Saddam Lawyers Seek to Try Bush, Blair

[gr8fuldaniel]

UPI

AMMAN, Jordan, Jan. 22 (UPI) -- Toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's lawyers said Sunday they are seeking to file a case against President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. President of the Jordan Bar Association, Saleh Armouti, who recently joined Saddam's defense team, told journalists the attorneys will seek Saddam's approval this week to file a law suit against the American and British leaders in a European international court. The lawyers want to try them on charges of illegally invading and occupying a sovereign country.

A counter suit?
He actually has a pretty good case. Saddam was complying with weapons inspectors right up to the Pre-emptive strike.

[gr8fuldaniel]

From the article, an interesting angle:

Armouti said the defense team will also request Saddam's immediate release "because his arrest is a violation of international charters after the United States declared an end to hostilities and war in Iraq."

[Scribbler1]

Of course it will never fly and they know it too. The only leaders that get put on trial are defeated ones. It's just a play for more sympathy from the Arabs and since he has nothing to lose I suspect they will pulls every stunt they can think of.

We'll have more of the Saddam Show after these messages.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel From the article, an interesting angle:

and then he will run. as far away from this as he can. and he won't come back without an army behind him. hate to say it, we need to keep him locked up.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dthmstr254 and then he will run. as far away from this as he can. and he won't come back without an army behind him. hate to say it, we need to keep him locked up.

I think the days of Saddam running an army are long gone and gone forever. It had been proven that an army that most entire nations put together can't beat ours and Saddam doesn't have a nation any more. Iraq is out of his hands and all the other countries HAVE leaders who aren't likely to hand this guy the keys.

Even if he could put an army together we wouldn't allow it and it's becoming obvious that terrorism is the way to go these days anyway. Saddam's done.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I think the days of Saddam running an army are long gone and gone forever. It had been proven that an army that most entire nations put together can't beat ours and Saddam doesn't have a nation any more. Iraq is out of his hands and all the other countries HAVE leaders who aren't likely to hand this guy the keys. Even if he could put an army together we wouldn't allow it and it's becoming obvious that terrorism is the way to go these days anyway. Saddam's done.

how do you know? do you have insight of who was loyal to him? who do you think he will run to? he will run directly to the people who are shooting the Americans up. he will organize them and boom, there is a small army right at his disposal.

[Scribbler1]

Yeah, boom. Only one problem, all these armies are under the control of OTHER dictators. He may have a following but there are no vacancies for despots anywhere in the world and the leaders of these existing dictatorships aren't likely to lease their armies to Saddam. Hussein's fight is not THEIR fight. This is why I mentioned terrorism. There is no army the US needs to worry about. Remember, you said army, not me.

And George Bush isn't about to ALLOW Saddam to raise an army, and I doubt his successor will either.

And just what kind of army do you think he COULD raise, and how big? Big enough to defeat the US? And where would he PUT this army where we couldn't see it?

I'm sure he would LOVE to raise an army, but he HAD one, remember, and you know what happened to that. And once the people who ARE shooting at us organize under Saddam into an army, just what do you think we will do once they organize and become VISIBLE?

[RickSp]

There is something surreal about all this.

The right wing thinks that Saddam was OK when he was our good buddy under Ronnie Reagan, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, when he indeed had WMD and was using them against his own people. They don't think he was dangerous back then.

After his WMD had been destroyed and his country had been crippled by sanctions, somehow he became a monster too dangerous to live. At least that is the story told by Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney.

Given that te US gave Saddam the helicopters that he used to drop his gas bombs, among other wepaons, I don't understand why those involved, including Rumsfeld and Cheny at a minimum should not be tried as co-conspirators.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Yeah, boom. Only one problem, all these armies are under the control of OTHER dictators. He may have a following but there are no vacancies for despots anywhere in the world and the leaders of these existing dictatorships aren't likely to lease their armies to Saddam. Hussein's fight is not THEIR fight. This is why I mentioned terrorism. There is no army the US needs to worry about. Remember, you said army, not me. And George Bush isn't about to ALLOW Saddam to raise an army, and I doubt his successor will either. And just what kind of army do you think he COULD raise, and how big? Big enough to defeat the US? And where would he PUT this army where we couldn't see it? I'm sure he would LOVE to raise an army, but he HAD one, remember, and you know what happened to that. And once the people who ARE shooting at us organize under Saddam into an army, just what do you think we will do once they organize and become VISIBLE?

if you would care to read the quote I had in my first post in this thread, I was expostulating on what Hussein would do if let out of jail.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp There is something surreal about all this. The right wing thinks that Saddam was OK when he was our good buddy under Ronnie Reagan, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, when he indeed had WMD and was using them against his own people. They don't think he was dangerous back then. After his WMD had been destroyed and his country had been crippled by sanctions, somehow he became a monster too dangerous to live. At least that is the story told by Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. Given that te US gave Saddam the helicopters that he used to drop his gas bombs, among other wepaons, I don't understand why those involved, including Rumsfeld and Cheny at a minimum should not be tried as co-conspirators.

what about when he was our friend under billy clinton?

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 what about when he was our friend under billy clinton?

Do you know absolutely nothing about even recent history? I know the right wing thinks Clinton is the Anti-Christ but Saddam was hardly Bill's buddy. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton used largely diplomatic means against Saddam rather than launching us into a needless and immoral war.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp Do you know absolutely nothing about even recent history? I know the right wing thinks Clinton is the Anti-Christ but Saddam was hardly Bill's buddy. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton used largely diplomatic means against Saddam rather than launching us into a needless and immoral war.

and rather have him launch it in our face? he is guilty for the attacks preluding Desert Storm, what's to say he won't repeat? our law has us doing the same thing to child molesters. they are put on a big list, and if the law even thinks they are up to something, BAM, back in jail.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 and rather have him launch it in our face? he is guilty for the attacks preluding Desert Storm, what's to say he won't repeat? our law has us doing the same thing to child molesters. they are put on a big list, and if the law even thinks they are up to something, BAM, back in jail.

Are the attacks "preluding[sic] Desert Storm" you refer to the invasion of Iran? Back when he was our ally? You are blaming him for actions he took while we were supplying him military aid and intel? See any hypocricy is that, perchance?

Saddam was a threat to his neighbors perhaps but he was no threat to us, especially after he destroyed his WMD in the early 90s. (Your metaphor of a child molester is absurd, to be polite.)

[Boetie]

I see there are some posters whom are making Saddam out to be the boogeyman. How much of a boogeyman can Saddam be if he asked our amabassador if it was alright if Iraq kicks sand into Kuwaits face. The ambassador said it was okay. Turned out Bush Sr played the Sargent Shultz routine.

Every Republican plays the Sargent Schultz routine even Ronnie Raygun.

I know nothing

Back to the boogeyman. It turns out the impression we have of the boogeyman is the handy results of a firm hired to make up the boogeyman image.

This Iraq war is not only stupid and not even warranted. It is costing a big 2 trillion dollars and experts have already said there is no benefit to the war. In other words money is going from taxpayers pockets to war profiteers pockets and all for nothing.

[thatoneguy00]

so according to you guys, sadaams not a bad person and should be let go? is that what your trying to say, because it sounds to me that everyone wants sadaam out and put bush sr in there

[RickSp]

Quote by: thatoneguy00 so according to you guys, sadaams not a bad person and should be let go? is that what your trying to say, because it sounds to me that everyone wants sadaam out and put bush sr in there

No. Do try to pay attention.

Saddam is a very, very bad person, just not necessarily the monster that his old allies Rumsfeld and Cheney might claim or any worse than several despots the US has recently supported.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp Are the attacks "preluding[sic] Desert Storm" you refer to the invasion of Iran? Back when he was our ally? You are blaming him for actions he took while we were supplying him military aid and intel? See any hypocricy is that, perchance? Saddam was a threat to his neighbors perhaps but he was no threat to us, especially after he destroyed his WMD in the early 90s. (Your metaphor of a child molester is absurd, to be polite.)

let a guy grow and take countries one at a time, he grows. pretty soon, he has defeated all the other countries that he wants and now has a much larger military than you do. then when he attacks you, you are left wishing you had stopped him early, because now he is so big, you can't do that anymore, and he rolls over you like the water released from a broken dam does over a little village. BOOM, your dead.

[Matt W]

let a guy grow and take countries one at a time, he grows. pretty soon, he has defeated all the other countries that he wants and now has a much larger military than you do. then when he attacks you, you are left wishing you had stopped him early, because now he is so big, you can't do that anymore, and he rolls over you like the water released from a broken dam does over a little village. BOOM, your dead.

I'm sorry?? He spent 10 YEARS trying to 'take' Iran - with Western aid. He got nowhere. If he headed north, he faced Turkey - and NATO. South - well, that would be Kuwait and Saudi - and we all know what happened there. West, Syria & Jordan - Syria with its' own Baathist party and Jordan has an awful lot of allies, being perhaps the most moderate of the Arab countires.

He was trapped. Completely.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dthmstr254 if you would care to read the quote I had in my first post in this thread, I was expostulating on what Hussein would do if let out of jail.

Excuse me? Post #4 was your first post and it had NO quotes. All you said was "and then he will run. as far away from this as he can. and he won't come back without an army behind him. hate to say it, we need to keep him locked up."
I challenged that reasoning and you came back asking how would I know this. In light of that it seems fair to ask YOU where would he GET this army?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: thatoneguy00 so according to you guys, sadaams not a bad person and should be let go? is that what your trying to say, because it sounds to me that everyone wants sadaam out and put bush sr in there

Either/or doesn't work here. As it didn't work when right wingers were accusing anyone who had a disagreement with the war as being in love with Saddam. You can find fault with Bush easily enough without wanting to defend Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein was a scumbag when he ran Iraq and I have no reason to believe he has changed just because he's in jail. But he was an impotent scumbag and Bush had no genuine reason to invade the country.