Raving Conservative

Google

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Saddam’s Rights

Ever notice how the worst human rights abusers get all concerned about human rights the instant they get taken to task for their heinous crimes?

Saddam Hussein, a man responsible for over 100,000 murders and countless rapes and tortures; a man who has no regard for the lives or the well-being of others, is demanding his rights before the courts.

Excuse me? Did I miss something here?

This is why we should have just dropped a couple of frag grenades down that spider hole he was hiding in rather than risking the life of a perfectly good US soldier to capture him.

This is proof of just how selfish and demented this man truly is.

To think he has a right to anything decent after al that he has done is completely insane. I say let him defend himself at his trial. Feed him nothing but bread and water. Reduce the size of his cell to a 5x5x5 foot cage with no bed and only a tiny toilet for both eliminating waste and providing drinking water.

Better yet, strip him naked, tie him up, and toss him into a room filled with homosexual prisoners, preferably violent ones who enjoy raping their cellmates. Then we can let Larry Flynt do the first constructive thing of his life by filming what happens, editing it, and distributing it worldwide.

Toss Saddam to the people be tortured, mutilated, and brutalized. Give them permission to do anything they want to short of killing him for about 2 weeks. When they are done he will beg for death, all bravado gone, stolen by getting what he gave so generously.

To listen to retired Admiral and former US Attorney General (under LBJ) Clark you would think Saddam is some kind of martyr to be sympathized with rather than a bloodthirsty psychopath to be reviled. Let us take a brief look at the nature of this man who is defending Saddam.

He has made a career out of defending the worst criminals and psychopaths around the world. These are people so bad that no one else would have the low standards or pitiful morals to actually defend their actions. He is willing to lie and make up any excuse he can imagine in order to make a jury sympathize with his client as being some sort of victim rather than a sociopathic victimizer. He seeks to justify the worst atrocities anyone could commit and make them appear normal. This guy is absolutely reprehensible.

He claims he does it to protect these animal’s “rights”. I say he does it because he approves of what they do. This makes him an accessory to these atrocities.

Saddam deserves no rights. As one of the worst human rights abusers since Stalin died he has no place receiving humane treatment from anyone. It is a testament to the noble spirit of the US, and of the nascent Iraqi government, that this psychopath is being treated so well . . . so humanely when he deserves nothing good.

This proves that we Americans are better than any petty despot, and that we have a truly noble spirit that overcomes our desire to be vengeful.

Still, why we bothered to capture him rather than dropping a few grenades down his spider-hole is beyond me.

36 Comments:

  • oh, daniel, bravo!!! *bows & shakes hand* thank you! i cannot believe that even Fox hasn't said anything about this yet! Good Job!!
    BoUnCeS!! LibbY!

    By Blogger Libby, at 5:22 PM  

  • Check out this leftist blog if you haven't already.

    xymphora.blogspot.com

    By Blogger Rick's Corner, at 5:29 PM  

  • Nice rant! I'm with you on the grenade idea, it would have been so much quicker and easier.

    By Blogger Crazy Politico, at 5:48 PM  

  • Um.

    People can be entitled to things they don't deserve.

    Hence the concept of "Salvation."

    Or "Due Process."

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 6:12 PM  

  • See that there? That's in the dictionary next to "irony".

    By Blogger Robosquirrel, at 6:25 PM  

  • What cracks me up is this evil dictator is now reduced to throwing temper tantrums in a courtroom. Well said as always Daniel.

    By Blogger Little Miss Chatterbox, at 7:48 PM  

  • Ctastrophile,

    Saddam is getting that stuff even though he doesn't deserve it. Hence my statement of how noble America and our new Iraqi allies are.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:25 PM  

  • Great post. Take care.

    By Blogger T.L. Stanley, at 1:37 AM  

  • Husseins actions are sub human, therefore he does not qualify for 'human rights'.

    Let's see if Traitor Clark can get the poor dictator a clean shirt... and a clean hanging.

    Hmm.. let's see... last time I checked, Clark was Democrat, no?/???

    By Blogger Phantom_Driver, USNR, Ret., at 2:27 AM  

  • Yes, libs are big on entitlements!

    By Blogger Rick's Corner, at 4:52 AM  

  • You seem mad about this, Daniel :)

    I agree with the bomb in the spider hole thing. Much quicker and easier.

    And let me tell you, if I were the Judge, I wouldn't put up with all that baloney from the slime. I think I might've done more than say "you first" if that creep said "go to hell" to me.

    By Blogger Mary Ann, at 5:25 AM  

  • Catastrophile - Salvation is only given to those who repent and show remorse for their sins and then ask for forgiveness.
    Does it look like Saddam is repenting or asking for forgiveness? Nope! Therefore there is no salvation for him.

    By Blogger Corie, at 8:16 AM  

  • By the way Daniel, great post! It doesn't suprise me one bit that Clark is defending Saddam. I'm just waiting now for the ACLU to find some way to come to Saddams defence too. Or have they already? Wouldn't be suprised.

    By Blogger Corie, at 8:22 AM  

  • It has just been reported on Fox News that we, the USA is paying Clark to represent Hussein, are you kidding me?

    Also by letting Hussein control the court it is all but helping the insurgents.

    Yep, this war just keeps getting better and better.

    By Blogger Ranando, at 8:47 AM  

  • So, I'm unclear: Are you Rightish folk glad that Saddam is getting a trial (as you seem to indicate) or do you wish we'd just murdered him (as you also seem to indicate)?

    Is this part of the clear-minded, rational thought process Daniel or more of the emotional reasoning that the Liberals do (so you say)?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 8:58 AM  

  • Ranando:
    How is letting Saddam control the court helping the insurgents? It is maddening, don't get me wrong, but I don't see your connection here.
    And I wish you'd provide links for your claims, instead of just making a statement and not backing it up with facts.

    Dan:
    I'm sure I don't speak for everyone, but I am glad Saddam is finally facing Justice. I just think that better Justice would have been to kill him. Is a trial even needed?
    BTW, please don't think of Ranando as a Conservative. He is a classic RINO (Republican In Name Only.) Check out his blog and you'll see such drivel as a call for the Impeachment of Bush, and one of his favorite links just happens to be DailyKos.

    By Blogger Mary Ann, at 9:18 AM  

  • By not treating Sadam in that manner, Iraq is taking a major step into the civilized world. Of course he needs to be executed, but a fair trial proves two things.

    1. Iraq is a civilized nation

    2. That there is no doubt that this monster deserves to die.

    As much as anything this trial will broadcast his crimes to the world and warn the other tyrants of the world.

    By Blogger shoprat, at 9:19 AM  

  • It is showing the insurgents that Saddam is standing up to the USA and the court, that can only make them feel better.

    By Blogger Ranando, at 9:35 AM  

  • I will say this one more time since a few of you seem to be slow.

    2000 was the first time in my life that I ever voted for a Democrat. I didn't vote for Gore, I voted against Bush.

    This administration does not represent the Republican Party I grew up with and know so well. Bush will never be a Ronald Reagan, never.

    I'm ANTI-BUSH and I'm happy to see that even Republicans are starting to see what a BOZO this guy is.

    We could have killed Saddam and his entire family without ever sending one American to Iraq, that's the way Reagan would have done it.

    These guys wanted this war with Saddam way before 911. They got it and now that we're there, let's win. Why are we letting a bunch of rock-throwing monkeys kill our troops?

    Osama and his buddy said today that they're still calling the shots, well guess what? These guys are not in Iraq.

    By Blogger Ranando, at 9:50 AM  

  • Dan - Being one of those them there "Rightish" folks, I do understand the importance of a trial for Saddam and what it is suppose to represent for not only Iraq but the rest of the world. It's the moral right thing to do, hence why America is doing it this way.
    Having said that, I can't say I would have been overly offended if they had just killed him when they found him cowaring in a hole like the snake that he is.
    So yes, at least for me there is both a logical and an emotional side to this issue. The difference though between us "rightish" folks and Liberals is that we are able to seperate our emotions from the debate and still make clear-minded, rational, logical decisions. No decision should ever be made based on emotions, they can be deceiving and are always temporary.

    By Blogger Corie, at 10:21 AM  

  • Thank you Corie for the clarification. Daniel and I are engaged in this "emotional liberals" discussion elsewhere. I challenged him there and y'all here to provide examples of progressive thinkers (the Chomsky's, Arundhati's, MLK's, etc) using emotion instead of logic in an argument.

    I'm not talking about the liberal rank and file because there are plenty of emotional reasoners on both the left and right, and I'm also not talking about those who are kidding a bit or a lot (Michael Moore, Al Franken), but serious progressive thinkers using emotion to make a case instead of logic.

    I've heard this myth repeated frequently (that liberals use emotion instead of logic) and I just don't get it. So I'd be interested in seeing some examples.

    Thanks.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 10:32 AM  

  • corie: "Salvation is only given to those who repent and show remorse for their sins and then ask for forgiveness."

    But due process is given to everyone -- unless and until the administration convinces five members of the Supreme Clown Posse to decide otherwise.

    ***

    And, to all of you who eagerly attack Ramsey Clark for representing Saddam, if you believe in due process, you believe that the accused should always have the best representation available, and that's especially important in a case like this one.

    If you don't believe in due process, I respectfully suggest that you might be more comfortable in some other country, Myanmar perhaps? Certainly, if you believe in kangaroo courts and show trials, you're not overly fond of American principles.

    I believe the healthiest thing is for Saddam to have a fair and open trial, for his crimes to be heard, and for the charges to be answered effectively.

    BTW, I afford the same entitlements to Donald Rumsfeld, and think we could save time by trying them both at once.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 12:41 PM  

  • Dan,
    Here are a few examples of how liberals like to play too people's emotions more then logical thinking:

    1)Homosexuality - You yourself said that if two people "love" one another then that should be enough. "Love" is an emotion and does not some how solidify something as being right or fact. A married man "loves" is wife, but also "loves" his mistress. By your thinking, that situation is okay because there is "love."

    2)Abortion: Liberals always like to through out that we need to keep abortion legal because there are woman who get pregnant from rape or incest, or the mothers life is in danger. But we all know that the vast majority of abortions done in this country are done for purely convenient purposes. Liberals want you to feel so sorry for that tiny percentage of women (which I whole heartedly do!) that you will over-look the real reasons why abortions are happening.

    3)Illegal Immigration:
    Liberals reason for backing illegal immigration is because they "feel sorry" for those poor people, they deserve a good life too. Never mind the fact that they are breaking the law and driving down wages for Americans, among many other issues.

    Dan, here are 3 examples. I could probably find more, but I need to get going. Just so you know, I have no desire to debate these three issues individually (we've already gone rounds about homosexuality), we won't change each others minds. I am just giving you the examples you asked for.

    By Blogger Corie, at 2:30 PM  

  • catastrophile,

    I agree w/ you on the "Due Process." My only argument w/ you was your assumption that everyone is entitled to Salvation. That is incorrect.
    Maybe I misunderstood your comment. If I did, I apologize.

    By Blogger Corie, at 2:34 PM  

  • The "due process' argument has merit. The fact that Saddam is geting due process is why I am praising the US and Iraq in this matter.

    Does Saddam "deserve" due process? No. SHould he, rationally speaking, get it? yes.

    As for Clark, if this were one instance where he felt compelled to give representation to a poor excuse of a human being I would have no criticism. However, he has made such cases his life's work. That is why I believe he is culpable for these crimes.

    This is different from your basic defense lawyer because they take a variety of cases. This man purposely seeks out the worst crimes committed by the worst people and helps them get away with it.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 6:00 PM  

  • Let me repeat this because it doesn't seem that important to you people.

    Clark is being paid by you, the USA for defending Saddam. You don't think that's BullS--T?

    I gyess if Bush is for it then it's OK!

    By Blogger Ranando, at 6:08 PM  

  • corie:

    I never said or assumed that everybody was entitled to Salvation. My point is that nobody deserves it, but there it is.

    I'll also disagree with you on your examples for Dan.

    With regards to homosexuality, I can hardly think of a more hyperemotional position than the wild assertions that allowing gays full rights to marriage will destroy the institution. (Especially when those assertions are coming from individuals who have been married more than once.)

    On abortion, don't know where these claims come from that "the vast majority of abortions done in this country are done for purely convenient purposes." I'm not a fan of abortion, and I don't know anybody who is. I certainly can't imagine that it's an easy decision for a woman to make, and one would have to have a very low opinion of humanity to argue otherwise. I oppose criminalization because the consequences would be worse for the individual and for society than the having it legal.

    As for illegal immigration, nobody "backs" it except the big businesses that make tons of money employing illegals and cut oh-so-many politicians (on both sides of the aisle) in on the spoils.

    Those of us who support full civil rights for illegal immigrants do so because they're human beings entitled to respect and rights, not because we're big fans of illegal immigration.

    People who want to take people's rights away because they're here illegally actually want to (though they might not realize this) tilt the market in favor of illegals and the companies who abuse them. If you want to secure the border, you'll get little argument -- except maybe from the White House. We object to treating people like trash once they're here. The reflexive emotional response offered by so many conservatives -- "screw 'em, they're stealing our jobs, they shouldn't have any rights!" -- is what makes these people more and more attractive to employers.

    Think about it: No minimum wage, free overtime, unsafe conditions, and if you complain we'll make an anonymous call to la Migra! It's a Wal-Mart dream come true.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 6:24 PM  

  • "This man purposely seeks out the worst crimes committed by the worst people and helps them get away with it."

    For some reason -- probably the Salvation comment I was just addressing -- when I read the above comment I was reminded of somebody else who made a point of associating with the scum of the earth . . . thieves, prostitutes, beggars, tax collectors . . .

    I don't mean to imply that Clark is anywhere near Jesus -- from what I've heard, he's not even especially competent -- but he's experienced, he's earnest, and he's willing to do the job. And somebody has to.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 6:36 PM  

  • catastrophile,
    I completely disagree w/ your responses on so many levels, but like I told Dan T. I'm not about to go off topic here and start debating homosexuality, abortion, or illegal immigration. I have no doubt that Dan will disagree just as you did, but he asked for examples and that is what I gave. Maybe someone will start a debate dealing w/ the above issues sometime and then we can round and round. ;)

    By Blogger Corie, at 7:22 PM  

  • corie: you're free to disagree with these positions, but none of them are what you'd call emotionalized. It seems ridiculous to say that liberal issues are more emotionalized than conservative ones.

    Abortion is a debate in which activists on both sides have a strong emotional investment. As to the other two issues you cited, I don't see a very strong emotional response from anybody except those directly affected.

    I'd point to gun control, smoking bans/tobacco taxes, and some other issues as areas in which liberal advocacy is based on emotion.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 7:52 PM  

  • Ranando,

    You're right. The US paying Clark to defend this monster IS bull-spit.

    All,

    "the vast majority of abortions done in this country are done for purely convenient purposes."

    The only state that keeps records of abortions and the reasons behind them is Kansas. According to the statistics gathered by the state of Kansas over 98% of abortions are elective in nature.

    "As for illegal immigration, nobody "backs" it except the big businesses that make tons of money employing illegals and cut oh-so-many politicians (on both sides of the aisle) in on the spoils."

    Illegal immigrant advocacy groups are liberals and lobby the Democrats very heavily.

    Catastrophile,

    "I'd point to gun control, smoking bans/tobacco taxes, and some other issues as areas in which liberal advocacy is based on emotion."

    Thank you for acknowledging that there are, in fact, areas where liberals are making emotional rather than rational decisions.

    I knew there was a reason I liked having you around.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:12 PM  

  • "According to the statistics gathered by the state of Kansas over 98% of abortions are elective in nature."

    And "elective" is defined as? My first guess would be "not relating to an imminent medical threat to the patient." Is "my daddy/husband will beat the crap out of me and kill my boyfriend" an option?

    "Illegal immigrant advocacy groups are liberals and lobby the Democrats very heavily."

    Defending the rights of illegal immigrants is not the same as promoting illegal immigration. Securing the borders is one thing; maintaining a permanent pool of laborers without legal rights is quite another. The companies I'm talking about would prefer the latter.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 8:30 PM  

  • On the "emotional argument" issue, Corie suggests that I have argued:
    "Homosexuality - You yourself said that if two people "love" one another then that should be enough."

    I don't know that I've ever said that. Feel free to provide a quote.

    What I believe I've said is that two adult human beings who wish to make a commitment ought to have that legal right unless we have some legitimate, logical reason for not allowing it.

    For instance, we can logically make the argument that a child is not fully developed emotionally to make a marriage sort of commitment and therefore it is reasonable to not allow children to get married.

    Logic and reason.

    What would be the logical reason for not allowing two gays adults to get married?

    Not to get in to the gay debate, but just pointing out again how many often "hear" liberals being emotional when, in fact, the statements made are not about emotion at all. Which gets to the point of the next discussion after this (Comparison Followup).

    I might agree with Cat and Daniel that gun control might be an issue where Dems (not so much progressives) are using emotion more than logic, but you don't see too many progressives spending too much time talking gun control, I don't think.

    How about this: Let's not call anyone's arguments "emotion-based" anymore without stating why, fair enough?

    An example of an emotional argument:

    "Gays creep me out! Two guys kissing each other? Yecch! That should be outlawed."

    An example of a logic-based argument:

    It would be wrong to give "special rights" to some (tax rebates, insurance benefits, etc) people who wish to live together but not to others.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 5:38 AM  

  • By the way, thanks Corie for addressing my request for examples. I appreciate it.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 5:40 AM  

  • Catastrophile & Dan:
    Well like I said when I gave the examples, I could have thought of more but had to get home. If I'd had the time I would have gotten around to Gun Conrol...but I can't say I would have ever thought of tobacco taxes. That's a good one too.

    Dan:
    You're welcome for the examples. As for finding a quote from you regarding what you said about love and homosexuality I tried to find it. It was on Gayle's blog back in October I think, anyway since she has changed all her commenting on her blog to Haloscan she has lost all her old comments. Check for yourself. I remember having this particular discussion w/ you because you said, "if two people love each other, who are we to say it's wrong." At least something along those lines is what you said and I remember commenting back asking you if it should be ok for a man to marry his dog, or a brother and sister to marry, or let a man have more then one wife, just as long as they all "love" each other. Does any of this ring a bell w/ you? It should.

    By Blogger Corie, at 12:13 PM  

  • I'll take your word for it Corie, you've a younger and fresher memory than my old brain.

    If I said it in those terms, I'd agree it is a rather lazy argument by itself. But, if I said it (as I should have) in the context of other issues (keeping big gov't out of our bedrooms, liberty, justice for all, etc).

    It's entirely possible I made such a lazy argument, I'm not infallible, and you would be correct in saying that "just because they love each other makes it right," is not a great argument.

    However, I suspect that many times (maybe not this one), people are hearing what they want to hear and not what the speaker is saying. This is why we have problems communicating left to right.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 1:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares