I won't respond to any personal bickering, lets keep this clean(unlike the last one). I want to set the record straight on what I was saying, I refuse to be thought of as someone who condemns murder.

I was not saying that Hussein didn't derserve justice for what he did, he must certainly did. All I was saying is this like any defendant(no matter how heinous their crimes), he deserved a fair trial. Which I did not think he got in Iraq, or that it was possible for him to get a fair trial there. Thats my first point.

The other point I was making is that he should have been tried under international law, because even if there was a legal loophole in the Iraqi system(which there was), international law still applies.

I was NOT saying because it was technically legal under Iraqi law at the time for him to do what he did, that means its morally okay. Its not. I wasn't talking about MORALS though, I was talking about the LAW. And like I said, just because I think they didn't have a case against him under Iraqi law, doesn't mean I don't think he should have been prosecuted period. As I said above, the man should have been tried by an international court.

I can understand if Tam decides to lock this just to be safe, but this had to be said. I cannot allow these accusations against myself to stand.

If anyone who accused me of condoning murder wants to apologise, they may do so via PM. I don't wany any personal discussions going on in here, only people adressing the point I made about his trial.

Thank you.

I will not lock this thread..... YET.

Each person is entitled to their own views and beliefs, that is not why I locked the other thread. I locked it because it was just getting ridiculous.
If a person can post something in this section (Politics and Religion) then said person should be able to handle constructive criticism and challenges made to their posts. In other words, if you can dish it out you better be able to take it!

When it leaves the area of challenging and goes into ignorance and bashing - that's where I draw the line.


Tam

If a person can post something in this section (Politics and Religion) then said person should be able to handle constructive criticism and challenges made to their posts.


Constructive is the key word. The accusation was so ridiculous and out there, and offensive, I don't see how it possibly could be constructive.

I don't know want to get into all that in this thread though...

I want this to be about my REAL point(not some imagined one) which I think I've said clearly enough in my first post. Not accusations.

   The short answer is that the Saddam was tried for Crimes Against Humanity and not for an isolated domestic action.  The differences are profound...

   I think Saddam should have been tried in The Hague by an international tribunal.  Semantics aside, the image an Iraqi trial presents to the world is one of cynical motives, political manipulation and revenge rather than a mere flawed judicial process or justice.  The whole idea of trying him was foolish to begin with...stick with me, here...was the outcome in any doubt..?  The outcome was predestined...

   This is not the "democracy in action" that we want to show to the world...

   Two cents groove ;) on...

He's dead.  Let him be dead and give him no more thought.  He doesn't deserve it.

He's dead.  Let him be dead and give him no more thought.  He doesn't deserve it.


What I've been saying. No amount of arguing over stupid semantics and what not is going to bring his happy ass back.

He's dead.  Let him be dead and give him no more thought.  He doesn't deserve it.


He doesn't deserve it, but the nation of Iraq deserves it. In my original post I said I found his trial and the events surrounding it very disturbing because of what it says about the "new" Iraq. Davester pretty much nailed down my reasons for why it concerns me about Iraq's future.


  The short answer is that the Saddam was tried for Crimes Against Humanity and not for an isolated domestic action.  The differences are profound...

  I think Saddam should have been tried in The Hague by an international tribunal.  Semantics aside, the image an Iraqi trial presents to the world is one of cynical motives, political manipulation and revenge rather than a mere flawed judicial process or justice.  The whole idea of trying him was foolish to begin with...stick with me, here...was the outcome in any doubt..?  The outcome was predestined...

  This is not the "democracy in action" that we want to show to the world...

  Two cents groove ;) on...


Well said my man. Well said. Karma to you. :)


What I've been saying. No amount of arguing over stupid semantics and what not is going to bring his happy ass back.


With all due respect Jessica, its not Saddam I'm concerned about. Read what Davester wrote.

I will not lock this thread..... YET.

Each person is entitled to their own views and beliefs, that is not why I locked the other thread. I locked it because it was just getting ridiculous.
If a person can post something in this section (Politics and Religion) then said person should be able to handle constructive criticism and challenges made to their posts. In other words, if you can dish it out you better be able to take it!

When it leaves the area of challenging and goes into ignorance and bashing - that's where I draw the line.


Tam



http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/luxhello.gif




Cat

With all due respect Jessica, its not Saddam I'm concerned about. Read what Davester wrote.


But I can't read. I'm one of those unedumucated Chucks that just flaps her mouth all the time. Or so I've heard, anyways.

He doesn't deserve it, but the nation of Iraq deserves it. In my original post I said I found his trial and the events surrounding it very disturbing because of what it says about the "new" Iraq. Davester pretty much nailed down my reasons for why it concerns me about Iraq's future.



  To reduce it further still...

 







  Mercy...

  The short answer is that the Saddam was tried for Crimes Against Humanity and not for an isolated domestic action.  The differences are profound...

  I think Saddam should have been tried in The Hague by an international tribunal.  Semantics aside, the image an Iraqi trial presents to the world is one of cynical motives, political manipulation and revenge rather than a mere flawed judicial process or justice.  The whole idea of trying him was foolish to begin with...stick with me, here...was the outcome in any doubt..?  The outcome was predestined...

  This is not the "democracy in action" that we want to show to the world...

  Two cents groove ;) on...


Ditto.  This should have been tried in the same way the Nazis were tried, by an international tribunal.  Good on Dude for bringing this up. 

  The short answer is that the Saddam was tried for Crimes Against Humanity and not for an isolated domestic action.  The differences are profound...

  I think Saddam should have been tried in The Hague by an international tribunal.  Semantics aside, the image an Iraqi trial presents to the world is one of cynical motives, political manipulation and revenge rather than a mere flawed judicial process or justice.  The whole idea of trying him was foolish to begin with...stick with me, here...was the outcome in any doubt..?  The outcome was predestined...

  This is not the "democracy in action" that we want to show to the world...

  Two cents groove ;) on...



The irony is that it was the same type of "trial" that Saddam imposed on his victims.




Cat

The irony is that it was the same type of "trial" that Saddam imposed on his victims.

Cat


No, he didn't go into formalities, he just sent out his henchman and murdered men, women, and children. The horror is too much to comprehend. 

The irony is that it was the same type of "trial" that Saddam imposed on his victims.




Cat


  We Americans aspire to be better than that...  

  Yeah I know - that tired old chestnut, lol...

But I can't read. I'm one of those unedumucated Chucks that just flaps her mouth all the time. Or so I've heard, anyways.


Um...k? ???


Ditto.  This should have been tried in the same way the Nazis were tried, by an international tribunal.  Good on Dude for bringing this up. 


Thanks, Danoota. The comparison to Nuremburg is very accurate IMO. To compare Saddam's "trial" to a hypothetical "what if?" back then(post-WWII), its like if we had instead allowed the German communists to form a government after the fall of the Nazis and then try the Nazis themselves. It would have been less about justice, and more about revenge. Just like this seemed to be. Watching the footage of Hussein's execution, hearing all of the Shiite fanatics present chanting "Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!" at Hussein was chilling, you felt like you could have been watching footage from The Night of Long Knives. It completely had the vibe of a political revenge killing. It looked like a bunch of fanatics who support a madman who would be no different from Hussein if he(al Sadr) was in power cheering on the death of another madman.



The irony is that it was the same type of "trial" that Saddam imposed on his victims.




Cat


I know! The Iraqi government seems like a hypocritical entity to me, they seemed to give Saddam the type of "justice" you would have gotten in his Iraq. This doesn't feel like a noble government representing the people, it feels like a new group of thugs running the government after the old group of thugs(the Baathists) were thrown out, and they're now having their revenge on their enemies(the primary one being Hussein). This isn't like the new government formed for Germany after WWII, this is more like how things would have been if we'd just handed the reigns over to the German communists. From one group of bastards to another.

But I can't read. I'm one of those unedumucated Chucks that just flaps her mouth all the time. Or so I've heard, anyways.


::)  C'mon, we are working at keeping this a civil discourse. 

::)  C'mon, we are working at keeping this a civil discourse. 


FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE. I'll take my sarcasm elsewhere.

::)  C'mon, we are working at keeping this a civil discourse. 


I don't think Jessica was trying to be hostile.

I don't think Jessica was trying to be hostile.


I wasn't. I was just making fun of something that was said elsewhere. I thought it would work here, but it fell flat. My bad. :P

I wasn't. I was just making fun of something that was said elsewhere. I thought it would work here, but it fell flat. My bad. :P


hugs and kisses all around  :)

Dude, Davester, Danoota, Cat, et al., good points.

I'm sorry to see the other thread got locked.  I had a feeling that was going to happen.  I had a look at it this afternoon, but I had already procrastinated too long, so I finished my work instead of replying.

I observed one or members dissing the Dude with retarded rhetoric.  I am not identifying you, please do not identify yourself/selves here.  You can PM me any time. 

I cannot believe anybody would be silly enough to infer Dude was saying homicide is morally acceptable if there's no law against it.  I cannot think of a society that does not prohibit the killing of others.  I mean, there are cultures in the world that still sanction homicide in blood feuds, but even there you cannot kill without showing cause.  Here in the U.S., it was once legal to kill another person in a mutually agreed upon duel.  The most famous duel is probably Alexander Hamilton vs. Aaron Burr (1804).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duel


I thought Saddam's trial was a farce.  There were umpteen atrocities for which he did not have to answer before he was hanged.  I do not believe in the death penalty.  I especially despise the lynch mob mentality in which the condemned man is swiftly executed.  The whole Iraq mess is going to take years to sort out.  Perhaps an incarcerated Saddam would be a necessary source of information.  This is why prosecuters cut deals with the most despicable criminals.  If a criminal is going to get executed in 30 days, he has no incentive to cooperate with any investigation.  We cannot afford to run on emotion systems of justice on any level.

I agree Saddam should have been tried at the Hague.  The most contemptible men on the face of the Earth deserve fair and impartial trials--at least as fair and impartial as possible.  To go for the throat seems like the criminal is getting his just deserts.  In fact, the rest of us sink to his level.  An eye for an eye makes everybody blind.  Saddam acted like a fool during his trial, sort of like Slobodan Milosevic did.  It's not easy to give a fair trial when the defendant won't cooperate.

Oh, and the "eye for an eye" concept is misinterpreted.  The intent was not revenge, but proportional justice.  Let the punishment fit the crime, but not exceed the crime's brutality.  An eye for an eye, not an eye for a head on a pike.  Of course, under any such code, Saddam would still hang.  "Eye for an eye" does appear in the book of Exodus, but Hammurabi's code preceeds the O.T.  It may go back further than Hammurabi into the rudiments of the human concept of justice.

The only thing sad about Saddam's death ...

Jerry Haleva, the character actor who made a career out of playing Saddam, will now be out of work  :\'(

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0355062/

http://www.jta.org/storage/articleimages/12577.jpg

Loved that Cell-phone Star-wars style fight in "Hot Shots: Part Deux"

Saddam would still be alive and enthroned if the Bush crime family didn't want him dead!

Saddam would still be alive and enthroned if the Bush crime family didn't want him dead!


Funny that you use the term "crime family", because I thought that execution looked less like a state-sponsored execution and more like a mob hit.

Thugs killing another thug. I don't trust this Shiite government one bit to do the right things to avoid an all out civil war. These guys are less Germany in 1948 and more South Vietnam in the 60s.  :-X

I don't trust this Shiite government one bit to do the right things to avoid an all out civil war.

I have a problem with the concept "Shiite government" per se; as soon as you have a "democracy" where all the major political parties are simply aligned with religious or ethnic groups, what you end up with is not democracy but a barely legitimized form of mob rule.

On topic, I was thinking of adding a comment in your argument on the other thread: ISTM that what happened was that you made a logical inference from a legal perspective, and got jumped on as though you has expressed some kind of desire for that to be the case.  Just wanted to add here that I agree with you: if Saddam had enacted laws which made it legal for him or his cronies to murder whomsoever they liked, then in theory they should not be tried under Iraqi law just because those laws have subsequently been repealed.  Having said that, I do not believe Saddam did create such laws, even though he could have done: part of the premise for the trial we have just seen is that the particular bits he was being tried on were breaking Iraqi law *at the time* (ignoring the thousands of other possible charges that could have been brought with less certain legality).

The biggest shame about the trial is, IMO, they couldn't get *any* Sunnis to sit on a jury and look at the evidence to see whether he was guilty or not.  This rather makes a mockery of the whole "justice by the people" argument, as what you end up with is extremely divisive.  The problem is (well, another problem is) that for every person who understands that what the country needs is cross-religion organizations, there are dozens who try and put their own first, and f*** the rest of 'em.

well....

i understand dude's argument better having seen the first post in this thread but having read the stuff from the other, locked thread, it seemed to ME he was saying hussein's acts were okay because they were legal, too. i guess it was the way it was worded but that's really what he seemed to be saying. and then when people pointed it out to him, instead of trying to clear up the misunderstanding he got REALLY defensive and hostile, which made everyone reciprocate. from there it snowballed.

oh well. the thing is i dunno why dude has to internalize political debates so much. if you take an argument that's not meant personally and take it personally, it sorta starts seeming -- i dunno, manipulative or like there's some passive-aggressive thing at work. it all goes back to an argument we were having, months ago about, i can't even remember, it was like unemployment or something -- so then he PMs and tells me, to me it seemed out of the blue, to go to hell. says all this stuff about how his family's this and that and so he takes my political arguments as a personal affront. now, in a context like that it's really difficult to avoid bad blood and fight the desire to lash back in no uncertain terms. and i know other folks are getting the same kinds of PMs to this day -- ostensibly dude going, well, what you said really hurt my feelings or whatever, but couched in personal attacks and insults. that's why i try not to engage with him on any debate of any kind anymore. it's just too... volatile. he seems to have an anger-management issue and it comes out on the boards on a regular basis.

that said, i actually agree that the trial and execution were a farce. yes, hussein was a monster and yes, he deserved to die, but the way it happened was screwed up -- not least because he never got tried for putting down the kurdish uprising, we never got to find out who in the baath party was complicit with his crimes and who wasn't, and it looks for all the world like a failed attempt by the bush administration to use the puppet government in iraq to drum up some good headlines when they're having so much trouble turning things around.

plus this thing with the cellphone footage of the shia executioners taunting hussein as they kill him -- that's a disaster. that's gonna drum up some serious civil war, not that there isn't enough of that to go around already. between that and bush's screwed up idea about sending MORE troops it seems like he keeps trying to turn things around but every attempt just makes things worse. i mean, sending more troops? is it just me or is that completely batcrap crazy?

that said, i actually agree that the trial and execution were a farce. yes, hussein was a monster and yes, he deserved to die, but the way it happened was screwed up -- not least because he never got tried for putting down the kurdish uprising, we never got to find out who in the baath party was complicit with his crimes and who wasn't, and it looks for all the world like a failed attempt by the bush administration to use the puppet government in iraq to drum up some good headlines when they're having so much trouble turning things around.

plus this thing with the cellphone footage of the shia executioners taunting hussein as they kill him -- that's a disaster. that's gonna drum up some serious civil war, not that there isn't enough of that to go around already. between that and bush's screwed up idea about sending MORE troops it seems like he keeps trying to turn things around but every attempt just makes things worse. i mean, sending more troops? is it just me or is that completely batcrap crazy?
No, it's not just you....I thought the objective now was to work on an EXIT strategy, I don't see how sending more troops is justified.

Back OT, I agree that Saddam's trial should have been held at the Hague, International Law, etc.

I was really going to try and just ignore this entire thread and just let the whole thing go.  But, as usual, I