Like it or not, Saddam is the legitimate head of state in Iraq

[leftofthedial]

the Invasion that unseated and captured him was illegal.

[malaise]

1. Correct

which is why they will kill him.

[leftofthedial]

5. Don't get me wrong. I hate the mofo

But, as I see it, his trial is treason by the Iraqis involved.

Killing him is the only resolution.

[geek tragedy]

129. Treason? You simply can't be serious. eom

[enigma000]

130. Treason?

Saddam is royalty now? When did he become King Saddam? He's just a peasant thug from Tikrit. He was Head of State, but lost the job.

Speaking of which, Iraq WAS a monarchy once:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_II_of_Iraq

I don't know if Faisal II has any heirs but they have a greater claim as the legitimate rulers of Iraq than Saddam does.

[cantstandbush]

41. More legitimate than Musharaff. But, then we would overthrow

Chavez who is definitely an "democratically elected leader." Proving that we don't give to shits about "freedom and democracy." We just care about getting rid of government we don't like and taking their wealth from their countries.

[aquart]

2. Well, as legitimate as George, anyway.

[leftofthedial]

6. LOL, he is MORE legitimate than the bushturd

[tx_dem41]

28. Do you honestly believe that?

"MORE" legitimate? Please, don't do that to this forum.

[Toots]

70. Why when it is a fact

Saddam took his country by force in a brutal fashion but it was completely up front. Everyone knew it was happening and was helpless to change it. Bush* took office by deceit and corruption and held it through propaganda in the extreme. Legitimacy does not necessarily mean no blood loss. Saddam ruled his country for over twenty five years. He was acknowledged as the legitimate ruler by virtually every country on earth. I will never acknowledge Bush* as legitimate.

[texpatriot2004]

3. The invasion was/is illegal. nm

[leftofthedial]

10. The German court got it right. nm

[texpatriot2004]

13. Yes and they ought to know it when they see it. n.t

[leftofthedial]

21. they do have a particular "sensitivity" to the subject. nm

[texpatriot2004]

23. Exactly. I say that about them & I wonder could I say it without

sounding so harsh, your words say it well.

[Nederland]

4. Really? Who elected him? (nt)

[Hobarticus]

7. Actually, Iraqis did...

The election may be totally bogus (he got 100% of the votes!), but he's the elected president of Iraq.

Wednesday, October 16, 2002 Posted: 12:23 PM EDT (1623 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq has declared Saddam Hussein the winner with 100 percent of the votes in a referendum granting him another seven-year term, bringing bursts of celebratory gunfire in Baghdad's streets.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.vote/

[Igel]

25. Musharraf. n/t

[leftofthedial]

8. technically, 99% of Iraqis.

I never said he was the legitimate head of a democracy.

MANY legitimate heads of state are unelected or, like Saddam, were elected in sham elections.

[geek tragedy]

32. Do you know what "legitimate" means?

Let me answer:

You have no fucking clue what "legitimate" means.

Fascist dictatorships are never legitimate. They may have de facto control over the levers of power. But once they lose those, they are nothing more than displaced criminals.

[Clark2008]

67. You mean like Shrub?

Shrub was "elected" in sham elections, too.

[Cleita]

9. Who elected the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan?

Yet they are considered legitimate rulers. Since Saddam had Embassies all over the world, he too was legitimized by the fact that other sovereign nations did business with him, much as we are doing business with Musharrah of Pakistan, who took over the government in a coupe.

A universal caveat is that possession is nine/tenths of the law.

[Nederland]

12. I don't consider them legitimate either

I don't think anyone who wasn't elected by the people in a free and fair election should be considered "legitimate".

[Cleita]

14. That's very noble and a good ideal to aspire to but not

the reality. I doubt if any sovereign nation would consider you the last word on the matter.

[Nederland]

38. Increasingly it is practical

The number of democracies has been steadily increasing ever since the fall of the USSR. Democracies used to be a minority in the UN, now they represent the majority. The days of having to put up with dictators simply because they suited the US global goals in fighting the cold war are long gone. We no longer have a good excuse for supporting despots.

[Cleita]

39. I hope you are right.

That someday dictatorships will exist in the history books only, kind of like the world doesn't approve of human sacrifice and cannibalism anymore.

[leftofthedial]

17. that's a different subject.

[Horse with no Name]

55. Fuck Saudi Arabia and Jordan

What about our own sham elections in the US?

[Cleita]

11. I think he should be tried in the Hague for this reason, not

the kangaroo court our kangaroo government has set up. All it takes is a sovereign nation to file a complaint with the Hague to do this. Shouldn't this be what our government should do?

[leftofthedial]

22. I guess that would be the only semi-legitimate resolution at this point

:shrug:

[teknomanzer]

37. A trial at the Hague could yeild uncomfortable revelations...

about governments and business interests which supported the dictator as he committed the crimes he is being charged with. A trial in American occupied Iraq (with a 20 minute delay in broadcasting) will ensure silence regarding such revelations.

[eallen]

15. Yeah? Just when did Saddam become the legitimate head of state?

Saddam was the appointed successor of al-Bakr, who came to power in a coup. So I'm curious which of those mechanisms you think makes someone a legitimate head of state. Is it the coup? Or the appointment by a previous dictator? And if neither of those, just what about Saddam made him legitimate?

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. I don't have to give any credence to Saddam, because I oppose Bush. I think freepers laugh their heads off, when they see a Democrat say something like "Saddam is the legitimate head of state."

[karlrschneider]

18. He most assuredly was recognized as such by Reagan, Rumsfeld

and most nations. He only became "illegitimate" when it was convenient to take that position.

[eallen]

24. Ah. Well, then. The "Rumsfeld standard."

[leftofthedial]

19. his rule was recognized and sanctioned by every other government

on planet Earth. He was legally recognized unanimously by the international community as the legitimate head of state--even the US and even Iran and even Kuwait.

He is friend to no one but himself.

I frankly don't give half a runny shit whether freepers laugh or not. I hope if they do, they all choke on their Cheetos and die.

[H2O Man]

26. Yet by that standard

he is no longer, right? There are no governments that seem to recognize him as such today.

[Horse with no Name]

57. Perhaps the word "legitimate" is not the correct word

However, he was illegitimately taken out of office.
I am not crying in my cereal over that...because he is and was and will always be an evil man...however, what we are offering in Iraq isn't better than what they had, so there is a legitimate reason to address this issue.
What is better? Leaving an immoral dictator in office...or lying to the world and committing treason to your own country to accomplish your goal? Lies that have cost thousands upon thousands of innocent deaths, while stealing money from the treasuries in Iraq and the US.
If our country had made a legitimate case for the removal of Hussein with the blessings of the world, then we would be talking about something else altogether.

[geek tragedy]

59. The legitimacy of the invasion and Saddam's legitimacy are two

different issues.

Whether we like it or not, Saddam's reign and the invasion are both past tense. They happened, and now they're over.

The question is how to make the best of the mess that has been created in Iraq. At this point, compounding an illegal invasion with a virtually endless occupation is obviously the incorrect and morally wrong thing to do.

[Horse with no Name]

63. Yes they are different issues

and we can't just re-install Saddam and make it all better. The deed has been done.
However, I have a hard time understanding why they are writing a new Constitution?
The one they had was the most secular in the Mid-East and worked well.
This entire mess needs to be laid at the foot of the UN and let them send peacekeepers in and get the warmongers out.
First thing they need to do is get the foreign contractors out.
The Iraqi's need to build their own country.
We should pay heavy reparations to these people...for a very long time.
But the money being given to Halliburton should be paying the Iraqi's.
That is without a doubt.
Secondly we need to abandon the permanent base idea.
That is just a start...but the differentiation between legitimate ruler and illegitimately removed is one that needs to be made. They aren't the same.

[geek tragedy]

65. Keeping the Baathist constitution wasn't an option.

One doesn't launch into democratization by keeping the dictatorship's rulebook.

I agree on the rest.

[Horse with no Name]

76. yeah but there aren't many options

in that part of the world.
Sometimes you have to pick the worst of the evils and at least the women had rights.

[karlrschneider]

16. I know he's an asshole but you're right.

:grr:

[leftofthedial]

20. that's why the bushturd's war is so insidiously evil

once you break the "rules," you thwart the legitimacy of justice.

[tx_dem41]

27. Is there a purpose to this thread?

Other than to further marginalize DU as choosing Saddam over Bush? Why do you want me to make this choice? What is your goal in doing this?

[OneBlueSky]

30. goal? . . . how about the truth? . . . just for a change . . . n/t

.

[tx_dem41]

36. What truth would that be?

That Saddam was a legitimately elected leader of his country? Please, tell me more....

[OneBlueSky]

40. that for years he was accepted as the legitimate head of state . . .

of Iraq . . . by the UN, by the US, and by everyone else . . . if we decide to go after every country whose election systems we question or where we don't like how the head of state was otherwise selected, the list would be pretty long . . . and would include us, btw . . .

bottom line is that the US had no right under international or US law to invade and occupy Iraq . . . no matter how much we might have disliked Saddam or how he became president . . . BushCo is guilty of treason and crimes against humanity, among other things . . .

[geek tragedy]

47. But he's no longer recognized as the leader of Iraq by the international

community.

By your very own standards, he is 100% NOT the legitimate leader of Iraq.

[The Stranger]

68. That is because he was illegaly invaded.

Had that not happened, he would still be recognized.

[geek tragedy]

77. Again, so what?

What matters is that he is no longer recognized as the legitimate leader of Iraq by anyone whose opinion matters.

How he lost power is completely irrelevant. What matters is that there is no reason NOW to consider him the legitimate leader of Iraq.

[The Stranger]

88. What matters is not condoning the violation of international law.

At least to most people who consider themselves Progressives.

[geek tragedy]

90. Opposing the invasion and recognizing Saddam as the current

legitimate ruler of Iraq are two different things.


As a legal matter, Saddam is simply and unambiguously NOT the legitimate head of state in Iraq.

[The Stranger]

109. By asserting that he is not legitimate based on violations of int'l law,

you are supporting the violation of international law and the invasion.

[geek tragedy]

110. No, I'm saying he's not legitimate because no persons or institutions

with the authority to recognize or determine the legitimate leader of Iraq recognize Saddam as the legitimate leader of Iraq.

As a LEGAL matter, he is NOT the legitimate leader of Iraq.

Some of us are sophisticated enough to oppose Bush's war and avoid supporting a fascist dictator.

[The Stranger]

123. Then you are not saying anything at all.

There is no LEGAL REGISTRY FOR LEGITIMATE RULERS. So this is not a LEGAL MATTER at all.

If you are so sophisticated, learn about the law.

[geek tragedy]

126. So, you think Saddam is the morally legitimate leader of Iraq? eom

And, contrary to what you think, who is head of state is a legal question.

[The Stranger]

135. So you support illegal and murderous invasions to determine heads of state

? Weren't you just purporting to condemn fascism?

[geek tragedy]

136. I'm not saying that the invasion was legitimate. You ARE saying

that Saddam is legitimate.

[enigma000]

29. U.N. resolution on Iraq passes unanimously

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a resolution that endorses the June 30 transfer of sovereignty in Iraq and gives authorization for a U.S.-led multinational force.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/08/un.iraq/

This was back in June 2004. The UN security council unanimously consented to the creation of this Iraqi "government". Regardless of how the regime change took place, the UN has acknowledged the Baath Party is no longer in power.

[geek tragedy]

31. Like it or not, the Nazi party are the rightful rulers of Germany!

What morally offensive bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25580-2004Jun8.html

<snip>
The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously today to approve a new resolution that endorses a U.S. transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government and authorizes foreign troops to provide security for at least a year with Iraqi consent.

The resolution passed 15-0 after the United States made several last-minute concessions to incorporate demands by France and Russia, which had insisted on giving the Iraqi government more explicit authority to ensure it exercised genuine sovereignty after the scheduled transfer of political power on June 30
<snip>

So, the international community says otherwise. I don't know of any progressives who think that a fascist government's brutal oppression of its people lends it legitimacy.

[Rex]

33. There is a different kind of legality when you are a dictator and not a PM

Might makes right is the law of dictatorships. Saddam WAS the last PERSON in power over Iraq. Now it is the BFEE. Who knows, maybe Walmart will buy Iraq and bring discount prices.

[LynnTheDem]

34. True. And in Haiti the US sent marines to kidnap & overthrow the

democratically elected (and popular) president, and installed a Brazilian.

It's America's SOP; been doing it for years.

[geek tragedy]

48. No, FALSE.

He took power by force. He lost it because someone else used force.

Either he was never legitimate, or he is no longer legitimate.

There is no credible argument that he is the legitimate leader of Iraq.

I know you want him back in power, but too freaking bad.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. That's sort of like calling him a legitimate head of lettuce.

You're dealing with a meaningless illegal situation overlaid upon a series of other, meaningless illegal or artificial situations dating at least back to the British creation of "Iraq" in the first place.

He's no more legitimate now than he was when he was "our man in Baghdad". Only way you can have quote-unquote legitimate government in Iraq now is to get everyone who is NOT Iraqi the fuck out of the country and let THEM sort it out.

[LynnTheDem]

42. For or Against. Way too much bush-style "thinking"

by some posters, don't you find?

FACTS mean "praising" Hussein.

FACTS mean "choosing Saddam over Bush".

WTF???

Maybe CHILDREN think in black-white like that.

When did progressives come to believe SOME FACTS should be silenced and dropped into the Memory Hole?

FUCK that; FACTS are FACTS. Period.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Too much 'for or against'? What do you think your post #34 was?

in which you come up with a bald 'true' in response to the OP . That's black-and-white thinking. There have been several posters pointing out that Saddam gained and held power through violence; if you think that made him the 'legitimate president of Iraq', because he was recognised as such by other countries (and the UN), then as H2O Man pointed out, that's in the past - he was overthrown by more violence, and no other country or the UN still says he's president. If you think that elections or the support of the people decide the legitimate leader, then he fails on that test as well. You may not be able to say who is legitimate, but it's clear from what Iraqis say that the vast majority don't want him back.

[LynnTheDem]

45. Do you know international law?

Coming into power by force is not, unfortunately, a bar to being recognized as a nation's leader.

[geek tragedy]

46. Apparently you don't.

Please specify the theory or doctrine of law or political philosophy which supports your conclusion that Saddam is still the legitimate ruler of Iraq.

I'm going to guess that you're going to refuse because you don't have an argument to make.

He used force to take and keep power. Someone else used force to replace him.

Garbage in, garbage out.

He is not, by any meaningful legal or moral measure, the legitimate leader of Iraq.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

49. Now, now.

No use getting facts in the way of a good rant. :)

[geek tragedy]

50. The facts don't support the claim that Saddam is still the legitimate

leader of Iraq.

Only pro-Saddam idiocy does.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

51. Wait, I'm confused.

I thought Lynn was saying that Saddam *isn't* legit.

Am I hallucinating?

[geek tragedy]

52. No, she thinks Saddam is still the legitimate leader of Iraq.

She said "True" in response to the OP.


She also denies that he committed a campaign of mass murder and used poison gas against the Kurds, despite the unanimous consensus amongst forensic investigators.

But she only deals in facts . . .

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

54. Ok...

I don't see anything about the mass murder or poison gas issues so I assume that's coming from another thread. This is what I was responding to (or thought I was responding to, anyway.)


Do you know international law?

Coming into power by force is not, unfortunately, a bar to being recognized as a nation's leader.p/i]

Which would seem to indicate that she didn't think Saddam was currently legitimate leader under international law.

But this whole thing is giving me a headache anyway. I'm happy to see the stupid pigfucker go to jail, and he's one of the few people for whom I'd make an exception to my general no-death-penalty stance.

[LynnTheDem]

58. By all standing international covenants, Hussein is still the

legitimate president of Iraq.

The US itself backed this up in 1991 when the US restored to power the ruler of Kuwait. The US reversed Hussein's illegal actions.

The removal of Hussein was through an illegal invasion; therefor under int. law Hussein is still the legitimate president of Iraq and the US's actions should be reversed. Of course that's in theory. In practice is something else entirely.

Just like the sham "innocent until proven guilty" theory, which you yourself don't subscribe to.

[geek tragedy]

60. Did the world community ever stop recognizing the Emir of Kuwait?

No, they didn't.

Did the Kuwaiti people ever recognize the change in authority as legitimate?

No they didn't.

Were there any kinds of elections held with even a taint of legitimacy in Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

No there weren't.

Your argument is pure garbage.

Just because a dictator loses power through illegal means does not mean he's still the legal authority. That's a bogus, fabricted argument. It isn't based on any kind of international law. It's based on pro-Saddam moonbattery.

Saddam was a dictator. He lost power because a foreign power invaded him.

The world community doesn't recognize him as the legitimate leader of Iraq.

The Iraqi people don't recognize him as the legitimate leader of Iraq.

His authority no longer exists in the eyes of each and every community that has any say in the matter.

The only people who recognize him as the legitimate leader of Iraq are Baathist scum.

I suggest you actually get a legal education before trying to invent legal theories to support your boy Saddam.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

61. Well It's a good thing Hitler offed himself, I guess.

Otherwise he'd still be the legitimate leader of Germany.

God dammit did I just invoke the Nazis in a disussion forum?

*disappears of a puff of logic*

[geek tragedy]

62. You should have cited Mussolini. eom

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

64. No.

Using the Italian government... ANY Italian government... as an example for ANYTHING...

It's simply not applicable anywhere else in the world.

[geek tragedy]

66. Isn't Italian government an oxymoron? Okay, I'll stop. eom

[LynnTheDem]

72. No, not at all. Nation's leaders can and are and should be tried

for crimes they commit.

Hitler was the legitimate leader of Germany. Where do you get the idea that he'd still be the leader of Germany if he hadn't offed himself???

If he hadn't offed himself, he would have stood trial at Nuremburg.

OF COURSE Hussein should stand trial. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether he is or was the legit leader of Iraq under int. law. The only question that arises under law is whether, as head of state, he has immunity or not. That is a question of law and what is currently being argued by the prosecution and defense in Iraq.

[geek tragedy]

75. What body or community of legal relevance recognizes him

as the legitimate leader of Iraq?

[LynnTheDem]

53. Hussein was recognized as the leader of Iraq by the world community

He was the head of state, and recognized as such.

International law does not bar leaders from being recognized as leaders because they were unelected or because they became leaders by force.

That is codified under Int. law; it's why legal experts are currently arguing "head of state immunity" regarding Hussein. They are not arguing whether he was the legit head of state; they are arguing over whether the "principle of universality" for the "head of state" applies in Hussein's case.

But if it doesn't demonize Hussein, then it's "Saddam-loving", and facts be damned. ;)

[geek tragedy]

56. Saddam is NO LONGER RECOGNIZED AS IRAQ'S LEADER BY THE INT'L COMMUNITY

By your own definition he's not the legitimate leader of Iraq.


But you still think he's the legitimate leader of Iraq.

There are facts, and then there is supporting Saddam.

Stating that he is the legitimate leader of Iraq can only be described as blatant advocacy on behalf of Saddam for its own sake.

[The Stranger]

69. Because A SOVEREIGN NATION WAS ILLEGALLY INVADED.

If it were not for this crime, he would still be recognized, as he had been for decades (if not installed) by the U.S.

[LynnTheDem]

73. That's what prosecution & defense are arguing now in Iraq, which

would mean Hussein being indicted and tried at the Hague.

And as no one has bothered to ask my own personal opinion on the issue, I'll give it anyways; Hussein should stand trial at the Hague for any and all crimes the Hague deems prosecutable.

[geek tragedy]

74. So what?

He's still not recognized as the legitimate leader of Iraq by any relevant body, group, or community.

In the eyes of other governments and of the Iraqi people, he has been replaced.

He may have been the legitimate leader in 2002. But, as a matter of legal certainty, he is no longer the leader of Iraq.

[The Stranger]

Only if you defend illegal invasions and violating international law.

At best, you are condoning illegal invasions and murderous violations of international law. Otherwise, none of what you have stated is the case.

[geek tragedy]

87. According to what legal authority?

For someone to be the legitimate head of a state, SOMEONE of consequence must recognize their claim and status.

NO ONE of any consequence whatsoever recognizes Saddam to be the lawful and legitimate ruler of Iraq.

No one.

[The Stranger]

89. According to any legal authority.

You seem to miss the part about violating law. As in illegal invasions, torture, collective punishment, occupation, murder.

Again, these are things that most people who consider themselves to be "Progressives" oppose.

[geek tragedy]

91. What legal authority recognizes Saddam as the current legitimate

head of state?

Name a specific legal authority--the UN, the Iraqi people, the world community--name one.

Are you basing your claim on customary international law or on a treaty? Can you cite a legal precedent to back up your conclusion?

Or are you merely citing what you BELIEVE the rule SHOULD be?

[The Stranger]

107. Invading a sovereign nation based on lies is a violation of law

UNDER ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY. Therefore, the act of removing the head of state is illegal.

"Legal authorties" don't recognize heads of state -- other heads of state recognize them. Legal authority determines what is and is not legal.

[geek tragedy]

111. Saddam fell from power due to an illegal act. That does not mean

that he is entitled to return to power.

The Iraqi people don't view him as their legitimate head of state. Neither does a single foreign state.

In short, there is no legal authority that believes that Saddam is the legitimate head of Iraq.

Let me repeat: There isn't a single body of law or institution with the responsibility of determining the legal and/or legitimate leader of Iraq that recognizes Saddam as the legal and/or legitimate leader of Iraq.

[The Stranger]

124. Your assertion condones and supports violations of international law,

and sets a precedent for the Neocons to continue illegal invasions and justifying them after the fact based on perverse disregard of international law.

If he is gone -- "don't worry about the invasion and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands -- he is not "legitimate" because we buried him in prison." This is Neocon thinking.

The same thinking condones torture of possibly innocent people based on the false assumption and mass marketed fear that threatened (often falsely threatened) attacks may be avoided. This is also Neocon thinking.

That's not going to get by here.

[geek tragedy]

125. No, it doesn't. I'm stating the legal facts.

If you don't like the law, boo freaking hoo.

And supporting fascism is NEVER a morally, politically, or legally acceptable position.

Now, you'll excuse me, but I'm trying to limit the time I spend debating supporters of fascism.

[The Stranger]

134. Whether I like the law or not, I do at least KNOW the law.

Supporting illegal, murderous invasions based on nothing but lies IS SUPPORTING fascism, and, by definition, cannot be a morally, politically, or legally acceptable definition.

If you are debating supporters of fascism, you are debating with yourself. And, no, defending illegal murderous invasions of other countries is not excused.

[geek tragedy]

137. You know reactionary talking points, not the law.

I don't support the invasion, and I didn't then.

However, that does not mean that I recognize Saddam as the legitimate leader of Iraq. NO ONE outside of a few fringe nutters and fascist back-enders recognize Saddam as the legitimate leader of Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

92. Legal authority

Hussein Majali, president of the Jordanian Bar Association, issued a statement yesterday making it clear that he considers the former Iraqi president to have been unlawfully deposed in April, and unlawfully captured by US forces over the weekend.

"The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is the legitimate president of Iraq because the (US-led) occupation does not have any legality," argued Mr Majali.

"The Jordanian Bar Association considers President Saddam Hussein as the head of the resistance to liberate a dear part of our occupied Arab land."

http://www.independent.co.uk/c/?ec=500

Former top legal expert, International Committee of the Red Cross

"It's very clear in the Geneva Conventions that they apply to specific people, and to Saddam Hussein as supreme chief of the armed forces, from the moment he is captured and until he is freed,"

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=8193

As for the illegality of bush's invasion, the vast majority of the world's nations have already clearly stated so, as has the UN. Interesting issues under law (in theory) but in practice, the laws won't mean dick.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. The United Nations recognises Talabani

“The Secretary-General congratulates Mr. Jalal Talabani, as well as Sheikh Ghazi Al-Yawar and Mr. Adil Abdul Mahdi, on their election today by the Transitional National Assembly of Iraq as President and Vice-Presidents of Iraq.

http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2005/db050406.doc.htm

Annan did say the invasion was illegal, but he considers Talabani to be the President of Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

97. And the UN violated their own Charter.

Like I said, law in theory versus in practice.

[geek tragedy]

101. What provision of their charter did they violate?

Plese cite the specific provision that prohibits such a recognition.

Also, please name five members of the UN who still recognize Saddam as the legitimate Iraqi head of state.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. How does recognising Talabani as president

violate the UN Charter?

[LynnTheDem]

112. The entire debacle has been one violation after another

from the invasion to the occupation to the interim govt and Bremer's "100 Rules" (a gross violation of the Charter) to the election in Iraq; elections must be 'possible, fair and reasonable'. Under martial law, under occupation, with a raging war making it impossible for many citizens to vote, and voting for secret ballots, all under election rules set up by the occupiers, namely Bremer and his CPA.

1907 Hague Convention;

The 1907 Hague Convention, the basic law governing the conduct of occupying powers, expressly prohibits the occupiers from imposing any permanent changes in the form of government and laws of the occupied territory.

Article 43, which stipulates that an occupying power must “re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.”

Geneva Conventions;

Article 54 reads: “The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience.”

Gee, bush and his CPA sure f*cked with that one, didn't they.

So the election violated the 1907 Hague Convention and the Geneva Accord; the UN sanctioning the election and results is a violation of the UN Charter.

Law in theory versus law in practice.

Edit to add; article by international law expert Sabah Al Mukhtar
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ARB501A.html

[geek tragedy]

113. So, the Nazi party were the legitimate rulers of Germany in 1946?

Those treaty provisions don't have the legal effect you think they do.

And those aren't provisions of the UN charter. And that's a FACT.

And they don't limit the UN:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3505.htm#warning

In fact, the UN Security Council authorized these actions, making them legally effective.


It's true that the US and UK, as occupying powers, couldn't say that Saddam's regime was history.

But the Security Council and community of nations did just that.

[geek tragedy]

95. The Jordanian Bar Association is NOT a legal authority.

They are merely a collection of private citizens with their own opinions. Just like the Federalist Society, DU, and the Free Republic. They have no power or authority to determine who is the legitimate leader of Iraq. They are not an international treaty body. They aren't an Iraqi political or legal body. They're not even Iraqis.

Their opinion of Saddam's legitimacy is irrelevant.

The second article merely discusses Saddam's status as a POW, which is based on his PAST authority. It says nothing about his current claim to legitimacy and authority.


The FACT remains that no legal rule or legal authority support the proposition that Saddam is the legitimate head of state in Iraq.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

80. I think this misses the point.

The standard for whether or not a head of state is legitimate is surely whether or not they have a democratic mandate from their own state, not whether or not the international commmunity recognises them?

If this were not the case, anyone who organised an invasion, conquered a country and declared themself dictator would be legitimate if they could get the international community to recognise them.

Besides, Saddam loses either way. Whether legitimacy is a function of democratic mandate or international recognition, Saddam doesn't have it and the new regime does.

[geek tragedy]

81. Legitimate can mean different things in different contexts.

Under international law, recognition is pretty much the ballgame for legitimacy. This can largely be traced to the fact that international law is primarily the law governing relations between sovereigns. If the other states recognize the local authorities as legitimate, those local authorities are in the club, so to speak.

As a matter of political philosophy, legitimacy generally means whether the governed recognize a government as being the rightful authority. A monarchy, for instance, can be legitimate if the populace in general supports the rule by monarch.

It just so happens that Saddam lacks ANY vestige of legitimacy in any context whatsoever--inside or outside of Iraq.

The only folks claiming he is the legitimate leader of Iraq are his hardcore supporters.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

82. That last point is not entirely fair, I think.

People like the OP are presumably not hardcore supporters of Saddam; they're harcore opponents of Bush who make the mistake of assuming that the enemy of the enemy is their friend, and are more concerned with bashing Bush than with factual accuracy.

"...His hardcore supporters and fools" would possibly be fairer.

[geek tragedy]

83. I don't distinguish the motives of those who line up to support

fascists.

[LynnTheDem]

85. Or they're dealing with fact of law, rather than personal opinion.

You should check out a few international law boards and read up on the facts under law.

As for "hardcore supporters", sadly some posters are incapable of unemotional thinking.

IF Hussein was tried at the Hague, and IF he was found guilty, and IF the penalty was death, I'd flip the switch myself.

But I believe in "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" for EVERYONE on this planet, with every fibre of my being.

I also believe in the rule of law and international law. Opinions and how we think/want things to be are not always how things are in law.

And if these beliefs of mine cause some emotional narrow-minded individuals to equate them with "hardcore supporters", that's a shame and a pity for them, not for me. :)

[geek tragedy]

86. Your opinion is not a legal fact.

You frequent Internet boards that talk about international law? Big fucking deal. I have a J.D. from the premier school for international law in the Western hemisphere, if not the world.

You have provided zero support for your wild claim that a legitimate head of state who loses power because of an illegal act automatically retains his status as legitimate head of state, regardlesso of what happens afterwards.

The international community does not recognize Saddam as the legitimate head of Iraq. Under international law, he therefore lacks the current status as the legitimate leader of Iraq.

The Iraqi people do not recognize Saddam as the legitimate head of their country. Therefore, he is not the legitimate leader of Iraq under any kind of Iraqi law.

You provide nothing but unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims on behalf of Saddam.

[LynnTheDem]

99. It should be so, it would be nice if it were so, but it isn't so.

Ask Pakistan's president...or any one of dozens of unelected leaders around the world.

[geek tragedy]

103. All of whom are recognized by the UN and the international community

of nations.

Unlike Saddam.

[rinsd]

106. Wait a minute......

...I thought WE installed Hussein via the CIA?

Does that mean the Shah of Iran was legit?

[ButterflyBlood]

43. hardly

Saddam came to power when he was Vice President and his uncle who was President resigned. He then held on through sham elections. So he was never more legitimate than Musharraf or any other leader who took power through a coup.

So while the current government is not exactly legitimate, he's not either. And I doubt there's a single country on earth that recognizes him as head of state.

[Fescue4u]

71. Except that he himself took it by force

No He's not the legitmate head of state in Iraq.

Like it or not, in matters of war and international affairs, Might does make Right, and it has done so for the last 100,000 years

[Donald Ian Rankin]

78. Nonsense.

Is has been many, many years since Saddam Hussein had any form of legitimate democratic mandate; he's been forced to rely on blatantly rigged referendums where 99% of the population appear to support him. There may be a lot of things wrong with the current president, but he has a far stronger claim to the title of "legitimate head of state" than Saddam has had for a long time.

I'm afraid this is a classic example of letting your agenda blind you, and it's also the kind of extremist crank attitude that lends an awful lot of ammunition to people who want to dismiss DU as mothing but a load extremist cranks.

[Jed Dilligan]

79. Is "legitimate" the question?

He's the only person who ever actually managed to rule Iraq. He might somehow end up ruling it again. Iraq is the problem, not the person. We are becoming him by trying to rule it. You think the rape rooms aren't open again? This is how Iraq gets governed.

I've always maintained that the US government (Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, Lincoln, no matter who's prez) would do EVERYTHING Saddam did if it faced the internal threats he did.

[adwon]

84. Was the legitimate head

His claims ended the day he was taken into custody, regardless of legality.

[Tsiyu]

96. Since the invasion was illegal, you are correct

And if I were an Iraqi woman, I would be mighty pissed right now. Not that the dude was a friend to anyone but himself, but at least women had the right to work wherever they chose and to worship however they chose.

I abhor this administration and what they have done to these people. My greatest wish presently is that the screams of all the babies in Iraq and New Orleans will torment Dumbya every day of his nasty little life.

[LynnTheDem]

98. A whole lot of Iraqi women are pissed right now.

They're so screwed. The Talebornagain must be thrilled though.

[Tsiyu]

100. It's so sad, to me.

USA Today ran a story this weekend claiming Iraq's Constitution was a positive step for **. And I'm thinking WTF? I wish all of the women who support ** would move to their new and improved Iraq.

And the way this administration has ignored the rights of women in Iraq tells us something about the way they'd want thinks for women in the US if they could make it happen. Very scary.

[LynnTheDem]

102. What, that they can now be stoned to death for adultery? This is GOOD?

This is a POSITIVE step???

Did they not ghear about all the Iraqi women's associations speak out against the "constitution"???

Did they not hear al Sistani's spokesman say stoning to death is the only possible penalty for adulterous women???

WTF???

Taleban is back in government in Afghanistan. They still stone women to death under law. But hey, they can only use SMALL STONES now.

Gee there's a POSITIVE STEP.

I give up.

[Tsiyu]

108. I hear ya, Sis

It's bullshit.

We've made things so much worse for a whole lot of people who did NOTHING to us.

If all the fundyfucks think this is a good thing, I have to say I give up as well. There is no hope.

[Ksec]

105. I agree

If the invasion was illegal then so was everything done after it.

If we start arresting leaders for what their military did then count our leader in also. The World sees their hypocricy.

[jzodda]

114. That is the Chinese Position

The Chinese gov states that because it was not authorized by the UN security council it was illegal interference in the internal affairs of another country.

I disagree with that interpretation of International law in some ways and I agree with it in other ways. I do think that in this day and age for any military action that comes from without and not within it must be cleared first by the UN security council. The problem is an old one though. Superpowers like the USA, or Britain before us and going back all the way to Rome do not usually like to nor feel they need to listen to what other states say with regards to international affairs. For us, the founders of the UN, you would think in the end we would show more respect for the concept but in the end we have shown that the UN is little more than a tool.When we need it we embrace it and then disregard it when we do not. Someday I hope we will come to embrace the UN- the gulf war of 1991 was what I thought to be the beginning of that but I was wrong.

Now this in no way is an endorsement of Saddam Hussein. He took power in an illegal manner and he was removed the same way.

[geek tragedy]

116. Half-right about the Chinese position.

The Chinese believe that Saddam was removed illegally.

However, they don't recognize him as the legitimate head of Iraq.

[jzodda]

118. Correct but I assumed that readers would know that part.

The entire UN general assembly has accepted the new gov as legit. But I assumed that readers here would know that part already.

[geek tragedy]

119. Some here think that Saddam is still the legal head of state in Iraq.

A few are posting in this thread.

The entire international community and the Iraqi people recognize the new government.

But some DU'ers don't.

[LynnTheDem]

117. Well said.

But how telling a state of affairs in this country that in a simple discussion of facts you felt it necessary to point out that you're not a "Saddam lover". The rightwingnuttery (and others) have done a remarkable job at making us feel we either can't discuss entire areas of facts, or we must post a disclaimer whenever we do.

By the time bush's "war on terra" preventive wars are over there will be very little areas of discussion allowed us other than Nascar, reality tv and Happy Meals.

[jzodda]

120. Well emotion and logic are not always so easily separated

I exclaim my hatred for Saddam at the end because its how I feel deep down. Even the thought of somebody thinking I like him or his rule forces me to include that proviso.

You see back in 1991 I was a 3rd year college student at California State University Long beach. A young man from Basra, Iraq was a student there and lived in my apartment building. He also was a history major and in a few classes of mine. We struck up a brief friendship.

In 1993 when he returned to Iraq he was shot and killed by some of Saddam's henchmen for being part of some Shiite Pride organization. Another member of that organization spoke out against the gov who happened to be my friend's cousin. Because of that my friend was taken by the baath party thugs and beaten, shot and buried in a shallow grave 10 miles outside the city.

So my hatred goes deep, and logic and emotion are not so easily separated

[geek tragedy]

121. That's awful. People often treat victims of wars and dictatorships

like they're statistics instead of human beings.

We should never lose our humanity when considering such matters.

[LynnTheDem]

122. Very true.

Yours is obviously a different situation.

But for 9 out of 10 Americans they feel the need to post a disclaimer because they've been made to feel they must. Can't discuss facts without posting that disclaimer or you get treated the way some DUers treat me. That re-enforces the fear; "if you don't issue a disclaimer or if you post any facts I don't like and I will treat you the way I treat Lynn."

I've attended funerals of several friends who died because of bush. I have family Iraqmired because of bush.

But I can discuss bush's policies, such as his NCLB, without feeling any need to post a disclaimer that I do not approve of bush's genocide of the Iraqi people.

People in other nations discussing bush's NCLB would feel the need to post a disclaimer that they aren't a "bush-lover" and don't hold with his genocide.

It's very interesting, watching the demonization that the US and UK are incredibly proficient at.

[Fight_n_back]

115. Its Nadar's Fault!!!!

Nadar cost him votes in the Marine Expeditionary Force or he would still be President.

If the Iraqis still considered him leader then he would probably not be on trial.

Maybe its Ray Nagins fault for not evacuating women from the radius around Clinton's penis.

[Silverhair]

127. This kind of legal hair-splitting is why people hate lawyers.

At some point, some common sense has to intervene.

Saddam no longer has either legitimacy or the illusion of legitimacy.

BTW - The enemy of your enemy is sometimes your enemy too.

Rush has a habit of reading from DU lately. I wonder if he will use this thread?

[geek tragedy]

131. Note that the one lawyer in this discussion is arguing against the OP. n/t

[Silverhair]

132. Are you that lawyer?

You, and most DUers have been doing a good job of taking him to task.

[geek tragedy]

133. Yessir (or Yes ma'am) I am. Thanks for the kind words. eom

[Loonman]

128. Good goin'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508901/posts