Harry Krause wrote in message ...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
If any ever requires a completely legitimate trial before being hanged,
it is Saddam Hussein. Yet Saddam wasn't represented by his lawyers at
the arraignment this morning. He was alone, facing the judge.

We can't seem to do anything right in Iraq, and yes, I know, the Iraqis
are now running things over there, even though they are not.

Saddam should have had his lawyers present. Period. If we are going to
try to convince the Moslem world and the rest of the world that we
really believe in what we preach, and these trials are legitimate and
"fair," then we have to abide by what we preach. It doesn't matter
what
Saddam "deserves," in terms of the outcome. Process matters.

I loved the part where the judge wanted Saddam to sign papers and told
him he didn't need his lawyer present to do it. Saddam refused, as he
should have. You can't trust "the system" anywhere, even if you are a
monster like Saddam Hussein.


Iraqi Court. Iraqi Judge. Iraqi legal system. Understand now?

I figured you would find it in yourself to defend the guy.




I'm not defending Saddam, you ignorant ass. I'm defending the concept of
a trial through a legal process that will do us some good around the
world.

Do you work extra hard at being stupid?

As for the Iraqi court, judge, legal system...that's convenient, eh? But
not particularly convincing. Especially when the US military did not
allow independent news microphones in the room. Is the entire trial to
be censored by the US, directly or indirectly?

,.You haven't a clue as to how Iraq has been restructured, at least
temporarily, by the United States.

Wow, talk about not having a clue. Yes it is quite *convenient* having him
tried by his people...you know the ones he tortured, raped and murdered.

Get a clue Krause.




Obviously, what I'm discussing are concepts that are beyond your meager
comprehensive abilities. You've proved many times you are dumb as a
post. You've just done it again.

This is a show trial, that is all. Saddam should be tried under the
international justice system that was established to handle his kind.

Most of the crimes he is being charged were committed inside Iraq,
therefore should be within the jurisdiction of an Iraqi court.

Even the crimes he may have committed across a border (I don't know
when he actually last stepped foot outside of Iraq) are probably
within Iraqi juridiction.

"Megalodon" wrote in message
ink.net...
I take exception to that, BK... I have disagreed with a lot that has
come
out of that white house, particularly on the domestic side.



You are witnessing the liebral debate manual 101.....accuse your opponent
of what you are guilty of......comes right after "Blame America First"


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Harry Krause wrote in message
...


Harry, those narrow minded right wingers can't think like that. You
are either with everything and anything that comes out of BushCo, or
you're a traitor.

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 19:24:26 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


I believe today's session was the rough equivalent of our arraignment
process. Under Iraqi law, it is not required that the defendant's counsel
be present for the proceeding. Saddam does have counsel, and will be
represented at trial.

I shed no tears for Saddam, but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3855931.stm

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
If any ever requires a completely legitimate trial before being hanged,
it is Saddam Hussein. Yet Saddam wasn't represented by his lawyers at
the arraignment this morning. He was alone, facing the judge.

We can't seem to do anything right in Iraq, and yes, I know, the Iraqis
are now running things over there, even though they are not.

Saddam should have had his lawyers present. Period. If we are going to
try to convince the Moslem world and the rest of the world that we
really believe in what we preach, and these trials are legitimate and
"fair," then we have to abide by what we preach. It doesn't matter
what
Saddam "deserves," in terms of the outcome. Process matters.

I loved the part where the judge wanted Saddam to sign papers and told
him he didn't need his lawyer present to do it. Saddam refused, as he
should have. You can't trust "the system" anywhere, even if you are a
monster like Saddam Hussein.


Iraqi Court. Iraqi Judge. Iraqi legal system. Understand now?

I figured you would find it in yourself to defend the guy.




I'm not defending Saddam, you ignorant ass. I'm defending the concept of
a trial through a legal process that will do us some good around the
world.

Yes you are defending Saddam. He is one of your totalitarin gods and you are
mad as hell that he is out of power.

Do you work extra hard at being stupid?

You are quite at ease being stupid.


As for the Iraqi court, judge, legal system...that's convenient, eh? But
not particularly convincing. Especially when the US military did not
allow independent news microphones in the room. Is the entire trial to
be censored by the US, directly or indirectly?

Anyone with half a brain knows that regardless of the constitution of the
legal system that Saddam is tried under he is going to be found guilty and
be hanged in the end.

,.You haven't a clue as to how Iraq has been restructured, at least
temporarily, by the United States.

With respect to the trial of Saddam it doesn't matter the Iraqi people are
going to execute him.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Harry, those narrow minded right wingers can't think like that. You
are either with everything..... etc etc etc


Hey bass, check for polyps while you're up there!


Nice, I'll have to remember that one.

That's idiotic. You know damned well that the U.S. is running that dog
and pony show over there. Or at least you would, if you had any sense
at all

Can you provide proof of these (how do you say it...oh yes) "wild
allegations"?

How about the AP wire story for a start, where the judge -who it appears is
no match for Saddam- told the accused he "represented the Iraqi people and
acted under coalition authority"
Gary

"thunder" wrote in message

I shed no tears for Saddam, but:


But what? Of course his counsel will claim that the current government has
no legitimacy. You expected otherwise? His team claims they have been
denied access. They claim no proper authority in place. Normal. The
facts are that there is a constituted legal system in place run by Iraqis,
and they are proceeding. All else is allegation and speculation.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
If any ever requires a completely legitimate trial before being hanged,
it is Saddam Hussein. Yet Saddam wasn't represented by his lawyers at
the arraignment this morning. He was alone, facing the judge.

We can't seem to do anything right in Iraq, and yes, I know, the Iraqis
are now running things over there, even though they are not.

Saddam should have had his lawyers present. Period. If we are going to
try to convince the Moslem world and the rest of the world that we
really believe in what we preach, and these trials are legitimate and
"fair," then we have to abide by what we preach. It doesn't matter
what
Saddam "deserves," in terms of the outcome. Process matters.

I loved the part where the judge wanted Saddam to sign papers and told
him he didn't need his lawyer present to do it. Saddam refused, as he
should have. You can't trust "the system" anywhere, even if you are a
monster like Saddam Hussein.


Iraqi Court. Iraqi Judge. Iraqi legal system. Understand now?

I figured you would find it in yourself to defend the guy.




I'm not defending Saddam, you ignorant ass. I'm defending the concept of
a trial through a legal process that will do us some good around the
world.

Do you work extra hard at being stupid?

As for the Iraqi court, judge, legal system...that's convenient, eh? But
not particularly convincing. Especially when the US military did not
allow independent news microphones in the room. Is the entire trial to
be censored by the US, directly or indirectly?

,.You haven't a clue as to how Iraq has been restructured, at least
temporarily, by the United States.

And you do Ass Wipe. You must have some inside Information the rest of the
world hasn't. Are you talking to some of your buddies over in Iraq. Are you
and your buddies planning on another attack over here. Why don't you do the
world a favor leave this country you hate so much and try and live with the
rest of your ASS Wipes in IRAQ.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Harry Krause wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
If any ever requires a completely legitimate trial before being
hanged,
it is Saddam Hussein. Yet Saddam wasn't represented by his lawyers at
the arraignment this morning. He was alone, facing the judge.

We can't seem to do anything right in Iraq, and yes, I know, the
Iraqis
are now running things over there, even though they are not.

Saddam should have had his lawyers present. Period. If we are going
to
try to convince the Moslem world and the rest of the world that we
really believe in what we preach, and these trials are legitimate and
"fair," then we have to abide by what we preach. It doesn't matter
what
Saddam "deserves," in terms of the outcome. Process matters.

I loved the part where the judge wanted Saddam to sign papers and
told
him he didn't need his lawyer present to do it. Saddam refused, as he
should have. You can't trust "the system" anywhere, even if you are a
monster like Saddam Hussein.


Iraqi Court. Iraqi Judge. Iraqi legal system. Understand now?

I figured you would find it in yourself to defend the guy.




I'm not defending Saddam, you ignorant ass. I'm defending the concept of
a trial through a legal process that will do us some good around the
world.

Do you work extra hard at being stupid?

As for the Iraqi court, judge, legal system...that's convenient, eh? But
not particularly convincing. Especially when the US military did not
allow independent news microphones in the room. Is the entire trial to
be censored by the US, directly or indirectly?

,.You haven't a clue as to how Iraq has been restructured, at least
temporarily, by the United States.

Harry, those narrow minded right wingers can't think like that. You
are either with everything and anything that comes out of BushCo, or
you're a traitor.

Asskisser you and Harry are the biggest TRAITORS in this Group. You can't
see but the **** you want to see. Keep on Bashing Bush and Playing right in
the hands of Harry's Buddies. You know the ass wipes that are killing our
boys in Iraq. You (Asskisser) and Harry are the worst Asshole I have ever
come across. Why don't move to Iraq and start shooting at our troops over
there. At least they will have a chance to see where the **** is coming
from. If you are Americans why don't you try to help instead of Bashing
President all the time.

John Gaquin wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message

I shed no tears for Saddam, but:


But what? Of course his counsel will claim that the current government has
no legitimacy. You expected otherwise? His team claims they have been
denied access. They claim no proper authority in place. Normal. The
facts are that there is a constituted legal system in place run by Iraqis,
and they are proceeding. All else is allegation and speculation.



The Iraqi judge claimed he was operating under coalition authority.
Further, the investigation of the charges is to be provided by the U.S.
But that's far less of an issue than the denial of regular access to
counsel.