|
hussein hanged!! whats your thoughts? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Purple |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ian
The thing that confuses me is that he's still on trial for other crimes, so how can he be hanged before that's concluded? |
lol and thats the most stupid thing ever posted on PDD.
On topic I think he was murdered, he deserved a trial in Hague which was denied to him by US. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
On topic I think he was murdered, he deserved a trial in Hague which was denied to him by US. |
he still would have been put to death or "murdered" eventually. the only difference being time.
what logical difference does it make to you? or is logic even involved with your above opinion? seriously, b/c in my opinion your logic is clouded by hate. |
|
|
| TheDemon |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
lol and thats the most stupid thing ever posted on PDD.
On topic I think he was murdered, he deserved a trial in Hague which was denied to him by US. |
pls elaborate on this, as I do not see what he posted to be stupid. and plus, what real difference does it make, either way he was a dead man walking. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
happy new year. |
|
|
| pmoisse |
Regardless of the inevitable outcome, I think that the question at hand is whether he got a fair trial within Iraq with all the geo-political shenaningans that went along with it.
I think there would have been more legitimacy though the same outcome (eventually) thru a trial at The Hague like other mass-murdering war criminals (Pinochet, milosevic). The fact that the US doesn't recognize the International Criminal Couurt and has a hand in the Iraqi government to whatever degree casts some doubt over the legitimacy and fairness over the whole thing.
Saddam was a murderer, but he is equally entitiled to due process if the "new Iraqi government" is to be seen as fair and unbiased. There was no way he was going to receive a fair trial at the hands of a Shi'ite judge. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
i think it completely opposite. Milosevic's trial is a 13 year farce of a political boondoggle. a reflection of how just ineptly the whole UN framework operates. the UN cannot collectively spell justice much less dispence with it.
Saddm's verdict (and you can research this yourselves) was over 200 pages long and considered a model of thorough jurisprudence by any standard, yes, even evil Amerikkkan standards and was as transparent and as non-political as they come. i applaud Iraq. i applaud their soveriegnty. move forward. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | There’s plenty to be miserable about where Iraq is concerned these days. Few still think the sacrifices the U.S. and its partners have made during the war worthwhile; and the world watches in horror at the convulsed specter of Baghdad in flames. Of course, the good news does not get reported. But just as important is the fact that the American-led Coalition and its Iraqi partners have established a historic precedent: Dictators had better watch how they treat their people today. They may have to answer for it tomorrow.
President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard the aircraft carrier Lincoln is as much maligned as it is seldom quoted. That is a pity, for it was a vitally important speech. Among the many milestones President Bush marked on that day is the following:
"In defeating Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, Allied Forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation. Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war. Yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent."
The president could not have foreseen that the Saddamist and al Qaeda insurgency would eventually bring Iraq to the breaking point where our military power had spared it. But his fundamental point remains valid. In the modern era, the guilty will have more to fear from war than the innocent.
Dictators around the world can draw some comfort from the bloody nose America has taken since the capture of Saddam. But not much. They now know something important. Though absent from any formal articulation of international law, new standards of governance are evolving as a matter of state practice. Regimes that support terrorists or allow their territories to become sanctuaries for territorists risk elimination. Regimes that fail to account transparently for their WMD activities may be rendered transparent by force. And regimes that abuse their own people risk having to answer for their crimes eventually.
The capture, trial, and execution of Saddam Hussein ends a terrible chapter in the history of Iraq, even if — thanks to the terrorists — things have gone from bad to worse for many Iraqis. Iraq has become today’s Russian Front — the terrifying center-of-gravity in a new world war.
And yet as that struggle continues, it is fitting and just to meditate a moment on something nobody could have imagined in decades past: Saddam got what was coming to him.
Dictators around the world have one more reason to think that they will get theirs too if they are not careful. America and its partners have made terrible sacrifices since the toppling of Saddam’s dictatorship. But we will never know how much suffering we saved future generations by making this example of Saddam. For the victims of future dictatorships as for the victims of his own, this just and fitting end to the career of one of the most sadistic and destructive criminals of modern times can only strengthen the vital hope that justice prevails in the end. And that is worth many sacrifices.
— Mario Loyola is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies |
|
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
Hey peeps I hope nobody flames me for asking this, but I have a question...
Saddam was officially tried on the grounds that he brutally killed over a hundred Shia men in revenge for their 1982 plot to overthrow his government.
What would happen to people who plot and carry out a government coup in America or Europe? Mutiny or a coup is a serious felony and several decades ago, punishment in the West would have been death as well. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Again, please no flaming. |
|
|
| pmoisse |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
Hey peeps I hope nobody flames me for asking this, but I have a question...
Saddam was officially tried on the grounds that he brutally killed over a hundred Shia men in revenge for their 1982 plot to overthrow his government.
What would happen to people who plot and carry out a government coup in America or Europe? Mutiny or a coup is a serious felony and several decades ago, punishment in the West would have been death as well. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Again, please no flaming. |
I totally agree with you on this one. Further to that, Saddam and his party came to power in a coup d'etat as well, the difference was that there's was successful. The Dujail assasination wasn't and the perpetrators (and innocents) paid a heavy price for it. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
I fail to see the uproar about Saddam not being tried by ICC.
He was being tried for a crime committed in Iraq against Iraqis.
So what if he was being tried by the Iraqi govt instead of ICC? |
|
|
| Lilith |
The ICC is a criminal court which is used when there is no national judicial system left in a country to put someone on trial for crimes against humanity and war crimes, genocide, all that kind of stuff.
I'm guessing he didnt make it there because it could be argued that there was some legal juristiction left in Iraq capable of putting him on trial, (well I guess an intact court which hasnt been blown up counts as something) and we'll be arguing for half of forever if it was of a reasonably high standard and unbiased.
I've not followed it closely enough though to land any kind of unbiased opinion of my own about that and I seriously doubt no one else here has either. Mostly because I dont speak-a the language and secondly I'm not a lawyer and lastly, I've got no idea of what law they where running under. Iraq's law or US?
In any case, he was never getting off whichever way he squirmed. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
In any case, he was never getting off whichever way he squirmed. |
but..but.. he watered the weeds and fed the birds. :( |
|
|
|
|
