Saddam Hussein recieves death sentance

Exon

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/world/middleeast/05cnd-saddam.html?em&ex=1162875600&en=a28b7d91d06de1ba&ei=5087%0A

It's about time too, what's everyone think?

Schuhart

I quite sure we have more concern over Saddam being treated justly than he would if we had found ourselves in opposition to him. But what do I think? Somewhere between the idea that the trial was really only a formality, and the concern that they're turning a tyrant into a martyr.

Orion

Justice not only needs to be served it also needs to be seen to be served. I'll nail my colours to the mast here actually - I'm opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. But this is a very special case.

That Saddam committed horrendous acts during his reign is clear but this trial has been a travesty of justice since the very start. There was government interference in the trial all along in contravention of the basic separation of the judiciary and the executive and the independence of the court.

BBC - citing Malcolm Smart of Amnesty wrote:

The independence and impartiality of the court was impugned. There was political interference. The first judge resigned, the second was barred for being a former member of the Baath party, the only political entity at the time, and the third judge had relatives who were killed in Halabje [where Kurds were gassed by Saddam Hussein's forces].

Human Rights Watch - the American association also questioned the integrity of the court:

HRW wrote:

HRW
Human Rights Watch is very concerned about reports concerning the removal of Judge Abdullah al-Amiri, presiding judge in the on-going trial of Saddam Hussein and others for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This appears to be improper interference in the independence of the tribunal, and may greatly damage the court.
According to reports appearing this evening, Judge Abdullah al-Amiri, the presiding judge of the second trial chamber of the Iraqi High Tribunal was removed from his position, by a decision of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

The political input even forced one of the first judges - Rizgar Amin - to resign from the court after he complained of government interference.

The security of the court is also questionable. Three defence lawyers were assassinated. Saddam had no access to lawyers for over a year. And critical evidence was kept from the defence team.

All in all this has been the worst case of showboating in legal history. The Iraqi government - backed by the US and UK governments never had any intention of allowing a fair trial. Regardless of what Saddam did - he is entitled to the same rule of law that anyone else is.

Now to answer this before it's asked - "But Saddam never allowed fair trials so why should he get one?". Simple - two wrongs don't make a right. The US invasion was (allegedly) to apply true democratic principles in Iraq. One of those principals is the right to a fair trial in an independant court. If that is not provided then democracy does not exist. The Iraqi government, and by extension the US government, need to lead by example. If they wish to be seen as a true democratic representative government they need to follow internationally accepted standards. By going down this road they will be no better than Saddam himself.

seamus

Idiots. The worst thing you can do to someone with armed fanatical support is to execute them.

Slightly off topic, but I had to laugh when Sky news quoted the U.S. administration as saying that the verdict was an indication of a fair and democratic trial. Would they have been saying that if he'd been found not guilty?

Beruthiel

Very bad idea. He should have been put in a 6 x 4 room and just left to rot.

L5

Hang 'em high

simu

I'm against this. He gets done for crimes against humanity and is sentenced to death... hypocritical much?

Carcharodon

simu wrote:

I'm against this. He gets done for crimes against humanity and is sentenced to death... hypocritical much?

Exactly, they take two steps forward and ten steps back, it will also make him a martyr.

HelterSkelter

Firstly, I think it would be a more severe punishment for him to be locked up for the rest of his days. I know I'd rather be killed than have to sit in the same room for the rest of my life.

Secondly, hanging is a gruesome way of killing someone.

Thirdly, if Saddam is to be executed, when will Blair and Bush follow? They are responsible for many more deaths than Saddam ever was.

SmoothyG

personally im all for the death penalty, on proven charges of Rape, peodophilia, torture etc. the only problem being that there is some cases where the system has executed people later proven to be inocent.

With Sadam i think we would have all been better off with him being shot on sight when they found him, its not like he was ever going to get a "not guilty" verdict. Keeping him in prison allows for his crazy supporters to bargin for his release, by threat of bombings or whatever.

personally i think hanging is too good for him

I thing he should be subjected to all the torture methods he has been proven to use, then left in a David blane style box in bagdad without a toilet and left to drown in his own waste. without a

SmoothyG

HelterSkelter wrote:

Thirdly, if Saddam is to be executed, when will Blair and Bush follow? They are responsible for many more deaths than Saddam ever was.

I dont think so, Blair and Bush made mistakes in the way it was handled, they didnt set about the eradication of an entire race

lostexpectation

I was quite surprised when both Blair and Paul Howard made of point of saying the disagreed with the death penalty, ( for anyone).

did either of the Aherns make a statement?

Bottle_of_Smoke

lostexpectation wrote:

I was quite surprised when both Blair and Paul Howard made of point of saying the disagreed with the death penalty, ( for anyone).

did either of the Aherns make a statement?

Dermot Ahern said he was glad the trial was over but he objects to the death sentence being imposed

Orion

BBCIraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has told the BBC he expects Saddam Hussein to be executed by the end of 2006.

In an interview with John Simpson in Baghdad, Mr Maliki said the decision to hang the former president would not be affected by any pressure.

"We would like the whole world to respect the judicial will of Iraq," he told the BBC.

Good to see that Maliki is waiting for the result of the appeal :rolleyes:

HelterSkelter

SmoothyG wrote:

I dont think so, Blair and Bush made mistakes in the way it was handled, they didnt set about the eradication of an entire race

If I make a mistake (in my job, driving my car, etc) which results in even one person being killed then I will go to jail. Why should they be any different? IN any case they didn't make a mistake, the went to war on the false pretence that Saddam had WMD's when they knew he didn't.

Gurgle

Schuhart wrote:

I quite sure we have more concern over Saddam being treated justly than he would if we had found ourselves in opposition to him.

I don't think thats relevant.

Schuhart wrote:

Somewhere between the idea that the trial was really only a formality, and the concern that they're turning a tyrant into a martyr.

1) Death penalty is wrong. Not because its wrong to put down someone who acted worse than any animal but because its wrong to give that power to anything as fundamentally flawed as a human being, or worse - a group of human beings.

2) Having the trial so soon, while the country is embroiled in a civil war was a big mistake. He should have been held as a prisnor of war until Iraq had settled down, and tried in an international war crimes tribunal not by his oldest enemies in his own country. The verdict and punishment were decided before the first day of the trial.

3) He will be held up as a martyr, killed for his politics. And tbh with some justification. What country can claim that they would have dealt more softly with a rebellion & asassination attempt?

pH

I'm going to be controversial here, how is what Saddam did a whole lot different from say Israel (or even the US bombing hiroshima).

We was accused and convicted of killing 148 people in a village as retaliation for an assassination attempt, the problem here seems to be the motive, if he'd merely cluster bombed it while attempting to kill a few 'terrorists' then he would have been fine.

The US dropped a nuclear bomb on a city full of people, with no major military targets ... twice!

- why? ... the official reason we love to hear is 'to shorten the war' and 'to save American lives'.

So if Saddam decides to kill 148 of his countrymen to 'save Iraqi' lives then that would also have been OK? He killed them for the wrong reasons?

It was a show trial worthy of the worst totalitarian regimes, please link me to any information as to what was going to happen to Saddam if he was found innocent ... Was he going to be allowed just walk out the front door of the court and give an interview on the steps?

There's no information because it was never even thought about, there was never the option of any other verdict but guilty.