Announcement

**The Emperor Fabulous** · December 14, 2003, 11:05

with that attitude you'll never make it in television

**GePap** · December 14, 2003, 11:14

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

So I was wrong to say that this Iraq court's jurisdiction was questionable, since they are basing thier tribunal on existing international ones using international law.

Yes. You've yet to give one concrete reason why an Iraqi tribunal's jurisdiction would be questionable under international law. Come on, GePap, give us a reason.

Nice doge; well, actualy, not nice, rather disappointing from you. Since the Iraqi tribulanl is using international law as its foundation, it would have jurisdiction, and validate international law itself. I wonder though how you will parcel post and edit this post? Maybe as honestly as you did the previous?

**Drake Tungsten** · December 14, 2003, 11:21

Nice doge; well, actualy, not nice, rather disappointing from you. Since the Iraqi tribulanl is using international law as its foundation, it would have jurisdiction, and validate international law itself. I wonder though how you will parcel post and edit this post? Maybe as honestly as you did the previous?

What does any of this have to do with the original argument? I said that the US would send Saddam to an Iraqi court, not an international tribunal. First, you claimed there was no Iraqi court. Then, when proven wrong on that count, you tried to portray the Iraqi court as not having jurisdiction on the prosecution of their own former dictator. When questioned on this silly argument, you didn't provide any actual reasons why the Iraqi court's jurisdiction would come into question; you just proceeded to embark on some "point" about the Iraqi court using international law as its basis for prosecuting Hussein, which has no relevance at all to the original argument.

Then, you try to accuse me of "dodgeing"...

**Ming** · December 14, 2003, 11:21

I guess you two didn't take my earlier warning very seriously...

ENOUGH WITH THE PERSONAL CRAP!

You will not be warned again... just restricted!

**Pekka** · December 14, 2003, 11:22

San Quentin? That's an option.. maybe they make Saddam share a room with Bubba, and Bubba will show where he wants to hide his WMD.

**Shi Huangdi** · December 14, 2003, 11:22

I suspect the Iraqi Governing Council will make a provision that will make Saddam eligible for the death penalty.

**Ming** · December 14, 2003, 11:23

Originally posted by Pekka
San Quentin? That's an option.. maybe they make Saddam share a room with Bubba, and Bubba will show where he wants to hide his WMD.

And enough with the spam as well...

**Drake Tungsten** · December 14, 2003, 11:24

I guess you two didn't take my earlier warning very seriously...

ENOUGH WITH THE PERSONAL CRAP!

You will not be warned again... just restricted!

Are you talking to me? I don't think I've said any personal crap thus far...

**MarkG** · December 14, 2003, 11:27

I just wonder about that medical exam video. Is it really ok to display a prisoner like that?

it's public humiliation of the defeated in the year 2003. the romans were dragging them around in the streets. we show them being examined by a dentist

then again, they couldnt just show a video of him just standing, they didnt have one. they showed whatever first came to their hands

i'm telling you, this was not planned

**connorkimbro** · December 14, 2003, 11:27

Whether we find WMD's or not (and it's more likely that we find them, now that he's caught) but even if we don't find them, I would consider us to have completed our victory in iraq.

Now bring our boys home!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**GePap** · December 14, 2003, 11:29

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What does any of this have to do with the original argument? I said that the US would send Saddam to an Iraqi court, not an international tribunal. First, you claimed there was no Iraqi court. Then, when proven wrong on that count, you tried to portray the Iraqi court as not having jurisdiction on the prosecution of their own former dictator. When questioned on this silly argument, you didn't provide any actual reasons why the Iraqi court's jurisdiction would come into question; you just proceeded to embark on some "point" about the Iraqi court using international law as its basis for prosecuting Hussein, which has no relevance at all to the original argument.

Then, you try to accuse me of "dodgeing"...

Arrgh!

The tribunal set up is being set up on the model of other international tribunals, with the difference being that it is set up by the Governing Council. The council is claiming to have jurisdiction based on INTERNATIONAL LAW already existing, NOT UNDER IRAQI LAW, for which there is no precendent, given that there is no new Iraqi constitution yet to replace the Baathist one. Saddam will be charged not for violating Iraqi law, but international laws that are universal such as crimes against humanity and war crimes.

**Boris Godunov** · December 14, 2003, 11:30

Well, this certainly beats my news about how it's snowing here again.

Found in a hole with mice and rats, no gun and $750,000...I think it's reasonable to say he wasn't coordinating any resistance to U.S. occupation--he was just running for his life.

Oh, I can just guess when the trial will be...

**Boris Godunov** · December 14, 2003, 11:31

Originally posted by connorkimbro
Whether we find WMD's or not (and it's more likely that we find them, now that he's caught) but even if we don't find them, I would consider us to have completed our victory in iraq.

Now bring our boys home!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I doubt Hussein was coordinating resistance, and I'm betting it could even intensify now that he's captured. Until that's stamped out and Iraq is stable, mission not accomplished and our boys have to stay and finish what we started.

**Drake Tungsten** · December 14, 2003, 11:35

The tribunal set up is being set up on the model of other international tribunals, with the difference being that it is set up by the Governing Council. The council is claiming to have jurisdiction based on INTERNATIONAL LAW already existing, NOT UNDER IRAQI LAW, for which there is no precendent, given that there is no new Iraqi constitution yet to replace the Baathist one.

That doesn't make it an "international tribunal" by any stretch of the imagination. I suppose you think the Nuremburg tribunals were "international" as well?

Saddam will be charged not for violating Iraqi law, but international laws that are universal such as crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Of course he will be; did you actually think he would be prosecuted under anything other than international law? Even if Iraq had a code of laws in place, most domestic legal codes don't deal with genocide and other war crimes. That's what international law is for.

**Dr Strangelove** · December 14, 2003, 11:41

How about it if we build an arena in Basra for his trial, which in the spirit of the new Iraqi constitution would be led by a religious judge, and let everyone in the audience bring two bricks along. Punishment would be carried out in the good old fashioned way - stoneing.

Announcement

Saddam Hussein arrested

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment