Saddam Trial

[Graeme Kessey]

Saddam must face a court of his peers. Who will listen to pros and cons then they will lawfully find He should be shot.

 

[Johnney]

they shoudl put it on pay per view

 

[Graeme Kessey]

I'd pay to see that Ratbag get the Squad.

Have to be better than paying to watch a Don King promotion!!

And nuts to the anti death penalty mob.

 

[Annie]

I want him stoned.

 

[Graeme Kessey]

Save mucking about,Give the Ratbag to the Kurds.

They might show a bit more mercy(although not likely)than that mongrel did.

 

[nbdysfu]

Well however he meets his end, this is what can be done with his remains:
http://www.changingworldtech.com/techfr.htm

 

[Annie]

and peace on earth goodwill towards men,

bloodthirsty lot we are here!

 

[Chad2000k]

Just shove him into the same hole he was found then block off the airways so he can die.

 

[Annie]

Welcome Chad, looks like you'll be very comfortable with most of us.

 

[bamthin]

I'll pass on watching any more executions. When I was in Riyadh, I had the misfortune of my curiosity leading me to "chop chop square" where people are publically decapitated and dismembered. Saw a guy get his head lopped off. Oh, and my American looks got me pushed right up to the front row for a better look.

For those who have never actually witnessed another lose his head, let me assure you, it is difficult to eat for a few days. At least it appeared like they drained a great deal of blood from the guy before they killed him. He was woozy as hell. He may have been drugged.

-Bam

 

[Chad2000k]

That sounds awful. But this is a person that the government believed he started a war with us. So I would love to watch the trial and I will bet the whole nation will watch it as well.

 

[eric]

Ah no worse than seeing someone get sucked under a train, which I had the pleasure of watching !

 

[bushin04]

Originally posted by Graeme Kessey
Saddam must face a court of his peers. Who will listen to pros and cons then they will lawfully find He should be shot.

That's not justice, that's called a puppet court

 

[Johnney]

whatever it takes

 

[eric]

Bushin04, Welcome to the board !

 

[bushin04]

thank you

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Graeme Kessey
Saddam must face a court of his peers. Who will listen to pros and cons then they will lawfully find He should be shot.

Maybe there are other reasons BushCo doesn't want an international trial?

Was U.S. complicit in atrocities?



An opinion column by Mark Weisbrot

WASHINGTON — So now it looks as if our Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was rather friendly with Saddam Hussein — a.k.a. The Monster — back in the 1980s, when Rumsfeld was working for the Reagan administration. This according to newly declassified documents that were never intended to see the light of day.

Of course Saddam was "Our Monster" back then. But still it is rather striking that Rummy's mission when he met with Saddam Hussein's foreign minister was to reassure The Monster that his actual use of weapons of mass destruction — not mere possession, but using them to kill tens of thousands of people — would not get in the way of warmer U.S.-Iraqi relations. It was 1984 and Saddam was using chemical weapons, according to the Reagan administration's documents, "almost daily" against Iranians and Kurds.

Rumsfeld had already met with The Monster himself back in 1983. He was sent back to Iraq in 1984 to make it clear that Washington's interests in "continuing to improve bilateral relations with Iraq, at a pace of Iraq's choosing, remain undiminished" in spite of these daily atrocities. These were the written instructions that Rumsfeld received as special envoy of the Reagan administration.

Some may still remember that the main reason given for our armed forces invading Iraq, in defiance of international law and most of the world, was that Saddam supposedly had weapons of mass destruction.

These alleged weapons are still missing in action. But even if they did exist, it is hard to believe — in light of these documents — that our leaders took us to war for this reason.

The new documents were discovered by the non-profit National Security Archives (www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/) and reported in The New York Times and Washington Post. They corroborate previous reports in the Times that the United States provided Iraq with battle planning assistance, and other military and intelligence support, at the time that Iraq was using chemical weapons in its war with Iran.

Of course, Rumsfeld and his superiors had their reasons. But who doesn't? It is rare that any political leader commits atrocities just for the sheer pleasure of it. In this case Washington and The Monster were strategically allied against Iran.

Washington's relationship with Saddam — including its granting of hundreds of millions of dollars in agricultural credits — continued right up to the time that he invaded Kuwait in 1990.

But all of this is history, which in America is synonymous with forgotten. That's why the Bush administration will do everything possible to make sure that Saddam is not brought before an international tribunal, where there is a greater chance that he could implicate some of his former friends and allies in Washington.

This is not just a matter of suffering embarrassment for being friends with monsters. Among the crimes that Saddam could be tried for is killing people with chemical weapons. In an honest judicial proceeding, Rumsfeld and his superiors could be named and indicted as co-conspirators.

Since Saddam's capture we have been told that the purpose of the ongoing war is to bring democracy to Iraq, in fact to the whole Middle East. Of course, the majority of Americans still believe that Saddam was involved in the massacre of Sept. 11, according to the latest polls. It seems that no justification is too ridiculous or far-fetched to serve as an excuse for this war.

On the same page that the Times reported the story about Rumsfeld's past mission to Iraq, there was a little box that appears on most days with the title "Names of the Dead."

It began with the same sentence that appears each time: "The Department of Defense has identified 463 American armed service members who have died since the start of the war." Only the number changes, and beneath are listed the soldiers who were killed the day before.

Can anyone tell us why we have soldiers dying in Iraq?

LINK

-Bam

 

[Johnney]

An opinion column by Mark Weisbrot

key words

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Johnney
key words

The new documents were discovered by the non-profit National Security Archives (www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/) and reported in The New York Times and Washington Post. They corroborate previous reports in the Times that the United States provided Iraq with battle planning assistance, and other military and intelligence support, at the time that Iraq was using chemical weapons in its war with Iran.


You missed these?

-Bam

 

[Johnney]

i was reffering to the opinion part. if there are actual fact, then it isnt an opinion now is it