 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote: Your problem is that you think the law matters in this case. There's no precedent for this, which is why political |
No precedent for war criminals to be tried in an international court? Really?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Snotty
|
|
The http://news.bbc.co.uk/ website will probably run bushs speech live. If not I am sure they will have it afterwards when they put their normal broadcast online. You need realplayer to see it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001 time: 14:32
|
|
quote: Nice doge; well, actualy, not nice, rather disappointing from you. Since the Iraqi tribulanl is using international law as its foundation, it would have jurisdiction, and validate international law itself. I wonder though how you will parcel post and edit this post? Maybe as honestly as you did the previous? |
What does any of this have to do with the original argument? I said that the US would send Saddam to an Iraqi court, not an international tribunal. First, you claimed there was no Iraqi court. Then, when proven wrong on that count, you tried to portray the Iraqi court as not having jurisdiction on the prosecution of their own former dictator. When questioned on this silly argument, you didn't provide any actual reasons why the Iraqi court's jurisdiction would come into question; you just proceeded to embark on some "point" about the Iraqi court using international law as its basis for prosecuting Hussein, which has no relevance at all to the original argument.
Then, you try to accuse me of "dodgeing"... 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What does any of this have to do with the original argument? I said that the US would send Saddam to an Iraqi court, not an international tribunal. First, you claimed there was no Iraqi court. Then, when proven wrong on that count, you tried to portray the Iraqi court as not having jurisdiction on the prosecution of their own former dictator. When questioned on this silly argument, you didn't provide any actual reasons why the Iraqi court's jurisdiction would come into question; you just proceeded to embark on some "point" about the Iraqi court using international law as its basis for prosecuting Hussein, which has no relevance at all to the original argument.
Then, you try to accuse me of "dodgeing"... |
Arrgh!
The tribunal set up is being set up on the model of other international tribunals, with the difference being that it is set up by the Governing Council. The council is claiming to have jurisdiction based on INTERNATIONAL LAW already existing, NOT UNDER IRAQI LAW, for which there is no precendent, given that there is no new Iraqi constitution yet to replace the Baathist one. Saddam will be charged not for violating Iraqi law, but international laws that are universal such as crimes against humanity and war crimes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
How about it if we build an arena in Basra for his trial, which in the spirit of the new Iraqi constitution would be led by a religious judge, and let everyone in the audience bring two bricks along. Punishment would be carried out in the good old fashioned way - stoneing.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32. Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|