Sadam to be hanged o/

Status
Not open for further replies.
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
Al-Dujail trial

Iraqi authorities put Saddam and seven other former Iraqi officials on trial on October 19, 2005 four days after the October 15, 2005 referendum on the new constitution. The tribunal specifically charged the defendants with the killing of 143 Shiites from Dujail, in retaliation for the failed assassination attempt of 8 July 1982. Supporters of Saddam protested against the trial in Tikrit.[11]

Saddam's co-defendants are:

* Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, his half-brother and former chief of intelligence
* Taha Yassin Ramadan, former Vice-President
* Awad Hamed al-Bandar Al-S'adun, a former chief judge
* Abdullah Kadhem Roweed Al-Musheikhi, Al-Dujail Baath party official
* Mizher Abdullah Roweed Al-Musheikhi, (son of Abdullah Kadhem), Al-Dujail Baath party official
* Ali Daeem Ali, Dujail Baath party official
* Mohammed Azawi Ali, Dujail Baath party official

As in his pre-trial appearance, Saddam at the opening of his trial on October 19 appeared defiant and rejected the tribunal's legitimacy and independence from the control of foreign occupation. "I do not respond to this so-called court, with all due respect to its people, and I retain my constitutional right as the president of Iraq," Hussein declared. He added, "Neither do I recognize the body that has designated and authorized you, nor the aggression because all that has been built on false basis is false."

When the judge asked for his name, Saddam said "I am the president of the Iraq", refused to state his name, but returned the question, asking Kurdish judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin, "Who are you? I want to know who you are." When Amin addressed Saddam as "the former president," Saddam objected emphatically, saying he was still the President of the Republic of Iraq and had not been deposed.

While Saddam's seven co-defendants appeared in traditional Arabic male dress, Saddam wore a dark suit and a white shirt. Al-Bandar, sitting next to Saddam in the front row in a pen of white metal bars, complained that the defendants had been stripped of their head-coverings, upon which they were given back to them.

After the charges were read to them, all eight defendants pleaded not guilty. The first session of his trial lasted three hours. The court adjourned the case until 28 November 2005, as some of the witnesses were too frightened to attend, and also to allow the defense more time to study evidence.[12] During an interview with the Arab news agency al-Arabiya following the opening of the trial, Hussein's eldest daughter Raghad branded the court a "farce" and boasted that her father behaved like a "lion" during the proceedings. "My father is brave, a lion, I am proud of him," she said. "He is a man who dedicated his life to serve his country, he was brave in his youth, so how can he be afraid now?" she added.

On October 20, 2005, attorney Saadoun Sughaiyer al-Janabi, charged with the defense of Awad Hamed al-Bandar, was abducted from his office by gunmen, and found shot dead near his office a few hours later.

On November 8, 2005, attorney Adel al-Zubeidi, who had been representing Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan and Abdullah Kazim Ruwayyid, was killed by three gunmen in Baghdad. Barazan Ibrahim's lawyer Thamer Hamoud al-Khuzaie was also wounded in the attack.

On November 28, 2005, Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin adjourned the trial until December 5 to allow time to find replacements for two defense lawyers who were slain and another who fled Iraq after he was wounded. On December 5, Saddam's legal defense team stormed out of the court after questioning its legitimacy and asking about return of defence papers seized by U.S. Army troops and security issues regarding the protection of the defense. Saddam, along with his co-defendants, railed against Chief Judge Amin and the tribunal. The next day, after listening to hours of testimony against him, he lashed out at the judge. He said he was exhausted, did not intend on returning to the trial, and to "go to hell."

On December 7, 2005, Saddam refused to enter court, complaining of the conditions in which he was being held and the conduct of the trial. Saddam's complaints included, among other things, that he had not been able to change his clothes for four days.[13]

On December 12, 2005, Instead of cross-examining witnesses, Saddam used the time to accuse his American captors of torturing him, saying, "I have been beaten on every place of my body, and the signs are all over my body."[14]

On January 23, 2006, Rauf Rashid Abd al-Rahman was nominated interim chief judge of the tribunal. He replaces former chief judge Rizgar Amin, also a Kurd, who resigned after complaining of government interference.[15] Hussein and his co-defendants objected to the change in judge, citing bias after he ordered defendant Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti out of the court,[16] and announced they would boycott the trial under Rahman. On February 1 they failed to show up to court.

On March 15, 2006, Saddam was called by the prosecution as a witness. On the stand, he began making political statements, insisting he was still President of Iraq. He got in an argument with the judge, who eventually closed the trial to the public in response.[17]

On June 19, 2006, Chief Prosecutor Jaafar al-Moussawi called for the death penalty for Saddam and four other defendants including Barzan al-Tikriti, Saddam's half-brother, Taha Yassin Ramadan, former Iraqi Vice President and Awad Hamed al-Bander, former chief judge of Saddam's Revolutionary Court. The suspects face execution by hanging if convicted and sentenced to death.[18]

On June 21, 2006, Saddam's chief defense lawyer, Khamis al-Obeidi, was assassinated in Baghdad. In protest of the lack of international protection for lawyers, Saddam began a hunger strike. On June 23, 2006, it was reported that Saddam ended his hunger strike, having missed one meal.[19]

On June 27 2006, two of Saddam Hussein's lawyers, Ramsey Clark, a former US Attorney-General, and Curtis Doebbler, held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to call for immediate security for all the Iraqi defense lawyers and to complain in a lengthy and documented statement of the unfair trial being conducted by the American authorities using Iraqis as a front. The two lawyers claimed that the United States had refused to provide adequate protection for the defense lawyers despite repeated requests that were made and that the United States was intentionally ensuring an unfair trial.[20]

[edit] Verdict

On November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging. When the judge announced the verdict, Saddam shouted "Long live the people. Long live the Arab nation. Down with the spies. God is great." [21] Chief defense lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi later quoted a statement from Saddam Hussein given just before the Court issued its verdict. Saying that the former Iraqi President urged his countrymen to "unify in the face of sectarian strife". Al-Dulaimi also added that Saddam's message to the people was to "pardon and do not take revenge on the invading nations and their people". [22]An appeal, mandated by the Iraqi judicial system, followed. There was speculation that the appeals could last years, postponing his actual execution. However, the judge has declared that all appeal proceedings must take place within 30 days.

Among Hussein's co-defendants, Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, his half-brother and Iraq's intelligence chief at the time of the Dujail killings, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, who issued death sentences to Dujail residents as head of a Revolutionary Court, were also sentenced to death by hanging. The former Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan was sentenced to life in prison. [23]

Former Baath party officials in the Dujail region Abdullah Kadhem Roweed Al-Musheikhi, his son Mizher Abdullah Roweed Al-Musheikhi, and Ali Daeem Ali were sentenced to 15 years in prison. Mohammed Azawi Ali, also a Baath party official in Dujail region, was acquitted due to a lack of evidence. [23]

[edit] Local reaction to sentence

* President Jalal Talabani said in a statement "I think this trial was fair" and "I must respect the independence of the Iraqi judiciary. Until the end I must be silent"[24]
* Prime Minister Nouri Maliki said the sentence may "help alleviate the pain of the widows and the orphans" who lived under Saddam's regime.[24]
* First Deputy Speaker of the Iraqi National Assembly Khaled al-Attiyah said "we expected the maximum penalty against the criminal Saddam Hussein and his henchmen because they committed horrible crimes against the Iraqi people, the Arabs, Muslims and the entire international community." [24]

[edit] International reaction to sentence

European Union
The EU issued a statement saying that while the EU had repeatedly condemned "the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law committed by the regime of Saddam Hussein", "the EU opposes capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances, and it should not be carried out in this case either".[25]
India
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee reacted guardedly to the death sentence, saying such verdicts should not appear to be "victor's justice" and should be acceptable to the people of Iraq and the international community. In a statement, he said "such life and death decisions require credible due process of law". [26]
Iran
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mohammed Ali Hosseni said "the Islamic republic of Iran welcomes the death sentence" and "we cannot forget the Western protectors of Saddam who by supporting him prepared the ground for the execution of his crimes".[24]
Ireland
A spokeperson for the Foreign Affairs Minister said "Ireland and its EU partners have made it clear in the past to Iraqi authorities that we are opposed to courts applying the death sentence".[24]
The Netherlands
Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende was quoted saying "this sentence is fitting for the reign of terror by which Saddam ruled". He did however add that he does not support the death sentence as a legal punishment. Minister of Foreign Affairs Ben Bot said that even though The Netherlands opposes the idea of the death sentence he could, "given the seriousness of the crimes, understand the verdict".[27]
New Zealand
Prime Minister Helen Clark stated that the guilty verdict was appropriate but that she has "a long-standing objection to the death penalty and that will always be a concern to me". She declined to make a comment on whether the trial was fair, saying it was hard to determine from so far away.[28]
Russia
Foreign affairs committee member Konstantin Kosachev made a cautious statement, saying he doubted the death penalty would be carried out. He said, "this is more of a moral ruling, revenge that modern Iraq is taking on the Saddam Hussein regime".[29]
United Kingdom
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said "it is right that those accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people should face Iraqi justice".[30][31] Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that he is "against the death penalty, whether it is Saddam Hussein or anybody else".[32]
United States
The White House spokesman Tony Snow said the trial showed "absolute proof" that the judiciary in Iraq are independent.[33] President George W. Bush in a statement said "Saddam Hussein's trial is a milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law" and "today, the victims of this regime have received a measure of the justice which many thought would never come".[34]

[edit] Criticism

[edit] Charges

* Critics, including Saddam's sole remaining legal counsel Khalil al-Dulaimi have alleged that American officials have a heavy influence on the court. In a statement, Khalil said, "this court is a creature of the US military occupation, and the Iraqi court is just a tool and rubber stamp of the invaders." [35][36]

* Critics, including Khalil al-Dulaimi, have alleged that the date on which the verdict was read live to the world, November 5, 2006, was deliberately selected and expedited by the Bush Administration in order to influence the U.S. midterm elections which will occurr two days later.[35][36][37] [38] [39]

* The television link of the trial is provided by a US company which frequently blanks out the sound of what Saddam and the others say, and sometimes cuts the vision as well.




to be bluntly honest, i think that the death sentance is just, but that he should have been allowed to be shot by firing squad, rather than hanged. he deserves to die, but i dont believe in anyone dying slowly. Except Sean >;] o/
 
New Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
652
Best answers
0
Yah.. great news. I knew it was gonna happen, but still. I wish he would've been sent to american prison first, get anally raped, then tortured... then killed. BUt hey... thats just me.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
He deserves to die, but they shouldn't have sentenced him to death. This could cause an uproar of violence. It's not great news..
 
The Viking
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
4,803
Best answers
0
Sub said:
He deserves to die, but they shouldn't have sentenced him to death. This could cause an uproar of violence. It's not great news..
Indeed, he will be made a martyr now. He should've just rotted in jail for the rest of his life.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,626
Best answers
0
to be bluntly honest, i think that the death sentance is just, but that he should have been allowed to be shot by firing squad, rather than hanged. he deserves to die, but i dont believe in anyone dying slowly.
If they do it properly, your neck is snapped by the drop. Odds are they'll **** it up though.

This could cause an uproar of violence.
Violence in the middle east? Whatever shall we do?
 
New Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
368
Best answers
0
Sub said:
He deserves to die, but they shouldn't have sentenced him to death. This could cause an uproar of violence. It's not great news..
r u suggesting by spare that old mastach guy alive ? he sure is a bad ass but i afraid they wont do that(especially in 21st centary..the murderer must die by paying their crime) but in this rate i vote u for once... after we deal with iranian...

by the way the iraqi civilean wasnt been so threat for us(we could squash them when ever we want!!)
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
frsrblch said:
If they do it properly, your neck is snapped by the drop. Odds are they'll **** it up though.


Violence in the middle east? Whatever shall we do?
... You can't shrug it off like that. Of course there is a lot of violence in the middle east, but I ask you, why would you want to do something that would incite it?
 
New Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
368
Best answers
0
Cold Steel said:
Indeed, he will be made a martyr now. He should've just rotted in jail for the rest of his life.
to spare an useless old boldy murderer and putting another heavy drag on the texpayer? u r so genius...
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
the thing is Sub; leaving him alive could well do exactly the same thing.

it isn't as if it was a trial in america, and it was completely biased against him. i mean, sure, most of the jury probably hated him, which is gonna suck. but he was tried in Iraq, in his own former country, by his own former laws. its kind of ironic in a way.

if he was left alive, he would have either:
eventually escaped, and started again.
found a way of communicating with people outside, which is just as bad, as it keeps his regime alive.

at the end of the day, he was responsable for the murder of thousands of people, and when you kill someone, you lose the right to live (in my opinion). he had this coming, and although i agree there will be elevated tension because of it, i think more good will come of this course, than bad.
 
The Viking
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
4,803
Best answers
0
uncover bunker said:
to spare an useless old boldy murderer and putting another heavy drag on the texpayer? u r so genius...
hahahahaha
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,285
Best answers
0
torturing is always worse than death, i think he should have been moved to most dangerous prison ever, got anally raped every day, everybody beating the **** out of him every day, and when he would be like 90 years old, they would kill him..
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
come on guys, the fact that this is a political based thread puts it on thin ice from the start. use your heads, and start giving logical responses, rather than idiotic posts.
 
New Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
368
Best answers
0
LegendarY said:
torturing is always worse than death, i think he should have been moved to most dangerous prison ever, got anally raped every day, everybody beating the **** out of him every day, and when he would be like 90 years old, they would kill him..
what if these prisoner become his hanchman...? remeber he still have the leadership quality...... he'd break up the prison and restart the chaos once again...

Mad_AxMan said:
the thing is Sub; leaving him alive could well do exactly the same thing.

it isn't as if it was a trial in america, and it was completely biased against him. i mean, sure, most of the jury probably hated him, which is gonna suck. but he was tried in Iraq, in his own former country, by his own former laws. its kind of ironic in a way.

if he was left alive, he would have either:
eventually escaped, and started again.
found a way of communicating with people outside, which is just as bad, as it keeps his regime alive.

at the end of the day, he was responsable for the murder of thousands of people, and when you kill someone, you lose the right to live (in my opinion). he had this coming, and although i agree there will be elevated tension because of it, i think more good will come of this course, than bad.
i agree with that...he's the must dangeriest person in the world next to osama and kim yo yo(i dont know how to spell that name.... the fat dude in N. korea)
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
3,746
Best answers
0
I think they should put the man in an electric gullotine. (WTF?)

No, he just needs to get shot in the face.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,626
Best answers
0
especially in 21st centary..the murderer must die by paying their crime
From what I can decipher, you seem to think that an execution is the just, modern way to deal with these things. Have you any idea how backwards the idea of an execution is? There's a reason why more and more countries have been abolishing them.
 
New Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
368
Best answers
0
frsrblch said:
From what I can decipher, you seem to think that an execution is the just, modern way to deal with these things. Have you any idea how backwards the idea of an execution is? There's a reason why more and more countries have been abolishing them.
becuz they've been too soft..... there isnt a crime to fighting evil and annihalate them. to protect the justice we have to do whatever takes even we hate it.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
4,022
Best answers
0
Hanging is too good for him.

He should be tortured, get his body cut up slowly over a few months time, losing limbs and whatnot, and put him in solitary confinement.
 
New Member
★ Black Lounger ★
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
4,628
Best answers
0
Capital punishment is a big no no in my book, no matter what you've done. Problem is prisons are so crowded in some places, they'd rather kill a bunch of them, than cater for them. Catch 22 i suppose.

He should be made to suffer rather than anything, death is momentary, which is too good for him. It also does make him a "martyr" to those deluded enough to follow him, he should be at least reduced to admitting that all he lived for was a sham and he's got nothing, but he's gonna go to his grave preaching.

Ugh
 
New Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
368
Best answers
0
Shiyojin Rommyu said:
Hanging is too good for him.

He should be tortured, get his body cut up slowly over a few months time, losing limbs and whatnot, and put him in solitary confinement.
why dont u just drop him into the aligator pool with whole bunch aligator.........let him fighten to death with screamming...lol

Davidskiwan said:
Capital punishment is a big no no in my book, no matter what you've done. Problem is prisons are so crowded in some places, they'd rather kill a bunch of them, than cater for them. Catch 22 i suppose.

He should be made to suffer rather than anything, death is momentary, which is too good for him. It also does make him a "martyr" to those deluded enough to follow him, he should be at least reduced to admitting that all he lived for was a sham and he's got nothing, but he's gonna go to his grave preaching.

Ugh
what if u miscoculating? he's not as easy as u thought.... he's a trouble.....he shouldve abanden from humanity for internality.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
frsrblch said:
From what I can decipher, you seem to think that an execution is the just, modern way to deal with these things. Have you any idea how backwards the idea of an execution is? There's a reason why more and more countries have been abolishing them.
sorry to disagree with you on this one. but the reason countries are doing away with it, is because of idiots claiming it's against human rights.

i draw the line at that, because, as i said before: if you are willing to take someone elses life, then you forfeit ALL of your human rights, you have none. you took away someone elses existance, and because of that, you lose your own right to exist.

the stupid thing is, right now, prisoners live more comfortably in this country, than most people in mid to lower class. they don't need to worry about jobs, or food, or anything, it is all provided for them in their cell's, they even get a free gym! if they are cold, they get an extra blanket, because just leaving them there would be cruel.

human rights activists have gone way too far, and common sense has all but died in modern society because of it.

wanna know why crime is on the rise in most "modern" societies? Lack of fear.
no one needs to be afraid of the consequences anymore. you can commit any crime you like, and rest assured knowing if you are cought, you will enjoy life in a care free environment, where you can't be touched.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top