On Saturday I documented some ways that the Special Iraqi Criminal Tribunal—the extra-judicial Tribunal under which Saddam Hussein was convicted—was a sham. The root of the problem is that the U.S., while acting as an occupying power, needed to create the Tribunal for ideological reasons: to avoid the International Criminal Court so despised by Bush, and to ensure that capital punishment would be on the menu. The Tribunal was a sham in numerous ways:
- The Tribunal was created by an occupying power, which is prohibited by long-standing treaties and conventions
- The Tribunal’s process was an American style adversary-accusatorial system rather than an Iraqi style inquisitorial system (modeled after French law)
- The Tribunal’s charges were in violation of the nullum crimen legal principle (and Article 19 of the Iraqi Constitution)
- The implementation of the tribunal included numerous procedural flaws like an indictment issued seven months into the trial
My point wasn’t to defend Hussein. Rather, I argued that the U.S. and Iraqis, in prosecuting a dictator for his abuse of judicial power, should have taken the moral and legal high ground, and set an example for the world of good democracy. The prosecution of Hussein should have been unimpeachable—not for Hussein’s sake, but for the sake of restoring some credibility for American democracy (you know, after illegally invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses) and to empirically establish legitimacy for the new Iraqi government.
So, we missed that badly needed opportunity.
Today’s New York Times further documents illegitimacy in carrying out the sentence:
The American role extended beyond providing the helicopter that carried Mr. Hussein home. Iraqi and American officials who have discussed the intrigue and confusion that preceded the decision late on Friday to rush Mr. Hussein to the gallows have said that it was the Americans who questioned the political wisdom—and justice—of expediting the execution, in ways that required Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to override constitutional and religious precepts that might have assured Mr. Hussein a more dignified passage to his end.
Uh-huh. The U.S. government had concerns and questions about what was going on. But, in the end, they handed over Hussein anyway.
That works for me about as well as the excuse “but…but…but, Your Honor, I really did have concerns and questions about the legitimacy of robbing that bank….”
One political concern was realized during the execution. A video of the hanging showed an…
…unruly, mocking atmosphere in the execution chamber.
This continued, on the video, through the actual hanging itself, with a shout of “The tyrant has fallen! May God curse him!” as Mr. Hussein hung lifeless, his neck snapped back and his glassy eyes open.
The cacophony from those gathered before the gallows included a shout of “Go to hell!” as the former ruler stood with the noose around his neck in the final moments, and his riposte, barely audible above the bedlam, which included the words “gallows of shame.” It continued despite appeals from an official-sounding voice, possibly Munir Haddad, the judge who presided at the hanging, saying, “Please no! The man is about to die.”
The Shiites who predominated at the hanging began a refrain at one point of “Moktada! Moktada! Moktada!”— the name of a volatile cleric whose private militia has spawned death squads that have made an indiscriminate industry of killing Sunnis — appending it to a Muslim imprecation for blessings on the Prophet Muhammad. “Moktada,” Mr. Hussein replied, smiling contemptuously. “Is this how real men behave?”
Of course, the issue isn’t about dignity for Hussein. The concern was that by coming off as a Shi’ite lynch mob, the execution further contributes to the sectarian divide in Iraq. It will fuel the civil war. It will translate into more dead and maimed Iraqis and U.S. soldiers. And that Hussein came off as dignified in the face of a lynch mob is a symbolic failure for the U.S. in “fostering democracy” in the Mideast.
The U.S. was correct when it…
…counseled caution in the way the Iraqis carried out the hanging. The issues uppermost in the Americans’ minds, these officials said, were a provision in Iraq’s new Constitution that required the three-man presidency council to approve hangings, and a stipulation in a longstanding Iraqi law that no executions can be carried out during the Id al-Adha holiday, which began for Iraqi Sunnis on Saturday and Shiites on Sunday.
It was Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki who pushed for an immediate execution. The largest snag for Maliki was that, by the Iraq constitution, he needed
…a decree from President Jalal Talabani, signed jointly by his two vice presidents, upholding the death sentence, and a letter from the chief judge of the Iraqi High Tribunal, the court that tried Mr. Hussein, certifying the verdict. But Mr. Talabani, a Kurd, made it known that he objected to the death penalty on principle.
Rather than adhering to the Iraqi constitution and law, Maliki developed a work-around.
The Maliki government spent much of Friday working on legal mechanisms to meet the American demands. From Mr. Talabani, they obtained a letter saying that while he would not sign a decree approving the hanging, he had no objections. The Iraqi official said Mr. Talabani first asked the tribunal’s judges for an opinion on whether the constitutional requirement for presidential approval applied to a death sentence handed down by the tribunal, a special court operating outside Iraq’s main judicial system. The judges said the requirement was void.
Apparently, everyone was willing to be convinced by the Tribunal judges who opined that the legislation creating the Tribunal (Law No. 10, passed on 9 Oct 2005) took precedence over Article 70 of the Iraqi constitution that requires the President to “[r]atify death sentences issued by the competent courts.” But, the Tribunal cannot override the Constitution; Article 92 prohibits “Special or exceptional courts.”
Without presidential ratification, the hanging violated the clear rule of law (as codified in the Iraqi constitution). It really was a lynching.
The fact that Iraqi law prohibits executions on holidays was never fully addressed. Instead, the Iraqis used simple psychological tricks on us to secure Hussein:
‘Who is going to execute him, anyway, you or us?’ The Americans replied by saying that obviously, it was the Iraqis who would carry out the hanging. So the Iraqis said, ‘This is our problem and we will handle the consequences. If there is any damage done, it is we who will be damaged, not you.’”
To this, the Iraqis added what has often been their trump card in tricky political situations: they telephoned officials of the marjaiya, the supreme religious body in Iraqi Shiism, composed of ayatollahs in the holy city of Najaf. The ayatollahs approved.
It is untrue that there would be no damage to the U.S. The U.S. needed the trial and execution of Hussein to be above reproach. There is only one way that the U.S. can achieve something resembling a “victory” in Iraq, and that would be to leave behind a functioning democracy.
Instead, we have replaced a lawless Sunni dictator with a lawless Shi’ite theocracy. And Iraq is led by a Prime Minister who has now committed one of the crimes that Hussein was guilty of: a lawless execution.
And to what end? What difference would it have made if Hussein’s execution had to wait for a week or wait for several years until a new President was elected?
None of the Iraqi officials were able to explain why Mr. Maliki had been unwilling to allow the execution to wait.
[…]But the explanation may have lain in something that Bassam al-Husseini, a Maliki aide closely involved in arrangements for the hanging, said to the BBC later. Mr. Husseini, who has American citizenship, described the hanging as “an Id gift to the Iraqi people.”
Hey, well, you know…whatever it takes for Happy Holidays.
I’m in charge.
Alexander Haig
Is it really any wonder, that the very same people who pulled the marionette strings on Ford, are doing the same for W? And given their need to coverup their behaviors over more than three decades, killing off yet another puppet to keep the international courts quiet, is SOP. It would be a real bummer for them to have some war crimes prosecutors in the Hague call Saddam as a witness against Rumsfeld. That was not an acceptable alternative. Nor will W leave office without pardoning the whole crew one more time. Can you say Elliot Abrams?
Excellent post, Darryl.
Geez, spyder, you are truly paranoid.
Persistent calls from the left, here and in Europe, to put Saddam back in power as the only means of stability, had to have an influence on the swiftness of this action. Maliki doesn’t strike me as a strong arm despot, only a man in charge for the present. The fact that he found loopholes rather than just did the deed speaks volumes.
Justice in the middle east, except for Israel, is a brutal thing. This event has troublesome aspects, but is popularly supported by the Iraqis and had the semblance of a transparent act. If we can keep the Syrians and Iranians out of the country, the Iraqis might just have a chance to get their own country running again.
Of course, if we cut and run, all bets are off and the Kurds are toast. Their blood will be on the hands of all of you lefties advocating that we get out now.
Did the iraqis oppose the hanging of this man? Where their protest’s in the streets?
From the info I am seen, it appears the people of this country seemed relieved by his demise.
Only the left of THIS country seem upset……
Janet @ 4
“Persistent calls from the left, here and in Europe, to put Saddam back in power as the only means of stability, had to have an influence on the swiftness of this action.”
Holy crap, Janet. Do you just make up this fantasy shit, or are you just extremely gullible? I mean, I read some satire like that, but there was no seriously considered proposals to that effect.
There was no threat whatsoever that Hussein would be put into power. I’ve found no credible sources suggesting that Malaki was concerned about Hussein being reinstated as President of Iraq.
Man…this comes close to being the wackiest, wingnuttiest thing you have ever said here.
“The fact that he found loopholes rather than just did the deed speaks volumes.”
Ummm…you seem to misunderstand. Malaki did not find loopholes. The execution violated both Iraqi domestic law and their constitution.
None of the actions by Malaki got around domestic law or the constitution. Where do you get this shit from???
“If we can keep the Syrians and Iranians out of the country, the Iraqis might just have a chance to get their own country running again.”
Uh-huh. More wingnut fiction. To become a functioning democracy, the Iraqis need to (1) quit killing themselves, and (2) establish and follow the rule of law.
“Of course, if we cut and run, all bets are off”
There are many opinions on that, but what we do know (empirically) is that “staying the course” will not get Iraq out of the quagmire they are now in—no matter how you try to spin it.
Kiroking @ 5,
“Did the iraqis oppose the hanging of this man? Where their protest’s in the streets?”
There were, but it hardly matters. That’s not the point.
“Only the left of THIS country seem upset……”
So…I take it that you approve of the U.S. pissing away a fucking half-trillion dollars, killing 3,000+ U.S. soldiers, and maiming tens of thousands of Americans for the purpose of install a lawless theocracy?
Kiroking @ 5: “Only the left of THIS country seem upset…… ”
The Vatican criticized Saddam’s execution. I don’t think that place is run by aging hippies.
Janet S the blood of 3000 Americans *that we know about* are on your hands because cowards like you and your cowardly children won’t go do their part in Iraq.
If you support our troops – take their place.
Also from the ny times article, and ommited from darryl:
“Told that Mr. Maliki wanted to carry out the death sentence on Mr. Hussein almost immediately, and not wait further into the 30-day deadline set by the appeals court, American officers at the Thursday meeting said that they would accept any decision but needed assurance that due process had been followed before relinquishing physical custody of Mr. Hussein.
“The Americans said that we have no issue in handing him over, but we need everything to be in accordance with the law,” the Iraqi official said. “We do not want to break the law.”
Emily says:
The Vatican criticized Saddam’s execution. I don’t think that place is run by aging hippies.
01/01/2007 at 4:31 pm
The vatican also doesn’t agree with abortions, do you agree with the vatican on everything?
Kirokong @ 10
Your point is? That is, I am wondering how excerpting those three sentences would change the context or intrepertation?
Kiroking @ 11
“The vatican also doesn’t agree with abortions, do you agree with the vatican on everything?”
That’s completely irrelevant. Emily’s vatican example falsified your statement that “Only the left of THIS country seem upset…”
In fact, there are numerous examples of governments, people, and groups unhappy with the execution.
I made it clear that the left here and in Europe are against letting the democratically elected government in Iraq get control of things. They want to sit down and negotiate with those states that are trying their darndest to destabilize the country, Iran and Syria. Baker’s commission said the same thing, which is why it was so roundly dismissed by those who have a brain.
I agree that the Iraqis need to stop killing themselves. But that also means that those outside of the country need to stop sending in money and munitions to allow the minority Sunnis and Baathists from killing the Shiites. The Shiites themselves need to get off the revenge cycle and put their energies toward building a country.
Unfortunately, when all they here is that the new US leaders want us out, then all parties have motivation to kill as many adversaries as possible as quickly as possible.
One must wonder, do Muslims really have the ability to govern themselves in peace? And don’t blame the Jews. That is just so much apologist rhetoric to excuse behavior that has no place in this time and age.
“That’s completely irrelevant. Emily’s vatican example falsified your statement that “Only the left of THIS country seem upset…”
Well let me correct myself then. “the left of THIS country seem upset…”
“The Tribunal was created by an occupying power, which is prohibited by long-standing treaties and conventions.” Which? I’m an attorney with a background in this area and am unaware of these long-standing treaties and conventions or that they would be applicable to Iraq.
“The Tribunal’s process was an American style adversary-accusatorial system rather than an Iraqi style inquisitorial system (modeled after French law).” And the point is what? SH’s lawyers would have been equally unhappy with a magisterial system.
“The Tribunal’s charges were in violation of the nullum crimen legal principle (and Article 19 of the Iraqi Constitution.” This is crap . . . so you can’t prosecute SH because there was no previously existing penal law criminalizing his acts? You can’t be serious.
“The implementation of the tribunal included numerous procedural flaws like an indictment issued seven months into the trial.” Amended complaints aren’t uncommon in many trail systems. This along with you other complaints are flawed.
Janet S @ 14
“I made it clear that the left here and in Europe are against letting the democratically elected government in Iraq get control of things.”
Your original statement did not make that clear. But your are laughably incorrect. In fact, it is righties like you who excuse Iraq when they stoop to an extra-judicial, unconstitutional execution that are, apparently, against Iraq functioning as a real democracy under the rule of law.
“They want to sit down and negotiate with those states that are trying their darndest to destabilize the country, Iran and Syria. Baker’s commission said the same thing, which is why it was so roundly dismissed by those who have a brain.”
Oh…yeah…those goddamn lefties like James Baker. And, um…when was the Baker Commission “so roundly dismissed by those who have a brain?” Mostly, the diplomatic tact was dismissed by the brainless Neocon idiots who created this quagmire in Iraq to begin with.
“One must wonder, do Muslims really have the ability to govern themselves in peace?”
Fuck you, you ignorant bigot. Violence is an affliction of all humans, regardless of race or religion. Your statement suggests that you have no real understanding of the reasons why there is violence in the Middle East (which only accounts for a 20% of the Muslims in the world anyway).
Wow Darryl – what bile from a Lib. Think about this – it was the Realist like Baker that had Rumsfeld shaking hands with SH in the first place (which is much the same as Baker proposes with now with Syria and Iran). Before you call others bigots, reflect that your Lib leadership (Durban, Lamont, et al) have asserted the same thing (that perhaps Arabs/Muslims can govern themselves). I don’t agree with that view, but I don’t often agree with Durban.
FormerExpat @ 16
“I’m an attorney with a background in this area and am unaware of these long-standing treaties and conventions or that they would be applicable to Iraq.”
Special additions to a national judicial system by an occupying power are explicitly prohibited by article 23 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and Convention IV of the Fourth Geneva conventions of 1949. These conventions prohibit occupying powers (i.e. the U.S. at the time) from changing the legal system, changing the status of judges, changing the penal system, changing any tribunals, or even prosecuting anyone for acts committed prior to occupation. Additionally, the Tribunal violateed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that requires fairness, openness, and competence in trials, requires independent and impartial justice, that is conducted by established applicable law. That is, it explicitly prohibits an occupying power from establishing special tribunals and the introduction of a adversary-accusatorial extra-judicial tribunal system over an inquisitorial legal system.
“so you can’t prosecute SH because there was no previously existing penal law criminalizing his acts? You can’t be serious.”
They could have prosecuted Saddam Hussein under existing Iraqi statutes (say…statutes covering murder, kidnapping, theft of property, etc.). They didn’t. The Special Iraqi Criminal Tribunal defined new crimes under Iraqi law: war crime and crimes against humanity. These crimes did not exist under Iraqi law in 2003 when the tribunal was created. The point is, Hussein could have been prosecuted by the ICC for these charges, but not under Iraqi law. Such ex post facto prosecutions are explicitly prohibited under the new and old Iraqi constitutions.
“Amended complaints aren’t uncommon in many trail systems.”
You misunderstand. I did not say that it was an amended complaint. The original indictment was handed down seven months into the trial, and two years after Hussein’s arraignment.
FormerExpat @ 18
“Wow Darryl – what bile from a Lib.”
Huh??? What the hell happened, did you get lost here on your way to Little Green Wingnuts or something?
“Think about this – it was the Realist like Baker that had Rumsfeld shaking hands with SH in the first place (which is much the same as Baker proposes with now with Syria and Iran).”
No…it is very different. Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Hussein not in attempt to foster peace in the Mideast. He was explicitly there to help Iraq in their war against Iran. You know…weapon sales, provisioning Iraq with biological and chemical weapons, etc. The purpose of establishing diplomatic ties with Iran and Syria now is to foster peace in the region.
And, BTW, we quite successfully enlisted assistance from Iran when we went into Afghanistan.
“Before you call others bigots…”
I’ll call anyone a bigot who proclaims that 1/6 of the world’s population is incapable of ruling itself. And, particularly if that person is from a country who has committed recent acts of aggression (i.e. hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis) by invading a country based on a fabricated threat.
24 “Persistent calls from the left, here and in Europe, to put Saddam back in power as the only means of stability …”
I must have missed that news story — can you provide sources for this ludicrous claim?
@24 (continued) Oh wait — I get it. Here’s how the wingnut Lie Machine works:
1. Saddam’s Sunni supporters wanted him back in power.
2. Sunnis are leftists.
3. So are Democrats.
4. Therefore, Democrats wanted Saddam back in power.
@5 “Did the iraqis oppose the hanging of this man? Where their protest’s in the streets?”
Try watching a fucking TV news show once in a while, so you know what’s going on in the world. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16428440/
I never thought I’d live to see the day when our country is run by people who deliberately insulate themselves from facts and news so they can plead ignorance as a defense.
@10 So they took the Iraqis’ word for it? Is our military run by a bunch of gullible idiots?
@10 (continued) Hey clueless wingnut idiot: What we’re upset about is that the clumsy way in which you fucking incompetents carried it out is going to get more American troops killed. Is it too much to ask you jerkoffs to at least make a feeble effort to conserve the lives of our troops?
At least the hapless World War I generals had enough sense to call off their offensives after they had lost the number of men they were required to lose.
@11 How the fuck does Saddam’s execution morph into an abortion debate in one sentence?
@11 (continued) Whenever a wingnut is getting his ass kicked, he tries to change the subject.
14 I see … because some people (including Republicans) think we should talk with Iran and Syria, that means those people wanted to put Saddam back in power. Just as I suspected — you have no sources for your ludicrous statement. It is merely another Janet Stupid fantasy.
I used to think we should encourage every citizen over age 18 who is not in a prison or insane asylum to vote. Now I’m not so sure that’s a good idea.
Too bad literacy tests are unconstitutional. You could eliminate 95% of the Republican vote by asking voters a question based on yesterday’s newspaper.
15 Let me correct YOU: The left of THIS country is upset because the incompetence of wingnut fools is going to get more of our troops killed.
@18 It appears the Arabs intend to govern themselves whether we want them to or not.
@16 “I’m an attorney with a background in this area and am unaware of these long-standing treaties and conventions or that they would be applicable to Iraq.”
It’s been my experience as an attorney that being an attorney with a background in a particular area never stopped anybody from committing malpractice.
Damn Goldie: I have to repost all them Congressional Moonbat!s who had no problem with the court and the sentencing again. Why do you dwell on worthless shit? Is it really a slow Moonbat!tic day?
oops… should be Darryl. My apologies to Goldie on this one!
I just don’t see the ratification of death sentences by the President of the Republic in Article 70(H) being a discretionary function. The Iraqi President is not a chief executive, but merely a head of state — similar to the roles played by monarchs and presidents in parliamentary systems. Article 70(B) requires the President to ratify treaties and Article 70(C) requires the President to ratify laws — and there sure isn’t any discretion in that either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01450.html
Please note Article 70(A) limits the power of the President to grant pardons. These can only be granted on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and presumably not for the types of crimes that Saddam Hussein committed.
As for Article 92, I don’t think it means what Darryl is trying to imply. Presumably, one would have to understand the official Arabic text, as well as its context. But Article 93 gives the law the ability to establish courts, and nothing in Article 93 would prohibit the Tribunal. Presumably, Article 93 requires courts to be established by law, and Article 92 would prohibit a court not established by law.
As for the religious holiday objection (Eid ul-Adha), my understanding is that this holiday begins at sunrise. This year, it started on December 30. Saddam was executed about an hour before sunrise on December 30, so this is okay.
Darryl,
Glenn Greenwald’s post on this topic is a nice compliment to yours.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.....ounds.html
Richard Pope @ 38,
“But Article 93 gives the law the ability to establish courts, and nothing in Article 93 would prohibit the Tribunal.”
My point was not that the special tribunal itself was prohibited by Article 93 (although I read some journal articles by legal scholars who argue exactly that point). I agree that the definition of “special” and “exceptional” requires cultural context and legal context within the Iraqi legal system in order to address questions like whether the Special Tribunal is legal or not overall.
My point is that a Tribunal whose judges are empowered to dismiss articles of the constitution [here, Article 70(H)] are “exceptional” under any modern legal context. And Article 93 prohibits the creation of a exceptional court. Therefore, the Tribunal judges are not empowered to dismiss Article 70(H).
roger
go fuck a furball, you will feel better…..
Another TJ,
Thanks for the link. That does nicely complement my post.
So, Roger, by your reasoning I guess you shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Only the insane would want people to negotiate with their enemies. What exactly are the Iraqis (or the US) going to put on the table in exchange for the Iranians and Syrians staying out of Iraq? The destruction of Israel? What are you willing to feed the alligator to keep him from devouring you?
Muslims do not have a great record of democratic rule. Sure, they hold elections in some countries, but the opposition is often imprisoned before the election or prohibited from campaigning.
I’ll back off when Muslims in this country pledge their allegiance first to our constitution, second to their religion. What I hear reported is that Muslims world wide want to impose Sharia law on the populaces. Is that really what you all want?
Richard Pope @ 38
“As for the religious holiday objection (Eid ul-Adha), my understanding is that this holiday begins at sunrise. This year, it started on December 30. Saddam was executed about an hour before sunrise on December 30, so this is okay.”
The start of Eid holidays is at midnight, not sunrise. In Iraq, Eid ul-Adha began for Sunnis on Saturday and Shi’ites on Sunday and the holiday lasts three days, pretty much assuring that the law was violated for everyone.
Janet S @ 43
“Muslims do not have a great record of democratic rule.”
Umm…Janet…there is no religion that has a good record of democratic rule. The modern form of Democracy has only been around for a small fraction of the duration of Christianity or Islam. Democracy is a very recent fad that has spread throughout the world exponentially over the last 100 years.
Consider this…there were only a tiny number of democracies in 1800. Currently, there are 15 to 17 Islamic democracies out of about 100 worldwide democracies. Considering that Muslims make up about 16% or 17% of the world’s population, they are doing about as expected (yes…it is not quite a fair comparison because of heterogeneity in population size among countries).
“Sure, they hold elections in some countries, but the opposition is often imprisoned before the election or prohibited from campaigning.”
Um…no. That is not a Muslim phenomena. That phenomenon is highly correlated with being under the rule of 17th century European imperial powers (esp. England, France and Holland).
It is particularly bad in circumstances where the ruling power artificially created political borders that cut across and incorporated multiple ethnic political subdivisions (i.e. the “divide and rule” strategy) that imperial powers employed. A similar “divide and rule” strategy occurred in some countries after WW I, as well.
The whole thing is fucking theater, just like this entire piss-poor excuse for a war. Saddam’s trial, and certainly his execution, were no more independently Iraqi than the toppling of his statue by an American tank. The execution itself was probably stage-managed to the last detail, and the video made oh-so-quickly available to appeal to the craven blood lust of the wingnuts who still believe any of this makes any difference.
So, Saddam’s dead. Good riddance to the bastard. Has it been worth all the American lives and money expended, with more to come? I don’t think so.
The Patriotic Council on Idiotic Statements is proud to award Janet S. the 2007 most idiotic statement award.
We realize the year has just begun, but are confident that Janet S.’s statement @ 43 will not be surpassed this year.
“Only the insane would want people to negotiate with their enemies.
Janet S. would only negotiate with her friends. We at the PCOIS wish her good luck with that.
For a much more sane and intelligent (and obvious) statement on negotiation see below.
Moshe Dayan “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”
Roger Rabbit says:
@24 (continued) Oh wait — I get it. Here’s how the wingnut Lie Machine works:
1. Saddam’s Sunni supporters wanted him back in power.
2. Sunnis are leftists.
3. So are Democrats.
4. Therefore, Democrats wanted Saddam back in power.
01/01/2007 at 8:06 pm
Roger you finally figured out life as a Moonbat! Congrats on the new year!
Roger Rabbit says: Too bad literacy tests are unconstitutional. You could eliminate 95% of the Republican vote by asking voters a question based on yesterday’s newspaper. 01/01/2007 at 8:27 pm
No Furball, you’d lose all the blue states with large cities! Suck on that rotten apple Furball!
47: Israel cannot afford to stand against the entire world and be denounced as the aggressor. – Moshe Dayan
Why didn’t you post this one Moobat!? This is what most GoldieAss Moonbat!s say everyday here.
P.S. Moonbat!s His best one is: I have only one eye. Do you want me to look at the road or the at the speedometer. – Moshe Dayan
47: You also forgot these nuggets:
It was in our power to cause the Arab governments to renounce the policy of strength toward Israel by turning it into a demonstration of weakness. – Moshe Dayan
It was in our power to set high price for our blood, a price too high for the Arab community, the Arab army, or the Arab governments to think it worth paying. – Moshe Dayan
Funny Moonbat!s, the word appeasement is missing here!
Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice. – Moshe Dayan
Never accept appeasement!
We at PCOIS fear that MWS may yet prove that we were mistaken. His post @ 50 shows great promise for him actually saying something even more idiotic than Janet S.
Why didn’t you post this one Moobat!? This is what most GoldieAss Moonbat!s say everyday here.
Of course for MWS to take the prise from Janet S., he must actually state something that has even a modicum of decipherability.
I just love the self-important. PCOIS – modern democracies in the Western world run quite well, and though they are not religious, they are often led by those who are religious. That religion tends to be in the Judeo/Christian realm.
The Islamic nations you claim are democratic, are the women allowed to vote? Do women have the right to walk through the streets without a burqa? Can they drive? Can they leave the country at will? I guess having 50% of your population essentially enslaved means you are at least trying to do a good job at this modern civilization thing. Of course, Jews and Christians are not allowed in many of these Islamic nations, or at least have no rights. Name me a country under Islamic rule that has free elections, doesn’t imprison their opposition, allows women equal rights and allows other religions to practice openly.
Moshe Dayan said talk to your enemies, not negotiate with them. Only the weak have to negotiate, and have to give up something. I ask again – what should the Iraqis put on the table to appease the Iranians and Syrians? What should US be willing to offer? Do we sell out the Jews?
That does nicely complement my post.
Yeah, that one; not the other one.
Lousy typos… Grumble, grumble…
No matter what happened with Saddam, Bush was(is)wrong.
After all, even bad weather is his fault.
INSTEAD of a noose, Saddam should have been sent to bed with no dinner and made to write 1000 times: I will stop being a meanie and play well with others.
In the mean time, Surf’s Up!!! I’m riding the “blue wave.”
“I’ll back off when Muslims in this country pledge their allegiance first to our constitution, second to their religion.”
Hey Janet, great idea! I’m sure all the Christians here would be willing to reciprocate. Right?
Yes, lawmakers swear allegiance to the constitution. Remember the whole argument against John Kennedy? Many thought he would be loyal first to the Pope. Catholics everywhere had to aver that they put the country’s laws first.
It isn’t asking too much for Muslims to do the same.
Catholics everywhere had to aver that they put the country’s laws first.
It isn’t asking too much for Muslims to do the same.
Or non-Catholic Christians, like Virgil Goode.