Saddam Hussein's trial to be televised live

Tasty Biscuit Toothpaste · Post by **Tasty Biscuit Toothpaste** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:23 pm

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Trial_of_Sa ... _televised

Live from Iraq, It's the Saddam Hussein Trial Show!
With celebrity guests George W. Bush!
Donald Rumsfeld!
George H.W. Bush!
And Bill Clinton!

The media will probably jump on this in a few days, perhaps two or three. Good entertainment right here comin' up. Interestingly, I read about O.J.'s trial on Wikipedia the same night, and critics tended to say broadcasting it live was a mistake. This thing'll spawn all kinds of new presidential catch phrases, perhaps bigger than the "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is," "nucular," and "if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit."

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:38 am

I'm not real big on televised trials. They turn into circuses.

That said, it will be important for people to see that the trial is open and fair. Nuremberg wasn't televised, but it was filmed, and the court went to great lengths to ensure fairness. A number of important Nazis, some of them even present at the Wansee Conference, were acquitted of all charges against them, and I believe most of the Nazis had at least one charge on which they were found not guilty.

Arres · Post by **Arres** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:26 am

Sounds like that's exactly what should happen here. Recorded. Then AFTER the trial is ended, made available for purchase. Like a PBS show.

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:14 am

according one of the articles used as a source for this article, Human rights Watch has some concerns about the legitimacy of the trial. namely that the defense has not had enough time to prepare (they feel) and that the trial will be held in a secret location. are thesereal issues that would bring the legitimacy of the trial into question? and is the group Human Rights Watch a credible group?

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:25 pm

How much time could the defense possibly need? Two years isn't enough? And how would holding the trial in a secret location be unfair for the defense? It's for the safety of everyone involved, I presume.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:35 pm

I think it should be filmed, also photographic evidance should be brought as well as witnesses.

Arres · Post by **Arres** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:49 am

Photographic evidence and witnesses?! That's unfair to the Defense! Are you trying to make him lose? Gahhhh

***edited: Darn this was supposed to be from my Human Rights Watch acoount!***

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:25 am

the point I wanted to make is that the world should hear AND SEE (again) what he did, let it be printed on the front page of every newspaper, and showen on every tv screen

Rorschach · Post by **Rorschach** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:30 am

I'm curious as to which product manufacturers will pay for that particular advertising space
We didn't get MJ or OJ, was there a particular trend in ads during those trials?

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:43 pm

Toys-R-Us and Clorox, respectively.

Donomni · Post by **Donomni** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:08 pm

[quote="Martin Blank";p="552904"]I'm not real big on televised trials. They turn into circuses.[/quote]

I wish. If it were really like that, lawyers would be clowns and baliffs would be bears.

BadMonkey · Post by **BadMonkey** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:30 pm

I actually think this could be a good idea, Saddam, hell, he's guilty as hell, everyone knows that, but think it's important that it be seen by the Iraqis that he gets a fair trial like everyone else is supposed to get these days.

Hussein's strategy for defense was outlined by defense team member Abdul Haq al-Ani, as reported by Dan Senor, as consisting of four "pillars":

* The first argues that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and as such, Saddam Hussein is still legally president. If so, then under the Saddam era constitution he is entitled to immunity.
* The second suggests that Hussein's alleged war crimes were no different than George W. Bush's response to 9/11: A response to insurrection.
* The third pillar is to call Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld to testify. It will attempt to highlight the support the United States gave to Iraq in the 1980s.
* The fourth will be to present an unflattering portrayal of American foreign policy.

Unless the prosecution are really incompetant, the defence are screwed - they may be going to make some vaild points, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on whether or not he ordered the Dujail massacares.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:41 pm

no valid point that I can see...

maybe perhaps the first... but then again if they can't prove the invation illegal they have nothing...

BadMonkey · Post by **BadMonkey** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:23 am

The first one is debatable, and the 3rd is pretty true, the west in general did help Iraq in the 80s when they probably shouldn't have, but none of them have any real bearing on this case.

Makh · Post by **Makh** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:15 am

[quote="CyberEd";p="553507"]the point I wanted to make is that the world should hear AND SEE (again) what he did, let it be printed on the front page of every newspaper, and showen on every tv screen[/quote]
Saddam will be charged of a crime he committed in 1982 about the execution of a hundred people. You will not hear or see what you want to hear or see. He will not be accused of what he has done to the Kurds in 1988 or to the Shiites in 1991. That, I do not understand but it is the reality.

Real Life Forums

Saddam Hussein's trial to be televised live

Saddam Hussein's trial to be televised live

Who is online