posted
Don't panic, it's just in Iraq. But yes, his "handlers" are seriously floating the idea that Saddam Hussein can and will run in the January elections back home. The fact that he's incarcerated and may stay that way for the rest of his life is not a big concern, apparently. Lately, his popularity has been rising.
Iraq is faced with massive unemployment and people there are actually looking back at the dictatorship wistfully. It's uncertain how many Iraqis really feel this way, but apparently there are enough that Saddam's posse have decided he's a viable candidate.
After some quick checking, apparently the Bush Administration has conceded that there may not be a legal way to keep him off the ballot.
Imagine if he won. Whoever the president is come January would have an incredibly difficult decision to make. Do you support Democracy or find a way to invalidate the election, knowing full well that the entire world would cry foul play, even if you could prove that insurgents had monkeyed with the polling process.
posted
This could be the most ironic situation in history. The backlash would be unbelievable.
If Saddam runs and looses, the US's credibility will skyrocket and Iraq will continue unstable. If he runs and wins the US will loose a lot. However, if he was elected and America kicked out, would Iraq revert to the old regime? I can't imagine that would be possible, at least not with widespread violence.
I can't even imagine what the situation would be like, or what would happen.
posted
Sadly, if he's on the ballot, I think the election will be tainted. There are violent factions that would do anything to either stick it to America or get back into power, or both.
In addition, I think that any irregularity in the election process will be seen as an attempt by the US to stop Saddam from regaining power. Even if he loses, the stalwarts will just say that America rigged the election.
This is pretty awful.
I wonder if the US is considering a plea bargain that would keep him off the ballot in exchange for a lighter sentence and some dropped charges?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no possible way Saddam Hussein will be on the ballot. If it begins to look like it's going to happen, the United States will step in and "lobby" for a change in election rules designed to keep him off. I don't know exactly what, but I think "No person under investigation or punishment for abuse of power under the previous administration shall be eligible for the office of puppet dictator.... erm..... president."
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, yes. However, there is one small difference. There isn't any chance that person would ever ever WIN the presidency from prison, so there isn't any need to tweak the law. Also, we aren't in an occupied country with a widespread insurgency. Finally, we don't have an unclear election law that can still be easily changed to prevent such a thing. All I'm saying is that rather than have Saddam on the ballot, the U.S. will pull some strings and make it illegal. It just makes sense. We didn't respect Iraqi law when we invaded to take Saddam out, we aren't going to let him back in because of a legal technicality. Bush isn't THAT stupid.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here in Brazil, an imprisioned man could be a candidate, and even elected. But if he's declared guilty in a trial, his election becomes void.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
But, more importantly, Saddam hasn't been charged yet and the deadline for submitting the necessary declarations of an intention to run for president of Iraq will come before he is charged.
Remember, we get to hold someone without charging them when we are the occupying force.
They're "working on the charges now" last I heard, but it will be months before they are done.
posted
Well, in the UK lots of Irish political prisoners have been elected to Parlaiment while they were in jail. But I think they changed the law after Bobby Sands in 1981 so that can't happen any more.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I felt all along it was a pity Saddam Hussein was captured alive. Too much time and expense just putting him on trial, let alone risking something ridiculous like a strong showing in an election!
Of course, if Saddam is on the ballot, and seems to have a lot of support, will the insurgents continue to try to prevent the election from happening?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A formal indictment with specific charges is expected later, Chalabi said. The trial isn't expected until 2005
I don't really know how this works. In the US, you are charged and then arraigned and then tried. This article talks about awaiting a formal indictment. What I heard on NPR (or was it the Washington post) said that he had not been charged yet. But clearly he has been charged in some way...
is there an equivalent in US judicial processes? I know someone can be arrested and arraigned, but I thought the prosecutor had to charge them at the arraignment and didn't get another shot at it later.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In federal court, for felonies or "infamous crimes," an indictment or presentment (basically an indictment initiated by the grand jury) is required before trial.
However, "charging" happens earlier, usually at arraignment. This is an important concept, because certain rights, such as the 6th amendment right to counsel, attach only when the person is charged. If a person remained uncharged until indicted, certain rights would not attach.
For an example of how critical this is, look at the DC sniper case. The charges in Fairfax were dismissed because the prosecutor sent a note to Prince William asking them not to release him without giving the Fairfax prosecutor a chance to keep him detained. This was deemed to start the Speedy trial clock ticking, even though he would have been in jail whether or not Fairfax sent that note.
Dagonee P.S., The 6th amendment right to counsel differs from the right mentioned in Miranda ("You have the right to an attorney..."), which attaches at the point of custody.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Sunnis might vote for him, but the Shi'a and the Kurds never would. The Shi'a are a majority all by themselves.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only would he not win, getting him on the ballot may legitimize the process.
"the Shi'a and the Kurds never would. The Shi'a are a majority all by themselves."
Kasie, now you are starting to sound like a wonk. These are issues of food, water, and stability. People don't vote as blocks when those issues arise. If Hussein could convincingly articulate that he would stop the insurgents, there is probably a segment of these people who would be more willing to give up liberty faster than we signed the patriot act. Plus, he is the ultimate anti-American. Run on taking back your country, and restoring dignity in Iraq. Blame America for the sanctions and poverty. He doesn't have to win all of the votes, just break the voting machines in the North, and split the votes in the middle. ___________
There would be harder jobs in the world than managing Hussein's campaign. Hussein would have a easier time winning than this guy:
posted
If he DOES indeed candidate, and if he DOES indeed win - which I doubt - that will just prove that nowadays democracy has its problems too. I don't think he should be allowed to candidate in the first place, but I see how if he wasn't charged or something he could still legaly do it. But really, if they make it clear that even if he wins, after he gets charged the vote becomes null, how many would vote for him?!
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Supposedly support is at 42 percent. However, I can't find the actual Gallup poll, even after searchiing their site. So, not sure if this is just a rumor run amok or what.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
The article was written in September and the poll was conducted sometime in April... I wonder if we could find more recent polls...
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That article is very sucky. I mean, it says that inthe last election he received 98% of the vote, as if that meant something in a Baathist dictatorship. Lol.
I just threw it out there as the first one that I stumbled across that mentioned the poll. I'm not saying it's definitive or anything.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, he probably did get 98% of the votes. Of course, when you have "Saddam Hussein" or "Saddam Hussein" or "Bullet in the Head" as your choices, it's easy to see how he won so definitively. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dragonee, we both know that he doesn't need a majority of the Sunni votes. ______________________________ The last election is not an issue. I think that Hussein's name was the only one on the ballot, and it was just a yes or a no question. Even if he got 30 percent of the vote, it doesn't make us look good. It's not a big deal, though. We did what we did.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder if the US is considering a plea bargain that would keep him off the ballot in exchange for a lighter sentence and some dropped charges?
So he's only convicted of murdering thousands instead of tens of thousands? Not that the US is bringing the charges, as he was content to murder his own citizens.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I think it would be interesting to put Saddam on the ballot.
Assuming he was running against several contenders, I can well believe that he would get a 'majority' of the vote.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would rather have Saddam (a secular dictator) as president than one of the wacko religious fanatics. Besides, if Saddam acts up, we'll just activate that chip we implanted.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
If he is polling at about 40%, conceiveably he could win a majority. Of course, polling is tricky in a 3rd world country enduring a violent insurgency campaign.
I wonder if he will be kept off of the ballot? Or if he won if the presidency will be denied him?
In this country, I believe jailed criminals have won congressional seats, maybe in Louisiana or Massachusets. Not 100% sure though. edit: Besides, if Saddam acts up, we'll just activate that chip we implanted.
posted
Didn't Adlai Stevenson run for President from prison? Certainly he was nowhere near winning, but I think one of the issues is that someone could theoretically be imprisoned for basically "political" charges.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Sadam runs and loses, it's certainly within his character to rouse up the discontents and start a rebellion against the state. Iraq is so naturally divided, he could probably get a pretty decent following and Iraq would plunge into Civil War.
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would he even need a majority, or could he win on a plurality? (we forget that the rest of the world doesn't run on two parties)
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Didn't Adlai Stevenson run for President from prison?
*cries* *cries* *cries*
Adlai Stevenson was a prince among men, and he did not run for President from prison. For me, this election is vindication for Stevenson's losses. Kerry is no Stevenson and Bush is no Ike, but America has to choose between two well-meaning gentlemen, and now we have the chance to do it right and set the tone for the next era of America.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
