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.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"jim--" wrote in message
...
"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.

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"?

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 1 Jul 2004 11:46:27 -0700, (basskisser) 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.

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.

kissy, kissy, smooch, smooch.
John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

More like suck, suck...slurp, slurp.

DSK wrote:


NOYB wrote:

I'm sure Russia, China, and France would remain impartial in a World trial
of Saddam. snicker

Sure... maybe Rumsfeld and Cheney will testify in his behalf. They did business
with him for years.

DSK


Perfect character witnesses for Saddam, eh?

NOYB wrote:

I'm sure Russia, China, and France would remain impartial in a World trial
of Saddam. snicker

Sure... maybe Rumsfeld and Cheney will testify in his behalf. They did business
with him for years.

DSK

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

.....He was alone, facing the judge.

We can't seem to do anything right in Iraq,

Saddam should have had his lawyers present. Period. .....we have to abide
by what we preach. .... Process matters.



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.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

...... He
should be facing an international war crimes trial... there is nothing
about Arab or Islamic justice I trust,


Harry wants the proceedings moved to a venue where the judges and attorneys
are all unionized.

"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!

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.



"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.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
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.

Bass,
Harry thinks you are a dummy, he just doesn't say anything because you are a
democratic, but he is cringing everything you make a post. Follow JohnH's
suggestion and have Harry proof your posts before you make them.