Saddam Hussein sentenced to death by hanging (1 Viewer)

[La La]

for the second time.

(he escaped a prior 1950's death sentence by fleeing the country)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061105/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_verdict

 

[Janer]

Ye watching on the news now.....
Was always going to be the outcome but sure it was a showcase for the Yanks/Shia from the very beginning.
Convenient just in time foir The Republican party in the USA who are trailing in the polls.............

 

[La La]

some of the case analysts are saying that while an appeal is automatic, he could be executed anywhere from "soon" to 5 months away.

"either way, he doesn't have long left" said one......

 

[Janer]

But also the Iraqi president said he won't sign the execution papers as he is against the death penalty so it may well be his deputy.

 

[Janer]

His appeal starts tommorow lol....they can't wait to execute him.

 

[Jerry Twig]

Convenient just in time foir The Republican party in the USA who are trailing in the polls.............

it must be great to live in a world where everything slots together so conveniently! Tell us, how did those famous friends the Republicans and the Shias conspire to establish a court that suited both their interests?

 

[Janer]

Who runs fucking Iraq*?????
Are you so fucking dumb that u accept the rosy picture that Bush/Blair paints????


God I cannot believe u replied with that.
Thickest post of all time.


Bush* is the answer thicko btw.

 

[Jerry Twig]

Haha,
Janer I didn't say for a second that I accept the Bush/Blair scenario, just that I have followed the Saddam trial and I don't accept that the timing of the judgment has anything to do with the US mid-term elections.

I think that is, how would you so eloquently put it...thick.

Why are so quick to condemn me for questioning why you think that the court (by no means an impartial tribunal I absolutely recognise) is subject to the US domestic political timetable?

 

[Janer]

It's the USA running every single facet of life in Iraq including one of the most important things to them the fate of Saddam....esp 2 days b4 their elections, that because of the mess in Iraq will proberely cost the Republican party the loss of 1 house and maybe the 2nd house.

Do you really believe it was just pot luck?
correspondents from the media had predicated this months and months ago lol

seriously.

 

[taubstumm]

I don't accept that the timing of the judgment has anything to do with the US mid-term elections.

why? it would seem to me to be the most obvious thing in the world.

apart from that, though, just wait for the editorials and self-justifying articles that will surely follow in the next week or so. the times has been quick off the mark:

In 24 years of tyrannical rule, Saddam Hussein brought death to millions in three wars, torture to the countless pitiful souls incarcerated in his dungeons and isolation from much of the world to the once-proud country that he cowed.

they left out the crucial phrase, though: "with our enthusiastic support, until he was no longer useful"

 

[Jerry Twig]

Convenient it is, but it's a stretch on two levels. Firstly, if you look at the process of decision making by the chamber from the conclusion of deliberations to their decision, which was reasonable timewise (neither rushed nor inordinately protracted) it would require that they had pre-planned such timing going back, what, 18 months?. Secondly, that would of course already require that, even though it is a sham trial with a US- appointed chamber, that that chamber has allowed itself to be directly controlled by military or political command that would request it to 'hurry up'. A gross incursion of the seperation of powers - still possible in Iraq, of course, but I am not convinced of it.
in any case, has he not still to be tried for Halubjah, Anjal and other charges? Plus, the Court of Appeal may draw this out fro many more months. There was never any question this would be outcome of this particular charge, fair court or otherwise, so I don't thinkit will change the tide in the US.
janer, the whole thing is a travesty, but not everything is as simple as you would wish to believe.

 

[taubstumm]

Convenient it is, but it's a stretch on two levels. Firstly, if you look at the process of decision making by the chamber from the conclusion of deliberations to their decision, which was reasonable timewise (neither rushed nor inordinately protracted) it would require that they had pre-planned such timing going back, what, 18 months?. Secondly, that would of course already require that, even though it is a sham trial with a US- appointed chamber, that that chamber has allowed itself to be directly controlled by military or political command that would request it to 'hurry up'. A gross incursion of the seperation of powers - still possible in Iraq, of course, but I am not convinced of it.
in any case, has he not still to be tried for Halubjah, Anjal and other charges? Plus, the Court of Appeal may draw this out fro many more months. There was never any question this would be outcome of this particular charge, fair court or otherwise, so I don't thinkit will change the tide in the US.
janer, the whole thing is a travesty, but not everything is as simple as you would wish to believe.

yep, i don't disagree with most of that, but it's pretty obvious that, within certain bounds, the court can be squeezed.

the republicans are monitoring all these sorts of symbolic moments in iraq, with an eye to their usefulness in the u.s. election cycle. i'm sure they put pressure to ensure that the verdict would be either squeezed out before the mid-terms (as has now happened) or else delayed interminably until it became useful in the next election cycle - the presidential election in 2008.

much the same thing happened in pakistan prior to the 2004 u.s. presidential elections - huge pressure was put on the pakistani regime by the bush administration to capture al-quaeda 'high value targets' within a given timeframe, so that it could fit in nicely with the campaign. specifically, they wanted these people captured at the same time that the democratic national convention was going on, to take the limelight off the official endorsement of john kerry as a presidential candidate.

 

[pete]

and lets not forget just how "independent" the judiciary is

BAGHDAD, Sept. 19 -- The Iraqi government ordered the chief judge in the genocide trial of Saddam Hussein to step down Tuesday because he said last week that Hussein was "not a dictator," prompting legal experts to voice concern that the dismissal could undermine the independence of the tribunal hearing the case.

The Iraqi cabinet voted unanimously to remove the judge, Abdullah al-Amiri, a Shiite Muslim who had served as a judge during Hussein's rule, because it felt he was no longer impartial and his conduct had "injured the feelings of the victims in the case," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

"The government wants to maintain the independence of the court without interfering with their daily work and their decisions," Dabbagh said. "But at the same time, they want the court to keep neutral."
Amiri issued his controversial declaration, which angered many Iraqis, during a courtroom exchange on Thursday, one day after the prosecution accused him of bias and asked him to step down because he had "allowed the defendants to treat the chamber as a political forum."


When a Kurdish farmer testified that he had begged Hussein in 1988 to spare the lives of his family, Hussein leapt out of his seat and asked why the farmer would have tried to plead with him if he was, in fact, a dictator.


"You were not a dictator," the judge replied, adding that those around Hussein had made him one.
Hussein smiled and replied, "Thank you."


Dabbagh said the government has the authority, under the statute that created the Iraqi Special Tribunal, to remove judges and prosecutors from the tribunal "for any reason." He said Amiri would be transferred to another court.


International legal observers said that although the executive branch may have the authority to remove Amiri, its action threatened to stain the tribunal's credibility and bolster claims by Hussein's defense team that the court is illegitimate and lacks independence.


"This raises alarm bells," said Michael P. Scharf, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law and an adviser to the tribunal. "It looks like the government is trying to meddle with the tribunal. This will erode the tribunal's independence and legitimacy further in the eyes of the international community and the Iraqi people."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901204.html

 

[Jerry Twig]

Cheers, beats being called a thicko by a conspiracy nut.

 

[steve albino]

'A flawed process'

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Four respected lawyers give their views on the outcome of the Saddam trial[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Sunday November 5, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1940100,00.html

[/FONT]Ken Hurwitz, an international lawyer with the US-based Human Rights First:
"I think it is difficult to see there has been a fair trial when we have defence lawers and judges threatened and murdered and behind the scenes it is apparent that this is a product of the Green Zone, the US occupation forces. It may be there was a fair trial but it is very difficult to see one way or the other because of the armed conflict and lack of security and overwhelming control of a foreign power.

Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London and a barrister at Matrix Chambers:
"It was right that Saddam Hussein should be prosecuted for international crimes. But if not done properly there were bound to be questions about the legitimacy of the process. It was a mistake to proceed then with an exclusively Iraqi tribunal rather than an internationalised effort. So was the decision not to prosecute for some of his actions, including the use of chemical weapons against Iran and the invasion of Kuwait. Missed opportunities, a much diminished legitimacy."



Sonia Sceat an Australian international lawyer, and associate fellow on international law at the London-based foreign affairs think-tank Chatham House:
"Although there have been irregularities in the conduct of the trial - there is no doubt about this - much hinges on the tribunal's treatment of the evidence put before it, and the quality of its reasoning. The dramatic images we have seen, in particular the sensational exchanges between the defence and the judges, are selective. And observers have confirmed that in between there has been much in the way of a proper process. Enormous amounts of evidence, much of it very compelling, have been presented to the tribunal.
"The real problem lies in the dire security situation which has formed the backdrop of this trial. Acute concerns about the security implications of the trial have pushed leading political figures to meddle in the process, in the hope that a speedy resolution and the execution of Saddam will undermine the insurgency.

Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa director, who has been following the case:

"Our main concern is that quite clearly the impartiality of the court was jeopardised by political interference, with the first judge resigning complaining he was coming under political pressure. A second judge was appointed but never sat. I do not think this was the context of impartiality and we have had political pressure throughout. The government was looking for a verdict and death penalty. That background music does not help produce an impartial verdict.
"Three defence lawyers were killed. There was a lack of security protection for witnesses. This interfered with the ability of the prosecution and defence to do the job fully. There were problems with pre-trial. Saddam Hussein was held for the best part of a year before being given access to legal counsel. That is a breach that may have fed through to the trial. This should have been an important point for accountability, rule of law, setting a precedent for the future. But it has been a flawed process."

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[steve albino]

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12117

Was timing of Saddam’s verdict rigged for Bush?
11/5/2006 1:00:00 PM GMT

After a three-month wait, the judges in the first trial of the former Iraqi President over crimes against humanity delivered their verdict today, just two days ahead of the crucial U.S. mid-term congressional elections.
The team of lawyers representing Saddam Hussein and his seven co-defendants has been calling for delaying the verdict, which some expect to be a death sentence, arguing that the former leader believed today's expected verdict was timed to boost President George Bush before voters go to the polls in this week's closely contested congressional elections

Saddam's lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi repeated warnings against sentencing his client to death.

"We have requested at least a two-month adjournment to allow us to complete our presentations in the case in which our defence rights have been violated and in which our clients have been denied full legal defence," he said.
"This court is a creature of the U.S. military occupation, and the Iraqi court is just a tool and rubber stamp of the invaders," insisted Dulaimi.

"The trial of the president should not proceed this way in a climate of mounting political pressure for a quick conviction that demolishes the trial's impartiality," he added.
U.S. officials reject accusations that the timing of the verdict was manipulated to give the Bush administration and GOP candidates a positive headline from Iraq after a month that witnessed noticeable surge in violence and reports saying that more than 100 U.S. troops were killed in October only. They claim that the timing is sheer coincidence, and that the Americans’ role was limited to logistics and security.
Many experts and political analysts questioned the credibility of the trial of Saddam and his codefendants, all charged with crimes against humanity for the killing of 148 Shias after a failed attempt to assassinate the former Iraqi leader in the town of Dujail in 1982. But the Iraqi government insisted on carrying on with the procedures, despite delays and courtroom chaos.
"During all these months, the court has deliberately sought to limit our access and ability to defend the president ... this means that justice has not been done," Dulaimi further stated.

As Bush faces mounting pressure over his failing policies in Iraq, a guilty verdict two days ahead of congressional polls could be a vindication of his decision to invade Iraq and topple its leader.

more....

 

[Jerry Twig]

Yes, Steve Pete and all the rest. I don;t dispute any of the above. That is well documented. What I am not convinced of, as there is not YET any evidence of the case, is that it stretches to being able to control the timing of this inevitable judgment.

 

[pete]

Yes, Steve Pete and all the rest. I don;t dispute any of the above. That is well documented. What I am not convinced of, as there is not YET any evidence of the case, is that it stretches to being able to control the timing of this inevitable judgment.

a happy coincidence it is then

 

[steve albino]

Yes, Steve Pete and all the rest. I don;t dispute any of the above. That is well documented. What I am not convinced of, as there is not YET any evidence of the case, is that it stretches to being able to control the timing of this inevitable judgment.

This might be of interest:

Summary: CNN reported a claim by Saddam Hussein's lawyer that the release of the verdict in his trial on charges of crimes against humanity two days before U.S. congressional midterm elections is timed to influence that vote, but CNN did not provide evidence that might lend credence to such an accusation: If true, this would be far from the first time that the Bush administration has timed an Iraq- or national security-related event for political advantage.


On October 3, the Associated Press reported that the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) "postponed the verdict" beyond October 16 -- the date it was originally expected. On October 16, the AP reported: "A verdict against Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants charged with crimes against humanity in connection with an anti-Shiite crackdown in the 1980s will be announced Nov. 5, a senior court official said Monday."
As Media Matters noted, SICT was established on October 9, 2005, by the Iraqi interim government for the sole purpose of trying Saddam and members of his regime for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Though the SICT is a creation of the Iraqi government, it is heavily influenced -- legally and financially -- by the U.S. government.
Media Matters noted several documented and reported instances of the Bush administration manipulating the timing of announcements or actions for political benefit. For instance, a September 7, 2002, New York Times article reported (subscription required) that the White House's "meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein" was timed for "after Labor Day." The Times article quoted then-White House chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.: "From a marketing point of view ... you don't introduce new products in August."



http://mediamatters.org/items/200610290003

 

[Janer]

Be the Hokey it is now time to fall on your sword/