Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Saddam Hussein discussion

  1. #11
    ALOHA..!! CARLA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    San Diego, California (Native born and raised)
    Posts
    13,095
    Local Date
    08-23-2019
    Local Time
    06:13 AM

    Thumbs up Re: Saddam Hussein discussion

    Red you have my support for even accepting the debate with Spot. Bloddy hell women he is a master with words. Your courage is impressive.


    Thanks, Koan. I blanched when I saw what Spot had prepared. I have no idea how I'm going to compete, but I'm fixing to. It won't be much longer.
    You guys can watch me flop around like a fish out of water!
    ALOHA!!
    MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
    "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
    WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"


  2. #12
    Supporting Member spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brigstow
    Posts
    35,029
    Local Date
    08-23-2019
    Local Time
    02:13 PM

    Re: Saddam Hussein discussion

    I'm sure RG will put an array of additional information in her opening post, but surely it's more a matter of facts than of presentation, Carla? I'd be delighted if anyone were to correct anything I wrote, the discussion thread's a perfect place to do it. What did I get wrong?
    Nullius in verba|||||||||||
    Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

    The watch of your vision has become reasonable today.

    It’s normal. You must provoke. You must insult the belief of all monotheists. You must make fun of the belief of all monotheists.
    From the upper tier of the Leppings Lane End of the Hillsborough Stadium, I watched the events of that day unfold with horror.
    When the flowers want to oxygen and nutrition, or you’re a wedding or party planner, I will help you too much.
    Write that word in the blood

  3. #13
    ALOHA..!! CARLA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    San Diego, California (Native born and raised)
    Posts
    13,095
    Local Date
    08-23-2019
    Local Time
    06:13 AM

    Talking Re: Saddam Hussein discussion

    I'm sure RG will give a good debate Spot she is also very good with words. I will watch and wait to see just how this debate goes.

    For me it is simple Sadam is dead, debate over.
    ALOHA!!
    MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
    "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
    WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"


  4. #14
    Senior Member Bryn Mawr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    15,448
    Local Date
    08-23-2019
    Local Time
    02:13 PM

    Re: Saddam Hussein discussion

    Whilst he was undoubtedly tried and convicted by a Kangaroo Court in a political show trial I feel that an International Court would have found him guilty of the use of an outlawed poison gas.

    Whether the CIA consider it expedient to blame Iran or Iraq is immaterial. The use of chemical weapons has been banned by international treaty since the first world war.

    That the CIA ever claimed that Iran might have been responsible has been condemned as shameful by most independent observers and denied by no less that GWB himself.

  5. #15
    Supporting Member spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brigstow
    Posts
    35,029
    Local Date
    08-23-2019
    Local Time
    02:13 PM

    Re: Saddam Hussein discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by CARLA View Post
    For me it is simple Sadam is dead, debate over.
    I must say I find it distressing that anyone can find this sort of question simple. Someone is dead so all the questions must immediately stop? That, I think, is half the point of having killed him so quickly - to avoid people asking him embarrassing questions. Gore Vidal describes the country of his birth as the United States of Amnesia and one immediately grasps what he means by it.
    Nullius in verba|||||||||||
    Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

    The watch of your vision has become reasonable today.

    It’s normal. You must provoke. You must insult the belief of all monotheists. You must make fun of the belief of all monotheists.
    From the upper tier of the Leppings Lane End of the Hillsborough Stadium, I watched the events of that day unfold with horror.
    When the flowers want to oxygen and nutrition, or you’re a wedding or party planner, I will help you too much.
    Write that word in the blood

  6. #16
    Far Rider
    Guest

    Re: Saddam Hussein discussion

    Spot, I must say I am impressed, that took a lot of digging and a lot of thought and my hat is off to you.

    Set aside this being a death penelty case and based on the evidence linking him to the crimes, do you think he deserved to be convicted of any or all of the crimes for which he was accused?

    As to the issue regarding the gasing of kurds and your reference to the marine conclusions of lessons learned gulf war 1...

    Many of us read those reports and many others like them, then later went to Tikrit and in the north and got to know the kurdish soldiers and their hatred for Saddam, they knew all to clearly who gased them, and it wasn't Iran. The hatred and remembrance of that day burns in the Kurdish memory to such an extent they have a ritual for remembering the man who did that to them and it's not a pretty thoughtline.

    The marines who wrote that report based thier determination on assumption and not proof.

    But is it a war crime? You backed it up well. However you forgot one item, the attack on the kurds that day wasn't military in origin, it was primarily civilian. He terrorized the civilian population to cease the rebellion from the militant kurds.

    That is certainly criminal, he served as judge jury and executioner of the innocent, women and children, in one of the most hanious ways imaginable.

    I too am concerned about justice like you point out, but at some point the technicality of legal issues turns into ramblings and opinions, and the spirit of the law is never carried out.

    It's my opinion that Saddam was one bad dude, evil, corrupt by power and lust for control, so much so that he ceased to act on the behalf of his country and extended all his power to personal control over Iraq and its people. The evil he had in moderation, or in the sense that he expressed self control or at least less self indulgence over some aspects of his life, was out of control in his sons, by evidence of thier actions to the Iraqi people, which were tenfold worse than Saddam's actions.

    I believe justice was served in Saddams case.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Chookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ermmmmmmmmmm.......
    Posts
    1,833
    Local Date
    08-23-2019
    Local Time
    02:13 PM

    Re: Saddam Hussein discussion

    To me this debate is based on the presumption that a head of state is above the law. This is idiocy, heads of state, by the fact that they are heads of state, should be held to a higher standard than us normal people.

    From Spots' recitation of Pinochets' appeal - which should have been made to the International Court of Justice rather than the 'British' House of Lords:-

    The fact that acts done for the state have involved conduct which is criminal does not remove the immunity.
    A criminal act is a criminal act, no matter who performs that act, also, heads of state, strangely enough possess no diplomatic immunity (as they are not, technically, diplomats).

    Indeed the whole purpose of the residual immunity ratione materiae [that is, as a function of his having held that office] is to protect the former head of state against allegations of such conduct after he has left office.
    Not so, the whole purpose is to ensure that the former office holder cannot be charged as a war criminal.

    A head of state needs to be free to promote his own state's interests during the entire period when he is in office without being subjected to the prospect of detention, arrest or embarrassment in the foreign legal system of the receiving state.

    "A head of state needs to be free to promote his own state's interests "


    True, but without breaking international and humanitarian laws.


    The conduct does not have to be lawful to attract the immunity.
    Unlawful conduct should attract the penalties appropriate to such unlawful conduct.
    An ye harm none, do what ye will....

  8. #18
    Senior Member Chookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ermmmmmmmmmm.......
    Posts
    1,833
    Local Date
    08-23-2019
    Local Time
    02:13 PM

    Re: Saddam Hussein discussion

    Now the other position:-

    [B]
    Quote Originally Posted by RedGlitter View Post
    To have let Hussein live, albeit in prison, would have left open the possibility of his return to power, jeopardinzing not only the lives of Iraqis but the United States' national interest.
    To mention "United States' national interest" is a non sequitur.


    When Napoleon was exiled, he returned causing anarchy and war.
    Exile cannot be equated with life imprisonment.


    In the matter of Hussein not receiving a fair trial, in a domestic criminal trial, the procedure's main and simple function is to minimize the likelihood of an innocent person being sent to jail.
    Hussein did not receive a domestic criminal trial. The Iraqi legal system - which was not Sharia law - did not allow application of the death penalty.


    Saddam Hussein was not an ordinary criminal defendant and so did not warrant the criminal defense protections that fairness provides ordinary criminal defendants.
    As Hussein was, palpably, not an ordinary criminal, he should have been surrendered to the International Court of justice, not been submitted to a botched up Kangaroo court.


    Some will argue that he deserved no fairness protections at all.
    Non sequitur - all persons brought to court deserve the presumption of innocence until the opposite is proven.


    The function of criminal procedural protections is to prevent wrongful conviction of an innocent person, then as we know Hussein was not innocent, there was no reason to apply these procedures to him. The argument is purely political.
    This is advocating lynch law.
    An ye harm none, do what ye will....

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,412
    Local Date
    08-23-2019
    Local Time
    02:13 PM

    Re: Saddam Hussein discussion

    Register to remove this ad.
    There is no way Saddam was going to be handed over to an international court of law.

    Both Iraq and the United States voted against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998. ( along with China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) Since both refused to accept the jurisdiction of the international criminal court handing him over would have presented them, and the US in particular with a rather ticklish problem. You can hardly advocate trial and punishment for all those committing human right violations unless they happen to be American and expect not to be called hypocritical. You can try Saddam but not any American citizen was hardly an option and having Saddam tried in an Iraqi court dodges making the issue a public one for debate in the US.

    http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/us.htm

    Immunity of a head of state from trial for their crimes in an international court has long been the norm. Until recently there was no international court where such individuals could stand trial anyway-and there still isn't and won't be until said court is in a position (i.e. have the backing of all states) to have it's rulings upheld.

    Perhaps only those in whose country the crime was committed in should have jurisdiction anyway. At the end of the day nations need to sort out their own problems.

    Similarly with Pinochet there was no international court where he could have stood trial. To say he should have been handed over sounds great but to where? Says a lot about the UK that Thatcher couldn't stop the house of lords debating the issue-much as she would have liked to. For all it's faults there is a long tradition of independence from political control in the UK legal system.

    posted by chookie
    A criminal act is a criminal act, no matter who performs that act, also, heads of state, strangely enough possess no diplomatic immunity (as they are not, technically, diplomats).
    A criminal act is one that has been defined as such by a body with the authority to decide what a criminal act consists of. (slavery for instance used to be perfectly legal throughout the world. Nowadays most would think it morally wrong and also a crime as opposed to being perfectly legal but morally wrong )

    In most nation states nowadays that is a legislature elected by the population. As opposed to a king deciding and chopping off the head of anyone who disagrees or a religious leader deciding based on the way he interprets a holy book and chopping off the head of anyone who doesn't like it.

    Crimes against humanity is term coming in the aftermath of the second world war when mankind first learned the meaning of total war in the industrial age. We do not have an international structure where criminals can be brought to trial for the simple reason it means nation states must accept the superiority of an international court over their own in passing judgement on it's citizens and be prepared to hand over it's citizens for judgement.

    In a very real sense we live in a time here such a change and general acceptance of the concept of crimes against humanity is developing but is still not fully accepted by all.

    What is a war crime? There is no such thing as a cosy little war where all play by the rules and nobody but the bad guys gets hurt. When push comes to shove morality goes out the window and it's kill or be killed. In the west we have the good fortune to be a people that are very good at warfare. We have industrialised it and can now kill people wholesale-if we need to.

    I would put it to you that a war crime is that which is defined by the victors as being a war crime. Was Saddam Hussein innocent? probably not IMO but to put him on trial outside of Iraq was not a viable option given the circumstances. Was the trial fair-no of course not, too many skeletons in the cupboard for that to happen.

    Incidentally the British used mustard gas on the kurds long before Saddam did.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...939608,00.html

    Who said shock and awe were a new idea

    Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job.
    Course we had an empire then and such things were perfectly acceptable for the greater good don't you know.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Saddam Hussein debate
    By spot in forum Watch
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-05-2007, 11:16 PM
  2. The Saddam Hussein Fan Club
    By BTS in forum Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-29-2006, 10:31 PM
  3. Saddam Hussein in jail
    By capt_buzzard in forum Crimes & Trials
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-24-2005, 06:19 AM
  4. "I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable low-life
    By BTS in forum Political Humor & Satire
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-26-2005, 02:53 PM
  5. Replies: 88
    Last Post: 05-13-2005, 12:03 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts