Did these men even consider the tears of the people and their families they sent to executions, now they shed tears for themselves.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/co-defendants-weep-for-saddam-hussein/20070107114409990001?_ccc=3&cid=842

"They were weeping and they made me cry with them," he said. "They fear their own fates following the execution of the president."

"Both men were very concerned about their fate," Ghazawi said. "What do you expect from someone who awaits execution at any time?"

Did these men even consider the tears of the people and their families they sent to executions, now they shed tears for themselves.



"They were weeping and they made me cry with them," he said. "They fear their own fates following the execution of the president."

"Both men were very concerned about their fate," Ghazawi said. "What do you expect from someone who awaits execution at any time?"yes. we live in turned upside world, i think that if they would have just shoot the guy (saddam) without a big "ceremeony", he would have been less of a martyr.

Two Hand Grenades, down the hatch, the interesting thing is that when you look at the pictures of the hole Saddam was hiding in you will notice a can of Spam, Spam is a luncheon meat made of pork shoulders and the hams, great follower of the tenants of Islam.

The victims deserved that a legitimate trial be conducted without haste. Saddam's lynching, or even worse the grenading that you fantasize about are extremely harmful to justice and reconciliation in Iraq. Barzan Ibrahim's public testimony is important, as Saddam's testimony would have been under more appropriate proceedings.

Heinous political crimes merit much more exhaustive and public investigation than those of common criminals, because they are not only about punishment but also the revealing of history (which we need not ignorantly repeat repeating).

Did these men even consider the tears of the people and their families they sent to executions, now they shed tears for themselves.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/co-defendants-weep-for-saddam-hussein/20070107114409990001?_ccc=3&cid=842

"They were weeping and they made me cry with them," he said. "They fear their own fates following the execution of the president."

"Both men were very concerned about their fate," Ghazawi said. "What do you expect from someone who awaits execution at any time?"

Glass walls stones

http://tinyrevolution.com/mt-static/images/rumsfeld2.jpg


Will Iraq Extradite Rumsfeld for Aiding and Abetting Saddam?
by Steven D
Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 11:15:03 AM PST

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/29/141243/21

As usual Sam, defending the terrorist.

Nah, I don't care if they send Rumsfeld to Iraq.

Nah, I don't care if they send Rumsfeld to Iraq.

Is that an example of the compassion and understanding of the wonderful, compassionate Indian people, Sam? Or is your philosophy something like, "Do as I say, not as I do!"? :D

Baron Max

Is that an example of the compassion and understanding of the wonderful, compassionate Indian people, Sam? Or is your philosophy something like, "Do as I say, not as I do!"? :D

Baron Max


Its Iraq, remember, with Sharia law (now)?

The penalty for murder? Hand over the criminal to the victim's relatives.

They are the only ones qualified to judge.

If they wish they may demand his life. If they wish they may demand blood money (compensation) of a reasonable amount and forgive the murderer.

Not for me to judge, nor for you.

Not for me to judge, nor for you.

Then why are you constantly judging the actions and beliefs of others? Sam, you're more, much more, judgemental than I ever was, here or in my normal life! And yet you're the one who says, "Not for me to judge,...."????

God, Sam, you're makin' me laugh so much I'm starting to cry! :D

Baron Max

Then why are you constantly judging the actions and beliefs of others? Sam, you're more, much more, judgemental than I ever was, here or in my normal life! And yet you're the one who says, "Not for me to judge,...."????

God, Sam, you're makin' me laugh so much I'm starting to cry! :D

Baron Max

I was trying out your BS on for size. :D

Don't know enough of the facts!! And why should I, or anyone, venture an opinion or a judgement without verifiable, accurate facts? To do so is nothing short of encitement to cause harm. Surely you wouldn't do THAT, would you, Sam???

Baron Max

Still it ain't my place to judge. Is it yours?

Baron Max

Two Hand Grenades, down the hatch, the interesting thing is that when you look at the pictures of the hole Saddam was hiding in you will notice a can of Spam, Spam is a luncheon meat made of pork shoulders and the hams, great follower of the tenants of Islam.

Everyone knows Saddam wasn't religious. Getting rid of him had nothing to do with our war on Islamic militants.

spidergoat, really, he sure was sucking up to the Quran in his trial, and it was in great evidence in his execution.

That show trial? It was probably just for show, to rally the Sunnis.

As I remember the turnout for the elections in Iraq were in the high 70% including Shiite, and Sunni's, so it would seem to me to be a well constituted court. And for someone who wasn't there you seem to have a low opinion of the Iraqi voters opinion.

As I recall, your idea of justice doesn't include due process, so forgive me if I question your standards of a fair court.

And exactly what is my opinion of fair justice? I believe that I have made it abundantly clear that I support all legal standard of the Constitution of the United States as applied to the Citizens of this Country, as decided by our courts, and that I support the Geneva Convention, as interpreted by international treaty, so were have I not supported due process. although your definition of due process doesn't comport with the Facts of Law, and Treaty.

International treaty would have Saddam and his minions tried at the International Criminal Court in the Hague, not in the middle of a war zone, and not when the judge and lawyers were constantly getting attacked and replaced.

spidergoat, but his crimes were committed against Iraqi citizens, so the court of jurisdiction would be Iraqi first, not the World Court, the world Court would only have him if the Iraqi's relinquished jurisdiction, I believe that is standard law, and the Iraqi court were duly constituted in the election by all the peoples of Iraq, Kurds, Shiite, and Sunni's, as 70% of the people voted, so were is your bitch, and please provide proof if this isn't so, and that the Iraqi Court didn't have jurisdiction. You who claim to love due process, and want use to let the Iraqi take care of their own problems, it looks like they did.

The Iraqis would have lynched him if we wasn't in our custody, and it appears that's what happened as soon as we let him go. Don't kid yourself, this was not an Iraq process. Iraq doesn't even have a stable government yet.

And who is trying to keep the government of Iraq from becoming stable? but it is still the duly elected government, with a voter turn out of 70+%, and all of the Kurds, Shiite, and Sunni's, voting in the process, so it would seem to me that the majority has spoken, are you against the majority's wishes, oh I forget, only the terrorist should decide with your permission what the government of Iraq should be.

spidergoat

The Iraqis would have lynched him if we wasn't in our custody,

So it was good that we were there, He got his trial, and as fair a trial as the terrorist would allow, after all it was the terrorist who were killing his Iraqi defense attorneys, and the judges to screw up the trial, I think they did remarkably well considering. He did have one of the most High Powered Attorneys in Washington, Bill Clintons Attorneys General, Ramsey Clark, who help managed to make a real Circus out of the proceeding.

Baron Max: "I support all legal standard of the Constitution of the United States as applied to the Citizens of this Country, as decided by our courts, and... I support the Geneva Convention, as interpreted by international treaty"

Congratulations, Baron! I am so pleasantly surprised and impressed by your change of heart. I hope you don't mind if I help hold you to it.

The death "penalty" is wrong under any circumstances. It only punishes those who loved the executed person. Whether they are innocents who had no part in his becoming evil or even tried to reform him and are being unjustly tormented, or disciples who now have a martyr, the killing is going to push some of them over the line (or further over the line) into the irrationality of vengeance. The result will be a cycle of killing, which in fact is how the Middle East got to be the way it is in the first place. I'm convinced that seeing the man alive in humiliating custody and hearing his words will be less inflammatory to the survivors than allowing a violent memory to fester.

The exception is when the execution is not punishment but defense. The mobster who can control his empire from prison. The terrorist whose pals will kidnap twelve of our people and demand a trade so that he can go free and commit more acts of terror. Maybe... maybe... the tyrant who can inspire his loyal clan to carry on his despotic legacy.

It just doesn't seem that Saddam fit that profile. Bush's deluded fantasies about his terrorist connections notwithstanding, he in fact had no Hamas or Hezbollah at his beck and call and his henchmen were for the most part soldiers and other government employees operating more or less in the open. In any case we've learned to our dismay that the Shiites are a far more dishonorable lot than the Sunnis and Saddam is not their martyr.

No, regardless of the validity of the fine points being argued, the execution of Saddam was as big a mistake as all the other more anonymous executions that the Religious Redneck Retard presided over during his governorship.

"the Shiites are a far more dishonorable lot than the Sunnis"

Agreed but for that little zinger, Fraggle. Could you elaborate on that?

"The Shiites are a far more dishonorable lot than the Sunnis." Agreed but for that little zinger, Fraggle. Could you elaborate on that?Perhaps this is one of my indulgences in hyperbole and you got the rare opportunity to call me on it before Max did. But reading the news as it is presented to Americans, it certainly seems as though the Shiite Arabs are using their new-found freedom from tyranny as a springboard to tribalist anarchy rather than a steppingstone to harmony and nationhood.

The Sunni Arabs in Iraq appear to be subject to far more widespread violence than the Shiites were under corrupt and institutionalized Baathist rule. And perhaps worse for them, the violence is indiscriminate. First-hand reports from all over Iraq indicate that there is absolutely nothing a Sunni family can do to gain favor with the Shiite majority and be tolerated, even as groveling second-class citizens. Sunnis say they have to learn to dress and talk like Shiites to survive a commute through Baghdad, much less the more remote areas.

Considering that at many junctures in history Muslims were famous for honoring pledges of safety to the Christians and Jews among them, their vendetta against other Muslims is worthy of the term "dishonorable."

If it's difficult for us outsiders to grasp the importance of the incredibly subtle differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, it is utterly impossible to fathom the hatred between Sunnis and Shiites. Accounts of the events that triggered the schism more than a thousand years ago sound like the "yore great-great-great-grandpappy shot mah great-great-great-grandpappy so mah whole fambly is gonna burn down yore whole town" arguments that kept feuds running in the Stone Age backwoods of Kentucky. But even those feuds dissipated after less than 200 years.

This is reminiscent of the violence between the Catholic and Protestant Christians in the mid-second millennium C.E. As scholars have noted, since the foundation of Islam six hundred years after Christianity, Islam has been tracking at an eerily exact pace, six hundred years behind Christianity's occasional high and frequent low points. It is now going through the violent formative years of its Reformation, including its very own Inquisition.

When will this poor planet finally develop the cojones to shake off the curse of Abrahamism?

Fraggle Rocker

The death "penalty" is wrong under any circumstances. It only punishes those who loved the executed person.

And what of the anguish and punishment of the friends and relatives of the victim who have been denied the company of their loved ones, just because some one exercised the right of life and death on them with out due process, and just cause? I think that there is punishment metered out as the Criminal awaits his execution, and must think of his crimes, and if he is so soulless as not to think about his crimes, we don't need to have him ever have the chance of killing again, and that includes fellow inmates.

Fraggle Rocker



And what of the anguish and punishment of the friends and relatives of the victim who have been denied the company of their loved ones, just because some one exercised the right of life and death on them with out due process, and just cause? .

Abu Ghraib

Did these men even consider the tears of the people and their families they sent to executions, now they shed tears for themselves.

Some people need to be killed. How many tears have you shed for the bombed Iraqi civilians?

Did these men even consider the tears of the people and their families they sent to executions, now they shed tears for themselves.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/co-defendants-weep-for-saddam-hussein/20070107114409990001?_ccc=3&cid=842

"They were weeping and they made me cry with them," he said. "They fear their own fates following the execution of the president."

"Both men were very concerned about their fate," Ghazawi said. "What do you expect from someone who awaits execution at any time?"

Are you for the death penalty?

Long drop short rope.

if he was used by the west against militant iran does not make him OK, halal.