The trial of Saddam Hussein was carried out and held under conditions of foreign occupation when an illegal invasion overthrew his regime. Three of Saddam Hussein's defence lawyers were assasinated. Two judges who were appointed to try the case were abruptly dropped and a Kurd brought in as the American backed regime felt that the judges would not co operate with the political forces currently dominating the Green Zone.

You REALLY don't have a clue do you? Yes his lawyers were assasinated, but NOT by the US. And furthermore the 2 judges were NOT dropped by "anyone" but themselves.

It is a moot point that the massace carried out in 1982 for which President Saddam Hussein has now been sentenced to death was the direct outcome of a botched assasination attempt by al Dawaa, a gang headed by the present Prime Minister

So for a "botched" assasination attempt means you horribly MURDER 148 people? And you question "our" morals? And just an FYI.....
"Any" one of these could just as easily have gotten him the death sentence:

1974: At least five Shia religious leaders are killed and possibly dozens more. 1970s - 2003: 270 mass graves are found, leading to charges of the killing of tens of thousands of people. 21.07.04: Unrecorded victims 30.03.04, Ann Clwyd: Iraq is free at last 1982: Following an assassination attempt against Saddam Hussein during a visit to Dujail, 148 people are killed in the village. 09.10.05: Saddam: Witnesses for the prosecution 1983: 8,000 male members of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in the northern province of Arbil are arrested and deported to southern Iraq. No trace of them has ever been found. 1988: The Anfal ('Spoils') campaign is designed to depopulate the Kurdish regions in northern Iraq. Up to 182,000 people are killed or die from cold and hunger and entire villages are razed. 17.10.88: American doctors find 'overwhelming evidence' of use of chemical weapons by Iraqis 1988: A chemical attack against the Kurdish village of Halabja kills 5,000 people in one day during the Anfal campaign. The attack is carried out under the command of General Ali Hassan al-Majid, earning him the moniker Chemical Ali. 22.03.88: The Kurdish victims caught unaware by cyanide 1990: Following the invasion of Iraq, hundreds of Kuwaiti civilians are rounded up and tortured, and many are brought back to Iraq as hostages. About 700 oil wells are set alight, polluting the Persian Gulf. 03.08.90: Superpowers unite on Iraq 1991: Thousands die in the aftermath of the Gulf War when uprisings by Kurds in the north and Shias in the south are suppressed. 03.04.91: The valleys of death: refugees appeal for Western intervention

"These" are what he was to be tried for.

First off, the "invasion" was not illegal. You need to get over that one first.

You REALLY don't have a clue do you? Yes his lawyers were assasinated, but NOT by the US. And furthermore the 2 judges were NOT dropped by "anyone" but themselves.

It was the U.S. responsability to assure their protection, if it was to be a fair trial.

First off, the "invasion" was not illegal. You need to get over that one first.

It was an illegal invasion, since none of the cited reasons to invade were true, and the U.N. didn't sanction it.

Here is an expression to describe Saddam's trial:

A phony trial, for a true guilty.

Saddam deserved what he had. But the whole trial was a big american circus to boost republican support.

It was the U.S. responsability to assure their protection, if it was to be a fair trial.

It was never going to be a fair trial in Iraq. I mean, common sense tells you that.

It was an illegal invasion, since none of the cited reasons to invade were true, and the U.N. didn't sanction it.

Under whose law?

Is a nation to fall under the rule of the world? I say no. Are we to bow to the say of people who do not know much about us? Each nation, is sovereign. The UN is a failed attempt, a mockery of peace, in my opinion.

Saddam deserved what he had. But the whole trial was a big american circus to boost republican support.

Funny, I didn't see any republicans there. I find that the trial hurt both parties.

It was an illegal invasion, since none of the cited reasons to invade were true, and the U.N. didn't sanction it.

That is untrue. And even if none of the cited reasons were true, it still would have been legal under the UN guidelines. You can try to spin this one anyway you want, but then you have to step over the line into lying to make your statement true.

To add to my bit:

Some folks say that the UN is for peace.

Hmmm, me thinks not. How many conflicts have started, with the UN failing to stop them?

It claims peace, but brings none. It claims that every country is sovereign, but yet it binds nations in chains.

I took the time to formulate a rather lengthy response to this garbage, but you know what? There isn't any point. Your hatred of anything even remotely involving the US has made you addle brained and no amount of factual information is going to change that.

MasonMNovember 6, 2006 14:08:08Reply #7 I took the time to formulate a rather lengthy response to this garbage, but you know what? There isn't any point. Your hatred of anything even remotely involving the US has made you addle brained and no amount of factual information is going to change that.

Hate, or Criticism?

Dislike, or Disagreement?

Where do you draw the line?

How do you define these things?

Each culture, each person defines things/see's things differently. What may be wrong to one group, may be completely normal and accepted by another.

What are the limits of tolerance then?

Are you to say what he says, is hate? Do you have the right?

Does he not have the right to disagree?

If so, if he doesnt have the right, etc....then I find your belief in freedom - of anything, shallow.

For the very right to disagree (at least in my opinion), is a principle, a foundation for being human. Not just american.

Some thoughts.

~L

It was an illegal invasion, since none of the cited reasons to invade were true, and the U.N. didn't sanction it.

Try again. It was NOT an illegal invasion under international law

Reply • Quote (Citizen)SilentPoet November 6, 2006 14:12:56

You don't have a clue.

You REALLY don't have a clue do you? Yes his lawyers were assasinated, but NOT by the US. And furthermore the 2 judges were NOT dropped by "anyone" but themselves.

I am sorry that you have been somewhat misinformed about the reasons for the dropping of the two Judges. One of them began to insist on proper judicial procedures and was insistent on giving Saddam a fair trial. He is no record stating as much.

First off, the "invasion" was not illegal. You need to get over that one first Again youi are wrong. The USA being a POWERFUL SUPERSTATE INVADED iRAQ by claiming the WMD as a justification. In fact the Nuremberg Trials and the Tokyo trials were predicated on the legal principle that crimes of aggression were at the root of all the crimes against humanity and war crimes. The adte of the verdict is quite crucial. It is based on the political calculations of the Republican strategists.[ ] "These" are what he was to be tried for. OK> nobody least of all me has claimed that Saddam is an innocent lamb now being prepared for slaughter by the American backed quisling regime of al Maliki. The only question whether the verdict represents a "victor's justice". A phony trial, for a true guilty I agree with you. took the time to formulate a rather lengthy response to this garbage, but you know what? There isn't any point. Your hatred of anything even remotely involving the US has made you addle brained and no amount of factual information is going to change that. I am not the only one questioing the wild west justice of the US occupation backed government. If you think that the judgement is fair why then is the Amnesty International and other human rights orgasnisations questing the trial. Due process did not take place. If so, if he doesnt have the right, etc....then I find your belief in freedom - of anything, shallow.

Americans under George Bush II now claim that they have the right to shock and awe human beings all over the world with their smart weapons. With this the American Empire too will go the Roman/ German' and the Soviet way.

The fairness or otherwise of this Trial will be debated for a long time. But two facts can be stated: Saddam as Head of State had signed the death warrants of those excecuted for the Dujail assasination attempt. Can he be held responsible for enforcing the law. If due process had not been instituted by Saddam then the present judges too can be tried for the same offence. Second, Saddam was not permitted to defend himself. It would have been better to have had an international trial which would have given this whole sordid episode a veneer of respectability.

Furthetr there is also the danger of the sectrian strife hotting up in Iraq.

The fairness or otherwise of this Trial will be debated for a long time. But two facts can be stated: Saddam as Head of State had signed the death warrants of those excecuted for the Dujail assasination attempt. Can he be held responsible for enforcing the law. If due process had not been instituted by Saddam then the present judges too can be tried for the same offence. Second, Saddam was not permitted to defend himself. It would have been better to have had an international trial which would have given this whole sordid episode a veneer of respectability.

Furthetr there is also the danger of the sectrian strife hotting up in Iraq.

I can only say this:

I will hardly loose any sleep when they flush this excrement down the toilet.

You don't have a fucking clue.

You know, I could take that so many ways. However, I'm in a good mood so I won't be an asshole.

If you looked, i did say "if." That very word there, was the variable, so to speak.

It's like:

If it rains tomarrow...then I'll get an umbrella.

If the car is sold....then I will have money.

So on and so forth.


Now, you didn't need to be brusque, or (in my opinion) rude. I can't force you to reply, or even explain what you meant. I guess I'll just see it the way I see it.

My bottom line is:

Everyone has the the "God given" right to speak their mind, and to believe in what they want. No matter how controversial, or liberal, or conservative, or hateful it may be. I may not like it. I may disagree with it, but it is like what Voltaire said once:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Or what one of my friends said:

"Your life, your love. Live it, and love it."


Folks may not like my views, but right now, as of this very moment - they are what i believe, they are where i am.