web analytics

HAS SADDAM HAD A FAIR TRIAL?

By ATWadmin On November 6th, 2006

You can listen to my contribution to the NOLAN SHOW by clicking on the LISTEN AGAIN tab and then going fast forward one hour or so until just after the 10am news headlines. The BBC got a member of Saddam’s legal defence team – from Londonderry – on the programme to weep and wail that poor Saddam has been stitched up by the bad Americans and his "human rights" had been infringed.  Never mind stitched – strung up is more like it. Liberals beware.

13 Responses to “HAS SADDAM HAD A FAIR TRIAL?”

  1. David,

    Didn’t get to hear you on Nolan this morning, but you should really have been on talkback.

    The bold Robert Fisk has just been on and was atrocious.

  2. What if they convicted the wrong man and ended up executing one of his stunt doubles?

  3. My housemate had the radio on eating his breakfast, just heard your voice on my way out the door. I’ll listen again later but in all fairness, the news last night said that sentance pas passed without guilt being established by the judge. We all know that he’s guilty as sin, but due process is there to legitimise things. I do think that this should be done by an International Court and I’m not sure about stringing him up.

  4. No international court. You are a tool, I swear to God.

    Iraq is perfectly capable of dispensing justice. The people are well educated and have a right to decided on capital punishment.

  5. Hugh, he was DNA tested, which assumes they got the original sample from the real Saddam…

  6. <I>What if they convicted the wrong man and ended up executing one of his stunt doubles?</i>

    What if Hugh is actually a green alien and thus deeming his comments irrelevant?

    ..

    Fair trial. Hmm. Fair would be to use the caustic gas he used to anhilate 50,000 plus Kurds in one year. Kill him slowly and violently.

  7. I’m waiting to see what Cindy says about the trial before deciding if Saddam got treated fairly

  8. I listened to David’s part and it sounded good to me. The other guy was remarkably vague, with his assertions that it couldn’t be a fair trial because the Americans were involved or the international court wasn’t involved, or whatever. Just a doubt-casting exercise, while David was direct.

    I understand the need for a defence, even in cases like this, but really, has this guy got no shame. He should have done his best and when it was over, shut up. He has gone from putting up a defense to casting around clutching at straws in an attempt to de-legitimize the trial of a man whom he knows to be a a procurer of mass murder.

  9. Well spoken, David, I just had a listen.
    I noticed that the legal advisor chap was arguing that the trial was unfair not because of any problems within the Iraqi legal system itself, but because (like Saddam, in fact) he didn’t seem to recognise the basic legitimacy of the Iraqis having their own court system, because it wasn’t mandated by the UN! What on earth makes the UN the legal or moral authority about anything?

  10. Another thing occurs to me: Where was all the liberal media outrage over "Did he get a fair trial? Why wasn’t the UN involved?" on Christmas Day 1989?

    Aaaah, but you see, there was no "USA-bashing" angle for the media to subtly work into their articles, on the day that Romania’s evil despot Caucescu was captured, tried by a handful of soldiers in a makeshift court, then taken straight out of the room and shot. On that occasion, the media reported it in celebratory tones, rightly referring to it as "the best Christmas present any Romanian could wish for". Had the USA been involved though, I wonder what the headlines would have been? "Caucescu shot – but will it stop the quagmire??"

  11. What good has the international court EVER done???!

  12. >> What good has the international court EVER done???!<<

    Monica, it has investigated, prosecuted and jailed for very long periods some of the worst war criminals Europe has seen since the Nazis.
    It moreover did no in such an obviously impartial way that its verdicts and sentences are accepted by all. So much so that the lack of controvery results in people like to forgetting about it. And that’s how it should be.

  13. plenty, if you would bother to learn what they actually do monica.

    Start here. http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en

    ;and stop listening to the continual stream of lies propagated by your friends. The only people who dislike the notion of an international criminal court are international criminals, and their useful fools of course.