This is from the case yesterday when the judge asked him his name. . .
But we really know it went more like this. . .
Judge: What’s your name?
Saddam: Fuck you. That’s my name. What’s your name?
I also saw on the news yesterday an old Iraqi lady shouting at a camera. The translator had her saying, “I hope they kill him, and we will drink his blood.”
That’s some good shit, man. Could you imagine Cindy Sheehan saying she wanted to drink Bush’s blood?
You thought OJ was good? This one’s gonna be a humdinger.
Looks like they hooked ol’ Saddam up with some box seats, too.
I don’t know if he’s seriously deluded like he’s still president and he’s going to be able to assert his authority OR if he knows he’s completely lost so he might as well go down swinging.
I don’t think we’re going to be seeing an, “oops, sorry” coming outta his mouth.
I don’t think he’s deluded. He’s not crazy-- he’s evil.
And to tell you the truth, well . . . I’ve always wondered about that argument. Did he truly have immunity according to the old constitution? If so, isn’t the trial technically illegal? You can’t go back and prosecute someone for something that wasn’t a crime at the time it was committed, can you?
If he does not recognize the new governement (which seems to be the POV of some Iraqis) isn’t he technically still president?
I think the verdict is a foregone conculsion in either case, but I’ve always felt he should be tried by an international war-crimes tribunal, not by his victims.
He’s being tried for violation of international law…war crimes. He’s not being tried according to Iraqi law. If I establish my own country where I am supreme ruler, and the only rule is “Jman is always right” I still can’t slaughter thousands of people and expect to get away with it, just because it was legal under my rule.
As to the is he still president question: ‘His’ country no longer exists. If he wants to be president of that, he can, but there is a new government…and he has no power there.
Why not? If he’s accused of thousands of crimes, shouldn’t each be examined and weighed based on their merits?
I remember before the war, there was a thread about Saddam. Someone claimed that he and his sons were killing people by slowly feeding them through a plastic shredder. My bullshit meter went off, and I asked if there was any evidence of such a thing, or just rumors. (Remember Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators, anyone?) Some smart Doper searched for commercial plastic shredders capable of shredding a person, and was not able to find any near large enough for the task.
Each of the charges needs to be examined properly. If they just want to try him for a single murder, convict and execute him, so be it, but if all of the accusations I’ve heqard floated are piled on in the indictment, justice shouldn’t be dispensed by assuming if he’s guilty of one crime, he must be guilty of them all.
