Saddam Hussein sentenced to death by hanging...

Remove all ads!

@ Kara Ay

Do you think Saddam is innocent?

I don't think the Iraqi court had that difficult of a time determining guilt or innocence. Granted, things did not go smoothly (assassinated lawyers, withdrawn judge, unhinged mass-murderer defendent), but the main function of the court---to determine guilt or innocence---was adequately served.

The hanging is an interesting touch though...

 

I'm not trying to change your opinion... You say that Us is fair and you are free to believe that...
But most of the world saw what happened..And i'm sorry you can't change their opinion..."actions speak louder than words" i believe that sentence explains the position Us is in...

And i didn't say that Saddam was innocent and had a heart of gold... Saddam is evil and guilty but to make him stand a trial while his country is invaded and then hanging him is cruel too...
I'm sorry but US should realise that not only Justice goes both ways,it can't be manipulated to the way anybody wants... And Us isn't god's hand on earth they should realise that too.. Iraq is our neighbour and everyday we see dead children bodies on tv and newspapers... IF US is so rightful and fair,he/she shouldn't let Israel kill babies and most certainly shouldn't let Us soldiers gang-rape a girl and take a picture while making a boy hold a card that says "sergeant Boudreault killed my dad and ****ed my mom and sister"....

 

I nominate Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

 

and thus, the endless war begins

 

Well considering that I'm against the death penalty I really can't support this judgement. Saddams case should have been dealt with in the international court for human rights. EU has allready condemned this result and I can only echo that call.

As for the trial itself most local experts of international law seem to think that the trial was far from fair to Saddam but on the other hand don't see other possible options which would have satisfied the Iraqi people. I doubt the US had much to do with the sentence even if they had the sentence would have remained the same considering that the trial was largely handeled by those who Saddam had persecuted during his reign.

 

As US government consists of lunatic bastards, it is normal for them not to punish other lunatic bastards enough. In your post, there are instances who deserves death not less than Saddam, but they won't be hanged. Hypocrisy is one of the best words to describe US.

 

I know, I read how did they estimated on that pdf document in the link I gave. They took random houses as examples etc.. Of course their estimation will be inaccurate. It is impossible to know the exact numbers. You wanted something to support my claim and I showed that some people says USA killed as much as Saddam. And why shouldn't I take a US university's estimate as some proof? (not gospel because I said I also don't think it's really accurate) Did I ever said all Americans are evil and lying? If I thought like that I wouldn't be here.

Also exact numbers of civilians are not that important to me. Even their soldiers who were killed by USA are innocent for me. If our country was attacked by some country and we had an evil dictator in Turkey I would fight to protect my people from that invaders especially if they are torturing, raping and killing my people. Probably I would die quickly but at least I would try. I wouldn't care whether we have a dictatorship or democracy when our lands are invaded, I think.

 

@BTA: You misinterpreted what I mean...I was not referring to the hanging of Saddam per se, but rather the US invasion of Iraq to begin with and all that follows...

I find the propaganda (which is exactly what this stuff is) about how the US is making the world a better place for everyone else to be complete ...if at all they're making it better for anyone, its for themselves.

All right, fair enough...survival of the fittest and all that...but when they act all high and mighty about it, it really gets my goat!

Edit: @Argohir:

 

The US can never claim the moral high ground when they do things like this. What a farce.

 

The IBC does not estimate 50k civilian deaths, because the IBC does not estimate deaths; it merely keeps track of reported (in the media) deaths. Not the same thing at all. As they say,

Well, yes, Bush did say that. So did Steven Moore, in the Wall Street Journal (of course, Moore was an advisor to Bremer and, judging by his firm's clients, is a staunch Republican, so it isn't as though he's free of conflict of interest). Moore's only actual criticism wasn't that the methodology was suspect per se (he admits it's actual valid methodology), but that the survey didn't use enough 'cluster points' (and Les Roberts addressed that in a public response). Other than that, I'm not aware of any substantial criticism of the methodology (the IBC says its findings are unlikely, but is unable to find fault with the research). Link, perhaps?

I've a bit more faith in the Lancet and its peer-review process than I do in our president and his supporters; and the 'peers' who reviewed the research were unanimous in their approval of it.

 

I don't think anyone realistically expected a different verdict. If it wasn't this, it was going to be one of a host of other things Saddam did. My heart ain't exactly bleeding for the guy. That said, I am absolutely against the capital sentence in this case. Between them, Chev and Register have articulated my thoughts more or less exactly.

Still, it's impossible to argue that the US directly manipulated the outcome of the trial in the absence of any real evidence to the contrary. Indirectly, perhaps, as far as their efforts in helping to constitute the new government - but they wouldn't have had to lift a finger to have Saddam found guilty and sentenced to death. It wouldn't have been necessary, and it was always going to be seen as "victor's justice" (translation: vengeful retribution), irrespective of the sentence.

In closing - can we keep this about Saddam, rather than Dubya? I'm not defending GWB or his administration, but I feel like it's obscuring the topic.

 

You really didn't think he'd get off, did you? He was guilty of crimes against Humanity, and Hanging is too good for him. I consider the sentence Justice and mercy combined. Personally I'd have freshened up the Rudolph Hesse suite in the Tower of London...

 

Didn't the USA put Saddam in power in the first place to keep the Islamic crazies in check? Unfortunately things got a little bit out of hand and they removed him. And now the crazies are back again. So time to install a new leader who will do exactly as the US says to keep the new loonies in their cages. Rinse and repeat?

 

I find it strange though, that the first judge in the Saddamn case, who was critical to some of the evidence against him, got replaced by this one..........Still Saddam is a bad apple for sure adn should get punished for his crimes. But death penalty by hanging? Surely a shot to the head is more humane than that.
How come Bush doesn`t get charged with crimes as well? He lied about the reasons to attack Iraq, and thats a warcrime.......

 

The timing is sus. Everytime Bush is unpopular something major happens, like those Bin Laden videos that save his ass. They must have hi-tech caves in Afghanistan that can accomodate an old man on a Kidney Dialysis machine.

 

You've got to ask yourself why the US allowed the Iraqi courts to make this judgement instead of doing it themselves.

They knew they were handling a very hot potato and couldn't really do right. If they sentenced him to death, the world would be outraged that a civilized nation like the US would do that. But if they let him live a prison life, he's still aa pretty dangerous man. So they basically let someone else put their name on the top of his death contract so that way they can have him dead without taking the cop. That's how I see it.

 

saddam is far more dangerous dead then he ever could be in life, he instils loyalty in his followers.. unlike bush and blair, he was a soldier and a leader. and they didnt basically let someone else take the cop, they will still take the cop because they installed this government and probably the judge that tried him.
why wasnt he at the hague!!

 

It should have been done by an international criminal court (or a similar thing, as I don't think that can apply in this specific situation, as it happened before 01/07/01), not using specific national laws. Particularly not using judges that will most likely have a clear bias. It's just ashame that America refuses to accept the International Criminal Court.

 

@Rawgrim: A bullet to the head is considered a solider's death and honourable. Hanging, especially in that region - although I think everywhere, is a dishonourable death and that's what they want to achieve.

In middle ages, hanging was for thieves, while homicides were decapitated. Also, nobles were reserved for decapitation only and no other form of death except stake for heretics, quartering for regicides etc. To some people, hanging will be the lowly thief's death.

God...

Why isn't the man dishonourably discharged from the army and extradited to Iraq to answer before an Iraqi court?

Apart from the obvious question: What is that man doing in the army at all, let alone as a sergeant?

And why are such people not supervised? Or are they really? Or is there just silent permission all the way up the ranks because "our boys deserve some relax"? Why are they still "our boys", anyway? The Iraqi boy is more of an "our boy" to me than his oppressors who are nominally the soldiers of a country allied to mine.

[ November 06, 2006, 17:34: Message edited by: chevalier ]