New England Cable News had a teaser for a story that I'm STILL furious about

[xiphias]

"Does Saddam even deserve a trial?"

Look. "Deserve" has absolutely nothing to do with whether people get trials or not. You don't "deserve" or "not deserve" a trial. It's not about the person on trial. Trials are there because they help societies.

If we have gotten to the point where the question "does such-and-such a person DESERVE a trial" even makes sense, then we are a debased society.

Rights aren't "deserved" or "not deserved". They're not given by governments, they're not earned. They exist. That's all there is to it.

If people in a society actually don't understand that, then there's little long term hope for the society.

Comments

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

Of course, this one has a strong flavor of, "We'll give him a fair trial, then hang him."

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

Amen. You are so right dead on on this. That people don't understand the basic consept that *everyone* gets a trial is really scary.

[worldmage.livejournal.com]

Is it just me, or have the rational faculties of Americans at large gone out the window since they announced Saddam's capture?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

It's just you. The rational facilities of Americans at large were never anywere even CLOSE to within the window to start with.

[worldmage.livejournal.com]

True, but at least before yesterday I was still hearing people talk about the fact that we haven't heard ANYTHING about Osama bin Laden since mere discussion of Iraq began. Now it's all about what a great moral and ethical victory this is, and let's just ignore the atrocities WE committed, and the fact that we used to support Saddam, or that we SHOULD be focusing on the "War On Terror" instead of Daddy Bush's unfinished business.

[cheshyre]

That's why they waited until Saddam grew the beard -- so people would confuse him for OBL.
Their kind all looks alike, after all...
[For the humor-impaired, that's a joke]

[burgundy.livejournal.com]

And don't even get me started on what constitutes a fair trial. "We'll put you on trial, but we'll limit your access to people that might help your case. But we still want to kill you if you're found guilty. And if it looks like we can't swing this in a civilian court, then we'll punt you over to a military tribunal, where we won't have the same burden of proof." Or "We can call you an enemy combatant as long as we're at war, and since we're at war with a concept, it doesn't matter whether we're currently fighting the people you were fighting for, because our 'war' can last indefinitely, and we'll only give you access to lawyers when we're done doing whatever it is we want to do to you." Or...

Dammit, I told you not to get me started.

[ailbhe]

Well, the news over here says that Bush wants him executed because it's The Ultimate Justice. I guess he'll be executed, then.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

The appropriate precedent surely is Nuremberg?

[navrins]

Well, mostly because I like to take the other side whether I agree with it or not...

What's the purpose of a trial?

To prove that the defendent has committed crimes? Really, is there any doubt of that in Saddam's case? (Serious question; is there?)

To determine the appropriate punishment for those crimes? Really, is there any doubt that he will either be executed, if his punishment is decided in a jurisdiction that allows it, or imprisoned until the sun goes nova if not?

To show everyone that "justice is being done?" I'm not sure what that means. Or how that's anything other than a show trial.

So... what's the value of a trial for Saddam?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I have not seen proof yet -- or, frankly, even EVIDENCE -- that Saddam Hussein has done any of the things that everybody takes for granted that he has done.

I have no particular reason to doubt that he's done at least a significant portion of the things he's accused of -- but, see, that's not how it works. You have to demonstrate that these things were done.

Then the defendant can give reasons why he or she did those things. Perhaps he had good reasons.

So, yes, there is doubt that Saddam has committed crimes. Maybe not much doubt -- but, when we've gotten to the point that everybody who speaks against the war feels compelled to say, "Now, I know that Saddam is evil and deserves to have his intestines ripped out his nostrils . . . "

. . . well, I, personally, missed the evidence that apparently everybody else in the world got that demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is true.

"Saddam gassed his own people." Okay, maybe. Or, maybe he used chemical weapons against a village that was harboring Kurdish terrorists who were attacking his people. He has the right to the opportunity to make that case, for instance.

[navrins]

That's fair.