Saddam woke up at 0200 on the morning of his first trial hearing, and in all its gone nowwhere. Although there have been some interesting points to discuss.

He is not cooperating with the jugde by not giving his name and answering questions because he accuses the Iraqi trial of being illegal.

Why? Because when he was the sovereign ruler of Iraq, he was legally immune to criminal conviction. I know one other person who shares this immunity today and that is the Queen of England.

So basically, Saddam is making the point that he should not be tried for crimes during his rule of Iraq because there were no laws applicable to him.

Firstly, i dont think this law is applicable anymore, simply because his government is no longer in place. It is no longer a Dictatorship. Secondly, if the Iraqi government hasnt scrapped this immunity yet, then they are idiots.

One of the other complaints Saddam was putting forward was that he is now not aware of the party members pushing charges against him.

I dont know how these human rights trials work, but for fuck sake this man shouldnt have any reason not to go ahead.

There may be some relevance in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 355992.stm

Everyone on the face of the planet is subject to the law. Even the Queen. If she molested some little girls or kill some people will driving drunk her immunity would be thrown out the window.

No, the Queen quite literally enjoys legal immunity. She's above the law. That is, if she'd play hardball. If she would, to take your example, drive drunk and kill a bunch of kids, she'd probably step down and face some sort of punishment. But she definitely can afford to stay in power and ignore any calls to step down. I don't need to explain that it's an open question to what extent her rulership will still be bearable after that, but meh.

In 1990 a more liberal abortion law was passed over here (Belgium). The king, although having no actual power, has to sign every law. But former king Baldwin refused to sign the law, saying that he couldn't morally do so as a Christian. What they did then is declare the king to be 'unfit to rule' for a day, sign the law themselves in parliament, then reinstated the king. That way the law was passed and he didn't have to worry about his morals.

Just to say: the supra-legal status of kings and queens in most European countries is quite real. And in Britain the Queen is a LOT more powerful than our king, so yes, she probably could get away with most offenses. Even murder. They'd find someone else to take the fall.

So if I had a home video of the queen beating some defenseless schmuck to death with a baseball bat, you're saying she would get away with it?

I think England would be ostracised from the world community if they let something like that fly. It would be diplomatic suicide, especially if the poor schmuck was American or something. She might get away with it if he was French.

But anyway...bleh. Noone should be above the law.

As for Saddam... if his country won't try him, he should be tried by an international tribunal. He can make whatever assertions he wants, his trial is just a show trial anyway. His execution will be the bloody end of a bloody reign and the beginning of a democratically ruled nation. Or that's the plan, I would guess.

Heh, I almost thought you bought the 'democratic nation' thing. Good thing you put the disclaimer at the end, hehe.


If Iraq becomes a democratic nation, I'll become the King of America.


EDIT: for the record, that was kinda my point: while she most definitely has legal immunity and could, legally speaking, get away with that, the extra-legal consequences would be abundant.

I wish I had legal immunity. An uncle of mine knows the local 'king's prosecutor' (that's the title, translated ), who has to validate every arrest, fine or whatever that's written out by the police or court(s) in his district. So when he gets caught speeding, he just tells the cops to call the prosecutor and tell him his name. They almost always apologize and let him drive on, heh. Gotta love a little corruption.

heh. I enjoyed diplomatic immunity when I was growing up. It was nice ot have that little security blanket. Of course, if I were to embarass the US, the country I was in couldn't do shit, but I'm certain my own government would've laid the smack down on me. :p

Diplomatic immunity always reminds me of that Simpsopns episode, where the family goes down to Oz and Homer decides to taunt the embassy guards by jumping in and out of the US/Oz. It's a classic.

problem is, the guard then punches him square in the face

I think it may be common for monarchical rulers to benefit from legislative immunity.

In reality, if the queen did commit a horrible act, and the fact got out to the people, the government wouldnt think twice about starting a popular movement against the monarcchy.

Also, in theory, i believe all the laws that pass in the UK, must be signed and aprooved by the Queen. This power hasnt been exercised for hundreds of years purely because it would be suicidal for the monarchy if the Queen rejected a law.

I saw a cartoon in the times which the judge was saying to Saddam, "What do you mean its a foregone conclusion?" whilst Saddam had a noose round his neck in the dock.

Says it all.