Accused of crime, but by whom?

Saddam on trailIt seems that America is not really trying to bring our idea of freedom to Iraq. In the United States (at least as I type this) even child molestors get to face the youngest accusers in court. But in Iraq, witnesses have the luxury of voice disguises and screens to protect their identities.

As reported by the Associated Press,

The measures taken to preserve the first witness’ anonymity complicated the testimony. At first, defense attorneys complained they could not hear her because of the voice distortion. The judge then ordered the voice modulator shut off, but then the audience could not hear at all, so Amin ordered a recess, and the modulator was fixed, allowing all to hear.

Here in the states, our right to face our accuser is protected by Amendment VI. In Iraq

Witnesses have the option of not having their identities revealed as a security measure to protect them against reprisals by Saddam loyalists.

I am not suggesting that I view Saddam as anything but a monster- after all, many atrocities were commited in public view. This is supposed to be a trial though, and the fundamentals of a fair hearing include the right of the defendant to meet his accuser.

posted Dec 6th, 2005 by michelleshinghal
  • vforvandyke

    Considering this is post number 1337 here at Hammer of Truth, I’m tempted to put a h4x0r speech bubble coming out of Saddam’s mouth. But I digress.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com Keith Rodgers

    This trial would be much more palatable if that freak, Ramsey Clark, weren’t over there right now, making America look bad by defending that piece of trash Hussein.

    Birds of a feather, I s’pose…

  • Julian

    Atleast he is getting a trial. The whole should know by now what kind of regime he headed. He would get no trial at all if his accusers were visible as there would be no one left. I’m sure his ability to supress his critics is not yet over until he is swinging by a rope.

    I hope they lower him very slowly when they do hang him.

  • Julian

    I have changed my mind about the trial of Saddam. I believe they should let him go. We owe him no protection nor does his people owe him a trial.

    When he is released, it should be done with great fanfare and publicity. The exact time and place should be announced well ahead of time. Once this is done, release him publicly with all the news media present and anyone that chooses to be part of the release process.

    This will surely save everyone a lot of time and money. I suspect he wouldn’t survive 5 minutes without body guards or the protection of the state, particularly if he is released amongst the families of those he tortured and murdered.

  • rickrajter

    Julian,

    Certainly. But Bush would suffer the same fate. Luckily, the liberals that truly hate him don’t know how to operate guns. The worst he’d get is a lecture and perhaps some protest signs in his face.

    Plus, we all know the outcome of this trial whether he is actually in the wrong or not (I assume he is too, but at least do it right). Thus, he is merely paraded in front of us to make us all feel good that justice is being served.

    personally, i think this is all distraction to take the heat of our administration for the time being.

  • michelleshinghal

    Paraded is the right word. Since NOLA is crippled, maybe we can call this the The Greatest (not so free) Show On Earth.

  • disinter

    What crime did Saddam personally committ? Who’s laws did he break?

    The only criminal I see in this case is the United States.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com Keith Rodgers

    Come on, Nelson… jeez. Do you think Hussein’s goons just ran off and did the killings and beatings and whatnot on other Iraqis and Kurds, just for fun?

    The piece of crap is guilty. He deserves a MUCH speedier trial than Milosevic is getting.