Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Deader Than A Doornail!

Deader Than A Doornail!
Thread Tools
stwain2003
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In front of my LCD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2006, 11:32 PM
 
... is Saddam Hussein!!!
8GB iPhone
Coming Soon: Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 12:34 AM
 
Proud of you™

-t
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 01:14 AM
 
Too bad we wont get anymore pics like..

     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 01:53 AM
 
I was looking forward to more of these:
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 03:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Too bad we wont get anymore pics like..

Is that a sausage he smuggled in?
     
Mark Larr
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 10:39 AM
 
He was given a fair trial by his peers and found guilty.


Alot more than he did for the millions he slaughtered.
Shut up and eat your paisley.
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 11:01 AM
 
Hanging on a Muslim holiday is criticized

Some view the execution's timing as a deliberate slap by Iraq's Shiite-led government at the country's Sunnis, who benefited from the reign of Hussein, a Sunni, and who make up much of Iraq's insurgency.

"The Sunnis are going to see this as an insult," said Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. "The reaction is going to be very, very negative."

Sabih Maryati, a Shiite and a board member of Ahlul-Beyt Mosque in Pomona, also criticized the timing. "This is supposed to be a time of reconciliation. But this timing is definitely going to make the situation much worse. All it's going to do is increase the violence and make the country more unstable."
Way to go, for a new born democracy.
"Criticism is a misconception: we must read not to understand others but to understand ourselves.”

Emile M. Cioran
     
Mark Larr
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 11:09 AM
 
It was their decision, not yours.

Too bad.
Shut up and eat your paisley.
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mark Larr View Post
He was given a fair trial by his peers and found guilty.

Alot more than he did for the millions he slaughtered.

Now he slaughtered already millions???
Next year it will be billions. No doubt about it.

PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
Mark Larr
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 11:24 AM
 
Actually trillions.

I'm using liberal math.
Shut up and eat your paisley.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 12:34 PM
 
So.... Things have magically changed for the better this morning? Those people that he killed are alive now? Iraq has no more problems? Anything?
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mark Larr View Post
Actually trillions.

I'm using liberal math.
Whether he killed one person, or thousands is of little concern. He was found guilty and he received the punishment for his crimes.

Personally I don't think he received a fair trial, but then the magnitude of his crimes were too large for that to matter terribly much. I am also against the death penalty, even in cases like this.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Powerbook View Post
Now he slaughtered already millions???
Next year it will be billions. No doubt about it.
People were using a figure around 2 million well before the current Iraq war ever began, and before it could have been used in a political context. Indeed, many of the people using that figure were protesting the sanctions of the time, and would almost certainly be opposed to the current conflict as well.

So yes, millions.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mastrap View Post
Personally I don't think he received a fair trial, but then the magnitude of his crimes were too large for that to matter terribly much.
Two questions:

1) What do you believe was unfair about his trial?
2) Do you believe that a fair trial was possible for him, and if so then how could it have been done?
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
Is that a sausage he smuggled in?
Yes... and I think we ALL KNOW who supplied Saddam with the sausage...

     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Yes... and I think we ALL KNOW who supplied Saddam with the sausage...

Funny; the original picture has more to show...
"Criticism is a misconception: we must read not to understand others but to understand ourselves.”

Emile M. Cioran
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
People were using a figure around 2 million well before the current Iraq war ever began, and before it could have been used in a political context. Indeed, many of the people using that figure were protesting the sanctions of the time, and would almost certainly be opposed to the current conflict as well.

So yes, millions.
I don't think these numbers are at all reliable. They were always used in a political context -- just because the figures were being used by an interest group opposed to the current Iraq war doesn't make that interest group reliable.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 02:00 PM
 
Does it really matter? He killed a bunch of his own people.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
So.... Things have magically changed for the better this morning? Those people that he killed are alive now? Iraq has no more problems? Anything?
are we safer now?
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 06:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Does it really matter? He killed a bunch of his own people.
And now his own people are killing his own people and Americans are killing his people.

Wow! Destroy a country to save it. A new twist.




Hey shouldn't there be a little girl in that picture of Dick?
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 10:15 PM
 
Only 75 Iraqis died in 9 bombing attacks today, and just 6 American deaths were announced. I think the insurgency is in its last throes.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2006, 12:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
So.... Things have magically changed for the better this morning? Those people that he killed are alive now? Iraq has no more problems? Anything?
Nope. A murderer has finally faced just consequences for his crimes -or as close as we can approximate- and that is all. Nothing worth taking any particular joy in; only perhaps a mild satisfaction at a relatively minor task being taken care of.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2006, 12:47 AM
 
will this help bush's approval rating?
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2006, 05:54 AM
 
There is always a feeling of incredible, contradictory forces that resonate around my body when someone succombs to capital punishment. Killing someone, no matter what, is just plain wrong. But on the other, justice has been effected, and that is good.

Part of me mourns his death, the other part is happy that not only did Saddam pay the price for what we know to be crimes against humanity, but for the next sick fuxk who thinks about doing something similar, it will give him something to ponder.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2006, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Only 75 Iraqis died in 9 bombing attacks today, and just 6 American deaths were announced. I think the insurgency is in its last throes.
Perhaps not, but the fact that there wasn't a significant uptick in violence "in retribution for their martyr," as some were predicting, is telling in its own way.

I ask again: there seem to be a number of people claiming that Saddam did not get a fair trial, but I honestly can't see what was unfair about the proceedings. Granted, the evidence against him was so ridiculously overwhelming that the odds of his being found innocent were basically zero, but does that make a trial unfair? If not, then what did make it unfair, and what could have been done differently without being counterproductive?
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
The Godfather
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2006, 11:32 AM
 
Iraq law prohibits the execution of 70 year old people. Saddam was 69, therefore the timing was critical for the administration of Iraq justice.
     
rambo47
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Denville, NJ.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2006, 12:23 PM
 
Buh-bye, Saddass. Thanks for playing the "Genocide Game". No soup for you!!
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2006, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
Nope. A murderer has finally faced just consequences for his crimes -or as close as we can approximate- and that is all. Nothing worth taking any particular joy in; only perhaps a mild satisfaction at a relatively minor task being taken care of.
This murderer was the legitimate ruler of his country, and his murders were executions according to his laws.

Where is this different from the current Iraqi president presiding over Saddam's execution? (It would be murder in the UK, as it is against our law) - do they get to try him next?

How is it different from the current US President, presiding over countless 'executions' in the US penal system? (which are also barbaric, and against the laws of many civilised countries).

It is odd that you judge people of other countries by your moral compass, but do not expect people in other countries to judge you by theirs.

... and deposing and executing the head of state of a sovereign country is a 'relatively minor task' in your world?
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2006, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by christ View Post
This murderer was the legitimate ruler of his country, and his murders were executions according to his laws.
Not all of them, and in some cases there was evidence of genocide.
Where is this different from the current Iraqi president presiding over Saddam's execution? (It would be murder in the UK, as it is against our law) - do they get to try him next?
Have you forgotten already that he was tried under the Iraqi legal system, not the US legal system? You ask if it's different from the current Iraqi president presiding, but since that's what happened, I'm not sure I understand.
How is it different from the current US President, presiding over countless 'executions' in the US penal system? (which are also barbaric, and against the laws of many civilised countries).
I find the execution of murderers to be far less barbaric than supporting them for the rest of their lives while the victims get no restitution.
It is odd that you judge people of other countries by your moral compass, but do not expect people in other countries to judge you by theirs.
Oh, believe me; I expect it. However, I am secure enough in my ideas of justice -and secure enough in the idea that the ideas of 'other countries' are well-meaning but fatally misguided- that it doesn't matter to me.
... and deposing and executing the head of state of a sovereign country is a 'relatively minor task' in your world?
Relative to the tasks that were supposed to be done in Iraq, yes: it was one step toward a larger end. Relative to just about everything else, probably not.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
UNTeMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2006, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
Is that a sausage he smuggled in?
No, he's just hanging.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2007, 04:14 AM
 
One thing is for sure. Saddam wont have the guts to do that again.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2007, 07:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
I ask again: there seem to be a number of people claiming that Saddam did not get a fair trial, but I honestly can't see what was unfair about the proceedings. Granted, the evidence against him was so ridiculously overwhelming that the odds of his being found innocent were basically zero, but does that make a trial unfair? If not, then what did make it unfair, and what could have been done differently without being counterproductive?
If you cannot see what was unfair about the trial, you're either blind or do not understand the basic meaning of justice.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is illegal. In fact, this is a textbook case of illegal aggression in violation of the prohibition of the use of force by one country against another found in article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations and under customary international law.

International law prohibits an occupying power from changing the legal code of the country it occupies.

There was political interference in trial proceedings by the removal of a judge mid-trial, exclusion of members of the defense team at points in the trial, assassination of multiple members of the defence team, and the closure of the trial before the defence team had completed presenting its legal case.

The violations of unfair trial are too numerous to mention here, but include almost every provision in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that could be violated at this juncture of the proceedings.

Among the other striking violations of the human right to a fair trial are the lack of equality of power between the parties and the lack of an independent and impartial tribunal.

The inequality of power can be illustrated simply in dollar values. The United States has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting the prosecution of the Iraqi President; the defense lawyers are working as volunteers with hardly enough money to travel to Iraq. The inequality of power can also be illustrated in minutes, days, weeks, and months. The prosecution alleges to have been collecting evidence since at least 1991 — which, of course, could only be true if it were the United States government doing the collecting — and has at least been doing so since April 2003 when dozens of American lawyers and Iraqis who had not lived in Iraq for years were shuttled in to build a case. The defense lawyers, despite requesting visits with their client since December 2003 when he was detained, have to date not been allowed the confidential visits that are necessary to begin to prepare a defense. No visits were allowed with the most senior lawyers until after the trial had started and at each visit American officials exercise the authority to read any materials brought into the visiting room despite the fact that all meetings remain under close audio and visual surveillance. As if this were not enough, evidence has been withheld from the defense lawyers. They have been denied access to investigative hearings; they have been denied prior notice of witnesses, and they are prevented from even visiting the site of the alleged crime.

All of these rights of the defendant are part of the right to a fair trial under both Iraqi law and international law. This law is merely violated with impunity. The extent of this impunity was evidenced on 24 January of this year when judicial clerk Riza Hasan attempted to return a more than fifty-page brief that had been submitted to the IST claiming that “the judges did not want it.” Perhaps he was explaining why none of the eight motions which have been before the IST for months, including motions on illegality of the IST and disqualification of specific judges, have never received a written reply.

The interference with the independence of the tribunal has permeated all its aspects. Four out of five judges who started the cases have been removed, two by publicly announced interference connected to the United States occupying powers. In September 2005, four prominent statesmen wrote the UN Secretary-General advising him of the threat to participants in the trial in Iraq. These warnings were ignored. Several weeks later two defense lawyers were murdered in a manner suggesting possible involvement of the authorities in Iraq. More recently a possible defense witness was killed when his whereabouts were disclosed to US authorities. Even US President George W. Bush has declared that the trial is on track and that the Iraqi President will be executed.

Such statements coming from judges of the IST also indicate a clear lack of impartiality. In a film by Jean-Pierre Krief for Arte France and KS Visions that was shown in France in 2005, a judge of the tribunal states that the Iraqi President who was then about to go on trial before them had “persecuted the Kurds. He killed them, wiped many of them out. He also used chemical weapons with the aim of committing genocide against this race, against this people, to eradicate them as a nation. He also went after the Shiites due to their religious beliefs.” Another judge states that the President is “one of the worst tyrants in history.” These are not the statements of an impartial judge who in the inquisitorial system of justice is both the evaluator of law and fact.

In March 2006 the European Court of Human Rights avoided having to decide if the trial violated international human rights law by claiming that it had no jurisdiction because the European allies of the United States were not involved in the trial. The Court did implicitly seem to agree that it was the United States — and not Iraq — who were responsible for the trial. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on 30 November 2005 and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers in March 2006 explicitly confirmed that the United States shared responsibility with the Iraqi authorities.

These latter two human rights experts have also condemned the trial as unfair. In his March 2006 report to the newly created Council on Human Rights the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy, stated that after “analysis and special concern of the Special Rapporteur since 10 December 2003 when the Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) was adopted and throughout its development … [the Special Rapporteur] express[es] his reservations regarding the legitimacy of the tribunal, its limited competence in terms of people and time and the breach of international human rights principles and standards to which it gives rise.”

He should have got a proper trial in an international court.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2007, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
If you cannot see what was unfair about the trial, you're either blind or do not understand the basic meaning of justice.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is illegal. In fact, this is a textbook case of illegal aggression in violation of the prohibition of the use of force by one country against another found in article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations and under customary international law.

International law prohibits an occupying power from changing the legal code of the country it occupies.
I know this. I just do not care. The law is wrong, as shown by its continuing protection of abusive governments such as Saddam's.
There was political interference in trial proceedings by the removal of a judge mid-trial...
...the removal of a judge who was known to be biased, you mean? What were they supposed to do; leave a biased judge? That would have been even less fair.
...exclusion of members of the defense team at points in the trial...
Much of which was at the defendant's own insistence.
...assassination of multiple members of the defence team...
Whose fault is that? The US did not assassinate these people; why should it be blamed when someone else commits a murder?
...and the closure of the trial before the defence team had completed presenting its legal case.
Link, please?
Among the other striking violations of the human right to a fair trial are the lack of equality of power between the parties...
That's true in almost every trial. This is why bribery is against the law, to keep it from rendering a trial unfair.
...and the lack of an independent and impartial tribunal.
Do you honestly think such a thing could have existed on this planet for this trial? They did the best they could.
The inequality of power can be illustrated simply in dollar values.
Ah, and so we get down to the real issue: this is a rich/poor issue that people are trying to blow up into a human rights issue.
The United States has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting the prosecution of the Iraqi President; the defense lawyers are working as volunteers with hardly enough money to travel to Iraq.
If so few could be found willing to defend Saddam Hussein, whose fault is that? I say it is no one's fault.
The inequality of power can also be illustrated in minutes, days, weeks, and months. The prosecution alleges to have been collecting evidence since at least 1991 — which, of course, could only be true if it were the United States government doing the collecting — and has at least been doing so since April 2003 when dozens of American lawyers and Iraqis who had not lived in Iraq for years were shuttled in to build a case.
So?
[quote]The defense lawyers, despite requesting visits with their client since December 2003 when he was detained, have to date not been allowed the confidential visits that are necessary to begin to prepare a defense.[quote]
False in most cases. There were a few where Saddam refused to visit with his own lawyers, but again, whose fault is that?
The interference with the independence of the tribunal has permeated all its aspects. Four out of five judges who started the cases have been removed, two by publicly announced interference connected to the United States occupying powers.
When judges aren't impartial, they have to be removed. This is a fundamental principle of legal codes the world over, yet now it suddenly makes the case 'unfair'?
In September 2005, four prominent statesmen wrote the UN Secretary-General advising him of the threat to participants in the trial in Iraq. These warnings were ignored.
No, they were not.
Several weeks later two defense lawyers were murdered in a manner suggesting possible involvement of the authorities in Iraq.
Evidence, please?
More recently a possible defense witness was killed when his whereabouts were disclosed to US authorities.
Evidence of US involvement, please? You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Even US President George W. Bush has declared that the trial is on track and that the Iraqi President will be executed.
Even when a trial is fair, sometimes the outcome is easily-foreseen. The fairest trial in the world would have been a mere formality in this case; his crimes are a matter of public record and, for the most part, openly admitted.
Such statements coming from judges of the IST also indicate a clear lack of impartiality. In a film by Jean-Pierre Krief for Arte France and KS Visions that was shown in France in 2005, a judge of the tribunal states that the Iraqi President who was then about to go on trial before them had “persecuted the Kurds. He killed them, wiped many of them out. He also used chemical weapons with the aim of committing genocide against this race, against this people, to eradicate them as a nation. He also went after the Shiites due to their religious beliefs.”
This is a matter of public record. Who among the Iraqis, to say nothing of the developed world, does not know these things? Unless you want the man to be tried by a foreign power -an even worse violation of his rights- then what do you propose to do?
Another judge states that the President is “one of the worst tyrants in history.”
By this I assume you mean Bush; it's an assertion many people make. It's also a gross exaggeration; whether or not he's a tyrant is certainly debatable, but even if he is a tyrant he's not even in the same league as the worst in history. He gets beaten up by the other tyrants. They shove him into his locker during lunch and give him swirlies during recess. That is how far below the worst tyrants in history he is.
These are not the statements of an impartial judge...
An anti-Bush judge can't be impartial during a trial that doesn't even involve Bush? Now I'm convinced that I don't understand your arguments, because I have trouble believing you'd be trying to make that assertion.
...who in the inquisitorial system of justice is both the evaluator of law and fact.
Aside from the anti-Bush quote, what has he said that isn't a matter of public record?
In March 2006 the European Court of Human Rights avoided having to decide if the trial violated international human rights law by claiming that it had no jurisdiction because the European allies of the United States were not involved in the trial.
Laughable on its face. When you don't plant the corn, harvest the corn, or cook the corn, what gives you any right to eat the corn?
The Court did implicitly seem to agree that it was the United States — and not Iraq — who were responsible for the trial.
That's taking some rather big leaps.
He should have got a proper trial in an international court.
He should have been tried by his own people, and he was. This whole mess was started by a bunch of distant politicians wreaking their sense of geopolitical aesthetics on the Middle East; why should a similar body be trusted with this responsibility when a trial by his peers is more appropriate?
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2007, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
Have you forgotten already that he was tried under the Iraqi legal system, not the US legal system?
Which Iraqi legal system would that be? The one introduced under the aegis of an occupying force from the US (and poodles)?

That'll be independent then.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2007, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
I know this. I just do not care. The law is wrong
OK - that makes any argument with you completely pointless.

You think that what was done was right, regardless of any legal basis, because if the law says it was wrong, then the law is wrong, not the illegal act. This would make a great criminal defence, however I don't suggest that you try it.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2007, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
And now his own people are killing his own people and Americans are killing his people.
Oh I would say there was a lot more than just "his own people" doing killings. Most of the terrorism isn't even from Iraqi citizens.
Wow! Destroy a country to save it. A new twist.
That is what most wars do. Not new.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2007, 06:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
...and the closure of the trial before the defence team had completed presenting its legal case.
Link, please?
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Judge cuts short Saddam defence

Originally Posted by Millennium
The defense lawyers, despite requesting visits with their client since December 2003 when he was detained, have to date not been allowed the confidential visits that are necessary to begin to prepare a defense.
False in most cases. There were a few where Saddam refused to visit with his own lawyers, but again, whose fault is that?
Saddam Hussein was denied access to legal counsel for the first year after his arrest, and was denied confidential visits afterwards. The prosecution gets half a year to present witnesses, the defense gets ten court sessions over about a month. When his defense team boycott court sessions because the judge has been replaced, Saddam refuses to recognise court-appointed replacement lawyers, well obviously.

Originally Posted by Millennium
When judges aren't impartial, they have to be removed. This is a fundamental principle of legal codes the world over, yet now it suddenly makes the case 'unfair'?
Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin is removed because he politely allows Saddam to speak in his own defense and making it look somewhat like a proper civilised trial; Sayeed al-Hammashi, was removed after it was disclosed he was a former Ba'ath Party member. Judge Raouf Abdul Rahman, clearly biased against Hussein, gets to stay whilst shouting about the courtroom and throwing out defendants and members of the defense team. He's considered impartial by some, even though he hails from Halabjah, where Saddam's regime carried out a poison gas attack killing 5,000 people. He resigns, complaining of political interference. Abdullah al-Amiri is removed for being too lenient on Saddam, and replaced with a Shiite, Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa.

There's also the minor issue of new judges obviously not being familiar with all the evidence.

Originally Posted by Millennium
Even when a trial is fair, sometimes the outcome is easily-foreseen. The fairest trial in the world would have been a mere formality in this case; his crimes are a matter of public record and, for the most part, openly admitted.
The outcome (guilty verdict, in this case) is not the same as the sentence. A civilised court would have handed out multiple life sentences instead of these odious death penalties you Yanks are so keen on inflicting on people.

Originally Posted by moi
Such statements coming from judges of the IST also indicate a clear lack of impartiality. In a film by Jean-Pierre Krief for Arte France and KS Visions that was shown in France in 2005, a judge of the tribunal states that the Iraqi President who was then about to go on trial before them had “persecuted the Kurds. He killed them, wiped many of them out. He also used chemical weapons with the aim of committing genocide against this race, against this people, to eradicate them as a nation. He also went after the Shiites due to their religious beliefs.” Another judge states that the President is “one of the worst tyrants in history.” These are not the statements of an impartial judge who in the inquisitorial system of justice is both the evaluator of law and fact.
Originally Posted by Millennium
By this I assume you mean Bush; it's an assertion many people make. It's also a gross exaggeration; whether or not he's a tyrant is certainly debatable, but even if he is a tyrant he's not even in the same league as the worst in history. He gets beaten up by the other tyrants. They shove him into his locker during lunch and give him swirlies during recess. That is how far below the worst tyrants in history he is.

(...)

An anti-Bush judge can't be impartial during a trial that doesn't even involve Bush? Now I'm convinced that I don't understand your arguments, because I have trouble believing you'd be trying to make that assertion.

(...)

Aside from the anti-Bush quote, what has he said that isn't a matter of public record?
Why on earth do you assume the judge or I were talking about the tyrant Bush? This is about the tyrant Hussein.

Originally Posted by Millennium
He should have been tried by his own people, and he was.
Since the Iraqi Special Tribunal has practically been founded by the United States, is financed by the United States, and for all intents and purposes is operated by the United States via the puppet government of Iraq, that statement is utter nonsense.

Originally Posted by Millennium
This whole mess was started by a bunch of distant politicians wreaking their sense of geopolitical aesthetics on the Middle East; why should a similar body be trusted with this responsibility when a trial by his peers is more appropriate?
The mess was started by the US and its poodle, the UK government. An international court, such as the International Criminal Court in The Hague, is hardly a similar body to either. Of course, the US government doesn't give a damn about such things as justice and fair trials, it prefers mob justice and protecting its own war criminals from prosecution.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2007, 07:26 AM
 
     
The Godfather
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2007, 07:43 AM
 
Did Jay Leno/John Stewart comment on this last night?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2007, 08:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
The mess was started by the US and its poodle, the UK government. An international court, such as the International Criminal Court in The Hague, is hardly a similar body to either. Of course, the US government doesn't give a damn about such things as justice and fair trials, it prefers mob justice and protecting its own war criminals from prosecution.
Well now that was easy wasn't it? You say, "the US hung Saddam", someone else says; "but it wasn't the US who prosecuted and sentenced Saddam to death. " and you say; "No, it wasn't the US, but their puppet government in Iraq." Because the UK is involved, they are our "poodle" also. With arguments like these, you can't lose can you?

Aside from your obvious distaste for US action in Iraq and the US in general; it's not entirely clear if you're trying to say that Saddam was not given a fair trial because he was hung or because they hadn't gotten to the part about the killing of 5,000 Kurds yet. The only injustice is the fact that their cases will not be heard.

If it had not been for a bunch of "yanks", some puppets, and a couple poodles; there would have been no justice at all.
ebuddy
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2007, 08:37 AM
 
People are just upset something was actually done. And there wasn't a bunch of threats with no action like they prefer.
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2007, 09:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well now that was easy wasn't it? You say, "the US hung Saddam", someone else says; "but it wasn't the US who prosecuted and sentenced Saddam to death. " and you say; "No, it wasn't the US, but their puppet government in Iraq." Because the UK is involved, they are our "poodle" also. With arguments like these, you can't lose can you?

Aside from your obvious distaste for US action in Iraq and the US in general; it's not entirely clear if you're trying to say that Saddam was not given a fair trial because he was hung or because they hadn't gotten to the part about the killing of 5,000 Kurds yet. The only injustice is the fact that their cases will not be heard.

If it had not been for a bunch of "yanks", some puppets, and a couple poodles; there would have been no justice at all.
Bad justice instead of no justice at all? Now how fair is that?

Also, don't you find the context of the execution revealing of the partiality of the proceedings?

Also, I do agree there was injustice in the fact that many other cases were not heard; these remaining victims had to be acknowledged.
"Criticism is a misconception: we must read not to understand others but to understand ourselves.”

Emile M. Cioran
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2007, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post
Bad justice instead of no justice at all? Now how fair is that?

Also, I do agree there was injustice in the fact that many other cases were not heard; these remaining victims had to be acknowledged.
Al Capone was tried and convicted on tax evasion. Was this justice for those who died as a result of his actions?

What would you have done, hang Hussein more times for the other victims? I don't think anyone disputes that there are more crimes than the ones for which Hussein hung. The fact that he hung is justice and resolution for those victims.

Also, don't you find the context of the execution revealing of the partiality of the proceedings?
No, I don't.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2007, 02:03 PM
 
While I don't shed tears for Saddam, I still see no triumph for anything. Just another guy killed.

It's not like his death will solve any problem of importance.

Bush jr avenged his daddy though. Well done there!

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Dark Helmet
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: President Skroob's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2007, 02:44 PM
 
Ok he is dead. What did it solve or how is anything better now?

"She's gone from suck to blow!"
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2007, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
So.... Things have magically changed for the better this morning? Those people that he killed are alive now? Iraq has no more problems? Anything?
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
Nope. A murderer has finally faced just consequences for his crimes -or as close as we can approximate- and that is all. Nothing worth taking any particular joy in; only perhaps a mild satisfaction at a relatively minor task being taken care of.
Originally Posted by Dark Helmet View Post
Ok he is dead. What did it solve or how is anything better now?
Someone tried that already.
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Al Capone was tried and convicted on tax evasion. Was this justice for those who died as a result of his actions?
I don't think so. The process of judging a person for his crime should cover all his crimes.

What would you have done, hang Hussein more times for the other victims? I don't think anyone disputes that there are more crimes than the ones for which Hussein hung. The fact that he hung is justice and resolution for those victims.
Were all the crimes exposed?

Also, don't you find the context of the execution revealing of the partiality of the proceedings?
No, I don't.
Well, either you are naive, which I do not believe to be the case, or the fact that the sentencing was done on a day that was to provoke a whole ethnic group is also to your advantage.

Whatever.
"Criticism is a misconception: we must read not to understand others but to understand ourselves.”

Emile M. Cioran
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 06:28 PM
 
People are just upset something was actually done. And there wasn't a bunch of threats with no action like they prefer.

bingo.

Some folks would have preferred to discuss the situation with Saddam and perhaps reach a diplomatic solution to his crimes.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 06:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Godfather View Post
Did Jay Leno/John Stewart comment on this last night?
Must have... sounds like where some of these bozos are getting their material.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 06:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Al Capone was tried and convicted on tax evasion. Was this justice for those who died as a result of his actions?
You might as well argue with a tree.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:28 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,