Saddam caught?!!!

[Brian King]

YES, Looks like the 4th ID are giving us an early Christmas gift. Way to go guys!!

If it is Saddam do we give him to the UN? Or do we let the locals judge him?

See you on the mat soon
Friends
Brian

 

[MisterMike]

Yup, we did! Democrats now scrambling for new excuses for this unjustified war.

The first question from the L.A. Times? Are you going to let him go?

Unbelievable.

This is just another item on the checklist that President Bush has said he would come through on and has. 2004 will be a landslide.

The Iraqi's were celebrating in the streets, not that they're even thankful we're there, but at least something went in their favor.

It's a good day.

 

[Master of Blades]

Yeah, I just woke up and its all over the news! He wasnt too smart was he......Hiding in a hole near Tikrit or wherever it was. I just watched the Press Conferance......some interesting stuff. I've also heard that it was his wife that gave him up (Although for 25 million who wouldnt)! I'm not too up on info on this whole ordeal at the moment, so anyone who wants to bring me up to date that would be appreciated!

I also heard that seeing as we or the U.s cant do much to the guy your going to hand him back to Iraq and let them "Deal" with him. Conveniant but true?

 

[pknox]

I also heard that seeing as we or the U.s cant do much to the guy your going to hand him back to Iraq and let them "Deal" with him. Conveniant but true?

I don't know - nothing as really been mentioned about that yet, but seeing as he used mustard gas against the Kurds back during the Desert Storm era, it is possible that he could be tried for war crimes. If so, I would think he would then be tried by the U.N., so he most likely would not be turned over. Also, I'm not sure about international law, but think about this - in our system, a criminal can be detained, when he/she would otherwise be released, because they are determined to be a "flight risk." I think Saddam would definitely be described as such, so we may have justification to hold him due to that as well.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by pknox
seeing as he used mustard gas against the Kurds back during the Desert Storm era, it is possible that he could be tried for war crimes. If so, I would think he would then be tried by the U.N., so he most likely would not be turned over. Also, I'm not sure about international law, but think about this - in our system, a criminal can be detained, when he/she would otherwise be released, because they are determined to be a "flight risk." I think Saddam would definitely be described as such

Indeed.

I agree that he could be tried for war crimes, but I also suspect we'll find a way to try him ourselves and not give him over to others.

 

[Rich Parsons]

(* We = The U.S.A. Governement and Military and people *)

We could let the new Provisional government of Iraw give him his day in court. Pretty much a death sentence without proof.

We could try him ourselves and most likely will. As a prisoner of war and or terrorism the flight risk is high and would be detained until a trial could be arranged. Most likely a trial by the judge and not by a jury.

We could also turn him over the U.N. . This would also be done with the U.N. taking a bigger roll in the reconstruction. Yes, we will balck mail the U.N. You see if the U.N. really wants to have a trial and bring war crimes against him, then we will expect more support from the U.N. in the reconstruction of Iraq.


(* I may post my personal opinion at a later date. *)
:asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Extradite him to the US, and lock him up in Club Fed.
It was our war, we captured him, he's ours. Get him out of Iraq ASAP and away from his supporters.

The UN hasn't got the right, IMHO.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
Extradite him to the US, and lock him up in Club Fed.

Put him in a cell with Manuel Noriega and give them a pack of playing cards.

It was our war, we captured him, he's ours.

That's how I feel in my gut, but...

The UN hasn't got the right, IMHO.

...while this is also how I feel, if we believe in the U.N. then at some point we have to trust them. (Have we ever paid up on our dues, by the way?) But basically, I'm with you on this one.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Tell ya what...we'll give him over to France...

As soon as those SOBS pay back their loan from WW2.

Until then, they can have their criosoints, and we'll kick butt.

Now, getting serious here for a moment...the US should try him, not the Iraqi's. Why? Fairness. The trick is, to make it a fair trial. At least here, he has a chance. There, he'll hang for certain.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by arnisador
...while this is also how I feel, if we believe in the U.N. then at some point we have to trust them. (Have we ever paid up on our dues, by the way?) But basically, I'm with you on this one.

No, I do not think we have paid up our dues. Yet, even Japan still owes us money from ODShield and ODStorm, as do many of the members of the U.N. They plede to pay a certain amount instead of sending military support or if they could not send. Yet, many of them have not paid.

The U.N. is a good concept in my mind. Yet, the current U.S. Governement is letting them know that if the only member that is going to play by the rules is the U.S. then we can take our ball and go home, and do what we want. i.e. Current Gulf War.

The U.S, should not have the only vote in an organization like the U.N., yet hen people do not play by the rules, then the U.N. becomes nothing more than an ole boys and girls club, to have dinners and argue about their politics.

Just My opinions

 

[Makalakumu]

Saddam's capture is going to become a political centerpeice. I wouldn't be surprised if he was trucked back to the US, put on TV and publically tried. I can see all of the agonizing details of his horrible regime spilt over our airwaves in order to justify this war. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the plunder of Iraq continues. Here comes more Haliburton contracts....

 

[Ender]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
Saddam's capture is going to become a political centerpeice. I wouldn't be surprised if he was trucked back to the US, put on TV and publically tried. I can see all of the agonizing details of his horrible regime spilt over our airwaves in order to justify this war. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the plunder of Iraq continues. Here comes more Haliburton contracts....

Questions of conflict of interest have been raised about Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), after her husband's company was awarded an Army contract worth $600 million in Iraq, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. .

...How come this never comes up?......liberal bias perhaps?

 

[MisterMike]

Ya, I thought plunder is when you just loot. I thought the Iraqi people were going to get money for whatever their country produces...


U.S. tax dollars -> Rebuilding Contracts -> Preferably U.S. companies, not to the likes of France and Germany who will only 'help' when there's money involved and no chance of being shot at.


It's good to know who supports what on the news though. Should make the election a no-brainer.

 

[Makalakumu]

There are war profiteers on the both sides of the isle. Haliburton or Bechtel, it doesn't make a difference. Just as there is little difference between who money can buy. Liberal bias in the media? Nope, its a corporate deal and that is above the labels of conservative or liberal. As far as plunder goes, the Iraqis are "paying" for as much as they can. Saddam's cast hordes tortured out of the populace to the extended "Oil for Food" programs. Call it what you will, but the end result is that the corporations get what they sent our boys to die for. Oil.

All else is smoke and mirrors and barely vield obfuscation that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skill should be able to see through.

:soapbox:

upnorth

 

[Ender]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
There are war profiteers on the both sides of the isle. Haliburton or Bechtel, it doesn't make a difference. Just as there is little difference between who money can buy. Liberal bias in the media? Nope, its a corporate deal and that is above the labels of conservative or liberal. As far as plunder goes, the Iraqis are "paying" for as much as they can. Saddam's cast hordes tortured out of the populace to the extended "Oil for Food" programs. Call it what you will, but the end result is that the corporations get what they sent our boys to die for. Oil.

All else is smoke and mirrors and barely vield obfuscation that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skill should be able to see through.

:soapbox:

upnorth

a recent poll of Congress showed that 85% of Republicans beleive there is a liberal bias in the media, but what was truly astonishing is that 55% of DEMOCRATIC house and senate members admit that there is a bias towards the left! The majority of the liberal side even admits to it!...

And go to any newspaper the day before an election and look at the "recommendations"....consistently 8 out of every 10 candidates the newspapers recommended were from the Democratic party. The bias is there whether people believe it not.


so I guess your critical thinking skills were not in use..*L

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Yup, we did! Democrats now scrambling for new excuses for this unjustified war.

The first question from the L.A. Times? Are you going to let him go?

Unbelievable.

This is just another item on the checklist that President Bush has said he would come through on and has. 2004 will be a landslide.

The Iraqi's were celebrating in the streets, not that they're even thankful we're there, but at least something went in their favor.

It's a good day.

Catching Saddam and our reasoning for the war are seperate issues.

Yes...its good we caught him (if its really him and not some imposter...hopefully wa can prove this w/o a shadow of doubt).

No...it wouldn't be exactly right for you to use this opportunity to throw out pro-bush rhetoric. Bush didn't catch S**t...our military did.

Plus, we didn't go to war to "catch Saddam."

You want to see the real reason for war...just look at who the oil contracts are being doled out to.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Ender
Questions of conflict of interest have been raised about Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), after her husband's company was awarded an Army contract worth $600 million in Iraq, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. .

...How come this never comes up?......liberal bias perhaps?

Oh sure...definate conflict of interest there too! If these things don't come up...then how would you have heard about it??

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Ender
a recent poll of Congress showed that 85% of Republicans beleive there is a liberal bias in the media, but what was truly astonishing is that 55% of DEMOCRATIC house and senate members admit that there is a bias towards the left! The majority of the liberal side even admits to it!...

And go to any newspaper the day before an election and look at the "recommendations"....consistently 8 out of every 10 candidates the newspapers recommended were from the Democratic party. The bias is there whether people believe it not.


so I guess your critical thinking skills were not in use..*L

I heard that 90% of all statistics were made up. Care to post your sources for these stats.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Ender
a recent poll of Congress showed that 85% of Republicans beleive there is a liberal bias in the media, but what was truly astonishing is that 55% of DEMOCRATIC house and senate members admit that there is a bias towards the left! The majority of the liberal side even admits to it!...

And go to any newspaper the day before an election and look at the "recommendations"....consistently 8 out of every 10 candidates the newspapers recommended were from the Democratic party. The bias is there whether people believe it not.


so I guess your critical thinking skills were not in use..*L

It's apparent that you and many others cannot make the distinguishment between what is said and what is done. Will you please take a look at who owns most of the major media sources!!!! Liberal or conservative labels matter little. The only reason why conservatives get more press is because the are outragously blunt/dumb in the application of their corruption.

 

[Ender]

John Carroll is the editor of The Los Angeles Times. On May 22, he sent a memo to all of his section editors. It is an extraordinary document, and the website www.laobserved.com was the first to make it available to the public.

Carroll's subject was liberal bias in the paper. The specific target of his concern was a biased report on a "bill in Texas that would require abortion doctors to counsel patients that they may be risking breast cancer." Carroll ripped his paper's coverage of that particular bill, but his broader points are much more important.

"I'm concerned about the perception – and the reality – that the Times is a liberal, 'politically correct' newspaper," he began. "Generally speaking, we deny this, but lately we have proved our critics right."


Funny, The LA times even admits it.