Article

2006-09-21 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-09-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 A leading human rights group charged that the government's decision to replace the former chief judge, Abdullah al-Amiri, threatens the independence of the troubled tribunal.

I don't know, seems fair to me. If the old judge couldn't tell the difference between a tyrant, a dictator, and a duly elected president, then as far as I am concerned he should be picking up trash in a park somewhere and loving it, and not trying cases. Especially this kind of trash.

Seems like Human Rights Watch is desperate to look like it's doing something, even if it is wrong. Oh, I forgot, there's people implicitly who believe this kind of crap and give them big donations. Silly me!

"Your father was in the security and he went on working as a sergeant in the security (forces) until the fall of Baghdad" in 2003, Saddam shouted.

Al-Khalifa shot back: "I challenge you in front of the public if this is the case."

I have no idea what was just said here. Any Iraqi ==> English translations anyone?

Posted by gorb 2006-09-21 03:30|| 2006-09-21 03:30|| Front Page Top

#2 Someone should remind to thoe nutjobs that independe of judge is not a goal but a mean towards fairness of the judge. Would they found acceptable a judge who systematically released child rapers because he is a pedophile himself?

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-09-21 04:52|| 2006-09-21 04:52|| Front Page Top

#3 I have no idea what was just said here. Any Iraqi ==> English translations anyone?

Saddam is saying that the judges father was a serving seargent under the security forces, possibly the ones who tortured innocent victims, until Baghad fell in 2003. The judge is challenging Saddam on that claim with the public as witness.

Posted by Charles 2006-09-21 08:49|| 2006-09-21 08:49|| Front Page Top

#4 Thanks, Charles. I thought it might be some kind of insult, but it makes some more sense that it's suggesting that if his father could do it, so should Saddam be able to. Of course, Saddam would have to veil that so it couldn't be used against him, but it's one more bit of circumstantial evidence that holds up pretty well in my mind. This kind of stuff should be all over the MSM.

I know, that's why I said should. :-)

Posted by gorb 2006-09-21 14:41|| 2006-09-21 14:41|| Front Page Top

23:57 trailing wife
23:49 Texas Redneck
23:47 Frank G
23:45 Texas Redneck
23:44 Thoth
23:43 ex-lib
23:42 .com
23:41 trailing wife
23:41 .com
23:40 Thoth
23:39 Rafael
23:39 .com
23:38 Abdominal Snowman
23:37 Thoth
23:33 Thoth
23:33 trailing wife
23:31 .com
23:31 Thoth
23:27 Thoth
23:26 trailing wife
23:25 Grolurt Hupising1286
23:23 Broadhead6
23:20 Grolurt Hupising1286
23:20 Zenster