LynnTheDem. Stupidest IDIOT on the bloody planet.

[LynnTheDem]

I am so STUPID.

Bloody hell.

After all the bullshit, the constant LIES, deliberate intentional LIES from bush & his Cartel and the media and the talking heads and Blair...

I should have known better. How the bloody hell could I have believed Hussein would get a fair and just trial and that AT LEAST we'd be able to point to THAT as the RIGHT THING TO DO!!!

WTF is WRONG with me!!! :(

"The number of charges on which he will be tried are 12 and the judges are confidant that he will be convicted of these charges," said (Iraqi prime minister's spokesman) Laith Kuba.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050605/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_saddam_trial

And I'm shaken and shocked to my very core. And that makes me the stupidest MFer on the planet.

[dogday]

1. I think his trial should be as fair as the people he has tortured himself

This man after all is as big a piece of chit as they come. No doubt we had no reason to invade him, but we have, so we might as well take out the trash....

[LynnTheDem]

2. I'm an idiot

You don't believe in the rule of law or what the USA was founded on.

I prefer idiot.

[dogday]

8. What I believe and what will happen are two different things.

you might prefer idiot for yourself, but I prefer realist. This will happen because of all the other unlawful things that have already happened....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

96. I tend to try to avoid any contact with your kind of "realist".

[bullimiami]

7. yes. and for every crime he is accused of Bush should also be made to

stand for.

Torture. Harboring WMD. Aggressive war. Illegal detention. Murder. Bush is as guilty of each and more guilty of some.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

95. Bingo.

[heidler1]

10. Is there a possibility that: Iraq requires a strong ruthless leader to keep

day to day living functional? The U.S. appears ruthless, but it is an invader and that don't seem to work either.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. *sigh*

EVERYONE is entitled to a fair trial. ESPECIALLY the people we have all decided are guilty.

[LynnTheDem]

29. Thank you.

:hug:

[Floogeldy]

32. I guess we should all be happy that you weren't around . . .

. . . when Colonials and Americans were committing genocide against the Native Americans. Redneck.

Speaking of trash, how many innocent fucking Iraqis has Bush killed?

[funflower]

34. It has nothing to do with what Saddam Hussein deserves.

It's about what kind of society "we" choose to export to Iraq, and what the long-term effect of his conviction will be.

[Pacifist Patriot]

83. Congratulations, you have sunk to his level.

We don't give Hussein a fair trial because he deserves one. We give him a fair trial because WE ALL deserve one.

[warrens]

84. WTF?

There's no doubt this is not a nice guy, but do you seriously think that a kangaroo court is going to somehow make us look good? Sheesh.

[Stand and Fight]

88. You are Disgusting

Hussein is disgusting as well, but he still deserves his FAIR day in court. It seems that you've forgotten the tenets upon which this country was founded. How in the world can we espouse democracy in the Middle East, say that "freedom is on the march," if we are only going to give this man -- however heinous he may be -- a "show trial"? What the hell is wrong in America today when even the so-called progressives in this country call for barbaric and backward measures? It says an awful lot about America and an awful lot about the state of things to be, I can assure you that.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

94. We should never have been in a position to have to "take out the trash"...

...and no amount of rationalizing is going to overcome that basic fact.

Since you have some reservations about torturing people, how many people do you believe have been tortured by the US and/or their proxies over the last several decades?

Since you want to "take out the trash", why don't we start right here at home before telling other people what they should think and do.

[MissB]

98. Wow.

Amazing mental contortions there. Not even a semblance of American Justice, eh?

Meh.

[Pachamama]

3. Stupidest Idiot on Planet is Bush...Then I guess the American Public, the

Congress and anyone in this world that actually believed the Village Idiot when he took us to War against Iraq and has us believing there were WMD's....

On the topic of Hussein getting a "fair trial"....I figured he'd have as "fair" a treatment as all those "enemy combatants" did in terms of rights....

[HawkerHurricane]

4. "judges are confidant that he will be convicted of these charges,"

Glad to see that the judges aren't trying him in advance.

"You'll get a fair trail this afternoon and be hung in the morning!"

[unhappycamper]

5. Saddam is gonna get a little justice, Texas style.

Sure hope any country with oil is paying attention.

[JNelson6563]

6. Your just a good person Lynn

and you made the mistake of assuming everyone has at least a sliver of good in them. Very common. Doesn't make you stupid.

Julie

[LynnTheDem]

11. They've destroyed EVERYTHING.

Purple Hearts don't mean shit now. "Purple Heart bandaids!"

Statue of Liberty don't mean shit now. "Send it back!"

Geneva Conventions don't mean shit now. "Quaint" and "Enemy combatants"

All laws don't mean shit now. We cherry-pick who gets protected by which laws & who doesn't.

Pre-emptive verdicts.

WTF is left to believe in.

[dogday]

13. Ourselves, Our Hearts, Our Belief is fairness for all and especially

for our guys over there who are doing the job whether they believe or not. That is the hardest thing of all this, these soldiers who are fighting and don't believe in what they are doing. They must feel really bad. We gotta keep believing in them....

[tkmorris]

68. As hard as it may be for our troops

I'd imagine that nonetheless it is harder still to be on the other end of the rifles they carry. After all, as bad as things are for our American troops, they still win far more than they lose.

How would you like to be on the side that will lose almost every time? You are right, you have the moral high ground, but you will die anyway. I'd say that's a smidge tougher to deal with.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

97. Well, we won all of the battles in Vietnam, too....but we lost the war....

...a long time before we actually pulled our troops out.

We also lost most of the battles during the American Revolution, but we ended up winning that war.

The old Soviet Union took a terrible beating for most of WWII from the Nazis until they turned the tide for good at Kursk in 1943.

Here's a general observation...those who occupy the moral high ground, and hold it, usually end up winning their wars.

[murray hill farm]

18. do not turn on yourself...

just continue to believe as u always have...that goodness will always triumph over evil...it just might take a while for that to happen in this case. this belief in the basic goodness of human kind is really what distinguishes us..all of us in our belief. do not give up that part of yourself...keep on believing it..because in the end, it will be this belief, itself, that will make the difference for all of mankind. all that u say about the condition of the world and our country now is true...but this is a short time in the total picture of us all....believe in the goodness that lives in you and in us all...never let it go.

[LynnTheDem]

Thanks, mexicopat

:hug:

[no_hypocrisy]

9. 1. You're not an idiot. I admire you and your insight.

2. The only way Saddam Hussein would get a "fair" trial (if any EVER existed . . . ), it would be an international court in the Hague.

3. The term, "justice" is a very speculative word and whose meaning not universally agreed upon.

[DrDebug]

12. You are not an idiot, because you found the statement

I never saw that line either, but you did. That's a clear indication of the 'fairness' of this trial.

[DawnneOBTS]

14. You are right...

Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. Everyone deserves a fair trial, no matter who they are. For whatever reason, "fair and just" doesn't really apply to anyone who is not "Christian." Scott Peterson killed his wife (and child, I guess). He got a fair trial. I don't think Saddam ever killed his family members, either.

[LynnTheDem]

33. "Everyone deserves a fair trial, no matter who they are."

The saddest part of it, I think, is to see "progressives" disagree with what is one of the most important tenets we have;

"Everyone deserves a fair trial, no matter who they are."

Thanks, DawnneOBTS :hug:

[lonestarnot]

15. Idiot not; Believer in Justice is virtuous.

[Jack Rabbit]

16. At least up to now, Bush has chosen in adversaries well

It's not as though Bush overthrew a popular, benevolent, freely-elected government in Iraq; he did that in Haiti and is trying to do it in Venezuela. But in those places he tries to keep his fingerprints off the evidence.

Saddam was a bad as they said he was. He was crooked and brutal. Yes, he really gassed Kurds; he murdered Shias. The one and only good thing about invading Iraq is that it removed him from power.

That by itself didn't justify the invasion. While there might have been a good reason for a humanitarian intervention in Iraq at several points during Saddam's reign, the Spring of 2003 was not one of them. Moreover, it seems not worth the blood spilled to replace Saddam and his gang of murderers with Bush and his gang of colonial thieves. A thief may be morally superior to a murderer, but either belongs in a place where he can do honest people no harm.

Should Saddam answer for this crimes? Yes, of course. Should he get a fair trial? Absolutely. Will he get one in neoconservative-occupied Iraq? Probably not. Therefore, I believe this should be taken out of the hands of Bush, the neoconservative and their Iraqi puppets and placed in the more capable hands of an international tribunal.

Not that it matters, but for what it's worth, I am confident that any competent international tribunal will find Saddam guilty of multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[jokerman93]

86. I respectfully disagree

"The one and only good thing about invading Iraq is that it removed him from power."

Who is better off now? The American people? The Iraqi people? The US military? Who?

I see NO upside to this entire travesty. The world is full of tin-cup despots and thugs like Hussein. And lest we forget the beam in our own eye, America is currently harboring, aiding and abetting "leaders" cut from precisely the same cloth.

A flood doesn't recede just because you've scooped a single bucket of water from the torrent. Nothing has changed in that regard -- except scores of thousands have perished in the name of our disgraceful "March of Democracy".

[Toots]

17. Unless you voted for Bush* I would have to disagree

There are fifty million who are much more of an idiot than you claim to be.

[Gold Metal Flake]

19. Saddam was supported in his ruling position by Americans on the far right.

Saddam should be tried in the Haig. His testimony about his relationship to the Reagan, Bush and * administrations should be heard. The additional trials of co-conspirators both foreign and domestic should grow as needed.

[donkeyotay]

20. What an incredible statement

"the judges are confident that he will be convicted on these charges."

LynnThe Dem, I admire your posts and your passion.

Up is down, freedom is slavery - and the only real idiots are the people too busy, too comfortable, too afraid to notice how corrupt our government has become.

[LynnTheDem]

39. Thanks, donkeyotay

:hug:

[Vladimir]

21. You are right that he cannot get a fair trial

but I gotta tell you, mostly it doesn't bother me. Had Saddam been overthrown in a popular revolution, he would have had a far brisker end than this, and I for one would have probably been cheering the revolutionaries on. Maybe that makes me a cold bastard, I don't know. But it doesn't make you stupid, wanting justice - it just makes you a good person.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. It would have been better to have hung him from a convenient lamp post

. . . or, better yet, that grotesque war monument Saddam built over the Baghdad parade grounds.

Better that than make a mockery of justice on such serious charges. And it would certainly be better than allowing Bush and other neoconservative tyrants to define justice to suit their own dark ends.

[RedCloud]

82. Hanged or hung?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

99. Saddam is hanged.

Guckert is hung.

Got it?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

100. I personally find it laughable that the NeoCons, the people that....

...engineered this illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation, should be in the position to put anyone on trial.

[ScreamingMeemie]

22. You have a life other than spending it on another website scouring

hourly for things to post on your own website to prove how desparate and boring you truly are. ;) That and people hate being proven wrong on a daily basis..and you're pretty good at proving them wrong. :hi:

[Spazito]

23. This will go a long way in proving that the US believes in true...

justice.....NOT! I remember Wes Clark saying, during the primaries, that Saddam must receive a fair trial, one that the world can see and believe is fair or the credibility of the US in it's claims of being a just society will be further diminished (I am paraphrasing but that was the substance of it from what I remember).

When he went to the Hague to testify against Milosevic, he was asked by reporters about Saddam and what should be in place for his trial. The issue was front and center because Saddam had just been captured. Wes advocated for trial based on the same precepts that are used for international trials at the Hague.

I found these links on the subject:

Clark: Milosevic petulant at trial

snip

Asked if he thought what was happening at The Hague was a precedent for the treatment of Saddam Hussein, Clark said there were "important lessons" to be learned.

"I think there are important lessons to be taken from this court ... in terms of the character of the judges, the manner in which evidence is presented, and the timing of the trial should be taken into account," he said.

"I will be offering some reflections on those in the days immediately ahead. It's a very important precedent and must be taken into consideration into developing the manner for proceeding against Saddam Hussein."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/16/tribunal.clark/

CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER

Aired May 22, 2005 - 12:00 ET

snip


BLITZER: Your former nemesis, Slobodan Milosevic, General Clark -- he's been on trial for years. And that doesn't seem to have any end in site at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. Are you upset that it's taking this long to get Saddam Hussein before a jury?

CLARK: Yes. Saddam Hussein should be brought before a jury very promptly, and we should make sure that it meets all the standards of evidence and procedure so that there's no question about this. This is the way the world deals with criminals: by courts of law.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/22/le.01.html

I totally agree with Wes Clark and others that unless the trial is transparent in it's processes and procedures with all the legal protections afforded anyone in a criminal trial, this will be seen by the world as a false trial perpetrated by the puppets of the bush cabal.

[KharmaTrain]

24. Will This Trial Be Televised LIVE in Iraq?

Those in Serbia sure got a jolt last week when the long underground videos of the Sebernicza massacre (the justification Clinton used to bomb Milosevic to Dayton) were finally aired in The Hague and on Serbian television. The truth is the truth.

Serbians are able to watch the trial in its long and gory detail and learn about what was really happening during the Milosevic years. It's open and clear...and America should be proud in our role in the turn of events in this part of the world. Repugnican hypocrites who dare to bring this up should STFU...this was the use of American military power in coordination with allies to enact a positive result.

I would imagine if this puppet...err spokesman...knows a conviction is all but assured, then the new Iraqi government...to establish their own credibility with their people and to show the rest of the world they're not a subsidiary of Halliburton, will allow all of Saddam's proceedings to be televised live around the world...and especially inside Iraq.

The truth shall set you free. Or make a you a captive of your own conflicted history.

[Taxloss]

73. I sincerely doubt it.

I expect Saddam will use his day in court to name names, and the coalition wouldn't want that being relayed as it happens. Also, much of Iraq's domestic broadcast media is dominated by the coalition, and after Abu Ghraib and the parading of Saddam's sons, it seems most Iraqis are distrustful of it (not without reason) and rely instead on the Arab satellite networks.

A live broadcast is out of the question. I doubt we'll see half of what happens in that courtroom.

[applegrove]

26. Since he is only being tried on 12 of the 500 charges - because

they have the documentation - I think that is fine!

[LynnTheDem]

28. Yes, I know you don't believe in the rule of law and everyone being

entitled to the fullest protection of.

And that's very sad.

[applegrove]

30. I've been the one harping on the trial. You obviously think he is

an innocent. I know the character. I know how horrifying it is to live under the 'reality' of a sociopath. So do the Iraqis.

If the guy is up for 500 charges and only faces 12 - I think he is very lucky.

[LynnTheDem]

37. I PRESUME he is innocent. It's what your own country stands for.

Too bad YOU don't.

And you call yourself a progressive? A liberal?

If you do, I got news for you.

EVERYONE DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL. EVERYONE.

That, too, is what your own country stands for.

Too bad YOU don't.

May you NEVER someday find yourself being accused of something, GUILTY OR NOT, and hear your JUDGES say they are confidant you will be convicted.

[applegrove]

45. Not every country has the presumption of innocence as part of their

legal system. And the legal systems work just fine.

Anyone living under Saddam would have had to be very foolish to assume Saddam was not a danger. I'm sure you could find Saddam's Kool-Aid drinkers among those who thought he was just excellent. Most people were terrified the whole time.

[LynnTheDem]

47. Suddenly you have no problem with the legal system...set up by Hussein.

Not a surprise. Hypocritical. But not a surprise.

Hope your country doesn't decide to change it's legal system to one that is "just fine". Like the "just fine" one in Iraq. Although you'd be just fine with that.

Have a nice life. :)

[applegrove]

65. I think the laws set up for this trial were set up by American lawyers.

I do not know if they have a presumption of innocence. I'm just saying - that the presumption isn't more important that how the laws are interpreted or applied. That is in the end the most important thing. That someone is held accountable for their actions. And that there actions are proved beyond doubt.

Saddam was a bad man. As bad as they get. Sorry it is so hard to tell the truth anymore in your country. The neocons have done you harm by playing so much with the truth. I can tell you are hurting here.

I wish you no ill.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

101. Saddam is no more a "bad man" than the people that ordered the....

...illegal invasion and occupation of his country.

He is no more a "bad man" than the people who ordered 12 years of sanctions against Iraq that resulted in the early deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

He is no more a "bad man" than the people who ordered the bombing campaign that killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians...men, women, and children.

He is no more a "bad man" than the people who have ordered the torture of thousands of people...Iraqis, Afghans, as well as US citizens...at various locations around the world.

He is no more a "bad man" than folks like yourself who can moralize the death of another human being based just on the notion that he's a "bad man". Who needs laws and trials, right?

Sorry it is so hard to tell the truth to anyone living in a country outside the US. The neocons have done you harm by playing so much with the truth that is reported in your media.

I can tell you are hurting here.

I wish you no ill.

[knowbody0]

50. do you remember when Rather

interviewed him, and he challenged george to a televised debate? george responded that he did not debate with terrorists.... this whole scenario sucks ass.

[LynnTheDem]

56. Yes it sucks ass a lot.

And when President Talabani pisses America off down the road, the US will suddenly remember all the Kurds Talabani killed over his 3 decades of war against Barzani.

HE KILLED HIS OWN PEOPLE!

HE WAGED WAR FOR 30 YEARS...AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE!

HE WAS ALLIED WITH TERRORISTS (Saddam Hussein)!

HE WAS ALLIED WITH TERRORISTS (Iran)!

And then there's Chalabi and former terrorist Allawi...

[moddemny]

63. It's amazing........

....how someone could read so much into that story, could it be that Saddam has committed so many crimes and the evidence is so overwhelming that a very reasonable person could assume he would be convicted?


"May you NEVER someday find yourself being accused of something, GUILTY OR NOT, and hear your JUDGES say they are confidant you will be convicted."

If I kill at a minimum tens of thousands of people for no reason, I 'll worry about it. If I was a tinpot dictator who killed the amount of people that Saddam did wouldn't the families of my victims already be telling the stories way before my trial? Could I really blame someone for being just a little biased?

Now I am being put on trial and I have the chance to defend myself and pull out some type of proof that is suppose to justify all my actions? I have the chance to put some spin on my deeds in order to excuse them?

If I were in that position and received the type of trial Saddam is getting, I guess I would have to consider it very, very, very fair.

[LynnTheDem]

64. What's amazing is how some people think they're "progressive"

yet can justify such bullshit. I'm very thankful I don't think as you do.

EVERYONE DESERVES A FAIR AND LEGAL TRIAL.

And if that's just too PROGRESSIVE and HUMANE and FAIR-MINDED for you...oh well.

[moddemny]

67. Who said he wasn't getting a fair trial?

Is the article you posted suppose to be proof of that?

I know this may be hard for you to understand, but the judges are Iraqis, if they lived in Iraq don't you think they already have a pretty good idea of what Saddam is like? They have a pretty good handle of what Hussein will be accused of simply because they live there. They probably know dozens of people, many of them relatives, personally who have suffered. It is not a case of some small time mass muderer/serial killer ( a few dozen people killed tops) where one can reasonably expect an individual to not be familiar with the case beforehand. The judges have already been exposed to the horrors of the regime in an intimate way so isn't it forgivable if they have just a little bias because of the preponderance of evidence. Where are you going to go in the world to find a judge who is truly detached? Iraqis would still insist on trying Saddam themselves anyway. Hussein is still going to have a chance to give the world a perspective on what its like to be a mass murdering thug and put up a defense. Given the circumstances it seems as if the process is going to be very fair and beyond what someone would expect for most mass murderers.

[LynnTheDem]

69. How sad.

You don't have a clue what the meaning of an objective and fair trial is.

Have a nice life. :)

[moddemny]

75. Have fun cheapening the word progressive.

"You don't have a clue what the meaning of an objective and fair trial is."

Ok, I didn't realize I was debating a criminal defense attorney. I'll admit I'm not one. I realize it's a little more complicated then splattering a few articles up and skipping over valid points other people make.

[LynnTheDem]

80. I'm "cheapening the word progressive"...ROTFL! I want Hussein treated

in strict accordance with Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in strict accordance with international law, YOU DON'T...and you accuse ME of "cheapening the word progressive"!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Up is down. In is out.

And wanting strict adherence to international law and the "fundamental, essential rights" (Amnesty International) of all defendants is "cheapening the word progressive".

:crazy:

[moddemny]

90. .......

I'll admit I'm not a complete expert on international law (I don't think it matters here because I am probably debating at best a pseudo-expert) but I have read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 11 states

"1. Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed. "

In reply #67 I simply mentioned it is going to be hard to find Iraqis who are going to be detached and not presume he is guilty ahead of time. I was pointing out the understandable difficulties of conducting a trial and you immediately jump to the conclusion that I am not for fair trials. You disregard the point, make another accusation and simply label people as not "progressive", hence cheapening the term.

I will admit that among the dozens of "progressive" issues that do concern me, the trial of Saddam is probably the last one on the list.

The whole world will probably be watching every minute of it and every word that is uttered and Saddam will have many people watching to make sure it is done fairly. That's not bad considering that he denied millions of Iraqis many of the rights outlined in Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Is that what you mean by "Up is down. In is out."


Here are all the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that Saddam himself probably denied his many of his own people:

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized

[LynnTheDem]

91. It does not make the slightest difference what Hussein violated.

EVERY PERSON is entitled to a fair and independant trial. Period.

And that's MOST important for the worst of society's dregs.

[tkmorris]

71. I think that's rather the point

You don't know how many people Saddam Hussein killed. Tens of thousands or even one you do not know. You know what you have been told but that is all. If Hussein is as guilty as he is assumed to be by you and others than why on earth do you have a problem with a fair trial, presumption of innocence until proven guilty, proof beyond reasonable doubt, and all the rest?

If he is truly the dictatorial murderer he is presumed to be I would think it a simple matter to convict him by the same standards that have stood us so well here in the United States. Don't you?

[moddemny]

74. Whoa.

Your reading too much into my statements. I did not say I did not want him to have a fair trial. I do believe that were he to have the fairest trial in the world, he would be convicted. I was debating a point made in the thread (reply #37 - May you NEVER someday find yourself being accused of something, GUILTY OR NOT, and hear your JUDGES say they are confidant you will be convicted.) and questioning the article posted.


"You know what you have been told but that is all."

Nope, I know what I hear from other Iraqis. Your statement implies I am falling for some sort of propaganda. I do not believe all the stories about Hussein are made up, a few may be a little exagerrated, but the proof he was a murdering thug is out there. It is up to you to ignore or not (or spin or justify to your liking).

[applegrove]

77. I think the point is you pick at something really superficial in the

'justice system' the 'presumption of innocence'. Much more important that the trial is fair and follows some known pattern as fair trials go.

[LynnTheDem]

78. Oh. My. God. That's so beyond merely wrong.

:wow: :wow: :wow:

Presumption of innocence, a basic human right, considered the most important aspect of the judicial system and essential for any democracy, you call "superficial".

Why don't you research which well-known public figures agreed with you on that.

"Presumption of innocence is an essential right that the accused enjoys in criminal trials in all countries respecting human rights"

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11:

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

Edit to add your country's opinion;

Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

This was proclaimed as part of the Constitution Act of Canada in 1981 and as such entrenches the presumption of innocence as part of the supreme law in Canada. Similar wording of this right can be found in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Chief Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Oakes, 1986, 26 D.L.R. 200 (4th) beginning at page 212, said:

"The presumption of innocence protects the fundamental liberty and human dignity of any and every person accused by the State of criminal conduct. ... In light of the gravity of these consequences, the presumption of innocence is crucial."

You're living in the wrong country.

[Spazito]

87. Oh my God! I can't believe anyone, repeat anyone who professes

to be democratic and progressive would EVER call 'the presumption of innocence' to be superficial! To call a fundamental right that democratic people believe is essential 'superficial' leads me to believe you are also supportive of dictatorships, tyrants, etc, as they, too, believe the presumption of innocence is 'superficial. Those who believe this would fit right in with the Saddam regime.

Edited to insert missing words, I blame it on being so outraged at the poster's comment I could hardly type.

[Straight Shooter]

31. *ahem*

Don't you be calling yourself an idiot, or else you'll end up being quoted on the rush limbo (how low can you go) show.

:hug:

[LynnTheDem]

35. Oh gawd...now THAT WOULD be just the worst.

YUCK!

:D :hug:

[funflower]

36. Actually, LynnTheDem, there are at least few folks dumber....

Probably a few billion....

[LynnTheDem]

38. A whole lot of the world is demanding a legally fair & just trial for

Hussein, and the majority want him tried at the World Court. Just, unlike me, they probably all knew it wasn't going to happen, which is probably why the outcry.

Which I ignored because I just totally assumed even bush would demand a legally fair & just trial.

And that makes me #1 Dummy. :eyes:

[funflower]

51. Bush wouldn't want to dignifiy the World Court by sending Saddam there.

Who cares what the Iraqi people would want or how it affects the legitimacy of the "verdict"?

[LynnTheDem]

54. Who's ever cared what the Iraqi people want?

They didn't want us to invade them.

They don't want us occupying them.

They want us the hell out of their country.

They didn't want us overthrowing their government.

They never wanted us bombing the crap out of them years on end.

They don't want us stealing their businesses and resources.

And they were better off under the government they had than they are now, or will be for many years to come.

**** :( ****

But who cares. We know what's best for them.

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

40. You're not an idiot, Lynn.

And remember that guy that says, "hope is a decision, not a state of mind"?

He's right on that one, anyway.

I'll be surprised if Saddam even lives to see his trial. And am not happy to think that way.

[LynnTheDem]

43. Thanks, sfexpat.

:hug:

PROGRESSIVES don't cherry-pick who is entitled to the fullest protections of the law.

[Disturbed]

46. Saddam committed an unpardonable sin.

He started selling Iraq's oil via the Euro. Had he not done that there would have been no invasion. He would still be buds with Amerika. Just as with other brutal dictators that Amerika supports and arms, his ego got too big and crossed Amerikan Capitalists. Once that occurs a dictator that was once an ally turns into a monster real fast and is overthrown. History has many examples of this.

The Amerikan people will be pleased when he is found guilty and executed because they believe what their Govt. and Corp. Media tell them to believe.

[LynnTheDem]

49. Yes, when he's executed (that's already been decided, of course)

I'm sure Americans will be very pleased.

And thank God for the new President of Iraq, Kurdish warlord Talabani; responsible for more Kurds' deaths than Hussein! And Chalabi! And former car-bomber terrorist Allawi!

That's why 1600+ Americans (so far) died on Iraq's sands, after all.

Good thing American soldiers are fungible.

[funflower]

53. It'll send a message

to any leader of an oil-producing nation who is thinking about crossing BushCo.

[LynnTheDem]

57. Yes; get nukes. Lots of nukes. And make the bushDoctrine your friend.

They've already got the message.

[Stephanie]

41. I thought this trial would occur during the 2004 election

I'm sort of shocked that they're not saving it to distract from something major. It's going to be the OJ trial again, 24/7, a very special presentation brought to you by BUSHCO.

[Justice]

79. The Administration Kept Saying He would be, and then

nothing happened. I wondered why nothing happened - and of course the media never asked Bush* why Saadam wasn't tried.

[beam me up scottie]

42. It's okay Lynn.

I'm an idiot too. Better to be an idiot than a vigilante.

[LynnTheDem]

44. You too, huh.

Better to be an idiot than a vigilante.

Amen!

:hug:

[beam me up scottie]

48. When we stop being idiots,

we might become *cough* compassionate *cough* conservatives.
A fate worse than death, IMO.
:P

[LynnTheDem]

52. Or worse...

we could become like some who call themselves *cough* progressives. *cough*

Idiots Unite!

:D

[beam me up scottie]

55. UNION!

The I.I.U.U.
International Idiots United Union.

"We don't make the rules, we just live here."

[LynnTheDem]

59. Where "Justice For All" isn't just a cheap meaningless slogan.

I like it. :hug:

[beam me up scottie]

60. GREAT idea for a bumper sticker!

You have yourself a good night, friend.
We all appreciate your hard work and effort on our behalf.

[LynnTheDem]

61. You, too, beam.

Pleasant & peaceful dreams. :hug:

[Bhaisahab]

58. you're no idiot.

you're the slayer of stupid rightwing MFers with your well-equipped arsenal of deadly words.

i look at it this way - there is no difference between hussein and bushco judicial processes. they differ only in style - unlike hussein, buscho believes in creating an illusion of a fair trial for public consumption.

but yeah, i can empathise with the desire to see some semblance of respect for the law. but with this bunch of murdering millionaires, that desire will remain just that, i'm afraid....

[babylonsister]

62. Lynn, you are my hero! Don't let anyone tell you different!

Amen, sister. Your passion sets you apart, and I hope your hubby and family and his unit know what you are up to. I do, and appreciate you!:applause:

[6th Borough]

66. I was about to alert you.

...until I looked at the thread author, that is :silly:

[LynnTheDem]

70. LOL!

:D

[Rex]

72. Yeah I read that the judge also said that this was a waste of time

meaning the trial because everyone already knows he will be convicted and killed.

[LynnTheDem]

76. Yep. Total charade.

But the world knows what a total sham our talk is of being a beacon of democracy and "blind justice" and crap like that, so why bother with any trial at all.

Besides, having the victims themselves judge Hussein is a little bit biased and the total opposite of democracy, which could make us look like hypocrites.

And current Iraq President Talabani waged war against his own people for 3 decades, killing more Kurds than Turkey, Iran and Hussein combined; most the world is aware of that. Why make ourselves look like even bigger hypocrites by sending Hussein to the World Court for a fair trial and leaving Talabani as President.

Toss Hussein out into the street and let Iraqis tear him apart. Maybe Fox News could film it. Their ratings would soar.

:sarcasm:

[RedCloud]

81. He should plead, Just following the WH's orders!

Let's see, We (okay, okay, just the conservatives among us) create a Frankenstein. He wreaks havoc. Let's string him up! Then we will creat another one and another one.... Aren't we the civilized sort?

Lynn the Dem,

May your words reach all intelligent corners of the universe!

[Pacifist Patriot]

85. Not a stupid idiot...

but I will put you in the ranks of the compassionate. I find the statement appalling as well.

[Stand and Fight]

89. A Gross Miscarriage of Justice

You are far from an idiot. What we are witnessing is Act I, Scene 9 of what will climax in the antagonist being sentenced by the raving mob. I had thought that America – and subsequently her progressive citizens – stood for something a little better than this. However, it is clear from some of the comments in this thread and the quote cited by you in the article are indicative of something very black in the hearts of “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” For we so loudly proclaim that freedom is on the march, when we have ushered in a reign of terrific tyranny in the Middle East.

To make the situation even worst, there are those among us who seem to be marching in step with Al “The Torturer” Gonzalez when it comes to the rule of law. It stills my heart, and quickens it in the same beat, to think that there are those among us who have no qualms with the quote, "The number of charges on which he will be tried are 12 and the judges are confidant that he will be convicted of these charges." It sickens me to no end to read that, because it truly means that we have failed in Iraq and we are quickly collectively going to hell in a hand basket here in America. I love this country but I don’t like the way it’s headed, and I am anxious that we may have reached the point of no return…

I am reminded of some of my studies in history. Particularly of Stalinist Russia in which people were put on trial all the time. Reading the history, I was always struck by the Orwellian flavor that seemed to permeate everything that was done in Stalinist Russia. The show trials in which the “guilty” would proclaim on live broadcasts – radio at the time – of their “guilt” and how they’d betrayed the state. In reading these things I was particularly horrified by the gross miscarriage of justice, the mockery of justice, that was evident in the Stalinist procedures. Did you know that they scripted everything like a bloody melodrama? Shocking… I digress. The point of the matter is that those who were put on trial had already been found guilty by the state, by the Stalinists… It seems that history is indeed repeating itself in a bizarre fashion, for while we can all be quite certain Saddam Hussein is guilty of many terrible things, we can no also be certain he most definitely will NOT receive a fair trial from the puppet government in Iraq.

You are not an idiot.

You are what it truly means to be an American.

Don’t you ever forget it.

[LynnTheDem]

93. Well said, Stand.

bush, in all our names, says he's "exporting" American values to Iraq. Well hey world, here's our values! We don't REALLY believe in human rights and the rule of law for EVERY human. In fact our loudly proclaimed values are a total sham!

Saddam didn't give defendants fair & independant trials! He didn't respect rule of law and human rights! So why should we!
*pout and stamp of America's collective little foot*

And we're just as uncivilized and as bloodthirsty a mob now as any back in the witch-hunting days! Skip the showtrial; KILL HIM! KILL HIM! KILL HIM! USA! USA! USA!

Now why would any nation not want to be Freedomized by us.

Thanks again for such a thoughtful & well-written post, Stand :hug:

[Stand and Fight]

105. Anytime........... n/t

[spindoctor]

92. Do you expect an argument?

When was the last time you saw a fair trial (of any relevance) in the US? They took the man's money and besides, OJ's dream team is one man short.

This is good old fashioned western justice. First we hang him, THEN we take him to court. As American as cow pie.

The export of our marals and values is in full swing. Mission well on its way.

[ovidsen]

102. It took me awhile

to figure out where you were coming from. Why do you defend Saddam Hussein? Why are you questioning reports from Iraq of Muslim against Muslim bloodshed? How can you criticize accounts of the slaughter of Kurds and Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq? What the HELL is your problem, stupid??

Then I realized that maybe, just maybe, you're not so stupid. In fact, you may be smart. Quite smart. And most of all you might even be fair.

And that's the golden nugget, isn't it? Fairness. You have been making a bold effort to educate anyone who will listen that it's very, VERY important that we DON'T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS.

I applaud you for this. There are numerous, and quite believable reports of mass murders by various factions in Iraq, but very few can be regarded as incontrovertible. Who is killing whom, and why? I'd like to know. Then there are the accounts of abuse against prisoners in Iraq, which also vary widely. It's clear that prisoners in US custody have been assaulted, even killed. Obviously, even one such incident is indefensible. But the extent of these crimes, and the depth of any conspiracy to commit them and cover them up are debatable and merit further investigation. It's true that the evidence against Saddam is substantial, but much of the evidence against him is open to interpetation. And for a top Iraqi official to say that "the judges are confident he will be convicted" is clearly a perversion of justice.

Indict the guilty parties (Saddam, Tariq Aziz, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, whomever). Try them in a court of law that respects the rule of law.. No one should be declared guilty of anything without a fair trial during which all the evidence is introduced and considered by a panel of intelligent and impartial jurors. They are innocent until proven guilty... right? And while we're at it, let's not assume that any sect or faction in Iraq (or anywhere else) has been torturing and slaughtering indiscriminately. Or even selectively. It's important not to jump to hasty conclusions, lest we sink to the dubious levels of some of the groups or organizations being criticized.

Lynn, if this is what your saying, keep it up !:applause:

If I've misunderstood you... well, then call me a stupid idiot.

[LynnTheDem]

104. ...speechless...incredibly touched...

I've printed out your post, ovidsen, and whenever I get overwhelmed, by the loss of my friends -US soldiers- who are dying in Iraq and attending funerals, by the daily tallying of troop and Iraqi deaths for the ICCC, by the constant lies and warprofiteering and cheerleading, by the incredible injustice of it all, by my sheer helplessness to stop the carnage...and by the smears and insults received not only from the warmongering and the blind-faith bush supporters, but also from those who say they're progressives...I will look at your post and be comforted; I did the right thing, I do the right thing, by speaking out, that God may damn me for many things; being fair won't be one of them.

THANK YOU so much, ovidsen, you've no idea how much your post means to me.

:hug:

[ovidsen]

106. Thank YOU!

I don't always agree with you, but I do have tons of respect for you.:pals:

[LynnTheDem]

107. Bahhhh...always agreeing would be so YAWN.

;)

:hug:

[LuPeRcALiO]

103. a show trial was in the works, no doubt about it

But Saddam kind of went off the script at his arraignment. My guess is that it either goes by fast over a long weekend (like Memorial Day) or gets postponed indefinitely.

Either way, no cameras.


p.s. Lynn :yourock:

[Maraya1969]

108. It took me a minute to sink in THE JUDGES!

[SouthernDem2004]

109. Your violating DU rules by posting a personal attack. :P

:p

[LynnTheDem]

110. I know, but I threatened myself to not alert me.

:D

[EFerrari]

111. You two just cut it out. Think of the party.

:party:

[LynnTheDem]

112. But I started it! No it was me! Was not. Was too! Was not! Was too!

Heh. :D