The Iraq thread 4

[Baff2 0]

Hi all

I have a simple question for everyone.

Why are we, the coalition in Iraq?

Kind Regards Walker

What do you mean by 'we'? 'We' as in the US or 'we' as in the US and it's allies?

Financial.

Oil contracts. That's a lot of oil that could get sold to us and not our rivals.

Trade contracts. Under the current regime our sanctions allowed our rivals to trade with Saddam but not us.

Debts. As long as we maintained a conflictory stance our Iraq debt would never be repaid.

Military maintenace. Maintaining the military containment of Iraq was expensive. Better to finish it than let it drip drip on.

Military.

Airbases and military bases. In order to maintain the option of military force, we need military logistical and airbases in the region. Saudi had insisted that we leave.

Iraq was wide open.

A friendly, or better dependant, regime would allow us to use the place as a launchpad for any interventions on their neighbours, where other less dependant regimes may not.

Personal.

They tried to kill Bush's dad.

[Baff2 0]

Isn`t it about fucking time plan Z goes into effect?Negotiate with the enemy a withdrawl based on the closest common ground that exists?Like pledging retreat from the country if sectarian death squads are terminated

Negotiate with who?

The whole country is fighting it out for supremacy. No one is in authority, there isn't anyone to negotiate with and no one in any position of control.

[Journeyman 0]

Here is how the Iraqi city with the second largest concentration of US troops looks like today:

Like I said earlier ... a hornet’s nest was opened on the removal of Saddam! These people are truly grateful to the coalition for ousting Saddam as they can now rampage the streets freely with their guns and launchers!

Yet another falls illusion & bollocksed up attempt at creating a civilised culture by invading a primitive power hungry bunch of warmongers! ... Dream on Bush you will never in a million years create a civilised nation out of this lot!

IMO Saddam had the only policy that worked here .... like it or not it's a fact! Get the fuck out and leave them sort out their own destiny!

[Donnervogel 0]

Well first thanks for a constructive answer this time.

Quote[/b] ]And? Does jury nullification make all jury trials corrupt? No. Why (IMO)? Each jury is different and are suppose to be not bias.

Take the "why" and apply it to the military justice system.

I don't really see how to apply this to the military system. My point simply was that if a system is already openly violating international and constitutional laws on other procedures and it is considered "legal" by them their opinion of legality must be totally flawed. And as pointed out in another of my points this really makes me sceptic of such trials because the same people that are responsible for initiating the earlier laws can also influence other trials.

Quote[/b] ]Congress enacted the UCMJ and MCA of 2006. The Supreme Court has limited jurisidiction in the military justice system due to the Constitution. The President does not have a role in the military justice system. The roles are the commander, the staff judge advocate, military judges, and court members.

Well this is a very awkward subjet and very complicated because of the details. But since your sources and mine seem disagree I don't really know what source to believe more. I use an article in "Jahrbuch Menschenrechte 2000" about the ICC wich is going into some detail with the US military and civil justice system.

Anyway here are some points I got from my Source:

The president has a role as he appoints the judges of the highest military court, The United States Court of Military Appeals.

The congress (and president) enacted the laws since those are federal laws. But the problem is that that neither the congress not the supreme court can overturn decissions made by a military court or stop ongoing trials. Although the president can. This is not to be confused with the posibility that the Supreme court can reevaluate decissions made by the Court of Military Appeals. Because this will never "overwrite" a military decission but merley force the military to find a new military decission. Also in the military justice system it is not guaranteed that you can appeal to any higher instance for that matter. Any instance can simply decide that no further appeals can be made.

Quote[/b] ]However, the commanding officer is checked through the law to hopely prevent misconduct by him/her.

Well since those unfair procedures and decissions are legal under military law a commander is doing nothing wrong by influencing a sentence. Wich basicly means the whole system is unfair in this point.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]6. is not bound to the laws of the country where the crimes took place (Iraq)

7. denies an Iraqi investigation into the affair because of corrupted agreements.

Blame the Bush Adminstration and not the military justice system for the agreement.

The agreement is one thing and I don't really care who is responsible for it. As long as it exists I can't accept a trial conducted under those circumstances a fair trial.

But the other point is a general military justice thing wich exists in any military justice system I know (thus none I know is really fair). Since they are not civil courts they are neither bound to listen to nor to prosecute any civil claims. Especially when they come from foreigners.

Basicly the points involving Iraqi civillians are the most serious reasons why those trials are unfair. Because they simply ignore Iraqi souvereignity and compromise the rule of law in Iraq.

For example if you travel to Switzerland you have to follow Swiss laws too. You don't have the right to bear arms here but you can drink liquor when you're 18 years old. And nobody would accept it that you would be allowed to carry private weapons with you without proper Swiss weapons license simply because you are US citizen.

Quote[/b] ]You are simply selecting flaws and not proving how the system is corrupt.

Well my main points are that the system is unjust and unfair wich is adequately shown by pointing out flaws. The corrupted part is when they introduce laws that are violating international agreements and human rights (wich the US signed) and when they make "agreements" from their position of power that subvert the justice systems of other nations by implicitly putting their citizens above that nation's law.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well this is a very awkward subjet and very complicated because of the details. But since your sources and mine seem disagree I don't really know what source to believe more. I use an article in "Jahrbuch Menschenrechte 2000" about the ICC wich is going into some detail with the US military and civil justice system.

Anyway here are some points I got from my Source:

The president has a role as he appoints the judges of the mihighest military court, The United States Court of Military Appeals.

The congress (and president) enacted the laws since those are federal laws. But the problem is that that neither the congress not the supreme court can overturn decissions made by a military court or stop ongoing trials. Although the president can. This is not to be confused with the posibility that the Supreme court can reevaluate decissions made by the Court of Military Appeals. Because this will never "overwrite" a military decission but merley force the military to find a new military decission. Also in the military justice system it is not guaranteed that you can appeal to any higher instance for that matter. Any instance can simply decide that no further appeals can be made.

1.) The President appoints the judges to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) and needs the advice and consent of the Senate. Additionally, the judges are civilians and not military.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._Forces

2.) Cases involving a punitive discharge, dismissal, confinement for one year or more, or death are automatically reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of the convicted service branch for legal error, factual sufficiency, and sentence appropriateness. All other cases are subject to review by the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the convicted service brand and can be referred by JAG to the Court of Criminal Appeals of the convicted service branch. The US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reviews a conviction when 1.) a death sentence is affirmed, 2.) the Judge Advocate General orders the affirmed conviction to the court for review, or 3.) an petition by the accused that has good cause.

Source:

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/AppellateRev.htm

3.) I don't know if the President can stop a military trial.

4.) The appellate review can destory the prosecution case. The appellate courts are also not bound by the findings of fact made in the court martial and can challenge them.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa103000e.htm

Quote[/b] ]

Well since those unfair procedures and decissions are legal under military law a commander is doing nothing wrong by influencing a sentence. Wich basicly means the whole system is unfair in this point.

Life isn't unfair but we deal with it. I already informed you that there are checks and balances to prevent the commander from committing misconduct.

Quote[/b] ]But the other point is a general military justice thing wich exists in any military justice system I know (thus none I know is really fair). Since they are not civil courts they are neither bound to listen to nor to prosecute any civil claims. Especially when they come from foreigners.

Actually, victims can get restitution. For example, there is the

Foreign Claims Act for foreigners and Article 139, UCMJ-Property Claims.

More @ http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/assist/nvaa99/chap3-3.htm

Quote[/b] ]

Well my main points are that the system is unjust and unfair wich is adequately shown by pointing out flaws. The corrupted part is when they introduce laws that are violating international agreements and human rights (wich the US signed) and when they make "agreements" from their position of power that subvert the justice systems of other nations by implicitly putting their citizens above that nation's law.

Again, no system is perfect. Military personnel sent through the military justice system are more likely to be found guilty then not guilty like any other court. There are times in which the military hands over accused servicemen to the local authorities to be tried by the locals (i.e. the rape case in Okinawa).

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/annual/FY05AnnualReport.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/okinawa_rape/

You still have not proven how the whole system is corrupt.

Unfair to everybody (i.e., prosecution and defense)? You damn right.

[Donnervogel 0]

Well I think I have to start at the very end of you posting:

Quote[/b] ]You still have not proven how the whole system is corrupt.

If you would read what I write you came across this:

Quote[/b] ]The corrupted part is when they introduce laws that are violating international agreements and human rights (wich the US signed) and when they make "agreements" from their position of power that subvert the justice systems of other nations by implicitly putting their citizens above that nation's law.

I also strongly recoment to read the context of this quote wich will reveal that my main point is not that the whole system is corrupt but that it is unfair and unjust.

Back to your replies:

Quote[/b] ]Again, no system is perfect. Military personnel sent through the military justice system are more likely to be found guilty then not guilty like any other court.

Heh well this is exactly my point and it is simply wrong to accept that. A justice system is supposed to be fair, that's the point of it. It should offer fair solutions to legal conflicts and breaches so people will refrain from taking justice in their own hands but at the same time can live their lives without unnecessary restrictions.

Quote[/b] ]1.) The President appoints the judges to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) and needs the advice and consent of the Senate. Additionally, the judges are civilians and not military.

It is not relevant if the people in the comitee are civilians or not in this case, the ruleset under wich they operate is relevant.

Of course senate needs to give consent but in the US the senate is very rarely a serious opposition to the president because of the possibility to issue a "recess appointment" wich means the president doesn't have to get congressional consent during that (short) period. This instrument has been used by US presidents a number of times already.

to 2) You are correct. However I don't see how this conflicts with my point. To sub point 3): The problem is the good cause clause wich is open to subjective interpretation. This is also known in other legal systems (I believe it is also in the US federal law somewhere) however many non US constitutional courts have ruled that such a "good cause" clause is a violation of human rights.

4) Of course it can, again I don't see how it conflicts with my point where I was talking about the US supreme court.

Quote[/b] ]Actually, victims can get restitution. For example, there is the

Foreign Claims Act for foreigners and Article 139, UCMJ-Property Claims.

Of course they can. I implicitly stated that the possibility exists. The problem is that the military justice is not bound to allow it. Otherwise any iraqi that got his house dammaged or a relative killed as result of the invasion of Iraq by the US forces or the occupation or the *whatever they are doing now there* could open a case in the US military sytem to get compensation. This obviously is not possible.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The killings go on and the torture and the bombings and the sniping:

Quote[/b] ]Sniper Attacks Adding to Peril of U.S. Troops

By C. J. CHIVERS

Published: November 4, 2006

KARMA, Iraq, Nov. 3 — The bullet passed through Lance Cpl. Juan Valdez-Castillo as his Marine patrol moved down a muddy urban lane. It was a single shot. The lance corporal fell against a wall, tried to stand and fell again.

His squad leader, Sgt. Jesse E. Leach, faced where the shot had come from, raised his rifle and grenade launcher and quickly stepped between the sniper and the bloodied marine. He walked backward, scanning, ready to fire.

Shielding the marine with his own thick body, he grabbed the corporal by a strap and dragged him across a muddy road to a line of tall reeds, where they were concealed. He put down his weapon, shouted orders and cut open the lance corporal’s uniform, exposing a bubbling wound...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006....omepage

Follow the full article and photo story of one marine Lance Cpl. Juan Valdez-Castillo shot by a sniper but survived

Why are our coalition soldiers still being killed maimed and wounded in Iraq?

It is not the tactics that are wrong as George Bush Junior likes to say; thus shifting the blame on to the troops on the ground  a typical underhand NeoConMen Con.

It was not the tactics of brave soldiers, like Cpl. Juan Valdez-Castillo or his squad leader Sgt. Jesse E. Leach or indeed their officers right on up to their generals, that were wrong.

It is the Goals that were wrong.

We did not even need to go in. There was no threat:

There was no WMD in Iraq.

There was no link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq.

But once we went in we were appallingly badly led.

Because Donald Rumsfeld refused to plan to win the war in Iraq.

Because never enough troops were sent to do the job.

Because the borders were left porous.

Remember the Goals they conned us with?

WMD Remember all those fake intel pictures and the nonexistent yellow-cake?

There was no WMD in Iraq, we were conned by the NeoConMen.

Remember that faked up link between Ata and a supposed Iraqi secret service man in Prague?

There was no link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, we were conned by the NeoConMen.

Remember all those lies about 9/11 being hatched in Iraq?

There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq, we were conned by the NeoConMen.

And that is the fault of George Bush Junior and Dick Cheney the other NeoConMen who set those goals.

It is the strategy that is wrong.

See the sworn testimony of a US general in Iraq to the US senate.

Quote[/b] ]USA: Maj. General John Batiste’s testimony before Sen. Democratic Policy Committee

Army Major General John R.S. Batiste (retired)

September 25, 2006

My name is John Batiste. I left the military on principle on November 1, 2005, after more than 31 years of service. I walked away from promotion and a promising future serving our country. I hung up my uniform because I came to the gut-wrenching realization that I could do more good for my soldiers and their families out of uniform. I am a West Point graduate, the son and son-in-law of veteran career soldiers, a two-time combat veteran with extensive service in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq, and a life-long Republican. Bottom line, our nation is in peril, our Department of Defense’s leadership is extraordinarily bad, and our Congress is only today, more than five years into this war, beginning to exercise its oversight responsibilities. This is all about accountability and setting our nation on the path to victory. There is no substitute for victory and I believe we must complete what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. He knows everything, except “how to win.†He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq, or the human dimension of warfare. Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build “his plan,†which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace, and set Iraq up for self-reliance. He refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency, which was an absolute certainty. Bottom line, his plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today. Our great military lost a critical window of opportunity to secure Iraq because of inadequate troop levels and capability required to impose security, crush a budding insurgency, and set the conditions for the rule of law in Iraq. We were undermanned from the beginning, lost an early opportunity to secure the country, and have yet to regain the initiative. To compensate for the shortage of troops, commanders are routinely forced to manage shortages and shift coalition and Iraqi security forces from one contentious area to another in places like Baghdad, An Najaf, Tal Afar, Samarra, Ramadi, Fallujah, and many others. This shifting of forces is generally successful in the short term, but the minute a mission is complete and troops are redeployed back to the region where they came from, insurgents reoccupy the vacuum and the cycle repeats itself. Troops returning to familiar territory find themselves fighting to reoccupy ground which was once secure. We are all witnessing this in Baghdad and the Al Anbar Province today. I am reminded of the myth of Sisyphus. This is no way to fight a counter-insurgency. Secretary Rumsfeld’s plan did not set our military up for success...

http://polstate.com/?p=4925

Follow the link for the full testimony

See what the US Military Media think

Quote[/b] ]Newspapers for troops call for Rumsfeld's ouster

Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, November 4, 2006

An influential chain of newspapers considered must-reading by military forces from California to Baghdad will call for the ouster of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a scathing editorial to be published Monday.

"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt," the editorial says, according to an advance copy released Friday. "The time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."

The editorial will run in the 250,000 copies of Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times. The newspapers are published under the umbrella Military Times Media Group by Gannett Co. Inc., not by the U.S. military, and have been popular among American forces since World War II.

"It is extremely widely read and influential for the professional military," said David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland...  

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....ELD.TMP

And that failed strategy is the fault of Donald Rumsfeld because he refused to plan to win the war in Iraq.

And all for what?

At least 60,000 Iraqis killed but according to the most prestigious US University Johns Hopkins it may be as many as 10 times that.

http://www.jhsph.edu/publich....06.html

Even if it is just the lower figure how can any citizen of the coalition live with that on their conscience?

So I ask: Why are we the coalition in Iraq?

When our troops are lead by those who deliberately set out to make this war endless.

I ask again why are we the coalition in Iraq?

When coalition troops still die everyday for George and Dicks none existent goals.

I ask again why are we the coalition in Iraq?

Sadly Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

Saddam sentenced to death:

Saddam, 2 others sentenced to death

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq -

Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced Sunday to hang for crimes against humanity in the 1982 killings of 148 people in a single town, as the ousted leader, trembling and defiant, shouted "God is great!"

As he, his half brother and another senior official in his regime were convicted and sentenced to death, Saddam yelled out, "Long live the people and death to their enemies. Long live the glorious nation, and death to its enemies!"

Some feared the verdicts could intensify

Iraq's sectarian violence after a trial that stretched over nine months in 39 sessions and ended nearly 3 1/2 months ago. Clashes immediately broke out Sunday in north Baghdad's heavily Sunni Azamiyah district. Elsewhere in the capital, celebratory gunfire rang out.

"This government will be responsible for the consequences, with the deaths of hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands, whose blood will be shed," Salih al-Mutlaq, a Sunni political leader, told the al-Arabiya satellite television station.

The death sentences were not expected to be carried out quickly. They automatically go to a nine-judge appeals panel which has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.

Saddam and his seven co-defendants were on trial for a wave of revenge killings carried out in the city of Dujail following a 1982 assassination attempt on the former dictator. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Islamic Dawa party, then an underground opposition, has claimed responsibility for organizing the attempt on Saddam's life.

In the streets of Dujail, a Tigris River city of 84,000, people celebrated and burned pictures of their former tormentor as the verdict was read.

During Sunday's hearing, Saddam initially refused the chief judge's order to rise; two bailiffs lifted the ousted ruler to his feet and he remained standing through the sentencing, sometimes wagging his finger at the judge.

Before the session began, one of Saddam's lawyers, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, was ejected from the courtroom after handing the judge a memorandum in which he called the trial a travesty.

Chief Judge Raouf Abdul-Rahman pointed to Clark and said in English, "Get out."

In addition to the former Iraqi dictator and Barzan Ibrahim, his former intelligence chief and half brother, the Iraqi High Tribunal convicted and sentenced Awad Hamed al-Bandar, the head of Iraq's former Revolutionary Court, to death by hanging. Iraq's former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Three defendants were sentenced to 15 years in prison for torture and premeditated murder. Abdullah Kazim Ruwayyid and his son Mizhar Abdullah Ruwayyid were party officials Dujail, along with Ali Dayih Ali. They were believed responsible for the Dujail arrests.

Mohammed Azawi Ali, a former Dujail Baath Party official, was acquitted for lack of evidence and immediately freed.

He faces additional charges in a separate case over an alleged massacre of Kurdish civilians.

The guilty verdict for Saddam is expected to enrage hard-liners among Saddam's fellow Sunnis, who made up the bulk of the former ruling class. The country's majority Shiites, who were persecuted under the former leader but now largely control the government, will likely view the outcome as a cause of celebration.

In Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, 1,000 people defied the curfew and carried pictures of the city's favorite son through the streets. Some declared the court a product of the U.S. "occupation forces" and condemned the verdict.

"By our souls, by our blood we sacrifice for you Saddam" and "Saddam your name shakes America."

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad issued a statement saying the verdicts "demonstrate the commitment of the Iraqi people to hold them (Saddam and his co-defendants) accountable."

"Although the Iraqis may face difficult days in the coming weeks, closing the book on Saddam and his regime is an opportunity to unite and build a better future," Khalilzad said.

Good riddance, while the timing of the verdict indicates that the US have influence on Iraq´s justice which will leave a sore taste with Iraq´s people.

Anyway, Saddams execution will only show that he is not behind the uprisings in the country, a thing that we have been constantly told by US authorities. Now only Bush needs to be put to court for the killing of at least 60.000 iraqui civillians. That would be justice.

[PainDealer 0]

Good riddance, while the timing of the verdict indicates that the US have influence on Iraq´s justice which will leave a sore taste with Iraq´s people.

Anyway, Saddams execution will only show that he is not behind the uprisings in the country, a thing that we have been constantly told by US authorities. Now only Bush needs to be put to court for the killing of at least 60.000 iraqui civillians. That would be justice.

that'll be a death warrant for a few thousand civilians as well... they should just keep him locked up for life, it's worse than death in many ways and will not start a huge rampage by his supporters. but well, they'll gang him, just make sure to take Bush to the same gallows

[Ironsight 1]

Hanged. It will probably be public too.

[PainDealer 0]

Hanged. It will probably be public too.

"Only on PPV!"

[walker 0]

Hi all

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Of course making him a martyr could be unhelpful.

And he is still on trial for the gassing of the Kurds.

The use of Gas by Saddam was known to the NeoConMen several months before:

Yes that is Donald Rumsfeld Shaking hands with Saddam Hussein after Saddam was known to be using chemical weapons.

Did Donald Rumsfeld raise the issue with Saddam? No Donald Rumsfeld wanted to talk about getting a new oil pipeline out of Iraq at the time. No move for regime change then.

I wonder what changed?

Kind Regards Walker

[PainDealer 0]

Hi all

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Of course making him a martyr could be unhelpful.

And he is still on trial for the gassing of the Kurds.

The use of Gas by Saddam was known to the NeoConMen several months before:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/_/1/saddam_rummy.jpg

Yes that is Donald Rumsfeld Shaking hands with Saddam Hussein after Saddam was known to be using chemical weapons.

Did Donald Rumsfeld raise the issue with Saddam? No Donald Rumsfeld wanted to talk about getting a new oil pipeline out of Iraq at the time. No move for regime change then.

I wonder what changed?

Kind Regards Walker

it's known for long time that it's all about resources in the long run

[Bordoy 0]

I don't think he should be executed to be honest.

I have a few points, most probably wrong but bare with me

1: Why was this trial taking place in an Iraqi court when the Nuremberg Trials, the trial of Slobodan Milosevic and other trials all occurred at international trials?

2: This trial should not be taking place yet as everyone in Iraq will have a biased opinion on the situation as it is still very bad over there.

3: The defense lawyers were not given enough time to read the papers for the trial. Saddam himself had no access to legal advice for a year. There were also problems with the defence's ability to function

4: The government got involved in the trial by replacing the judge whenever they felt necessary, finally bringing in a judge who is biased against Saddam. There was political interference. The first judge resigned, the second was barred for being a former member of the Baath party, the only political entity at the time, and the third judge had relatives who were killed in Halabje (where Kurds were gassed by Saddam Hussein's forces).

5: The Iraqi PM's comments are laughable. He said that Saddam nearly brought down Iraqi society. Ermmmm I think the situation is worse now then it was before. The death rate is 2x as bad. Has all the electricity and running water been restored yet? Women have lost lots of rights.

[PainDealer 0]

5: The Iraqi PM's comments are laughable. He said that Saddam nearly brought down Iraqi society. Ermmmm I think the situation is worse now then it was before. The death rate is 2x as bad. Has all the electricity and running water been restored yet? Women have lost lots of rights.

same thing as Hitler, smart politician just got a wee bit genocidal and all that

[Bordoy 0]

5: The Iraqi PM's comments are laughable. He said that Saddam nearly brought down Iraqi society. Ermmmm I think the situation is worse now then it was before. The death rate is 2x as bad. Has all the electricity and running water been restored yet? Women have lost lots of rights.

same thing as Hitler, smart politician just got a wee bit genocidal and all that

Didn't bring down society though did it.

[EiZei 0]

They should have just let him trip in the stairs or have him try an escape (with predictable results) to be honest.

[quicksand 0]

I share Borody arguments however self obvious I must add.

US hasn`t won accomplished shit in Iraq except for capturing Saddam Hussein and the government is weak and isolated.So parading him on television,sentecing him to death,making little to no attempt to mask that this is victors justice is right now the best thing they can do.

Sure they will add a little drama such as the illusion of an appeal or the discovery of a plot to get him out of jail,but in the end he`ll hang stiff.

The question is what will happen after and if executing Saddam in the current climate won`t trigger a backclash that surpasses the benefit of creating the illusion that Iraq is finally moving forward.

[olemissrebel 0]

What you people don't understand is that it's not the US men who are having him hanged. The iraqi people tried him, and will likely, if they havent already, convict him, sentance him, and execute the sentance. should the iraqi people not be allowed to punish him after all of his years of oppression...?

[Balschoiw 0]

Abu Ghraib movie planned

Quote[/b] ] LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Oscar-winning documentary veteran Errol Morris is developing a documentary about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq.

The film will examine the infamous abuse and torture of inmates held as suspected terrorists in the Iraqi prison located 20 miles (32 kilometres) west of Baghdad. The scandal was revealed in 2004 when photos of inmates being tortured were published around the world.

It will be backed by Sony Pictures Classics, which released his last film, the Oscar-winning 2003 documentary "The Fog of War," and by Participant Prods., the socially conscious financier of the hit documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" as well as "The World According to Sesame Street."

Participant's executive vp documentary production Diane Weyermann announced the project during a seminar Sunday at the American Film Market in Santa Monica. Sony Classics officials declined comment.

Working title:

[sarcasm] Next we´ll be served "Desperate inmates" a sensational TV series about guys having a funny time at Gitmo

Don´t miss the first Episode: "Waterboarding made my lungs stronger and me a better person".

[/sarcasm]

[xawery 0]

Hey, Fog of War was really good and balanced. Let's wait and see.

[Bordoy 0]

What you people don't understand is that it's not the US men who are having him hanged. The iraqi people tried him, and will likely, if they havent already, convict him, sentance him, and execute the sentance.  should the iraqi people not be allowed to punish him after all of his years of oppression...?

The Iraqi people? You mean the Shia's.

The Iraqi judge? Yer, about the 5th one, the Iraqi government managed to to find someone who's family was killed by Saddam's forces. All the other judges before hand were Iraqi too.

It's a shambles.

Does he deserve the punishment?

Using the most basic "eye for an eye" reasoning, yes.

......BUT..........was a farcical show trial which even the on duty American legal adjudicator has dismissed as a "mockery of justice" the right way to get to the verdict for the people of Iraq?

Undoubtedly not.

[Baff2 0]

That trial doesn't just make a mockery of the Iraqi legal system, it makes a mockery of the "democratic government".

The attempt to humilitate Saddam before they kill him has backfired somewhat, in my opinion.

I don't think that making a matyr out of Saddam will incense the insurgents to new heights of violence. I don't think Saddam is in a position to unite or lead anybody at this point. His infrastructure has been removed. His regime is beyond repair.

If this is the way we treat our enemy leaders, then this is the best way we can expect our enemies to treat ours.

[Jinef 2]

Cordon off Baghdad city centre with armoured vehicles, stick mr Sadam in the middle of the square with a chair and some fags. Then let the Iraqi snipers come out to play.

[Stealth3 0]

I don't get why so many countries come out bitch that hanging is inhumane. I mean wtf is their problems. Many countries execute criminals that way, and they don't complain about that. Yet when when Saddam is being sentenced to death, they open their eyes and start bitching like they never knew about it before.

Its like they have double standards.

Killing him won't solve anything of course, but it will give justice. We also have to admit the country was less violent and better under Saddam then right now.