Iraqi Tribunal Sentences Saddam to Death Merged With Breaking News

[Gunny]

Oh yah, right Steffie, baby... the admin has no power with respect to the Iraqi government. RAFLMAO! :rotflmao:

You're kidding, right? The very second someone in the current administration attempted to influence the Iraqi gov't concerning this verdict a very hostile media would have it all over everything.

Hell, some of you libs are making the accusation anyway. Throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

 

[Gunny]

As I understand it, he has 30 for appeal.... Anyone with more info would be welcome to chime in....

He can appeal. If it is denied, the death sentence must be carried out within 30 days.

What we don't know is if that is held in abeyance while he is tried for every charge against him.

 

[onedomino]

I really can't say I agree with you on this one. How many times can one be executed? That's a mindset I don't get. A guy gets convicted of mass murder for slicing and dicing 10 people, but because there wasn't evidence to prove he murdered the 11th when it's obvious he did, so there's no satisfaction?

You aren't really talking about justice, IMO. You want vengeance.

No, I am not talking about vengeance. At a minimum, Saddam needs to be legally convicted of the war crimes associated with invading Kuwait and the associated atrocities committed in the aftermath. He needs to be convicted of the murders committed by his secret police. We need the concrete revelations that will come from a trial for his crimes connected to the oil for food (palaces and weapons) UN debacle. Gunny, if you are some guy in Iraq whose brother was murdered by the Iraqi secret police, do you want in the future to say "I think Saddam killed my brother," or do you want to say "Saddam was convicted and executed for killing my brother?" It is not about vengeance; it is about justice for those transgressed. It certainly is not about the convenience of getting rid of Saddam after just one conviction. The historical record needs a legal foundation, such as what happened at Nuremberg.

 

[onedomino]

Like I mentioned above, it's going to be a very long time before Saddam is executed:

The case dealt with a 1982 assassination attempt against Hussein in the town of Dujail, which prompted revenge killings of 148 people, deportation of 400, and razing of orchards. One intelligence document indicated the level of torture used against the 148, noting that "of those who were sentenced to death, 46...had been eliminated or died during the investigation."

But it is only the first in a dozen or so being prepared against Hussein and the former regime by the troubled Iraqi High Tribunal, which has been dogged by legitimacy issues, the murder of three defense lawyers, the resignation of one chief judge, an array of confusing testimony, and a multitude of farcical in-the-dock antics by Hussein and his codefendants.

The second, much larger case, charges genocide and covers the 1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds in which up to 180,000 were killed. Legally, Sunday's death sentences will go through an automatic appeals process with no deadline. If the verdict is confirmed, the sentence must be carried out within 30 days. Hussein had requested execution by firing squad, normally reserved for the military. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1106/p01s01-woiq.html.

So the verdict will not be confirmed until "the dozen or so" other cases being prepared by the Iraqi High Tribunial are tried.

 

[Gunny]

No, I am not talking about vengeance. At a minimum, Saddam needs to be legally convicted of the war crimes associated with invading Kuwait and the associated atrocities committed in the aftermath. He needs to be convicted of the murders committed by his secret police. We need the concrete revelations that will come from a trial for his crimes connected to the oil for food (palaces and weapons) UN debacle. Gunny, if you are some guy in Iraq whose brother was murdered by the Iraqi secret police, do you want in the future to say "I think Saddam killed my brother," or do you want to say "Saddam was convicted and executed for killing my brother?" It is not about vengeance; it is about justice for those transgressed. It certainly is not about the convenience of getting rid of Saddam after just one conviction. The historical record needs a legal foundation, such as what happened at Nuremberg.

What happened at Nuremburg was a farce. The victors extracting vengeance on the vanquished. Not that hanging a bunch of Nazi's was unjust, but the trials themselves were a joke.

In regard to your hypothetical, I would in that case want Saddam dead by whatever means, the sooner the better. Whether or not the record stated he was specifically responsible for my brother's death means nothing to me.

 

[Gunny]

Like I mentioned above, it's going to be a very long time before Saddam is executed:So the verdict will not be confirmed until "the dozen or so" other cases being prepared by the Iraqi High Tribunial are tried.

IMO, it is a waste of money and time, and a distraction for the Iraqi government and people. However, if that's their law, so be it.

 

[onedomino]

What happened at Nuremburg was a farce. The victors extracting vengeance on the vanquished. Not that hanging a bunch of Nazi's was unjust, but the trials themselves were a joke.

Nuremberg was a farce? You call the convictions of Goering, Hess, von Ribbentrop, Bormann, and others a farce? You are kidding right? Nuremberg legally documented the murder of six million Jews and others at the hands of the Nazis. The Nuremberg trials were about as far from a "farce" or a "joke" as anything can get.

 

[Gunny]

Nuremberg was a farce? You call the convictions of Goering, Hess, von Ribbentrop, Bormann, and others a farce? You are kidding right? Nuremberg legally documented the murder of six million Jews and others at the hands of the Nazis. The Nuremberg trials were about as far from a "farce" or a "joke" as anything can get.

Go back and read my whole statement. I did not say the convictions were a farce. I didn't say the Nazi scumbags didn't deserve to die. In fact, I said just the opposite.

However, if you read up on the Nuremberg Trials, the trials themselves WERE a joke. It was a kangaroo court all the way. I cannot and will not defend the pretense that they were given fair trials when they were not.

At the same time, I'd have had no problem with dispensing with the circus and taking them outside and putting a round in each temple.

 

[jillian]

Go back and read my whole statement. I did not say the convictions were a farce. I didn't say the Nazi scumbags didn't deserve to die. In fact, I said just the opposite.

However, if you read up on the Nuremberg Trials, the trials themselves WERE a joke. It was a kangaroo court all the way. I cannot and will not defend the pretense that they were given fair trials when they were not.

At the same time, I'd have had no problem with dispensing with the circus and taking them outside and putting a round in each temple.

Actually, one of my professors was a prosecutor at Neuremberg. I think he'd be a bit surprised to find that his efforts were a kangaroo court. In fact, I think he just rolled over in his grave. (and no, I didn't go to Yale... the site is from Yale).

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/01-04-46.htm#staff

 

[Gunny]

Actually, one of my professors was a prosecutor at Neuremberg. I think he'd be a bit surprised to find that his efforts were a kangaroo court. In fact, I think he just rolled over in his grave. (and no, I didn't go to Yale... the site is from Yale).

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/01-04-46.htm#staff

To each his own. Perhaps he thought he was doing the right thing. I have watched portions of the trials and read up on them some. The fact remains the presumption of guilt by the court is obvious.

 

[jillian]

To each his own. Perhaps he thought he was doing the right thing. I have watched portions of the trials and read up on them some. The fact remains the presumption of guilt by the court is obvious.

Thought he was doing the right thing? He KNEW he did the right thing. I think the facts were just what they were.

Now... if you want to read a trial transcript where the presumption of guilt by the Court was palpable, you should curl up with U.S. v. Rosenberg. The illustrious Judge Kaufman may as well have directed the verdict. Happens sometimes in political cases.

 

[Gunny]

Thought he was doing the right thing? He KNEW he did the right thing. I think the facts were just what they were.

Now... if you want to read a trial transcript where the presumption of guilt by the Court was palpable, you should curl up with U.S. v. Rosenberg. The illustrious Judge Kaufman may as well have directed the verdict. Happens sometimes in political cases.

You are confusing two issues, as I pointed out to onedomino. I didn't say the facts were wrong, nor have I said the Nazis didn't deserve to be executed. And most certainly the Nazis got a fairer trial than they ever gave anyone. There's no doubt in my mind that even had the Nazis been given a fairer trial, the results would be the same.

And it is my opinion that THAT fact created a lot of going through the motions and rubber stamping. The defendants were extremely limited in what they could do/produce to defend themselves while the prosecution had unlimited resources to gather and present evidence.

I'm only vaguely familiar with the Rosenberg case. They were executed, then someone came out and said they got screwed, then someone else came out and showed that they were indeed complicit in leaking secrets. Last I heard of it.

 

[Avatar4321]

He deserves to pay for his crimes. But so to do his enablers...Remember that picture of Rummy and Saddam smiling, shaking hands and generally making nice with each other?

And no, I've seen nothing that has come from the debacle in Iraq that is in Chimpy's favor. Unless you count his bid for unprecedented power as a "war-time" president, and that benefits only him and his merry band.

The idea that you think the President is trying to weld any "unprecedent" power as a war time President shows your complete and utter ignorance at what the executive power includes and what past presidents have done.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Which is why this is not a 'Bush conspiracy' type of thing. Nighty night.

"<b>Unless you count his bid for unprecedented power as a "war-time" president, and that benefits only him and his merry band.</b>"

And that's not enough reason to try to fix the timing of the verdict? They'll say and do anything to maintain their stranglehold on power...And that will be their downfall.

 

[red states rule]

Libs hate any good news. It does not matter if the goiod news about the roaring US economy or the war on terror

The NY Times was upset over Saddam's death sentence


NY Times Frets Over Fairness of Saddam Trial, But Expert Calls It 'Model of Due Process'
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on November 6, 2006 - 08:45.
I guess we should have seen this one coming. The New York Times doesn't think the Saddam trial was fair enough and wants his death penalty delayed.

With the same solicitude it reserves for politically-correct domestic criminals, the Times editorial of this morning opines that Saddam's trial "fell somewhere short" of "an exemplary exercise in the rule of law." In the Times' view, the trial represented neither "full justice" nor "full fairness."

And as opponents of the death penalty even for mass murderers, the Times predictably recommended that the appeals court "defer the carrying out of any death penalty long enough to allow the completion of a second trial."

Contrast the Times' hand-wringing with the comments from a true expert not just on international criminal law in general, but on the Saddam trial in particular. Case Western law professor Michael Scharf has devoted himself to following the trial, even writing a book about it. Here are some of the observations Prof. Scharf offered on CNN yesterday:

"[Although] it looked like another day of chaos in the courtroom, actually it was a very efficient and orderly day. The presiding judge did a very good job of choreographing the entire event today. They did bring in saddam. They gave him his chance to vent once again. And this is televised as the proceedings have been all along. It's the judge's way of showing they're giving absolute fairness bending over backwards to give Saddam his moment."
"If Iraq stays together as a unified country, people will look back and say that this trial, which was dedicated to due process, which allowed Saddam to have his day in court, and which followed the international rules, was one of the elements along with the creation of the constitution and the election of the democratically-elected national assembly that led to the success of this country."
"This trial has been the first televised trial in the history of Iraq, actually, the history of all of the Middle East. Many people in Iraq have never seen the inside of a courtroom. Unlike the courts under Saddam Hussein, this court was governed by the rule of law. They did give Saddam a lot of leeway that he was allowed to act disruptively and react to the functions in the courtroom. But that was a function of due process. So this trial will be a model for due process in the other courts of Iraq, and if Iraq is able to survive this period of violence, I think that this episode will be seen as one of the keys to bringing the rule of law back to this troubled country."
"I think it's very unlikely that this verdict will be overturned. . . Ultimately this case was not a factual case. The facts were not in dispute . . . Even Saddam Hussein admitted the basic facts."
Prof. Scharf is a scholar, not a partisan. I don't know about you, but I'm going with his analysis, not the carping of an old-media paper looking to undercut this historic achievement.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8854

 

[theHawk]

He deserves to pay for his crimes. But so to do his enablers...Remember that picture of Rummy and Saddam smiling, shaking hands and generally making nice with each other?

And no, I've seen nothing that has come from the debacle in Iraq that is in Chimpy's favor. Unless you count his bid for unprecedented power as a "war-time" president, and that benefits only him and his merry band.

Kind of like:

 

[Bullypulpit]

Kind of like:

Madeline Albright was engaged in negotitations to end NK's weapons program...Rummy was working to transfer chemical weapons precursosrs to Iraq. Nice try...

 

[theHawk]

Madeline Albright was engaged in negotitations to end NK's weapons program...Rummy was working to transfer chemical weapons precursosrs to Iraq. Nice try...

Yea, those negotitions worked out well didn't they?

 

[theHawk]

Rummy was working to transfer chemical weapons precursosrs to Iraq. Nice try...

That was during the Iran- Iraq war, thanks to Jimmy Carter abandoning Iran and letting the Islamic radicals take over, we sided with the lesser of the two evils.

If you don't like the way Rummy cleans up liberal foreign policy messes, don't make the mess.

 

[Avatar4321]

Madeline Albright was engaged in negotitations to end NK's weapons program...Rummy was working to transfer chemical weapons precursosrs to Iraq. Nice try...

Yeah negotiations to give the North Koreans the nuclear materials they needed to become a nuclear power.