the fate of saddam

[wing]

it was just on the news that the jury finally reached a sentence on saddam. death by hanging. they didnt mention when it would happen, but it is official. any thoughts on this?

the news story is here: Saddam to hang for 1982 Shiite killings - Yahoo! News

[fable]

Sentence goes to automatic appeal. Personally, I don't have an opinion at this point, except that the trial was highly flawed, and not the kind of thing to cover the new Iraqi justice system with glory.

[Lady Dragonfly]

it was just on the news that the jury finally reached a sentence on saddam. death by hanging. they didnt mention when it would happen, but it is official.
[/url]

It might take some time...

Associated Press:

"The death sentences automatically go to a nine-judge appeals panel which has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.

Chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Moussawi told reporters that the Anfal trial now in progress for Saddam and others alleged role in gassing and killing Kurds would continue while the appeals process is underway. But if the appellate judges uphold the death sentence, the Anfal proceedings and other cases would be halted and Saddam hanged.

Al-Moussawi said Saddam would be hanged if the sentence were upheld, despite his demand that he be shot by a firing squad.

A court official told The Associated Press that the appeals process was likely to take three to four weeks once the formal paperwork was submitted."

[Dowaco]

I agree with Fable. The trial was a joke.

I guess I don't care what happens to him in terms of punishment. He has been removed from power and wealth, disgraced and humiliated, and his sons are dead. Whether he is shot, electrocuted, hanged or drawn and quartered, or if he gets life in prison don't seem to matter very much. The manner of execution means more to the Iraqis then to the West I suppose.

[Vicsun]

I was waiting for this thread to pop up so I can post this article.

Saddam Hussein will be brought to justice this week for the brutal murders of 143 Shi’ite men in the town of Dujail, carried out in retribution for a failed attempt on his life in 1982. Although Saddam faces a litany of other charges for more widespread and severe crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide, the Iraqi Special Tribunal decided to move forward with the Dujail atrocity first, indicating that it is the best documented of his many crimes. But as the first of what will be several trials, Saddam’s defense team will try out some initial defenses that they believe could bring the trial to a standstill.

Among the defenses that can be raised to prosecution for this crime - including lack of knowledge which, if successful, would destroy the prosecution’s command responsibility line of criminal culpability - the most legally potent is the defense of sovereign immunity. Saddam’s attorneys have indicated their intention to raise this as a complete defense – or one that, if accepted, negates all criminal liability. There are two strains of sovereign immunity which the defense will assert: current head of state immunity and former head of state immunity.

The first strain is the most audacious for Saddam’s attorneys to assert because, to make current head of state immunity work, they must prove that Saddam is still the president of Iraq. And to prove that, they must show that he was illegally deposed. Thus, it is the argument lurking within the argument that is so potentially explosive, for, as Saddam’s attorneys have acknowledged, this means nothing less than proving the American-led invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law, and therefore, by extension, Saddam Hussein is still legally the head of state.

The strategy of putting the invasion of Iraq on trial is certainly a clever one which must be treated carefully by the 3-judge panel trying Saddam. The Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) is a creation of the Iraqi Governing Council, which in turn was appointed directly by L. Paul Bremmer and the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority. The IST’s operating statute was written by Coalition military lawyers, it is funded by the Americans, it is being “advised” by American and other foreign international legal experts, and the U.S. Justice Department has spent $75 million helping the prosecution build its case against Saddam. Consequently, the IST has serious surface legitimacy issues, and it cannot be seen as defending the U.S.-led invasion outright by quashing out of hand the claims of Saddam’s attorneys to the contrary.

Saddam’s attorneys will co-opt into their argument both legal and political findings, including statements of the war’s illegality by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who noted that such unprovoked cross-border invasions absent Security Council authorization are technically illegal under Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter. That said, it does not syllogistically follow that Saddam is still Iraq’s legal head of state just because the method used to depose him was illegal, especially in the aftermath of Iraqi national elections approving the current government.

While raising the defense of sovereign immunity based on Saddam’s status as current head of state will infuse the proceedings with high drama, it will most certainly fail. The IST cannot politically afford to allow a complete defense to preclude Saddam’s prosecution, just as it cannot politically afford to truncate the defense from making its case as completely as possible. Moreover, the second strain of sovereign immunity will also not likely succeed.

Although Saddam is undeniably a former a head of state, he can only assert sovereign immunity over official acts that he undertook in his official capacity. Can mass murder of civilians be considered “official acts” triggering such immunity? Probably not. Criminal acts that are so heinous as to be considered jus cogens (peremptory norms prohibited everywhere), such as genocide and crimes against humanity, are not typically considered to be “official acts” for sovereign immunity purposes, and the trend is clearly developing away from allowing political leaders off the hook for such conduct. For example, the British House of Lords found in the 1999 Pinochet extradition case that torture should not be considered an official act for immunity purposes.

Procedurally, to assert these defenses, Saddam’s attorneys must couple them with claims of ex post facto application of law because the IST’s statute strips sovereign immunity away as a defense. Article 15(c) states:

The official position of any accused person, whether as president, prime minister, member of the cabinet, chairman or a member of the Revolutionary Command Council, a member of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party Regional Command or Government (or an instrumentality of either) or as a responsible Iraqi Government official or member of the Ba’ath Party or in any other capacity, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment. No person is entitled to any immunity with respect to any of the crimes stipulated in Articles 11 to 14 [Genocide, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Violations of Iraqi Law].

Their ex post facto argument will rest on the fact that the IST’s statute was adopted after the crimes in question were committed, when Saddam’s immunity for the acts would have applied in full force.

This line of argument was also attempted by defense counsel for the Nazi co-conspirators at Nuremberg and soundly rejected by the International Military Tribunal on the grounds that the defendants’ conduct amounted to such egregious violations of international law that knowledge of the illegality of those actions should be imputed to them and ex post facto application of the law of the Nuremberg Charter, which reflected international law and which likewise stripped away sovereign immunity, would not be unjust. Thus, Saddam’s assertions of sovereign immunity will avail him not. His first trial will continue on its course for the Dujail massacre.

Michael Kelly is Associate Professor of Law at the Creighton University School of Law. His most recent book is Nowhere to Hide: Defeat of the Sovereign Immunity Defense for Crimes of Genocide and the Trials of Slobodan Milosevic & Saddam Hussein (Peter Lang Publishers 2005), with a foreword by Desmond Tutu.

JURIST - Forum: Sovereign Immunity for Saddam? Not Likely.


edit:

Personally, I think establishing the legitimacy of the trial in the eyes of Iraqis is ultimately more important than Saddam Hussein's fate. Sadly, it doesn't look like even an appearance of legitimacy has been established.

[Sparrow]

Interesting that the verdict comes in 2 days before the US elections, which might give the neocons the appearance of having accomplished something in Iraq. How convenient.

[Faberge]

I prefer life sentence over execution.

[Rob-hin]

I hope it won't come to happen.

If Saddam is executed, the effect of his punishment wil be tenfold compared to a improsonment.
He wil be a marter and the Saddam followers will have a reason to cause violence.
They alsohave a firmer ground to 'convert' people in their anti-western attitude. Other countries can also be infected by this.

Also, western civiliation generally is anti punishment in the form of death or painfull methods suchs as stoning (if not a proper English word; trowing stones at someone in public).
To sentence Saddam to dead is being hypocrit.

[Vicsun]

Also, western civiliation generally is anti punishment in the form of death or painfull methods suchs as stoning (if not a proper English word; trowing stones at someone in public).
To sentence Saddam to dead is being hypocrit.

He is being tried in an Iraqi court according to Iraqi law. I don't really see how the western culture is being hypocritical in this case, unless you mean he shouldn't have been handed to Iraqi courts in the first place.

He's also sentenced to death by hanging, not stoning for what it's worth.

[Rob-hin]

He is being tried in an Iraqi court according to Iraqi law. I don't really see how the western culture is being hypocritical in this case, unless you mean he shouldn't have been handed to Iraqi courts in the first place.

He's also sentenced to death by hanging, not stoning for what it's worth.

Naturally I know this, it was an example. I said western world is against death punishment (mostly) and physical punishment. So both, incl. hanging.

Saddam had best been treated by western law IMO, it was the western world that invaded, captured and prosecuted too, I think it would be best to complete the 'project'.
But as in most situations, the best way is the middle way. Irak should have imput in the western trail which I just sketched. Either judge/jury/something else, but no punishments many consider extreme such as death.

This punishment could have been expected and it would not benefit anyone do execute Saddam.

The western world had set this punishment in motion by going the way they did. This was their first misstake/sign of hypocracy.
With this outcome, the western world should now oppose the courts ruling. As they do with other countries applying death punishment. This isn't really happening as much as I'd like to see.
The problem here is the fact that some states in America also apply death punishment. This makes the USA devided by his own and prevents them from opposing the ruling... some may even wanted such an outcome.

[Mr_Snow]

Western opinions on the death sentance for Saddam don't count for much.

As soon as he was found his fate was sealed. From a Iraqi Shi'ite and Kurd perspective (not to mention Iranian) the quicker he's gotten rid of the better.
Saying life in prison is all well and good, but for the fledling Iraqi government having Saddam in prison with the potential to be broken out of it by his supporters or anyone who wants to use him, is not a risk worth taking.

If he did get out and get back into any type of position of power after a civil war etc what do you think would happen to the Shi'ites and Kurds??? They would be butchered worse than at the end of Gulf War I.

For the majority of the Iraqi's it's much safer to have him dead than rotting in prison.

As for his old Sunni mates using his death as a matyrdom, remember Sunni's only account for ~30% of the population, and not all of them support him, none of the surrounding countries governments do, not even Al Queda look favourably on him (they might use the matter to their own advantage, but they do not care for him in any way). His death would be a tool to be used by only a small percentage and that would fade over time.

[VonDondu]

Interesting that the verdict comes in 2 days before the US elections, which might give the neocons the appearance of having accomplished something in Iraq. How convenient.

I agree. The verdict itself is actually a joke at this point, because the court has not explained why Hussein was found guilty or exactly what he was found guilty of. The full verdict is supposed to be ready on Thursday. So yes, it's only natural to wonder why the "verdict" was announced two days before the American mid-term elections when the verdict isn't even ready to be announced.

Here's a story I just read:

Saddam verdict lacks details - Blogging Baghdad: The Untold Story - MSNBC.com

[Xandax]

Western opinions on the death sentance for Saddam don't count for much.

As soon as he was found his fate was sealed. From a Iraqi Shi'ite and Kurd perspective (not to mention Iranian) the quicker he's gotten rid of the better.
Saying life in prison is all well and good, but for the fledling Iraqi government having Saddam in prison with the potential to be broken out of it by his supporters or anyone who wants to use him, is not a risk worth taking.

If he did get out and get back into any type of position of power after a civil war etc what do you think would happen to the Shi'ites and Kurds??? They would be butchered worse than at the end of Gulf War I.

For the majority of the Iraqi's it's much safer to have him dead than rotting in prison.

As for his old Sunni mates using his death as a matyrdom, remember Sunni's only account for ~30% of the population, and not all of them support him, none of the surrounding countries governments do, not even Al Queda look favourably on him (they might use the matter to their own advantage, but they do not care for him in any way). His death would be a tool to be used by only a small percentage and that would fade over time.

I agree.
One can easily argue it is a cold-hearted and cynical point of view, and that the trial was a sham. However, the Iraqi people need to have him removed permanently if anything is to move on. The US invasion pro or con, but Saddam was a dictator not shy of suppressing and massmurder, and I would - from what I've seen reported/read etc, think that the majority of Iraqis want "revenge" for a lack of better word.

It might not be how it would be done in a full fledge centuries old democratic state, but many of us old democracies were also build on some manner of blood, and if Iraq is to move forwards they need to remove factors from the equation which could further continue to destabilize the country.
Fact of the matter is that Saddam alive would mean a permanent possibility of him returning to power either via coup or simply by getting the country destabilized so much that people "want" him back, or his bloodline to continue.

I think it is the best way simply to execute him as soon as possible. Cold-hearted - yes; but I still see it as the best course of action.

[Luis Antonio]

My personal thought: Let him die as soon as possible. His words still carry a lot of power, and the less he can be seen as a martyr the better. In other words: Rot, Saddam, rot.

[Silur]

I am categorically against capital punishment, and that includes Saddam Hussein. I can relate emotionally to the feeling of revenge that might come from killing him. After all, I am human and there are a number of people I would feel good about seeing dead - Saddam is pretty insignificant compared to most of them... I doubt he even makes it to "the top twenty list" of people responsible for messing up the planet and causing people to suffer.

Also I do not agree that having him rot in a prison cell is a problem. There is no reason for him to actually be locked up in Iraq, where he potentially could cause problems. Had he been tried by the International Court of Justice, where he should have, he would most likely have been sentenced to life inprisonment, which would then have been served at undisclosed locations in the countries that have actually ratified the world court.

[Lady Dragonfly]

update:

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, sentenced to death for his role in 148 killings in 1982, will have his sentence carried out by Sunday, NBC News reported Thursday. According to a U.S. military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity, Saddam will be hanged before the start of the Eid religious holiday, which begins at sundown Saturday.

The hanging could take place as early as Friday, NBC’s Richard Engel reported.
.......
Earlier Thursday, Saddam’s chief lawyer implored world leaders to prevent the United States from handing over the ousted leader to Iraqi authorities for execution, saying the former dictator should enjoy protection from his enemies as a “prisoner of war.”

“According to the international conventions, it is forbidden to hand a prisoner of war to his adversary,” Saddam’s lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, said in Amman, Jordan.


NBC: Saddam to be hanged by Sunday - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

[fable]

Also I do not agree that having him rot in a prison cell is a problem. There is no reason for him to actually be locked up in Iraq, where he potentially could cause problems. Had he been tried by the International Court of Justice, where he should have, he would most likely have been sentenced to life inprisonment, which would then have been served at undisclosed locations in the countries that have actually ratified the world court.

Had he been tried at the IC of J, the proceedings would have been outside the control of the Bush administration. It's possible though not certain that Saddam's lawyers could have introduced lines of reasoning and testimony that incriminated both the Reagan administration and its handlers, including Rumsfeld, who arranged for the shipment of chemical weapons to Iraq. I'm convinced that's why Hussein was tried in Baghdad--though obviously all this is mere guessing games, and of little use to anybody.

EDIT: This, by the international justice director of Human Rights Watch, succinctly points out what a mockery of a trial Hussein went through. To quote briefly:

The trial judgment was not finished when the verdict and sentence were announced on November 5. The record only became available to defence lawyers on November 22. According to the tribunal's statute, the defence attorneys had to file their appeals on December 5, which gave them less than two weeks to respond to the 300-page trial decision. The appeals chamber never held a hearing to consider the legal arguments presented as allowed by Iraqi law. It defies belief that the appeals chamber could fairly review a 300-page decision together with written submissions by the defence and consider all the relevant issues in less than three weeks.

This follows a trial whose serious flaws rendered the verdict unsound. The trial was undermined from the start by persistent political interference from the Iraqi government. Furthermore, the rights of the defendants were systematically denied by failures to disclose key evidence to the defence. There were also serious violations of the defendants' rights to confront witnesses testifying against them. Most disturbing were the frequent lapses of judicial demeanour by the trial's second presiding judge. In January, the first chief judge resigned in protest over the public criticism of his trial management practices by leading officials.

[Xandax]

Executed now:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saddam Hussein executed in Iraq

[Luis Antonio]

Oh my God! You've killed Saddam!

You bastards!!!

Well, honestly, he deserved it, though I see no good outcome from a death.

[Kipi]

Well, the result was correct, even though the trial was mostly just a joke...