The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20040223021558/http://badattitudes.com:80/MT/archives/000969.html
December 15, 2003
Show Trial

Hey, is anybody else out there wondering why Saddam Hussein is on a fast track to due process and a trial, whereas the 660 uncharged slobs at Gitmo remain on a fast track to jack shit?


gitmo.jpg

Webding3.jpg

Posted by Lead Balloons at December 15, 2003 05:48 PM
Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Comments

The Supreme's have granted cert to hear the Guantanamo Bay case. I heard today that even the Brits are concerned because a few of their citizens are in that concentration camp (Bush seems to be claiming its Castro's fault).

We'll have to wait to see the outcome, but 50 years from now, unless we go Nazi all the way, your and my grandchildren are going to be paying taxes to pay compensation to these folks, as we just did for the Japanese, no matter what the outcome.

I also heard on the radio today that the UN is absolutely opposed to capital punishment for Saddam, but I'd bet Saddam's testimony is never made public.

As you know, and as courageously reported by the New Hampshire Gazette, Prescott was a financier for the Nazi's and was compensated after WWII for what he earned holding Hitlers money.

Its amazing how Goerings testimony, (see the blog a couple of blogs down), is almost word for word Rumsfeld's stance.

God help us all.

Buck (as in Call of the Wild) Thoreau


Posted by: Buck Thoreau on December 15, 2003 08:25 PM

Can you imagine what it is like to be a Friend of Bush senior? Think Noriega as well as Saddam. I'm sure glad I never knew the creepy dude. He shook their hands, maybe even slipped them a little tongue when he whispered sweet nothings in their ears and now they are in jail.

I do expect President Rove to figure out a way to keep Saddam in position in order to haul him out and run him up the flagpole from time to time whenever there is the threat that the Democratic candidate (whoever it may be) might have gained an advantage here or there.

I.e., Don't count on that track being that fast. There will have to lots of preparation.

Posted by: on December 15, 2003 10:07 PM

Buck, welcome aboard.

I doubt the court that brought us Bush v. Gore is going to risk being blamed for letting a bunch of terrorists loose. What if one goes on to rape and kill? Shades of Willy Horton. Far better to punt.

As to the Japanese detention, let's be clear about the impact on taxpayers: 45 years after the fact, the U.S. government forked over $10,000 a head to a very limited set of survivors, with nothing to any heirs. Hardly a drain on the treasury.

--LB

Posted by: Lead Balloons on December 16, 2003 01:26 AM

True about the Japanese detentions and what the taxpayers forked over.
On the other hand, it was one reason why Earl Warren, the great Republican strategist, became a turncoat. He pushed for the detentions and said he regretted that decision more than any other he ever made in his life.
Imagine how life in this country might be if Earl hadn't gotten on the Supreme Court.
His bio is an excellent read.

Posted by: Buck Thoreau on December 16, 2003 04:30 AM

Speaking further of the restitution paid to the Japanese internees, the law paying them a $10,000 gratuity for four years of their lives was in essence nothing more than a much-appreciated and long-overdue note of apology to these poor souls.

Yet, did you know the U.S. government in implementing the law under Reno/Clinton went out of their way to try to deny payments to survivors? For instance, the government refused to pay persons who were born in the camps, even persons born the week after relocation. Their rationale: those persons had never actually been relocated, since they were still in Mom's tum-tum. This plain and ridiculous injustice was ultimately rectified in the federal courts, but not without a real legal struggle that included several decisions by trial-level judges upholding the government's mean-spirited position.

--LB

Posted by: Lead Balloons on December 16, 2003 09:35 AM

Whats the rationale for the administration for not giving the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay the protections of the Geneva Convention? I just don't get it.
This seems to me to be very damaging for the prospects of any US soldier who may fall into enemy hands now or in the future. An enemy can just point at our record and say "Since you didn't honor it, we don't have to either".

This seems to me to be one of the worst decisions every made by any President in regards to foreign policy.

Is there any semi rational argument for what they are doing?

Its is extremely ironic watching all the hoopla Bush and others in the administration are making right now about how Saddam is going to get the full protection of the Geneva Accords.

Posted by: Buck on December 16, 2003 01:50 PM

Anyway, this is a old news, but this is what our government is doing down there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html

Posted by: Buck on December 16, 2003 01:59 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?