The ultimate in absurdity

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Kiss his ####### GOODBYE ,,,,,,,,,,EREKOSE! Dont forget the soldiers that saved your #######!

Perhaps when you've sobered up a little, you'll be in the mood for a civilised discussion.

Perhaps you need a little schooling? Your a little tea toddler.! When you gonna come out and fight for what you beleive in? I wanna see some PASSION! I cant STAND intrenet tough BOYS! Hidin behind a keyboard.

[MichelleandCraig 1]

Marc, are *you* speaking to Erekose face-to-face? Just a thought. M.

[Risto 0]

I guess your superior life experience doesn't extend to ethics and personal morality.

Human being. Human rights. No exceptions.

Ultimate right for strong rope

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Marc, are *you* speaking to Erekose face-to-face? Just a thought. M.

It would be a little difficult to participate in a online forum without using a keyboard, though at this point it would be interesting to see Mark try.

I think he would fall off the chair

[bucknekkid 0]

I'm sorry that I actually have some perspective concerning these issues based on practical knowledge and observations......

Do you wish that I defer to your uninformed opinons?

No Kaydee - I would, for once like to see you actually demonstrate this practical knowledge that you keep touting. I have never, ever actually seen you do that. I have however, heard you on several occasions bragging about it.

Well, regardless of your objections justice was meted out by the Iraqi's, and obviously in their view; humanely and fairly so.

Frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about. No, I'll change that to say that I absolutely know you don't know what you're talking about.

You're not privy to any evidence of bias one way or another however once again looking down your snooty liberal nose and distorting reality to fit your expectations how things should be.

It must be frustrating for you liberals to never have events and circumstances actually reflect reality and to have to concoct inane excuses to explain away reality.....:sad:

The reality is that independent observers have criticised the independence of the trial. And before we get on to attacking the independence and "alleged agenda" of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the UNHCR, please tell me why they would make this up...

If this was a show trial - please tell me how you think that executing the leaders of the regime before 25 years worth of atrocities have been properly investigated will help catching the very many people who "followed orders" and conducted those atrocities.

Once again you have proven that your a legend in your own mind......

How so?

My comment was directed to the pimple on this forum's ###...Kaydee

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My comment was directed to the pimple on this forum's ###...Kaydee

Are you also waiting for a demonstration of his vaunted knowledge and life experience?

[bucknekkid 0]

My comment was directed to the pimple on this forum's ###...Kaydee

Are you also waiting for a demonstration of his vaunted knowledge and life experience?

That is second on my list...The first is Hell freezing over...

[Saddle Bronc 124]

U.S. judge turns down Saddam plea By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

24 minutes ago

A U.S. judge refused to stop Saddam Hussein's execution Friday, rejecting a last-minute court challenge by the former Iraqi president.

"Petitioner Hussein's application for immediate, temporary stay of execution is denied," U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said after a hearing over the telephone with attorneys.

Saddam's lawyers filed the court challenge Friday afternoon, giving the judge just hours to act before the execution was expected to be carried out.

Saddam's attorneys argued that because the former Iraqi president also faced a civil lawsuit in Washington, he had rights as a civil defendant that would be violated if he is executed. He has not received notice of those rights and the consequences that the lawsuit would have on his estate, his attorneys said.

Kollar-Kotelly said U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere in another country's judicial process. The ruling can be appealed, but it was issued within an hour of the time Iraqi officials said they expected the execution to be carried out.

An appeal would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington D.C. Circuit, which denied a similar request for another top Iraqi official Friday.

Jeesh....Is this not crazy? Have the Liberals in this country moved to Iraq?

Wish that were true--unfortunately, if any did there is always a replacement crop coming in from Canada (on all sorts of visas including TN-1).

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I guess your superior life experience doesn't extend to ethics and personal morality.

Human being. Human rights. No exceptions.

The point is that this man does not have "rights" in the U.S. and it's absurd to apeal to a U.S. court concerning a sentence metted out by an Iraqi court.

...

I would defer to your experience and practical knowledge if on any occasion you had actually demonstrated it rather than bragged about it....

Erekose, kaydee did make a valid point that Saddam was not physically located in US, and was never an American--thus, uncovered by US constitution. The question of his IRAQI civil rights is unfortunately outside the topic's glister.

The only objection I had to this execution are the observations by independent observers that the trial was flawed and politically motivated, and that it was conducted by the judicial arm of a fledgling government which still does not have full control over the country, let alone the resources and means to properly (and transparently) investigate and prosecute the crimes of the regime. So Saddam and a half dozen other 50-60 year old men take the fall for everything.... Somehow I don't think they are the only ones who are guilty... But I'm sure you know different.

This one you hit on the nail. There are a considerable number of lesser-known surrendered ex-Saddam loyalists who most certainly are guilty--just as there were a considerable number of lesser-known Nazis and SS-goons who surrendered quietly to the Allies after WW2 and then quietly assimilated into German/Austrian society (Kurt Waldheim rings a bell here).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Erekose, kaydee did make a valid point that Saddam was not physically located in US, and was never an American--thus, uncovered by US constitution. The question of his IRAQI civil rights is unfortunately outside the topic's glister.

I wasn't addressing the question over whether he has recognizable civil rights in the US. I said human rights.

This one you hit on the nail. There are a considerable number of lesser-known surrendered ex-Saddam loyalists who most certainly are guilty--just as there were a considerable number of lesser-known Nazis and SS-goons who surrendered quietly to the Allies after WW2 and then quietly assimilated into German/Austrian society (Kurt Waldheim rings a bell here).

Do you think those people will receive justice?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

...

This one you hit on the nail. There are a considerable number of lesser-known surrendered ex-Saddam loyalists who most certainly are guilty--just as there were a considerable number of lesser-known Nazis and SS-goons who surrendered quietly to the Allies after WW2 and then quietly assimilated into German/Austrian society (Kurt Waldheim rings a bell here).

Do you think those people will receive justice?

I'll use a reference (not necessarily a direct quote) from Simon Wiesenthal: "there will be a biological resolution of justice" (also a spiritual one, as these will be heading to the Lake of Fire upon death).

[Fandango 1,439]

Erekose, kaydee did make a valid point that Saddam was not physically located in US, and was never an American--thus, uncovered by US constitution. The question of his IRAQI civil rights is unfortunately outside the topic's glister.

I wasn't addressing the question over whether he has recognizable civil rights in the US. I said human rights.

But the OP was saying it was absurd that he should have US civil rights, not human rights.

I think you two are having separate discussions here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Erekose, kaydee did make a valid point that Saddam was not physically located in US, and was never an American--thus, uncovered by US constitution. The question of his IRAQI civil rights is unfortunately outside the topic's glister.

I wasn't addressing the question over whether he has recognizable civil rights in the US. I said human rights.

But the OP was saying it was absurd that he should have US civil rights, not human rights.

I think you two are having separate discussions here.

Yep I wasn't addressing the civil rights / jurisdiction question.

But I'm willing to bet that Kaydee doesn't think that Saddam was deserving of any rights of any kind - civil or human. That's where I was coming from.

[mrc 0]

Erekose, kaydee did make a valid point that Saddam was not physically located in US, and was never an American--thus, uncovered by US constitution. The question of his IRAQI civil rights is unfortunately outside the topic's glister.

I wasn't addressing the question over whether he has recognizable civil rights in the US. I said human rights.

It was implied since that was the topic being discussed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Erekose, kaydee did make a valid point that Saddam was not physically located in US, and was never an American--thus, uncovered by US constitution. The question of his IRAQI civil rights is unfortunately outside the topic's glister.

I wasn't addressing the question over whether he has recognizable civil rights in the US. I said human rights.

It was implied since that was the topic being discussed.

Obviously I wasn't addressing the OP article.

But Kaydee can clear all this up when he comes back. No doubt...