Will Saddam be found innocent?

OJ Simpson..



this ahole, murdered his wife and friend. He was a football superstar, and later, movie actor. He was aquitted because the prosectution blew the case. He freakin murdered 2 people and walked away a free man.
OJ is proof that even a full proof plan can destroy itself


And who is MJ?..

Well, he started out like this,





made a bunch of money, and turned himself into this..




Yet Ted Danson is shunned for donning a "black-face"..how hypocritical..., any rate, after years of to much money and having a little to much fun with the young boys, he turned into this...




But again, thanks to our airtight cases, and strong prosecutors, people who are BLANTLEY GUILTY get to walk all the time...God bless the USA..






or another answer would be, OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson. Both are lying douche bags who deserve to rot in prison, but both were acquitted due to stupid mistakes on behalf of the prosecution.

What Im sayin though, is that Saddam could have the same fate. Some have said he's guilty of mass murder. Mass murder wasnt illegal for Saddam to do in HIS OWN country. There were no laws on any books concerning what Saddam could or couldnt do. International, sure, but he's not being tried in international court. The rest of the world pretty much hates Bush, and what better way to slap him in the face, then to free Saddam.

Imagine THAT scenario....






Michaels a douche...

OJ's a douche....

Originally posted by spliff4020


And who is MJ?..

Well, he started out like this,

made a bunch of money, and turned himself into this..

I was expecting some wierd ass names linked to Al-Q or something. I don't spend much time looking into the news concerning "commercial entertaiment".

[edit on 21-7-2005 by joyouslyhumored]

I doubt it, in fact I think it is practically a foregone conclusion that he will be found guilty and probably get the death penalty...which he should. However,
there are a lot of issues surrounding the trial that I am curious about, such as
how much coverage of it we'll actually see. If Saddam testifies on his own behalf I would be very interested in what he'd say. Not that what he might say is necessarily to be believed, I think he would use every advantage that he could, but I also think that...at the same time...if he told the truth (highly doubtful, I
know), he could prove to be extremely embarrassing to the U.S. Government
(as could Bin Laden.) They try to gloss it over but there is a factual basis for
all the WMD nonsense, it is not something that was just made up to give a justification for the war. He actually did have them at one time during the Reagan and Bush, Sr. administrations when he was still considered an ally of
the U.S. on the "Yes, he's an S.O.B. but he's our S.O.B."/ "The enemy
of my enemy is my friend." basis... Where'd they go? I don't think they just
disappeared and nobody knows what happened. I think Saddam...if this is
the real Saddam...knows where they are. I've always been somewhat doubtful about the "capture of Saddam" being for real, when they started
trumpeting it in the media...after previously being equally certain that he was
dead, killed in one or another bombing...I did not feel elated, like i was supposed to. I felt....I don't know...kind of manipulated, I guess... I guess I
felt about him much as I feel about Bin Laden, that he would not allow himself
to be taken aliive. Death would be the desirable solution all the way around. Not only would he personally want it that way, but the specter of a captured
Bin Laden going to trial would bring still more horror to this country, if he were to be tried in the United States. The people involved in trying him would all be targets,
the inhabitants of whatever city the trial was held in would all be in danger and
it would also be too embarrassing to too many powerful people in the government and military, past and present, to have him captured alive.

I heard that theory, it makes sense. The problem is, you say they turned on him when he became a nuiscance. No. They turned on him for the oil.

spliff
Who's OJ and MJ ?

[edit on 21-7-2005 by joyouslyhumored]

my above post was in reference to that question, btw...

With all of the crimes he has been acused of committing, not the least of which is the wholesale slaughter of thousands of Kurds, and defying UN orders to cease and desist with WMD proliferation, both of which were well pushed in the case for war, it is quite the farce to note that the criminal charge expected to be levied against him is only the deaths of under 200 Shia uprisers.

Considering the Shia stronghold in Iraq, it might very well be that the only hope to get this man convicted of anything is to kindle revenge amongst the Shia.

Saddam Hussein is not on charges of being an "evil dictator" or "tyrant". The soundbites that the incumbent POTUS's speechwriters use to describe Hussein are there to build hatred and ill feeling and to engender support for an old reason/excuse for the US-led invasion of Iraq. That excuse is gone now that he is in captivity, and the trial is a sideshow.

On the specific charges he faces, it all comes down to evidence as in any court does it not? He will be found guilty on some charges and what will be more telling will be the weight of the sentencing.