Saddam sentenced to death

[McCarroll21]

Saddam, co-defendants sentenced to hang (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061105/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_verdict)

An Iraqi court on Sunday sentenced Saddam Hussein to the gallows for crimes against humanity, closing a quarter-century-old chapter of violent suppression in this land of long memories, deep grudges and sectarian slaughter.

The former Iraqi dictator and six subordinates were convicted and sentenced for the 1982 killings of 148 people in a single Shiite town after an attempt on his life there.

Shiites and Kurds, who had been tormented and killed in the tens of thousands under Saddam's iron rule, erupted in celebration — but looked ahead fearfully for a potential backlash from the Sunni insurgency that some believe could be a final shove into all-out civil war.

Saddam trembled and shouted "God is great" when the hawk-faced chief judge, Raouf Abdul-Rahman, declared the former leader guilty and sentenced him to hang.

Now I'll turn it over to the political people of the forum.

[nickzilla6066]

There are three types of people who I think should be put to death; murderers, rapists and child molesters. We know that Saddam was at least two of the three (I wouldn't put the third past him). Hang him and end it.

[Jsh1284]

Thank goodness for this railroading of the president of a country! I know nothing about these alleged massacres ... and if he did these things, he deserves this sentence.... but the fact remains:

George W Bush and his people obviously had total control of this trial from start to finish. It was an American-style setup ... which is totally forigen to courts of law in Arab countries. Basically, some guy in the White House decided Saddam would be put to death the moment we started our campaign of freedom bombing.

[Nasadega]

They should have done it like they did with Ceausescu.

[Jsh1284]

We're supposed to be Americanizing the country is all I'm saying... so he should get a fair trial. The judge and jury came in there knowing he'd be put to death right from the beginning. Thats not a fair trial.

Again, if he killed those people, he does deserve to die. Just after a fair trial via non biased jury.

I.E. Person A shoots person B. In court, should person B's family be the jury? Don't think so.

[Adam's Army]

[quote= I know nothing about these alleged massacres ... and if he did these things, he deserves this sentence.... but the fact remains:

George W Bush and his people obviously had total control of this trial from start to finish. It was an American-style setup ... which is totally forigen to courts of law in Arab countries. Basically, some guy in the White House decided Saddam would be put to death the moment we started our campaign of freedom bombing.[/quote]

what do you mean "alleged massacres." families of the massacred have attested to that, and they have found mass graves of massacred people.

Now I am not particularly fond of the war. I think it was a mistake and that it was based off of false or over exagerated intelligence. However if you are going to say that Bush "obviously had total control" of the entire trial, then please explain this. do you have any evidence to support that claim? or are you just saying Bush sucks? If so, I agree, he sucks, but if not then give me some sort of evidence (which should be easy because you said it was obvious) that Bush entirely controlled the trial.

[Jsh1284]

I wasnt part of any trial nor have I ever seen any evidence other than what our mass media has told me about them. I.E. I know nothing about them other than the accusations that have been made.

I do believe that it happened. I have no idea who's responsible because again, all we know is what the media has told us. It might have been Iran or Syria for all I know. Maybe it was the boogeyman. But.... it was probably Saddam.

I hope you understand my point about THAT.

The real point of my post was that .. no matter if he did it or not, he should've gotten a fair trial on a neutral stage. Trials and justice are about presenting proof to a non biased audience. If you can convince those people that the defendant has done what he was accused of via pictures, word of mouth, etc, then you'll win the case.

Justice isnt about putting him in front of a biased audience. Thats a judicial railroading.

[Adam's Army]

according to your logic, you dont know the was biased because the big bad media only told you what they wanted you to know. do you think if you watch other news sources your not going to get a bias from them as well? you have to take the bias for what it is and make your own oppinions.

so what do you suggest should have happened to sadam? what is a fair and neutral stage? I think it is pretty apparant that he did massacre many innocent people. sure saddam diddnt get the most fair trial, but i dont really see any other alternatives to what he got. no one else could have put him on trial (not us, not the U.N, not anyone).

[KB 34]

Good grief, how many survivors of Saddan's regime must tell their hair rasing stories to get across just what a pathetic human being he was. His fate was set in stone from day 1 but that was kind of because he killed 1.5 million people and defied the world by invading Kuwait and developing nuclear technology. If traditional methods of warfare had been used he would have been tossed onto the streets of Baghdad and killed by the people of Iraq instead.

[Jsh1284]

I didn't say the man himself controlled this trial. It's fairly obvious that his subordinates did .. simply by viewing the format of the percessions.

You totally misunderstood what I was saying about the media as well. Yes, all media here is controlled Believe it or not, we only hear what certain people want us to hear. I totally believe that. If you want accurate information, you've got to do your own research and put the real facts together and overlook the propoganda ... but that's not the issue. I was actually speaking of the LACK of information on the subject we're speaking of here. The modern media here has a way of making a bad guy look like the reincarnation of Hitler ... well if they can do that, does it not appear, in theory, that they could also make a heartless killer into a Godlike figure? Thats the power of today's TV.

Back on topic - Its pretty obvious that Saddam did do those things ... but everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Its the American way. Let me put it this way ... I don't think I can make it any clearer than this:

Lets say George W Bush was charged with crimes against humanity in New Orleans ... basing the case on the belief (shared by thousands of N.O. citizens) that the levys were bombed to save the French quarter ... and also was being forced to be responsible for the thousands that died because of his hand picked FEMA director .... then lets say the entire jury and judge were people whose houses had been destroyed .. and also lets say they are believers that the levys were bombed.....

I'm fully confident that the lives of those people were very important to Mr Bush .... and of course he IS innocent .... but in that scenario, would he get a fair trial? OF COURSE NOT! Those people HATE the man. You'd have to take the trial to a neutral area where the people aren't emotionally biased. It would only be fair to send the trial to a state like Texas ... where race and politics aren't an issue ... Just like Saddam's trial should've been held in a neutral country like Germany or maybe even Turkey.

I'm not saying its the same thing .... but you see my point, right?

... P.S. Clinton already got rid of the Nuclear Technology. Saddam had no chance of ever recovering any WMD manufacturing capability .... at least according to the head NATO weapons inspector in Iraq before the war.

[Adam's Army]

I didn't say the man himself controlled this trial. It's fairly obvious that his subordinates did .. simply by viewing the format of the percessions.

Yes, all media here is controlled Believe it or not, we only hear what certain people want us to hear. I totally believe that.

I'm not saying its the same thing .... but you see my point, right?



yes i see you point, but what do you suggest then? how could saddam have gotten a fair trial? who could have given saddam a unbiased trial?

Also if you are going to claim "the media here is controled" or that "its fairly obvious" that Bush's subordinates controlled the trials then please explain that. It is not obvious to me so i need to see evidence to believe it. And, yes the media is biased, but its not "controlled", its not like the man is tryin to put you down by lying to you or whatever

[Jsh1284]

I'm not going to share these links on here because the right wingers on the board will give me headaches, but if you're interested in some unbiased and very interesting information about our controlled media and the lies they tell, then just hit me with a PM and I'll link you to some very interesting stuff.

[Adam's Army]

just post the link. if its legit information from a legit source then you have nothing to worry about.

[Jsh1284]

Well first, I wanted to show you our friend Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. This sealed the deal on the money and weapons deal ... which ended up giving Saddam the weapons and power to kill those people and eventually invade Kuwait.
http://www.bartcop.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg

Also, if any right winger here has the guts to sit down for an hour n a half and watch the video provided in the link below with an open mind, you won't like Bush or our Media very much either.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=mysteries+of+9%2F11&hl=en

Many of the people in this video are NYC firemen, Police officers, and more importantly, many scientists, architects (two of the cheif WTC architects), demolishinists and other credible sources. You'll see the media ties as it goes along.

[Jsh1284]

Btw .. it only takes 12 minutes and 22 seconds to prove the video's point.

[lavell12]

Is there a problem with George W having control over the trial of Saddam? NO because the United States and George W were the ones who captured the bastard and put him out of power. I know you lefties may hate Bush more than Saddam but W got him Not Clinton.

[Jsh1284]

Only reason why we didnt get him the first time is because they set the oil rigs on fire before we could get our troops there. The coalition figured itd be cheaper to let the Iraqis themselves put out the infernos and clean the mess rather than have to use their own taxpayers' money. Afterall, the US, Brittan, France, and Germany would've had equal responsibility to do so had we overthrown him.

I figure thats why our elite forces parachuted straight to the key pipelines a week before the inital invasion. If we're gonna spend all this money on taking over the area, we might as well secure our main intrest IN the area ASAP.

Funny thing is... huge amounts of special forces went in to protect the oil, but failed to secure the "WMD" sites first. I find that odd considering that was our reason for going in.