mimo2005

SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq (AFP) - The first chief judge who presided over Saddam Hussein's trial for crimes against humanity has said that the late dictator's execution by the Iraqi government was illegal.

Rizkar Mohammed Amin, who later resigned as the trial's chief judge, said Iraqi law banned executions during the Eid al-Adha festival period that marks the end of the annual Hajj pilgrimage.

The four-day Feast of the Sacrifice began for Iraqi Sunnis on Saturday -- the day Saddam was hanged in Baghdad -- and on Sunday for Shiites.

Amin also claimed that Iraqi law stipulates an execution must be carried out 30 days after the appeal court's decision on the sentencing, which in this case upheld the death sentence of Saddam.

But in ratifying the death sentence on December 26, the appeals chamber insisted that the law stipulated the sentence be implemented within 30 days.

Amin resigned as chief judge of the Dujail trial following political pressure amid accusations that he was lenient with Saddam and occasionally allowed the late dictator to carry out outbursts in court.

Saddam was hanged on Saturday in a Shiite district of Baghdad after he was found guilty of executing 148 Shiite villagers from Dujail in the 1980s where he escaped an assassination bid.

He was buried on Sunday in his home village of Awja.

Iraq's National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie denied that Saddam was executed on Eid al-Adha, in an interview with CNN just hours after the hanging.

"Eid starts from daylight -- we had managed to execute him well before the sunrise," Rubaie said Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070101...m_070101144532

forcifer

bit late to challenge i think...

Girderman

They should make teaching English to all Iraqi school children mandatory, and ban the use of the word "revenge" in any language from the Iraqi vocabulary.

Myth-UK

Yeah, right...

It's their country so why cant they speak whatever language they want.

The thing is people like you then complain and start head scratching with comments like "They wouldnt do as we said, so we shot them!"

I mean come on, what right do we have to say what people can and can't do or say?



Didn't Hitler do and say pretty much the same thing?

As for the "revenge" comment you have made, Iraq isnt about revenge then?

Tumbleweed36

Hi,

A bit off topic if you ask me, so might be a good idea to not go there. However, my question is on topic and about the judge who was replaced and not any other agenda or off topic discussion. My question(s):

Isn't this the same judge that was replaced by the Iraq Government, because the Iraq government thought he became too cozy with the former dictator and permitted Saddam to kind of "run the trial" instead of the court running it?

Hmm, if the answer is "yes," then could he have been a Saddam loyalist? And, if the answer was "No," why was he replaced? This might give us a clue to his comments about it being illegal.

Myth-UK

Like this?



http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/U.S._soldiers_lead_Iraq_children_in_1214.html

Girderman

It actually IS on-topic to comment that one quality that makes the Islamic culture so inferior is that it wholeheartedly embraces the concept of "revenge" as a legitimate means to achieve justice.

Even if an "Islamic" State is executing a convicted mass-murderer, such as Saddam Hussein.

If the State we are supporting has revenge on it's list of legitimate reasons to kill someone, then we the United States are supporting a country that is diametrically opposed to our own values. Coincidentally, while at the same time we are waging war against a group of people that are also diametrically opposed to our own values, i.e. the "terrorists".

Ergo, there may come a day in the future when we wage war against the State we ourselves created (Iraq) for the very same reasons we are waging war against the terrorists.

Sort of makes me wonder what the point is, then.

Some skills in reading comprehension can prove occasionally valuable.