Saddam Hussein executed

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[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.

   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.

[Michael Tee]

<< 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.

[sirs]

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

[Michael Tee]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Michael Tee]

<<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 . . .

[sirs]

<<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

[Michael Tee]

<<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?

[sirs]

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

[Michael Tee]

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]

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

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[sirs]

<<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

[Michael Tee]

<<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.