Saddam sentenced to death

[theloniusfleabag]

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/World...rc=w110513A.xml

Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced Sunday to hang for crimes against humanity in the 1982 killings of 148 people in a single Shiite town,

Good to see that this crime is not going unpunished, but is this the right thing to do? That is, should others be held accountable in the same way? Should the perpetrators of, say, the illegal invasion of Panama be captured and hung?

[jdobbin]

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/World...rc=w110513A.xml

Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced Sunday to hang for crimes against humanity in the 1982 killings of 148 people in a single Shiite town,

Good to see that this crime is not going unpunished, but is this the right thing to do? That is, should others be held accountable in the same way? Should the perpetrators of, say, the illegal invasion of Panama be captured and hung?

When is the sentence supposed to carried out and are there any appeals?

[crazymf]

Because it's a death sentence, the case goes to a higher court where the proceedings are checked by a different panel of judges for legalities. I'm not sure if litigation is allowed there. After the sessions are complete and assuming the judgement stands, he can be hung within 30 days.

That's the way I understood it when explained on CNN.

[KrustyKidd]

When is the sentence supposed to carried out and are there any appeals?

From the link;

The death sentences automatically go to a nine-judge appeals panel, which has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.

A court official told The Associated Press that the appeals process was likely to take three to four weeks once the formal paperwork was submitted.

Good to see that this crime is not going unpunished, but is this the right thing to do?

I'm not an Iraqi judge or citizen so I cannot say.

Should the perpetrators of, say, the illegal invasion of Panama be captured and hung?

If they are evil dictators who killed hundreds of thousands of their own people then I say YES!

[Higgly]

Good to see that this crime is not going unpunished, but is this the right thing to do? That is, should others be held accountable in the same way? Should the perpetrators of, say, the illegal invasion of Panama be captured and hung?

Very good point. When are we gonna see Augusto Pinochet hang? How about Ariel Sharon? The Dear Leader? Why can we not have a World Court where these bastards can be tried?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Higgly,

Why can we not have a World Court where these bastards can be tried?

We do, sort of, at The Hague. That is where I thought Saddam should have been tried, rather than some farcical 'kangaroo court' in Iraq. If you'll recall, the judge for this case was recently removed because it was felt that he was 'too soft' on Saddam. So, they installed a new judge to ensure a guilty verdict.

[Riverwind]

That is where I thought Saddam should have been tried, rather than some farcical 'kangaroo court' in Iraq.

Iraqis would have been better off if someone had tossed a grenade into that spider hole. Trials of men like Hussein are always a farce because their guilt is obvious to everyone. If Saddam got off it would have been because of a technicality - not because he is innocent.

[crazymf]

That is where I thought Saddam should have been tried, rather than some farcical 'kangaroo court' in Iraq.

Iraqis would have been better off if someone had tossed a grenade into that spider hole. Trials of men like Hussein are always a farce because their guilt is obvious to everyone. If Saddam got off it would have been because of a technicality - not because he is innocent.

I believe that the trial was to lend credibility to the Iraqi legal system. If Saddam was found innocent, they could merely try him for the next one of countless atrocities he's comitted until they get their verdict. Killing him quickly at the beginning doesn't get any political mileage.

[KrustyKidd]

That is where I thought Saddam should have been tried, rather than some farcical 'kangaroo court' in Iraq. If you'll recall, the judge for this case was recently removed because it was felt that he was 'too soft' on Saddam. So, they installed a new judge to ensure a guilty verdict.

Ensure a quilty verdict? They had cases and witnesses with no arms, legs and documentation of atrocities without end lined up like bottle caps in a cola factory. Your 'kangaroo court' really wouldn't have to work very hard to find him guilty of something punishable by death. The killings of his adversaries when he came into power for example, or of his son's in law after they returned to Iraq have been well documented as well. As for being soft on him, allowing a court to be disrupted by his theatricals I feel is being too soft so the replacement of the judge is warrented.

His crimes were against the Iraqi people, not me or you so, they should be the ones to try him.

[Higgly]

Iraqis would have been better off if someone had tossed a grenade into that spider hole. Trials of men like Hussein are always a farce because their guilt is obvious to everyone. If Saddam got off it would have been because of a technicality - not because he is innocent.

OK. Here's another one. Saddam invaded Kuwait. He claimed it was because Kuwait was traditionally Iraqi territory. Since Iraq was an invention of the Brits (who really screwed the pooch on this whole picture), who can say whether that was ever true?

The US of A came to the rescue. Kicked Saddam out of Kuwait. Bully for you. Bully! We can all trust air travel again. Who can forget that Saddam was gonna blow up airplanes all over the world?

As Saddam was being chased out of Iraq and his troops massacred by the hundreds of thousands on the highway of death out of Kuwait, the CIA started broadcasting messages into Iraq telling the Kurds and the Shias to rise up against Saddam. They trusted the CIA broadcasts and did exactly that. Unfortunately, the US stopped short of Bhagdad and pulled out.

At the surrender talks, the defeated Iraqi generals asked Stormin' Norman Schwartzkopf if they could keep their attack helicopters. Stormin' Norman said, "Well hell yes!".

The Iraqi generals used these helicopters to massacre the Shias and Kurds who trusted the CIA broadcasts.

So who is gonna hang for that?

[ft.niagara]

So who is gonna hang for that?

For what. That their revolt did not work. Too bad. Revolts do not always work. Any DipS@it knows that.

[bradco]

So who is gonna hang for that?

For what. That their revolt did not work. Too bad. Revolts do not always work. Any DipS@it knows that.

Well, lets invent a somewhat comparable hypothetical situation. Say Al Qiada encourages some group in the United States to revolt and uprise against the Bush administration. Bush acts swiftly to protect the integrity of the country and massacres the rebels who are intent on destroying the United States. Should he hang for that offence?

Now obviously the big difference is that Mr. Bush is a democratically elected leader while Mr. Hussein is a brutal dictator. However, international law does not recognize one form of government to be necessary. State sovereignty is always put ahead of individuals and this is something that even us in the west continue to believe in.

The use of banned weapons, however, by Saddam in his attack on the rebel uprising does violate international norms and laws. For this offense he needs to be tried at an international court.

[Rue]

"Very good point. When are we gonna see Augusto Pinochet hang? How about Ariel Sharon? The Dear Leader? Why can we not have a World Court where these bastards can be tried?

It is interesting how subjective the arguements are about who war criminals are. Take for instance you. You quicklly list Pinochet and Sharon along with Hussein, even though the alleged crimes of the three would be quite different.

It seems when someone feels they do not like someone's politics, this may qualify them to be war criminals or should it be something a little more solid then that?

Technically for a war crime law to work, it must be applied equally AND NOT SELECTIVELY. The reality is, if Sharon was tried for what he did, U.S. military generals would also have to be arrested becauyse in the Gulf War it is a fact, U.S. generals were advised of on-going massacres of Kurds and Shiites but chose to keep their troops from entering and preventing the massacres.

We could have a field day with who we tried, Mugabe of Ziimbabwe, Arafat, the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, the current leader of Iran, oh I am sure some of you would want Castro, Gbago of the Ivory Coast, the junta in Sudan, Somali war lords, Afghani war lords, Putin, Blair, Chirac, Bush, the leaders of China, on and on.

If you are on the left side of the equation, you would line up Sharon on the top of the list and any Israeli that ever served in the IDF, then list your usual list of right wing suspects. If you are on the right, you would want Hugo Chavez, and so on.

I myself am not interested in using war crime proceedings as an excuse to name call and take pot shots at politicians.

In the case of Sadaam Hussein, his ordering of the gassing of kurds, constituted an international crime against humanity and the fact is he should have been arrested and tried years before now but the US and others supported him. For Mummar Ghadaffi not to have been tried for his ordering of the murder of civilians in the air bombing over Scotland is inexcusable. Then again the world has no problems trading with China whose government has been responsible for the massacres, torture and killings of millions of political prisoners.

So let us not kid ourselves. As for Sharon, if he had been tried, the legal arguement was that he was INDIRECTLY responsible for deaths in the Sabta and Chatila refugee camps in 1982. At that time the Christian Phalangists, entered these camps. The Lebanese Red Cross reported 380 bodies. The IDF reported 700. The Palestinian authority reported 2,000.

What did happen was Christian Phalangists using knives, killed Palestinians in retaliation for the deaths of Christian Lebanese by the PLO.

What did happen was the PLO ran into the camps and blended with the refugees. The Phalangist went in, and selectively pulled out the men, knifing to death PLO militia. They also raped and killed women and some

sympathizers who fought back.

Sharon, the Minister of Defence was found by the Israeli government to have been indirectly responsible as it was determined he knew the massacre was happening but did not send in the Israeli army to stop it.

In fact Israeli officers told the Phalangist before they entered to act like gentleman, but did NOT stop them once word filtered out they were raping women during interogation.

The Sabra and Chatila killings were repulsive and unacceptable, but interestingly selected out while the many attacks and massacres by the PLO against civilians which brought these on amounting to far more deaths, have been ignored by the same people who condemn Sharon, but have been silent as to Arafat's role in the death and torture of thousands upon thousands of Christian Lebanese.

Ironically not only did Sharon go on to become Prime Minister, but the principal leader of the Christian Phalangist was also elected to Lebanese parliament and became a Minister.

So I know Higgly and FigLeaf would love to switch the focus away from Hussein and somehow steer this back to taking a pot shot at Israel.

The fact is Sharon has done exactly what the UN did when it sat by and did NOTHING as thousands of Africans died in Rwanda or have done nothing as hundreds of thousands of black Sudanese Christians die in Sudan. Should we put the UN and the entire world on trial for this?

The fact is in the world of alleged international crimes against humanity, it is flavoured by who is the ruling power of the world, and whose financial interests are at stake.

In the case of Hussein the fact is he is on trial because he is a rogue CIA agent not because he's a war criminal. The U.S. naively thought if they put him on show and tried him, it would rally the Iraqi people and want them to support the U.S. This naive notion has blown up in their face.

Instead all it has done is give Iraqis fuel to hate each other, and it gives some trendy leftists ammunition and lecture us on the US being a criminal state, etc.

Excuse me if I don't lose any sleep over Hussein's hanging and I certainly don't believe it will contribute to a safer world either. It is but one more socio-path strung up as a piece of meat to pacify the masses.

[Rue]

That is where I thought Saddam should have been tried, rather than some farcical 'kangaroo court' in Iraq.

Iraqis would have been better off if someone had tossed a grenade into that spider hole. Trials of men like Hussein are always a farce because their guilt is obvious to everyone. If Saddam got off it would have been because of a technicality - not because he is innocent.

Agreed.

[geoffrey]

Dear Higgly,

Why can we not have a World Court where these bastards can be tried?

We do, sort of, at The Hague. That is where I thought Saddam should have been tried, rather than some farcical 'kangaroo court' in Iraq. If you'll recall, the judge for this case was recently removed because it was felt that he was 'too soft' on Saddam. So, they installed a new judge to ensure a guilty verdict.

The law needs to be applied in context, a World Court has problems here. What is morally and legally acceptable in one part of the world is not in others. You'd have to establish a worldwide criminal code, which is very impractical. In my opinion, you need to be tried in the system that you committed the crime, not in another.

[KrustyKidd]

Well, lets invent a somewhat comparable hypothetical situation. Say Al Qiada encourages some group in the United States to revolt and uprise against the Bush administration. Bush acts swiftly to protect the integrity of the country and massacres the rebels who are intent on destroying the United States. Should he hang for that offence?

Now obviously the big difference is that Mr. Bush is a democratically elected leader while Mr. Hussein is a brutal dictator. However, international law does not recognize one form of government to be necessary. State sovereignty is always put ahead of individuals and this is something that even us in the west continue to believe in.

The use of banned weapons, however, by Saddam in his attack on the rebel uprising does violate international norms and laws. For this offense he needs to be tried at an international court.

Let's try to make another comparable hypothetical situation rather than the one you have put forth above.

Bush is travelling through Indianna visiting Garrit to see the Lighting Factory there. As his motorcade stops and he gets out, an assasin takes a shot at him. He has the army come in and kill a hundred people from that town after extracting bogus confessions from them after watching their wives and children get tortured.

Now, back to you Braco, continue with your theory ..........

[jbg]

Because it's a death sentence, the case goes to a higher court where the proceedings are checked by a different panel of judges for legalities. I'm not sure if litigation is allowed there. After the sessions are complete and assuming the judgement stands, he can be hung within 30 days.

That's the way I understood it when explained on CNN.

Nicolai Ceasescu (sp) had his trial and appeals completed inside a day, and the execution carried out.

My recommendation would be to not execute Saddam, but to release him, on his own recognisance and without bodyguards, in his choice of Kirkuk, Basra, or in the marshes (where the Marsh Arabs have returned).

[jdobbin]

Nicolai Ceasescu (sp) had his trial and appeals completed inside a day, and the execution carried out.

And they didn't even need American help.

[KrustyKidd]

And they didn't even need American help.

Nope. Just a little military and possibly some Russian help. In any case, it wasn't simply a 'people's' revolution, more of a coup than anything else. That goat show never would have happened in Saddam's Iraq.

[jdobbin]

Nope. Just a little military and possibly some Russian help. In any case, it wasn't simply a 'people's' revolution, more of a coup than anything else. That goat show never would have happened in Saddam's Iraq.

I think you need to read up on the Romanian overthrow of Ceauşescu.

[KrustyKidd]

I think you need to read up on the Romanian overthrow of Ceauşescu.

The Hated Wilkpedia

The events of December 1989 remain controversial. Many, including Filip Teodorescu, a high-ranking Securitate officer at the time, allege that a group of conspiring generals in the Securitate took advantage of this opportunity to launch a coup in Bucharest. Some have made more specific claims about the nature of the conspiracy. Colonel Burlan asserts that the coup had been prepared since 1982, and was originally planned to take place during the New Year celebrations, but it was spontaneously adapted to the new developments. It remains a matter of controversy whether there had been any advance conspiracy to stage a coup, and, if so, who was precisely involved. The two main alternative possibilities are that these events were simply a combination of genuine revolutionary drive and inherent confusion, or that various figures in the military simply took opportunistic advantage of public protests, in an effort to capture power for themselves or for others whom they supported.

There is no question that some individuals who were active in the December events greatly profited in terms of money and power (especially in the form of ownership in privatised industries), fame, advancement in rank, or merely the settling of personal grievances; it is also possible that any number of foreign interests may have been involved, possibly including the KGB and/or other Soviet interests.

Ceauşescu's security detail was relatively small compared to that of the current Romanian government, numbering only 40 people for his residences and for his whole family. His security chief was Col. Dumitru Burlan who claims that his troops had only two guns (insufficient for any serious defense). Col. Burlan claims that Ceauşescu was overconfident that the Romanian people loved him, and believed that he did not need protection. This explains much of the ease with which Ceauşescu was deposed and captured.

[jdobbin]

The Hated Wilkpedia

The events of December 1989 remain controversial. Many, including Filip Teodorescu, a high-ranking Securitate officer at the time, allege that a group of conspiring generals in the Securitate took advantage of this opportunity to launch a coup in Bucharest. Some have made more specific claims about the nature of the conspiracy. Colonel Burlan asserts that the coup had been prepared since 1982, and was originally planned to take place during the New Year celebrations, but it was spontaneously adapted to the new developments. It remains a matter of controversy whether there had been any advance conspiracy to stage a coup, and, if so, who was precisely involved. The two main alternative possibilities are that these events were simply a combination of genuine revolutionary drive and inherent confusion, or that various figures in the military simply took opportunistic advantage of public protests, in an effort to capture power for themselves or for others whom they supported.

There is no question that some individuals who were active in the December events greatly profited in terms of money and power (especially in the form of ownership in privatised industries), fame, advancement in rank, or merely the settling of personal grievances; it is also possible that any number of foreign interests may have been involved, possibly including the KGB and/or other Soviet interests.

Ceauşescu's security detail was relatively small compared to that of the current Romanian government, numbering only 40 people for his residences and for his whole family. His security chief was Col. Dumitru Burlan who claims that his troops had only two guns (insufficient for any serious defense). Col. Burlan claims that Ceauşescu was overconfident that the Romanian people loved him, and believed that he did not need protection. This explains much of the ease with which Ceauşescu was deposed and captured.

I've heard all this before. Possible, alleged, may have etc, etc.

The military was killing people up until the time that public protests made it clear that the Ceauşescu had no future.

I think it was a people's revolution. I don't think the Soviet's had much control over the situation (not many former KGB come forward and said they were directly involved). The military eventually sided with the protesters. There were defections going on in those days and the military went along with the public. A 1982 coup planned and carried out in 1989? A little fantastical, I think.

[KrustyKidd]

I think it was a people's revolution.

I think you are wrong and need the remedial reading.

BBC Version

But rather than carrying out through democratic reforms, successive Romanian governments blocked attempts to prosecute those responsible for the bloodshed of 1989; while much economic power stayed in the hands of shadowy figures from the old regime.

And from Gloal Security, a real tin foil hat site

There was a growing perception among many, both within Romania and elsewhere around the world, that the toppling of Ceausescu was not the result of the protests in Timisoara and Bucharest, but rather a coup by top communist officials who used the uprising as cover for their plan. It is quite easy to see how this is the case, considering how the army turned against Ceausescu, the trail and execution of the Ceausescus, and how Iliescu and the FSN took power only hours after Ceausescu's death. The fact that the new government was loaded with former communist officials and the fact that there was not even a semblence of a process of lustration, not to mention the FSN's policies, proved to many that Ceausescu was simply done in by his own circle and not the crowds of protesters. Iliescu has remained in office to this day despite electoral threats from oposition groups and ultra-nationalist groups. Currently Romania is making a bid for membership in the European Union but does so with the dubious distinction of having a government made up largely of individuals who plyed their craft under Ceasescu's Stalinist dictatorship and assumed power in a coup.

[jdobbin]

I think it was a people's revolution.

I think you are wrong and need the remedial reading.

The article also says popular uprising. Stop being so selective in your quotes.

[Remiel]

While I never really doubted it was Saddam's fate to die, and he certainly deserves it (Though I don't really believe in capital punishment, sometimes you just have to know when to be leave it alone.), I don't believe -anyone- should be executed on the verdict of a kangaroo court like that one. That thing gave farces everywhere a bad name. And the release of the verdict was timed. You would have to be a fool to believe otherwise. Nothing good can come of this.