• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Saddam's trial judge replaced for allegedly losing neutrality...

Sounds like a perfectly valid decision. The judge made a statement that indicated bias, so they removed him from the case. If a judge here in Canada said halfway through the trial, "You know, I think he's guilty," we'd remove him immediately as well.

I also agree that Hussein was given too much leeway in the case so far. If he won't shut up when he's supposed to be silent, muzzle him. Literally. Get to work on instilling respect for the law with this case.
 
The judge simply said "you aren't a dictator". While that is a laughable comment (unless any idiot think 99.9% of the population keeps voting for him), that doesn't indicate by any means that the judge said he is or isn't guility or what the judge necessarily thinks.

Honestly Yllus this entire trial is a joke. I've been trying to keep up with it, and Saddam sometimes talks about the most random things. But at the same times these "witnesses" are also full of sh|t themselves and the entire defense team is having a hell of time playing the game because the door gets shut in their face every bloody time.

A circus of a trial befitting for an ass 😉 How wonderful.
 
I don't think SH was a dictator given they DID have elections.. The US had elections in '00 too, if you recall...

One does and cannot help but develop a bias during a trial and depending on the testimony heard. A juror is instructed to gage the demeanor of witnesses and etc.. that is bias that goes to the person on trial in the US anyhow.

I assume the Judges will render a verdict so they are the finders of fact as well as the chief court official.. If no testimony indicated SH was a dictator then how can a fair minded person decide otherwise. So far I've not read where SH did not allow elections or opposition rendered in the current court proceedings.
 
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I don't think SH was a dictator given they DID have elections.. The US had elections in '00 too, if you recall...

One does and cannot help but develop a bias during a trial and depending on the testimony heard. A juror is instructed to gage the demeanor of witnesses and etc.. that is bias that goes to the person on trial in the US anyhow.

I assume the Judges will render a verdict so they are the finders of fact as well as the chief court official.. If no testimony indicated SH was a dictator then how can a fair minded person decide otherwise. So far I've not read where SH did not allow elections or opposition rendered in the current court proceedings.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Saddam was a freely elected democratic ruler? I don't think anyone else will agree with you on that one.

Check out this nice 2002 pre-invasion article
Saddam 'wins 100% of vote'
Iraqi officials say President Saddam Hussein has won 100% backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years.
There were 11,445,638 eligible voters - and every one of them voted for the president, according to Izzat Ibrahim, Vice-Chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council.

The government insists the count was fair and accurate.

Saddam Hussein - who has ruled Iraq since 1979 - was the only candidate.
Click to expand...
 
This is just a joke. Who honestly believes this trial is unbiased to begin with? He's gonna hang no matter what. That much was decided by the powers that be long before they found him in a hole in the ground.
 
Originally posted by: Agrooreo
This is just a joke. Who honestly believes this trial is unbiased to begin with? He's gonna hang no matter what. That much was decided by the powers that be long before they found him in a hole in the ground.
Click to expand...

yes, it will not be a trial or a judge that decides Saddams fate. Althought personally the fact that this is onyl a show trial doesnt really bother me since we all know hes guilty anyways.
 
If there were a real trial---with a real prosecution and defense---Saddam would also be putting the US on trial to the delight of historians because the US was with Saddam nearly every step of the way when he was our man in the mid-east---but nothing is worse than a dictator who won't stay bought.

But if Saddam is charged with international war crimes the proper venue is the Hague---which the US could not afford because of US complicity---so we have a kangaroo court in Iraq. Which the US can script. And here the chief judge cast doubt on the script---and has to be replaced.l
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Sounds like a perfectly valid decision. The judge made a statement that indicated bias, so they removed him from the case. If a judge here in Canada said halfway through the trial, "You know, I think he's guilty," we'd remove him immediately as well.

I also agree that Hussein was given too much leeway in the case so far. If he won't shut up when he's supposed to be silent, muzzle him. Literally. Get to work on instilling respect for the law with this case.
Click to expand...

*snicker
Respect for the law? The U.S. invades a soveriegn nation based on false motives and removes a sitting president and then expects him to "respect the law...."
That's supremely rich.
 
He'll probably die under myserious circumstances just like Milosovic long before he's ever "brought to justice".
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I don't think SH was a dictator given they DID have elections.. The US had elections in '00 too, if you recall...

One does and cannot help but develop a bias during a trial and depending on the testimony heard. A juror is instructed to gage the demeanor of witnesses and etc.. that is bias that goes to the person on trial in the US anyhow.

I assume the Judges will render a verdict so they are the finders of fact as well as the chief court official.. If no testimony indicated SH was a dictator then how can a fair minded person decide otherwise. So far I've not read where SH did not allow elections or opposition rendered in the current court proceedings.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Saddam was a freely elected democratic ruler? I don't think anyone else will agree with you on that one.

Check out this nice 2002 pre-invasion article
Saddam 'wins 100% of vote'
Iraqi officials say President Saddam Hussein has won 100% backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years.
There were 11,445,638 eligible voters - and every one of them voted for the president, according to Izzat Ibrahim, Vice-Chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council.

The government insists the count was fair and accurate.

Saddam Hussein - who has ruled Iraq since 1979 - was the only candidate.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

A Very popular Chap no doubt!... but elected non-the-less. A pity he had to waste the money to hold an election given the results and love that all who voted cast his way.

Anyhow.. what I said.. WAS... : In this trial.. IF no evidence was produced to indicate that he was a dictator then with in the context of the trial how can one hold that he was. This may even have been stipulated to or should have cuz the UN recognized the elections held and the state of Iraq as being sovereign did have a governmental body and president.

Edit: Ya don't think the US would deal with a Dictator do you?... Seems we'd be sorta 'two faced' if we did back when the we did deal with Iraq as our good buddy...
 
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: yllus
Sounds like a perfectly valid decision. The judge made a statement that indicated bias, so they removed him from the case. If a judge here in Canada said halfway through the trial, "You know, I think he's guilty," we'd remove him immediately as well.

I also agree that Hussein was given too much leeway in the case so far. If he won't shut up when he's supposed to be silent, muzzle him. Literally. Get to work on instilling respect for the law with this case.
Click to expand...

*snicker
Respect for the law? The U.S. invades a soveriegn nation based on false motives and removes a sitting president and then expects him to "respect the law...."
That's supremely rich.
Click to expand...


But that is EXACTLY what we did... and in violation of our own and international law...


So, therefore, the LAW is simply a sorta guide that the powerfull use to effect a means to achieve an objective.. it is not a rule that MUST be followed but should be IF it is a reasonable road to take..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top