"you can't prove i'm saddam hussein!"

when people deny that a court has jurisdiction, one is always left in an interesting predicament. or not, because just because someone doesn't like what's happening to them, doesn't mean it's not. so when saddam says:

"I don't answer this so-called court, with all due respect, and I reserve my constitutional right as the president of the country of Iraq. I don't acknowledge either the entity that authorises you, nor the aggression, because everything based on falsehood is falsehood."

he clearly hasn't read the little prince; one is only president as long as one's objects agree.
he actually got me quite worried when he refused to name himself;

"You know me, You are an Iraqi and you know that I don't get tired."

while the court still has jurisdiction, what happens if the defendant refuses to answer to their own name? but the name isn't the important bit - they only have to prove that he is the same person that commited the crimes he is accused of.

this became irrelevant later in the day's events, when Taha Yassin Ramadan got all the philosophy out of the way for us:
"I repeat what President Saddam Hussein said."

all quotes from bbc.

a wierd and as far as i'm aware overlooked thing in alan moore's watchmen is the oompahloompahs. ozymandias has these oompahloompahs, right? three interchangable guys he saved in vietnam, who live in his secluded mansion and do all butler-type jobs. for all intents, they're oompahloompahs. why does he kill them just before the other watchmen arrive for the denouement? what's all that about? i've never been able to figure it out. we see him sacricfice a quarter of a million people to save the world, a 'heroic' act, but why then simply poison his three servents? sadism? necessity? answers on a post card please.

by the way, whilst wkikpedia is good, sometimes it's best to leave stuff to the experts. so here they are: sequential tart's continuity pages.


Anonymous said...

Have you read the latest bit about how his rights are being violated? Its classic. (I linked to it on my site.) He falls under my zero doubt=zero tolerance rule. As far as I'm concerned, he's out of rights.

Unknown said...

(mirrored on impatient girl's blog..)
but rights are rights. you can't lose them, even if you're saddam hussein. yes, it's laughable that he's complaining, but if there's zero doubt, then he'll lose the trial and will be penalised to the full extent of the law. to violate someone's human rights, even those of a criminal, is wrong.

that sentence i just wrote is a bit tautologous, i see. there has to be a difference between civil rights (which can be suspended) and human rights (which can't). it's all up to the person who gets to decide what that difference is, really. if you don't think we have any fundamental rights at all, well, i can see your point, but you leave society open to not having that legal safety net. I don't believe rights are fundamental, but i think they're a very good idea.

however, all this is irrelevant if hussein's rights haven't been violated at all, and he's just kicking up a needless stink, as is his character. his team seem to be constructing a defence based entirely on the 'illegitimacy' of the court, and (sensibly) not calling into question saddam's guilt.

anyway, thanks for leaving your comment. it certainly got me thinking!

Grill said...

Are we talking Ozymandias or Saddam here...?

The 'Oompah-loompahs' are killed to prevent anyone finding anything out about Ozymandias' plan; he plans that the only people who know are either discredited and wanted by the police (Jupiter, Owl, Rorshach, Doc Manhatten) or, um, him. No-one else can be trusted and every loose end must be tied up; first the comedian, then the artists and scientists who created the "event", and finally his trusted henchmen. It's questionable whether he even intended the heroes to survive at all.

Also, I'm ringing tomorrow Dov. You better have a part-time job by now. ;) No excuses will be accepted.