← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · SARTRE
Thread ID: 15104 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2004-09-24
2004-09-24 22:00 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.zaman.org/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20040921&hn=12424]Saddam to Declare Candidacy for Iraqi Elections[/URL]
Overthrown Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who was arrested by US forces last December, reportedly plans to run as a candidate in the Iraqi elections scheduled for January 2005.
Saddam's lawyer Giovanni di Stefano told Denmark's B.T. newspaper that Saddam decided during one of their discussions that he would declare his candidacy for the elections.
Stefano said that there was no law that prevented Saddam from appearing on the ballot. He added that Saddam hopes to regain his presidency and palaces via the democratic process.
Contrary to the statements of Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, Stefano claims, "Saddam has no chance to be tried before the elections. Moreover, no international law prevents him from coming forward."
Saddam's lawyer defends that the ambiguity in Iraq will favor Saddam at the polls. Stefano remarked that a recent Gallup poll indicates that 42 percent of the Iraqi people want their former leader back.
Meanwhile, evaluating the conditions of Saddam in jail, Allawi said that Saddam had asked him for mercy.
2004-09-25 02:17 | User Profile
I am willing to bet that Saddam will be returned as a US puppet in the region after all their other attempts to establish "democracy" fail. Now that his sons are gone and his country in ruin, he will be more managable by his handlers. Crazier things have happened. Please tell me that I am wrong.
2004-09-25 03:12 | User Profile
If Bush made it to the White House then why can't Saddam make it to the Sand Castle???????
When Saddam was in power there was food and work plus all the women were safe on the streets but now all that was not is and all because of the Amerikaninski.
2004-09-25 04:07 | User Profile
Not only would it be the height of irony, but it would be funny as hell in a perverse way if Saddam won. I'd love to hear the neocon talking points about that. :lol:
2004-09-25 05:00 | User Profile
"Stefano said that there was no law that prevented Saddam from appearing on the ballot. He added that Saddam hopes to regain his presidency and palaces via the democratic process."
According to the Iraqi Constitution (not created by Iraqis), regarding any candidate for the National Assembly, "He shall not have been a member of the dissolved Baââ¬â¢ath Party with the rank of Division Member or higher." The National Assembly in turn elects the president.
The Constitution doesn't really say anything about the composition of the National Assemble, but points to the election code. You can bet the election code is designed to prevent Sunnis from having an significant representation in the Assembly. Sunnies are the only people who would overwhelmingly vote for Saddam. And, of course, the US will also do it's best to sink any candidate sympathetic toward Saddam.
2004-09-25 11:58 | User Profile
Saddam Hussein is more credible than that other "Iraqi Leader" Ayad Allawi any day of the week. I'd be shocked, really shocked, if anyone BUT Allawi becomes president of Iraq in January '05.(if that election happens at all-there will probably be a coup d'etat somewhere along the line)
If Saddam's Iraq wasn't under sanctions for 12 years, Iraq would probably be a major tourist destination by now. The neocons constantly harp about "schools being built and opened, women have this and that now" but, but, but, that was already schools in Iraq under Saddam (most literate Arab nation) and women had much more freedom in Iraq that Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Go figure.
2004-09-25 12:17 | User Profile
Folks,
Thought the idea expresses the absurdity. When the rules are made up and managed to determine the end results, it's hard to sugar coat the process.
The condition that a National Assembly electing a president is sound, especially when compared to a direct selection by public vote. The point to appreciate is that [I]"democracy"[/I] is very lethal when dissenting factions are prevented by the victors of an invasion for conquest
The lesson is that geographic borders for Iraq have always been contrived. Breaking up the country to reflect tribal realities would better serve the indigenous population.
The mantra that legitimacy requires national elections is bogus. Consent is the test, not a vote for unwanted choices.
The latest from the Constitution Party of New York: [I]ââ¬ÅThe Board of Elections has invalidated our petitions for Peroutka-Baldwinââ¬Â.[/I]
If the Baââ¬â¢ath Party is taboo for the occupation, the same crew that purifies our process hampers third party access so the public will is expunged from voting for non approved ââ¬Ëpolsââ¬â¢.
In its current version National elections are a fraud. Boycott the process, and never vote for a RepubLIKUDemocrat stooge.
SARTRE
2004-09-26 00:58 | User Profile
From the way the neocons have been oohing and aahing over him I can wait to hear some ignorant fool like Bill Bennett to proclaim to the world:
"[color=red]Ayad Allawi, the Abraham Lincoln of Iraq!"[/color] :thumbsup: