Iraq court drops Saddam's charges

ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
edited January 2007 in A Moving Train
Monday, 8 January 2007, 11:14 GMT


Iraq court drops Saddam's charges


The Iraqi High Tribunal has dropped all charges against Saddam Hussein, who was hanged on 30 December, as the genocide trial of six co-defendants resumed.
They are charged with crimes against humanity over a campaign against Kurds in the 1980s that left 100,000 dead.

Saddam Hussein was hanged after an earlier trial over the killing of 148 Shia Muslims in the town of Dujail.

Many Kurds were disappointed that he was executed before facing justice for his role in the Anfal campaign.

Among the six remaining defendants is Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, sometimes known as "Chemical Ali" for his alleged use of chemical weapons against the Kurds.

As the trial resumed he tried to read a prayer from the Koran in memory of his cousin, but the judge ordered him to stop. He also wore a long beard as a sign of mourning.

The defence argues the campaign - codenamed al-Anfal, or "the spoils of war" - was a legitimate operation to quell a rebellion after some Kurds sided with the enemy during the Iran-Iraq war.

The trial had been in recess since 21 December.

Its resumption will throw the spotlight back on the Iraqi judicial system which has come under international criticism for the handling of Saddam Hussein's execution.

The former leader was taunted at the gallows and illicit images of his execution later appeared on the internet.

The UN has called for a stay of execution for two others sentenced to death in the Dujail trial.

But the Iraqi government says the execution of Barzan al-Tikriti and Awad al-Bandar will take place this week.



How convenient for Britain and the U.S! Now we can avoid being held to account for selling Sadaam the chemical weapons which he used to gas Kurds. And we can also avoid having to face the fact that we abandoned those who took part in the uprising against him at the end of the first Gulf war when he was encouraged by Bush sr to 'restore order' in Iraq and then proceeded to massacre tens of thousands.
Donald Rumsfeld will be jumping for joy today!
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    he was convicted of other charges and that sentence carried out. Does it make sense to continue legal action, in a separate case, against a dead man?
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    chopitdown wrote:
    he was convicted of other charges and that sentence carried out. Does it make sense to continue legal action, in a separate case, against a dead man?

    Depends if those who suffered under his regime want justice - if only for the record. I suspect that there's a reason these other charges have been dropped. I.e, our complicity would have been exposed.
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Depends if those who suffered under his regime want justice - if only for the record. I suspect that there's a reason these other charges have been dropped. I.e, our complicity would have been exposed.

    why would the Iraqi criminal court care about the US or Britain? If it was one of our countries that dropped the charges then I'd be a little more suspicious; Iraq's legal system has shown they don't really care about outside opinion. They are going to execute 2 more people this week even though the UN has said not to. But it would be nice to have some formal verdict against Saddam for those actions, even though it doesn't really matter anymore.
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    chopitdown wrote:
    why would the Iraqi criminal court care about the US or Britain? If it was one of our countries that dropped the charges then I'd be a little more suspicious; Iraq's legal system has shown they don't really care about outside opinion. They are going to execute 2 more people this week even though the UN has said not to. But it would be nice to have some formal verdict against Saddam for those actions, even though it doesn't really matter anymore.

    So you think that the Iraqi authorities can do anything without having to ask pemission from the U.S? That's like saying that Israel can act independently of the wishes of the U.S.
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    Byrnzie wrote:
    So you think that the Iraqi authorities can do anything without having to ask pemission from the U.S? That's like saying that Israel can act independently of the wishes of the U.S.

    Yes, I think the Iraqi authorities CAN act independently from the US. It's prob in their best interest to not do that too often but I guess I'm not as paranoid/suspect as other people are...perhaps I should be, but everything in life can't be a conspiracy.
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    chopitdown wrote:
    Yes, I think the Iraqi authorities CAN act independently from the US. It's prob in their best interest to not do that too often but I guess I'm not as paranoid/suspect as other people are...perhaps I should be, but everything in life can't be a conspiracy.

    I'm not too much of a conspiracy theorist, but this whole period in the Sadaam - U.S relationship seems to have been all too conveniently brushed under the carpet.
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I'm not too much of a conspiracy theorist, but this whole period in the Sadaam - U.S relationship seems to have been all too conveniently brushed under the carpet.

    perhaps it has...but i have a feeling we'll never really know the true reason so we'll be left to fill in the reasons ourselves.
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    chopitdown wrote:
    perhaps it has...but i have a feeling we'll never really know the true reason so we'll be left to fill in the reasons ourselves.
    That's the reason it makes sense to bring a case against a dead man - because, now that the charges have been dropped, all we have is speculation.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    RainDog wrote:
    That's the reason it makes sense to bring a case against a dead man - because, now that the charges have been dropped, all we have is speculation.

    I also wonder what happened in the case against Noriega. Does anyone know what happened there? He was arrested - after the marines killed approx 10,000 Panamanian's and tortured them with Bon Jovi records - and sent to Florida (If memory serves) to be tried for drug trafficking to the U.S. I never heard another word about it. Was the trial hushed up because the C.I.A were afraid that their being in cahoots with Noriega's drug trafficking empire would be exposed?
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    RainDog wrote:
    That's the reason it makes sense to bring a case against a dead man - because, now that the charges have been dropped, all we have is speculation.

    even if they bring charges, it will still be tough b/c we can't exactly ask Saddam anything about his involvement anymore. I think it may be a good idea to bring the case against him (it doesn't really matter the outcome b/c his punishment can't really get any more severe), but i just don't think the US is playing puppet master in the proceedings.
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    Byrnzie wrote:
    with Bon Jovi records

    Wasn't it Guns 'n Roses? They had a rocking time then!
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    redrock wrote:
    Wasn't it Guns 'n Roses? They had a rocking time then!

    No. It was Bon Jovi.
Sign In or Register to comment.