Saddam's Capture

A moderated forum for more thoughtful discussion.

Moderators: pd Rydia, LadyDragonClawsEDW

User avatar
KingOfDoma
Guess Who It Is?
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:21 pm
Location: Calgary

Saddam's Capture

Unread postby KingOfDoma » Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:02 pm

Thoughts, people. <p>--------------------
"Spock, the women on your planet are logical. It's the only planet that can make that claim." -Captain Kirk, "Elaan of Troyius"

"Oh boy! Sleep! That's where I'm a viking!" - Ralph Wiggum

"I will try your burned, replicated birdmeat." -Commander Kurn</p>

Raishilliah
 

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby Raishilliah » Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:16 pm

My thought: Are they sure that that's Saddam they caught? I mean, he could have been mistaken for someone or something. It's not likely, I know, but it makes one think. <p>

l33tPenguinePimp: I'm going to try to make a bread bowl.
KnightsofSquare: Good luck.
KnightsofSquare: I can't even make a bread play ping pong.</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby Archmage144 » Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:19 pm

They verified that it was him by means of body markings and scars aside from the obvious physical resemblance.

Personally, I'm glad that's out of the way. Now, perhaps, we can finally get the hell out of Iraq.

Since I know someone's inevitably going to bring up the fact that "oh no, this means we're going to have four more years of Bush since they caught Saddam!", I'd just like to point out that there are far worse things that could happen, and if you don't like that prospect, don't vote for him. =P <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

Idran1701
None some call is air am
 
Posts: 42197
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:37 am

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby Idran1701 » Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:21 pm

I believe they also used DNA verification against Uday and Qusay's remains as well, but I'm not positive on that part. <p>

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin</p>

User avatar
KingOfDoma
Guess Who It Is?
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:21 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby KingOfDoma » Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:29 pm

Either that or they just checked it against samples of his own DNA.

It's him, all right. <p>--------------------
"Spock, the women on your planet are logical. It's the only planet that can make that claim." -Captain Kirk, "Elaan of Troyius"

"Oh boy! Sleep! That's where I'm a viking!" - Ralph Wiggum

"I will try your burned, replicated birdmeat." -Commander Kurn</p>

KraKeN
 

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby KraKeN » Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:31 pm

If America and Britain and everyone else leave I'll be annoyed you can't just tear apart a country with war set up a semi stable democracy and leave. There are still bombings and shootings going on and without peace keeping forces there will probably be more looting, chaos etc.

On a side note I wonder if Saddam will be exectued?

[Edit: Stable is probably an exageration] <p>
<div style="text-align:center"> Image<br />"Now apparently just apathetic."</div></p>Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=kraken@rpgww60462>KraKeN</A]&nbsp; Image at: 12/14/03 9:35 pm

User avatar
KingOfDoma
Guess Who It Is?
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:21 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby KingOfDoma » Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:33 pm

There's a good chance, I'd say. He did kill an entire village, justifying it by saying they were "thieves".

If theft means the death penalty, I think he's SEVERELY hooped. <p>--------------------
"Spock, the women on your planet are logical. It's the only planet that can make that claim." -Captain Kirk, "Elaan of Troyius"

"Oh boy! Sleep! That's where I'm a viking!" - Ralph Wiggum

"I will try your burned, replicated birdmeat." -Commander Kurn</p>

Celeste of Elvenhame
 

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby Celeste of Elvenhame » Sun Dec 14, 2003 10:17 pm

I hope we send to him to hell for a nice long stay.
<p>---------------Celeste of Elvenhame --------------- </p>

Just Damn Evil
 

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Sun Dec 14, 2003 10:26 pm

On average, two American soldiers die each day. Why?

Because Iraqis express their emotions by firing guns randomly in crowded areas.

One has to wonder how much control the army really has over a population that drives by shooting into the air.


PopoSujo
 

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby PopoSujo » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:28 am

I too agree that the bastard should die for the atrocities he's committed.



Also: At least they were shooting up... <p>
When angry, count to ten; when very angry, swear.
-- Mark Twain

There's no devil, just God when he drinks.
--Tom Waits</p>

Wolfbelly
 

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:46 am

I hope that he's given a fair trial.


JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:37 am

Saddam's capture poses more problems than it solves, if you ask me. Now we have to do something with him (and just burying him is not an option.) We'd have been better off if he died in capture, but that was not to be. ::sighs:: Ah well.


As for who he is: The man's DNA was checked vs. Saddam's sons, as well as DNA taken off of his toothbrush in one of his palaces. He's the right guy. <p>

"Strenghten your lyre and sing
The hymn of death
The sky opens to us
They fly to the ray"

-Cante per me, Kajiura Yuki</p>

Celeste of Elvenhame
 

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby Celeste of Elvenhame » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:37 am

that would require finding an unbiased audience of his peers. I
m pretty sure everyone in Iraq and the US is biased one way or another.
<p>---------------Celeste of Elvenhame --------------- </p>

KraKeN
 

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby KraKeN » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:42 am

If he's killed he could become a martyr. <p>
<div style="text-align:center"> Image<br />"Now apparently just apathetic."</div></p>

Seethe347
 

Rx

Unread postby Seethe347 » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:45 pm

Not only are there not any people who can be unbiased, but who would want to be the judge that finds him innocent of whatever they charge him with? <p>That is the message.</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Rx

Unread postby Archmage144 » Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:26 pm

It should be noted that in a fair trial, where the accused are innocent until proven guilty, "innocent until proven guilty" is not simply a method for protecting those unjustly accused. It's also a method for constructing a logical argument.

By putting someone on the stand and saying "okay, this man is innocent of his crimes. Can anyone provide a means to contradict this?", assuming such evidence exists, it isn't terribly difficult (though that depends on the quality of the evidence and whatnot as well).

Giving Saddam Hussein a fair trial would mean giving him those same rights--and then bringing evidence against him. There is more than enough evidence to convict him, no matter what. "Fair" means that he will recieve the verdict he deserves--and he deserves punishment. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

Wolfbelly
 

Re: Rx

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:28 pm

Well, there is no way that he'll be found innocent. However, a fair trial is what differentiates justice from a PR gong show. I'd rather see justice be served as opposed to moronic backslappings and Salem-style scapegoating.


Archmage144
 

Re: Rx

Unread postby Archmage144 » Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:55 pm

Yes, I'd hope that it doesn't become a farcical circus. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

Seethe347
 

Devil's advocate

Unread postby Seethe347 » Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:29 pm

If they try him for the crime that we invaded for, which was production of weapons of mass destruction, they will not have enough evidence to convict him. But if we cannot find him guilty of the crime that we stated as our reason for invading, then how will we justify our invasion to begin with? And if we cannot justify our invasion, but we still punish Saddam for his unjust actions, then won't we have to punish ourselves for the invasion?

So, as much as I would have liked to see justice done, we have already screwed it for ourselves. I guess I'm just cynnical, but that's my thought.

Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=seethe347>Seethe347</A] at: 12/15/03 7:43 pm

EKDS5k
 

Re: Devil's advocate

Unread postby EKDS5k » Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:52 pm

Just because the official reason that you invaded and caught him was the WMD thing, doesn't mean he can't be charged on many, many other things.

It's like if the police break into your house because they suspect you're growing weed, find none, but do walk in on you having your way with a dead hooker, they can get you for that.


Adrin
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 12:12 am

Hate to burst your bubble...

Unread postby Adrin » Mon Dec 15, 2003 8:38 pm

but when was the last time you took a civics class?

Judges only grant a search warrant in relation to one specific charge. If the police have a warrant to search your house because they suspect you of growing weed, they cannot bust you if you're going at it with a dead hooker. They need a separate warrant for that.

Unless, of course, you don't live in a country with a liberal democratic tradition. There's always that possibility.


The cynical part of me says that Hussein will suffer a "tragic accident" or "heart attack" before he can testify at a trial. But then again, they haven't planted WMD in Iraq, either.

Remember that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein? Yeah.


EKDS5k
 

Re: Hate to burst your bubble...

Unread postby EKDS5k » Mon Dec 15, 2003 8:58 pm

I didn't say bust you right there on the spot, but they're definitely going to have no trouble getting a dead hooker related warrant, coming back, and then busting you for it. In fact they would probably just call the judge on the phone, and get it right at that moment, without ever having to leave.

And I'm pretty sure in our dead hooker scenario the cops aren't going to let the guy go very far while they get the Judge on the phone.

Regardless, it was an example. When you're the foremost superpower in the world, you kinda have some leeway to make your own rules when dealing in international affairs. They have evidence of crimes, WMD related or no, and no court in the world is going to order it thrown out. And while I would like to see the evidence presented against Saddam in a fair trial, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't happen. Because your country has him, and thus your country gets to decide what to do with him. Sadly, your country is half full of rednecks.


Uncle Pervy
 

Re: Hate to burst your bubble...

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:10 pm

Rampant Nationalism: Because we're obviously superior :D


My thoughts are that this will end in either execution or life imprisonment. In truth, I personally prefer the latter. The last thing that the terrorists need is another martyr.

A question: Who should try him? The US, Iraq, or the UN?

Personally, I am in favor of the UN doing it. <p>------------------
Greetings, large black person. Let us not forget to form a team up together and go into the country to inflict the pain of our karate feets on some ass of the giant lizard person.
</p>

PopoSujo
 

Re: Hate to burst your bubble...

Unread postby PopoSujo » Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:57 pm

I also favor the UN.

Also, there's nothing wrong with being patriotic. Sometimes it can be a bit cheesy, but it isn't some bad thing. <p>
When angry, count to ten; when very angry, swear.
-- Mark Twain

There's no devil, just God when he drinks.
--Tom Waits</p>

User avatar
pd Rydia
Moderator
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 4:12 pm
Location: Temple of Fiends

Re: Hate to burst your bubble...

Unread postby pd Rydia » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:00 pm

Sometimes. <p>
<center>On the first day of Christmas...</center></p>

EKDS5k
 

Re: Hate to burst your bubble...

Unread postby EKDS5k » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:01 pm

What? I didn't say there was anything wrong with Nationalism. Hell, I'd be the first person to back up the statement that Canada is, in fact, awesome. I just said that half your country if made up of hicks, who would likely enjoy bypassing the trial and just having him locked up/executed.


JoshuaDurron
 

Has anyone ever considered...

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:47 pm

o_o I'm amazed that people can say 'They have no evidence of WMD in Iraq.' Sorting through the stockpiles of weapons and warehouses that Saddam built up will take years, possibly decades, it can't be done in months. The process is further complicated by the fact that he often hid his supplies in civilian areas, increasing the ammount of territory that has to be covered, not to mention we can't devote all our manpower to it. Finally, we invaded because Saddam posed a potential security threat, not because he had WMDs. He already had SCUD missles at the time of the invasion, weapons he wasn't supposed to have under UN sanctions, and that is known because they were fired during the invasion. Are SCUDs WMDs? No. Are they evidence that Saddam had at least one type of weapon he wasn't supposed to, possibly more? Definitely. Is the whole WMD matter a bust? I dunno. Only time will tell. <p>

"Strenghten your lyre and sing
The hymn of death
The sky opens to us
They fly to the ray"

-Cante per me, Kajiura Yuki</p>

Lord McBastard
 

Re: Has anyone ever considered...

Unread postby Lord McBastard » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:13 am

......the UN didn't sanction the attack on Iraq. That didn't stop your military from marching on in.

Also if you're amazed that people can say that, why? It is true. Right now there is no evidence because nothings been found! Your line of thinking that since he has one thing he's not supposed to then logically he has more, is kinda like saying if someone is carrying a knife, then logically they've killed people. <p><div style="text-align:center">
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wagh'nagl fhtagn"-Call of Cthulhu</div>
<div style="text-align:center">Lex: "You know I'm wanging this argument!"</div><div style="text-align:center">Me:" ....did you say wanging...?"</div><div style="text-align:center"> Lex: "WINNING!"</div></p>

Ajil6
 

Re: Has anyone ever considered...

Unread postby Ajil6 » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:06 am

I liked the beard he had when they found him. He looked like Frank Herbert. <p>[--------------------------------------------]
FETUS. I am a FETUS.</p>

Wolfbelly
 

Re: Has anyone ever considered...

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:30 am

I wonder if one of the things that they'll try to accuse him of is having ties with teh Al-Qaeda. What happens when they find that it's a baseless accusation? Hmm ... the more I think about it, the more that I see a fair trial would bounce back lots of unresolved issues on Bush's regime. And since that'd be bad, I think we can all expect a farcical circus of a trial.

boo for that.


Ajil6
 

Re: Has anyone ever considered...

Unread postby Ajil6 » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:33 am

They already tried that when they caught him. He denied it, from what i heard. O: <p>[--------------------------------------------]
FETUS. I am a FETUS.</p>

JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Has anyone ever considered...

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:19 am

First off, the US never agreed to wait for UN sanction before invading. We said we would like their support of our action. Saddam, on the other hand, agreed both not to construct his weapons, and to allow people to check up on him to make sure he was playing honest. He broke both promises.

Second, no it does not logically follow that a person having a knife has killed people. It would logically follow that a person with the means to illegally build an M-16, and who has done so with the stated intent to kill people, could also build a rocket launcher given enough time, quite probably with the same intent.

Third: Evidence has been found. Mobile bioweapon facilities have been found, and tested positive for pathogens. An even if they hadn't, we've examined, at the most, 5% of his weapons stockpiles. That leaves a whole lot of unexamined gear to look over. The US nuclear weapons are what, 1 or 2% of our total munitions? It'd be easy to miss 'em if someone were to just come through and skim over 5% of our arsonel.

All I'm saying is, a lot of people act over paranoid about this matter and leap to conclusions. I'm no big fan of Rumsfield, in fact I think some of the Patriot Act provisions were downright awful. But I'm no fan of Saddam either, and often the person called a leader must choose the lesser of two evils, not the thing that leads to the greater good. Often, such a thing does not exist. This is, after all, the real world. What I intend to do is keep watching the situation as it developes, because history hasn't been written yet, and history is what will ultimately have the final say.

Again: I don't think we've seen enough of Iraq to say if what happened there was a good or bad thing. <p>

"Strenghten your lyre and sing
The hymn of death
The sky opens to us
They fly to the ray"

-Cante per me, Kajiura Yuki</p>

Seethe347
 

Re: Has anyone ever considered...

Unread postby Seethe347 » Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:40 am

Quote:
Finally, we invaded because Saddam posed a potential security threat, not because he had WMDs.


Anyone can be said to pose a potential security threat. If we desire to be a liberal nation, then we should not attack another country unless that country has become an actual threat, meaning that they have at least made the decision to attack us, we can prove it before we invade, and we have made a serious but unsuccessful effort to settle the conflict through diplomacy. <p>That is the message.</p>

Wolfbelly
 

Re: Has anyone ever considered...

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:39 am

Woah, that guy on the bus is close enough to punch me. He has the potential to be a threat. Better punch him in the face first!

*sigh*

Seriously though, America invaded on a hunch, not actual knowledge. If they know where the alleged WMDs were, then they would have found them by now. However, they did not know where the WMDs were, which means they were not 100% sure that Iraq did have WMDs. Had they invaded with actual knowledge, then they'd have some strong WMD evidence with which to pin Saddam's ass to a wall. However, they did not and they do not, so they'll have to do without as this trial commences.

Although, if they find some WMDs later, then they could pin it on Saddam then. And even without the WMD charge, Saddam's still going to be going down hardcore, soooo ...


Archmage144
 

Re: Has anyone ever considered...

Unread postby Archmage144 » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:52 pm

I think Mr. McBastard misinterpreted the meaning of the word "sanction" in the post made by Mr. Durron. Sanction not as in "to approve," but sanction as in "an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication." There WERE UN sanctions in place which stated that the country of Iraq was not allowed to possess WMDs. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Has anyone ever considered...

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:57 pm

Mr. Brian is correct. <p>

"Strenghten your lyre and sing
The hymn of death
The sky opens to us
They fly to the ray"

-Cante per me, Kajiura Yuki</p>

Seethe347
 

Re: Has anyone ever considered...

Unread postby Seethe347 » Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:07 pm

Well anyway...

As for punishment, I think they should give him life imprisonment.

In the same cell with Michael Jackson. <p>That is the message.</p>

EKDS5k
 

Re: Has anyone ever considered...

Unread postby EKDS5k » Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:04 pm

Yeah, but Brandon's use of the word was in relation to the attack, in which case it was correct. And true. The UN didn't want to go in, but you guys did anyway. I don't see why they should get to try Saddam. Even if they "should," there's no way your government would hand him over.


Just Damn Evil
 

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby Just Damn Evil » Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:03 pm


I didn't say there was anything wrong with Nationalism.
I would, taking into account World War I, World War II, and the state of American political discussion today.

Maybe this was just a rumor, but didn't the Iraqis want to bring Saddam to a civilian court in order to sue him?

Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=justdamnevil>Just]&nbsp; Image at: 12/18/03 9:16 pm

JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Saddam's Capture

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:28 pm

I hadn't heard anything about it, although I wouldn't doubt they could win the case. The question I would have to ask is, who gets the money? He'd owe a lot of people. Would it just be given to the Iraqi government? o_o <p>

"Strenghten your lyre and sing
The hymn of death
The sky opens to us
They fly to the ray"

-Cante per me, Kajiura Yuki</p>

Next

Return to Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron

Yalogank