Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

damnrad · Feb 16, 2004, 06:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
Geuss what! A president has to be impeached for "High crimes and or misdemeaners". <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I thought this was about being up for war crimes -- as in the World Court. And forget impeachment -- get Dubya voted out then send him to the World Court for trial.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
Bush has not committed any of those,<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

He has, but he won't be impeached for them.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
although Clinton did lie under oath... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Questionable. In lawyerese, there was always the 'what is is.' I was disgusted by Clinton for trading on lawyerese rather than telling the grand jury where they could stick it, refusing to testify, and toughing it out.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
Unless liberating a country is a high crime <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I haven't seen any countries liberated, only some invasions. The crimes: lying the U.S. into a war, an illegal, so-called preemptive war; possibly, outing a CIA agent, although his handlers might not have trusted Dubya with that one; establishing a concentration camp at Gitmo and holding hundreds there without due process; signing sweetheart deals with favored corporations, costing U.S. taxpayers millions. The list could go on. But why? He won't be prosecuted for such things in the U.S. I only hope the World Court gets him later.

SeanWah · Feb 16, 2004, 09:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Instead, U.S. troops were instructed to protect the Iraqi Oil Ministry but nothing else, with the consequences of looting of museums and archeological sites<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Of course they would, as they should've. It's going to be oil, not dusty artifacts and decaying buildings, that will drive the postwar Iraqi economy. Why should they expend resources saving the artifacts of a long-dead people instead of preserving the resource that will get their economy moving again?

Stigmata66 · Feb 16, 2004, 10:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I haven't seen any countries liberated, only some invasions. The crimes: lying the U.S. into a war, an illegal, so-called preemptive war; possibly, outing a CIA agent, although his handlers might not have trusted Dubya with that one; establishing a concentration camp at Gitmo and holding hundreds there without due process; signing sweetheart deals with favored corporations, costing U.S. taxpayers millions. The list could go on. But why? He won't be prosecuted for such things in the U.S. I only hope the World Court gets him later. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Oh I'm sorry would you rather have us leave now and Iraq be in total chaos or have never invaded and have the brutal Saddam in power? Concentration camp LOL, really!!?? They're all of one ethnic group and we're try to concentrate an entire population there. How about the people there are terrorists and they have it better than the people in US prisons. They're held without due process of law that only American citizens and POW's(were they wearing a uniform or do they belong to a foreign army?) are entitled to, isn't that a bitch. So this "illegal war" what law did President Bush break...?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
roxdog Posted on 02-16-2004 06:04 PM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)

No! Most of the Nazis faced charges of genocide and or other crimes against humanity. Neither Bush nor Clinton did those things. Last time I checked Saddam took power without the aid of the US.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, what a concrete argument...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well being that everything I said was a FACT, I think it is a concrete argument.

dotcoma · Feb 17, 2004, 09:50 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
Well being that everything I said was a FACT, I think it is a concrete argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You didn't say anything.

ArtyP · Feb 17, 2004, 12:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (roxdog,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ArtyP,)
All our grandchildren's grandchildren will tell each other stories about the things GW Bush has done, and how he made the world safe for them all to live in.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's hysterical. The man is a member of a society dubbed "The Order of Death.(along with his father, grandfather, and John Kerry)" His father was arrested for trading with the Nazis and you insinuate that he may be a prophet. Get a clue...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What society are you talking about? Some sorority from when he was in college?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (roxdog,)
His father was arrested for trading with the Nazis <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I believe in "Innocent until proven guilty" and that it is unfair to infer anything from an arrest. (If it even happened!)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (roxdog,)
...and you insinuate that he may be a prophet. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I also don't think you can justly infer ANYTHING about a man's character from the conduct of his father.

About the one thing you got right is your admission that your rant was "hysterical" ;-)

dotcoma · Feb 17, 2004, 12:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ArtyP,)

What society are you talking about? Some sorority from when he was in college?

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I'm talking about Skull & Bones (or, the Order of Death, as they call it). It's one of the premier Christian organizations these days.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ArtyP,)

I believe in "Innocent until proven guilty" and that it is unfair to infer anything from an arrest. (If it even happened!)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0228/ridgeway.php
"..During the Second World War, for example, the government investigated his grandfather, Prescott Bush, and his maternal great-grandfather, Bert Walker. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act, officials seized Bush stockholdings, charging that "huge sections of Prescott Bush's empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort."

http://www.davidcogswell.com/MediaRoulette...tAuschwitz.html
"It's fairly well known that Prescott Bush, George W.'s grandfather, and George Herbert Walker, George W's maternal grandfather, were partners in the Union Banking Trust, which was closed under the Trading With the Enemy Act during World War II for its channeling of investment capital into the Third Reich. Even the Boston Globe has reported that..."

...and you insinuate that he may be a prophet. I always thought that the next living spokesperson for God would have been conceived with Nazi sperm.

floridian · Feb 17, 2004, 12:58 pm

Yeah, Husseing gassed Kurds, did lots of atrocious things. He doesn't deserve a medal. He deserves a war crimes trial, and appropriate punishment.

But the United States was happy with Husssein after he gassed the Kurds. Hussein's attack on Iran after their revolution kept Iran from getting too strong. Donald Rumsfeld travelled to Iraq, shook Sadam's hand, and smiled with him at the photographers knowing full well that he was a mass murderer. The US provided military support. It wasn't until Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened American oil interests that he was seen as a problem. All of the sudden, those people he killed became worth talking about.

dotcoma · Feb 17, 2004, 01:01 pm

It's just like WWII. Everybody thinks that we went to war to stop Hitler. Categorically untrue...

damnrad · Feb 17, 2004, 01:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (sguy,)
It is my belief that for President Bush to be tried as a war criminal, he must have done to war for an illegal reason. However, as Iraq was already in a clear breach of UN Resolution 1441 then going to war was legal.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Israel has been in breach of multiple UN resolutions for decades. Would the U.S. be justified in an attack on Israel? Actually, the UN was involved in Iraq, had restarted the inspections process, had forced Iraqi compliance, and did not call for an invasion under 1441. In fact, Dubya didn't dare bring an proposal for an invasion before the UN because the UN would not have supported it. The invasion was illegal, and it was justified to the American people by lies.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (sguy,)
The question of the weapons of mass destruction is not are there WMDs but rather where are the WMDs. David Kay has said that they are probably in Syria. A Syrian reporter told a Dutch newspaper that there are three sites where Iraqi WMDs are stored, and the Syrian government has said that they cannot effectively patrol their border - dissolving responsiblity in case WMDs are found there.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This post hoc attempt to justify a war crime would be laughable if the results were not so tragic, including over 500 deaths and thousands wounded among U.S. troops, destabalization of Iraq, and making the U.S. a pariah in the eyes of much of the world. David Kay has said that there are no WMDs and that none will be found. There was never any chance that Dubya's lies were true about the claimed quantities of weapons, nor of Iraq's potential threat to the U.S. based on them.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (sguy,)
The issue of human rights abuses is one which have been happening for a while. The US glazed over it during the 1980s, they needed a friendly government in the Middle East when most of them were under the influence of the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was more of a working relationship and when Iraq attacked Kuwait then that relationship was finished. After 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqis kicked the UN out, so Clinton bombed Iraq and was chastised for it. During this time, even though there were UN inspectors in the country, the torturings continued. Videos were made of the tortures which aired on US television. Coalition soldiers have found killing fields, where thousands of innocent civilians were massacred because of their religious affiliation which Saddam did not agree with. This is but one reason for going to war. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The U.S. didn't just overlook human rights abuses in the 1980s, it supplied the weapons used to perpetrate acts of genocide. And the U.S. did not support and supply Iraq in any conflict with the Soviet Union, nor any other Communist regime; it did so because Iraq attacked Iran -- a country which was as hostile to the Soviet Union as it was to the U.S.

And by the way, Iraq kicked UN weapons inspectors out after the U.S. began using the inspection process to collect military intelligence to plan an invasion of Iraq.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (sguy,)
The notion that the US should not go to war because of human rights abuses means that you would not want the US to stop Nazi Germany and Japan during WW2. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Go read your history, especially about a place called Pearl Harbor. Japan launched a devastating, unprovoked military attack on the U.S. there. Following that, Germany declared war on the U.S.

That said, a better example of going to war over human rights abuses took place in Kosovo. There, a bombing campaign did help in protecting human rights. And where else did bombing campaigns help protect human rights? Why, in the no-fly zones of Iraq, right up until Dubya's criminal invasion of that country. The no-fly zones, as the bombing in Kosovo, were supported by most of the world -- unlike Dubya's criminal invasion of Iraq.

The bottom line is that the invasion of Iraq never was about human rights or democracy, and it will not likely lead to either. More likely are a devastating, genocidal wars among the groups that hate each other in Iraq. The U.S. is not making things better in Iraq -- it is making things worse.

damnrad · Feb 17, 2004, 01:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jmclaughtx,)
There were WMD in Iraq at one point in time. It's a proven fact. To say there were NEVER any WMD in Iraq is in and of itself kind of funny. And just for the record, Bush is not a war criminal, neither is Clinton for lobbing cruise missles into Iraq and blowing up the Sudanese pharm facility. The war criminal is Saddam, or is using chems againest Iranian soldiers and your own people not considered criminal now.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

We in fact KNOW that there were WMDs in Iraq up to 1991, in large part because the U.S. allowed U.S. companies to supply the means to make them and looked the other way when they were used. We knew they were there in 1991, because Iraq was defeated in the Gulf War and forced to submit to UN inspections. We knew that there were likely no WMDs in Iraq up to 1998 because UN inspections were taking place, and because Iraqi defectors had said that the chemical and biological agents had been destroyed in 1991. We now know that there were no weapons nor program for making them in Iraq because we invaded and searched high and low -- and could find no evidence whatsoever.

I agree that Saddam is a war criminal for his attack on Iran and subsequent use of chemical weapons. And Donald Rumsfeld is a war criminal for aiding and encouraging Saddam in his war on Iran. The U.S. government is inextricably bound up in Saddam's war crimes, right up to the time that our puppet stopped letting his strings be pulled and instead perpetrated war crimes on Kuwait. After Iraq was defeated in the Gulf War, no action was taken regarding his war crimes. There was certainly no justification for doing so 12 years later through an illegal invasion of Iraq.

damnrad · Feb 17, 2004, 01:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SeanWah,)

Of course they would, as they should've. It's going to be oil, not dusty artifacts and decaying buildings, that will drive the postwar Iraqi economy. Why should they expend resources saving the artifacts of a long-dead people instead of preserving the resource that will get their economy moving again?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It was 'dusty artifacts and decaying buildings' that were, and the survivors that still are, the responsibility of the U.S. to protect as an occupying force. It is the legacy of 'dusty artifacts' that constitute the true treasures of Iraq, as the 'cradle of civilization.' Only greedy parasites value the oil over the history of civilization. And failing to protect cultural property is itself a violation of international law -- international accords that, prior to Dubya, the U.S. had been in the forefront of advocating.

damnrad · Feb 17, 2004, 01:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
Oh I'm sorry would you rather have us leave now and Iraq be in total chaos or have never invaded and have the brutal Saddam in power? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The U.S. is not making things better in Iraq, only worse. Whether the U.S. occupation ends or not, Iraq is likely to be in total chaos. That was what Dubya was warned before his illegal invasion; and that warning was ignored.

I'm quite happy that Saddam is not in power. The problem is that that fact is the result of an illegal invasion. Another problem is that it was never clear what would happen after Saddam's hold on power ended -- he had held Iraq together only by iron rule. Perhaps Iraq could have stayed together post Saddam; maybe it's even possible, though not likely, now. Personally, I have for decades supported the rights of the Kurds to an independent Kurdistan, and I still do -- it's just not clear how even a purely-Iraqi Kurdistan could be protected from Turkey and Iran, and possibly Syria.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
Concentration camp LOL, really!!?? They're all of one ethnic group and we're try to concentrate an entire population there. How about the people there are terrorists and they have it better than the people in US prisons. They're held without due process of law that only American citizens and POW's(were they wearing a uniform or do they belong to a foreign army?) are entitled to, isn't that a bitch. So this "illegal war" what law did President Bush break...?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Glad you think concentration camps are so funny. You must think that Auswitz was a real gas.

ArtyP · Feb 17, 2004, 02:44 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (roxdog,)

...and you insinuate that he may be a prophet.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Quoting that part of the bible in no way insinuates that I believe Bush to be a literal Judeo-Christian Prophet.

It only means that he is someone of wisdom who will be better appreciated in later years.

AND you never addressed my point that you cannot justly infer anything about a person because of what their ancestors did.

What is all your Nazi stuff supposed to show about the current president of the US?

sguy · Feb 17, 2004, 05:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)

Israel has been in breach of multiple UN resolutions for decades. Would the U.S. be justified in an attack on Israel? Actually, the UN was involved in Iraq, had restarted the inspections process, had forced Iraqi compliance, and did not call for an invasion under 1441. In fact, Dubya didn't dare bring an proposal for an invasion before the UN because the UN would not have supported it. The invasion was illegal, and it was justified to the American people by lies.

This post hoc attempt to justify a war crime would be laughable if the results were not so tragic, including over 500 deaths and thousands wounded among U.S. troops, destabalization of Iraq, and making the U.S. a pariah in the eyes of much of the world. David Kay has said that there are no WMDs and that none will be found. There was never any chance that Dubya's lies were true about the claimed quantities of weapons, nor of Iraq's potential threat to the U.S. based on them.

The U.S. didn't just overlook human rights abuses in the 1980s, it supplied the weapons used to perpetrate acts of genocide. And the U.S. did not support and supply Iraq in any conflict with the Soviet Union, nor any other Communist regime; it did so because Iraq attacked Iran -- a country which was as hostile to the Soviet Union as it was to the U.S.

And by the way, Iraq kicked UN weapons inspectors out after the U.S. began using the inspection process to collect military intelligence to plan an invasion of Iraq.

Go read your history, especially about a place called Pearl Harbor. Japan launched a devastating, unprovoked military attack on the U.S. there. Following that, Germany declared war on the U.S.

That said, a better example of going to war over human rights abuses took place in Kosovo. There, a bombing campaign did help in protecting human rights. And where else did bombing campaigns help protect human rights? Why, in the no-fly zones of Iraq, right up until Dubya's criminal invasion of that country. The no-fly zones, as the bombing in Kosovo, were supported by most of the world -- unlike Dubya's criminal invasion of Iraq.

The bottom line is that the invasion of Iraq never was about human rights or democracy, and it will not likely lead to either. More likely are a devastating, genocidal wars among the groups that hate each other in Iraq. The U.S. is not making things better in Iraq -- it is making things worse.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Israel has been in clear violation of resolutions. But had you bothered to examine the Resolutions you would note that the resolutions applying to Israel are completely different both in scope and reprocussions than 1441 which applies to Iraq. Had you properly looked into Resolution 1441 then you would note that the US was in all authority to take action against Iraq while the resolutions applying to Israel are completely different not allowing for the same action.

The freedom of the Iraqis is more important in the eyes of the US President than being an international pariah. The results internationally of the Coalition work in Iraq have already been seen in the cooperation from Libya and Iran. Such cooperation would not have worked in the previous era of appeasement which you seem to want. Appeasement simply does not work, the US action has. David Kay has said that while he thinks that there are no WMDs in Iraq, they should look at Syria. By simply glossing over that point you are wishing that the US can become what it was under Carter, weak and ineffectual.

Had you bothered to examine American and Soviet policy at that time you would note that both sides were engaged in influencing people and countries through proxy. The US was aiding Iraq and Egypt (recently converted to the US from the Soviets) while the Soviets were helping SWAPO and trying to take over Afghanistan. Iraq was an attempt by the US government at the time to restrict the influence of the Soviets which reached a peak in the 70s when they supplied weapons and training to nations which were involved in the invasion of Israel which subsequently lead to the OPEC cutting production leading to the oil crisis.

So basically the US was using the UN? Had this been true then the UN would not have demanded that the weapons inspector be taken back because of the fear that the US would influence it. All this is conjecture.

True, while the Japs launched an unprovoked attack, the question of human rights stems to later in the war when the US helped concentration camp victims or the countess people hurt by the atrocities committed by the Japanese troops. You would have to throw that entire spectrum of the war out of the way.

Kosovo would have been a better example to use but another example of where appeasement was attempted was with Bosnia. An iron fist on these issues are better than a velet glove.

Iraq was about many different reasons. If the US government honestly did not care then they would not be spending so much money while using so many people. This concept that the US does not care about democracy or human rights is not supported by their current actions.

nalex · Feb 17, 2004, 07:32 pm

Techically Bush covered his arse when he refused to allow Americans to have to respond to the International War Crimes Tribunial. That he is guilty of crimes against humanity seems a little more than evident: that Saddam is also guilty of crimes against humanity also seems evident, but has yet to be proven in court.

Invading Iraq was stupid and an ill informed choice. The people of America are more scared than ever and there is more terrorism in Iraq directly because American lives can be a cost that is exacted by terrorists.

Bush can not be found a war criminal because he immunised himself against that. But he can and should be impeached for his misrepresentation of American military priorities and wasting more money than anybody ever did on a war that has not made Iraq into a better place.

The people of America will just vote him in for a second term because they are so scared of terrorism.

Stigmata66 · Feb 17, 2004, 09:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
damnrad

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
Concentration camp LOL, really!!?? They're all of one ethnic group and we're try to concentrate an entire population there. How about the people there are terrorists and they have it better than the people in US prisons. They're held without due process of law that only American citizens and POW's(were they wearing a uniform or do they belong to a foreign army?) are entitled to, isn't that a bitch. So this "illegal war" what law did President Bush break...?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glad you think concentration camps are so funny. You must think that Auswitz was a real gas.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes I was clearly laughing at how funny concentration camps were, not the fact that you compared the luxary detainment facility at guantanamo bay to Auschwitz. Youve obviously never seen pictures from A REAL concenration/extermination camp; the people at them would have given anything to be at guantanamo bay. Let's compared the two shall we:

Guantanamo Bay:
1 - detainees do no work
2 - detainees eat fruit loops and other delcious foods.
3 - detainees are given access to religous scripture and clerics

Auschwitz
1 - detainees are slave laborers unless they are female,children or elderly and in that case they are gased.
2 - detainees eat saw dust soup or nothing at all
3 - detainees are exterminated for being a particular religion; had religous books burned infront of them.

You're an idiot.

G. Adams · Feb 18, 2004, 12:18 am

Oh, as awful as Saddam is, he can't be tried for any international crimes, the US defied international law by parading him on TV with that medical video, nullifying the case for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Your gonna have to send him back to Iraq to be tried on domestic crimes now. Asses.

rmnunez · Feb 18, 2004, 12:55 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
That (Bush) is guilty of crimes against humanity seems a little more than evident: that Saddam is also guilty of crimes against humanity also seems evident, but has yet to be proven in court.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This seems an odd conclusion.

I think crimes against humanity and war crimes are quite explicitly described. I don't see the intent or animus in Bush II's conduct, though I'm sure some acts in carrying out his policies include proscribed elements, but it would be difficult to make an objectively compelling case. Besides, its not like he is about to get arrested on some foreign trip. I don't see how immunity from prosecution under the ICC would make any difference. Heads of State have been prosecuted before the ICC and I'm sure if it could be shown any immunity secured was obtained with the intent to commit war crimes or something like this, it would be invalid.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
as awful as Saddam is, he can't be tried for any international crimes, the US defied international law by parading him on TV with that medical video, nullifying the case for war crimes and crimes against humanity.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not at all. Displaying Saddam after capture in no way diminishes his responsibility for his genocides. Under the law of most western countries not using commonlaw (applied only in most English-speaking countries) prisoners are regularly paraded before the media. In many cases its part of the procedure to photograph them next to the recovered loot, evidence or victims. Then comes the trial. Displaying their captive made sense too because it showed Saddam no longer was the ruler of Iraq, making the military occupation "effective". Besides, I'm sure it was a morale booster for the Coalition.

G. Adams · Feb 18, 2004, 03:47 am

Domestic prisoners can be paraded and still have domestic law applied, but the international laws that apply to Saddam, war crimes and crimes against humanity, cannot be used against him if he is paraded before the masses, TV included, before the case is heard. The video of him being given a medical falls under that category. Therefore there is no legal case against him under international law. He must be eventually sent back to Iraq and be tried by his own people, if we are to follow a lawful manner. But seems laws don't matter the Anglo-American alliance anymore anyway.

ArtyP · Feb 18, 2004, 11:36 am

"international laws that apply to Saddam, war crimes and crimes against humanity, cannot be used against him if he is paraded before the masses, TV included, before the case is heard"

Not to be impertinent but do you think there's any chance you could substantiate this claim with a source or something? I have never heard this claim made by anyone else, and I have heard A LOT of complaints about Saddam's treatment.

Feb 16, 2004, 06:30 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) Geuss what! A president has to be impeached for "High crimes and or misdemeaners". <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I thought this was about being up for war crimes -- as in the World Court. And forget impeachment -- get Dubya voted out then send him to the World Court for trial. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) Bush has not committed any of those,<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> He has, but he won't be impeached for them. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) although Clinton did lie under oath... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Questionable. In lawyerese, there was always the 'what is is.' I was disgusted by Clinton for trading on lawyerese rather than telling the grand jury where they could stick it, refusing to testify, and toughing it out. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) Unless liberating a country is a high crime <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I haven't seen any countries liberated, only some invasions. The crimes: lying the U.S. into a war, an illegal, so-called preemptive war; possibly, outing a CIA agent, although his handlers might not have trusted Dubya with that one; establishing a concentration camp at Gitmo and holding hundreds there without due process; signing sweetheart deals with favored corporations, costing U.S. taxpayers millions. The list could go on. But why? He won't be prosecuted for such things in the U.S. I only hope the World Court gets him later.

Feb 16, 2004, 09:59 pm	#42 (permalink) (top)
SeanWah Molten Ash Posts: 47	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Instead, U.S. troops were instructed to protect the Iraqi Oil Ministry but nothing else, with the consequences of looting of museums and archeological sites<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Of course they would, as they should've. It's going to be oil, not dusty artifacts and decaying buildings, that will drive the postwar Iraqi economy. Why should they expend resources saving the artifacts of a long-dead people instead of preserving the resource that will get their economy moving again?

Feb 16, 2004, 10:15 pm	#43 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I haven't seen any countries liberated, only some invasions. The crimes: lying the U.S. into a war, an illegal, so-called preemptive war; possibly, outing a CIA agent, although his handlers might not have trusted Dubya with that one; establishing a concentration camp at Gitmo and holding hundreds there without due process; signing sweetheart deals with favored corporations, costing U.S. taxpayers millions. The list could go on. But why? He won't be prosecuted for such things in the U.S. I only hope the World Court gets him later. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh I'm sorry would you rather have us leave now and Iraq be in total chaos or have never invaded and have the brutal Saddam in power? Concentration camp LOL, really!!?? They're all of one ethnic group and we're try to concentrate an entire population there. How about the people there are terrorists and they have it better than the people in US prisons. They're held without due process of law that only American citizens and POW's(were they wearing a uniform or do they belong to a foreign army?) are entitled to, isn't that a bitch. So this "illegal war" what law did President Bush break...? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by roxdog Posted on 02-16-2004 06:04 PM Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) No! Most of the Nazis faced charges of genocide and or other crimes against humanity. Neither Bush nor Clinton did those things. Last time I checked Saddam took power without the aid of the US. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, what a concrete argument...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well being that everything I said was a FACT, I think it is a concrete argument. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 17, 2004, 09:50 am	#44 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) Well being that everything I said was a FACT, I think it is a concrete argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You didn't say anything.

Feb 17, 2004, 12:28 pm	#45 (permalink) (top)
ArtyP Sedimentary Rock Posts: 21	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (roxdog,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ArtyP,) All our grandchildren's grandchildren will tell each other stories about the things GW Bush has done, and how he made the world safe for them all to live in.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's hysterical. The man is a member of a society dubbed "The Order of Death.(along with his father, grandfather, and John Kerry)" His father was arrested for trading with the Nazis and you insinuate that he may be a prophet. Get a clue...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What society are you talking about? Some sorority from when he was in college? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (roxdog,) His father was arrested for trading with the Nazis <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I believe in "Innocent until proven guilty" and that it is unfair to infer anything from an arrest. (If it even happened!) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (roxdog,) ...and you insinuate that he may be a prophet. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I also don't think you can justly infer ANYTHING about a man's character from the conduct of his father. About the one thing you got right is your admission that your rant was "hysterical" ;-) Arty P is Telling it like it is... at http://RedWhiteAndRight.blogspot.com

Feb 17, 2004, 12:48 pm	#46 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ArtyP,) What society are you talking about? Some sorority from when he was in college? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm talking about Skull & Bones (or, the Order of Death, as they call it). It's one of the premier Christian organizations these days. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ArtyP,) I believe in "Innocent until proven guilty" and that it is unfair to infer anything from an arrest. (If it even happened!)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0228/ridgeway.php "..During the Second World War, for example, the government investigated his grandfather, Prescott Bush, and his maternal great-grandfather, Bert Walker. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act, officials seized Bush stockholdings, charging that "huge sections of Prescott Bush's empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort." http://www.davidcogswell.com/MediaRoulette...tAuschwitz.html "It's fairly well known that Prescott Bush, George W.'s grandfather, and George Herbert Walker, George W's maternal grandfather, were partners in the Union Banking Trust, which was closed under the Trading With the Enemy Act during World War II for its channeling of investment capital into the Third Reich. Even the Boston Globe has reported that..." ...and you insinuate that he may be a prophet. I always thought that the next living spokesperson for God would have been conceived with Nazi sperm.

Feb 17, 2004, 12:58 pm	#47 (permalink) (top)
floridian Molten Ash Posts: 84	Yeah, Husseing gassed Kurds, did lots of atrocious things. He doesn't deserve a medal. He deserves a war crimes trial, and appropriate punishment. But the United States was happy with Husssein after he gassed the Kurds. Hussein's attack on Iran after their revolution kept Iran from getting too strong. Donald Rumsfeld travelled to Iraq, shook Sadam's hand, and smiled with him at the photographers knowing full well that he was a mass murderer. The US provided military support. It wasn't until Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened American oil interests that he was seen as a problem. All of the sudden, those people he killed became worth talking about.

Feb 17, 2004, 01:01 pm	#48 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	It's just like WWII. Everybody thinks that we went to war to stop Hitler. Categorically untrue...

Feb 17, 2004, 01:09 pm	#49 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (sguy,) It is my belief that for President Bush to be tried as a war criminal, he must have done to war for an illegal reason. However, as Iraq was already in a clear breach of UN Resolution 1441 then going to war was legal.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Israel has been in breach of multiple UN resolutions for decades. Would the U.S. be justified in an attack on Israel? Actually, the UN was involved in Iraq, had restarted the inspections process, had forced Iraqi compliance, and did not call for an invasion under 1441. In fact, Dubya didn't dare bring an proposal for an invasion before the UN because the UN would not have supported it. The invasion was illegal, and it was justified to the American people by lies. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (sguy,) The question of the weapons of mass destruction is not are there WMDs but rather where are the WMDs. David Kay has said that they are probably in Syria. A Syrian reporter told a Dutch newspaper that there are three sites where Iraqi WMDs are stored, and the Syrian government has said that they cannot effectively patrol their border - dissolving responsiblity in case WMDs are found there.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This post hoc attempt to justify a war crime would be laughable if the results were not so tragic, including over 500 deaths and thousands wounded among U.S. troops, destabalization of Iraq, and making the U.S. a pariah in the eyes of much of the world. David Kay has said that there are no WMDs and that none will be found. There was never any chance that Dubya's lies were true about the claimed quantities of weapons, nor of Iraq's potential threat to the U.S. based on them. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (sguy,) The issue of human rights abuses is one which have been happening for a while. The US glazed over it during the 1980s, they needed a friendly government in the Middle East when most of them were under the influence of the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was more of a working relationship and when Iraq attacked Kuwait then that relationship was finished. After 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqis kicked the UN out, so Clinton bombed Iraq and was chastised for it. During this time, even though there were UN inspectors in the country, the torturings continued. Videos were made of the tortures which aired on US television. Coalition soldiers have found killing fields, where thousands of innocent civilians were massacred because of their religious affiliation which Saddam did not agree with. This is but one reason for going to war. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The U.S. didn't just overlook human rights abuses in the 1980s, it supplied the weapons used to perpetrate acts of genocide. And the U.S. did not support and supply Iraq in any conflict with the Soviet Union, nor any other Communist regime; it did so because Iraq attacked Iran -- a country which was as hostile to the Soviet Union as it was to the U.S. And by the way, Iraq kicked UN weapons inspectors out after the U.S. began using the inspection process to collect military intelligence to plan an invasion of Iraq. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (sguy,) The notion that the US should not go to war because of human rights abuses means that you would not want the US to stop Nazi Germany and Japan during WW2. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Go read your history, especially about a place called Pearl Harbor. Japan launched a devastating, unprovoked military attack on the U.S. there. Following that, Germany declared war on the U.S. That said, a better example of going to war over human rights abuses took place in Kosovo. There, a bombing campaign did help in protecting human rights. And where else did bombing campaigns help protect human rights? Why, in the no-fly zones of Iraq, right up until Dubya's criminal invasion of that country. The no-fly zones, as the bombing in Kosovo, were supported by most of the world -- unlike Dubya's criminal invasion of Iraq. The bottom line is that the invasion of Iraq never was about human rights or democracy, and it will not likely lead to either. More likely are a devastating, genocidal wars among the groups that hate each other in Iraq. The U.S. is not making things better in Iraq -- it is making things worse.

Feb 17, 2004, 01:18 pm	#50 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jmclaughtx,) There were WMD in Iraq at one point in time. It's a proven fact. To say there were NEVER any WMD in Iraq is in and of itself kind of funny. And just for the record, Bush is not a war criminal, neither is Clinton for lobbing cruise missles into Iraq and blowing up the Sudanese pharm facility. The war criminal is Saddam, or is using chems againest Iranian soldiers and your own people not considered criminal now.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> We in fact KNOW that there were WMDs in Iraq up to 1991, in large part because the U.S. allowed U.S. companies to supply the means to make them and looked the other way when they were used. We knew they were there in 1991, because Iraq was defeated in the Gulf War and forced to submit to UN inspections. We knew that there were likely no WMDs in Iraq up to 1998 because UN inspections were taking place, and because Iraqi defectors had said that the chemical and biological agents had been destroyed in 1991. We now know that there were no weapons nor program for making them in Iraq because we invaded and searched high and low -- and could find no evidence whatsoever. I agree that Saddam is a war criminal for his attack on Iran and subsequent use of chemical weapons. And Donald Rumsfeld is a war criminal for aiding and encouraging Saddam in his war on Iran. The U.S. government is inextricably bound up in Saddam's war crimes, right up to the time that our puppet stopped letting his strings be pulled and instead perpetrated war crimes on Kuwait. After Iraq was defeated in the Gulf War, no action was taken regarding his war crimes. There was certainly no justification for doing so 12 years later through an illegal invasion of Iraq.

Feb 17, 2004, 01:22 pm	#51 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SeanWah,) Of course they would, as they should've. It's going to be oil, not dusty artifacts and decaying buildings, that will drive the postwar Iraqi economy. Why should they expend resources saving the artifacts of a long-dead people instead of preserving the resource that will get their economy moving again?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It was 'dusty artifacts and decaying buildings' that were, and the survivors that still are, the responsibility of the U.S. to protect as an occupying force. It is the legacy of 'dusty artifacts' that constitute the true treasures of Iraq, as the 'cradle of civilization.' Only greedy parasites value the oil over the history of civilization. And failing to protect cultural property is itself a violation of international law -- international accords that, prior to Dubya, the U.S. had been in the forefront of advocating.

Feb 17, 2004, 01:30 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) Oh I'm sorry would you rather have us leave now and Iraq be in total chaos or have never invaded and have the brutal Saddam in power? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The U.S. is not making things better in Iraq, only worse. Whether the U.S. occupation ends or not, Iraq is likely to be in total chaos. That was what Dubya was warned before his illegal invasion; and that warning was ignored. I'm quite happy that Saddam is not in power. The problem is that that fact is the result of an illegal invasion. Another problem is that it was never clear what would happen after Saddam's hold on power ended -- he had held Iraq together only by iron rule. Perhaps Iraq could have stayed together post Saddam; maybe it's even possible, though not likely, now. Personally, I have for decades supported the rights of the Kurds to an independent Kurdistan, and I still do -- it's just not clear how even a purely-Iraqi Kurdistan could be protected from Turkey and Iran, and possibly Syria. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) Concentration camp LOL, really!!?? They're all of one ethnic group and we're try to concentrate an entire population there. How about the people there are terrorists and they have it better than the people in US prisons. They're held without due process of law that only American citizens and POW's(were they wearing a uniform or do they belong to a foreign army?) are entitled to, isn't that a bitch. So this "illegal war" what law did President Bush break...?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Glad you think concentration camps are so funny. You must think that Auswitz was a real gas.

Feb 17, 2004, 02:44 pm	#53 (permalink) (top)
ArtyP Sedimentary Rock Posts: 21	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (roxdog,) ...and you insinuate that he may be a prophet.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Quoting that part of the bible in no way insinuates that I believe Bush to be a literal Judeo-Christian Prophet. It only means that he is someone of wisdom who will be better appreciated in later years. AND you never addressed my point that you cannot justly infer anything about a person because of what their ancestors did. What is all your Nazi stuff supposed to show about the current president of the US? Arty P is Telling it like it is... at http://RedWhiteAndRight.blogspot.com

Feb 17, 2004, 05:53 pm	#54 (permalink) (top)
sguy Sedimentary Rock Posts: 14	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,) Israel has been in breach of multiple UN resolutions for decades. Would the U.S. be justified in an attack on Israel? Actually, the UN was involved in Iraq, had restarted the inspections process, had forced Iraqi compliance, and did not call for an invasion under 1441. In fact, Dubya didn't dare bring an proposal for an invasion before the UN because the UN would not have supported it. The invasion was illegal, and it was justified to the American people by lies. This post hoc attempt to justify a war crime would be laughable if the results were not so tragic, including over 500 deaths and thousands wounded among U.S. troops, destabalization of Iraq, and making the U.S. a pariah in the eyes of much of the world. David Kay has said that there are no WMDs and that none will be found. There was never any chance that Dubya's lies were true about the claimed quantities of weapons, nor of Iraq's potential threat to the U.S. based on them. The U.S. didn't just overlook human rights abuses in the 1980s, it supplied the weapons used to perpetrate acts of genocide. And the U.S. did not support and supply Iraq in any conflict with the Soviet Union, nor any other Communist regime; it did so because Iraq attacked Iran -- a country which was as hostile to the Soviet Union as it was to the U.S. And by the way, Iraq kicked UN weapons inspectors out after the U.S. began using the inspection process to collect military intelligence to plan an invasion of Iraq. Go read your history, especially about a place called Pearl Harbor. Japan launched a devastating, unprovoked military attack on the U.S. there. Following that, Germany declared war on the U.S. That said, a better example of going to war over human rights abuses took place in Kosovo. There, a bombing campaign did help in protecting human rights. And where else did bombing campaigns help protect human rights? Why, in the no-fly zones of Iraq, right up until Dubya's criminal invasion of that country. The no-fly zones, as the bombing in Kosovo, were supported by most of the world -- unlike Dubya's criminal invasion of Iraq. The bottom line is that the invasion of Iraq never was about human rights or democracy, and it will not likely lead to either. More likely are a devastating, genocidal wars among the groups that hate each other in Iraq. The U.S. is not making things better in Iraq -- it is making things worse.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Israel has been in clear violation of resolutions. But had you bothered to examine the Resolutions you would note that the resolutions applying to Israel are completely different both in scope and reprocussions than 1441 which applies to Iraq. Had you properly looked into Resolution 1441 then you would note that the US was in all authority to take action against Iraq while the resolutions applying to Israel are completely different not allowing for the same action. The freedom of the Iraqis is more important in the eyes of the US President than being an international pariah. The results internationally of the Coalition work in Iraq have already been seen in the cooperation from Libya and Iran. Such cooperation would not have worked in the previous era of appeasement which you seem to want. Appeasement simply does not work, the US action has. David Kay has said that while he thinks that there are no WMDs in Iraq, they should look at Syria. By simply glossing over that point you are wishing that the US can become what it was under Carter, weak and ineffectual. Had you bothered to examine American and Soviet policy at that time you would note that both sides were engaged in influencing people and countries through proxy. The US was aiding Iraq and Egypt (recently converted to the US from the Soviets) while the Soviets were helping SWAPO and trying to take over Afghanistan. Iraq was an attempt by the US government at the time to restrict the influence of the Soviets which reached a peak in the 70s when they supplied weapons and training to nations which were involved in the invasion of Israel which subsequently lead to the OPEC cutting production leading to the oil crisis. So basically the US was using the UN? Had this been true then the UN would not have demanded that the weapons inspector be taken back because of the fear that the US would influence it. All this is conjecture. True, while the Japs launched an unprovoked attack, the question of human rights stems to later in the war when the US helped concentration camp victims or the countess people hurt by the atrocities committed by the Japanese troops. You would have to throw that entire spectrum of the war out of the way. Kosovo would have been a better example to use but another example of where appeasement was attempted was with Bosnia. An iron fist on these issues are better than a velet glove. Iraq was about many different reasons. If the US government honestly did not care then they would not be spending so much money while using so many people. This concept that the US does not care about democracy or human rights is not supported by their current actions.

Feb 17, 2004, 07:32 pm	#55 (permalink) (top)
nalex Sedimentary Rock Posts: 24	Techically Bush covered his arse when he refused to allow Americans to have to respond to the International War Crimes Tribunial. That he is guilty of crimes against humanity seems a little more than evident: that Saddam is also guilty of crimes against humanity also seems evident, but has yet to be proven in court. Invading Iraq was stupid and an ill informed choice. The people of America are more scared than ever and there is more terrorism in Iraq directly because American lives can be a cost that is exacted by terrorists. Bush can not be found a war criminal because he immunised himself against that. But he can and should be impeached for his misrepresentation of American military priorities and wasting more money than anybody ever did on a war that has not made Iraq into a better place. The people of America will just vote him in for a second term because they are so scared of terrorism.

Feb 17, 2004, 09:37 pm	#56 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by damnrad Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) Concentration camp LOL, really!!?? They're all of one ethnic group and we're try to concentrate an entire population there. How about the people there are terrorists and they have it better than the people in US prisons. They're held without due process of law that only American citizens and POW's(were they wearing a uniform or do they belong to a foreign army?) are entitled to, isn't that a bitch. So this "illegal war" what law did President Bush break...? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Glad you think concentration camps are so funny. You must think that Auswitz was a real gas. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes I was clearly laughing at how funny concentration camps were, not the fact that you compared the luxary detainment facility at guantanamo bay to Auschwitz. Youve obviously never seen pictures from A REAL concenration/extermination camp; the people at them would have given anything to be at guantanamo bay. Let's compared the two shall we: Guantanamo Bay: 1 - detainees do no work 2 - detainees eat fruit loops and other delcious foods. 3 - detainees are given access to religous scripture and clerics Auschwitz 1 - detainees are slave laborers unless they are female,children or elderly and in that case they are gased. 2 - detainees eat saw dust soup or nothing at all 3 - detainees are exterminated for being a particular religion; had religous books burned infront of them. You're an idiot. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 18, 2004, 12:18 am	#57 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,161	Oh, as awful as Saddam is, he can't be tried for any international crimes, the US defied international law by parading him on TV with that medical video, nullifying the case for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Your gonna have to send him back to Iraq to be tried on domestic crimes now. Asses. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Feb 18, 2004, 12:55 am	#58 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by That (Bush) is guilty of crimes against humanity seems a little more than evident: that Saddam is also guilty of crimes against humanity also seems evident, but has yet to be proven in court.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This seems an odd conclusion. I think crimes against humanity and war crimes are quite explicitly described. I don't see the intent or animus in Bush II's conduct, though I'm sure some acts in carrying out his policies include proscribed elements, but it would be difficult to make an objectively compelling case. Besides, its not like he is about to get arrested on some foreign trip. I don't see how immunity from prosecution under the ICC would make any difference. Heads of State have been prosecuted before the ICC and I'm sure if it could be shown any immunity secured was obtained with the intent to commit war crimes or something like this, it would be invalid. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by as awful as Saddam is, he can't be tried for any international crimes, the US defied international law by parading him on TV with that medical video, nullifying the case for war crimes and crimes against humanity.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not at all. Displaying Saddam after capture in no way diminishes his responsibility for his genocides. Under the law of most western countries not using commonlaw (applied only in most English-speaking countries) prisoners are regularly paraded before the media. In many cases its part of the procedure to photograph them next to the recovered loot, evidence or victims. Then comes the trial. Displaying their captive made sense too because it showed Saddam no longer was the ruler of Iraq, making the military occupation "effective". Besides, I'm sure it was a morale booster for the Coalition. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Feb 18, 2004, 03:47 am	#59 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,161	Domestic prisoners can be paraded and still have domestic law applied, but the international laws that apply to Saddam, war crimes and crimes against humanity, cannot be used against him if he is paraded before the masses, TV included, before the case is heard. The video of him being given a medical falls under that category. Therefore there is no legal case against him under international law. He must be eventually sent back to Iraq and be tried by his own people, if we are to follow a lawful manner. But seems laws don't matter the Anglo-American alliance anymore anyway. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Feb 18, 2004, 11:36 am	#60 (permalink) (top)
ArtyP Sedimentary Rock Posts: 21	"international laws that apply to Saddam, war crimes and crimes against humanity, cannot be used against him if he is paraded before the masses, TV included, before the case is heard" Not to be impertinent but do you think there's any chance you could substantiate this claim with a source or something? I have never heard this claim made by anyone else, and I have heard A LOT of complaints about Saddam's treatment. Arty P is Telling it like it is... at http://RedWhiteAndRight.blogspot.com