|
Post by RED on Dec 30, 2006 8:09:01 GMT -6
Another victim of his own actions. Love, RED BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S.-backed Iraqi television station Al Hurra said Saddam Hussein had been executed by hanging shortly before 6 a.m. (0300 GMT) on Saturday. The former Iraqi president ousted in April 2003 by a U.S.- led invasion was convicted in November of crimes against humanity over the killings of 148 Shi'ite villagers from Dujail after a failed assassination bid in 1982. An appeals court upheld the death penalty on Tuesday. Iraq's government has kept details of its plans to conduct the execution completely secret amid concerns it could spark a violent backlash from his former supporters. news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061230/ts_nm/iraq_dc_56
|
|
|
Post by RED on Dec 30, 2006 8:12:03 GMT -6
Obviously, you're not. Love, RED You know nothing about the real Malcolm X, and why would you think I'm a pacifist? Far from it, I'm a realist.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Dec 30, 2006 8:15:28 GMT -6
The ONLY sham about Saddam's trial was the absurd antics allowed by the Defendants and their lawyers. Prosecutors proved their case not only beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond any metaphysical doubt possible. The man deserved to be executed and, hence, he was. Love, RED The US could take a lesson or two about capital punishment from Iraq. A token appeal and bam to the gallows. I wonder how long it will be before the video is on the net. I think the US could learn something about the swiftness and certainty of punishment. It's disturbing though to read so many accounts of how a trial and process that could have been the beginning of justice in Iraq was more of a sham - not a good start.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Dec 30, 2006 8:35:14 GMT -6
The ONLY sham about Saddam's trial was the absurd antics allowed by the Defendants and their lawyers. Prosecutors proved their case not only beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond any metaphysical doubt possible. The man deserved to be executed and, hence, he was. Love, RED I think the US could learn something about the swiftness and certainty of punishment. It's disturbing though to read so many accounts of how a trial and process that could have been the beginning of justice in Iraq was more of a sham - not a good start. I like this article: www.startribune.com/561/story/905397.html
|
|
|
Post by zd3925 on Dec 30, 2006 8:35:55 GMT -6
less than two months after sentence was pronounced.Now there's a country that knows how to take care business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2006 8:46:31 GMT -6
The ONLY sham about Saddam's trial was the absurd antics allowed by the Defendants and their lawyers. Prosecutors proved their case not only beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond any metaphysical doubt possible. The man deserved to be executed and, hence, he was. Love, RED I like this article: www.startribune.com/561/story/905397.htmlThe author says that his execution does nothing to mitigate the shameful waste of the Iraq war. He's right. It wasn't meant to. It was meant to punish him for his crimes under Iraqi law. The author is just using the occasion to rant about why he objects to the war. He said the trial was not conducted according to international humane standards? How? He doesn't say. He just says he doesn't like who conducted it even though they are officials elected and appointed under the Iraqi's law. And he doesn't like the war. An extrememly flawed opinion piece talking in circles here, and merely meant to inflame and sell papers IMO. Reprehensible and irresponsible journalism, and that is coming to you from someone who also disagrees with this war.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Dec 30, 2006 8:52:26 GMT -6
The author says that his execution does nothing to mitigate the shameful waste of the Iraq war. He's right. It wasn't meant to. It was meant to punish him for his crimes under Iraqi law. The author is just using the occasion to rant about why he objects to the war. He said the trial was not conducted according to international humane standards? How? He doesn't say. He just says he doesn't like who conducted it even though they are officials elected and appointed under the Iraqi's law. And he doesn't like the war. An extrememly flawed opinion piece talking in circles here, and merely meant to inflame and sell papers IMO. Reprehensible and irresponsible journalism, and that is coming to you from someone who also disagrees with this war. Not an opinion piece - paper editorial, so they don't quite have the luxery of 1500 words. I know it's dangerous posting anything from AI - but these are pretty undisputed facts. Would this trial have stood up in the US? "The trial before the SICT failed to satisfy international fair trial standards. Political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court, causing the first presiding judge to resign and blocking the appointment of another, and the court failed to take adequate measures to ensure the protection of witnesses and defence lawyers, three of whom were assassinated during the course of the trial. Saddam Hussein was also denied access to legal counsel for the first year after his arrest, and complaints by his lawyers throughout the trial relating to the proceedings do not appear to have been adequately answered by the tribunal. The appeal process was obviously conducted in haste and failed to rectify any of the flaws of the first trial. "Every accused has a right to a fair trial, whatever the magnitude of the charge against them. This plain fact was routinely ignored through the decades of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. His overthrow opened the opportunity to restore this basic right and, at the same time, to ensure, fairly, accountability for the crimes of the past. It is an opportunity missed," said Malcolm Smart, "and made worse by the imposition of the death penalty."
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Dec 30, 2006 8:53:40 GMT -6
I'm not saying this was the wrong decision - I just hope we haven't set yet another bad example to a new democracy. We've (our foreign policy), time after time, has acted without thinking things through - and I hope this isn't yet another example of that.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Dec 30, 2006 8:58:34 GMT -6
Of course you like the "article". First, it's not an actual journalistic article (i.e, a piece of journalistic investigation or a narrative of journalistic reporting) it's an editorial. Second, if you cannot spot the obvious inconsistencies and fallacies within it, well, wait a minute…you like the article, how could you see them? I do like these lines though: "While Saddam's crimes against humanity cannot be denied..." "The verdict was just..." Love, RED The ONLY sham about Saddam's trial was the absurd antics allowed by the Defendants and their lawyers. Prosecutors proved their case not only beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond any metaphysical doubt possible. The man deserved to be executed and, hence, he was. Love, RED I like this article: www.startribune.com/561/story/905397.html
|
|
|
Post by RED on Dec 30, 2006 9:00:16 GMT -6
"I'm not saying this was the wrong decision" Oh, alright. Love, RED I'm not saying this was the wrong decision - I just hope we haven't set yet another bad example to a new democracy. We've (our foreign policy), time after time, has acted without thinking things through - and I hope this isn't yet another example of that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2006 9:09:27 GMT -6
The author says that his execution does nothing to mitigate the shameful waste of the Iraq war. He's right. It wasn't meant to. It was meant to punish him for his crimes under Iraqi law. The author is just using the occasion to rant about why he objects to the war. He said the trial was not conducted according to international humane standards? How? He doesn't say. He just says he doesn't like who conducted it even though they are officials elected and appointed under the Iraqi's law. And he doesn't like the war. An extrememly flawed opinion piece talking in circles here, and merely meant to inflame and sell papers IMO. Reprehensible and irresponsible journalism, and that is coming to you from someone who also disagrees with this war. Not an opinion piece - paper editorial, so they don't quite have the luxery of 1500 words. I know it's dangerous posting anything from AI - but these are pretty undisputed facts. Would this trial have stood up in the US? "The trial before the SICT failed to satisfy international fair trial standards. Political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court, causing the first presiding judge to resign and blocking the appointment of another, and the court failed to take adequate measures to ensure the protection of witnesses and defence lawyers, three of whom were assassinated during the course of the trial. Saddam Hussein was also denied access to legal counsel for the first year after his arrest, and complaints by his lawyers throughout the trial relating to the proceedings do not appear to have been adequately answered by the tribunal. The appeal process was obviously conducted in haste and failed to rectify any of the flaws of the first trial. "Every accused has a right to a fair trial, whatever the magnitude of the charge against them. This plain fact was routinely ignored through the decades of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. His overthrow opened the opportunity to restore this basic right and, at the same time, to ensure, fairly, accountability for the crimes of the past. It is an opportunity missed," said Malcolm Smart, "and made worse by the imposition of the death penalty." I saw articles of these kinds of accusations throughout the time of the trial. Mostly from Saddam's defense attorneys. You are right, what AI says is crap normally, and it is no credible source today either. At least there are a few facts actually thrown into this one, unlike the first piece you liked, but they are still surrounded by opinion. Have places to go today and won't go through it all - there are others here who know much more about all this than I do. But even I know enough to know this is mostly grousing. For example in one area. Too much security - access to Saddam limited for the first year Not enough security - witnesses assassinated, 1st judge resigned Which do they want, security or not? And since they obviously did make adjustments and get that security situation ironed out the best they could in a war zone so they could and did finish the trial, it is obvious it was worked out. Everyone wants to gripe about the Iraqi government, and then they want to dump the whole thing on them too. Even wanting our troops out of there myself, I cannot believe the duplicity sources like you have cited will resort to.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Dec 30, 2006 9:09:57 GMT -6
Hey, how about this "article". www.postgazette.com/pg/06312/736383-109.stmLove, RED The author says that his execution does nothing to mitigate the shameful waste of the Iraq war. He's right. It wasn't meant to. It was meant to punish him for his crimes under Iraqi law. The author is just using the occasion to rant about why he objects to the war. He said the trial was not conducted according to international humane standards? How? He doesn't say. He just says he doesn't like who conducted it even though they are officials elected and appointed under the Iraqi's law. And he doesn't like the war. An extrememly flawed opinion piece talking in circles here, and merely meant to inflame and sell papers IMO. Reprehensible and irresponsible journalism, and that is coming to you from someone who also disagrees with this war. Not an opinion piece - paper editorial, so they don't quite have the luxery of 1500 words. I know it's dangerous posting anything from AI - but these are pretty undisputed facts. Would this trial have stood up in the US? "The trial before the SICT failed to satisfy international fair trial standards. Political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court, causing the first presiding judge to resign and blocking the appointment of another, and the court failed to take adequate measures to ensure the protection of witnesses and defence lawyers, three of whom were assassinated during the course of the trial. Saddam Hussein was also denied access to legal counsel for the first year after his arrest, and complaints by his lawyers throughout the trial relating to the proceedings do not appear to have been adequately answered by the tribunal. The appeal process was obviously conducted in haste and failed to rectify any of the flaws of the first trial. "Every accused has a right to a fair trial, whatever the magnitude of the charge against them. This plain fact was routinely ignored through the decades of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. His overthrow opened the opportunity to restore this basic right and, at the same time, to ensure, fairly, accountability for the crimes of the past. It is an opportunity missed," said Malcolm Smart, "and made worse by the imposition of the death penalty."
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Dec 30, 2006 9:37:30 GMT -6
"I'm not saying this was the wrong decision" Oh, alright. Love, RED I'm not saying this was the wrong decision - I just hope we haven't set yet another bad example to a new democracy. We've (our foreign policy), time after time, has acted without thinking things through - and I hope this isn't yet another example of that. Review my last 100 posts - I've said numerous times I think he should be executed.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Dec 30, 2006 9:41:02 GMT -6
Why would I do that, when I simply need to read the above post. Love, RED "I'm not saying this was the wrong decision" Oh, alright. Love, RED Review my last 100 posts - I've said numerous times I think he should be executed.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Dec 30, 2006 9:41:54 GMT -6
Hey, how about this "article". www.postgazette.com/pg/06312/736383-109.stmLove, RED Not an opinion piece - paper editorial, so they don't quite have the luxery of 1500 words. I know it's dangerous posting anything from AI - but these are pretty undisputed facts. Would this trial have stood up in the US? "The trial before the SICT failed to satisfy international fair trial standards. Political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court, causing the first presiding judge to resign and blocking the appointment of another, and the court failed to take adequate measures to ensure the protection of witnesses and defence lawyers, three of whom were assassinated during the course of the trial. Saddam Hussein was also denied access to legal counsel for the first year after his arrest, and complaints by his lawyers throughout the trial relating to the proceedings do not appear to have been adequately answered by the tribunal. The appeal process was obviously conducted in haste and failed to rectify any of the flaws of the first trial. "Every accused has a right to a fair trial, whatever the magnitude of the charge against them. This plain fact was routinely ignored through the decades of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. His overthrow opened the opportunity to restore this basic right and, at the same time, to ensure, fairly, accountability for the crimes of the past. It is an opportunity missed," said Malcolm Smart, "and made worse by the imposition of the death penalty." Good flip side article - one liberal paper, one conservative - both telling viewpoints without much backing. I'm just saying that everything in this war deserves second guessing and extra scrutiny. December just became the deadliest month in 2006 in the war - long after the "mission accomplished" statement. I think it's perfectly justified for international organizations and US newspapers to suggest that maybe our eyes were on the goal (the execution), and we didn't care much about the process. Do you feel this case would have stood in the US?
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Dec 30, 2006 9:44:25 GMT -6
Why would I do that, when I simply need to read the above post. Love, RED Review my last 100 posts - I've said numerous times I think he should be executed. Some people don't put on our hard-right Republicans blinders every day when we wake up. I believe, even as an anti, that an execution was justified. I've written it time and time again. On the same note, I hope we didn't error in the process and put even more lives in danger, as well as lowered the bar on what Iraqi's see as "justice". That's all. It's okay to question things Red - again, take your blinders off once in a while and stray away from the party line. It gets old to read. Bush could run over a preschool of children, and the responses from you and Donnie could be written before you posted them. It has to get embarrasing at some point I would think!
|
|
|
Post by RED on Dec 30, 2006 9:58:24 GMT -6
"Do you feel this case would have stood in the US?" Without a doubt. First, there is no way that Saddam (or his lawyers) would have been able to pull the dog and pony show antics they pulled in Iraq. Second, the recusal of one of the judges was actually a POSITIVE sign in the trial. When his impartiality was called into question he removed himself. Third, Saddam’s lawyers were actually allowed more latitude (MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more) in their defense tactics than they would have ever been allowed here. Fourth, security here would have been much tighter. Finally, the evidence against him was so overwhelming that ANY verdict other than a conviction would have been unthinkable. The article you posted simply makes the point that his execution does not justify the invasion of Iraq. That is a TOTALLY different argument than the one about the fairness or unfairness of the trial. Now, the verdict here was not in question from the beginning. That bothered those that KNEW that as a consequence of the verdict Saddam would be executed. However, the reality is that the verdict should NOT have been in question. Everyone in the world (even the Sunnis that opposed Saddam’s execution) knows that he committed that acts for which he was charged. What we have here is those that oppose the EXECUTION of Saddam casting doubt on the trial to avoid further executions. If Saddam had been sentenced to LWOP AI would have said JACK about the process. That’s the bottom line. Love, RED Good flip side article - one liberal paper, one conservative - both telling viewpoints without much backing. I'm just saying that everything in this war deserves second guessing and extra scrutiny. December just became the deadliest month in 2006 in the war - long after the "mission accomplished" statement. I think it's perfectly justified for international organizations and US newspapers to suggest that maybe our eyes were on the goal (the execution), and we didn't care much about the process. Do you feel this case would have stood in the US?
|
|
|
Post by RED on Dec 30, 2006 10:01:42 GMT -6
beej: Saddam was tried in a place where TRUE trials were non-existent. He was afforded due process in a country that did not know the meaning of that term. It is UNTHINKABLE to me that anyone would say that we "lowerd the bar" for future proceedings in Iraq. Love, RED Why would I do that, when I simply need to read the above post. Love, RED Some people don't put on our hard-right Republicans blinders every day when we wake up. I believe, even as an anti, that an execution was justified. I've written it time and time again. On the same note, I hope we didn't error in the process and put even more lives in danger, as well as lowered the bar on what Iraqi's see as "justice". That's all. It's okay to question things Red - again, take your blinders off once in a while and stray away from the party line. It gets old to read. Bush could run over a preschool of children, and the responses from you and Donnie could be written before you posted them. It has to get embarrasing at some point I would think!
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Dec 30, 2006 10:06:10 GMT -6
I didn't exspect this to happen as soon as it did what a total suprise.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Dec 30, 2006 10:06:36 GMT -6
"Do you feel this case would have stood in the US?" Without a doubt. First, there is no way that Saddam (or his lawyers) would have been able to pull the dog and pony show antics they pulled in Iraq. Second, the recusal of one of the judges was actually a POSITIVE sign in the trial. When his impartiality was called into question he removed himself. Third, Saddam’s lawyers were actually allowed more latitude (MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more) in their defense tactics than they would have ever been allowed here. Fourth, security here would have been much tighter. Finally, the evidence against him was so overwhelming that ANY verdict other than a conviction would have been unthinkable. The article you posted simply makes the point that his execution does not justify the invasion of Iraq. That is a TOTALLY different argument than the one about the fairness or unfairness of the trial. Now, the verdict here was not in question from the beginning. That bothered those that KNEW that as a consequence of the verdict Saddam would be executed. However, the reality is that the verdict should NOT have been in question. Everyone in the world (even the Sunnis that opposed Saddam’s execution) knows that he committed that acts for which he was charged. What we have here is those that oppose the EXECUTION of Saddam casting doubt on the trial to avoid further executions. If Saddam had been sentenced to LWOP AI would have said JACK about the process. That’s the bottom line. Love, RED Good flip side article - one liberal paper, one conservative - both telling viewpoints without much backing. I'm just saying that everything in this war deserves second guessing and extra scrutiny. December just became the deadliest month in 2006 in the war - long after the "mission accomplished" statement. I think it's perfectly justified for international organizations and US newspapers to suggest that maybe our eyes were on the goal (the execution), and we didn't care much about the process. Do you feel this case would have stood in the US? I do agree with you on the AI part - and I've argued that this isn't a DP issue - this case is special. You don't handle Hitler with a DP argument - and Hussein is the same way. He should die, and I'm fine with him being executed. On your arguments on the US, it basically comes down to - "well, it wouldn't have happened like that in the US". If somehow it did - played out the same way, it would be tied up in appeals for 50 years, if not retired all together. Now, perfect justice probably isn't an option over there yet - but it seemed as if they said here's the verdict, let's go through the motions.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Dec 30, 2006 10:08:06 GMT -6
beej: Saddam was tried in a place where TRUE trials were non-existent. He was afforded due process in a country that did not know the meaning of that term. It is UNTHINKABLE to me that anyone would say that we "lowerd the bar" for future proceedings in Iraq. Love, RED Some people don't put on our hard-right Republicans blinders every day when we wake up. I believe, even as an anti, that an execution was justified. I've written it time and time again. On the same note, I hope we didn't error in the process and put even more lives in danger, as well as lowered the bar on what Iraqi's see as "justice". That's all. It's okay to question things Red - again, take your blinders off once in a while and stray away from the party line. It gets old to read. Bush could run over a preschool of children, and the responses from you and Donnie could be written before you posted them. It has to get embarrasing at some point I would think! In comparison to trials in the US? Compared to what they had in the past - yes, a step up - but would you be fine with the same process in the US? That's what I'm saying. That's what it seems like a lot of people are wondering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2006 10:24:09 GMT -6
ahhh...swift justiceIt seems only yesterday that he was ranting and raving in a court room, and now he's dead. Too bad we don't invoke such IMMEDIATE punishment here instead of waiting for 20 - 25 years, and then quietly sending them off to sleepyland.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Dec 30, 2006 10:25:21 GMT -6
You know nothing about the real Malcolm X, and why would you think I'm a pacifist? Far from it, I'm a realist. But hey, you dont know Joseph, he knows everything about everything and everyone. I'm glad you're finally seeing the light Felix. BTW I hope you had a Merry Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Dec 30, 2006 10:25:26 GMT -6
But beej, people don't like the way trials are done here. Again, due process is not the problem. Disagreement with the sentence runs the process. Love, RED beej: Saddam was tried in a place where TRUE trials were non-existent. He was afforded due process in a country that did not know the meaning of that term. It is UNTHINKABLE to me that anyone would say that we "lowerd the bar" for future proceedings in Iraq. Love, RED In comparison to trials in the US? Compared to what they had in the past - yes, a step up - but would you be fine with the same process in the US? That's what I'm saying. That's what it seems like a lot of people are wondering.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Dec 30, 2006 10:27:20 GMT -6
According to Fox News: Witness: Hussein struggled as he was taken from his cell. Shouted "God is great!" before being executed. Apparently he also refused to wear the prison uniform and black hood. He also had a fearful look on his face. At least I thought he did.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Dec 30, 2006 10:28:46 GMT -6
So... they hanged Saddam. Well, it´s fair to assume that those who executed him have in a way also executed the thousands of victims to come who will die because of some freedom-fighters now have a new idol. And it was a not very clever move to execute Saddam during the Muslim pilgrimage, he will go to heaven instantly and Allahs wrath will come over us all. Happy new year.... They're threatening to kill us anyway. I don't think keeping him alive would have saved thousands of people.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Dec 30, 2006 10:29:31 GMT -6
But beej, people don't like the way trials are done here. Again, due process is not the problem. Disagreement with the sentence runs the process. Love, RED In comparison to trials in the US? Compared to what they had in the past - yes, a step up - but would you be fine with the same process in the US? That's what I'm saying. That's what it seems like a lot of people are wondering. Yeah, but people here debate points like buttons - I don't think most people have issues with the pillars of the process. If I was involved in a trial where multiple people turned up dead, the judge was flipped, and the threat of violence loomed over the courthouse most days - I'd probably hope for something a little different.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Dec 30, 2006 10:31:09 GMT -6
But that would not have happened here. That's my point. Love, RED But beej, people don't like the way trials are done here. Again, due process is not the problem. Disagreement with the sentence runs the process. Love, RED Yeah, but people here debate points like buttons - I don't think most people have issues with the pillars of the process. If I was involved in a trial where multiple people turned up dead, the judge was flipped, and the threat of violence loomed over the courthouse most days - I'd probably hope for something a little different.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Dec 30, 2006 10:32:17 GMT -6
This is your mistake America, big mistake. Saddam was a dictator and tyran but only his own nation, who suffered a lot under his regime had the right to punish him. And don´t tell me that Iraqi courts are independent( they aren´t because of thousands of US soldiers in their country, of course). Probably you created a new martyr for all the sick jihadists, and the road to peace in Iraq will be longer than ever before. It is the best thing that has happened for Iraq in a long time. If we helped get rid of this dictator for good then I'm glad. Oh I forgot many Europeans were making money from Saddam as he was slaughtering thousands of his people ruthlessly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2006 10:39:40 GMT -6
Why would I do that, when I simply need to read the above post. Love, RED Some people don't put on our hard-right Republicans blinders every day when we wake up. It's okay to question things Red - again, take your blinders off once in a while and stray away from the party line. It gets old to read. Bush could run over a preschool of children, and the responses from you and Donnie could be written before you posted them. It has to get embarrasing at some point I would think! Is this why you try so hard to take the center of almost every position, so you can think of yourself as 'non-partisan' and 'unbaised,' above the fray of radical left and right wing ideologues? Or at least that's what Rush says about you 'moderate', 'indepedent' types.. ;D
|
|