Death For Saddam

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:43 am

flopstock;450168 wrote: Really?:wah:

So, what you're saying here is that you only read your own posts?:DGood Lord, flops, I said that on Post #13. What on earth did I miss in posts #1 to #12 that makes you think I only read my own posts? What in that space related to "is the death penalty an acceptable punishment"?

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:52 am

I have not looked through all the posts here, but in case it has not yet been referenced, here is a CNN article

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/ ... index.html

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:58 am

spot;449984 wrote: I was reading the reaction to the verdicts at the Nuremberg Trial in September 1946, thinking that it will be interesting to compare with what we see from Iraq in the next few days. In 1946 there were no German protests, no sense that the verdicts were politically motivated or unwarranted. Will the Iraqis see this trial in a similar light?

There was also a distinct lack of gloating on the part of the victors in 1946:Many people that afternoon in fact felt a common humanity with the men who were condemned. Those who had fought in the armed services especially. They knew how disgusting all war is, how easily they might have been involved in acts for which the defendants must now suffer. The dignity and courage of the prisoners as they stood to hear their verdicts had moved everyone - would they themselves have been capable of such control? How would the British Cabinet have stood up to such a trial, such a moment, when their future was being dictated? When the court adjourned on 31st August everyone had gone out to celebrate. Tonight there was little celebration. Most people felt depressed and went home quietly to pack. It is a terrible thing to see a man condemned to death even when you are certain that he has been responsible for the death of millions.

Ann and John Tusa, "The Nuremberg Trial"

ok. this is the discussion that spot and I are engaged in.

somehow the issue of gloating vs somber behaviour has transformed into accusations that we? I? don't think the trial should have even taken place.

This is the very coinage of his brain

Hamlet, Shakespeare

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:59 am

spot;450169 wrote: You've still not been near a dictionary, then. A cretin is constitutionally, inherently, mentally incapable. If you mean stupid or fool then call him stupid or fool, neither of those make him a cretin.

I do think it would help my understanding if you try to tell me what "subhuman" means, in your opinion. I know what a human is. It's a member of a species. It's plain dangerous to use it in any other way. The Nazi racist philosophy of some branches of the species Homo Sapiens being less human than others led to genocide. To call anyone subhuman is to re-open the gate to that particular hell. "For me it has no connotation with Nazis" is a lack on your part, you can rectify it by simply knowing there's something to find out. Subhuman doesn't mean inhumane, it means someone who can be killed without legal consequence because they fail to qualify for legal protection by not being "people".

As for "I think you're giving him way too much credit here", I don't think I've given him any credit for anything at all - could you quote what I said that you think was too much credit?

Cretin is a now unused medical term for a person whose mental (or physical) growth has been stunted. I am aware of what a cretin is in actuality and also in current day usage. I am calling Hussein a cretin as I think anyone capable of his actions and the mentality behind them is short of mental expansion. I don't think he's a fool but I do think he lacks intelligence. He may be capable of handling his state but I do not see where that necessarily makes him an intelligent person. George Bush is (arguably) capable of running the US but I certainly would not call him an intelligent man by any means.

I will try to explain to you what subhuman means to me and maybe we can better see where the other is coming from. I use subhuman in the same way I use "substandard." Below. Less than. I am aware subhuman doesn't mean inhumane. However, I feel Hussein's acts were inhumane and that, in my opinion, makes him subhuman; less than human. When I said the word had no Nazi connotations, I was speaking for myself only and in no respect was it meant as an insult to the Hitler victims. (In case you might have taken it as such; I couldn't tell) Nor was it a lack on my part. Your definition may well be one of the meanings of that word, but it is not the only meaning and it is also not the definition I was using.

Do you think it would be fair or even appropriate to say that Hussein himself treated people as subhuman? I would be interested to read your take on it.

I said I felt you were giving him too much credit because it quite seemed to me that you were trying to say that Hussein is no worse than any State Head and that we might take into consideration his accomplishments, as if that would somehow remove some of the gravity of his crimes or be reason that he should not be executed.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:08 am

flopstock;450191 wrote: the guy is a parasitic infection.

:wah:

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:18 am

RedGlitter;450186 wrote: I said I felt you were giving him too much credit because it quite seemed to me that you were trying to say that Hussein is no worse than any State Head and that we might take into consideration his accomplishmentsGood God... *WHERE* did I say "we might take into consideration his accomplishments"? How on earth can you put words into my mouth like this in such a short thread, when it's so blatantly obvious that I've said no such thing?

The reference to immunity of a Head of State from prosecution other than in the International Court was on the linked Wiki page you perhaps didn't look at. Here's a quote from it:Any person who in performing an act of state commits a criminal offence is immune from prosecution. This is so even after the person ceases to perform acts of state. Thus it is a type of immunity limited in the acts to which it attaches (acts of state) but unlimited in time. This type of immunity is based on respect for sovereign equality.

Recent developments in international law show that this type of immunity, whilst it may be available as a defence to prosecution for local or domestic crimes or civil liability, is not a defence to an international crime. (International crimes include crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide). This has developed in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal TribunalThat's the point of saying that the domestic Iraqi setting, irrespective of current US power and influence in the region, is the wrong jurisdiction to bring this case. Why was the case brought in Iraq instead of the Hague? So that the US administration could restrict his ability to speak in public, says I. Nothing to do with not wanting him tried, or found guilty, or executed - that's all irrelevant to my points in this thread. My points have been solely about jurisdiction. Other parties should have the ability to interrogate the man, there's a host of interesting questions he's never had addressed to him. I'm sure some hope he'll be dead before he can be asked any of them.

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:29 am

RedGlitter;450186 wrote: Do you think it would be fair or even appropriate to say that Hussein himself treated people as subhuman? I would be interested to read your take on it.Since you ask, no I don't. He's filled the role of Head of State of Iraq, during which time he's made judgement calls on how best to act in the interests of the State (which he, like most leaders everywhere and at all times, has interpreted as interests of his own person and party). I'm quite sure that he's made misjudgements in that regard. In terms of his motive, he'll have recognised that his tenure in office would have been cut abruptly short if he'd not employed an iron fist (as did all of his neighbour Heads of State). I'm sure he embroiled the country in the Iraq-Iran war because he wanted to firm up his hold on the internal reins of governance, for example. I see no reason to interpret any of his actions as displaying discrimination against any "subhuman" group. Iraq has tribal and sectarian loyalties. Why use "subhuman" to describe any of this? It's just an abuse of language.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:37 am

What is the difference between whacking off someone's head with a machete, hanging them, injecting them with a lethal substance or frying them in an electric chair?

Actually, beheading has been considered to be one of the most humane methods of execution, as long as it is done properly.

Actually, I think chopping someone into little pieces, burning them alive, or jabbing them in the base of the skull and sucking out the brains is considered the most humane methods of death --- as long as the human being is still in the womb. (Sorry for the hijack. Back to our regularly scheduled programming).

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:39 am

I think what we have here is a situation in which a man grew up in a brutal country and culture and and became very adept at gaining and keeping power using the methods he learned..He was a despot and a murderer and I don't mourn his being hanged. I don't gloat or take any pleasure in it either as some do. I'd prefer to see him taken to Haque or somewhere else more neutral and incarcerated indefinetly..I think revenge begets more killing and if it most Iraqis look on this as an eye for eye they will see more violence. It's just the end of a very sad and brutal chapter in the ME with another one begining..

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:41 am

There is definitely a benefit to be had from Saddam staying alive to give evidence in other investigations.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:45 am

Hussein was convicted in Iraq by an Iraqi court, not an international tribune at the Hague. I support the verdict. As for all the talk about American complicity, CIA involvement in the '50's for goodness sake, America supporting Iraq during its war against Iran when Iran had turned into a radical muslim theocracy that kidnapped American citizens......it's nothing but more anti-American blather. Until France is prominently indicted for its complicity with Iraq long after Hussein started his WMD programs and was known for his torture chambers and brutality, then all the anti-American rhetoric has no credibility; it's just more sour grapes.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:01 am

koan;450014 wrote: If we begin to see other humans as less than human who will draw the line? He is, in fact, a human being. To say otherwise opens the doors to a world of trouble.

I understand your sentiment. That said, he lived his life with reckless and evil intent. He killed maimed and horrified his countrymen for his own personal gain. He lived in palaces and he mounted statues of himself. He poised large flattering pictures of himself for purposes of adulation all the while despising the minions beneath him.

He hoarded the countries wealth and while he recieved monies for food and health purposes during the sanctions he put that in his pocket too. When the cavalry came he had semi's hurry out of town with the banks cash. In the end he cowered in a hole begging for his miserable life.

In the meantime he stands in court shaking his fist and screaming for justice never once acknowledging his guilt or offering remorse. Hes blind to the purpose of life and his life was made meaningless by his own actions. I dont gloat over his death but I feel no compassion for him. He has no redeeming qualities that would enable me to feel anthing but contempt for him and sadness for the horrid destruction he leaves behind.

Hes a cancer that deserves to be eliminated.

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:18 am

flopstock;450241 wrote: No there isn't.Oh come now flops - there's the huge benefit to be had from Saddam staying alive to give evidence in the investigation into the current whereabouts of Iraq's megatons nuclear warheads and delivery systems which haven't yet been discovered, and the 2500 million death dose biological arsenal which hasn't yet been discovered, and I forget how many thousands of gallons of binary nerve agent which hasn't yet been discovered, all of which were the sole reason for "liberating" the nation in the first place. Has the USA no interest in vindicating its historical position by enquiring?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:23 am

spot;450263 wrote: Oh come now flops - there's the huge benefit to be had from Saddam staying alive to give evidence in the investigation into the current whereabouts of Iraq's megatons nuclear warheads and delivery systems which haven't yet been discovered, and the 2500 million death dose biological arsenal which hasn't yet been discovered, and I forget how many thousands of gallons of binary nerve agent which hasn't yet been discovered, all of which were the sole reason for "liberating" the nation in the first place. Has the USA no interest in vindicating its historical position by enquiring?

No, I think thats pretty much blown over by now spock. Weve moved onto evil doings in Botswana. They have intentions of building bigger spears and were not having it !

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:48 am

Nomad;450268 wrote: No, I think thats pretty much blown over by now spock. Weve moved onto evil doings in Botswana. They have intentions of building bigger spears and were not having it !
Pay no mind to stain. He thinks anyone the US opposes must be the good guys.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:37 pm

I heard about Saddam's sentence today, I don't think there is any question that the man does deserve the death sentence for what he has done in his time, even though I am againt the death penalty in peacetime, he cannot really have any complaints about his fate, he was the author of it in the end, and really he is going to get a quicker and cleaner end than many of the victims of his regieme. What I will say though is that if this is the only good thing to come out of this war, (which at the moment seems likely), then history will judge the Iraq war as simpy the most expensive suponea in history, I hope it was worth it, I franky don't think it is.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:50 pm

Kudos for SMH readers, 64% of whom are against his hanging.

minks · Post by **minks** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:58 pm

Novelty;450109 wrote: Justice in who's name? not mine... i just dont like Humans dieing.

But i appreaciate your view RG:)

he won't be killed, an appeal will happen, it will take years and then one day we will read that after a decade or so in some comfy prison apart form mainstream criminals Saddam dies of old age.

Pffft he will be long gone before he is hanged.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:15 am

RedGlitter;450009 wrote: How in the heck do you figure that??

Hussein is a monster ala Hitler. He does not deserve to be called a human being. How can you feel poorly about the imminent death of a cretin who tortured, maimed and murdered innocent human beings?! Please explain that.

You have to look at it as if you were the one condemning them to death, and that I think is what most people are referring to when its rather difficult to do such a thing to another human being...I myself hate the death penalty, but i'm not against using every means necessary in preserving your safety and that of others.

When I first read about his sentence, I thought about how powerful of a message this sends to the world...

To be honest, if he was in fact(and i'm only being practical) guilty of such henious crimes, I say good riddance.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:56 am

His hanging of iteslf its meaningless,,what matters is how people feel about it. If you want revenge then you will get a backlash of more violence..I don't care whether he lives or dies, but I get no personal reward over his death. I just think it is typical of what has become of the ME...I'm really more interested in protecting America and my own family.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:00 am

From Amnesty International

This trial should have been a major contribution towards establishing justice and the rule of law in Iraq, and in ensuring truth and accountability for the massive human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam Hussein’s rule," said Malcolm Smart, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme. "In practice, it has been a shabby affair, marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards."

In particular, political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court, causing the first presiding judge to resign and blocking the appointment of another, and the court failed to take adequate measures to ensure the protection of witnesses and defence lawyers, three of whom were assassinated during the course of the trial. Saddam Hussein was also denied access to legal counsel for the first year after his arrest, and complaints by his lawyers throughout the trial relating to the proceedings do not appear to have been adequately answered by the tribunal.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:06 am

koan;451271 wrote: From Amnesty International

This trial should have been a major contribution towards establishing justice and the rule of law in Iraq, and in ensuring truth and accountability for the massive human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam Hussein’s rule," said Malcolm Smart, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme. "In practice, it has been a shabby affair, marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards."

In particular, political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court, causing the first presiding judge to resign and blocking the appointment of another, and the court failed to take adequate measures to ensure the protection of witnesses and defence lawyers, three of whom were assassinated during the course of the trial. Saddam Hussein was also denied access to legal counsel for the first year after his arrest, and complaints by his lawyers throughout the trial relating to the proceedings do not appear to have been adequately answered by the tribunal.

Oh my here is an unbiased source..The Iraqis d/n even have a govenrment when he was captured much less a court system. He even got to have Ramsey Clarke that paragon of justice for everyone except his own country, defend him (until he cried and went home)..Flawed as it is he at least got more of a trial than he gave others..AI can snivel and whine all they want.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:15 am

zinkyusa;451267 wrote: His hanging of iteslf its meaningless,,what matters is how people feel about it. If you want revenge then you will get a backlash of more violence..

That's the thing - IMO this protracted and farcical "show trial" has done more

damage than anything else. It would've been preferable, from some viewpoints,

to have just blown his bloody head off as soon as he was found. Certainly

more honest.

zinkyusa;451267 wrote: I don't care whether he lives or dies, but I get no personal reward over his death. I just think it is typical of what has become of the ME...I'm really more interested in protecting America and my own family.

Do you think that your country is safer after all this, I wonder?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:18 am

zinkyusa;451283 wrote: Oh my here is an unbiased source..The Iraqis d/n even have a govenrment when he was captured much less a court system. He even got to have Ramsey Clarke that paragon of justice for everyone except his own country, defend him (until he cried and went home)..Flawed as it is he at least got more of a trial than he gave others..AI can snivel and whine all they want.

It sounds like you're the one doing the whining and crying here, zinky.

Amnesty International was set up with an agenda: To set world standards for human rights. They are the standard. They are, of course, biased against anyone who doesn't meet their standards.

Whine all you want but you don't create the measuring stick by which behaviour in the world is judged...they do.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:29 am

koan;451291 wrote: It sounds like you're the one doing the whining and crying here, zinky.

Amnesty International was set up with an agenda: To set world standards for human rights. They are the standard. They are, of course, biased against anyone who doesn't meet their standards.

Whine all you want but you don't create the measuring stick by which behaviour in the world is judged...they do.

Indeed Koan, it is their so called standards I seriously question. Ever hear of Moynihan's law? They spend more time reporting on the so called abuses of deomcratic countries than countries like Iraq was under Sadam..

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:43 am

Bill Sikes;451289 wrote: That's the thing - IMO this protracted and farcical "show trial" has done more

damage than anything else. It would've been preferable, from some viewpoints,

to have just blown his bloody head off as soon as he was found. Certainly

more honest.

the apologists and conspiracists would then have taken up the clarion that he was unarmed and defenseless, and that he was assassinated by evil US troops. he was, of course, armed - but that would have easily been dismissed as just a 'lie'. he would have been held up as a hero for the left, a victim of western corporate military hegemony and globalization. throw in a little climate change and 'meat is murder', and you've got the perfect stew!

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:05 am

zinkyusa;451283 wrote: Oh my here is an unbiased source [...] AI can snivel and whine all they want.Zinky, you only have to look at a quick list of who you're choosing to stand alongside in criticizing Amnesty - here's a cursory sample of their critics from recent newspaper headlines: President Putin, North Korea, an Indian NGO, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Liberia, Ethiopia, Jamaica's Police Commissioner, The Martyrs' Sons of Algeria, Sudan, Zambia, Morocco, Rumsfeld and President Bush. Does the list not say something about Amnesty's objectivity?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:09 am

spot;451346 wrote: Zinky, you only have to look at a quick list of who you're choosing to stand alongside in criticizing Amnesty - here's a cursory sample of their critics from recent newspaper headlines: President Putin, North Korea, an Indian NGO, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Liberia, Ethiopia, Jamaica's Police Commissioner, The Martyrs' Sons of Algeria, Sudan, Zambia, Morocco, Rumsfeld and President Bush. Does the list not say something about Amnesty's objectivity?

They do seem to pi$$ a lot of generates off don't they? The last two especially bother me Spot;) :wah:

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:19 am

zinkyusa;451350 wrote: They do seem to pi$$ a lot of generates off don't they? The last two especially bother me Spot;) :wah:
I particularly liked:Morocco's Justice Minister Omar Azziman has also criticised the Amnesty International report on human rights in his country. "The report we have been given reminds us of reports of ten years ago. It does not recognise the undeniable changes that have taken place in the country. (...) When you read the report you would think that in Morocco we have hundreds of people who disappeared and hundreds of political prisoners. This has not been proved"

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:51 pm

Fine then, hang him - as long as you hang the other idiots who wanted that war. I'm referring to, in no particular order Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Cheney.

Also, never forget that Saddam was, for most of the time he was in charge in Iraq, on the CIA payroll.

Are you going to hang the entire complement of the CIA as well?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:58 pm

Chookie;451692 wrote: Fine then, hang him - as long as you hang the other idiots who wanted that war. I'm referring to, in no particular order Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Cheney.

Also, never forget that Saddam was, for most of the time he was in charge in Iraq, on the CIA payroll.

Are you going to hang the entire complement of the CIA as well?

As we have pointed out at nausem, alliances change, the US was once your mortal enemy and now we are nominally your ally (not by my choice). Iraq was a sort of an ally for a while becuase they were a counter wieght to Iran. Then Sadam decided he would take the next step an invade a soverign nation. At that point he crossed the line and was no longer an ally but an enemy. Do they not teach political science in the UK anymore?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:17 pm

spot;451358 wrote: When you read the report you would think that in Morocco we have hundreds of people who disappeared and hundreds of political prisoners. This has not been proved

:yh_rotfl :-3 :yh_rotfl

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:31 pm

Chookie;451692 wrote:

Are you going to hang the entire complement of the CIA as well?

The CIA had nothing to do with the decision to go to war in Iraq. They've made a point of clearing that up.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:31 pm

This farce never should have gone to trial, IMO. Hussein is not a private citizen whose guilt should be determined in the courts - his evil was manifest to any rational observer. After all, a trial presumes that he is innocent. It's evident that this was not the case. This is as perverse as assuming Hitler was innocent. Hussein is responsible for not only the triggers he himself pulled but for all the atrocities committed in his name, by his command, and under his leadership. He can't have it both ways.

And not only does he get this farce of a trial, he uses it as a bully pulpit - with American funding, no less - to issue diatribes praising the insurgents currently killing more Americans, and to spur them to further violence.

This trial does nothing to establish a judicial system in Iraq, either. The exclusion of American judges - who, presumably, have some experience in such matters - in favor of Iraqis who have no such experience sends the message that only the tribe can determine right and wrong, good and evil. No objective system of logic, reason, or evidence is supported here; only the will of the biggest group of thugs.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:32 pm

zinkyusa;451703 wrote: ...take the next step an invade a soverign nation. At that point he crossed the line and was no longer an ally but an enemy.

If that's the line....

why do you set yourself up so often?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:34 pm

koan;451765 wrote: If that's the line....

why do you set yourself up so often?

what are you talking about Koan? making fun of my typing again?

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:35 pm

zinkyusa;451703 wrote: As we have pointed out at nausem, alliances change, the US was once your mortal enemy and now we are nominally your ally (not by my choice).You're for it now, Chookie - it used to be just the English you had to fight, now we seem to have the US with us as well. A re-run of the Battle of Stirling Bridge with a half-dozen B2s five miles overhead should teach you a lesson.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:35 pm

zinkyusa;451766 wrote: what are you talking about Koan? making fun of my typing again?

no. making fun of your logic. think. who else invaded a sovereign nation recently?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:37 pm

koan;451770 wrote: no. making fun of your logic. think. who else invaded a sovereign nation recently?

can't you keep anything in context?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:37 pm

Erinna1112;451763 wrote: This farce never should have gone to trial, IMO. Hussein is not a private citizen whose guilt should be determined in the courts - his evil was manifest to any rational observer. After all, a trial presumes that he is innocent. It's evident that this was not the case. This is as perverse as assuming Hitler was innocent.

You have to have some sort of a system...

If you don't have a system, that makes the law prone to corruption, and irrational judgement that doesnt have enough time to spread light on the motives so as to give an appropriate judgment to fit the crime...that's what a capitalist society thrives on...which is the term "innocent until proven guilty"...otherwise you are no different than the people you are condemning because you feel your judgement is right in such a case, as did the people who deemed their judgement superior when they originally committed the crime they are on trial for. (my opinion)

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:48 pm

Erinna1112;451763 wrote: Hussein is responsible for not only the triggers he himself pulled but for all the atrocities committed in his name, by his command, and under his leadership. He can't have it both ways.I thought a couple of his underlings were sentenced to death alongside him this week. How does that tie in with your notion of responsibility? Or, to reverse the image, how come Rummie and his Commander in Chief don't serve time for setting up poor misguided Lynndie England's photo opportunities?

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:51 pm

zinkyusa;451283 wrote: AI can snivel and whine all they want.
Is every internation protest that doesn't involve killing people "snivelling and whining?"

Is it only the murder of 655000 people that you respect?

What do you think acting with honour invovles?

Your dismissal of diplomacy in the search for international rights is unworthy of the human condition. The least of the AI letter writers is a thousand times more worthy to be on the planet than anyone who calls speach without bombs "snivelling and whining".

You, sir, need to rent a clue.