I didn’t say it wasn’t in the quote. I said it wasn’t in the article. In fact nothing in the quote is in the article.

If Saddam did have a trial for those who were accused; if he did extend them the most basic of human rights, then he has nothing to worry about. He must be looking forward to clearing his name.



Wow, Iraqi prisoners being treated like they’re in, well, an Iraqi prison… What a concept!!! Did you figure that out all by yourself? Don’t believe what other people are saying about you, you’re pretty smart.



I remember it quite well. I brought up Hitler in the context of the previously quoted post’s belief that a nation’s leader is incapable of breaking any of their nation’s laws by virtue of his/her position. I didn’t say anything about genocide or the Nuremburg trials. Try to keep up with the conversation. Relevant posts make the threads so much easier to read.

__________________
A Conservative – A liberal who got mugged the night before - Frank Rizzo

A Liberal - A conservative who's been arrested - Thomas Wolfe

I thought you knew that signing death warrants implies a legal process, I don't know where you got your "round em up and shoot em " version of these events, it's no where in the article.

__________________
"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember --I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"
-- George W. Bush, asked if the tide is turning in Iraq

Didn't you read what i wrote? I said we should hand him over to the natiopn's that he committed war crimes against, the same way we surely would have with Hitler too had he not committed suicide.

Of course they do but ultimately it is them in charge of states/nations and unless they agree to a law on how they treat those individuals its hardly possible to charge them with something that technically wasn't a crime under their rule.

A legal process implies a process in which the accused can mount a defense, which it appears, was not allowed in this case.


The “round em up” part is there, I thought the “shoot em” part was implied by the way it was written.

Having looked into the story more deeply, it seems that in this case, Saddam did for the Revolutionary Court’s ruling to start the executions. I retract my previous statement. Even though he didn’t wait for the court’s ruling before he had the village shelled, and even though 46 people died in jail waiting for that ruling, Saddam does seem to have waited before officially starting the executions.

__________________
A Conservative – A liberal who got mugged the night before - Frank Rizzo

A Liberal - A conservative who's been arrested - Thomas Wolfe

I saw an article a couple of days ago, where the new top candidate for Prime Minister of Iraq, proposed a law that calls for the death penalty for anyone involved with the insurgency in any way, participating, giving financial aid, not reporting insurgents, etc.

So a liberally applied death penalty seems to be an Iraqi custom.

But this particular incident did involve the courts, albeit not in the way we are used to in the US.

__________________
"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember --I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"
-- George W. Bush, asked if the tide is turning in Iraq

Iraq signed the human rights convention, which requires trial by jury.

Ahh okay i didn't know they were a signatory to the treaty which does change things somewhat but under that treaty what can the punishment be mandatedfor and what constitutes Iraq's liability?

None, really. But it does establish that Saddam was in violation of the law. And yes, you can try international law violations domestically, because in every nation, treaties signed become part of domestic law.

Right, this is getting way too intricately into inernational law and jurisdiction and its way over my head.

I think Saddam is a vicious individual who murdered millions of innocent people, he discriminated against people on basis of religion, for being a certain gender, for wanting to speak out, vote and even those who had nothing to do with him in forign states.

He ran a brutal regime, he deserves everything he has coming to him and i'll be glad once he's executed, i've supported the war from day 1 and continue to do so, proudly.

In this instance even if the courts weren't valid i'd still like to see him die to be honest but this issue maybe raised the question of laws against other foreign states, rogue dictators and so on as to whether crimes they commit against their own people can be prosecuted against them by international courts or their own country setting up courts but implmenting the laws retro-actively.

The sonner Saddam dies the better.

Doesn't really need to. It's a kangaroo court. But then so are all war crimes trials, going back to Nuremburg. There was no legal precedent or applicable law to try Nazi war criminals, it was all made up on the spot.

It was still the right thing to do, and the process, while not entirely legal in the technical sense goober keeps referring to, was fair.