November 2, 2006

NICE TIMING, KARL:

Iraq Set To Condemn Saddam, as U.S. Vote Nears (ELI LAKE, November 2, 2006, NY Sun)

Two days before Americans vote in congressional midterm elections, a court in Baghdad could deliver a boost to President Bush's party — a guilty verdict and even a death sentence for Saddam Hussein.

On November 5, the Iraqi High Tribunal is scheduled to deliver a verdict against the deposed Iraqi dictator and his co-defendants for their role in the 1985 murder of 148 Shiite Arabs in the town of Dujail. The decision would mark the Iraqi court's first verdict against Saddam after more than two years of proceedings, three changes in chief judges, and the murder of four defense lawyers.

The decision could dominate the November 5 and 6 news cycles before the November 7 midterm elections in America, where the Iraq war has become a political loser for Republican candidates at the state and federal levels.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 2, 2006 11:01 AM
Comments

If they decide to kill him, how are they going to do it? Hang him like the war criminals of old? Firing squad? Some delightfully nasty Middle Eastern method that sounds like a curse Corporal Klinger would spit out - "May you drown in the spit of a thousand camels!"

For that matter, how is the Army going to deal with these guys who are charged with raping and murdering and entire Iraqi family? I know next to nothing about miliary justice, but I have seen The Dirty Dozen about a million times, so wouldn't they get hung?

Posted by: Bryan at November 2, 2006 12:29 PM

The U.S military now uses lethal injection.

Saddam Hussein is being tried by the Iraqis; the method of execution of a death sentence is up to them.

Posted by: Lou Gots at November 2, 2006 2:44 PM

I propose no more M.A.S.H. quotes, ever.

Unless it's Colonel Flagg, he was the r0xxor.

Posted by: Pepys at November 2, 2006 3:24 PM

Colonel Flagg: This won't look good on your record.
Frank Burns: But colonel, it's just Reader's Digest.
Colonel Flagg: Not if you eliminate the third, fifth, and sixth letters, then it's Red's Digest, comrade.

Posted by: Bryan at November 2, 2006 4:29 PM

I vote for a lamp-post and a half-inch manila line. Simple, direct, works every time it's tried.

Posted by: Mike Morley at November 2, 2006 4:44 PM

Flagg: Nobody can get the truth out of me because even I don't know what it is. I keep myself in a constant state of utter confusion.

Posted by: Pepys at November 2, 2006 5:33 PM

Flagg: You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.

Posted by: Pepys at November 2, 2006 5:44 PM

Drop him off in the middle of Basra on a Friday afternoon after the mosques have let out. A simple hanging's to good for the sob.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at November 2, 2006 6:13 PM

Flagg: "I've trained myself not to laugh or smile. I watched a hundred hours of the Three Stooges; every time I felt like smiling or laughing, I jabbed myself in the stomach with a cattle prod."

And after Hawkeye suggests using nuclear weapons in a search for the missing Major Houlian): "Don't try to make friends with me."

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at November 2, 2006 6:16 PM

Lt. Colonel Flagg aka Edward Winter died at the age of 64 of Parkinson's Disease on March 8. 2001. RIP sir, your characterization of Flagg and the theme song were the only good things about M*A*S*H.

Back to the topic at hand. Why on earth are they risking a potential upheaval by sentencing Saddam two days before the election. Postpone it until next week.

Posted by: erp at November 2, 2006 6:57 PM

Do any of you find it significant that Saddam's testimony has been censored at various times throughout his circus of a trial; particularly, very early in the proceedings when people were actually paying attention to the trial?

Posted by: Mo at November 2, 2006 8:06 PM

Mo:
No, but I'm betting you have a conspiracy theory to explain it. Something involving George Bush, perhaps?

Posted by: Bryan at November 2, 2006 8:13 PM

Bryan:

Probably Barbara Bush, too. The lunacy of the moonbats knows no bounds.

Posted by: ratbert at November 2, 2006 9:08 PM

I find it odd that he was tried rather than handed to the mob, as he deserved.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2006 9:29 PM

A question for Democratic candidates: would you approve of the death penalty for Saddam?

Posted by: Greg Hlatky at November 2, 2006 10:30 PM

You are right Oj, he deserved to be handed by the mob.
But he wasn't.
So let me rephrase my question so maybe some of you can understand me better.
If we went so far as to try to present the appearance of a fair trial, why would we actually fall short of completing this charade by not giving to man a chance to give his entire testimony to the rest of the world?

Posted by: Mo at November 2, 2006 10:46 PM

So we've established that he shouldn't have been given a fair trial but you're quibbling over some imperfections in the one he got? I don't get it.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2006 10:51 PM

What do you mean "we"? This is an Iraq court and Irag trial. You know---Iraq the sovereign country that is not now and has never been part of the US of A.

Posted by: ray at November 2, 2006 11:50 PM

Mo:
Instead of asking these coy leading questions, why don't you just lay your pathetic conspiracy theory right out so that we can mock it openly.

Posted by: Bryan at November 3, 2006 6:05 AM
« FORESHADOWING: | Main | NEVER HEARD OF THE DIVISION OF LABOR?: »