Oh, are they done with the show trials and kangaroo courts yet, or is it that they have run out of people willing to paint a bullseye on their forehead an play the part of impartial judge?
Not that I don't think he's guilty, but when the US trained judges allow a trial to go on with or without Saddam present, you start to question whether they have been trained by the fairest, most impartial judges or the very best agents on the CIA propaganda team
Since it's all but impossible for him to get a fair trial in Iraq, and it's doubtful that they would let him stand trial in a neutral country, I suppose it would have been best to just take him out behind the barn and give him a double tap to the back of the head, but without the highly publicized show trials how would the average Iraq know that ding, dong, the witch is dead?
He has the right to face his accusers. At least one that I know of testified without revealing her identity. Can you fairly defend yourself against anonymous damning testimony?
5. His trial was public. Your doubts about motive are acknowledged and may even be valid, but those doubts don't alter the fact.
Glad we somewhat agree. I'd much prefer a tape recorded trial, holding the tapes in escrow until after the trial was over.
6. The verdict had to come sometime. Is it your belief that another administration wouldn't have timed the news for it's own benefit?
Am I surprised that Page scandal broke just in time to prevent Mark Foley's name from being changed on the ballot? No. Does the timing detract to the “fairness” of Saddam's trial? Depends. A judge usually has wide latitude on what is allowed to be presented as evidence and the flow and pace of the trial itself. Was the trial ended abruptly so a well timed verdict could be offered up as a October (November) Surprise? I don't know, but I would find that wrong. If the trial was over anyway and the judge was just sitting on the verdict, there's really no damage revealing it late. It just means someone get to sit in their cell a bit longer.
7. Revenge. What is justice if not the revenge of a society on its criminals? Whenever a jury convicts and a judge sentences, they are taking revenge on your behalf.
Really? I thought they were taking corrective action such society was protected from future crimes. It may be therapeutic for victim to see justice dispensed, but I would hope that it happens after the fair trial.
I have waited for this moment for a long time. 15 years. I was a Marine reservist in 1991, recently married, with 3 young stepchildren and a newborn son to care for...
While I find your mini-bio interesting, it really has no bearing on whether or not Saddam got a fair trial, which is the issue at hand.
Revenge is sweet.
Sure, and it's a dish best served cold and there is no profit in it either.
Look, just because it doesn't seem to have sunk in yet, I think he's guilty. I may not be a proponent of the death penalty, but I do see the value in it when a verdict of “life” imprisonment means “out in 12 years” because of good behaver and overcrowding. So that means I think that hanging is probably a pretty good punishment, and broadcasting it live is probably a pretty good idea too.
It may even be appropriate revenge for his crimes to have Saddam tortured within an inch of his life, and letting him recover so he could be slowly gassed to death, but we don't do such awful things because we hold ourselves out to be better than that.That's the entire premise behind holding ourselves out to have the authority to judge him in the first place, right? Because of that we ensure the duly convicted gets a fair trial, is held humanly in prison, we consent to giving the condemned a last meal, and allow him to make his peace with the religion of his choice. Death is delivered swiftly and humanly.
I think that pretty much covers everything at least twice, but if you come up with something original and I'd be happy to address it.
SM, pull the other one, why don't you? You don't recall Mob trials where the witness testified with a hood covering his face? Or that if you act up in court today, the judge throws you out of the courtroom and the trial goes on, and you get to watch on closed-circuit TV? SM, take the long walk off the short pier - but please, don't bother to post about it. OldeForce - who'd already voted before the verdict came in, and doesn't give a rat's behind about it, or Foley, or Palosi's botox.
"...you start to question whether they have been trained by the fairest, most impartial judges or the very best agents on the CIA propaganda team"
This seems to indicate thet you believe he was railroaded.
No, this means that the judges were trained less to be fair and impartal, and more to be effective propaganda tool.
"Since it's all but impossible for him to get a fair trial in Iraq, and it's doubtful that they would let him stand trial in a neutral country,..."
Under the circumstances that actually obtain here, rather than some ideal that doesn't, how would you have tried the man? The trial that he got was probably more fair than the Nuremberg tribunals, in that he wasn't tried by a panel of foreign judges, but by the Iraqi government.
Very good question. picking a different venue counrty for the trial would be hard, and it would never happen anyway. I'd work harder on not kicking him out of his own trial and avoiding witnesses testfying in secret.
"...I suppose it would have been best to just take him out behind the barn and give him a double tap to the back of the head..."
This is fair? I really wouldn't have had much of a problem with it, but as you pointed out in a later post, we're above such things.
Not fair, but honest.If you are not going to give them a fair trial, then don't pretend to.
Maybe they'll televise the hanging! Wish I had the popcorn and falafel concessions.
ReplyDeleteOh, are they done with the show trials and kangaroo courts yet, or is it that they have run out of people willing to paint a bullseye on their forehead an play the part of impartial judge?
ReplyDeleteNot that I don't think he's guilty, but when the US trained judges allow a trial to go on with or without Saddam present, you start to question whether they have been trained by the fairest, most impartial judges or the very best agents on the CIA propaganda team
Since it's all but impossible for him to get a fair trial in Iraq, and it's doubtful that they would let him stand trial in a neutral country, I suppose it would have been best to just take him out behind the barn and give him a double tap to the back of the head, but without the highly publicized show trials how would the average Iraq know that ding, dong, the witch is dead?
'bout time to hang him high.
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't that he will hang but that many US politicans won't...
ReplyDeleteI see the Rat is feeling Cornered again...
ReplyDeletepaul, there's a simple test.
ReplyDeleteWas the the trial broadcast live for the benefit of the accused, or because the Iraqi people need revenge and need to see the end of an era?
Calling it a trial and claiming it is fair and impartial is an insult to every fair and impartial trial out there in a free and democratic state.
Are we over there to build a republic or a Potemkin village?
And hey! Isn't this verdict just in time for the November elections? Wow, who would have thunk it?
ReplyDelete1. He was confronted by his accusers.
ReplyDeleteHe has the right to face his accusers. At least one that I know of testified without revealing her identity. Can you fairly defend yourself against anonymous damning testimony?
5. His trial was public. Your doubts about motive are acknowledged and may even be valid, but those doubts don't alter the fact.
Glad we somewhat agree. I'd much prefer a tape recorded trial, holding the tapes in escrow until after the trial was over.
6. The verdict had to come sometime. Is it your belief that another administration wouldn't have timed the news for it's own benefit?
Am I surprised that Page scandal broke just in time to prevent Mark Foley's name from being changed on the ballot? No. Does the timing detract to the “fairness” of Saddam's trial? Depends. A judge usually has wide latitude on what is allowed to be presented as evidence and the flow and pace of the trial itself. Was the trial ended abruptly so a well timed verdict could be offered up as a October (November) Surprise? I don't know, but I would find that wrong. If the trial was over anyway and the judge was just sitting on the verdict, there's really no damage revealing it late. It just means someone get to sit in their cell a bit longer.
7. Revenge. What is justice if not the revenge of a society on its criminals? Whenever a jury convicts and a judge sentences, they are taking revenge on your behalf.
Really? I thought they were taking corrective action such society was protected from future crimes. It may be therapeutic for victim to see justice dispensed, but I would hope that it happens after the fair trial.
I have waited for this moment for a long time. 15 years. I was a Marine reservist in 1991, recently married, with 3 young stepchildren and a newborn son to care for...
While I find your mini-bio interesting, it really has no bearing on whether or not Saddam got a fair trial, which is the issue at hand.
Revenge is sweet.
Sure, and it's a dish best served cold and there is no profit in it either.
Look, just because it doesn't seem to have sunk in yet, I think he's guilty. I may not be a proponent of the death penalty, but I do see the value in it when a verdict of “life” imprisonment means “out in 12 years” because of good behaver and overcrowding. So that means I think that hanging is probably a pretty good punishment, and broadcasting it live is probably a pretty good idea too.
It may even be appropriate revenge for his crimes to have Saddam tortured within an inch of his life, and letting him recover so he could be slowly gassed to death, but we don't do such awful things because we hold ourselves out to be better than that.That's the entire premise behind holding ourselves out to have the authority to judge him in the first place, right? Because of that we ensure the duly convicted gets a fair trial, is held humanly in prison, we consent to giving the condemned a last meal, and allow him to make his peace with the religion of his choice. Death is delivered swiftly and humanly.
I think that pretty much covers everything at least twice, but if you come up with something original and I'd be happy to address it.
I knew I'd find a warm-fuzzy on your blog today!
ReplyDeleteSM, pull the other one, why don't you? You don't recall Mob trials where the witness testified with a hood covering his face? Or that if you act up in court today, the judge throws you out of the courtroom and the trial goes on, and you get to watch on closed-circuit TV? SM, take the long walk off the short pier - but please, don't bother to post about it. OldeForce - who'd already voted before the verdict came in, and doesn't give a rat's behind about it, or Foley, or Palosi's botox.
ReplyDelete"...you start to question whether they have been trained by the fairest, most impartial judges or the very best agents on the CIA propaganda team"
ReplyDeleteThis seems to indicate thet you believe he was railroaded.
No, this means that the judges were trained less to be fair and impartal, and more to be effective propaganda tool.
"Since it's all but impossible for him to get a fair trial in Iraq, and it's doubtful that they would let him stand trial in a neutral country,..."
Under the circumstances that actually obtain here, rather than some ideal that doesn't, how would you have tried the man? The trial that he got was probably more fair than the Nuremberg tribunals, in that he wasn't tried by a panel of foreign judges, but by the Iraqi government.
Very good question. picking a different venue counrty for the trial would be hard, and it would never happen anyway. I'd work harder on not kicking him out of his own trial and avoiding witnesses testfying in secret.
"...I suppose it would have been best to just take him out behind the barn and give him a double tap to the back of the head..."
This is fair? I really wouldn't have had much of a problem with it, but as you pointed out in a later post, we're above such things.
Not fair, but honest.If you are not going to give them a fair trial, then don't pretend to.