Saddam to hang within 30 days?

[G_j]

I am against the DP, but I will also devote energy in the future to see our own war criminals prosecuted.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2519385,00.html

Saddam to hang within 30 days
By Times Online and agencies


Saddam Hussein will be executed by hanging within 30 days after a panel of appeal court judges upheld the death sentence passed on the former Iraqi dictator last month.

Judge Aref Shahin, the head of the appeals tribunal, told a news conference in Baghdad today: "The appeal court has approved the death sentence. They (the government) has the right to choose the date starting from tomorrow up to 30 days. After 30 days it will be an obligation to implement the sentence."



..more..

----

[rsmith6621]

1. Anyone wanna guess The Date?????

n/t

[Nickster]

9. Hmmm, State of the Union on January 23rd....so I'm gonna guess the 21st or 22nd probably the 21st so

they have enough time for the media to hail the great victory in the war on terror.

[sweetheart]

108. The 15th

of january to coincide with the first invasion of iraq by bush.

[still_one]

2. It should be just time enough for the Democrats to clean up the mess

and time enough for the MSM and administration to use it as a distraction to try and prevent us from getting out of Iraq, or sway us away from other issues that are vital to our needs

Hopefully the Democrats in Congress will insure their voice is heard

[hlthe2b]

3. Hypocrisy knows no bounds

And the region will erupt in flames and violence as a result. We will all bear the shame and responsibility of the aftermath....

[Solo_in_MD]

5. Not sure I agree with "the region will erupt in flames"

Saddam was not loved by anyone much as we can tell...some will use it as an excuse for more destruction, but there will be no real tears

[hlthe2b]

21. Metaphor, Solo.... Metaphor

Not one word have I posted that ever suggested feeling sorry for Sadaam, nor that others would...

That does not negate the violence that will result from our hypocrisy.

[slackmaster]

30. How would we be able to tell that it erupted in flames and violence?

:shrug:

[hlthe2b]

33. probably when it escalates to bordering countries...

something I pray does not happen.

[ecstatic]

87. The question is, will Iraqis see this as their own justice or an American act?

If they view Saddam's execution as justice that they delivered themselves, then the reaction may not be as bad. However, if this verdict appears to be another heavy handed action of the USA... then we are in for more SERIOUS trouble. And you are absolutely correct: There are no bounds to the hypocrisy of Bush & Co (didn't his forefathers sponsor the weapons used in the genocide?).

[hlthe2b]

105. Exactly...

That is the unknown--what to any extent Iraqis will perceive this as their own attempt at "justice" versus a puppet trial directed by the US...

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KoKo]

6. Heard a reporter say that "International Court" can allow one more appeal

because Saddam still has one more "trial" for another crime that's pending and that might stop his execution until that trial is concluded.

That's IF the Maliki Government decides to wait and bypass "International Court." Assume that's up to his Bushie Controllers so....we might expect to see Saddam hanging live on MSNBC with Rita Cosby there to give us the details and CNN's Nancy Grace live whipping up a frenzy.

I wonder if they will leave him up for the crows to pick out his eyes and the vultures to shred his flesh. Sort of like a Medieval Pageant for the Masses. :-( Actually England was leaving "heads on pikes" so the masses could observe the flesh picking during the 1500's. :-(

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

112. oops... self delete

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Now we know the backdrop for the 2007 SOTU

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Buh Bye Saddamy! Happy Dangling!

I'm sure this is going to mean the world to so many decent Iraqi's who have suffered at his hand. Their justice is coming, and I'm with them.

I don't condone the DP for 99.9% of all cases I can think of. But I always leave my mind open for exception to any rule. This is one such example of an exception.

Good riddance and burn in hell Saddam.

[Moochy]

13. Too bad the trial was a farce

If the trial was legitimate, Iraqis could have the satisfaction that justice had been handed out. This B.S. process? Hmm not so much.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Who Cares? That's Irrelevant. Only A Fool Would Think He's Not Guilty Of Atrocity.

He's an evil piece of shit of that caused harm to many. The Iraqi's will ABSOLUTELY have their satisfaction and to say otherwise is ludicrous. There will be an amazing number of them who will feel relieved and overjoyed at his demise. Like I said, I'm with them.

Happy dangling evil fucker!

[G_j]

17. I care

about legitimate, fair trials

[Moochy]

22. Wussy

Legitimate Schlagitimate, I wanna see me some broken dictator neck! :bounce:

:sarcasm:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Well Yay For You. But If You Really Needed A Trial Here To Prove To You That He Was A Brutal, Evil

piece of fucking shit, than I would surmise you know not a thing about his reign.

Countless numbers suffered at his evil brutal hands. He's an evil piece of shit that deserves every ounce of this sentence. I need not a trial to grant me that wisdom, as the facts supporting it are already more than enough documented for any layman to conclude the same.

I stand with all the Iraqi's that suffered at his hands. May he rot in hell.

[Moochy]

25. "I need not a trial"

Hehe OMC, remind me never to elect you head of tribal council.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. And Remind Me To Never Come To You For Common Sense Deduction.

How someone can take in all the FACTS about Saddam's behaviors, crimes and brutalities, and not think that he would deserve the DP in a state or country where such a penalty is legal, is quite a perplexing concept to me. Like I said, you don't need a trial in this case, as there is more than enough already documented facts to back up his evil and make an informed 'jury like' opinion. So after knowing all that you do about Saddam, all about his actions, all about his crimes, what is your jury like opinion? That he should go free? That he is a decent man? Tell me, what is your judgment of him? Like I said, there is MORE than enough already available for you to make an intelligent and informed decision on his penalty, if any. So what would it be? Where would your deliberations lead you? What would your verdict be?

[Moochy]

35. Like you'd ask me before carrying out justice on Piggy

You'd know that Piggy was guilty and deserving of some beach justice. (Lord of the Flies Reference)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Don't Deflect, Please. I'd Like You To Answer The Questions I've Asked. They're Fair And Worthy Of

response, based on your defense in this thread.

Are you just defending him in a baseless manner without any substance or logic behind it, just to take an unpopular position? If you do have some intelligent and thoughtful deductions on the situation, then you should be able to respond to the questions put forth. I await your answers to them.

[Moochy]

39. So if he was so guilty why not go through the formality of a legitimate trial?

Oh pish posh, the powerful potentate with innate wisdom can't be bothered with the formalities of a just trial.

But yet, you continue to form long sentences declaiming how much of a fucking piece of shit he was, and how you bravely stand with the Iraqi people instead of the saddam-loving namby pambies who have exposed their saddam-loving tendencies by ignoring the divine truth of his guilt, and distracting the world with irrelevant allegations that his trial was a joke.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Please Answer The Questions.

[Moochy]

40. Your sense of logic is ridiculous and sublime

Saddam "deserving the DP"
vs.
Arriving at the DP sentence through a legitimate legal process.

Do you see a fucking difference? No? I Thought not.

(on edit grammar, and this was supposed to be in reply to #36 )

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. Please Answer The Questions.

[Moochy]

44. Questions answered, fuck am i on trial now ?

Here are your Red Herring questions answered.

Oh and Wake up! I know complexity makes your little bundle of nerves at the top of your spine go all sleepy...

"there is more than enough already documented facts to back up his evil and make an informed 'jury like' opinion. "

First off, what a fucking idiotic notion. Regarding these sources of documentation, are these findings in a court of law? Where does this documentation enter into the trial process? Oh that's right LORD-HIGH-MUCKY-MUCK/DICTATOR-FOR-LIFE, OMC said there is no trial needed. So fuck the documentation requirements. No standards for evidence, no need to justify shit.

"what is your jury like opinion?"
Actually a jury-like opinion is one formed during a jury. To form a jury-like opinion is of little or no value in a legal framework, agreed upon in law-abiding societies. Rule of Law and all that. I can form a non-jury-like opinion, but I don't expect that opinion to be germane upon the legitimacy of the trail of Saddam.

"So what would it be"

Having not served on his trial, nor heard the testimony in his case, I can not form a jury-like opinion. I can form an "informed opnion" based on what the media has reported to me over the years about Saddam.

Should I commit the same mistake you make, of conflating my opinion with that of a jurist?

And relevant to this case, there is no jury, I think he was tried and sentenced by a panel of judges, but I could be wrong.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. Thanks For The Total Cop-Out. Bye Now!

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sniffa]

47. ...

:rofl:


:patriot:

[Kingshakabobo]

49. I second that...

:rofl: :rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

:spray:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

So so silly.

:spray:

But one thing I'll give ya: You have made an assault on the concept of impeccable logic. That's for certain!

:spray:

[Moochy]

54. What's for certain

.. is that I answered your questions plainly, and you took your ball and went home.

What's for certain is that you are a dishonest debater who can't admit the flaws in his own illogical claims.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Beautiful !!!

:applause:

[U4ikLefty]

68. Oh yeah...chalk up another victory for the Piranha Posse!!!

You really get OMC all huffy & hyperbolic...lol

Love ya Moochy!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

73. By Copping Out? ROFLMAO!!!!!

All the poster did was deflect the questions in a weak fashion by hiding behind a false cover of "bbbbut there wasn't a faiwa twyl." LOL

If there hasn't been enough historical information already available to make a PERSONAL, not legal, but PERSONAL opinion on what saddam is or whether or not he was a brutal piece of shit or wasn't, than I question the ability of the poster to make any real assessments with anything.

This is an easy one, period. The fact the poster refused to answer it but instead hid behind the integrity of the trial instead with a arms up in the air "I just don't know how to feel. The only way I could learn about him is through a trial. It's not like he's a public figure with years and years of history behind him for me to be able to use to forge an opinion" type attitude, shows that the poster is simply not willing to want to admit the reality that he was in fact a brutal piece of shit dictator thereby rendering the posters whole argument moot.

There are certain things in life that do not need a trial where information is presented in order to cast a well informed opinion on the situation. This is one of those instances. Sure, he deserves a fair trial for specific charges, but I'm not talking about legalities here. I'm talking about reality. And in reality there is MORE than enough information available for someone to forge an opinion, at the least an initial one, on whether Saddam was a brutal piece of shit or not. To refuse to answer that question is nothing more than a cop-out, period. Anyone could answer it.

So was he or wasn't he a brutal piece of shit? It can absolutely be answered. Lack of an answer proves lack of courage to admit personal position. Cause every one of us has our personal opinions on Saddam.

I've let mine be known. So what's yours?

[Moochy]

77. I Fucking Heart Saddam Hussein

You found me out!
Also I like communists, nazis and terrorists too.

What a mo-tarded thing to say.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. If Ya Do Ya Do. But I Doubt It. In My Opinion That Was Just Another Cop-Out To The Question.

I'd appreciate your honest PERSONAL opinion on him. Can you provide it please?

Thanks. :hi:

[Moochy]

88. My opinion of Saddam

Is that he's a deposed dictator held for a long time in US Custody who definitely ordered plenty of heinous crimes against the people of Iraq, and probably guilty of war crimes against Iran as well.

I know you don't care about trials and seem to be hoping I'll state some non-hatred for Saddam. I think he was a bad man. He may in fact be deserving of death penalty, in the legal framework in post-saddam Iraq.

I'm against the death penalty but in this case this is not where my reservation lies.

I will not celebrate someones death, even a bad mans death. I'm especially reluctant to take any satisfaction with the outcome of this show trial of Saddam.

I think it's like faking a laboratory result and congratulating ourselves with the result. It's corrosive and the worst kind of moral relativism to say that the ends justifies the means in this case. We should be better than this, as Americans.

[H2O Man]

90. Great answer.

Well done.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. Had You Answered Like That To Begin With, There Would've Been No Issue.

See? Civility goes a long way.

So basically, we agree on him being a piece of shit. The only difference is that you have reservations or a different attitude than I about his being put to death, whereas I, though never claiming 'joy' in it, consider his actions to have been brutal enough, and this outcome to be of enough importance to the Iraqi citizens who suffered, to make a rare exception on condonation of the death penalty. I almost never condone the DP. Like I said, I will make the rare exception in this case.

Either way, I don't consider our differences of opinion on whether killing him is 'right' or not to be worthy of animosity, so I'm not sure why we needed such a long subthread to arrive at this point. I would've rather you simply responded such as above to begin with. All I was saying is that I think he's a brutal piece of shit, and let his ass hang because of it and because there are countless numbers of Iraqi's of which knowing he is deceased will mean a lot to. You are saying he's a brutal piece of shit, but that it isn't morally right to dispose of him no matter how brutal he was. I see no reason for there to have been such bitterness between those two viewpoints.

[Moochy]

100. After re-reading the subthread

I can only surmise that you assumed I did not think he was guilty.

And to be clear, there is no animosity, just mild frustration at being told I was copping out from answering what I felt was a silly irrelevant question, namely what was my personal opinion of Saddam.

So thats why the sub-thread took this long to for me to express my opinion of Saddam, you assumed that I had to love Saddam or why would I be arguing that he was some saint. (Again more ludicrous binary logic)

[sniffa]

86. shhhhh

don't interupt his tug session. :freak:

[cool user name]

101. Beautifully done, Moochy.

:hi:

[Moochy]

104. Thanks, and well within the rules

But yet, why did he Alert the post like a little child?

All I wrote in #46 was:

Thanks for admitting defeat.

Now go back under that rock, where trials are optional and guilt is innately knowable.

Please will some mod tell me which RULE was violated in this reply? thanks.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

110. I Did Not Alert On #46. Please Stop Your Attacking Now.

[Moochy]

106. And thanks for alerting #46

The actions of a man with real integrity...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. I Have Alerted On Not A One. So Check Yourself.

[Moochy]

111. Well Apologies then...

Sure would be nice if I knew why it was deleted...

[uppityperson]

48. Questions for you QMC

If "there is more than enough already documented facts to back up his evil and make an informed 'jury like' opinion", does this mean that a fair trial is not deserved? Does this mean that if there are enough facts for a crime that no trial is needed, that the person should just get penalized?

[uppityperson]

58. Hello OMC, would you answer these questions? Or am I on ignore?

If "there is more than enough already documented facts to back up his evil and make an informed 'jury like' opinion", does this mean that a fair trial is not deserved? Does this mean that if there are enough facts for a crime that no trial is needed, that the person should just get penalized?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. Sorry, Just Got Back From Seein Rocky Balboa.

Of course a fair trial is deserved. Personally, I'm not convinced he didn't have one. But even if I digress and go forth under the notion that he didn't, it still doesn't change my opinion of the situation.

I'm not casting legal arguments here, nor do I have any interest in doing so. I simply have an opinion that I stated upthread. That opinion, based on a plethora of documented fact and common sense knowledge, is that Saddam is an evil brutal piece of shit dictator of which I will neither defend nor have sympathy towards in this situation. Like I said, I'm against the DP in 99.9% of cases, with rare exceptions. This is one of those exceptions and I don't mind one bit that his piece of shit brutal ass is gonna hang. I stand with the Iraqi people on this and know that countless thousands of them are thankful for this sentence and may finally have some sort of justice for the suffering they endured under his rule.

So yes, absolutely he deserved a fair trial and if he didn't get one then that is certainly a shame. But as a man with an opinion and a right to it, I didn't need a trial to help me wage my opinion. As stated, there has been more than enough documented fact of his brutal acts towards innocents, including torture, to not mind one bit that his ass is gonna hang.

If people want to turn this into some argument about his trial they can have their fun. But my response had nothing to do with his trial. It had to do with his brutal torturous rule over the Iraqi's and how I don't mind one bit that the piece of shit is going to be put to death, as I know that will be a huge breath of fresh air for countless numbers of Iraqi's.

And unless those so joyfully arguing with me about my opinion stand up and declare that Saddam wasn't evil or brutal and did not perpetrate crimes against humanity, then I don't want to hear another word from them. Cause that's what my opinion was about. It was about firmly standing in knowledge that he did such acts and deserves the outcome of those acts. So to argue passionately against that opinion means that someone should feel differently. That they should be able to declare that he wasn't brutal/evil and didn't cause mass suffering to countless numbers of Iraqi's. If no one is willing to stand up and do so, then there shouldn't have been any animosity towards my sentiment to begin with. Cause that's all my sentiment is: He was a brutal piece of shit evil dictator of which I say good riddance and happy hanging.

[Moochy]

76. You found me out! Saddam Loyalist that I am

What the hell OMC, don't go mincing words. "Joyfully arguing with you" You may be seeing joy where there is just glee.

I find glee when I see you tripped up by your "Internet Tough Guy" routine.

But Lo and Behold, You found me out, I'm a Saddam Loyalist. :eyes:

You are being such a hyperbolic blowhard today.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

84. That Is You Speaking, Not I.

My only point is either you or others are arguing so passionately with my opinion due to personal interest in starting a flamewar, or you disagree with my premise that Saddam is a brutal evil piece of shit that caused much suffering, since that's all my premise was.

I didn't accuse you of the latter, as I lean more towards the former. But to determine the conceptual accuracy I would need your honest assessment of Saddam. If you agree that he was in fact a brutal piece of shit that caused much suffering, then it would be quite an enigma as to why you chose to argue so passionately with me about my sharing the same opinion.

So please don't avoid the logic of my argument. I have not called you a Saddam loyalist. That is up for you or your words to determine, which you have not yet shared. So feel free to share them now. What is your opinion of Saddam? Do you feel based on all that you know thus far that he was a brutal piece of shit dictator that caused mass suffering?

Thanks in advance. :hi:

[Moochy]

95. Latter vs Former

Help me parse this.

Why does Moochy argue so passionately with OMC's opinion of < optional trials for Really Bad Men(tm). >

Former: Moochy argues with OMC because Moochy wanted to start a flame war.

Latter: Moochy disagrees with OMC's premise that Saddam is a brutal evil peice of shit that caused much suffering.

So gee, those are the two options I get?

[uppityperson]

114. OK then, being opinionated it ok. My complaint was your seeming to say

no trial, just hang him since the evidence was there. That was my complaint. He was a nasty piece of work but everyone deserves a fair trial, even though fair trials do not always end the way they should.

[sniffa]

18. who cares?

i'm sure you'LL care if you're rounded up to gitmo, or CIALand, without the benefit of a fair triaL?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Please Don't Imply To Me That Saddam's Case Is Equal To Anyone Else Off The Streets.

There is MORE than enough historical and factual evidence of his brutal practices to warrant this result.

I refuse to put forth some sort of defense of him as if he is some sort of victim. He's an evil brutal piece of shit dictator that I have absolutely no difficulty in condoning his death.

I stand with the Iraqi's who suffered at his hands.

Fuck him and good riddance.

[sniffa]

24. fair enough

and i'LL impLy anything i damn weLL wish.

if you get pLucked off the streets, and have no recourse of habeas corpus, too bad. and if they hang you without out a fair triaL, i'LL say fuck you and good riddance.

[Moochy]

26. And I'll be there to remind you

that we have to stick up for even the dunderheaded vigilante-mob-justice for the win types. And you and I would work all night making FREE OPERATIONMINDCRIME signs at the detention facility where he was being held.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. If I Ever Become An Evil Brutal Torturous Piece Of Shit Dictator Like Saddam, Then Please,

make no such signs. I would deserve my fate as well.

[Moochy]

29. But how would we know

:shrug:

Would we have this same species of divinely granted wisdom of which you find yourself possessed today? Would our surety match yours?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Probably Not.

I'm exceptionally gifted.

But then, you don't need to be exceptionally gifted to figure out that Saddam was a brutal and evil piece of shit, so I would think you'd be able to know just fine anyway.

[roody]

81. So shall W be stringed up now? Or strung up?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. Go For It. I'd Say The Same. But That's Irrelevant To This Argument.

Nice try attempting to twist it into a black and white circumstance though. But since they are completely unrelated in their premise, the premise you attempted to portray is completely without merit or logic.

Saddam = brutal piece of shit <> Bush not being a brutal piece of shit. It is possible for both to = brutal pieces of shit, each on their own merits. It's called being objective. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

Yawnnnnnnnnnnn

Melodramatic and ridiculously exaggerated replies tend to make me sleepy.

And sure, you can imply anything you damn well wish. That's why I said please, as in a request, not a demand. Guess that logical context escaped you. But it was a request for your sake, as putting forth such things bring an air of complete silliness to the argument. But if you want to continue to put forth such silliness than by all means, have at it!

[sniffa]

38. yawnnnnnnnnnnn

and you Like to hear you tough guy seLf taLk. whatever fLoats your boat.

when you get the granite sLab i'LL dance on your grave.

[beam me up scottie]

57. So only SOME people deserve fair trials?

Where have I heard that before...

[uppityperson]

62. yes, he is a nasty piece of work, but still deserves a fair trial

then he can be sentenced. But everyone deserves a fair trial. If "there is more than enough already documented facts to back up his evil and make an informed 'jury like' opinion", does this mean that a fair trial is not deserved? Does this mean that if there are enough facts for a crime that no trial is needed, that the person should just get penalized?

[Raskolnik]

70. I think he got one.

He was represented by counsel, he had a chance to question the evidence against him, he was given significant leeway by the judges.

What else do you want?

[Guaranteed]

89. If he's THAT evil, it shouldn't be that difficult to prove, should it? nt

[Moochy]

20. Glad you said it

"Who cares" that the trial was a farce is irrelevant. Glad we have you on record as being pro-vigilante justice.
"Only A Fool" with an ends justifies the means view of the world. Got a mirror?

[cool user name]

98. They'll probably greet us with flowers ... umm ... oh, wait.

:eyes:

[Raskolnik]

64. Why do you think the trial was a farce?

Were the charges against Saddam not proven to your satisfaction?

[Moochy]

65. My satisfaction is not the issue

Was the process to your satisfaction? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I have seen alot of news stories surrounding the Saddam Trials over the past few years that make me question the legitimacy of the process.

Three members of the defense team representing Saddam and his co-defendants were assassinated.

On the official Council For Foreign Relations website they have a FAQ about the Saddam trial. http://www.cfr.org/publication/8750/iraq.html#7

One of the questions is:

Will the trial be open and fair?

It’s unclear, experts say. On one hand, the trial is accessible to the Iraqi press, held in Arabic—Iraq’s lingua franca—and expected to be partially broadcast on Iraqi television to ensure openness. Its judges and lawyers will also have been trained by U.S. legal experts in human-rights law, and international monitors will be in the courtroom. “This is not going to be a political trial,” assured Mouwafak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national-security adviser, in a July 31 interview with CNN.

And we believed Mr al Rubaie?

[Raskolnik]

69. If you consider the trial a farce, what would have made it legitimate?

Generalized statements of "a lot of news stories" that make you question the legitimacy of the trial don't really address what problem you have with the proceedings.

Saddam was allowed counsel, which seemed to function as effectively as could be expected. The judge(s) presiding over the trial seemed to be fair, with Rizgar being especially lenient. The evidence against Saddam was rather convincing in my opinion.

What else did you want from this proceeding?

[Moochy]

72. I'd prefer that there were not these kinds of reports:

“Judging Dujail” reports previously undocumented and serious procedural flaws in the trial, including:

• regular failure to disclose key evidence, including exculpatory evidence, to the defense in advance;
• violations of the defendants’ basic fair trial right to confront witnesses against them;
• lapses of judicial demeanor that undermined the apparent impartiality of the presiding judge; and
• important gaps in evidence that undermine the persuasiveness of the prosecution case, and put in doubt whether all the elements of the crimes charged were established.

http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/entry.asp?entry_id=197

I have not delved into each of these points, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to have this knowledge. However I am unwilling to give this process the "benefit of the doubt." and judge it as fair "as could be expected"

I think that's a case of suffering from lowered expectations.

[Raskolnik]

74. Those are rather small incidents when compared to the enormity of the trial.

Yes, there were flaws in the trial. I do not believe those flaws are enough to undermine the proceeding.

[Moochy]

78. Thank you for clarifying

Civility, so refreshing. :) thanks for the serious reply.

[angstlessk]

43. From all the evidence it takes an evil, brutal dictator to run Iraq

or haven't you noticed that at least 80% think it was better under Sadaam than it is now? Even an evil, brutal dictator is preferable to the wholesale slaughter of up to 600,000 men, women and children in Iraq.

[jarab]

59. Don't know about "evil" or "brutal" ...

but I've a mind that it does take a dictator to run that country. But, I could have been proven wrong (gladly) had we removed the dictator and gotten the hell out, leaving it to their own resources - which they did have.
Even better, had we simply selected any president without the predisposition to remove Hussein, we might have accomplished something with that guy (I forget his name!) who subsequently masterminded nine eleven.

...O...

[BlueStater]

50. It's not about justice for the Iraqi people

It's another weak attempt by the White House ape to boast his approval ratings. The trial was a joke.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. Couldn't Care Less About About The WH's Stake In This. They Can Fuck Themselves Too.

But I'm not going to let their own criminal behavior cloud my judgment from thinking Saddam a brutal evil piece of shit that deserves everything comin to him, ya know?

[uppityperson]

53. condemn him fine, but no trial needed?

If "there is more than enough already documented facts to back up his evil and make an informed 'jury like' opinion", does this mean that a fair trial is not deserved? Does this mean that if there are enough facts for a crime that no trial is needed, that the person should just get penalized?

[Moochy]

55. Translation:

The Ends Justifies The Means.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. In This Case? Absofrigginlutely.

[Jcrowley]

91. So you oppose the right to a fair trial?

The right to a fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law. It is explicitly proclaimed in Article Ten of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, and Article Six of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world.

The essential ingredients for a fair and just civil trial must include a competent, neutral and detached judge (an independent judge); the absence of any intimidation of witnesses and ideally, an equal weight of arms i.e. a level playing field in terms of legal representation, such as a right to counsel for criminal defendants.

Please answer the question (wink-wink), as it seems from your posts you have a problem with the Sixth Amendment.

In your personal country would you be selective with who you offered the right to a fair trial?

Now let's say you know of a thug who has committed many hits wouldn't you want to keep him alive for State's evidence so as to get to the Don?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

94. Nope. If You Bothered To Read You'd Have Been Able To Answer That For Yourself.

It's all in this thread already.

Bye now. :hi:

[roody]

79. And what you could tell us about you and the US gov

dies with you.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

96. Wow, about as giddy about Saddam croaking as you were about Pinochet doing likewise. Oh wait...

Advanced search:

"Your search criteria return no matched results. Please try again"

[cool user name]

97. What is wrong with you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

102. For Thinking Saddam Is A Brutal Piece Of Shit? Absolutely Nothing.

[cool user name]

103. Being found guilty (by pain of death) in a show trial makes you giddy?

But you answered my question and you clearly don't see why others have a problem with your view so ...

:eyes:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[G_j]

12. agreed n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. That should bring calm and peace to the area.

In your dreams...........

[SpiralHawk]

14. "Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy." - Commander AWOL

"This the the kind of shit I learned to lust after in my 'innocent' Ive League cabal of cronies."

- Commander George AWOL Bush

[donsu]

15. I think the Dems. should be allowed to take his testimony against the

criminal neo con bushmilhousegang first - before he is killed.

what's the legality of all that?

[maveric]

27. There will be a split-screen during the SOTU address.

Then his 28% base will get their bloodlust.

How many people did Saddam kill? How many did bu$h kill?

[wiggs]

31. Yet more proof that this administration is not interested in peace, calm,

and Iraqi sovereignty.

[Saboburns]

37. Saddam was a murdering brute, a cretin of a man.

The worst of the worst.

I mean BAD, baby.



Wonder where we'll find his replacement??

[dailykoff]

66. So saith Hill and Knowles.

Oh and the Clintons too. You know, the folks who executed Ricky Ray Rector as a campaign stunt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. "Killing is fun." As the American general said.

Why should we decry anyone having some good old American style fun.

Saddam is a brutal murderous thug who killed under the rubric of legality. So, we should become advocates of brutal, murderous, thugs, who kill under the rubric of legality.

But, why be so gentle about it. Instead of hanging, maybe we should, burn him alive? Dismember him piece by piece? Drill holes in his head like some Iraqis are doing to other Iraqis? How about rape him and then shoot him like some of our heroic GI's did to that little girl and her family?

Bloodlust is in our genes, some say. But, the truth is that most people are repelled by the idea of killing, even for "good" reasons.

I'm one of them.

[beam me up scottie]

61. I wouldn't be surprised if they allowed VIP's to witness the hanging.

And record it so that they could get off on it whenever they were in the mood.

[Imagevision]

63. Bush will time hanging with the arrival of the 30,000 US. troops to escalate the war

the US. can't pull-out of the Iraqi Oil War!! nope, it's just not going to happen. --> The pentagon has already budgeted the war thru 2015.

[roody]

83. This will backfire far more than the

romp in the pilot's costume.

[gulliver]

67. It's going to be creepier than with Uday and Qusay.

Americans are going to think the price of the ticket to this hanging isn't worth the show. Iraqis too maybe. Had Hussein been taken out in a coup and quickly executed like Coucescu and Mussolini, people would have seen a clear justice in it. Hussein's long, drawn-out, farce of a show trial has only served to make his hanging seem somehow more unfair than a summary execution. It is going to look like the United States condemned and executed Hussein.

Saddam Hussein "only" killed Iraqis and Iranians, so I think Americans are going to have a hard time getting into the hanging. It wasn't supposed to happen while we were still in a war in Iraq. The Bush Administration and their fellow geniuses in the Republican leadership assured Americans we would be out long ago. Had that been true, Hussein's execution would have been carried out by a "beacon of democracy," not a helpless pseudo-government whose only lease on existence is the American military presence.

Bush has even screwed up the execution of Saddam Hussein. Now it is going to look like the rest of the war, a bloody, pointless mess. I'll guess Bush and his apologists will be thrilled and will try to make it a symbolic "victory." But I think Americans are going to be left a little cold, disappointed, and nauseous. The American death toll will likely be over 3,000 in thirty days.

[H2O Man]

80. Interesting thread.

Thoughful OP, wild responses.

[leftchick]

93. HRW: "Saddam trial fundamentally unfair"

and assuming a LOT of Iraqis and other Arabs see it this way, what an absolutely horrible idea to kill him now.

Saddam trial 'fundamentally unfair'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1952845,00.html


Jonathan Steele in Irbil
Monday November 20, 2006
Guardian Unlimited


Saddam Hussein's trial for crimes against humanity was undermined by so many flaws, including political interference and failures to disclose evidence properly, that his conviction is unsound, the New York-based watchdog Human Rights Watch said today.
The organisation, one of only two independent bodies allowed to attend every session of the trial, also interviewed dozens of judges and lawyers. It concluded the proceedings were "fundamentally unfair".

Human Rights Watch, which opposes the death penalty, warns that hasty implementation of the death sentence by hanging for the former Iraqi president could deprive thousands of victims of their day in court.

A second trial already under way - covering the Anfal campaign in which hundreds of thousands of Kurds were murdered - would be aborted.

[ContraBass Black]

99. That will solve everything!

:eyes:

[Wiley50]

107. Well, Riverbend Hasn't Posted Since The First Of November

But here's What She had to say on the subject:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

When All Else Fails...
… Execute the dictator. It’s that simple. When American troops are being killed by the dozen, when the country you are occupying is threatening to break up into smaller countries, when you have militias and death squads roaming the streets and you’ve put a group of Mullahs in power- execute the dictator.

Everyone expected this verdict from the very first day of the trial. There was a brief interlude when, with the first judge, it was thought that it might actually be a coherent trial where Iraqis could hear explanations and see what happened. That was soon over with the prosecution’s first false witness. Events that followed were so ridiculous; it’s difficult to believe them even now.

The sound would suddenly disappear when the defense or one of the defendants got up to speak. We would hear the witnesses but no one could see them- hidden behind a curtain, their voices were changed. People who were supposed to have been dead in the Dujail incident were found to be very alive.

Judge after judge was brought in because the ones in court were seen as too fair. They didn’t instantly condemn the defendants (even if only for the sake of the media). The piece de resistance was the final judge they brought in. His reputation vies only that of Chalabi- a well-known thief and murderer who ran away to Iran to escape not political condemnation, but his father’s wrath after he stole from the restaurant his father ran.

So we all knew the outcome upfront (Maliki was on television 24 hours before the verdict telling people not to ‘rejoice too much’). I think what surprises me right now is the utter stupidity of the current Iraqi government. The timing is ridiculous- immediately before the congressional elections? How very convenient for Bush. Iraq, today, is at its very worst since the invasion and the beginning occupation. April 2003 is looking like a honeymoon month today. Is it really the time to execute Saddam?

I’m more than a little worried. This is Bush’s final card. The elections came and went and a group of extremists and thieves were put into power (no, no- I meant in Baghdad, not Washington). The constitution which seems to have drowned in the river of Iraqi blood since its elections has been forgotten. It is only dug up when one of the Puppets wants to break apart the country. Reconstruction is an aspiration from another lifetime: I swear we no longer want buildings and bridges, security and an undivided Iraq are more than enough. Things must be deteriorating beyond imagination if Bush needs to use the ‘Execute the Dictator’ card.

Iraq has not been this bad in decades. The occupation is a failure. The various pro-American, pro-Iranian Iraqi governments are failures. The new Iraqi army is a deadly joke. Is it really time to turn Saddam into a martyr? Things are so bad that even pro-occupation Iraqis are going back on their initial ‘WE LOVE AMERICA’ frenzy. Laith Kubba (a.k.a. Mr. Catfish for his big mouth and constant look of stupidity) was recently on the BBC saying that this was just the beginning of justice, that people responsible for the taking of lives today should also be brought to justice. He seems to have forgotten he was one of the supporters of the war and occupation, and an important member of one of the murderous pro-American governments. But history shall not forget Mr. Kubba.

Iraq saw demonstrations against and for the verdict. The pro-Saddam demonstrators were attacked by the Iraqi army. This is how free our media is today: the channels that were showing the pro-Saddam demonstrations have been shut down. Iraqi security forces promptly raided them.Welcome to the new Iraq. Here are some images from the Salahiddin and Zawra channels:

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

113. i'll beleive it when it happens.

as james baker once said, "things change in the middle east like the sand dunes in the desert."