Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Like it or not, Saddam is the legitimate head of state in Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 04:55 PM
Original message
Like it or not, Saddam is the legitimate head of state in Iraq
the Invasion that unseated and captured him was illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. Correct
which is why they will kill him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Don't get me wrong. I hate the mofo
But, as I see it, his trial is treason by the Iraqis involved.

Killing him is the only resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
129. Treason? You simply can't be serious. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enigma000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. Treason?
Saddam is royalty now? When did he become King Saddam? He's just a peasant thug from Tikrit. He was Head of State, but lost the job.

Speaking of which, Iraq WAS a monarchy once:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_II_of_Iraq

I don't know if Faisal II has any heirs but they have a greater claim as the legitimate rulers of Iraq than Saddam does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cantstandbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
41. More legitimate than Musharaff. But, then we would overthrow
Chavez who is definitely an "democratically elected leader." Proving that we don't give to shits about "freedom and democracy." We just care about getting rid of government we don't like and taking their wealth from their countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, as legitimate as George, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. LOL, he is MORE legitimate than the bushturd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tx_dem41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
28. Do you honestly believe that?
"MORE" legitimate? Please, don't do that to this forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #28
70. Why when it is a fact
Saddam took his country by force in a brutal fashion but it was completely up front. Everyone knew it was happening and was helpless to change it. Bush* took office by deceit and corruption and held it through propaganda in the extreme. Legitimacy does not necessarily mean no blood loss. Saddam ruled his country for over twenty five years. He was acknowledged as the legitimate ruler by virtually every country on earth. I will never acknowledge Bush* as legitimate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. The invasion was/is illegal. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. The German court got it right. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Yes and they ought to know it when they see it. n.t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. they do have a particular "sensitivity" to the subject. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Exactly. I say that about them & I wonder could I say it without
sounding so harsh, your words say it well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
4. Really? Who elected him? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Actually, Iraqis did...
The election may be totally bogus (he got 100% of the votes!), but he's the elected president of Iraq.

Wednesday, October 16, 2002 Posted: 12:23 PM EDT (1623 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq has declared Saddam Hussein the winner with 100 percent of the votes in a referendum granting him another seven-year term, bringing bursts of celebratory gunfire in Baghdad's streets.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.vot...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. Musharraf. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. technically, 99% of Iraqis.
I never said he was the legitimate head of a democracy.

MANY legitimate heads of state are unelected or, like Saddam, were elected in sham elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
32. Do you know what "legitimate" means?
Let me answer:

You have no fucking clue what "legitimate" means.

Fascist dictatorships are never legitimate. They may have de facto control over the levers of power. But once they lose those, they are nothing more than displaced criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
67. You mean like Shrub?
Shrub was "elected" in sham elections, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Who elected the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan?
Yet they are considered legitimate rulers. Since Saddam had Embassies all over the world, he too was legitimized by the fact that other sovereign nations did business with him, much as we are doing business with Musharrah of Pakistan, who took over the government in a coupe.

A universal caveat is that possession is nine/tenths of the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I don't consider them legitimate either
Edited on Fri Oct-21-05 05:05 PM by Nederland
I don't think anyone who wasn't elected by the people in a free and fair election should be considered "legitimate".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. That's very noble and a good ideal to aspire to but not
the reality. I doubt if any sovereign nation would consider you the last word on the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
38. Increasingly it is practical
The number of democracies has been steadily increasing ever since the fall of the USSR. Democracies used to be a minority in the UN, now they represent the majority. The days of having to put up with dictators simply because they suited the US global goals in fighting the cold war are long gone. We no longer have a good excuse for supporting despots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. I hope you are right.
That someday dictatorships will exist in the history books only, kind of like the world doesn't approve of human sacrifice and cannibalism anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. that's a different subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #9
55. Fuck Saudi Arabia and Jordan
What about our own sham elections in the US?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. I think he should be tried in the Hague for this reason, not
Edited on Fri Oct-21-05 05:16 PM by Cleita
the kangaroo court our kangaroo government has set up. All it takes is a sovereign nation to file a complaint with the Hague to do this. Shouldn't this be what our government should do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. I guess that would be the only semi-legitimate resolution at this point
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teknomanzer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #11
37. A trial at the Hague could yeild uncomfortable revelations...
about governments and business interests which supported the dictator as he committed the crimes he is being charged with. A trial in American occupied Iraq (with a 20 minute delay in broadcasting) will ensure silence regarding such revelations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
15. Yeah? Just when did Saddam become the legitimate head of state?
Saddam was the appointed successor of al-Bakr, who came to power in a coup. So I'm curious which of those mechanisms you think makes someone a legitimate head of state. Is it the coup? Or the appointment by a previous dictator? And if neither of those, just what about Saddam made him legitimate?

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. I don't have to give any credence to Saddam, because I oppose Bush. I think freepers laugh their heads off, when they see a Democrat say something like "Saddam is the legitimate head of state."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. He most assuredly was recognized as such by Reagan, Rumsfeld
and most nations. He only became "illegitimate" when it was convenient to take that position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. Ah. Well, then. The "Rumsfeld standard."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. his rule was recognized and sanctioned by every other government
on planet Earth. He was legally recognized unanimously by the international community as the legitimate head of state--even the US and even Iran and even Kuwait.

He is friend to no one but himself.

I frankly don't give half a runny shit whether freepers laugh or not. I hope if they do, they all choke on their Cheetos and die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. Yet by that standard
he is no longer, right? There are no governments that seem to recognize him as such today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #15
57. Perhaps the word "legitimate" is not the correct word
However, he was illegitimately taken out of office.
I am not crying in my cereal over that...because he is and was and will always be an evil man...however, what we are offering in Iraq isn't better than what they had, so there is a legitimate reason to address this issue.
What is better? Leaving an immoral dictator in office...or lying to the world and committing treason to your own country to accomplish your goal? Lies that have cost thousands upon thousands of innocent deaths, while stealing money from the treasuries in Iraq and the US.
If our country had made a legitimate case for the removal of Hussein with the blessings of the world, then we would be talking about something else altogether.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. The legitimacy of the invasion and Saddam's legitimacy are two
different issues.

Whether we like it or not, Saddam's reign and the invasion are both past tense. They happened, and now they're over.

The question is how to make the best of the mess that has been created in Iraq. At this point, compounding an illegal invasion with a virtually endless occupation is obviously the incorrect and morally wrong thing to do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #59
63. Yes they are different issues
and we can't just re-install Saddam and make it all better. The deed has been done.
However, I have a hard time understanding why they are writing a new Constitution?
The one they had was the most secular in the Mid-East and worked well.
This entire mess needs to be laid at the foot of the UN and let them send peacekeepers in and get the warmongers out.
First thing they need to do is get the foreign contractors out.
The Iraqi's need to build their own country.
We should pay heavy reparations to these people...for a very long time.
But the money being given to Halliburton should be paying the Iraqi's.
That is without a doubt.
Secondly we need to abandon the permanent base idea.
That is just a start...but the differentiation between legitimate ruler and illegitimately removed is one that needs to be made. They aren't the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. Keeping the Baathist constitution wasn't an option.
One doesn't launch into democratization by keeping the dictatorship's rulebook.

I agree on the rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #65
76. yeah but there aren't many options
in that part of the world.
Sometimes you have to pick the worst of the evils and at least the women had rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
16. I know he's an asshole but you're right.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. that's why the bushturd's war is so insidiously evil
once you break the "rules," you thwart the legitimacy of justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tx_dem41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
27. Is there a purpose to this thread?
Other than to further marginalize DU as choosing Saddam over Bush? Why do you want me to make this choice? What is your goal in doing this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. goal? . . . how about the truth? . . . just for a change . . . n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tx_dem41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. What truth would that be?
That Saddam was a legitimately elected leader of his country? Please, tell me more....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. that for years he was accepted as the legitimate head of state . . .
of Iraq . . . by the UN, by the US, and by everyone else . . . if we decide to go after every country whose election systems we question or where we don't like how the head of state was otherwise selected, the list would be pretty long . . . and would include us, btw . . .

bottom line is that the US had no right under international or US law to invade and occupy Iraq . . . no matter how much we might have disliked Saddam or how he became president . . . BushCo is guilty of treason and crimes against humanity, among other things . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #40
47. But he's no longer recognized as the leader of Iraq by the international
community.

By your very own standards, he is 100% NOT the legitimate leader of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #47
68. That is because he was illegaly invaded.
Had that not happened, he would still be recognized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #68
77. Again, so what?
What matters is that he is no longer recognized as the legitimate leader of Iraq by anyone whose opinion matters.

How he lost power is completely irrelevant. What matters is that there is no reason NOW to consider him the legitimate leader of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #77
88. What matters is not condoning the violation of international law.
At least to most people who consider themselves Progressives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. Opposing the invasion and recognizing Saddam as the current
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 12:13 PM by geek tragedy
legitimate ruler of Iraq are two different things.


As a legal matter, Saddam is simply and unambiguously NOT the legitimate head of state in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #90
109. By asserting that he is not legitimate based on violations of int'l law,
you are supporting the violation of international law and the invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #109
110. No, I'm saying he's not legitimate because no persons or institutions
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 03:34 PM by geek tragedy
with the authority to recognize or determine the legitimate leader of Iraq recognize Saddam as the legitimate leader of Iraq.

As a LEGAL matter, he is NOT the legitimate leader of Iraq.

Some of us are sophisticated enough to oppose Bush's war and avoid supporting a fascist dictator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #110
123. Then you are not saying anything at all.
There is no LEGAL REGISTRY FOR LEGITIMATE RULERS. So this is not a LEGAL MATTER at all.

If you are so sophisticated, learn about the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #123
126. So, you think Saddam is the morally legitimate leader of Iraq? eom
And, contrary to what you think, who is head of state is a legal question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #126
135. So you support illegal and murderous invasions to determine heads of state
? Weren't you just purporting to condemn fascism?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #135
136. I'm not saying that the invasion was legitimate. You ARE saying
that Saddam is legitimate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enigma000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
29. U.N. resolution on Iraq passes unanimously
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a resolution that endorses the June 30 transfer of sovereignty in Iraq and gives authorization for a U.S.-led multinational force.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/08/un.iraq /

This was back in June 2004. The UN security council unanimously consented to the creation of this Iraqi "government". Regardless of how the regime change took place, the UN has acknowledged the Baath Party is no longer in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
31. Like it or not, the Nazi party are the rightful rulers of Germany!
What morally offensive bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25580-20...

<snip>
The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously today to approve a new resolution that endorses a U.S. transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government and authorizes foreign troops to provide security for at least a year with Iraqi consent.

The resolution passed 15-0 after the United States made several last-minute concessions to incorporate demands by France and Russia, which had insisted on giving the Iraqi government more explicit authority to ensure it exercised genuine sovereignty after the scheduled transfer of political power on June 30
<snip>

So, the international community says otherwise. I don't know of any progressives who think that a fascist government's brutal oppression of its people lends it legitimacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
33. There is a different kind of legality when you are a dictator and not a PM
Might makes right is the law of dictatorships. Saddam WAS the last PERSON in power over Iraq. Now it is the BFEE. Who knows, maybe Walmart will buy Iraq and bring discount prices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
34. True. And in Haiti the US sent marines to kidnap & overthrow the
democratically elected (and popular) president, and installed a Brazilian.

It's America's SOP; been doing it for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #34
48. No, FALSE.
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 09:43 AM by geek tragedy
He took power by force. He lost it because someone else used force.

Either he was never legitimate, or he is no longer legitimate.

There is no credible argument that he is the legitimate leader of Iraq.

I know you want him back in power, but too freaking bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 02:56 AM
Response to Original message
35. That's sort of like calling him a legitimate head of lettuce.
You're dealing with a meaningless illegal situation overlaid upon a series of other, meaningless illegal or artificial situations dating at least back to the British creation of "Iraq" in the first place.

He's no more legitimate now than he was when he was "our man in Baghdad". Only way you can have quote-unquote legitimate government in Iraq now is to get everyone who is NOT Iraqi the fuck out of the country and let THEM sort it out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
42. For or Against. Way too much bush-style "thinking"
by some posters, don't you find?

FACTS mean "praising" Hussein.

FACTS mean "choosing Saddam over Bush".

WTF???

Maybe CHILDREN think in black-white like that.

When did progressives come to believe SOME FACTS should be silenced and dropped into the Memory Hole?

FUCK that; FACTS are FACTS. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. Too much 'for or against'? What do you think your post #34 was?
in which you come up with a bald 'true' in response to the OP . That's black-and-white thinking. There have been several posters pointing out that Saddam gained and held power through violence; if you think that made him the 'legitimate president of Iraq', because he was recognised as such by other countries (and the UN), then as H2O Man pointed out, that's in the past - he was overthrown by more violence, and no other country or the UN still says he's president. If you think that elections or the support of the people decide the legitimate leader, then he fails on that test as well. You may not be able to say who is legitimate, but it's clear from what Iraqis say that the vast majority don't want him back.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Do you know international law?
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 09:29 AM by LynnTheDem
Coming into power by force is not, unfortunately, a bar to being recognized as a nation's leader.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. Apparently you don't.
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 09:56 AM by geek tragedy
Please specify the theory or doctrine of law or political philosophy which supports your conclusion that Saddam is still the legitimate ruler of Iraq.

I'm going to guess that you're going to refuse because you don't have an argument to make.

He used force to take and keep power. Someone else used force to replace him.

Garbage in, garbage out.

He is not, by any meaningful legal or moral measure, the legitimate leader of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #45
49. Now, now.
No use getting facts in the way of a good rant. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. The facts don't support the claim that Saddam is still the legitimate
leader of Iraq.

Only pro-Saddam idiocy does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. Wait, I'm confused.
I thought Lynn was saying that Saddam *isn't* legit.

Am I hallucinating?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. No, she thinks Saddam is still the legitimate leader of Iraq.
She said "True" in response to the OP.


She also denies that he committed a campaign of mass murder and used poison gas against the Kurds, despite the unanimous consensus amongst forensic investigators.

But she only deals in facts . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. Ok...
I don't see anything about the mass murder or poison gas issues so I assume that's coming from another thread. This is what I was responding to (or thought I was responding to, anyway.)


Do you know international law?

Coming into power by force is not, unfortunately, a bar to being recognized as a nation's leader.p/i]

Which would seem to indicate that she didn't think Saddam was currently legitimate leader under international law.

But this whole thing is giving me a headache anyway. I'm happy to see the stupid pigfucker go to jail, and he's one of the few people for whom I'd make an exception to my general no-death-penalty stance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. By all standing international covenants, Hussein is still the
legitimate president of Iraq.

The US itself backed this up in 1991 when the US restored to power the ruler of Kuwait. The US reversed Hussein's illegal actions.

The removal of Hussein was through an illegal invasion; therefor under int. law Hussein is still the legitimate president of Iraq and the US's actions should be reversed. Of course that's in theory. In practice is something else entirely.

Just like the sham "innocent until proven guilty" theory, which you yourself don't subscribe to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. Did the world community ever stop recognizing the Emir of Kuwait?
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 10:46 AM by geek tragedy
No, they didn't.

Did the Kuwaiti people ever recognize the change in authority as legitimate?

No they didn't.

Were there any kinds of elections held with even a taint of legitimacy in Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

No there weren't.

Your argument is pure garbage.

Just because a dictator loses power through illegal means does not mean he's still the legal authority. That's a bogus, fabricted argument. It isn't based on any kind of international law. It's based on pro-Saddam moonbattery.

Saddam was a dictator. He lost power because a foreign power invaded him.

The world community doesn't recognize him as the legitimate leader of Iraq.

The Iraqi people don't recognize him as the legitimate leader of Iraq.

His authority no longer exists in the eyes of each and every community that has any say in the matter.

The only people who recognize him as the legitimate leader of Iraq are Baathist scum.

I suggest you actually get a legal education before trying to invent legal theories to support your boy Saddam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. Well It's a good thing Hitler offed himself, I guess.
Otherwise he'd still be the legitimate leader of Germany.

God dammit did I just invoke the Nazis in a disussion forum?

*disappears of a puff of logic*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. You should have cited Mussolini. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #62
64. No.
Using the Italian government... ANY Italian government... as an example for ANYTHING...

It's simply not applicable anywhere else in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Isn't Italian government an oxymoron? Okay, I'll stop. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #61
72. No, not at all. Nation's leaders can and are and should be tried
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 11:02 AM by LynnTheDem
for crimes they commit.

Hitler was the legitimate leader of Germany. Where do you get the idea that he'd still be the leader of Germany if he hadn't offed himself???

If he hadn't offed himself, he would have stood trial at Nuremburg.

OF COURSE Hussein should stand trial. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether he is or was the legit leader of Iraq under int. law. The only question that arises under law is whether, as head of state, he has immunity or not. That is a question of law and what is currently being argued by the prosecution and defense in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #72
75. What body or community of legal relevance recognizes him
as the legitimate leader of Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. Hussein was recognized as the leader of Iraq by the world community
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 10:22 AM by LynnTheDem
He was the head of state, and recognized as such.

International law does not bar leaders from being recognized as leaders because they were unelected or because they became leaders by force.

That is codified under Int. law; it's why legal experts are currently arguing "head of state immunity" regarding Hussein. They are not arguing whether he was the legit head of state; they are arguing over whether the "principle of universality" for the "head of state" applies in Hussein's case.

But if it doesn't demonize Hussein, then it's "Saddam-loving", and facts be damned. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Saddam is NO LONGER RECOGNIZED AS IRAQ'S LEADER BY THE INT'L COMMUNITY
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 10:34 AM by geek tragedy
By your own definition he's not the legitimate leader of Iraq.


But you still think he's the legitimate leader of Iraq.

There are facts, and then there is supporting Saddam.

Stating that he is the legitimate leader of Iraq can only be described as blatant advocacy on behalf of Saddam for its own sake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #56
69. Because A SOVEREIGN NATION WAS ILLEGALLY INVADED.
If it were not for this crime, he would still be recognized, as he had been for decades (if not installed) by the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #69
73. That's what prosecution & defense are arguing now in Iraq, which
would mean Hussein being indicted and tried at the Hague.

And as no one has bothered to ask my own personal opinion on the issue, I'll give it anyways; Hussein should stand trial at the Hague for any and all crimes the Hague deems prosecutable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #69
74. So what?
He's still not recognized as the legitimate leader of Iraq by any relevant body, group, or community.

In the eyes of other governments and of the Iraqi people, he has been replaced.

He may have been the legitimate leader in 2002. But, as a matter of legal certainty, he is no longer the leader of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:09 PM
Original message
Only if you defend illegal invasions and violating international law.
At best, you are condoning illegal invasions and murderous violations of international law. Otherwise, none of what you have stated is the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
87. According to what legal authority?
For someone to be the legitimate head of a state, SOMEONE of consequence must recognize their claim and status.

NO ONE of any consequence whatsoever recognizes Saddam to be the lawful and legitimate ruler of Iraq.

No one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. According to any legal authority.
You seem to miss the part about violating law. As in illegal invasions, torture, collective punishment, occupation, murder.

Again, these are things that most people who consider themselves to be "Progressives" oppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. What legal authority recognizes Saddam as the current legitimate
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 12:22 PM by geek tragedy
head of state?

Name a specific legal authority--the UN, the Iraqi people, the world community--name one.

Are you basing your claim on customary international law or on a treaty? Can you cite a legal precedent to back up your conclusion?

Or are you merely citing what you BELIEVE the rule SHOULD be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #91
107. Invading a sovereign nation based on lies is a violation of law
UNDER ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY. Therefore, the act of removing the head of state is illegal.

"Legal authorties" don't recognize heads of state -- other heads of state recognize them. Legal authority determines what is and is not legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. Saddam fell from power due to an illegal act. That does not mean
that he is entitled to return to power.

The Iraqi people don't view him as their legitimate head of state. Neither does a single foreign state.

In short, there is no legal authority that believes that Saddam is the legitimate head of Iraq.

Let me repeat: There isn't a single body of law or institution with the responsibility of determining the legal and/or legitimate leader of Iraq that recognizes Saddam as the legal and/or legitimate leader of Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #111
124. Your assertion condones and supports violations of international law,
Edited on Tue Oct-25-05 06:38 AM by The Stranger
and sets a precedent for the Neocons to continue illegal invasions and justifying them after the fact based on perverse disregard of international law.

If he is gone -- "don't worry about the invasion and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands -- he is not "legitimate" because we buried him in prison." This is Neocon thinking.

The same thinking condones torture of possibly innocent people based on the false assumption and mass marketed fear that threatened (often falsely threatened) attacks may be avoided. This is also Neocon thinking.

That's not going to get by here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #124
125. No, it doesn't. I'm stating the legal facts.
If you don't like the law, boo freaking hoo.

And supporting fascism is NEVER a morally, politically, or legally acceptable position.

Now, you'll excuse me, but I'm trying to limit the time I spend debating supporters of fascism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #125
134. Whether I like the law or not, I do at least KNOW the law.
Supporting illegal, murderous invasions based on nothing but lies IS SUPPORTING fascism, and, by definition, cannot be a morally, politically, or legally acceptable definition.

If you are debating supporters of fascism, you are debating with yourself. And, no, defending illegal murderous invasions of other countries is not excused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #134
137. You know reactionary talking points, not the law.
I don't support the invasion, and I didn't then.

However, that does not mean that I recognize Saddam as the legitimate leader of Iraq. NO ONE outside of a few fringe nutters and fascist back-enders recognize Saddam as the legitimate leader of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. Legal authority
Hussein Majali, president of the Jordanian Bar Association, issued a statement yesterday making it clear that he considers the former Iraqi president to have been unlawfully deposed in April, and unlawfully captured by US forces over the weekend.

"The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is the legitimate president of Iraq because the (US-led) occupation does not have any legality," argued Mr Majali.

"The Jordanian Bar Association considers President Saddam Hussein as the head of the resistance to liberate a dear part of our occupied Arab land."

http://www.independent.co.uk/c/?ec=500

Former top legal expert, International Committee of the Red Cross

"It's very clear in the Geneva Conventions that they apply to specific people, and to Saddam Hussein as supreme chief of the armed forces, from the moment he is captured and until he is freed,"

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=8193

As for the illegality of bush's invasion, the vast majority of the world's nations have already clearly stated so, as has the UN. Interesting issues under law (in theory) but in practice, the laws won't mean dick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. The United Nations recognises Talabani
The Secretary-General congratulates Mr. Jalal Talabani, as well as Sheikh Ghazi Al-Yawar and Mr. Adil Abdul Mahdi, on their election today by the Transitional National Assembly of Iraq as President and Vice-Presidents of Iraq.

http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2005/db050406.doc...


Annan did say the invasion was illegal, but he considers Talabani to be the President of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. And the UN violated their own Charter.
Like I said, law in theory versus in practice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #97
101. What provision of their charter did they violate?
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 03:04 PM by geek tragedy
Plese cite the specific provision that prohibits such a recognition.

Also, please name five members of the UN who still recognize Saddam as the legitimate Iraqi head of state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #97
104. How does recognising Talabani as president
violate the UN Charter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #104
112. The entire debacle has been one violation after another
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 05:27 PM by LynnTheDem
from the invasion to the occupation to the interim govt and Bremer's "100 Rules" (a gross violation of the Charter) to the election in Iraq; elections must be 'possible, fair and reasonable'. Under martial law, under occupation, with a raging war making it impossible for many citizens to vote, and voting for secret ballots, all under election rules set up by the occupiers, namely Bremer and his CPA.

1907 Hague Convention;

The 1907 Hague Convention, the basic law governing the conduct of occupying powers, expressly prohibits the occupiers from imposing any permanent changes in the form of government and laws of the occupied territory.

Article 43, which stipulates that an occupying power must re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Geneva Conventions;

Article 54 reads: The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience.

Gee, bush and his CPA sure f*cked with that one, didn't they.

So the election violated the 1907 Hague Convention and the Geneva Accord; the UN sanctioning the election and results is a violation of the UN Charter.

Law in theory versus law in practice.

Edit to add; article by international law expert Sabah Al Mukhtar
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ARB501A.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. So, the Nazi party were the legitimate rulers of Germany in 1946?
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 05:16 PM by geek tragedy
Those treaty provisions don't have the legal effect you think they do.

And those aren't provisions of the UN charter. And that's a FACT.

And they don't limit the UN:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3505.ht...

In fact, the UN Security Council authorized these actions, making them legally effective.


It's true that the US and UK, as occupying powers, couldn't say that Saddam's regime was history.

But the Security Council and community of nations did just that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #92
95. The Jordanian Bar Association is NOT a legal authority.
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 02:24 PM by geek tragedy
They are merely a collection of private citizens with their own opinions. Just like the Federalist Society, DU, and the Free Republic. They have no power or authority to determine who is the legitimate leader of Iraq. They are not an international treaty body. They aren't an Iraqi political or legal body. They're not even Iraqis.

Their opinion of Saddam's legitimacy is irrelevant.

The second article merely discusses Saddam's status as a POW, which is based on his PAST authority. It says nothing about his current claim to legitimacy and authority.


The FACT remains that no legal rule or legal authority support the proposition that Saddam is the legitimate head of state in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #53
80. I think this misses the point.
The standard for whether or not a head of state is legitimate is surely whether or not they have a democratic mandate from their own state, not whether or not the international commmunity recognises them?

If this were not the case, anyone who organised an invasion, conquered a country and declared themself dictator would be legitimate if they could get the international community to recognise them.

Besides, Saddam loses either way. Whether legitimacy is a function of democratic mandate or international recognition, Saddam doesn't have it and the new regime does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #80
81. Legitimate can mean different things in different contexts.
Under international law, recognition is pretty much the ballgame for legitimacy. This can largely be traced to the fact that international law is primarily the law governing relations between sovereigns. If the other states recognize the local authorities as legitimate, those local authorities are in the club, so to speak.

As a matter of political philosophy, legitimacy generally means whether the governed recognize a government as being the rightful authority. A monarchy, for instance, can be legitimate if the populace in general supports the rule by monarch.

It just so happens that Saddam lacks ANY vestige of legitimacy in any context whatsoever--inside or outside of Iraq.

The only folks claiming he is the legitimate leader of Iraq are his hardcore supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. That last point is not entirely fair, I think.

People like the OP are presumably not hardcore supporters of Saddam; they're harcore opponents of Bush who make the mistake of assuming that the enemy of the enemy is their friend, and are more concerned with bashing Bush than with factual accuracy.

"...His hardcore supporters and fools" would possibly be fairer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #82
83. I don't distinguish the motives of those who line up to support
fascists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. Or they're dealing with fact of law, rather than personal opinion.
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 12:05 PM by LynnTheDem
You should check out a few international law boards and read up on the facts under law.

As for "hardcore supporters", sadly some posters are incapable of unemotional thinking.

IF Hussein was tried at the Hague, and IF he was found guilty, and IF the penalty was death, I'd flip the switch myself.

But I believe in "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" for EVERYONE on this planet, with every fibre of my being.

I also believe in the rule of law and international law. Opinions and how we think/want things to be are not always how things are in law.

And if these beliefs of mine cause some emotional narrow-minded individuals to equate them with "hardcore supporters", that's a shame and a pity for them, not for me. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. Your opinion is not a legal fact.
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 12:12 PM by geek tragedy
You frequent Internet boards that talk about international law? Big fucking deal. I have a J.D. from the premier school for international law in the Western hemisphere, if not the world.

You have provided zero support for your wild claim that a legitimate head of state who loses power because of an illegal act automatically retains his status as legitimate head of state, regardlesso of what happens afterwards.

The international community does not recognize Saddam as the legitimate head of Iraq. Under international law, he therefore lacks the current status as the legitimate leader of Iraq.

The Iraqi people do not recognize Saddam as the legitimate head of their country. Therefore, he is not the legitimate leader of Iraq under any kind of Iraqi law.

You provide nothing but unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims on behalf of Saddam.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #80
99. It should be so, it would be nice if it were so, but it isn't so.
Ask Pakistan's president...or any one of dozens of unelected leaders around the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. All of whom are recognized by the UN and the international community
of nations.

Unlike Saddam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #42
106. Wait a minute......
...I thought WE installed Hussein via the CIA?

Does that mean the Shah of Iran was legit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-05 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
43. hardly
Saddam came to power when he was Vice President and his uncle who was President resigned. He then held on through sham elections. So he was never more legitimate than Musharraf or any other leader who took power through a coup.

So while the current government is not exactly legitimate, he's not either. And I doubt there's a single country on earth that recognizes him as head of state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fescue4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
71. Except that he himself took it by force
No He's not the legitmate head of state in Iraq.

Like it or not, in matters of war and international affairs, Might does make Right, and it has done so for the last 100,000 years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
78. Nonsense.

Is has been many, many years since Saddam Hussein had any form of legitimate democratic mandate; he's been forced to rely on blatantly rigged referendums where 99% of the population appear to support him. There may be a lot of things wrong with the current president, but he has a far stronger claim to the title of "legitimate head of state" than Saddam has had for a long time.

I'm afraid this is a classic example of letting your agenda blind you, and it's also the kind of extremist crank attitude that lends an awful lot of ammunition to people who want to dismiss DU as mothing but a load extremist cranks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
79. Is "legitimate" the question?
He's the only person who ever actually managed to rule Iraq. He might somehow end up ruling it again. Iraq is the problem, not the person. We are becoming him by trying to rule it. You think the rape rooms aren't open again? This is how Iraq gets governed.

I've always maintained that the US government (Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, Lincoln, no matter who's prez) would do EVERYTHING Saddam did if it faced the internal threats he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adwon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
84. Was the legitimate head
His claims ended the day he was taken into custody, regardless of legality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
96. Since the invasion was illegal, you are correct
And if I were an Iraqi woman, I would be mighty pissed right now. Not that the dude was a friend to anyone but himself, but at least women had the right to work wherever they chose and to worship however they chose.

I abhor this administration and what they have done to these people. My greatest wish presently is that the screams of all the babies in Iraq and New Orleans will torment Dumbya every day of his nasty little life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #96
98. A whole lot of Iraqi women are pissed right now.
They're so screwed. The Talebornagain must be thrilled though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. It's so sad, to me.
USA Today ran a story this weekend claiming Iraq's Constitution was a positive step for **. And I'm thinking WTF? I wish all of the women who support ** would move to their new and improved Iraq.

And the way this administration has ignored the rights of women in Iraq tells us something about the way they'd want thinks for women in the US if they could make it happen. Very scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. What, that they can now be stoned to death for adultery? This is GOOD?
This is a POSITIVE step???

Did they not ghear about all the Iraqi women's associations speak out against the "constitution"???

Did they not hear al Sistani's spokesman say stoning to death is the only possible penalty for adulterous women???

WTF???

Taleban is back in government in Afghanistan. They still stone women to death under law. But hey, they can only use SMALL STONES now.

Gee there's a POSITIVE STEP.

I give up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #102
108. I hear ya, Sis
It's bullshit.

We've made things so much worse for a whole lot of people who did NOTHING to us.

If all the fundyfucks think this is a good thing, I have to say I give up as well. There is no hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
105. I agree
If the invasion was illegal then so was everything done after it.

If we start arresting leaders for what their military did then count our leader in also. The World sees their hypocricy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jzodda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
114. That is the Chinese Position
The Chinese gov states that because it was not authorized by the UN security council it was illegal interference in the internal affairs of another country.

I disagree with that interpretation of International law in some ways and I agree with it in other ways. I do think that in this day and age for any military action that comes from without and not within it must be cleared first by the UN security council. The problem is an old one though. Superpowers like the USA, or Britain before us and going back all the way to Rome do not usually like to nor feel they need to listen to what other states say with regards to international affairs. For us, the founders of the UN, you would think in the end we would show more respect for the concept but in the end we have shown that the UN is little more than a tool.When we need it we embrace it and then disregard it when we do not. Someday I hope we will come to embrace the UN- the gulf war of 1991 was what I thought to be the beginning of that but I was wrong.

Now this in no way is an endorsement of Saddam Hussein. He took power in an illegal manner and he was removed the same way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. Half-right about the Chinese position.
The Chinese believe that Saddam was removed illegally.

However, they don't recognize him as the legitimate head of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jzodda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. Correct but I assumed that readers would know that part.
The entire UN general assembly has accepted the new gov as legit. But I assumed that readers here would know that part already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #118
119. Some here think that Saddam is still the legal head of state in Iraq.
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 05:50 PM by geek tragedy
A few are posting in this thread.

The entire international community and the Iraqi people recognize the new government.

But some DU'ers don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #114
117. Well said.
But how telling a state of affairs in this country that in a simple discussion of facts you felt it necessary to point out that you're not a "Saddam lover". The rightwingnuttery (and others) have done a remarkable job at making us feel we either can't discuss entire areas of facts, or we must post a disclaimer whenever we do.

By the time bush's "war on terra" preventive wars are over there will be very little areas of discussion allowed us other than Nascar, reality tv and Happy Meals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jzodda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #117
120. Well emotion and logic are not always so easily separated
I exclaim my hatred for Saddam at the end because its how I feel deep down. Even the thought of somebody thinking I like him or his rule forces me to include that proviso.

You see back in 1991 I was a 3rd year college student at California State University Long beach. A young man from Basra, Iraq was a student there and lived in my apartment building. He also was a history major and in a few classes of mine. We struck up a brief friendship.

In 1993 when he returned to Iraq he was shot and killed by some of Saddam's henchmen for being part of some Shiite Pride organization. Another member of that organization spoke out against the gov who happened to be my friend's cousin. Because of that my friend was taken by the baath party thugs and beaten, shot and buried in a shallow grave 10 miles outside the city.

So my hatred goes deep, and logic and emotion are not so easily separated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. That's awful. People often treat victims of wars and dictatorships
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 05:53 PM by geek tragedy
like they're statistics instead of human beings.

We should never lose our humanity when considering such matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. Very true.
Yours is obviously a different situation.

But for 9 out of 10 Americans they feel the need to post a disclaimer because they've been made to feel they must. Can't discuss facts without posting that disclaimer or you get treated the way some DUers treat me. That re-enforces the fear; "if you don't issue a disclaimer or if you post any facts I don't like and I will treat you the way I treat Lynn."

I've attended funerals of several friends who died because of bush. I have family Iraqmired because of bush.

But I can discuss bush's policies, such as his NCLB, without feeling any need to post a disclaimer that I do not approve of bush's genocide of the Iraqi people.

People in other nations discussing bush's NCLB would feel the need to post a disclaimer that they aren't a "bush-lover" and don't hold with his genocide.

It's very interesting, watching the demonization that the US and UK are incredibly proficient at.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fight_n_back Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
115. Its Nadar's Fault!!!!
Nadar cost him votes in the Marine Expeditionary Force or he would still be President.

If the Iraqis still considered him leader then he would probably not be on trial.

Maybe its Ray Nagins fault for not evacuating women from the radius around Clinton's penis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
127. This kind of legal hair-splitting is why people hate lawyers.
At some point, some common sense has to intervene.

Saddam no longer has either legitimacy or the illusion of legitimacy.

BTW - The enemy of your enemy is sometimes your enemy too.

Rush has a habit of reading from DU lately. I wonder if he will use this thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #127
131. Note that the one lawyer in this discussion is arguing against the OP. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #131
132. Are you that lawyer?
You, and most DUers have been doing a good job of taking him to task.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #132
133. Yessir (or Yes ma'am) I am. Thanks for the kind words. eom
Edited on Tue Oct-25-05 01:23 PM by geek tragedy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
128. Good goin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 26th 2017, 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC