As I write this, a bulletin is playing on ABC News radio (on KGO). The verdict has come in, and Hussein has been sentenced to death by hanging.

I read that any appeals would only take "months" to resolve, unlike "decades" here statesides.

They are more deliberate about punishment over there ... it happens NOW.

Hopefully the appeals process isn't the circus the trial itself was.

I hear Saddam has a good attorney and is confident of getting his sentence cut in half.

Andrew

Hehe...

He lives then, Right?

One of his attorneys is a former demo attorney general. Ramsey Clark.

If its any precident, those sentenced to death at the main trial of Neurenberg, were executed 15 days after sentencing.

The trial took almost 10 months, but the sentences were carried out quickly.

I'm not so sure the standard expectations set by Nuerenberg will apply in this case.

We, as a nation, have completely disregarded this level of conduct. Thank the GOP and Resident Bush for that. Those traditional American values no longer are embodied in our government today. We are less of a people as a result.

The world respected us for that. Today, the world looks down on us in wonder: "Where did the Americans go?".

We've not heard from Saddam just yet. Before he is killed, we should. Problem is that testimony going public is going to reflect very badly on this administration.

He's gonna get the rope quickly. His testimony is as much of a reason for that as his crimes against the people are. (Crimes we empowered you know.)

By Andrew2 on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 7:57 am:
"I hear Saddam has a good attorney and is confident of getting his sentence cut in half."

Good deal....The guillotine would be a better method!!!

I say hang him! But at the same time, I believe that if the US is going to try someone for death, we must extend to them the opportunity for defense. It's only fair and we need to set the example to the rest of the world that even though we all know Saddam is guilty, he still deserves to be tried fairly and receive the justice he deserves.

Rein, you're applying your typical misconception of reality to the situtation. The US didn't try him, the Iraqi government did. We had no involvement whatsoever.

DJ said>>>
We had no involvement whatsoever.


LOL! You just keep thinkin' that......

DJ said>>>
We had no involvement whatsoever.


LOL! You just keep thinkin' that......


Fine, Trixter, spell out the details for me.

"DON'T CHOKE EM.....SMOKE EM!"

The US had no involvement in trying Saddam? You really believe that?

>>>"The US had no involvement in trying Saddam? You really believe that?"

Share your information to the contrary with me.

I'm sure there was absolutely no US involvement. If Saddam would have been found innocent, no doubt he would have walked a free man.

Andrew

Saddam's Trial Features 'Minimal' U.S. Involvement

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2006/20060125_4004.html

OK, so even the DoD admits to involvement.


Then there's this from the Canadian Broadcast Corporation

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/trying_saddam.html

Where is the trial being held?

The trial is being conducted in a heavily fortified courtroom in the Green Zone of Baghdad. Two courtrooms were built in the old Baathist party headquarters. The U.S. provided $138 million to renovate the building as well as to support a team of 50 American, British and Australian lawyers, investigators, forensic experts and archivists in the liaison office.


Wikipedia

On November 5, 2006, Saddam was sentenced to death by hanging. Saddam's lawyer has alleged that the date in which the verdict was read live to the world, November 5, was deliberately motivated by the Bush Administration to influence the U.S. midterm elections scheduled two days afterward.

and

The London-based Arab-language daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported in early May 2005, that during a meeting with Donald Rumsfeld, "known only to a few Iraqi officials in Jordan", Saddam refused an offer of release if he made a televised request to armed groups for a ceasefire with allied forces. Of important note is that no other major newspaper or wire service has since extensively covered this story.[3] The British Daily Telegraph newspaper, quoting an unnamed senior UK government source, had reported two weeks before that Iraqi insurgents were being offered a "deal" whereby the former President of Iraq would receive a more lenient sentence if they gave up their attacks.[4]

On June 17, 2005, former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, former minister of Foreign Affairs of France Roland Dumas and former President of Algeria Ahmed Ben Bella announced the formation, under their joint chairmanship, of an international Emergency Committee for Iraq, with a main objective of ensuring fair trials for Saddam and the other former Baath Party officials being tried with him.[5]

China Daily Online

Much of the cost of the trial has come from the US$128 million allocated by the US Congress to investigate and prosecute members of the former Iraqi regime.


Damn! All this research (a whole 5 minutes worth)is wiping me out.

Remember when he had to go to the library (closed on Sunday), and maybe get lucky and find something relevent?

Andrew2,

You're probably correct! But upon his release, I bet he wouldn't have walked very far, he'd have been taken out with one shot by some CIA-financed sniper on the grassy (sandy) knoll across the street. Ha! Good Riddance!

Sayonara Sucka!

;+)

I wonder how long it will be before the ACLU comes to Saddam's defense.

Don't do it, folks!

--the bleeding has stopped and the healing has begun!

Getting Rid of Saddam is a good thing, despite all the mess surrounding it.

If anyone on earth deserves to be hanged, it's Saddam Hussein, and I will shed no tears for him if that happens. But I don't think we should do it. No matter what the US says, to the world it appears that the US orchestrated Saddam's trial and so, in effect, will be putting him to death.

Somehow, there's something chilling about the fact that the US invaded a sovereign nation (on false pretenses) captured the leader, then executed him. This is something Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia would do, not the United States of America.

And let's not kid ourselves that the Iraqi government is calling the shots here. The United States is letting the Iraqis handle Saddam's trial as long as we approve of how they handle it. Believe you me, if they had sentenced him to 100 hours of community service, he would not be walking free.

Andrew

I don't think he'd be walking free for long. At least not walking. There are more than a couple of folks that wouldn't wait long until the tortured the living bejeezus out of him.

We invaded Iraq for the simple reason, Saddam refused to comply with the agreements made establishing a temperary cease fire, in the first gulf war.

Additionally, Saddam was a threat to US interests, which justified the invasion.

He is being executed by a legally elected government.

I have been trying to make that exact same point but the libs insist there were no WMD's no matter what proof we might provide that he used them.

There were NO WMD's. Even the Bush Adminstration has admitted this obvious fact.

Nwokie writes:
We invaded Iraq for the simple reason, Saddam refused to comply with the agreements made establishing a temperary cease fire, in the first gulf war.

Is that the last reason they tried before they gave up? Not Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not closing the torture chambers? Not bringing Democracy to the Middle East?

Saddam let weapons inspectors back into Iraq a few months before the March 2003 invasion. What else was he supposed to do? The US said the only way he could avoid invasion was to give up the WMDs. Saddam said he didn't have them. The US said that if Saddam claimed not to have the weapons, he must be lying. Obviously there was absolutely no way for him to avoid invasion. If you read up on this, you know Bush was going in regardless of UN agreements.

Additionally, Saddam was a threat to US interests, which justified the invasion.

There are dozens of "threats to US interests" all around the world. Invading because of a perceived threat doesn't justify anything.

He is being executed by a legally elected government.

You don't think the puppet governments setup by the Nazis in Poland and France were "legal" governments too? What about the Warsaw Pact governments of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslavakia, etc.? Does that mean the governments who really set them up (Germany, USSR) had absolutely nothing to do with what went on in those countries? Don't kid yourself.

Andrew

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Reinstatepete on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 6:14 pm:
There were NO WMD's. Even the Bush Adminstration has admitted this obvious fact.

-----------

Yes there were! They discovered 500 WMD's! The point like he said was that Saddam was supposed to declare that he had them. The burden of proof was on him not Bush.

By Andrew2 on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 6:14 pm:
Nwokie writes:
We invaded Iraq for the simple reason, Saddam refused to comply with the agreements made establishing a temperary cease fire, in the first gulf war.

Is that the last reason they tried before they gave up? Not Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not closing the torture chambers? Not bringing Democracy to the Middle East?

Saddam let weapons inspectors back into Iraq a few months before the March 2003 invasion. What else was he supposed to do? The US said the only way he could avoid invasion was to give up the WMDs. Saddam said he didn't have them. The US said that if Saddam claimed not to have the weapons, he must be lying. Obviously there was absolutely no way for him to avoid invasion. If you read up on this, you know Bush was going in regardless of UN agreements.


he is exactly right. We didn't have to prove anything. The resolution 1441 said that Saddam was supposed to declare his weapons. Again you sound like he is your hero. Why don't you liberals try to stop his hanging if he was so wonderful of a leader?

Hanging/death is too good for him,he gets off too easy.
I'm not one for torture,but this is a prime example of someone who *deserves* it.
Make the bastard suffer for the rest of his natural life.

I've similar thoughts.

But, those he wronged need some closure. Keeping him around also keeps the events around.

"Getting Rid of Saddam is a good thing, despite all the mess surrounding it."

I couldn't agree more. Neither could the Shiites, Kurds, neighboring Iran ...

Saddam Hussein is a despot who killed thousands of his own people for not agreeing with him. Despite the mess going on there right now, long-term Iraq will be better off IMO.

Here's an idea: Instead of hanging him, maybe he should be turned over to some of the families of some of his victims and THEY can punish him as they see fit. It STILL won't be as cruel or unusual of punishment as he inflicted upon those victims and their families.

I like that idea one heck of a lot more than I do the death penalty!

How about locking him in a room with Wayne for 20 years.

or making him listen to repeats of the "Rivers" shows.

Check this out! The Eurpoean Nations are wavering on this whole thing:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1959073.ece

Wonder if their plea will matter?

It will not matter, and serves the purpose of showcasing what a bunch of weak minded appeasers the Europeans are. France would probably like to give him political sanctuary.

Do all the liberals forget, Saddam making inspectors wait for hours, before letting them inspect buildings, because they couldnt find the keys?

Or inspectors being delayed for hours because of mysterious car failures?


Saddam agreed to free and open inspections, ant place any time the inspectores wanted to go somewhere.

Also he agreed to the no fly zones, which he continued to violate.

Figures, most European countries won't expedite anyone to the United States who MIGHT be eligible for the death penalty.

Now tell me WHY the man deserves to live .. ??

Well, he's a baddie for sure. No question.

Personally, I'm opposed to any death penalty, but that's me.

The Europeans are saying his trial was not fair. If we hold Nuremburg to be the standard, they've got a point.

On the other hand, it's damn tough to give the guy a fair trial. Too many enemies. Didn't he lose a few lawyers throughout this whole thing? (Got killed?)

Taking my personal opposition to the death penalty off the table, he does not deserve to live, IMHO.

However, we've not yet heard him speak either.

If he's gonna be put to death, we should at least hear his final statements.

"If he's gonna be put to death, we should at least hear his final statements."

But he DID!!

He said, "God is Great" upon hearing his sentence.

*bites tongue*

Well ok... I think I'll bite mine too.

By Stoner on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 7:44 am:
or making him listen to repeats of the "Rivers" shows.


Now......The man is sentenced to die....we should not bring ourselves down to his level by adding cruel and inhuman torture...even though he deserves it.!!!!

How about we just make him listen the the "Barney" song and throw a tickle me Elmo in his cell with him that is stuck on! That would be far less severe thar "Rivers" re-runs.....

He is baddie for sure.
But remember, he used to be our baddie.

"Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials…his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim…

Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim…

The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched…Saddam, whose calf had been grazed by a fellow would-be assassin, escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents…

Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred by Egyptian intelligence agents to Beirut, according to Darwish and former senior CIA officials. While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam’s apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said…

In Cairo, Saddam was installed in an apartment in the upper class neighborhood of Dukki and spent his time playing dominos in the Indiana Café, watched over by CIA and Egyptian intelligence operatives…during this time Saddam was making frequent visits to the American Embassy…

In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup…the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq’s communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down…the mass killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End…

The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq’s armed forces…the CIA and DIA provided military assistance to Saddam’s ferocious February 1988 assault on Iranian positions in the al-Fao peninsula by blinding Iranian radars for three days.

The Saddam-U.S. intelligence alliance of convenience came to an end at 2 a.m. Aug. 2, 1990, when 100,000 Iraqi troops, backed by 300 tanks, invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. America’s one-time ally had become its bitterest enemy."



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm

"Here's an idea: Instead of hanging him, maybe he should be turned over to some of the families of some of his victims and THEY can punish him as they see fit."

Saddam's Trial A Potent But Unpredictable Step
By LARRY KAPLOW
Cox News Service
Thursday, October 20, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq — In a judicial process intended to showcase the new Iraq, Saddam Hussein is scheduled to go on trial Wednesday facing the first in an expected series of charges for his brutal, murderous reign.

But the court's rules are murky and for many Iraqis the outcome is more important than the process. It is not necessarily rule of law or democracy they want, but vengeance on the former dictator.

"We hope we see him cut to pieces and spread among the families," said Salima Majeed al-Haidary, 60, whose husband and son were executed in 1982 by Saddam's forces in the town of Dujail. She and the rest of her family spent three years in a prison camp.

How about a double hanging: Saddam and former Reverend Ted Haggard -- two enemies of the people!

Saddam had more class, though.

Ted Haggard knows all about being "hung"!



Badda Bing!

I'll be here all week folks!

"Try the veal"

Thanks, Mrs. Merkin.

By Stoner on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 7:44 am:
or making him listen to repeats of the "Rivers" shows.


lets put him in a room with Rosanne and have him listen to her sing the national anthem!

Hey Merkin, I heard Ted Haggard is hung!


HUNG LIKE A BABY!

Badda Bing!

Wayne says "lets put him in a room with Rosanne and have him listen to her sing the national anthem!"


Id rather listen to Rosanne sing the National Anthem. Sorry Wayne, but I'm tired of listening to your verbal diarrhea!

You are so desparately liberal you don't think anything is funny. Do you want your hero, Saddam, to be freed?

Wayner your are so desparately neo-CONer you don't think anything that anyone else says is funny. Do you want your hero, DUHbya to continue to F up America????

The only humor you see is when anyone attacks our president. The problem with liberals is that they are so desparate in their liberalism that nothing is funny! What a miserable kind of an existance is it when nothing is funny?

neo-CONers are so uptight that if you shoved a piece of coal up one of their asses in a week you would have a diamond....

Shhhhhh. Wayne's trying to get a necklace for Mom finished by Christmas.

"Shhhhhh. Wayne's trying to get a necklace for Mom finished by Christmas."

Thanks. I just spewed beer out of my nose at that one.

Maybe it'll be one of those cool popcorn necklaces we made when we were five years old ... oh wait, Cheerios! What mom wouldn't want a Cheerios necklace from her favorite retired postal-worker son?

But the diamonds are so much nicer!

The rest us can only make 'em out of popcorn, cheerios, elbow macaroni, string, glue and glitter.

You know what my family is doing? Instead of the usual gift giving we are going to help those who are less fortunate. Thats my brothers idea and I think its a good one.

Here is a picture of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands in December 1983. That's less than two years AFTER Hussein commited the crimes he has just been sentenced for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donald_saddam.jpg

Randy..
That means NOTHING to the neo-CONers of the world that Reagan was the MAIN contributor to Sodomy's rise to power.
It's ALL Clinton's fault!!!!!

And don't you EVER forget it. FAUXNews won't...

On Dec. 20, 1983, the Washington Post reported that Rumsfeld "visited Iraq in what U.S. officials said was an attempt to bolster the already improving U.S. relations with that country."

Two days later, the New York Times cited a "senior American official" who "said that the United States remained ready to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq and that it was up to the Iraqis."

On March 29, 1984, the Times reported: "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name." Washington had some goodies for Saddam's regime, the Times account noted, including "agricultural-commodity credits totaling $840 million." And while "no results of the talks have been announced" after the Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad three months earlier, "Western European diplomats assume that the United States now exchanges some intelligence on Iran with Iraq."

A few months later, on July 17, 1984, a New York Times article with a Baghdad dateline sketchily filled in a bit more information, saying that the U.S. government "granted Iraq about $2 billion in commodity credits to buy food over the last two years." The story recalled that "Donald Rumsfeld, the former Middle East special envoy, held two private meetings with the Iraqi president here," and the dispatch mentioned in passing that "State Department human rights reports have been uniformly critical of the Iraqi President, contending that he ran a police state."

Full diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad were restored 11 months after Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit with Saddam -- who went on to use poison gas later in the decade, actions which scarcely harmed relations with the Reagan administration.

As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. "In response to the gassing," journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, "sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House."

Gee should we free Saddam and hang Reagan?

Yeah, that's what we should do. Your conclusion is 100% correct. That's what we all stand for. And while we're at it, we should hang you as well.

I never call for anyone here to be banned for what the say but your behavior lately seems to be justified for it.

your personal attacks on him as well as calling native americans drunks who rob stores is over the edge if you ask me.

your a jerk who needs to grow up

You tell em' Mc Hammer!

I think you've been huffing too many fumes, MC.

Well its painfully obvious that you have decided that you are going to be annoying and a jerk.

Dont act surprised when people treat you the same way you treat them.

I've been treated with nothing but respect here for the most part, and I have done the same to those I feel deserve respect likewise. You are not one of them though. Although you're free to change my mind, but you're not off to a very good start.

Of course. Just about everbody here agrees with you. Why wouldn't you get respect here? Blind agreement is a requirement for respect here. Why won't you people let anyone think for himself?

I agree with MC. You need to grow up.

Wayner...
You should take some of your own advice....

Wayner said>>>
I agree with MC. You need to grow up.

I am not here to change your mind nor do I care.

If you want to be a jerk then so be it.

I just remember when you actually had something usefull to say here but lately you have turned to insults.

I dont agree with 70% of what Wayne says but that doesnt mean I have to right to call him names.

TRUE... VERY true

With the election over will the insults stop? I doubt it. Some people just can't change.

WW said>>>
Some people just can't change.

Got a mirror buddy?? Try looking in it....

sorry trix, logic won't do the trick!

kskd, read the part in woodward's book "denial" about saddam's meeting with one of the saudia arabian royalty at the first meeting of an arab summit saddam ever attended. You'll support the death penalty for saddam. In fact, you'll support cruel and unusual punishment -- maybe a dull edged sword. saddam is that bad. I don't think Hitler and Stalin killed people in their own circle to the extent that saddam did in order to keep their dictatorship alive.