Should Saddam be Released

[Unstable 9]

Let's give him to the Kurds. He gas their families, they can put him on, um, trial......

=========Shaun ==========

[Kennedy 0]

That's a good idea, but how do you make sure there's enough of him left for everyone to get a piece?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Tonto 1]

  Quote

Let's give him to the Kurds. He gas their families

Yeah... with the gas the US gave him...

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Faber 0]

  Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you kill someone in your own home (non-self defense related), police can go in there to make the arrest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So we are the police of the world? Does the rest of the world know and agree with that?

yes we do know but we dont agree,thats what we have yelled the last couple of years...

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[Botellines 0]

Tough question!!! Although i think that this war was illegal and this should never have happened, i don´t think that releasing Saddam Hussein would be a wise idea. Go figure how pissed he must be. If before he was not financing terrorists, now he will. I think he should go to court and end up in the cell next to Milosevic.
The real question is: what should we do with Bush, Blair and Aznar? In my opinion, they should go to court as well. Even if "only" for those 8000 civilians dead in Irak.
My 0.2 Euros

[juanesky 0]

Your logic is quite difficult to follow. If it was an illegal war, then he is detained illegally.

He was warned, and given an option before it started. Don't be a pendejo and open your eyes.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

Tough question!!! Although i think that this war was illegal and this should never have happened, i don´t think that releasing Saddam Hussein would be a wise idea. Go figure how pissed he must be. If before he was not financing terrorists, now he will. I think he should go to court and end up in the cell next to Milosevic.
The real question is: what should we do with Bush, Blair and Aznar? In my opinion, they should go to court as well. Even if "only" for those 8000 civilians dead in Irak.
My 0.2 Euros

I shouldn’t be so naïve as to ask myself questions like this but I did. I thought, is this guy for real? Are there really people out there like this who think this is a “tough question?” That’s why I haven’t posted here until now. Then I looked at your profile and saw that you were from Spain. Who would have thought it?

[juanesky 0]

Yep, him and a bunch of so called culturaly superior Europeans-SA-OZ who get a hang on bashing the US in every thread.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Of course he should be tried, but under who's jurisdiction?

Milosevic is on trial at the Hague, but I'm pretty sure the US doesn't recognise this court.
Anyone got any ideas how the authorities are going to approach this?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nacmacfeegle 0]

That should read culturally.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

Yep, him and a bunch of so called culturaly superior Europeans-SA-OZ who get a hang on bashing the US in every thread.

This position by B must be representative of a very small extreme group in the world. Just like our left and right wing extremists The rest may disagree, but not be militant about it. I'm suspecting that B is just extrapolating to make a point.

In this case, the point would only be valid if accused at every leader of every country in the coalition.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Botellines 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Tough question!!! Although i think that this war was illegal and this should never have happened, i don´t think that releasing Saddam Hussein would be a wise idea. Go figure how pissed he must be. If before he was not financing terrorists, now he will. I think he should go to court and end up in the cell next to Milosevic.
The real question is: what should we do with Bush, Blair and Aznar? In my opinion, they should go to court as well. Even if "only" for those 8000 civilians dead in Irak.
My 0.2 Euros

I shouldn’t be so naïve as to ask myself questions like this but I did. I thought, is this guy for real? Are there really people out there like this who think this is a “tough question?” That’s why I haven’t posted here until now. Then I looked at your profile and saw that you were from Spain. Who would have thought it?

I don´t think you understand my logic, so i will explain myself a bit better. He was for several reasons detained illegally. In first place, The US has no jurisdiction over Irak, and besides there is international treaties to prevent countries to interfere with other countries internal affairs. In other words, you cannot put him on trial for killing his own people, you could do it for having WMD if you find them, but not for his internal affairs. In the other hand, this was a war (irregular and illegal) but a war, so i guess he could be consider prisoner of war. But, the war is over (Bush said it), so acording to geneva´s convention he should be liberated (someone correct me if i am wrong). To set him free would be quite risky, though, for us and for him (he is not much liked now), although in my opinion that would be the lawfull thing to do.
If you are going to follow international law, as any democratic country that respect human rights should do, it IS a tough question. If you are going to do whatever pleases you most, it is not tough at all.

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

Of course he should be tried, but under who's jurisdiction?

Milosevic is on trial at the Hague, but I'm pretty sure the US doesn't recognise this court.
Anyone got any ideas how the authorities are going to approach this?

I think the freed Iraqi majority who are in favor of the new democracy and had to suffer under Saddam's brutal dictatorship have the biggest stake in the game. Once they have the structure in place, I think he should be tried under Iraq's jurisdiction. I can think of nothing better than for the Iraqis to be able to exact justice on the person who formerly terrorized them.

[Faber 0]

  Quote

Should Saddam Hussein be released?

ofcourse he should,the smell of a death body aint worth holding on to...

I do agree that the war were of the wrong reassons,but were still dealing whith a guy who have killed loads of people... he should get to trail in Iraqe,and even as i dont like death punishment i do belive this guy deserves so...

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[Botellines 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Of course he should be tried, but under who's jurisdiction?

Milosevic is on trial at the Hague, but I'm pretty sure the US doesn't recognise this court.
Anyone got any ideas how the authorities are going to approach this?

I think the freed Iraqi majority who are in favor of the new democracy and had to suffer under Saddam's brutal dictatorship have the biggest stake in the game. Once they have the structure in place, I think he should be tried under Iraq's jurisdiction. I can think of nothing better than for the Iraqis to be able to exact justice on the person who formerly terrorized them.

Fair enough, but what group will you give him to? the SD supporters who will give him shelter and will help him to get the power again when the USA is gone, or the people who suffered from Sadam´s dictatorship efectively condemn him to death?
Maybe you should release him in the middle of a strret and see who gets him first. (you can make some dollars broadcasting it on payperview)

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Once they have the structure in place, I think he should be tried under Iraq's jurisdiction."

I agree, but it may take some time to pull together the infrastructure to ensure a fair trial. A kangaroo court would nobody any favours, neither would a lynch mob.
The last thing anyone wants to do is to turn the man into a martyr.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[pajarito 0]

He should be handed over to the legitimate government once it is official, in place, and becomes stable and effective. Until then, he should be held by the US.

[Botellines 0]

I assure you i am not extreme at all.
The tittle of this thread is Should Saddam be released? not What would you like to do with Saddam?
Personally i wouln´t mind the slightest that Saddam ends up death. He deserve it. But setting personal feelings aside, there is some international laws out there that we must comply with. We cannot break them whenever it suit us.
I am referring exclusively with my previous post to the legal aspects of his captivity.

[PhillyKev 0]

I agree with your logic in that the US shouldn't be trying him for anything, and that the US shouldn't get involved in what happens in sovereign nations without full UN backing (ala Yugoslavia).

But, one point you're missing is that he also gassed Iranians, and therefore is a war criminal. So the Hague is a valid place for him to go. As is to whomever the new leaders of Iraq end up being.

He should be tried in Iraq, and then be tried at the Hague. That's my opinion anyway.

[Nightingale 0]

Release him to the new government, once the country is relatively stabilized, and let the government try him according to the new constitution for crimes against the Iraqi people.

[Botellines 0]

Exactly, that is what i meant when i talked about ending up in a cell close to Milosevic.
I agree that Irak also have the right to judge him, however, how are you going to ensure a fair trial? The government is necesarily going to be influenced by the US. Eventually Irak will have an independent government but that will take a long time and Saddam Hussein is not that young. If he dies while being held capture by the US he will be more of a martir than if he dies after a fair trial. If he is condemned to capital punishment in Irak under an unfair trial (or what it may look like), He WILL BE a martir. so i am up for a trial in the Hague.
However, this have legal consequences that must be looked upon. We are setting precedence of a country starting an unprovoked war (under a preventive aproach) and setting the rules to judge the former president of the country that lost the war.
If we go along international war, Irak, USA, UK, spain, etc etc broke that law as well. It will give the impression to the world that whoever wins the war, sets the rules. and as someone said in another thread, perception is all.

[PhillyKev 0]

  Quote

I agree that Irak also have the right to judge him, however, how are you going to ensure a fair trial?

Not our problem. Let the Iraqis worry about it. I would just stipulate that before we give over control that they agree to extradite him to the Hague before punishment so that he does have a fair trial in the public light. How the Iraqis want to handle their justice system is their problem.

[Gawain 0]

I don't understand your logic either. By your statements, let me ask or offer a rebuttal:

  Quote

I don´t think you understand my logic, so i will explain myself a bit better. He was for several reasons detained illegally. In first place, The US has no jurisdiction over Irak, and besides there is international treaties to prevent countries to interfere with other countries internal affairs.

I'm aware of no treaty between the US and Iraq. Given that 30+ other countries are now in Iraq, it doesn't appear there were many treaties of consequence.

  Quote

In other words, you cannot put him on trial for killing his own people, you could do it for having WMD if you find them, but not for his internal affairs.

Two prime examples: Milosevic was apprehended, and is being tried. The remaining government of Germany after WWII. There is precedent against your line of thinking. Additionally, there is still unfinished business between Iraq and Iran, and Kuwait.

  Quote

But, the war is over (Bush said it), so acording to geneva´s convention he should be liberated (someone correct me if i am wrong).

"Major combat operations are over." is what President Bush said, not "the war is over." There is a huge difference, one need not be in the military to know that.

  Quote

To set him free would be quite risky, though, for us and for him (he is not much liked now), although in my opinion that would be the lawfull thing to do. If you are going to follow international law, ...

I think International law has something to say about crimes against humanity. It disgusts me that you advocate releasing this thug.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

  Quote

I'm aware of no treaty between the US and Iraq. Given that 30+ other countries are now in Iraq, it doesn't appear there were many treaties of consequence.

I believe he's referring to the UN multi-lateral treaties.

  Quote

Two prime examples: Milosevic was apprehended, and is being tried. The remaining government of Germany after WWII. There is precedent against your line of thinking.

In both cases they commited war crimes against other nations. And they weren't tried by the US.

  Quote

Additionally, there is still unfinished business between Iraq and Iran, and Kuwait.

That allows him to be tried at the Hague.

  Quote

It disgusts me that you advocate releasing this thug.

I don't think he's advocating his release. He's advocating following international law. He misinterpreted that to mean that he would have to be released.

[Casurf1978 0]

He'll be long dead before there is any stability in Iraq. You're talking at least a decade. Try him in the Hague for crimes against humanity and let him rot in jail. Putting him on trial in Iraq... well there might be a Kangaroo Court, yet you also might get some people that are still loyal to him. He will not receive a fair trial in Iraq. Question is what do you want? To treat him and execute like he did thousands of his people, or do you want to set a precendent, i.e., support terrorism, build WMDs, kill thousands, invade an other country and this is what will happen to you. The latter makes more sense.