Oh my god...

[Drake Tungsten]

Where did anyone say that you should be able to hold people indefinitely? "Longer than six months" does not equal "forever".

[MrFun]

Originally posted by CyberShy

mixing it all up like, let's start with the month then the day and than the year really makes no sence

Well yes -- weird people would think that this does not make any sense.

[DinoDoc]

That's fine. Release him in Halabja and be done with him. Hell dropping him in a major ****e population center would be just as good.

[Dinner]

They should just charge him with the easiest case first but leave open the option to tack on more charges later. BTW When exactly was the Nurmingburg trial in relation to the occupation of Germany? As I recall Germany was occupied for something like four years.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They should just charge him with the easiest case first but leave open the option to tack on more charges later.

Yep, that's what I think.

You can't just hold someone without charge indefinitely. Even someone as obviously guilty as Saddam.

[DinoDoc]

That's why releasing him is an appealing option. Especially if we do it in one of the proper areas.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm pro releasing him to a certain death in a place like Halabja or Basra, but that's most likely against international law, as well. And god knows we better follow the law to the letter when dealing with a genocidal tyrant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well we could follow the example set in 'Die Hard With a Vengence' and release Saddam in Compton with a sign saying "I hate ******s" wrapped around his neck.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well we could follow the example set in 'Die Hard With a Vengence' and release Saddam in Compton with a sign saying "I hate ******s" wrapped around his neck.

It was Harlem and that would only set Saddam off on a thrilling adventure to avert a gold heist of mammoth proportions. What good would that do us?

[Winston]

Alternatively, release him in Hollywood with a badge saying "Bush 2004".

[Imran Siddiqui]

What good would that do us?

He'd avert a gold heist of mammoth proportions .

[Drake Tungsten]

****! I didn't think that one through very well, did I?

[Tattila the Hun]

Heh, knowing Saddam, he'd heist the gold himself...

"What gold? I haven't seen any gold." (In a lousy arab impersonation)

[Drake Tungsten]

Heh, knowing Saddam, he'd heist the gold himself...

"What gold? I haven't seen any gold." (In a lousy arab impersonation)

This is more likely...



"What gold? There is no gold! That is just a lie perpetrated by the evil Americans!"

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Why don't they just charge him?

From what I understand, it's been very hard to produce an open-and-shut case on Saddam. He was rather thorough in destroying incriminating documents and issuing orders in such a way that atrocities couldn't be traced back to him conclusively. The man is smart.

So, just charge him, then set a date for trial a little ways out, so any necessary evidence can be, er, um, "produced" and make sure the jury is half Kurd and half Shiite.