Saddam Sentenced to Death!! !

Post Reply New Topic

hmm...

As I predicted, the Sunnis are mad and the rest are happy.

Unfortunately, that helps nothing from America's standpoint as an occupying force.

As Senate candidate Harold Ford suggested in his last televised debate with Bob Corker, Iraq should be divided into three parts, each part for the Sunnie, Shiite, and Kurds, respectively.

For the record I want to say that I am fiercely against any form of capital punishment.
I find horrendous that a person made harmless, because prisoner, is strangled, decapitated, lethally injected, shot etc. Also for this reason I have been against Bush senior, who won partially his election against Dukakis aligning for the death penalty (I think only for machiavellian cynicism), against Clinton for the same reason, against Bush junior, who was partly cynic, partlly convinced, against the Nuremberg trials, against the executions that were carried out in France, in Italy (though here in an offhand way), after the fall of the fascist or collaborationist regimes, agains the hangings of the japanese generals at the end of WW2.
But, and here the matter becomes more complex, I don't believe that any form of punishment deserves the name of justice, although it's inevitable that dangerous people are confined and somehow made innocouos, putting them in some sort of prison.

President Saddam Trial. UNITED NATIONS Press Release

UNITED NATIONS
WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION
REITERATES CONCERNS REGARDING
SADDAM HUSSEIN TRIAL



The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued the following statement following its forty seventh session, which ended on 24 November:

"Following the recent conclusion of Mr. Saddam Hussein Al-Tikriti's first trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal, the Working Group decided at the end of its forty-seventh session, held in Geneva from 15 to 24 November 2006, to reiterate its concerns expressed in its Opinion N° 31/2006 of 1 September 2006. In this Opinion the Working Group considered that the non-observance of the relevant international standards during Mr. Hussein's trial was of such gravity as to confer Mr. Hussein's deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character.

"The Working Group deems it necessary to issue this statement at this time, since it cannot be excluded that the death penalty imposed upon Mr. Hussein would be carried out before the Opinion is published in its annual report to the Human Rights Council.

"The Working Group was seized by a communication on behalf of Mr. Hussein, in which complaints about his allegedly unlawful detention had been put forward, whereupon the Working Group delivered two Opinions on this case.

"Its first Opinion (N° 46/2005), rendered on 30 November 2005, was rather procedural in nature. In this Opinion the Working Group took the position that it would not assess the lawfulness of Mr. Hussein's detention between 13 December 2003 and 30 June 2004, since the deprivation of liberty during this period took place in an ongoing international armed conflict, and the United States Government recognised that the Geneva Conventions apply to individuals captured in the conflict in Iraq. Furthermore, the Working Group considered that it would be premature to take a position on the arbitrariness of Mr. Hussein's deprivation of liberty, since the procedural flaws asserted, amounting to a violation of his right to fair trial could be, in principle, redressed during the subsequent stages of the proceeding. In this Opinion the Working Group invited the Governments of Iraq and the United States, to which the complaints in the communication were addressed, to file additional information.

"In its second and final Opinion (N° 31/2006), rendered on 1 September 2006, the Working Group concluded that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Hussein is arbitrary, being in contravention of Article 14 -- on the right to fair trial -- of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a binding international treaty, to which both Iraq and the United States are parties. The Opinion set out a series of grave procedural flaws, such as, amongst others, the lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal, which heard the case, the lack of respect for his right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, the restrictions on his right to access to defence lawyers and on the possibility to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf.

"In this context the Working Group invited the Governments of Iraq and the United States to consider whether a trial of the former Head of State in conformity with international standards is at all possible under the current conditions in Iraq, or whether the case should rather be referred to an international tribunal.

"The Working Group clarified in its Opinion that it does not request the release of Mr. Hussein. What it recommends to the two Governments is that the serious procedural shortcomings are redressed and that the situation of Mr. Hussein be brought in conformity with the principles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and with the provisions of the ICCPR.

"The Working Group also urges the Iraqi Government to refrain from carrying out the sentence of death by hanging imposed in a proceeding, which does not meet applicable basic standards of a fair trial.

"The text of the Working Group's Opinion 31/2006 will be available after the publication of its annual report to the Human Rights Council".

If only the UN was more proactive when Saddam was killing his own people especially genocide against the kurds.

Well in fact there is no proof that there was genocide against the Kurds.

Wrong again, codumbo.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/

Keep dancing monkey.

Human Rights Watch has, let us say,its own agenda..


Try this, its less biased:


The Myth of the “Anfal Genocide”
Did Saddam Hussein “Kill the Kurds”?

By David Hungerford (October 2006)

Many crimes against Iraq have been justified by the demonization of Saddam Hussein. Invasion was justified by claims that he possessed “weapons of mass destruction,” had ties to al-Qaeda, and posed a threat to the territorial United States.

The claims turned out to be lies. There were no “weapons of mass destruction” or programs to develop them. There were no ties to al-Qaeda. He did not threaten U.S. territory.

Those who still support the occupation now say it was justified because Saddam Hussein was a “brutal dictator.” One of the main complaints against him is that “he killed the Kurds.” The usual reference is the Anfal campaign of the Iraqi army from February 23, 1988 to September 6, 1988. It is claimed that Anfal was a campaign of genocide. It can now be said that the “Anfal genocide” never happened. It is another lie.

Ironically it is the second of the illegal U.S.-run “trials” of Mr. Hussein in Baghdad that allows this conclusion. The facts and circumstances of the “trial” can be analyzed without any concession to the legitimacy of the “court.” Nor, since it is illegal, is there any reason to wait for the “court’s” findings before reaching one’s own conclusions. Applicable principles of international law are presented in Appendix A.

Certain facts are not in dispute. The campaign took place in the late stages of the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqi army fought units of the Iranian army in Northern Iraq. Kurdish guerillas called peshmerga allied with Iran against the government of their own country. In order to suppress the guerillas the Iraqi government displaced large numbers of Kurdish civilians from border areas.

Press reports say the current charge is genocide during Anfal. By any definition the crime of genocide means the extermination of large numbers of people. At first no definite number of civilian fatalities was given in news reports, but in September the “prosecution” was several times reported to say there were 182,000 deaths.

The “trial” on the Anfal charges began on August 21, 2006. There were 13 sessions of the “court” between that date and September 26, at which time it recessed.

In the press reports studied for this analysis no statement or presentation of methodology was reported. No systematic studies were reported. No sworn affidavits were reported. No expert testimony was reported. Evidence of this kind would have been front-page news. It can be concluded that no such evidence was introduced. See Appendix B for the tabulation of articles.

Instead all testimony was anecdotal. As an example, on August 22, the first day of testimony, a witness named Ali Mustapha Hama was heard. He testified to events in the village of Balisan on April 16, 1987. The BBC reported that he said “there was greenish smoke, and minutes later, a smell like rotten apples or garlic. He spoke of a newborn infant who was trying to ‘smell life’, but breathed in the chemicals and died. Many others died too, he added. During cross-examination, defence lawyers asked Mr. Hama how he knew the aircraft were Iraqi, and prompted Hama to say he had helped shelter guerrillas in his village.”

The death of an infant is a very bad thing. Still, the number of fatalities definitely averred by Mr. Hama is one. He also admitted that there was guerilla activity in his village. Genocide is a large-scale crime against civilians, meant to exterminate an ethnic group. Thus Mr. Hama’s testimony did nothing to establish genocide. Another witness heard the same day was not even reported to have made any definite statement of fatalities.

Between August 22 and September 26 the news reports speak of seventeen witnesses. Definite statements of fatalities came to a total of 43. Some of the fatalities could have overlapped. No attempt to differentiate between civilian and military casualties was reported.

Of the fifteen witnesses three admitted to having been peshmerga guerillas, whereas genocide is a crime against civilians. One of the three former guerillas, Moussa Abdullah Moussa, now lives in Tennessee. Another witness, Katrin Michael, now lives in Virginia.

One of the witnesses, Mahmoud Hama Aziz, testified on September 9 to 7 fatalities at an unstated location in 1987, prior to Anfal. The New York Times reported the next day that evidence bearing on Mr. Aziz’ testimony had been found in a mass grave discovered in 2004, whereas the “prosecution” claims investigations have been going on since 1991 (see Doebbler, below.) The timing of the “discovery” is so convenient as to raise still more doubts.

Twenty-one of the 43 fatalities including the Balisan incident occurred in 1987, before Anfal. That leaves at most 22 during the Anfal period or at times not stated. The question arises as to what happened to the other 181,978 of the 182,000 claimed victims. At this rate it will take about 689 years to account for the alleged fatalities.

Hence in the first month of proceedings the “prosecution” presented no case at all.

The original trial judge was removed for political reasons on September 20 (see below.) Later sessions descended from farce into chaos. Defense lawyers boycotted the “trial” on orders of Mr. Hussein. Anonymous “witnesses” gave testimony behind a screen; documents were stolen from defense attorney Badia Arif Izzat in the courtroom building, and so forth.

The prosecution has had all the time and opportunity needed to formulate a case. The alleged events occurred eighteen years ago. Northern Iraq has been out of Baghdad’s control since 1996 when the Clinton administration unilaterally imposed the “no-fly” zones on Iraq.

Nor has there been any lack of investigative expertise and money. The New York Times reported on July 1, 2004 that “The Federal Bureau of Investigation is leading the investigation, along with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and agents from the Justice Department.” The NYT also said on July 20, 2005 that the U.S. had spent more than $35 million on the investigations.

In a case as intensely political as this it must be presumed that at the beginning the “prosecution” will present its case at its strongest. It presented a shambles. Moreover the scale of time and resources behind the “prosecution” removes any argument that a case could be made with more effort. There is only one way that is at all plausible, likely, or straightforward to explain the “prosecution’s” failure to even begin to make any case: there was no “Anfal genocide.”

Other circumstances support the same conclusion.

The charges are not even clear. None of the cited news reports give more than the word “genocide.” The specification of charges might answer some questions. A moderate effort found a document termed a “charging instrument” for the first “trial” of Mr. Hussein, the Dujail case. It is posted at http://www.law.case.edu/saddamtrial/doc ... ussein.pdf. Charges for the Anfal “trial” were not posted at the same site, however. Repeated internet searches using “charging instrument” and/or other search terms failed to find the corresponding prosecution statement for the Anfal “trial.” Hence the “prosecution” case is not easily available. It is apparent that the Bush administration and the “prosecution” do not want their case to be known to the public.

The most basic and routine of defendant’s rights are violated. Defense attorney Curtis Doebbler writes:

The violations of unfair trial are too numerous to mention here, but include almost every provision in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that could be violated at this juncture of the proceedings. . .

The prosecution alleges to have been collecting evidence since at least 1991 — which, of course, could only be true if it were the United States government doing the collecting — and has at least been doing so since April 2003 when dozens of American lawyers and Iraqis who had not lived in Iraq for years were shuttled in to build a case. The defense lawyers, despite requesting visits with their client since December 2003 when he was detained, have to date not been allowed the confidential visits that are necessary to begin to prepare a defense. No visits were allowed with the most senior lawyers until after the trial had started and at each visit American officials exercise the authority to read any materials brought into the visiting room despite the fact that all meetings remain under close audio and visual surveillance. As if this were not enough, evidence has been withheld from the defense lawyers. They have been denied access to investigative hearings; they have been denied prior notice of witnesses, and they are prevented from even visiting the site of the alleged crime.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/ ... ussein.php

If any sound “prosecution” case was possible these abuses would be unnecessary.

Mr. Hussein’s defense team has been denied physical security despite repeated requests. During the first “trial” three of his attorneys were murdered. During the current “trial” legal assistant Abdel Monem Yassin Hussein was murdered. He was kidnapped on August 29. His body was found five days later. The murders of defense personnel argue further against the possibility of any “prosecution” case.

The blatantly political nature of the “trial” was exposed again on September 20, when puppet Iraqi “prime minister” Nuri al-Maliki removed judge Abdullah al-Amiri from the case. The reason for this outrageous abuse was reported by the New York Times on September 15 as follows:

One witness, a Kurdish farmer, testified that in 1988 he had pleaded with Mr. Hussein for the life of his wife and seven young children. He said a furious Mr. Hussein shouted, “Shut up and get out.”

In court, Mr. Hussein jumped up to defend himself.

“Why did he try to see Saddam Hussein?” he asked the judge, referring to himself in the third person, as is his habit in court. “Wasn’t Saddam a dictator and an enemy to the Kurdish people, as they say?”

The judge replied: “I will answer you: you are not a dictator. Not a dictator,” he repeated. “You were not a dictator.”

Mr. Hussein, smiling, replied, “Thank you.”



Five days later the judge was removed. If the alleged events of 1988 had really occurred it is extremely unlikely that the puppet “government” would again have discredited itself and the “trial” with this shameless interference.

Even more extraordinarily, an AP report on August 21 said that “the trial does not deal with the most notorious gassing — the March 1988 attack on Halabja that killed an estimated 5,000 Kurds. That incident will be part of a separate investigation by the Iraqi High Tribunal.” The report did not say why Halabja is to be treated separately.

The Halabja incident is the biggest thing in the “genocide” case. The “prosecution” has dismembered its own case. It is trying to carry water by knocking the bottom out of its own bucket. The omission strongly suggests that there is no more to the Halabja story than there is to the “Anfal genocide.”

* * *

The most serious doubts arise repeatedly that any valid case against Mr. Hussein can be made. Just as in the notorious “Downing Street Memo” minutes of a July, 2002 meeting of the British cabinet, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

In the United States the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt.” The defects of the “prosecution’s” case are so great as to constitute overwhelming doubt. There is no reason at all to believe that genocide was committed in the Anfal campaign. Only one conclusion can be drawn: the “Anfal genocide” never happened.

* * *

In all of the years of its war with Iraq U.S. imperialism has had only one significant political success: the demonization of Saddam Hussein. The “brutal, corrupt dictator” line is heard across the political spectrum. Investigation would seem unnecessary.

One result is that to a great degree antiwar opinion sees the war in Iraq as no more than a war for oil. It is insufficient to stop without looking at Iraq, but that is what almost always happens.

Firstly, the oil already belongs to Iraq. From its side the war has always been a war for sovereignty, i.e., its rights of national self-determination. Since occupation it has also become a war for independence.

“War for oil” also raises further questions. There are many ways to get oil. War is the worst way to get it. The question is why U.S. imperialism has resorted to war. There are many countries that have oil. The United Arab Emirates has almost as much oil as Iraq but nothing is ever heard about it. The question is why Iraq is different.

Again the answer is that modern pre-occupation Iraq always fully asserted its rights of sovereignty. The war is Iraq is an unjust war for oil versus a just war for sovereignty and independence.

The highest questions of any war are questions of historical content and direction, questions of just and unjust causes. Antiwar opinion is most of the time not even aware of these questions. More than anything else it is the demonization of Saddam Hussein that denies the masses a full understanding of the war.

The revolutionary significance of Iraq’s great struggle disappears. The linkage of the struggle in Iraq to that of Palestine disappears. Too often the need to support the just and heroic Iraqi resistance becomes lost; too often the necessity to immediately demand unconditional withdrawal of all foreign forces as objectively the only way to end the war becomes lost.

Very little about Iraq and nothing at all about Saddam Hussein should ever be accepted on the basis of authority. There are no such authorities in the U.S. government. There are no such authorities in the U.S. media. There are no such academic authorities. There are no such authorities in the antiwar movement. Throw away all “authoritative” ideas about Saddam Hussein!

There are only determinations: sound methods, sound concepts, facts and logic, history. On method one can, for instance, look at the Iraqi side directly. Daily accounts of resistance activities are posted in English at http://www.albasrah.net/pages/mod.php?h ... is&rep=rep. Political statements of the Iraqi Baath Arab Socialist Party and pre-occupation speeches of President Saddam Hussein are posted at http://www.al-moharer.net/qiwa_shabiya/qiwa.html.

The war will end and can only end in the defeat of imperialism and its expulsion from the Persian Gulf. The people of Iraq are stronger than imperialism. Though the whole world shatter, and well it may, in the end the people of Iraq will win.

Victory to Iraq!

Down With Imperialism!

—October 2006

Appendix A: The “trial” Violates International Law



1. The invasion of Iraq is a violation of international law.



Excerpt from “A Farce of Law: The Trial of Saddam Hussein” by Curtis F. Doebbler



The glaring illegalities of the current process begin with illegal origins. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is widely understood to be illegal. On 5 March 2003, three of the five members of UN Security Council and Germany, which was then a non-permanent member, unambiguously declared that a US-led invasion without further Security Council authorization would violate international law. On 16 September 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterated what was by then obvious to almost every international lawyer, that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is illegal. In fact, this is a textbook case of illegal aggression in violation of the prohibition of the use of force by one country against another found in article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations and under customary international law.



The Nuremberg Tribunal described such illegal aggression as “essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”



http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/ ... ussein.php



Curtis Doebbler is an American member of Saddam Hussein’s legal defense team and a professor of law at An-Najah National University on the Palestinian West Bank



2. The “trial” of Saddam Hussein violates provisions of international law to which the United States is signatory.



Excerpts from “Iraq and the Laws of War” by Professor Francis A. Boyle



On 19 March 2003 President Bush Jr. commenced his criminal war against Iraq by ordering a so-called decapitation strike against the President of Iraq in violation of a 48-hour ultimatum he had given publicly to the Iraqi President and his sons to leave the country. This duplicitous behavior violated the customary international laws of war set forth in the 1907 Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities to which the United States is still a contracting party, as evidenced by paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).

. . .

This brings the analysis to the so-called Constitution of Iraq that was allegedly drafted by the puppet Interim Government of Iraq under the impetus of the United States government. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare flatly prohibits the change in a basic law such as a state’s Constitution during the course of a belligerent occupation: “The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” This exact same prohibition has been expressly incorporated in haec verba into paragraph 363 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).



http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-boyle221205.htm



Francis A. Boyle is Professor of Law at the University of Illinois.


Appendix B: Tabulation of News Reports



http://www.brusselstribunal.org/HussainAppeal.htm#Anfal

A Glimpse of The Past: A War Crime or an Act of War?
Stephen C. Pelletiere - NYTimes

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades - not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition - thanks to United Nations sanctions - Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

Published on Friday, January 31, 2003 by the New York Times

Nice try but no cigar. This professor has done nothing but bashed us for going into Afganistan to take out a guy who killed well over 3,000 people during 9/11. So forgive me if I find that woman to be unreliable.

well at least we're down one evil person. let's find OSama now.

It's going to be interesting to see what the reactions of the Iraqi people are going to be following his execution.

From what it looks, it will be a huge celebration. I say hang Saddam up a lamppost and let the Iraqes throw rocks,eggs,elc at him. Now that would be justice.

Oh, I am sure that many Iraqis will be relieved, but many are angry at us undermining their sovereignty status as they were not oppressed under Saddam's regime and feel they have gotten a raw deal.

IMHO. I don't think it will make a difference. it wasn't Saddam telling the insurgents to attack and everything. if he dies, well then it's gonna bring in a lot more recruits.

From what I understand from my cousin, the insurgents are starting to get really desperate. It is a clear sign that they are losing. If we could get the Iraqies to start defending itself that would make things a whole lot easier.