OBAMA gets another high profile Terror suspect! Who's tough on terror now?

moreluck

golden ticket member
I have to call in on Oct. 7th after 5 PM and the recording will tell me what to do. We both get jury duty letters too often. I mean there's over 3 million people in O.C., there doesn't seem to be a proper rotation!!

The hard part here is that the county is huge and your little trip to court can be a 70-75 mile round trip in rush hour (both morning and evening) and that doesn't make for a happy camper.

"You want $3 million from this guy because you think you were wronged? Do you know how much I spent in gas just getting here today and the dick drivers I had to contend with?"

Oh, you don't want me on your jury!!
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Let's be clear about this: the nation that arrests suspects without first going before a judge to make its case is no respecter of human rights. Just the opposite. Its violation of international law is precisely what it accuses those it arrests of doing. Al-Awlaki's slaying by the U.S. "is a real body blow against the United States Constitution by the Obama administration---the murder and assassination of a U.S. citizen in gross violation of the Fifth Amendment," says Francis Boyle, the distinguished authority on international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. This states: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
Instead, Boyle says, this was a "Mafia-style 'hit'" on a U.S. citizen authorized by President Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago whose action "proves how degraded and bankrupt legal education at such elite institutions has become." Harvard's moral bankruptcy, though, is the least of it.
The killing of al-Awlaki is no cause for rejoicing by the American people. Not only has President Obama once again authorized a murder but by denying al-Awlaki any chance of a fair trial Obama cheats the American people of their right to hear what the defendant has to say. One of the great blessings of trial by jury enshrined in centuries of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is its educational aspect. There is not only sworn testimony presented by the involved parties but the opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to get at the motives for their conduct and to determine the truth of their positions. There is the opportunity to hear opening and closing arguments by both the defendant and the prosecution and to evaluate them calmly and weigh them one against the other. In the present situation, the prosecution is trying al-Awlaki, like bin Laden before him, in the compliant media of the American Warfare State.
Boyle charges that as the CIA originally established Al Qaeda to fight in Afghanistan, "they are aware of all the dirty work we have been involved in around the world since about 1980 that we have had them doing, most recently in Libya. Hence, they all get Kangaroo Courts on Gitmo that are under the complete control of the Pentagon to silence and control whatever they have to say as well as their lawyers." In short, bin Laden and al-Awlaki knew too much.
Finally, just as President Bush's attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq created a precedent for waging deceitful and illegal "preventive wars," so, too, has President Obama's latest assassination established a precedent for the murder of Americans by the White House without jury trial, opening the door to the killing, say, of any president's political opponents and dissenters. Where Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo failed miserably, Presidents Bush and Obama have brilliantly succeeded in turning America into a totalitarian state that can execute on a president's whim. With luck, other peoples and nations will halt the spread of this American empire using creative non-violence rather than the use of force. The way to fight fire is with water.

Assassination of Al Qaeda Leaders Designed to Keep Americans in the Dark
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll

Maybe you should put this issue in front of Judge Napolitano and ask him about it? Oh yeah, he doesnt believe in international law.

Of course killing the leaders of terror groups is to keep us in the dark. Why do you think they killed sadaam hussein? Was it because he committed crimes? or maybe because he could name Cheney and Rumsfeld as co conspirators to the gassing of the Kurds in the 80's with american gas that both Cheney and Rumsfeld supplied him?

Hussein would have named many top US Officials if allowed to live, so a sham trial and a quick hanging solved that problem.

ITs the american way.

Peace.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
........"Why do you think they killed sadaam hussein..........." (tos)


Who are the "they" you speak of? I saw the Hussein hanging and there were only his fellow Iraqis present and doing the job of killing that creep.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
The USA did not kill sadaam hussein.
He was tried and sentence was carried out by The Iraqi courts.
Thus his own people killed him, and many were happy to do so.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
........"Why do you think they killed sadaam hussein..........." (tos)


Who are the "they" you speak of? I saw the Hussein hanging and there were only his fellow Iraqis present and doing the job of killing that creep.

What did I say? Why do you continue to prove that you need to be told something vs. reading and figuring it out for yourself?

Peace.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
The USA did not kill sadaam hussein.
He was tried and sentence was carried out by The Iraqi courts.
Thus his own people killed him, and many were happy to do so.

His own people? Whos people was that? ****es, Kurds, Sunnis?

If Saddam Hussein committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, why wasnt he tried by the World Court? Why wasnt he allowed to speak at his trial?

It was a kangaro court made up of people by the USA VICEROY who tried, convicted and hanged Saddam Hussein.

Whether or not people were happy about it isnt the reason leaders are hung. Finding out the truth should have been the answer, not silencing a man who could have and would have named Republican officials in the sales of chemical weapons and illegal arms sales.

Peace.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Maybe you should put this issue in front of Judge Napolitano and ask him about it? Oh yeah, he doesnt believe in international law.

Of course killing the leaders of terror groups is to keep us in the dark. Why do you think they killed sadaam hussein? Was it because he committed crimes? or maybe because he could name Cheney and Rumsfeld as co conspirators to the gassing of the Kurds in the 80's with american gas that both Cheney and Rumsfeld supplied him?

Hussein would have named many top US Officials if allowed to live, so a sham trial and a quick hanging solved that problem.

ITs the american way.

Peace.

As for Napolitano on killing in this fashion and pay attention as he also names Bush in this too.


As to Saddam Hussein, yeah, I understand what you are saying and if people fully understood how he came to power with the aid of American CIA and other related interests, it might make this an even bigger story. We didn't find any WMD because it had "made in US" or "made by NATO member nation" stamped on the side and to find that would have ripped the veil off the curtain rod. And let's not forget the Saudi relationship in all of this either.

What began this whole dark history was to protect the Saudi royals and their kingdom in the first place. It also didn't help that Saddam in 1999' toyed with violating "the law" that all oil transacted globally would be sold in dollars and instead tired to undermine the US by creating an oil market trading oil for Euros.

Funny, that the 4 nations having challenged the dominance of the dollar, those being Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and Libya, 2 have new leaders and govt's, 1 experienced a covert US backed coup attempt and the last is painted the pariah of the world. Change all these nationstates to some corp. name and everyone would see the naked business actions for exactly what they are. Hostile Corp. takeovers. Or takedowns!

Would we tolerate our firstborn going to war so that one corp. could take out another corp.? Would we sacrifice our own lives literally so UPS could takeout FedEx? Would we send our children to do it? If you want to understand the modern nature of war, go to Netflix and watch the Daniel Ellsberg documentary "The Most Dangerous Man In America" and listen to this former coldwar war planner and the Vietnam war planner with the Rand Corp. explain how modern war works from Truman forward. The sock puppet and his or her political party is meaningless and Ellsberg firsthand account makes that glaring obvious IMO. Ellsberg clearly shows from a firsthand account that Iraq was not the first war started on a lie and makes one seriously question if all wars aren't started on lies.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
His own people? Whos people was that? ****es, Kurds, Sunnis?

If Saddam Hussein committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, why wasnt he tried by the World Court? Why wasnt he allowed to speak at his trial?

It was a kangaro court made up of people by the USA VICEROY who tried, convicted and hanged Saddam Hussein.

Whether or not people were happy about it isnt the reason leaders are hung. Finding out the truth should have been the answer, not silencing a man who could have and would have named Republican officials in the sales of chemical weapons and illegal arms sales.

Peace.

I always use Shia to avoid the BC censor Nazi!
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
I always use Shia to avoid the BC censor Nazi!

ya, i wrote the word :censored2: e, instead of shia... either way, I dont think any of the C-8's would know the difference or significance anyways. I could have put Gumby and Pokey and they would have thought they were the same iraqis who put him on trial.

Peace.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
ya, i wrote the word :censored2: e, instead of shia... either way, I dont think any of the C-8's would know the difference or significance anyways. I could have put Gumby and Pokey and they would have thought they were the same iraqis who put him on trial.

Peace.


This coming from someone who thinks that Americans killed Saddam or even rushed his execution. This shows such a dramatic lack of understanding of actual facts it's worth just leaving alone. I'll just say that in Iraq most executions happen much, much closer to the sentencing than Saddams did. If anything the Americans kept him alive longer than the Iraqis would have. In Iraq executions every wednesday.

I would also venture to guess that you do not know as much about the differences between the sunni and s hi te as you think that you do. There are many places that they live side by side and celebrated the religious holidays on their separate days with no incident. After all most of the holidays are the same just separated by a day or two. There are some that they use the cities to celebrate in. You wouldn't know this but this is pretty much how it has to be since just about every day is celebrated as some type of significant religious day.
 

Lue C Fur

Evil member
Of course killing the leaders of terror groups is to keep us in the dark. Why do you think they killed sadaam hussein? Was it because he committed crimes? or maybe because he could name Cheney and Rumsfeld as co conspirators to the gassing of the Kurds in the 80's with american gas that both Cheney and Rumsfeld supplied him?

So then your Messiah should be held accountable for the death of a border patrol agent and many Mexican citizens...AKA fast and furious. You have any more good stories from your 9/11 Truther files?
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
This coming from someone who thinks that Americans killed Saddam or even rushed his execution. This shows such a dramatic lack of understanding of actual facts it's worth just leaving alone. I'll just say that in Iraq most executions happen much, much closer to the sentencing than Saddams did. If anything the Americans kept him alive longer than the Iraqis would have. In Iraq executions every wednesday.

I would also venture to guess that you do not know as much about the differences between the sunni and s hi te as you think that you do. There are many places that they live side by side and celebrated the religious holidays on their separate days with no incident. After all most of the holidays are the same just separated by a day or two. There are some that they use the cities to celebrate in. You wouldn't know this but this is pretty much how it has to be since just about every day is celebrated as some type of significant religious day.

SADDAM should have been tried in the WORLD COURT, and not a local court with SHIA officials. SADDAM was SUNNI, and having his enemies conduct his trial was a kangaroo court and nothing less.

If Saddam was guilty of gassing the kurds and iranian troops, then so is Cheney and Rumsfeld as they supplied him the gas to do it. The record is clear and this cannot be disputed.

Hanging Saddam was the intent from the start, putting in the hands of the local tribes people isnt justice, its a sham.

Peace.
 
SADDAM should have been tried in the WORLD COURT, and not a local court with SHIA officials. SADDAM was SUNNI, and having his enemies conduct his trial was a kangaroo court and nothing less.

If Saddam was guilty of gassing the kurds and iranian troops, then so is Cheney and Rumsfeld as they supplied him the gas to do it. The record is clear and this cannot be disputed.

Hanging Saddam was the intent from the start, putting in the hands of the local tribes people isnt justice, its a sham.

Peace.
So the people that was his target shouldn't judge him? Who better knows what offenses he committed on them. The trial wasn't about finding him guilty, everyone already knew he was. There was no doubt about that matter.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
So you wanted him tried in a world court, which one ?
In Iran, you recall they had a 7 year war ?
In Kuwait, which he invaded to loot to pay for his Iranian war ?
In Geneva , where most of his personal monies was stashed ?
No outside court wanted him, so it was left to his own people to try him.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
So you wanted him tried in a world court, which one ?
In Iran, you recall they had a 7 year war ?
In Kuwait, which he invaded to loot to pay for his Iranian war ?
In Geneva , where most of his personal monies was stashed ?
No outside court wanted him, so it was left to his own people to try him.

You crack me up.


Published on Friday, December 19, 2003 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Saddam
Should Face International Court

by Helen
Thomas


Saddam Hussein should be tried by the International Court of Justice at The
Hague.

That court has a record of meting out justice to people accused of genocide
and other gross violations of human rights.

A trial at The Hague would help the United States reassert its membership in
the post-World War II community of collective security and win back the allies
it shunned when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq.

Bush also could reaffirm the United States' past pledges to honor
international law as framed in the United Nations Charter and various treaties.

Since he took office, Bush has shown little use for our past commitments to
international covenants. Instead he projects an arrogant philosophy based on the
notion that a military superpower can call all the shots.

The International Court was established to try dictators like Saddam for
their heinous crimes.

It is where former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in on trial for war
crimes and genocide.

So Bush need look no further as he gropes for a venue to handle the Saddam
case. There is a standing international court that deals with this kind of
defendant.

Bush told a news conference Monday that his legal advisers would work with the 25-member U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council to fashion a way to bring Saddam to trial "that will stand up to international scrutiny."
A trial at The Hague would meet that standard and would be perceived as above
reproach. There is no need to invent a new court.

At his news conference, Bush said of the trial: "Of course we want it to be
fair. And of course, we want the world to say, 'Well, this -- he got a fair
trial.' "

Bush wouldn't say whether he thought Saddam should face the death penalty.
"My personal views aren't important in this matter," he declared. "What matters
is the views of the Iraqi citizens."

That was Monday. On Tuesday, Bush dropped the veil and called for a death
sentence against Saddam.

In an interview with ABC News, Bush said Saddam should face "the ultimate
penalty for his crimes" against the Iraqi people and the world.

"I think he ought to receive the ultimate penalty," Bush said.

This comes as no surprise to anyone who has followed Bush's career as
governor of Texas. He gave no mercy to death-row inmates and presided over the
executions of 152 inmates during his six years in office.

In the case of Saddam, Bush should have stayed on the high road that he took
during his news conference Monday instead of pre-judging the outcome of the
trial and the punishment.

Many European countries and the head of the United Nations oppose the death penalty. Bush's enthusiasm for the ultimate penalty is a further sign of the estrangement between the United States and the rest of the world.
Bush has a personal grudge against Saddam. "He tried to kill my daddy," Bush
once said, referring to a car bomb targeted for his father in Kuwait in 1993.
The FBI linked the would-be bomb to Iraqi intelligence.

History shows that it was not only the Iraqis who suffered under Saddam -- it
was also the people of Kuwait and Iran who were ravaged as a result of his
military invasions. Because his crimes were international, the International
Court of Justice should preside over his trial.

If the U.S. military government in Baghdad decides to run a show trial as
part of a propaganda exercise, with hand-picked Iraqi jurists and a carefully
written American script, we will have made a mockery of our own sense of
justice.

The trial should be open and on the record for the world to see. That may
present an embarrassing problem to the United States.

During the Cold War days, we were cozy with a lot of dictators -- as long as
they were anti-communist. Corrupt? Tyrannical? Not a problem.

Saddam used to be our friend -- we were especially happy to have him take on
Iran when Ayatollah Khomeini was running the Islamic Republic.

American businesses were firmly established in Iraq in that era. The Reagan
administration tilted toward Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, even to the extent of
sharing U.S. intelligence with Saddam.

Bush says he's concerned about the appearance of justice. If that's the case,
then he should lead the way for the deposed Iraqi dictator to be tried by an
independent war crimes tribunal at The Hague. That option would clear up the
appearance problems created by a tribunal that is an appendage of the U.S.
occupation authority in Iraq.

©1996-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer​
 
Top