|
Post by Californian on Jan 1, 2007 8:41:18 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. A newspaper editorial is an opinion piece. It's the official voice of the paper. The "editorial board" of the newspaper meets to discuss this voice, and the majority opinion rules.
|
|
|
Post by grandma on Jan 1, 2007 12:15:08 GMT -6
I just watched it.... thanks, grandma xox + to you for PMing it to me!
|
|
|
Post by levi on Jan 1, 2007 12:57:50 GMT -6
I watched some of the trial on Court TV. I couldn't understand a word of the trial, or the translator! LOL. But Saddam got more than a fair trial from what I saw. The court let him rant for hours. Taking up precious time. If the court was so biased, then why was he given the chance to rant & rave. I mean, it wasn't so shocking after turning it on Court TV everyday & the Headline was Saddam standing up & screaming & pointing his finger. Yelling @ the judge. His own attorneys. The prosecution. The Prime Minister of Iraq. President Bush. How the conditions of his jail cell were. He even ranted about how he didn't have any clean underwear. Most defendants would have been held in Contempt. But not Saddam. He got MORE than a fair trial. The crying & whining of his lawyer is just typical lawyer BS'ing.
|
|
andy28
Banned
Me and Rocky
Posts: 904
|
Post by andy28 on Jan 2, 2007 4:19:34 GMT -6
Hows that forceble hanging then? He could have opted out but chose not to. "Campbell refused to cooperate with the execution. He had to be moved from his cell using pepper spray and he was hanged strapped to a board. It took prison officials 90 seconds to place a hood on his head and to fix the noose before the trap was opened. " I don't know how else they could have forced him besides the board and trying to fix the noose. We vary on our definitions. No worries. Laura No worries also but he could have requested the needle.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 2, 2007 4:24:33 GMT -6
I will tell you whats cruel -being Gassed to Death with your Child in your Arms as applied by Saddam.He died easier than he should have. yes that is cruel, what is even crueller though is those bringing him to "justice" supported him when he did this to the Iranians, and now they want to be seen as judicial? Hence the reason for the rather norrow focus on his crimes.
|
|
andy28
Banned
Me and Rocky
Posts: 904
|
Post by andy28 on Jan 2, 2007 4:30:18 GMT -6
I watched some of the trial on Court TV. I couldn't understand a word of the trial, or the translator! LOL. But Saddam got more than a fair trial from what I saw. The court let him rant for hours. Taking up precious time. If the court was so biased, then why was he given the chance to rant & rave. I mean, it wasn't so shocking after turning it on Court TV everyday & the Headline was Saddam standing up & screaming & pointing his finger. Yelling @ the judge. His own attorneys. The prosecution. The Prime Minister of Iraq. President Bush. How the conditions of his jail cell were. He even ranted about how he didn't have any clean underwear. Most defendants would have been held in Contempt. But not Saddam. He got MORE than a fair trial. The crying & whining of his lawyer is just typical lawyer BS'ing. Held in contempt? PMSL he was already being held it would of made no difference. I thought the trial was a complete joke, they had him guilty from the start but held the trial to make them look like a reformed country.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 2, 2007 4:43:00 GMT -6
I watched some of the trial on Court TV. I couldn't understand a word of the trial, or the translator! LOL. But Saddam got more than a fair trial from what I saw. The court let him rant for hours. Taking up precious time. If the court was so biased, then why was he given the chance to rant & rave. I mean, it wasn't so shocking after turning it on Court TV everyday & the Headline was Saddam standing up & screaming & pointing his finger. Yelling @ the judge. His own attorneys. The prosecution. The Prime Minister of Iraq. President Bush. How the conditions of his jail cell were. He even ranted about how he didn't have any clean underwear. Most defendants would have been held in Contempt. But not Saddam. He got MORE than a fair trial. The crying & whining of his lawyer is just typical lawyer BS'ing. Held in contempt? PMSL he was already being held it would of made no difference. I thought the trial was a complete joke, they had him guilty from the start but held the trial to make them look like a reformed country. Damning documents were introduced in court on almost a daily basis without first informing the defence counsel. What sort of due procedure is that? How one can argue that amounts to a fail trial is beyond me, and I say that as a person who abhorrs Saddam Hussein the psychopath and all he stood for.!
|
|
andy28
Banned
Me and Rocky
Posts: 904
|
Post by andy28 on Jan 2, 2007 8:44:12 GMT -6
I take with caution what is said about him therefore i don't have an opinion on the man.
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Jan 2, 2007 15:10:22 GMT -6
I take with caution what is said about him therefore i don't have an opinion on the man. Sooo never bothered to look up those crimes huh? Interesting. You have opinions on his trial (which I'm seriously doubting you watched closely) and you have no opinion about the guy (had you watched the trial you'd have an opinion). Do you need documentaries, biographies, video footage, interviews etc? Do a search on Google for "Saddam Regime", Saddam gassed Kurds", sons of Saddam kill brother in laws (they even made a video of it for dear old dad), Saddam rape rooms.... you need more? Even if you argue that evidence was not given to the defense in the prescribed manor, once it WAS introduced Saddam himself would simply stand and say he was President and by Allah those people deserved it for trying to assinate him. He offered up his own head on a platter... the Iraqi people just slapped a noose around it. Had the US not detained him during the trial for HIS own safety, the Iraqi people would have pulled a Mussolini on him years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Jan 2, 2007 15:22:50 GMT -6
I will tell you whats cruel -being Gassed to Death with your Child in your Arms as applied by Saddam.He died easier than he should have. yes that is cruel, what is even crueller though is those bringing him to "justice" supported him when he did this to the Iranians, and now they want to be seen as judicial? Hence the reason for the rather norrow focus on his crimes. Being a "supporter" means sanctioning what he did with glee or joy. The majority of the country was forced by fear and intimidation to "support" him. Don't see those loyal Baathists in the numbers you did before for good reason. There's only a small minority that are being a very noisy minority I'll totally agree with. But I know both sides (Sunni and Shiites) have said no to letting loyal Baathists back in for fear of a return of the old ways, and that those in power (judicially or executive wise) are not former Baathists by choice or else they would not hold the positions they do. As well, the initial judge was released for appearing too lenient on Saddam and letting him rant and make a spectacle of the preceedings. So any concern over these supporters is interesting. Also, the narrow focus was also interesting as there was so much overwhelming evidence that this case was moved up to first on the list of crimes against humanity because it was so strong that he, his brother-in-law and a judge personally called for the kills (and he admitted in court he did). There was more public support for the gassings of the Kurds than this case first and even complaints about executing him during the current trial about the gassing. But is there truly ANY doubt this man performed, produced, planned, plotted and procurred crimes on humanity? He was just too much a dumbass to carry it out beyond his own borders. Just like Hitler, Saddam kept detailed records of his kills as well as documentation with each body. When he was really ticked he'd just document the kills then make a mass grave and toss the documentation in with the bodies... give the families more to do once they found the bones. I truly hope he is Satan's butt buddy right about now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2007 16:33:05 GMT -6
I don't know about you but I don't speak Arabic. So anything that has been put out about his trial is hearsay. So it is reasonable to say that any opinion about his trial being unfair is pure BS.
|
|
andy28
Banned
Me and Rocky
Posts: 904
|
Post by andy28 on Jan 3, 2007 1:48:02 GMT -6
I take with caution what is said about him therefore i don't have an opinion on the man. Sooo never bothered to look up those crimes huh? Interesting. You have opinions on his trial (which I'm seriously doubting you watched closely) and you have no opinion about the guy (had you watched the trial you'd have an opinion). Do you need documentaries, biographies, video footage, interviews etc? Do a search on Google for "Saddam Regime", Saddam gassed Kurds", sons of Saddam kill brother in laws (they even made a video of it for dear old dad), Saddam rape rooms.... you need more? Even if you argue that evidence was not given to the defense in the prescribed manor, once it WAS introduced Saddam himself would simply stand and say he was President and by Allah those people deserved it for trying to assinate him. He offered up his own head on a platter... the Iraqi people just slapped a noose around it. Had the US not detained him during the trial for HIS own safety, the Iraqi people would have pulled a Mussolini on him years ago. For his own safety? They did'nt do a very good job of that in the end did they? Are'nt trials supposed to be judged by a jury? I did'nt notice any jury at his trial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2007 1:54:12 GMT -6
Juries aren't all that common in many countries. Here in Canada many of the criminals prefer to be tried by a judge alone.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 3, 2007 5:52:01 GMT -6
I am of the opinion that it would have been better for all concerned had Saddam Hussein been turned over to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 3, 2007 5:56:18 GMT -6
I am of the opinion that it would have been better for all concerned had Saddam Hussein been turned over to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. I am inclined to agree, the spectacle that was his execution is being likenened to an Al Quaida video!
|
|
|
Post by GlennF on Jan 3, 2007 6:34:31 GMT -6
I am of the opinion that it would have been better for all concerned had Saddam Hussein been turned over to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Oh yeah, then he would have expected REAL punishment! Compared to his cell in Iraq, after which he didn't look too bad considering what he looked like coming out of the hole in the ground, he would have a nice five star cell. Three nice meals a day. Pampered by the left wing media, and by the courts who would go out of their way to make sure he is comfortable. No wonder his lawyers tried everything to get him sent to The Hague.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 3, 2007 7:07:04 GMT -6
Oh yeah, then he would have expected REAL punishment! Compared to his cell in Iraq, after which he didn't look too bad considering what he looked like coming out of the hole in the ground, he would have a nice five star cell. Three nice meals a day. Pampered by the left wing media, and by the courts who would go out of their way to make sure he is comfortable. No wonder his lawyers tried everything to get him sent to The Hague. Glennf, I’m afraid you’re too wrapped up with getting even to see the larger picture.
|
|
|
Post by grandma on Jan 3, 2007 8:12:44 GMT -6
Sooo never bothered to look up those crimes huh? Interesting. You have opinions on his trial (which I'm seriously doubting you watched closely) and you have no opinion about the guy (had you watched the trial you'd have an opinion). Do you need documentaries, biographies, video footage, interviews etc? Do a search on Google for "Saddam Regime", Saddam gassed Kurds", sons of Saddam kill brother in laws (they even made a video of it for dear old dad), Saddam rape rooms.... you need more? Even if you argue that evidence was not given to the defense in the prescribed manor, once it WAS introduced Saddam himself would simply stand and say he was President and by Allah those people deserved it for trying to assinate him. He offered up his own head on a platter... the Iraqi people just slapped a noose around it. Had the US not detained him during the trial for HIS own safety, the Iraqi people would have pulled a Mussolini on him years ago. For his own safety? They did'nt do a very good job of that in the end did they? Are'nt trials supposed to be judged by a jury? I did'nt notice any jury at his trial. In this country, the defense has the right to waive the jury and have the judge decide the case.
|
|
|
Post by grandma on Jan 3, 2007 8:14:28 GMT -6
I am of the opinion that it would have been better for all concerned had Saddam Hussein been turned over to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. I am inclined to agree, the spectacle that was his execution is being likenened to an Al Quaida video! The defendant should not benefit from his own disruptions. Saddam CAUSED the spectacle himself.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 3, 2007 8:21:11 GMT -6
I am inclined to agree, the spectacle that was his execution is being likenened to an Al Quaida video! The defendant should not benefit from his own disruptions. Saddam CAUSED the spectacle himself. Seems to me not to be the case, he was the one person present who had no choices to exercise and on one occasion even asked those present if that was the way men should behave?
|
|
andy28
Banned
Me and Rocky
Posts: 904
|
Post by andy28 on Jan 3, 2007 9:38:47 GMT -6
No single man would clear Saddams name if he did he would probably be arrested for corruption. The 'trial' would have been more fair with a jury.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 3, 2007 9:45:32 GMT -6
Sooo never bothered to look up those crimes huh? Interesting. You have opinions on his trial (which I'm seriously doubting you watched closely) and you have no opinion about the guy (had you watched the trial you'd have an opinion). Do you need documentaries, biographies, video footage, interviews etc? Do a search on Google for "Saddam Regime", Saddam gassed Kurds", sons of Saddam kill brother in laws (they even made a video of it for dear old dad), Saddam rape rooms.... you need more? Even if you argue that evidence was not given to the defense in the prescribed manor, once it WAS introduced Saddam himself would simply stand and say he was President and by Allah those people deserved it for trying to assinate him. He offered up his own head on a platter... the Iraqi people just slapped a noose around it. Had the US not detained him during the trial for HIS own safety, the Iraqi people would have pulled a Mussolini on him years ago. For his own safety? They did'nt do a very good job of that in the end did they? Are'nt trials supposed to be judged by a jury? I did'nt notice any jury at his trial. Not necessarily. Bench rials (by a judge or panel of judges) are allowed in the U.S. if the defendant so requests. I might also note that the Nuremburg war crimes trials were conducted without a jury.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 3, 2007 9:46:56 GMT -6
I am of the opinion that it would have been better for all concerned had Saddam Hussein been turned over to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Why, so we could have a Pinochet II trial, wherein the defendant dies in custody of old age before the court can act? Nuts to that. He got what was coming to him from his own people.
|
|
|
Post by grandma on Jan 3, 2007 13:55:26 GMT -6
The defendant should not benefit from his own disruptions. Saddam CAUSED the spectacle himself. Seems to me not to be the case, he was the one person present who had no choices to exercise and on one occasion even asked those present if that was the way men should behave? Felix, I watched that circus trial. Saddam made a production out of just answering what his name is! A judge in the US would have held him in contempt and hauled his a$$ to a holding cell with a video camera
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 3, 2007 14:14:12 GMT -6
Why, so we could have a Pinochet II trial, wherein the defendant dies in custody of old age before the court can act? No, because it would have been politically expedient. After all, politics is not carried on for the sake of revenge; its sole purpose is the increase of power. He got what was coming to him from his own people. Whether true or not the fact remains that a very significant portion of the earth’s population isn’t buying that.
|
|
|
Post by levi on Jan 12, 2007 20:43:18 GMT -6
For all of you who are complaining about the way that Saddam Hussein was executed. I want to pose a question to you: Were you outraged when CNN broadcasted terrorists attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq? Showing them getting killed?
IMO CNN is in the league with the snipers. It is terrorist propaganda IMO. The idiot that gave the video to CNN is a POS. I'd send Special Force teams out to find Michael Ware. take him to Gitmo & lock him up with those scumbags he video taped killing our servicemen.
IMO all these psychopathic left-wing scum that think that it is freedom of the press. This is not freedom of the press. This is murder.
Surely all you liberals that are complaining about showing the video of Saddam are outraged that CNN showed the video of American heroes getting murdered by terrorists? Hu? Where is the outrage from all of you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2007 2:15:58 GMT -6
Jan 3, 2007, 9:46am, Californian wrote:
He got what was coming to him from his own people.
Oslooskar:
"Whether true or not the fact remains that a very significant portion of the earth’s population isn’t buying that."
Since his crimes were committed primarily against the people of Iraq, why exactly should this matter? Who cares what they "buy" or not? In any case, as of right now, they have all forgotten about Saddam and have moved on to other things. Do you think the Chinese care two bits that Saddam was executed? The Indians? The Iranians? The Congolese? Sure, the Arab Sunnis are having a bit of a sulk, but then again they largely supported him. Why should their interests trump that of the majority of Iraqis or, indeed, that of justice?
The other group that is upset are left-wing Europeans who constantly preen about their ethical superiority. I wonder how many of them would have been against the execution of Nazi war criminals when it was Europeans who were the victims? I'll wager they were not so ethically fastidious when it was the Nazis dropping through the trapdoor.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Jan 13, 2007 14:36:52 GMT -6
I concur. Love, RED Jan 3, 2007, 9:46am, Californian wrote: He got what was coming to him from his own people. Oslooskar: "Whether true or not the fact remains that a very significant portion of the earth’s population isn’t buying that." Since his crimes were committed primarily against the people of Iraq, why exactly should this matter? Who cares what they "buy" or not? In any case, as of right now, they have all forgotten about Saddam and have moved on to other things. Do you think the Chinese care two bits that Saddam was executed? The Indians? The Iranians? The Congolese? Sure, the Arab Sunnis are having a bit of a sulk, but then again they largely supported him. Why should their interests trump that of the majority of Iraqis or, indeed, that of justice? The other group that is upset are left-wing Europeans who constantly preen about their ethical superiority. I wonder how many of them would have been against the execution of Nazi war criminals when it was Europeans who were the victims? I'll wager they were not so ethically fastidious when it was the Nazis dropping through the trapdoor.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 19, 2007 0:16:06 GMT -6
Just wondering, would you oppose the execution of Osama Bin Laden beacuse it would turn him into a matyr for jihadists as well? No, I would only oppose his execution if he did not have a fair trial. (Show trials don’t count.) If we helped get rid of this dictator for good then I'm glad. It was the least America could do considering the fact that it helped install the no good S.O.B. A person can only be punished for murder where the crime took place in. I rather doubt that as I know of a case where a murderer is doing life in prison in North Carolina for killing two police officers in California. If i was president Bush right now i'd be looking underneath every vehicle i travelled in. So would I but not for the same reason. what is even crueller though is those bringing him to "justice" supported him when he did this to the Iranians, and now they want to be seen as judicial? Machiavelli could not have been more cunning. He got what was coming to him from his own people. I’m sure he did but I rather doubt he got a fair trial
|
|