Because it certainly gives the government MUCH more power, and,
thusly, and this is what has political scholars worried, is it takes
away many, many of the checks and balances that were in place to
ensure that people got a fair trial, etc. But, I'm sure you don't know
of any of that, blinders too tight and all.
Fine. At least you can admit that it's not a rebuttal to the post you
were replying to, that you were unable to offer a resonable response and
you simply reverted to name calling. Thanks, that's all I was after.
Now, on to what you're asking from me, I take it that you actually
believe that when Saddam was in power, he *couldn't* just kill anyone he
wanted because it would be against the law.
Then why are we holding him?
Good, you disagree with yourself.
Are you really that stupid, or just acting that way to try and be
funny? Slowly now.....loosen those blinders.......how could we justify
holding Saddam, if according to you, he had the authority to kill
anyone he pleased? If that is true, what has he done wrong?
WOW, that's deep. You shouldn't think so hard. It's hurting your
brain. BTW, it's called crimes against humanity. Even if under Iraqi
law (which he can make anything he wants) it was legal for him to kill
anyone he wants as you claim, we can justify holding him the same way we
justified holding many others who have commited crimes against humanity.
Are you saying we were wrong every time we hold someone for crimes
against humanity if it was legal for them to commit those crimes in
their country when they ruled?
so, you are saying that we should respect the laws of NATO, the UN,
and treaties such as the Geneva Convention?? Good, we can also lock
Bush up now.
Steve
There you go, thank you! Finally, you ARE admitting Bush is like
Saddam!!! Bush has committed atrocious crimes against humanity too.
Thousands of innocent civilians lives have been taken. Let's hold him
accountable, too!
Similar Threads
Bush vs. Saddam
Threaded Mode
