Iraq brings first charges against Saddam.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



FeceMan
Hooray!

(Sorry to take your job, PVS.)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- -- The Iraqi Special Tribunal has brought its first charges against Saddam Hussein for alleged crimes during his reign, the tribunal announced Sunday.

The charges were announced by Judge Raed Juhi, chief investigative judge of the tribunal. They are connected with a 1982 series of detentions and executions after an assassination attempt on Saddam in Dujayl.

Charges against five other men were announced in February. The men will not be tried individually.

"With this announcement, the has raised this historic trial to a new level where the accused stands before justice which will rely on evidence," Juhi said

No trial date was announced, but under Iraqi law Saddam could stand trial as early as September, because of a minimum 45-day period following referral for trial.

On July 8, 1982, a convoy carrying Saddam traveled through the town of Dujayl, a Shiite village north of Baghdad, and was attacked by a small band of residents.

A series of detentions and executions in the town followed the incident. According to the tribunal, 15 people were summarily executed and some 1,500 others spent years in prison with no charges and no trial date. Ultimately, another 143 were put on "show trials" and executed, according to the tribunal.

Speaking from Rome, Italy, an attorney for Saddam questioned whether a trial would ever be held at all.

"As of today, we still do not have a single document purporting to be anything where we can be ready for trial, and after their own rules ... we will require ... time to be able to prepare a defense," said Giovanni di Stefano. "Anything other than that would make it a ... farce."

Di Stefano also questioned the charges themselves, saying they need to be confirmed by a second judge, according to tribunal rules.

He said Saddam was questioned about the incident named in the charges six weeks ago, when "it was confirmed that he was not a suspect, even on the special tribunal's own Web site."

He said that lawfully, Saddam should not be tried for anything because he is immune to all charges under the Iraqi constitution as it was written under his rule.

Di Stefano said he has not seen Saddam in person since 1998.

Saddam has been in custody since December 2003, when he was captured by U.S. troops.

The tribunal is facing pressure from Iraq's new government, as well as residents, who are eager for the former president to face justice.

"These accused have been referred to courts in this case, but they are also being investigated in other cases," Juhi said. "We look forward to concluding this investigation in other cases."

Mass graves are also being investigated under the tribunal's supervision, he said. "We are carrying out lab tests, and we are investigating all the remains of the bodies in these mass graves. We are continuing with these investigations, aiming to reach justice, to bring justice for those victims."

bilb
so what exactly is he charged with ? blink

Shakyamunison
Why did it take so long?

If it was a open and shut case, they should have charged him within a few months.

Any ideas?

GCG
Originally posted by bilb
so what exactly is he charged with ? blink

1982 - A series of detentions and excecutions which i believe he ordered to:

Retaliate against domestic Shi-te insurgency

and

Ensure his dictatorship went un-hindered.

Oswald Kenobi
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why did it take so long?

If it was a open and shut case, they should have charged him within a few months.

Any ideas?

The lack of an objective court system not loyal to Saddam. The lack of a justice system to administrate the sentence. The gathering of evidence that spans 25 years. Should I go on?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
The lack of an objective court system not loyal to Saddam. The lack of a justice system to administrate the sentence. The gathering of evidence that spans 25 years. Should I go on?

Please do. I asked the question to see if anyone didn't know the answer.

Do you think if they execute him, many of the insurgents with stop?

GCG
Will the insurgency stop ?

I dont think so.

Even if UK and US troops fall out the violence in Iraq will increase. IMO

Imperial_Samura
Hmmm. I still can't help but feel if Saddam ends up on trial, and is found guilty, that someday he will be serving his sentence in a French villa eating truffles. But eh, that's just the cynic in me. And it seems ironic:

"some 1,500 others spent years in prison with no charges and no trial date."

Hmmm, if I wanted to be even more cynical I would draw a parallel to a modern example of that, what with Guantanamo Bay and all. But I wont.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Hmmm. I still can't help but feel if Saddam ends up on trial, and is found guilty, that someday he will be serving his sentence in a French villa eating truffles. But eh, that's just the cynic in me. And it seems ironic:

"some 1,500 others spent years in prison with no charges and no trial date."

Hmmm, if I wanted to be even more cynical I would draw a parallel to a modern example of that, what with Guantanamo Bay and all. But I wont.

But you just did.

Should someone kill Saddam, or is that just setting him free into another life to torment a future generation (I believe in reincarnation).

Imperial_Samura
Hehe. I know I did, don't worry, it was intentional.

Oswald Kenobi
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please do. I asked the question to see if anyone didn't know the answer.

Do you think if they execute him, many of the insurgents with stop?

The insurgency will not stop until all the insurgents are killed or arrested. They are fighting for their freedom, why would they stop just because their leader is executed? And once you get rid of the insurgents, you'll have foreign fighters coming across the border to cause trouble. It will never end.

The lack of unbaised laws to dictate legal and illegal behavior. The lack of a security force to protect the proceedings. The lack of citizens willing to decide to the fate of Saddam based on the evidence provided. Geez, when you think about it, this trial is moving along pretty fast. Probably another year or so before a verdict. It will be interesting to see if Saddam gets appeals before he is executed.

bilb
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Hmmm. I still can't help but feel if Saddam ends up on trial, and is found guilty, that someday he will be serving his sentence in a French villa eating truffles. But eh, that's just the cynic in me. And it seems ironic:

"some 1,500 others spent years in prison with no charges and no trial date."

Hmmm, if I wanted to be even more cynical I would draw a parallel to a modern example of that, what with Guantanamo Bay and all. But I wont.

hey go for it.. i'm american and myself am appalled at this.. irony is simply too nice a word for it..


and I think the damage is done.. no matter how many insurgents we kill there will always be more (not that we are justified in killing any of them IMO) .. its like a hydra.. cut off one head and 2 more grow in its place.. more killing is NOT gonna solve anything here

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by bilb

and I think the damage is done.. no matter how many insurgents we kill there will always be more (not that we are justified in killing any of them IMO) .. its like a hydra.. cut off one head and 2 more grow in its place.. more killing is NOT gonna solve anything here

Well killing 3,000 Americans in one day didn't solve anything either,
now did it? But being Iraq and AL Qaeda were 2 separate matters at that time, we'll keep it there. As to AL Qaeda in Iraq, they're not justified in killing all the innocent Iraqis either.

Al Qaeda isn't there in Iraq for Iraqi freedom, they're there to die in the service of Allah and go to Heaven because that's what they've been led to believe. They have their own agenda and it shows with their lack of regard for Iraqis or how many die as long as they get just one U.S. soldier caught in the blasts they create. And their popularity is dropping as a result. They're slowly making a case against themselves.

bilb
i didnt realize they were in the popular clique in the high school of nations to begin with blink

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by bilb
i didnt realize they were in the popular clique in the high school of nations to begin with blink

Well, in terms of the popularity I mentioned, I was speaking more in terms of mob mentality because it's no big secret that Al Qaeda has their silent majority who will support them no matter what, but in terms of their popularity in the 'high school of nations" as you put it, they are now declining and becoming the unpopular fad because of the abnormally high rate of innocent deaths because normal people are waking up and saying "HEY, what's going on here? You guys say you're fighitng for us and yet you wind up killing us every day w\o regard for our people or religion."

not sure if anyone here saw it, but today on the news, former rebel leader Moqtada Al Sadr asked the militias to stop what they're doing, because he said it wasn't right because of the excessive civilian deaths. he also asked them to stop targeting Americans if you can believe that???

Now whether he has plans of his own, or if he really woke up and saw the light that he was on the wrong side, noone knows. I only fear that if he IS sincere, this will be another case of the Arafat syndrome-someone who condemns the violence but has no way to control it, if you get my picture. This should be an interesting development.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.