Google -- So, you don't believe in the American judicial system, rule of law that one is "innocent until proven guilty?" "Alleged" is what is said until a verdict or confession is entered in a court of law.
You, my friend, are also an idiot. GWB did say that Saddam tried to kill is daddy, and used it as one of the reasons why a war was needed.
Posted by Marie at December 9, 2005 11:16 AMI'd agree with Google above.
Bush allegedly marched us to war in part because Saddam tried to kill his daddy.
Just like Bush allegedly got elected president in 2000.
Posted by Tim at December 9, 2005 11:16 AMGoogle - would that be like torture is okay if not in American prisons on American soil?
Get a grip. Saddam is on trial for specific crimes committed two decades ago. Crimes alledged to have been committed in response to an assassination attempt on him. I just find it amusing that these charges are the best the US directed court could come up with to try Saddam on. Do I doubt that Saddam would have ordered his men to take action against those that tried to assassinate him? No. Do I doubt that his men tortured and killed those they rounded up? No. The question is can it be established that Saddam ordered this torturing and killing? It can he use the "few bad apples" in his troops defense.
Where did I accuse GWB of a crime in this piece? I thought it was stupid that he was out there in front of the country saying, "he tried to kill my daddy," because the evidence for it was lousy. But if this country wants to wage wars to get even for an alledged failed assassination, it's not a crime.
I'm I'm still open jawed you even consider Saddam innocent. Saddam is definitely not innocent. (you took my use of the "innocent until..." phrase much too literally). Perhaps you missed the sentence in the piece This is why Saddam should be in the dock in the Hague, and not Baghdad, and tried for all his crimes.
However, this piece is only secondarily about Saddam. It's primarily about Fatima, Iraq and us.
Posted by Marie at December 9, 2005 12:03 PMBush & his cronies and Saddam and & cronies all deserve the same fate.
Posted by God Of War at December 9, 2005 01:28 PMFor those that haven't read it, I recommend:
Art, Truth and Politics by Harold Pinter
The Taliban is far worse than the Northern Alliance. Comparison between the two is more like comparing Tom DeLay to Gerald Ford rather than Newt Gingrich. The years the Taliban ruled were nightmarish. Any president, Democrat or Republican, would have invaded Afghanistan once the Mullah refused to hand over Bin Laden. But a Democratic President would have helped rebuild Afghanistan, rather than focus on Iraq.
If you want to see just how bad the Taliban was, see the movie, "Osama" (a movie NOT about bin Laden).
Posted by Herman at December 9, 2005 02:04 PMHerman - only those who lived through and clearly remember both (which doesn't include either you or me) are in a position to make that judgment. From what I've read, it seems as if there is no clear consensus on which was worse. Both were dreadful when in power.
Posted by Marie at December 9, 2005 02:11 PMThe saddest part of that story is the her Father, Mother and Brothers did not want to kill her and could not bring themselves to do it. Fatima told them she had not been raped, but to verify that confession would have meant drawing even more attention to the family. With the family honor at stake, so a Cousin who had just returned from work did the deed.
Posted by Judith at December 9, 2005 08:34 PMHonor killings occurred under Saddam's rule, before he came to power and continue to this day. It isn't just Shia. Sunni Arabs, Turkmen and Kurds all do it too. Iraq is still a tribal society and hasn't changed much in thousands or years. But, this story is suspect. A woman isn't killed for being raped or allegedly raped. She is only killed for having sex willingly before she is married. I'm not saying I agree with it. I am just stating the truth because I have been there and talked to a lot of people from all of the different groups. But it is still optional for the family to kill the woman. More often she is simply hidden at home and lives the rest of her life in the home, not leaving the house. A woman who is not a virgin can't get married as the first wife, not only in Iraq, but in most of the Middle East and Muslim countries. The options they have are to be the second, third or fourth wife or to become prostitutes. Yes, believe it or not, there are prostitutes in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. Also, a man can divorce a woman for no reason, but as woman can't divorce her husband. So, if her husband divorces her she is left with no alimony, no property settlement and no virginity. So, she can't get married again, unless she wants to be the second, third or fourth wife. Most of them end up as prostitutes, girlfriends or living in their families homes, because there are more women than men in Iraq (because of the wars), so men can pick who they want. My point is that we aren't going to create a modern democracy here or anywhere else in the Middle East and I suspect that we don't really care. What we have created is what will end up as three separate countries or autonomous provinces, which will remain unchanged for the next thousand years.
Posted by Harry at December 9, 2005 09:09 PM