Saddam Execution Thread

[Ironduke]

Former Iraqi Leader Faces Hanging Within 30 Days

December 27, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is facing death by hanging within 30 days following an Iraqi appeals court decision yesterday to uphold his death sentence for crimes against humanity.

The court's decision must still be endorsed by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, but legal officials appeared to rule out any presidential intervention by saying the death sentence cannot be commuted.

Confirming the death sentence, Appeals Court Chief Judge Arif Abd al-Razzaq al-Shahin said the execution could happen "any day."

He said the sentence must be implemented within the time limit directed by the court.

Within 30 Days

"Our role is over," al-Shahin said. "Now the implementation procedure will be started, but according to our law, the sentence must be implemented within 30 days."

Iraq's Special Tribunal on November 5 sentenced Hussein to hang for crimes against humanity stemming from the killing of 148 Shi'a in the town of Al-Dujayl, following a failed assassination attempt against him in 1982.

The Appeals Court also upheld the death sentences on two of Hussein's co-defendants -- his half-brother, Barzan al-Tikriti, and former Revolutionary Court Judge Awad al-Bandar. And it recommended increasing the sentence of former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, who was sentenced to life in prison. The Appeals Court said he should also be executed.

The Appeals Court decision must be ratified by Talabani and Iraq's two vice presidents.

Talabani has expressed general opposition to the death penalty. But he has previously authorized one of the vice presidents to sign execution orders on his behalf. There is an expectation that Talabani will use the same procedure in Hussein's case.

An official of the court that originally convicted Hussein said that in any case the judicial system will ensure that the former leader is executed, even if the presidency does not ratify the decision. He did not elaborate on how this could be done.

Divisive Decision

Bassam al-Husayni, a spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, was quoted by a U.S. television network as saying that hundreds of people from all walks of life and ethnic groups have volunteered to act as Hussein's hangman.

Nevertheless, the court decision is a divisive one. Many politicians -- including in the Shi'ite majority -- favor the execution, but many Sunnis -- who were the politically dominant group in the Hussein era -- see it as a revenge killing by Shi'a.

Though opinion polls show a majority of Iraqis want Hussein to be executed, some on the street do not approve of the court's sentence.

"Frankly, I do not agree with the approval of the death sentence at this time, because the situation will deteriorate further [if Hussein is executed]," said a Baghdad resident who identified himself only as Athir. "Approval of the death sentence should not be at this time. It is not in the interest of the people. We want peace and security. Actually this will further complicate the situation."

However, another resident, Muhammad Nassir, called the ruling fair, even if badly timed.

"In my opinion it is a fair ruling because this man did not do justice to the Iraqi people," Nassir said. "However, in my opinion it is not the right time for the ruling because the Iraqi people are living in a state of tit-for-tat violence and the Eid [Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice] is coming, so I think that it would have been better if they had postponed the ruling for a month or more."

Mixed International Reaction

International reaction in the case also differs sharply.

In the United States, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel described the confirmation of the death sentence as an "important milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law."

However, prominent human rights groups Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have questioned the credibility of the trial, which they see as deeply flawed due to Iraqi government interference.

"We feel there was a huge opportunity with the trial to establish a legal and factual record of the crimes under Saddam Hussein's regime," said Tom Porteous of Human Rights Watch. "And the fact that the trial has been so deeply flawed means that the losers are really the victims of the Saddam Hussein regime."

The former Iraqi president is still involved in a separate, ongoing trial, in which he is charged with genocide and other crimes during a late 1980s crackdown that led to the deaths of an estimated 180,000 Kurds.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...27-rferl01.htm

[gamercube]

The trial was a joke. IMO, he should be held in custody until the civil war in Iraq ends, and then a retrial should begin, when the US army pulls out.

[Parihaka]

Why is interpretation of process more important than justice? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people were murdered at his behest, does anyone doubt this?
Yet all of a sudden he's being touted as a victim, that he's had a raw deal.
The assertion of ideology, (I'm opposed just because I am) over natural justice is becoming absurd.
My only contention with the sentence being carried out is they are apparently not televising it or selling seats, not everyday you have the chance to see a genocidal sociopathic murderer get what's coming

[gamercube]

Hundreds of thousands? That's quite an exaggeration. He was on trial for giving orders to kill a few hundred Kurdish villagers because they had co-operated with the Iranian army during the Iran-Iraq war. No one, ever, has accused Saddam of killing hundreds of thousands of people. In fact, even that incident has been disputed by many former Iraqi generals, who said that the Kurds had been killed by Iranians, not Iraqis.

If he deserves the death sentence for killing a few hundred people, I wonder what sentences Bush and Blair deserve for being responsible for the deaths of lakhs (hundreds of thousands) of Iraqi civilians?

[Confed999]

Nah nah nah nah
Nah nah nah nah
Hey hey hey
Goodbye

[Confed999]

If he deserves the death sentence for killing a few hundred people

So, how many people should he have killed to get a death sentence? 1000? 10000? Why not 1?

I wonder what sentences Bush and Blair deserve for being responsible for the deaths of lakhs (hundreds of thousands) of Iraqi civilians?

Saddam is responsible for all those deaths too...

Oh, you're also about 150,000 bodies short of your claim.

[gamercube]

So, how many people should he have killed to get a death sentence? 1000? 10000? Why not 1?

The point is that the trial was absolutely flawed from the start. He got the sentence not based on his real/assumed guilt, but because of blatant interference from a puppet government which is installed and held in power by the US.

Saddam is responsible for all those deaths too...

Nope. Regardless of what merry-go-round logic you come up with, it was Bush who ordered those bombs dropped, not Saddam.

[Confed999]

He got the sentence not based on his real/assumed guilt, but because of blatant interference from a puppet government which is installed and held in power by the US.

Yeah? Why so? Jury paid off? Any proof at all, or just rhetoric?

Nope. Regardless of what merry-go-round logic you come up with, it was Bush who ordered those bombs dropped, not Saddam.

Saddam was required to comply, by his own signature. He had the power to stop it, and did not. Merry-go-round? So the UK is responsible for the deaths of German "civilians" durring WW2? No, Hitler is. No merry-go-round is required, it's simple logic. If the cops shoot a hostage durring a bank robbery, who gets charged? Yeah, the robber. No merry-go-rounds even in this park.

[gamercube]

Yeah? Why so? Jury paid off? Any proof at all, or just rhetoric?

It's obvious to anyone who has been following the trial. The judge was changed twice, a few of Saddam's lawyers were shot, and the last judge did not give Saddam's lawyers enough of a chance to present a full defence.

Saddam was required to comply, by his own signature.

Comply with what? Your examples are poor analogies because Hitler was the one who started WWII. Britain had a treaty obligation in WWII to assist Poland whe Germany attacked.

Saddam wasn't the aggressor in this war.

[Confed999]

It's obvious to anyone who has been following the trial. The judge was changed twice, a few of Saddam's lawyers were shot, and the last judge did not give Saddam's lawyers enough of a chance to present a full defence.

So, no proof of any puppet blah blah blah. Got it...

Comply with what?

The cease-fire. That question explained a lot... Thanks.

Your examples are poor analogies

All 100% applicable.

Saddam wasn't the aggressor in this war.

Saddam invaded Kuwait. Saddam signed a cease-fire requiring him to comply with the terms for surrender set by the Coalition. Saddam did not comply. Saddam is the aggressor. Saddam caused the war. See, straight line, no merry-go-round. Go ahead and get off your carnival ride and check it out.

[Confed999]

It's obvious to anyone who has been following the trial. The judge was changed twice, a few of Saddam's lawyers were shot, and the last judge did not give Saddam's lawyers enough of a chance to present a full defence.

Oh, and isn't all that in the "genocide" trial? The other trial going on?

[gamercube]

So, no proof of any puppet blah blah blah. Got it...

Huh? What proof do you need? You want the Iraqi PM to tell the world media "Hey there, I'm a US puppet!" Well, in that case, I'm sorry, I don't have any proof.

Saddam signed a cease-fire requiring him to comply with the terms for surrender set by the Coalition. Saddam did not comply. Saddam is the aggressor.

I'm sorry, but I don't ever remeber Bush saying that the war was started because Saddam did not comply with a UN resolution. The official reason was that Saddam had WMDs and refused to turn them over to UN inspectors. Link for you:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030205-1.html

[Confed999]

Huh? What proof do you need? You want the Iraqi PM to tell the world media "Hey there, I'm a US puppet!" Well, in that case, I'm sorry, I don't have any proof.

Anything except rhetoric and supposition. I deal in facts.

I'm sorry, but I don't ever remeber Bush saying that the war was started because Saddam did not comply with a UN resolution. The official reason was that Saddam had WMDs and refused to turn them over to UN inspectors. Link for you:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030205-1.html

That was in the resolution, hence the "UN inspectors". LOL

[gamercube]

Anything except rhetoric and supposition. I deal in facts.

I've told you the facts. Don't believe me, go dig up your own.

That was in the resolution, hence the "UN inspectors". LOL

Well, then Iraq certainly was not the aggressor, since the WMD claim was rubbished soon after. And since that was the basis of your whole argument, there it goes down the drain.

[highsea]

Huh? What proof do you need? You want the Iraqi PM to tell the world media "Hey there, I'm a US puppet!" Well, in that case, I'm sorry, I don't have any proof.

Well since he was elected by the Iraqi people, I guess that makes them ALL US puppets?

Or did you miss the elections....

Poor Saddam, he only started two wars against his neighbors, killed countless Iraqi Shiites and Kurds (the mass graves are FACT, not rumor)...