Thread: Are the UN International Criminal Tribunals serious about serving justice?

When I look at the efficiency of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal, in comparison to the US-led Iraqi Tribunal, I’m convinced that had their panel tried Saddam, he would still be alive right now and calmly planning his defence.

I don’t argue the Tribunal’s decision to indict, prosecute, convict and execute Saddam, but the method and speed with which it was done. If you observe the International Criminal Courts closely you’ll be shocked to find, most high ranking politicians convicted of war crimes, or crimes against humanity, die in prison long before their trials are concluded.

For example In the case of Slobodan Milosevic the former president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, he died in Mar 2006, 7 years after the initial indictment of May 1999, and 5 years after being transferred to the ICTY in Jun 2001.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, he was captured by US forces in Dec 2003, handed over to Iraq’s interim government in Jun 2004, officially indicted in Jun 2005, sentenced in Nov 2006, and filed all his appeals by Dec 2006.

Even though a legal process can take very long, I wonder how it is possible to indict, convict and execute a man in three years, whilst other war criminals are given special treatment and are allowed out of prison on provisional release almost as often as they want. On some of the panels judges have retired from the ICT’s panel without ever preceding over a case, or giving a verdict.

Now my question is, if the Iraqi courts can get their man and hang their man all in a timeframe of three years, why do so many victims of war criminals awaiting trial at the UN-led International Criminal Courts, have to wait nearly ten years for justice to be served (if it is served at all)?

Simply put, the Iraqi trial was a triviality. They had already made up their minds as to the verdict - which is not the hallmark of an effective Judiciary at all.

Originally Posted by Kanabi

....Now my question is, if the Iraqi courts can get their man and hang their man all in a timeframe of three years, why do so many victims of war criminals awaiting trial at the UN-led International Criminal Courts, have to wait nearly ten years for justice to be served (if it is served at all)?

I don't know.... When Saddam was the leader of Iraq, he could have a citizen arrested and tried in a few days. Maybe his sons could gang rape the arrested individual and then by the fifth day the person could be pushed out the window to her violent death.

It is the government of Iraq that has tried Saddam and convicted him. They have their own laws. I think three years is plenty long. But hey, they can do what they want right? Why are you writting this thread complaining about the Iraq government and not one complaining about the Iranian government. They execute 16 year old girls for having sex, just because they are not married. They execute these girls by public hanging from a crane in the streets. The trial is much shorter than three years.

Saddam was a horrible man who commited countless attrocities based on religios differences. He was found guilty of this in a legal court.

Originally Posted by justoneman

Saddam was a horrible man who commited countless attrocities based on religios differences. He was found guilty of this in a legal court.

Hardly countless: He wasnt even one of the great dictators. This so called "legal court" was a travesty. He was guilty of it, but the principle of the matter is that courts should be objective whereas this court was clearly not.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

Hardly countless: He wasnt even one of the great dictators. This so called "legal court" was a travesty. He was guilty of it, but the principle of the matter is that courts should be objective whereas this court was clearly not.

It is a travesty because you say it is? He was tried by a sovereign nation. Did you hear the evidence of the trial ever? I heard much of it and it was very damning evidence. All looked overly fair to Saddam. They went out of their way to accomodate him. What is the basis for your declaration of travesty?

Originally Posted by justoneman

It is a travesty because you say it is? He was tried by a sovereign nation. Did you hear the evidence of the trial ever? I heard much of it and it was very damning evidence. All looked overly fair to Saddam. They went out of their way to accomodate him. What is the basis for your declaration of travesty?

Preconclusion of verdict; that much was obvious.

Executing Saddam the way they did showed that their laws, in Iraq, are the same as they ever were...which isn't a poster of democracy, heh. They all but ignored international prosecution, they ignored the process in which they need to utilize to attain internation recognition, and lastly they ignored the US military and government. This doesn't bring high hopes to those who are actually seeking accountable justice.

Iraq is the same as it was under Saddam...his death in that means was proof.

He would have hung anyways no matter the out come of any further trials, but it would be nice for those killed if he was to be able to face the accountability of all the lives he stopped before swinging, instead he was only charged, convicted, and executed on a very small percentage of his crimes.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

Preconclusion of verdict; that much was obvious.

How is it obvious? Beause you say it is? Or is it that he was found guilty? Only a verdict of not guilty would have satisfied you.

Originally Posted by justoneman

Why are you writting this thread complaining about the Iraq government and not one complaining about the Iranian government.

Quite obviously you didn't read the thread properly. I thought I made it quite clear, that I'm NOT arguing the verdict. My question was whether or not the International Criminal Courts are serious in serving justice, not whether the Saddam case was fair or not (which it wasn’t).

I mentioned the Hussein and Milosevic trial so that you can see the difference in the 2 cases’ timelines, and to point out that even though they are both high profile cases, that the UN courts don’t share the same need for urgency in convicting war-criminals within an acceptable timeframe like other Independent Criminal Tribunals do.

I feel that if the Saddam trial was free and fair (like so many people claim), and only took 3-years to come to a close, it should be worth considering why the United Nations International Criminal Courts take so long in concluding their own cases.

So basically I’m asking whether or not the United Nations International Criminal Courts are only here to serve the purpose of appeasing the masses, or whether they’re actually here to serve justice?

Originally Posted by justoneman

Only a verdict of not guilty would have satisfied you.

I am not dissatisfied with the verdict; don't make assumptions about my stance on that.