Saddam Hussein

Saddam Hussein was hanged just one crime against humanity, and not for the scores of crimes he committed during his decades long dictatorship.

How come, then, can't we impeach George Bush on the following 10 crimes?

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
   
   

Posted on Campaign to End the Death Penalty

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 28 December 2006

The Bush administration welcomed the confirmation of the death penalty against Saddam Hussein, reopening the divide with the European Union and the United Nations, which are opposed to execution.

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, said Saddam should not be hanged for crimes against humanity because his trial had been flawed and was marred by political interference by the Iraqi government.

A spokeswoman for Amnesty said: "We are against the death penalty as a matter of principle but particularly in this case because it comes after a flawed trial."

Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, said: "Imposing the death penalty, indefensible in any case, is especially wrong after such unfair proceedings. That a judicial decision was first announced by Iraq's National Security Adviser underlines the political interference that marred Saddam Hussein's trial."

Iraq's US-appointed interim government reinstated the death penalty in August 2004, causing friction with its coalition partner, Britain. The former top British representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said the UK would not participate in a tribunal or legal process that could lead to execution.

A Foreign Office spokesman said yesterday that while the execution of Saddam was "a matter for the Iraqis", Britain remained opposed to the death penalty, and had made representations to the government on that score.

Posted on Campaign to End the Death Penalty

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 28 December 2006

The Bush administration welcomed the confirmation of the death penalty against Saddam Hussein, reopening the divide with the European Union and the United Nations, which are opposed to execution.

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, said Saddam should not be hanged for crimes against humanity because his trial had been flawed and was marred by political interference by the Iraqi government.

A spokeswoman for Amnesty said: "We are against the death penalty as a matter of principle but particularly in this case because it comes after a flawed trial."

Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, said: "Imposing the death penalty, indefensible in any case, is especially wrong after such unfair proceedings. That a judicial decision was first announced by Iraq's National Security Adviser underlines the political interference that marred Saddam Hussein's trial."

Iraq's US-appointed interim government reinstated the death penalty in August 2004, causing friction with its coalition partner, Britain. The former top British representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said the UK would not participate in a tribunal or legal process that could lead to execution.

A Foreign Office spokesman said yesterday that while the execution of Saddam was "a matter for the Iraqis", Britain remained opposed to the death penalty, and had made representations to the government on that score.

As Fox News is piddling over itself ecstatically about Saddam Hussein's execution, I just want to ONCE AGAIN remind America that THIS MAN (shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld):

Had NOTHING to do with THIS EVENT (which I experienced first hand):

So all Americans need to ask THIS MAN:

when we will catch THIS MAN:

Write the media to express your opinion on Bush's failure to fight terrorism.

I have been emailing with people back and forth about the Hussein execution. One of those people, Dan Jacoby, is one of our contributors at The Daily Gotham. He pointed us an article he wrote two and a half years ago about Where, Not When and may I add, why wasn't Hussein tried by the World Court.

There's a lot of buzz about when the Bush administration is going to turn Saddam Hussein over to some American-appointed Iraqi interim governing body. The question people should be asking, however, is not when we're going to turn him over, but where, and to whom.
Slobodan Milosevic was the tyrannical leader of a country who attacked his neighbors, slaughtered thousands of people, and was eventually captured. He was quite properly turned over to the World Court in The Hague to stand trail for crimes against humanity. Saddam Hussein deserves the same fate. But we're not going to send him to Holland, we're keeping him in Iraq.

Why?

[...]

Chances are neither of these is the real reason for not turning Hussein over to the proper authority. Chances are that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others are afraid of what will come out in a real, public trial.

As if on cue, CNN is reporting Bush's comments on the execution : He considers Hussein's demise as the end of a fair trial and the beginning of Iraq's new democracy.

Riverbend is a woman I don't read as much as I should because she makes me cry every single time I take a glance at her blog. She is the most powerful voice coming out of Iraq and the one that seems to be holding on to the little sanity that is left in that country.

End of Another Year... | Baghdad Burning:

What has me most puzzled right now is: why add fuel to the fire? Sunnis and moderate Shia are being chased out of the larger cities in the south and the capital. Baghdad is being torn apart with Shia leaving Sunni areas and Sunnis leaving Shia areas- some under threat and some in fear of attacks. People are being openly shot at check points or in drive by killings… Many colleges have stopped classes. Thousands of Iraqis no longer send their children to school- it's just not safe.

Why make things worse by insisting on Saddam's execution now? Who gains if they hang Saddam? Iran, naturally, but who else? There is a real fear that this execution will be the final blow that will shatter Iraq. Some Sunni and Shia tribes have threatened to arm their members against the Americans if Saddam is executed. Iraqis in general are watching closely to see what happens next, and quietly preparing for the worst.

This is because now, Saddam no longer represents himself or his regime. Through the constant insistence of American war propaganda, Saddam is now representative of all Sunni Arabs (never mind most of his government were Shia). The Americans, through their speeches and news articles and Iraqi Puppets, have made it very clear that they consider him to personify Sunni Arab resistance to the occupation. Basically, with this execution, what the Americans are saying is "Look- Sunni Arabs- this is your man, we all know this. We're hanging him- he symbolizes you." And make no mistake about it, this trial and verdict and execution are 100% American. Some of the actors were Iraqi enough, but the production, direction and montage was pure Hollywood (though low-budget, if you ask me).

Bush is very proud that Saddam Hussein is captured even though this event has nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on America and does nothing what so ever to make us safer and hasn't really improved the lives of Iraqis, making the lives of Iraqi women worse.

But tonight (by 10 PM Easter time or 6 AM local Bagdhad time) there will be a circus of back patting as Saddam Hussein is executed in the name of false democracy. Somehow this will be some kind of "Mission Accomplished" moment.

But what I want to know is this:

Where is Osama bin Laden?

Why did we ever invade Iraq in the first place?

What is our exit strategy?

When will we get back to fighting al-Qaeda?

Meanwhile, the White House is dodging these very questions by saying that the capture of bin Laden is merely a "success that hasn't happened yet."

Yes...five fucking years after the attacks.

Well, it's like I said. The Saddam Hussein verdict is the Republican last ditch effort to stem the Democratic surge. Previously I reported (on Oct. 16th) how, according to Guysen Israël News, the chief prosecutor in the Saddam Hussein trial has said that the verdict will be announced within three weeks. Yes...the CHIEF PROSECUTOR was announcing this, not the judge. Let that sink in a moment.

Now, according to Media Matters, the date for the verdict has been set...for November 5, two days before the US elections where the Iraq War is the number one issue.

Be prepared for another "Mission Accomplished" moment from George Bush, possibly flanked by the likes of DeWine, Santorum, Burns and all the other endangered Republicans. Will it work? I guess that depends on whether America remembers that it was al-Qaeda who attacked us, not Saddam Hussein, and that the only connection Saddam Hussein ever had with al-Qaeda was that they hated eachother and did their best to kill eachother.

Mr. Bush and Lap Dog Republicans: I don't give a RAT'S ASS for Saddam Hussein. I want to know where Osama bin Laden is and why you haven't caught him.

As even Republicans are predicting a 20-seat pick up for Democrats in the House, and as Indiana seems poised to turn Blue, and <a href="http://corruptrepub.blogspot.com/2006/10/bush-campaigns-for-racists-and-abusers.html">Bush desperately campaigns for Republican racists and abusers of women</a>, Bush is also preparing what he probably thinks will be a decisive blow for Republicans in November. So far the only "October surprises" were revelations about Republican corruption, but Bush seems to be readying a November surprise, clearly timed to tip the balance wherever possible on election day.

According to Guysen Israël New, the chief prosecutor in the Saddam Hussein trial has said that the verdict will be announced within three weeks.

Now, I find it interesting that it is the CHIEF PROSECUTOR making this announcement rather than the judge...seems odd to me. But the real point here is that Bush will clearly take the opportunity to declare victory in Iraq to great fanfare. Be prepared for another, possibly more toned down, "Mission Accomplished" moment from George Bush. Possibly also a high profile "surprise visit" to Iraq to show the Republicans are keeping us safe by getting Hussein found guilty.

All of which ignores the fact that Osama bin Laden, the man who masterminded an actual attack on America, remains free and al-Qaeda, the people who actually attacked us, continue to function. The reality is that, in terms of the safety and prosperity of Americans, the trial of Saddam Hussein means absolutely nothing. Yet I am sure it will be trumpeted as some massive success by Bush.