Friday, September 02, 2005

Official: Saddam's Trial to Begin in Oct.

Iraqi authorities plan to put Saddam Hussein on trial within five days after the Oct. 15 referendum on the new constitution, an official close to the proceedings said Thursday.

The official spoke after government spokesman Laith Kubba announced that Iraq had carried out its first executions since Saddam was ousted in 2003. Three men were hanged at 10 a.m. in a Baghdad prison for murdering three policemen.

U.S. officials scrapped the death penalty in 2003 but Iraqi authorities reinstated it after the transfer of sovereignty so they would have the option of executing Saddam if he is convicted of crimes committed during his regime.

full story Here


Anonymous Woody said...

He'll get a fairer trial than the people whom he had run through the plastic shredders, putting them feet first to let them see their fate unfold and to draw out the pain. Let's have a fair trial and then stone him. Too bad Johnny Cochran isn't around to defend him.

September 02, 2005 5:38 pm  
Anonymous somethingsphishy said...

Yeah woody, but the D.U we have showered a majority of Iraq in is way more humane.

September 02, 2005 6:10 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

hehehe woody , you won't get much support for that here ,

I would be happy to see saddam executed , as long as i get to see george bush being charged with war crimes at the hague

of course saddam should be jailed for his crimes , but on a second note i come from a country (like 95 % of the world) that does not believe in the death penalty ,

an eye for an eye makes us just as hypocritical

in dealing with cases where the crime is sick and horrific (talking about more domestic type stuff) and not being a great believer in this heaven and hell stuff , i think killing someone is actually just giving them a get out clause ,

i think it is better to spend 50 years locked in a cell , then to have some injection that just ends it all

there are many of us regarding Iraq see a huge double standards

accidents asside (and are often preventable by better training and more respect for human life) the use of depeleted uranium , the use of land mines (that 99% of the world have designated illigal in and an equal threat to these WMD we all talk about)

and one that may not have passed through your media circles would be the massacre at Fallujah of women and children , that in a few years will be compared to the infamous massacre at Mai Lai

i wont go on , there is no middle ground to meet on i am sure , but peeps like me and phishy see a certain hypocracy that folks like yourself don't see

September 02, 2005 6:33 pm  
Blogger Jonathan said...

Hypocrisy? Your lack of a moral standard is quite disgusting actually.

Bush has NOT ordered the intentional killing of innocent Iraqis. Saddam did. The fact that you equate the two makes you at best an author of poor analogies, and at worst, a blindly partisan and intellectually vacuous Euro-twit seething with hatred of a man with whom you disagree politically.

I despised Bill Clinton with every fiber of my being, though I never thought he should be tried for the deaths of the Branch Davidians at Waco that his bumbling AG Janet Reno set ablaze in a bungled raid in Waco. Unlike you, I didn't let my intense political disagreements with a morally bankrupt president cloud by ability to reason, especially about legal matters. Sorry to hear that there must be something in the water where you live that produces such mind-numbing drivel from you.

Bush tried for war crimes? Dude, don't forget your Thorazine tablets. They're located next to your futon, on top of your copy of The Communist Manifesto.

September 02, 2005 7:47 pm  
Anonymous somethingsphishy said...

"I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."
-- Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes' court-martial

Torture and inhuman treatment, which have been documented in Iraqi prisons, constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes under the US War Crimes Statute. The United States has ratified both the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, making them part of the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

"Bush has NOT ordered the intentional killing of innocent Iraqis. Saddam did."

We already went to war with Iraq 14 years ago over the gassing of innocent Iraqi's, I'm referring to this current war in Iraq. And why exactly are we there in Iraq now Jonathan Leffingwell? Is it because of WMD's (none were found). Is to find Osama? (he's not there, nor were he and Saddam allies). Oh yeah, that reminds me, What about Osama? You know, the guy Who is supposedly responsible for 9/11. I haven't heard much about him lately. Iraq had nothing, nadda, zip, zero, zilch to do with 9/11. So really why are we there.

And if you say to liberate and bring democracy to the people of Iraq, or to remove a dangerous dictator. Well you would be wrong, because those are not the reasons congress voted for this war.

How about Illegal war where thousands of innocent people (including thousands of USA's finest men and women soldiers) are fighting and dying for basically lies?

Also Jonathan Leffingwell "Euro-twit"? Are you that much better then Europeans?

September 02, 2005 8:40 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

Phish, what lies. I mean really. Name a flat out, provable, no questions asked Lie. Not what we "think", not what we "assume", and not what "most people" agree on.

To say it was lies means
A.) Iraq never ever talked with, dealt with, or looked kindly at someone from Al Qaeda. And it means that Iraq never supported or Sponsored Terrorism. Both of which we know are untrue. They may not have happend the way it was insinuated, but it did happen.

B.) Iraq never had, never used, and was not working on any WMD programs, and the Administration knew it. This we also know is untrue because before the invasion, and before Bush started saying it, everyone from France to Clinton to Kerry said he has WMD. Also, we have found some limited older ammounts. Again, it may not be to the extent that they proposed, but it most certainly wasnt a lie.


War crimes are ordering those actions which directly violate the Geneva Convention. You show me where Bush order those violations, and we will start talking. People throw around the world war-crimes for political propaganda. Realistically, look who has been brought up, and successfully convicted of war crims in the past. Nazis that slaughtered hundreds of thousands in death camps. Milosavich, who was conducting ethnic cleansings. Soon to be Darfur officials that hired Arab malitias to slaughter out entire villages at a time.

You see, us going to war for political reasons you disagree with, and then innocent people getting killed by accident does not institute war crimes. If Bush ordered our forces to go in, round up all the Shia, shoot them, and mass grave bury them, then we have broached into war crims. Otherwise it is just political babble.

September 02, 2005 9:04 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

simple G , let me give you a few examples

Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols.

the choice to invade iraq without UN authority can be covered by

Article 2 of the geneva convention

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members....
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations

so before we even start , by your own criteria the decision to invade iraq is againsnt the geneva convention and I assume you will now be ready to "talk"

but let me go on

Ignored by AI and the Western media, the Lancet study also revealed that 14 per cent of US soldiers and 28 per cent of US marines had killed a civilian: US-authorised war crimes. The Los Angeles Times reported (July, 25, 2005) that "U.S. forces killed 33 unarmed civilians and injured 45 in the capital [Baghdad alone] between May 1 and July 12 — an average of nearly one fatality every two days". In a deliberate and criminal practice called "shoot to kill", hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians are killed every week.

another war crime

During the siege of Fallujah by US forces, water, food and electricity were cut off to the 300,000 citizens of the city – in violation of the Geneva Conventions. In blatant violations of the Law of War, US forces have prevented the departure of able-bodied males (ages of 16 and 60 years old) from leaving the besieged city. Occupation forces then adopted Nazi Germany terror bombing of the Spanish city of Guernica. More than 6,000 civilians, according to the Red Cross, were slaughtered in cold blood.

another war crime

listen G , i wont go on , for one reason and one reason alone , i wish not to offend you , that is it

the list of US war crimes are immense

but dont tell me , you have "good reason" to pick and choose when to apply the geneva convention

where as everyone else is told that this is world law , you and you alone are exempt

these are war crimes G , and the troops are NOT responsible , the leaders are

looking forward to your reply

September 02, 2005 9:20 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

the first one could be used against daddy bush , though probably the most frequent commiting of war crimes in history (of those never charged ) would be mr Kissinger , but we wont go there

September 02, 2005 9:23 pm  
Anonymous somethingsphishy said...

march 17, 03

Bush declared, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." No doubt? The administration pushed this no-doubt line for months. Bush, Fleischer, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz--they all said it. The main reason for war was that Saddam Hussein possessed actual, ready-to-go weapons of mass destruction that at any moment could be handed over to anti-American terrorists like al Qaeda. The Bush argument was not that Saddam Hussein had to be stopped before he developed such weaponry.

If thats not a lie, then it's very misleading. Which is nothing short of lying. I expect nothing less then honesty from the elected officials who essentially govern me. And if there was ever anything ANY presidential administration has got to make sure there facts are 100% on would be a case to go to war.

September 02, 2005 10:53 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home