Saddam's on Trial

[FullAuto]

He can appeal, but they'll be rushing that as fast as possible, so they can kill him and get it over with. Even if he was innocent, which he's not, he's done up like a kipper. There's still another trial going on against him, but I don't think they're going to hang (hur hur) around for that, either.

 

Was the verdict ever in any doubt?

[Bomb Bloke]

No, I suppose it wasn't. I guess the thing I dislike is that the moster was caught and sentanced by fellow monsters.

 

I know other goverments can't have any affect on things, my point was that countries which oppose death sentances shouldn't have put him into a situation where he was going to be killed.

 

Sure, politicians are noted for being hypocritical, but that doesn't mean I like that, either.

 

I found this quote on CBS News:

 

The death sentence automatically goes to a nine-judge appeals panel. There's no time limit, but one court official says the appeals process could take as little as three to four weeks once the formal paperwork's submitted. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.

So I suppose it isn't over yet.

[FullAuto]

I know other goverments can't have any affect on things, my point was that countries which oppose death sentances shouldn't have put him into a situation where he was going to be killed.

 

I understand the EU has appealed for Iraq not to carry out the death sentence. I don't think Iraq is going to listen, though. And the US has enough leverage in Iraq to have an effect, but they want him dead anyway.

[Crazy Gringo]

Giving Saddam the short drop and sudden stop seems to me not to be worth it.

With all of the 'pain and suffering' that he has caused during his reign in Iraq he should rather live out remainder of his natural life suffering.

Since he already appears two steps away from the nuthouse why not push him those two steps.

If his has to be killed then at least to properly. Something like a .50 AE hollowpoint bullet through the the back of his head and send his corpse floating down the Tigris river.

And if there is ensuing riots after his death then there should issued a 'no BS' policy. Which would include use of the biggest stick possible to put and end to the riots (A couple of MOAB's maybe).

My question to all of this is when is it enough for somebody who 'just' cuts through all the humanism and let loose the darker side of human nature to put an end to this fragile situation.

'If you gotta defeat your enemy. Make sure that his defeat is absolute.'

[Matri]

Yeah, well, just make sure he doesn't pull a Rasputin on those guys.

[Accounting Troll]

The BBC is saying that Saddam could be facing more trials for the reprisals after the 1991 uprising. My guess is they'll keep putting him on trial until an embittered local assassinates him. That way, we get out of turning him onto a martyr.

[Crazy Gringo]

Then deport him to the US. They could always use one more cab driver.

[Strong Bob]

Maybe I'm a little out of touch with things but...

 

I remember hearing that the publication of Saddam's capture, and the trial thereafter, was a breach of Geneva Conventions. I could've sworn this was the case, because when American prisoners were being publicized by Al Qaeda, a lot of people were outraged and quoted Geneva Conventions non-stop... Yet, I didn't hear much complaining at all when we had captured Saddam. Anyone know anything about this?

 

To be honest, I have a hard time seeing what the trial was all about. Everyone knew he would not be able to fight back. Every shred of media material I ever read about the case had twisted his words to sound as though he were speaking mindlessly and without a shred of logic. (Kinda odd, considering this man was once a world leader. Even Bush doesn't strike me as so random.) I guess that's why I don't watch American news anymore... But what difference does it make, exactly? The mere fact that a trial was held, that suddenly parties are exonerated of all guilt, save for whomever the judge says otherwise? Christ, OJ Simpson himself was deemed not guilty in his trial, do you think people consider him "innocent" at all, despite the fact the law said he is? This farce isn't going to mask anything. The man was as good as dead the moment we captured him.

 

Also, as an American... I'm still shocked and depressed at how most of my fellow countrymen still adamently claim that Iraq and Afghani terrorists were working in unison. At work the other night, I heard someone comment: "Well, I'm glad he's going to die for what he did on 9/11." It's so unbelievable at this point, it's not even funny to me... *Recalls a particular Bush voter back on X-com.co.uk that was convinced of this as well, during the elections*

[Zombie]

Also, as an American... I'm still shocked and depressed at how most of my fellow countrymen still adamently claim that Iraq and Afghani terrorists were working in unison. At work the other night, I heard someone comment: "Well, I'm glad he's going to die for what he did on 9/11." It's so unbelievable at this point, it's not even funny to me... *Recalls a particular Bush voter back on X-com.co.uk that was convinced of this as well, during the elections*

Chalk that up to media brainwashing (and the Bush administration for fabricating the terrorist connection between Iraq and Afghanistan).

 

- Zombie

[Strong Bob]

I know exactly what's to "blame" (Using the term loosely, since I think the real culprit is apathy/ignorance towards political education and people's habitual jumping to conclusions before properly accumulating data...) but my real problem is that the Bush administration hasn't been pushing for that in so long. The man even went and made an apology at one point, for 'making it seem like he was acusing Iraq for having weapons'. I'm just wondering...

 

Why is this being perpetuated? How is this being perpetuated? Especially when the news so glaringly admits the mistake, from both the Republican and Democratic views.

 

And in regards to Saddam... I am now wondering how many people really know what he is on trial for. Personally, I wasn't really all that clear until recently... I couldn't see him as a "War Criminal" because he didn't start the war, he was playing the defensive now, wasn't he? He wasn't a terrorist, or any kind of threat otherwise. He may have broken Geneva Conventions, but as I mentioned in my last post... Hypocrisy. At most he was just a sick dictator that we "randomly" decided to handle.

 

Er... If that's a War Crime, then there are plenty more people we need to be taking care of, right now. Bush supports the Death Penalty. A penalty that, recent studies show, is significantly more painful than once assumed. (For example, the lethal injection serum. It requires two sets of drugs, one is a paralyzing anesthetic designed to eliminate pain, and the other is an overdose of some lethal drug. However, when the same anesthetic was used on a woman during eye surgery, she awoke traumatized, claiming to have been perfectly conscious and aware of the entire operation, describing it as "A fate worse than death". Turns out it doesn't nullify pain as much as we thought...) So from my point of view, we are killing off people in torturous manners, just like Saddam was. We just justify it by saying "Well they killed first".

[FullAuto]

POWs are supposed to be protected from being a public spectacle. Seems like a lot of countries signed up to the Geneva Conventions for a laugh, because, hey, who's going to punish them if they don't abide by the rules they voluntarily signed up to?

[Bomb Bloke]

No one wants to believe that they're the bad guys. People tend not to spend too much time researching why they're really the bastards.

[DeepOne]

Strong Bob:

And in regards to Saddam... I am now wondering how many people really know what he is on trial for. Personally, I wasn't really all that clear until recently... I couldn't see him as a "War Criminal" because he didn't start the war, he was playing the defensive now, wasn't he?

He started the war in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. The war paused in 1991 with a ceasefire agreement. Over the next 12 years, Saddam continually violated the terms of that agreement (see UN Resolution 1441).

 

He wasn't a terrorist, or any kind of threat otherwise.

Saddam supported Islamic jihad (which was the impetus behind 9/11). Bush laid out the reasons for taking out Saddam in his 2003 State of the Union Address (scroll down about 3/4 on that page).

[Locutus]

Saddam supported Islamic jihad (which was the impetus behind 9/11)

 

By using the word "supported" do you mean monetary and material support? Because I don't think there's any proof at that, as far as I know. If on the other hand you are talking about moral support, then I doubt you can hold anyone accountable for that.

[Accounting Troll]

The money that Saddam Hussein sent to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers was very small change compared with Iraq's national income and the economic and military aid the USA gives towards Israel. At the time, it was obvious to Saddam that Iraq was going to be invaded whatever he did, so his only option was a publicity stunt to present himself as the defender of oppressed Arabs across the world. Iraq launched a series of missile attacks against Israel in 1991 for the same reason.

 

There are two problems with arguing that invading Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial are justified because of his defiance of UN Resolution 1441:

 

1. We have yet to find the Iraqi WMDs and have pretty much given up on the search. If thousands of Iraqis had been involved in hiding them, the chances are that one of them would have confessed by now.

 

2. The USA and its allies routinely veto or defy UN resolutions that don't suit us. When do the UK and the USA ever try to enforce UN resolutions calling for an end to Israeli oppression of the Palestinians? What about the illegal economic sanctions the USA has imposed on Cuba? It is very difficult to come up with a legally sound argument as to why it is right for one nation to possess WMDs, defy the UN and routinely invade other countries, but wrong for another country to behave in the same way.

[Strong Bob]

Saddam supported Islamic jihad (which was the impetus behind 9/11). Bush laid out the reasons for taking out Saddam in his 2003 State of the Union Address (scroll down about 3/4 on that page).

 

Damn, so I guess we should pounce on anyone that indirectly ends up supporting violence elsewhere either economically nor materialistically.

 

*Notices the stockpiles of guns in both Afghanistan and Iraq* OH WAIT!

 

Yeah, they were bad. But he's not a terrorist. And if we wanted to cut the main factors of terrorism, it probably would've been better to not cause so much ruckus as to cause more hatred towards the US. As such, an invasion of Iraq could either be considered reckless or underhanded.

 

Bush laid out the reasons for taking out Saddam in his 2003 State of the Union Address (scroll down about 3/4 on that page).

 

I would refrain from quoting Bush if I were you. He's already made public apologies for a lot of things he's done thus far, that speeches of the past have lost validity.

[Matri]

Bush isn't exactly that well-liked anymore, and his speeches have and still are the butt of jokes.

 

His speeches are almost as bad as Comical Ali's.