Yay!!!!
Execute him!
It's all he deserves!
@Taw: Couldn't agree more.
Sorry I don't have anything better to say.

Edited by - Clone on 14-12-2003 21:28:02

I hope he won't be trialed (??) in The Hague.
To bad I can't be to political here I guess I'll just leave this topic then

-- The Lancersreactor: where the screenshots are never blurry, and the spammers get publically kicked around.

The Lancersreactor FAQ
The use of signatures

I bet that the US military has him in a facility created for him with brain washed gaurds who won't kill him and laser defences and shiny metals that we don't know about and in the end we'll find out he's not saddam, but . . . drumroll please

BOB MARLEY!!!!!

If life is unfair how come I haven't won yet?

/what Taw said

...and what's all this "/Blah" stuff that's been in use lately? I mean, where did it come from?

If he does get tried in someplace like The Hauge then the max penalty he's likely to get are consecutive life sentances, he should get much more than that

What's the point in living if you can't feel alive?

who is this BEvilR and why is he making my blood boil? if this guy doesnt start making some ****ing sense soon someone's gonna get flayed


"American Girls all weather and noise"

---

BOB MARLEY!!!!!

---

That would be to predictable, my moneys on it being Tupac

I don't know about marley or tupac, but saddam does(did) have a number of doubles.

This is just a subtle hint, but.....

This is Drifting Off Topic

Further on, I think he will be Tried in The Hague, Because it has recently been approved as International court for the Crimes of war (Remember Milosevics?)

I think it is for the best that they do that because Law is not spoken by 1 judge there. It is spoken by Three Judges. And they will have to agree in order to give him his sentence. I hope he is not going blunt like our serbian "friend" and does accept a lawyer

__________________________________________________________
Oh, dear, How sad, Never mind!!-Battery Sergeant Major Williams
Plus the newest addition!!-

@Taw

---

So therefore an fully international tribunal seen to be independent of any one nation's or group of nations agendas is the only sensible course to take.

---

I disagree with this somewhat. Other nations have their own political agendas and may intercede against justice in a number of devious ways to stick it to Britain and the US. I wouldn't mind an international oversight, but I would keep the tribunal in Iraq. Besides, what better way to take hold of their own future than to do it themselves?

Sir Spectre

I've just been reading on the BBC news website that he almost certainly will be tried in Iraq, by Iraq's new judiciary set up by the Ruling Council under a new mandate last week. All members of the former regime are to be tried in Iraq. I think this is a mistake, as to the Arab world it will appear that the Iraqi courts are puppets of the Americans, whose military props up the Ruling Council which is itself US appointed. I'm not taking task with either the Ruling Council or the US, I'm just saying how this is going to look to those so minded to look at it.

The same charge would be far more difficult to make if it were an international tribunal, the facilities and precedents already exist at the Hague. I think certainly for a figure of Saddam's importance even if only symbolically a trial at somewhere like the Hague carries far more credibility internationally. Look at the outcry over the Guantanamo detainees around the world, and the complaints about the treatment of iraqi prisoners of the US in iraq. By handing over Saddam to an International body the US sends a clear signal that it is prepared to work with the international community and find common solutions to the Iraq problem, and that it respects the authority of the international institutions already established for the investigation and pursuit of war-criminals.

I don't give a stuff about Saddam himself, the man has been a monster, but I really think that this is one of those occasions when justice should not only be done, but be SEEN to be done, and if he's tried and hanged by an Iraqi court, u'll have "murdered by US puppets" to contend with shortly thereafter, another rallying cry for the anti-coalition forces, i guarantee it.

don't forget, Saddam's crimes weren't only against his own people, whatever ethic group they were, but also aginst neighbouring states. ok he suffered for the Kuwait thang, but there's also the invasion of Iran (which everyone thought was great at the time cos we all hated the Iranians if u remember) 8 years of war and casualties on a massive scale, chemical warfare, murder of prisoners and civilians, long range attacks on population centres etc etc. Then there's his trouble-making with hit squads in Europe and the Middle East, espionage, blackmail, kidnapping, the list goes on. So it is not only an iraqi affair, Saddam deserves to stand trial in the international forum, it's not only the most sensible solution, it's also inherently just - for everyone.

I thought when Baghdad fell that Saddam would b*gger off into exile to some country that doesn't get on with the US, with his billions transferred abroad and a bucketload of cash. I never reckoned on him staying behind and trying to keep fighting. Guess that must have been pride f***in' wit' him. Or maybe he had nowhere else to go?

sS, sorry I didn't properly read ur post! An international oversight would be a bad idea, because to have any value it would have to be empowered to overrule aspects of the trial/tribunal it disagreed with, which would then detract from the sovereignty of the court, thus making the trial a PR fiasco. U either have it in Iraq or u have an international body, no halfway house. And I think u'd find if a body such as the International War Crimes Commission were used, it's experience and impartiality would prevent other countries from bringing their own agendas into the proceedings. That goes for everyone; i wouldn't worry about it though, there's plenty of evidence and testimony on Saddam, Ian Huntley* stands a better chance of getting off! The process would be much slower, of course, but these things are; the right course is rarely the easiest and quickest, is it not so?

*who must of course be entirely innocent, well who'd disbelieve such an obviously true account of how 2 10yr old girls died in his house. entirely by accident. what else could it possibly have been? and the dog didn't even get it's bath.

wow that sarcasm impresses even me!



Edited by - Tawakalna on 15-12-2003 00:59:06

Hear, hear! The man makes sense.

"Never underestimate the power of a Dark Clown!" - Darph Bobo

Personaly, I don't think that he really is Saddam. I think that the States couldn't find him, so the got some guy to be him.

It serves two perpouses. The states looks good, and it rallies the people.

I just smell something rotten about this whole "Red Dawn" thing.

Life: No one gets out alive.

Capturing Saddam does neither, however. Being careful not to stray into politics, capturing him makes us look no better (or worse) than we did the day before yesterday. It's simply a new chapter in the unfolding events. Nor does it neccessarily rally the people, because according to some polls a good portion of us believe he should've been left alone. All this would accomplish would be to give the "willing" something to cheer about for a couple of days. No, if you wanted to fake something like this, you would fake a capture of Bin Laden. That would finally show progress in Afghanistan, and give a sense of closure to the events of two years ago.