Saddam on Trial

[Mel]

Listening to (translations of) Saddam's comments, I can't help but think Bush & his administration use the same tactics to excuse all their own swarmy actions.

Bush wishes he had the speaking ability & an understanding of human psychology of that guy who "tried to kill my dad"... Saddam.

Not that I believe Saddam isn't the scum of the earth but before he goes down in flames, I'd LOVE to see him drag Bush (Jr & Sr) through the mud!

 

[Kodiak]

Bush wishes he had the speaking ability & an understanding of human psychology of that guy who "tried to kill my dad"... Saddam.

FYI, interpreters do not include the "um's and "er's" and "uh's" of the original speaker, (nor to they include mistakes, pauses, mispronunciations, or "hiccups" if they have enough time in the "lag") when translating.

Listening to (translations of) Saddam's comments, I can't help but think Bush & his administration use the same tactics to excuse all their own swarmy actions.

Not that I believe Saddam isn't the scum of the earth but before he goes down in flames, I'd LOVE to see him drag Bush (Jr & Sr) through the mud!

Another typical anti-Bush leftist, reveling in the misery of others and wishing the worst on their political rivals...

 

[Mel]

Re: Re: Saddam on Trial

FYI, interpreters do not include the "um's and "er's" and "uh's" of the original speaker, (nor to they include mistakes, pauses, mispronunciations, or "hiccups" if they have enough time in the "lag") when translating.

I'm sure the official transcipts will contain these things, but it's true we haven't heard the final transcipts yet.

Another typical anti-Bush leftist, reveling in the misery of others and wishing the worst on their political rivals...

Any misery Bush experienced or will experience in the history books will be misery of his own making.

It's not a question of "reveling" in a politician's misery. It's a question of holding our politicians accountable for their actions &/or inactions. (Whether they are named Clinton OR Bush)

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Saddam on Trial

Any misery Bush experienced or will experience in the history books will be misery of his own making.

It's not a question of "reveling" in a politician's misery. It's a question of holding our politicians accountable for their actions &/or inactions. (Whether they are named Clinton OR Bush)

Fair enough, but the tone of delight was obvious in your previous post.

For the record, I was saddened and disappointed in Clinton's lack of characher, and his lack of regard for the voting public and the rule of law for which he was impeached, but I never took joy or delight in the problems he constantly found himself in. While I disagreed with almost all of his policies (I did like NAFTA...), I was never a Clinton-basher.

If Kerry does gets elected and we enjoy the same period of gridlock we prospered with under Clinton, I'll be quite content...

 

[Tmy]

This whole "trial" silliness is going to be a hoot. THey should maek ita reality show, have cameras on Saddam 24/7. He's going to be very entertaining to watch.

Orielly was goofing on how Saddams hair was dyed. "How do you get hair die and manicures in prison?" HAW!

Why dont they just toss him to an angry crowd and let them get all Mussulini on his ass.

 

[Kodiak]

Why dont they just toss him to an angry crowd and let them get all Mussulini on his ass.

Because we are not them.

Even a$$h@!e$ like Saddam, or Hitler, or Mussolini get their day in court.

 

[Tmy]

Because we are not them.

Even a$$h@!e$ like Saddam, or Hitler, or Mussolini get their day in court.

Kangaroo courts just make a mockery of our justice system.

 

[Kodiak]

Kangaroo courts just make a mockery of our justice system.

True enough, though you have failed to establish that the Saddam case comprises just such a court...

 

[Tmy]

True enough, though you have failed to establish that the Saddam case comprises just such a court...

My bad. It makes a mockery of the Iraqi system. Which I take it is new and improved.

Try him in front of some world court for crimes agaisnt man.

But to try him under Iraqi law, thats kinda silly. Werent one of the charges leveid on him based on him invading Kuwait? If you can use domestic law to charge a country leader cause he invaded another country, then send the Marshalls to arrest Bush and all the other waring ex Prezes.

 

[Mel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Saddam on Trial

Fair enough, but the tone of delight was obvious in your previous post.

If I'm to be totally honest, I have to admit I do feel somewhat "delighted"..... but only in knowing that Bush (and his administration) is finally starting to be held accountable to the American public.

For too many years this administration were able to get away with 'bloody murder' only because the media and the public were sick & tired of the Clinton scandals & didn't want to hear more negativity about our politicians/government.

 

[Mel]

My bad. It makes a mockery of the Iraqi system. Which I take it is new and improved.

Try him in front of some world court for crimes agaisnt man.

But to try him under Iraqi law, thats kinda silly. Werent one of the charges leveid on him based on him invading Kuwait? If you can use domestic law to charge a country leader cause he invaded another country, then send the Marshalls to arrest Bush and all the other waring ex Prezes.

Why do you assume the Iraqi courts cannot be fair?

IMO, no matter WHERE or by whom he is tried Muslim fundamentalists will use his trial to their advantage.

 

[Kodiak]

But to try him under Iraqi law, thats kinda silly. Werent one of the charges leveid on him based on him invading Kuwait? If you can use domestic law to charge a country leader cause he invaded another country, then send the Marshalls to arrest Bush and all the other waring ex Prezes.

I say try him in Iraq first, so long as they have legitimate jurisdiction...

According to this FOXNews article the invasion of Kuwait charge does seem the most questionable.


From the article:

The seven broad charges against Saddam are the killing of religious figures in 1974; gassing of Kurds in Halabja in 1988; killing the Kurdish Barzani clan in 1983; killing members of political parties in the last 30 years; the 1986-88 "Anfal" campaign of displacing Kurds; the suppression of the 1991 uprisings by Kurds and Shiites; and the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

A formal indictment with specific charges is expected later. Those charges were expected to include war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. The trial isn't expected until 2005."




"This is history in the making — this is something quite unbelievable for me as an Iraqi … I'm proud that now we have a court we can try such people," Entifadh Qanbar, spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress, told FOX News after the video of Saddam's appearance aired.

Commenting on Saddam's demeanor and actions during the proceedings, in which he acted demonstrative, gesticulated a lot and still claimed to be the leader of Iraq, Qanbar said: "I think he's going to continue to be this way …that's basically how dictators think — they are living in their own moment and world surrounding by their own followers who tell you you are great.

"Saddam thinks what he says is right and the right of this planet and what is against him is wrong and the wrong of the whole planet," Qanbar continued.

 

[pgwenthold]

My bad. It makes a mockery of the Iraqi system. Which I take it is new and improved.

Try him in front of some world court for crimes agaisnt man.

But to try him under Iraqi law, thats kinda silly. Werent one of the charges leveid on him based on him invading Kuwait? If you can use domestic law to charge a country leader cause he invaded another country, then send the Marshalls to arrest Bush and all the other waring ex Prezes.

I was reading the other day about the war crimes tribunal against the Australian Hicks. One of the charges was "Providing aid to the enemy."

Can the US seriously charge a non-citizen with "aiding the enemy" with a "war crime"? If so, does that mean that all enemy soldiers should be charged with war crimes?

Is it really a crime in war to fight for your side? That is effectively what they are saying. I thought war crimes were supposed to be for acts outside of the "normal" acts of "civilized" war. Providing aid to members of your own fighting force has to be considered reasonable war activities.

If this was Australia making the charges, it would make more sense. Or if it were an American. But is it a crime for the enemy to provide aid to the enemy? Bizarre.

 

[Kodiak]

Can the US seriously charge a non-citizen with "aiding the enemy" with a "war crime"? If so, does that mean that all enemy soldiers should be charged with war crimes?

The U.S. isn't charging Saddam with anything.

 

[pgwenthold]

The U.S. isn't charging Saddam with anything.

Re-read my post. I wasn't talking about Saddam.

 

[LW]

But to try him under Iraqi law, thats kinda silly.

No.

That is just the way it should be.

He committed most of his crimes against his own countrymen. They should get the first-pick for the trial.

And as I have posted before, I'd prefer the Iraqis nail him using as many laws that he himself instituted as possible.

 

[Kodiak]

Re-read my post. I wasn't talking about Saddam.

I thought we were talking about the Iraqis trying Saddam.

Can you provide a link so that I can understand your point and how it relates to the rest of the thread?

 

[Grammatron]

No.

That is just the way it should be.

He committed most of his crimes against his own countrymen. They should get the first-pick for the trial.

And as I have posted before, I'd prefer the Iraqis nail him using as many laws that he himself instituted as possible.

Getting killed by irony, nice.

 

[Tmy]

Well as President-Dictator-Czar-for-Life Im sure Saddam had the authority to do all those nasty things. Bush is using his prez powers to scoop up people, hold them without rights. Could you imagine him being tried for doing that? (there are lots of people would want to see that happen)

 

[Ed]

I have significant problems with GWB but who would not be glad that Saddam is out of power and being tried in the glare of the media?