Will Saddam go Free?

Some of the choices are missing. They should be:


No
Heck No
No Flippin' Way

 

The majority of Iraqis are Shi'ites. Saddam oppressed these Muslims while causing the Sunnis to prosper.

There is no way on the planet that the majority of Iraqis want Saddam back. The US out, perhaps, but they definitely don't want Saddam back.

 

I "vote" for "all of the above"!

 

One wonders what the people on the far right and the left want to do with him? My guess is that they want to let him go since they maintain that the war is illegal and therefore his capture would be illegal.

 

I know a few Iraqis who would love the opportunity to give Saddam what’s due.

 

Why would a person on the far right want to let him go?

 

Because they are crazy.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Who voted for this???? Will the mystery voter come forward, is this a joke or are you serious???

 

I would like to make a guess: I say it was LE because she is under the wierd delusion that the majority of Iraqis actually loved Saddam and wish he were back in power. All Muslims, afteral, are terrorist extremists and anti-American.

Am I right?

Joseph Botwinick

 

The majority of the Iraqis loved Saddam like the witch's army loved her in "The Wizard of Oz." Remember, after Dorothy killed her, they started saying something like, "Hail to Dorothy".

 

Why would a person on the far right want to let him go? </font>[/QUOTE]The far right believes that they alone have the correct interpretation of the law. They hold that the war in Iraq is illegal and Peroutka of the Constitution Party says that we should withdraw immediately. This is just exactly what the left says also as reperesented by Mrs. Sheehan.

This does present a problem for them because what should they do with a human rights abuse criminal captured in an illegal act? My guess is that Peroutka would say that Saddam was not read his Miranda rights, the war was illegal, let him go. I have to think that Mrs. Sheehan believes that Bush is the war criminal not Saddam and that she would let Saddam go also but she would put Bush in prison. Peroutka has never said if he thinks that Bush is a war criminal or not but Mrs. Sheehan is very clear that she thinks Bush is a war criminal and her slogan is "Bush lied, people died."

We are going to have 3 more years of this division. However, the war protestors cannot get any traction because there is no draft, which is what brings out the upper class and the middle class against a war. Why bother to protest a war if you are not involved in it and your job keeps getting raises and your football team has a plush stadium where you can go on Sundays to get drunk?

 

By international standards, the war was illegal. However the Bush administration did the right, or at least clever, thing by having the Iraqis try him rather than the Americans.

I voted "don't know", by the way.

 

The war is not "illegal" by any valid standard! The war is completely legal. The war has been supported by Congressional resolution and executed according to the Laws of War.

 

Look at the far right Dragoon:

The are against the Patriot Act and call the war illegal:

We deplore and vigorously oppose legislation and executive action, that deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating terrorism" or "protecting national security." Examples of such legislation are the National Security Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the proposed Domestic Securities Enhancement Act (colloquially known as "Patriot II").

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Terrorism%20and%20Personal%20Liberty

We condemn the presidential assumption of authority to deploy American troops into combat without a declaration of war by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Defense

As President, I would move immediately to withdraw all our troops from Iraq in a way that would provide for the safety of those Iraqis who worked with us during this illegal, wrong-headed war.

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=148

Some of what Cindy Sheehan told Veterans for peace:

...So anyway that filth-spewer and warmonger, George Bush was speaking after the tragedy of the marines in Ohio, he said a couple things that outraged me....

...What can we do to get him out of power? And I'm gonna say the I' word. Impeach. And we have to have everybody impeached that lied to the American public, and that's the executive branch, and any people in congress, and we gotta go all the way down and we might have to go all the way down to the person who picks up the [filthy language]...in Washington because

We can't let somebody rise to the top who will pardon these war criminals. Because they need to go to prison for what they've done in this world. We can't have a pardon. They need to pay for what they've done.

 

Exactly what makes the Iraq war legal in your opinion CMG? We have all heard your opinions on the far right and how wrong they are but, hardly ever hear an explanation as to why you hold that opinion (as to legallities 'constitution' international laws etc). I may have missed it though as I can't read every opinion of every member all the time. If you have stated your opinion on this in the past, cool. In that case could you refresh our memories a bit?

 

Amigo, it is like this. During the Viet Nam War, the left also maintained that the war was illegal. However, they could never get a judge to go along with them. Notice that the left also claims that this war is illegal, which must cause them some worries about what should be done with Saddam, don't you agree, Poncho?

Secondly, the President has war powers and the members of the Constitution Party have never been able to tell me if Washington acted illegally in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion or if Jefferson acted illegally in fighting the Islamist on the "shores of Tripoli" still sung about by the US Marines, some of our finest! I mean the list goes on and on. The President is Commander in Chief. The Congress can word the declaration of war as it pleases. The Courts have no powers in the issue of war. And the President does not have his hands tied. He can defend the country!

Finally, mi buen amigo Poncho, note that neither the far right nor the left is taking this issue of legality to a court. Actions speak louder than words.

Su seguro servidor,

cmg

 

There was no declaration of war by congress CMG.

 

Yes, there was some sort of legal action by Congress. There is where you break down. That is where the left broke down during the Viet Nam war, also.

If you are correct, Poncho, and anyone else who thinks that the war is illegal, what is the legal status of Saddam?

 

The legal action by congress I believe was the House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq, dated October 10, 2002. What's it's premise? Is it a declaration of war? No.

The Iraq resolution only made the President's authority subject to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Which puts the burden of proof on the President to show a clear and imminent threat to the United States(not could haves, maybes, might bes or opinions) but evidence. He had to prove that Saddam was a clear and imminent threat to America before he could commence armed action. Something that had he achieved his administration would have no need of the constantly shifting rationals for invading Iraq.

There was no declaration of war made by congress.