Unless my facts are incorrect, Saddam was apprehended by US Armed forces and imprisoned by them. He was then turned over to Shi'ite muslims for execution. Shi'ite muslims also presided over his "trial" - "crimes against humanity."
How can a sect of muslims who wish Saddam dead, judge him for "crimes against humanity"? Saddam should have been tried in an international court in the Hague.
The more I see here, the more I get nauseous.
If Rumsfeld and Reagan supported Saddam in the 80's then would that make both our past and present administrations guilty by association? I ain't gonna go down this path as one can then accuse Ariel Sharon for all that happened at Sabra and Shatila.
Please understand, I am no liberal. But I do follow the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights.
How did hanging Saddam Hussein make the world any safer?
We are missing our original target: Bin-Laden.
No word about him from the White House ;>
I like Bush - a lot!
But hanging (handing) Saddam over the Shi'ite's is not what I would call American justice. Bush made a mistake on this one. He's human. Just pray that it does not cost the US or Israel any troops or civilians.
Best wishes for a peaceful and secure 2007 from Israel.
Bin Laden is dead.
Your statement is true as far as it goes, but then why ever would you think Saddam was entitled to "American justice"? He was not in any way entitled to the benefits of our Constitution or the protection of our courts. He was an adversary in war, captured, considered to be a war criminal, and dealt with accordingly. War is a return to the state of nature, the only "rules" in war are the constraints we voluntarily impose upon ourselves.
Prior to Saddam, there was Adam and Eve.
And Satan.
And God.
You know, if God didn't create, we'd not be in this mess and there would be no war in the Middle East.
I wonner how God would be judged by the Hague.
THE HAGUE?
Do you really care what The Hague has to say? Good Lord... How do you think Israel would be treated by The Hague?
Would the world be any safer if Saddam had been kept alive?
They had elections in Iraq, you know. It was in all the papers. America didn't hang him any more than Spain, who helped America gain its Independence, is responsible for us hanging John Billington
John Billington came on the Mayflower with his wife Ellen and children John and Francis. The Billingtons are recorded as a contentious family. Young Francis Billington nearly blew up the Mayflower while it was sitting in Provincetown Harbor--he shot off a gun near an open barrel of gun powder inside the Mayflower's cabin. Shortly after settling down at Plymouth, John Billington the elder was charged with contempt when he bad-mouthed and insulted Myles Standish, and was sentenced to have his neck and heels tied together, but he humbled himself and was forgiven. A few months later, John Billington the younger wandered off into the woods, and was taken by the Nauset Indians to Cape Cod, where he lived for about a month before he was returned.
In 1624, John Billington the Elder was implicated in the Oldham-Lyford scandal, in which blasphemous letters were secretly being written and sent to England trying to undermine the Plymouth Colony. However, Billington claimed he was a scapegoat, and there was not enough evidence to show he was a party to the scandal so the matter was dropped.
In 1630, John Billington the Elder was tried and executed for the murder of John Newcomen, whom Billington had shot with a musket in a quarrel over a past dispute between the two. He was found guilty by a grand and petty jury, "by plain and notorious evidence", and became the first Englishman to be hanged in New England.
Join the club! Membership just requires the ability to talk about humanity's inhumanity to man and do nothing about it. There's a dead nun out there wondering why no-one came to her aid.
The Pope should have kept his mouth shut..because talking softly without carrying a big stick is just talk.
Speaking on Vatican Radio, Lombardi said Saddam’s death “will not help efforts aimed at justice and reconciliation” and “risks increasing violence.” He also reiterated the Vatican’s opposition to the death penalty.
Care to comment on the US-Soviet alliance against Germany in WWII?
It is a very weak argument to bring up what happened in the 1980s, when discussing the world of the Twenty-first Century.
Were you in Israel in 1991, living with your gasmask at your side every minute, in mortal fear of SCUD missiles fired on the command of Saddam?
Your facts are only correct in that there are far more Shi'ites than Sunnis in Iraq. His trial, if you bothered to follow any of it, was as fais as the new court system could make it, because it was anticipated that the tinfoilers would boil out of the woodwork.
Saddam was trying, with some success, to destroy Israel BEFORE he was ever toppled. I too fear the violence that will probaably occur as a result of the Iraqi courts' decision, but remember. We should remember the violence that has come steadily before as well.
NOW I'm leaving. G_d be with you.
I suggest taking some Pepto Bismol and avoiding this site altogether.
WE didn't try him under our Constitution The Iraqis tried him under theirs.
Too late. You already went "down this path" with your earlier posts.
All national leaders -- ALL -- lead in the context of the times in which they are in office. During the Carter presidency, radical Islamists declared jihad (war) against the United States. During the Reagan presidency, with the Cold War still extant and Iran becoming a growing threat, President Reagan helped Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war. In retrospect, with the benefit of about a quarter century between us and those times, we can see that President Reagan's support of Hussein may have been a mistake. Or was it? Would Iran now be sitting atop not only their oil fields, but those of Iraq as well if President Reagan had not supported Hussein back then? Did President Reagan spare the world the specter of an Iran more powerful by orders of magnitude? I think we can safely imagine the correct answer.
In any case, aside from children and adults with mental impairment, the only people who cannot understand the difference between our hindsight and Reagan acting within the context of his times are those who are: (a) stupid, (b) willfully obtuse, or (c) anti-American.
In the Clinton years, the growing menace of Hussein was well known. Clinton even signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 making regime change in Iraq the national policy of the United States. But Clinton never acted. Not on any of the many terrorist attacks against the United States during his presidency, nor on the growing menace of men like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the Iranian and North Korean dictators.
President Bush has had the courage to take out the Taliban, take out Hussein, and stand aside while Ariel Sharon made Israel safer.
People like you, IsraelBeach, sicken me to the core. If we lose this war against Islamofacism, it will be due to people who think like you.
Obviously you foolishly get all your news and information from the anti-American MSM. Your posts, which I might add are what's nauseating in this thread, are nothing more than a repeat of their continual lying, hateful propaganda against the President, his administration and all those who support him.
Try taking your blinders off, or seek help for your leftist tunnel vision and do your own research and educate yourself with the truth for a change.