Saddam Hussein found guilty

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 05 Nov 2006, 10:12

Saddam Hussein's been found guilty. And quite interesting timing given the fact that Bush's mid-terms are only a couple of days away, hmm?

I wonder why the verdict has been given at this time...

The guy's guilty, but the trial's been a sham.
Which is a bit of a question. If people are going to take the view that people are innocent until proven guilty, is procedure important in all cases?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 05 Nov 2006, 10:53

Strange somehow I think that some may have decided Saddam was guilty anyway, just because he is Saddam (I'm not saying the guy is not an evil piece of shit) but this flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty".
He could face the death penalty, some other guy could also and another guy was given 15 years in jail (I think).

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 05 Nov 2006, 11:47

law doesnt allow for common sense because common sense to one person can be considered idiocy by another, hence you could project yourself live in time square on new years eve butchering random passers by and you are still due the right to a trial and the onus (real word?) is still on the prosecution to prove you did it even though millions of people know for sure that you did.

I like the idea of innocent until proven guilty except that modern law has nothing to do with the truth, its just multiple highly paid people trying to confuse each other, the judge and the jury into giving the verdict their client wants, whether they did the crime or not has very little to do with the process.

As for the american midterms coming up, i reckon this will be the test as to whether democracy actually exists in america anymore or whether the whole system is so corrupt the now unpopuler people will still get reelected anyway.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 05 Nov 2006, 11:50

But Bush can't get re-elected after he has served 2 terms

Then it has to be someone else.

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 05 Nov 2006, 14:00

he was actaully trying ot pass a bill to allow for an elected president to rule until thier death or until they retired. (yay for dictatorship!) however i havent read anymore on this since it was spoken of, so i dunno if he succeeded or not, tho somehow i wouldnt htink he did...

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 05 Nov 2006, 14:15

Shen wrote:he was actaully trying ot pass a bill to allow for an elected president to rule until thier death or until they retired. (yay for dictatorship!) however i havent read anymore on this since it was spoken of, so i dunno if he succeeded or not, tho somehow i wouldnt htink he did...

I wish he did succeed... so the yanks would re-elect Clinton in a heart-beat

I feel it's good Saddam gets his punishment for his crimes, but we already know Bush, Rumsfeld and all those guys will never be punished for the thousands upon thousands of deaths they are responsible for...

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 05 Nov 2006, 15:56

Millions wasted on a Trial, what a joke to start with, he should have been shot down in the hole he was hiding in and then dragges thru the streets of IRAQ.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 05 Nov 2006, 23:56

I wanted the people of Iraq to get their hands on Saddam. It will be a real shame if he is going to be executed by America.

The execution is intended at this point though, because his death will cause the biggest chaos ever in Iraq, trust me.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Nov 2006, 00:03

grim_tales wrote:But Bush can't get re-elected after he has served 2 terms Then it has to be someone else.

it isnt the presidential election, Grim, but democrats vs republicans... and the republicans will milk this 'bringing saddam to justice' bit for all it's worth, to get the attention away from the homosexual and pedophile scandals by some republicans which are headline-news items at the moment... plus ofcourse most of the country's disaproval of the current state of affairs in iraq and the yanks involvement in it.

I'm not sure if it will bring even more chaos in Iraq. It seems like the country is already in full chaos...
It COULD lead to a full scale civil war between different groups in the country... (pro- and anti-saddam groups), but I'm not sure. In either case, the USA wont be able to leave the region soon, even if they'd want to...

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Nov 2006, 01:49

Apparently he will be hanged.

He deserves death for sure... but that may serve to make him a martyr.

I think the Iraq court should have dealt with this from the beginning.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 Nov 2006, 09:47

Possibly.
AFAIK the Shi'ite (sp?) Iraqis are celebrating, the Sunnis are protesting about it. So there is division already.
Bush, Blair and Rumsfeld are hardly dictators but anyway..

It is interesting though, 1 dictator (Saddam) is rightly sentenced to death after being tried for his crimes, another (General Pinochet) is sent back to his country by this Governmant - huh?

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Nov 2006, 10:05

grim_tales wrote:Possibly.
AFAIK the Shi'ite (sp?) Iraqis are celebrating, the Sunnis are protesting about it. So there is division already.
Bush, Blair and Rumsfeld are hardly dictators but anyway..

It is interesting though, 1 dictator (Saddam) is rightly sentenced to death after being tried for his crimes, another (General Pinochet) is sent back to his country by this Governmant - huh?

Well... being a dictator doesnt automattically mean you're evil. And being a democratically elected president doesnt automatically mean you're 'good'.
Pinochet is/was evil I believe, throwing innocent people from airplanes into the sea... so yeah, weird he didnt get punished for that...

But Saddam isnt getting hanged for beinga dictator, but because he's responsible for hundreds (in this case) of deaths...
Bush, Blair and Rumsfeld are directly responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths... and there are very strong indications that they're motifs for doing so was money, instead of just being dumb and stupid (Halliburton, oil, weaponindustry, etc etc)

I HOPE they will one day have to pay for their sins... but I seriously doubt it.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 Nov 2006, 10:36

I know what you mean but IMO I just wouldn't compare Blair/Bush etc to real tyrants like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin etc.
The Tories voted to go into Iraq as well so its not just "Blair's War".

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Nov 2006, 11:05

I wouldnt put Blair in the same list as Bush. England went into the war based on the info the USA claimed they had, The USA (those in power) KNEW their info was severely lacking and unjust. They WANTED that war in Iraq for both political reasons as well as economical reasons.
So the killed for personal gain.

Bush, Rumsfeld and many of those people around them, are war-criminals, pure and simple. They are DIRECTLY responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I WOULD put them in the same list where we have Saddam.

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Mao etc etc... are in a whole other league , having killed millions... but Bush seems to doing his very best to join those elite...

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 Nov 2006, 11:19

I agree, all Blair did was act on the intelligence he was given which was of course later proved to be wrong, he went in without knowing.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Nov 2006, 11:28

I wouldnt go as far as remove Blair from all blame, because he should have also been more critical of the information that was being fed to him. The rest of the international community had severe doubts, and he could have been a bit more hesitent about backing the USA in the manner that he did. He's sending young guys over to another country to possibly kill or be killed. So he also has a responsibility to make sure he makes the right decision. Which he didnt.

But I do feel he honestly thought the USA were honest in the information they gave him, and he based his decision on that faith. He was screwed over by Bush. And once that became known, he should have immediately distanced himself from the USA, admitted his own mistake, and should have spoken out against what the USA did and is still doing...

So I do feel Blair has failed miserably, but I wouldnt say he's 'evil' in the way as the USA is, in the way that they wanted this war for financial and political gain, while the UK were duped into this due to their loyalty and faith to the USA.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Nov 2006, 14:29

Blair lied to the British people.

And if he didn't lie then he's incompetent.

Either way he must take his full share of the blame.

Bush gave him an out early on which he refused point blank.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Nov 2006, 21:18

Shen wrote:he was actaully trying ot pass a bill to allow for an elected president to rule until thier death or until they retired. (yay for dictatorship!) however i havent read anymore on this since it was spoken of, so i dunno if he succeeded or not, tho somehow i wouldnt htink he did...

Thank god I don't reckon the Americans would stand for this. Are you sure that's true?

I'll be cheering when the loser/useless wanker/name an expletive goes. Bush has done FAR more damage than good to America, it's reputation and the world than I reckon any president before him.

Clinton was a much better president.

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 08 Nov 2006, 22:36

@ brad

well it was a few months ago that i read it, i'll see if i can find the article, but also i dont think the american people would be stupid enough to accept this.

ok here is one article....its not the one i read but outlines the same thing, a bill for a change to the 22nd ammendment of the constitution that would allow Bush to be president for life...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ju ... orlife.htm

and another small article...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/fe ... sident.htm

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Nov 2006, 00:17

Thanks Shen.