[Woolie Wool]

The evidence against Saddam is so overwhelming that there was never a question of what would happen to him.

It'd be nice to have a transparent, fair and honest justice system, though.  We really need some sort of international court, one administered somewhere nice and usually neutral - maybe Holland - which can perform these trials to prevent the farce of show trials in the 'victim country'.  But where would we find such a thing?  Why does none exist?

A fair and honest court for Iraqi prisoners, in Holland? Are you nuts? I'm sure the opinion of Holland towards the United States and its affairs are anything but "nice and neutral". Besides, being able to prosecute Saddam themselves is a big morale boost for the Iraqis. I think being able to take care of their own **** in this case would be a point of pride for them.

[Flipside]

It's called the War Crimes court, and it was good enough for the Nazis.

And what does Hollands opinion of the US have to do with, what you yourself said was an Iraqi judgement?

[Charismatic]

Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?

No.

But a bullet through the head is..

[aldo_14]

The evidence against Saddam is so overwhelming that there was never a question of what would happen to him.

It'd be nice to have a transparent, fair and honest justice system, though.  We really need some sort of international court, one administered somewhere nice and usually neutral - maybe Holland - which can perform these trials to prevent the farce of show trials in the 'victim country'.  But where would we find such a thing?  Why does none exist?

A fair and honest court for Iraqi prisoners, in Holland? Are you nuts? I'm sure the opinion of Holland towards the United States and its affairs are anything but "nice and neutral". Besides, being able to prosecute Saddam themselves is a big morale boost for the Iraqis. I think being able to take care of their own **** in this case would be a point of pride for them.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot the United States now owned the middle east.  What in the name of **** has the US got to do with the trial of an Iraqi dictator for crimes against the Iraqi people.  And as for an Iraqi morale boost, isn't a transparent and fair trial (rather than the kangaroo court we got, which has been patently a farce) a rather more important thing when you're ostensibly trying to build a free democratic state?

And as for this frankly bizarre 'Holland hates us' notion.... what on earth are you on about?  Have you even heard of the International Criminal Court?  The one formed by the UN Security council?  The fact that you seem to be unaware of this is a very, very sad indictment to me - as is the notion that an invented Dutch bias against the US would somehow result in a less fair trial than one conducted by the victims in a country where the defense lawyers are being killed in the middle of a violent insurgency.

But a bullet through the head is..

No.

[Flipside]

I'm actually quite concerned about the sort of rumours being spread throughout America by the Media there, some of the statements I've heard on here about Europe and European countries are so mis-informed it's incredible.

[vyper]

I'm actually quite concerned about the sort of rumours being spread throughout America by the Media there, some of the statements I've heard on here about Europe and European countries are so mis-informed it's incredible.

Any examples so we can giggle at them?

[Flipside]

Well, the one that leapt to mind was the recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal about how Europe is being 'invaded' by the Middle East and will soon be a Muslim society, when even the UK, one of the must multi-cultural countries in Europe has about 2-3% Middle-Eastern population. This was based on evidence that, 60-70 years after the baby boom, lots of old people were dying....

It was also stated that 'Europe has an unmanageable welfare system', quite an amazing statement considering the EU consists of multiple countries with a massive range of political stances/welfare systems etc, some have no welfare whatsoever, which is pretty manageable when you get down to it. Or the assumption that because Europe is Pro-choice, that we are the abortion capital of the world. Despite having one of the lowest abortion rates.

The problem with blanket opinions like that is that everyone thinks they are so obviously right that no-one ever bothers to check the facts.

[Mathwiz6]

'Live on Fox!'...

"Do you want to know more?"

Too lazy to read anything past page one, but... am I the only one who got the reference?

Popcorn! Get yer' popcorn!

(really, it was in the paper 0.o)

Lessee... electrocution, hanging, drugs, suffocation, removal of head, or standing in the same small room for the rest of your life...

I can't stay in the same room for more than 8 hours...

[Woolie Wool]

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot the United States now owned the middle east.  What in the name of **** has the US got to do with the trial of an Iraqi dictator for crimes against the Iraqi people.  And as for an Iraqi morale boost, isn't a transparent and fair trial (rather than the kangaroo court we got, which has been patently a farce) a rather more important thing when you're ostensibly trying to build a free democratic state?

It is likely that a tribunal in Europe would be biased in favor of Saddam Hussein due to political leanings. Most of Europe does not think highly of the War on Terror and would very much like to undermine it.

And as for this frankly bizarre 'Holland hates us' notion.... what on earth are you on about?  Have you even heard of the International Criminal Court?  The one formed by the UN Security council?  The fact that you seem to be unaware of this is a very, very sad indictment to me - as is the notion that an invented Dutch bias against the US would somehow result in a less fair trial than one conducted by the victims in a country where the defense lawyers are being killed in the middle of a violent insurgency.

I'm sorry, is that the UN International Criminal Court? The same UN that puts dicatorships on the Human Rights Council? The UN is a farce in terms of human rights, honesty, and peace, and here's the proof: Human Rights Council membership. The bad choices are in red. Also, do you know who the people shooting were? Saddam Hussein's people. They were trying to get him off the ****ing hook, and you take this as evidence he's being given a "kangaroo trial".

Algeria
Argentina    
Azerbaijan    
Bahrain    
Bangladesh    
Brazil    
Cameroon    
Canada    
China    
Cuba (CUBA?!?!)    
Czech Republic    
Djibouti[    
Ecuador    
Finland    
France    
Gabon    
Germany    
Ghana    
Guatemala
India    
Indonesia    
Japan    
Jordan
Malaysia    
Mali    
Mauritius    
Mexico    
Morocco    
Netherlands    
Nigeria    
Pakistan (This may be one of the worst countries in the world for human rights)    
Peru    
Philippines    
Poland    
Republic of Korea (I assume this is South Korea, which isn't exactly a saint itself, although better than North Korea)   
Romania    
Russian Federation    
Saudi Arabia    
Senegal    
South Africa    
Sri Lanka    
Switzerland    
Tunisia    
Ukraine    
United Kingdom    
Uruguay    
Zambia

The UN is a joke. Do you know who was the last major figure to be tried at the Hague? Slobodan Milosevic. The trial dragged on for years and years until the ****er DIED OF OLD AGE. Every international administrative body ever set up has failed. The League of Nations failed. The UN failed. The Hague failed. Justice and administration should be left to nations.

[Flipside]

This is exactly what I mean. I could define America by Abu Ghraib, the 'sexed up' intelligence of the Iraq war and the War itself. Human Rights, Honesty and Peace?

It's easy to look only at the parts you don't like, I would no more define the US by the actions of Fred Phelps than I would define the UN by Khofi Annan's son. Both the US and the UN are far far more than the Media's latest little soundbite.

Edit : And Milosevich did NOT die of old age.

Milošević was found dead in his cell on March 11, 2006 in the UN war crimes tribunal's detention centre, located in the Scheveningen section of The Hague.

Autopsies soon established that Milošević had died of a heart attack. He had been suffering from heart problems and high blood pressure. However, many suspicions were voiced to the effect that the heart attack had been caused or made possible deliberately - by the ICTY, according to sympathizers, or by himself, according to critics. Shortly before his death, Milošević had requested to be treated in a Russian heart surgery centre, but the Tribunal had refused to permit that, mistrustful of Russian guarantees that an escape would be made impossible. At the same time, Milošević had expressed fears that he was being poisoned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87#Death_of_Milo.C5.A1evi.C4.87

[Ford Prefect]

It is likely that a tribunal in Europe would be biased in favor of Saddam Hussein due to political leanings. Most of Europe does not think highly of the War on Terror and would very much like to undermine it.

It's true. Last night, I sneaked into Europe's ultra-secret treehouse while they were having a meeting, and I heard them say that they love terror and that Saddam Hussein is friends with Osama bin Laden so they should give him 6 months suspended. Then they just LOLed about how it will make the Americans angry because they hate terrorism.

[vyper]

<snip>BALLY!</snip>

I'm afraid I'll have to dissect this properly now...

The UN is a farce in terms of human rights, honesty, and peace

Alrighty. Let's see - the UN several times tried to send medical aid to the Iraqi people while Saddam was in power. Guess who led the vetoes blocking that move? That's right, your glorious homeland - the US of A! More importantly, who put Saddam in power in the first place? Well, the CIA helped that's for sure. And where did he get all those weapons from? I do believe... that's right, American and British companies sold him them.  Not doing too well so far are you?

We haven't even covered Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, or the use of phosphorus shells in Iraq. Spotting a pattern yet?

Now, by no means is the UN perfect. God knows, I've had my rants about them in the past. However, when you start your argument by saying:

"It is likely that a tribunal in Europe would be biased in favor of Saddam Hussein due to political leanings."

things tend to get a little iffy.

and you take this as evidence he's being given a "kangaroo trial".

I would never want to speak for another man, but I'm going to argue this based on the fact I assume aldo took the court proceedings, and the essentially predetermined outcome, as the evidence of his trial being a lemon.

The Hague and such like institutions are based on a simple premise - bringing to justice those who have inflicted atrocities against the civilian population of their own or of others nations. Saddam would've been tried, and most likely found guilty. However, had his trial taken place in an international court many people on the "good" side of this war would've been called as witnesses, and had their own sins laid bare for all to see.  Take from that what you will.

I'll also finish this post by stating once again what I've had to reinforce many times to the people I argue with about these issues: I like America. I grew up watching US TV shows, and as a kid often wished I'd grown up on your side of the pond. So don't try to skew my comments as simple US bashing.

[Flipside]

I'm in with Vyper here, when I was young, we all looked to the US as somewhere we wished we were, it was at the edge of culture and technology, everything happened in the US.

Admittedly a lot of it was TV Glitz, but I've always had a fondness for what the US represented, I guess in a way I feel more dissapointed than angry at recent events.

[Woolie Wool]

Alrighty. Let's see - the UN several times tried to send medical aid to the Iraqi people while Saddam was in power. Guess who led the vetoes blocking that move? That's right, your glorious homeland - the US of A!

Exactly what medical aid for whom? And remember that back then we were trying to crush Saddam Hussein without military force, and just letting people send money and goods into his country would only strengthen him.

More importantly, who put Saddam in power in the first place? Well, the CIA helped that's for sure. And where did he get all those weapons from? I do believe... that's right, American and British companies sold him them.  Not doing too well so far are you?

Do you know anything about the political climate of the 70s? The Soviets were considered a threat to the existence of the human race due to their enormous nuclear stockpiles. Any measure to contain the spread of their influence was acceptable. Saddam happened not to like Communism, so in he went. Unfortunately, the magical American fortune tellers didn't predict that the Soviet Union would fall right as it appeared to reach a new height of power and that Saddam would turn around and **** us in the ass. The world was different 30 years ago. Much different. The only lunatic terrorists running around were from Iran, and Saddam didn't like them either.

We haven't even covered Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, or the use of phosphorus shells in Iraq. Spotting a pattern yet?

Guantanamo? Are you ****ing NUTS? The prisoners in Guantanamo are probably the best-treated in the entire world! We give them Qu'rans that may only be touched by Muslim soldiers wearing gloves, we rearrange the toilets so they don't face Mecca when they ****, there are lots of convenient arrows pointing towards Mecca, all their food is specially prepared to cater to their religious edicts, and they are given Geneva Convention rights even though the Geneva Convention DOES NOT APPLY TO UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS AND TERRORISTS! You can take your Gitmo bull**** and shove it up your ass. Never mind that Gitmo is where we send the absolute worst terrorists. The inmates there for the most part ought to be dead.

I would never want to speak for another man, but I'm going to argue this based on the fact I assume aldo took the court proceedings, and the essentially predetermined outcome, as the evidence of his trial being a lemon.

If you are responsible for murdering thousands upon thousands upon thousands, you were the leader of a dangerous nation that gave $25,000 apiece to the families of suicide bombers, and your nation hates you, you will probably be found guilty, no?

The Hague and such like institutions are based on a simple premise - bringing to justice those who have inflicted atrocities against the civilian population of their own or of others nations. Saddam would've been tried, and most likely found guilty. However, had his trial taken place in an international court many people on the "good" side of this war would've been called as witnesses, and had their own sins laid bare for all to see.  Take from that what you will.[/quote[
The Hague Court is a nice idea, but it doesn't work. If it did work, Slobodan Milosevic would have been punished instead of the trial dragging on for several years until he expired of old age. As for our own sins laid bare, it's true that we screwed some things up, in things that we did do (Abu Ghraib) and didn't do (why is Muqtada al-Sadr still alive? It's probably too late to kill him now.).

I'll also finish this post by stating once again what I've had to reinforce many times to the people I argue with about these issues: I like America. I grew up watching US TV shows, and as a kid often wished I'd grown up on your side of the pond. So don't try to skew my comments as simple US bashing.

Well, I didn't see you say "BU$H!!!!11", so that's a good sign.

[Bobboau]

it just keeps getting wider and wider doesn't it?

[vyper]

just letting people send money and goods into his country would only strengthen him.

Would one not usually consider medical aid an exception to that rule?

Do you know anything about the political climate of the 70s? The Soviets were considered a threat to the existence of the human race due to their enormous nuclear stockpiles. Any measure to contain the spread of their influence was acceptable. Saddam happened not to like Communism, so in he went. Unfortunately, the magical American fortune tellers didn't predict that the Soviet Union would fall right as it appeared to reach a new height of power and that Saddam would turn around and **** us in the ass. The world was different 30 years ago. Much different. The only lunatic terrorists running around were from Iran, and Saddam didn't like them either.

It seems you're missing my point, so I'll make it explicit: you can't say that the UN is somehow useless in regards to international affairs when your own nation has committed deeds far worse. By comparison the UN is a flipping exercise in perfection.

If you did get my point, you're implying there should be two standards: one for the UN and one for the US. That, my young friend, ain't going to happen.

Saddam did not "**** you in the ass" - Kuwait agreed to give him oil fields in exchange for fighting Iran. They never coughed up. Saddam decided to take them, the US said "oi, less of that you work for us". Saddam chose to ignore that little fact, and went in anyway. He hardly ****ed you in the ass.

The only lunatic terrorists running around were from Iran, and Saddam didn't like them either.

Actually there were plenty of ****ing nutters in Ireland, but your countrymen decided to turn a blind eye when US currency flowed from New York to Belfast in support of the IRA. That, is a side issue however. What isn't, is the fact that Saddam didn't much like people like bin Laden either. Hell, he was running the one middle eastern nation that effectively quashed Islamic extremists.

If you are responsible for murdering thousands upon thousands upon thousands, you were the leader of a dangerous nation that gave $25,000 apiece to the families of suicide bombers, and your nation hates you, you will probably be found guilty, no?

Yes but the point there is that before his trial, in a fair judicial system, he has yet to be proven guilty. Hell the guy obviously ordered murders and chemical strikes - but the point was his trial should have proven that.

The Hague Court is a nice idea, but it doesn't work.

So, you only want justice so long as it's dispensed as quickly as possible - to hell with the consequences? Just hurry up and find 'em guilty before they pop their clogs? Besides, he died of a heart attack not old ****ing age.

Well, I didn't see you say "BU$H!!!!11", so that's a good sign.

He did invade a nation that had nothing to do with a global war on terror that we are now losing. So he scores pretty low on my intelligence chart for that one.

Never mind that Gitmo is where we send the absolute worst terrorists. The inmates there for the most part ought to be dead.

Once again, you're just skipping over the part where justice and common decency kick in. You can't just jail or execute someone because you happen to think they're a terrorist - you have to prove it in a court of law, where they have a chance to defend themselves.

[karajorma]

Not to mention that since those people were captured in Afghanistan surely his entire argument about how people should be put on trial in their own country falls to pieces.

Why is right that "Terrorists" should be put on trial in the US but Saddam should be put on trial in Iraq?


And why if he's claiming that the Hague takes too long to prosecute crimes are we still waiting for trials for the people in gitmo to start more than 4 years later?

[aldo_14]

It is likely that a tribunal in Europe would be biased in favor of Saddam Hussein due to political leanings. Most of Europe does not think highly of the War on Terror and would very much like to undermine it.

That's blatantly racist; you think that because of politics that europe is incapable - despite being an entire group of nations including key NATO allies it's painted as 'hostile' because the public spoke their mind against this idiot War On Anxiety - of giving a fair trial?

I'm sorry, is that the UN International Criminal Court? The same UN that puts dicatorships on the Human Rights Council? The UN is a farce in terms of human rights, honesty, and peace, and here's the proof: Human Rights Council membership. The bad choices are in red. Also, do you know who the people shooting were? Saddam Hussein's people. They were trying to get him off the ****ing hook, and you take this as evidence he's being given a "kangaroo trial".

I took the predetermined outcome as the kangeroo part - and if Saddams people were shooting (and they undoubtedly were, but not in this case), why were the defence lawyers killed?

Let's imagine, for a minute, there was a doubt about Saddams' guilt - y'know, the same principle fair legal systems are run by. Do you really think Iraq, now run by a party heavily aligned with Iran who has a strong interest in killing Saddam and his cohorts, occupied by a country that hates Saddam and quite possible invaded for revenge against him, and descending into sectarian anarchy was ever going to be the place to have a fair trial? 

Guantanamo? Are you ****ing NUTS? The prisoners in Guantanamo are probably the best-treated in the entire world! We give them Qu'rans that may only be touched by Muslim soldiers wearing gloves, we rearrange the toilets so they don't face Mecca when they ****, there are lots of convenient arrows pointing towards Mecca, all their food is specially prepared to cater to their religious edicts, and they are given Geneva Convention rights even though the Geneva Convention DOES NOT APPLY TO UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS AND TERRORISTS! You can take your Gitmo bull**** and shove it up your ass. Never mind that Gitmo is where we send the absolute worst terrorists. The inmates there for the most part ought to be dead.

That's a blatant lie.  Aside from the illegality of just abducting people on the basis of (literally) wearing a swatch, the Geneva Convention does not allow the illegal detention of civillians; they have to be handeled by the civil legal system of the country they were taken from.  Moreso, the Geneva convention is also violated by not allowing the detainees a free and fair legal hearing when they claim POW status.  And that's just the start of it.

I find it amazing that catering to the religious convictions of inmates - people detained indefinately without charge or trial, often tortured, and also who were quite possibly handed over by the Northern Alliance sans evidence for bounty money - is seen as being nice.  It's the provision of one basic human right - remember when we still had those?  Human Rights?  The various UN conventions - not just Geneva - that the US signed and has discarded for foreigners at Gitmo and black sites?

Let's not forget that Gitmo has housed such dangerous reprobates as a 13 year old and 98 year old.

Word to the wise; none of these people have been convicted of any crime.  In a supposedly free and fair country like the US, I'd expect the concept of justice to be important - or is justice only something meted out to Americans?  No wonder people hate you, in that case.....

EDIT; in any case, someone whose response to criticism is 'shove it up your ass' is, in my view, an idiot.

[Colonol Dekker]

Ditto

[Woolie Wool]

Would one not usually consider medical aid an exception to that rule?

What medical aid for whom? You must demonstrate that it is medical aid. Furthermore, aid going into countries like Iraq is very likely to be seized by warlords or corrupt governments. We send billions upon billions upon billions of dollars worth of aid, and millions still starve because the aid materials are stolen.

It seems you're missing my point, so I'll make it explicit: you can't say that the UN is somehow useless in regards to international affairs when your own nation has committed deeds far worse. By comparison the UN is a flipping exercise in perfection.

If you did get my point, you're implying there should be two standards: one for the UN and one for the US. That, my young friend, ain't going to happen.

Saddam did not "**** you in the ass" - Kuwait agreed to give him oil fields in exchange for fighting Iran. They never coughed up. Saddam decided to take them, the US said "oi, less of that you work for us". Saddam chose to ignore that little fact, and went in anyway. He hardly ****ed you in the ass.

I'm saying that events that happened at the height of the Cold War should be held to a different standard than events happening now. The political climate was different, the motives are different, and the players are different. What, pray tell, have we done that's so bad, besides Abu Ghraib, and the perpetrators of said incident were punished severely. I think we show too much restraint in the war on terror. Recently there was a top-level Al-Qaeda meeting and we couldn't blow them up because there was a cemetery nearby. If we can't kill terrorist leaders for fear of damaging a cemetery, we don't have the guts to win the war on terror. Plus that leaves aside his general belligerence towards the United States.

Furthermore, Saddam Hussein launched a military invasion and occupation of Kuwait, which is an act of war and tantamount to conquest. They also launched missile attacks on neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia. Saying that Kuwait was the bad guy in the Gulf War is unconscionable!

Actually there were plenty of ****ing nutters in Ireland, but your countrymen decided to turn a blind eye when US currency flowed from New York to Belfast in support of the IRA. That, is a side issue however. What isn't, is the fact that Saddam didn't much like people like bin Laden either. Hell, he was running the one middle eastern nation that effectively quashed Islamic extremists.

Islamic extremists that threatened his regime. That's part of Saddam's whole "murder my enemies" strategy. I really doubt he gave a **** about mujahideen in Afghanistan (who we thought would return to normal after beating the commies--oops).

Yes but the point there is that before his trial, in a fair judicial system, he has yet to be proven guilty. Hell the guy obviously ordered murders and chemical strikes - but the point was his trial should have proven that.

I think that they managed to carry out a trial amidst repeated attempts of sabotage is impressive. I really don't feel an ounce of sympathy for Sodamn Insane and if they had dragged him out of his hole and shot him in the head the day they found him, I wouldn't have felt sympathy either.

So, you only want justice so long as it's dispensed as quickly as possible - to hell with the consequences? Just hurry up and find 'em guilty before they pop their clogs? Besides, he died of a heart attack not old ****ing age.

I think that a trial that lasts five years despite reams of evidence on atrocities committed by Milosevic is unacceptable. We didn't even try O.J. Simpson for five years before acquitting him, and that was one of the most hotly contested criminal cases ever. A case like that of Hussein and Milosevic is a done deal from the start.

He did invade a nation that had nothing to do with a global war on terror that we are now losing. So he scores pretty low on my intelligence chart for that one.

Saddam Hussein provided vast amounts of money to families of suicide bombers and provided shelter and even training to terrorists and his presence was a threat to regional stability. Concession accepted.

Once again, you're just skipping over the part where justice and common decency kick in. You can't just jail or execute someone because you happen to think they're a terrorist - you have to prove it in a court of law, where they have a chance to defend themselves.

As terrorists and unlawful combatants, the Guantanamo detainees have no stated right under the Geneva Conventions to civilian trials. There is nothing in international law against us putting them through military tribunals or just shooting any more terrorists we find on the spot and not taking prisoners at all.