DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on December 30, 2006, 12:13:48 AM
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16389128/?GT1=8816
Saddam Hussein was hanged Saturday under a sentence imposed by an Iraqi court.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16389128/?GT1=8816
Saddam Hussein was hanged Saturday under a sentence imposed by an Iraqi court.
We are really screwed now. No one can hold that nation that we turned to shit together now.
-
Seems to me stable nations are held together by laws and not strongmen, so in this case Iraq is one step closer to becoming one of those nations.
-
Seems to me stable nations are held together by laws and not strongmen, so in this case Iraq is one step closer to becoming one of those nations.
For a Faux tough guy, you sure are a naive Pollyanna:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/12/30/saddam/print.html
To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser
Saddam: The death of a dictator
Through the bumbling of the U.S.-backed regime, justice becomes revenge, and a despot becomes a martyr.
By Juan Cole
Dec. 30, 2006 | The body of Saddam, as it swung from the gallows at 6 a.m. Saturday Baghdad time, cast an ominous shadow over Iraq. The execution provoked intense questions about whether his trial was fair and about what the fallout will be. One thing is certain: The trial and execution of Saddam were about revenge, not justice. Instead of promoting national reconciliation, this act of revenge helped Saddam portray himself one last time as a symbol of Sunni Arab resistance, and became one more incitement to sectarian warfare.
Saddam Hussein was tried under the shadow of a foreign military occupation, by a government full of his personal enemies. The first judge, an ethnic Kurd, resigned because of government interference in the trial; the judge who took his place was also Kurdish and had grievances against the accused. Three of Saddam's defense lawyers were shot down in cold blood. The surviving members of his defense team went on strike to protest the lack of protection afforded them. The court then appointed new lawyers who had no expertise in international law. Most of the witnesses against Saddam gave hearsay evidence. The trial ground slowly but certainly toward the inevitable death verdict.
Like everything else in Iraq since 2003, Saddam's trial became entangled in sectarian politics. Iraq is roughly 60 percent Shiite, 18 percent Sunni Arab and 18 percent Kurdish. Elements of the Sunni minority were favored under fellow Sunni Saddam, and during his long, brutal reign this community tended to have high rates of membership in the Baath Party. Although many members of Saddam's own ethnic group deeply disliked him, since the U.S. invasion he has gradually emerged as a symbol of the humiliation that the once-dominant Sunni minority has suffered under a new government dominated by Shiites and Kurds.
Saddam was a symbol of Sunni-Shiite rivalry long before the U.S. occupation. In 1991, while he was in power, he had ferociously suppressed the post-Gulf War Shiite uprising in the south, using helicopter gunships and tanks to kill an estimated 60,000. After the invasion, many Shiites wanted him to be captured, while many Sunnis helped him elude capture. When Saddam was finally caught by U.S. forces in late 2003, Shiites in the Baghdad district of Kadhimiya crossed the bridge over the Tigris to dance and gloat in the neighboring Sunni Arab district of Adhamiya, provoking some clashes. After his capture, students at Mosul University, in Iraq's second-largest and mostly Sunni Arab city, chanted, "Bush, Bush, hear our refrain: We all love Saddam Hussein!" and "We'll die, we'll die, but the nation will live! And America will fall!"
As the U.S. consolidated control over Iraq, meanwhile, Sunni alienation increased. The American occupiers adopted punitive measures against members of the Baath Party, who were disproportionately though by no means universally Sunni Arab. The army was dissolved, sidelining 400,000 troops and the predominantly Sunni officer corps. Thousands of Sunni Arab civil servants and even schoolteachers were fired.
A "de-Baathification" committee, dominated by hard-line Shiites like Nouri al-Maliki (now prime minister) and Ahmed Chalabi, denied large numbers of Sunni Arabs the right to participate in political society or hold government positions on grounds of links to the Baath Party. Sometimes politicians were blackballed simply because a relative had been high in the party.
As Iraq spiraled down into a brutal civil war with massive killing and ethnic cleansing, many Iraqis began to yearn for the oppressive security of the Saddam period. After the destruction of the golden dome of the Shiite Askariya mosque in Samarra last February, Iraqis fell into an orgy of sectarian reprisal killings.
By the time of Saddam's trial, sectarian strife was widespread, and the trial simply made it worse. It was not just the inherent bias of a judicial system dominated by his political enemies. Even the crimes for which he was tried were a source of ethnic friction. Saddam Hussein had had many Sunni Arabs killed, and a trial on such a charge could have been politically savvy. Instead, he was accused of the execution of scores of Shiites in Dujail in 1982. This Shiite town had been a hotbed of activism by the Shiite fundamentalist Dawa (Islamic Call) Party, which was founded in the late 1950s and modeled on the Communist Party. In the wake of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini's 1979 Islamic Revolution in neighboring Iran, Saddam conceived a profound fear of Dawa and similar parties, banning them and making membership a capital crime. Young Dawa leaders such as al-Maliki fled to Tehran, Iran, or Damascus, Syria.
When Saddam visited Dujail, Dawa agents attempted to assassinate him. In turn, he wrought a terrible revenge on the town's young men. Current Prime Minister al-Maliki is the leader of the Dawa Party and served for years in exile in its Damascus bureau. For a Dawa-led government to try Saddam, especially for this crackdown on a Dawa stronghold, makes it look to Sunni Arabs more like a sectarian reprisal than a dispassionate trial for crimes against humanity.
Passions did not subside with time. When the death verdict was announced against Saddam in November, Sunni Arabs in Baquba, to the northeast of the capital, staged a big pro-Saddam demonstration. They were attacked by the Shiite police that dominate that mixed city, who killed 20 demonstrators and wounded a similar number. There were also pro-Saddam demonstrations in Fallujah and Mosul. Baghdad had to be put under curfew.
The tribunal also had a unique sense of timing when choosing the day for Saddam's hanging. It was a slap in the face to Sunni Arabs. This weekend marks Eid al-Adha, the Holy Day of Sacrifice, on which Muslims commemorate the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son for God. Shiites celebrate it Sunday. Sunnis celebrate it Saturday –- and Iraqi law forbids executing the condemned on a major holiday. Hanging Saddam on Saturday was perceived by Sunni Arabs as the act of a Shiite government that had accepted the Shiite ritual calendar.
The timing also allowed Saddam, in his farewell address to Iraq, to pose as a “sacrifice†for his nation, an explicit reference to Eid al-Adha. The tribunal had given the old secular nationalist the chance to use religious language to play on the sympathies of the whole Iraqi public.
The political ineptitude of the tribunal, from start to finish, was astonishing. The United States and its Iraqi allies basically gave Saddam a platform on which to make himself a martyr to Iraqi unity and independence -- even if by unity and independence Saddam was really appealing to Sunnis' nostalgia for their days of hegemony.
In his farewell address, however, Saddam could not help departing from his national-unity script to take a few last shots at his ethnic rivals. Despite some smarmy language urging Iraqis not to hate the Americans, Saddam denounced the "invaders" and "Persians" who had come into Iraq. The invaders are the American army, and the Persians are code not just for Iranian agents but for Iraqi Shiites, whom many Sunni Arabs view as having Iranian antecedents and as not really Iraqi or Arab. It was such attitudes that led to slaughters like that at Dujail.
In his death, as in his life, Saddam Hussein is managing to divide Iraqis and condemn them to further violence and brutality. But the Americans and the Shiite- and Kurd-dominated government bear some blame for the way they botched his trial and gave him this last opportunity to play the spoiler.
Iraq is on high alert, in expectation of protests and guerrilla reprisals. Leaves have been canceled for Iraqi soldiers, though in the past they have seldom paid much attention to such orders. But perhaps the death of Saddam, who once haunted the nightmares of a nation, will soon come to seem insignificant. In Iraq, guerrilla and criminal violence executes as many as 500 persons a day. Saddam's hanging is just one more occasion for a blood feud in a country that now has thousands of them.
-- By Juan Cole
-
Perhaps trying and executing Saddam was not the politically reasonable thing to do at this time. He deserved to be executed as much as any dictator, more than most.
His death guarantees that he won't be back, and that a new era has started.
It does not guarantee that someone like him, or worse, will not end up running Iraq, nor does it guarantee that the new era will be better.
Idi Amin was ghastly and brutal, but Milton Obote was far worse. He was not a cannibal, and he lacked theatricality, so he did not get into the Western newspapers as often.
-
Anybody who is dumb enough to think that Saddam got a fair trial, or that this dispensation of "justice" is an auspicious beginning for a "new, democratic Iraq," should read the Juan Cole commentary in Salon, which Knute just linked to. I don't think the article even mentioned that one of the judges was yanked off the bench in the middle of the trial by the "Iraqi government" because he seemed to be favouring Saddam. Yeah that was some fair trial.
Sure, Saddam probably deserved what he got. But for all that it had to do with justice, democracy and the rule of law, he might just as well have been beaten to death in prison by his guards while awaiting trial.
On a slightly different tack, here is some interesting stuff from the Juan Cole article:
<<Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam's weird trial, forbad any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability.>>
Of course, the Iraqis already know this. The trial and the verdict aren't going to change any minds over there. Only the Americans (some of them) could be dumb enough to think that this was a triumph for justice and the rule of law.
-
Anybody who is dumb enough to think that Saddam got a fair trial, or that this dispensation of "justice" is an auspicious beginning for a "new, democratic Iraq," should read the Juan Cole commentary in Salon, which Knute just linked to.
LOL....yea, no bias or agenda there ::) Oh, and by the way, what would have been a "fair trial" and "dispensation of Justice", Tee?
-
How do you "fairly" try one for massive crimes that are common knowledge, that, if they don't get coverage in every newspaper and TV news broadcast, are nonetheless on the tip of everyone's tongue, if clandestinely? Indeed, Saddam's reign of terror based veritably based on the spread of such knowledge. Thus framed, though the trial was a foregone conclusion from any realist's standpoint -- allowing only claims of sovereignty and illegal occupation to provide speed bumps on the way to the gallows -- the process was necessary and fitting. As ceremony, discounting flaws which didn't really detract from that purpose, it worked. Where I find Cole to be offering wisdom is in his appreciation of the capacity of this event, as choreographed by the Dawa-led government, to further inflame passions and make even more remote the chance of any kind of a reconciliation whatsoever. I would even go beyond that by suggesting for exploration (in hindsight) the potential for having used Saddam as a Machiavellian pawn to bargain his life for Sunni concessions.
-
<< . . . the process was necessary and fitting.>>
Yeah? It's "fitting" that a judge is yanked off the bench in the middle of the trial by the "government" because he's showng too much regard for the accused?
You sound kinda laid-back for a defence counsel, domer. If that was YOUR judge in a trial of YOUR client, you'd just proceed on meekly to a judgment and accept whatever the "government's" hand-picked judge had in store for your client? You must be one in a million.
-
Yeah? It's "fitting" that a judge is yanked off the bench in the middle of the trial by the "government" because he's showng too much regard for the accused?
IIRC, he wasn't "yanked off" for "showing too much regard", he was taken off the trial because he said that he had decided before the trial that Saddam was innocent, because he was never a dictator.
-
<<How do you "fairly" try one for massive crimes that are common knowledge, that, if they don't get coverage in every newspaper and TV news broadcast, are nonetheless on the tip of everyone's tongue, if clandestinely? >>
I hope that wasn't a rhetorical question.
I would think you present evidence that meets legal standards of evidence, you allow the accused to test the evidence by cross-examination, you allow the accused to present evidence (that also meets legal standards) and you allow the prosecutor to test that evidence as well. You have a fair and impartial judge to decide if the evidence meets the legal standards in the first place and at the end of the day to consider all the evidence and come to a conclusion. Key to the process is the independent judiciary - - you gotta trust the judge to fairly make his rulings on the evidence presented and to reason it all out at the end of the trial. It goes without saying the judge will decide on the basis of the evidence only and not on what is "common knowledge."
Personally, I think Saddam could have received a fair trial from an international court of criminal justice, but the problem with that is that the U.S.A. does not wish to acknowledge such a court's jurisdiction, because it has so many of its own war criminals and mass murderers to protect.
-
Seems to me stable nations are held together by laws and not strongmen, so in this case Iraq is one step closer to becoming one of those nations.
==============================================================================
This is just not the way it works. Countries are ruled by strongmen not because of the presence of strongmen, but because of a lack of respect for the law. I am sure the US has thousands of potential strongmen who would love to become brutal dictators, but they cannot rule because of a respect for the law.
Killing Saddam will simply remove Saddam from the scene: the way that the law was applied in this trial would not make anyone respect the law one bit even in THIS country.
Iraqis believe in tribal justice and revenge, sort of like the Mafia's code of omertá. It will be a generation before Iraq develops a respect for the law on a par with Paraguay.
In the short run, I doubt that this execution will prove to be a positive step.
What with Juniorbush listening to everyone's phone calls, torturing detainees and covering up everything with a huge blanket of secrecy, the respect of Americans for the law is declining. Not to the mention bribery, election fraud and thievery by Halliburton and other contractors.
-
<<IIRC, he wasn't "yanked off" for "showing too much regard", he was taken off the trial because he said that he had decided before the trial that Saddam was innocent, because he was never a dictator.>>
BULLSHIT. And what's IIRC?
FROM THE NPR ARCHIVES:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6110412
<<A new chief judge presided over the Saddam Hussein trial on Wednesday after the former chief judge was removed, for declaring in a court session that Hussein was "no dictator." Human Rights Watch has condemned the removal as a threat to the independence of Iraq's courts.>>
Not a word about deciding that Saddam was innocent.
-
You really make strange bedfellows, Michael, on your headlong charge to outrage.
-
No offense, domer, but you are starting to come off as somewhat repressed. The normal response to outrageous conduct IS outrage. There are some posters here who are too fucking dumb to know what is outrageous and what is not. I don't put you in that category. You know better. You oughtta save your fire for the perpetrators of the outrages, not for those who are outraged by them.
And BTW I hope you don't mean Saddam is one of my strange bedfellows. I've made it clear that he deserved what he got.
-
And what's IIRC?
If I Recall Correctly
Not a word about deciding that Saddam was innocent.
Didn't say he was removed for "showing too much regard" either.
-
Not a word about deciding that Saddam was innocent.
Didn't say he was removed for "showing too much regard" either.
D'OH
-
The record speaks for itself
J.R. Dunn
Lenin - Dead of the complications of a stroke, perhaps assisted by poisoning, January 21, 1924.
Benito Mussolini - Executed without judicial procedure by communist partisans, April 28 1945. The act was robbed of any meaning by the concurrent murder of his innocent mistress, Clara Petacci.
Adolf Hitler - Dead by his own hand beneath the ruins of the Berlin Chancellory, April 30, 1945.
Stalin - Dead of stroke aided by medical neglect at age 74 at his dacha outside Moscow, March 5, 1953.
Ho Chi Minh - Dead of heart failure at age 79 at his home in Hanoi, September 2, 1969.
Francisco Franco - Dead of old age at 82 on November 20, 1975.
Mao Tse Tung - Dead of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at age 82, on September 9, 1976.
Tito - Dead of circulatory problems on May 4, 1980, three days before his 88th birthday.
Nicolae Ceaucescu - Shot out of hand at age 71 after a bogus "trial" following a national
uprising, December 25, 1989.
Ruhollah Khomeini - Dead of cancer on June 3, 1989, at the age of 89.
Kim Il-sung - Dead of a heart attack at 82 in Pyongyang, July 8, 1994.
Pol Pot - Dead at age 72 (possibly a suicide) on April 16, 1998, while waiting to be turned over to an international tribunal.
Idi Amin Dada - Dead of old age at age 79 on August 16, 2003, after years of exile in Saudi
Arabia.
Slobodan Milosevic - Dead in his cell under unexplained circumstances while in the hands of an international criminal tribunal at the Hague, March 11, 2006.
Most of the great butchers of the 20th century died of old age, in their own beds, some of
them honored by millions. Not a single one met justice in the sense accepted in free states across the world. The handful who died otherwise are aberrations, victims of strange events that act as models for nothing.
There is one single exception - the hanging of Saddam Hussein on December 30, 2006
after a careful, lengthy trial carried out under extremely difficult circumstances according to
internationally recognized judicial norms. The state of Iraq has succeeded where the rest of the civilized world has failed. It is a singular achievement, and it will stand.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/12/the_record_speaks_for_itself.html
-
<<Didn't say he was removed for "showing too much regard" either.>>
I didn't claim to be reciting the exact words of the reasons given for removing the judge. "Showing too much regard" for the accused (as I put it) and saying that he was no dictator are fairly close in meaning.
Saying that he was innocent (as you put it) is something very much removed from the truth.
Also for a judge to decide before the trial begins that the accused was innocent (as you claimed happened) would have been a valid reason for removing the judge - - but saying during the trial that the man was no dictator is no reason whatsoever. Saddam was never charged with "being a dictator" so the remark, even if made, would not have justified yanking the judge. Besides which, depending on context, the remark could have meant any one of several things.
-
<< . . . the hanging of Saddam Hussein on December 30, 2006
after a careful, lengthy trial carried out under extremely difficult circumstances according to
internationally recognized judicial norms.>>
ROTFLMFAO. What "internationally known judicial norm" permits the government to yank a judge off the bench in the middle of a capital trial and replace him with someone less sympathetic to the accused because they don't like something he said? That trial was rigged from the very first day. Too bad you didn't read Juan Cole's article in Salon magazine about it, to which Knute was good enough to post the link.
-
Juan Cole is objective as Ted Rall.
Fact is the trial was run according to Iraqi law as ratified by the elected representatives of the people.
No one says the laws have to be perfect.
Most constitutions allow for them to be changed. Just as most constituitions allow for judicial review.
Saddam is gone.
Buh Bye
-
Juan Cole is objective as Ted Rall.
Fact is the trial was run according to Iraqi law as ratified by the elected representatives of the people.
No one says the laws have to be perfect.
Most constitutions allow for them to be changed. Just as most constituitions allow for judicial review.
Saddam is gone.
Buh Bye
Death & murder is the only proof fascists ever need whether it is Saddam, the Bushidiot or the warmongers agui.
-
<<Juan Cole is objective as Ted Rall.>>
Oh Jeeziz. A political commentator with a POV. Why listen to HIM?
<<Fact is the trial was run according to Iraqi law as ratified by the elected representatives of the people. >>
First of all, they aren't the elected representatives of anybody because the election was rigged by the Americans. No Ba'athists or Saddam loyalists were even permitted to run. But let that pass - - there is no law in any democratic country that I am aware of that permits the government to replace a judge in mid-trial because they don't like something he said. The Iraqi law does not permit that and so the trial was NOT run according to Iraqi law.
<<No one says the laws have to be perfect. >>
No one says they have to be ridiculously unfair and stacked agaisnt the accused, particularly in a capital case. As a matter of fact, the law in a capital case should be as close to perfect as laws can get, because a mistake can't be undone. In this case, yanking the judge in the midst of the trial for saying what the government didn't want to hear is a gross violation of the most basic and fundamental legal right a man can have, i.e. the right to a fair trial when his life's at stake.
<<Most constitutions allow for them to be changed. Just as most constituitions allow for judicial review. >>
That was the final proof of the farcical nature of the proceedings - - the appellate court seems to find no problem with the government replacing judges who seem to be too sympathetic to the accused. Indicating the whole system is a kangaroo court from the trial to the appeal level. They rubber-stamped a decision which even a first-year law student would instantly recognize as a travesty.
<<Saddam is gone. >>
So is the pretence that he was given a fair trial.
<<Buh Bye>. to Saddam AND to the US Government's and MSM fraudulent claims of a fair trial. In their dreams.
-
But let that pass - - there is no law in any democratic country that I am aware of that permits the government to replace a judge in mid-trial because they don't like something he said. The Iraqi law does not permit that and so the trial was NOT run according to Iraqi law.
Sure there is. Judges with even the slightest modicum of honor recuse themselves if their is even the appearance of conflict all the time. Don't know how the handle it in Canada but in America it happens frequently.
And Cole not only has a biased point of view but he has quite the reputation for playing fast and loose with the facts.
-
But let that pass - - there is no law in any democratic country that I am aware of that permits the government to replace a judge in mid-trial because they don't like something he said. The Iraqi law does not permit that and so the trial was NOT run according to Iraqi law.
Sure there is. Judges with even the slightest modicum of honor recuse themselves if their is even the appearance of conflict all the time. Don't know how the handle it in Canada but in America it happens frequently.
And Cole not only has a biased point of view but he has quite the reputation for playing fast and loose with the facts.
Professor Cole has been correct on just about everything he has said while y'all were always wrong. The "facts" you were looking at were lies and nearly everyone but you know that now.
-
There is one single exception - the hanging of Saddam Hussein on December 30, 2006
after a careful, lengthy trial carried out under extremely difficult circumstances according to
internationally recognized judicial norms. The state of Iraq has succeeded where the rest of the civilized world has failed. It is a singular achievement, and it will stand.
Interesting that what he was convicted for was the murder of 148 Shias after an assassination attempt. Somehow, the 5000 Kurds he allegedly gassed never made it into the court, although to hear the war-bots tell it, that particular occurrence was a demonstrable and incontestable fact.
Now, what makes this interesting is that, at least in the US, when a prosecuter charges, say, a serial killer, he's generally going to try and pin every last body that turns up on the defendant.
In this case, the crime of which Saddam was actually charged and convicted, compared with the allegations used to justify the invasion of Iraq, was a relative footnote. And considering there were plenty of reservations concerning the legitimacy and competence of the court in which he was tried in many quarters, you would have thought more effort would have been expended to demonstrate Saddam was every bit the monster he was claimed to be. But no, he was tried on the minimum charge he could be hanged for, and then hung as quickly as possible.
Why the rush? Obviously, he wasn't going anywhere, and you would think the Bush administration would have an interest in substantiating every last possible allegation used to justify the invasion. You would think that Saddam would have been more valuable to the authorities alive than dead.
Could it be that, possibly, if Saddam had lived, he might have been able to successfully contest some of those allegations if tried for them?
-
The fact is that Saddam was NOT executed for the one crime that everyone mentioned: gassing fellow Iraqi men, women and children.
I suppose that the prosecution chose cases that were more provable, and perhaps more politically useful.
It wasn't like he was innocent. He was guilty as Hell of all sorts of dastardly acts.
I recall Nixon was also guilty of slightly less dastardly acts, be he got a pardon 'for the good of the nation.'
-
The fact is that Saddam was NOT executed for the one crime that everyone mentioned: gassing fellow Iraqi men, women and children.
I suppose that the prosecution chose cases that were more provable, and perhaps more politically useful.
It wasn't like he was innocent. He was guilty as Hell of all sorts of dastardly acts.
I recall Nixon was also guilty of slightly less dastardly acts, be he got a pardon 'for the good of the nation.'
Well, that's my point. Saddam was no angel, to be sure. But I find it curious that some of the most damning allegations against him were never contested in a court of law. And I find it hard to believe that if he did indeed gas 5000 Kurds that there wouldn't be sufficient evidence to convict him.
I'm starting to smell a rat - when push comes to shove, it turns out that few of the allegations against the major players in the post-9/11 psychodrama are ever substantiated.
On the basis of the publicly available evidence, what do you think the chances are that a prosecuter could obtain a conviction against Osama bin Laden in connection with the WTC attack?
I don't think he could. Which may go a long way in explaining why bin Laden has never been captured.
-
On the basis of the publicly available evidence, what do you think the chances are that a prosecuter could obtain a conviction against Osama bin Laden in connection with the WTC attack?
You don't think a filmed confession is enough?
-
On the basis of the publicly available evidence, what do you think the chances are that a prosecuter could obtain a conviction against Osama bin Laden in connection with the WTC attack?
You don't think a filmed confession is enough?
First off, it's not clear that his statement was actually a confession. His statements on the matter were pretty ambiguous, depending on what version of the translation you hear.
Second, even if he did, ask any cop how many false confessions the police get to major crimes every day. Keep in mind, in some parts of the world, the WTC attacks aren't considered a crime, but an act of heroism. He'd have some incentive for claiming credit, even if he wasn't involved.
Cases with filmed confessions are thrown out of court every day. No, I don't think it's enough.
-
<<Sure there is. Judges with even the slightest modicum of honor recuse themselves if their is even the appearance of conflict all the time. Don't know how the handle it in Canada but in America it happens frequently. >>
Gee, THAT'S a revelation. Problem for you is, nobody has alleged conflict of interest was the reason for yanking the judge. And nobody has shown any conflict of interest either. That's because in FACT there was no conflict of interest.
<<And Cole not only has a biased point of view but he has quite the reputation for playing fast and loose with the facts. >>
A reputation that I was totally unaware of until now, which should have made it all the easier for you to skim through his short little article and tell us about all the facts that he played fast and loose with. But that would be silly, wouldn't it, when you can just smear the guy as a liar, saving yourself the trouble of even acknowledging what he has to say, let alone disproving it.
Know what I think? I think Cole tells the truth, to which his crypto-fascist enemies have no answers, so in their usual state of desperation and intellectual bankruptcy, they rev up the old smear machine one more time.
-
<<Well, that's my point. Saddam was no angel, to be sure. But I find it curious that some of the most damning allegations against him were never contested in a court of law. And I find it hard to believe that if he did indeed gas 5000 Kurds that there wouldn't be sufficient evidence to convict him.>>
Never mind the embarrassing questions of where he got the gas or its ingredients from in the first place.
-
Gee, THAT'S a revelation. Problem for you is, nobody has alleged conflict of interest was the reason for yanking the judge. And nobody has shown any conflict of interest either. That's because in FACT there was no conflict of interest.
<sarcasm>
Yes, because we all know that it's normal courtroom procedure for the judge to ask the defendant's permission to talk. Why, that's the way it is in Canada, I'm sure. The judges there all defer to the defendants, and ask permission to talk. They also allow defendants to make threats against the witnesses in open court, as well. We all know that is the standard of fairness in Canada and the rest of the civilized world.
</sarcasm>
Also, I think you forgot to mention that the removed judge was one of a panel of five. You're apparently trying to make it look like the only judge overseeing the trial was removed and replaced.
-
<sarcasm>
Yes, because we all know that it's normal courtroom procedure for the judge to ask the defendant's permission to talk. Why, that's the way it is in Canada, I'm sure. The judges there all defer to the defendants, and ask permission to talk. They also allow defendants to make threats against the witnesses in open court, as well. We all know that is the standard of fairness in Canada and the rest of the civilized world.
</sarcasm>
Also, I think you forgot to mention that the removed judge was one of a panel of five. You're apparently trying to make it look like the only judge overseeing the trial was removed and replaced.
WHAT?? Tee manipulate & egregiously distort the facts to paint an emotional picture of his made-up predisposition?? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :D
-
<<Yes, because we all know that it's normal courtroom procedure for the judge to ask the defendant's permission to talk. Why, that's the way it is in Canada, I'm sure. The judges there all defer to the defendants, and ask permission to talk. >>
You have a source that says that was the reason for removing the judge?
Even assuming that was the reason for the judge's removal (which it probably wasn't) it would be a pathetic excuse. Not,it wouldn't be normal conduct, but neitner was the trial a normal trial. The accused was the former leader of the nation and was entitled to a certain measure of deference and respect from the bench. Too much deference in itself would not have led to an unfair trial result, it just might have been one judge's way of avoiding arguments with Saddam based on his egotistical demands. This could have been dealt with either on appeal or by a motion for recusal brought at trial or by a motion for mistrial. For the government to simply yank the guy in the midst of the trial is a clear-cut signal that the government is calling the shots and wants a conviction and a death penalty.
<<They also allow defendants to make threats against the witnesses in open court, as well. We all know that is the standard of fairness in Canada and the rest of the civilized world.>>
Allow my ass. There were four other judges sitting, none of whom could have stopped Saddam's threats. How the threats are dealt with is an individual judge's prerogative. It's up to an independent judiciary to assess the threat and determine how best to deal with it in the circumstances.
Spin this any way you like, at the end of the day you are stuck with an indefensible travesty of a trial and conviction, a government-ordered killing having no relationship whatsoever to the rule of law.
-
<<WHAT?? Tee manipulate & egregiously distort the facts to paint an emotional picture of his made-up predisposition?? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa >>
Only a moron who failed to realize in the first place that there was a panel of judges trying the case would consider it manipulative not to mention the other judges. It's akin to a jury-tampering case where the discussion "manipulates the truth" by failing to point out that there were eleven other jurors.
-
Only a moron who failed to realize in the first place that there was a panel of judges trying the case would consider it manipulative not to mention the other judges. It's akin to a jury-tampering case where the discussion "manipulates the truth" by failing to point out that there were eleven other jurors.
At least you've got yourself fooled, Tee
-
Spin this any way you like, at the end of the day you are stuck with an indefensible travesty of a trial and conviction, a government-ordered killing having no relationship whatsoever to the rule of law.
At the end of the day Saddam is dead, at the hands of the elected Iraqi government.
End of story.
-
You have a source that says that was the reason for removing the judge?
ROFL. Funny. Asking for a source. What is the response that I always get from you? Something like "if you think I'm wrong, prove it?"
Anyway, articles from "The Guardian" and "BBC News" among others. These and other things were protested by the prosecution on numerous occasions.
Allow my ass. There were four other judges sitting, none of whom could have stopped Saddam's threats. How the threats are dealt with is an individual judge's prerogative. It's up to an independent judiciary to assess the threat and determine how best to deal with it in the circumstances.
What was egregious was that the judge in question refused to allow any censure for the threats made by Saddam and his defense team. Since he was the head judge on the panel, he was able to overrule the other judges.
Some articles, BTW:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1872378,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1872378,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5341234.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5341234.stm)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14888291/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14888291/)
And there are many more.
-
<<At the end of the day Saddam is dead,>>
OK, you got THAT right.
<< at the hands of the elected Iraqi government. >>
"elected" my ass
<<End of story.>>
yeah right. Like "Mission Accomplished."
Hey don't feel bad, BT. One out of three ain't bad. For YOU guys.
-
Fact is the Iraqi government was elected. You not liking the results doesn't mean much.
-
Much ado about nothing, fellas, in my view. In addition to an actual witnessing, assuming perceptions to be true and properly processed, there are a number of different "truths" that can be brought to bear in a situation like Saddam's. I refer to the following, among others, all with their formal and informal "standards of proof," and variously applicable depending upon the event, the circumstances, the people involved, and so forth: thus, there is "journalistic truth," there is "historical truth," there is "truth derived from intelligence," there is "reputation and word of mouth," there is "political truth," and there is "formal legal proof." To set context, on both sides in Iraq hundreds of thousands, perhaps, have met their death by actions set in motion by much less cause than any of these. Saddam's capture and execution plays out against that backdrop, one which his brutality helped paint.
What is "fair" under the circumstances, to me, an experienced and well-respected defense lawyer, was met in Saddam's case on the information available to me. Every criminal trial approximates reality; it does not and cannot reproduce it. Here, based on voluminous evidence as I see it, Saddam was guilty of the Dujail killings beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not to mention the other atrocities, such as the attempted genocide of Iraqi Kurds and the slaughter of southern Iraqi dissidents after the first Gulf War, not to mention the Iran-Iraq War and the incidental brutalities of a vicious government's method of keeping control. As to Dujail, at least formally -- and I ask, with the widespread "publicity" given Saddam's regime, could he really be tried "fairly" in Iraq by Iraqis not of his deposed party? -- Saddam got the ceremony and the procedure due him, in a trial, in all frankness, that was foreordained as to outcome. The "facts" that did him in, proven according to legal rules and their recognized exceptions, paint a convincing picture of th evil with which he was charged. To be sure, there were flaws in the trial, but none significant to overcome the overwhelming "truth" I have just identified: Saddam was guilty of these charges according to the "legal proof" standard." And this is not to mention that he had been and will be judged on a larger stage as a longtime leader of a nation who committed horrible wrongs in the name of not so much as his personal ambition. All the "ancillary indices" of guilt -- the reliable intelligence reports, the journalistic accounts, the historical evidence, and so on -- painted the man as a monster.
Under the circumstances he was tried -- recall Nuremberg and its "fairness" -- leaving aside heady legal issues such as sovereignty and illegal foreign occupation, which were considered and rejected, Saddam got as fair a trial as the lot of man could allow, judged by all the indices of truth I have listed and any others that come to mind. In saying this, I assert that -- without condoning the sequence of charging nor the timing of the trial and execution, as well as what use his life could have been put to perhaps placating the Baathists -- Saddam had to be tried in Iraq for political/historical reasons that far outstripped any claim that he should have been sent to the Hague, or elsewhere. With ceremony and proof in hand, the Iraqis were enabled to express their judgment of this political, historical figure in a way that future generations may decry as to the wisdom of its incidentals but not as to the fate of its subject.
-
<<ROFL. Funny. Asking for a source. What is the response that I always get from you? Something like "if you think I'm wrong, prove it?">.
More often than not I've given a source when challenged. When I did refuse to provide a source, it was either because I had done so in previous postings or because I felt that it was in relation to some more or less universally accepted or commonly known fact.
In any event, thank you for the Guardian leads. I read the articles, from which I conclude:
The threats to the witnesses, as per the Guardian's reporters, were generalized hyperbolic threats to "crush the heads" of Saddam's accusers. Since the "accusers" could mean anything from the witnesses to the government to the prosecutors, and since "crushing the heads" is an obviously rhetorical device, the judge may well have decided that a lengthy wrangle with Saddam would not have led anywhere productive, especially since it was already obvious to all concerned that the witnesses, with or without Saddam's threats, were already in mortal danger simply from the fact that they were testifying against him in court. However, if the witness sees that even the court supposedly trying this guy is afraid to stop his threats, he may stop believing that he won't be killed for testifying, and may decide to moderate his evidence.
As to the judge's remark, "You were not a dictator, other people made you [look like] a dictator, this was in response to Saddam's rhetorical question, if he really were a dictator, why would a prosecution witness have confronted him over the disappearances of his family members, as he (the witness) claimed to have done? Since Saddam was not charged with being a dictator, this remark is of relatively low significance. Not being a dictator doesn't equate to not being guilty of the crimes charged, otherwise any accused criminal could simply prove that he wasn't a dictator and voila - - he'd be found innocent. Doesn't work that way. Still, I look on this as a human comfort effort - - same as if a woman is on trial for murder, a prosecution witness mentions how nobody liked "that stupid bitch," and the accused is obviously shaken by the comment. If a judge were to say, "I don't think anyone would consider Ms. Jones a stupid woman, in fact, she's quite an intelligent woman," I don't think it indicates either that the accused is not guilty, in his mind, of murder, or even that he's biased in her favour.
It seems to me like the government was grasping at straws to cover their tracks in doing everything possible to ensure that Saddam would be tried by judges resolved to convict. However, it wasn't right to allow Saddam to threaten witnesses in open court. The reports don't indicate how vigorously the prosecution tried to stop the threats, which would have indicated how seriously they took them and how egregious the judge's misconduct actually was. So we don't really know what the situation was. But the proper way to resolve it would have been a mistrial or a prosecutor's appeal. It seems pretty clear to me from the above that the reason for replacing this judge was purely political, to ensure the conviction that the new government needed in order to put Saddam to death for political reasons.
I note also from the same sources that you referred me to that the trial was condemned by numerous human-rights groups including AI:
<<It has not only been Saddam's lawyers who have been complaining about the lack of a fair trial. A number of international organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and UN bodies, including the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, have all said that the Special Tribunal is failing to meet international standards. Perhaps most embarrassing of all has been the decision by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, not to support the proceedings, expressing his own concerns over their fairness.
-
I am glad that something resembleing a fair trial was held , even though lawyers and judges were operateing under death threat on both sides.
The trial had a wild west flavor, not quite as bad as Judge Roy Bean, but in the same vein.
I don't know how much better could have been done if Saddam Hussein had wanted his trial to be held at the Hauge he should hyave hied himself to that jurisdiction and surrendered to it when he could have.
-
Religious Dick,
The reason I've heard for not including the gassing of the Kurds in his list of charges... I thought I heard that we did not want this brought up because it would have brought up The Chummy Years.
When he obtained the material with which to gas them, I think. And he would no doubt have mentioned this.
It doesn't make him right to do it but it looks very bad for us, supplying an evil dictator with provisions he later uses on his own people.
So he's dead, he had a trial, he hurt and killed a lot of innocents. Now we move on.
-
Now, what makes this interesting is that, at least in the US, when a prosecuter charges, say, a serial killer, he's generally going to try and pin every last body that turns up on the defendant.
Not true. In the Atlanta Child Murders Cases they prosecuted Wayne Williams with only three out of 20+ of the murders even though they had strong evidense to tie him to many many more than that.
I understand your concerns when folks are tried for lesser crimes. Scooter Libby probably agrees.
I can't wiat for Lanya to start her Free Scooter campaign.
-
<<I can't wiat for Lanya to start her Free Scooter campaign. >>
That's funny. I couldn't wait for you to start your "Saddam Smoking Gun" campaign. Where's the evidence that Saddam killed a single one of his victims? Why should the actions of a few "bad apple" killers taint the whole Iraq army and its leaders? Where is the signed order to kill with Saddam's signature?
-
http://www.bushflash.com/swf/thanks.swf
-
Where's the evidence that Saddam killed a single one of his victims? Why should the actions of a few "bad apple" killers taint the whole Iraq army and its leaders? Where is the signed order to kill with Saddam's signature?
That is what the trial was for. didn't he have Ramsey Clark as an attorney?
-
http://www.bushflash.com/swf/thanks.swf
So he was trained by kennedy and installed into office by Carter. Sounds like a dem creation to me. Way to go.
-
http://www.bushflash.com/swf/thanks.swf
So he was trained by kennedy and installed into office by Carter. Sounds like a dem creation to me. Way to go.
You guys are amazing. You can find the the most inconsequential item in a mound of information to make a federal case out of nothing. Sort of like impeaching a duly elected Pres for a blow job.
-
Just observations from Lanya's Flash movie.
Shouldn't bother you, should it?
-
Just observations from Lanya's Flash movie.
Shouldn't bother you, should it?
It doesnt bother me. I just like to expose your silly tricks.
-
<<That is what the trial was for. [to produce evidence of Saddam's personal culpability] didn't he have Ramsey Clark as an attorney?>>
He had lots of trial attorneys, quite a few of them no longer amongst the living, it seems. But would you mind answering the question?
-
But would you mind answering the question?
Sorry, i had other pressing duties and left that with the prosecutors. I'm sure you can find a copy of the transcript somewhere.
-
Religious Dick,
The reason I've heard for not including the gassing of the Kurds in his list of charges... I thought I heard that we did not want this brought up because it would have brought up The Chummy Years.
When he obtained the material with which to gas them, I think. And he would no doubt have mentioned this.
It doesn't make him right to do it but it looks very bad for us, supplying an evil dictator with provisions he later uses on his own people.
So he's dead, he had a trial, he hurt and killed a lot of innocents. Now we move on.
There's that too, I suppose. But something tells me when the smoke has cleared, the facts are known, and the history is written, the reality of the situation is going to be shown to be at odds with the current official version. Too much doesn't add up.
-
Now, what makes this interesting is that, at least in the US, when a prosecuter charges, say, a serial killer, he's generally going to try and pin every last body that turns up on the defendant.
Not true. In the Atlanta Child Murders Cases they prosecuted Wayne Williams with only three out of 20+ of the murders even though they had strong evidense to tie him to many many more than that.
Yes true. Leaving aside that this is largely extraneous to the point, Williams was the exception, not the rule.
John Wayne Gacy - charged and convicted of 33 murders, although only 28 bodies were actually recovered.
Ted Bundy was tried no less than 3 times in different jurisdictions, receiving a total of 3 different death sentences.
Jeffrey Dahmer - 17 bodies, 17 (reduced to 15) charges, 15 convictions.
Lots of info on serial killers on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_serial_killers)
-
Williams didn't do all the murders anyway. Some of the parents were suspects trying to cash in on the various funds being set up.
-
Where's the evidence that Saddam killed a single one of his victims?
Didn't Saddam have a biography and a biographical movie?
I think he is confessed to being an assassin in his earlyer career , before he studyed law.
Wouldn't his approval of this biographical information be construed as confession?
And of course we have him on film personally purgeing his party .
-
Saddam's hanging was necessary for BushCo. Too much time in front of cameras and starting to seem as theistic as Bush himself. Getting under BushCo's skin by not ranting enough from stand.
Given time, Saddam would have started spouting facts regarding Bush family, Ronald Reagan, Rumsfeld, etc. Death only way to shut him up before shit hit fan.
My opinion? Keep Saddam alive and allow any number of scientists to plumb the depths of his mind and question every one of his motives. Immediate death serves no purpose other than silence. Studying him would have helped stave off future Saddams. Killing him off only insures that we see more like him.
-
<<Where's the evidence that Saddam killed a single one of his victims?
<<Didn't Saddam have a biography and a biographical movie?
<<I think he is confessed to being an assassin in his earlyer career , before he studyed law.>>
I'm not sure that he "confessed" to successfully assassinating anyone, and even if he did, it could have been empty bragging, not under oath and never tested in court. He wasn't charged with it and he wasn't convicted of it. In BT's theory, this would mean he didn't do it - - no smoking gun.
<<Wouldn't his approval of this biographical information be construed as confession?>>
No. See above.
<<And of course we have him on film personally purgeing his party .>>
What you have on film is his public accusation of treason and their arrests. Period. No killing, not even a slap in the face. Again, no smoking gun. And again, he wasn't charged or convicted of their deaths either.
But of course, I'm just having a little fun with the BT smoking gun theory of guilt - - we all know that it applies only to AMERICANS like your "President" who have obviously committed atrocities or had command responsibility for them. It was never intended to exonerate Arabs or anyone else. Certainly not to Saddam Hussein. He's an ARAB, for chrissake.
-
<<There's that too, I suppose. [gassing "his own" people] But something tells me when the smoke has cleared, the facts are known, and the history is written, the reality of the situation is going to be shown to be at odds with the current official version. Too much doesn't add up.>>
Probably. Saddam always claimed it was the Iranians. Fuckin Persians.
The U.S. has spread so much lies and bullshit over the region that their credibility there is zilch.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6224531.stm
The manner could have been better.
-
<<The manner could have been better.>>
He got what he deserved. No thanks to Iraqi "justice," which was openly demonstrated to be a fraud and a farce. It was a revenge killing pure and simple but it couldn't have happened to a more deserving candidate.
I have to say, though, that he died like a man, which is more than I would expect of that strutting ass Bush if (please God!) he were ever called before an international court to account for his crimes.
-
He got what he deserved, yes. But his manner of death is encouraging Sunnis to rise up, or so I read and hear on TV.
This is not good. We have many troops there, and I want them to get out safely.
-
<<We have many troops there, and I want them to get out safely.>>
They can get out safely any time their commander in chief gives the order. Whlle they're in Iraq they are killing, raping and/or torturing practically every single day and to tell you the truth I am a lot more concerned for the lives of the citizens of Iraq who have done nothing to deserve these atrocities than I am for the lives of the perpetrators.
-
Williams didn't do all the murders anyway. Some of the parents were suspects trying to cash in on the various funds being set up.
-------------------------------
Whoa, what? Back that truck up. You're a native of that area so you know, but I'm not. 'Some of the parents were suspects trying to cash in on the various funds being set up.' ?? I'm not liking what this sounds like.
-
"Whlle they're in Iraq they are killing, raping and/or torturing practically every single day..."
Callumny.
You do not have any indication that any such crime happens on a day to day basis , nor do you have any reason to think that such crimes happen more often per man day for this occupation than for any other?
When simular charges were leveled at the British after the "Boston Massicre" there was a remarkable trial. But do you suppose that many another crime was covered up?
-
"Whlle they're in Iraq they are killing, raping and/or torturing practically every single day..."
Callumny. You do not have any indication that any such crime happens on a day to day basis , nor do you have any reason to think that such crimes happen more often per man day for this occupation than for any other?
Actually Plane, the lack of such acts proves such acts. That's how it works, according to Tee. All he has to do to respond is spout "Abu Graib", "Gitmo", "Someplace in Vietnam". Just spouting those places/events is supposed to validate the accusation. In Tee's realm of the universe, that is
-
I'm concerned with the troops there AND for the people of Iraq. I know it is a monstrous war and horrible things have been done to people there. I also know people who have been there to fight, and are being sent back, and they are good people. This is a war that should never have been started.
-
....This is a war that should never have been started.
Well, that's 1 opinion. A significant amount of current events & logic would say otherwise however
-
The purpose of killing a lot of innocent bystanders in Iraq is to make an Impression on Americans .
The purpose of killing Americans is the same , but the Americans take more work to kill , so killing a market full or a Mosque full of unarmed people is worth doing.
Should the world belong to the most ruthless?
-
Should the world belong to the most ruthless?
Clearly, Bush and his supporters think so else why support torture and illegal invasion?
-
Should the world belong to the most ruthless?
===================================
I am going out on a limb here and say that the Iraqi part of the world should belong to Iraqis, and Iraqis should be the only ones to determine which Iraqis.
The US Army wasn't invited to decide whether some Ireaqis are too ruthless or not ruthless enough.
It is none of any Americans' goddamn business who the Hell runs Iraq.
-
Unfortunately, XO, your cry is just as simplistic and unrealistic as victory proponents'.
-
<<You do not have any indication that any such crime happens on a day to day basis , nor do you have any reason to think that such crimes happen more often per man day for this occupation than for any other?>>
Common sense. When you have 140,000 loser punks with guns and a don't-give-a-shit commander in chief you're gonna have a whole lot of senseless violence, as much of it as possible covered up and only once in a while rising to public view. The rape of that teenage girl and the murder of her family would never have seen the light of day had not the Iraqi Resistance seen fit to take revenge on other members of the platoon, causing the weakest link to crack and tell the story. Common sense tells you that most of these apes get away with what they do.
I'm not saying that every one of them spends every day of his tour raping and killing and torturing, but there's gotta be plenty more where that came from and nobody except the victims and their families will ever know.
Calumnny my ass.
-
<<Just spouting those places/events is supposed to validate the accusation. In Tee's realm of the universe, that is>>
Whereas in sirs' world, to "spout" the name of Abu Ghraib is to prove that nothing ever happened there. Sirs could watch a guy being dismantled by a chainsaw and deny the whole thing ever happened, as long as the guys holding the chainsaw were American troops.
-
<<Just spouting those places/events is supposed to validate the accusation. In Tee's realm of the universe, that is>>
Whereas in sirs' world, to "spout" the name of Abu Ghraib is to prove that nothing ever happened there. Sirs could watch a guy being dismantled by a chainsaw and deny the whole thing ever happened, as long as the guys holding the chainsaw were American troops.
Never said such or even implied. Though I realize how likely impossible this is, please try to keep it honest, Tee
-
<<The purpose of killing a lot of innocent bystanders in Iraq is to make an Impression on Americans.>>
Wrong, it's to incite a civil war.
<<The purpose of killing Americans is the same , but the Americans take more work to kill , so killing a market full or a Mosque full of unarmed people is worth doing.>>
Wrong again, it's to drive an invading army out. If Muslims invaded the USA and American resistance fighters killed Muslim occupiers, would that be "to make an impression" also?
<<Should the world belong to the most ruthless?>>
Ask your war-criminal "President" and his war-criminal cabinet members - - they sure think so.
-
<<Never said such or even implied. Though I realize how likely impossible this is, please try to keep it honest, Tee>>
Right, sirs. As honest as "just spouting those places/events is supposed to validate the accusation?" Or "the lack of such acts proves such acts?" Sure, sirs. Whatever you say.
-
Unfortunately, XO, your cry is just as simplistic and unrealistic as victory proponents'.
======================================================
Simplistic? Unrealistic?
Why, pray tell, oh Great Doméd one?
I suppose you are going to tell me that a Shiite Iraq would murder innocent people in Omaha in their beds.
And I don't think there is one shred of evidence that this is the case.
Iraqis should decide who and how Iraq is run, period.
And I should not have pay taxes so the Marines or the Army should decide because Dick Stupid Cheney thinks I should.
-
<<Never said such or even implied. Though I realize how likely impossible this is, please try to keep it honest, Tee>>
Right, sirs. As honest as "just spouting those places/events is supposed to validate the accusation?" Or "the lack of such acts proves such acts?"
No, because I could likely reference several scenarios where you frequently would use the lack of evidence as evidence tact. Demonstrating how Good the Government is in covering up their nefarious acts. and when called on to demonstrate the supposed widespread abuses by the military, we keep getting "Abu Graib". So, despite your effort, your tact was egregiously dishonest, where as I could point to examples of precisely what I was referencing.
And your problem is, everyone else with a rational mind knows it as well. You again are only fooling yourself, (and knute), with the asanine idea that I've implied nothing bad has ever taken place with the military or that the military can supposedly do no wrong
-
I must chime in and condemn Tee for his blood libel against American troops, whom I exalt. As with any population, you will have failures-by-the-services'-own-standards, but they are exceptional, aberrant. Michael begs the question of the wisdom of having a miliatary at all, holed up in his comfortable, Canadian enclave playing avenging angel to the "bad guys" of the world, but all the while eschewing any responsibility for world governance. Michael's outrage rings hollow because it is not accompanied by any sense of reality more complex than a conflict-free nirvana, which he inveighs for but doesn't in any sense lead us to. Right now, brave men and women -- ON THE HEELS OF A COLOSSAL MISTAKE -- are trying to make a situation run awry turn out as best as it can given the realities. Properly conceived and realistically perceived, there is great honor and dignity in what they do.
-
<<No, because I could likely reference several scenarios where you frequently would use the lack of evidence as evidence tact.>>
Sorry, never happened. What you're missing is that I can explain the dearth (scarcity) of evidence by postulating a cover-up, but that proof of the existence of the undisclosed crimes ALWAYS rests on some evidence other than the bare fact of no evidence. In other words, upon circumstantial evidence, connecting the dots, etc. Common sense and simple knowledge of how the world works, which for some reason you seem to have no inkling of.
-
<<No, because I could likely reference several scenarios where you frequently would use the lack of evidence as evidence tact.>>
Sorry, never happened. What you're missing is that I can explain the dearth (scarcity) of evidence by postulating a cover-up, but that proof of the existence of the undisclosed crimes ALWAYS rests on some evidence other than the bare fact of no evidence. In other words, upon circumstantial evidence, connecting the dots, etc. Common sense and simple knowledge of how the world works, which for some reason you seem to have no inkling of.
Sorry in return, as it's been implied numerous times by you. Every time someone tries to get you to validate the moronic accusations of how sinister Bush is, how he's condoned and advocated mass torture, how they've (Bush Co) manipulated and placed in power precisely who THEY wanted in power, etc., etc., gets met with mass references of non-existant dots and just proving how well it's all kept "covered up". Common sense, and more so, current reality and facts to the contrary, blows your predisopsition of "how the world works" and just how evil Bush and our American military is, out of the water. Whatever world you live in, please no invitations
Now, show us where I ever even implied (much less said) how our military could "do no wrong". Reference how I supposedly claimed nothing bad ever happened at Abu Graib. Go for it
-
<<I . . . condemn Tee for his blood libel against American troops, whom I exalt. >>
Well, there's your problem right there. It's as unreasonable to exalt them as to condemn the whole God-damn bunch of them.
<<As with any population, you will have failures-by-the-services'-own-standards, but they are exceptional, aberrant.>>
Plenty of Germans made the exact same argument.
<< Michael begs the question of the wisdom of having a miliatary at all . . . >>
That's total bullshit. I've regretted the necessity but never questioned the wisdom. As I've said more than once in this group, we need a military like a junk-yard needs a Rottweiler, but there's no need to exalt the Rottweiler. A vicious animal is just that, a vicious animal - - certainly nothing to hold up as a role model. It's a tragedy indeed that in this fucked-up world, we need a whole class of muscle-bound morons whose one overriding talent lies in maiming and killing their fellow human beings, but need them we do. It's just like the Rottweiler though - - the owner has to realize it's not his best buddy and he'd better keep in mind who's the boss. Because they can turn.
<< . . . holed up in his comfortable, Canadian enclave >>
comfortable because we don't fuck with other people and other people don't fuck with us. You should try it sometime. Try stopping the exploitation, the imperialism, the fascism, the racism and start treating other people like what they actually are - - human beings with their own aspirations and dreams. Or don't. Keep on fucking with them and watch your GDP being frittered away on "homeland security" and "Iraqi democracy" while your competitors in Europe, Brazil and Asia run rings around you and ultimately reduce you to the third-world status you seem to be so bent on achieving.
<<playing avenging angel to the "bad guys" of the world, but all the while eschewing any responsibility for world governance. >>
Take up the white man's burden, send forth the best ye breed? When it finally penetrates the American psyche that the people of the Third World do not appreciate your assumption of responsibility for world governance, maybe you'll be able to look after some very pressing problems you have in your own backyard. Better people than you have gone down that road and it didn't end well for them either. Much better people.
<<Michael's outrage rings hollow because it is not accompanied by any sense of reality more complex than a conflict-free nirvana, which he inveighs for but doesn't in any sense lead us to. >>
Right, and just when and where did I "inveigh for" a "conflict-free nirvana?" You do sound like a defence lawyer right now, though. I can picture you defending some thug who just beat his wife to a bloody pulp, asking the judge, "What do you expect, your Honour, that my client should live in a conflict-free nirvana?" Sometimes, domer, a healthy dose of reality is in order, even if you don't get the opportunity to toss off such neat-sounding phrases.
<<Right now, brave men and women -- ON THE HEELS OF A COLOSSAL MISTAKE -- are trying to make a situation run awry turn out as best as it can given the realities. >>
They're thugs and killers, doing what thugs and killers do, i.e., killing, maiming and destroying a lot of property. Some of them are raping and torturing to while away the time. Open your fucking eyes.
<<Properly conceived and realistically perceived, there is great honor and dignity in what they do.>>
Yeah and my Rottweiler's a candidate for sainthood.
domer, hopefully one day you will realize that force should be the very last resort in international relations, and that that realization is NOT "inveighing for" a "conflict-free nirvana," it's pretty much the basic ideal of the United Nations, which your own Presidents Roosevelt and Truman invested so much work in.
-
<<Now, show us where I ever even implied (much less said) how our military could "do no wrong". Reference how I supposedly claimed nothing bad ever happened at Abu Graib. Go for it>>
When you show me first where I connect non-existent dots or claim that no evidence of X proves X.
-
<<Now, show us where I ever even implied (much less said) how our military could "do no wrong". Reference how I supposedly claimed nothing bad ever happened at Abu Graib. Go for it>>
When you show me first where I connect non-existent dots or claim that no evidence of X proves X.
Been there done that. Abu Graib --> supposed widespread mass military abuse & torture. Lack of evidence of Bush Administration supporting torture --> Demonstrates how well their policy for torture is covered up. Candidate US backed to lead Iraq gets throttled in the elections --> proves how current Prime Minister of Iraq was placed there by the U.S. I could go on, but the examples are a plenty
Ball in your court. Or can we all now concede for the rest of our readers how dishonest your accusation was the 1st go around 8)
-
<<Been there done that. ..>>
Wrong
<<Abu Graib --> supposed widespread mass military abuse & torture. >>
Wrong. Abu Ghraib + Guantanamo + rendition + Baghram Base + lack of prosecution of high-ranking officers + lack of serious penalties for troops + continuing cover-up (over 90% of Abu Ghraib photos and videos still withheld by Pentagon) + President's refusal to renounce torture + administration memos denouncing Geneva Conventions + torture in other military bases in Iraq, etc.)
<< Lack of evidence of Bush Administration supporting torture --> Demonstrates how well their policy for torture is covered up. >>
Wrong. There IS no lack of evidence that the Bush administration supports torture.
<<Candidate US backed to lead Iraq gets throttled in the elections --> proves how current Prime Minister of Iraq was placed there by the U.S. >>
Wrong. This proof that the current PM was put in place by the U.S. is that the legislature's first choice was unacceptable to the Bush administration and did not take office.
<< I could go on, but the examples are a plenty>>
Yeah, but they're all examples of you being wrong. Why don't you try to find some examples that prove you are right?
-
<<Abu Graib --> supposed widespread mass military abuse & torture. >>
Right. Abu Ghraib + Guantanamo + rendition + Baghram Base (again simply spouting places where isolated incidents have occured) + lack of prosecution of high-ranking officers (means squat if it wasn't prompted by said high-ranking officers) + lack of serious penalties for troops (meaning they didn't get the death penalty to Tee's shagrin) + continuing cover-up ( ;D see?) President's refusal to renounce torture (despite the fact that he has) + administration memos denouncing Geneva Conventions (as it pertains to enemy combants. Again, try to keep it honest) + torture in other military bases in Iraq, etc. (which again means squat if they're not under U.S conrol)
<< Lack of evidence of Bush Administration supporting torture --> Demonstrates how well their policy for torture is covered up. >>
Right. There IS no lack of evidence that the Bush administration supports torture. (With the convenient ommission of such evidence)
<<Candidate US backed to lead Iraq gets throttled in the elections --> proves how current Prime Minister of Iraq was placed there by the U.S. >>
Right. This proof that the current PM was put in place by the U.S. is that the legislature's first choice was unacceptable to the Bush administration and did not take office. (Look at what you're typing Tee. Again, not 1 SHRED of proof or evidence of any kind, just your concocted dots. Gads, you're making my point)
<< I could go on, but the examples are a plenty>>
Yeah, but they're all examples of you being wrong. Why don't you try to find some examples that prove you are right?
Been there done that. Thanks for the assistance, big guy
-
<<Right. Abu Ghraib + Guantanamo + rendition + Baghram Base (again simply spouting places where isolated incidents have occured) >>
Uh, they're not "isolated" if they're occurring all over the globe, are they?
<<+ lack of prosecution of high-ranking officers (means squat if it wasn't prompted by said high-ranking officers)>>
Uh, I guess "command responsibility" means nothing at all to you, does it?
<< + lack of serious penalties for troops (meaning they didn't get the death penalty to Tee's shagrin)>>
meaning they'll all be out of jail in the next couple of years
<< + continuing cover-up ( see?) >>
that referred to the 90% of the over 1100 Abu Ghraib photos and videos that the Pentagon is keeping to itself for the time being
<< President's refusal to renounce torture (despite the fact that he has)>>
No he hasn't - - he issued a "signing statement" that reserves unto himself the right to decide what is or is not torture
<< + administration memos denouncing Geneva Conventions (as it pertains to enemy combants. Again, try to keep it honest)>>
You're the wrong person to lecture me or anyone else on honesty. The denunciation was that the Geneva Conventions on treatment of captured enemies were "quaint and old-fashioned."
<< + torture in other military bases in Iraq, etc. (which again means squat if they're not under U.S conrol)>>
The reference was to other U.S. bases, my mistake - - should have made that clear, although I don't know how anyone could think that torture in non-U.S. bases or non-puppet bases could have implicated the U.S.
<<Right. There IS no lack of evidence that the Bush administration supports torture. (With the convenient ommission of such evidence)>>
ah, your A.D.D. must be acting up again; the evidence was in the immediately preceding paragraph.
<<Right. This proof that the current PM was put in place by the U.S. is that the legislature's first choice was unacceptable to the Bush administration and did not take office. (Look at what you're typing Tee. Again, not 1 SHRED of proof or evidence of any kind, just your concocted dots.>>
What, are you a total moron? The story was in every fucking newspaper, magazine and TV broadcast at the time. What's next, a demand for proof the the U.S. invaded Iraq and still has troops there?
<<Gads, you're making my point>>
That you're a total idiot who doesn't know jackshit about anything? It's not worth the effort, sirs.
-
<<Right. Abu Ghraib + Guantanamo + rendition + Baghram Base (again simply spouting places where isolated incidents have occured) >>
Uh, they're not "isolated" if they're occurring all over the globe, are they?
We're talking #'s involved, not geography Tee. I realize the dishonest attempt to blurr the 2, but most rationally minded folks aren't gonna get fooled
<<+ lack of prosecution of high-ranking officers (means squat if it wasn't prompted by said high-ranking officers)>>
Uh, I guess "command responsibility" means nothing at all to you, does it?
Hey, if those leaders gave any commands to torture, throw the book at them is my motto. Kinda debunks your command responsibility now, donit?
<< + lack of serious penalties for troops (meaning they didn't get the death penalty to Tee's shagrin)>>
meaning they'll all be out of jail in the next couple of years
We'll see, won't we.
that referred to the 90% of the over 1100 Abu Ghraib photos and videos that the Pentagon is keeping to itself for the time being
Again, if all it is is embarrasing to terrorists, I wouldn't show them either. Panties on someone's head isn't what I'd call "torture", but the PC crowd would go apesnot, along with radical muslims
he issued a "signing statement" that reserves unto himself the right to decide what is or is not torture
Again, when the left claims garbage like making someone listen to loud music, or keep them from having 8 hours blissful sleep is labeled as "torture" by the rabid left, Bush has every right to deem what is and isn't torture. That ironically in no way validates your claim that he refuses to renounce it. Only refuses to renounce anything and everything that folks like YOU would claim as torture.
You're the wrong person to lecture me or anyone else on honesty.
I'm not the only one who could. Just the current one
The denunciation was that the Geneva Conventions on treatment of captured enemies were "quaint and old-fashioned."
Full context, if you don't mind
The reference was to other U.S. bases, my mistake
Then show us. Show us the evidence of this widespread torture at U.S bases in Iraq, and being completely supported by Bush Co. Oh wait, lemme guess......more of that great cover-up ability. Those bastards
ah, your A.D.D. must be acting up again; the evidence (of Bush condoning torture) was in the immediately preceding paragraph.
Systematically debunked in the follow-up response
What, are you a total moron? The story was in every fucking newspaper, magazine and TV broadcast at the time. What's next, a demand for proof the the U.S. invaded Iraq and still has troops there?
No, just proof that has the U.S. supporting Malliki all along
That you're a total idiot who doesn't know jackshit about anything? It's not worth the effort, sirs.
Typical. when completely unarmed, respond with a barrage of insults. Again, I appreciate your contributions in helping to make my point
-
<<What, are you a total moron? The story [that Jaafari, the Iraqi first choice for Prime Minister, was rejected as unacceptable to the Americans] was in every fucking newspaper, magazine and TV broadcast at the time. What's next, a demand for proof the the U.S. invaded Iraq and still has troops there? >>
ahhhh shit. Looks like I owe sirs an apology. Fuck. The story isn't as black and white as I recalled it. According to some sources, Jaafari was unacceptable to a coalition of Kurds and Sunnis and Khalizdad, the U.S. ambassador, "helped" the Iraqis to pick the compromise candidate Maliki through his "superior negotiating skills." It may well be that the U.S. did dictate the choice but it's nowhere near as obvious as I thought it was. Sorry, sirs.
-
<<We're talking #'s involved, not geography Tee. I realize the dishonest attempt to blurr the 2, but most rationally minded folks aren't gonna get fooled>>
Seems like as soon as one of your points is blown up you claim you were talking about something else. Not that it would help you anyway because there is no sense in which the incidents of U.S. torture are "isolated" either geographically or numerically.
<<Hey, if those leaders gave any commands to torture, throw the book at them is my motto. Kinda debunks your command responsibility now, donit?>>
They were in command of the fucking torturers, weren't they? So either they authorized the torture or they had no clue what their own men were up to. Either way, their ass should be in a sling. UNLESS what happened was exactly what was supposed to happen.
<<We'll see, won't we. [if the handful of torturers so far convicted and sentenced are still locked up in another two years]>>
I think the length of the time served is rather apparent from the Mickey Mouse sentences handed out. Appeals, time off for good behaviour, pardons - - if it was the intention of anybody to really punish them, they'd be on Death Row or serving life terms. Didn't happen.
<<Again, if all it [the 90% of the 1100 Abu Ghraib photos and videos not released by the Pentagon] is is embarrasing to terrorists, I wouldn't show them either. Panties on someone's head isn't what I'd call "torture", but the PC crowd would go apesnot, along with radical muslims>>
Oh, I see. They are holding back the torture photos to avoid embarrassing the "terrorists." How very considerate of them.
<<I wouldn't show them either.>>
Oh, getting confused about which side you're on now? All the same, nice to see such concerns about embarrassing the terrorists. I wouldn't have thought you cared.
<<Panties on someone's head isn't what I'd call "torture",>>
No shit. Great attempt to deflect attention from the crimes of the American forces to the truly trivial. Not that you would ever deliberately do so, of course, for we all know how much you are opposed to torture and how much you want any real torturers to be punished. Just so you understand real torture, we are talking about beating people to death, we are talking about raping them up the ass with various electronic objects, we are talking about suffocating them, we are talking about "waterboarding" them (which Cheney apparently thinks is fine) and electroshocking them. Since you are so much against all of these practices, we are having a hard time figuring out why on numerous occasions in this group, you have attempted to minimize them by references to panties on the head, loud music, etc., which no serious opponent of torture has really objected to.
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
he issued a "signing statement" that reserves unto himself the right to decide what is or is not torture
<<Again, when the left claims garbage like making someone listen to loud music, or keep them from having 8 hours blissful sleep is labeled as "torture" by the rabid left, Bush has every right to deem what is and isn't torture. That ironically in no way validates your claim that he refuses to renounce it. Only refuses to renounce anything and everything that folks like YOU would claim as torture.>>
If that were true, Bush would exempt the loud music etc. and accept prohibitions against tortures such as waterboarding, siccing attack dogs on naked prisoners, etc. He has reserved unto himself the broadest and most unlimited power to torture, refusing to limit it in any way at all. Disproving your theory that he is only concerned with the most frivolous definitions of torture. Besides which, a little common sense is in order here - - why on earth would Bush WANT to preserve the right to put panties on a prisoner's head, or play loud music to him, if that's his only concern?
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
You're the wrong person to lecture me or anyone else on honesty.
<<I'm not the only one who could. Just the current one>>
You haven't made one allegation of dishonesty against me that could stick. On the other hand, your misrepresentations of my arguments are apparent in just about everything you post. That's why I say that you are the wrong person to lecture me or anyone else on honesty. I expect right-wing whackjobs like you to raise personal attacks on the honesty of their opponents when they run out of legitimate arguments, but most of the current members won't sink that low. I think right now you are the only one who could, and it doesn't bother me one bit.
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
The denunciation was that the Geneva Conventions on treatment of captured enemies were "quaint and old-fashioned."
<<Full context, if you don't mind>>
Sorry, if you're the one claiming I took it out of context, YOU have to provide the missing text that puts it IN context. Otherwise, I'd have to reproduce the whole fucking text.
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
The reference was to other U.S. bases, my mistake
<<Then show us. Show us the evidence of this widespread torture at U.S bases in Iraq, and being completely supported by Bush Co. Oh wait, lemme guess......more of that great cover-up ability. Those bastards>>
Not really. There were reports of torture at a desert base in Iraq and of course the "renditions" which were to various Eastern European countries, some Arab countries like Syria and Jordan, and the British naval base at Diego Garcia, among others. There is plenty of torture all over the world conducted by the U.S. government directly or indirectly, far too many sites to make this an "isolated" anything.
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
ah, your A.D.D. must be acting up again; the evidence (of Bush condoning torture) was in the immediately preceding paragraph.
<<Systematically debunked in the follow-up response>>
"systematically debunked" - - what's this another declare victory hit enter?
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
What, are you a total moron? The story was in every fucking newspaper, magazine and TV broadcast at the time. What's next, a demand for proof the the U.S. invaded Iraq and still has troops there?
<<No, just proof that has the U.S. supporting Malliki all along>>
My one possible mistake, which I already apologized for. Not because it's not true, only because it's not as well documented as I thought and because it MIGHT not be true.
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
That you're a total idiot who doesn't know jackshit about anything? It's not worth the effort, sirs.
<<Typical. when completely unarmed, respond with a barrage of insults. Again, I appreciate your contributions in helping to make my point >>
Barrage? THAT'S a barrage? Hey, thanks for helping ME make MY point.
-
They were in command of the fucking torturers, weren't they? So either they authorized the torture or they had no clue what their own men were up to. Either way, their ass should be in a sling. UNLESS what happened was exactly what was supposed to happen.
Complete and utter nonsense.
-
<<Complete and utter nonsense.>>
Made sense to me.
And there's another argument: these guys have a lot of leeway to wink at things and turn a blind eye. Unless they are held strictly accountable for war crimes, they will always be able to say they didn't know. Since they have much stricter powers of oversight and discipline, they are much better able to enforce compliance than a civilian counterpart would be.
So they should be held to a standard of being punished as if they knew. They probably knew anyway, very few people are that stupid and incompetent that they can't have their own eyes and ears everywhere - - trusted officers who keep an eye on every corner of their command. Especally a static command like a prison. There's no excuse for not knowing and in all probablity they knew.
-
(http://cagle.com/working/070102/lowe.gif)
-
<<Complete and utter nonsense.>>
Made sense to me.
Of course it did. You were the one who posted the complete and utter nonsense.
Using your logic, Cindy Sheehan killed her son, because she had so little control over his alledged free will that she let him enlist.
-
<<Using your logic, Cindy Sheehan killed her son, because she had so little control over his alledged free will that she let him enlist. >>
No, that's using YOUR logic. My logic says that Cindy Sheehan had none of the control over her son that a commanding officer has over his troops in a war zone, and none of the disciplinary and oversight powers. None of the resources that a commanding officer has.
She is just a poor mother attempting to influence a youthful, obviously very stupid, ignorant and headstrong son who lacks the brainpower to resist his government's lies and abuse of trust and ultimately becomes their cannon fodder. Very sad story. But nothing criminal there, unlike the commanders of torture chambers.
-
<<We're talking #'s involved, not geography Tee. I realize the dishonest attempt to blurr the 2, but most rationally minded folks aren't gonna get fooled>>
Seems like as soon as one of your points is blown up you claim you were talking about something else. Not that it would help you anyway because there is no sense in which the incidents of U.S. torture are "isolated" either geographically or numerically.
As I said. Your dishonest effort to blurr the 2 only is fooling you....and knute of course
They were in command of the fucking torturers, weren't they? So either they authorized the torture or they had no clue what their own men were up to. Either way, their ass should be in a sling. UNLESS what happened was exactly what was supposed to happen.
OR, people 5-7 layers up the chain of command have no frellin clue/idea/or grasp of what nimrods are doing 5-7 layers down the chain. And that those who actually COMMITTED THE CRIMES are the ones who are actually HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their crimes. Gads, what a concept
I think the length of the time served is rather apparent from the Mickey Mouse sentences handed out. Appeals, time off for good behaviour, pardons - - if it was the intention of anybody to really punish them, they'd be on Death Row or serving life terms. Didn't happen.
Sentences handed out for what crimes committed? Show us. Not YOUR version, but the official version. Then we can agree or not as to how harsh or not harsh the sentences were
Oh, I see. They are holding back the torture photos to avoid embarrassing the "terrorists." How very considerate of them.
Not what I said or even implied, but good effort at distortion
Oh, getting confused about which side you're on now? All the same, nice to see such concerns about embarrassing the terrorists. I wouldn't have thought you cared.
The side that minimizes both American & civilian casualties, during this war. Such a media spectacle, all in the effort to hurt Bush of course, simply will fuel the fire of muslim radicals, and those already predisposed to believing what the media want's them to believe about America. Such a broadcasting would most certainly result in a significant INCREASE in attacks against americans & innocent Iraqis. Obviously, you don't care
<<Panties on someone's head isn't what I'd call "torture",>>
Great attempt to deflect attention from the crimes of the American forces to the truly trivial. Not that you would ever deliberately do so, of course, for we all know how much you are opposed to torture and how much you want any real torturers to be punished. Just so you understand real torture, we are talking about beating people to death, we are talking about raping them up the ass with various electronic objects, we are talking about suffocating them, we are talking about "waterboarding" them (which Cheney apparently thinks is fine) and electroshocking them. Since you are so much against all of these practices, we are having a hard time figuring out why on numerous occasions in this group, you have attempted to minimize them by references to panties on the head, loud music, etc., which no serious opponent of torture has really objected to.
And here again Tee's tactic to a shrewd sharpness....accusing me and like minds, along with Bush assumingly as trvializing actual torture, actual acts of cruelty, simply becasue we haven't adopted his predispostion of what torture is. For the record, people beaten to death should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of a military tribunal if they're a soldier, and by our courts if they're a civilian. People raping anyone else should have the book thrown at them. I can't speak for Bush, but I'm confident he believes the same. Are you clued in yet, Tee?
<<Again, when the left claims garbage like making someone listen to loud music, or keep them from having 8 hours blissful sleep is labeled as "torture" by the rabid left, Bush has every right to deem what is and isn't torture. That ironically in no way validates your claim that he refuses to renounce it. Only refuses to renounce anything and everything that folks like YOU would claim as torture.>>
If that were true, Bush would exempt the loud music etc. and accept prohibitions against tortures such as waterboarding, siccing attack dogs on naked prisoners, etc. He has reserved unto himself the broadest and most unlimited power to torture, refusing to limit it in any way at all. Disproving your theory that he is only concerned with the most frivolous definitions of torture.
Waterboardering is borderline torture, since no one is either hurt or injured, much less killed. There are no marks made by it, no broken bones, no burning, no dismemberments, no cutting off of heads (oh wait, thall at is done.....by our enemy. And allowing attack dogs to bark visciously but not attack is NOT TORTURE, whether they're naked or not. He refuses to limit "torture" to anything YOU and like minds would deem such. which again still doesn't validate the asanine notion he condones any and all forms of torture. The problem is you and the more rationally minded folks have different definitions of what constitutes torture. Simple as that
Besides which, a little common sense is in order here - - why on earth would Bush WANT to preserve the right to put panties on a prisoner's head, or play loud music to him, if that's his only concern?
Tee, you wouldn't know common sense if it were a hive of African killer bees, who's nest you just kicked. It's not torture, which is what your rant tangentially was running off on
You haven't made one allegation of dishonesty against me that could stick.
See the reference to "fooling yourself & knute" reference for better insight on that one
On the other hand, your misrepresentations of my arguments are apparent in just about everything you post. That's why I say that you are the wrong person to lecture me or anyone else on honesty. I expect right-wing whackjobs like you to raise personal attacks on the honesty of their opponents when they run out of legitimate arguments, but most of the current members won't sink that low. I think right now you are the only one who could, and it doesn't bother me one bit.
Addressed in the last paragraph
<<Full context, if you don't mind>>
Sorry, if you're the one claiming I took it out of context, YOU have to provide the missing text that puts it IN context. Otherwise, I'd have to reproduce the whole fucking text.
No, just the text of the quote. Funny how you pull a quote out of context, then run for cover. Then again, I have to consider the source, and the tactics used.
There were reports of torture at a desert base in Iraq and of course the "renditions" which were to various Eastern European countries, some Arab countries like Syria and Jordan, and the British naval base at Diego Garcia, among others. There is plenty of torture all over the world conducted by the U.S. government directly or indirectly, far too many sites to make this an "isolated" anything.
Priceless.....more of precisely what I've been referencing....endless supply of accusations, nothing more than referencing "reports of torture" minus any proof or evidence. Just hearsay and accusatory innuendo, with the only "proof" that of isolated incidents at the locations you frequently like to post, and expect that to mean massive #'s involved vs who's actually involved.
The story was in every fucking newspaper, magazine and TV broadcast at the time. What's next, a demand for proof the the U.S. invaded Iraq and still has troops there?
<<No, just proof that has the U.S. supporting Malliki all along>>
My one possible mistake, which I already apologized for. Not because it's not true, only because it's not as well documented as I thought and because it MIGHT not be true.
LOL
"systematically debunked" - - what's this another declare victory hit enter?
Yea, kinda like what you've been doing thru this entire thread....again minus any facts to bolster your side (just random reference to incoherent dots), and no reference to the accusations you made about me. Again, your contributions are substantially appreciated.
Barrage? (littany of personal slurs and insults) THAT'S a barrage? (your A.D.D. must be acting up again, What, are you a total moron?, That you're a total idiot who doesn't know jackshit about anything?, I expect right-wing whackjobs like you to raise personal attacks on the honesty of their opponents when they run out of legitimate arguments, but most of the current members won't sink that low. I think right now you are the only one who could, and it doesn't bother me one bit)
Priceless "Hey, thanks for helping ME make MY point" :D
-
I didn't "blur" geographical and numerical isolation, sirs, and it wouldn't matter if I had, because you are beaten either way - - U.S. torture of prisoners is neither geographically nor numerically isolated. And the geographical prevalence is significant because it makes it virtually impossible to argue that these are "rogue" acts by out-of-control soldiers - - they can't be out of control all over the world, can they?
<<OR, people 5-7 layers up the chain of command have no frellin clue/idea/or grasp of what nimrods are doing 5-7 layers down the chain.">>
Well, if they are the commanders, it's their fucking BUSINESS to know such things, unless they are considered too trivial or unimportant to bother with. They have the means to know and they have the duty to know. So they are either guilty of complicity or gross negligence. When the torture is widespread, it's kind of hard to believe that there are that many commanders asleep at the switch. It is obviously complicity, borne out by the total failure to prosecute.
<<Sentences handed out for what crimes committed? Show us.>>
Toughest sentence so far that I'm aware of is 8 yrs. handed out to Charles Graner of Abu Ghraib and last I heard, he's even appealing that. Meantime prisoners have been tortured to death and no sentences or even trials that I'm aware of.
<<Again, if all it [the 90% of the 1100 Abu Ghraib photos and videos not released by the Pentagon] is is embarrasing to terrorists, I wouldn't show them either. Panties on someone's head isn't what I'd call "torture", but the PC crowd would go apesnot, along with radical muslims>>
The above is exactly what you said, with a clarifying comment added by me in square brackets. Sounded to me like you don't want to realease the photos because they would embarrass the "terrorists." Now I see a different interpretation - - they don't show torture, so there's no point releasing them to expose wrongdoing, but the embarrassment they cause to the "terrorists" would cause "the PC crowd" to go apeshit." OK my apologies for unintentionally distorting what you said, BUT: your reasoning still doesn't hold water. The "PC crowd" are still American citizens with a right to know what their employees are doing in their name. The Pentagon has no right to withhold the photos simply because some citizens who have every fucking right to object might in fact object, whatever YOU may think of the merits of their objections. Furthermore, it's hard to imagine any humiliations depicted in the withheld photos and videos that could be more embarrassing to the "terrorists" than those already released. It's much more likely that the concern is not with "embarrassment" (a truly ridiculous concept) but with real torture, none of which - - apart from the dogs and the "not hooked up" electrodes - - has been shown to date.
<<Such a media spectacle, all in the effort to hurt Bush of course, simply will fuel the fire of muslim radicals, and those already predisposed to believing what the media want's them to believe about America. >>
TRANSLATION: Telling the truth about America and showing pictures of what they actually are doing (as opposed to what their TV spokesmen SAY they are doing) would enrage a lot of people. Nice to see such frankness and honesty from you.
<<Such a broadcasting would most certainly result in a significant INCREASE in attacks against americans & innocent Iraqis. Obviously, you don't care>>
Well that's only half-true. I do care about attacks on innocent Iraqis, but I don't think pictures of American atrocities will fuel attacks against Iraqi civilians, who are only the victims of the atrocities, not the perpetrators. I don't care about attacks on Americans, in fact I think they are well deserved and should continue until the last invader leaves Iraq to the Iraqis. As in fact they will.
<<And here again Tee's tactic to a shrewd sharpness....accusing me and like minds, along with Bush assumingly as trvializing actual torture . . .>>
The fact is, you can't have a debate about torture in this group without you or a "like mind" mentioning panties or loud music, NEITHER of which has ever been seriously described as torture by any member of this group. You are intent on trivializing the issue by dragging in non-related matter.
<<Waterboardering is borderline torture, since no one is either hurt or injured, much less killed.>>
That's outrageous. Do you think it's OK for other countries or "terrorists" to waterboard American troops or civilians? Your mother for example? What the fuck is WRONG with you? No, don't tell me about beheadings etc, just answer the question: any problem with "terrorists" waterboarding their American prisoners?
<<Tee, you wouldn't know common sense if it were a hive of African killer bees, who's nest you just kicked. It's not torture, which is what your rant tangentially was running off on>>
Forget common sense, sirs, which in your case is a hopeless goal, just try a little logic instead: If Bush reserves the right to define torture because he's afraid it might limit him from using such techniques as putting women's panties on the heads of his prisoners, why doesn't he just say, "Fuck it, I don't really need to put panties on their heads anyway, so I'll drop my right to define torture for myself?" That is obviously NOT the reason he wants to define torture for himself - - it is so he can torture people and say "It's not torture."
<<No, just the text of the quote>>
The text of the quote as I recall it is that the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners are quaint and old fashioned. That's my best recollection. If you want to challenge it go ahead, but I've stated my own recollection of it to the best of my ability.
<<endless supply of accusations, nothing more than referencing "reports of torture" minus any proof or evidence.>>
Well, I wasn't there, if that's what you mean. I refer to reports in MSM, the one I recall referring to a "desert base" of the U.S. forces in Iraq, probably in the Toronto Star or the Globe & Mail, and I'm sure in the New York Times as well, but I don't recall more now. Some members may remember the reports, some may not. If you are implying I made it up, I feel somewhat insulted that you would think that, although it's typical for you, but I really can't help it, and I certainly don't care enough about you or your opinion to waste even a minute of my time researching the issue at all. Far as I'm concerned, it's what happened and if you don't believe it, that's YOUR problem. I'm writing not to convince you of anything, which is impossible, but merely so your bullshit doesn't remain unanswered in public.
I made my "barrage" comment thinking you were still going on a paragraph-by-paragraph cut-and-paste format, and so I looked back no further than the preceding paragraph for the "barrage." You're right, of course, the whole post DID add up to a legitimate barrage. How about that? See what happens when you insult someone? You get insulted in return. Sometimes I feel I kinda went over the top. Moreso on some other occasions but . . . Sorry if I offended you.
-
Saddam Hussein was hanged Saturday under a sentence imposed by an Iraqi court.
I must say that I was truly disgusted with this outcome. Of course I am not a Kurd or a Shi'a and it is a personal matter for me and a belief I held long before converting to Catholicism. I simply do not believe in execution.
I've watched a few specials and read numerous articles on Saddam's regime, complete with grainy video of the tortures he and his cronies used on the Iraqi people. I certainly would not condone any of that behavior, or the similar behavior of a number of atrocious dictators that have or are currently living. Yet, to my mind that still does not make execution permissible for a civilized state and the fact that it was caught on film and watched by some with glee makes it all the more disgusting.
-
...rant...blather...rant...insult
Suffice to say Tee, I think we've entertained the masses with your tirades long enough for this thread. I demonstrated precisely where I referenced your meritless accusations to be. You rationalized how they supposedly weren't, with the continued random dots that only you seem to be able to decipher and nebulous references to "reports say....", while still unable to demonstrate ANYWHERE where I've ever just implied that the military can do no wrong. Topped off with the ususal insults.
SOP as usual. Your efforts are duely appreciated & noted
-
Saddam Hussein was hanged Saturday under a sentence imposed by an Iraqi court.
I must say that I was truly disgusted with this outcome. Of course I am not a Kurd or a Shi'a and it is a personal matter for me and a belief I held long before converting to Catholicism. I simply do not believe in execution.
I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge Js's principled opposition to the death penalty in general vs Tee's caricature of some egregious miscarriage of justice. Though I support the death penalty in specific instances, and would disagree with Js on its use, at least his position has a moral leg to stand on
-
<<Suffice to say Tee, I think we've entertained the masses with your tirades long enough for this thread>>
My feelings exactly, sirs. It's been fun exposing your bullshit and "We're No. 1" crap for what it is, and rest assured that in this or any other thread, none of your crypto-fascist claptrap will go unanswered.
-
<<I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge Js's principled opposition to the death penalty in general vs Tee's caricature of some egregious miscarriage of justice. >>
What's this, Misrepresentation No. 1,387? First of all, where I stated explicitly that Saddam got what he deserved, that hardly adds up to a miscarriage of justice, egregious or otherwise. Secondly, my position on the legitimacy of the trial verdict (as opposed to the justice of it) is not exactly "Tee's caricature," it also happens to be the "caricature" of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other human rights groups.
Glad to see you up to your usual standards of misrepresentation and/or ignorance though. Don't ever change.
-
It's been fun exposing your bullshit and "We're No. 1" crap for what it is, and rest assured that in this or any other thread, none of your crypto-fascist claptrap will go unanswered.
;D At least you've got yourself and knute fooled.
Secondly, my position on the legitimacy of the trial verdict is not exactly "Tee's caricature,"
It is in this saloon, and is the egregious miscarriage of justice reference I made, regardless of AI's position. Their postions are ususally just as 1sided & completely unobjective as yours.
-
<< Their [AI's] postions are ususally just as 1sided & completely unobjective as yours.>>
Well, of course. It's not just me, it's AI and Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations who are "1-sided and completely unobjective." Unlike you, the very model of objectivity and impartiality. ROTFLMFAO.
-
It's not just me, it's AI and Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations who are "1-sided and completely unobjective."
You'll let us know the last time they supported the Death Penalty, k? We thank you in advance
-
Their comments went beyond the death penalty. They commented directly on the fairness of the proceedings. Something that, the last time I checked, they didn't need a licence for. Something that, the last time I checked, was permitted to both supporters and opponents of the death penalty.
-
Their comments went beyond the death penalty. They commented directly on the fairness of the proceedings. Something that, the last time I checked, they didn't need a licence for. Something that, the last time I checked, was permitted to both supporters and opponents of the death penalty.
so, you'll let us know the last time they supported the Death Penalty, where the precedings were perfectly legitimate and proper? Part of that debunking the one-sided "objectivity" I was referencing previously. We again thank you in advance
-
<<so, you'll let us know the last time they supported the Death Penalty, where the precedings were perfectly legitimate and proper? >>
Maybe you are not thinking clearly. At any rate I am not following you. AI for sure does not support the death penalty. HR Watch probably doesn't either. That means they oppose each and every application of the death penalty.
Sometimes, when they oppose a particular death penalty, they take note of procedural or other irregularities in the trial that led to the death penalty. Sometimes they just oppose the penalty without commenting on the trial at all, either because they don't know the details or because it was properly conducted. (I'm speaking here of AI, which I belonged to for 15 years and knew something about; I have no experience with HR Watch but I've read some of their stuff and it sounds like an OK organization.)
If you are trying to imply that because AI opposes the death penalty, they fabricate phony objections to the conduct of the trial even when the trial was properly conducted, you are full of shit (as usual) but in a more than usually repulsive and disgusting way.
<<Part of that debunking the one-sided "objectivity" I was referencing previously. >>
Oh, and exactly how are you doing that?
<<We again thank you in advance..
You're the only guy I know who says "thank you" for kicking his ass, but if it gives you pleasure . . .
-
<<so, you'll let us know the last time they supported the Death Penalty, where the precedings were perfectly legitimate and proper? >>
Maybe you are not thinking clearly. At any rate I am not following you. AI for sure does not support the death penalty. HR Watch probably doesn't either. That means they oppose each and every application of the death penalty.
Which means ANY carrying out of a death penalty will be concluded to be a miscarriage of justice, by them. Procedures for such will be concluded to have been an illegitmate application of law and sentencing. Which goes back to the original point how simply citing 2 organizations that would have never supported the criminal trial and its resultant sentencing to begin with, doesn't bode well for you in trying to lay claim to some rational mind set in how you've concluded the trial to be illegitimate & a farce.
As I said, the difference between your protestation of Saddam's trial and Js's is the difference between lunacy and morality Now, can we give the readers a rest? You've helped me enough. But it's your hole, so do as you wish
-
<<Which means ANY carrying out of a death penalty will be concluded to be a miscarriage of justice, by them. >>
Once again you are not thinking clearly enough to define the issues and so are as usual confused.
First of all the issue with Saddam's trial for those who, like myself, are very much in favour of the death penalty, was that it was unfair, flawed and a farce. AI and others felt the same way. They produced very specific criticisms of the trial procedure which went beyond the mere fact that the death penalty was imposed. Problems dealing with the inabiility to confront witnesses, the inability to protect defence counsel (three of whom were killed,) the replacement of a judge in mid-trial for what effectively amounted to procedural errors (including failing to respond the way the government felt he should have responded to threats from the accused to witnesses) - - and possibly other flaws as well. (I read only some abridged newspaper accounts of AI's objections.)
Although you would like to have seen AI attack the trial and find no flaw other than the imposition of the death penalty, that is just not what happened. Once again, when conservative theory meets actual fact, fact does not match theory and so must be "re-engineered." You would like to re-engineer the AI objections to be as silly as you would like to imagine them as being. But that just did not happen. Very real and very specific criticisms of the trial were put forth by AI, HR Watch and other human rights organizations. NONE OF YOUR BULLSHIT CHANGES THAT FACT. So get over it.
<<Procedures for such will be concluded to have been an illegitmate application of law and sentencing. Which goes back to the original point how simply citing 2 organizations that would have never supported the criminal trial and its resultant sentencing to begin with, doesn't bode well for you in trying to lay claim to some rational mind set in how you've concluded the trial to be illegitimate & a farce.>>
You are so full of shit. If you have one instance - - one! - - of a criticism levelled by AI against the trial procedure that you think is bogus or phony, let's hear it. Otherwise don't go blathering on about how phony their objections are.
<< I said, the difference between your protestation of Saddam's trial and Js's is the difference between lunacy and morality >>
I'm the lunatic for finding fault with the trial, AI are lunatics, HR Watch are lunatics, but you're sane???? LMFAO, if YOU'RE sane, I wanna be crazy.
<<Now can we giive the readers a rest?
TRANSLATION: Every time I open my mouth your answer shows what a total idiot I am, but if I get one last chance to say something and you - - pleeeze, pleeeze - - don't respond, then maybe I won't look so bad? >>
Not a chance, pal. This is a debating club. If you can't stand the heat . . .
<< But it's your hole, so do as you wish>>
Thank you. It's my wish to continue exposng your fucking idiocy for the crypto-fascist garbage that it is. Nothing personal, sirs, in fact I kind of admire your perseverance, but (as I explained before) it's for the sake of anyone reading these exchanges who might otherwise be taken in by your outrageous bullshit. There's a real fascist poison blanketing America and you're part of the problem and I'm part of the solution. Get it?
-
It's my wish to continue exposng your fucking idiocy for the crypto-fascist garbage that it is. Nothing personal, sirs, in fact I kind of admire your perseverance, but (as I explained before) it's for the sake of anyone reading these exchanges who might otherwise be taken in by your outrageous bullshit. There's a real fascist poison blanketing America and you're part of the problem and I'm part of the solution. Get it?
Still digging I see. Well, it's your hole
-
sirs, as lame and idiotic as your posts have been up to now, they at least- - until this last one - - deserved a response. Surely you can do better than that.
-
sirs, as lame and idiotic as your posts have been up to now, they at least- - until this last one - - deserved a response. Surely you can do better than that.
Tee, you've more than helped make my point. I couldn't say anything better than you already have, as it relates in validating the claims I made, while you completely ignored backing up the claims you were making about me. But if you wish to keep digging, the floor is yours
-
<<Tee, you've more than helped make my point. I couldn't say anything better than you already have, as it relates in validating the claims I made, while you completely ignored backing up the claims you were making about me. >>
Ah, I see. Declare victory, hit enter. Not the best exit line in the world, but when it's all you've got, I understand perfectly. Don't worry about it, sirs, there's always a next time.
-
<<Tee, you've more than helped make my point. I couldn't say anything better than you already have, as it relates in validating the claims I made, while you completely ignored backing up the claims you were making about me. >>
Ah, I see. Declare victory, hit enter.
Not quite. Victory, in validating my points, came about 8-10 responses earlier. At this point, you're only entertaining yourself
-
<<Not quite. Victory, in validating my points, came about 8-10 responses earlier. >>
LOL. OK, sirs, my mistake. It was "Declare victory, hit enter, declare victory, hit enter, declare victory, hit enter, declare victory, hit enter, declare victory, hit enter, declare . . . "
<<At this point, you're only entertaining yourself>>
Well, you got THAT right. Anybody who thinks he can engage in meaningful discourse with a right-wing fascist nutbar like you is really wasting his time. That is about the one thing you DID convincingly demonstrate.
-
<<At this point, you're only entertaining yourself>>
Well, you got THAT right.
Finally, we have concensus