Liverpool FC Forum

by **66-1112520797** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:47 pm

The Iraqi capital Baghdad remains under an indefinite curfew a day after former president Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death for crimes against humanity.
Correspondents say the curfew seems to be working and streets in the city are deserted, despite fears that the guilty verdict could fuel sectarian violence.

The sentence sparked delight in Shia towns, but protests among some Sunnis.

An automatic appeal will be launched against the verdict and is due to be heard by a panel of nine judges.

On Sunday, the former Iraqi leader was sentenced to death by hanging over the killing of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail following an assassination attempt on him in 1982.

The appeals process for Saddam Hussein and six co-defendants - two of whom were sentenced to death, one to life in prison and three to 15-year jail terms - is expected to take only a few weeks.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Guilty verdicts on murder charges are automatically sent to appellate panel within 10 days
It can take as little as 20 days for the appeal to be heard
If sentence is upheld, execution must be carried out within 30 days
Iraq's tripartite presidency must sign the execution papers
Sentence may be delayed to allow conclusion to Anfal trial

Q&A: Verdict and appeal
Verdicts in detail
In pictures: Iraq's reaction
If the sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days of the decision.

The BBC's John Simpson in Baghdad says the hangings could therefore take place within two or three months, although there are a lot of question marks over the process.

Some legal experts have argued that Saddam Hussein's ongoing trial for atrocities committed against the Kurdish population should be allowed to reach a verdict before he is executed.

But Iraqi officials say the hanging would not be delayed artificially to allow this to take place.

Saddam Hussein's defence lawyers have told the BBC that they have not received official notification of the death sentence, which they say is required before they launch their appeal.

Our correspondent says that although this is a technicality, it shows how ineffectual a lot of the rules and regulations governing the trial process have been.

'Milestone'

The judgement has been met with mixed reactions in Iraq and around the world.

Shortly after the verdict there were jubilant scenes in the Shia district of Sadr City, and in the holy city of Najaf.

But in Saddam Hussein's hometown Tikrit there was fury, as supporters of the former president defied a curfew to parade with photographs of their hero.

Almost three years since his capture, soaring sectarian violence has brought Iraq to the brink of civil war - and correspondents say few Iraqis think the trial verdict will ease the conflict.

The Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has hailed the sentence as "a verdict on a whole dark era".

President Bush called the verdict a "milestone" in the efforts of the Iraqi people "to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law".

White House spokesman Tony Snow denied suggestions that the timing of the verdict had been orchestrated to coincide with crucial mid-term elections as "preposterous".

Several European leaders welcomed the guilty verdict, but there has also concern over the use of the death sentence.

Finland, which currently holds the presidency of the EU and is opposed to the death penalty, called on Iraq to refrain from carrying out the execution.

Mohammed, Iraq

Send us your comments
Voices from Iraq: reaction
Celebrations and protests
UN human rights chief Louise Arbour called for a moratorium on executions and said the defendants' rights to a fair appeal must be "fully respected".

The verdict was welcomed in Kuwait, which was invaded by the former Iraqi president in 1990, and Iran, which fought a bitter war with Iraq in the 1980s.

But the Palestinian ruling party, Hamas, condemned the sentence as politically motivated, remembering support Saddam Hussein had given the Palestinian people.

Many critics have dismissed the trial as a form of victors' justice, given the close attention the US has paid to it.

Amnesty International described the trial as a "shabby affair, marred by serious flaws".

Saddam Hussein's defence team has accused the government of interfering in the proceedings - a complaint backed by US group Human Rights Watch.

The process was marked by frequent interruptions by defendants and their lawyers and problems with security.

So, who agrees or disagrees with the death penalty?

by **LFC #1** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:52 pm

Totally agree with it, and I'm glad it's hanging and not the firing squad. The man is an animal and has committed atrocities against his own people. He's right up there with the likes of Milosevic, Hitler etc. He deserves all he gets.

by **Sabre** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:53 pm

I'm against the death penalty with no exceptions.

For me Saddam deserves the worst of the punishments, including putting him naked and being ridiculised, and whatever you might think. He doesn't deserve to end his suffering so soon.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:00 pm

I strongly believe in the death penalty for murder, so I am in full agreement with his sentence.

by **metalhead** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:04 pm

He got what he deserves! a really evil dictator.

by **66-1112520797** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:04 pm

s@int wrote:I strongly believe in the death penalty for murder, so I am in full agreement with his sentence.

Already diverting from topic but.....

Wasnt the last woman to be hung in England eventually found out to be innocent

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:09 pm

The name Ruth Ellis is guaranteed a place in the history of British crime. In 1955 she became the last woman to be hanged in the UK. But now her family is claiming the authorities should look again at the case, writes Jonathan Morris.
Ruth Ellis is being portrayed as a victim of a cruel boyfriend who abused her, and a cruel legal system that hanged her.

Ellis's sister, Muriel Jakubait, 77, wants her conviction reduced to manslaughter.

She says the jury was never told that David Blakely treated Ellis violently and caused her to miscarry by punching her in the stomach.

The jury was also not told that she had been raped by her father as a child, and was addicted to anti-depressants.

David Blakely and Ruth Ellis: Tempestuous relationship

Ms Jakubait believes that her mental state at the time meant she should never have been convicted of murder.

If found guilty of manslaughter, Ellis would probably have received a prison sentence totalling a few years, instead of the capital punishment of hanging.

Ellis, 28, was hanged after killing her lover Mr Blakely outside a pub in Hampstead, north London, in 1955.

Mr Blakely and Ellis formed a passionate and tempestuous relationship after they met in a London night club which Ellis managed.

Ellis suspected Mr Blakely was having an affair with a friend's nanny and in a pique of jealousy and rejection, she went to Hampstead where she lay in wait outside the Magdala public house in South Hill Park.

Mr Blakely came out of the pub with a friend and Ellis shot him five times, the last shot from point blank range, as he lay wounded on the ground.

Other drinkers came out of the pub to see what had happened and Ellis was arrested, still holding the smoking gun, by an off-duty policeman.
----------------------------------------

There is no doubt she was guilty. Just whether more should have been taken into account.

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:25 pm

Bamaga man wrote:Wasnt the last woman to be hung in England eventually found out to be innocent

And there lies the problem with the death penalty.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:28 pm

SouthCoastShankly wrote:
Bamaga man wrote:Wasnt the last woman to be hung in England eventually found out to be innocent

And there lies the problem with the death penalty.

She shot him five times .... hardly an accident

Now many people are asking the question, why was Danny Rouse out of prison and able to kill again? The murder of Stephanie Wagner, the second by a previously convicted murderer in less than three months.

"It's disturbing to think we can lock someone up for murder that length of time and think they won't re-offend," Craig Whitfield said.

Craig Whitfield's sister-in-law was struck by a car and murdered back in August in South Bend. The man who did it, a convicted murderer out on parole.

Then, just earlier this week, police say Danny Rouse admitted to killing 16-year-old Stephanie Wagner.

The Kansas parole board released him earlier this year after he served 26 years for murdering a 5-year-old boy.
----------------------------
and there lies the problem with no death penalty....... they can kill again!

by **66-1112520797** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:47 pm

and there lies the problem with no death penalty....... they can kill again

It would be interesting to see, but I wonder what the stats would say.......

Innocent people who got the death penalty.

Or someone doing bird for life, coming out and re-offending ?

by **Ciggy** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:57 pm

Well I would'nt want to be near Iraq when he gets hung, there will be more blood spilt than ever before.
He deserves hanging but not the way things are there at the moment.

by **Big Niall** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:59 pm

When the IRA blew up pubs in Britain and killed loads of innocent civilians the people rightly wanted the murderers found and executed. The police were under such pressure that they rounded up totally innocent Irish people, beat confessions out of them, forged evidence etc. The judge said that it was a pity that the death penalty was abolished as otherwise he'd give it. They were later proved innocent.

That is the problem with the death penalty.

As for the Sadaam Hussein "trial". That was always going to be the verdict. To be honest, you could charge Bush and Blair with the same as they are responsible for the killing of thousands of innocents in a pointless war. :angry:

by **Ciggy** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:04 pm

Big Niall wrote:To be honest, you could charge Bush and Blair with the same as they are responsible for the killing of thousands of innocents in a pointless war.

Who's killing innocents every day in Iraq now though?
Not Bush or Blair Saddams hangers on, thats why him getting hung will be a major catastrophy and will lead to more terrorist attacks and more innocents dying.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Well the only viable solution is to bang the feckers up for life. If they're found to be innocent - they can get released. If not - they spend years suffering.

Yes it's a burden on the taxpayer, but seeing as we're the World's bitch anyway, what difference would it really make to us?

I'd rather my tax money was spent on keeping scum locked up, than a bunch of idle foreign b*stards in the lap of luxury.

by **66-1112520797** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Big Niall wrote:When the IRA blew up pubs in Britain and killed loads of innocent civilians the people rightly wanted the murderers found and executed. The police were under such pressure that they rounded up totally innocent Irish people, beat confessions out of them, forged evidence etc. The judge said that it was a pity that the death penalty was abolished as otherwise he'd give it. They were later proved innocent.

That is the problem with the death penalty.

As for the Sadaam Hussein "trial". That was always going to be the verdict. To be honest, you could charge Bush and Blair with the same as they are responsible for the killing of thousands of innocents in a pointless war.

Is that why you hate the English so much Niall ?

Liverpool FC Forum

Saddam sentenced to death

Who is online