"But Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, cautioned the capture likely will not end the insurgent attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. U.S. officials were wary of retaliatory strikes.
"Given the location and circumstances of his capture, it makes it clear that Saddam was not managing the insurgency, and that he had very little control or influence. That is significant and disturbing because it means the insurgents are not fighting for Saddam, they're fighting against the United States," said Rockefeller, D-W.Va."
Now back to topic. This is such a huge thing. My feeling is it will reduce attacks and be a tremendous psychological boost to the Iraqi people and coalition forces.
As for Bush, it won't just be a temporary boost. He will be able to point to this in the election. And imagine if Saddam cries uncle and we find a massive stash of WMD. Bush might as well thumb his nose and say "I told you so". If that happens, the election is 100% OVER. I'm not saying it will...but it might.
Sorry to rain on your parade but the fact of the matter is the Iraqi's don't like us either. The last few months have proved that. As far as the election being over.........there are still a few months until the election and lets see how things look after all those xmas and rebuilding our weapons after the war jobs are gone. SDW they aren't going to find the WOMD. That's a fantasy of yours. Once again even if these did exist he wouldn't have had any way to deploy them. Not in a way that would consitute an immenent threat to the US. It's too bad they couldn't capture someone who mattered like Osama........
If he has committed war crimes, then that's something the Hague should handle. It would also be a great gesture from the Bush administration which has unilaterally pursued its foreign policy goals to give up Saddam to international authorities.
The boner you have to the Hague is a little disturbing. Most of Saddam's worst crimes fall outside the definition of "war crime". So fsck the Hague. They've already botched Milosevic's trial.
The boner you have to the Hague is a little disturbing. Most of Saddam's worst crimes fall outside the definition of "war crime". So fsck the Hague. They've already botched Milosevic's trial.
The boner you have to the Hague is a little disturbing.
Don't be preposterous. He hasn't shown any 'boner' for The Hague. Clearly he's unsure if Saddam can be tried for war crimes and clearly his motivation for encouraging a trial by The Hague isn't because of any love of The Hague. You're just being a dick about this.
Shawn's correct. It would be a great gesture if the stars align. Only a troll like you would complain when Shawn supports an act that would help Bush.
Technically a trial will be better at the La Hague. Most lawyers are for this suggestion. However this tribunal is not recocnize by US , so it won't happen.
But the important point, is the Iraqi people, from what i see on TV, heard on radio, they want to have a trial in Iraq, led by Iraqi people. Iraq people have been humiliated, both by Saddam, and for being occupied (it's paradoxal but that's the way many of them feel) : give them sovereignity for that one, give them a chance to make a funeral of this silly times, a sort of therapy of this dark moment of their history.
Saddam killed almost 4,5 millons of people. He is at the level of Staline (and he was a great fan of Staline IMO). I heard an interview of an Iraqi women living in GB, she said that Saddam made killed 40 members of her family. I have seen again, the deaths of gazed people : mostly kids and women, i see scenes of cutting hands or decapiting heads with swords.
This is the chance to fix problems in Iraq, US has to change his politic, and Europe has to help the Iraqi people. Forget the past (history cannot be changed), and improve the future of the Iraqi people and more generally the whole aera.
That's great! news. Let justice be served by the people of Iraq. And I was thinking the same thing Rockefeller is saying. Saddam, from hiding hole to hiding hole(moving every 4 hours or so) could not be masterminding all those attacks IMO.
In egyptia for example the public opinion want a trial in Iraq ruled by Iraqi people.
Saddam have never done anything against me. At the contrary he have done several crimes among his population. And his population have the right to have a trial, where victims or their family could speak.
Why the Hague? As far as I'm concerned, the Hague gets second billing, the US last. He gets to stand trail by his peers: the Iraqi people. That's what the US advocates in its Constitution, and it's good model, so I can't see why the US would (and as I understand, it hasn't) advocate any other type of trial or tribunal. The Hague could be a bad solution. If recent examples are any indication, it allows itself to used as a soapbox for these creeps.
Really if international laws work anything like the US laws, both an Iraqi trial and an international tribunal can happen just like a person can have both a state and federal criminal trial. Usually, whichever one has the strongest case gets to happen first and so the accused is under that incriminating body's supervision until then too. And obviously, any sentence if not both get served if found guilty. I don't see why it's either-or if it's not double jeopardy -- where each justice body has its own independent set of charges. A good example at the domestic level is the Oklahoma City bombing with Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Would international law work much differently?
Of course as Sammi Jo and Shawn pointed out, bad things don't just stop happening because of this. But that's a statement of the obvious. I don't think anyone in here is saying that all the bad news ends now. Really, the whole Saddam thing isn't even "over" until he's tried and sentenced. So every resolution brings its own problems. Again, that's a statement of the obvious though. No reason not to pat some people on the back about this one.
Two Options:Fully international trial Internationally-run trial Both would "advanced the rule of law in Iraq" without "perpetuating a system of arbitrary revenge."
Both would produce "sound prosecutions and fair trials"
Both would be "seen as legitimate" because "personnel would be selected by the United Nations rather than by Washington?s surrogates"
Both would "secure the experienced and fair-minded jurists than a court that must look only to Iraqis" (see elaboration)
An internationally-run trial would "still conduct trials in Baghdad and involve Iraqis as much as possible."
I am for an Iraqi trial, with the official help of international lawyers. It's important that the trial is ruled by Iraqi people : it's a question of pride for them, and it's important that they recover some pride.
It's technically difficult, but it's necessary for the future of Iraq to suceed this trial.
Not because it is a bad thing, but because trying (and finally convicting) him there would be a de-facto recognition of The Hague as a valid and internationally approved body of justice. Of course, this would run counter to the policial jihad of the Bush administration, and we all know how much they value any legal principle they cannot fully control.
I just turned on the news and caught on. UNF*CKING BELIEVABLE!!! I think this is a Christmas present the entire world can appreciate. Peace to us all...
Thanks be to god, now hurry and bring our troops home.
I don't know if you where serious with this one, but the return of US troops is not for tomorrow.
Attacks will not cease now, according to everyone, US admin first. Iraq need the presence of the coalition for some more time. The shorter will be the better, but it must be as long as necessary.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
But if these attacks are not from Sodomites,
This forum has a fascination with anything anal
"But Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, cautioned the capture likely will not end the insurgent attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. U.S. officials were wary of retaliatory strikes.
"Given the location and circumstances of his capture, it makes it clear that Saddam was not managing the insurgency, and that he had very little control or influence. That is significant and disturbing because it means the insurgents are not fighting for Saddam, they're fighting against the United States," said Rockefeller, D-W.Va."
Whew. A breath of fresh air and common sense.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Now back to topic. This is such a huge thing. My feeling is it will reduce attacks and be a tremendous psychological boost to the Iraqi people and coalition forces.
As for Bush, it won't just be a temporary boost. He will be able to point to this in the election. And imagine if Saddam cries uncle and we find a massive stash of WMD. Bush might as well thumb his nose and say "I told you so". If that happens, the election is 100% OVER. I'm not saying it will...but it might.
Sorry to rain on your parade but the fact of the matter is the Iraqi's don't like us either. The last few months have proved that. As far as the election being over.........there are still a few months until the election and lets see how things look after all those xmas and rebuilding our weapons after the war jobs are gone. SDW they aren't going to find the WOMD. That's a fantasy of yours. Once again even if these did exist he wouldn't have had any way to deploy them. Not in a way that would consitute an immenent threat to the US. It's too bad they couldn't capture someone who mattered like Osama........
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm sorry if that rolleyes hurt your feewings. You made a stupid post, and deserved it. Just consider it tough love. It hurt me more than it hurt you.
Do you really not see how crass it is to talk about how this affects Bush in his domestic political situation, hours after this happens?
He was responding to filmmaker2002's (who is hardly a fan of GWB) post.
Originally posted by murbot
So when do they kill him?
If they don't give him a fair trial, I'll go bullshit.
But if they "shoot first, ask questions later", Bush will look even worse than before.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
...
If he has committed war crimes, then that's something the Hague should handle. It would also be a great gesture from the Bush administration which has unilaterally pursued its foreign policy goals to give up Saddam to international authorities.
The boner you have to the Hague is a little disturbing. Most of Saddam's worst crimes fall outside the definition of "war crime". So fsck the Hague. They've already botched Milosevic's trial.
Originally posted by Smircle
This forum has a fascination with anything anal
Stop being such an asshole.
Originally posted by Scott
The boner you have to the Hague is a little disturbing. Most of Saddam's worst crimes fall outside the definition of "war crime". So fsck the Hague. They've already botched Milosevic's trial.
You obviously have no perspective on humanity.
Originally posted by Scott
The boner you have to the Hague is a little disturbing.
Don't be preposterous. He hasn't shown any 'boner' for The Hague. Clearly he's unsure if Saddam can be tried for war crimes and clearly his motivation for encouraging a trial by The Hague isn't because of any love of The Hague. You're just being a dick about this.
Shawn's correct. It would be a great gesture if the stars align. Only a troll like you would complain when Shawn supports an act that would help Bush.
But the important point, is the Iraqi people, from what i see on TV, heard on radio, they want to have a trial in Iraq, led by Iraqi people. Iraq people have been humiliated, both by Saddam, and for being occupied (it's paradoxal but that's the way many of them feel) : give them sovereignity for that one, give them a chance to make a funeral of this silly times, a sort of therapy of this dark moment of their history.
Saddam killed almost 4,5 millons of people. He is at the level of Staline (and he was a great fan of Staline IMO). I heard an interview of an Iraqi women living in GB, she said that Saddam made killed 40 members of her family. I have seen again, the deaths of gazed people : mostly kids and women, i see scenes of cutting hands or decapiting heads with swords.
This is the chance to fix problems in Iraq, US has to change his politic, and Europe has to help the Iraqi people. Forget the past (history cannot be changed), and improve the future of the Iraqi people and more generally the whole aera.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
In egyptia for example the public opinion want a trial in Iraq ruled by Iraqi people.
Saddam have never done anything against me. At the contrary he have done several crimes among his population. And his population have the right to have a trial, where victims or their family could speak.
It will be a form of therapy for Iraqi people
Try Saddam in an International Court (International Herald-Tribune Editorial)
Two Options:
- Fully international trial
- Internationally-run trial
Both would "advanced the rule of law in Iraq" without "perpetuating a system of arbitrary revenge."Both would produce "sound prosecutions and fair trials"
Both would be "seen as legitimate" because "personnel would be selected by the United Nations rather than by Washington?s surrogates"
Both would "secure the experienced and fair-minded jurists than a court that must look only to Iraqis" (see elaboration)
An internationally-run trial would "still conduct trials in Baghdad and involve Iraqis as much as possible."
Really if international laws work anything like the US laws, both an Iraqi trial and an international tribunal can happen just like a person can have both a state and federal criminal trial. Usually, whichever one has the strongest case gets to happen first and so the accused is under that incriminating body's supervision until then too. And obviously, any sentence if not both get served if found guilty. I don't see why it's either-or if it's not double jeopardy -- where each justice body has its own independent set of charges. A good example at the domestic level is the Oklahoma City bombing with Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Would international law work much differently?
Of course as Sammi Jo and Shawn pointed out, bad things don't just stop happening because of this. But that's a statement of the obvious. I don't think anyone in here is saying that all the bad news ends now. Really, the whole Saddam thing isn't even "over" until he's tried and sentenced. So every resolution brings its own problems. Again, that's a statement of the obvious though. No reason not to pat some people on the back about this one.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Try Saddam in an International Court (International Herald-Tribune Editorial)
Two Options:Fully international trial
Internationally-run trial
Both would "advanced the rule of law in Iraq" without "perpetuating a system of arbitrary revenge."
Both would produce "sound prosecutions and fair trials"
Both would be "seen as legitimate" because "personnel would be selected by the United Nations rather than by Washington?s surrogates"
Both would "secure the experienced and fair-minded jurists than a court that must look only to Iraqis" (see elaboration)
An internationally-run trial would "still conduct trials in Baghdad and involve Iraqis as much as possible."
I am for an Iraqi trial, with the official help of international lawyers. It's important that the trial is ruled by Iraqi people : it's a question of pride for them, and it's important that they recover some pride.
It's technically difficult, but it's necessary for the future of Iraq to suceed this trial.
Not because it is a bad thing, but because trying (and finally convicting) him there would be a de-facto recognition of The Hague as a valid and internationally approved body of justice. Of course, this would run counter to the policial jihad of the Bush administration, and we all know how much they value any legal principle they cannot fully control.
Originally posted by kraig911
Thanks be to god, now hurry and bring our troops home.
I don't know if you where serious with this one, but the return of US troops is not for tomorrow.
Attacks will not cease now, according to everyone, US admin first. Iraq need the presence of the coalition for some more time. The shorter will be the better, but it must be as long as necessary.