Saddam Hussein Executed

[r0beph]

Death without a trial? Sure he doesn't live here in the good ol' us (where currently the legal system is decaying into a rather distasteful affair anyhow) However, For you to wish democracy to the world, to want people to live as we do, and to have the same rights and humanities we all consider sacred, and yet wish to go outside the very constitutional rights we want them all to have is simply paradoxical and hypocritical. I'm sure you'll go ahead with the meritless argument that it's for defense of the nation, and do so if you will, but in reality you're supporting bipartite idealism and that's simply ridiculous. I suggest you rethink the merits of your political idealism and come to a congruent stance that doesn't invalidate itself.

We edge closer and closer to a supernationalist state with some of these wild far right ideals, while I find myself often on both sides with my stances, this type of thinking sends us down a rabbit hole I'd prefer to avoid. I'll try not to Godwin this thread, but I'm balancing precariously on that edge.

 

[jb_1430]

Death without a trial?

Trial??? This is a war, not a criminal investigation. MARK

 

[r0beph]

Trial??? This is a war, not a criminal investigation. MARK

Please kind sir, see Article 3(1)a. of the Geneva Convention. That which we, the US, are signatories. Albeit we didn't try him, the case here is pure hypothesis brought on by the suggestion that he ought have been executed sans trial. Again this would be a violation of the GC Art. 3(1)a

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions
without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted
court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as
indispensable by civilized peoples.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Has anyone ever followed the GC?

 

[r0beph]

No, but I'm using it as a marked point. We have to have some rule to the chaos. Just because it's violated all the time doesn't mean it's the right thing. In fact it means it's the wrong thing. You cannot proclaim any moral highground, or even a small moral island .5' above sea level, if you try to proclaim that "it's ok, because it's for X" When the law states absolutely it is wrong. Wrong is wrong, regardless of your reasoning as to why it SHOULD be right. You cannot argue anything in that manner.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I am not a proponent of the "they did it so we could do it" but I really don't see the GC as the definition of what's right. No serious country can win a war while simultaneously following the GC, unless the other side is doing it. Clearly, the Islamists don't seem to be a big fan of following the GC as evidenced by their flying of commerical jetliners into civilian skyscrapers and their public, slow, dull-bladed beheadings of civilians.

 

[r0beph]

You're diverging from the threads line of reasoning. We're talking about Saddam Hussein (a secularist, not islamic jihadi BIG difference) And while some of what you say is quite true, the facts remain, if we wish to constantly violate a treatise which we have signed, why sign it at all? Why not revoke our signature? Because we love to hold up the Geneva War Criminal facade in front of anyone we feel fit to bring further tribulation to once a war is over. I don't like the bipartite execution of consequence due to violation of a signed document we swore to adhere to. It reeks of hypocrisies.

 

[r0beph]

where the hell is my edit post button....meh...

anyhow, let me add, that while the GC covers war, it's not very clear on these pseudo-nonsovereign enemies that this current "war" is fighting. These terrorists are not associated with any nation signatory or otherwise of the GC and I'd be hard pressed to find validity outside of a moral subjectivity to deny that it is legitimate to not uphold the GC in conflicts such as the current one today. That being said, back to another point you made. While yes they used a very unconventional and quite criminal method of attack, those who did that are not by any means the only enemy there are multiple banners, multiple militant groups, some for religion, some paid mercenaries, there's such a diverse group of enemies spread through the middle east that pegging any one as the target of our show of force is damn near impossible, so one cannot rightfully say "they violated the gc" because no one really knows who is behind what most of the time over there.

 

[Horizon]

and the same Saddam Hussein was brought in to power by the same American government some 30 years ago. what a coincidence, ain't it..!

 

[heyjude]

Well, he didn't tell our government that he was a socialist who intended to take over the oil fields and give the money from them (at least some of it) to the Iraqi people. When we found that out, his days were numbered.

 

[Horizon]

Well, he didn't tell our government that he was a socialist who intended to take over the oil fields and give the money from them (at least some of it) to the Iraqi people. When we found that out, his days were numbered.

now, is this a justification?

 

[roger2008]

Saddam was deposed by the United States and its allies during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was convicted of charges related to the executions of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites suspected of planning an assassination attempt against him.
______________________________________________________________
Carhartt Clothes budapest property