# Saddam sentenced to death by hanging



## Jacqueline (5 Nov 2006)

It is proof that no Iraqi leader is above the law. 
Saddam and 2 others found guilty of committing crimes against humanity (1982). 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061105/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_verdict


----------



## niner domestic (5 Nov 2006)

Sadly, the punishment will not be carried out until he exhausts his appeals and the conviction and sentence are upheld.  So we wait - again.  

I'm just happy that Iraq didn't erupt (as of this moment) into chaos, as was expected.


----------



## GAP (5 Nov 2006)

*Saddam Guilty; Iraqi Court Sentences Former Leader to Death*
By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service
http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=2025

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5, 2006 – An Iraqi court sentenced Saddam Hussein to death today for ordering the execution of 148 men in Dujail, Iraq, in 1982.
Thousands of people in Baghdad took to the streets to celebrate the verdict. The Iraqi High Tribunal sentenced two other defendants to death and four to prison and acquitted one.

In anticipation of the verdict, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had imposed a curfew in Baghdad and two Diyala and Salaheddin provinces. The two provinces are primarily Sunni and were the base of Saddam’s support during his dictatorship. Shiite and Kurdish provinces were not under curfew.

"The Saddam Hussein era is in the past now, as was the era of Hitler and Mussolini," al-Maliki said following the verdict. "We want an Iraq where all Iraqis are equal before the law," he said. "The policy of discrimination and persecution is over."

U.S. forces captured Saddam hiding in a hole in the ground in December 2003. In a written statement, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad called the verdict “an important milestone for Iraq as the country takes another major step forward in the building of a free society based on the rule of law.”

Khalilzad said the verdicts demonstrate the commitment of the Iraqi people to hold the members of the former regime accountable for their actions.
More on link


----------



## Jacqueline (5 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Sadly, the punishment will not be carried out until he exhausts his appeals and the conviction and sentence are upheld.  So we wait - again.
> 
> I'm just happy that Iraq didn't erupt (as of this moment) into chaos, as was expected.




There is already some stir up.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (5 Nov 2006)

Good riddance!


----------



## Mike Baker (5 Nov 2006)

Kind of figured it would come to this with him  :blotto:


----------



## Bigmac (5 Nov 2006)

Bye Saddam, you evil  dic......tator.  >   I feel inspired, here is a little song I wrote just for you. Sung to the tune of the country song "Swingin".

*There was a little dictator in our neighbourhood 
His name was Saddam and he was up to no good 
I had to go and see his trial so I picked up the remote control 
I turned on my big screen TV, and this was going on: 

His lawyer was by his side screamin’ why 
The courtroom was cheerin’ for him to fry 
Saddam was cryin’ and rubbin’ his snotty nose 
I was on my big comfy couch feeling love down to my toes 

And he’ll be swingin' 
Yeah he’ll be swingin' 
Little Saddam don’t have much time left to sing 
I can't believe the noose is soon to make him swing
Just a swingin' 

Now don’t shed a tear for this evil guy
When he starts to swing from a perch most high 
Now Saddam must pay for his murders before spring 
I can't believe the noose is soon to make him swing 
Just a swingin' *


----------



## Jacqueline (5 Nov 2006)

Nice poem ;D


----------



## tlg (5 Nov 2006)

It's good and all that he was found guilty, but I'm one for a fair trial. Judges being removed, due to how they acted in court with some questions. His defense attorney's accused of not doing their job to the fullest extent. They either should have shot him outright or had the trial go from start to finish WITHOUT outside interference and not kill him. Killing him now is only going to make him a martyr in the insurgents eyes. Hanging him is not going to solve anything, at best it's not going to change anything, at worst, it's going to make the Iraq "war" more difficult for the coalition forces.

I guess that's why there is ALWAYS and appeal.

Next time shoot him. Then shoot him again to make sure E's dead.


----------



## Jacqueline (5 Nov 2006)

> author=tlg link=topic=52836/post-475218#msg475218 date=1162744463]
> It's good and all that he was found guilty, but I'm one for a fair trial.



+1



> Killing him now is only going to make him a martyr in the insurgents eyes.



I agree, the fact that his sons were also killed, did not decrease the strength of the insurgency either. The death of many other crooked "leaders" did not solve anything. This might be a reason for insurgents to intensify their attacks.


----------



## FredDaHead (5 Nov 2006)

So you whole point is that because it might not (based on what arguments? you have no proof or even ideas) affect the insurgency, we should not punish the guilty?

Why not just do away with the whole justice system while we're at it? Heck, we don't need governments, either!

ANARCHY FOR EVERYONE!


----------



## nova_flush (5 Nov 2006)

Did someone not see it coming? C'mon! He did not have a fair trial at all. What a coincidence that he was sentenced to death few days before the US elections. There are other dictators in the world that are far worst than him. Just look at him Baath regime rival from Syria, Bashar El Assad and his father.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2006)

> C'mon! He did not have a fair trial at all.



He got more of a trial (at the hands of his own countrymen, BTW) than he ever gave thousands of others before he either killed them with his own hand or had them tortured/killed.



> There are other dictators in the world that are far worst than him



So this is a legal defence now?  "Your Honour, I may have committed mass murder, but hey- there are worse mass murders in the world than me and you can't punish them all so therefore you can't punish any of us.  Acquit, please."

Yeah- there is a basis for natural law and justice... :


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2006)

His trial wasnt one of Saddam's kangaroo courts, the damn thing lasted nine months. In many of his mass killings there was no trial at all. No one should shed a tear for Saddam. Saddam knew what awaited him just as Hitler did. The tyrant gives no quarter and should not get quarter.


----------



## nova_flush (5 Nov 2006)

He was sentenced by a Shiaa muslim backed by the US. obviously he was going to be guilty. There has always been a feud between the Sunna and the Shiaa. 

It's as if I bring you to court and the judge is your sworn enemy backed by a money filled government.


----------



## boondocksaint (5 Nov 2006)

Worse then him? There may be a few who are currently trying to achieve Saddam's 'status', thankfully few will reach the bar. He is in that special category reserved for some of history's truely evil humans.

Without a Spandau type prison ( that Im aware of ) who would imprison him if he was not executed? 

Fair trial? Better then OJ's. It wasnt perfect, but it was a start. 

Trying to make a connection between his sentencing, and the US elections is stretching a bit. Not out of the realm of the possible, but conspiracy theories are getting out of control.

As far as his being used as a martyr is concerned; I havent noticed many insurgent groups using Saddam as a rallying point. Not to say he wont be once he dances, but his punishment shouldnt be adjusted or influenced by potential backlash.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2006)

> He was sentenced by a Shiaa muslim backed by the US. obviously he was going to be guilty.



Actually, it wasn't all that obvious to me he was going to be found guilty.  I thought that there was at least an even chance that his remaining baathist goon squads were going to intimidate the process into letting him go.  

Sunni judge.  Shiaa judge.  You have to be a moron judge not to be impressed with the pile of evidence against this clown.

Unless you think he is just "sniff" "sniff" a poor, misunderstood kid from Tikrit who is a patsy for Gearge Bush...


----------



## MikeM (5 Nov 2006)

Good riddance scumbag, hopefully the appeal system doesn't take too long and he's executed post haste.


----------



## nova_flush (5 Nov 2006)

The crime he was accused of is for the killing of 142 Shiaa militants that protested against him and the Judge was a Shiaa. This is no conspiracy, it's simply facts. The elections are in a few days. Why did they rush the verdict? The man has been in trial for the last 9 months. Plus, he is accused for a crime he committed in 1982. In those days, people could only become president by a “coup d’etat”!


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Nov 2006)

nova_flush, you have your opinion, the rest of us have ours...tell us, pray tell, how he should have been judged?

142 Shiaa, 10,000's of Khurdish Iraqis, etc...  nope, I'll be shedding no tears for him when he's gone.

G2G


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (5 Nov 2006)

We all knew this was comming,  we all knew he would be found guilty and sentenced to death.  We all knew some ethnic groups would rejoice,  others would be indignent.  (Who benifited and who suffered und err his rule)  This who process is perfunctory. (god,  I just realised how jaded I must sound)
 I think they will move swiftly to execute him.

I wonder what would happen if they found him not guilty and then had to release him.  (open civil war with Iran's intervention and then Syria's is my guess)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2006)

He is fairly "lucky" that he didn't face charges for about a thousand more things- but that would have taken more time and would have probably coincided with the 2008 Presidential elections.  George Bush couldn't have that, now could he?  

Look- you have got a hard-on against George Bush.  I get that.  That doesn't mean:

a) Saddam is innnocent.
b) He got a raw deal, Shiaa judge or no Shiaa judge.
c) everything in the world is orchestrated by George Bush.  He is not omnipresent.

Careful which people you line up to defend in life, kid.


----------



## nova_flush (5 Nov 2006)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> nova_flush, you have your opinion, the rest of us have ours...tell us, pray tell, how he should have been judged?
> 
> 142 Shiaa, 10,000's of Khurdish Iraqis, etc...  nope, I'll be shedding no tears for him when he's gone.
> 
> G2G


I am not mocking anyone, I am simply stating my opinion and respect 100% all of your opinions. This is simply a debate.


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Nov 2006)

> c) everything in the world is orchestrated by George Bush.  He is not omnipresent.



It's funny how his detractors all portray him as dumb, yet in the same breath, he manages to manipulate all of these world events, singlehandedly.....

Crazy like a fox, that guy  :


----------



## Jacqueline (5 Nov 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> So you whole point is that because it might not (based on what arguments? you have no proof or even ideas) affect the insurgency, we should not punish the guilty?
> 
> Why not just do away with the whole justice system while we're at it? Heck, we don't need governments, either!
> 
> ANARCHY FOR EVERYONE!




That is NOT my point at all. Punish him to death! I don't care. I'm just predicting that this won't affect the insurgency.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2006)

> I'm just predicting that this won't affect the insurgency.



You are possibly correct, but it's really a separate issue.


----------



## tlg (5 Nov 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> So you whole point is that because it might not (based on what arguments? you have no proof or even ideas) affect the insurgency (? [note 1]), we should not punish the guilty?
> 
> Why not just do away with the whole justice system while we're at it? Heck, we don't need governments, either!
> 
> ANARCHY FOR EVERYONE!



Did you even read my post? If you did read my post you would have seen that I agreed to have him punished. In fact I mentioned that he should be punished but not killed. There are groups that praise Saddam as their lord and king of all that is holy. It's THOSE groups that the coalition have to fight on a day to day basis. Do you really think that they are going to say "aw damn, did you hear the news? Saddam guilty, sentenced to hang. Well, I guess it's time to hand in my dusty ak-47 now that he is gone."?

note 1: Ummmmmm .... what? Please read my post again. That's pretty much the EXACT opposite of what I said.


----------



## exsemjingo (5 Nov 2006)

He may be charged with atrocities committed in 1982, but the crime he is really being punished for is invading Kuwait in 1991 against the best interests of the Americans.  Of course the judges do not see it that way, but the powers installing them certainly do.
Lets not loose sight of pragmatism. :-\


----------



## harry8422 (5 Nov 2006)

he deserves what he gets sadly it  will take time


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2006)

> but the crime he is really being punished for is invading Kuwait in 1991 against the best interests of the Americans.



Oh, yes- it is the American's fault that Saddam is such a grade A sadist and tyrant.  Everyone a puppet of the US?  You and me, too?  Is no one answerable for his deeds?

I have seen no where that Saddam is being punished for invading Kuwait.  My understanding is that the charges against him were deliberately kept narrowly focussed and within the scope that an Iraqi based court could manage.

The guy is a grade A asshat- good riddance.


----------



## exsemjingo (5 Nov 2006)

I didn't say he wasn't a grade A Asshat; what I did say is that didn't stop the Americans from using Iraq as an ally against Iran during the 80's.
As far as you and me, we are not puppets, we are co-beneficiaries.  The word imperialism has a meaning other than small 'l' liberal code, after all.
Now, if they had puppets to use, things would be easy...


----------



## warspite (5 Nov 2006)

Well Saddam.... how to say this....​*  "You shall hang till your feet stop the kicking... have a lovely day"  *​Yah, that somes it up pretty well........​


----------



## COBRA-6 (5 Nov 2006)

I can only hope that wild hyenas tear at his legs while Saddam does the old "air jig"   >


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (5 Nov 2006)

Rather than hang him...why don't we just stuff him down the hole we dragged him out of.....
Doh!
Love thine enemies
Love thine enemies 
Love thine enemies

It's ok folks I'll get this down pat soon.  ;D


----------



## nova_flush (6 Nov 2006)

What’s funny is how Americans support Saadam during the war against Iran and now no need for their ally so they turn the switch off. 

They accuse Saadam of the massacre of Dujeil where 150 Shiites died, ironically after the American occupation of Iraq 650,000 people died.


----------



## Korus (6 Nov 2006)

FIRE IN THE HOLE!

Edit: Just out of curiosity, where did you get that 650,000 figure?

Iraqi Body Count is currently reporting just over 50,000. 
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/


----------



## spud (6 Nov 2006)

nova_flush said:
			
		

> What’s funny is how Americans support Saadam during the war against Iran and now no need for their ally so they turn the switch off.
> 
> They accuse Saadam of the massacre of Dujeil where 150 Shiites died, ironically after the American occupation of Iraq 650,000 people died.



No, what's funny is backward logic, inaccurate statistics and simplistic arguments. The only switch being turned, hopefully, will be the one that opens the trap door on the gallows so he can enjoy his new necktie. 

potato


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (6 Nov 2006)

In hell he will be surely be made a member of the fanatical muderous dictators club, were he'll be rubbing elbows with long time members such as Gangis Kahn, Hitler and Stalin just to name a few. Sorry, no virgins allowed. :crybaby: 

 The only membership fee required is to torture and kill a few thousand people.

 I hope he brings plenty of sunscreen, because were he's going he'll need an "SPF" of a few billion  >

 Good riddence.


----------



## KevinB (6 Nov 2006)

No loss to the world

- The guy was a scum bag -- he is getting his dues.

I guess if he was not found guilty the troll contingent here would figure it was his payoff for helping Bush et al.  :


----------



## Bigmac (6 Nov 2006)

I can't believe that anyone can feel sorry for Saddam Hussein??! 

       He used his countries surpluses to build himself palaces and erect statues and  "I love me" posters of himself while many in his country didn't even have clean water to drink. He couldn't have cared less about his countrymen unless they were corruptly wealthy and supported his regime.

      This man ordered the systematic slaughter of literally hundreds of thousands of his own people in particular Kurds and Shia muslims. There are hundreds of mass graves all over Iraq because of his regime. Maybe we should post some of the pictures of the chemical attacks he did on innocent Kurds in the north. Maybe if you saw what chemical warfare does to children and babies you wouldn't feel any sympathy for this scumbag. He doesn't even deserve a trial, they should have killed him already.
        
       Saddam is a mass murderer,show him no mercy. I say it is time for old west justice. Hang him high now! It will be a far more humane death than he gave his victims.


----------



## exsemjingo (6 Nov 2006)

nova_flush said:
			
		

> What’s funny is how Americans support Saadam during the war against Iran and now no need for their ally so they turn the switch off.
> 
> They accuse Saadam of the massacre of Dujeil where 150 Shiites died, ironically after the American occupation of Iraq 650,000 people died.



Pay more attention, because next time there may be no one who cares to correct you.  It was Saadam's decision to invade Kuwait.
Why don't you tell us what Bush Sr. should have done in response?
Just to be clear on who did what during the Gulf War, Iraq also attacked Isreal with chemical weapons.  If Bush had betrayed his Kuwaiti allies, as you imply he should have, what should he have done then?
You have the floor, Nova_flush.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2006)

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> FIRE IN THE HOLE!
> 
> Edit: Just out of curiosity, where did you get that 650,000 figure?
> 
> ...


Well, to be fair, Nova_Flush didn't say _where _  or _how _ those 650 000 deaths occured.  Maybe he/she's counting persons who died of natural causes, traffic accidents, tsunami, earthquakes, terminal sypphilus......


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Nov 2006)

I think Nova_Flush is citing the recent Johns Hopkins study published in the Lancet

The study came to this figure based on accounting for deaths in Iraq to the civilian population by 

the Coalition invasion
sectarian violence
terrorist activities
degradation in healthcare and infrastructure that caused deaths over and above what would have been extrapolated as 'normal' for Iraq (had the invasion not taken place)

The study relied on conventional statistics for a few categories, but, rather controversially, relied on house-to-house surveys to extrapolate a sample for violent death and deaths due to disease.

Some researchers have stated the methodology is accurate without trying to verify the counts, others have dismissed it.

The British and US governments have dismissed it.

Whether the invasion is responsible for all these deaths is a question of nuance. To wit, is the Coalition responsible for Iraqi on Iraqi deaths (IE Shia vs. Sunni?), is the Coalition responsible for death related to disease (IE water quality; cholera, typhus?) or is the Coalition responsible for deaths due to the obvious malaise in the Iraqi healthcare system (IE a poor fellow dies because he cannot get a bypass as the hospital is bombed/busy treating car bomb victims/all the surgeons split the country).

As for those directly killed in the invasion and immediate period of American direct supervision, the numbers related to this seem to be in the 50,000 - 60, 000 range.

Guess it really boils down to two things. 

Are the Americans/Coalition to blame for all deaths in Iraq in the last few years?
Does one trust the study?

Only link I can find quickly as a citation is here The Guardian

_*<edit :*Actually I found the original article, regstration required, I haven't got the time just now, see for yourself...The Lancet Volume 368, Number 9545>_


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Nov 2006)

And just to add salt to the wounds.....

From todays Globe and Mail, Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC.

_[My emphasis added]_



> *Baghdad trial deeply flawed, critics say*
> *Process called a 'missed opportunity' marred by political interference, bias *
> _ESTANISLAO OZIEWICZ _
> _From Monday's Globe and Mail_
> ...


----------



## nova_flush (6 Nov 2006)

Okay. First, I'd like to be clear about the fact that I am nor against the US invasion of Iraq nor against the U.S for staying there. As far as I'm concerned, my home country (Lebanon)* is protected thanks to the US soldiers in Iraq. If the US should leave, then a civil war would occur and Iran would invade Iraq and there would be nothing standing in the way of the Iran-Syrian & Hezbollah alliance. (Since Lebanon and Syria is connected and only Iraq stand between Syria & Iran). Second, I'd like to thanks cplcaldwell for explaining my argument posted previously. 

I am against the death penalty whether it's applied to someone who killed 1 man or a mass murderer. If you think Saddam was a killer for the assassination of 150 Shiia militants then you have no idea what atrocities that man committed. Let me enlighten you a bit more: 

- Massacre of 300,000 Shias in 1991

- Genocide of 200,000 Kurds during Anfal Campaign

- Gassing of 5,000 Kurds in 1988

- Between 1978-1979, the regime eliminated 7,000 communists

- 350 women, accused of prostitution in 2000-2001, were beheaded

- In 1984, 4,000 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib

- An estimated 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997 and 1999 in a extended “prison cleansing” campaign

- Between 1993-1998, 3,000 prisoners from the "Mahjar" prison were executed.

These are only some of the facts. There is much much more to tell.



			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Pay more attention, because next time there may be no one who cares to correct you.  It was Saadam's decision to invade Kuwait.
> Why don't you tell us what Bush Sr. should have done in response?
> Just to be clear on who did what during the Gulf War, Iraq also attacked Isreal with chemical weapons.  If Bush had betrayed his Kuwaiti allies, as you imply he should have,



He received his lesson for that back in 1990 but why did the US invade Iraq in 2003? The stated objective of the invasion was "*to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction*, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". 

Bush spent so much money on lying about the fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destructions that even I started believing him for a while. It ended up being that there were no weapons of mass destructions.

*I am a Christian from Lebanon. Just want to be clear on that detail.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Nov 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> And just to add salt to the wounds.....
> 
> From todays Globe and Mail, Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC.
> 
> _[My emphasis added]_



I wonder what these people's opinions are then on the Nurnberg Trials?


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Nov 2006)

Hehe... 

I never said I agreed with them....


----------



## Bobby Rico (6 Nov 2006)

Huh, well if there's any reason why I chose to give up a career as a cop to join the military, it's the legal system.  They should've just put a bullet in the guy's head the moment they found him.  What's the point of arresting a man who you KNOW committed atrocities, just to have him and a bunch of other people sit for months and months deliberating over facts which you know, just to come to the ultimate conclusion to kill the bugger anyway.  So frustrating.  I agree with the verdict, I disagree with the process.


----------



## Korus (6 Nov 2006)

Well, you can't quite give up that "Innocent until pr oven guilty" principle whenever you feel like it. I just wish the process was streamlined so that they can go from arrest to "here's the definite proof" to carrying out the sentence in less than a week instead of the circuitous route it takes now.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (6 Nov 2006)

Bobby Rico said:
			
		

> Huh, well if there's any reason why I chose to give up a career as a cop to join the military, it's the legal system.  They should've just put a bullet in the guy's head the moment they found him.  What's the point of arresting a man who you KNOW committed atrocities, just to have him and a bunch of other people sit for months and months deliberating over facts which you know, just to come to the ultimate conclusion to kill the bugger anyway.  So frustrating.  I agree with the verdict, I disagree with the process.



With respect,  that attitude is exactly what lead to the atrocities in the first place.  Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.  Simply killing off those who are 'enemies' or bad guys summarily,  while seemingly efficient is counter productive to the overall aim of creating a stable democratic society.  Three fun little words that mean so much.

Rule of Law  The military is under strict laws. Make no mistake about it,  we do not simply grab people we are sure did bad things and off them. The ends can’t be used to justify inappropriate means. We have trials,  and yes an appeal process.  He will appeal.  There were so many irregularities in that trial he has to appeal - besides what else will he do sit there and wait to die?


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Nov 2006)

Yeh, that chick with the pig sticker, the dope scales and the opaque BEW's might not be happy with such an attitude...


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Yeh, that chick with the pig sticker, the dope scales and the opaque BEW's might not be happy with such an attitude...


I may have been sleeping, but WTF?


----------



## Bobby Rico (6 Nov 2006)

Point well taken.  I suppose for me, after having gone to school to learn criminal law and all that, I've become rather cynical of the legal process (you begin to realize more and more that at least in our system, it heavily favors the guilty).  As a personal point of contention, I don't like the idea that it's up to the crown or prosecutor to prove guilt.  Something of a contradiction.  If they're really innocent before proven guilty, then what the heck are they doing sitting in a court room then?

heh, I seriously would make a lousy judge.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> I may have been sleeping, but WTF?


*slapping self in the head*

D'OH!  NOW I get it (blind justice and all that)


I need a new hobby!


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (6 Nov 2006)

Bobby Rico said:
			
		

> If they're really innocent before proven guilty, then what the heck are they doing sitting in a court room then?
> 
> heh, I seriously would make a lousy judge.



I thought that the crown would have to be sufficiently convinced that they are guilty to press charges,  a judge would have to agree that there was sufficient evidence to justify a trial and then if either the judge or the crown believes that the accused is not guilty it ends there and then.

Now on a more amusing note,  I think they should postpone his execution until Kurdistan is an independent nation again and then hand Sadam over to them.  I hope they would be quick about it and not slow....


----------



## Bobby Rico (6 Nov 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I thought that the crown would have to be sufficiently convinced that they are guilty to press charges,  a judge would have to agree that there was sufficient evidence to justify a trial and then if either the judge or the crown believes that the accused is not guilty it ends there and then.



Precisely!  So if the courts are assuming guilt, and its only the jury that assumes innocence....bah, getting off topic here.

In any case, I was pleased at least that the Iraqi courts did find him guilty.  When that judge some time ago said he 'wasn't a dictator' I was beginning to worry.


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Nov 2006)

Well, I thought I'd let this topic simmer before entering the ring. For the verdict, I was less than 100 metres from the court where Saddam was. The verdict came in around 1230h local time on the 5th. About 0230h CST in Canada.

About 1240h, celebratory fire began throughout the city (at least in the area we are in, and in Sadr City to our north west). The amount of firing into the air was outragous, and I just thought to myself "what goes up must come down". This style of shooting AKs in the air is a cultural thing. Every citizen has the right to own one AK per family here.

Within an hour or so, most of the shooting tapered off to the odd short burst. Then quiet, as the city was in curfew mode, and even now in daytime, the restrictions are less. After dark the curfew exists, and any vehilce opertating runs the risk of being destroyed, Yesterday, the shops were open here in the IZ, and it was pretty much business as usual. I had spoke to some Iraqi Army at the Tomb of the Uknown Soldier, near the Crossed Swords, and in broken english, they were pleased with the verdict, as the majority of citizens here in Iraq are.

That evening of the verdict, the city was again quiet with the exception of USAF CAPs overhead, UAVs and helicopters busy all night long. Yes, there was some very large "crumps" for a few hours leading up to about 2330h local, but in reality, that happens all day long in this festering boil on the arsehole of the world. Thats what it is here. An angry angry culture, full of angry angry people with a milenuim of hatred passed on from one generation to another. We will not be able to change the mentality of these people, EVER! 

I will be happy to get out of here when its time to rotate out.

For as long as there has been sand, this whole region has been in conflict, and I have come to the conclusion that the culture is the problem, for if they can't fight with someone else, they tear each other apart, hence now our own countries are swamped with these people, and our own big cities now feel their wrath. Sad, but true. I spent 10yrs in Sydney, and seen the middle eastern mentaility in my face. I have felt the fear it produced, and seen their contempt against our laws and our society in general. Its hard to understand unless you have experienced it. when you have lthe leader of the islamic people of Australia proclaiming that women in non-islamic dress deserve to be raped (again recent news in Sydney, but ongoing for years), well thats an outrage, but welcome to Australia!

For Iraq, democracy in a culture where it has been non-esistant will be long coming, if at all, with locals paying the price. Here, as always corruption and graft are rife in everyday Iraqi society. Thats just how it is here, and nothing will change that. Just like the maple leaf is a part of Canada.

The US liberation or invasion, which ever way you think, well I just don't know anymore. At times I look at the "devil you know" theory, and maybe he should have been left alone, and again I see the carnage he had caused and the open murder which had gone on, but he kept the country in some type of twisted order. I beleived the WMD theory at the time (and hope one day the evidence will be found), and I thought it was a just cause. It aint about oil either. So either way now, the US and her allies are here, including us Australians too. We, as a whole are just trying to make things a little better. The price is paid in countless Allied lives lost (105 US soldiers alone in October), along with many Iraqis, all at the hands of Saddam supporters, foreign militants, and any other loser wanting a piece of the Great Satan for whatever reason.

I have been out in the most worst areas of this city, and I have seen some of the most sickening sights, but thats the nature of the beast here in this hellhole of a place. These areas were here long before the 2003 and 1991 wars. Poverty beyond comprehension existed as Saddam and his government flourished happily.

Personally for Saddam, I thought the trial was fair. His supporters acted out murders and kidnappings to quash the court, and that never succeeded. So, of course he is guilty. You don't have to be rocket scientist to figure that out. I say carry out the sentance, but let the appeal process go through. If they hang him, so be it, for he has been tried by his peers, citizens who represent the nation in a majority. The Sunnis , the minority, for decades held the powerbase, abused othersw through which ever way they could, and now it's their turn to feel the crunch. So, either they come on board as one, or they carry on what they are doing. My prediction is they'll carry on their cowardly ways, killing anyone in their path. Keeping him alive will only enrage his supporters, and if executed, I beleive he will not be martyred, as overall through time, the country has a chance to become something it never could be. Freedom is something people don't really understand unless you had it before.  

This entire nregion will never be settled, and if any of these savages here in this region ever get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they will use it against the west, and that will be our next worry, if not already. So, if you think you are safe, you're not.

Thats my opinion on the situation, here on a cold wet night in Baghdad.


Enjoy your safety and freedom back home,


Wes

EDITed for spelling - its late.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (6 Nov 2006)

nova_flush said:
			
		

> I am against the death penalty whether it's applied to someone who killed 1 man or a mass murderer. If you think Saddam was a killer for the assassination of 150 Shiia militants then you have no idea what atrocities that man committed. Let me enlighten you a bit more:
> 
> - Massacre of 300,000 Shias in 1991
> 
> ...



Even after all this...you can't justify fryin' the SOB????

So what SHOULD they do with him?  Send him to live with Margaret Stewart?  

'Cause I am sure all of the spots on the MMA classes are full these days...(MMA=Mass Murder Anoynmous).

If not kickin' and swingin', then what would you think would in line with what he has done?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (6 Nov 2006)

Bobby Rico said:
			
		

> Huh, well if there's any reason why I chose to give up a career as a cop to join the military, it's the legal system.  They should've just put a bullet in the guy's head the moment they found him.  What's the point of arresting a man who you KNOW committed atrocities, just to have him and a bunch of other people sit for months and months deliberating over facts which you know, just to come to the ultimate conclusion to kill the bugger anyway.  So frustrating.  I agree with the verdict, I disagree with the process.



Here's the deal. We are in Afghanistan supposedly to establish the rule of law rather than chaos. How can you then turn around and suggest that we should just administer frontier justice? You make a mockery of democracy and all we stand for if you advocate that position. Let's stick to our principles of justice for all. ...otherwise we sink to the same low as Mr Hussien who executed people for little or no reason at all.


----------



## nova_flush (6 Nov 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Even after all this...you can't justify fryin' the SOB????
> 
> So what SHOULD they do with him?  Send him to live with Margaret Stewart?
> 
> ...



Imprison him. Initially, I thought most Canadians would agree with the fact that we shouldn’t hang him. I say prison for life. If we kill him then he'll never feel what he did wrong.


----------



## Munxcub (6 Nov 2006)

nova_flush said:
			
		

> Imprison him. Initially, I thought most Canadians would agree with the fact that we shouldn’t hang him. I say prison for life. If we kill him then he'll never feel what he did wrong.



Do you really think he would if he were imprisoned for life? I kind of doubt that myself...


----------



## Bobby Rico (6 Nov 2006)

The problem with your arguement nova, is that Saddam believes that in the eyes of Allah that he did absolutely nothing wrong- that in fact the atrocities he committed he did so under the urgings of Allah. So if he did nothing wrong in his mind, how is he ever going to feel remorse for his actions?  All he'll do is rot, and maybe have the chance to escape or be used as a bargaining tool should some terrorist group make a demand for his release.  Execution is the only sensible means in my mind for a case such as his. (and yes, I'm an advocate of the death penalty).


----------



## niner domestic (6 Nov 2006)

If anyone would like me to explain the appeal process, I'd be happy to do so in order to save us all speculative diatribes.  Just one minor comment, an announcement that Saddam's lawyer intend to appeal does not tumble down to actually being given leave to appeal. As I said before, we wait.


----------



## Klc (6 Nov 2006)

I believe it's customary for death penalties to have automatic appeal.

My opinion is that death penalties must be reserved for the worst cases. This would very much qualify.


----------



## GAP (6 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> If anyone would like me to explain the appeal process, I'd be happy to do so in order to save us all speculative diatribes.  Just one minor comment, an announcement that Saddam's lawyer intend to appeal does not tumble down to actually being given leave to appeal. As I said before, we wait.



One part of the appeal process that was quoted on the news intrigued me. They (CTV) pointed out that if they lose the appeal, then the sentence is carried out within 30 days, irregardless of whether he is involved in another trial or not. Could this be correct?


----------



## nova_flush (6 Nov 2006)

Nothing he did was commited in the name of Allah and I know for sure that no part of the Quran can justify his action. 
I'm interested in the your coment specialy for this part



			
				Bobby Rico said:
			
		

> some terrorist group make a demand for his release.



Your argument makes sense and it is indeed is a big pro for his execution, but what is Saddam learning from his death? I see it more like a favor we are doing him since we saving him the long years of imprisonment . At least in jail, he'll known what it feels like to be imprisoned since he did it to soo many people.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (6 Nov 2006)

nova_flush said:
			
		

> Imprison him. Initially, I thought most Canadians would agree with the fact that we shouldn’t hang him. I say prison for life. If we kill him then he'll never feel what he did wrong.



Ummmmm, I don't think this guy has a conscience... :

I believe you're as likely to have angels fly out yer arse as that to happen..."Saddam's Remorse"...


----------



## GAP (6 Nov 2006)

nova_flush said:
			
		

> but what is Saddam learning from his death? I see it more like a favor we are doing him since we saving him the long years of imprisonment . At least in jail, he'll known what it feels like to be imprisoned since he did it to soo many people.



If he is tried by a legitimate court in the country he committed the atrocities in, found guilty, and then hanged, the government has, in the eyes of it's people, done everything fairly. They are better off with him dead. Hanging around in prison would allow the insurgency to use his presence as a motivator.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2006)

Saddam is much a moslem as I am (I'm Roman Catholic, by the way), his "appeals" to Allan fly in the face of moslems everywhere.  To say that he felt the urgings of Allah  to do what he did is heresy


----------



## Bobby Rico (6 Nov 2006)

(response to niner domestic)
Hmm, the question then would remain, how many appeals does the defense come up with? If their court systems are anything like ours, then they can't carry out final sentancing until all of the appeals have been exhausted.  And you KNOW the defence will be looking into every single avenue in which to form an appeal.

About Allah- remember in the middle east state and religion are very much combined.  Anything the state does is essentially the will of Allah.  Additionally, lets not forget that Al'Qaeda proclaims to commit terrorist acts in the name of Allah.  Obviously though, these are all examples of extremist Muslim thinking, and to civilized Muslims, it's all completely contradictory to their beliefs.


----------



## niner domestic (6 Nov 2006)

The appeal process may take up to 2007 to exhaust because there is no specific time frame/limit on the appeal process.  Under article 25 of the Statute of the Iraqi High Tribunal, the convicted have a right to appeal in cassation to the Tribunal's 9 judge Appeal Chamber which may affirm, reverse or revise the decision of the trial chamber.  The lodging of an appeal must occur within 15 days of the trial decision (mandated by the Iraqi Code of Criminal Procedure # 23 of 1971. If th defendants do not submit an appeal within 15 days, an automatic (_this is where some of the confusion lies with automatic procedure - 9D_) review is required within 10 days before the Appeals Chamber in cases where a death sentence or life imprisonment has been given.  There is no time limit on the appeals review process.  

Article 27 of the Statute of Iraqi High Tribunal states that following a final decision, The "Penalites shall be enforceable within 30 days of the sentence or decision reaching finality". Article 27 also precludes any authority, including the presidentof the republic from pardoning or reducing the penalties issued by the Tribunal. A special law was established at the time of Saddam's trial the excluded any pardons or commuting of sentences by the Iraqi presdent.  A nine-member appeals panel will consider the application's merits according to whether there have been any errors of law, procedure or fact. Submission of briefs and oral arguments will be allowed.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2006)

Bobby Rico said:
			
		

> About Allah- remember in the middle east state and religion are very much combined.  Anything the state does is essentially the will of Allah.  Additionally, lets not forget that Al'Qaeda proclaims to commit terrorist acts in the name of Allah.  Obviously though, these are all examples of extremist Muslim thinking, and to civilized Muslims, it's all completely contradictory to their beliefs.



Iraq under Saddam was definately a secular regime.  In 1990/91, Saddam made appeals to both Mohammed and Jesus Christ, as there is a significant Christian population in Iraq.  (Wasn't/Isn't Tariq Aziz Christian?).


----------



## warspite (6 Nov 2006)

nova_flush said:
			
		

> Imprison him. Initially, *I thought most Canadians would agree with the fact that we shouldn’t hang him*.


That thought never even crossed my mind.... never.


			
				nova_flush said:
			
		

> I say prison for life. If we kill him then he'll never feel what he did wrong.


So waste food, money and perfectly good air on him?


----------



## Klc (7 Nov 2006)

I agree. He should be imprisoned for life in a hermically sealed cell; with no food, water, or precious oxygen.

Now THAT is a way for him to think about what he has done.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Nov 2006)

Iran weighs in on the subject of Saddam's future.

TEHRAN, Iran - 
Iran called on 
Iraq on Tuesday to carry out its death sentence on 
Saddam Hussein, saying the former dictator who waged an eight-year war against Iran in the 1980s was a criminal who deserved to die.

"We hope the fair, correct and legal verdict against this criminal ... is enforced," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told a news conference.

On Sunday, an Iraqi court in Baghdad sentenced Saddam and two other senior members of his regime to death by hanging for crimes against humanity for the killing of 148 people in the northern town of Dujail. The victims were detained and tortured after a 1982 attempt to assassinate Saddam as he visited the town.

An Iraqi appeal court is expected to rule on the guilty verdict and death sentence by the middle of January.

"He is a criminal dictator. No doubt about it," Elham said of Saddam. "We hope no pressure will be applied not to carry out this verdict."

In Vienna on Tuesday, the 
United Nations' special investigator on torture, Manfred Nowak, said he disagreed with the death sentence and that Saddam's trial had not been well conducted.

"Even a person like Saddam Hussein should not be sentenced to death," said Nowak, who acknowledged that Saddam's regime had killed and tortured many political opponents and members of minorities.

The EU has welcomed the verdict but also said Saddam should not be put to death.

The Iranian spokesman said his government hoped Saddam would continue to be tried for other alleged crimes against humanity, including his invading Iran in 1980, starting a war that killed more than a million Iranians and Iraqis.

The suffering and losses in the war, which ended in 1988, are well remembered in Iran.

Elham rejected the suggestion that the execution of Saddam, a Sunni Muslim, would escalate the violence between Iraq's Shiite and Sunni communities.

"It is very clear that such a suggestion is mischief-making. Saddam has both Shiite and Sunni blood on his hands. His very existence is anti-human," he said.

Just after Saddam was sentenced on Sunday, Iranian state television interrupted its programs to announce: "A court in Iraq sentenced Saddam, the fallen dictator, to death."

If the appeal court upholds the death sentence, The Associated Press has learned that Iraq's three-man presidential council will sign papers for Saddam's execution. The hanging must be carried out within 30 days of the appeal court's decision.


----------



## Glorified Ape (7 Nov 2006)

Well, that'll teach everyone! Killing Saddam will show the Iraqi people and the world that killing is wrong.... wait a second... 


That, and the trial was about as farcical as one could possibly imagine.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Nov 2006)

Naw, I've seen worse trials with worse outcomes.


Remember OJ's "trial"?

CNN stopped reporting the news (well, actually, did they ever report the news?) and became the "OJ" channel.


----------



## Glorified Ape (7 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Naw, I've seen worse trials with worse outcomes.
> 
> 
> Remember OJ's "trial"?
> ...



True enough - CNN has never been the beacon of journalistic light they like to make themselves out to be. Reporting on one event for 6 hours after having exhausted the topic in the first 20 minutes is monotonous to say the least. 

Without even the appearance of legitimacy, this trial is more harm than good. Saddam needs to rot in prison - an execution is going to do little else but fuel the insurgent fire. Having him on display in prison like a pathetic has-been seems a better idea.


----------



## GAP (8 Nov 2006)

Saddam 'executed by end of year'   
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6126404.stm

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has told the BBC he expects Saddam Hussein to be executed by the end of 2006. 
In an interview with John Simpson in Baghdad, Mr Maliki said the decision to hang the former president would not be affected by any pressure. 

"We would like the whole world to respect the judicial will of Iraq," he told the BBC. 

The former Iraqi leader was sentenced to death two days ago after being convicted of crimes against humanity. 

Mr Maliki told the BBC that if the appeals court confirmed Saddam Hussein's sentence "it will be the government's responsibility to carry it out". 
More on link


----------



## GAP (8 Nov 2006)

*Iraq's bloggers weigh in on Hussein death sentence*
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1108/dailyUpdate.html?s=mesdu

Their personal views on verdict's meaning, impact, reflect a society torn apart by war.
By Arthur Bright  | csmonitor.com

Despite the ongoing turmoil in Iraq, a community of bloggers has managed to grow there, offering first-hand accounts of violence and grassroots opinion of Iraqi and US politics. In their response to the death sentence for Saddam Hussein, Iraq's former dictator, they frame the verdict within an intense, personal, highly subjective view of their country.

While President Bush hailed the Hussein verdict as "a milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law," many bloggers are not as enthusiastic. Zeyad, a Baghdad Sunni currently studying journalism in New York, asks in his blog Healing Iraq: "A milestone for whom?"

It is a major achievement for Iraq's young democracy and its constitutional government," [Bush] said.

I say it's sad that a majority of Americans are still unaware that Iraq's "constitutional government" is a joke, and there is nothing that resembles democracy in Iraq today.

Warring factions control different parts of the country while the government is imprisoned in the Green Zone. U.S. and Iraqi forces are confined to their bases. Militias, gangs and death squads prowl at day and night unchallenged, if not abetted by Iraqi security forces. The tortured corpses of dozens of unfortunate Iraqis turn up in mass graves every morning. Services are in shambles.

Reconstruction is nonexistent, not even in safe regions of Iraq, even though hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent. Administrative corruption, smuggling, nepotism and cronyism are rampant. Local councils and religious parties have become entrenched in their positions and elections in the governorates have been suspended. The government threatens the press with prosecution if they dare criticise officials.
More on link


----------



## Marauder (9 Nov 2006)

Those Green Berets should have just capped his ass and had him professionally stuffed for their team room when they found his sad sack ass. Would have saved the Iraquis all that wasted money and time. And it would have deprived the commie/hippy assholes of one more thing to whine and show their devoted moral superiority over.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Nov 2006)

Personnally, I think death sentence is too easy for him...  Let him bore himself to death in a prison.

Max


----------

