Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal pudge's Journal: Trial of Hussein 17

Journal by pudge

This whole Hussein thing doesn't interest me much, but the one thing that has interested me the most in it is the idea of a trial. In all this talk about how he should be tried, I keep thinking, why does it matter so much who tries him (apart from the penalties involved) if we all know he is guilty, and the U.S. would never allow him to be found innocent? That's about the only way Dean could beat Bush, is if Hussein were acquitted. :-)

Anywhoo, WFB has some interesting thoughts on the matter, as usual, and he has a line in his column that makes me laugh, as usual.

If there is anybody in town who believes that Saddam Hussein is not guilty of crimes however described, what we need to worry about is him, not Saddam.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trial of Hussein More

Trial of Hussein

Comments Filter:

  • I think that the U.S. is going to worry how the trial will be perceived in the Arab world and also by Iran (who would also like to try Hussein). They don't want it to come across as victor's justice, but rather as the justice meted out by Iraqis against their former tyrant. He's guilty of plenty if you craft the charges right.

  • I keep thinking, why does it matter so much who tries him (apart from the penalties involved) if we all know he is guilty, and the U.S. would never allow him to be found innocent?

    How many people (including a current congressman!) have been running around insisting that the US must have captured Saddam in September or October and held him until now because -- why? What possible advantage is there to revealing him this month, and not last month or next?

    Logic went out the window a long time ago on this front.

  • If we're talking about what's best for Iraqis, we have no better yardstick than Salam Pax [blogspot.com]:

    I want a fully functioning Saddam who will sit on a chair in front of a TV camera for 10 hours everyday and tells us what exactly happened the last 30 years. I do not care about the fair trial thing Amnesty Int. is worried about and I don'r really care much about the fact that the Iraqi judges might not be fullt qualified, we all know he should rot in hell. but what I do care about is that he gets a public trial becau

    • Yes, the ONLY value in keeping Hussein alive (apart from the very important thing about perceptions, which is a tricky issue, but doesn't require anything specific, it's all in how you get people to think about what is happening) is in what he tells us, about his other missing party members, about weapons, about his evil deeds.
    • Here's [blogspot.com] another good one. Female, islamic.

      Gee is also good, but thus far silent on this.
      • A href equals http://istartalking.blogspot.com [blogspot.com] is ok some of the time. Hasn't been updated in a while, although it's always been infrequent.

        I was reading both those two Iraqi women for a while. One of them turns into a fucking lunatic occasionally, but I can't remember which. That made it particularly interesting because that way you can see where the hell this lunacy comes from.
  • The news is full lately with stories about Kurds who were gassed on Saddam's order, and their thirst for justice (which comes out looking a lot like vengeance).

    For a while I worried that Bush was not going to give Saddam an open trial, because that would offer him the chance to speak publicly about how Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, et al. were complicit in his use of chemical weapons. Recall that twenty years ago the U.S. was providing Iraq with intelligence to make it easier for them

    • Yes, it isn't news, unless there's something we don't already know. You mean America participated with an ally in a war against its enemies? Sound the alarm! An ally who turned out to be worse than that enemy? Well, we erred. Yes, we did. Sucks to be us, but hand-wringing over it won't solve anything, and we already know about it. And gassing civilians is different than using gas in war. Was it wrong? Probably, but we *already know about it* and chalk it up to a mistake of history. Oops.

      I honestl

      • Yes, it isn't news, unless there's something we don't already know.

        I'm happy to simply have the Rumsfeld-Hussein link explained in a sidebars, on all the chemical-gassings stories we'll see that week. You know, a "did you know?" or "background facts" kind of reference.

        Think that'll happen?

        When we invade a new country, the media always shows us maps. Oh, you mean Kuwait is there now? But "it's not news (to the 1% of you who pay attention)" is a really great excuse for the stories they ignore.

        • I'm happy to simply have the Rumsfeld-Hussein link explained in a sidebars, on all the chemical-gassings stories we'll see that week. You know, a "did you know?" or "background facts" kind of reference.

          Anybody mildly aware of the global situation pertaining to the middle east during the early 80s should have some insight into the links.

          It is very presumptuous to think you are amongst the 1%, other people are unaware, and that you have any clue of the actual relationship between Hussein and anybody in the

  • Not to the death. (Score:3, Funny)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) * on Thursday December 18, 2003 @09:06PM (#7759397) Journal
    To the pain.

    (And I didn't support the war - still, Saddam deserves whatever they throw at him.)

Slashdot Top Deals

If it's worth hacking on well, it's worth hacking on for money.

Close