These "free speech" arguments are entirely evading the point. Everyone can express whatever opinion they like about events in the world in any free society.

However, this discussion is about actions; i.e., actions which include harboring criminals who have cruelly gassed and executed over 100,000 Kurdish civilians, tortured countless others, and looted Iraq of billions while letting the rest of Iraq's populace live in poverty that should be reprehensible in anyone's book. By the same logic, France should have been allowed to harbor Adolph Hitler and his henchmen after World War II without any repercussions at all and Nuremberg was just a joke.

Mr. Adlam,
As someone who has an honors degree in political science from a major university, who has actively studied politics for over 30 years, who has honorably served as an officer in his country's army, who has served in state government, and who now serves the law as a barrister and who has run for judge, I am not easily prone to "immature, jingoistic knee-jerk reactions" as you suggest. I have also been been outraged at my government's lack of equanimity towards the Palistinian Arab populace vis a vis Israel's West Bank policies, for example. But after a lot of agonized thought, I have concluded that this is a just cause for which both our countries' armies have devoted themselves. France and Syria enabling the harboring modern day Saddam Iraqi Gestapo should outrage even you.

Is a barrister like a litigator?

Originally posted by lymon
Is a barrister like a litigator?

It's a senior lawyer, qualified to plead in higher courts; the one you see in British films as defence or prosecution counsel, with wigs and gowns.
Clipper Bill, I have seen no reference to France harbouring Saddam's henchmen and only accusations that Syria is, which Syria has strongly denied. Considering your background, I feel you could have provided evidence to support your verdict, as is the case of your asserting that the French blatantly stir up anti-American sentiment. In the UN, for example, they were doing no more than seeking support for their proposals based on their view of the events aka diplomacy.
This thread is about the French talking to the Syrians, which in fact was not so. As one with an honours degree in political science, you should know that diplomatic visits are an everyday occurrence, e.g. a visit by a British Foreign Office minister to Syria last Tuesday and a proposed one by Colin Powell shortly. Neither implies an endorsement of Syrian policies.

As evidence, Iraq's UN Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri recently left the US for France with plans of seeking asylum in either that country or Syria. Amb. Al-Douri was head of the sham Iraqi commission on human rights from 1980-1992; the same period of time when torture and death was daily routine for Saddam's opponents and when the Kurds were brutally gassed using VX in the North. To say that Al-Douri either knew nothing or failed to participate in these events is akin to the Nazis declaring that the were "only following orders" or knew nothing about what was going on in the death camps. He was a key player; he had to know beforehand and most likely was much involved in trying to put as positive a spin on it as he could for Saddam's regime.

Why didn't Mohammed Al-Douri get arrested by the US whilst on US soil?

--
Dave

Mr al-Douri's seeking asylum in France is not the same as France's granting such asylum. In any event, I am certain that, if there were any legal impediment to his asylum under French law, it would not be granted.

Originally posted by wildpalms
Why didn't Mohammed Al-Douri get arrested by the US whilst on US soil?

--
Dave

Diplomatic passport?

That was my first thought but then we don't recognise the Iraqi regime as legitimate so I wouldn't have thought he was protected that way especially not now the government he represented doesn't exist.

--
Dave

Its not so easy, as no doubt those who have practised law will tell us. He was an accreditted diplomat and I think that if the government he represented ceased to exist, diplomatic niceties can only oblige the country where he is resident to declare him persona non grata and ask him to leave should they wish to do anything. He still has diplomatic immunity.

the way I understand it Mohammed Al-Douri is not considerd to be one of the "bad guys" he is just a diplomat. Where he gose is nobody bussiness. As a mater of fact he could have stayed in new york if he had chosen to.

Now back to the matter of france Of cores they can do and say anything they like, and will. They most certanly hate America and Britin {and darn nere every body eles for that mater}. In the words of Winston chruchill's grand son they have and will never forgive us for liberating them. That being said WHO CARES what they say or do? They are a non player on the world scein.

elp914, we Brits enjoy pulling the legs of the French as much as they do ours. After all, we've been at it for nigh on a thousand years. However, to go so far as to say they hate us is, imho, way off the mark. Of course, out of 60 million or so, there may be a few anglophobes, as there are francophobes in Gt. Britain but they are the exception.

Your right hate was to strong a word. How about strongly dislike then? Do you understand the French?? I am a life long student of history, And for the life of me I just cant figure them out. They seem To "stronly dislike" every body. Mabe I'm missing some thing here. Please inlighten me. But on the other hand we yanks dont care to much for them either

Originally posted by elp914
Your right hate was to strong a word. How about strongly dislike then? Do you understand the French?? I am a life long student of history, And for the life of me I just cant figure them out. They seem To "stronly dislike" every body. Mabe I'm missing some thing here. Please inlighten me. But on the other hand we yanks dont care to much for them either

I can't say that I understand them any better than I understand women, but that doesn't make me a misogenist either For that matter, I'm not sure I understand "the British". What I am trying to say is talking about "the xxxxxx" is never going to be a productive discussion. The French government of the day may be more or less friendly but to associate all the French with the views is wrong.
What I do recall as an example is being told by a French person of a poll in France on the most unpopular group of people. I was rather disappointed to hear the English were only second in the list, losing first place to the Parisiens.

I certanly dont mean all of the french pepole. I mean there goverment. I personly belive that the vast magority of ALL pelpole world wide are good and worderfully. I dont think there is much diferance between some one here in Texas and some one anywhere eles in the world. Now goverments thats another story.

understand women!!!!! we are not supose to understand them, just enjoy the mystery

elp914, so it's the French government, an institution. But institutions have no emotions. That is reserved for the members comprising it. So, which member(s) of the French government strongly dislike the Americans and what evidence do you have for that dislike?