Will Saddam Hussein have a fair trial ?

And to think that one little hand grenade dropped in that spider hole we wouldn't need to even have this conversation not to mention the money saved on the trial.

This astounding tidbit was on MSN today:

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., visiting Iraq on Tuesday, said he met with the chief judge overseeing Saddam’s trial. Specter said he was disappointed in how the court has allowed the former leader “to dominate” the trial.

“You have a butcher who has butchered his own people, a torturer who has tortured his own people,” Specter said. “The evidence ought to be presented in a systematic way which would show that there’s been quite an accomplishment in taking (Saddam) out as opposed to letting him be a blusterbun and control the proceedings.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10614981/


Any judge in the US who was shown to have had discussions regarding a case he was presiding at with a foreign politician would be immediately replaced at the trial and probably thrown off the bench. Specter is head of the Senate Judiciary Committee; he must know how incredibly improper his meeting and remarks are. I can only surmise that he knows the "trial" is for show only.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This astounding tidbit was on MSN today:

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., visiting Iraq on Tuesday, said he met with the chief judge overseeing Saddam’s trial. Specter said he was disappointed in how the court has allowed the former leader “to dominate” the trial.

“You have a butcher who has butchered his own people, a torturer who has tortured hi ...[text shortened]... er his meeting and remarks are. I can only surmise that he knows the "trial" is for show only.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Must be why you were disbarred from the JAG, eh "counselor"?

The trial should have been held in the Hague, under UN law.

It should not revolve around one incident, it should revolve around all the incidents, including the war on Iran, etc.

But we know why that's not gonna happen...the US and Britain would be up on the docks for supplying a known tyrant with the goods to do the killing. They would be standing along side the man for morally supporting him.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I realize you don't have two working braincells, but you've been informed several times I wasn't JAG when I was in the USN.

Originally posted by shavixmir
The trial should have been held in the Hague, under UN law.

It should not revolve around one incident, it should revolve around all the incidents, including the war on Iran, etc.

But we know why that's not gonna happen...the US and Britain would be up on the docks for supplying a known tyrant with the goods to do the killing. They would be standing along side the man for morally supporting him.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Nope...he violated Iraqi and Kurdish law by murdering his own people...he didn't murder any UN pussies or any Euros, therefore, Iraqi court it is.....

Originally posted by shavixmir
Yes. I see that point.
But surely the fiasco unfolding in the courtroom there would be much better persued in a third country in an objective setting?

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Not really...just stuff a red rubber ball into his "piehole" if he continues to harangue the judge...if you want to move his trial to a third country, the state of Texas would be glad to comply...the town of Crawford to be exact.....😉

Originally posted by shavixmir
Surely the US wouldn't execute a former ally!

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Does Benedict Arnold come to mind?

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Nope...he violated Iraqi and Kurdish law by murdering his own people...he didn't murder any UN pussies or any Euros, therefore, Iraqi court it is.....

Go back to my previous post.

Originally posted by slimjim
Go back to my previous post.