Yeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaw

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:15 am

Ralph, we allowed Iraq to run its own affairs. That's what they're supposed to do as a sovereign nation, last I heard. Plus, as the nation he conquered, slaughtered, tortured and persecuted, they have first claim. They wanted a trial; they got a trial. Unless you're saying WE were supposed to make all of their decisions for them, take Saddam away from them, and reduce them to a client state to avoid the "sovereign nation" problem entirely.

Pardon my saying so, Ralph, but don't you have more important things to do than screed at people for not dancing hard enough on Saddam's grave? Say, writing and drawing any one of your three much-loved strips?

Just a thought.

Yours truly,

The bemused,

Wanderer

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:21 am

rangers wrote:I've read the NY Times account of the execution. His last words were a curse on the Americans and the Persians. Damn poor way to enter into eternity, with curses hanging on your lips. I'm not qualified to decide where he goes from here, but if he shows the same attitude before the Righteous Judge that he showed before the temporal one, well, I don't know......

According to this account, cribbed from the BBC, those were his next-to-last words. His last words were spiritual, but delivered with the sarcasm befitting a man who despised the theocracy of other Muslim countries.

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:38 am

Actually, Wanderwolf, the only reason the Iraqis bothered with a trial is because of external pressure. See, they're not as noble and as sensitive as you... for instance, if the IRAQI armed forces catch an insurgent planting an IED or sniping from a rooftop, they don't read him his Miranda rights and handle him with kid gloves and say "pretty please" to get him to talk.
They drag him into a nearby empty room and beat it out of him.
They're too practical a people to waste time on niceties.

From what I've seen, the general reaction to the "trial" on the part of the Iraqis has generally been "what is this BS? Shoot him, drop him in a hole, and be done with it!"

And no, I don't "want people to dance on his grave harder." I'm just appalled that you have the gall to sit there weeping copious tears over the Butcher of Baghdad, and insinuating that his trial-- which was far more than he deserved-- was unfair.

And yes, the comics need updated. Unfortunately we spent a good portion of this week out of town, because a family member had to go to the hospital in Columbus. So updating got put on the back burner for a few days.

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:56 pm

RHJunior wrote:Actually, Wanderwolf, the only reason the Iraqis bothered with a trial is because of external pressure. See, they're not as noble and as sensitive as you... for instance, if the IRAQI armed forces catch an insurgent planting an IED or sniping from a rooftop, they don't read him his Miranda rights and handle him with kid gloves and say "pretty please" to get him to talk.
They drag him into a nearby empty room and beat it out of him.
They're too practical a people to waste time on niceties.

Considering they gave him TWO trials (one for crimes against humanity [10/2005], one for war atrocities [11/2006]), that's an awful lot of "outside pressures". Then they gave him the appeal mandated by the Iraqi legal system; my, those outside pressures have been working a long time, if they wrote the Iraqi laws.

Face it, Ralph: The Iraqi people wanted the pleasure of seeing the man squirm, and they got it. I'm hardly going to begrudge them their hard-won satisfaction.

RHJunior wrote:From what I've seen, the general reaction to the "trial" on the part of the Iraqis has generally been "what is this BS? Shoot him, drop him in a hole, and be done with it!"

Ah, ignoring the Tikrit and Baquba vote? Not that the Iraq government favored setting Saddam free, as they did.

And part of the "kill him now" was the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq; hardly the people anyone in power after our invasion wanted to be caught supporting.

RHJunior wrote:And no, I don't "want people to dance on his grave harder." I'm just appalled that you have the gall to sit there weeping copious tears over the Butcher of Baghdad, and insinuating that his trial-- which was far more than he deserved-- was unfair.

Ralph, I said there was unavoidable bias; that's a natural part of having human beings running a trial. I'm sorry if you wanted me to pretend that everone involved in the trial was a perfect little computer, but they're not; they're people who are very glad the man's dead.

Now, take a look at what I actually said, specifically the part you have to be ignoring in order to believe that I've shed a single tear for the man:

"... still, in the end, justice was served. The man is dead."

That translates as, "The man's execution was just", in case you didn't know. So yes, what you've been saying comes across as, "You're not happy enough! You need to be laughing and jumping up and down! Dig up his remains and hang him again, and this time laugh so hard you cream!"

RHJunior wrote:And yes, the comics need updated. Unfortunately we spent a good portion of this week out of town, because a family member had to go to the hospital in Columbus. So updating got put on the back burner for a few days.

It's good to have you back, then, and I hope your family member is doing well. Please extend my sympathies on their illness.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

The JAM · Post by **The JAM** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:21 pm

What gets me is that some governments, including the Vatican, actively CONDEMN the execution itself. Geez, people, the man died more mercifully than the babies who had to breathe the mustard gas HE threw on them! Hey, Herr Ratzinger! Would you have preferred if he had been given a quick bullet to the head?
The free world might have missed their chance with Hitler, but now, justice has been served.

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:17 pm

Technically, J.A.M., the trial was on shaky legal ground; to wit:

If it was an American trial, it would have to wait until after cessation of hostilities; otherwise, it would be an abrogation of legal powers.

If it's an Iraqi trial, the "crimes against humanity" charge for which he received the death penalty is not part of their legal charter.

Either way, it's the sort of thing legal scholars and war historians will debate for decades.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

TMLutas · Post by **TMLutas** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:05 pm

manytales00 wrote:
TMLutas wrote:Just a small note to temper the glee. If he doesn't repent before death, this is generally one you put in the loss column, not the win column. Saddam's execution is cutting our losses in anticipation of further negatives, not a genuine victory. It's as necessary as poop scooping and just about as joyous for me.
While I agree with this.

I think that it is very sad that a lot of people are cheering at the death of a man that, as far as I can tell, still thought that he was doing what he thought was the right thing for his country, even as he died.

I forgive Saddam the sins he has committed against me and my country.
His body is now without life. It is time to move on.

I'm drawing a slightly different line. There is a legitimate case for being happy at cutting your losses. It frees up your effort and attention to take care of other matters. I am not sad that Saddam has been executed. I suspect that we truly are reducing future casualties. I'm cognizant of both the sad and happy part of this event and think both should be recognized.

I cannot let lie without strong challenge the characterization of Saddam as someone who had his country's interests at heart. He certainly did not. The oil-for-palaces corrupt deals proved that in spades. Opening up the prisons in an effort to make Iraq unmanageable for the liberating powers is another example. How Anfal was in Iraq's best interests remains beyond me.

TMLutas · Post by **TMLutas** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:16 pm

Wanderwolf wrote:Technically, J.A.M., the trial was on shaky legal ground; to wit:

If it was an American trial, it would have to wait until after cessation of hostilities; otherwise, it would be an abrogation of legal powers.

If it's an Iraqi trial, the "crimes against humanity" charge for which he received the death penalty is not part of their legal charter.

Either way, it's the sort of thing legal scholars and war historians will debate for decades.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

Bzzzt... You FAIL! unless you can demonstrate why Iraq has no right to try such crimes when Belgium claims it has such a right as a nation-state and Spain seems to have judicially established the same sort of thing with the Pinochet prosecution. I believe that Germany has some sort of similar measure but the German state has so far had the good sense to politically quash all the attempts to put US administration officials, for instance, in the dock.

Face it, there's plenty of law out there contrary to your opinion and the legal scholars have been debating it for at least a decade now.

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:46 pm

Wanderwolf wrote:Technically, J.A.M., the trial was on shaky legal ground; to wit:

If it was an American trial, it would have to wait until after cessation of hostilities; otherwise, it would be an abrogation of legal powers.

If it's an Iraqi trial, the "crimes against humanity" charge for which he received the death penalty is not part of their legal charter.

Either way, it's the sort of thing legal scholars and war historians will debate for decades.

Wanderer

Wanderer, have you been paying attention to the trial? He was not charged with 'crimes against humanity' or 'genocide' or any of that postmodernist fluff. He was charged with 148 counts of murder for wiping out a village that had had the misfortune to host an assassination attempt against him. If he'd weaseled out of that one, the next charge was several thousand counts of murder for gassing the Kurds.

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:09 am

Look, why is everyone jumping on me for repeating what the papers in all fifty American states, the Gulf Daily News, Israeli papers, and even the European dailies are saying? If it's not being written down correctly in any source I can find, just how am I suppposed to know it's wrong? Here are a few selections from this long list of Googled news articles.

From PBS: So this was a trial of that [Dujail] case. The principal defendants were charged and convicted of crimes against humanity, which is a very serious international offense. -- Diane Orentlicher, professor of International Law at American Universoty

From the New York Times: The judge said simply that the appeals court had approved the verdict against Mr. Hussein, who was formally charged with crimes against humanity, and two co-defendants, who had also received death sentences in the Dujail killings, and that they now faced “execution by hanging until death” within 30 days. -- James Glanz reporting

From the legal journal Jurist: Hussein and six co-defendants all face crimes against humanity charges in connection with the Anfal attacks, and Hussein and co-defendant Ali Hassan al-Majid, known in the West as "Chemical Ali," also face additional genocide charges. Earlier this week, the prosecution offered video evidence of the gas attacks. Hussein already faces the death penalty after being convicted on separate crimes against humanity charges relating to a 1982 crackdown in the Iraqi town of Dujail. -- Brett Murphy reporting

A professor of law and a legal journal both reported it as I reproduced it. If they and everyone else are getting it wrong, then pray, how am I supposed to know? I'm no lawyer, remember? Since it appears you are, however, I leave the submission of the requisite castigation in your capable hands. You can go ahead and tell all the newspapers and law professors they're wrong; I don't have the credentials.

As for Pinochet, please note that he was a Chilean dictator convicted by a Spanish court; it is therefore an international case, which is normally the correct venue for the charges of "crimes against humanity" and/or "genocide".

Yours truly,

The factual,

Wanderer

BoKiana · Post by **BoKiana** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:12 am

Wanderwolf, they're jumping on you because you're the one trying to explain how the trial was illegal on numerous different factions, be it US Trial, Iraqi Trial and whatnot. Make a claim, and there will be people here to argue it.

As for me, my jaw was slack when it was announced. I've been visiting my significant other for the weekend holidays, I was here on the computer surfing when CNN brought up the breaking news, and I yelled it out down the hall so my SO knew as well. I was suprised it happened so quickly.

I've been half-tempted to go see the uncensored video of his death, but I'm not quite that morbid. Saw the mini-clip on CNN, and that was enough for me.

I'm happy he's gone. You won't see me dancing on his grave, but only because I can't dance.

Deckard Canine · Post by **Deckard Canine** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:50 am

The JAM wrote:What gets me is that some governments, including the Vatican, actively CONDEMN the execution itself. Geez, people, the man died more mercifully than the babies who had to breathe the mustard gas HE threw on them! Hey, Herr Ratzinger! Would you have preferred if he had been given a quick bullet to the head?

The Vatican is being consistent. They believe that society no longer needs the death penalty for defensive purposes and that no amount of atrocity on behalf of the convict will justify it.

Regardless of how I feel about Saddam, I refuse to watch any video of the execution. It's sick.

BrockthePaine · Post by **BrockthePaine** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:07 am

The video I saw wasn't that bad. He was just kinda standing there looking afraid, and then he wasn't standing there, the camera was waving around, everyone was shouting, and after thirty seconds they showed his body on the ground.

ChronicMisadventures · Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:41 pm

Actually, according to several sources Saddam's final words were "There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is---" At which point they dropped him before he finished the sentence. What I find odd is a few papers are trying to translate this as 'There is no God but God' rather than the standard translation. Probably a confused attempt at political correctness on some editor's part that got reproduced elsewhere.

The JAM wrote:What gets me is that some governments, including the Vatican, actively CONDEMN the execution itself. Geez, people, the man died more mercifully than the babies who had to breathe the mustard gas HE threw on them! Hey, Herr Ratzinger! Would you have preferred if he had been given a quick bullet to the head?
The free world might have missed their chance with Hitler, but now, justice has been served.

Regarding the Vatican, JAM: The Vatican and Pope are being consistant with Church policy. Catholic Church doctrine for at least the past few decades (I can't say when for sure this was instituted, but I know it's been this way at least through JP2's rule and into Benedict's) has been that the death penalty should not be used in any situation except when there exists no other possible way to protect society from the criminal's continued existence.

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:59 pm

BoKiana wrote:Wanderwolf, they're jumping on you because you're the one trying to explain how the trial was illegal on numerous different factions, be it US Trial, Iraqi Trial and whatnot. Make a claim, and there will be people here to argue it.

<sigh> Would you people quit trying to find an implied subtext in my posts? Please? I don't do subtexts, whether spoken or written.

Did I say the trial was illegal? No, I did not. I said "justice was served". I also pointed out that it's on legal ground that is TECHNICALLY shaky; it is, as I distinctly remember saying, something that legal scholars will be arguing about for years.

Ah, perhaps you didn't know this: Legal scholars argue EVERYTHING for years.

Forgive me being a bit snarky for a moment, please; but, given the vast amount of misunderstanding that somehow got inserted between my words and shoved up my typewritten backside, let's review:

1. Was the Iraqi trial illegal? No; it was on legally shaky ground. That means the verdict will stand, without adjustment, as is, no take-backs, no crossing your fingers, for as long as people think killing a murderous tyrant is a just response.

<sarcasm>Gee, that might be a while.</sarcasm>

2. What was I actually pointing out? Not much; just that the charge of "crimes against humanity", which every periodical covering the trial SAID was the charge in connection with all those murders, is not a part of the Iraqi constitution; it is normally handled in an INTERNATIONAL court, rather than the court of the country involved.

Conversely, if it were to be considered an American court (which would have the "crimes against humanity" charge in its charter as an international court), the trial would have to have been postponed until after the war was OVER. Gives with one paw, takes away with the other.

And for the record, it doesn't matter. The only country that could have argued against the trial as an involved party is Iraq. <sarcasm> And, gee, I don't think they said a word against their own trial. I wonder why?</sarcasm>

It's a legal technicality, and nothing more. It's like when your mother lets you write a check on her account, and has you sign her name because she doesn't want to; unless the person who chose that actually speaks against their own decision, nothing will be done about it. Technically, sure, a court case could ensue; but since Iraq doesn't seem to have a problem with having executed Saddam Hussein, and they're the only ones who could raise a legitimate concern anyway, it's not going to happen.

Now, are we clear? I can try and get an artist to draw a diagram if there's any further confusion...

Yours truly,

The shoving-your-words-out-of-my-mouth,

Wanderer

Jaydub · Post by **Jaydub** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:15 pm

Wanderwolf wrote:
Now, are we clear? I can try and get an artist to draw a diagram if there's any further confusion...

Hey RH does commissions if you are interested......

Of course he may need to give you a bulk rate.....

BoKiana · Post by **BoKiana** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:26 am

Wanderwolf wrote:
<sigh> Would you people quit trying to find an implied subtext in my posts? Please? I don't do subtexts, whether spoken or written.

And yet, just a few threads ago you told me that you always seem to post on things assuming that others see it from your perspective and thus miss points and issues thereof, forcing us to read into your post for what it means if we don't have the same view as yours.

*shrug*

Deckard Canine · Post by **Deckard Canine** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:10 am

ChronicMisadventures wrote:What I find odd is a few papers are trying to translate this as 'There is no God but God' rather than the standard translation. Probably a confused attempt at political correctness on some editor's part that got reproduced elsewhere.

They did the same in the 1976 movie The Message, probably so as not to turn off non-Muslim viewers.

MikeVanPelt · Post by **MikeVanPelt** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:57 am

Deckard Canine wrote:
ChronicMisadventures wrote:What I find odd is a few papers are trying to translate this as 'There is no God but God' rather than the standard translation. Probably a confused attempt at political correctness on some editor's part that got reproduced elsewhere.
They did the same in the 1976 movie The Message, probably so as not to turn off non-Muslim viewers.

Probably because "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God". Arabic-speaking Christians (there still are some; the islamonazis haven't murdered them all yet) use the same word for God.

ChronicMisadventures · Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:09 pm

MikeVanPelt wrote:
Deckard Canine wrote:
ChronicMisadventures wrote:What I find odd is a few papers are trying to translate this as 'There is no God but God' rather than the standard translation. Probably a confused attempt at political correctness on some editor's part that got reproduced elsewhere.
They did the same in the 1976 movie The Message, probably so as not to turn off non-Muslim viewers.
Probably because "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God". Arabic-speaking Christians (there still are some; the islamonazis haven't murdered them all yet) use the same word for God.

Aye, I realize that. Still, it's usually translated as 'no God but Allah' in most English media around the world (my typical daily news consumption includes American, Canadian, British, and Aussie news sites)... Dunno. Just strikes me as possibly in the same vein as an editor a few years ago who, purely out of habit, converted a theater review from "a positive pro-life message..." to "a positive anti-abortion message..." purely out of habit, despite the play having nothing at all to do with abortion.