Saddams trial. Why dont we just skip the whole thing.

[Tmy]

Just kill the fat bastard already. Better yet, toss him into a angry mob and let they go all old school on him. That'll freak out despots around the world.

Lets face it, war crime trails/tribunals or whatever you want to call them are nothing more than Kangaroo Courts. Always have been always will be.

The "winners" parade around the "losers" and put on a whole farcicle trial in oder to appease the world, focus the local anger, and make the winners feel superior beacause they pretend they are so just.

I mean how many current world leaders could be tried for war crimes/crimes against humanity. Just get them in front of the right people and they'll string them up.

Even GW Bush. If he was overthrown in a coupe or captured by Iraqis, or Afganies, or Palistinians or any enemy of the US they could easily find him guilty of crimes against humanity.

Saddams going to get what he deserves, thats a given. But dont forget that there are alot of people in Iraq who do like him, and wanted him to stay in power. Im guessing any of those folks are NOT going to be part of Saddams trial.

[Skeptic]

Lets face it, war crime trails/tribunals or whatever you want to call them are nothing more than Kangaroo Courts. Always have been always will be.

Yeah, like those awful Nuremberg trials... (sniff)... poor, mistreated nazis...

Sure, the result--in some cases--was a foregone conclusion, but not because of it being a "show trial", rather due to the obvious enormity of the crimes committed by the defendant. Not only has Nuremberg not been a "Kangaroo court" (in fact, only 11 of the 22 defendants recieved the death penalty, and three were aquitted), but that series of trials helped established, beyound question, that the horror HAS occured. Its proceedings are one of the most important bases of evidence of nazi crimes.

Without such a trial, it would have been far, far easier to deny the holocaust and other nazi crimes. Without a trial of Saddam, it would quickly become easy to deny or minimize the reality of his crimes. The trial, simply put, is not only what Saddam deserves, but also what his victims and survivors deserve: the chance to finally tell the truth about the horror to the world.

The "winners" parade around the "losers" and put on a whole farcicle trial in oder to appease the world, focus the local anger, and make the winners feel superior beacause they pretend they are so just.

Yes, imagine that! People are angry at murderous tyrants who destroyed their country! Other people daring to feel morally superior to mass murderers! I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.

But, again, you miss the main point. The point of the trial is JUSTICE and, even more than that (since no concievable punishment for Saddam could possibly make amends), the ESTABLISHEMNT OF THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PAST. You, of course, see things as "justice" and "truth" as a "naive" reading of what the trial is for, while your cynical view is the "horrible truth". But cynicism is a poor replacement for wit.

[Chaos]

Skeptic

I won´t disagree with you about the Nuremberg Trials - except for the part that they made it harder to deny Nazi atrocities. With or without the trial, those who don´t want to see the truth will always deny it, no matter what the evidence is - otherwise, to take a completely unrelated example, woo-wooism of all kinds would be as good as dead by now.


However, speaking of war crimes tribunal per se, Tmy has a point.
Sure, the Nuremberg trials where a good thing, as are the trials at The Hague against Milosevic and assorted other war criminals from former Yugoslavia.
But in war crimes tribunals, Nuremberg style, the winner is always effectively both prosecutor and judge, and it is always only the loser who gets accused. If - theoretically - the winners had also committed atrocities, these would therefore go unpunished.

[Tmy]

JUSTICE?? Please. How many of the guys on the winners side get tried for war crimes.


Cant we be honest, we want Saddam dead cause hes a pain in our ass. Thats it. And thats a good enough reason. WE have to look out for #1.

But no. We have to go on and on about him tourturing his people, gassing his people, ignoring the UN, wasting the Iraqis money on himself. And this is the crap I now hear from hardcore hawks. The same people who were usually spouting how we should nuke the arabs. How compassionate.

Sure its true Saddam did all that shiznit. Who cares. We didnt care when he was on our side why care now. Hes been doing that s**t for 35 years, but we only got pissed at him about 10 years ago. There are other guys who are doing the same in other countries. Do we care? Nope not really. The people who do care are usually chracterised as hippee freaks.

To sum up. Saddam is a pain, so for the good of the US hes gotz to go. Thast what Bush is thinking, but politically he could never be blunt about it.

[crackmonkey]

Sounds like you're perhaps a bit remorseful over this whole "Saddam facing justice" thing. I'm sure you can find another murderous tyrant to support if you just look around a bit... try Assad, for starters. Kepp the chin up, pal. There's repression out there, you just need to look.

[Luke T.]

Last night on Hannity and Colmes (hope I spelled that right), Sean Hannity was saying we should let the Iraqis torture Hussein for information. :eek:

I thought he was kidding. He wasn't.

I like most of what I hear from Hannity, but that was beyond the pale.

His argument was that it could save American lives to get information about the cells that are giving our troops a hard time in Iraq right now.

He was wrong on so many levels.

First, the moral high ground would be forever lost. We would become no different than Hussein.

Second, there is nothing to support the idea Hussein was even in contact with those who are attacking our troops. He was living in a hole for chrissakes!

Third, if we torture Hussein, every American captured by terrorists or whoever, would be tortured in return. More so than in the past. Not all American people held hostage in the past were mistreated, outside of being held hostage. So we wouldn't be saving any American lives. We would be jeopardizing them.

Hannity is losing it.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tmy
JUSTICE?? Please. How many of the guys on the winners side get tried for war crimes.


Cant we be honest, we want Saddam dead cause hes a pain in our ass. Thats it. And thats a good enough reason. WE have to look out for #1.

But no. We have to go on and on about him tourturing his people, gassing his people, ignoring the UN, wasting the Iraqis money on himself. And this is the crap I now hear from hardcore hawks. The same people who were usually spouting how we should nuke the arabs. How compassionate.

Sure its true Saddam did all that shiznit. Who cares. We didnt care when he was on our side why care now. Hes been doing that s**t for 35 years, but we only got pissed at him about 10 years ago. There are other guys who are doing the same in other countries. Do we care? Nope not really. The people who do care are usually chracterised as hippee freaks.

To sum up. Saddam is a pain, so for the good of the US hes gotz to go. Thast what Bush is thinking, but politically he could never be blunt about it.

nope...wrong!

An open trial showing the enormity of his crimes is important for this world to see. There are many, even here on JREF that complain that GWB is "the greatest danger to world peace"...etc...etc The trial will show up not just Saddam, but those who would attempt to minimize his crimes and pretend that he's a victim of American Imperialism.

I imagine the nutty anti-war people do indeed wish Saddam had been killed...the coming trail will serve to be a daily reminder of how wrong those people were all along. A daily reminder of what kind of monster was benefiting directly from their activism.

Maybe they'll all give up the ANSWER and go back to getting naked for PETA. :D

-z

[The Don]

Originally posted by rikzilla

I imagine the nutty anti-war people do indeed wish Saddam had been killed...the coming trail will serve to be a daily reminder of how wrong those people were all along. A daily reminder of what kind of monster was benefiting directly from their activism.


You imagine wrong, you dolt. Many of us in the anti-war movement are glad that Saddam Hussein is alive to answer for his crimes. A proportion of us are also relieved that he has been deposed.

I AM however still a firm believer that the Coalition acted outside of its remit and as such broke international law.

One day I may even learn to type

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Last night on Hannity and Colmes (hope I spelled that right), Sean Hannity was saying we should let the Iraqis torture Hussein for information. :eek:

I thought he was kidding. He wasn't.

I like most of what I hear from Hannity, but that was beyond the pale.

His argument was that it could save American lives to get information about the cells that are giving our troops a hard time in Iraq right now.

He was wrong on so many levels.

First, the moral high ground would be forever lost. We would become no different than Hussein.

Second, there is nothing to support the idea Hussein was even in contact with those who are attacking our troops. He was living in a hole for chrissakes!

Third, if we torture Hussein, every American captured by terrorists or whoever, would be tortured in return. More so than in the past. Not all American people held hostage in the past were mistreated, outside of being held hostage. So we wouldn't be saving any American lives. We would be jeopardizing them.

Hannity is losing it.

Sorry,...beg to differ.

Two words, one name: Daniel Pearl


...and Saddam was not living in a hole, he was hiding in one. He was living in the mud hut above the hole. He was being hid, and fed...(even if he wasn't being bathed)....all he would have needed to coordinate resistance is a conduit to the faithful. I'm sure he had lots of helpers and messengers. He was also found with documents that have helped the Army to crack some fedayeen cells....just last night they arrested over 30 fighters due to info found with Saddam.

Now, torture is indeed a sticky subject, but to be honest...if that creep who made Dru Sjodine disappear could be tortured into revealing where he hid her, and thus possibly saving her life...then I would be for it. If the torture of the guilty would always result in innocent lives saved, then I'd say do it. The problem is, most of the time you just can't be sure.

-z

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by The Don


You imagine wrong, you dolt. Many of us in the anti-war movement are glad that Saddam Hussein is alive to answer for his crimes. A proportion of us are also relieved that he has been deposed.

I AM however still a firm believer that the Coalition acted outside of its remit and as such broke international law.

One day I may even learn to type

I know this is the bazillionth war in Iraq topic, but a question just occurred to me for the first time.

What "law" did the Coalition break? I am not being facetious here. I honestly would like to know.

I like to think of the U.N. as a perfect living counterpoint to people who like to argue the U.S. would have been better off staying a Confederation. Every argument used by Federalists to explain what faults there are in a Confederated system is being played out on the U.N. stage every day. :)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by The Don


You imagine wrong, you dolt. Many of us in the anti-war movement are glad that Saddam Hussein is alive to answer for his crimes. A proportion of us are also relieved that he has been deposed.

I AM however still a firm believer that the Coalition acted outside of its remit and as such broke international law.

One day I may even learn to type

BS. You are trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. If GWB had had you as an advisor Saddam would still be living in tacky Vegas splendor, while his people suffered under sanctions.

You make me sick. However, the thought of you and those who think like you living under another 4 years of GWB is heartening! I hope you wake up every day till 2008 hating life.

-z

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Tmy
Even GW Bush. If he was overthrown in a coupe... they could easily find him guilty of crimes against humanity.

The danger of this is why the President always travels in a large limosine rather than a small, two door car.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by rikzilla


nope...wrong!

An open trial showing the enormity of his crimes is important for this world to see.

-z

Thats my point. The whole thing is just a show.

Dont get me wrong I want to see a trial, I think it'll be entertaining. But say Saddam was like "Yeah Yeah, Im guilty. give me whatever punishment you want." Do you think that would fly? NO WAY! WE want to put on the show for everyone to see.

I think Saddam will be tried in Iraq. And theres no way that will be a fair trial ( he would still be convicted in a fair trial but thats not my point). To be tried in Iraq means he will be tried by his victims. In our system we would consider it unfair to put a thief on trail and have a jury made up of those he stole from.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Luke T.

What "law" did the Coalition break? I am not being facetious here. I honestly would like to know.


Lack of facetiousness noted.

I cannot remember where it is in the UN charter (I may even be making it up) but there's something about not being allowed to declare war on a country unless your borders are under threat.

The improtance of WMD was that if they were in existence and if the Iraqis had a delivery mechanism then at least one NATO member state (e.g. Turkey) would be under threat and therefore would be able to justifiably invade, bringing the rest along.

UN resolution 1441 was deilberately worded badly to allow both the pro- and anti- action people wriggle room. It didn't say what consequences there would be if SH did not comply (so antis could say "it just said there would be consequences") but then again it did not specifically exclude military actions (so pros could say "we've got UN approval"). If UN 1441 had clearly mandated the use of military force should SH not comply then if it had passed without veto, the coalition would also have had authority to proceed unilaterally

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Thanz

The danger of this is why the President always travels in a large limosine rather than a small, two door car.

:D

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz

The danger of this is why the President always travels in a large limosine rather than a small, two door car.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Nearly pee'd meself that time. Okay Thanz,...dislike your politics, but you are a clever and witty guy. Good on ya. ;)

-z

[Tmy]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Sounds like you're perhaps a bit remorseful over this whole "Saddam facing justice" thing. I'm sure you can find another murderous tyrant to support if you just look around a bit... try Assad, for starters. Kepp the chin up, pal. There's repression out there, you just need to look.

Saddam can burn in hell for all I care.

Ill be honest, your kind aright about the tyrant thing. I for one am glad the China is under commie rule. My theory is that you need Commie rule to keep such a large country stable. A stable China is good for the US. (at least it is right now). And while Its too bad that the Chinese people dont have the freedom we do, I kinda like my nice life that is created in part by our trade/diplomatic ties wh China.

Of course I dont see you starting many theads about the human rights abuses in China now do I.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I know this is the bazillionth war in Iraq topic, but a question just occurred to me for the first time.

What "law" did the Coalition break? I am not being facetious here. I honestly would like to know.


"International Law" is a bit of a misnomer since the "law" is really more of a collection of treaties, acknowledgements and agreements with various obligations and entitlements.

I think that as signatories to the UN charter, the US and other coalition members are (or were) bound to act in accordance with the UNand, through the UN, the will of the international community.

Graham

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by The Don


Lack of facetiousness noted.

I cannot remember where it is in the UN charter (I may even be making it up) but there's something about not being allowed to declare war on a country unless your borders are under threat.

The improtance of WMD was that if they were in existence and if the Iraqis had a delivery mechanism then at least one NATO member state (e.g. Turkey) would be under threat and therefore would be able to justifiably invade, bringing the rest along.

UN resolution 1441 was deilberately worded badly to allow both the pro- and anti- action people wriggle room. It didn't say what consequences there would be if SH did not comply (so antis could say "it just said there would be consequences") but then again it did not specifically exclude military actions (so pros could say "we've got UN approval"). If UN 1441 had clearly mandated the use of military force should SH not comply then if it had passed without veto, the coalition would also have had authority to proceed unilaterally

I think if the charge that we somehow broke a law is being leveled against the U.S., then the actual law should be stated. That is how it works if an individual is arrested. They are charged with the specific law they violated.

Has the U.N. charged the U.S. with any crime, or just bellyached that we aren't nice guys?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I think if the charge that we somehow broke a law is being leveled against the U.S., then the actual law should be stated. That is how it works if an individual is arrested. They are charged with the specific law they violated.

Has the U.N. charged the U.S. with any crime, or just bellyached that we aren't nice guys?

When has the UN "bellyached" that the US are not nice guys?

The UN are charged with preserving peace and more specifically with preventing war.

Whatever your opinion of the effectiveness of the sanctions and inspections program, there was no war in Iraq until the coalition invaded.

The UN have criticised the US (and other coalition members but primarily the US as ringleaders) for engaging in multilateral unilateral action (ie action independent of the UN/World Community but not entirely independent).

That is their job.

Graham

[Skeptic]

We have to go on and on about him tourturing his people, gassing his people, ignoring the UN, wasting the Iraqis money on himself.... Sure its true Saddam did all that shiznit. Who cares.

Well, you certainly don't. But his victims and their survivors do.

For the record, Tmy, I'd save this post, so that I could use it as a reply the next time you whine about "inhuman American imperialism" because a military SNAFU causes unintended deaths.

After all, "who cares", right? Oh wait, you care... but only as long as you can blame the USA.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by rikzilla


BS. You are trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. If GWB had had you as an advisor Saddam would still be living in tacky Vegas splendor, while his people suffered under sanctions.

You make me sick. However, the thought of you and those who think like you living under another 4 years of GWB is heartening! I hope you wake up every day till 2008 hating life.

-z

Rik, Rik, Rik... :D

You can't stop yourself from stooping lower than a dog that licks his balls when you see liberal ideology, can you? ;)

Well, as you well know, I'm an anti-war activist and a flaming red-commie liberal. Please feel free to try to set my hair on fire, okay? ;)

Anyway, I'll be glad for a war tribunal. We need that in order to start listing the atrocities aand making sure that the revisionists don't start remaking history before our very eyes. And, by the way, just WHERE are all those WMDs? ;)

G6

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
We have to go on and on about him tourturing his people, gassing his people, ignoring the UN, wasting the Iraqis money on himself.... Sure its true Saddam did all that shiznit. Who cares.

Well, you certainly don't. But his victims and their survivors do.

Its not that I dont care at all. I just didnt care enough to put our troops lives on the line. Call me selfish, call me evil, but you all are just like me.

For another example lets turn to Pakistan. They have their own Dictator General Mussfah or whatevere his name it. Im glad hes there. For one hes helping us hunt down AlQueda and two he keeps a nuke powered nation under control instead of it falling into fundamentalist hands. Now Im sure the General does some shady things in order to keep Pakistan under control and to hunt down Alqueda. But I can pretend that he doesnt. Hes an ally.

There are no bad dictatorships. Just bad dictators. :p

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Girl 6


Rik, Rik, Rik... :D

You can't stop yourself from stooping lower than a dog that licks his balls when you see liberal ideology, can you? ;)

Well, as you well know, I'm an anti-war activist and a flaming red-commie liberal. Please feel free to try to set my hair on fire, okay? ;)

Anyway, I'll be glad for a war tribunal. We need that in order to start listing the atrocities aand making sure that the revisionists don't start remaking history before our very eyes. And, by the way, just WHERE are all those WMDs? ;)

G6

I merely tell it like I see it...
...just like you do.

The difference is I've met you, and I like you. I think you are misguided, but then you think the same of me. If my particiaption in this argument has in any way affected you personally I would like to apologise to you and ask that we might merely agree to disagree and be friends.

I will not, however, apologise for my political beliefs. I will not apologise for my feelings of utter disgust at politicians like Dean praising the capture of Saddam one day, then the next day his mask shifts and we see him for what he is; a craven politician who puts his political ideology ahead of the needs of US troops in wartime.

If you must support the opposition G6, at least support the "loyal" opposition. Vote Lieberman. And forgive me my political bias...as I readily do for you.

-z

[Skeptic]

Its not that I dont care at all. I just didnt care enough to put our troops lives on the line. Call me selfish, call me evil, but you all are just like me.

No, we're not.

This explains your cynicism, though. You make the mistake all cynics do: you have an abyssimally low judgement of humanity, since you judge all of it by the example you know best, namely, yourself.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I merely tell it like I see it...
...just like you do.

The difference is I've met you, and I like you. I think you are misguided, but then you think the same of me. If my particiaption in this argument has in any way affected you personally I would like to apologise to you and ask that we might merely agree to disagree and be friends.

I will not, however, apologise for my political beliefs. I will not apologise for my feelings of utter disgust at politicians like Dean praising the capture of Saddam one day, then the next day his mask shifts and we see him for what he is; a craven politician who puts his political ideology ahead of the needs of US troops in wartime.

If you must support the opposition G6, at least support the "loyal" opposition. Vote Lieberman. And forgive me my political bias...as I readily do for you.

-z

Rik,

This is all in good sport. :) I thought the winks would indicate that. I think it's my turn to apologize to you if you feel that I have slighted you.

I would never ask you or anyone else to apologize for their political beliefs. They are, after all, beliefs in the end. However, I do note that in the heat of the moment, many people say things to each other that they ordinarily would not say after some thought. I am as guilty as anyone else of that. However, I do try my best to bring some measure of respect to the discussion even if others can't do that.

I do NOT support politicians that I perceive are turncoats or corrupt. However, that comprises a HUGE class of people, don't you think? ;)

Yes, I know. I'm an idealist. {sigh}

I think for me, this year has been VERY tiring. I only seek the truth, whatever that may be. I have strong beliefs like everyone else. But, I'm willing to abandon them if evidence is available to refute my position. I did it once as a believer. This is no different.

We will always be friends despite the fact that you're as misguided as I am. ;)

G6

[rikzilla]

Love to you too G6...and a Merry $-mas! :D

Changing the subject a tad...love your hat!

and this.... "Where is the man who has the power and skill to stem the torrent of a woman's will?"

Sound's like something Eleanor of Aquitaine may have once said! Well, that man's not me dear, I surrender! :)

-z

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Graham


When has the UN "bellyached" that the US are not nice guys?

...

The UN have criticised the US (and other coalition members but primarily the US as ringleaders) for engaging in multilateral unilateral action (ie action independent of the UN/World Community but not entirely independent).


You answered your own question.

So I guess the U.S. didn't break any laws, international or otherwise, by invading Iraq then?