Sentenced To Die: Iraqi Justice Makes A Significant Move
For all those who're living in Taliban caves, Saddam Hussein's sentence was handed down just a few hours ago, and Iraqis decided he has to die.
Saddam Hussein, the iron-fisted dictator who ruled Iraq for nearly a quarter of a century, was found guilty of crimes against humanity Sunday and sentenced to death by hanging.
The so-called Butcher of Baghdad, who was president of Iraq from 1979 until he was deposed by Coalition forces in April 2003, was convicted of the 1982 killings of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail.
The visibly shaken former leader shouted "God is great!" as Iraq's High Tribunal announced his sentence.
Saddam's half brother and former intelligence chief Barzan Ibrahim, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of the former Revolutionary Court, were sentenced to join Saddam on the gallows for the Dujail killings after an unsuccessful assassination attempt during a Saddam visit to the city 35 miles north of Baghdad.
The trial brought Saddam and his co-defendants before their accusers in what was one of the most highly publicized and heavily reported trials of its kind since the Nuremberg tribunals for members of Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its slaughter of 6 million Jews in the World War II Holocaust
The circus is finally over, and this dictator is going to get what he truly deserves. This trial caught the attention of the law office I work in, and many a heated dciscussions erupted amongst us over whether he would be found guilty on the evidence presented. A couple of my colleagues believed going into the weekend that he was going to be found innocent, and that this would be the biggest black eye to the United States going into the midterms.
Please, say what you want, but this issue was as large for us as it was for the Iraqis, and despite what many of the talking heads may say, this does have an affect on our elections. See, my collegues who were saying he would be found innocent are the same ones who hype up the problems in Iraq. They're not liberal, per se; they are pessimistic realists. They believed the threat of a rise in violence might be enough to force the judges and court to refuse the execution of the former dictator. But I told them, and I'm telling you dear reader that such a move would have been the equivalent of allowing any of the Nazis from the Nuremberg trials to live in freedom.
In other words, when pigs fly ...
The overall question for the United states is twofold: Will his execution help stabilize the country more, and how will it affect our midterms? The first, honestly, I believe will not help much. The stability in the country depends on coalition forces and the Iraqi forces finishing off one person and one person only. Moqtada al-Sadr must be found and killed. He is leading a good majority of the sectarian violence over there, and it's more than likely at the behest of Iran. As a matter of fact, I see no one else who could be pulling the sadistic little puppet's strings. Iran has so much to gain by the collapse of the Iraqi government.
The kids this past week wrote a stellar review of Mark Steyn's portent-laden masterpiece in which they pointed out that the way to win this war is having more will than the enemy, and an intense desire to end the lives of our enemies. THAT is what is needed now in Iraq, especially after this verdict and snetencing. Moreover, those fighting the terrorists in Iraq need to take the kid gloves off. Their mistake in 2004 was in allowing al-Sadr to live instead of sending him to Allah air express during the battle of Fallujah.
As for the elections, this should simply add more fuel to the fire that the Democrats cannot be trusted when it comes to this sort of an issue. The war and national security is something foremost in the minds of voters right now. And even Ramsey Clark, the former US Attorney General and admitted communist, could not help his client.
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."
Does this verdict end the circus? No it doesn't. Saddam can have virtually unlimited appeals in their system until their "suprem court" finally says enough is enough. Which, judging by the patience fo the Iraqis, will not be long before they finally say "hang him, already." And yes, hanging is his punishment. As the news report I cited in the beginning states, he will be jopined at the gallows by his half brother and the former head of the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard. This trial also hardly wraps up the proceedings for the former regime members. There are others waiting in the wings for their day in court.
Back to the elections, there's a controversy brewwing that we deliberately told the Iraqis to have this verdict handed down right before the elections. The White House has denied this. The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Allawi has denied this. And personally speaking, I doubt it. If this were to influence the election, wouldn't it be smarter to have this verdict handed down on Monday, or even Tuesday? This story will, more than likely, run it's course within the next twenty-four to forty-eight hours, and the media will switch into full election mode. Of course, they're alrady asking the question of how much of an effect this will have on our election.
As I said above, this will serve as a footnote to the Democrats legacy. In 1998 the Congress and President Clinton called for regime change in Iraq, but never moved forward on it. President Bush saw the link between Saddam and terrorists, saw the reconstitution of his WMD programs--programs now confirmed by the New York Times and the IAEA--and acted. The liberals can gnash their teeth over it, and claim that this was all cooked up by President Bush as some sort of screwy vendetta, but he had the law--both US and international--on his side witht he decision. THAT is a FACT that many liberals choose to overlook. They can, but it can't be denied. The Democrats chose to pay lip service to Saddam then, and have fought against doing anything in Iraq. President Bush acted, and it galls them to no end. Their ideas regarding national security and an aggressive confrontation of our enemies is what should be in the voters minds going into the booths Tuesday.
They simply can't be trusted.
But today is about justice being rendered, as it should be. All we have to do now is wait for it to be served in spades to the man who has been equated with Hitler. I disagree witht he comparison, but whatever. He's going to die and that's a very good thing for the world.
Sabrina McKinney
For all those who're living in Taliban caves, Saddam Hussein's sentence was handed down just a few hours ago, and Iraqis decided he has to die.
Saddam Hussein, the iron-fisted dictator who ruled Iraq for nearly a quarter of a century, was found guilty of crimes against humanity Sunday and sentenced to death by hanging.
The so-called Butcher of Baghdad, who was president of Iraq from 1979 until he was deposed by Coalition forces in April 2003, was convicted of the 1982 killings of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail.
The visibly shaken former leader shouted "God is great!" as Iraq's High Tribunal announced his sentence.
Saddam's half brother and former intelligence chief Barzan Ibrahim, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of the former Revolutionary Court, were sentenced to join Saddam on the gallows for the Dujail killings after an unsuccessful assassination attempt during a Saddam visit to the city 35 miles north of Baghdad.
The trial brought Saddam and his co-defendants before their accusers in what was one of the most highly publicized and heavily reported trials of its kind since the Nuremberg tribunals for members of Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its slaughter of 6 million Jews in the World War II Holocaust
The circus is finally over, and this dictator is going to get what he truly deserves. This trial caught the attention of the law office I work in, and many a heated dciscussions erupted amongst us over whether he would be found guilty on the evidence presented. A couple of my colleagues believed going into the weekend that he was going to be found innocent, and that this would be the biggest black eye to the United States going into the midterms.
Please, say what you want, but this issue was as large for us as it was for the Iraqis, and despite what many of the talking heads may say, this does have an affect on our elections. See, my collegues who were saying he would be found innocent are the same ones who hype up the problems in Iraq. They're not liberal, per se; they are pessimistic realists. They believed the threat of a rise in violence might be enough to force the judges and court to refuse the execution of the former dictator. But I told them, and I'm telling you dear reader that such a move would have been the equivalent of allowing any of the Nazis from the Nuremberg trials to live in freedom.
In other words, when pigs fly ...
The overall question for the United states is twofold: Will his execution help stabilize the country more, and how will it affect our midterms? The first, honestly, I believe will not help much. The stability in the country depends on coalition forces and the Iraqi forces finishing off one person and one person only. Moqtada al-Sadr must be found and killed. He is leading a good majority of the sectarian violence over there, and it's more than likely at the behest of Iran. As a matter of fact, I see no one else who could be pulling the sadistic little puppet's strings. Iran has so much to gain by the collapse of the Iraqi government.
The kids this past week wrote a stellar review of Mark Steyn's portent-laden masterpiece in which they pointed out that the way to win this war is having more will than the enemy, and an intense desire to end the lives of our enemies. THAT is what is needed now in Iraq, especially after this verdict and snetencing. Moreover, those fighting the terrorists in Iraq need to take the kid gloves off. Their mistake in 2004 was in allowing al-Sadr to live instead of sending him to Allah air express during the battle of Fallujah.
As for the elections, this should simply add more fuel to the fire that the Democrats cannot be trusted when it comes to this sort of an issue. The war and national security is something foremost in the minds of voters right now. And even Ramsey Clark, the former US Attorney General and admitted communist, could not help his client.
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."
Does this verdict end the circus? No it doesn't. Saddam can have virtually unlimited appeals in their system until their "suprem court" finally says enough is enough. Which, judging by the patience fo the Iraqis, will not be long before they finally say "hang him, already." And yes, hanging is his punishment. As the news report I cited in the beginning states, he will be jopined at the gallows by his half brother and the former head of the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard. This trial also hardly wraps up the proceedings for the former regime members. There are others waiting in the wings for their day in court.
Back to the elections, there's a controversy brewwing that we deliberately told the Iraqis to have this verdict handed down right before the elections. The White House has denied this. The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Allawi has denied this. And personally speaking, I doubt it. If this were to influence the election, wouldn't it be smarter to have this verdict handed down on Monday, or even Tuesday? This story will, more than likely, run it's course within the next twenty-four to forty-eight hours, and the media will switch into full election mode. Of course, they're alrady asking the question of how much of an effect this will have on our election.
As I said above, this will serve as a footnote to the Democrats legacy. In 1998 the Congress and President Clinton called for regime change in Iraq, but never moved forward on it. President Bush saw the link between Saddam and terrorists, saw the reconstitution of his WMD programs--programs now confirmed by the New York Times and the IAEA--and acted. The liberals can gnash their teeth over it, and claim that this was all cooked up by President Bush as some sort of screwy vendetta, but he had the law--both US and international--on his side witht he decision. THAT is a FACT that many liberals choose to overlook. They can, but it can't be denied. The Democrats chose to pay lip service to Saddam then, and have fought against doing anything in Iraq. President Bush acted, and it galls them to no end. Their ideas regarding national security and an aggressive confrontation of our enemies is what should be in the voters minds going into the booths Tuesday.
They simply can't be trusted.
But today is about justice being rendered, as it should be. All we have to do now is wait for it to be served in spades to the man who has been equated with Hitler. I disagree witht he comparison, but whatever. He's going to die and that's a very good thing for the world.
Sabrina McKinney
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:31 PM
1 Comments:
Saddam Hussein was tried in a Iraqii court by the Iragiis. They provided their own security. The Judges were Iraqii. And they found him guilty and sentenced him to hang. This is as it should be. I'm grateful he wasn't tried by the UN's court or by our military tribunal. The trial and sentence is freedom at work. It's also interesting that Saddam did not belong to Islam although it was reported he was read the Qu'ran. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home