Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Saddam's a FREE man

  1. Jun 29, 2004 #1
    Saddam's a FREE man!!!!

    Hey again!

    More feathers to ruffle...


    It is international law after all and we can't break that you know! :rolleyes:

    Seriously, handing him over would be against international law as has been stated here. I say release him! Even though I wasn't a keen fan of Saddam myself and I do think the world is better of without him, I have to agree that he does have to be released.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 29, 2004 #2
    The United States government does not follow any set of any multi-national laws, rather, it does whatever is in the best interest of the American elites. The U.S.A. government will accuse other nations of breaking United Nations laws though if it is in the interest of the American elites to do so, while themselves breaking these very same laws. For example, America and Israel together have nukes and do research together in improving nukes, yet accuse other nations of "breaking international laws by having and developing nukes." The American voters don't see this double standard.

    But, I think the REAL international rule is nicely stated at http://www.transtopia.org/quiz.html

    "the only true (international) "right" is the right of force, and the only true (international) "law" the law of the jungle."
  4. Jun 29, 2004 #3
    Dont you see any danger in Iran or N Korea developing nukes? I can understand ppl are pissed off at Israel having Nukes, but dont let it blind you.
  5. Jun 29, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No international law prohibits nations from developing nuclear weapons. The nations with nuclear programs about which we complain signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty(NPT). They promised not to develop nuclear weapons.

    Israel did not sign the NPT.

    The US does not share its nuclear technology with Israel. In fact the US shares no nuclear power technology with Israel either, specifically because Israel is not a signatory to the NPT.

    The complaints are not about violations of international law, they are about the violations of treaty terms.

  6. Jun 29, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Why do you think it would be a violation of international law? Just because someone said so? Nothing in that article even hints at what international law would be violated if Saddam were handed over.

  7. Jun 29, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Remember that people don't serve the law, the law serves people. Also remember that international law isn't set in stone, exceptions are made all the time. It's nothing to get excited about.
  8. Jun 30, 2004 #7
    The United States government enters and leaves treaties at will without the consent of any other nation except Israel, yet we invade any other nation that does the same - this is the double standard.

    Yes, the United States government and Israel have a "special" relationship that is usually all "under the table." The sharing of nuclear technology which is regular is not made public. The evidence for all this is available to those who are interested in researching it, I would suggest the databanks of http://www.antiwar.com/ and http://www.rense.com/ for starters.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  9. Jun 30, 2004 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You're new, so I'll be brief and to the point: posting links to the homepage of conspiracy-theory websites is no likely to help you win any arguments here. You'll need to do better: factual information from credible sources.
    Consent? No nation ever asks permission to enter a treaty (by definition, they are mutual agreements) and all nations leave treaties when it is convenient for them. And its up to the international community to judge on a case by case basis if leaving a treaty is ok.
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2004
  10. Jun 30, 2004 #9
    And what is "credible?" Basically, if one person agrees with the conclusions, it's "credible." If the source has a different perspective, it's "not credible." I agree with the articles at Rense.com, they make sense to me and seem to explain to me what really goes on in the world.

    How is Rense.com different from CNN or Fox News? CNN takes a Neo-Liberal stance, Fox News takes a Neo-Conservative stance, and Rense.com takes a Paleo-Conservative stance. I don't believe that just because CNN and Fox News are more "fancy" that it automatically means they are more legit.

    Regarding the United States government, i stand by my claim that We do what we want as what is in the best interest of the American political elites and to what I believe is a detriment to the American voters and humans in general. We do as we wish but then don't allow the same freedoms for any other nation, except Israel.
  11. Jun 30, 2004 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Oy. Credible means corroborated and substantiated.
    The difference between conspiracy theory sites and the mainstream news is that conspiracy theory sites have no one that they are accountable to.
    And they are entitled to their opinions as long as they keep to the facts. Yes, they will spin the news in a certain direction, but you will be hard-pressed to find outright fabrications in their stories. And when such things are found, they shake-down entire news organizations such as the recent scandal at USA Today where a reporter fabricated and plagarized stories.
  12. Jul 1, 2004 #11
  13. Jul 1, 2004 #12
    I dissagree, but I respect your opinion.

    I believe CNN and Fox News have a defacto relation with the White House in which the President and CIA fabricate news regarding foreign policy and then have the CEOs of CNN and Fox News disseminate these ideas. Second, both CNN and Fox News extremely limit the range of what types of news they cover and what types of opinions that are allowed, thus setting limits on what the public is allowed to know and believe. But, I believe Rense.com covers what the mainstream media don't.

    You seem to believe that CEOs and government elites never lie and try to deceive the public for their own gains. From my own study and experience, I find the opposite is true: elites often lie and turn their backs on their constituencies.
  14. Sep 2, 2004 #13
    If you are being threatend,demonised,called member of axis of evil, your neighboor invaded, who with a little bit of common sense would not want to have nuclear weapons?
    If any country posseses nukes, USA keeps their greedy hands off.ie N.Korea.
  15. Sep 2, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It might be worth pointing out that the US would probably be breachin g inertnmational law if it did let him go, due to it's responsibilties to prosecute those accused of crimes against humanity and genocide.

    Secondly, this is Saddam's lawyer whose saying it is breach of international law.
  16. Sep 2, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I agree...and I hope you would say the same to a right-winger who links to something from the Drudge Report.
  17. Sep 2, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What !!!! This makes no sense...you want to abide by the letter of some (as yet unclear) law even if that means releasing one of the most despicable humans on this planet ? Where's your sense of justice ? What would you say to all the wives and daughters and sons of the hundreds of thousands of people that he has tortured and slaughtered ?

    Can you name 5 people on this planet that are more deserving of punishment than Saddam ?
  18. Sep 2, 2004 #17
    G. W. Bush, his father, his mother, his twin daughters, and his brother. Oops! I got carried away, one too many.
  19. Sep 2, 2004 #18
    May I answer this Question?

    I can name not 5 , but at least dozen or twice as many people who are more more responsible for War crimes commited in M.East.And guess where are those people? they are in Washington, still very active in politicall life.
  20. Sep 3, 2004 #19
    Hmm, I wonder who'll actually get Saddam out of prison. Certianly whoever does will be a hero to the international community...
  21. Sep 3, 2004 #20
    You don't think the Iraqi people will simply shoot him in the head?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook