Rolleyes News of The Day

[jimzinsocal]

Originally posted by jimzinsocal on 12-19-2003 at 04:21 PM
I dont follow your arguement. Hes not a POW...or he wouldnt be tried by fellow Iraq citizens.

To further quote:

Some council members say Saddam, who is being interrogated in U.S. custody, should be tried quickly and face the death penalty if convicted. International human rights group have raised questions about the independence and professionalism of the tribunal.

Justice Minister Hashim Abdul Rahman al-Shalabi, who was appointed by the Governing Council, said the tribunal law allows international experts to advise the five-judge tribunal when it is deemed necessary. But he objected to the appointment of foreign judges.

"The presence of foreign judges will undermine (Iraqi) sovereignty and would undercut the value of the Iraqi judiciary," al-Shalabi told The Associated Press.

"Iraqi judges have enough experience and information to carry out the task," he said. "An Iraqi judge can also look at the crimes committed objectively and will provide the suspects with means to defend themselves."

The Iraqi-led tribunal contrasts with U.N.-sponsored tribunals set up to consider war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. In those cases, international judges and lawyers have argued and decided cases.

On Thursday, Governing Council member Adnan Pachachi said Iraq's tribunal would welcome "foreign judges if we feel it's necessary."

In a Friday sermon in the town of Kufa, south of Baghdad, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for the formation of a "popular religious court" to try Saddam. Such courts "should also involve Iran and Kuwait, who were also harmed by Saddam."

[jimzinsocal]

Im about as concerned about Saddam's [defenders] concern/handwringing about the Geneva Convention [which he has ignored] as I am with Hitler's decendant family being uptight about photos of where Hitler blew his brains out.

[freezepc]

Originally posted by Dutchcedar on 12-19-2003 at 03:24 PM
Exactly!!! Sodamn should be brought up on charges for degrading and humiliating himself by having 750,000 bucks but no bath. It's an outrage on his dignity that the chump didn't even bother to shave before climbing out of his rat hole. He was in violation of the Geneva Convention.

I'm glad you can mock the human rights that the geneva conventions outlined with a straignt face.

I dont follow your arguement. Hes not a POW...or he wouldnt be tried by fellow Iraq citizens.

Sorry, but he is a POW, even Rumsfeld says so. The airing of his capture was illegal.

http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/12/15/saddamap.html

[freezepc]

Another one, unfortunately the Guantanamo prisoners have very little rights. Until just recently they could have been held indefinately:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ention_policy/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1217-08.htm

[jimzinsocal]

Originally posted by freezepc on 12-19-2003 at 05:02 PM
I'm glad you can mock the human rights that the geneva conventions outlined with a straignt face.



Sorry, but he is a POW, even Rumsfeld says so. The airing of his capture was illegal.

http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/12/15/saddamap.html

No...to say I mock the conventions just isnt true. I mock the folks who find sudden importance in its meaning. Im not interested in how Rumsfield may describe Saddam. Im interested in how his trial will be conducted.

freeze...mock the conventions? Never.
Or human rights issues? Never.....particularly when they are deserved.......
They just dont apply to obvious monsters.

IMHO

[freezepc]

No jim, that wasn't directed at you, i was referring to Dutchcedar's comment.

[freezepc]

Right now he is a POW, but it is very possible that he might be given a different "label" once the government of Iraq is set in place and the trials begin.

[jimzinsocal]

I get ya freeze. I guess my feeling is there are some creatures that have roamed the earth that just dont deserve or qualify for the decent treatment that the conventions demand. But I understand your position without reservation. Thats where some sort of balance comes from I think. So we agree to disagree.

[jimz adds freezeman to ignore list]

JUST KIDDING

[CanadianMike]

just to throw in my 2 cents......

as far as following the geneva convention, giving saddam rights, etc... i think it should be done. nevermind what he did as leader of iraq, all the bad things. the point i think is, if we waive rights for one guy, where is the line drawn? how do we decide who gets to be treated under the geneva convention and who doesnt? i think that is part of it anyways.

but then again if the guys at guantanamo bay arent, it isnt much of a stretch for them to do the same with saddam, or anyone else for that matter...........

[freezepc]

[jimz adds freezeman to ignore list]

Doh! LOL

[deadrody]

Originally posted by Nikilo on 12-19-2003 at 03:41 PM
The Kurds are not Arabs and a huge bulk of Saddam's murders are attributed to them. The Kurds have also fought an armed resistance against their southern neighbors. Lets say tomorrow all the Mexicans lead an armed uprising, you better bet the Americans would slaughter them with any means necessary especially if they were a viable threat.

DING DING DING we have a winner.

Wow, thanks Nikilo for being the IDEAL straight man.

With all the $hit that Saddam did, all the deaths he was responsible for, you can sum it all up with:

It was the Kurds' fault

Wow, amazing.

[deadrody]

Originally posted by freezepc on 12-19-2003 at 04:18 PM
"a humiliation to millions of Arabs who saw the TV shots of the Iraqi president being subjected to the humiliating medical checkup"

Geneva Convention, Part 1, Article 3, Section 1a condemns: "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment"

You know, I had the same thought as I watched the video. Having heard the argument about the Geneva Convention in regards to the POWs that Iraq took in the ambush in Najara, this short footage certainly seemed to qualify as well.

HOWEVER

If that's what you take away from the capture of Saddam, then I feel more sorry for you than ever.

[deadrody]

Originally posted by freezepc on 12-19-2003 at 05:02 PM
I'm glad you can mock the human rights that the geneva conventions outlined with a straignt face.

Dude, you need to lighten up. Saddam Hussein is probably lucky to be alive considering the hostility his people feel towards him as a result of the BLATANT human rights violations he committed on his own people for DECADES. All the US had to do was drop him off at a busy intersection in the right part of Baghdad, and problem solved. No need for a tribunal.

For you to actually stand up and defend him, in even the most tangential way, is offensive. It's people like you that take every single event, no matter how many people view it as a positive, and find even the slightest negative aspect of it and harp on it to the exclusion of anything positive, that gives the most vocal liberals, democrats, whatever political or social group you ascribe yourself to, a bad name.

And considering the likely Democratic nominee for president acts the same way, Election 2004 is going to be a BLAST.

[deadrody]

Originally posted by freezepc on 12-19-2003 at 05:04 PM
Another one, unfortunately the Guantanamo prisoners have very little rights. Until just recently they could have been held indefinately:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ention_policy/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1217-08.htm

And that has what to do with Saddam Hussein ? They are POWs and HE is a POW, I guess. It's like an anti-Bush spamming machine.

[Dutchcedar]

Originally posted by freezepc on 12-19-2003 at 02:02 PM
I'm glad you can mock the human rights that the geneva conventions outlined with a straignt face.

Sorry you missed the smilie...
Here's a few more to set ya straight.

You would be the guy in the front row of a George Carlin show with a straight face, right?