NationStates Jolt Archive

So, will Saddam get a fair trial from this judge? I think not, but does it really matter? Will he be convicted of this crime?

The judge interrupted: "You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator."

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060914/D8K4J9180.html

Maybe the judge is just a solipsist. You know "Nothing you observe is real".

From that logic... Yeah, maybe it's just our senses that make Saddam appear to have been a dictator.

If your Sarcasm detector didn't go off, you might want to have it checked

So, will Saddam get a fair trial from this judge? I think not, but does it really matter? Will he be convicted of this crime?

The judge interrupted: "You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator."

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060914/D8K4J9180.html
For Saddam to get a fair trial, it would have to be conducted by an International court, not a domestic kangaroo court.

I am sure that the US would prefer that Saddam gets tried in Iraq.

it doesnt matter where or when saddam is tried. The world knows he is guilty, all they're doing in this trial is making it legal. he's going to be hung and thats all there is to it. who cares what 1 judge in 1 trial thinks. his next trial is going to end up with a death sentence anyway.

For Saddam to get a fair trial, it would have to be conducted by an International court, not a domestic kangaroo court.

I am sure that the US would prefer that Saddam gets tried in Iraq.

Maybe the US would prefer a trial in Kurdistan, or perhaps you would prefer a trial in France where there is no war on terrorism. :rolleyes:

So, will Saddam get a fair trial from this judge? I think not, but does it really matter? Will he be convicted of this crime?

The judge interrupted: "You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator."

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060914/D8K4J9180.html


the mood i am in...a trial...belly laugh....gunshot in the background.

would he afford you a trial?

Maybe the US would prefer a trial in Kurdistan, or perhaps you would prefer a trial in France where there is no war on terrorism. :rolleyes:

Well, they're definately less likely to have a bias against him. He should probably be tried before the UN.

So, will Saddam get a fair trial from this judge? I think not, but does it really matter? Will he be convicted of this crime?

The judge interrupted: "You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator."

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060914/D8K4J9180.html


the mood i am in...a trial...belly laugh....gunshot in the background.

would he afford you a trial?

that dude is guiltier then satan..i think the devil himself would have had more mercy...so fuck him.

Specifically?

Maybe the US would prefer a trial in Kurdistan, or perhaps you would prefer a trial in France where there is no war on terrorism. :rolleyes:

because you need to be fighting an idiotic war in order to try criminals

the mood i am in...a trial...belly laugh....gunshot in the background.

would he afford you a trial?

Why do so many people think that a trial is some sort of cookie that is given away as a reward to the "good criminals."

Look up the word "trial" sometime. Among its meanings is "ordeal."

The purpose of a trial is to determine what is to be done with a person. A person does not become less deserving of a trial for being a worse person. The worse he is, the more important a trial is.

Maybe the US would prefer a trial in Kurdistan, or perhaps you would prefer a trial in France where there is no war on terrorism. :rolleyes:
No, I believe that every person deserves a "fair" trial. Saddam won't get that in Iraq. Also, if he is found guilty, then he should his sentence in jail, not at the end of a rope.

Also, if it were an International trial, there would be a lot more people that could be held accountable. I am sure that would scare the crap out of some Americans.

So, will Saddam get a fair trial from this judge? I think not, but does it really matter? Will he be convicted of this crime?

The judge interrupted: "You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator."

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060914/D8K4J9180.html

Didn't we already have a thread on this?

I'm pretty sure I remember saying that the judge was not saying, "everyone seems to think you were such a bad guy. It's not like you were a dictator or something."

He was saying, "You did not have carte blanche authority to do whatever you wanted. You did not have dictatorial privileges. Just because the people who were supposed to stop you didn't, doesn't mean you were within your rights to do what you did."

the mood i am in...a trial...belly laugh....gunshot in the background.

would he afford you a trial?

that dude is guiltier then satan..i think the devil himself would have had more mercy...so fuck him.
So you would suspend democracy so that you could mete out your brand of punishment?

Well, they're definately less likely to have a bias against him. He should probably be tried before the UN.

The same UN that passed twenty something resolutions against him but didn't have the gonads to enforce those resolutions?

what the hell, he is getting the most fair trail you could ever give someone like him, honest to God. He's getting tried by his own people that he oppressed and he fucking deserves every minuet of it. The Trail is just, unlike all those trail he gave to everyone he executed, you know, the jury was the gunpowder, the prosecution was the AK's action, and the Judge was the 7.62mm round. And I dont support the war in Iraq, but the piece of shit doesnt even deserve a trail. But he will get one becuase its the right thing, and he will get what he deserves.

Maybe the US would prefer a trial in Kurdistan, or perhaps you would prefer a trial in France where there is no war on terrorism. :rolleyes:


Are you being obtuse? There is sure as hell a war on terrorism in France, unless you're picking on semantics. Are you claiming that the French are not fighting terrorism, or are you just saying this because the french don't consider it a war, per-se?

Edit: Found the article I wanted to point out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201361.html

because you need to be fighting an idiotic war in order to try criminals

:confused: We try criminals all the time. We don't need a war to do that. :eek: If you could explain what you mean it would be appreciated.

The same UN that passed twenty something resolutions against him but didn't have the gonads to enforce those resolutions?
What is the big deal about the UN Resolutions? The US buried more Resolutions against Israel then Saddam had levelled against him.

The same UN that passed twenty something resolutions against him but didn't have the gonads to enforce those resolutions?

The same, unless you're refering to some other organization called the UN that passes resolutions.

:confused: We try criminals all the time. We don't need a war to do that. :eek: If you could explain what you mean it would be appreciated.
However, when you try this criminal, are all of his accomplices on trial? NO!!

So, will Saddam get a fair trial from this judge? I think not, but does it really matter? Will he be convicted of this crime?

The judge interrupted: "You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator."

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060914/D8K4J9180.html

saddam should be treated as he treated others....

you know...handcuffed and tossed off a roof..how pleasant!

fuck that shit wad..if anyone here has 1 ounce of pity for that waste of life,how about a drill into your knee...most pleasant.

ever see scarface..when tony montana kills the rich guy...ohhhh..you never killed no one...you just ordered it..
how about a one way ticket to the resurecction.

No, I believe that every person deserves a "fair" trial. Saddam won't get that in Iraq.

So you don't beleive in a trial by your peers?

Also, if he is found guilty, then he should his sentence in jail, not at the end of a rope.

So you are against the death penalty, and that is OK. However, what makes you think he will get the death penalty if he is found guilty?

If the death penalty is allowed under the laws of Iraq, isn't that law a decision the people of Iraq should make or should the people who do not have to live under that law make that decision?

saddam should be treated as he treated others....

you know...handcuffed and tossed off a roof..how pleasant!

fuck that shit wad..if anyone here has 1 ounce of pity for that waste of life,how about a drill into your knee...most pleasant.

ever see scarface..when tony montana kills the rich guy...ohhhh..you never killed no one...you just ordered it..
how about a one way ticket to the resurecction.

Bush should get treated like he treated others

Have a military power he can't possibly fight against invade him, and be chased into a tiny hole for a while.

Then he gets dragged out of it, and put to a mock trial, leading to his hanging for war crimes.

Or, we could just bomb him.

Didn't we already have a thread on this?

I'm pretty sure I remember saying that the judge was not saying, "everyone seems to think you were such a bad guy. It's not like you were a dictator or something."

He was saying, "You did not have carte blanche authority to do whatever you wanted. You did not have dictatorial privileges. Just because the people who were supposed to stop you didn't, doesn't mean you were within your rights to do what you did."

Did you read the link? :confused:

Food for thought (http://lawac.org/speech/2005-2006/REITER,%202006.pdf#search=%22dole%20saddam%20true%20friend%20of%20america%22):

Iraq suddenly went from state-sponsored terror to an ally of convenience, a secular bulwark against the expansion of Islamic fundamentalism that had Iraq transformed from somewhere where we would have no diplomatic relations to somewhere where we had embassy, we had military attaches, we were providing intelligence and economic assistance. Saddam Hussein, in short, became a true friend of the American people.

Now, that's not a term that I throw out there lightly. It's actually a term used by Senator Bob Dole when he visited Iraq in March of 1990 at the behest of George Herbert Walker Bush, the president of the United States. He was sent there to try to convince Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war that the Iraqis probably should ratchet down their weapons of mass destruction program, they should ratchet down their rhetoric against the state of Israel; that Iraq should cease being a combatant nation and become a good member, not only of the Middle East community, but the global community. We had a policy then called constructive engagement. We knew Iraq was doing things. We weren't happy with it, but we felt that the best way to deal with Iraq was to give them money and hope that they spent it wisely. Well, they didn't. They shifted that money and they procured technology that allowed them to expand the chemical weapons capability, the biological weapons capability, the long-range ballistic missile capability, their nuclear capability. And yet Bob Dole embraced Saddam Hussein and said, You're a true friend of the American people. Now, the American people, all they saw was the image on TV—Bob Dole embracing Saddam, calling him a true friend of the American people.
Bedeep, bedeep.......that's all folks!! :D

So you would suspend democracy so that you could mete out your brand of punishment?

And you would deny the people of Iraq the right to execute him if he is found guilty to "mete out YOUR brand of punishment?"

saddam should be treated as he treated others....

you know...handcuffed and tossed off a roof..how pleasant!

fuck that shit wad..if anyone here has 1 ounce of pity for that waste of life,how about a drill into your knee...most pleasant.

ever see scarface..when tony montana kills the rich guy...ohhhh..you never killed no one...you just ordered it..
how about a one way ticket to the resurecction.

I feel sad for him, because there are people who believe that he should not get a fair trial, that he should just be executed without a chance to defend himself.

Are you being obtuse? There is sure as hell a war on terrorism in France, unless you're picking on semantics. Are you claiming that the French are not fighting terrorism, or are you just saying this because the french don't consider it a war, per-se?

Edit: Found the article I wanted to point out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201361.html

No I am talking about what the French Prime Minister said about "no war on terrorism."

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/07/france.terror.reut/index.html

However, when you try this criminal, are all of his accomplices on trial? NO!!

We, the United Sates, are not trying Saddam. He is being tried by a court in Iraq. Oh, and the government of that country was elected by the people of that country. :eek:

So you don't beleive in a trial by your peers?
Not if he cannot get a fair trial, and you and I both agree (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11687430&postcount=1)that he will not get a fair trial.

So you are against the death penalty, and that is OK. However, what makes you think he will get the death penalty if he is found guilty?
That is the prevailing law in Iraq.

If the death penalty is allowed under the laws of Iraq, isn't that law a decision the people of Iraq should make or should the people who do not have to live under that law make that decision?
I do believe that the ICC does not mandate a death penalty.

Bush should get treated like he treated others


Go away, we are not talking about Bush here. Read the thread, it is about Saddam. :eek:

We, the United Sates, are not trying Saddam. He is being tried by a court in Iraq. Oh, and the government of that country was elected by the people of that country. :eek:
A trial of convenience that will nicely keep Americans away from any accusations of complicity.

Food for thought (http://lawac.org/speech/2005-2006/REITER,%202006.pdf#search=%22dole%20saddam%20true%20friend%20of%20america%22):


Bedeep, bedeep.......that's all folks!! :D

Linkiey, linkey. And it has nothing to do with his trial for using chemical weapons on the Kurds. That is what he is being tried for in this trial.

SNIP.. there are people who believe that he should not get a fair trial, that he should just be executed without a chance to defend himself.

And that is as wrong as the Judge making a statement to Saddam that Saddam was not a dictator. A judge is suposed to be fair and impartial.

No I am talking about what the French Prime Minister said about "no war on terrorism."

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/07/france.terror.reut/index.html

That No was quite misplaced. I specifically asked if you were saying that because the french don't consider it a war, per-se. The French prime minister said there was no war on terrorism, because they don't consider it a war, but an issue for the police and non-military federal programs, like the DGSE.

I asked if you were just playing semantics, or actually claiming they don't fight against terrorism.

You've yet to answer the question.

Not if he cannot get a fair trial, and you and I both agree (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11687430&postcount=1)that he will not get a fair trial.


That is the prevailing law in Iraq.


I do believe that the ICC does not mandate a death penalty.

Yes, we seem to agree that Saddam cannot get a fair trial but for different reasons. I think, because of his statements the judge could be prejudice for Saddam. It appears however that you think the court is prejudiced against Saddam.

Just because the "prevailing law" calls for the death penalty, as the maximum penalty doesn't mean that penalty will be imposed. There are many cases in the US where the maximum penalty is not imposed. Why should you think it would be any different in Iraq? Don't you have any confidence in their justice system?

The ICC does not mandate the death penalty, but Iraq (and several other nations) does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. The ICC has no jurisdiction over any sovereign nation that did not sign a treaty recognizing it. Therefore, the law of the sovereign nation of Iraq is supreme.

Go away, we are not talking about Bush here. Read the thread, it is about Saddam. :eek:

My post was a valid, on-topic response, if a bit obtuse. The person I was replying to was talking about how saddam should be treated as he traeted others. I was simply showing the poster that that style of punishment could be brought upon others, even our own leader.

Bush is inherently a part of this topic, as he ordered the invasion of iraq, and the eventual capture of saddam hussein. Sorry if you don't like what I post, Cel.

That No was quite misplaced. I specifically asked if you were saying that because the french don't consider it a war, per-se. The French prime minister said there was no war on terrorism, because they don't consider it a war, but an issue for the police and non-military federal programs, like the DGSE.

I asked if you were just playing semantics, or actually claiming they don't fight against terrorism.

You've yet to answer the question.

Well, if they don't recognize it as a war, how can they fight it? My original post was a bit tong in cheek, but now that I think about it, I sincerely wonder if they are fighting the terrorists. After all, when the Prime Minister denies the problem...well, one has to wonder.

Just because the "prevailing law" calls for the death penalty, as the maximum penalty doesn't mean that penalty will be imposed. There are many cases in the US where the maximum penalty is not imposed. Why should you think it would be any different in Iraq? Don't you have any confidence in their justice system?

Not posted toward me, but I think CH would agree with me. Its hard to have confidence in a nations justice system, when you don't have confidence in its economic system, political system, social system, military, ability to maintain law, ability to govern itself... the list goes on.

The ICC does not mandate the death penalty, but Iraq (and several other nations) does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. The ICC has no jurisdiction over any sovereign nation that did not sign a treaty recognizing it. Therefore, the law of the sovereign nation of Iraq is supreme.

Wouldn't this then be true for Saddam Hussein in the 80's and 90's? He made the laws, and what he did wasn't illegal in Iraq when he presided. Shouldn't his law have been supreme, when he was the supreme maker of law in iraq?

Iraq was invaded by an international coalition. The least that could be done is a nuremburg-esque trial against a number of iraqi's accused of warcrimes. For even more legitimacy, an international body could do it.

Final thought: Do you believe a country should be able to punish people for crimes that weren't crimes when they commited them?

That No was quite misplaced. I specifically asked if you were saying that because the french don't consider it a war, per-se. The French prime minister said there was no war on terrorism, because they don't consider it a war, but an issue for the police and non-military federal programs, like the DGSE.

I asked if you were just playing semantics, or actually claiming they don't fight against terrorism.

You've yet to answer the question.

Well, if they don't recognize it as a war, how can they fight it? My original post was a bit tongue in cheek, but now that I think about it, I sincerely wonder if they are fighting the terrorists. After all, when the Prime Minister denies the problem...well, one has to wonder.

Well, if they don't recognize it as a war, how can they fight it? My original post was a bit tong in cheek, but now that I think about it, I sincerely wonder if they are fighting the terrorists. After all, when the Prime Minister denies the problem...well, one has to wonder.

Again, here is the link. Did you not read it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201361.html

Have you ever been in a "fight" with somebody? Some guy at a bar, or something? Was that a war?

In France, war has a different connotation. It is looked at as a military affair. The US throws it around; War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror, etc.

The point of rejecting the "war on terror" had nothing to do with not fighting terror, and everything to do about not treating it as a military affair.

My post was a valid, on-topic response, if a bit obtuse. The person I was replying to was talking about how saddam should be treated as he traeted others. I was simply showing the poster that that style of punishment could be brought upon others, even our own leader.

Bush is inherently a part of this topic, as he ordered the invasion of iraq, and the eventual capture of saddam hussein. Sorry if you don't like what I post, Cel.

http://www.salagir.com/gfx/troll-web.jpg This is about the trial of Saddam.

http://www.salagir.com/gfx/troll-web.jpg This is about the trial of Saddam.

And whats your point? My post was related to a post talking about how someone felt saddam should be punished for his alleged crimes.

Hell, you brought up france not having a war on terror. This is a thread about the trial of Saddam! Why are you being a hypocrite?

Not posted toward me, but I think CH would agree with me. Its hard to have confidence in a nations justice system, when you don't have confidence in its economic system, political system, social system, military, ability to maintain law, ability to govern itself... the list goes on.
I agree. The US still occupies the country and dominates the politics and economy.

Wouldn't this then be true for Saddam Hussein in the 80's and 90's? He made the laws, and what he did wasn't illegal in Iraq when he presided. Shouldn't his law have been supreme, when he was the supreme maker of law in iraq?
You raise some good points.

Iraq was invaded by an international coalition. The least that could be done is a nuremburg-esque trial against a number of iraqi's accused of warcrimes. For even more legitimacy, an international body could do it.
Again I agree, especially since Saddam will not be able to receive a fair trial in his country.

Final thought: Do you believe a country should be able to punish people for crimes that weren't crimes when they commited them?
Another good point.

For Saddam to get a fair trial, it would have to be conducted by an International court, not a domestic kangaroo court.

I am sure that the US would prefer that Saddam gets tried in Iraq.

I'm sick of this blatant racism against Australians and their justice system, as well as blind specieism agains the proud marsupial the Kangaroo.

Firstly, we only had a single magistrate in Australian history that was a Kangaroo, and that was a constitutional loophole that was soon patched up (Northern Territory isn't actually a state in it's own right, and as such often faces ubnder-legislation. Besides, magistrates head tribunals, not courts. I'll also have you know that Kangaroos have impeccable integrity and not once have I ever heard of a Kangaroo that has succumbed to corruption (Including Skippy during his stint as a magistrate). If Saddam were actually tried by Kangaroos I can guarantee you the trial would be far more balanced and unbiased than anything humans could put together. Whatever ruling they eventually came to would have no bearing on past events, the evidence of the trial, or even Saddam himself.

I'd thank you to treat Kangaroos and their legislative aptitude with a bit more respect.

I'm sick of this blatant racism against Australians and their justice system, as well as blind specieism agains the proud marsupial the Kangaroo.

Firstly, we only had a single magistrate in Australian history that was a Kangaroo, and that was a constitutional loophole that was soon patched up (Northern Territory isn't actually a state in it's own right, and as such often faces ubnder-legislation. Besides, magistrates head tribunals, not courts. I'll also have you know that Kangaroos have impeccable integrity and not once have I ever heard of a Kangaroo that has succumbed to corruption (Including Skippy during his stint as a magistrate). If Saddam were actually tried by Kangaroos I can guarantee you the trial would be far more balanced and unbiased than anything humans could put together. Whatever ruling they eventually came to would have no bearing on past events, the evidence of the trial, or even Saddam himself.

I'd thank you to treat Kangaroos and their legislative aptitude with a bit more respect.
*clears throat.....sings....

Tie me kangaroo down sport,
tie me kangaroo down.
Tie me kangaroo down sport,
tie me kangaroo down.

http://kangaroocourt.com/KC-logo-new.jpg

*apologizes to proud marsupials wherever they are holding court.... :p