<< CHEWIN' ON THE INNOCENTS ~ MAIN ~ CHILDREN TAUGHT WELL >>
KIM BEAZLEY’S FRIEND
Bob Ellis feels sorry for Saddam:
Saddam Hussein can’t watch television, read newspapers, telephone his wife or consult his lawyers. He can read novels, though, write poetry, tend a small rock garden. No television interviewer can go near him, no friendly or hostile biographer, no prosecutor from the ICC. Unlike everyone else in the democracies, he cannot ask for bail, or asylum, or (something John Paul might have given him) asylum in the Vatican.
The reasons aren’t too hard to guess. Under international law, Saddam is still President of Iraq, the war that overthrew him having been illegal, unsurrendered and unconcluded, and he, a lawyer, knows this. He might say so to an interviewer and might moreover mildly ask why Americans bombed and burnt his property and murdered his sons and fourteen-year-old grandson. Why, in particular, they burned his yacht. What good did that do? Are the Americans crazy?
Poor Saddam, all yachtless and missing his dead rapist sons. Ellis feels his pain. Hit the link above and you’ll discover that this sad-man-for-Saddam isn’t a fringe identity howling from the margins; last week he was in Kim Beazley’s office helping craft the opposition leader’s budget reply speech.
(Via Raff, this site’s Ellis editor)
I wasn’t aware wars had to be legal anyway. Hear that Churchill, you fucked up the paperwork, no invading Germany today.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 05 19 at 01:23 PM • permalink“...he, a lawyer…”?
i guess Ellis considered “judge, jury and executioner” and reasoned that lawyer would evoke more sympathy…
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2005 05 19 at 01:29 PM • permalinkUnder international law, Saddam is still President of Iraq
Then international law is an ass, as Dickens would say. Apparently no election will be valid until King Saddam assents.
Ask him if he still thinks the Romanovs are the rulers of Russia. Hell, show me the legality of the dissolution of the Roman Empire; seems to me that if Britain is still part of Rome, and Britain conquered Australia, then it is high time to depose Howard and start paying fealty to Caesar again.
Whereas confiscating property from people who haven’t done anything wrong except be financially succesful is classed as moral by lefties.
They are fucking evil and fucking insane.
P.S. If you get really annoyed with the Lefty, mug a lefty and whilst you empty his wallet tell him it’s OK its just personal socialism.
I see the wisdom of our forefathers. Hitler dead, Mousilini dead, Tojo dead, Ceasar dead, Franco dead.
No need of trial, no chance of return to power. No matter who is in office.I do enjoy hearing of Saddam’s miserable living conditions, but there is no arguing with the results our fathers got.
Posted by papertiger on 2005 05 19 at 04:32 PM • permalinkIs it really a good idea to let him have rocks?
Posted by tim maguire on 2005 05 19 at 04:34 PM • permalinkAnd they hate it when you say they support Saddam
‘Under international law, Saddam is still President of Iraq’
But their is that little matter of the mass graves, poison gas, rape squads….......
Posted by IcallMasICM on 2005 05 19 at 05:07 PM • permalinkI do wish Ellis would show me the “International law” statute that declares Hussein to still be President of Iraq.
(And the war unsurrendered? Well, yes, in that the Ba’athist government simply dissolved and ran, yes. But unconcluded? Odd. Sure looks like it’s over, unless the current foreign terrorists are secretly the Ba’ath party’s army. And if they are, I guess Hussein’s up for some war crimes trials? Stupid “logic”, huh, Ellis?)
Also, Papertiger, remember, we didn’t kill Hitler, he did that himself. And didn’t Franco die more or less of old age? Mussolini, likewise, killed by his own people, ditto Caesar (and look what good THAT did Rome!).
Really, our forefathers only got Tojo, out of that group. (But our forefathers did pretty well at Nuremberg, to make up for not getting Hitler alive.)
Sigivald. There probably is some statute in the Hague or someplace like that which states he is still in power. Likewise, the Taliban in Afgan. I wonder why all the angst from the left about his freaking boat. The military probably got a tip that he might be on it. I’d like to save it to. Could’ve sold it to the Galloway charity or some Hollywood type and built a few more schools. Que Sera Sera.
under international law, Saddam is still the President of Iraq,,,
Maybe we should ask the Stuart Pretender and that Eurotrash committee of princes about that…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 05 19 at 08:12 PM • permalinkThe direct link no worky for me. But I can navigate to the pdf link of that page which may work:
Try this link (pdf)One quote:
The number of Iraqis he killed, mainly Kurds in a civil war, number forty or sixty thousand. The number of Iraqis killed by Americans and their coalition ‘partners’, in two wars and a decade of sanctions, is over a million.
Wow. We’ve been busy! Note Ellis churlishly doesn’t put any of the sanction deaths in the “Saddam” column…and hey, shouldn’t there be a “UN” column?
American soldiers are pretty free, though. They can kill anyone they like.
Discuss.Gee, I would Bob, but I’m too busy avoiding the USGI death squads that roam the streets of my hometown, leaving bodies strewn in their wake. I’ll get back in touch with you after I’ve shaken off those bloodthirsty psychopaths from the local National Guard armory.
Take care Bob! Keep watching the skies!
he, a lawyer
That intrigued me too. I thought the guy was just a vicious thug. So I’ve looked it up.
One thing you find is that lots of sites say he went to the Cairo School of Law. And he did. He just didn’t graduate.
See http://www.emergency.com/hussein1.htm
“Saddam finished intermediate school (roughly the equivalent of 9th Grade) at the age of sixteen, and attempted to be admitted to the prestigious Baghdad Military Academy.
Unfortunately, his poor grades prevented him from doing so, and he became more deeply involved in political matters.
... While receiving aid from Egypt, he finished high school at the age of twenty-four and continued his political education. While in Egypt, he was arrested on at least two occasions for threatening a fellow student and chasing another down the street with a knife, both for political differences. In 1961, he entered Cairo University School of Law, but did not finish his studies there.”Bad Bob Ellis. Didn’t do his research.
The current President of Iraq, under international law, is Jalal Talabani. His government posesses both international recognition and exclusive (if imperfect) soverignty over Iraq, satisfying all criteria under modern international law for legitimacy of rule. Saddam Hussein, posessing neither power nor recognition, does not meet those criteria, no matter what the legality of the method by which he was removed from office.
If the question of international recognition were open, then there would be some plausible argument for Hussein still being President of Iraq. As it is not, it is completely irrelevant if the war is “illegal, unsurrendered and unconcluded”. Saddam Hussein is a prisoner of the legitimate Republic of Iraq, not its president.
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2005 05 19 at 09:54 PM • permalinkUnder international law, Saddam is still President of Iraq, the war that overthrew him having been illegal, unsurrendered and unconcluded…
Quickly, team! We must sue before the ICC to restore the House of Stuart to the throne of England! Ye Jacobites by name, lend a lawyer, lend a lawyer…
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 05 19 at 10:28 PM • permalinkListen to this idiot’s language, the dictator ‘mildly asks’, etc, Saddam’s already becoming a put-apon, avunclular father-to-his people character in Ellis’ revolting imagination, eye’s rolled gently to heaven as he is nailed apon a cross made of American greed and cruelty. And “why, what was it all for”, he whines, even as eight million Iraqis vote in a true election for the frist time in their lives.
The Kurds in their graves, the poison gas, the eyes gouged out, the doctors ordered to perform the amputation of ears and noses to punish deserters, the pointless wars that killed a million, the pointless sanctions that killed thousands more, all mean nothing to Ellis. But to this sniveling little boy in a wrinkled old hippy’s body, Howard is a war criminal and dictator.
This is lunacy, this is a totaly inversion of reality, to listen to Ellis is like listening to a scientologist ernestly inform you of his psycic mental powers and the existence of a space emeror called Xenu. It’s to listen to person so far fled from reality that no amount of reason or evidence will ever entice him back, and Beazly associates with this sick freak?
God, I can’t even express my utter contempt, hatred, of this pathetic streak of human dogturd, Ellis, you scum.
Bob Ellis. From clinically insane and insufferably stupid to bitter, evil old shit.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 20 at 01:12 AM • permalinkI’m concerned for the welfare of the ‘rocks’ that saddam is tending.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 05 20 at 01:52 AM • permalinkActually, if you read a history of the first Gulf War, you discover that it never actually ended. At the end of it, Bush snr told Saddam and his generals that they would comply with a whole bunch of stuff (disarm, reveal WMD programs, don’t massacre the Kurds, etc) and THEN the war would be over. Saddam never did any of those things, so the coalition enforced the no-fly zones (remember them?) where fire was regularly exchanged on both sides, and the war settled into a state of permenant cease-fire (kinda)... but it did not end.
Gulf War 2 was just a resumption of Gulf War 1, which was legal enough for the French AND the UN. All of which only matters, of course, if you accept the hypothesis that international law today is not a total load of crap, which as everyone else is pointing out, it clearly is.
Our Bob in full fantastic flight in a March 2005 edition
“The 20,000 Iraqi children our side killed in 2003 and the 500,000 children we killed with Desert Storm and sanctions after 1990 are greater in number than the number of children killed in Rwanda. Yet we think they will be grateful that we came. That 520,000 dead children do not matter and ‘freedom’ does.
When you add to that the 600,000 Iraqi adults our side killed since 1990, and the 300,000 we wounded, blinded, crippled, and when you add up the number of siblings, six or seven each on average, and the number of cousins, seventy or eighty, and the number of aunts and uncles, twenty-five or thirty, you will find that everyone in Iraq has reason, good reason, to hate our side. Minus, I suppose, two million Kurds and some grateful Shi’ites; 22 million people, say, the population of Australia, hate our side with reason.
And yet we believe we will solve our problems there by killing more of them – by rooting out and killing the ‘insurgents’ and so enraging their relatives too.”
For each nation The Law is upheld by The Sovereign (be it royalty or president or whatever) and the Sovereigns’ territory is managed by The Government.
If the Sovereign is removed or absent there is no Law. If the Government is removed or absent there is no management of the Law.
Anarchy rules.
There is no International Sovereign of International Territory and International Government so there is no International Law.
Wow, after #31 there I’m shocked there’s anyone left alive in Iraq.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 05 20 at 03:50 AM • permalinkA fitting subject to be awarded a World’s Smallest Violin* award
*(c)OpinionJournal.
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 05 20 at 07:15 AM • permalink1018 20 may 05 sbs claims us army preventing release of australian hostage wood in iraq
a new low even by their apalling standards
Posted by Astonished on 2005 05 20 at 08:19 AM • permalink[bclinton]Ah feelah heeyis payun.[/bclinton]
Posted by tree hugging sister on 2005 05 20 at 08:57 AM • permalinklateline 2315 east coast time 20 may apalling bias oz
lateline has just reported a version of the 2nd world war where every reference just about was innacurate or left wing biased to set almost a new low by abc standards. abc seeks to blaim amercia for mad russian claims. the following interview with beevoir fixes most/some of this as he is a good historian and unlike the abc drone actually knows something about the topic. but only exposes how much the nut case jones doesnt want the truth every time beevoir starts to get into profound teritorry jones is aghast at the absence of left wing propoganda and steers things back to stalingrad.
for someone that has any understanding of mil history this is a new profound example of how the abc is beyond repair as its bias are now hard codedPosted by Astonished on 2005 05 20 at 09:28 AM • permalinkSBS has no f***ing standards.
There is no low point they will not stoop to to continue their never ending campaign of denigration of Australia and it’s society in pursuit of their holy grail of multiculturalism.
A pox on them all.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2005 05 20 at 09:33 AM • permalink#31 is the typical Stalinist - a lying liar. They think they can make up shocking numbers and have the public lick it up. 500,000 children? What, were American tanks weaving in and out of the desert trying to hit children? The few thousand that have died pales in comparison to 100 million dead due to International Socialism - the side you are on.
Beazley’s office isn’t the only prominent place ole Bob has been seen this week.
Have a look at the Weekend Australian and you’ll see him shambling behind those two Labor-linked solicitors who flew to Manila to nobly volunteer their services as unpaid negotiators for Vivian Alvarez.
That’s the same V Alvarez who initially said she blamed nobody for having ended up in The Phillipines. Nevertheless, this week the ABC predictably invited these parvenus on Radio National to speak for her—so much better for their purposes than a modest, retiring Filipina with no axe to grind against Howard & Co. Look, said her alleged lawyers, she’d really like to settle out of court so WHEN are Vandstone’s people going to contact us and start talking money??? We’ve signalled our client’s willingness to negotiate for chrissake!!!
Just imagine what a meal “our” ABC could make of the Ellis Connection if they chose to. Something to lead off every radio and TV news bulletin for months, with “pressure is mounting on Kim” prefaces, and the story that “just won’t go away” etc etc etc.
Think Peter Rieth and Dubai-gate, completely obscuring the issue of waterfront reform in favour of who-said-what-&-when consipiracy. Think Peter Hollingworth and how “pressure mounted” for his resignation.
A treatment like that perfectly fits for Ellis the baggy bagman as go-between for Beazley and the Manila Mouthpieces.
No, no, no! Bob Ellis isn’t evil or insane - not Bob the GRREEAAT LUVVVVERRR! Bob just LUUUUVVS Saddam!
Fuck him. They can love each other to death.Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2005 05 21 at 04:25 AM • permalinkSo, if Saddam wins power by assassination, retains it by intra and ex-judicial murder, and perpetrates all sorts of abuse of people by his own and his henchmens’ hands, we are still supposed to think that there has to be a legal and proper way to depose and dispose of him?
Tell’em they’re dreamin’.
The trial is a waste of time and money, and simply an opportunity for more propaganda from the undead evil hordes.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
“Are the Americans crazy?”
Yes - Yes we are.
Personally, I like to burn boats.