"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.

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 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.

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.

"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.

And if he was, you would bitch about that not being fair.

Call me whatever names you want. It only shows your lack of maturity and
inability to discuss things as adults. But that is your MO.

Too bad.

Harry,

Again, we find common ground. The process and rule of law should be
followed, regardless of the nature of the crime(s).


"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.

Harry... chill out on the playground zingers, man.

You are right, the Iraqi "court system" is too immature to effectively
handle this, although it is there prerogative to have first crack at him.
The procedures of juris-prudence should, however, never be neglected.

His crimes are mostly against Iraq, not the world. Perhaps the
international arena would quite be the best venue, either.

J


"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.

Megalodon wrote:

Harry... chill out on the playground zingers, man.

You are right, the Iraqi "court system" is too immature to effectively
handle this, although it is there prerogative to have first crack at him.
The procedures of juris-prudence should, however, never be neglected.

His crimes are mostly against Iraq, not the world. Perhaps the
international arena would quite be the best venue, either.

J


Saddam's alleged crimes were against Iraqis, Iranians, Israelis,
Kuwaits, Saudis, and, I am sure, others. He is accused of war crimes. He
should be facing an international war crimes trial. No matter the
outcome, there is nothing about Arab or Islamic justice I trust, and I
certainly don't trust our military or the Bush Administration as
overseers of the Iraqis in terms of providing a fair trial.

Saddam deserves a severe penalty, assuming he is found guilty by a
reputable and ocmpetent court. In his case, that means a world court.

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



"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 10:14:24 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.

Should the Beltway Snipers have been tried under an international justice
system? Most of us around here thought they were pretty damn guilty.

John H

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

"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