The Iraq thread 3

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

One minor point, the EU can comment on it till they go blue in the face, Iraq aint in the EU.

While technically true, Iraq has to pay attention to what the EU says if it wants for instance its old loans written off and if it wants new loans, trade agreements etc. They're not on equal footing so to say.

Also a minor point is that the country is still occupied by troops from some of the EU countries, which has some consequences.

Did you see the article that Quicksand posted about US troops disarming Iraqi police officers after they were beating prisoners? It is a far more direct violation of the sovereignty  of Iraq than making comments about their legal system.

o so we branding all of the Police service as brutal now also that article was posted before the handover IMMIC, ah righty now we are talking about Blackmail from the EU nothing new for the french i guess when it comes to trying to control smaller countries. As of now we are no longer an occupying force (i know thats a farce) but we are not classed as one.

[denoir 0]

o so we branding all of the Police service as brutal now also that article was posted before the handover IMMIC, ah righty now we are talking about Blackmail from the EU nothing new for the french i guess when it comes to trying to control smaller countries. As of now we are no longer an occupying force (i know thats a farce) but we are not classed as one.

No we're talking about after the handover. And as for your Francophobia, as I pointed out, Britain made much stronger statements against an Iraqi death penalty than the French did.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

yes we have established that. yes my Francophobia .

[denoir 0]

You don't find it funny with a Brition accusing the French of "trying to control small countries" when the British have the standing world record on colonialization in the world?

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

The french Try(ied), we did

Yes i find it funny that the french at one point don't wanna know about Iraq and then they do, repeat.

[ran 0]

Francophobia ?

Bah .... just shut it, us french can stand the fact that your country is only 30km far from our coast , do the same please. (believe me, it's hard, and if the teluric moves were up to me, it would have been a long time since your island would be in the middle of the atlantic ocean or even better, swallowed by Mother Earth inbetween 2 continental plates)

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

o dear, can we go back to Iraq plz, btw did you mean Tectonic?

[ran 0]

Tectonic?

I'm not geologist

[Badgerboy 0]

Tectonic?

I'm not geologist

And Ran's English is probably a little better than your French.

[Scorpio 0]

You're both bloody bonkers for even thinking about invading a country.

[billybob2002 0]

I'm confused now...........

[bucket man 2]

Lol so am I. How the hell can thread about Iraq turn to discussion about whos better, France or UK?

[Pukko 0]

In all fairness, if its so obvious that Saddam should be killed no matter what - then Bush and co. should surely be sentenced to death too - after all they share similar crimes, like starting a war of aggression and torture etc.

Also previous US administrations should be sentenced to death since they are very closely involved in the majority of Saddams killings:

-Letting down the Shia & Kurdish uprising.

-The acceptance of Saddams gasing of ~5000 Kurds.

-Prolonging the war and supplying boith sides during the Iran-Iraq war.

-& (correct my if I'm wrong here) being the major power pushing for the most brutal sanctions ever put on a country.

-etc

This makes me remember to chance back to my old sig again, since the Swedish guys has gone home from a wonderful football tournament. I will probably continue using this poor sig until Bush and Blair is hanging high enough to make all future attemps of preemtive war, based on lies, impossible (at least from what is called 'the civilized world ' )

[shinRaiden 0]

And this is not about law. The death penalty - murdering your own citizens - is a human rights violations.

This is not universlly accepted and therefore it is about law.

It is according to the UN charter. And if it's universal or not is besides the point. I don't think Saddam thought torture chambers and rape rooms were a human rights violation - does that mean that we had no right commenting on them?

The ultimate irony here of course that a country that invaded a sovereign country is objecting against other countries commenting on the behavior of a puppet regime...

And the third point is that the current Iraqi government is not a legitimate one. It has yet to be internationally recognized (and probably won't be until elections are held).

1) Just read through the entire UN charter, no mention of the death penalty.

In many places, such as the Preamble and also Chapter 9 article 55, the charter contains vague language such as

Quote[/b] ]

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and

c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

However, that is hinged on the

Quote[/b] ]

friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples

Now there was a more recent UN treaty on Human Rights, I don't remember if the US Senate has ratified it or not, that more explicitly states the types and relevancies of those enumerated human rights.

Most soveriegn self determining nations, holding some form of a judicial or penal code exercise some form of authoritatian restriction of convicted criminals' civil rights. When an individual abrogates another's civil property/rights, the violator can legally be held for compenstory and punitive claims.

Murder, and arguabley assualt and rape, though are crimes against the person, rather than against property. With that, self determining nations have the delimma of interpreting mingled civil and human rights. Arguements for capital punishment generally fall along the lines of the convict's crimes eliminating the individual's previously garunteed human right.

If the Kurds and Shia's were all enemy combatants (including women and children), as Saddam is alleging, and if there was evidence of due process, even under martial law, Saddam may have a case.

The other point here on trial is the concept of free speech. Here in the US, grounds for treason are becoming extremely restricted. You can say all sorts of crap about anybody, and not only do you not get brought up for libel, you get to be a pundit. However, other countries have determined that not praiseing the most glorious supreme leader on the success of his wilted pansies is tanamount to aiding and lending comfort to the enemies of the state.

If the court rejects Saddam's arguement that the exterminated peoples were enemy combatents, and futhermore finds that they were not accorded due process, despite any declaration of martial law, I don't see how that could be anything but a good thing.

2) We're not so much objecting as in mirroring the exasperation of the recent senatorial comment from Dick Cheney in regards to the prattling and attempted meddling coming from the henhouse.

3) The UN, in resolution 1546 furthermore recognized the interim government in Iraq that assumed control on June 28th has the right to be the soveriegn authority in Iraq, until it, the interim government, hands over to the the Transitional government.

[shinRaiden 0]

Pukko, there is a clear and defined process in the US Constitution and legal code for handling that.

Congress, independent of any other outside body, can appoint a commission, with the authorization of warrants from that body and Supreme Court rulings, can investigate the President for whatever it pleases.

That committee can then return charges to the House of Representatives for hearing, and the House can then vote on articles of impeachement ( = indictment) to send to the Senate for trial. The Senate, under the direction of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then tries the charges forwarded from the house, and deterimines if the charges are correct, and issues a judgement, if any, to the maximum penalty of explusion from office.

Following that, a Federal criminal grand jury could be called, testimony given, and an indictment made. For it to be capital case however, it would have to be murder or treason.

The case would then be heard in Federal District Courts, Circuit courts of Appeal, and garuanteed to the Supreme Court a least a couple times. You would also have to argue that the action taken was illegal, and prove that it was not covered under legislative or executive immunity generally granted to actions taken in the course of fulfilling the office.

Which incidentally is happening in Iraq. You had an Iraqi grand jury issue an indictment for Saddam Hussein, that indictment was read to him in an Iraqi supreme court, and the Iraqi governing council is finalizing the relevant criminal code to adequately handle this case.

I do suggest, that as any of these trials will take some time, that you just relax and let the law take care of the law. Toddler-esqe temper tantrums just because things don't always go your way are not an excuse for vitriole.

[denoir 0]

1) Just read through the entire UN charter, no mention of the death penalty.

In many places, such as the Preamble and also Chapter 9 article 55, the charter contains vague language such as

Quote[/b] ]

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and

c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

LMAO Priceless. Not the UN Charter, the UN Human Rights Charter aka Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Quote[/b] ]

Article 3.

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

Quote[/b] ]Now there was a more recent UN treaty on Human Rights, I don't remember if the US Senate has ratified it or not, that more explicitly states the types and relevancies of those enumerated human rights.

US Senate? Who gives a fuck about the US senate? We're talking about the fundamental human rights, not to some local county rule. The US senate has as much to say about it as Saddam's government had.

Quote[/b] ]3) The UN, in resolution 1546 furthermore recognized the interim government in Iraq that assumed control on June 28th has the right to be the soveriegn authority in Iraq, until it, the interim government, hands over to the the Transitional government.

Yes, and that does not equal to a legitimate government. That comes first with international recognition. And as the UN has clearly stated, the government of Iraq will be recognized as legitimate after free elections have been held.

[denoir 0]

I do suggest, that as any of these trials will take some time, that you just relax and let the law take care of the law.

Except for that there is no law. There has been no parliament to confirm any laws. The only laws that exist is as Saddam accurately pointed out, the laws that his regime passed.

The only "legal" way of dealing with Saddam would be handing over him to the ICC. Otherwise you're inventing new rules and puting a man on trial for not retroactivley following them. Such things are even rare in banana republics today.

[Pukko 0]

Nice reading shinRaiden (even though I don't remember the names of all those institutions for 5 seconds ) I just hope that you don't take my post all too seriously, because of waht I'll write below.

Pukko, there is a clear and defined process in the US Constitution and legal code for handling that.

Congress, independent of any other outside body, can.......  Supreme Court rulings, can.......

That committee can.......  the House of Representatives for hearing, and the House can..........

Following that, a Federal criminal grand jury could be called.......

An awful lot of the kind of can and could indeed. But as we all know a modern US president will only risk impeachment if he has sex in outside the merriage and lie about it in TV    

Lying in TV for months to get a war, that makes a president a HERO And if you are sceptical about how anyone could suspect Bush & co of lying to get the war - just look at the fact that the biggest global antiwar demonstrations since the Vietnam war took place on February 15 2003 (in which several members here participated in, me included).

Maybe if the USA would accept the ICC, Bush would have a chance of getting his rightful punishment, even though no chance of facing death. But as it is now step no.1 in your (very good indeed, if its correct) 'road to capital punishment explanation' could never be executed due to a majority of Republicans in the congress IIRIR.

Quote[/b] ]Toddler-esqe temper tantrums just because things don't always go your way are not an excuse for vitriole.

 

WTF are you writing?   I can't be assed to get the dictionary, but I suppose you mean that there is no reason for me being an ass. But I have no problems complaining about some idiots that put mine and billions of other humans hope of the (a) future on stake........ As a matter of fact, the Bush administrations foreign policy has made me very depressed sometimes, making the future look all black - and for that I'm all for giving him a good spank myself  

[Pukko 0]

Thinking about how depressed one can be from TBA's foreign policies and warmongering, take a look here if you dare:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....st=3360

Some of the greatest jokes of all times on this forum can be found there (the very best jokes staring on post no 8 by Oligo with an answer to an ongoing discussion about banning landmines or not), but be warned - there really was a good reason for cheering up in those days, and going there could bring back some nasty vibrations    

[ralphwiggum 6]

Hussein - Libya link found!

http://www.cnn.com/2004....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]AMMAN, Jordan (AP) -- The daughter of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi will help defend Saddam Hussein in court, a Jordanian lawyer and member of the legal team representing the former Iraqi dictator said Friday.

Aicha Moammar Gadhafi, a law professor, will form a Libyan law experts team to defend Saddam Hussein, Ziad al-Khasawneh told The Associated Press.

"The daughter of the Libyan president is welcomed to join us, and we consider her as an official member of the team," he said.

He added that the Jordanian-based multinational defense team had telephoned Gadhafi on Thursday to offer their thanks.

A statement issued late Thursday by a charity association headed by Gadhafi's daughter, in her late 20s, said she wanted to guarantee Saddam received a "fair trail (based on) the principle that all accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty."

The statement, from the association's office in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, said several Libyan lawyers will join Saddam's defense team, which already includes lawyers from Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia and Western countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Belgium.

Saddam and 11 other defendants, all former members of the ousted Iraqi regime, faced court in Baghdad for the first time Thursday on war crimes and genocide charges.

Defense lawyers were not present for the brief arraignment.

Saddam's lawyers have complained of being kept in the dark concerning their client's case, because they did not receive answers to their request to the American administration, the International Committee for the Red Cross and the Iraqi authorities to meet with the ex-Iraqi leader and be present when he was indicted.

Al-Khasawneh said a member of the team, top Arab Lawyers Union official Mohammed al-Alaqi, arrived Thursday in Jordan from Libya to help in Saddam's defense.

Jordanian Mohammed Rashdan, who heads the defense team, is waiting in Amman for assurances that the team can safely travel to Iraq.

Rashdan, affiliated with Saddam's collapsed Baath Party, has represented the former Iraqi regime in several cases.

His team includes Washington lawyer Curtis Doebbler and French attorney Emmanuel Ludot.

Days after Saddam's December 13 capture, the former dictator's wife, Sajida Khairallah Telfah, asked Rashdan to defend her husband, the lawyer said.

Ziad Tariq Aziz, the son of former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, appointed Rashdan's team Thursday to defend his father.

At an Arab summit in May, Gadhafi said he was "disgusted" that the 22-member Arab League had not done enough to represent Saddam.

"What's the significance of this Arab gathering?" Gadhafi said before packing up and leaving the summit venue, Tunis. "How can this summit convene while there are two Arab presidents in jail?

Gadhafi was referring to Saddam and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who has been holed up in his West Bank headquarters for more than two years, besieged by Israeli forces.

just to make some of our 'patriotic' happy,

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/02/erwin.ambush/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Scott Erwin credits his brave Iraqi friend and a spare AA battery for his MP3 player for saving his life during an ambush in Baghdad, Iraq.

The extra battery was in an ID pouch that hung around his neck and over his heart.

"It just happened that the day that I was shot that I actually did have that extra battery still in my pouch, and so one of the bullets actually hit a battery, as if it was probably going for my heart," Erwin said.

The 22-year-old delayed his senior year at the University of Richmond to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. In his spare time, he launched a program to educate Iraqi university students about democracy.

Erwin experienced firsthand both the joy of the connections he made with Iraqis and the hardship of losing two new friends in the June 2 ambush, in which he also suffered four gunshot wounds to his arms and abdomen.

As he recovered at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, Erwin said, "I feel very lucky just to be here today."

of course, this is a CNN article and they are just a bunch of liars, right?

[denoir 0]

of course, this is a CNN article and they are just a bunch of liars, right?

No, but I suspect product placement on the part of Duracell

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]An awful lot of the kind of can and could indeed. But as we all know a modern US president will only risk impeachment if he has sex in outside the merriage and lie about it in TV

It was perjury.....

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok, before this goes off, let me remind that this thread is for Iraq, not <s>oil</s> US presidents.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]ok, before this goes off, let me remind that this thread is for Iraq, not oil US presidents.

hey, he or whatever said all....

[Pukko 0]

Quote[/b] ]An awful lot of the kind of can and could indeed. But as we all know a modern US president will only risk impeachment if he has sex in outside the merriage and lie about it in TV

It was perjury.....

Yeah, whatever - but you got my point.

Quote[/b] ]ok, before this goes off, let me remind that this thread is for Iraq, not oil US presidents.

hey, he or whatever said all....

And my point was that US presidents dont get what they deserve (when starting a war of agression against, or for serious involvement leading to many peoples death in, Iraq for exampel), like some others do......