• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Saddam sentenced to death by hanging

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.
 
~RoKo~ said:
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/
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......

;)
 
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>

 
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

Leading international human-rights groups and experts in crimes against humanity yesterday strongly condemned the trial of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as patently unfair.

The trial could have contributed to the establishment of the rule of law in Iraq and to ensuring accountability for massive human-rights violations during the Hussein regime, the critics said.

Instead, they said, the trial was marred by flaws so serious they undermined the entire process: political interference, assassination of defence lawyers, procedural mismanagement and lack of impartiality.

Malcolm Smart of Amnesty International called it a "shabby affair" and a "missed opportunity" made worse by the death sentence imposed on Mr. Hussein.

He said the trial's serious imperfections "call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards."

Nehal Bhuta was in Baghdad monitoring the trial on behalf of Human Rights Watch and in the New Year is joining the law faculty of the University of Toronto to teach "the law and praxis" of international human rights.

"The [Iraqi] court is operating in a very polarized environment, so it really needed to establish a sort of unimpeachable record in what it is doing," Mr. Bhuta said in an interview.

"In our view, that was possible. Based on our time in Baghdad, we believe a lot of these failings are not attributable to [inadequate] security but a fundamental lack of capacity, administration, expertise of judges, lawyers and prosecutors."

Human Rights Watch is about to publish a 100-page report prepared by Mr. Bhuta outlining the failings of the court.

These include political interference, undermining the independence and impartiality of the court. Three judges were replaced, one of whom resigned as a result of public pressure, and members of the Iraqi government publicly attacked judges as being weak.

"The judges themselves tell us they were under enormous pressure to 'deliver the goods,' as it were," Mr. Bhuta said.

The court allowed the prosecution to conduct so-called trial by ambush, he added. "The prosecution regularly used evidence in court that was not handed over to the defence except on that day."

What is more, he said, the court allowed half of the 58 prosecution witnesses to not appear in person to face Mr. Hussein.

Mr. Bhuta said that the fairness problems could have been avoided if the court had been "internationalized" by having some judges and court administrators from outside Iraq, a proposition that the United States opposed vehemently.

British lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, author of Crimes Against Humanity,said the court that tried Mr. Hussein clearly lacked independence.

"The death penalty was inevitable and will sadly stand as a symbol of the disrespect for human rights . . . in Iraq," the Guardian News Service quoted Mr. Robertson as saying. "Saddam's public execution will provide an obscene spectacle, an example not of justice but of wild justice, otherwise known as revenge."

Concordia University historian Frank Chalk, co-director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, also said the trial was unfair but has to be understood in context.

"Everybody has always said what they really wanted was for countries to take responsibility for their crimes against humanity and to hold the trials inside the country where the victims and the witnesses could be present without travelling to some distant land," he said in an interview. "Now we have it, and this is what it looks like."
 
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.



 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?

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

 
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

- 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.

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.

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?

 
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.
 
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? 

'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?

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.
 
Back
Top