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

Saddam Hussein sentenced to death by hanging.

quote:

On November 5 2006, Saddam Hussein is sentenced to death by hanging, following an appeal allowed by the Iraqi judicial system. There is speculation that the appeals could last years, postponing his actual execution. However, the judge has declared that all appeal proceedings must take place within 30 days.

Source: Wikinews

the iraquis deserve to see him hang. Good call

I'm against the Death Penalty, period. The guy should spend the rest of his life in jail, not take the easy way out.

I bet GWB is rubbing his hands with glee, the twat.

The death penalty is simply barbaric, hanging especially.

Strange how this verdict got postponed by at least 2 weeks to just to days before our election:

quote:

"A verdict against Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants charged with crimes against humanity in connection with an anti-Shiite crackdown in the 1980s will be announced Nov. 5, a senior court official said Monday. Sentences for those found guilty will be issued the same day," http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006...D8KPMFNO1.shtml

More on our influence and playing politics with Iraq here.

Shocking, I know, to think of Bush playing politics with Iraq and all. By the way, how is Osama?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Strange how this verdict got postponed by at least 2 weeks to just to days before our election: More on our influence and playing politics with Iraq here. Shocking, I know, to think of Bush playing politics with Iraq and all. By the way, how is Osama?

Osama is one lucky guy, Bush decided to kill Saddam as of now and keep Osama card for later use.

Public hanging?



What year is it in Iraqi? 1680?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Strange how this verdict got postponed by at least 2 weeks to just to days before our election:

we need a seperate forum just for the CT's to circle jerk each other with.

I'm not sure the US wants to keep him alive, to be honest. It would continue to fuel the insurgency, especially if certain sects start making demands for Saddam's release. I'm honestly surprised that there haven't been more demands like this, or maybe we just don't hear about them?

I think they're thinking that he'll disappear from the public consciousness faster as a short-lived martyr than as a long-term detainee.

I don't really think that this will have much impact on the mid-terms on Tuesday. At least I hope not. I think this is more of the same old smoke & mirrors shit that this administration has consistently pulled over the last 6 years. There are far more important issues to be debated.

I'm not even American, and I'll be following on Tuesday with just as much interest as I would our own elections here. I really hope that the US people make their voices heard with a record voter turnout.

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Strange how this verdict got postponed by at least 2 weeks to just to days before our election:

no it what is more strange is the fact that i'm about to get some breakfast.... 2 weeks before the election. I admit that me grabbing some food to eat and the election has everything to do with the verdict. Its a conspiracy. I'm sorry

quote:

Originally posted by Orbital32 no it what is more strange is the fact that i'm about to get some breakfast.... 2 weeks before the election. I admit that me grabbing some food to eat and the election has everything to do with the verdict. Its a conspiracy. I'm sorry

ha ha

The postponing of the verdict until today could backfire *IF* in fact it was done for US political purposes.

It brings Iraq back into the spotlight and it's a gamble if the Republicans can use it for their gain or whether it will end up losing the election for them.

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by Orbital32 no it what is more strange is the fact that i'm about to get some breakfast.... 2 weeks before the election. I admit that me grabbing some food to eat and the election has everything to do with the verdict. Its a conspiracy. I'm sorry

Goodness you're cute when you crack a funny. And you are?

Regardless, are you implying that the delay had no political implications of any sort? Given this Administration's record of playing politics with its policy on Iraq (remember being against the war is being against the troops? Being unAmerican?), I'm sorry if I am a bit skeptical of this Administration's influence on Iraqi policy and especially this kangaroo court in specific. A little history might be needed for clarification:

On October 3rd the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) announced that it had postponed the original verdict date of October 16 to a later date not yet specified. That date was postponed because according to the AP, the judges were "considering the possibility of recalling some witnesses." Fair enough so far.

On Oct. 16 SICT came out and stated that the verdict date was going to be postponed to November 5th. Their rationale changed from recalling more witnesses to this:

quote:

"Other court officials have said in recent days that a major reason for the delay is that after nine months of hearings, the five judges in the case have failed to reach agreement on a sentence for Mr. Hussein and appeared to be undecided between a death sentence for him or a penalty of life imprisonment." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/w...serland&emc=rss

So were they recalling witnesses, or were they deciding on the sentence? If there were witnesses to be recalled, and no verdict was in yet, how could there be a date laid out in certainty for a verdict in the first place? Your thoughts?

So again, my humblest apologies champ if I have a bit of a distrust on this issue or pretty much most issues pertaining to Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo we need a seperate forum just for the CT's to circle jerk each other with.

Hey, no one can ever create a tin foil hat as cool as mine! You're just jealous.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael19 Public hanging? What year is it in Iraqi? 1680?

OMG this will be a public hanging?!!

GO USA! USA USA ..

This wont change the current situation in Iraq at all.This will simply be a tool for the Republicans to win the elections,I however doubt that it'll work.

I wonder if Bush will come out and say that it is "Mission accomplished"

if this verdict was indeed delayed (as i beleive it is), it is all for naught; the dye is cast. it will be of little consequence politically because it will do nothing to quell the insurgency, the deaths of americans, or change american's view on the war.

if anything, many american will probably ask themselves 'Saddam is dead, why the hell are we stil there?". david brooks was right when he wrote some time ago, that for the US to win, the US had to lose.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse I'm not sure the US wants to keep him alive, to be honest. It would continue to fuel the insurgency, especially if certain sects start making demands for Saddam's release.

The other problem is if you do kill him, someone will turn him into a martyr for the cause of Iraqi liberation. I'd rather he rot in a gaol for the rest of his days, miserable old bastard.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith The other problem is if you do kill him, someone will turn him into a martyr for the cause of Iraqi liberation. I'd rather he rot in a gaol for the rest of his days, miserable old bastard.

I agree. I think that they're (the US and fledgling Iraqi gov't) screwed either way in terms of the various effects Saddam can still have on their population.

He'll become like Obi Wan and be more powerful dead than he was alive!

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange if this verdict was indeed delayed (as i beleive it is), it is all for naught; the dye is cast. it will be of little consequence politically because it will do nothing to quell the insurgency, the deaths of americans, or change american's view on the war. if anything, many american will probably ask themselves 'Saddam is dead, why the hell are we stil there?". david brooks was right when he wrote some time ago, that for the US to win, the US had to lose.

Well, at least nobody can ever fault you for being a perennial optimist.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Given this Administration's record of playing politics with its policy on Iraq (remember being against the war is being against the troops? Being unAmerican?), I'm sorry if I am a bit skeptical of this Administration's influence on Iraqi policy and especially this kangaroo court in specific.

Being against the war is being against the troops? Huh? jah what? Since when? Have you ever served in the military? There are many soliders that join AFTER the war that do not agree with the war. Trust me, of all people in the world...I don't need a history lesson. I know first hand shit just happens then the press/politician turns everything around...because they ASSUME that the logical reason.


Is it possible he is guilty at this point in time because of the election? Yes

Is it possible the guilty verdict at this point in time has abosutley nothing to do with the elections? Yes.

I'm sure your next statement is "you are ignorant because you don't believe the way i do. Go ahead and say it."

quote:

Originally posted by Purple OMG this will be a public hanging?!! GO USA! USA USA ..

Go USA?

How about Go Iraq!!

Vengeance is theirs!

quote:

Originally posted by Orbital32 Being against the war is being against the troops? Huh? jah what? Since when?

We have exhausted this topic ad nauseum on this forum as well as it has been described elsewhere how Bush supporters have at numerous points implied or outright stated this. Some examples on a quick google:

Tony Blankley on the topic of Haditha:

quote:

BLANKLEY: The point it that this is going to be used, and is already being used by the opponents of the president, domestically and abroad, as a blood libel not just against these young -- these young men but against the military service and against the country. I've always been on one show -- I've already been on one show this week where they were tarring the entire honor of the American men in uniform -- of women in uniform. It's going to be -- Pat's correct -- it's going to be a propaganda catastrophe for the Unites States. And the over-reporting of it by a gleeful media is more damaging to the country than any other single fact. June 3rd, the McLaughlin Group

On Murtha's redeployment plan (which is now being ever-so entertained by Bush and his advisors now):

quote:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) accused Murtha of delivering "the highest insult" to the troops. "We must not cower," Hastert lectured the old soldier. Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) informed Murtha that his views "only embolden our enemies" and lamented that "Democrats undermine our troops in Iraq from the security of their Washington, D.C., offices." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5111701536.html

Hannity and Smear Boat artist John O'Neil on May 18th Hannity and Colmes show:

quote:

HANNITY: Here's what is bothering me, John. Barack Obama said, quote, "We are helping the insurgency," unquote. John Kerry himself said American soldiers need not be getting -- going into the homes of Iraqis terrorizing women and children. Harry Reid said our presence is a problem, we're an occupying force. This is almost now coming out on a daily basis, these attacks against our brave men and women. O'NEILL: Sean, it ought to be possible to oppose a war without trying to vilify the people that were sent to fight it.

Of course this directly contradicts what General Casey presented as a new assessment back in October of '05:

quote:

The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem. During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi military, and energizing terrorists across the Middle East. For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops is imperative. U.S. officials months ago dialed back their expectations of what the U.S. military can achieve in Iraq. But the comments this week showed that commanders believe a large U.S. force in Iraq might in fact be creating problems as well as solutions. [...] During his congressional testimony, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, also said that troop reductions were required to "take away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency, that of the coalition forces as an occupying force." A smaller U.S. presence could deflate some of the anger feeding the insurgency, Casey suggested. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...3_troops01.html

These were more recent examples on a quick search. Are you implying to me that this has not been occurring ever since our invasion?

quote:

Have you ever served in the military? There are many soliders that join AFTER the war that do not agree with the war.

And the relevance of this statement pertains to what exactly? I could have swore we were discussing the likelihood of this Administration's hand in playing politics with Iraq here. Perhaps you could better tie in this statement to the topic at hand?

quote:

Trust me, of all people in the world...I don't need a history lesson.

Nor was I necessarily wishing to give one. However, if you are not familiar with Bush supporters tying those individuals opposing the war to being against the troops, I would say a history lesson is certainly in order.

quote:

I know first hand shit just happens then the press/politician turns everything around...because they ASSUME that the logical reason.

Could you be more specific on your experiences to the topic at hand?

quote:

Is it possible he is guilty at this point in time because of the election? Yes Is it possible the guilty verdict at this point in time has abosutley nothing to do with the elections? Yes.

To which I'm more than willing to concede the latter. However, given this Administration's record of politicizing this war, and given it's heavy hand in this particular court, again you must forgive my slight skepticism on the latter.

quote:

I'm sure your next statement is "you are ignorant because you don't believe the way i do. Go ahead and say it."

I'm afraid you really do not know me very well, do you? That type of guess work won't win you very many points here.

I kid a lot about tin foil hat theories all the time. I try to keep my hypotheticals without supporting evidence down to a minimum most of the time, so please understand my speculation on this possible influence isn't common practice for me. I grant you that there is no direct evidence to suppport my assertion, however I do contend that a pattern of prior actions and politicizing exists that support my idle speculation. That is really the bottom line, and nothing more need be made out of this.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 To which I'm more than willing to concede the latter. However, given this Administration's record of politicizing this war, and given it's heavy hand in this particular court, again you must forgive my slight skepticism on the latter.

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.

quote:

quote: I know first hand shit just happens then the press/politician turns everything around...because they ASSUME that the logical reason. Could you be more specific on your experiences to the topic at hand?

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Go USA? How about Go Iraq!!

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa mission accomplished!!!!

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