Sympathy for the Devil.

A good read I thought.

Read it Here

[ 12-31-2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Paladin2000]

I didn't read through all the article but I believe he deserve a fair trial. Whatever "evil" things that he did, it is for his people to judge him.

However, if he were born in a different era, his people might hail him as the great emperor that resisted foreign invaders.

[edited: Spelling]

[ 12-31-2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Paladin2000 ]

Yes a Fair trial and then a quick execution. There is NO question of guilt here...so there is no need for presumption of innocence as explained in the article. The presumption of innocence is part of some countrys legal codes to protect the innocent from being falsely accuse...not to protect the guilty from being justly punished.

[Sir Taliesin]

A fair Trail by the Iraqi people, who will decide his fate if he is found guilty.

[Paladin2000]

Originally posted by MagiK: Yes a Fair trial and then a quick execution. There is NO question of guilt here...so there is no need for presumption of innocence as explained in the article. The presumption of innocence is part of some countrys legal codes to protect the innocent from being falsely accuse...not to protect the guilty from being justly punished.

Most of his crimes are commited on Iraqi soil. Like it or not, it is up to them to decided upon his fate. Whether he is a menace to the world, most of the them are based on "what if..." and "He would..."; as far as I know of, pre-crime don't actually have any merit in most courts.

He will get for what he have done. No more, no less.

[Edited-spelling]

[ 01-01-2004, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Paladin2000 ]

[Timber Loftis]

This guy is becoming one of my favorite universal twits.

So let's clear up a few things. First, Saddam "deserves" nothing. Yes, he should have a fair trial (and a fair execution).

Ah, yes, give him a fair trial then hang him. Nothing in his article supports a fair trial. I think Saddam is guilty of course, but all people deserve a fair trial to confront the evidence against them, and deserve at least one person - a lawyer - on their side. This is fundamental. Challenge this simple notion, and I likely won't even reply. How can you?

But that's because he's a prop. If we can squeeze some good out of this evil man by giving him a decent trial we should do it — because the Iraqi people deserve it, not because he does.

Maybe emotionally a correct view, but WRONG legally/logically. HE, yes HE, is the one who deserves the fair trial -- that's in this document called the constitution, you may have heard of it.

I'm in favor of a big legal circus, if a big legal circus will help put that brutalized nation on the path to a decent life. However, if it were clear that loofahing him with a cheese grater would do even more to improve Iraqi life, than I'd be for that.

I'll agree that we want a better life for Iraqis. But, the only VENUE in which to decide these things is the courtroom. Whether this twit is for a fair trial for whatever reason or not, the law is the law is the law is the law.

Because there are fine legal distinctions between the British and American systems, and because I am entirely ignorant of what those distinctions in fact are, let me make a fairly simple point that applies equally to both our societies. Due process and the legal protections therein are not and should not be conceived as protections for guilty people. Rather, they are necessary safeguards against falsely convicting the innocent. It is never "unfair" to the guilty if they are convicted without due process.

Absolutely untrue and perhaps the single dumbest thing I've heard in a while. We have already made the decision through our laws. An illegal search that finds real proof of guilt is tossed out. Not because the guilty person is suddenly innocent, but rather because the harm done to society in upholding illegal governmental searches is untennable. If this illegal search is upheld, the next will be. Then we are mere tiptoe-steps from Big Brother entering our bedrooms. Our founding fathers knew this was wrong and they wrote this document, called the constituion. I mentioned it before. Take note of it, we consider it kinda important.

The protections afforded the guilty are the necessary costs of making sure the innocent are protected.

Nope. The protections afforded all people, innocent or guilty, are all about keeping big government at bay. They are the same reason the 2nd Amendment is so important. We had to overthrow an unjust government before, and we made a new one with more protections in place because we rightfully do not, can not, must not, trust our government to be universally benevolent.

But Saddam — duh — is guilty. We know this.

Says you. I may agree with you here, but because I recognize your abject idiocy, and more importantly your conservative pave-the-planet and bend-over-for-GWB bias, I'd prefer to have an unbiased arbiter determine his guilt, just to be on the safe side.

Just as a rapist deserves punishment even if the cop who nabs him is crooked, Saddam would still be deserving of an ugly end even if this had been the imperialistic-war-for-oil its critics claim.

Again, wrong. If the crooked cops does crooked things to get evidence, all "fruits of the poisoned tree" will be inadmissible. Yes, the gummint at large may have PREFERRED the cop do things right and NOT be crooked. But, this is the small price we pay for holding the gummint accountable for the actions of its agents. If we did not do this, the gummint would develop a preference for hiring crooked cops, on the notion that the individual cop, not the gummint at large, was responsible for the wrongdoing. Wrong, and we cannot allow it.

And, the only reason to delay his just desserts with a long, drawn-out trial is if such a spectacle will help the Iraqis. Fairness to Saddam would require hot pokers, not free lawyers.

See my earlier comments, and note the bile-ridden bias of this guy once again. I, too, think Saddam is guilty and should be punished. I simply demand our gummint, or any tribunal having proper jurisdiction, jump through the appropriate legal hoops. If the rule of law is not followed, we have relegated to crime and punishment to fiat of the masses, which is EXACTLY what our founding fathers sought to avoid.

MOVING TO THE SECOND POINT:

A second wellspring of idiocy will come from those who demand that the United States "leave Iraq to the Iraqis" as soon as possible but who would also deny the Iraqis the fundamental sovereignty to try their oppressor. Which is it? Should the Iraqis have self-rule, or not? You cannot cherry-pick.

This I agree with. Iraqis should try the man according to their court rules. Are those rules set yet? I don't know, I'm just saying what I think SHOULD be done.

In Brussels it may seem rational that a nation can maintain its sovereignty while ceding authority on everything but garbage collection to a foreign authority. But sovereignty means something else to the rest of us. Unlike the Nazis victims, Saddam's were mostly his own countrymen. Why should French or Russian judges decide the man's fate, when their governments didn't even want him deposed?

This shows a lot more ignorance. About Europe. It's insulting as well. Oh well, ho hum, that's what the NRO does. Again, I affirm I think Iraqis should try him -- but this bile towards Europe is exactly why this guy should have his passport revoked and should get beaten up by hefty German ladies, and peed on by yours truly.

The West is rife with this sort of corruption. Here, the more brutal and totalitarian a distant regime is — particularly if it "stands up to America" — the more likely it is you will find a journalist, intellectual, or professional activist who will forgive it its trespasses from the comfort of his home.

This abject idiot should in fact celebrate this. With 350+ million Americans in America, a nation cherishing freedom, we should expect that EVERY view be represented, even the wackiest minority view. Considering all views helps us have a better Great Debate. So what that their view may be silly or offensive to you? Society is better for it when all voices have spoken, however repugnant or unaligned with you they may be.

This goes a long way toward explaining why the Castros and Saddams are cut so much slack, while Bush and Blair are burned in effigy. The power worship of the chattering classes is too rich a subject to adequately cover here, but it will surely bend morality and reason into a Mobius strip of asininity before Saddam's trial is over.

A mobius strip of asininity? What an interesting image. Does he mean neverending asininity, four-dimensional asininity, or does he even know what a mobius strip is? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] "Power worship" is another flaw here. Who has the most power? Who worships him? I don't know all the facts, but I'd bet this twitterer would just die to get under GWB's desk and do a little power worshipping.

Ugh.... Okay, I'm through with this twit, for now.

[ 01-01-2004, 02:42 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

You make some good counterpoints to the article, Timber, but I felt your logic was flawed in one area. You mentioned the Constitution a couple of times in referencing Saddam's right for a "fair trial". That is well and good, but the Constitution would apply only if Saddam Hussein is brought to trial here in the U.S. - something that is NOT likely to happen. Therefore, it doesn't really matter a whit what the Constitution says regarding fair trials and protections for the guilty as well as the innocent...because none of it will apply to Hussein's trial.

And while you did offer good counterpoints to the bias expressed by the articles author, I have to agree with him to a certain degree. As I mentioned in another thread, it is ironic to me that Saddam Hussein is undeniably guilty of a number of atrocities and crimes against humanity, but it was President Bush that was called a "modern day Hitler" this time last year. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

President Bush may have flaws in many areas, but I challenge anybody to show evidence of any crimes against humanity he has committed - especially on a scale equal to Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler.

Originally posted by Paladin2000: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Yes a Fair trial and then a quick execution. There is NO question of guilt here...so there is no need for presumption of innocence as explained in the article. The presumption of innocence is part of some countrys legal codes to protect the innocent from being falsely accuse...not to protect the guilty from being justly punished.

Most of his crimes are commited on Iraqi soil. Like it or not, it is up to them to decided upon his fate. Whether he is a menace to the world, most of the them are based on "what if..." and "He would..."; as far as I know of, pre-crime don't actually have any merit in most courts.

He will get for what he have done. No more, no less.

[Edited-spelling] [/QUOTE]
I agree 100% that the Iraqi courts should try him (once there are any)
and I agree it should be up to them what to do with him ... Im also pretty sure the majority who were virtually enslaved by a minority religious sect under his rule will be most eager to ..... return all his favors.

Uhh TL, if Saddam were a US citizen I think the Constitution might have a better chance of applying to him...however...he is not and never has been...and we still do not know what rights/priveledges the NEW Iraqi constitution will afford him....or how it will be implemented. As far as I know, the Iraqi people are under no obligation to apply our constitution to him.

[ 01-01-2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: ***** SNIP an absolutely fabulous point and counter point by TL vs Walter Williams [img]smile.gif[/img] SNIP *****

Im really glad this guy is NOT a rich White Guy [img]smile.gif[/img] He would be crucified in a second if he were.

I like his points and am definately for harder on the guilty people. I am also for more consideration for the victims of crime than for the perpetrators and am sick of seeing "technicality" issues used to put criminals back on the street.


On the other hand...I think any cop that is found to have manufactured evidence should be shot.....so ....what can you do....still thought it was a good read.