Posted on 12/29/2006 7:08:40 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
Edited on 01/08/2007 4:42:06 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Saddam Hussein Executed!!
Saddam Hussein is led into the gallows by his executioners and prepared for his hanging; Saddam's body after his execution
****Warning Graphic Links***
Photo of Saddam Dead with Noose Still Around Neck
Full Hanging Video(Through the Drop)
Saddam Video of Body after Hanging (New 1-8-07)
The Drop Broke Saddam's neck killing him instantly. At the executions following the Nuremberg Trials others were not so lucky.
THE TRIAL OF THE CENTURY--AND OF ALL TIME, PART TWO
"..The executions, in a brightly lighted prison gymnasium where three looming black wooden gallows had been erected, were witnessed by a handful of Allied military officers and eight journalists, one of whom, Kingsbury Smith of International News Service, wrote a famous newspaper article, "The Execution of Nazi War Criminals, 16 October 1946," based on his eyewitness observations. Although Smith discreetly omitted mentioning it, the experienced Army hangman, Master Sgt. John C. Woods, botched the executions. A number of the hanged Nazis died, not quickly from a broken neck as intended, but agonizingly from slow strangulation. Ribbentrop and Sauckel each took 14 minutes to choke to death, while Keitel, whose death was the most painful, struggled for 24 minutes at the end of the rope before expiring..."
Really? How so? Do you mean because we support our brave troops and are grateful and thankful they unearthed Saddam from his spider hole, so that the Iraqi poeple could execute him AFTER his trial wherein he was found guilty?
Bump!
"You're not kidding--I woke up early, turned on CNN and the first thing I heard was how Saddam's execution won't mean a thing for Iraq..."
Sadly, that was the first thing I heard on "conservative" Fox News this morning also, from a semi-effeminate, ex-CIA diplomatic type:
"This really will change nothing in Iraq.."
He seemed rather happy about it as well. Angling for a well-padded position in the Clinton-Obama administration no doubt.....
My opinion of the CIA has certainly changed in the past few years.
What the hell do the Indians of North America have to do with Saddam's execution?
This poster is just parroting the standard issue line that Western whites are guilty for all of the world's sins...the DUmmie is welcome to immolate himself (or herself, as it may be) however trying to drag the rest of us down is idiotic to say the least.
Saddam ordered folks put into plastic shredders, feet first, for maximum suffering. That, in itself, is just plain sick and wrong, and for just that, he deserved a fate far worse than death.
Really? And where is that? Everyone here at my place is quite warm. Warmest December any of us can remember. And the hanging warmed us up even more. All warm and cozy. We may not have much of a New Year's celebration, because we've used up all our fireworks, but we don't mind. We'll be too busy at the reloading table to give it much thought. (We used up most of the ammo too.)
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
At the Democratic Underground, any view involving logic is strictly coincidental.
Geee... what a miserable "video-grapher." A two year old could have done a better job... I really can't believe this is so bad... considering all the "practice" they had through the years videoing people being tortured or killed in all kinds of ways
The president is charged with enforcing the laws. He can choose to execute certain laws aggressively and direct his attorney general to soft-peddle other laws.
When issues are raised involving the constitutionality of federal legislation, or the question is posed which side should prevail in a case pitting state authority against and federal authority, the president directs his solicitor and attorney generals on how he wants them to argue the government's case. Indeed, he can direct them to surrender and concede the point altogether if he prefers that outcome.
The president can also seek to have Congress implement new legislation. Most state of the union addresses are a litany of the legislative initiatives the president wants to push.
Now imagine a socially liberal anti-Second Amendment, pro-gay agenda Giuliani presidency and a socially liberal anti-Second Amendment, pro-gay agenda Pelosi-Reid Congress. What sort of legislation do you believe they will agree on? How zealously do you believe a Giuliani presidency will enforce federal gun laws? What will he direct his solicitor or attorney generals to do when he is faced with a circuit court decision that upholds "hate crime" legislation that punishes free speech? How about a circuit court decision that declares that the right to bear and keep arms is a communal right, not an individual right? Do you really expect him to go to the mat to defend socially conservative views on these issues?
There is grave evil and enormous damage that can be loosed on this country when the executive and legislative branches are controlled by unabashed social liberals.
Bump
Wooly Bully?????? LOL!!!!
Taking your argument a step further, we had a GOP President, Congress and Senate, we still have abortions.
Agreed...and...
There is grave evil and enormous damage that can be loosed on this country when the executive and legislative branches are controlled by unabashed social authoritarians.
Thanks for the update. I saw it up on youtube too :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
