05 November, 2006

Saddam Hussein sentenced to death

from here...

"Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been convicted of crimes against humanity by a Baghdad court and sentenced to death by hanging."

35 comments:

Seabee said...

The timing has nothing to do with the US mid-term elections. Nothing. You hear?

Rejected said...

All is infavor for America not the Iraqi people.

click_310 said...

woot ?

MixMax said...

rejected, how is it in favor for America and not the Iraqi people? Isn't that sentence fair enough for souls of all innocent died under his regime??

Radha said...

I shudder to think how much more violent iraq is going to get upon this news!

Rejected said...

Yes but that just a tip of the ice berg. Do you think they would sentence the new government's members and Bush? No? Ok when they do I will believe all is in favor of Iraqi people.

marwan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
marwan said...

I'd rather see him rot in jail to the end of his days, than become a martyr.

Keefieboy said...

Rejected: the war in Iraq isn't on trial here. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the war (and I don't think there's many 'rights'), the fact is that Saddam Hussein is one evil git who's gonna swing for his crimes.

secretdubai said...

, the fact is that Saddam Hussein is one evil git who's gonna swing for his crimes.

Yes, but I feel quite sad about this nonetheless. I've always been extremely glad his sons were killed, but there was a glimpse of something human about Saddam. Or maybe he was just impressive in a really evil way, like Hitler. Someone that has certain outstanding abilities that you can't help but admire, but unfortunately is also morally bankrupt to the point of madness, and therefore extremely dangerous.

alisha said...

if we're talking about how much justice it has been for all kurdish victims, it's sad that all those people who die in bombings every day in Baghdad will still have to wait ages to feel vindicated....

Rejected said...

Yes Keefieboy and I encourage that kind of end to face every single criminal but to tell you the truth Iraqis are very tired of the whole violence. Saddam was forgotten since he was found in that hole and the rest is a play in favor of America's policy.
He was planted first place in ME/ Iraq and he was removed by them as well.
Iraqi people are the victims in every single case.

A lot of poeple I know were so eager to witness this day but they are not that happy at the end? Why? They lost more relatives during these three years than ever in Saddam's time.

Free Mind said...

He is been immortalized, he may swing, but like Hitler he will not be forgotten all that soon.

His captors, his judges, lawyers will all vanish in the sands of time - but Saddam will pop up in history and any conversation where ever US foreign policy is discussed, even if it is in the smallest of tea shops.

And yet innocent blood flows with no one to ask justice for them!

your man in al ain said...

he was good entertainment though... and i followed the news about him from young age onwards...
i remember asking my dad to explain democracy to me once when i read in the papers that Saddam won an election with 99,5%.

plus of course the many ways he defied this victor's justice were also most entertaining. the world is about to loose a criminal massmurderer, but also a great entertainer...

i, Bobo said...

"i read in the papers that Saddam won an election with 99,5%

I remember that, and I also remember hearing that some of the people marked their ballots with their own blood.

"All is infavor for America not the Iraqi people."

I say goodbye and good riddance -- and the idea that some people would attempt to equate the crimes of this pig to anyone or anything else is revolting and disrespectful to the victims of Saddam and the Bath Party...

There will be a time to speak of Iraq and the war -- perhaps that time is now -- but certainly not in the same breath as this murdering, thieving miscreant. They are two separate issues and we are truly blessed that an Iraqi court resolved at least one of them today.

moryarti said...

He should be left to rot in a cell instead. By executing him, they give him a legacy on a silver plate, make him a national hero or even a martyr… of which he deserves none.

Hesham said...

Saddam was a brutal dictator that had absolute power in Iraq, but this trial and verdict can never be legitimized for these simple reasons:

1. The trial was done under occupation, and all laws, trials and verdicts under an occupation will always leave some room to question the ability of the court to conduct a fair trial.
2. The current Iraqi government is nothing more than a loose web based to appease Shia and Kurdish factions that eased the occupation and have no legitimacy what so ever.
3. The case that was investigated basically boils down to that a group in southern Iraq attempted an assassination on Saddam and where put on trial and executed. An assassination attempt on the head of Government warrants execution in many constitutions around the world, and has been the law in Iraq way before the Ba’ath party. The noteworthy angle here, is that the political group that was involved in the assassination attempt now run the “new” government, and have the ability to change judges whenever is necessary.
4. As for mass graves, who is responsible for the 655,000 civilians killed since 2003 and the 1000 that are killed each week since then?

i, Bobo said...

"The trial was done under occupation, and all laws, trials and verdicts under an occupation will always leave some room to question the ability of the court to conduct a fair trial."

True, but so were the Nuremberg Tribunals.

"The current Iraqi government is nothing more than a loose web based to appease Shia and Kurdish factions that eased the occupation and have no legitimacy what so ever."

I think the current Iraqi government is far more legitimate than the former regime for two reasons:

First, it was elected under internationally supervised elections during which little or no fraud was detected. The United States can't even say that about their own elections.

Second, "Shia and Kurdish factions?" Are you kidding me? The Shia represent between 65-70% of the population, the Kurds between 15-20%. By referring to them as factions, you make it sound as if they're in the minority. They most decidedly ARE NOT A MINORITY and they bore the brunt of oppression under the Sunni dominated Bath Party.

You are essentially arguing against majority rule here.

"The noteworthy angle here, is that the political group that was involved in the assassination attempt now run the “new” government, and have the ability to change judges whenever is necessary."

What are your sources on government ties to Dujail? Prove it.

And Judges are removed or recuse themselves in the West sometimes. Given the extraordinary publicity and pressure, I'm not surprised that Rizgar Amin resigned in protest -- he could control neither his courtroom or the people in it.

"As for mass graves, who is responsible for the 655,000 civilians killed since 2003 and the 1000 that are killed each week since then?

I don't know how many people have been killed in Iraq -- one source says 45,000, the BBC says 100,000, Johns Hopkins says 655,000 -- one thing I think we can agree on is that it is an abominable number. Having said that, the number has absolutely nothing to do with this case. You want to charge GWB with war crimes at the Hague? Maybe you have a point, maybe you don't. But it doesn't matter because what we're talking about right here, right now, are Saddam's actions at Dujail, on or around July 8, 1982.

And remember -- none of this factors in that he may also be tried for the "Anfal Campaign" of 1987-88, when over 50,000 Kurds were slaughtered.

Hesham said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hesham said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hesham said...

“True, but so were the Nuremberg Tribunals.”

Yes, but the war started because of Germany’s illegal invasion of other sovereign countries and mass slaughter of civilians.

In this case, Iraq was illiigally invaded and furthermore, the invasion was based on reasons that proved to be later on an utter lie and fabrication…

Additionally, the Nuremberg trials commenced based on the international law with unanimous agreement from the international community. This trial started based on a mandate from Paul Bremer, not even the feeble Iraqi representatives had any say in when to start the trial, and on what charges and even more importantly by which constitution.


In Iraq’s case, the opposite is true.

“I think the current Iraqi government is far more legitimate than the former regime for two reasons….”

You will have to prove that statement, and if I was you I would be careful before claiming that this government represents even a third of the Iraqis.

The shia maybe a majority sect in Iraq, but many, as the recent events have uncovered, most back the hawza .i.e Moqtada al Sadr, which in turn has nothing to do with the government and has banned his followers from even participating in the elections.

This is why calls for federation have increased in recent months, each party head wants to establish his private fiefdom and enjoy a free hand in almost all aspects of life for the citizens that live within their borders.

Additionally, who decided that these parties have any legitimate power base in Iraq? The only reason they were on the ballads in the first place because prior approval from the occupation forces. Not only does this decrease their legitimacy, it also says a lot about how the mechanics of the elections were devised…

As for international observers, well,…lol…just forget it…

"What are your sources on government ties to Dujail? Prove it."

Read any political leaflet or introductory material about the Da’wa party and you will know that they take pride in their involvement in the assassination attempt…

I don't know how many people have been killed in Iraq…

But you do know for sure how many where killed in the Anfal or Dujail cases? How? What are your sources?

And yes, yes.. we know by know that most don’t care how many Iraqis are killed for the sake of the all glorious democracy even though there are glaring example of failure for such projects in other regions of the world that have cost humanity many thousands of lives for nothing.

“Maybe you have a point, maybe you don't”

Maybe baby…

blogrosh said...

i bobo - just curious - now that Saddam has been sentenced, will there be a fair trial for the Cheneys & Rumsfleds, Bushs & Blairs?


I mean they are equally (if not more) responsible for hundreds & thousands of Iives lost/stolen too - ofcourse starting with a lie.

DG said...

"Crimes against humanity"

I don't have any sympathy for Saddam, but I am also not amused by this "charge" against him. It brought tears to my eyes. I can't imagine a "peaceful" life without the protection of Uncle Sam.

I agree with Blogrosh. Will we ever see Bush or Blair face similar charges in the near future? How many people died under Saddam's rule & how many have died since April 2003?

Rejected said...

Unless you are Iraqi who lived in Iraqi from 1979 till now you would understand.

These links are for two Iraqi bloggers who are the first to write about the trial.

Saddam's trail was to prove one thing and that thing is for American's favor and not for Iraqis. As if they care for Iraqis. Media do not cover .01% of the abuse and killing we are facing everyday on the hands of our government under America's eyes.

The two link:

http://firstwordsfirstwalkfirstiniraq.blogspot.com/


and

http://baghdadtreasure.blogspot.com/

Keefieboy said...

"the abuse and killing we are facing everyday on the hands of our government under America's eyes."

Hmmm...

Moona said...

sitting on a decent chair a big house and hot food and beverage, i can be against death penalty but what about the people who were touched by this horro? what wpuld they think?

SD i believe it is normal to see it like this "but there was a glimpse of something human about Saddam." you know why? i had the same opinion you have you know why? Because Saddam was achieved what he wanted, he reached what he wanted, which is natural in the human nature. His sons instead were loosers meaning that their father did bad things but he won something (unfotunately) while his sons were just loosers. There's no way to commisure the bad things he did with the death penalty

i, Bobo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
i, Bobo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
i, Bobo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
i, Bobo said...

Hesham:

I can't go through each item again and actually have a personal life, so I'll just comment on this one point and then walk away.

But you do know for sure how many where killed in the Anfal or Dujail cases? How? What are your sources?

According to the New York Times, 148 people were killed immediately after the Dujail incident and aproximately 50,000 were killed during the Anfal campaign -- and before we even go there, I have no idea where the Times got the figures. And maybe we should have a discussion on that some day.

Listen, I may agree with you that the war is wrong but that is so not the topic we were discussing, we were talking about Saddam being sentenced to death.

I suggest starting another topic to express our views about the war. You and me -- mano-a-mano, pistols at dawn...

blogrosh:

i bobo - just curious - now that Saddam has been sentenced, will there be a fair trial for the Cheneys & Rumsfleds, Bushs & Blairs?

Why not? Countries try people in absentia all the time. Former Heads of State and their advisors are charged with war crimes. Ever heard of Henry Kissinger? He was the Secretary of State for Presidents Nixon and Ford in the 1970's. He's been accused of war crimes with regard to US policy in Vietnam, Cyprus, Chile.... the list is actually quite lengthy.

Several organizations are actively pursuing a case against him at the War Crimes Tribunal of the International Criminal Court.

It comes down to this: if a government believes it has a case with regards to war crimes, it may file a grievance and seek redress not just from the the opposing country, but also from the individuals in that country who directed the crime.

August Pinochet and Slobodan Milosevic were just two of the individuals who were charged under these statutes.

And I'd say you have a case with Iraq -- because let's face it -- you (or Hesham, because he knows his stuff) could mount a pretty effective legal action. But you have to get into office, or rule, or get elected, or somehow get your governments to file that action.

One final example that will probably blow people's minds: did you know that if Palestine were a legally recognized country (in other words -- a sovereign state, a member of the UN, and not a territory) that it could charge the State of Israel with war crimes? It could actually use the same laws that presently shield Israel against it at the ICC.

I got to tell you, both cases be a pretty hard to disprove.

i, Bobo said...

One other thing on the numbers for Dujail and Anfal:

Human Rights Watch has the number for Anfal as "at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 persons." Go HERE for the full HRW report.

Dujail: I'm just going with the widely reported number of 148. I'll see if I can find the source of that number...

blogrosh said...

"Ever heard of Henry Kissinger?"

Yes - and he is very much active to this day within GWB & Cheyne's/Rumsfeld's offices and US foreign policy. A world renowned criminal who has the best political connections, remains scott free and continue to create human havoc using the highest levels of US power politicians.

So much for justice!

I am not American, however, I do not believe this is what the US founding father's had perceived when they put together this nation. Having said that, I believe if there is a place where the truth can eventually come out, it's best chance is the United States.

Hesham said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hesham said...

" can't go through each item again and actually have a personal life"

Pop corn debates and big mac argumnents is a way for life for some...

" suggest starting another topic to express our views about the war. You and me -- mano-a-mano, pistols at dawn..."

No offense, but no thanks, I have better things to do...

Al Mulhama, The Inspired said...

: Hesham....

How dare you.

it is unfortunate that you defend Saddam.

I wish you would have done that when you, your family and loved ones would have been under threat, abducted, tormented, tortured and belittled by him, THEN let me hear you defend him.

Post a Comment

NOTE: By making a post/comment on this blog you agree that you are solely responsible for its content and that you are up to date on the laws of the country you are posting from and that your post/comment abides by them.

To read the rules click here

If you would like to post content on this blog click here