Banshees Scream 110 Posted November 6, 2006 It was reported in a British newspaper that he is likely going to be hung by Christmas.Probably best for everyone if this is true. It will solve alot of DDP problems of selection morality (if there is such a thing). Only if they could hang Saddam this January. He should be executed in about a month or so but I don't think the acctual time is yet certain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tempus Fugit 214 Posted November 6, 2006 It was reported in a British newspaper that he is likely going to be hung by Christmas. Probably best for everyone if this is true. It will solve alot of DDP problems of selection morality (if there is such a thing). Only if they could hang Saddam this January. He should be executed in about a month or so but I don't think the acctual time is yet certain. The chief prosecutor said Saddam would probably be hanged in early February. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrunoBrimley 85 Posted November 7, 2006 It was reported in a British newspaper that he is likely going to be hung by Christmas. Probably best for everyone if this is true. It will solve alot of DDP problems of selection morality (if there is such a thing). Only if they could hang Saddam this January. He should be executed in about a month or so but I don't think the acctual time is yet certain. The chief prosecutor said Saddam would probably be hanged in early February. Playing it safe they never did mention which year... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Die 63 Posted November 7, 2006 He's back in court again Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_fan 42 Posted November 7, 2006 He's back in court again I guess the Iraqi's are not satisfied with one guilty verdict. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,520 Posted November 7, 2006 He's back in court again I guess the Iraqi's are not satisfied with one guilty verdict. It's really an open & shut case on this one too. They'll have to wrap this case up pretty quickly if they're to follow through with the first guilty verdict. I could be wrong but the only appeal that I remember reading about that Saddam would go through with is more to be executed by firing squad rather than to be hanged. He more or less said that if he were to be found guilty that is the way he'd want to go. My understanding is that hanging is for your average person in the street, whereas firing squad executions are reserved for military leaders. I am a little confused though with the reason for the 2nd trial and why they didn't just integrate it all in the same trial. Wasn't the first one the charge of "crimes against humanity" and this one is on the charge of "genocide"? Aren't they really one and the same? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Godot 149 Posted November 7, 2006 He's back in court again I guess the Iraqi's are not satisfied with one guilty verdict. It's really an open & shut case on this one too. They'll have to wrap this case up pretty quickly if they're to follow through with the first guilty verdict. I could be wrong but the only appeal that I remember reading about that Saddam would go through with is more to be executed by firing squad rather than to be hanged. He more or less said that if he were to be found guilty that is the way he'd want to go. My understanding is that hanging is for your average person in the street, whereas firing squad executions are reserved for military leaders. I am a little confused though with the reason for the 2nd trial and why they didn't just integrate it all in the same trial. Wasn't the first one the charge of "crimes against humanity" and this one is on the charge of "genocide"? Aren't they really one and the same? I guess that crimes against humanity is wide ranging whereas Genocide is pretty specific. As when the Spanish inquisition condemened the entire population of the Netherlands to death in 1568, there would need to be proof of intent. The Duke of Alava was sent to do the deed but the Dutch were unco-operative. Many died nonetheless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,520 Posted November 7, 2006 He's back in court again I guess the Iraqi's are not satisfied with one guilty verdict. It's really an open & shut case on this one too. They'll have to wrap this case up pretty quickly if they're to follow through with the first guilty verdict. I could be wrong but the only appeal that I remember reading about that Saddam would go through with is more to be executed by firing squad rather than to be hanged. He more or less said that if he were to be found guilty that is the way he'd want to go. My understanding is that hanging is for your average person in the street, whereas firing squad executions are reserved for military leaders. I am a little confused though with the reason for the 2nd trial and why they didn't just integrate it all in the same trial. Wasn't the first one the charge of "crimes against humanity" and this one is on the charge of "genocide"? Aren't they really one and the same? I guess that crimes against humanity is wide ranging whereas Genocide is pretty specific. As when the Spanish inquisition condemened the entire population of the Netherlands to death in 1568, there would need to be proof of intent. The Duke of Alava was sent to do the deed but the Dutch were unco-operative. Many died nonetheless. This has to be my favourite Saddam quote so far "I call on all Iraqis, Arabs and Kurds, to forgive, reconcile and shake hands," the former president told the court in a separate trial for genocide. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anubis the Jackal 77 Posted November 7, 2006 Genocide appears to be any mass killing by anyone who isn't American or Russian... Because the convention required the support of the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc, it excluded actions undertaken by those nations. As a result, the convention excludes from the definition of genocide the killing of members of a social class, members of a political or ideological group, and that of cultural killings. The United States became a state party to the convention in 1988, though only with the proviso that it was immune from prosecution for genocide without its consent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,520 Posted November 7, 2006 Genocide appears to be any mass killing by anyone who isn't American or Russian... Because the convention required the support of the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc, it excluded actions undertaken by those nations. As a result, the convention excludes from the definition of genocide the killing of members of a social class, members of a political or ideological group, and that of cultural killings. The United States became a state party to the convention in 1988, though only with the proviso that it was immune from prosecution for genocide without its consent That would explain how the US has gotten away with that sort of thing for such a long time Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Octopus of Odstock 2,124 Posted November 7, 2006 Saddam "to be executed by end of year". I do wish they'd make their mind up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,216 Posted November 7, 2006 Yesterday's Daily express: The former dictator’s sentence could be carried out before Christmas – if not earlier – despite plans for an appeal. So when exactly is earlier before Christmas? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Banshees Scream 110 Posted November 7, 2006 So when exactly is earlier before Christmas? I would guess in the range of December 15 -20. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_fan 42 Posted November 8, 2006 Saddam "to be executed by end of year". I do wish they'd make their mind up. I think they are bluffing. He will not be executed until sometime next year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadsox 892 Posted November 8, 2006 Janury or February are good bets. I doubt if it would happen in 2006. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rotten Ali 600 Posted November 8, 2006 A New Hope - a ticker on the foot of the BBC News 24 said Saddam was to be executed before the end of 2006. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Octopus of Odstock 2,124 Posted November 8, 2006 A New Hope - a ticker on the foot of the BBC News 24 said Saddam was to be executed before the end of 2006. I've already posted that report above, RA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Die 63 Posted November 8, 2006 I hope video footage of his execution finds it's way onto YouTube. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,520 Posted November 8, 2006 They had better wrap his current trial up pretty sharpest if he's to be hanged by the end of the year. What do you think of his chances of being found not guilty on charges of genocide? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,216 Posted November 8, 2006 They had better wrap his current trial up pretty sharpest if he's to be hanged by the end of the year.What do you think of his chances of being found not guilty on charges of genocide? Can't they just try him after he is dead? Doesn't make much difference... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rotten Ali 600 Posted November 8, 2006 Octopus of Odstock Posted Today, 08:21 AM QUOTE(Rotten Ali @ Nov 8 2006, 05:02 AM) A New Hope - a ticker on the foot of the BBC News 24 said Saddam was to be executed before the end of 2006. I've already posted that report above, RA. Oh! OoO Lattitude my dear OoO, I was still half asleep. With loads of points hingeing on it, when I saw it at 5am, I could not resist a quick post. This fluid time-line about Saddam's end game sounds like they are making it up as they go along. One comentator said the second trial would continue even if he were already dead, other people say it would help keep the second trial on course, since Saddam can't have input that could de-rail it. No matter what, the whole matter is a judicial quagemire, but I do like Godots quote about having a punt on the judge being bumped off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadsox 892 Posted November 8, 2006 They had better wrap his current trial up pretty sharpest if he's to be hanged by the end of the year. What do you think of his chances of being found not guilty on charges of genocide? Can't they just try him after he is dead? Doesn't make much difference... He'd be a lot less trouble. Just have a taxidermied Saddam sitting in his chair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest That Unregistered Bloke Posted November 10, 2006 Saddam escapes! LMFAO - that's hilarious! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Bearer 6,020 Posted November 11, 2006 Saddam's got the death sentence - as has Awad Hama Badar Albandar and Barzan Ibrahim Al-Hasan Al-Tiriti, all three to be hanged - <snip They got a suspended sentence then Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
