Shoud Sadamm be given a trial?

Should the Iraqi's handle it or International help?

  • New Iraqi goverment

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • International coalition

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Brought to US for trial

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • ahhhh just shoot the bastard

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
S

steveluvs3

Guest
I think they ought to hang him right where that big statue of him was
 
He needs to be tryed by the iraqi people, they took so much crap from him. Its there turn for some revenge.
 
He should die some slow horrible death, much like many of his own citizens did
 
As in the Nuremberg Trials, let the WORLD make the decision with witnesses from Iraq who will testify to the atrocities and supression he (like Hitler) ordered.
All affected should be part of the trial.
 
There is not doubt in my mind that the Iraqi people need to be the ones who hold court over Saddam. They are the ones who have suffered the most under his hand, but I do feel that they will need the help of outsiders to offer assistance. (JMHO)
 
I personally am surprised he was brought in alive. I think the Iragi people should decide his fate.
 
drop him off in kuwait with a big sign on him saying hello Im sadam.
 
Originally posted by DeeDee@Dec 14 2003, 07:17 PM
I personally am surprised he was brought in alive. I think the Iragi people should decide his fate.
Click to expand...
I agree. Let the Iraqi people try him. He will be tried by Iraqi law and from what I have read. Their laws are pretty harsh. :dual9mm:
 
Originally posted by kat2220@Dec 14 2003, 12:29 PM
As in the Nuremberg Trials, let the WORLD make the decision with witnesses from Iraq who will testify to the atrocities and supression he (like Hitler) ordered.
All affected should be part of the trial.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
As much as I want the bastard shot for the things he's done to the Iraqi, Kurdish and Iranian people, he must be put through a trial by the international human rights delegation and put through military trials. All in all, it will give him life in prison, or we have a good old gas chamber execution.

As of right now I only know of one person who will represent Mr. Hussein in his trial.

Mark Geragos :p
 
Originally posted by kat2220@Dec 14 2003, 12:29 PM
As in the Nuremberg Trials, let the WORLD make the decision with witnesses from Iraq who will testify to the atrocities and supression he (like Hitler) ordered.
All affected should be part of the trial.
Click to expand...
The WORLD didn't help us get him, nor did they help the Iraqi people.

Let the Iraqi people put him on trial.
 
Originally posted by fergy1370@Dec 14 2003, 11:40 AM
The WORLD didn't help us get him, nor did they help the Iraqi people.
Click to expand...
Ahem, The British? The Spanish? The Polish?

I dont mean to argue with you however to say that they didnt help us get him or that they didnt help the Iraqi people is kind of belittling their efforts and sacrifices during the campaign.

Saddam had a pistol with him. I'm surprised that he neither resisted nor shot himself.

Anyway back on topic, According to the AP, "Saddam will stand a public trial so that the Iraqi people will know his crimes..." says Ahmad Chalabi, member of Iraq's Governing Council.
 
Ahem, that's a long way from being the WORLD.


The French and Germans, who are whinning now since they can't be part of the "rebuilding phase", and the Russians. Let's see...I think it was China and Turkey who were against us. Oh yeah, and that real big group of idiots called the United Nations.

I think more of the world was against the act than the few countries that did help us.

If you scroll back, you'll see my response to Smack for giving a shout-out to the Brits. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't consider the Brits and Pols the world.
 
Ah Point taken.

Apparently Saddam was caught with 2 AK47s, a pistol and $475,000 dollars in American cash. Wonder where that $475,000 dollars is now?
 
Probably in some PFC's duffel bag :)

Right now the Iraqs dont have a ruling law on genocide. Nor has their law system been revised other than parading people around the streets and shooting them. They might have international help in trying Saddam and his suboardinates.
 
actually it was "new" 100.00 dollar bills to the sum of 750,000.00.
And i hope he gets the iraqi punishment. killed and drug thru town for all to celebrate.
but they are saying that there will be atleast 2 trials, 1 iraqi and another by international. but lets pray that its not a UN trial, those wussies would prolly let him go.
what i found amazing was after his promise that he would take his own life before we could get him in the end he proved what a coward he really was.
 
Originally posted by Happy29@Dec 14 2003, 02:50 PM

Anyway back on topic, According to the AP, "Saddam will stand a public trial so that the Iraqi people will know his crimes..." says Ahmad Chalabi, member of Iraq's Governing Council.
Click to expand...
Here are some reasons to be suspicious of this Chalabi character.

Slate
There are other reasons to be suspicious of Chalabi. In 1992, a Jordanian military court convicted him in absentia of bank fraud for allegedly embezzling $70 million from Petra Bank, which Chalabi founded in the 1970s in Amman. Chalabi's supporters argue that he was set up by the Jordanian government because he was helping to fund the opposition to Saddam. But Chalabi's money-management skills didn't necessarily improve over time. According to a State Department report, nearly half of the $4.3 million in U.S. dollars doled out to the INC under the Iraq Liberation Act wasn't properly accounted for. Ultimately, State cut Chalabi off, and the INC's funding was turned over to the Pentagon, where Chalabi has more political allies. Chalabi also reportedly ran through $100 million in CIA money.

Chalabi's military failures, his poor bookkeeping, and his lack of support inside Iraq have led some people at the State Department and the CIA to be skeptical about his prospects. But a more worrisome possibility is that some people inside the United States government don't like Chalabi because he's serious about trying to create an Iraqi democracy. Foreign-policy "realists" may prefer a pro-American dictator who is more interested in security than popular sovereignty. The Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya said as much in the New York Times Magazine in March: "Some people in the government are talking democratic change," Makiya told the writer George Packer, "and there are other people who think that's all a pile of garbage. These others are in the State Department and the C.I.A. today."

Of course Chalabi should not be imposed on the Iraqi people as their ruler. But there's no reason for the United States not to encourage him in his project to build a real, democratic government inside Iraq. Now that Saddam Hussein has been defeated, Chalabi's military prowess isn't all that relevant, and it's hard to see how allegedly wasting American taxpayer dollars disqualifies him for elective office. If anything, it should qualify him for it. The very attributes that sometimes hurt Chalabi as leader of the Iraqi National Congress—his over-optimistic assessment of his abilities, his penchant for mismanaging other people's money, his failure to always be truthful, and his self-promoting style—sound like virtual prerequisites for higher office in the United States. Chalabi "has been entirely ineffective, except in one area, which is undermining other opposition groups," an anonymous U.S. official told the Philadelphia Inquirer last year.
 
What the hell would you need 2 trials for? They need to get this over with quick so none of his surving buddies try to get him free.
 
Originally posted by Old Ironhead@Dec 14 2003, 01:35 PM
Slate
There are other reasons to be suspicious of Chalabi. In 1992, a Jordanian military court convicted him in absentia of bank fraud for allegedly embezzling $70 million from Petra Bank, which Chalabi founded in the 1970s in Amman. Chalabi's supporters argue that he was set up by the Jordanian government because he was helping to fund the opposition to Saddam. But Chalabi's money-management skills didn't necessarily improve over time. According to a State Department report, nearly half of the $4.3 million in U.S. dollars doled out to the INC under the Iraq Liberation Act wasn't properly accounted for. Ultimately, State cut Chalabi off, and the INC's funding was turned over to the Pentagon, where Chalabi has more political allies. Chalabi also reportedly ran through $100 million in CIA money.

Chalabi's military failures, his poor bookkeeping, and his lack of support inside Iraq have led some people at the State Department and the CIA to be skeptical about his prospects. But a more worrisome possibility is that some people inside the United States government don't like Chalabi because he's serious about trying to create an Iraqi democracy. Foreign-policy "realists" may prefer a pro-American dictator who is more interested in security than popular sovereignty. The Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya said as much in the New York Times Magazine in March: "Some people in the government are talking democratic change," Makiya told the writer George Packer, "and there are other people who think that's all a pile of garbage. These others are in the State Department and the C.I.A. today."

Of course Chalabi should not be imposed on the Iraqi people as their ruler. But there's no reason for the United States not to encourage him in his project to build a real, democratic government inside Iraq. Now that Saddam Hussein has been defeated, Chalabi's military prowess isn't all that relevant, and it's hard to see how allegedly wasting American taxpayer dollars disqualifies him for elective office. If anything, it should qualify him for it. The very attributes that sometimes hurt Chalabi as leader of the Iraqi National Congress—his over-optimistic assessment of his abilities, his penchant for mismanaging other people's money, his failure to always be truthful, and his self-promoting style—sound like virtual prerequisites for higher office in the United States. Chalabi "has been entirely ineffective, except in one area, which is undermining other opposition groups," an anonymous U.S. official told the Philadelphia Inquirer last year.
Click to expand...
I've been suspicious of Mr. Chalabi for most of the war as well. I dont want to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but this Iraqi National Congress has to be investigated or else we might have the same thing again we had with Saddam. Stealing money from the people, killing anyone who doesnt agree with certain views, and these are all people who havent been in Iraq for 10 or more years, they maybe been too cultivated by western culture (not to say western culture is a bad thing however what will its affects be on the traditional Iraqi people?) and they've probably forgotten their roots and their people, I wouldnt know because I'm not an Iraqi but I'm just thinking out loud here.

My opinion, the Iraqis in the country should rule their own country and that's now a possibility thank god with the capture of Saddam Hussein.
 
Originally posted by steveluvs3@Dec 14 2003, 09:36 PM
What the hell would you need 2 trials for? They need to get this over with quick so none of his surving buddies try to get him free.
Click to expand...
It would have been best if ye had went down fighting. With a trial he will get the chance to stand up on the world stage and proclaim himsalf a martar. For Islam. :angry:
 
Originally posted by Gollum@Dec 14 2003, 04:48 PM
It would have been best if ye had went down fighting. With a trial he will get the chance to stand up on the world stage and proclaim himsalf a martar. For Islam.  :angry:
Click to expand...
I agree, Saddam had nothing to lose, he has all these followers that died for him and like Happy said, those Iraqis believed him as the beacon of their nationalism why not go down fighting? Well, I guess he probably realized that whether baited by money or the slow decay of time there'd be someone who backstabs him and turns him into the allies hands and I guess he just thought of that and finally gave up.
 
The $750,000 is also in custody.

I agree that the Iraqi people should have a large input into the decision, but an International Coalition may be the best as long as the UN doesn't get involved.
I believe that most of the "World" is celebrating Saddam's capture no matter what their political leaders or you and I have stated pubicly.
 
Some people believe by executing Saddam, you would be giving into his demands for him to become a martyr for his own sick twisted version of Islam.

Then again, what other form of punishment can we impose other than death that would fit the things he's committed against humanity?

The Iraqi people should decide his fate but before they do... I say we pull out all his teeth, slowly but surely :D
 
Originally posted by Happy29@Dec 15 2003, 10:44 PM
The Iraqi people should decide his fate but before they do... I say we pull out all his teeth, slowly but surely :D
Click to expand...
That is, if he has any teeth left.
 
Saddam Hussein should be given a trial by the Iraqi court system in accordance to the laws, customs, and mores of that people. Then he should be shot in the streets like the dog he is about 2 minutes after his trial.
 
I'd let every single American soldier give him one punch right square in the face, then put him back in that hole and nuke it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom