UN takes legal steps to stop execution:

[Praxius]

The ChronicleHerald.ca

The UN human rights chief filed an unprecedented legal challenge Thursday with Iraq’s highest court against a possible death sentence for one of Saddam Hussein’s former deputies. Louise Arbour, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said killing Taha Yassin Ramadan would be illegal because the death penalty can only be imposed if trial and appeal procedures meet international standards.

So finally the UN decides to step into Iraq? Of all problems they decide to tackle, they tackle this?

*smacks head*

They didn't do anything about Saddam or the others they killed, but now they're stepping up on this..... wtf?

[Right of Center]

Why is up to international decisions in the first place. The Iraqi people should decide through Iraqi courts what kind of punishment fits their people. The UN has no right and never has had any moral high ground in regards to what people do in their own country. Every society determines what is right and or wrong and universality rejects the notion that there are different cultures in the world. The UN needs to realize that not everyone thinks about morals the same as they do. They should leave the Iraqi people alone and let them decide what to do about this criminal.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I agree, just because they have the U.S. military in their all of a sudden they're all idealistic. If they really cared they would've made the invsion when it actually could've done some good.

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree ROC.

The UN idea of "human rights" is absurd.

[Duke1985]

Well at this point its really to late for the UN to step in, I mean they will try, they might even do something, however if they wanted a make their point, they should have done it when the first Iraqi war-criminal went to trial.

[Nono]

You guys are all venting pent-up emotional rant without thinking about what the piece actually says.

Arbour is making a point of law, that's all. Iraq is party to international treaties (such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) regarding due process of law. Under those treaties it has obligations. If it doesn't like those obligations it can renounce its adherence to the treaties any day of the effin week. It hasn't done so. So basta.

Prax, the UN ain't "stepping into" Iraq. Holy shit, that's like saying that if Canada complains about the US violating NAFTA on softwood lumber, Canada is "stepping into" the United States.

Ain't nuthin to do with "ideals" or "morals" neither. Right and Gawd, take a coupla valiums and read the article again. Get real.

As you were.

[Gods_Mercenary]

The right to a fair trial isn't an ideal? As i said, they certainly weren't making much of a point to oppose every one of saddam's death penalties.

[Praxius]

Looks like it fell on deaf ears..... *shrugs* oh well:

Former Saddam deputy sentenced to death by hanging

[Boetie]

Quote by: Right of Center Why is up to international decisions in the first place. The Iraqi people should decide through Iraqi courts what kind of punishment fits their people.

Your statement is a complete fallacy. Iraq was invaded by foreign occupiers. In order for your statement to have any legs at all it would have to be an overthrow by the Iraqi people without foreign intervention. Note: this overthrow cannot be the results of a civil war. Then and only then will the claim Iraqi people should decide the fate of Saddam be valid.

The facts are this: Iraq was invaded via an illegal war by foreigners and Saddam was handed over to a special interest group. No fair trial.