TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Saddam Hussein sentenced to death by hanging.
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but what evidence, if any, do you have that US influence is prevalent in the iraqi judicial system? what gains, if any, would the administration see in a delay of verdict? are there any compelling reasons to suggest anyone other than iraqis have their thumb in the trial pie? i just cant imagine the judges getting a memo from the white house and deciding to postpone anything.

Here's a few things to consider:

quote:

Though the SICT is a creation of the Iraqi government, it is heavily influenced -- legally and financially -- by the U.S. government. An October 16, 2005, Human Rights Watch report found that the U.S. Embassy's Regime Crimes Liaison Office "played the lead role in many aspects of the operations of the SICT, including: the building of the courtroom, the conduct of exhumations, interviews with 'High Value Detainees', review of seized documents and preparation of an evidence database, and training of SICT staff." The Washington Post reported on January 25: quote: The United States has made the prosecution of Hussein -- accused of presiding over the killings of hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Kurds -- one of its priorities since U.S. troops invaded Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration spent hundreds of millions of dollars of a $18.4 billion reconstruction package for Iraq to exhume mass graves and gather forensic evidence. It refurbished courthouses, trained Iraqi judges and provided most of the security for the courts. Americans drafted many of the statutes under which Hussein and his associates are being tried. Though the United States is a strong opponent of the International Criminal Court, the administration's critics say it should have ensured adequate credibility and help for the Iraqi tribunal by making it international or, at a minimum, moving the trial out of Baghdad. International qualms about the legality of the proceeding, and about the death sentence that Hussein could face if convicted, have left the United States virtually alone in shepherding his prosecution by the Iraqi government. A U.S. official in Baghdad confirmed last weekend that only the United States and Britain had contributed experts to advise the court on how to prosecute governments for war crimes and other such matters. The official did not say how many British advisers were taking part; Britain, like other countries, has expressed reluctance to help in the case because it is a capital one. The U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Regime Crimes Liaison Office run much of the day-to-day arrangements for the trial. Plainclothes security workers, many of them Americans, and Iraqi soldiers guard the turreted, fortress-like former Baath Party headquarters in the American-held Green Zone where the trial is playing out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6012400299.html The New York Times reported on May 21 that "American influence" on the SICT "has been undeniably pervasive, with about 90 percent of the $145 million in annual costs for the court and associated investigations paid for by the United States Justice Department, and lawyers sent by Washington acting as advisers." http://mediamatters.org/items/200610260010

Incriminating? Ehh, not terribly. I think I have to temper my sentiments a bit more on this one the more I think about it. Not a tono of evidence to conclude anything. Sure I wouldn't be surprised as most folks probably wouldn't be either, and the fact that their rationales had fluctuated a bit as to the reason for the delay is strange, but I have to concede that's nothing concrete to go on.

So I'll back my conspiratorial thought down to a questionable "hmmmm...." level. Fair enough?

quote:

Originally posted by Orbital32 Could you be more specific on your experiences to the topic at hand?

quote:

I know this is going to sound very dumb, but i really can't. All i can say is i at a position where i can literally see the truth get distored. Just 2 weeks ago, a main news site published an article... I could not gave gotten more madder then anything. The journalist asked a person about something. The person stated that he really was not aware about what goes on and he was the wrong person to ask, follwed by (and it was the person stupid mistake for saying this) "I think..." The journalist then STATES HIS QUOTE AS A FUCKING FACT! I'm sorry, but i cannot give detailed examples, only can really say that i do know more about these topics then most people here. Honestly i have to force myself to disregard politics. Its somebody else's job to worry about that. There are many solider currently serving that not for the war. There are many veterans who served who are not for the war. There are MANY people that i know that i know that are not for the war. There are VERY few people who hate the troops there. Regardless of the opinion out there about the war, most agree that a full withdrawl is a very bad idea right now. That's just a fact.

Well you had me up to the last statement, to which I must respectfully disagree:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

By your statement of "full withdrawal", I don't know if you mean a complete pullout and send all troops back home, or a redeployment plan to say the borders, Kuwait, or elsewhere temporarily to which a number of plans by both Republicans and Democrats have been created parallelling this approach. Regardless, the polls are showing even a full withdrawal to get us the hell out completely is either tied or ahead of staying the current course. Having a timetable set has a clear majority of the public opinion, which I advocate myself as do many politicians on both sides of the aisle (including a growing number of Republicans).

If, however, you are referring to the military, I don't have that info. available so I cannot comment on that sentiment. If you have any polls supporting the opinion of the troops, I'd like to know out of curiousity. I would suspect the majority would like to remain and finish their mission (whatever that broad definition of the generalized "mission" may hold), but I don't know for certain.

If Saddam gets hanging for 160 killings what about Bush and Blair whose war claims as many victims daily and what about Lies, Torture, Humiliation, Rapes? Who will be held acountable ?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So I'll back my conspiratorial thought down to a questionable "hmmmm...." level. Fair enough?

yeah, im with you there.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but what evidence, if any, do you have that US influence is prevalent in the iraqi judicial system? what gains, if any, would the administration see in a delay of verdict? are there any compelling reasons to suggest anyone other than iraqis have their thumb in the trial pie? i just cant imagine the judges getting a memo from the white house and deciding to postpone anything.

Problem is that he is only accused of an isolated incident long ago and specifically against Shia and Kurds and not sunnis because Saddam for one did not discriminate among his enemies. This is meant to inflame ethnic tensions and further bloodshed

quote:

Originally posted by erdega Problem is that he is only accused of an isolated incident long ago and specifically against Shia and Kurds and not sunnis because Saddam for one did not discriminate among his enemies. This is meant to inflame ethnic tensions and further bloodshed

dude, thats like an A-B conversation...you being the letter H.


anyway, your moral relativism went from "why not Bush and Blair" to "hey it was long ago and only these certain people but the Kurds deserved it".

right we get it. you hate Anglo Western war mongerers. the Arab ones are ok but you really hate the white ones. we got it. ok.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo dude, thats like an A-B conversation...so C your way out of it.

You botched the joke Mr. Kerry.

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 ...so c your way out of it.

oh sorry joke police

shut up and take your own advice stupid.

the violence and insurgency that might arise from this announcement could be bigger then Saddam's sentencing itself. They are still to counter attack that I believe I read. Anyways.. this story and reaction in Iraq could definetly backfire..

Could anybody tell me, why G.W.Bush doesn't deserve the same faith as Sadam ? He is directly/indirectly responsible for deaths of way too bigger amount of people in Iraq, around 600k ?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo right we get it. you hate Anglo Western war mongerers. the Arab ones are ok but you really hate the white ones. we got it. ok.

Is it that clear?? I thought I was the only one that saw that in Mr. Zimbaabaway's Posts.



Kill Whitey!!! ha ha ha

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller Could anybody tell me, why G.W.Bush doesn't deserve the same faith as Sadam ? He is directly/indirectly responsible for deaths of way too bigger amount of people in Iraq, around 600k ?

Not too be a devils advocate but technically with international law he probably isn't.
But history isn't written by the losers.
If youre going too compare sums, you can throw in the @2.6-3 million that died during the 1980-88 war with Iran and the hundreds of thousands of people that died when he used chemical and conventional weapons against them. Thats not including who will ever know how many got 'dissappeared' by the secret services under his orders.

All's said and done, he's not someone you wanted around. After the Iran-Iraq war which he did start incidentally he sent the country into 75billion dollars of debt, which he couldnt pay off because a certain someone too the south was selling oil cheaply- Kuwait.

I'm not saying that Sadam is a saint. I'm just trying to understand why they punish one bastard while another one gets everything off his hands ? I think G.W.Bush should face the International Court of Law for his genocide actions against the Iraqi population.

More suspicious "hmmmms" coming from me here:

quote:

The full verdict, a document of several hundred pages, explaining how and why today�s judgment was reached was not released. U.S. officials said it should be ready by Thursday. So why issue the verdict today? U.S. court advisors told reporters today it was delayed mainly for technical reasons. http://onthescene.msnbc.com/baghdad...m_verdict_.html

Sure it was. You bet. You're not gonna make me pull my foil hat out again, are you? Again, this just looks a little suspicious, doesn't it?

Not that it did Bush a whole lot of good or anything:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11...poll/index.html

holdin' steady in the mid-30%.

Hey I got a question for you guys.

You know how Americans are really squeamish about everything and have their "3-second delays" and all that shit. How are they gonna show this on TV?

I mean, it's a public hanging, so everyone will be watching

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller Could anybody tell me, why G.W.Bush doesn't deserve the same faith as Sadam ? He is directly/indirectly responsible for deaths of way too bigger amount of people in Iraq, around 600k ?

Well, this thread is about Saddam specifically, not Bush. And that 600K number that was put out last month is highly suspect.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=2

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller I'm not saying that Sadam is a saint. I'm just trying to understand why they punish one bastard while another one gets everything off his hands ? I think G.W.Bush should face the International Court of Law for his genocide actions against the Iraqi population.

Yeah but its not quite so 'simple' as that
For starters the US is a major backer of the UN, secondly he's got one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons and not exactly concerned with what anyone else, even the UN thinks about conducting any military activity provided he can come up with some justification too the US voting population.
I think once he's out of political power something might be attempted to bring him too account of his actions in the middle east and an in-depth look at the events that transpired up to it and reasons why. But thats more than likely too be conducted internally in the US, where he has a fair bit of support from a number of very powerful people.
Dont forget, they elect their judges in the US so I wouldnt exactly call them unbiased when it comes too dealing with very powerful political and public figure.

About the only real hope is that someone replaces him who has a genuine care for diplomacy and foreign policy which has suffered badly under the Bush administration but quite a lot of it wasnt real well off before he got too power, in any case he didnt help the cause
What also we have too take into consideration is that its a number of events which have taken place because the US can do it from a position of power unopposed by any other single or conglomerate of countries in the world right now. Theres no moderation or restraint now that the old foes like the USSR which doesnt exist and China which is a quasi-communist state which is very much reliant on the US as the US is of them.
So, in a nutshell. They do what they want.
I do find it worrying though the amount of trust US people have in their politicians to do the right thing and their accountability, I honestly dont know if its due too apathy or just a current ignorance which lets them get away with some of this stuff up until it comes around too voting time. But I sincerely hope, even if its just for their own wellbeing that the US citizens start too become more interested in their countries foriegn policy and behaviour rather than the feeling I've got from some which is a mix of blind patriotism and national pride as an excuse for some things.

Well said, Lilith

I came across a good article that shed some light on the extent of US & British involvement in what Saddam was on trial for:

link

quote:

So America's one-time ally has been sentenced to death for war crimes he committed when he was Washington's best friend in the Arab world. America knew all about his atrocities and even supplied the gas - along with the British, of course - yet there we were yesterday declaring it to be, in the White House's words, another "great day for Iraq". That's what Tony Blair announced when Saddam Hussein was pulled from his hole in the ground on 13 December 2003. And now we're going to string him up, and it's another great day.

^^ this was the first paragraph

quote:

The odd thing is that Iraq is now swamped with mass murderers, guilty of rape and massacre and throat-slitting and torture in the years since our "liberation" of Iraq. Many of them work for the Iraqi government we are currently supporting, democratically elected, of course. And these war criminals, in some cases, are paid by us, through the ministries we set up under this democratic government. And they will not be tried. Or hanged. That is the extent of our cynicism. And our shame. Have ever justice and hypocrisy been so obscenely joined?

^^ last paragraph

It's been quickly forgotten how the CIA was involved in getting the Ba'athists to power, and how they & the British openly supported Hussein in his war with Iran even when gassings were known to be happenning. At the time, the permeation of the media into the day-to-day affairs of the military certainly weren't what they are today, nevermind getting any decent coverage from a warzone.

That being said, the same characters are all in play still today. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush Sr. for starters with Wolfowitz and others having been at the Pentagon in the 80's and also during the planning for invading Iraq in 2003.

Also of interesting note, the US involvement in the war on Iraq has lasted longer than direct American involvement in World War II.

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa mission accomplished!!!!

What does that have to do with anything I said?

quote:

Originally posted by erdega If Saddam gets hanging for 160 killings what about Bush and Blair whose war claims as many victims daily and what about Lies, Torture, Humiliation, Rapes? Who will be held acountable ?

Most of that rhetoric has been taken care of by military tribunals, and have been; catch up...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well you had me up to the last statement, to which I must respectfully disagree: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm By your statement of "full withdrawal", I don't know if you mean a complete pullout and send all troops back home, or a redeployment plan to say the borders, Kuwait, or elsewhere temporarily to which a number of plans by both Republicans and Democrats have been created parallelling this approach. Regardless, the polls are showing even a full withdrawal to get us the hell out completely is either tied or ahead of staying the current course. Having a timetable set has a clear majority of the public opinion, which I advocate myself as do many politicians on both sides of the aisle (including a growing number of Republicans). If, however, you are referring to the military, I don't have that info. available so I cannot comment on that sentiment. If you have any polls supporting the opinion of the troops, I'd like to know out of curiousity. I would suspect the majority would like to remain and finish their mission (whatever that broad definition of the generalized "mission" may hold), but I don't know for certain.

Ironcially this was just put up today on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15582948/

quote:

By Josh White The Washington Post Updated: 6:14 a.m. MT Nov 6, 2006 FORWARD OPERATING BASE SYKES, Iraq - For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet. The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said. With a potentially historic U.S. midterm election on Tuesday and the war in Iraq a major issue at the polls, many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort here. Such a move, enlisted soldiers and officers said, would set Iraq on a path to civil war, give new life to the insurgency and create the possibility of a failed state after nearly four years of fighting to implant democracy. Story continues below ↓ advertisement "Take us out of that vacuum -- and it's on the edge now -- and boom, it would become a free-for-all," said Lt. Col. Mark Suich, who commands the 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment just south of Baghdad. "It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war." The soldiers declined to discuss the political jousting back home, but they expressed support for the Bush administration's approach to the war, which they described as sticking with a tumultuous situation to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own. � Full international coverage Leading Democrats have argued for a timeline to bring U.S. troops home, because obvious progress has been elusive, especially in Baghdad, and even some Republican lawmakers have recently called for a change in strategy. But soldiers criticized the idea of a precipitate withdrawal, largely because they believe their hard work would go for naught. 'A simple solution just isn't possible' Capt. Jim Modlin, 26, of Oceanport, N.J., said he thought the situation in Iraq had improved between his deployment in 2003 and his return this year as a liaison officer to Iraqi security forces with the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, based here on FOB Sykes outside Tall Afar. Modlin described himself as more liberal than conservative and said he had already cast his absentee ballot in Texas. He said he believed that U.S. elected officials would lead the military in the right direction, regardless of what happens Tuesday. "Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going forward with no changes," Modlin said. "Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It's not 'stay the course,' and it's not 'cut and run' or other political catchphrases. There are people's lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn't possible." Soldiers and officers had difficulty conveying what victory in Iraq would look like or exactly how to achieve it. In some ways, victory is a moving target, they said, one that relies heavily on the Iraqi people gaining trust in the Iraqi security forces and the ability of the Iraqi government to support essential services. In northern Iraq, officials said they expect to hand over major parts of the country to Iraqi forces within the next five months, but most agree that Baghdad will be far behind. Even if top commanders meet their goal of transferring authority to the Iraqi army within the next 18 months, a U.S. presence long after that is likely, several officers said. "This is a worthwhile endeavor," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division. "Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed." 'On the enemy's terms' Numerous soldiers expressed frustration with the nature of the fight, which many said amounted to driving around and waiting for the enemy to engage them, often with roadside bombs, known within the military as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. "It's frustrating, because it's hard to get into the fight," said Staff Sgt. Robert Wyper, 26, of Riverside, Calif., a squad leader with Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment. Wyper rides around the Mosul area in a Stryker armored vehicle. He has fired a total of four rounds from his weapon since he arrived in August, while several other soldiers said they had never pulled their trigger during their deployments. "The combat we have is on the enemy's terms," Wyper said. "You can shoot at the enemy, but how do you shoot at an IED?" First Sgt. David Schumacher, 37, of Watertown, N.Y., is on his eighth deployment to a foreign battlefield since a tour in Somalia, and his third tour in Iraq. "The insurgents are more strategic this time, they're smarter," he said. "We're trying to anticipate their next move, and they're trying to anticipate ours. There's still a lot to do." In Rushdi Mullah, a small farming village near Baghdad, Capt. Chris Vitale, 29, of Washington, Pa., said his unit's recent moves to the edge of this insurgent safe haven have made a major difference for residents. "If my unit left town, the insurgents would come back in and use it to stage attacks on Baghdad," he said. "I'm sure of it." In the north, where Iraqi army and police units have made strides toward controlling their own territory, U.S. soldiers said they were at a critical point in helping the Iraqi forces develop. 'An extreme betrayal for us to leave' Capt. Mike Lingenfelter, 32, of Panhandle, Tex., said that U.S. troops have earned the trust of residents in Tall Afar over the past couple of years and that leaving now would send the wrong message. His Comanche Troop of the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment is working with Iraqi forces to give them control of the city. "We'll pull their feet out from under them if we leave," Lingenfelter said. "It's still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave." Sgt. Jonathan Kirkendall, 23, of Falls City, Neb., said he fears that many Americans think that building the country to viability will be "quick and easy," when he believes it could take many years. Kirkendall, of the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division in Baghdad, is on his third deployment to Iraq and celebrated his 21st and 23rd birthdays here. "If they say leave in six months, we'll leave in six months. If they say six years, it's six years," said Kirkendall, who is awaiting the birth of his first daughter, due next week. "I'm just an average soldier, and I'll do what they tell me to do. I'm proud to be a part of it, either way it goes, but I'd like to see it through."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What does that have to do with anything I said?

He is just pissed that Saddam is gonna die soon.

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan He is just pissed that Saddam is gonna die soon.

Iam pissed because the Republicans will use this to win votes.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Iam pissed because the Republicans will use this to win votes.

Yea, because the Demogogs won't use Iraq in their agenda AT ALL....

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Iam pissed because the Republicans will use this to win votes.

honestly i don't see why would be pissed at all. You literally can't help if the democrats win or lose. Either way, they have one day "to use this to win votes"

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.