That should read: Saying that somehow he should not be held accountable for those crimes because of the questionable nature of the invasion is legally incorrect at best, and just plain idiotic at worst.
Could you provide the cite to where Kerry says the war is “illegitimate” or illegal? “Wrong” does not necessarily mean that. Kerry has always emphasized the fact that it was wrong because it was a poor decision for our country…It distracted us from more important things we should have been doing, weakened our standing in the world community, helped recruitment for the terrorists, stretched our military very thin, and so on and so forth. This is a very different argument from saying that it was illegitimate or illegal under international law. (I happen to think that it essentially was, but I haven’t heard Kerry ever articulate that position.)
Apparently you do not read responses to your own freakin’ thread since I had already addressed this before you had stated it. (Your threads are such train wrecks that I actually try to bring up points you may have been trying to make and then explain why they are incorrect.) Of course, since you made this point explicitly, others have argued similarly to what I said:
(1) The exclusion of evidence rules even as codified in our nation’s law are probably not as broad as you believe them to be. I think that if the police arrested a serial killer on an improperly obtained warrant, some evidence might get excluded but I doubt he would be allowed to go scott-free. Any lawyers in the crowd here might be able to address this more substantively.
(2) As far as I know, there is no generally-accepted “exclusion of evidence” rule in international law anyway.
Do you think that may be the reason that I used the word “supposedly”? Sheeesh.
Semantics.
Why don’t you provide a cite where I said “illegal”. As far as “illegitimate”, I said, “in so many words”.
Hell, you can’t even read.
Given the OP’s responses so far, glad I didn’t take that bet.
What the hell is this thread about, anyway? Is the OP’s position that because Kerry objected to the war, if elected he MUST call for the release of Saddam? If so, I believe the silliness of that position has been dealt with adequately.
If this is just some sort of Kerry-bashing exercise, could we at least get some specific idea as to what it is about Kerry that the OP considers, apparently, the greater of two evils?
This is pretty easy, IMHO, in regards to the evidence argument.
There was plenty of evidence of Saddam being a Really Bad Man years before we invaded. We had testimony from survivors of the gas attacks, from people tortured by Uday, and any other political opponents who had happened to escape from Iraq.
These were crimes and he should be held accountable. The war gave the Iraqis (not the US) a chance to hold him accountable for those crimes. As such, he is in Iraqi custody and will face an Iraqi court. His incarceration and the original reasons given for invasion (WMDs) are completely separable.
Torture and other crimes were mainly given as post hoc justifications for the war after WMDs proved difficult to find. I suppose that Saddam could be tried for these violations of the Geneva Convention in the Hague like Slobodan Milosevic, but I’d imagine that the evidentiary standards are quite a bit higher there. Also, Saddam could introduce the legitimacy of the invasion as a point in his defense (as Milosevic has attempted to do). This is why there is no chance of this happening.
I would like a cite for the crimes Saddam Hussein is charged with and the authorization granted for arrest.
Well, what does Kerry say? “The wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.” So, how is the arrest of Saddam right?
President Bush is right about one thing, if Kerry were President, Saddam would still be in power. Right?
Perhaps. The point is that Hussein was, or should have been, relatively low on the list of threats to the United States. Number one should be bin Laden and al Queda. Arguably North Korea and Iran would come before Iraq, and I can think of several other issues that should have demanded our attention first. So you are the DA in a city with an incompetent chief of police who poured his resources into catching a bicycle thief instead of finding a kidnapper. You don’t kick the bicycle thief free, but you do point out the stupidity of the police chief. It isn’t really all that difficult, if you think about it.
Razorsharp - How is this even a debate? You’re asking a hypothetical and brazenly partisan question, that was never asked because it was too stupid for the interviewer to even entertain, and whenever anyone presents a possible answer you call them stupid and throw up unrelated generalities in an effort to distract from the original post?
Just for the record, here’s how Kerry would likely have answered as has been evidenced by his public stance on the war in Iraq:
"No, Charles, I would not release him, even if I had the authority to do so, which I would not as President of the United States considering he is a prisoner for crimes against humanity in Iraq.
The United States has real enemies that should be pursued and destroyed at this time, and instead of doing that, President Bush has chosen to fight a distracting and deadly insurgent war in Iraq. This is not leadership, and it should be ended.
While this was a terrible error, with untold cost for the American and Iraqi people, it has been done, and we must do our best to end with as mush honor as possible, and to provide the very best to our soldiers in combat and to the Iraqi people as well. We must do this without sacrificing the safety and security of the United States in scurrilous wars that didn’t need to be fought.
While I believe that this war is unjustified and that President Bush lied to the American people about the reasons for the war and continues to lie to the American public and the international communities about the ongoing conflict in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and deserves a special place in hell reserved for him. Whatever justice the Iraqi people see fit to dispense on him is their internal decision to make within their legal system, and we should suppor that justice. The United States has no right to interfere arbitrarily in internal governing of sovereign nations."
BTW - the phrase “special place in hell” is an actual John Kerry quote.
Feel free to call me stupid, by the way - I welcome a friendly little banter in the Pit anytime you’re ready.
Yes, most likely, he would still be in power, because if Kerry had been president when we had the choice to invade Iraq or not, he might not have invaded, seing as how he didn’t have a vested interest in a personal vendetta against Saddam and doesn’t have a corrupt bunch of political has-beens trying to profit as much as possible from the war while they could. Of course, as for Bush being right, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Kerry, rather than invading Iraq to settle a family vendetta, might even have focused efforts to nail the one guy who we are completely sure had something to do with 9/11 - meaning Osama Bin Laden. Remember him? The guy who your boy Bush said he “didn’t really spend time thinking about anymore”? The guy who isn’t important enough to finish the job and actually find / capture / kill? The guy who is authorizing cuts in the small force, of less than 20,000, of intelligence and special forces soldiers there to actually find him? Of course, the Pakistanis will probably do so, and trot him out around the end of October, just like Karl Rove has planned.
You wanna ask me about the lesser of two evils, at least Kerry has enough of a mind to focus for more than ten minutes on the one who actually, y’know, ATTACKED US!
Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with your original premise, which is that supporters of Kerry should be slitting their own throats politically by demanding Saddam be released now.
Wanna try again to change the subject?
Of course that should have been
Sorry
You mean besides a lame-ass attempt by a self-proclaimed “sharp” guy to try to catch Kerry in a corner? Only to get peeved when every wandering reader pokes big holes in his OP after a brief scan?
While I don’t think we can know for sure without a time machine, I’d suspect that yes, Saddam would still be in power. Following the same logic, I’d also suspect that there would be over 1,000 Americans alive today that are currently buried, along with well over 10,000 Iraqi civilians. Heck, we’d probably have Osama in custody, and Karzai might be the actual leader in Afghanistan, as opposed to the glorified Mayor of Kabul, and the Afghanistan people just might feel a bit more secure about their futures.
Are you asking if I consider that a fair trade off? Hell yeah.
God, you are amazing. You don’t even understand your own arguments (or pretend not to). You said:
My point is that Kerry has not said the war is “illegitimate” in any way that would say we didn’t have the right to do what he did. What he said was that it was not good judgement to do what we did…It was not the best course of action for our country (to put it mildly). This does not imply that:
(1) We had no right to capture Saddam Hussein.
(2) That the capture of Saddam Hussein was a bad thing. You can do something that is bad because the costs do not justify the benefits but that does not mean that you don’t believe any of the benefits are in fact benefits.
If you persist in just distorting our arguments, then one of us is going to bring this debate to where it really deserves to go…which is the Pit…where we don’t have to hold back and bite our tongues like we do here.
Well you did pretty good till you said this:
And how does invading and arresting the president of a sovereign nation that has not committed any offense against the United States fit in with that statement?
How about if I just call you a liar because of this:
Now, I admit, I did retaliate with
against jjimm for
but that does not mitigate the fact that you just told an outright lie.
Charges (Google keywords “Saddam Hussein charges”)
Authorization (Google keywords “Saddam transfer Iraqi custody”)
In short, he was originally captured and held as a prisoner of war by US Forces, then turned over to the Iraqis when they issues an arrest warrant and requested him.
Well, Kerry probably wouldn’t have commissioned an invasion of Iraq on the bogus premise that Saddam was about to attack the US with nuclear bacteria, but as to whether Saddam would still be in power, I really have no idea. Let’s fire up the Wayback machine, go back to 2000, elect Kerry President, and see what happens.
Oh, hang on, Kerry wasn’t the Democratic nominee in 2000. Oh, well.
I do however, finally see what you are driving at with this thread. I guess to accept your argument, we have to assume that deposing Saddam was entirely a Good Thing. Unfortunately, due to the manner in which this was carried, it does not appear to have been entirely a Good Thing, for the US or for the Iraqis.
I would ask you to join me here… I am just Western enough to call your ass out for calling me a liar.