It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saddam to be freed?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
OK, we have found no WMD's, we have the prison torchure events against us and we have killed innocent people in Iraq. Doesn't this mean that Saddam should be set free? What crimes are are we going to charge him with? More specifically, what are we going to charge him with that we are not guilty of ourselves?

I wonder what the word 'justice' means - is it 'just ice'?




posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Not even his genocide against Kurds has been 100% proven. Saddam did use chemical weapons on Iran, as Iran did on Iraq during the 1980s war. Human Rights Watch, a New York based NGO claims that between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds were gassed by Saddam in 1988 but there is not much evidence of this, according to sources.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Saddamn innocent


Bet all the families of those he ordered killed will disagree with you.

He was in charge of the country, there fore the sole responsibility of mass genocide rests with him. The man is guilty as sin.
Check out the history of Saddam's career.

www.usatoday.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
As I said, I can't believe 100% that he is guilty of those crimes because I don't know if it is just American propeganda against Saddam.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Its not US propaganda, but World wide facts that he massacred 1000,s of innocent people in his time as president.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Its not US propaganda, but World wide facts that he massacred 1000,s of innocent people in his time as president.



nono, he is not a president.. more like a king to me... where the king have all the powers of that country.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
He did murder many people - or rather, he ordered the murders/killings/torture.

Many if not all of those people were engaged in open revolution/war against his regime. Hussein was relatively astute when it came to matters of state, I don't think he was the raving psychopath many make him out to be. Remember, he was a US military project, gone wrong like so many others.

That's not an excuse, but it does put a different light on things.

Also, it's sometimes stated as fact that he gassed his own people, when in fact there's as much evidence implicating the Iranians in that infamous gas attack.

Hussein was once popular, but he's never been nice. I don't think he was a good human being, and I don't even think he was a good dictator, but I do think he deserves the same right to a fair trial as anyone else.

There's a chance that's not even him in the holding cell, there have been rumors that the guy they caught was one of his many doubles, and the fact that nobody bothered to fingerprint him doesn't speak volumes about the credibility of the investigation. They did a DNA test, but they should have done both. Any rational prosecutor wants as much evidence as possible before he goes to trial.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Saddamn innocent


Bet all the families of those he ordered killed will disagree with you.

He was in charge of the country, there fore the sole responsibility of mass genocide rests with him. The man is guilty as sin.
Check out the history of Saddam's career.

www.usatoday.com...

Yes, that is all tragic and sad. But have you forgot to mention that these people were slaughtered by Saddam in the time, when Iraq and USA were very close friends! Donald Rumsfeld was visiting him - selling Iraq USA weapons and chemicals to make chemical weapons. Did the USA accuse Saddam of these crimes then? NOPE! And why NOT? Because they were in business togather! So, what makes this crime more "horrible" today, when Saddam is arrested, and what makes it Less "horrible" 20 years ago when it actually happened? At that time nobody was attacking Saddam for being a "cold blooded killer", because Saddam was in bed with Pentagon!



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
In Saddam's first act as President, if you watch the video, you can see him reading off a list of the names of hundreds of men who were gathered in the auditorium for his speech. As each name is read, he asks an alleged informant present if that person was involved in acts against the regime. If they were, according to the "informant", you can see them being led out of the room by security forces. They were all executed.

This was just the beginning of COUNTLESS crimes performed against the Iraqi people on behalf of Saddam Huessein. The guilt of these people is irrelevant. They were never given the slightest opportunity of a fair trial. There are far too many mass graves throughout Iraq for Saddam to have not known anything about them. These murders were part of his tight grip on power. And lets not forget his invasion of Kuwait, where his troops raped, pillaged and plundered the entire country.

Whether or not the US was his ally at the time is irrelevant to this man's trial. It doesn't matter if we provided him with weapons, either. Hell, it doesn't even matter if Ronald Reagan himself told Saddam to do these horrible things. It was Saddam's decision in the end. It was his orders that ultimately led to these crimes against the Iraqi people. And it is the Iraqi people who are putting Saddam on trial, not the US. We are all going to find that the regime of Saddam were excellent keepers of records, much like the Nazis were. These very records and documents are going to go a long way towards convicting this man. Coupled with the testimony of survivors and witnesses, Saddam hardly stands a chance. I also believe that when push comes to shove, some of the ex-regime members who are on trial themselves would be willing to testify against Saddam if it means saving their own butts.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Saddam was in charge and had the final say in what happened in Iraq.

People were killed, sanctioned by him and him alone.
Its irrelevant who were the allies with Iraq at the time he committed these atrocities. Like i said, he had the final say in what happened.

One more point to make. Why would he be held captive facing prosecution for war crimes if he was totally innocent?

To say he was a king is just ludicrous. He was madman intent on on keeping himself in luxury while the country starved. hell, they were not even allowed to have satellite television. They have now.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
No no no no. Saddam cant be released until he has fulfilled his contract with Mills and Boon Publishers (Crappy romance novels). He hasn't even finished his first novel yet. It's all in the contract.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Yes, that is all tragic and sad. But have you forgot to mention that these people were slaughtered by Saddam in the time, when Iraq and USA were very close friends! Donald Rumsfeld was visiting him - selling Iraq USA weapons and chemicals to make chemical weapons. Did the USA accuse Saddam of these crimes then? NOPE! And why NOT? Because they were in business togather! So, what makes this crime more "horrible" today, when Saddam is arrested, and what makes it Less "horrible" 20 years ago when it actually happened? At that time nobody was attacking Saddam for being a "cold blooded killer", because Saddam was in bed with Pentagon!


great post



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   


Hell, it doesn't even matter if Ronald Reagan himself told Saddam to do these horrible things. It was Saddam's decision in the end.


Very well said. Some people "greatly dislike" America so much that they will use America's past sins to argue for the freedom of a mass murdering thug.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Saddam isn't going anywhere till his trial and subsequent sentenced is fulfilled.

Crimes against humanity require no proof of WMD, since he has been overthrown, correct? If your complaint and cry for his freedom is based solely on WMD evidences or those lack of WMD evidences, seems to me that they were not the only reasons given for removing Saddam. To avoid arguing semantics, since it has undoubtedly been argued I don't know how many times already, the deed is done: Saddam has been removed/overthrown. He will stand trial and sentence/judgement will be passed/given.

Again, Saddam isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The only 'freedom' he will get is when they let him out for that daily 30 minutes of 'open-yard' exercise....





seekerof

[edit on 3-4-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I agree with seekroff, the fact remains that although he didnt have any WMD's he still was a murderer.
You can argue how he was arrested but not why he was arrested..



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I have said in previous threads similar to this one, that Saddam needed ousting. The fact he was caught on the run says he had something to hide.

He knows he is guilty of wrong doing. The sooner people see him for what he was, then the sooner things can move on. He deserves all he gets in his up and coming court appearance. If it happens in Iraq, then he is a goner. If it happens in Europe, then he will be deported back to Iraq where he will be a goner. He deserves nothing less after what he did to the Innocent people he killed. Let the Iraq's have their say in what happens to him. Bet 99% go against him.

Too many facts go against him with the atrocities he had a say in.
The guy is guilty. Live with it!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
OMFG now I have heard it all people arguing for Saddam’s release, what has this world come too.

He is going to be tried for his mass murders and his genocide in 91 after the Kuwait war.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
If you don't believe that Saddam is Guilty then what will you believe? Saddam killed thousands of innocent people, and used WMDs against this own people and Iran. If you don't believe it just ask an Iraqi on the street, they'll tell you of his crimes, and of their zeal to punish him.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Yes, what a terrible man Saddam is huh?

What a nice twist to this story in War on Terror. To connect Al-Qaeda to Iraq and Saddam, to find an excuse to invade; like WMD's and mass-graves? Bottom line is: USA has "used" Saddam when he suited their interestests in the Middle East, especially in war against Iran. He was an ally and a friend of US goverment once.

Again I will mention the case of Nicaragua, which most of people like to "forget", for one reason or another. The US supported regime of Contras has slaughtered tens of thousands of INNOCENT civilians, and what happened? Was anybody charged with anything? Entire country was demolished; bridges destroyed, factories abandones, farms burned. What happened?

Or do you remember the Iran-Contra affair? When the money from sold weapons to Iran, helped to found the Contras movement in Nicaragua and funding a guerrilla war aimed at toppling the Pro-Communist Nicaraguan government backed by Cuba and the Soviet Union?

Did the US goverment face any World Court? Will they EVER?

Facts are that USA has broken just about every international conventions and law SEVERAL times in their history, and that makes USA the First State Sponsor of Terrorism.

Bah, who really cares right? As long as the Big Bad Man Hussein is in Jail and world is Safe again!

Mission Accomplished!

[edit on 3/4/05 by Souljah]



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Yes, what a terrible man Saddam is huh?

What a nice twist to this story in War on Terror. To connect Al-Qaeda to Iraq and Saddam, to find an excuse to invade; like WMD's and mass-graves? Bottom line is: USA has "used" Saddam when he suited their interestests in the Middle East, especially in war against Iran. He was an ally and a friend of US goverment once.

Mission Accomplished!


You are correct the U.S. did "use" Saddam when we needed to. We did this to protect our own interests. Sometimes a nation must pick between the lesser of two evils. Any sane leader who is going to do his duty to protect his conutry will do this. Its the real world out there not some kiddy cartoon.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join