Anyone who thinks this verdict, two days before the elections, is a coincidence needs to have their head examined. Seriously. This shows there is no limit to the depths this Administration will go to attempt to garner political gain. It's not about whether Saddam deserves it, or not. It's about the bankruptcy of the Bush Administration. Keep D&D Civil.
NOT if Saddam was still the US' pet. He might even receive the Presidential medal of freedom for killing the shiits and protecting the US' oil interests.
This was a lose-lose situation for Bush, though. Option 1: Saddam found not-guilty and all hell breaks loose. Option 2: Saddam found guilty. Cheering erupts for a day...then all holy hell breaks loose. I know Democrats question the timing of everything that does not happen the day after an election but if someone were timing this, this wouldn't be a good day to plan it for. There will be an increase in violence and it will hurt anyone associated with Bush at the polls.
i agree. however i genuinely think the court was bogus. the only reason they brought up obscure charges was so they wouldn't have to discuss US involvement in chemical weapons that saddam used. those were much bigger and much more severe. however if you get him on something smaller and kill him you wont have to deal with those issues.
this whole trial was a sham - did anyone seriously think saddam wasnt going to get the death penalty? should donald rumsfeld be hung too for helping saddam commit war crimes? should members of the reagan administration be held accountable for helping saddam? the reagan administration gave them financial support, had them removed from the list of countries which support terrorism and provided them with military and intelligence support against iran (this was done covertly, as we were supposedly neutral). the reagan administration knew that iraq was using chemical weapons against iran and the kurds, but we did nothing to stop it. even after the u.s. publicly condemned saddam for using chemical weapons, we continued to sell him weapons (covertly, of course). i guess the sick irony of it all is that saddam was put on trial for things he did with the reagan administration's full support. winners write history...
I was wondering why they wouldn't use the electric chair, but then it occured to me that you need the power on for that.
I think you're overestimating the degree of control the Bush Administration has in Iraq and the degree to which iraqis care about our election - in both cases the answer is zero.
Why not? Quick and swift death, little torture involved. On a serious note, the whole trial was a mockery anyways, everyone knew the verdict before it ever began...just a waste of money/resources and lives as far as I am concerned -- how many attorneys/judges and others have lost their life in the process?
I don't... _________________ A Farce of Law: The Trial of Saddam Hussein JURIST Special Guest Columnist Curtis Doebbler, an American member of Saddam Hussein's legal defense team and a professor of law at An-Najah National University on the Palestinian West Bank, says that Hussein's trial is unfair and orchestrated by the United States, and that the rule of law has been irreparably damaged as a result... http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/04/farce-of-law-trial-of-saddam-hussein.php ... Unfair Trial The violations of unfair trial are too numerous to mention here, but include almost every provision in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that could be violated at this juncture of the proceedings. Among the other striking violations of the human right to a fair trial are the lack of equality of power between the parties and the lack of an independent and impartial tribunal. The inequality of power can be illustrated simply in dollar values. The United States has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting the prosecution of the Iraqi President; the defense lawyers are working as volunteers with hardly enough money to travel to Iraq. The inequality of power can also be illustrated in minutes, days, weeks, and months. The prosecution alleges to have been collecting evidence since at least 1991 — which, of course, could only be true if it were the United States government doing the collecting — and has at least been doing so since April 2003 when dozens of American lawyers and Iraqis who had not lived in Iraq for years were shuttled in to build a case. The defense lawyers, despite requesting visits with their client since December 2003 when he was detained, have to date not been allowed the confidential visits that are necessary to begin to prepare a defense. No visits were allowed with the most senior lawyers until after the trial had started and at each visit American officials exercise the authority to read any materials brought into the visiting room despite the fact that all meetings remain under close audio and visual surveillance. As if this were not enough, evidence has been withheld from the defense lawyers. They have been denied access to investigative hearings; they have been denied prior notice of witnesses, and they are prevented from even visiting the site of the alleged crime. All of these rights of the defendant are part of the right to a fair trial under both Iraqi law and international law. This law is merely violated with impunity. The extent of this impunity was evidenced on 24 January of this year when judicial clerk Riza Hasan attempted to return a more than fifty-page brief that had been submitted to the IST claiming that “the judges did not want it.” Perhaps he was explaining why none of the eight motions which have been before the IST for months, including motions on illegality of the IST and disqualification of specific judges, have never received a written reply. The interference with the independence of the tribunal has permeated all its aspects. Four out of five judges who started the cases have been removed, two by publicly announced interference connected to the United States occupying powers. In September 2005, four prominent statesmen wrote the UN Secretary-General advising him of the threat to participants in the trial in Iraq. These warnings were ignored. Several weeks later two defense lawyers were murdered in a manner suggesting possible involvement of the authorities in Iraq. More recently a possible defense witness was killed when his whereabouts were disclosed to US authorities. Even US President George W. Bush has declared that the trial is on track and that the Iraqi President will be executed. Such statements coming from judges of the IST also indicate a clear lack of impartiality. In a film by Jean-Pierre Krief for Arte France and KS Visions that was shown in France in 2005, a judge of the tribunal states that the Iraqi President who was then about to go on trial before them had “persecuted the Kurds. He killed them, wiped many of them out. He also used chemical weapons with the aim of committing genocide against this race, against this people, to eradicate them as a nation. He also went after the Shiites due to their religious beliefs.” Another judge states that the President is “one of the worst tyrants in history.” These are not the statements of an impartial judge who in the inquisitorial system of justice is both the evaluator of law and fact. In March 2006 the European Court of Human Rights avoided having to decide if the trial violated international human rights law by claiming that it had no jurisdiction because the European allies of the United States were not involved in the trial. The Court did implicitly seem to agree that it was the United States — and not Iraq — who were responsible for the trial. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on 30 November 2005 and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers in March 2006 explicitly confirmed that the United States shared responsibility with the Iraqi authorities. These latter two human rights experts have also condemned the trial as unfair. In his March 2006 report to the newly created Council on Human Rights the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy, stated that after “analysis and special concern of the Special Rapporteur since 10 December 2003 when the Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) was adopted and throughout its development … [the Special Rapporteur] express[es] his reservations regarding the legitimacy of the tribunal, its limited competence in terms of people and time and the breach of international human rights principles and standards to which it gives rise.” What to do About an Unfair Trial before an Illegal Tribunal? What is the solution for this mess? How can the rule of law be restored? Some answer has been given before the whole process started by the original architect of the special Court, DePaul University professor Cherif Bassiouni, and more recently by the UN’s expert on fair trials, Professor Leandro Despouy. Both these formidable experts have indicated that the trial must be before a truly international court under UN auspices. Both have pointed to the several examples of such courts that exist today. Although the UN may not come with clean hands into the fray, they are perhaps the only way out for the United States. The solutions proffered and orchestrated by the United States to date merely emulate and emphasize already serious violations of international law. The path currently being followed is truly one where a cast of the worst criminals are running the legal system. Is this really how American democracy views the rule of law? Perhaps a more important question is when will the international community act? Although the opinions expressed above indicate a widespread perception that the trial is illegal and unfair, the international community, particularly the Security Council, has to date refused to take on the responsibility of ensuring respect for the rule of law. Despite having acknowledged in UN SC Resolution 1483 that the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Iraq is responsible for “promoting the protection of human rights” in Iraq, little successful action has been taken. This was confirmed earlier this year when the outgoing UN human rights chief in Iraqi, John Pace, described the human rights situation as worse than under the previous regime and deteriorating daily. Taking a stand on the issue of unfair trial would be a good place for the UN to start promoting human rights. The fairness of these proceedings, which are closely followed by Iraqis and throughout the Arab world, is a crucial test of the international community’s commitment to the rule of law. ______________ INTERVIEW-U.S. lawyer says Saddam faces victor's justice 04 Nov 2006 15:23:04 GMT Source: Reuters http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04122677.htm By Suleiman al-Khalidi AMMAN, Nov 4 (Reuters) -A death sentence on Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity would deliver "victor's justice" that would fuel violence in Iraq for decades, former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark said on Saturday. "It's an unfair trial in more ways than you can count. Where have we seen a trial take place in the midst of such uncontrollable violence?" Clark said. Saddam will almost certainly receive the death sentence on Sunday when the court is due to deliver its verdict, said Clark who leads a team of international lawyers defending Saddam. He described the court as prejudiced and lacking impartiality, and said it had already condemned the ousted Iraqi president for killing 148 Shi'ite villagers after an attempt on his life in 1982. "To let there be worse than victors' justice and the revenge of all enemies at a time like this for Iraq is something history and humanity should not have to bear," Clark said before flying to Baghdad. "It will create violence maybe for generations to come. "The trial will go down in history as politically forced, it was a disaster for justice. It just went on for too long with lawyers killed and judges kicked off," said Clark. The government has urged a rapid conviction and hanging for Saddam whose Sunni-dominated administration oppressed the Shi'ite and Kurdish communities, who now dominate political power. "When you think of all the things people have said, it's very difficult to see anything happening except a death sentence," Clark said. The veteran anti-war campaigner, who first met Saddam before the 1991 Gulf War, was among the last Westerners to see him weeks before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Clark said Saddam should be tried by an independent U.N.-sponsored court and he was scathing about the Saddam verdict coming only two days before U.S. mid-term elections. "We call it the corruption of justice, the abuse of the judicial system for political ends. It's a crime and a very serious crime because it impacts on the integrity of government," he said. A death sentence would not only deepen divisions but would prove to Iraqis aggrieved by the U.S. occupation that there was no other way than a fight to the bitter end, Clark said. "It's now or never for us and posterity ..they will see there is no compromise, no fairness... so it's a struggle to the death," Clark said. _________________ To spell it out for some... I'm not defending Saddam. However, if we claim to be a country based on Rule of Law and if we're trying to build such a country in Iraq and if we want to set an example for impartiality and if we do have as much control over the process as I and many others suspect, we should do it right. No doubt Saddam's a bad guy and deserves the death penalty, but because it is a death penalty case, everything should be done the right way. And iit bothers me that some of us are actually cheering his hanging when one would expect a little self-examination and recognition that there but for the grace of the Founding Fathers goes our government as all men are potentially tyrants.
in my opinion hanging saddam is what he probably wants... an easy way out. think about it he doesnt want anymore people mocking him for what he really believes he did was right. he should be left alive and have him suffer for the rest of his pathetic life. maybe stick him back into that hole he crawled out of and cover it up. hanging him will also cause much more violence and ultimately more death
UH, rimrocker, did you follow Al-Maliki vs. the US last week? Not exactly kissing cousins. To argue that this was somehow staged as a payback when US-Iraqi "government" relations are at an all-time low is simply not credible. this reminds me of basso pushing the moronic line of reasoning that the only reason why Iraq was reaching new depths of chaos this month was so that the republicans would lose congress. LOL, as if such a brutal bloobath has anthing to do with Ford vs. Corker.
do you really think that the maliki thing last week couldn't possibly be planned to let maliki and the iraqi gov't build street cred? im not saying you have to believe it. but do you really think thats absurd to imagine?
Saddam is a scoundrel no doubt, but executing him may very well be the end of Iraq. Imprisonment in another country was probably the only sane option. Might as well get the troops out now.
before he dies at least they give him a chance to prove who the people who empowered him are and how they did it
I think I prefer Reagan's policy with regard to Iraq over Bush's. Sometimes it's better to live with a dictator rather than to try to run his country. And will this even help Bush? It will just serve as a reminder to voters that the Iraq debacle is still going on.
thats like asking if you would rather eat dog poop or get punched in the nuts. personally, i would prefer a government that didnt go around arming other countries and than later going and bombing the crap out of them. or a government that didnt arm 2 nations fighting against each other like we did iraq AND iran.
It is absurd to imagine given the degree of control which the Bush adminstration has had over Iraq for the last few years - which is almost none, a testament to their stupidity.
