Saddam Hussein to be Hanged

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:05 pm

As has been said, there are worse leaders around. The US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal, and the basis for said invasion - weapons of mass destruction - did not exist. The trial was a farce and the verdict delivered just in time to prop up a collapsing Republican Party in this week's vote. Call me a cynic but I don't see this as justice, other than victor justice.

superjohnmcginlay · Post by **superjohnmcginlay** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:08 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:As has been said, there are worse leaders around. The US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal, and the basis for said invasion - weapons of mass destruction - did not exist. The trial was a farce and the verdict delivered just in time to prop up a collapsing Republican Party in this week's vote. Call me a cynic but I don't see this as justice, other than victor justice.

Why was the trial a farce? I didnt really read much about it.

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army · Post by **Soldier_Of_The_White_Army** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:10 pm

That bxstard owe's me six months of my life. Let the prxck swing!!

blurred · Post by **blurred** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:16 pm

[switch off legal training]He's a right shady, horrible c*nt and deserves what's coming to him[/swich on legal training]

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:20 pm

superjohnmcginlay wrote:
Montreal Wanderer wrote:As has been said, there are worse leaders around. The US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal, and the basis for said invasion - weapons of mass destruction - did not exist. The trial was a farce and the verdict delivered just in time to prop up a collapsing Republican Party in this week's vote. Call me a cynic but I don't see this as justice, other than victor justice.
Why was the trial a farce? I didnt really read much about it.

Many, many reasons over many months. Judge replaced because he seemed pro-Saddam. Three defence lawyers assasinated. Restrictions placed on the defence. Even a former US Attorney Ramsey Clark considered it a travesty (admittedly he was biased) and was one of many defence lawyers thrown out of court by the judge. There were more histrionics than law taking place in court. The verdict was a foregone conclusion and the same is now said about the appeal.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:30 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
superjohnmcginlay wrote:
Montreal Wanderer wrote:As has been said, there are worse leaders around. The US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal, and the basis for said invasion - weapons of mass destruction - did not exist. The trial was a farce and the verdict delivered just in time to prop up a collapsing Republican Party in this week's vote. Call me a cynic but I don't see this as justice, other than victor justice.
Why was the trial a farce? I didnt really read much about it.
Many, many reasons over many months. Judge replaced because he seemed pro-Saddam. Three defence lawyers assasinated. Restrictions placed on the defence. Even a former US Attorney Ramsey Clark considered it a travesty (admittedly he was biased) and was one of many defence lawyers thrown out of court by the judge. There were more histrionics than law taking place in court. The verdict was a foregone conclusion and the same is now said about the appeal.

and you're suggesting that Saddam was inncocent in any way shape or form? The man admitted he was responsible, the only defence was that it was within the law of the land at that time.

a1 · Post by a1 » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:39 pm

get george bush to do it !!!!

that'll really fùck them off !!!

hahahahahahar !!!

what'll south park do?

who gives a fùck that the trial might not be 'proper' ... smell the irony ...

get that rope ready !! no, hang on , boil the bastard in a vat of water !!

sites that might be coming soon wvvw.islamicfascistsgethangedsnuffvideos.co.ck/

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:20 pm

communistworkethic wrote: Many, many reasons over many months. Judge replaced because he seemed pro-Saddam. Three defence lawyers assasinated. Restrictions placed on the defence. Even a former US Attorney Ramsey Clark considered it a travesty (admittedly he was biased) and was one of many defence lawyers thrown out of court by the judge. There were more histrionics than law taking place in court. The verdict was a foregone conclusion and the same is now said about the appeal.

and you're suggesting that Saddam was inncocent in any way shape or form? The man admitted he was responsible, the only defence was that it was within the law of the land at that time.[/quote]

I would never defend Saddam's actions, Commie, - I think an insanity plea might have been the only defence! I just feel the war was illegal, the trial was a farce, and the verdict will have unfortunate repercussions. I am also an opponent of the death penalty. I have no idea about the figures but I expect the post-Saddam Iraqi death toll will one day be greater that it was under Saddam, if it is not already.

wovlad · Post by **wovlad** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:08 pm

have to say Batman, your LOTR picture had me in stiches.

Well done, keep up the good work.

americantrotter · Post by **americantrotter** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:25 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
superjohnmcginlay wrote:
Montreal Wanderer wrote:As has been said, there are worse leaders around. The US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal, and the basis for said invasion - weapons of mass destruction - did not exist. The trial was a farce and the verdict delivered just in time to prop up a collapsing Republican Party in this week's vote. Call me a cynic but I don't see this as justice, other than victor justice.
Why was the trial a farce? I didnt really read much about it.
Many, many reasons over many months. Judge replaced because he seemed pro-Saddam. Three defence lawyers assasinated. Restrictions placed on the defence. Even a former US Attorney Ramsey Clark considered it a travesty (admittedly he was biased) and was one of many defence lawyers thrown out of court by the judge. There were more histrionics than law taking place in court. The verdict was a foregone conclusion and the same is now said about the appeal.

What my friend to the North said.

Also an opponent of the death penalty, and they should have shot him when they found him. They needed the short term boost for Morale over here because there were the 2004 elections coming. It will all end in trouble no matter what now.

Penny · Post by **Penny** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:44 pm

Pity they couldn't feed him to the crocodile in the other thread.

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:25 pm

Monty, why do you say the war is illegal

Can't say I'm an expert, but as I understand it, the murdering scum continually refused to comply with UN mandates

And regardless, a legal war - isn't that in itself a bit of an oddball comment

War is war - one side wants to kick shit out of the other

americantrotter · Post by **americantrotter** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:08 pm

Yes a "legal" war makes no sense. However, if you are a major member of the UN, and use it to your benefit in other situations, you must accept that invading Iraq was not condoned by that body. Also, the reasons for war were lies, and were known to be. if not illegal, morally wrong. (what war isnt though?)

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:26 pm

CAPSLOCK wrote:Monty, why do you say the war is illegal

Can't say I'm an expert, but as I understand it, the murdering scum continually refused to comply with UN mandates

And regardless, a legal war - isn't that in itself a bit of an oddball comment

War is war - one side wants to kick shit out of the other

It is a complex issue, I'll try to keep this at a simple level. States had always been considered sovereign within their own borders, and can do what they like to their citizens and it is none of our business. Since the Second World War there has developed a branch of international law which can, under certain circumstances, trump national law or sovereignty. So, for example, the agressive invasion of Kuwait allowed the UN Security Council to sanction retaliation against Iraq (Desert Storm). Ditto for Afghanistan, whoi harbored terrorists. This made them legal wars in terms of international law. The current Iraq conflict was not sanctioned by the UN, which specifically asked for more time for the weapons inspectors. This makes the war illegal - an act of agression against the sovereign state of Iraq. Technically Bush and his allies could be considered guilty of war crimes (though I doubt they will be tried!). Had Bush, Blair, et al made their pitch to the Security Council in terms of humanitarian intervention rather than weapons of mass destruction they might have made more headway. However, there are other places we should be on humitarian grounds, starting in the Sudan. Mummy or Blurred can correct me if their opinion differs.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:34 pm

Well given it's not been tested in law then to suggest it is illegal is wrong. Several experts in international law have stated that the war is legal on the basis of Iraq failing to comply with a number of Security Council Resolutions. The wording of those resolutions and the consequences of failing to comply being the usual UN fudge.

While the war may be wrong in your opinion, there is no clear decision as yet that it was illegal.

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:40 pm

communistworkethic wrote: Well given it's not been tested in law then to suggest it is illegal is wrong. Several experts in international law have stated that the war is legal on the basis of Iraq failing to comply with a number of Security Council Resolutions.

I'm talking about the accepted norms of international law. Israel has ignored security council resolutions more frequently and for a longer period of time than Iraq - by your standards we should have invaded them first. The point is that the Security Council has to authorize armed intervention to legitimize the conflict. They never have in Israel's case (American veto) and they did not in Iraq's case this time round. Indeed this why, to its cost, Canada did not join the "crusade".

Luna · Post by **Luna** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:06 pm

Batman wrote:all on pay-per-view on Sky, with Richard Keys and Andy Gray?

As long as we get alternate commentary from Mitchell and Webb

'And as thie dictator slowly gasps his last breath, it reminds me of the time when we were staying in a hotel together...' etc etc

warthog · Post by **warthog** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:10 pm

Luna wrote:
Batman wrote:all on pay-per-view on Sky, with Richard Keys and Andy Gray?
As long as we get alternate commentary from Mitchell and Webb

'And as thie dictator slowly gasps his last breath, it reminds me of the time when we were staying in a hotel together...' etc etc

Woody Allen got there first, some years ago.

Village Idiot · Post by **Village Idiot** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:18 pm

Could had been worse...

keveh · Post by **keveh** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:43 pm

Village Idiot wrote:Could had been worse...

damn you, i was JUST about to post that!

Connect with your social network account

Saddam Hussein to be Hanged

Who is online