PDA

View Full Version : Saddam's Trial



Pages : [1] 2

DavidP
07-02-2004, 10:33 PM
looks like stuff has begun.

here is a little something about the hearing on Thursday:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/01/amanpour/index.html

spoon_
07-03-2004, 09:39 AM
I dislike this whole process. He is getting rights that the people he executed didn't. I know this is the whole point of the new government, but come on. What else is there to prove. Get on with the execution.

Govtcheez
07-03-2004, 09:57 AM
I dislike this whole process. He is getting rights that the people he executed didn't. I know this is the whole point of the new government, but come on. What else is there to prove. Get on with the execution.
:rolleyes:

THE AMERICAN WAY! as long as it isn't inconvenient


This whole thing's just going to be a show anyways.

sean
07-03-2004, 01:30 PM
spoon_ - I agree completely, but since when do people ever get the same rights as their victims?

These people who worry about his fair trial really ........ me off. With something like the Laci Peterson trial, I can understand there being a problem with a fair trial, but this is just ridiculous.

vNvNation
07-03-2004, 03:30 PM
The point is that there is no longer supposed to exist a dictatorship, and considering we cannot really pull our military out just yet, this is the next best thing we can possibly do to make us look just.

And, don't worry, he will most likely be executed. We're just being 'civil' about it, doing the right thing, blah blah blah etc.

gcn_zelda
07-03-2004, 07:22 PM
Who's going to defend Saddam? I wouldn't do it for a million bucks.

Thantos
07-03-2004, 07:25 PM
Most of his defense team are volunteering for it

gcn_zelda
07-03-2004, 07:55 PM
It's just that I'd be scared to be the defense attorney of a terrorist. You know, death threats and stuff.

Although I may just be paranoid from reading too much Grisham.

whackaxe
07-04-2004, 03:36 AM
his defence team was rounded up by his wife. and they are mostly french,. his main Lawyer will beJacques Verges, renound for defending the Nazie Klaus Barbie, Carlos the Jackal, Milosovic and a few other french bad asses.

aahhhhh, the french makeing trouble again :)

adrianxw
07-04-2004, 05:41 AM
Comment for English readers...

Saddam Hussein faces the death penalty, Beckham is going to take it.

Govtcheez
07-04-2004, 08:13 AM
his defence team was rounded up by his wife. and they are mostly french,. his main Lawyer will beJacques Verges, renound for defending the Nazie Klaus Barbie, Carlos the Jackal, Milosovic and a few other french bad asses.

aahhhhh, the french makeing trouble again :)
1)Milosevic isn't French
2)Milosevic is (was?) defending himself, and doing very well.

whackaxe
07-04-2004, 10:10 AM
i never siad he was (and i don't thnik the others are either :p).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3578421.stm ok, i stand corrected

SMurf
07-04-2004, 11:01 AM
How is Milosevic doing these days anyway? I can't sleep some nights... :p

Felix
07-04-2004, 12:59 PM
Comment for English readers...

Saddam Hussein faces the death penalty, Beckham is going to take it.
Beckham'll miss. He'll only destroy Saddam's little hat.

vNvNation
07-04-2004, 01:13 PM
Who's going to defend Saddam? I wouldn't do it for a million bucks.

There are various big-shot lawyers competing, yes, competing, to earn the right to defend him.

Govtcheez
07-04-2004, 01:15 PM
There are various big-shot lawyers competing, yes, competing, to earn the right to defend him.
It's great publicity for them.

whackaxe
07-04-2004, 01:17 PM
Jaques Verges already won the right to defend him a while ago =S didn't he?

sand_man
07-04-2004, 08:29 PM
http://bigmixup.com/rockpapersaddam/

EvBladeRunnervE
07-04-2004, 09:26 PM
from some of the things Saddam said, I think it would also be a great time to put Bush on trial. There are numerous reasons to expect Bush of being a war criminal, and if he has done nothing wrong then he should be ok with one. I think they should just make a big happy case involving several defendants, such as those that were torturing prisoners at abu ghraib and on the battle field , and put it in front of the Iraqi courts.

JaWiB
07-04-2004, 09:45 PM
>>There are numerous reasons to expect Bush of being a war criminal

I should quote that but it would be mean ;)

I think you would like this: http://www.ericblumrich.com/

That flash intro seems almost like terrorist propaganda--either that or a presidential campaign commercial

novacain
07-06-2004, 02:04 AM
The trial is a political tool designed to give US voters closure on the Iraq 'conflict' before the US elections.
Just look at the charges. Iraq could try Sadam for murdering a cabinet minister (with plenty of witnesses) quickly, easily and execute him under Islamic law.

ie gassing of the Kurds in the 1980s, specifically at Halabja in March 17, 1988 using mustard gas and the nerve gas Sarin.
According to the US Senate Riegle Report the US continued to sell Sadam WMD for another two years (until 1990 Kuwait invasion).

Does that make the US an accomplice of Sadam?

Look at the horrible things the US sold Sadam in the 1980ís (according to the US government)
http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html


>>He is getting rights that the people he executed didn't.

And that the US refuses to give others, ie Geneva Convention

>>What else is there to prove.

That Sadam is a very naughty boy and GWB et al were right in destroying Iraq to get him out.

>>I'd be scared to be the defense attorney of a terrorist.

When did every bad guy become a 'terrorist'?


>>Saddam Hussein faces the death penalty, Beckham is going to take it.

LOL!

whackaxe
07-06-2004, 03:36 AM
because it's the war on terror man! when people here terrorist they think 9/11, they think bad, and they think "ok lets get him!". i'm not standing up for saddam but the bush administration is going on a rampage in the name ofworld security and terrorism (although the links between saddam hussein and al qaeda STILL aren't proven)

Felix
07-06-2004, 05:53 AM
because it's the war on terror man! when people here terrorist they think 9/11, they think bad, and they think "ok lets get him!". i'm not standing up for saddam but the bush administration is going on a rampage in the name ofworld security and terrorism (although the links between saddam hussein and al qaeda STILL aren't proven)
Neither have his nuclear weapons been found...

Govtcheez
07-06-2004, 07:36 AM
> although the links between saddam hussein and al qaeda STILL aren't proven

The links between Saddam and al-qaeda were shown in the 9/11 Comission report. They amounted to something like "Iraqi high-ups and al-qaeda high-ups met 2 or 3 times and nothing much came of it".

EvBladeRunnervE
07-06-2004, 08:52 AM
The links between Saddam and al-qaeda were shown in the 9/11 Comission report. They amounted to something like "Iraqi high-ups and al-qaeda high-ups met 2 or 3 times and nothing much came of it".


from what I have seen, it was members of Ansar Al-Islam and Al-Zarqawi's group that had contact with Saddam Hussein, not Al-Qaiida(funny the news considers them all one and the same :rolleyes:).


Iraq could try Sadam for murdering a cabinet minister (with plenty of witnesses) quickly, easily and execute him under Islamic law.

but alas, the same people who say the US was based off of judeo-christian law, refuse to give the Iraqi people any laws based out of the Qur'an. He could be very, very quickly killed for what he did, if they followed Qur'anic/Islamic law. He is a murderer, no evidence against that, and intentional murder of innocents is punishable by death via beheading(which is pretty painless by the way, because you bleed out rather quick, and as long as it isnt with a rusty, dull blade, the cutting itself goes quick).


When did every bad guy become a 'terrorist'?

since GWB took "command" on 9/11/2001. Terrorism is a very touchy definition of what these guys are doing. Intentionally harming civilians is terrorism; so far in Iraq it has only been intentionally killing of Military personell/contractors, and accidentally getting civies in the collateral damage toll.

Inferno
07-06-2004, 05:02 PM
Im sorry but this is all bullI am sillyI am sillyI am sillyI am silly suddam has nothing to do with 9/11 it was bin laden and al-quada. Bush (the jackass of a president he is) couldn't catch saddam so he thought hmmmm..... who can i blame this on, let me see how about the guy who my father went after hmm....Iraq controls 20% of the worlds oil there could be some money in this for me..theres my opinion on the whole thing. You all could just go to see that 9/11 documentry thats out in theaters it may enlighten some of you brainwashed schmucks. :mad:



(not that all of u r schmucks)

vNvNation
07-06-2004, 10:03 PM
It's great publicity for them.

How, exactly? Perhaps if they only defend fallen leaders of the Baath party for the rest of their careers.

novacain
07-06-2004, 10:07 PM
>>because it's the war on terror man!

Exactly. Its very emotive. Better to raise your patriotic ire.

>>when people here terrorist they think 9/11, they think bad, and they think "ok lets get him!".

Even though there is no connection. In fact OBL offered his army to Saudi Arabia to fight Sadam in 1990 (when Sadam invaded Kuwait). The Saudi regime was scared of a private citizen with an arm so they asked the US for troops.


>>Terrorism is a very touchy definition of what these guys are doing.

Again it is simply an emotive catch cry to ensure we all 'stay on message'.

This is terrorism, sending WMD to someone whom you know is using them on women and children.

"Date : September 29, 1988
Sent To : Ministry of Trade
Materials Shipped:

1. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 240)
Batch # 05-14-63 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

2. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 938)
Batch # 1963 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

3. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 3629)
Batch # 10-23-85 (3 each)

4. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 8009)
Batch # 03-30-84 (3 each)

5. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 8705)
Batch # 06-27-62 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

6. Brucella abortus (ATCC 9014)
Batch # 05-11-66 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

7. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 10388)
Batch # 06-01-73 (3 each)

8. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 11966)
Batch #05-05-70 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

9. Clostridium botulinum Type A
Batch # 07-86 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

10. Bacillus cereus (ATCC 33018)
Batch # 04-83 (3 each)

11. Bacillus ceres (ATCC 33019)
Batch # 03-88 (3 each)
"
source the Riegle Report

These pathogens are Botulism, Anthrax, Gangrene ect.

These items were supplied to Sadam AFTER the US knew he had used Sarin and VX on Kurdish women and children.

If it did not bother the US administration then, WHY NOW?

EvBladeRunnervE
07-07-2004, 12:43 AM
Yesterday, 06:02 PM
Im sorry but this is all bullI am sillyI am sillyI am sillyI am silly suddam has nothing to do with 9/11 it was bin laden and al-quada. Bush (the jackass of a president he is) couldn't catch saddam so he thought hmmmm..... who can i blame this on, let me see how about the guy who my father went after hmm....Iraq controls 20% of the worlds oil there could be some money in this for me..theres my opinion on the whole thing. You all could just go to see that 9/11 documentry thats out in theaters it may enlighten some of you brainwashed schmucks.

erm, Michael Moore's film can hardly be called a documentary, as it still filled with alot of the BS arguments and lack of factual arguments that his "Bowling for Columbine" film suffered from. Bush is not doing this for oil money, because quite simply our need of Iraq oil is pretty slim; he is however doing this for big business contributors to continue financing him. I am against the Iraq war, but fully support Bush getting another term solely because that will inspire freedom fighters world wide ....

whackaxe
07-07-2004, 03:12 AM
the only thing bush inspired world wide was protests against the war (the biggest ever apparntly) you know there are around 90 countries in similar conditions to iraqs? is the US invading them? don't thin kso, they are OK just as long as they don't go against US policy.

http://studentwork.qantm.com.au/akrespanis/bits/bush.htm

Govtcheez
07-07-2004, 06:43 AM
> Michael Moore's film can hardly be called a documentary, as it still filled with alot of the BS arguments and lack of factual arguments

Proof please.

vNvNation
07-07-2004, 07:47 AM
I am not going to vote for Bush, and I don't especially like Moore, but he raises a lot of issues in his movie that you can't just toss aside as saying they are all bs.


I am against the Iraq war, but fully support Bush getting another term solely because that will inspire freedom fighters world wide ....

I honestly cannot even believe you are saying that. You are like 16 years old living in a demilitarized zone somewhere in the United States...I highly doubt your opinions are very sophisticated, especially for being so radical.

Inferno
07-07-2004, 08:27 AM
from some of the things Saddam said, I think it would also be a great time to put Bush on trial. There are numerous reasons to expect Bush of being a war criminal, and if he has done nothing wrong then he should be ok with one. I think they should just make a big happy case involving several defendants, such as those that were torturing prisoners at abu ghraib and on the battle field , and put it in front of the Iraqi courts.

i agree completly with that...especially the part about the prison abu ghraib. WTF happened to we are here to save u from this place. SO instead of that we through them in a prison and beat the I am sillyI am sillyI am sillyI am silly of them also making them perform sexual acts, I mean come on kind of sick I am sillyI am sillyI am sillyI am sillyer would do that I am sillyI am sillyI am sillyI am silly.(and i know this is supposed to be about saddams trial but u cant help not ignoring this subject).

EvBladeRunnervE
07-07-2004, 01:28 PM
> Michael Moore's film can hardly be called a documentary, as it still filled with alot of the BS arguments and lack of factual arguments

Proof please.


lemme get back to you on that, need to sort through my numerous books on the topic of Bush-Saudi connections,etc.

EDIT: this op-ed piece says it better than I can:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

I hate Bush(as a person) just as much as some of you do, but people need to quit attemping to make their personal vendettas somehow more "relevant" but including blatant lies and interpretations.


I honestly cannot even believe you are saying that. You are like 16 years old living in a demilitarized zone somewhere in the United States...I highly doubt your opinions are very sophisticated, especially for being so radical.

my ideas are hardly radical. I do not support Al-qaida; however, I do support the notion that the US has been infringing upon the life of countless people world wide(Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicuragua, etc.) in the name of fighting "evil", and that it needs to be put back in its place.

JaWiB
07-07-2004, 02:39 PM
What do you think we should've done? I'm not for the war in Iraq, but I don't agree with everything you said.

I mean, granted, there are going to be issues in sending troops to other countries; the people there aren't going to be entirely happy about it. But if we hadn't gone into afghanistan, what would have happened?

Zach L.
07-07-2004, 02:43 PM
But if we hadn't gone into afghanistan, what would have happened?
Probably absolutely nothing.

Govtcheez
07-07-2004, 02:48 PM
What does going into Afghanistan have to do with Saddam's trial?

Govtcheez
07-07-2004, 02:49 PM
EDIT: this op-ed piece says it better than I can:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Yawn
http://tinyurl.com/285s4
edit: Stupid filter
edit again: Look at the other pieces Hitchens has written for Slate. He's a hack.
http://www.slate.com/?id=3944&cp=2073766
"Ahmad and Me
Defending Chalabi."
"Covering the "Quagmire"
Are war correspondents betting on failure in Iraq?"
"Clarke's Progress
Guess who used to believe in the Iraq/al-Qaida connection?"

EvBladeRunnervE
07-07-2004, 02:59 PM
I wasnt saying that Moore was completely full of it, as the slate piece did; however, reading that link, I have sort of changed my mind on some of Moore's rhetoric.

also, if you have been reading most of my political posts, you would understand that I am not a supporter of Bush, because he is destroying the US, but you would also know that I am pretty partial to those ideas myself.

JaWiB
07-07-2004, 03:09 PM
>>Probably absolutely nothing.

So you're saying that we haven't had any impact on Bin Laden's plans?

>>What does going into Afghanistan have to do with Saddam's trial?

I was responding to this:


I do not support Al-qaida; however, I do support the notion that the US has been infringing upon the life of countless people world wide(Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicuragua, etc.) in the name of fighting "evil", and that it needs to be put back in its place

Zach L.
07-07-2004, 03:38 PM
So you're saying that we haven't had any impact on Bin Laden's plans?
And what were his plans, I might ask? I not saying that we didn't hamper any grand terrorist plans he may have had, I'm just saying that he probably didn't have a massive reign of terror planned. I'm not saying we should have shrugged and let it go, but blowing up a bunch of camels for months on end isn't the most well thought out idea.

Govtcheez
07-07-2004, 03:46 PM
also, if you have been reading most of my political posts, you would understand that I am not a supporter of Bush, because he is destroying the US, but you would also know that I am pretty partial to those ideas myself.
I have been reading your posts, but your opinion on Bush doesn't make you sound any better when you use Hitchens as a source.

spoon_
07-07-2004, 03:49 PM
And what were his plans, I might ask? I not saying that we didn't hamper any grand terrorist plans he may have had, I'm just saying that he probably didn't have a massive reign of terror planned. I'm not saying we should have shrugged and let it go, but blowing up a bunch of camels for months on end isn't the most well thought out idea.


Yes, all mighty Zach, since it is you and only you who knows how and when to conduct war. We didn't just "blow up camels for months." Get a life.

You had better start reading before you post anymore uninformed DRIBBLE.

Here, I'll start you off...

www.defenselink.mil/news/May2002/d20020524takurghar.pdf

Did those SEALs, Rangers, and AF PJ's die killing camels? No. Again, get a life.

Govtcheez
07-07-2004, 03:54 PM
> You had better start reading before you post anymore uninformed DRIBBLE.

You might think about picking up a dictionary before you post anymore uninformed DRIVEL.

> Did those SEALs, Rangers, and AF PJ's die killing camels? No. Again, get a life.

I think you missed the point.

spoon_
07-07-2004, 03:56 PM
> You had better start reading before you post anymore uninformed DRIBBLE.

You might think about picking up a dictionary before you post anymore uninformed DRIVEL.

> Did those SEALs, Rangers, and AF PJ's die killing camels? No. Again, get a life.

I think you missed the point.


Oh jesus, kill me now. I didn't spell a word right!

govt, take your head out of your ass - YOU missed the point.

Govtcheez
07-07-2004, 04:11 PM
ok dude whatever you say

Zach L.
07-07-2004, 04:11 PM
I don't claim to know everything, but I do read... a lot. I make it a point to keep myself well informed. Your attitude towards my comments is quite amusing. And yes, you did miss the point.

EvBladeRunnervE
07-07-2004, 04:15 PM
I have been reading your posts, but your opinion on Bush doesn't make you sound any better when you use Hitchens as a source.

I whole heartedly agree, should of checked up more on him before posting him as a source. There is another thing : what is Saddam going to get in trouble for besides some genocide? We dont have any proper sources to say that Saddam Hussein possessed any type of WMD. He wasn't planning on obtaining uranium, because IIRC that Nigerian deal never existed(reminds me of the email scam).

Govtcheez
07-07-2004, 04:40 PM
> (reminds me of the email scam)

I'm not even sure Nigeria exists anymore :)

> what is Saddam going to get in trouble for besides some genocide?

Honestly, what more CAN you get in trouble for? I mean, it doesn't get much more than genocide.

Inferno
07-07-2004, 04:43 PM
I mean, granted, there are going to be issues in sending troops to other countries;the people there aren't going to be entirely happy about it.

of course there not gonna be happy about it ur invading there country I believe we shouldn't be policing the world...but just incase thats not what u meant and u mean the american people...then this part of my post was pointless and im sorry

and we would probally have went after korea if we didnt go into afghanistan


What does going into Afghanistan have to do with Saddam's trial?

well it has everything to it saddams trial is the war you cant ignore wats goin on. I dont mean to try and put you in your place or anything im just saying his trial involves the war.


Oh jesus, kill me now. I didn't spell a word right!

govt, take your head out of your ass - YOU missed the point.

ROTFL :D


I whole heartedly agree, should of checked up more on him before posting him as a source. There is another thing : what is Saddam going to get in trouble for besides some genocide?
We dont have any proper sources to say that Saddam Hussein possessed any type of WMD. He wasn't planning on obtaining uranium, because IIRC that Nigerian deal never existed
(reminds me of the email scam).

Thats so true dude.....

so let go over this Bush has lied to us about saddams so
called WMD and his military records so far.....Also i would like to say after 9/11 when all planes were grounded, dont you
find it odd that the relatives of bin laden were allowed to be flown out of the country.