Saddam's family fires defense team

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,303
Reaction score
62
"Saddam Hussein's family scrapped the international team of attorneys claiming to be representing him on Monday and will pick a new set of heavyweight lawyers to defend him against war crimes charges, the family's lawyer said. "


"There are too many people in the world who are claiming they are defending the president without the family's knowledge and we don't know who authorized them," said Abdel Haq Alani, the legal consultant of Raghd, Saddam's eldest daughter who is authorized to act on behalf of the ousted leader's family."

"More than 2,000 lawyers had volunteered for Saddam's defense team, including former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a daughter of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi"

source


I thought with Ramsey Clark (burn traitor burn!!) on board they'd have a chance of reigning in the kangroo court that trying saddam
 
Is all this even necessary? I mean, honestly, it's pretty obvious he's guilty from the thousands of Iraq's citizens saying how he tortured and killed their family members. We all know he used nerve gas.
 
operative x said:
Is all this even necessary? I mean, honestly, it's pretty obvious he's guilty from the thousands of Iraq's citizens saying how he tortured and killed their family members. We all know he used nerve gas.
Click to expand...
You'd be suprised at how unclear and at many times how hypocritical the case against him is. I am not saying he was a good guy but if you look at all the facts he isn't much worse than Bush himself.
 
No Limit said:
You'd be suprised at how unclear and at many times how hypocritical the case against him is. I am not saying he was a good guy but if you look at all the facts he isn't much worse than Bush himself.
Click to expand...
i don;t remember bush using nerve gas on anyone
 
operative x said:
Is all this even necessary? I mean, honestly, it's pretty obvious he's guilty from the thousands of Iraq's citizens saying how he tortured and killed their family members. We all know he used nerve gas.
Click to expand...


he should be tried in an international court as he's guilty of crimes againsts citizens from many countries ...not just iraqis ...although that would leave the door wide open for saddam to point the finger at the US for all it's "help" for almost 30 years
 
CptStern said:
he should be tried in an international court as he's guilty of crimes againsts citizens from many countries ...not just iraqis ...although that would leave the door wide open for saddam to point the finger at the US for all it's "help" for almost 30 years
Click to expand...
International court refuses to put people to death. Not acceptable.
 
and the US is the best entity to make that decision ...hardly fitting dont you think?
 
CptStern said:
and the US is the best entity to make that decision ...hardly fitting dont you think?
Click to expand...
To the right wing 30% of the AMERICAN political spectrum has the authority to make decisions for the rest of the world. They did this with Iraq and they will do this again if they are not stopped in 06 and 08.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
International court refuses to put people to death. Not acceptable.
Click to expand...

All the more reason for saddam to be tried in an internation court.

Whoops, I did not mean to turn this into a death penatly thread, carry on lads.
 
If this was 20 years ago, the US would've send a lawyer any time. If it was not their court, that is.
 
No Limit said:
To the right wing 30% of the AMERICAN political spectrum has the authority to make decisions for the rest of the world. They did this with Iraq and they will do this again if they are not stopped in 06 and 08.
Click to expand...


...because interests favourable to america is favourable for everyone :O



or as one of our members said:

"the world should embrace american global leadership"
 
CptStern said:
and the US is the best entity to make that decision ...hardly fitting dont you think?
Click to expand...

The US likes to control helpless countries. They also like to take over communist countries. "WE HAVE INVADED THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE WE ARE THE FREE WORLD AND blah..blah...blah..., AND BECAUSE THE COUNTRY IS COMMUNIST, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO GO AND LIBERATE (also meant to send the population of the country to hell,) THE COUNTRY AND FREE IT'S CITIZENS!! (yeah...free it's citizens from the face of the earth.)

One of my favorite statements by Mr.Bush, is "This is the most humane war ever fought.".....Humane???? As if killing people was humane.
 
CptStern said:
humane in comparison to genocide ...I guess
Click to expand...

My point is..killing people is anything but humane. It's like asking a woman if you can humanely rape her. (no offense meant...moderators :()
 
Saddam should be handed over to the victims families. I'm sure they'll sort him out.
 
seinfeldrules said:
Saddam should be handed over to the victims families. I'm sure they'll sort him out.
Click to expand...
As Bush should be handed over to the victims of Abu Ghraib prison torture. Or the victims that were sent to Saudi Arabia to be tortured in the name of terrorism when in fact they had nothing to do with terrorism. Or I have a even better idea. Why don't we send Bush to Saudi Arabia and have them torture him to get the truth out about the Plame leak, after all, it is a national security issue. I'm sure they'll sort him out. What do you think?
 
As Bush should be handed over to the victims of Abu Ghraib prison torture. Or the victims that were sent to Saudi Arabia to be tortured in the name of terrorism when in fact they had nothing to do with terrorism. Or I have a even better idea. Why don't we send Bush to Saudi Arabia and have them torture him to get the truth out about the Plame leak, after all, it is a national security issue. I'm sure they'll sort him out. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think you respect Saddam more than Bush.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I think you respect Saddam more than Bush.
Click to expand...
No, I have no respect for either.

But come on, I got a good idea. Since your party seems to support taking people to countries where torture is accepted based on 'suspecion' we should do that to Bush. After all, a lot of people suspect he had something to do with the Plame affair.
 
But come on, I got a good idea. Since your party seems to support taking people to countries where torture is accepted based on 'suspecion'
Click to expand...
Are you saying you dont consider Saddam guilty of genocide/mass murder?
 
seinfeldrules said:
Are you saying you dont consider Saddam guilty of genocide/mass murder?
Click to expand...


point to where No limit implies that please
 
CptStern said:
"More than 2,000 lawyers had volunteered for Saddam's defense team, including former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a daughter of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi"

source


I thought with Ramsey Clark (burn traitor burn!!) on board they'd have a chance of reigning in the kangroo court that trying saddam
Click to expand...

incredible. Maybe they want to volunteer so they can sink Saddamn even more?
 
not sure about Gaddafi's daughter but Clarke is no stranger to saddam ...he was outspoken about the first gulf war and has been critical of the current one ..he believes as do I that saddam has little chance of getting a "fair" trial


oh and Ramsey Clarke is behind this
 
I personally don't even think justice is functioning when this insane murderer gets a trial. He should be dragged out into the middle of Baghdad and shot in the neck. But since he is on trial....I hope he ends up with Bozo the clown and Carrot Top on defense. And as much as I can't stand Saddam, his sons were just as psychotic, if not worse, and got exactly what they deserve....no trial and straight to the grave.

/cues Mortal Kombat 2 guy......"TOASTY"
 
ah but shouldnt the governments who participated in saddam's crimes also bear some of the responsibility?
 
Lt. Drebin said:
I personally don't even think justice is functioning when this insane murderer gets a trial. He should be dragged out into the middle of Baghdad and shot in the neck. But since he is on trial....I hope he ends up with Bozo the clown and Carrot Top on defense. And as much as I can't stand Saddam, his sons were just as psychotic, if not worse, and got exactly what they deserve....no trial and straight to the grave.

/cues Mortal Kombat 2 guy......"TOASTY"
Click to expand...

Saddam was not a good man. Why should we feel sorry for him?
 
Saddam is a murderer on a massive scale, but we have no chance of knowing exactly whats going on because of all the propaganda from our governments. Saddam has absolutely no chance of a fair trial in America, in my opinion he should be sent to international court.

Personally I dont know how the US government has any support at all seeing how it has singlehandedly torn up the Human Rights act, the Geneva convention, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, and a whole crapload of UN sanctions and other attempts to make the world a little better.

Please dont accuse me of sympathising with Saddam, I just believe that the governments of the US and UK have been doing their best to direct peoples anger at symbolic outlets such as this to distract attention away from their own blinding corruptness and ineptitude.
 
let's make no mistake here ..saddam is personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands. He's a butcher a tyrant and a murderer .......but he was all that and more when the US called him ally. In fact almost all of his acts of barbarism was when the US had the strongest ties to him
 
jabberwock95 said:
I dont know how the US government has any support at all seeing how it has singlehandedly torn up the Human Rights act, the Geneva convention, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, and a whole crapload of UN sanctions and other attempts to make the world a little better.

I just believe that the governments of the US and UK have been doing their best to direct peoples anger at symbolic outlets such as this to distract attention away from their own blinding corruptness and ineptitude.
Click to expand...

I agree totally.
 
In fact almost all of his acts of barbarism was when the US had the strongest ties to him
Click to expand...

Anfal campaign began in 1988. We were at war less than 2 years later.

Another interesting tid bit.

From 1983 to 1990, the US government approved around $200 million in arms sales to Iraq, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI). [2] These sales amounted to less than 1% of the total arms sold to Iraq in the relevant period, though the US also sold helicopters which, although designated for civilian use, were immediately deployed by Iraq in its war with Iran. [3]
Click to expand...
 
seinfeldrules said:
Anfal campaign began in 1988. We were at war less than 2 years later.
.
Click to expand...

So the First Gulf war was fought because of some moral u turn or was it because he invaded Kuwait?
 
tidbits:


The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons



in otrher words ...you didnt give a shit about kurds being slaughtered, you were too busy trying to secure your oil contracts ...proves how "humanitarian" you really are
 
List of American firms that assisted Iraq's WMD programme
[A - nuclear; K - chemical; B - biological; R - rockets (missiles)]


Honeywell (R,K)
Spektra Physics (K)
Semetex (R)
TI Coating (A,K)
UNISYS (A,K)
Sperry Corp. (R,K)
Tektronix (R,A)
Rockwell (K)
Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
Dupont (A)
Eastman Kodak (R)
American Type Culture Collection (B)
Alcolac International (C)
Consarc (A)
Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
Cerberus (LTD) (A)
Electronic Assiciates (R)
International Computer Systems
Bechtel (K)
EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)
Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
Axel Electronics Inc. (A)
 
Following the 70's oil crisis I can understand the terror our government had of having it happen again.

Recent significant events in the last 10 years, peaking on 9/11, have shown we can't afford to be cozy with dictators and other undesirable leaders though. While seeming to be in our interests at the immediate time it came back to bite. And now Iraq has shown we can't afford to be the world's liberation, either- they're going to have to take care of it themselves, time to go back to just our interests.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Following the 70's oil crisis I can understand the terror our government had of having it happen again.
Click to expand...


that doesnt excuse anything

RakuraiTenjin said:
Recent significant events in the last 10 years, peaking on 9/11, have shown we can't afford to be cozy with dictators and other undesirable leaders though. While seeming to be in our interests at the immediate time it came back to bite. And now Iraq has shown we can't afford to be the world's liberation, either- they're going to have to take care of it themselves, time to go back to just our interests.
Click to expand...


but iraq is your interest, you didnt do this out of the kindness of your heart or because you felt threatened ...a handful of greedy neo-cons decided to make a powerplay in the middle east because they felt it was in america's best interests

..there hasnt been a decade in the last 50 years where the US hasnt been conducting some operation somewhere in promotion of their interests. That's how you conduct business. You will never become isolationist
 
No Limit said:
You'd be suprised at how unclear and at many times how hypocritical the case against him is. I am not saying he was a good guy but if you look at all the facts he isn't much worse than Bush himself.
Click to expand...
Lets look at this statement.

Bush isnt directly responsible for Abu Gharib. Morally, perhaps he is, the commanders are the ones who failed here.

Saddam personally ordered the execution of thousands, and had others do the work for him for hundreds of thousands more. I was watching a show briefly on the history channel about Saddam. It was a video from his early years in power, but anyways it was a party meeting. In it he tells the group from his political party "there is a conspiracy against me, and the orchistrators of it are in this room." He then goes on to call about 180 or so peoples names, they are carried away, he finally stops after the 200 or so other people beg him and scream their loyalty to him. He then says "good, the rest of you can serve as their executioners." The croud is joyous. Thats just a well known, provable example, we could debate about so much more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top