Iraq court says Saddam should hang in 30 days!! - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

dude1394 · 12-26-2006, 12:30 PM

If done 30 days ago what a great christmas present that would have been!!

Quote:

Iraq court says Saddam should hang in 30 days

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - An Iraqi appeals court on Tuesday upheld Saddam Hussein's death sentence for crimes against humanity and said he should hang within 30 days.

"The appeal court has approved the death sentence. They (the government) has the right to choose the date starting from tomorrow up to 30 days. After 30 days it will be an obligation to implement the sentence," the head of the Iraqi High Tribunal, Aref Abdul-Razzaq al-Shahin, told a news conference.

Saddam, 69, was sentenced to death on November 5 for crimes against humanity over the killings of 148 Shi'ites from the town of Dujail after he escaped assassination there in 1982.

Saddam's half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti and former judge Awad al-Bander also received the death penalty for their part in the incident. The court also rejected their appeals.

The court recommended toughening the sentence on former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, who had been sentenced to life in prison over the Dujail killings, saying he should also be executed.

String him up! Youtube here he comes.

Quote:

"Amnesty International is very disappointed about this decision," a spokeswoman for the human rights organization said.

"We are against the death penalty as a matter of principle but particularly in this case because it comes after a flawed trial."

Saddam's chief defense counsel Khalil al-Dulaimi told Reuters from Amman: "If they dare implement the sentence it will be a catastrophe for the region and will only deepen the sectarian infighting."

Amnesty international and Saddam supporters making common cause.

MavsX · 12-26-2006, 05:01 PM

woo hoo!!!

Flacolaco · 12-26-2006, 05:13 PM

Geez, how come we can't get anything done that fast with our inmates?

Drbio · 12-26-2006, 07:44 PM

Justice. Prepare however for libs to decry the inhumane method of capital punishment.

capitalcity · 12-26-2006, 08:42 PM

Get'cher popcorn ready.

Drbio · 12-26-2006, 09:46 PM

I'd pay to watch it. PPV or web broadcast anyone? It could raise funds for rebuilding parts of Iraq.

Nemesis · 12-26-2006, 11:24 PM

I say we let twenty men line up each with a razor blade. Everyone in the line gets a swipe at him as he is carted by. Then at the end they throw him in a tank of rubbing alcohol. Then he has to climb out himself and must run across a bed of hot coals. Then another twenty men throw playing darts at him. Then for the finale, he gets the old Monty Python treatment until he looks like a floormat. Then for the encore, we string him up.

I think this is a fair....

Drbio · 12-26-2006, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemesis

I say we let twenty men line up each with a razor blade. Everyone in the line gets a swipe at him as he is carted by. Then at the end they throw him in a tank of rubbing alcohol. Then he has to climb out himself and must run across a bed of hot coals. Then another twenty men throw playing darts at him. Then for the finale, he gets the old Monty Python treatment until he looks like a floormat. Then for the encore, we string him up.

I think this is a fair....

Obviously not a liberal.

I love this suggestion. Fair indeed.

FishForLunch · 12-27-2006, 04:29 PM

Even Rev Jesse wont be going to Iraq to protest this hanging.

AxdemxO · 12-27-2006, 08:49 PM

I dont agree or disagree with the sentence. But i do think tht the trial was unfair. One of his defenders said today that they never even had a chance to have a one on one meeting with him.

The most important thing the defender brought up was something along these lines

***** Saddam will be hanged but the trial was unfair and against the wishes of many countries including allies of US, but its strange how Saddam is being tried for all this while those who are trying him, handing down his sentence, and want to see him die are not bein chraged with any crimes. For illegaly occuping a country and killing thousands of innocent people.(similar crimes that Saddam is charged with) AKA George W Bush

dude1394 · 12-27-2006, 08:55 PM

Fair compared to what? In Iraq it was probably the most fair trial in about 50 years.

AxdemxO · 12-27-2006, 09:29 PM

This will not help the Iraq situation any. It will just cause more problems and hatred. Many countries and US allies dont agree with the decision because they r trying to look out for the best interests of Iraq. Saddam was bad and commited crimes, but what bout Bush and his crimes agains humanity.

dude1394 · 12-27-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

This will not help the Iraq situation any. It will just cause more problems and hatred. Many countries and US allies dont agree with the decision because they r trying to look out for the best interests of Iraq. Saddam was bad and commited crimes, but what bout Bush and his crimes agains humanity.

Hmm....You have a few umarked graves that the US military started you knucklehead. Before you throw around bullcrap "crimes against humanity" you might at least have something in your bag, besides sawdust.

The IRAQI's sorta seem to think it will help them as that's why they are hanging him. Many countries and US allies don't have a whole hell of a lot to say in internal Iraqi government. I guess we could have let the Hague try him and then he could have died of old age like Milosevic.

I'm not exactly sure what sort of "legality" you are looking for. I guess the US illegally helped in Kosovo as well, right, so clintoon should also be charged with war crimes? Not that I personally give a crap about the UN, but in that case dubya did have a working resolution (not to mention the other 14 and 10 years of breaking an existing truce). But who gives a crap about that.

AxdemxO · 12-27-2006, 09:47 PM

Umm the US did not invade Kosovo. Ofcourse the the international community doesnt have a say, ONLY THE US HAS A SAY. Bush has blood on his hand of thousand of people because he started a war based on lies and his own interest. Saddam did what he did and he has been tried so why not Bush.

dude1394 · 12-27-2006, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Umm the US did not invade Kosovo. Ofcourse the the international community doesnt have a say, ONLY THE US HAS A SAY. Bush has blood on his hand of thousand of people because he started a war based on lies and his own interest. Saddam did what he did and he has been tried so why not Bush.

Then you would have been okay with bombing Baghdad from 10,000 feet up until Saddam yelled uncle? Please answer that question.

So who's arm did dubya twist? He went to congress, he went to the UN. He even went to the american people in a little thing called an election.

It appears the only group he didn't ask their opinion of was Saddam.

AxdemxO · 12-27-2006, 10:07 PM

The US did not go into Iraq to remove Saddam because of what he did to the people, they went in because of WMDs ???????? because od Connection to 9/11?????????????? because of connection to Al Qaeda???? None of those were true. If Bush was worried about the people he would go into Cuba, N Korea, China..... But he had his own interests in mind. The US had no busniness going into Iraq at all. But if you r using the argument tht "wer there now and ths too late so what do we do". Well the country is a lot worse than it was under Saddam and everything is fucked up with no good solution and thousands dying each month. So charge Bush and trie him maybe that would be a good start.

dude1394 · 12-27-2006, 10:12 PM

Like most liberals you jump around as soon as you are asked to answer a question so that someone can actually debate you.

Your statement was that Dubya is guilty of war crimes. I'm trying to determine what a "war crime" is to you.

So was dropping bombs on kosovo without the UN agreeing a war crime or not?

AxdemxO · 12-27-2006, 10:18 PM

NO because they did not invade Kosovo and cause thousands of deaths dilebertely or not. The Serbs were committing the crimes and they wree stopped. Plus the US wasnt the only one that stopped the Serbs and helped Kosovo...there were many other countries. In the war wit Iraq the US went alone and like i said based on Bush lies.

Saddam did not kill all those people, he ordered his soldiers to do it. Bush ordered the US army to invade Iraq and thousand died and still are dying. That is the same thing and thats why Bush should be in the same place as Saddam.

dude1394 · 12-27-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

The US did not go into Iraq to remove Saddam because of what he did to the people, they went in because of WMDs ????????

He went in because of the reason he said he went in. To remove the possibility of Saddam having WMD. It's a bonus that we also liberated a people and removed a psychopathic dicatator. He went in on the intelligence of the US, Britain, Russia, Egypt, France, Germany. He went in after getting a vote from John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and a majority of the Democratic Politicians in this country. God it's frustrating to hear monday morning quarterbacking that refuses to "recall" facts.

Quote:

If Bush was worried about the people he would go into Cuba, N Korea, China.....

Stupid childish argument. Because I can't solve all of the worlds problems I shouldn't solve any.

Quote:

The US had no busniness going into Iraq at all

If Saddam had WMD (like every intelligence entity in the world thought he did) would we have had business going into Iraq? If you think not then okay you have an argument, but pulling out what happened later and yelling "I told you so" is like a child who has not responsibility for protecting the lives of citizens. Do nothing, maybe it'll go away...wah...

Quote:

Well the country is a lot worse than it was under Saddam and everything is fucked up with no good solution and thousands dying each month.

Maybe so, maybe you are right that Iraqis and arabs are just too backwards to govern themselves without a dictaator to torture them. If that's your conclusion we might have some common agreement.

Quote:

So charge Bush and trie him maybe that would be a good start.

Now we get back to it. Charge him with what? Stay on point willya'.

dude1394 · 12-27-2006, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

NO because they did not invade Kosovo and cause thousands of deaths dilebertely or not. The Serbs were committing the crimes and they wree stopped. Plus the US wasnt the only one that stopped the Serbs and helped Kosovo...there were many other countries. In the war wit Iraq the US went alone and like i said based on Bush lies.

Saddam did not kill all those people, he ordered his soldiers to do it. Bush ordered the US army to invade Iraq and thousand died and still are dying. That is the same thing and thats why Bush should be in the same place as Saddam.

They were stopped by the US unilaterally bombing the crap outta them. Period. No one gave us the "legality" to do that, we just did it.

Hitler didn't kill millions of jews, he ordered his soldiers to do it. You really wanna go there?

dude1394 · 12-27-2006, 10:26 PM

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civpertons.htm

"The high rate of civilian casualties caused by the NATO bombardment of Kosovo and Serbia further undermines any notion that the air war has a "humanitarian" purpose. Fred Kaplan of the Boston Globe has suggested that at least 1,200 civilians have been killed since NATO started its air war, and that the number of civilian casualties per ton of bombs dropped is greater than during the height of the Vietnam War. The reason for the higher civilian casualty rates is simple: more NATO bombing raids are taking place in heavily populated areas, so that even if most of the bombs are close to their intended targets, those that miss the mark and are more likely to hit adjoining apartment buildings, offices, hospitals, old age homes, public markets, and other places where civilians congregate. Add to this the fact that NATO has been consciously targeting civilian infrastructure, including bridges and electric power stations, and it is quite possible that the death toll from NATO bombing could mount for months and years to come, as people die of disease and starvation caused by the demolition of Serbia's economy (as has been happening for many years in Iraq). THE KILLING OF CIVILIANS BY NATO BOMBS IS NOT A "MISTAKE." IT IS A LOGICAL AND PREDICTABLE OUTGROWTH OF THE WAY NATO HAS CHOSEN TO WAGE THE WAR."1

AxdemxO · 12-27-2006, 10:30 PM

We are not talking about Hitler

I am curious to see what you answer is to this. You said i was jumping around and i gave you an answer so why r you jumping around. Bsed on the statement below why should Bush not be charged.

Saddam did not kill all those people, he ordered his soldiers to do it. Bush ordered the US army to invade Iraq and thousand died and still are dying. That is the same thing and thats why Bush should be in the same place as Saddam.

AxdemxO · 12-27-2006, 10:32 PM

What intelligance??? He went in based on his intelligance that was badddd and wayy off. The international communitydidnt support going in but he did. You said he went in to prevent Saddam from getting WMDs, hmm why doesnt he go to N Korea...ohh yee he has no interest there.

Mavdog · 12-27-2006, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Now we get back to it. Charge him with what? Stay on point willya'.

the charge could be...arrogance, abuse of power, tunnel vision, malfeasance, or perhaps just a good ole case of incompetence.

"crimes against humanity"? that's absurd, and trivializes the acts of those who are truly guilty of such a charge.

dude1394 · 12-27-2006, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

NO because they did not invade Kosovo and cause thousands of deaths dilebertely or not. The Serbs were committing the crimes and they wree stopped. Plus the US wasnt the only one that stopped the Serbs and helped Kosovo...there were many other countries. In the war wit Iraq the US went alone and like i said based on Bush lies.

More crapola.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._coalition.htm

The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exageration. As of August 23, 2006, there were 22 non-U.S. military forces contributing armed forces to the Coalition in Iraq. These 22 countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

dude1394 · 12-27-2006, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

We are not talking about Hitler

I am curious to see what you answer is to this. You said i was jumping around and i gave you an answer so why r you jumping around. Bsed on the statement below why should Bush not be charged.

Saddam did not kill all those people, he ordered his soldiers to do it. Bush ordered the US army to invade Iraq and thousand died and still are dying. That is the same thing and thats why Bush should be in the same place as Saddam.

It's called conflict and a war. The people deliberately killed by US soldiers were(are) Iraqi army and insurgents killed during armed conflict. Some were killed while setting roadside bombs, many killed while firing on our forces or other Iraqis. If there are isolated instances of US soldiers killing indiscriminantely they are tried and convicted. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.
Most of the violence being done in Iraq right now are iraqis on iraqis and have little if anything to do with US operations.

AxdemxO · 12-27-2006, 11:05 PM

They have everything to do with the US being there. It was nrever that bad. There was neve ra civil war between the Sunni and the Shitte and now its going on. Thsousand die each month, just tryo to imagina 1000 people in a room. When you say it, it doesnt sound bad but just imagine. And no most of the people being killed are civilians. Over 50,000 of them and to say that the US doesnt have anything to do with that is crazy.

soo why wrent the soldiers that killed those people found and tried instead of saddam then???

and most of those oth rcountries are there to help rebuild Iraq not to fight.

dude1394 · 12-27-2006, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

They have everything to do with the US being there. It was nrever that bad. There was neve ra civil war between the Sunni and the Shitte and now its going on. Thsousand die each month, just tryo to imagina 1000 people in a room. When you say it, it doesnt sound bad but just imagine. And no most of the people being killed are civilians. Over 50,000 of them and to say that the US doesnt have anything to do with that is crazy.

The elected government of Iraq have requested the US to stay and try to help them restore order to their country. To try and keep them from killing each other. When the Iraqi government (elected by the people of iraq) ask the US to leave they will. You are not listening...The majority of the civilians being killed are being killed by other Iraqis, NOT US soldiers. You act as if the US soldiers are doing what Saddam did, line people up, shoot them and bury them in mass graves or gas them or rape them or pull their tongues out. Sorry the majority of violence being done in Iraq is being done between Iraqi's. To say that the US soldiers are somehow responsible for that is ludicrous.

No there was never a civil war between Shite and Sunni. There was state sanctioned killings of thousands of Shia/Kurds and mass-graves to put them in. There was the use of poison-gas on villages that Saddam ordered. Tortured/raped their families and starved them all under Saddams control. Yup..that was surely much better. Next I guess you'll be saying the N.Koreans have it made as well. No civil war there, but they are starving to death.

Quote:

soo why wrent the soldiers that killed those people found and tried instead of saddam then???

What's your point? That Saddam's not responsible for those mass killings? He's a "victim" and really was just a nice fella who fell in with the wrong crowd?

Quote:

and most of those oth rcountries are there to help rebuild Iraq not to fight.

You continue to fart "facts".

AxdemxO · 12-27-2006, 11:43 PM

The US made the mess there so ofcourse they are asking them to stay and help fix it, but it will not get fixed.

My point is that u said the soldiers that kill Iraqi civilians are tried and sentenced, so why werent the sodiers that did the killing under saddam tried themselves instead of trying Saddam. Since Saddam is being tried doesnt that mean that Bush should get tried for the killings of his soldiers.Also the killings now mite be Iraqi on Iraqi but it all started with the US going into Iraq on false intelegance and Bush's lies.

And it is a fact that most of those countries are there for rebuilding and helpin Iraqis insted of fighting including Bosnia where I happen to be from.

dude1394 · 12-28-2006, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

The US made the mess there so ofcourse they are asking them to stay and help fix it, but it will not get fixed.

My point is that u said the soldiers that kill Iraqi civilians are tried and sentenced, so why werent the sodiers that did the killing under saddam tried themselves instead of trying Saddam. Since Saddam is being tried doesnt that mean that Bush should get tried for the killings of his soldiers.Also the killings now mite be Iraqi on Iraqi but it all started with the US going into Iraq on false intelegance and Bush's lies.

If bush and the US were lining people up, shooting them and burying them in mass graves you would have a point, since they are not, you have no point. As far as finding soldiers and trying them, don't know, but the point you are trying to make that becuase Saddam ordered mass-murder then Dubya is also guilty of mass-murder is obscene.

Quote:

And it is a fact that most of those countries are there for rebuilding and helpin Iraqis insted of fighting including Bosnia where I happen to be from.

I don't really want to go figure this out for you. Britain has soldiers, Australia has soldiers, Poland has soldiers, Spain had soldiers. You tell me who was NOT a soldier there.

Quote:

However, in the August 23, 2006 Iraq Weekly Status Report (Slide 27) the State Department listed 27 foreign countries as contributing troops to the Coalition in Iraq.

Flacolaco · 12-28-2006, 09:48 AM

found this over at www.starsboard.com

lol

FishForLunch · 12-28-2006, 03:19 PM

What Alexdem0 is trying to say is that saddam should hang only if all the bad guys in the world are hanged along with him. BTW to him Bush is a a mass murderer like Stalin, Hitler, Polpot and his fav Sadam.

Sometimes Bush hating makes your logic go crazy.

Drbio · 12-28-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

found this over at www.starsboard.com

lol

hahahaha....love it.

Flacolaco · 12-28-2006, 09:12 PM

Saddam to be hung within 48 hours, msnbc.com is reporting...weird

dude1394 · 12-29-2006, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Saddam to be hung within 48 hours, msnbc.com is reporting...weird

Excellent. The faster they do it, the less frenzy his dead-enders can work themselves up to .

Drbio · 12-29-2006, 12:41 AM

I hope it is televised or at least hits YouTube.

dude1394 · 12-29-2006, 01:12 AM

In fact some think that it's going on as we speak. I do feel kind of tingly inside come to think of it.

Nemesis · 12-29-2006, 02:45 AM

Damn he is getting off easy... That is the only thing I hate about the death penalty. No suffering.

Although I do wish we could send all the child molesters and rapists over to the Iraq for this kind of quick punishment.

capitalcity · 12-29-2006, 12:59 PM

Hours, minutes, seconds...

The final countdown

Flacolaco · 12-29-2006, 01:05 PM

you know....this might be prety insensitive, but I dont think we could hang Anthony Johnson and kill him even if we wanted to.

the dude has no neck