Was Saddam already a captive before his capture?

>How come you lose all appreciation for

>sarcasm when it comes to one of your sacred cows? That was

>really pretty funny.

Have you read his other posts? I'll bet you that he wasn't joking, and wasn't being sarcastic at all. He thinks that Karl Rove is the undemocratic equivalent of Saddam Hussein.

I've seen this exact equivalency all over the place the last few days. I watched Leslie Stahl interview Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday night and she had the fucking temerity to ask him: "So, are we going to do things to get information from Saddam about WMD's and the insurgency, like torture him?"

He gave one of those extremely meaningful pauses for about 10 seconds that only he can give, and said: "I can't believe those words would even come out of your mouth. The United States of America doesn't torture people."

She asked that because she was confusing Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party with George Bush and the Republican Party, because in her mind - like in the minds of so many here, such as Adam Smith - there is no real difference.

>Have you read his other posts?

Yes. I don’t have a filing cabinet memory like Woodlawn, but I think he’s made jokes in the past. I am just more likely to find them amusing than you.

>I'll bet you that he wasn't joking, and

>wasn't being sarcastic at all. He thinks that

>Karl Rove is the undemocratic equivalent of Saddam Hussein.

Asking “our” side to stop making fun of Karl Rove would be like asking “your” side to stop ridiculing Al Sharpton. It ain’t ever gonna happen and what would be the point? If you can’t ridicule one of the poster boys for the things you don't like, why bother to talk about the other side at all?

RE:Catholic Cardinal: Compassion for Saddam

Oh I guess I forgot that targeted assasinations and other assorted extra-judicial killings of people neither charged with a crime, nor tried for a crime does not constitute capital punishment. Is that what they teach you in your night school paralegal course?

RE:Catholic Cardinal: Compassion for Saddam

>Well, of course they were checking his teeth! With all those

>body doubles, the only way to be sure it's really him would be

>to check his teeth and also take a DNA sample (commonly done

>by swabbing the inside of the cheek).

Ok, but did that have to be televised in violation of the Geneva Convention? I am sure they did a rectal exam too, did you want to see that also?

RE:Catholic Cardinal: Compassion for Saddam

you're correct: they do not amount to capital punishment. that term isn't applied to military actions in defence of the state. nice try though, axe/lamensonge/adrian.

RE:Catholic Cardinal: Compassion for Saddam

yes, please!

:9

RE:Catholic Cardinal: Compassion for Saddam

>you're correct: they do not amount to

>capital punishment. that term isn't applied to military

>actions in defence of the state.

Hmmh, I wonder if Amnesty International would agree with you, Oren? And I wonder if the UN agrees with you as well, Oren?

RE:Catholic Cardinal: Compassion for Saddam

neither is a state, so neither can "make" international law. nice try, adrian.

RE:Catholic Cardinal: Compassion for Saddam

stuff-up = fuck-up = schemozzle = screwup = snafu = etc etc etc. Does that make it clearer what the old saying means?

And may I repeat that I do not believe the capture of Saddam Hussein was a stuffup or any of its synonyms, but a triumph. I was merely making the point that conspiracy theories are usually improbable because human beings aren't generally capable of making very complicated schemes work successfully, nor at keeping their success a secret.

RE:Catholic Cardinal: Compassion for Saddam

>neither is a state, so neither can

>"make" international law. nice try, adrian.

The UN can't make international law? Interesting. Where are you pursuing your paralegal studies again? Are you repeating the term because of your another nocturnal pursuits?

RE:Catholic Cardinal: Compassion for Saddam

no, it can't. it is the states-members of the UN that make law, not the organisation itself. the members give the organisation only those powers and abilities that they CHOOSE to give it. it can usurp none for itself.

>Have you read his other posts? I'll bet you that he wasn't

>joking, and wasn't being sarcastic at all. He thinks that

>Karl Rove is the undemocratic equivalent of Saddam Hussein.

No hard feelings that you didn't find it funny. Doubtless neither the Church nor Michael Jackson are amused by pedophile jokes these days.

Trying to be funny about Bush & Co. makes me think of Tom Lehrer. Early in Reagan's first term someone asked him why, with all the great material around, he wasn't writing political satire songs any more. He answered that being asked to write on current subjects made him feel like "a resident of Pompeii who has been asked for some humorous comments on lava."

>No hard feelings that you didn't find it funny.

So are you saying that you don't think comparing Saddam Hussein to Karl Rove in terms of their anti-democratic inclinations is a fair comparision, and that you weren't seriously comparing them, but instead, were just joking?

>Trying to be funny about Bush & Co. makes me think of Tom

>Lehrer. Early in Reagan's first term someone asked him why,

>with all the great material around, he wasn't writing

>political satire songs any more. He answered that being asked

>to write on current subjects made him feel like "a resident of

>Pompeii who has been asked for some humorous comments on

>lava."

I'm seriously interested in knowing - how does it make you feel that this President, whom you think is such a huge disaster, is so popular? Do you tell yourself that this is because you're really smart and most people are really stupid and so can't see what you see, or is that you're really good and pure and selfless and most people are selfish and mean-spirited and so don't care about the right values the way you do?

What is it that you tell yourself about what must be the very weird cognitive dissonance for you - seeing that the Administration which you believe is unspeakably evil is so popular among the citizens which it governs and appears quite likely to be re-elected.

RE: Tutoring a fool again....

Yes, but when those members pass resolutions of that body, such resolutions can become elements of pubic international law, and when interpreted by its senior officials can even be considered to be part of customary international law. Perhaps, if you give up your night job, you might get to that chapter in the text. BTW, customary international law can also be built around the views expressed by respected jurists associated with civil society organizations such as Amnesty International.

RE: Tutoring a fool again....

pull your head out of your ass, brush the sand out of your eyes, and read byers.

>I'm seriously interested in knowing - how does it make you

>feel that this President, whom you think is such a huge

>disaster, is so popular? Do you tell yourself that this is

>because you're really smart and most people are really stupid

>and so can't see what you see, or is that you're really good

>and pure and selfless and most people are selfish and

>mean-spirited and so don't care about the right values the way

>you do?

I know you didn’t ask me, but…

What did you tell yourself when Clinton’s popularity was high and he was re-elected? Were these same people stupid then, but suddenly got smart?

Let’s face it, there is a large chunk of the population who really aren’t all that bright. If there were a test that had to be taken before you could vote, and you had to demonstrate a basic understanding of government and current affairs, a great many people would fail horribly.

You really should have been living in California during the recall debacle. I know the broadcasters like to show the ignorant comments, but these people actually had to make those comments first in order to become fodder for the nightly news. I can’t tell you how many people admitted they were going to vote for Arnold because he was the Terminator.

I’ll be polite and not call these folks morons, but let’s just say that these ‘border line’ people are probably spread pretty evenly across both Parties. They coexist along with better informed, more intelligent people who have come to their liberal or conservatives convictions through an actual thought process that is not as easily swayed. It’s great to be in the majority and increase the likelihood that your political agenda will prevail, but just because you have the border lines along with you at the moment, it is certainly no indication of the “rightness” of your views.

RE:Catholic Cardinal: Compassion for Saddam

>Ok, but did that have to be televised in violation of the

>Geneva Convention?

A) I'm not aware that televising a captive violates the Geneva Conventions. In fact, I don't think they even HAD television when the Geneva Conventions came into being.

B) It's not clear, in any event, that the Geneva Conventions apply to Saddam. He's not been classified as a POW or even as a war criminal. He's in the custody of the U.S. right now, but his status is unclear, except that right now it looks like he'll be tried by an Iraqi court as a human rights criminal. I have no idea what Iraqi law says about photographing or televised captured criminals, but I assume that since Saddam is Iraqi, he was captured in Iraq, is being held in Iraq, and is to be tried by an Iraqi court, that Iraqi law will apply. Saddam is probably going to be sorry about some of the laws he put on the books! Funny how things like that have a way of coming around and biting one on the ass!

Oh, and your "eye for an eye" remark? You've just revealed an ignorance of Jewish law and teaching so abysmal that you've forfeited any last shred of credibility you might have had. Any real "expert" in law, as you claim to be, knows that passage has NEVER been interpreted literally in Jewish law. It has always been understood to stand for the proposition that justice/punishment should be proportionate to the loss/crime. In other words, if you lose a tooth, you receive compensation for a tooth, not for the loss of an eye, or the loss of a life.

RE:Catholic Cardinal: Compassion for Saddam

>>Ok, but did that have to be televised in violation of the

>>Geneva Convention?

>

>A) I'm not aware that televising a captive violates the

>Geneva Conventions. In fact, I don't think they even HAD

>television when the Geneva Conventions came into being.

I just love it when the failed paralegal, and the failing night school paralegal student opine on questions of law. The issue has to do with treating prisoners with dignity and not subjecting them to public ridicule or humiliation. What would the Pentagon say if dental exams of U.S. POWs were televised on Al Jazerah? You reap what you sowe, but unfortunately it is not the little zionist chickenhawks who will pay the price, rather it will be some poor white trash or some Black or Hispanic soldier fighting for a college education or a green card more than some foolish imperial middle eastern occupation.

>What did you tell yourself when Clinton’s popularity was high

>and he was re-elected? Were these same people stupid then,

>but suddenly got smart?

No, I understood why Clinton's popularity was high. He was a competent President (and superb politician and speaker) who presided over enormous economic propserity (thanks primarily to the Internet) and never allowed ideology to infect his governing. Clinton generally did a good job as President and that's why he was popular - along with the fact that his enemies were so rabid and disgusting and consumed with ugly hatreed that they drove fence-setters into his arms, just as Bush's enemies are doing now.

It's one thing for a politician that you dislike to be popular; that's understandable. But when you believe that a President is destroying the country, turning it into a fascist state; is stupid, dishonest and thieving -- and yet that same President enjoys enormous popularity among the citizens, this dissonance must be incredibly infuriating to his haters, which is causing them to act in more and more irrational and self-destructive ways.

>Let’s face it, there is a large chunk of the population who

>really aren’t all that bright. If there were a test that had

>to be taken before you could vote, and you had to demonstrate

>a basic understanding of government and current affairs, a

>great many people would fail horribly.

This may be true, but I don't think people need to be able to recite the latest bills to pass Congress or foreign policy disputes with perfect English in order to participate in our democracy. People, even those who are uneducated or not terribly bright (I don't mean outright stupid; I mean being on this side of Taylor), have an intuitive sense of right and wrong that enables them, effectively, to know which leaders are good and which ones aren't.

>You really should have been living in California during the

>recall debacle. I know the broadcasters like to show the

>ignorant comments, but these people actually had to make those

>comments first in order to become fodder for the nightly news.

> I can’t tell you how many people admitted they were going to

>vote for Arnold because he was the Terminator.

I'm not sure that's so stupid. California's state government seemed to need a huge explosion - something totally different and unique to shake things up. If that meant electing a macho-acting, adventure-hero Austrian bodybuilding actor - who, by the way, has been profoundly successful in everything he did - so be it. From what I can tell, Arnold is taking his job quite seriously and is having exactly the effect so far that the people wanted.

People can be highly educated and smart and yet have awful judgment, misguided values, psychological problems that lead them to make wrong decisions. By contrast, less educated and intelligent people can nonetheless have grounded values and common sense, along with an uncorrupted sense of right and wrong. I think it's highly debatable which category of people it would be better to have making political decisions.

"I'm seriously interested in knowing - how does it make you feel that this President, whom you think is such a huge disaster, is so popular? Do you tell yourself that this is because you're really smart and most people are really stupid and so can't see what you see, or is that you're really good and pure and selfless and most people are selfish and mean-spirited and so don't care about the right values the way you do?

What is it that you tell yourself about what must be the very weird cognitive dissonance for you - seeing that the Administration which you believe is unspeakably evil is so popular among the citizens which it governs and appears quite likely to be re-elected."

One of the strengths of the US system is that it has survived many incompetent and downright stupid Presidents. Finding a good one between Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, for example, is a major challenge. Finding one who wasn't corrupt is next to impossible.

And yet the USA survived and prospered. In part it did so because it has one of the lowest levels of government interference in the lives of ordinary citizens of any western nation. This is reflected most strikingly in its tax rate, which is the lowest in the OECD. The ability of stupid governments to interfere in people's lives to a dangerous extent is more limited in the USA than in, say, Sweden.

But it's also because the Founding Fathers, as perhaps their most intelligent afterthought to the Constitution, inserted the Bill of Rights. They recognised that democracy would throw up dangerous populist governments of all political persuasions. Certain fundamental rights needed to be spelled out so that even popular governments couldn't override them.

The Bill of Rights reflects, on the whole, some universal truths about how we should treat people. Those universal truths include a fair trial, an open trial, a trial conducted by your peers, a trial with access to legal counsel, a right not to incriminate yourself, and so on. These rights belong to all people regardless of how nasty, evil or barbaric they may be. If Saddam Hussein had been arrested on US soil, he would be as entitled to these rights as anybody else.

It's a respect for these truths, not mere whims of Presidential popularity from time to time, that makes me angry about the way the US treats detainees at Guantanamo Bay.