Poor, poor Saddam

WAVING a finger and pounding his desk, Saddam Hussein has told the judges in his trial to "go to hell" and vowed not to return to court.

I noted on TV last night that the judge said the trial would go on without Saddam if necessary. Some legal reader may enlighten me here...how on earth does Saddam have a choice as to whether he attends or not.

I would've thought he would be dragged off to court every day it sat.

I also note Saddam has redefined terrorism. Not for him the old definitions of terrorism that included beheading of innocents, blowing up woman and children and police on duty.

Oh no, Saddam now complains that;

... he and the seven other defendants were tired and had been deprived of opportunities to shower, have a change of clothes, exercise or go for a smoke.

"This is terrorism," he declared.

It would appear he has caught the bug that affects his supporters in the Left. Anything can be defined as terrorism, just like torture.

Change the rules to suit the arguement.

10 comments

  • Amusing that a mass murderer like Saddam is allowed to go to trial yet David Hicks isn’t afforded the same luxury. I mean, if David Hicks is a POW (in the War On Terror…. who exactly is the enemy again ? Will it be over when Osama Bin Laden is captured ?) presumably so too is Saddam (I mean… the war is still going on over there isn’t it ? or is it ?). Yet this evil viscious and disgraceful tyrant gets to go to trial and the Adelaide bong smoker sits in Cuba. What an absolute disgrace ! ! ! The hypocrisy of the Right on David Hicks must be bought to account

  • I sure lefty Lawyers would luv to have all POW’s represented, Barry Bones. But not many look forward to the return of the Black Plague.

  • Gary – If you choose not to address the issues surrounding David Hicks I understand. The problem for the right (which you’d have to agree with) is that with the Government ignoring this bong smoker from Adelaide, and letting him rot in a Cuban gaol without justice, one has a rallying point for the left which might just come back to haunt Howard, especially should the trail process be found illegitimate.

    This treatment is inhuman. You know it. I know it, and Kev knows it. How can he be such a dangerous figure as to be underserving of trial. I find peadophiles and perverts more of a threat to community, yet even these monsters are afforded more justice than David Hicks. How does that sit with you ?

  • Barry, While Hicks fate might rally the left, I doubt it would win them the broad support of the rest of Australia. Do you really think a terrorist is going to earn more sympathy with the general community than a drug smuggler could, regardless of who tried to dress him up as a saint.

  • Barry Bones:
    How is his treatment inhuman? He was captured as an un-uniformed combatant. Are you aware of what his status is under the Geneva Conventions? He qualifies as a spy. He has no protection whatever. The Coalition would be well within their rights to summarily execute him. He should count himself lucky that he is in the hands of the Americans.

    His latest complaint of “torture” is that he was offered the services of a prostitute. Now is this the best that they can offer? The enemy saws off heads on video and Hicks is plied with prostitutes. Get a grip!!

  • Come on guys. He was captured guarding a tank by Northern Alliance troops. You know that’s the truth so cut the whole “he’s a terrorist crap”. You know its a lie ! Anyway, he’s a bong head who smoked pot in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, and now he’s some master terrorist. To suggest he is now some James Bond spuy is hillarious…. Are you for real ? And the latest complaint as I recall involved getting things showed up his arse. Do you condone anal rape ? How would you react to an Australian soldier being anally raped by Iraqi’s ?

  • If he was guarding a tank then he was an armed combatant who undertook trining at a terrorist camp/s. His superiors are not signatories to the Geneva convention and therefore not covered by it. Being a dickhead is not a defence. He has sided with the enemy and therefore must suffer the consequences. So far any allegations by Hicks on torture are purely hearsay. Calling him a naughty boy and sending him home just won’t cut it. He has been there for so long because of protracted legal battles by others and himself. The US has awaited the outcome of challenges by others that may affect Hicks and his upcoming trial something that you would never have got under the regimes that he fought beside and with. Do you honestly believe that if he was fronted by Australian troops that he would tell his Taliban mates sorry I can’t shoot at them. It is you that is unreal (have you shared a pipe in the past with Hicks?).

  • Thats an extrondinary extrapolation. Guard tank = terrorist training. Does that mean anyone who guards a tank has undergone terrorist training ? Obviously not. Its a mornic thing to say that said, I do acknowledge he trained at an Al-Qaeda camp. Ironic that when he admits to training at a camp, you take his words as truth, yet when he admits to torture, he’s obviously a liar. Can’t have it both ways !

    By the way, I doubt the Taliban follow the Geneva convention, yet the reason the US has gone to Guantanamo (and they openly admit this) is so they are not bound by the Geneva convention either. So who really has the higher moral ground ? And once again, if he was Taliban, as they were (whether we like them or not) the rulers in Afganistan, he is simply a soldier from the other side. If he saw an Aussie soldier he would probably shoot at them. If an Aussie soldier saw him, I guess they’d shoot as well. Who is more moral ? Yes punish him. But surely the process by which he is to be punished must follow standard principles of justice. Try not to be so punitive in your outlook (you might need a dictionary for that word) and so viscious in your hatred for this bong smoker from Adelaide.

  • Barry Bones

    He confided to he mother in an Email that he trained at an Al-Qaeda camp. Do you expect a rapist confession to be dismiss because they denied it previously?

    And Al-Qaeda don’t train social workers they train terrorist.

  • In the first place I did not link guarding a tank with terrorist training. He guarded a tank and therefore was armed, hence he is an armed combatant. As you admit yourself he has admitted his terrorist training and so has his father, this is documented in letters he has written to his family and witnesses. As previously stated the torture is purely hearsay at present. I have not called him a liar to date but the facts so far do not back him up (there is a difference). The US **is not bound** by the Geneva convention with regard to the people they have locked up in Guantanamo and if you read it you will understand why. Comparisons of morals has no place here as no matter how small his role maybe he is with the enemy. Do I hate Hicks? Personally I don’t give a toss about him, I neither like or dislike him. He is responsible for his actions and must abide the consequences of those actions. You seem to have come to a lot of between the lines messages from my last post that are pure conjecture on your part. Regardless what is your fixation with him being a bong smoker from Adelaide? Is it that he is a bong smoker or a crow eater that you cast such disparaging adjectives? Personally it is the crow eater that I object to.