Saddam predictions

[pigeonmeister]

Saddam went on trial today, I don't fancy his chances. I'm thinking he'll definately get the death penalty. What do other think?

[Larrison]

The poll is flawed..

where is..

Death by Firing Squad

Death by Frenzed Mob

Suicide in his Jail Cell

Jail break

Found innocent

Found innocent and restored to office with profuse apologies by the US

etc...


For the record, I think he's going to be found guilty and shot.

[Mr Epee]

Saddam went on trial today, I don't fancy his chances. I'm thinking he'll definitely get the death penalty. What do other think?

I have a real soft spot for petty dictators in small countries. I have this fantasy of making a music video for Frank Sinatra's My Way. Just playing that song, and then matching up clips of Fidel, Slobo, Sadaam. I don't have it all mapped out, but I'm thinking the end sequence includes Qaddafi reading a newspaper on the toilette.

Today's courtroom Drama was pretty awesome.

Judge: What is your name?

Saadam: You are an Iraqi and you know who I am. What is your name and who do you think you are representing.

Judge: What is your name?

Saadam: You are an Iraqi and you know who I am. etc...

This went on for a while and resulted in Saadam announcing that he doesn't recognize the authority of the court.

Trial will resume in 40 days.

[Slim]

I have a real soft spot for petty dictators in small countries. I have this fantasy of making a music video for Frank Sinatra's My Way. Just playing that song, and then matching up clips of Fidel, Slobo, Sadaam. I don't have it all mapped out, but I'm thinking the end sequence includes Qaddafi reading a newspaper on the toilette.

There is nothing petty about these people or their handywork.

[Mr Epee]

There is nothing petty about these people or their handywork.

Check your dictionary, Groucho.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I predict saddamn will make the top 8, but definitely not the top 4. It would be unusual for saddam to medal, but hey, stranger things have happened.

[Mr Epee]

For nearly two decades, we have called for Saddam Hussein and his henchmen to be brought to justice. We have grave concerns that the court will not ensure fair trials. To ensure justice and its own legitimacy, the court must fix these deficiencies.

Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program

Dry reading, but interesting information on the subject.

The Human Rights Watch Report on Iraq

---------------------------
Formatting the Trial

Saddam's trial, on charges that could lead to the execution of the fallen Iraqi leader, will bear little resemblance to an American courtroom because Iraqi jurisprudence is based on French and Egyptian models.

There will be no jury. The chief judge - there will be three judges in all - will question witnesses, many of whom he will have interviewed before the trial, and the three judges will decide the guilt or innocence of Saddam and seven co-defendants.

Full article

---------------------------
Saddam's Case?

Iraqi officials say the only charge against Saddam so far is the killing of more than 140 men in the mostly Shia village of Dujail after a failed 1982 assassination attempt against him.

"He had full immunity under the prevailing Iraqi constitution and you cannot have a retroactive legislation that removes that immunity," Alani said in an interview late on Thursday.

Alani said the defence will argue that those killed had been found guilty under Iraq's laws and Saddam's only role was to sign their death warrants.

Report from Aljazeera.net

---------------------------

This is a fairly tricky situation for a many reasons.

[Slim]

It's a shame to think about how much time and money that one little $27 frag grenade dropped down the spider hole could have saved.

[darius]

It's a shame to think about how much time and money that one little $27 frag grenade dropped down the spider hole could have saved.

If you know it's a shame, why are you still fantasizing?

darius

[Slim]

If you know it's a shame, why are you still fantasizing?

darius

You disagree?

[pigeonmeister]

I think that a lot of Iraqi people (remember them- the ones you supposed to be fighting for) would disagree.

[Mr Epee]

Do you recognize these guys?

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

The above is an excerpt from

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003

It is published on www.iranchamber.com

[keith]

wait that can't be right, 1983. Surely after this man brutally murdered 140 men and boys the most morally upright nation on the planet wouldn't be sending people to shake hands with him!

This has to be a photoshop job.

[Purple Fencer]

It's a shame to think about how much time and money that one little $27 frag grenade dropped down the spider hole could have saved.

Weren't that about to do just that when he came into view???

And consider this...had the grenade gone down and taken him out, he would've forever gone down as having died a coward, hiding.

He'll get convited and shot/hanged. etc fairly fast...and good riddance to him. The world'll be a better place.

[Mr Epee]

wait that can't be right, 1983. Surely after this man brutally murdered 140 men and boys the most morally upright nation on the planet wouldn't be sending people to shake hands with him!

This has to be a photoshop job.

The Dujail incident, which the prosecution decided to open with, is one of the few cases against Saddam that isn't linked somehow with the US.

[keith]

The Dujail incident, which the prosecution decided to open with, is one of the few cases against Saddam that isn't linked somehow with the US.

Oh I now that but still - I am confused and perhaps you can help.

Why is this act worthy of the death penalty now and yet did not cause a serious diplomatic incident in the early '80s.

.... although now I look at it again that does look like one of those 'you've been a terribly bad boy now pretend to be contrite' handshakes.

[esskreemr]

It's a shame to think about how much time and money that one little $27 frag grenade dropped down the spider hole could have saved.

Yes, you're right. Why let justice prevail and miss the opportunity to kill another Muslim. Damned shame he'll be paraded around by the media like a poodle in a skirt.

Death isn't the worst punishment available.

[RITFencing]

Speaking from a purely pragmatic standpoint, to try and convict the old ruler is a great victory for the new government and can help strengthen it in the eyes of its constituents. The main point is that this is a show of strength for the new Iraqi government, not (as it could easily be seen with a $27 frag grenade or an even cheaper .556 round) assassination by forgein occupiers. The new government needs to show that it can be as effective as possible on its own.

[Bayou Bum]

Do you recognize these guys?





The above is an excerpt from

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003

It is published on www.iranchamber.com

You must be mistaken! This states that Iraq had WMD's. I thought the lib's claimed Bush was lying about Iraq ever having WMD's.

Besides, sometimes you have to side with an enemy to remove a greater threat. ie. allied with the Soviet Union in WWII to defeat Nazi Germany.

[keith]

Besides, sometimes you have to side with an enemy to remove a greater threat. ie. allied with the Soviet Union in WWII to defeat Nazi Germany.

ah so Saddam's gassing of Kurds and Iranians was performed as a public service to the american people?

Makes one wonder what the Kurds had to do to get back on your good sides