• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Saddam Hussein's Trial Thread

KeyserXSoze

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
944
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3862875.stm
Gaddafi daughter to defend Saddam
The daughter of Libya's leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has joined Saddam Hussein's defence team.
Aisha Gaddafi, in her mid-20s, joins 20 to 30 lawyers involved in the ousted Iraqi leader's defence, lawyer Mohammed al-Rashdan told BBC News Online.

Mr Rashdan said it had not been decided what role the law graduate would play.

Saddam Hussein made his first court appearance on Thursday to hear seven preliminary charges read out to him, including genocide.

Colonel Gaddafi has publicly defended Saddam Hussein and berated Arab leaders who he accuses of co-operating with the US.

Death threats

Mr Rashdan, a Jordanian, said as many as 1,500 lawyers had expressed an interest in defending "President Saddam Hussein".

PRELIMINARY CHARGES
Anfal campaign against Kurds, late 1980s
Gassing Kurds in Halabja, 1988
Invasion of Kuwait , 1990
Crushing Kurdish and Shia rebellions after 1991 Gulf War
Killing political activists over 30 years
Massacring members of Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1980s
Killing religious leaders, 1974

But, he said, 20 to 30 were actively involved at the moment - from France, the UK, the US and Belgium, as well as Arab countries like Lebanon and Libya.
They wanted to travel to Iraq to see their client as soon as possible but wanted guarantees on security from Iraqi and US officials, Mr Rashdan said.

"We have been receiving many death threats" from Iraq, Mr Rashdan told BBC News Online, sometimes from Iraqi religious figures.

He said if no security guarantees were given, Saddam Hussein's lawyers would still go to Baghdad, accompanied by Western media journalists.
 
Iraq issues warrants for Chalabis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3547142.stm
An Iraqi judge says he has issued two arrest warrants for former Governing Council member Ahmed Chalabi and his nephew, Salem.

Ahmed Chalabi is wanted in connection with financial charges, the judge said.

He said Salem Chalabi, the head of the tribunal trying Saddam Hussein, is sought on suspicion of murder.

Ahmed Chalabi was once the Pentagon's favoured candidate to lead Iraq, but he fell from favour amid allegations of links to Iranian hardliners.
 
Wot, No Conspiracy Theories?

I'm surprised that some people aren't making more of this...

  • If Saddam was on trial for 'crimes against humanity', then why wasn't he tried at an international court, in a venue such as The Hague?

    Is there any link between the timing of the verdict and the imminent US mid-term elections?

    Did he get a fair trial? Amnesty International don't appear to think so...
 
Re: Wot, No Conspiracy Theories?

WhistlingJack said:
I'm surprised that some people aren't making more of this...

If Saddam was on trial for 'crimes against humanity', then why wasn't he tried at an international court, in a venue such as The Hague?

Because either a) the crimes he was charged with all took place in Iraq, against Iraqis, or b) the Hague can't pass a death sentence :roll:

WhistlingJack said:
Is there any link between the timing of the verdict and the imminent US mid-term elections?

Coincidence, surely? ;)

WhistlingJack said:
Did he get a fair trial? Amnesty International don't appear to think so...

Evidence of his guilt was produced, and only excuses in his defence, so it was fair as far as that goes. Mind you, everyone knew the verdict before the trial even started, so...
 
interesting timing for them to finally come to a conclusion, still, million to one shots come up nine times out of ten..
 
I heard an interesting discussion on the subject of the fairness of the trial on the Today programme.

To sum up briefly, America paid for the trial. ;)
 
I read in the morning paper today( here in the states) that they are going to hang him. I wonder how much more violence that will touch off or if it may be the spark that leads to total civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis...?
 
I'm not sticking up for Bush and Blair but i will say At least Saddam had a trial (of sorts) which is more than can be said for poor souls that suffered at his hands. I'm not pro death penalty but it sure is hard not to justify it in some cases especially Saddams.
There has been some very interesting debate going on about the trial all the same. It seems to me from what ive been listening to that most americans (who support the war) believe they made a mistake in bringing him in alive. Many analyists seem to think that it would have been better all round if they had blown his brains out straight away when they found the bugger.
 
escargot1 said:
To sum up briefly, America paid for the trial. ;)

I agree. I think it was something factions in the American government really needed and was going to happen by hook or by crook.

Also, I think with the way this conflict is panning out, with the end becoming this fuzzy amorphouse piecemeal affair, it's as close as the American government are going to get regarding offering some kind of closure.
 
I'm rather appalled that, for all our talk of installing an enlightened democratic spirit, they're still going to hang him. The death penalty is a repulsive and atavistic response suited to the hard-of-thinking. It is very rare that I applaud Blair - but his simple words on the matter:

"Britain opposes the death penalty whether it's Saddam or anybody else".

Brought nods of approval from me.
 
Well let's face it that's an easy moral stand for him to take. It can't possibly affect the ultimate outcome of the trial and any appeal, but it makes him look a compassionate caring human being.
As he's leaving the job in a few months, it doesn't matter what Dubya thinks of his namby pamby lily livered liberalism either.


Or maybe he's expressing a deeply held ethical belief, and I'm just a tad cynical in my old age.
 
He had to choose between Cherie and Wuh and finally came down on Cherie's side good Catholic girl that she is.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L05244002.htm

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Council for Justice and Peace, said that carrying out the death sentence by hanging would be an unjustifiably vindictive action.

"For me, punishing a crime with another crime -- which is what killing for vindication is -- would mean that we are still at the point of demanding an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," he was quoted as saying by Italian news agency Ansa.

"Unfortunately, Iraq is one of the few countries that have not yet made the civilised choice of abolishing the death penalty," said Martino, effectively the Pope's justice minister.

Martino raised the ire of the United States government three years ago when he said the U.S. troops had treated Saddam "like a cow" when they captured him.

Roman Catholic Church teaching is against the death penalty except in the most extreme circumstances, stating that modern society has all the means needed to render a criminal harmless for the rest of his natural life without capital punishment.

Jesuit priest Father Michele Simone, deputy director of the Vatican-approved Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica, said opposing the death penalty for Saddam did not mean accepting what he had done.

"Certainly, the situation in Iraq will not be resolved by this death sentence. Many Catholics, myself included, are against the death penalty as a matter of principle," he told Vatican Radio.
 
crunchy5 said:
Roman Catholic Church teaching is against the death penalty except in the most extreme circumstances, stating that modern society has all the means needed to render a criminal harmless for the rest of his natural life without capital punishment.

I thought this particularly interesting. I wonder what those "extreme circumstances" would be?
 
I'm generally speaking against the death penalty myself, but let's not forget that Saddam was hardly an 'ordinary' kind of killer. He was the leader of a sovereign state who used mass murder in order to consolidate his position. That's supposed to be unacceptable in today's world. Hopefully the message might just get through to the leaders of other countries (such as Sudan), that such acts will not be tolerated and that there is always a chance that the ultimate punishment will be administered to the perpetrators. It's long odds I know, but we can only hope.
 
TheCavynaut said:
I'm generally speaking against the death penalty myself, but let's not forget that Saddam was hardly an 'ordinary' kind of killer. He was the leader of a sovereign state who used mass murder in order to consolidate his position. That's supposed to be unacceptable in today's world. Hopefully the message might just get through to the leaders of other countries (such as Sudan), that such acts will not be tolerated and that there is always a chance that the ultimate punishment will be administered to the perpetrators. It's long odds I know, but we can only hope.

Considering that Saddam's acts of mass murder were largely backed by the Americans and British who put him power, there's something horribly hypocritical about the whole affair.
 
gncxx said:
Considering that Saddam's acts of mass murder were largely backed by the Americans and British who put him power, there's something horribly hypocritical about the whole affair.

Couldn't agree more, but that's no reason for letting Saddam get away with it. More a reason for questioning the leaders (past and present) of the Western countries who did business with Saddam, and the ultimately immoral way that power in the world is ordered and utilised.

But I won't be holding my breath. :(
 
Although I am usually oppsoed to death penalty, I am less concerned by the sentence than by some of its implications. After all, HUSSEIN was a mass murderer of the worst kind. And no one doubts his guilt. True, I'd prefer a life sentence, but I won't blow the thing out of all proportions. But if the former dictator is executed in the middle of the second trial, it would be an attempt to get rid of him. Because this trial could be much more damaging to north american and european powers. And it is not only a matter of political accountability for them, but of criminal responsibility too. The planning was conveniently made, with an affair unrelated to western governments coming first. Probably not a coincidence. And the law was designed to prevent any future appearance of the tyrant. With no possibility of pardon and above all of delaying the execution. Even for a motive in the general interest, as his appearance during the trial of genocide of Kurds would indisputably be.

And that this trial takes place under a harsh occupation, backed by the occupant, is worrying. The dichotomy between impunity for the occupation troops and their numerous violent acts and atrocities, and the judgments of members of the former regime will cause only more frustration and resentment. Leading to more resistance and violence.
 
jefflovestone said:
crunchy5 said:
Roman Catholic Church teaching is against the death penalty except in the most extreme circumstances, stating that modern society has all the means needed to render a criminal harmless for the rest of his natural life without capital punishment.

I thought this particularly interesting. I wonder what those "extreme circumstances" would be?

We're both OT but good point :?
 
I would guess extreme circumstances in this context would mean a political leader whose continued existence would inspire followers to prolong a campaign.

The situation in Iraq has left Saddam looking more like a piece of flotsam than a continued threat but his death penalty is not likely to deter others from seeking the bloody route to the throne. As a piece of theatre, it says, any vile dictator will be welcome so long as he toes the line of the real masters. Will it create a martyr to inspire followers? His own personality-cult now seems one rather small element in the factional wars which look set to erase the geographical anomaly he ruled by fear.

In some countries of the region, the preferred method of hanging is slow death by suspension from a crane. He may consider himself lucky if he goes via a drop. :|
 
It would be interesting if 'truth serum' injections were legal. What Saddam knows about western duplicity, other connections to corruption and governments in Europe, and even possible terror links would probably raise a few eyebrows.
I find it amazing that killing someone for their crimes is ok but we can't use such drugs to get at some truth.
:roll:
 
Analis said:
Although I am usually oppsoed to death penalty, I am less concerned by the sentence than by some of its implications. After all, HUSSEIN was a mass murderer of the worst kind. And no one doubts his guilt. True, I'd prefer a life sentence, but I won't blow the thing out of all proportions. But if the former dictator is executed in the middle of the second trial, it would be an attempt to get rid of him. Because this trial could be much more damaging to north american and european powers. And it is not only a matter of political accountability for them, but of criminal responsibility too. The planning was conveniently made, with an affair unrelated to western governments coming first. Probably not a coincidence. And the law was designed to prevent any future appearance of the tyrant. With no possibility of pardon and above all of delaying the execution. Even for a motive in the general interest, as his appearance during the trial of genocide of Kurds would indisputably be.

Hmmm... :?

Saddam 'executed by end of year'

Iraqi 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.

The former Iraqi leader was sentenced to death two days ago after being convicted of crimes against humanity.

Mr Maliki told the BBC that if the appeals court confirmed Saddam Hussein's sentence "it will be the government's responsibility to carry it out".

Saddam Hussein appeared in court again on Tuesday to continue his trial on a different set of charges which also carry the death penalty.

The former president is being tried with six others - all different from his previous co-defendants - for his role in a military campaign against ethnic Kurds in the late 1980s.

More than 180,000 people are alleged to have died in the Anfal campaign.

It is not clear if the Iraqi authorities will wait until the second trial is complete before they carry out the sentence in the first case.

An automatic appeal against the guilty verdict will be launched, to be decided by a panel of nine judges. If the death sentence is upheld, the execution must be carried out within 30 days.

Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging after being found guilty over the killing of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail following an assassination attempt on him in 1982.

Saddam Hussein was subdued in court on Tuesday, in contrast to his defiance on Sunday as his death sentence was read out.

Speaking to the court in the afternoon session, he cited references to the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus who had asked for forgiveness for those who had opposed them.

"I call on all Iraqis, Arabs and Kurds, to forgive, reconcile and shake hands," the former president told the court.

His call for mutual reconciliation came after he had respectfully challenged one witness' testimony.

Tuesday's first witness told the court that he and other men from his village had surrendered to Iraqi soldiers after being promised an amnesty.

Qahar Khalil Mohammed, a Kurd, then told the court how they were lined up and shot by the soldiers. He said he survived despite several wounds, but 33 other people from his village died.

Saddam Hussein rebutted the testimony, saying there was nobody who could verify Mr Mohammed's account. The trial has been adjourned and will be resumed Wednesday.

More trials are possible over Saddam Hussein's response to a 1991 Shia uprising and the repression of the people of Iraq's southern marshlands.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2006/11/07 20:55:39 GMT

© BBC MMVI
 
The only problem I see, about hanging S. Hussian, is that He'll become known as a martyr.
 
He should die. All this about the US and our gov. supplying weapons and gas to help kill innocents doesn't make much difference to me. It was Saddam who used it on people, regardless of where it came from and if he wouldn't have got it, he would have still killed innocents with glee. He's a nutter and has no link with reality. He lives in a medieval world where opression and fear are means to keep humans under "control". Now he's caught out and considering his crimes, he has to be "put down" especially if there are still sympathisers around. You'd do it to a dog who kills, no questions asked and if it was HItler in the dock you'd ask for the same...or not?
I'd be interested if Hitler would have to be treated humanely nowadays...
 
Dingo667: "You'd do it to a dog who kills . . . "

Probably. You would also ask a few questions about who owned it or trained it. The notion that tyrants are nutters with no link to reality has a certain primitive appeal. Like sawing off a tumour. :?
 
So who "trained" Saddam?
Was it his parents, his brothers? Don't tell me it was the evil west again...
As to the tumor analogy:
Cutting most of a tumor out will have a life prolonging effect on a patient even if it has spread a little. The rest can then be treated with radio or chemo therapy. If you leave it in...I'm afraid its "goodnight sweetheart" a little earlier than expected. Same with old SH.
 
Dingo667 said:
So who "trained" Saddam?
Was it his parents, his brothers? Don't tell me it was the evil west again....
'Fraid so!

Saddam's early career was as a CIA agent.
 
dr_wu said:
It would be interesting if 'truth serum' injections were legal. What Saddam knows about western duplicity, other connections to corruption and governments in Europe, and even possible terror links would probably raise a few eyebrows.
I find it amazing that killing someone for their crimes is ok but we can't use such drugs to get at some truth.
:roll:
'Course, the other possibility is that death is the best way to guarantee his silence. The people with the access to both Saddam and said drugs are the self same people who really, really don't want a lot of what he knows out in the open.

Possibly.

Nah, pound to a penny they've already mined what they could successfully get from him. As was pointed out ages ago, it's more than probable that they captured him some time before they announced it. There is evidence of sorts, such as the palms around his bolt-hole being at an earlier stage of fruiting than at the time that they declared they'd "got him".
 
stuneville said:
The people with the access to both Saddam and said drugs are the self same people who really, really don't want a lot of what he knows out in the open.

Snippets of history:
Then take a look at US foreign policy towards Iraq since the end of WW2. In the late 1950's the CIA was giving assistance to the Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein in overthrowing the government and attempting to assasinate the Prime Minister Qassim over concerns about growing ties to the Communists. By 1976 Saddam Hussein was considered a enemy of Communism and radical Islam. He was integral to US policy in the region, which sought to weaken Iranian and Soviet influences. During the Iran-Iraq War that lasted most of the 1980's, Saddam Hussein and Iraq represented the secular Arab state that would stand in the breach against the expansion of Islamic fundamentalism. There are photos from this period of Donald Rumsfeld warmly shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, our ally in the Middle East!
http://www.flickr.com/groups/3523709221 ... 281452931/

In 1958, a year after Saddam had joined the Ba'ath party, army officers led by General Abdul Karim Qassim overthrew Faisal II of Iraq. The Ba'athists opposed the new government, and in 1959, Saddam was involved in the attempted United States-backed plot to assassinate Qassim.[12]

Saddam was shot in the leg, but escaped to Tikrit with the help of CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents. Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred to Beirut for a brief CIA training course. From there he moved to Cairo where he made frequent visits to the American embassy. During this time the CIA placed him in a upper-class apartment observed by CIA and Egyptian operatives. (UPI 'analysis' article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam

On 7 October 1959, anti-communist Ba ath Party member Saddam Hussein, with five others, attempted to assassinate Kassem, but this CIA supported plot failed. Slightly injured, Saddam went to Beirut where he received CIA training while living in an apartment maintained by them. Saddam Hussein was created, bought and paid for by America's CIA. Potential dictators rarely succeed without sustained support coupled with ulterior agendas. After training in Beirut, he lived in Cairo, where he made numerous visits to the American Embassy "where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and CIA Station Chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence". [5]
He returned to Iraq after the assassination of Kassem on 8 February 1963. This coup was planned by Richard Helms and orchestrated by William Lakeland, the U.S. assistant military attaché in Baghdad. Richard Helms was the Director for Plans at the CIA, the top position responsible for covert actions. This coup put the Ba ath Party in power for the first time, though not for long. [6]

Saddam Hussein then became head of the Al-Jihaz al-Khas, the clandestine Ba athist Intelligence organization whose objective was to remove political opposition. The new CIA sponsored regime soon abolished Kassem's anti-American policies. Not only were Kassem's policies wiped out but thousands of his communist supporters were purged by the CIA's compliant machine gun toting Iraqi National Guardsmen.

Persecution reigned driven by CIA intelligence. This intelligence was received from dissidents or agents and contained the names of certain Iraqi professionals (always the first to go via a multitude of methods) such as doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors. Up to 10,000 people were either imprisoned or murdered. The new regime waged a vendetta against the Kurds. No one was spared - pregnant women, children. Without the CIA's bloody involvement, the small Arab socialistic nationalist Ba ath Party's efforts would have failed. The CIA used the willing Ba ath Party who had close connections to the military. In return, the party agreed to the eradication of the leftists and communists. [7]

Saddam and the CIA see nothing wrong with eliminating enemies. People are expendable under particular circumstances and objectives. It is the epitome of situational justifications. Saddam Hussein when once questioned by an interviewer about disposing of one's opponents said the following: "What do you expect if they oppose the regime?" If a country's leader will not be manipulated then assassination is apparently justified according to the One World Order agenda. This frequently used methodology is a type and model for all countries.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna11.htm
 
stuneville said:
As was pointed out ages ago, it's more than probable that they captured him some time before they announced it. There is evidence of sorts, such as the palms around his bolt-hole being at an earlier stage of fruiting than at the time that they declared they'd "got him".
And the fact that, when he was found, he looked just like that Zeke character from Lost. I reckon Saddam had been filmimg in Hawaii, but had only been allowed to sign on for one series, due to "other (or Others) commitments".
 
Back
Top