posted December 16, 2003 09:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greven53:
Saddam should have killed himself. All the cool evil dictators want to be like Hitler.

---

Maybe Saddam never got to meet the awesomeness that is Greven53, and figured his life would be incomplete until he meets you

posted December 17, 2003 06:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Ergo spam. Stop spamming the bloody topic. Please.

---

Hey... Mr. Self-Appointed-Moderator... give it a rest already. In case you didn't notice, the quote above was ALSO spam. Practice what you preach.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wagamer:
Unfortunatly when people mention international judging/trials it means no death penality.

---

For everyone harping about the death penalty (i.e. those who would like to see it imposed, those who are cynically assuming that it will be imposed) may I remind you IRAQ HAS NO DEATH PENALTY. Saddam had thousands put to death, but there was nothing legal about it even under Iraqi law. Now that a new constitution is being drafted in Iraq, the Iraqis may decide to create a death penalty with dear old Saddam in mind, this I don't deny... but none of use knows whether they will or not, so to argue either way is kind of silly.

EDIT: Okay, I doublechecked, and now I've heard conflicting answers from two different experts. It is possible that Iraq does have a death penalty, but either way that is no guarantee it will be used.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Islamic law implies a Islamic state. You really want another Egypt, Syria, Saudia arabia, Iran type state existing in the world?

---

The whole Islamic law thing is a complete diversion. If tried in Iraq, Saddam will be tried under Iraqi law. Given the present US occupation and the US's powerful desire that Iraq remain a secular nation, there's good reason to hope that the future Iraq will not be ruled by so called "Islamic Law".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wagamer:
Never said I want anything new. Are you trying to say that Islamic law dosnt exist and that a new state/country would have to be created for it to come into being? My belief is that almost all the arab states/countries are ruled by Islamic Law or are all those Imams preaching western theology

---

As far as I know, there is no universal concept of "Islamic Law". It's a catch phrase one group or another of Muslims will throw around to describe their particular brand of Islam. My understanding, from listening to interviews with Muslims on this very subject, is that there is very little agreement across the broad spectrum of Muslim belief as to what constitutes "Islamic Law". Basically, if some cleric you look up to says "do this", that's Islamic Law.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Saddam has been toppled. Let's let it rest at that, why don't we? Of course, nobody will. But if you try and please everyone all at once, then you won't please anyone. So you know what? I think that it's enough that Saddam is gone from power. I see no need to execute him.

---

I submit to you that you might feel a bit different if your Mom had been raped and murdered by Saddam's flunkies; if your Dad had been dragged away and tortured to death. I say this not to point out that what you or I feel doesn't matter, but to point out that it is unjust to deny Iraqis the right to try this man.

Besides, with all due respect to your convictions: he may not be executed at all, he may be, for example, exiled. This assumption of the death penalty as a foregone conclusion is fallacious. NONE of us knows what penalty will be sought yet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Hussein SHOULD be entitled to a fair trial, if he is to be tried at all. Which will mean an international judging panel, not an American-appointed Iraqi panel.

---

For those who missed it, one of the possibilities being considered in Iraq is an Iraqi trial with international jurors... a "best of both worlds" approach and perhaps a point of compromise. Anyone care to dismiss this idea out of hand?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
If his trial ISN'T fair, then he might as well have been summarily executed without one. It's when we jury-rig such affairs that we fall close to the pit of authoritarianism. A jury-rigged trial is just like a jury-rigged referendum: it's just an attempt to add legitimacy to somethign that will happen anyway.

---

Three things.

First, quit being paranoid. Practically every other word out of your mouth is "American-appointed", "rigged", or "authoritarian". It's fun to pretend the USA is the great satan and that everything we touch must be tainted with corruption, but it doesn't accomplish much. You have NO IDEA how such a trial will be organized or should proceed. For example, if the USA wanted to be sure that Saddam would be found guilty, we could simply extradite him after the trial and try him for crimes against the USA. Having the trial be an Iraqi one where he is tried for crimes against Iraqis leaves open the possibility for trying him again for crimes against other nations. Therefore it is not a given that his trial must be RIGGED in some way. Has that occurred to you?

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, it is crucial to the immediate future of Iraq that this trial be held in Iraq, whether or not it is a show trial. Before the capture of Saddam, Iraqis had little to focus on but that their water wasn't running, there's not enough fuel, the power keeps going out, the security situation is for crap, and BTW they're being occupied by a foreign power. Whether he or she be for or against Saddam, such a trial would give EVERY Iraqi something to focus on other than "those American infidels". This would extend America's grace period to deal with the insurgents who keep sabotaging the power systems, water systems, blowing up police officers, and so forth. If it turns out to be a show trial? Well the team has been taking one for Saddam for a very long time. I really don't object to Saddam taking one for the team.

Thirdly and finally, on the concept of a "fair trial". This concept is a good one designed to protect the unjustly accused. The justification for a fair trial being that if one cannot defend oneself adequately, how can we be sure justice is being dispensed? The concept is sound and in my belief should be applied nearly universally.

I say "nearly" because practically no concept is an absolute, there are always exceptions. Saddam is an exception. Trying a dictator for brutally oppressing his people for 30 odd years is slightly different than trying a shady character who might or might not have snatched a purse.

Can you seriously offer any reasonable argument under which Saddam might be innocent of brutalizing the Iraqis? Beyond the inane "it was okay with the Iraqi government when he did it so it must have been legal"?

If we are agreed then that Saddam is guilty, why all the worry about a fair trial? Fair trials aren't designed to protect the guilty. We have a million-odd witnesses and literally several hundred metric tons of evidence that Saddam is a murderous bastard. Isn't that enough?

EDIT: Greven is "hawt".

__________________
-- PlasteredDragon A.K.A. Chuck Seggelin
* ebayID: PDragon616

THE STONE RAIN PROJECT: I want your foreign or unusual Stone Rain cards!

posted December 17, 2003 11:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Hey... Mr. Self-Appointed-Moderator... give it a rest already. In case you didn't notice, the quote above was ALSO spam. Practice what you preach.

---

Oh, will do. I'm just annoyed that every topic here now turns into a damned " omg, I <3 you, do you <3 me?" war. Especially threads for serious discussion, like this one. But just so we're clear, wagamer confessed to posting nonsense. Allow me to illustrate this with a quote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wagamer:

He didn't agree with me & I didn't agree with him, ergo my response to his post followed the same lines that his response to mine did...nonsense

---

And yep, it's stuff like that that I hate finding on discussion topics. Me, I'm just asking that it stop. It has nothign to do with being a mod or wanting to be one. I just don't want to have to read two pages of crap just to get to one real comment.

quote:

---

I submit to you that you might feel a bit different if your Mom had been raped and murdered by Saddam's flunkies; if your Dad had been dragged away and tortured to death. I say this not to point out that what you or I feel doesn't matter, but to point out that it is unjust to deny Iraqis the right to try this man.

---

I might feel differently, yes. But anger and hatred would be clouding my judgement. Such emotions bring a certain rashness that clouds lucidity. Saddam should have an impartial trial. That's that. That probably means that it should be an international trial. Now, I've never said Iraq should not be part of the trial. However, when we have trials, we don't generally allow the prosecution or victims to sit as jury, now do we? The international community (but the US especially) cannot afford to make a mockery of this affair.

quote:

---

Besides, with all due respect to your convictions: he may not be executed at all, he may be, for example, exiled. This assumption of the death penalty as a foregone conclusion is fallacious. NONE of us knows what penalty will be sought yet.

---

You know, I've actually considered that. And I find that outcome to be highly unlikely. Consider if you will your statement above, which I quoted. A whole bunch of angry Iraqis with relatives who suffered at Saddam's hands. Hell, perhaps the jury even suffered at his hands. Revenge is a powerful feeling, no?

quote:

---

For those who missed it, one of the possibilities being considered in Iraq is an Iraqi trial with international jurors... a "best of both worlds" approach and perhaps a point of compromise. Anyone care to dismiss this idea out of hand?

---

It's a possibility, yes. It's what a lot of us are asking for. But nothing is certain yet. And because of that, we cry out to our governments to put pressure on Britain and the US, so that such will be the outcome. The idea gains strength with every day, I think. But nothing is certain. And so, to make a point, we look at the advantages and disadvantages posed by such a trial, as compared to the advantages and disadvantages of NOT holding such a trial. Make sense? I'm not too sure I was coherent back there. But anyway...

quote:

---

Three things.

First, quit being paranoid.

---

Mm-hmm. Perhaps I come off sounding paranoid. Let me tell you one thing: as long as the US doesn't swallow up Canada, I don't care much. But Martin is licking Bush's boots over this matter right now, and I don't like it.

quote:

---

Practically every other word out of your mouth is "American-appointed", "rigged", or "authoritarian".

---

Kind of hard not to mention the US when it's the US which leads and champions the war in Iraq. =/ And I hate to say it, but right now, the bureaucracy is being set up by the States. As for authoritarianism, now, that's coming in a few seconds.

quote:

---

It's fun to pretend the USA is the great satan and that everything we touch must be tainted with corruption

---

You know what? I don't believe that for a moment. The US has done a great deal of good in the world. But you know, there IS a reason why folks hold that very same view that you so easily dismiss. The US does a lot of things that displease other countries. Sure, you can't please everyone. But that doesn't mean that we can't complain about it. A great many countries resent US foreign policy, which has America tinkering within their (the countries, not America) own borders. It challenges their (and our) national sovereignty. And, frankly, we don't like that. And we're going to be vocal about that. What America now has to do is understand that. Go on tinkering, but UNDERSTAND that we don't have to like it.

quote:

---

but it doesn't accomplish much.

---

As to that, now, I dunno. This resentment of the US often binds folks together to increase their political participation, which often has a direct impact upon the government's foreign policy. However, let's assume for the sake of this discussion taht I agree, and that whining doesn't do much of anything at all, shall we?

quote:

---

You have NO IDEA how such a trial will be organized or should proceed.

---

You know what? I don't. I have no legal training. Enlighten me, please.

quote:

---

if the USA wanted to be sure that Saddam would be found guilty, we could simply extradite him after the trial and try him for crimes against the USA.

---

Yes, but it seems a lot more legit if he's sentenced to death by his own country. Besides which, what you say is a possibility. Granted, I don't think it likely. But you told us earlier not to rule out anything out of hand, so we shan't. Other than that... I wasn't aware he perpetuated crimes against the States. Which would these be?

[/quote]Having the trial be an Iraqi one where he is tried for crimes against Iraqis leaves open the possibility for trying him again for crimes against other nations.

quote:

---

Does it? I was under the impression that he would be tried for all of his crimes, not just one or two at once. That's what's done usually, isn't it? "You are accused of bling bling bling, how do you plead?" Not merely "you're accused of this, how do you plead? Guilty, eh? Here's yer sentence. Okay, now we'll ship you off to some other place, cuz you committed some crimes there too." WOuldn't there be international cooperation? Especially if it's an international judge panel? Cuz it seems rather moronic to go through the same process a dozen times when you could do it once and have it over with. It's also moronic to have a dozen different sentences. What happens if some contradict one another? Then what? =/

Enlighten me, oh legal expert. I admit that I'm out of my depth here.

[quote]it is not a given that his trial must be RIGGED in some way. Has that occurred to you?

---

Indeed, it has. I'm just not giving voice to that possibility. I'm giving voice to my fears. That okay with you?

quote:

---

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, it is crucial to the immediate future of Iraq that this trial be held in Iraq, whether or not it is a show trial. Before the capture of Saddam, Iraqis had little to focus on but that their water wasn't running, there's not enough fuel, the power keeps going out, the security situation is for crap, and BTW they're being occupied by a foreign power. Whether he or she be for or against Saddam, such a trial would give EVERY Iraqi something to focus on other than "those American infidels." This would extend America's grace period to deal with the insurgents who keep sabotaging the power systems, water systems, blowing up police officers, and so forth.

---

Sure, it's like what de Gaulle did with the Algerian Crisis. Kinda cheap, but it works. The trial can be held in Iraq. I have nothing against that. It has to be SOMEWHERE.

quote:

---

If it turns out to be a show trial? Well the team has been taking one for Saddam for a very long time. I really don't object to Saddam taking one for the team.

---

Neither do I. What I object to is the fact that that would ridicule the system of Law, which may also prove detrimental to Iraq itself, particularly if the trial is held there, and even more so if there is an Iraqi panel of judges. Iraq needs a solid system of law, not something that's little more than a joke. In fact, it would reduce their law to little more than it was under Saddam. Certainly not a heartening thought.

quote:

---

Thirdly and finally, on the concept of a "fair trial". This concept is a good one designed to protect the unjustly accused. The justification for a fair trial being that if one cannot defend oneself adequately, how can we be sure justice is being dispensed? The concept is sound and in my belief should be applied nearly universally.

---

Nearly, eh? Well, that's your belief. You're well aware that I don't share it. If we allow for exceptions, then we are undermining the system's validity.

quote:

---

I say "nearly" because practically no concept is an absolute, there are always exceptions. Saddam is an exception. Trying a dictator for brutally oppressing his people for 30 odd years is slightly different than trying a shady character who might or might not have snatched a purse.

---

Actually, it is no different. Both are accused of some misdemeanour. The fact that the offences are widely different doesn't make a difference: the system is designed so as to protect the innocent, yes. But the fact remains that it also protects the wicked by giving them an enormous chance. If we are to deny those we believe to be wicked (as you said, NOTHING is absolute. Inductive reasoning kinda slips in yer hand, doesn't it?) then we are undermining the system and it's validity, by arbitrarily designating someone as guilty. Does that make sense? I get the impression I may not have been coherent there. Anyway, if there's a problem, point it out and I shall clarify it.

quote:

---

Can you seriously offer any reasonable argument under which Saddam might be innocent of brutalizing the Iraqis? Beyond the inane "it was okay with the Iraqi government when he did it so it must have been legal"?

---

Nope, I can't. Except that I wasn't there to witness this. And so, according to inductive reasoning, which you bandy about, there is still a great doubt. And because of that doubt, we can't arbitrarily judge him.

quote:

---

If we are agreed then that Saddam is guilty, why all the worry about a fair trial? Fair trials aren't designed to protect the guilty. We have a million-odd witnesses and literally several hundred metric tons of evidence that Saddam is a murderous bastard. Isn't that enough?

---

If we have so much proof, then fine. We can have a fair trial, and he'll be deemed guilty. No problem there, is there? So why are YOU worrying?

OK, I have to leave. I'm late already. My last arguments were hurried. I may not be able to check back here for a while, so enjoy yerselves, people. Have fun tearing me apart, PD. I look forward to restitching myself later on.

posted December 17, 2003 12:22 PM            

__________________
My handle sucks.

posted December 17, 2003 12:45 PM            

Politics + MOTL = trouble

EDIT: Who tried Slovodan Milochovic?
(Evil peoples aren't worth spell-checking.)

posted December 17, 2003 02:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kluckers:

EDIT: Who tried Slovodan Milochovic?
(Evil peoples aren't worth spell-checking.)

---

He is still on trial in the Hague(sp).

__________________
"If I'm not wasted; the day is."

posted December 17, 2003 02:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:

Does it? I was under the impression that he would be tried for all of his crimes, not just one or two at once. That's what's done usually, isn't it? "You are accused of bling bling bling, how do you plead?" Not merely "you're accused of this, how do you plead? Guilty, eh? Here's yer sentence. Okay, now we'll ship you off to some other place, cuz you committed some crimes there too." WOuldn't there be international cooperation? Especially if it's an international judge panel? Cuz it seems rather moronic to go through the same process a dozen times when you could do it once and have it over with. It's also moronic to have a dozen different sentences. What happens if some contradict one another? Then what? =/

---

Actually, it more or less does work that way in the US.

Take someone who goes on a multi-state killing spree. He will be put on trial in each state for the murders of the people he killed there. 10 state spree means 10 different trials. I don't know offhand how they decide which one gets the pleasure of frying (or injecting or however that state implements capital punishment) the jerk.

This has some nice benefits, such as minimizing the chance that a proven killer can go free on a BS technicality. I can't really see a way to have "conflicting" sentences. He'd either get death, jail or be acquitted. If he's acquitted of any murders, he can still be guilty of the others, so that doesn't matter. If he gets jail for some, fine, he'll serve the sentences while he appeals the death sentences. It all works out in the end.

posted December 17, 2003 03:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Oh, will do. I'm just annoyed that every topic here now turns into *snip* I just don't want to have to read two pages of crap just to get to one real comment.

---

Y'know... that part *really* didn't require a response... and that was kinda the point. But thanks for clearing that up for everyone. Now that readers of the "Saddam Hussein Captured" thread are done finding out about Goaswerfraiejen's pet peeves vis-a-vis off-topic commentary, perhaps we can get back on topic?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
I might feel differently, yes. But anger and hatred would be clouding my judgement. Such emotions bring a certain rashness that clouds lucidity.

---

Point taken.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Saddam should have an impartial trial. That's that.

---

The Iraqi people need closure, and after 30 years, they deserve to get it, and in my opinion, that's that. Saddam chose not to go out fighting, and as a result wasn't shot dead the day he was found. Ferrying Saddam off to the Hague for a trial that lasts years is not a good idea for the Iraqi people.

There is a mountain of evidence to convict Saddam, many of the people he has had tortured or "disappeared" over the years have been documented by his own government and the documents are readily available. It was documents such as these that the Nazis were so thoughtful as to keep that made many Nuremburg convictions so easy. Impartiality is ideal, yes, but hardly practical in a case such as this one, and pretty irrelevant given the abundant evidence--of which there is certainly enough such that any truly impartial jury would convict Saddam anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Kind of hard not to mention the US when it's the US which leads and champions the war in Iraq. =/ And I hate to say it, but right now, the bureaucracy is being set up by the States.

---

My point is the fact that the US is helping the Iraqi's set up a post-Saddam government that will hold national elections such that the government actually represents the people, does not automatically mean that the new Iraqi administration will be a US-run puppet government.

The overarching point that I'm trying to make over and over again, and that you seem to keep missing, is that it is fallacious of you to speak with conviction as if it is given that (a) Saddam will be put to death (b) the trial will be "rigged" (c) the trial will be run by the US and (d) the new Iraqi administration will basically be a proxy-American administration. Neither you nor me nor anybody else here has any kind of special inside information on what is going on in Iraq.

It's fine to voice your concerns, opinions, and beliefs. But you should take care to differentiate between assumption and fact. Your earlier posts treat your assumptions as facts. They aren't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
there IS a reason why folks hold that very same view that you so easily dismiss.

---

I'm not dismissing your views out of hand, I'm dismissing your *assumptions*. Since by and in large, your views are all based on assumptions, they sort of end up getting dismissed along the way simply because they aren't standing on anything factual (at least nothing that you have revealed up to this point.)

I agree with you, for example, that in an ideal world Saddam's trial should be completely impartial. Unfortunately, I don't believe we live in an ideal world, and that in this case there is a greater good that has to be considered.

You can argue about undermining law all you want. Slippery slope arguments are inherently fallacious, and therefore it doesn't follow that if Saddam's trial turns out to be less than impartial, then Iraq is doomed to have a hopelessly flawed judicial system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
The US does a lot of things that displease other countries. Sure, you can't please everyone. But that doesn't mean that we can't complain about it. A great many countries resent US foreign policy, which has America tinkering within their (the countries, not America) own borders. It challenges their (and our) national sovereignty. And, frankly, we don't like that. And we're going to be vocal about that. What America now has to do is understand that. Go on tinkering, but UNDERSTAND that we don't have to like it.

---

Tangent? So what? I didn't want the US in Iraq either. I didn't think it was our place to depose Saddam by force either, and certainly not without the support of the international community. My arguments with Magicalgenie1 and others to that effect are a matter of record here. Complain all you want, you're entitled, and I never said you weren't. I deplore the thuggish way the US has taken to treating its friends and allies. I complain about it all the time.

Not sure what this has to do with challenging you on making paranoid/cynical assumptions and then treating them as fact?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
...let's assume for the sake of this discussion taht I agree, and that whining doesn't do much of anything at all, shall we?

---

Obviously I must have come across as accusing you of whining pointlessly. If that is what you took from my post, I apologize for not being clear. I don't think you are whining, and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
You know what? I don't. I have no legal training. Enlighten me, please.

---

Nope this is that same point and you've missed it again. You, me, and the rest of us have NO IDEA how the trial in Iraq will be set up and processed. None of us does. So let's not sit around acting as if we do know. That's all I'm saying there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Yes, but it seems a lot more legit if he's sentenced to death by his own country. Besides which, what you say is a possibility. Granted, I don't think it likely. But you told us earlier not to rule out anything out of hand, so we shan't.

---

Groovy. Don't misunderstand me, you can rule out of hand if you want to, but it is fallacious to do so. I may advise and point out what I see as flaws in your argument and I would hope you would do the same for me, but I wouldn't presume to tell you what you can and can not say or do. If it ever comes across that way, it is **not** intended that way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Other than that... I wasn't aware he perpetuated crimes against the States. Which would these be?

---

Does it matter? In this case the hypothetical we were exploring was if the USA wanted to guarantee a conviction for Saddam and he were found not guilty by the Iraqis. This hypothetical assumes the USA is going to find him guilty no matter what, and therefore such charges would presumably be trumped up if there were no legitimate ones. I am no more familiar with the vagaries of international law than you are so I have no idea what such crimes would be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Indeed, it has. I'm just not giving voice to that possibility. I'm giving voice to my fears. That okay with you?

---

I think by now it is clear that I think you should do and say whatever you want to do and say irrespective of the approval of others. I am simply encouraging you to differentiate your fears and assumptions from facts. When we speak with conviction about things that we really don't know, the average listener assumes that we have access to facts or knowledge that makes us speak that way. Assumptions and fears treated as facts are paranoia at best and BS at worst.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Neither do I. What I object to is the fact that that would ridicule the system of Law,

---

Your objection is noted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
which may also prove detrimental to Iraq itself, particularly if the trial is held there, and even more so if there is an Iraqi panel of judges. Iraq needs a solid system of law, not something that's little more than a joke. In fact, it would reduce their law to little more than it was under Saddam. Certainly not a heartening thought.

---

Neither is it a realistic one, in my opinion. The system of law is not one trial and vice versa. Saddam Hussein got an unfair trial? Sounds like justice to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Nearly, eh? Well, that's your belief. You're well aware that I don't share it. If we allow for exceptions, then we are undermining the system's validity.

---

Feh. Absolutes are for philosophers, logicians, and idealists. The world simply isn't that black and white.

I have a very strong concept of the rule of law. I simply also recognize that no law or system of law can apply in all cases.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Actually, it is no different. Both are accused of some misdemeanour.

---

MISDEMEANOR?

I don't know why, but I just have this funny feeling that oppressing and murdering thousands of your people ought to be a felony.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
The fact that the offences are widely different doesn't make a difference: the system is designed so as to protect the innocent, yes. But the fact remains that it also protects the wicked by giving them an enormous chance. If we are to deny those we believe to be wicked (as you said, NOTHING is absolute. Inductive reasoning kinda slips in yer hand, doesn't it?) then we are undermining the system and it's validity, by arbitrarily designating someone as guilty. Does that make sense? I get the impression I may not have been coherent there. Anyway, if there's a problem, point it out and I shall clarify it.

---

A good system of law does not protect the wicked by design, it protects the wicked as a side effect of trying to exhaustively ensure that they aren't an unjustly accused innocent. The point is not to protect the guilty unless you are referring to laws of sentencing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Nope, I can't. Except that I wasn't there to witness this. And so, according to inductive reasoning, which you bandy about, there is still a great doubt. And because of that doubt, we can't arbitrarily judge him.

---

No, because of *your* great doubt, *you* cannot arbitrarily judge him. I respect your high moral ground, but I don't share in your doubt. From what I'm hearing from following this story closely is that there is more than enough evidence to convict this man. Therefore I'm not going to worry my pretty little head about the miniscule possibility that maybe by some amazing stretch of the imagination Saddam is really just a big misunderstood lovable teddy bear of a guy who was framed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
If we have so much proof, then fine. We can have a fair trial, and he'll be deemed guilty. No problem there, is there? So why are YOU worrying?

---

I'm not worried, what makes you think I am? It is my understanding that the evidence is ample. He's guilty of an exceptional crime, and as a result, I'm not all that concerned about the absolute impartiality of his trial. That about sums it up. (finally!)

__________________
-- PlasteredDragon A.K.A. Chuck Seggelin
* ebayID: PDragon616

THE STONE RAIN PROJECT: I want your foreign or unusual Stone Rain cards!

posted December 17, 2003 03:21 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
He is still on trial in the Hague(sp).

---

the lucky bastard.

__________________
rationalist · metalhead · perfectionist · godless · happy

«I don't know half of you half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.»
-J.R.R. Tolkien

posted December 17, 2003 04:04 PM            

quote:

---

From Iraq's Aggrieved Neighbors Line Up to Sue Saddam:

Countries around the Middle East lined up to Wednesday to sue Saddam Hussein for crimes he allegedly committed against them while he was leader of Iraq.

Kuwait, invaded by Iraq in 1990, became the latest of several countries, including Iran and Israel, to say it was preparing a file on alleged crimes and wanted to take part in any trial.

{...}

Ramazanzadeh said that while the Iraqi people have priority in trying Saddam, "that doesn't negate the rights of others for filing a suit at international circles against him."

{...}

A senior official of the State Department said after Saddam's capture that Washington reserved the right to bring its own charges against the man U.S.-led forces ousted in April.

The official, who asked not to be named, declined to say whether the United States might seek to prosecute Saddam for an alleged 1993 Iraqi assassination attempt against former U.S. President George Bush.

In Iraq itself, the Governing Council has said that charges against Saddam could focus on the campaign against the Kurds in the 1980s, the suppression of the Kurdish and Shi'ite uprisings after the Gulf War, and the punishment of the Marsh Arabs.

---

__________________
-- PlasteredDragon A.K.A. Chuck Seggelin
* ebayID: PDragon616

THE STONE RAIN PROJECT: I want your foreign or unusual Stone Rain cards!

posted December 17, 2003 05:34 PM            

I don't think that, at this juncture, there's a great deal for me to say. However, I'll admit right now that I haven't exactly differentiated my own beliefs from fact. That's certainly a very valid point you make. And I think that's because even I'm still foggy as to my exact position in this matter. I know Saddam will most likely face execution. I know he probably deserves it. And yet, at the same time, I don't want him to be executed, don't think he should be. Talk about doublethink. =/

However, I continue to be fully convinced that impartiality is mroe than ideal for this trial: it is essential. Impartiality will lend legitimacy to the trial, something that the US sorely needs in the face of the criticism it's received over the course of this war. Impartiality in a case of this magnitude will also establish a solid base for Iraqi law. It may seem like a triviality, a mere formality, but such things count, I think. Anyway, I don'T think i can convince you, and I know you can't convince me, so I think the point is kind of a stalemate.

quote:

---

My point is the fact that the US is helping the Iraqi's set up a post-Saddam government that will hold national elections such that the government actually represents the people, does not automatically mean that the new Iraqi administration will be a US-run puppet government.

---

You're very right in saying that. However, it doesn't change the fact that the Iraqi government will be perceived as a US puppet until it asserts itself in a general election. And even then, the sentiment might not disappear. It may take years to get rid of that impression. I think that may well have been the gist of what you were saying.(But if we're going to talk about myself and my beliefs, then yes, I believe the current Iraqi government is little more than a puppet.)

quote:

---

Nope this is that same point and you've missed it again. You, me, and the rest of us have NO IDEA how the trial in Iraq will be set up and processed. None of us does. So let's not sit around acting as if we do know. That's all I'm saying there.

---

My apologies, then. You just came off sounding as though you knew roughly how things would unroll, due to legal training. I misinterpreted, I guess.

Ah, the crimes versus the US were a hypothetical situation. Again, I didn't realize that from your post. I guess you're also guilty of having your examples and hypothetical situations and such taken as fact. I guess nobody is exempt.

quote:

---

Your objection is noted.

---

Nonononono, Mr. I want my objection ACTED upon.

quote:

---

Neither is it a realistic one, in my opinion. The system of law is not one trial and vice versa. Saddam Hussein got an unfair trial? Sounds like justice to me.

---

Neither is what realistic? Sorry, that one just passed me by. As for justice... well, if you're going to talk about justice in terms of a cyclical thing, something karma-esque, then you'd be referring to justice as something of an absolute, m'dear.

Oh, yes. Misdemeanour. I spelled it in the Canadian fashion. But on that subject... I didn't mean to imply that Saddam's crimes should be viewed as something so trivial as misdemeanours. Sorry if it came out that way. I suppose I didn't choose my words carefully enough. What I MEANT to say is that both cases would be roughly similar, since both men would be accused of some violation of the law, and the law would treat them in the same fashion, because they would both come before the law in the same fashion: guilty of infringement.

quote:

---

A good system of law does not protect the wicked by design, it protects the wicked as a side effect of trying to exhaustively ensure that they aren't an unjustly accused innocent. The point is not to protect the guilty unless you are referring to laws of sentencing.

---

Um, yeah. That's what I was saying in a nutshell. Guess I wasn't being clear.

quote:

---

No, because of *your* great doubt, *you* cannot arbitrarily judge him. I respect your high moral ground, but I don't share in your doubt. From what I'm hearing from following this story closely is that there is more than enough evidence to convict this man. Therefore I'm not going to worry my pretty little head about the miniscule possibility that maybe by some amazing stretch of the imagination Saddam is really just a big misunderstood lovable teddy bear of a guy who was framed.

---

I was using myself as an example, but what I was inferring was the public at large. Who was present when Saddam was perpetuating his crimes? I don't mean "present" as in "here on this earth" but rather in the sense of being a witness. What we know, we know from secondary sources at best. Now, what I was saying there was that, based upon the inductive reasoning you so stressed, Saddam should not be convicted at all. In clarigying yourself, however, you came up with an Aritotelian principle, which I'm not about to argue. That principle being that though there is no such thing as absolute proof, and that doubt always exists, such doubt is so miniscule as to be inconsequential, and so we should not fret over it. Take an acorn, for example. It's highly unlikely that it will hatch into a kitten. However, we can't observe every acorn in the world for all of time, so we'll never know. However, the chances of the acorn becoming the kitten are so tiny that we might as well assume, for practicality, that the acorn cannot hatch into a kitten. Nonetheless, the acorn will retain the potential to become a kitten.

Anyway, I certainly hope you realize I wasn't actually employing this as a platform for my own thought. I was simply pointing out that though inductive reasoning is good, it is at times slippery. Guess that didn't work out quite so well as I'd intended, eh?

quote:

---

I'm not worried, what makes you think I am? It is my understanding that the evidence is ample. He's guilty of an exceptional crime, and as a result, I'm not all that concerned about the absolute impartiality of his trial. That about sums it up. (finally!)

---

What gave that impression was the following quote from the post I was quoting:

quote:

---

If we are agreed then that Saddam is guilty, why all the worry about a fair trial? Fair trials aren't designed to protect the guilty. We have a million-odd witnesses and literally several hundred metric tons of evidence that Saddam is a murderous bastard. Isn't that enough?

---

What you seemed to be saying was that there is so much evidence that a trial is not necessary, and should not take place. Which comes off as being the view taken by someone worried as to the outcome of a trial.

Anyhow, I really DO think we shall be treated to something Goering-like. I wouldn't be surprised (actually, I'd be gleeful) to hear that Saddam would question a number of things from the past, such as Rumsfeld's (it was Rumsfeld, wasn't it? Sometimes I confuse that guy with the other guy, whatever his name is. It escapes me now. I'm almost certain it was Rumsfeld, though.) visit to Iraq in 1983. The defence could well be quite stellar. It will certainly be worth following.

EDIT: Typo.

posted December 17, 2003 08:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
{...} I'll admit right now that I haven't exactly differentiated my own beliefs from fact. That's certainly a very valid point you make. And I think that's because even I'm still foggy as to my exact position in this matter.

---

Join the club! Many of us are pensive over this in one way or another, we just all have different priorities with respect to this trial. You want it to be as impartial as possible in order to give it the most legitimacy possible. I'm less interested in impartiality if it means denying Iraqis the right to try this cruel bastard who killed 290,000 people in the last 20 years of his reign.

I think there is some middle ground, and I was listening to a rep of the provisional Iraqi government saying that as long as it is an Iraqi trial controlled by the Iraqis, they are open to international jurists, defense lawyers, and so forth. If this is done, and it is done correctly, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

Your points and concerns vis-a-vis legitimacy are quite... legitimate and are well received. You are quite right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Neither is what realistic? Sorry, that one just passed me by.

---

You said: Neither do I. What I object to is the fact that that would ridicule the system of Law, which may also prove detrimental to Iraq itself, particularly if the trial is held there, and even more so if there is an Iraqi panel of judges. Iraq needs a solid system of law, not something that's little more than a joke. In fact, it would reduce their law to little more than it was under Saddam. Certainly not a heartening thought.

It may not be a heartening thought, but I also think it is not a realistic thought. One trial does not a system of law make.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
{...} Who was present when Saddam was perpetuating his crimes? I don't mean "present" as in "here on this earth" but rather in the sense of being a witness. What we know, we know from secondary sources at best. {...} In clarifying yourself, however, you came up with an Aritotelian principle, which I'm not about to argue. That principle being that though there is no such thing as absolute proof, and that doubt always exists, such doubt is so miniscule as to be inconsequential, and so we should not fret over it. {...}

---

To whit: when Human Rightswatch investigated the gassing of the Kurds, they recovered (no joke) 18 tons of official Iraqi documentation on the subject. There isn't just a preponderance of evidence here, there is a tumultuous cascade of evidence... a surfeit of it if there can be such a thing... enough to drown in. And this is just with respect to the gassing of the Kurds. Presumably (I don't know for sure but I bet the Iraqis know) there are similar documents regarding the brutal crushings of uprisings, and the despicable treatment of the Ma'dan people.

quote:

---

From Did Saddam Gas the Kurds?:
As a result of the successful bid for autonomy of Kurds in northern Iraq under the U.S. no-fly zone, tens of thousands of documents from the Iraqi secret police and military were captured by Kurdish rebels from 1991 forward. These were turned over to the U.S. government. Some ten thousand of them have been posted to the World Wide Web at the Iraq Research and Documentation Program at the Center for Middle East Studies of Harvard University: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~irdp/.

The captured documents explicitly refer to Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Kurds, called "Anfal" (spoils) operations. Some documents were reviewed by Human Rights Watch in the early 1990s, which issued a report, entitled "Genocide in Iraq." Robert Rabil, a researcher with the IRD Program, has also published an analysis of the documents, in the Middle East Review of International Affairs.

{...}

The Baath regime initiated its chemical warfare on the Kurds in 1988. The operation was headed up by Saddam's cousin, Ali Hasan al-Majid, the Secretary-General of the Northern Bureau of the Ba'th Organization. For this reason, Iraqis call him "Chemical Ali."

The Baath regime launched 39 separate gas attacks against the Kurds, many of them targeting villages far from the Iran-Iraq border. Beginning at night on Thursday, March 16, and extending into Friday, March 17, 1988, the city of Halabja (population 70,000), was bombarded with twenty chemical and cluster bombs. Photographs show dead children in the street with lunch pails. An estimated 5,000 persons died. Although some analysts say the gas used was hydrogen cyanide (not in Iraq's arsenal), others have suggested it might have been sarin, VX, and tabun.

{...}

High Iraqi officials, including Vice-Premier Tariq Aziz, have since admitted using chemical weapons against the Kurds. Last year, Radio Free Iraq broadcast the allegation by a former brigadier general in Saddam's air force that the command to use "extraordinary" weapons against Halabjah came from the president himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Anyhow, I really DO think we shall be treated to something Goering-like. I wouldn't be surprised (actually, I'd be gleeful) to hear that Saddam would question a number of things from the past, such as Rumsfeld's (it was Rumsfeld, wasn't it? Sometimes I confuse that guy with the other guy, whatever his name is. It escapes me now. I'm almost certain it was Rumsfeld, though.) visit to Iraq in 1983. The defence could well be quite stellar. It will certainly be worth following.

---

Yeah that was Rumsfeld. The other guy you are thinking of is probably Ashcroft. Oui?

Since gassing thousands of Kurds to death, Saddam has more than once tried to pin it on the Iranians, but there is ample documentation to make it clear that is not the case.

It will be interesting to see what happens. That I think we can all agree on.

__________________
-- PlasteredDragon A.K.A. Chuck Seggelin
* ebayID: PDragon616

THE STONE RAIN PROJECT: I want your foreign or unusual Stone Rain cards!

posted December 17, 2003 08:19 PM            

An thanks for clearing up the realistic bit. Sure, a trial doesn't make a legal system. But if it's that system's FIRST trial, then it can have a significant impact not only upon the newly established system, but also on future cases. No?

posted December 18, 2003 02:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
I would really like to know why it is a foregone conclusion that Dean will lose?

---

I don't think that it is a forgone conclusion that Dean will lose, I just think that he is a weaker candidate from the standpoint of trying to win the presidency from the incumbent Republicans.

I'm under the impression that the Republicans are going to run Bush primarily on 'Terrorism and the Middle East' - focusing heavily upon his record of decisive action and percieved strength. Capturing Saddam, in this sense, bodes well for Bush's campaign. Bush will also run on 'traditional values' in as much as he needs to. But he has so much backing from terror politics that I don't see him needing to resort to this.

Dean's long opposition to the war on Iraq isn't a damning position, but it makes him an easy target for being cast as a pacifist, as someone who would make for a 'weak' president that the world could walk all over (ALA Carter). This isn't helped by his costantly fluctuating position, cases of foot-in-mouth disease, and attempts to be everything to everyone. He wants to be the candidate for white trash confederates? Excuse me? If that is what you are, sure, run as that, but when Dean says stuff like that he just looks like he is pandering, not like he has a strong moral compass. A candidate having a strong moral compass, regardless of how misguided, is going to be extremely important in this election.

His lack of resolution is going to really hurt Dean when it comes to controlling the pace of the election. If Bush gets to run on his record against Iraq and terror, he wins on blind patriotism. Bush has made a real mess of the home front in the last few years. Stocks might be going up, but unemployment is still bad, and underemployment is epidemic </pet peeve> The dollar is dropping and forecasts are grim. Remember how Clinton beat Bush Sr. on this a decade ago?

Running on a fiscal platform of tax increases, a social platform of gay marriage, and a histroy of being a pacifist beta male are just not the attributes I'm looking for in a candidate who wants to win.

Granted, the events of the next year are going to play a huge role in how the elections turn out. Maybe the country will be angry enough with Bush to fall in love with a candidate whose most redeeming quality is hating Bush. But I'd much rather run a candidate on superior merits, and let loose the gods of war if needed.

(For the record, if I was a Democrat and I wanted the best chance to win the presidency next year, I'd run Clark. He beats Bush hands down on his biggest strengths - character and resolve - and can absolutely rape him on the home front. But both parties have a history of pandering to their own loyalists instead of swing voters. See: Bill Simon. Democrats could pander to the RINOs this time around, point to the messes like our recent health care package and the deficit-without-stimulus, and walk away with the presidency.)

In regards to the Libertarian bit - I'm not a hard Libertarian, especially compared to some people on this board (Hi Bob!) I do appreciate what I percieve as pragmatic, goal-oriented policies, and a high value on personal freedom and responsibility. However, I do have some issues with the platform, mainly with the love of capitalism (there's just something wrong with a system that sees cleaning up industrial pollution as a waste of capital, while treating resulting cancers is a market oppertunity for an alert investor!), and with its big focus on individualism, and in a way, government liquidity. Putting men on the moon is one of the greatest things this nation has ever accomplished, and I don't want to see events like that pushed aside because they are percieved as an economic drain.

Would populating another planet outside our solar system cost a huge amount of money? Certainly. Would we see a personal profit from it during our lifetimes? At sub-light speeds, of course not. But should we do it? Hell yes. Either that, or let the Chinese populate the universe while Americans are stuck on this rock because they didn't see any profit.

But I think there's more to life than profit margins and ROROI.

Peace,
-CxE

posted December 18, 2003 12:08 PM            

Of course, I doubt that many people actually remember this. After all, three years is quite some time.

Now, I know little about the current political situation in America --- I'm rather more concerned with our very own Paul Martin at the moment. However, I do know that Martin won Prime Ministership in a method that generally works: going against the incumbent. Yes, I think Bush will actually be formidable next year. I think, however, that the opposition will be capable of disarming him, so to speak. There are a LOT of questions still unanswered, some dating back to 9/11. I'm pretty sure Bush is going to screw himself over in the end. If no WMD's are found in Iraq... well, that will create a rather large problem. Polls showed that most folks didn't actually care much about Clinton's extra-marital adventures. Rather, they were more concerned about the fact that he lied to them. Tony Blair is currently being severely criticised in Britain, and some serious questions are floating around. I think that the opposition to Bush will have a field day on such subjects. Indeed, I think that these will be the prime factors for their victory.

But again, I'll say that my knowledge of contemporary American politics is rather iffy. Once we kick out Martin, I'll be in a much better position to make suppositions.

posted December 28, 2003 03:37 PM            

Any words as of yet as to what is going to happen for sure - and the place of trial?

__________________
GøÐÐ맧

Wanna chat on AIM? Find my name - Macsika, and talk about anything!

posted January 03, 2004 04:34 PM         

__________________
MOTL'S #1 Music Know It All.
1-Nominated For The George W. Bush Award and The Mike Bullard Award.
2-R.I.P Lucky (1997 -2003).