I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Ticomaya wrote:

Are you suggesting the offer of Saddam could be considered an incentive for Israelis to kill Palestinians?

Not at all, that is far closer to the position you were forwarding than mine.

Quote:

Saddam wasn't paying the money to Israelis.

Nor was he paying the money to suicide bombers.

Quote:

But I also think an argument can be made that a crime has been committed.

This should be interesting.

Let's start with the most obvious question:

What law was broken?

Quote:

In my discussion of the contract (which is not a criminal law concept), I discussed the elements of offer and acceptance. The offer was by Saddam; the acceptance is by the suicide bomber.

What offer? You calling it one does not make it so.

Quote:

This constitutes an agreement, with the consideration the payment of the sum of money to the relatives (the third-party beneficiaries).

What agreement? You calling it one does not make it so.

Quote:

The agreement doesn't need to be a crime, but need merely be "unlawful."

Unlawful under precisely what law?

Quote:

In the case of Saddam, the conspiracy is to commit murder.

Here's a logical leap of faith. Saddam was paying relatives of the dead, they did not need to commit murder for the payment.

So why would it be conspiracy to commit murder? If the assuring payments to relatives is the key, note that they can have been acheived (and I believe in the majority of the cases were acheived) without murder.

Quote:

Thus, I am in agreement with O'Bill concerning the potential criminal culpability of Saddam due to his payment of money to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Fair enough, this is certainly possible with imaginary evidence (offers, agreements), imaginary laws and an imaginary legal setting so I'll not join this nebulous legal land as I will undoubtedly be less well versed in the laws and systems you have created.

Out of curiosity, Craven, where are you going with this.

Your thesis seems to be that while murder is illegal in Israel, conspiracy to commit murder was not a crime in Iraq, at least while Saddam was head of state.

Would that make any financier of terrorism immune, so long as the actual acts of financing or conspiring were to take place in a country, or on the high seas, where such conspiracy were not prohibited by law?

By the way, I've avoided this one till now because joefromchicago could have lead the discussion in an entirely different direction simply by using "I want the US to admit to a mistake, and withdraw from Iraq." Could have, I say, but he seems to have wanted to practice his arguments.

. . . But I agree with his basic premise (that one can be considered patriotic and want their country to lose a war) and I think this presentation is a useful mental excercise because it should cause people to gauge their criteria, priorities and the approximation to absolutism with which they approach patriotism. . . .

Bill is actually quite wrong re parole ...
1. A parole officer cannot revoke parole - only the parole board - followed, quite possibly by a coutrt, can do that.
here, a parole officer can report alleged breach of parole, and request the board to revoke parole.

That doesn't make any sense. It's nowhere near my position. I asked you to clarify. You haven't done that.

Well, since I stated in my last post that the two crimes I think Saddam could be convicted of are "conspiracy (to commit murder)" and "solicitation (to commit murder)," I think I've already answered this.
If you are asking me to quantify this in terms of international law, I'm not qualified to do so, and decline to try. I'm referring to common law principles.

True. That's why we have courts of law, and triers of fact. If a prosecutor could simply point at the defendant and declare, "Criminal!", we wouldn't have a need for judges and defense attorneys, now would we? Again, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." All I need is a jury to believe the facts are as I claim they are.

Now I'm not saying I would win the case, all I'm saying is I can make an argument, and what my argument would be.

You may find it unsatisfactory, but I imagine you would find the practice of law to be the same, since it does not always fit into nice, clean, mathmatical equations.

Well, your saying there isn't one doesn't mean there isn't one.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:

The agreement doesn't need to be a crime, but need merely be "unlawful."

Unlawful under precisely what law?

Common law.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:

In the case of Saddam, the conspiracy is to commit murder.

Here's a logical leap of faith. Saddam was paying relatives of the dead, they did not need to commit murder for the payment.

So why would it be conspiracy to commit murder? If the assuring payments to relatives is the key, note that they can have been acheived (and I believe in the majority of the cases were acheived) without murder.

I've already stated several times that the relatives were the third-party beneficiaries of the agreement between Saddam and the suicide bombers. They did not commit murder, nor were they participants to the conspiracy. All they did was get their pockets lined.

And I've already said why it would be conspiracy to commit murder.

dlowan wrote:

Bill is actually quite wrong re parole ...
1. A parole officer cannot revoke parole - only the parole board - followed, quite possibly by a coutrt, can do that.
here, a parole officer can report alleged breach of parole, and request the board to revoke parole.

<Here in Germany, this is done only by the court - having worked myself as a probation/parole officer.>

Craven de Kere wrote:

. . . But I agree with his basic premise (that one can be considered patriotic and want their country to lose a war) and I think this presentation is a useful mental excercise because it should cause people to gauge their criteria, priorities and the approximation to absolutism with which they approach patriotism. . . .

Oh.

For the highlight, I think that's what I meant by practice. Really, the man could argue both sides and beat himself twice. To the main point, I honestly haven't decided whether he is correct or not. The parts I've followed have been thought provoking, in any case.

Lisa Ling (formerly of The View) now works as sort of a "roving correspondent" for National Geographic. She recently worked on a story (Female Suicide-Bombers - Dying to Kill) dealing with female homicide-bombers, interviewing the families and friends of both Palestinian and Chechen terrorists.

Nimh - I think you'd be surprised at some of her findings. The special aired on the NGC in mid-December and with all the holiday festivities, I missed it. I did catch Lisa on a couple of local TV shows promoting it, though. I remember her saying that although the families of these female bombers gave the usual "martyrdom" reasons, when pressed, the friends of the women had a different story. She didn't mention if the families knew beforehand, but like you, I tend to doubt it.

What astonished me is that she made it almost seem as though these women were manic/depressives who would have committed suicide anyway, but did it as homicide-bombers in order to become heroes. She focuses on four female Palestinians, I believe, and all had suicidal tendencies to begin with and none were overly religious.

Perhaps her comments in the promoting of the show and the actual interviews will vary, I don't know. I'll keep an eye out to see if it re-runs. I caught Lisa on The View a couple of times. It will be interesting to see if her leftist views bias her sometimes political reporting on National Geographic.

We have thousands of news outlets that will cater to your every taste. Plus, every member of A2K has access to every website you do

Example-Aside: Just last week I watched a documentary about an Israeli Reporter who works with a Palestinian Camera Man... who's main focus is, of course, the conflict. The unlikely team gets a pass wherever they go because of their ethnic diversity.

Here's where it got nuts. Both men also agreed that most of the attacks that took place; took place because there is cameras and reporters to record and report it. [..] Meanwhile, if a prominent man could be giving a speech about forgiveness or some other good thing could be captured, not one camera can be spared because that's not what sells.

I'm as big of proponent of free speech as they come, but this type of idiocy makes me question whether more exceptions should be allowed. If taking away the camera takes away the crime; then isn't the camera part of the crime?

There are some questions out there that remain unanswered. Before this thread goes off into more unanticipated directions, I'd like to highlight those questions in the hopes of having them answered:

For everyone: Can an American want the United States to lose the war in Iraq and still be patriotic?

For McGentrix: What are the US's goals in Iraq? (this question has been posed at least three times -- McG, where are you?)

For Ticomaya: Suppose, then, that someone's definition of "win," as it pertains to the war in Iraq, is "withdraw all American troops immediately and take whatever steps necessary to repair or mitigate the damage done by the war?" If that person favored "winning" under that definition could he still be a patriot?

Tico,

Have you ever heard the phrases "he won the battle but lost the war" and "pyrrhic victory?"

Santa Anna eventually took the Alamo... but it cost him too much time and allowed the Texas revolutionaries to defeat him. Would a member of his staff who recommended bypassing the Alamo be un-patriotic? Even after shots were fired? I think not; the goal is to win the war not the particular brawl you are in.

What about a diversionary attack? The general knows that lives will be lost; the general knows that the attack will not succeed; is this general unpatriotic? You might question the tactics but not his patriotism.

Can a tennis player throw a particular game, and still want to win the match? Yes. Does that make them "unsportsmanlike?" I think not.

In my view, the current adventure in Iraq is only a piece of a larger conflict. I would much rather win the larger conflict.

I think your definition of patriotism is a little narrow. A patriot wants what is good for his/her country. That may or may not mean winning a particular battle.

Are you asking because you don't know? Or are you asking because you think I don't know?

It's not that hard of a question to answer, I would think the goals would be obvious.

Here it comes though, get ready for it...

Eliminate a terrible dictatorship and put in place a democracy.

Was the wait worth it?

By the way, I've avoided this one till now because joefromchicago could have lead the discussion in an entirely different direction simply by using "I want the US to admit to a mistake, and withdraw from Iraq."

Could have, I say, but he seems to have wanted to practice his arguments.

McGentrix wrote:

It's not that hard of a question to answer, I would think the goals would be obvious.

Here it comes though, get ready for it...

Eliminate a terrible dictatorship and put in place a democracy.

So then you'd agree that anything short of attaining those goals would constitute a defeat, right?