Talk:Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can confirm that the head of the tribunal is NOT Ammar al-Bakri. There is the president of the court, the administrative officers, who wields relatively little significant power under the October 2005 statute, and each trial chamber also has a presiding judge. Unfortunately the article is somewhat confused about the nature and importance of each of these positions. The first president of the court was an eminent Iraqi jurist who died of natural causes in July 2006.
Can someone confirm that Ammar al-Bakri is the head of the tribunal, as opposed to just the lead judge? Also the only source I can find that names al-Bakri, is a report on the Voice of the Mujahidin radio station. AlistairMcMillan 16:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Impartiality
This page is biased and does not represent true fact.
It accepts a very partial view that trying Saddam incountry is normal. Indeed it is not. This trial of a former president is exceptional.
Recent precedent of the former Yugoslavia dictates that Saddam should be before the ICC in the Hague or in a UN tribunal.
[edit] Useful Source
Without commenting on any bias the article may or may not have, or commenting on any of the factual material in the article, or responding to anything on the talk page, I highly recommend that anyone wishing to contribute to this article (okay, I will comment on one thing: the article needs some updates and other work) refer to the Grotian Moment Blog from Case Western Reserve University Law School, content for which is written by experts on international law, human rights law, Islamic law, and Iraqi law.
I am precluded from contributing material on this topic, but I encourage whoever reads this to take the initiative of reading the blog and updating the article. This is certainly an article which will be read frequently, and it deserves special attention to the various social and legal implications of the Tribunal (which is known under a different name now, the Iraqi High Criminal Court is the most frequent translation into English).
Ari 22:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly suggest this article is merged with that titled "Iraq Special Tribunal" and that it be cross-reference to the tribunal's new title, which is most commonly known as the High Iraqi Tribunal (HIT).
[edit] Move
Propose move from Iraqi Special Tribunal to Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal.
Human Rights Watch describes the situation like this:
- The Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST Statute) was promulgated as an Order of the CPA on December 10, 2003 In early August 2005, the IST Statute was revoked by Iraq’s Transitional National Assembly, and replaced by a statute establishing the SICT
See also [1] and [2]. AndrewRT - Talk 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response
"This page is biased and does not represent true fact."
What is true fact and what is not? If you are going to make that statement then qualify it with examples. This page presents information which could be biased, but you need to qualify your statements better. For example, I find term "ethnic cleansing" objectionable as it was created by members of the United Nations (UN) who did not wish to act regarding numerous humanitarian crises. It is a euphamisim for *genocide* and if the UN had formally identified and and acknowledged that geonocide was taking place their Charter would compel them to act.
"It accepts a very partial view that trying Saddam incountry is normal. Indeed it is not. This trial of a former president is exceptional. Recent precedent of the former Yugoslavia dictates that Saddam should be before the ICC in the Hague or in a UN tribunal."
Since members of the UN include countries that had a financial interest in the continuation of Saddam's government, his trial in the Hague or by the UN, would also not necessarily be impartial as it might bring to the fore embarrassing facts which many European countries would not want widely known, such as their reported back door deals involving cheap oil, or the construction of military facilities by German companies using Philippine laborers. The United States certainly is not blameless in this matter either and I would never suggest that my own country tries the former Iraqi dictator. Do not forget that the US government supported Saddam against Iran at one time. If the people of Iraq want to continue to move beyond years of official repression then they need to confront their own demons in the form of men like Saddam. I will definitely grant that anyone in Iraq would be hard pressed to find someone who is totally impartial.
