Talk about anything and everything not related to this site or the Dreamcast, such as news stories, political discussion, or anything else. If there's not a forum for it, it belongs in here. Also, be warned that personal insults, threats, and spamming will not be tolerated.
A lawyer who was defending an associate of Saddam Hussein has been found shot dead after he was abducted in Baghdad.
Sadoun Nasouaf al-Janabi, who was seized by gunmen at his office in the Iraqi capital on Thursday evening, had been shot in the head.
The killing has fuelled claims that it will be impossible for the former Iraqi leader to get a fair trial.
So they think its a sign the mass murdering genocidal maniac wont get a fair trial? boo-fu**in-hoo, what about fair trials for the thousands he ordered killed for no good reason? ah I guess they coinviniently 'forget' about them or maybe it'll be a new holocaust denial type thing
Badie Izzat Aref, lawyer for former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who will also face trial, said: "If they can't protect lawyers, how are they going to defend their clients, and how will witnesses dare to come before the tribunals?"
Saddam Hussein's chief defence strategist, Abdel Haq Alani, an Iraqi lawyer based in Britain, told the BBC: "This incident has proved is what we've been all along saying, that there could be no fair trial in Iraq at this time, there could never be a fair and just trial simply because there's no authority.
"Can anybody imagine that a witness is going to step forward and appear for the defence? If the defence cannot present its witnesses and guarantee safety for them, what kind of a trial is this going to be?
"If lawyers are getting eliminated, executed... how am I going to convince an international lawyer to appear in Iraq in a court and give legal advice on issues of international law of which the Iraqis know very little, including the judges?"
There was tight security at the court as the trial of Saddam Hussein and his seven co-defendants opened on Wednesday.
Four of the five judges and most of the prosecution lawyers have remained anonymous for safety reasons.
The names of the chief judge and the top prosecutor were the only ones revealed.
But the defence team's identities were not kept secret, and Saddam Hussein's top lawyer, Khalil Dulaimi, said many had been threatened.
The government has now offered protection to any defence lawyer who wants it.
Mr Bandar is one of six Baath party officials being tried along with Saddam Hussein over the killing of Shia Muslim villagers in the town of Dujail north of Baghdad in 1982, following an attempt on the then president's life.
source I'm amazed theyre even bothering with trials for them really, a quick drop is all they can hope to look forward to
The Prisoner - Makes NGE's ending look almost intelligible.
theres no-one else to blame
Bored? figure out where the above lines from. Answers
Hawq wrote:So they think its a sign the mass murdering genocidal maniac wont get a fair trial? boo-fu**in-hoo, what about fair trials for the thousands he ordered killed for no good reason?
How can you determine if they really are guilty of those crimes without a fair trial?
Sick of sub-par Dreamcast web browsers that fail to impress? Visit Psilocybin Dreams!
Hawq wrote:So they think its a sign the mass murdering genocidal maniac wont get a fair trial? boo-fu**in-hoo, what about fair trials for the thousands he ordered killed for no good reason?
How can you determine if they really are guilty of those crimes without a fair trial?
I am hoping you are playing the part of the devil's advocate, and aren't actually serious.
Hawq wrote:So they think its a sign the mass murdering genocidal maniac wont get a fair trial? boo-fu**in-hoo, what about fair trials for the thousands he ordered killed for no good reason?
How can you determine if they really are guilty of those crimes without a fair trial?
I'm convinced that you just post the exact opposite of everything Hawq says. You can't possibly believe that Saddam isn't guilty. And remember that we are specifically talking about Saddam here.
Hawq wrote:So they think its a sign the mass murdering genocidal maniac wont get a fair trial? boo-fu**in-hoo, what about fair trials for the thousands he ordered killed for no good reason?
How can you determine if they really are guilty of those crimes without a fair trial?
I'm convinced that you just post the exact opposite of everything Hawq says. You can't possibly believe that Saddam isn't guilty. And remember that we are specifically talking about Saddam here.
The lawyer was defending one of Saddam's associates, not the man himself.
We shouldn't remove the right to a fair trial under any circumstances - being 'certain' that someone is guilty is not justification enough to remove that right. If we did, Michael Jackson would be locked up at this very moment. And if we didn't, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg would have probably lived happily into old age.
Perhaps the most appropriate example would be the Nuremberg Trials. I'm sure that if this were 1946 and we were discussing the upcoming trials, most people would have exactly the same opinion about the point of having trials for people we 'know' are guilty. And yet many of them returned to Germany free men.
Sick of sub-par Dreamcast web browsers that fail to impress? Visit Psilocybin Dreams!
If someone's guilt is pretty obvious, what's the problem with giving him a fair trial? In the case of Saddam and his gang, we should do it at least to get everything out in the open for the history books.
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
Hawq wrote:So they think its a sign the mass murdering genocidal maniac wont get a fair trial? boo-fu**in-hoo, what about fair trials for the thousands he ordered killed for no good reason?
How can you determine if they really are guilty of those crimes without a fair trial?
I'm convinced that you just post the exact opposite of everything Hawq says. You can't possibly believe that Saddam isn't guilty. And remember that we are specifically talking about Saddam here.
The lawyer was defending one of Saddam's associates, not the man himself.
Who followed orders to murder thousands or gave orders to do so, lets not forget Saddam the loony would have most likely shot the guy if he refused or maybe gassed him. The entire damn regime was full of mass murdering nutjobs & if any say 'I only did it to avoid being killed' thats hardly any defense, remember the germans 'I vas only following orders'? does that make them any less guilty?
az_bont wrote:We shouldn't remove the right to a fair trial under any circumstances - being 'certain' that someone is guilty is not justification enough to remove that right. If we did, Michael Jackson would be locked up at this very moment.
& the world would be a sligthly safer place for the children wherever he was going next as a result, lynch mobs of the world keep an eye out for the plastic nonce & slot him, after much pain first of course.
The Prisoner - Makes NGE's ending look almost intelligible.
theres no-one else to blame
Bored? figure out where the above lines from. Answers
However I'm not going to argue, because I learnt long ago that getting past Hawq's arrogance is impossible. He made his mind up on things long ago, and even the facts won't change his mind.
Plus his level of British patriotism makes me want to wretch.
However I'm not going to argue, because I learnt long ago that getting past Hawq's arrogance is impossible. He made his mind up on things long ago, and even the facts won't change his mind.
Plus his level of British patriotism makes me want to wretch.
How to be a Conservative:
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
I don't think I said Saddam doesn't deserve a trial. What I said is that the outcome is inevtiable.
How can you determine if they really are guilty of those crimes without a fair trial?
That's what I took issue with. A trial for Saddam is just a formality. I really don't see how anyone can come up with any doubt at all, let alone reasonable doubt.
However I'm not going to argue, because I learnt long ago that getting past Hawq's arrogance is impossible. He made his mind up on things long ago, and even the facts won't change his mind.
Plus his level of British patriotism makes me want to wretch.
Just wait till there sanother election then being patriotic wont be evil, untill its over that is when suddenly it will be again, & how can anyone think theres any doubt over these butchers? if I went & wiped out a few villages worth of people but then said 'I was only following orders' would that make it alright? of course not, same thing here
The Prisoner - Makes NGE's ending look almost intelligible.
theres no-one else to blame
Bored? figure out where the above lines from. Answers
Roofus wrote:I don't think I said Saddam doesn't deserve a trial. What I said is that the outcome is inevtiable.
How can you determine if they really are guilty of those crimes without a fair trial?
That's what I took issue with. A trial for Saddam is just a formality. I really don't see how anyone can come up with any doubt at all, let alone reasonable doubt.
if you start saying a fair trial is only a formality in this particular trial where's the line? some people deserve a fair trial while others don't? it's clear the way this trial is going to go eventually but for the protection of every person who goes through the court systems a fair trial isn't an irritating formality- it's an absolute essential.
A mass murdering dictator who has killed many of his own subjects, thats a big toll before you get to the war mongering part, doesnt require a trial to be found guilty. It woulda saved a lot of money & time if the soldiers that found him had just shot him & said 'we tried to take him alive but he did a Hitler'
The Prisoner - Makes NGE's ending look almost intelligible.
theres no-one else to blame
Bored? figure out where the above lines from. Answers
don't you also think that by not offering saddam a fair trial, it would only prove correct the middle eastern extremists views that the west is utterly corrupt?
not just souLLy now wrote:don't you also think that by not offering saddam a fair trial, it would only prove correct the middle eastern extremists views that the west is utterly corrupt?
Its it always that way?
Not giving people a fair trial is wrong...until suddenly you want the person to go down for it and then it would've been alright just to shoot him.
The fact is, Saddam and his cronies all need a fair trial. We all know they're guilty of murdering hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people. Do you think Saddam gave everyone under his authority a fair trial before he executed them? Most certainly not. But if the Iraqi government don't give them a fair trial, then IMO they are not much better than Saddam himself.
"and if your kids don't obey you, you can always beat them with a sack of Valencia oranges. They don't leaves bruises and your kids will always know who's boss."
Ah but we have our dictator types in there now so its all ok to ignore trials for Saddam etc.. as long as the rulers are in our pockets then its all good, if they go mad & rebel its regime change time again uh.. I mean time to liberate that poor oppressed oil again, uh.. I mean liberate the people & stop terrorism.. yeah thats it, theyll believe that one
The Prisoner - Makes NGE's ending look almost intelligible.
theres no-one else to blame
Bored? figure out where the above lines from. Answers
Ah but we have our dictator types in there now so its all ok to ignore trials for Saddam etc
What are you talking about?
A mass murdering dictator who has killed many of his own subjects, thats a big toll before you get to the war mongering part, doesnt require a trial to be found guilty. It woulda saved a lot of money & time if the soldiers that found him had just shot him & said 'we tried to take him alive but he did a Hitler'
As I recall, that's more or less what happened with Pol Pot. I can't say I cared when he turned up dead under mysterious circumstances.
How to be a Conservative:
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
