Saddam Sentanced to Death

Scrum · 11-05-2006, 09:46 AM

Saddam Hussein sentenced to death by hanging - CNN.com

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Iraqi High Tribunal on Sunday in Baghdad sentenced a combative Saddam Hussein and two other defendants to death by hanging for a brutal crackdown in 1982 in the Shiite town of Dujail.

Despite a curfew, Iraqis in Baghdad spilled out into the streets to celebrate the verdict. But protests were held in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit.

"The Saddam Hussein era is in the past now, as was the era of Hitler and Mussolini," said Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, calling Hussein the worst ruler ever in Iraq.(Watch al-Maliki call Hussein 'worst ruler' in Iraq's history -- 3:06)

"We want an Iraq where all Iraqis are equal before the law," he said. "The policy of discrimination and persecution is over."

The case will be automatically appealed to the Appellate Chamber of the Iraqi High Tribunal. The defense has 30 days to file any motions.

There is no limit to how long the appeals process can take.

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

If the Appellate Chamber upholds the conviction and sentence, Hussein must be executed within 30 days. (Watch what's next for Hussein -- 3:13 Video)

Along with Hussein, his half brother and former intelligence chief Barzan Hassan, and former chief judge of the Revolutionary Court Awad Bandar also were sentenced to death.

Taha Yassin Ramadan, a former vice president of Iraq, was sentenced to life in prison.

"The verdict was predetermined and has nothing to do with court proceedings," Ramadan said.

Mohammed Azzawi Ali, a former Dujail Baath Party official, was acquitted because of insufficient evidence against him, the court said.

The three others -- Abdullah Kadhem Ruwaid, Ali Dayem Ali, and Misher Abdullah Ruwaid -- were sentenced to 15 years each.

The Dujail case stemmed from a crackdown against townspeople after a 1982 assassination attempt against Hussein in the town. The crackdown involved the ordered executions of 148 males.
'Damn you and your court'

The 50-minute session was dramatic. Hussein entered with a Quran in hand, as he had in the past. He began shouting "Allahu Akhbar" -- God is great -- as the verdict and sentencing was read. (Watch Hussein shout protests during sentencing -- 4:05 Video)

He also argued with the chief judge and shouted, "Damn you and your court."

As the judge ordered him taken away, Hussein said, "Don't push me, boy."

Bandar also shouted "Allahu Akhbar" as he was taken out of court.

Defense attorney Ramsey Clark was also in court, but he was soon ousted by judges for contempt of court. The court accused Clark, a former U.S. attorney general, of insulting the court and the Iraqi people.

Another defense attorney, Ziad al-Najdawi, angrily told reporters as he left the courtroom, "That's the American justice."

During the trial proceedings a few months ago, Hussein said that if he received a death sentence, he would prefer to be executed by a firing squad.

However, at a press conference later, chief prosecutor Jaafar Moussaoui said the law stipulates that a firing squad is normally the sentence issued by military courts. This court deals with crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes, and calls for death by hanging, he said.
Curfew in Sunni areas

Before Sunday's verdicts were announced, a curfew was imposed in Baghdad and two provinces -- Diyala and Salaheddin -- with large Sunni populations. Predominantly Shiite and Kurdish provinces were not under curfew.

About 2,000 protesters in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit on Sunday defied the curfew and demonstrated in support of the former leader.

The numbers of demonstrators grew after the sentence was announced. A complete movement ban -- both people and vehicles -- was imposed on Sunday in the provinces of Baghdad, Diyala and Salaheddin, where Tikrit is located.

The Baghdad International Airport also shut down until further notice.

This verdicts come nearly three years after U.S.-led forces plucked Hussein out of hiding and just a few days before U.S. midterm elections, with the Iraqi war at center stage.

The U.S. ambassador in Iraq praised the verdicts and sentencing as "an important milestone for Iraq."

"Although the Iraqis may face difficult days in the coming weeks, closing the book on Saddam and his regime is an opportunity to unite and build a better future," Zalmay Khalilzad said in a statement issued shortly after the verdicts were rendered.
Outbursts and walkouts

The Dujail trial, the first in a series of proceedings against former regime officials, began October 19, 2005, and ended July 27. It was a turbulent courtroom battle witnessed on TV across the globe.

It was marked by outbursts and harangues from Hussein and his co-defendants, lawyer walkouts, much-criticized court actions, and complaints from lawyers about poor security. There were grave concerns about security for legal teams and their families; three defense lawyers were killed. (Full story)

Witness testimony and prosecutors got their case across, however. According to court documents, the military, political and security apparatus in Iraq and Dujail killed, arrested, detained and tortured men, women and children in the town. Homes were demolished and orchards were razed.

Hussein is also in the middle of another trial involving the 1988 Anfal campaign, the government offensive in the country's Kurdish region. Hussein is charged in that case with genocide.

I'm sure this came out 2 days before the election as a coincidence. Nobody would time this for possible political gain, right?

I love this part.

"The Saddam Hussein era is in the past now, as was the era of Hitler and Mussolini," said Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, calling Hussein the worst ruler ever in Iraq

Slow down there buddy. You still have a civil war to suppress. I would hold off on the Hiter comparisions for a while, just to be safe.
You may end up having to do some pretty extreme things too if we don't stay there forever to fight your wars for you.

Thorgrim · 11-05-2006, 10:47 AM

"another important milestone"

I guess the hanging is going to be another, or maybe the next guilty verdict

I've heard "another important milestone" so many times out of Iraq its lost all meaning to that region

The whole court proceedings have been a mockery to the world's judicial system

If they do hang him, the US will have funded and help manage the worst exercise in law that we'll ever see in our life-time...another black stain on America along with selling arms to the Iranians, My Lia, Haditha, supporting terrorists in central america...

thatguyoverthere · 11-05-2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I'm sure this came out 2 days before the election as a coincidence. Nobody would time this for possible political gain, right?

Hey man, you'll get a "tin foil hat" tag on this thread if you keep up that kind of conspiracy talk! Only a tin foil hatter could possibly imagine that this was timed to come out before the election! Total coincidence! In fact, what election? Oh, yeah. Remember Democrats, pay your parking tickets before trying to vote this Wednesday!

/the RNC approved this message

motivez · 11-05-2006, 12:15 PM

The whole court proceedings have been a mockery to the world's judicial system

If they do hang him, the US will have funded and help manage the worst exercise in law that we'll ever see in our life-style...another black stain on America along with selling arms to the Iranians, My Lia, Haditha, supporting terrorists in central america...

Agreed. We should have sent him to the Hague to be tried by a competent court that would have still found him guilty, but wouldn't have been a kangaroo court.

This "trial" has been riddled with assassinations, assaults on people, judges being killed, judges being replaced when we don't like something they say.. it's pretty ridiculous.

Sure, it'd be nice if the Iraqi's were ready to try him, but the security situation in Iraq means that they are not. Along with that, the fact is that all trials are supposed to be 'fair', even to the most heinous criminals. There's no way this one could ever be.

All this serves to remind me of is how once again, Bush missed an opportunity to involve the rest of the world in the outcome of Iraq by allowing them to participate in the process, and once again shunned our allies.

Stylerod · 11-05-2006, 12:28 PM

Wow, a bad, bad man was just convicted of the horrible crimes he committed and the lefts response is exactly what I thought it would be. Keep up the good work guys

IminWonderland · 11-05-2006, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Wow, a bad, bad man was just convicted of the horrible crimes he committed and the lefts response is exactly what I thought it would be. Keep up the good work guys

People are pretty fed up with all this horseshit.

I don't know what kind of response you are expecting from people anymore.

motivez · 11-05-2006, 12:40 PM

No one is suggesting that he's not guilty, or doesn't deserve what's coming to him.

Only that the Iraqi court is not a competent court, and that this is nothing more than "victor's justice" where whoever is the victor in a war or conflict set up some type of kangaroo court to convict their foe's of something (even if they're guilty of it) while making it seem like it's somehow legitimate.

The Hague is an acceptable means of prosecuting leaders that need to be charged with crimes against humanity, and unless people think we should have let nearly completely destroyed Germany try the Nazi's rather than something like Nuremberg.. I don't see how this really can be justified.

But of course, the strawman stereotype that the Democrats or the Liberals or even the Independents like me that disagree with Bush just love Saddam and think he's a great guy who's not guilty of anything comes out..

Thorgrim · 11-05-2006, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Wow, a bad, bad man was just convicted of the horrible crimes he committed and the lefts response is exactly what I thought it would be. Keep up the good work guys

this isn't the left, this is the entire spectrum of the legal community and those who are interseted in the law

It's like invading Iraq, sure it "felt good" but now we're stuck with a horrible precedent that any nation can invade another if they "feel" like there is a "possible" threat by throwing together some inaccurate charges...pretty much what Saddam did by invading Kuwait

Stylerod · 11-05-2006, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

No one is suggesting that he's not guilty, or doesn't deserve what's coming to him.

Really? I must have missed that part. Look at every post above mine and show me where you guys even remotely said he's getting what he deserves.

motivez · 11-05-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Really? I must have missed that part. Look at every post above mine and show me where you guys even remotely said he's getting what he deserves.

There's no need to repeat it because it's an obvious conclusion. Everyone knows what a bad person he was.

Suggesting that it needs to be said every time we talk about something negative about the US involvement is the exact straw man tactic used against Democrats when they question if we're doing something right.

Oh, but of course I don't support the terrorists.
Oh, but of course we don't want to see Americans die.

"Oh, but I have tons of black/gay/whatever friends.." when someone makes a disparaging comments towards a certain group.. trying to cover their ass.

I don't feel like I need to cover my ass because I don't buy into the straw man suggesting that unless I do make those comments, I'm supporting Saddam, or the terrorists, or whatever.

It's a pathetic tactic.

Stylerod · 11-05-2006, 04:22 PM

The news was about Saddam being sentenced for his crimes. The lefties here threw out their usual comments of Bush sucks, how convenient, blah, blah, blah, just like YOU do any time something positive happens. It's typical lefty ramblings. Unemployment numbers are great, Bush sucks. Interest rates are still low, Bush sucks. Manufacturing is up, Bush sucks. Saddam is going to pay for his crimes, Bush sucks.

I realize that you guys need and want the worse and have to fight tooth and nail any time ANY kind of good news comes around. But it just gets old after a while.

motivez · 11-05-2006, 04:30 PM

Sorry, but it's not that simple. It's not an entirely positive thing because while he has what's coming to him, and he's guilty, this isn't justice. It's a mockery of justice and the law.

The Iraqi court system is a total joke, judges have been killed, lawyers have been killed, family members of people involved in the trial have been killed. It's been total chaos.

It's not a competent court, certainly not something anyone on this forum would want to be tried by.. and once again Bush threw away a chance to bring the international community into the fold by not turning him over to the Hague / ICC.. which is the recognized place for trials like these.

PS, I'm not a "lefty", so perhaps you should stop stereotyping people who disagree with Bush?

Also, pointing out that there's more to something than 100% good doesn't mean we want the bad, and quite frankly that's an idiotic assertion. It's almost as idiotic as Cheney's comments about Democrats wanting terrorists to win.

In my case, I simply recognize that the bad exists and point it out to bring balance to a topic.

It's not a private little

where everyone is going to dance around and be happy when there's much more going on here than a simple guilty verdict that everyone knew was coming from this kangaroo court.

kinggovernor · 11-05-2006, 04:40 PM

allah ackbar

motivez · 11-05-2006, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Allahu Akbar

Fixed. So, you think God is responsible for the verdict?

kinggovernor · 11-05-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Fixed. So, you think God is responsible for the verdict?

isn't he responsible for everything?

btw LOL @ Ramsey Clarke

Stylerod · 11-05-2006, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

In my case, I simply recognize that the bad exists and point it out to bring balance to a topic.

Funny, I see no balance here when responding to Scrums thread. Maybe you can highlight it for me.

Originally Posted by motivez

Agreed. We should have sent him to the Hague to be tried by a competent court that would have still found him guilty, but wouldn't have been a kangaroo court.

This "trial" has been riddled with assassinations, assaults on people, judges being killed, judges being replaced when we don't like something they say.. it's pretty ridiculous.

Sure, it'd be nice if the Iraqi's were ready to try him, but the security situation in Iraq means that they are not. Along with that, the fact is that all trials are supposed to be 'fair', even to the most heinous criminals. There's no way this one could ever be.

All this serves to remind me of is how once again, Bush missed an opportunity to involve the rest of the world in the outcome of Iraq by allowing them to participate in the process, and once again shunned our allies.

It wasn't until I said something that you admitted he is going to get what he deserves. I guess I brought balance to this thread, but then you give me negative feedback anyway

How fucking stupid is that....

motivez · 11-05-2006, 05:04 PM

It's because saying he's guilty or he's a bad man or he'd deserving doesn't need to be repeated and touted, everyone knows it.

Stylerod · 11-05-2006, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

It's because saying he's guilty or he's a bad man or he'd deserving doesn't need to be repeated and touted, everyone knows it.

Repeated by who? Scrum? Thor? Thatguy? I think they have to have said it more than once for it to be considered repeated. I just don't see that. Do you?

motivez · 11-05-2006, 05:14 PM

Uh, it doesn't need to be repeated at all because it's been said a million times by everyone, and it's stating the obvious.

The tactic here is to put people who want to criticize an aspect of the trial on the defensive with this crap of well, if they don't take time out of their criticism to say what a bad person Saddam was (thus taking them away from the point they're making, and making them point out that the administration has taken out a bad man), then they obviously think the opposite or some other bullshit.

I don't believe that's true, and so as I said, it doesn't need to be mentioned.

This tactic is old and sorry. It's a Rove/Bush/Cheney tactic and everyone can see through it by now.

Rather than debating the issue about whether or not the criticisms are accurate, have any merit, it's changing the topic to: "Oh my GOD! You didn't say Saddam was BAD! So you must LOVE HIM! Since you LOVE HIM, why don't you MARRY HIM!?"