 2:59:01 PM  

#5  Giving legitimacy to UN sanctioned laws and rules would depend on 1) a powerful enough sovereign to enforce the law if you are talking about Austinian-type jurisprudence, or 2) immutable natural laws if you are talking about the common law jurisprudence that is the bedrock of international law.

There is no way the UN is a powerful enough sovereign to enforce international law as an Austinian-type sovereign. The US, however, is powerful enough--and under Austinian-type arguments, the UN should be listening to us. The US will only lose the high ground if it is voluntarily relinquished.

Under basic common-law principles, which are the bedrock of international law, the US is entirely justified in the WOT. Again, the UN cannot dictate terms to the US in the WOT.

Oh, and what about the Iraqi people, what would the vast majority like to do with Saddam? Maybe he could succeed in a “prison break” down in, say, Basra . . .
Posted by: cingold   2004-1-9 2:47:21 PM  

#4  Arab Loyers, do such people exist? i thought arab justice was decided by Allah and the punishment by the local stone throwers.
Posted by: Jon Shep   2004-1-9 2:46:34 PM  

#3  Ain't fact checking a bitch?
Posted by: Fred   2004-1-9 2:33:28 PM  

#2  "In 1960 the UN criminalised occupation by military force, and considered occupation as an anti-human rights act. Resolution 3013 of the General Assembly considers any foreign forces on another country's soil as mercenary units."

Ah, the golden age of makin' stuff up. Leaving aside the UN's inability to "criminalize" anything, given that it has neither popular mandate nor law enforcement agencies, and the complete stoopidity of the definition of "mercenaries", it's simply not true. According to this, GA resolution 3013 was passed in December 1972, not 1960, and simply urges member states to adopt three conventions on narcotics. In other words, it's about the drug trade.

I couldn't find anything about occupation in the resolutions for 1960. The only thing vaguely resembling it is Cuba whining that the nasty Americans are picking on them, and the GA resolution that all member states should work to resolve problems peacefully, 'K?

Maybe we should let 'em defend him.
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2004-1-9 2:14:22 PM  

#1  Anyone remember this level of concern for the people Saddam's government shoveled into graves?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-1-9 1:33:07 PM  

00:00