http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6117910.stm
I've nothing interesting to say about this; I just wanted to use the 'how's it hanging' pun...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
It was matter of time.
And I was referring to the hanging pun.
And I was referring to the hanging pun.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME].DeaconJohn. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6117910.stm
I've nothing interesting to say about this; I just wanted to use the 'how's it hanging' pun...[/QUOTE]
Hehe, your pun actually made me smile. :-)
I've nothing interesting to say about this; I just wanted to use the 'how's it hanging' pun...[/QUOTE]
Hehe, your pun actually made me smile. :-)
Awesome. *sells all his Saddam memorabilia on eBay*
Cute pun...but I don't know why the news networks are covering this like it's some kind of breaking news or something. This was a foregone conclusion...a non-news event. EVERYBODY AND THEIR BROTHER knew that this was coming...it was just a matter of time. Why does the media suddenly act like it's a huge surprise he got convicted and sentenced to death?
"How's it hanging, Saddam?" LMAO!!!!! xD
CMU History Girl:
To get Bush that little edge in the upcoming elections. Why else was it announced today?
The worst part is, Bush had been in such a hurry to get him tried before the elections, that he hasn't bothered to get Saddam a legal court.
The trial he has had is illegal. It is specifically forbidden in the Geneva conventions for an occupying power to create such a court, and, even worse, influence its decision-making process so much. The US has been too involved, replacing judges and all.
But in my personal opinion, the greatest miscariage of justice is the fact that the appeals court will have to rule on its OWN legitimacy. Can you imagine?!! A judge will have to decide whether HE HIMSELF is in charge of a LEGAL COURT!
If THAT is not a mockery, nothing is!
To get Bush that little edge in the upcoming elections. Why else was it announced today?
The worst part is, Bush had been in such a hurry to get him tried before the elections, that he hasn't bothered to get Saddam a legal court.
The trial he has had is illegal. It is specifically forbidden in the Geneva conventions for an occupying power to create such a court, and, even worse, influence its decision-making process so much. The US has been too involved, replacing judges and all.
But in my personal opinion, the greatest miscariage of justice is the fact that the appeals court will have to rule on its OWN legitimacy. Can you imagine?!! A judge will have to decide whether HE HIMSELF is in charge of a LEGAL COURT!
If THAT is not a mockery, nothing is!
Bush isn't up for re-election this month or infact at all. This is his 2nd and final term.
Mm-hmm.
@ Caspar and CMU
Legal or not, news or not... Most people are happy to see this man is gonna pay for what he did.
I would be happier seeing him being tortured, but plenties of activists would be against it.
Anyway, I hope they'll film Saddam's execution. I wanna watch it. Live, if possible.
Legal or not, news or not... Most people are happy to see this man is gonna pay for what he did.
I would be happier seeing him being tortured, but plenties of activists would be against it.
Anyway, I hope they'll film Saddam's execution. I wanna watch it. Live, if possible.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Bush isn't up for re-election this month or infact at all. This is his 2nd and final term.[/QUOTE]
Caspar talks about elections of Congress' members. It's more than just obvious why that "news" came today... Like in very cheap TV show...
Caspar talks about elections of Congress' members. It's more than just obvious why that "news" came today... Like in very cheap TV show...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]CMU History Girl:
To get Bush that little edge in the upcoming elections. Why else was it announced today?
The worst part is, Bush had been in such a hurry to get him tried before the elections, that he hasn't bothered to get Saddam a legal court.
The trial he has had is illegal. It is specifically forbidden in the Geneva conventions for an occupying power to create such a court, and, even worse, influence its decision-making process so much. The US has been too involved, replacing judges and all.
But in my personal opinion, the greatest miscariage of justice is the fact that the appeals court will have to rule on its OWN legitimacy. Can you imagine?!! A judge will have to decide whether HE HIMSELF is in charge of a LEGAL COURT!
If THAT is not a mockery, nothing is![/QUOTE]
Everything's a conspiracy to you isn't it...
In today's headlines...
BUSH SWITCHES FROM RASPBERRY TO BLUEBERRY JAM ON HIS TOAST
Why?
To win the votes of democratic Blueberry farmers of course.
Anyway, I soooo love the verdict....
To get Bush that little edge in the upcoming elections. Why else was it announced today?
The worst part is, Bush had been in such a hurry to get him tried before the elections, that he hasn't bothered to get Saddam a legal court.
The trial he has had is illegal. It is specifically forbidden in the Geneva conventions for an occupying power to create such a court, and, even worse, influence its decision-making process so much. The US has been too involved, replacing judges and all.
But in my personal opinion, the greatest miscariage of justice is the fact that the appeals court will have to rule on its OWN legitimacy. Can you imagine?!! A judge will have to decide whether HE HIMSELF is in charge of a LEGAL COURT!
If THAT is not a mockery, nothing is![/QUOTE]
Everything's a conspiracy to you isn't it...
In today's headlines...
BUSH SWITCHES FROM RASPBERRY TO BLUEBERRY JAM ON HIS TOAST
Why?
To win the votes of democratic Blueberry farmers of course.
Anyway, I soooo love the verdict....
Owwww! That sexy Saddam is well-hung! :P
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>Flash! wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Owwww! That sexy Saddam is well-hung! :P[/QUOTE]
Ow MAN!!!!! xD xD xD
Ow MAN!!!!! xD xD xD
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Bush isn't up for re-election this month or infact at all. This is his 2nd and final term.[/QUOTE]
Caspar talks about elections of Congress' members. It's more than just obvious why that "news" came today... Like in very cheap TV show...[/QUOTE]
No matter who is in Congress or who has the majority, nothing ever gets accomplished. Even if the Democrats gain the majority in the Senate or the House, Bush can veto and things get held up. It's a moronic system that never works unless the President is the party affiliation as the majority in the House and Senate.
Caspar talks about elections of Congress' members. It's more than just obvious why that "news" came today... Like in very cheap TV show...[/QUOTE]
No matter who is in Congress or who has the majority, nothing ever gets accomplished. Even if the Democrats gain the majority in the Senate or the House, Bush can veto and things get held up. It's a moronic system that never works unless the President is the party affiliation as the majority in the House and Senate.