/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Saddam Trial Flawed: HRW



sonz
11-20-2006, 07:34 PM
NEW YORK — The trial of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity was fundamentally flawed and the death penalty is unsound and indefensible, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) said on Monday, November 20.

"The trial... was marred by so many procedural and substantive flaws that the verdict is unsound," the rights watchdog said in a statement released with its 97-page report on the trial.

"The proceedings in the Dujail trial were fundamentally unfair," said Nehal Bhuta, who wrote the report.

Saddam was sentenced to death by hanging earlier this month over ordering the deaths of 148 Shiite civilians, mostly boys and men, from the town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, after an assassination attempt in 1982.

Two other defendants were also sentenced to death while four were sentenced to prison terms of from 15 years to life.

Among specific criticisms of Saddam's trial, the HRW says the court regularly failed to disclose key evidence to the defense in advance and defendants were denied the basic right to confront witnesses against them.

It said the trial saw "lapses of judicial demeanor" which made the presiding judge appear partial and there were "important gaps" in evidence that weakened the prosecution's case, putting in doubt the proof of the crimes charged.

The report is based on 10 months of observation and dozens of interviews with judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers.

While the verdict and sentences are under appeal, Saddam, who was forced from power by the US-led invasion in March 2003, is being tried on separate charges for genocide.

"Indefensible"

The HRW said the imposition of the death penalty in the wake of an unfair trial is "indefensible".

The HRW says the court that tried Saddam and seven co-defendants "was undermined from the outset by Iraqi government actions that threatened the independence and perceived impartiality of the court."

"The attitude of the cabinet towards the court and the trial is one of a consumer who pays money for a product," one judge told HRW. "The government treats the court like a factory."

"In addition, the imposition of the death penalty - an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment - in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible."

The report described the behavior of second chief judge Raouf Abdel Rahman in court as erratic for repeatedly losing his temper, insulting defendants and making unexplained decisions, in one case refusing to let a defense lawyer question his own witness.

Relations between Rahman and defense counsel, who frequently boycotted proceedings, were "poisoned", the it added.

Because Iraqi lawyers and judges had been isolated from international criminal law, the report says, this decision resulted in a court that lacked the expertise to prosecute crimes against humanity on its own.

"Unless the Iraqi government allows experienced international judges and lawyers to participate directly, it's unlikely the court can fairly conduct other trials."

The US-led Coalition Provisional Authority decided that the Dujail trial would be held by an Iraqi court in Iraq, ruling out an international tribunal or a mixed Iraqi-international court under UN auspices.

Throughout the trial, three defense lawyers were murdered, three judges left the five-member panel and the original chief judge was replaced.

While Saddam's appeal is under consideration, governments in Europe, where most countries ban capital punishment, have led calls for his death sentence to be commuted.

But US President George W. Bush, who admitted that US intelligences that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were flawed, has described the conviction and sentence as "a major achievement" for Iraq.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1163656936818&pagename=Z one-English-News/NWELayout
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Trumble
11-20-2006, 10:47 PM
The trouble with that sort of trial is that there is no way, in practice, it couldn't be flawed in some way or another.

I'm not quite sure what could be done, though. A re-trial is likely to be just as flawed as the first one, and as nobody in the position to make decisions (or anybody else, really) actually believes Saddam is anything other than guilty he is unlikely to get one. It would just mean more dead defence lawyers - assuming they got any volunteers for the job.

I agree that about all it would be practical to do is commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. They can hardly release him.
Reply

Ghazi
11-20-2006, 11:13 PM
:sl:

Lesson to be learned: Don't be a dictator you'll meet a nasty and bloody end.
Reply

Muezzin
11-22-2006, 12:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
The trouble with that sort of trial is that there is no way, in practice, it couldn't be flawed in some way or another.
Mm-hmm.

I'm not quite sure what could be done, though. A re-trial is likely to be just as flawed as the first one, and as nobody in the position to make decisions (or anybody else, really) actually believes Saddam is anything other than guilty he is unlikely to get one. It would just mean more dead defence lawyers - assuming they got any volunteers for the job.
It was actually kind of darkly funny what happened to his defence team. Unless I'm just a weirdo.

I agree that about all it would be practical to do is commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. They can hardly release him.
If he does get life imprisonment, they should slip him cyanide pills. Lots of cyanide pills.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
AvarAllahNoor
12-27-2006, 06:49 PM
Well he's to hang within 30 days. Sad in a way, as the americans and others knew he was killing kurds, but chose to ignore it because it suited them at that time. Let them too be hung in public!

A quote from some people who agreed with saddam!

'Meanwhile, some Hussein loyalists threatened to retaliate if the ousted Iraqi leader is executed, warning in a posting on the same Baath Party Web site that carried the former leader's letter they would target U.S. interests anywhere.'

This is what happens when people do as they please. It'll be a grave mistake to hang him. Let him be imprisoned.

Think carefully ameica.
Reply

Keltoi
12-27-2006, 09:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Well he's to hang within 30 days. Sad in a way, as the americans and others knew he was killing kurds, but chose to ignore it because it suited them at that time. Let them too be hung in public!

A quote from some people who agreed with saddam!

'Meanwhile, some Hussein loyalists threatened to retaliate if the ousted Iraqi leader is executed, warning in a posting on the same Baath Party Web site that carried the former leader's letter they would target U.S. interests anywhere.'

This is what happens when people do as they please. It'll be a grave mistake to hang him. Let him be imprisoned.

Think carefully ameica.
Think carefully America? It wasn't an American justice system that sentenced him to death. You can't have it both ways, either you want an independent Iraqi justice system or you don't. As for the "warning" from the Ba'athists, that is hardly shocking news.
Reply

Zone Maker
12-27-2006, 10:36 PM
That wasn't even a trial it was more like a T.V. show at least you can make some sense out of them unlike the trial. The last judge was high tempered, many details were missing from the so-called evidence, good lawyers left sdam's side after they were threatened and what is going on with stopping many important parts of the trial from being live (on Air). Obviously the judgment has been already made (by the government) even before the trial. It must not be called a trial it was more like a child's play ground.

:w:
Reply

Dahir
12-27-2006, 10:56 PM
I think Saddam is being kept alive due to delays for only one reason:

If all else fails and the US backs out; it'll definately back one side in the ensuing sectarian civil war, and that's the Sunnis. So things will actually go as they've always been.

Since the Sunnis and the Shias are pursuing religious ideals; the US will re-install Saddam as head of state; and he DOES still have at least a few million loyal followers.

Saddam will revive the (sinister) Ba'ath party and he will defeat the Shias in a matter of weeks.

And Iraq will be all-well again, besides having a brutal dictator; and we will be back to life circa 2002.


Good Night, folks! :omg:
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-28-2006, 01:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
It wasn't an American justice system that sentenced him to death. You can't have it both ways, either you want an independent Iraqi justice system or you don't. As for the "warning" from the Ba'athists, that is hardly shocking news.
Is your mind closed? Iraqi system is based on favourable terms with the US. So don't give me that crap. This is the democracy US want to dish out. Because they need a hold, NOTHING ''independent'' about it! :rollseyes
Reply

aby5y
12-28-2006, 01:11 PM
Yeah we all know it was an unfair trial...Its a big joke...
Reply

Keltoi
12-28-2006, 04:05 PM
How exactly could the trial be "fair?" You aren't going to find many people in Iraq who think Saddam is innocent of the charges. That is liking saying the trials of former Nazi leaders weren't fair because the evidence was so overwhelming against them. As for the Iraqi justice system being designed to be "favorable" to the U.S., how exactly is a justice system in Iraq "favorable" to the U.S.? It's a nice phrase, but has little substance without an example of how or why any particular justice system is favorable to the U.S.
Reply

IzakHalevas
12-28-2006, 04:21 PM
The trial of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity was fundamentally flawed and the death penalty is unsound and indefensible
Thousands of Kurds would disagree if they could get out of their mass graves.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-28-2006, 06:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IzakHalevas
Thousands of Kurds would disagree if they could get out of their mass graves.
You forget others were involved. What do you say about that?

Yes, he needs to be dealt with, but don't make out it was him acting alone. The west are held responisble too. Or will you and Ketoi deny this?
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-28-2006, 06:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
How exactly could the trial be "fair?" You aren't going to find many people in Iraq who think Saddam is innocent of the charges. That is liking saying the trials of former Nazi leaders weren't fair because the evidence was so overwhelming against them. As for the Iraqi justice system being designed to be "favorable" to the U.S., how exactly is a justice system in Iraq "favorable" to the U.S.? It's a nice phrase, but has little substance without an example of how or why any particular justice system is favorable to the U.S.
When you have an invading force pulling the strings then the puppets can only dance. Work it out! :)
Reply

Keltoi
12-28-2006, 06:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
You forget others were involved. What do you say about that?

Yes, he needs to be dealt with, but don't make out it was him acting alone. The west are held responisble too. Or will you and Ketoi deny this?
The "West" is no more responsible for what Saddam Hussein did as they were for what Hitler did. Yes, people were aware of the danger and the intentions, but it wasn't the U.S. who pulled the trigger or made the decision. Blaming the West seems to be in fashion around here, but let us put the blame where it belongs, on the guy in charge who ordered the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.
Reply

Keltoi
12-28-2006, 06:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
When you have an invading force pulling the strings then the puppets can only dance. Work it out! :)
So you are suggesting that without an invasion Saddam wouldn't be on trial? Quite perceptive.
Reply

Woodrow
12-28-2006, 06:42 PM
I doubt if there is any way that the trial could have been conducted without it being flawed. I think the only questions are "Was it a fair trial and was Justice served?"
Reply

Keltoi
12-28-2006, 06:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I doubt if there is any way that the trial could have been conducted without it being flawed. I think the only questions are "Was it a fair trial and was Justice served?"
You also have to consider what justice means to the various factions within Iraq. The Kurds will of course find justice in Saddam's execution, the same with many Shia. However, many Sunnis will not call it justice because they had control under Saddam. There is no perfect or right answer here, which is why I support a life-sentence over the death penalty in this case. That being said, I think it is fairly obvious to most people that Saddam is guilty as charged.
Reply

Muezzin
12-28-2006, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The "West" is no more responsible for what Saddam Hussein did as they were for what Hitler did. Yes, people were aware of the danger and the intentions, but it wasn't the U.S. who pulled the trigger or made the decision. Blaming the West seems to be in fashion around here, but let us put the blame where it belongs, on the guy in charge who ordered the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.
I wish people would apply that logic when judging Muslims who allegedly do nothing to stop certain violent minorities committing atrocities.

I'm not saying you're like that. I agree with the logic. Blame the blameworthy.
Reply

Woodrow
12-28-2006, 06:49 PM
Agreed. The trial was a lose-lose situation. No matter what the outcome was there still would be many people seeing it as unfair.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-28-2006, 06:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
So you are suggesting that without an invasion Saddam wouldn't be on trial? Quite perceptive.
Who was going to try him? the kurds? the shia? Please enlighten me! Because had saddam not turned against US, he'd still be sitting in his gold palaces.
Reply

Keltoi
12-28-2006, 06:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
I wish people would apply that logic when judging Muslims who allegedly do nothing to stop certain violent minorities committing atrocities.

I'm not saying you're like that. I agree with the logic. Blame the blameworthy.
These are two different problems. Those who commit atrocities and those who silently ignore them. Both are a problem. On the subject you raised, I do not blame Islam as a religion for terrorism and suicide murder, I blame people. On the issue of Saddam and Iraq, many in the West knew of his intentions and the danger he posed to groups within Iraq and did nothing until it was politically beneficial to do so. That is another problem in itself, but a far different one than being the homicidal maniac himself(Saddam).
Reply

Woodrow
12-28-2006, 06:54 PM
Because had saddam not turned against US, he'd still be sitting in his gold palaces.
Very true.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-28-2006, 06:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The "West" is no more responsible for what Saddam Hussein did as they were for what Hitler did. Yes, people were aware of the danger and the intentions, but it wasn't the U.S. who pulled the trigger or made the decision. Blaming the West seems to be in fashion around here, but let us put the blame where it belongs, on the guy in charge who ordered the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.
For a Christian you only seem to see things black and white. Saddam didn't kill 6 million (although numbers are not relevant)

If Hussein is executed for his crimes, then Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pinnochet, Kissinger, Reagan, Thatcher, and endless amounts of other leaders should be too. (those that still live) His crimes, although extremely horrendous, are no worse than hundreds of others who due to propaganda are heroes. Hussein used chemical weapons, but so did the USA in Vietnam and Desert Storm, as did Thatcher in the Falklands.

All as bad as each other!

Btw - We're in Iraq now, have we made it safer??
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-28-2006, 06:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Very true.
Of course it's true! - I just get frustrated when people jump on the bandwagon without checking the whole facts!
Reply

Keltoi
12-28-2006, 07:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Who was going to try him? the kurds? the shia? Please enlighten me! Because had saddam not turned against US, he'd still be sitting in his gold palaces.
Actually, the U.S. turned against Saddam Hussein. During the 70's and 80's, the U.S. supported Iraq because of what was percieved as the greatest threat to stability in the region, which was Iran. Throw the Cold War in the mix and it starts to make sense. That doesn't mean the U.S. wasn't supporting a guy they knew was going to be a problem, but the policy makers in D.C. weighed the pros and cons and decided supporting Saddam Hussein during this time period was best for U.S. interests. This "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality has been used since the dawn of time. After the Iraq-Iran War, and the end of the Cold War, the U.S. changed its tune, especially after Saddam invaded Kuwait.

As for the trial, I fail to see your point really. Of course the Kurds and Shia couldn't put Saddam on trial, he dominated them. The U.S. invaded and suddenly those who were once dominated found themselves on equal footing with the old regime. Are you angry that the Sunni aren't dominating the Kurds and Shia anymore? What exactly would you have preferred?
Reply

Kidman
12-28-2006, 07:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The "West" is no more responsible for what Saddam Hussein did as they were for what Hitler did. Yes, people were aware of the danger and the intentions, but it wasn't the U.S. who pulled the trigger or made the decision. Blaming the West seems to be in fashion around here, but let us put the blame where it belongs, on the guy in charge who ordered the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.
True... but they did "help" Saddam in the same ways they are helping Israel kill off innocent Palestinians today!
Reply

Keltoi
12-28-2006, 07:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kidman
True... but they did "help" Saddam in the same ways they are helping Israel kill off innocent Palestinians today!
The propoganda aside, I suppose you are referring to economic and military aid? The truth is that Israel has little need of U.S. military aid at this point. In fact, Israel is actually fairly important to the United States because of their new Thor anti-IED explosive technology.
Reply

Hisbul_Aziz
12-28-2006, 07:12 PM
So i wonder what the U.S is gonna pick this is defiantly a tough situation :exhausted
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-28-2006, 07:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Actually, the U.S. turned against Saddam Hussein. During the 70's and 80's, the U.S. supported Iraq because of what was percieved as the greatest threat to stability in the region, which was Iran. Throw the Cold War in the mix and it starts to make sense. That doesn't mean the U.S. wasn't supporting a guy they knew was going to be a problem, but the policy makers in D.C. weighed the pros and cons and decided supporting Saddam Hussein during this time period was best for U.S. interests. This "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality has been used since the dawn of time. After the Iraq-Iran War, and the end of the Cold War, the U.S. changed its tune, especially after Saddam invaded Kuwait.

As for the trial, I fail to see your point really. Of course the Kurds and Shia couldn't put Saddam on trial, he dominated them. The U.S. invaded and suddenly those who were once dominated found themselves on equal footing with the old regime. Are you angry that the Sunni aren't dominating the Kurds and Shia anymore? What exactly would you have preferred?
Saddam had an extended favorable history with the US up until the invasion of Kuwait. So why did they not stop him killing those kurds for whom you seem to express SO much love for all of a sudden?

Let's 'liberate' Darfur, is that a wothy cause? Oh yes, let the African Union deal with that....:rollseyes

Read the above posts, i said he should be held acccountable but stop making out we're ridding the world of the Anti Christ!
Reply

Keltoi
12-28-2006, 07:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
For a Christian you only seem to see things black and white. Saddam didn't kill 6 million (although numbers are not relevant)

If Hussein is executed for his crimes, then Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pinnochet, Kissinger, Reagan, Thatcher, and endless amounts of other leaders should be too. (those that still live) His crimes, although extremely horrendous, are no worse than hundreds of others who due to propaganda are heroes. Hussein used chemical weapons, but so did the USA in Vietnam and Desert Storm, as did Thatcher in the Falklands.

All as bad as each other!

Btw - We're in Iraq now, have we made it safer??
For a Christian huh? Okay, for a Sikh you seem pick and choose what things you wish to believe. There is no evidence of any chemical weapons use by the U.S. in Iraq, unless you are referring to white phosphorous, which is used with many tank shells because they do major damage to the structure of enemy tanks. As for Vietnam, yes they were used, primarily to clear jungle undergrowth. Completely off topic of course.

Saddam Hussein purposely and maliciously slaughtered Kurdish men, women, and children, not to mention the thousands of others he killed in torture chambers, rape rooms, and the old fashioned beheading in front of wives and children. You can believe other world leaders deserve to be punished too, that is obviously your right, but does that really equate to Saddam being abused because he is answering for his crimes?
Reply

Keltoi
12-28-2006, 07:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Saddam had an extended favorable history with the US up until the invasion of Kuwait. So why did they not stop him killing those kurds for whom you seem to express SO much love for all of a sudden?

Let's 'liberate' Darfur, is that a wothy cause? Oh yes, let the African Union deal with that....:rollseyes

Read the above posts, i said he should be held acccountable but stop making out we're ridding the world of the Anti Christ!
I don't believe I ever mentioned the anti-Christ. As for stopping Saddam from killing the Kurds, I'm sure we all wish that had happened. Just as we all wish the world had stopped the genocide in Germany, Rwanda, and yes, Darfur.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-28-2006, 07:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
As for stopping Saddam from killing the Kurds, I'm sure we all wish that had happened. Just as we all wish the world had stopped the genocide in Germany, Rwanda, and yes, Darfur.
Well, at least we agree on something.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-28-2006, 07:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
You can believe other world leaders deserve to be punished too, that is obviously your right, but does that really equate to Saddam being abused because he is answering for his crimes?
No! He should be tried, but your failure to recognise the rest who are responsible baffles me!

Like i said, is Iraq any safer now it's under our control?
Reply

Woodrow
12-28-2006, 08:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
No! He should be tried, but your failure to recognise the rest who are responsible baffles me!

Like i said, is Iraq any safer now it's under our control?
No Iraq is even less safe at the moment. However I think a big question needs to be answered. What is going to happen when the US and other forces pull out?

We are responsible for a big mess in Irag and have pushed Iraq into chaos. We have a responsibility to repair the damage.

What is the best way to repair what we have done? Or is it best to just get out and let the country become whatever it becomes?
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-29-2006, 06:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
No Iraq is even less safe at the moment. However I think a big question needs to be answered. What is going to happen when the US and other forces pull out?

We are responsible for a big mess in Irag and have pushed Iraq into chaos. We have a responsibility to repair the damage.

What is the best way to repair what we have done? Or is it best to just get out and let the country become whatever it becomes?
It's Chaos now. It can't get any worse really. - And to be honest, i have no idea what the solution is!
Reply

glo
12-29-2006, 11:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I doubt if there is any way that the trial could have been conducted without it being flawed. I think the only questions are "Was it a fair trial and was Justice served?"
What do you think, Woodrow?
Is justice done by Saddam getting the death penalty?

Peace
Reply

Snowflake
12-29-2006, 12:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
What do you think, Woodrow?
Is justice done by Saddam getting the death penalty?

Peace
I believe no crime goes unpunished If it isn't punished in this world then we know it will be in the next. I think people are finding the death penalty a little harsh because saddam's fate is in the spotlight and his victims are just a statistic, which kind of makes their tragedy surreal.

No harm can come to anyone if Allah doesn't will it. If that's the death penalty then so be it. He Alone is the Decider of fates.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
12-29-2006, 01:27 PM
If Saddam was not to be put to death every member would say it was a "western conspiracy" and how the USA did this trial unfairly. There is no winnign here. This thread has nothing to do with the trial or case, or if it was fair for that matter, it has to do with bashing the west because if you don't go over a week not doing it, I have a feeling some people here would implode.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-29-2006, 01:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
If Saddam was not to be put to death every member would say it was a "western conspiracy" and how the USA did this trial unfairly. There is no winnign here. This thread has nothing to do with the trial or case, or if it was fair for that matter, it has to do with bashing the west because if you don't go over a week not doing it, I have a feeling some people here would implode.
lol - Not on my part. I agree with most things. But saying we should all just agree with what has happened without questioning is foolish.

I don't hate the west. Sikhs have intergrated very well into society.
Reply

Woodrow
12-29-2006, 04:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
What do you think, Woodrow?
Is justice done by Saddam getting the death penalty?

Peace
Ironicaly I believe justice is served, but for the wrong reason.


Although I am not in favor of the Death Penalty, I do support the right for it to be enforced.

This was a lose-lose situation from the first day of the trial. It was not a trial, it was a mixed political statement. True justice for Saddam will not take place in this world. They purpose of the trial and a resemblance of justice being meted out by a questionable legal authority, will be subjects of debate for many years to come.

The simple fact is if he actually did what he is accused of, he has received the prescribed penalty and in that sense justice on Earth is served.

My concern is that the trial will be used as a means to promote personal agendas of many people who have ulterior motives.
Reply

glo
12-29-2006, 06:01 PM
Thank you, Woodrow. It is always good to hear your thoughts and views.
Reply

smartcard
12-29-2006, 06:04 PM
It is too late to discuss whether death sentence is fair or not, based on the current hour news he has already been handed over from US custody to Iraqi Govt., the report says that he will be hanged within 24 hours

Hanging him on Saturday (tomorrow) which will be an Eid festival day for all the Muslims will be a very big mistake. First of all it is the responsibility of the current Iraqi rulers to postpone it or convince the US whom I assume is pressing for it.

If Saddam will be executed tomorrow (Eid day), it will be another major mistake on Iraq by US.
Reply

SilentObserver
12-29-2006, 06:33 PM
This report condemning the trial originated with Human Rights Watch. Where were they when Sadaam was murdering kurds?

Noone disagrees with the fact that Sadaam did in fact kill many kurds, etc. The prescribed penalty for murder by the Quran is death (2:178), why would anyone here be against Sadaam being punished accordingly?
Reply

ckerofilm
12-29-2006, 06:43 PM
The trial was just for the rest of the world to 'see' because i reality it doesn't matter what is the outcome -it had already been decided even before the trial took place
Reply

ManchesterFolk
12-29-2006, 06:51 PM
There is so much dispair when Israel bombs a house in Lebanon full of guys who are making rockets to shoot at them, but then Saddam commits genocide against Kurds and everyone is saying the trial which announces him guilty is at fault.

Pretty odd from my stand point.
Reply

SilentObserver
12-29-2006, 07:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ckerofilm
The trial was just for the rest of the world to 'see' because i reality it doesn't matter what is the outcome -it had already been decided even before the trial took place
Do you believe him to be innocent?
Reply

Muezzin
12-29-2006, 07:35 PM
Saddam was obviously guilty from the get-go. Trying him in Iraq would inherently compromise his chances.

I didn't really see the point of this show trial, but it happened and he's going to hang for his crimes. I can understand where people are coming from when they say that he should rot in prison rather than die, but I think capital punishment befits genocidal maniacs.
Reply

worldpolice
12-30-2006, 04:30 PM
- Saddam was no saint.
- Saddam was indeed a dictator and a western powered watch dog.
- However Saddam's Tribunal was/is illegal. This Tribunal was set up UNDER occupation and the orders came from the White House via a puppet govt.,
- The choice of this particular religious day of Sacrifice during which Saddam's death was carried out represnet a humiliating smack in the face of the Iraqis (Sunniis + Shiis), of the Arab Nation & of the Muslim Umma.

- How can the rapist be the judge at the same time?!!!

- What about the other guilty men on the other side of the ocean?!!!

- Will you let them go free and unharmed?!!!
Reply

worldpolice
12-30-2006, 04:42 PM
I also would like to make one thing clear,

His execution served the bush and western administrations more than the people of Iraq.

I believe the Dujail case was chosen not because it was the easiest to convict on but because its verdict would have the least consequences for the rest of the world.

To convict and execute saddam for anfal and Halabja would implicate many western powers and possible see further trials of western businessmen and politicians. I think most of us can agree on this?

Also, as i said, the legally recognised crime of genocide against Kurds would put them in a much stronger position on the international scene which i dont think anybody wants.
Reply

Trumble
12-30-2006, 05:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by worldpolice
I also would like to make one thing clear,

His execution served the bush and western administrations more than the people of Iraq.
Possibly, although that doesn't mean it didn't 'serve' the people of Iraq. There seems little doubt that, as far as the great majority are concerned, it did. I'd add that virtually every 'Western Administration' bar the US made representations that Saddam not be executed.. although that is primarily the consequence of the fact that the death penalty is forbidden by the EU constitution.

I believe the Dujail case was chosen not because it was the easiest to convict on but because its verdict would have the least consequences for the rest of the world.
Possible. You make a good point regarding the Kurds.

To convict and execute saddam for anfal and Halabja would implicate many western powers and possible see further trials of western businessmen and politicians. I think most of us can agree on this?
Again, possible. Nobody would be tried though.. by who? And at the end of the day it is the person who uses the weapons who is ultimately responsible, not those who supply them or the materials to make them. That certainly doesn't excuse their actions, but some consideration needs to be given to motivation, which in the case of the US was primarily concerned with Cold War politics. No reason not to consider the consequences, of course, but it is a reason that any trial of politicians at least would most likely fail. Those most directly concerned are now dead, anyway.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-28-2011, 11:28 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-16-2006, 04:23 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-22-2006, 05:25 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!