It's also against basic legal doctrine, everywhere. The criminal courts don't have time to try a dead man, where no practical punishment can ensue..they're busy enough with the living, as is.

That's an interesting point, because they do open up the cases of people executed in the past and give posthumous pardons - not a trial, just an interesting point.

Good point, iX. That's a very recent development and it's an exception to the general rule. That one started a few years ago, when DNA evidence made it a scientific fact that certain convictions were mistaken. There was quite a debate about it, because pardons are generally issued by the government and not by the courts. My guess is that in the face of convincing scientific evidence, the Supreme Courts have decided that upholding the integrity and reputation of the justice system does require opening up some cases. You can say here that the reversal of verdict does amount to having a practical effect.

Slowly but surely, the law is ever changing...for the better, one hopes. :)

The law does indeed change. I studied tort and contract at university for a year and it is amazing to see the logic behind the formation of law, and the thought processes behind the change.

In the case of posthumous pardons, I was thinking of the WW1 British soldiers who were shot for desertion. Evidence shows that they suffered from shell shock and it has taken so many years for the soldiers to be pardoned and their families to be finally cleared of this ghastly thing hanging over them that happened in a war long ago. It doesn't help those that were shot, but it helps the families who now visit their graves with a heavy black weight lifted from their family names.

---

flaming balloons

Methinks that Saddam will be the next Elvis... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Methinks that Saddam will be the next Elvis... ;)

Yes, we all remember when Elvis ordered the gassing of Nashville, TN.

Methinks that Saddam will be the next Elvis... ;)

Yes, we all remember when Elvis ordered the gassing of Nashville, TN.

LOL!

---

Methinks that Saddam will be the next Elvis... ;)

Not Funny.

---

Methinks that Saddam will be the next Elvis... ;)

Saddam in Graceland???

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

---

Methinks that Saddam will be the next Elvis... ;)

Saddam in Graceland???

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Still not Funny...

---

It's also against basic legal doctrine, everywhere. The criminal courts don't have time to try a dead man, where no practical punishment can ensue..they're busy enough with the living, as is.

That's an interesting point, because they do open up the cases of people executed in the past and give posthumous pardons - not a trial, just an interesting point.

Good point, iX. That's a very recent development and it's an exception to the general rule. That one started a few years ago, when DNA evidence made it a scientific fact that certain convictions were mistaken. There was quite a debate about it, because pardons are generally issued by the government and not by the courts. My guess is that in the face of convincing scientific evidence, the Supreme Courts have decided that upholding the integrity and reputation of the justice system does require opening up some cases. You can say here that the reversal of verdict does amount to having a practical effect.

Slowly but surely, the law is ever changing...for the better, one hopes. :)

The law does indeed change. I studied tort and contract at university for a year and it is amazing to see the logic behind the formation of law, and the thought processes behind the change.

In the case of posthumous pardons, I was thinking of the WW1 British soldiers who were shot for desertion. Evidence shows that they suffered from shell shock and it has taken so many years for the soldiers to be pardoned and their families to be finally cleared of this ghastly thing hanging over them that happened in a war long ago. It doesn't help those that were shot, but it helps the families who now visit their graves with a heavy black weight lifted from their family names.

Your point is entirely valid with regard to grieving families but I do not think
that it is right to re-write history which can only lead o the distortion of factual events.

---

It's also against basic legal doctrine, everywhere. The criminal courts don't have time to try a dead man, where no practical punishment can ensue..they're busy enough with the living, as is.

That's an interesting point, because they do open up the cases of people executed in the past and give posthumous pardons - not a trial, just an interesting point.

Good point, iX. That's a very recent development and it's an exception to the general rule. That one started a few years ago, when DNA evidence made it a scientific fact that certain convictions were mistaken. There was quite a debate about it, because pardons are generally issued by the government and not by the courts. My guess is that in the face of convincing scientific evidence, the Supreme Courts have decided that upholding the integrity and reputation of the justice system does require opening up some cases. You can say here that the reversal of verdict does amount to having a practical effect.

Slowly but surely, the law is ever changing...for the better, one hopes. :)

The law does indeed change. I studied tort and contract at university for a year and it is amazing to see the logic behind the formation of law, and the thought processes behind the change.

In the case of posthumous pardons, I was thinking of the WW1 British soldiers who were shot for desertion. Evidence shows that they suffered from shell shock and it has taken so many years for the soldiers to be pardoned and their families to be finally cleared of this ghastly thing hanging over them that happened in a war long ago. It doesn't help those that were shot, but it helps the families who now visit their graves with a heavy black weight lifted from their family names.

Your point is entirely valid with regard to grieving families but I do not think
that it is right to re-write history which can only lead o the distortion of factual events.

I think this is why it took so long for the UK Ministry of Defense to give way on this. Representations have been made for many, many years and rejected on the basis that those in command at the time made decisions and those decisions should stand. It was important at the time to secure morale and to stop any soldier thinking that he could run away and get away with it if others did. At the time the penalty to running away was to be shot. That is what is was, at that time and you are right to say history cannot be re-written. But if there is now evidence those soldiers were not cowards, but had an illness which made them lose control of themselves and run, then that was something for the UK MOD and the courts to decide on.

---

flaming balloons

I think this is why it took so long for the UK Ministry of Defense to give way on this. Representations have been made for many, many years and rejected on the basis that those in command at the time made decisions and those decisions should stand. It was important at the time to secure morale and to stop any soldier thinking that he could run away and get away with it if others did. At the time the penalty to running away was to be shot. That is what is was, at that time and you are right to say history cannot be re-written. But if there is now evidence those soldiers were not cowards, but had an illness which made them lose control of themselves and run, then that was something for the UK MOD and the courts to decide on.

I think that that is exactly what is wrong with some of those 'old stodgy' decisions! They NEED reviewing based on today's knowledge. You CANNOT undo the past, just like you cannot unring a bell. BUT you CAN do an OFFICIAL review and find that things were not as they seemed. Courts have done this for all eternity! It is called an Appeals Court! In the US we even have the US Supreme Court and beyond that Congress! Courts have always reviewed past decisions in the light on 'new' evidence. Those guys that ran and were shot were tried using the limited amount of info available at the time. That does NOT make the decision RIGHT!!! The Courts are using DNA collected in old cases to sometimes free innocent people all the time. NOT often enough, IMO!!!! NO ONE should be in jail for a crime they DID NOT commit!!! If the 'old stodgy' people would just move into the 21st Century with their thinking, things would get better and wrongs would be righted!

---

I think this is why it took so long for the UK Ministry of Defense to give way on this. Representations have been made for many, many years and rejected on the basis that those in command at the time made decisions and those decisions should stand. It was important at the time to secure morale and to stop any soldier thinking that he could run away and get away with it if others did. At the time the penalty to running away was to be shot. That is what is was, at that time and you are right to say history cannot be re-written. But if there is now evidence those soldiers were not cowards, but had an illness which made them lose control of themselves and run, then that was something for the UK MOD and the courts to decide on.

I think that that is exactly what is wrong with some of those 'old stodgy' decisions! They NEED reviewing based on today's knowledge. You CANNOT undo the past, just like you cannot unring a bell. BUT you CAN do an OFFICIAL review and find that things were not as they seemed. Courts have done this for all eternity! It is called an Appeals Court! In the US we even have the US Supreme Court and beyond that Congress! Courts have always reviewed past decisions in the light on 'new' evidence. Those guys that ran and were shot were tried using the limited amount of info available at the time. That does NOT make the decision RIGHT!!! The Courts are using DNA collected in old cases to sometimes free innocent people all the time. NOT often enough, IMO!!!! NO ONE should be in jail for a crime they DID NOT commit!!! If the 'old stodgy' people would just move into the 21st Century with their thinking, things would get better and wrongs would be righted!

A new law was passed on November 8th 2006, and included as part of the Armed Forces Act, pardoned men in the British and Commonwealth armies who were executed in World War One. The law removes the stain of dishonor with regards to executions on war records but it does not cancel out sentences.

UK Defence Secretary Des Browne said:

"I believe it is better to acknowledge that injustices were clearly done in some cases - even if we cannot say which - and to acknowledge that all these men were victims of war. I hope that pardoning these men will finally remove the stigma with which their families have lived for years."

---

flaming balloons

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA



BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Saddam Hussein's half brother and the former head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court were both hanged before dawn Monday, Prosecutor Munqith al-Faroon said, two weeks and two days after the former Iraqi dictator was executed in a chaotic scene that has drawn worldwide criticism.

Barzan Ibrahim, Saddam's half brother and former intelligence chief, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court, had been found guilty along with Saddam in the killing of 148 Shiite Muslims after a 1982 assassination attempt on the former leader in the town of Dujail north of Baghdad.

"They (the government) called us before dawn and told us to send someone. I sent a judge to witness the execution and it happened," al-Faroon said.

---