The Dictator is Hanged...

[aristide1]

Too many here refuse to listen to reason.

The earth is flat, and that's that. Say anything more and the stones will come.

Now imagine if each member of each family of Saddams victims got to waterboard him for an hour.

[stromgald]

I for one am happy he's dead. With him alive, but captured, Saddam provides a glimmer of hope for his old followers, especially with his actions in court and the TV coverage he got. By removing him from the picture entirely, that hope is destroyed. Sure, there will probably be a slight surge in revenge/payback attacks, but in the end, I think killing him is better for stability in the region.

[nick705]

Just a FWIW...

Whether or not Saddam "deserved" to die is not the issue. It's whether or not a society which has pretensions to calling itself civilised can with premeditation take the life of a human being on the grounds that it's "right" and represents "justice". I make no distinction between the obscene farce which took place in Iraq and the umpteenth person to be injected with potassium chloride in the good ol,' god fearin' US of A.

Yes, sometimes innocent people die in warfare. Sometimes it's necessary to kill in self-defence, or to prevent a greater loss of life. There's a world of difference between that and, as a society, choosing to take a life of a person who is helpless and represents no threat, on the grounds that it's supposedly the right thing to do. The latter is a miserable, sordid expression of despair, which shames and diminishes those societies which still practice it, most of all those which have regressed to it after a de facto abolition. Even if it's intended to "deter" the crimes for which it's applicable, it self-evidently doesn't work.

How am I as a father supposed to tell my kids "killing is wrong," when they can look on the Internet and see what we (and by "we" I mean we in the West who were equally culpable in this) did to to Saddam, evil piece of shit though he was?

Possibly the worst stench of hypocrisy is emanating from the British government, which claims to be anti capital punishment wherever it takes place, yet tries to wash its hands claiming "it was a matter for the Iraqis." On the same grounds, there should be no objection to Libya executing the Bulgarian nurses as mentioned above. After all, it's a "matter for the Libyans" and we should presumably "respect" their established procedures.

Ugh.

[mathias]

Exactly how was a guard present at Saddams hanging allowed to take a mobile phone into the execution room, and why were the guards taunting and verbally abusing him moments prior to his death.???

They probably picked people with lots of reason to hate saddam for all aspects of carrying out the execution, to be as sure as possible that there wouldn't be anyone who would consider giving away the location to allow the execution to be sabotaged.

And also Sudan and their genocide. It appears people without control of oil have no human rights.

Did Albanians have oil? After invading Iraq, the US doesn't have the willpower or the manpower for more wars. If the people are at each others' throats, it would not be easy to go about breaking them up. It's a lot simpler to topple a government. The main problem - that terrorist groups would take advantage of the situation, would also apply with sudan.

Even if it's intended to "deter" the crimes for which it's applicable, it self-evidently doesn't work.

So you're convinced that the death sentences in the neurenburgh trials didn't deter anyone from anything?

Possibly the worst stench of hypocrisy is emanating from the British government, which claims to be anti capital punishment wherever it takes place, yet tries to wash its hands claiming "it was a matter for the Iraqis."

It is first and foremost a matter for the Iraqis! You think we had the right and the responsibility to tell them that they should not be able to execute sadam?

On the same grounds, there should be no objection to Libya executing the Bulgarian nurses as mentioned above. After all, it's a "matter for the Libyans" and we should presumably "respect" their established procedures.

That's completely different, in saddam's case the facts are not in question, it's just a disagreement of what the proper punishment for mass murder is.

On the other hand, if for some reason the Iraqis had let saddam go, Iran would have every right to be pissed off about it. So what happens to him was not absolutely a matter for the Iraqis, but executing him is still a choice which we shouldn't condemn them for like this.

[Denorios]

So you're convinced that the death sentences in the neurenburgh trials didn't deter anyone from anything?

Of course they didn't. Saddam's career alone demonstrates that. Not to mention Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and others since WWII far too numerous to mention. No dictator, or dictorial government ever believes that they will by held to account for their crimes. If they weren't supremely arrogant they wouldn't be in the job. And it has to be noted that the principles established by the Nuremberg tribunals have been ignored by the West whenever it was expedient. Why should dictators fear for their future when nobody is willing to take them on?

Virtually all dictatorships ultimately fall, violently - yet there is never any shortage of candidates.

[Bluefront]

For a change get practical with this matter. Saddam was responsible for a massive amount of death and suffering......his guilt overall is without question. One could only argue about details. He was guilty of crimes against humanity in the eyes of everyone but a few supporters of the man.

When the man was found guilty, what viable alternative existed short of the death penalty? Nobody offered to keep the man in custody in another country. Any country offering to do so would have been suspect.....suspect of possibly freeing him, or putting him to death anyway, maybe torturing him like he did his many victims.

The USA would never have taken him....no politician in his right mind would have made such an offer. A Muslim country making such an offer would have been out of the question. Iran might have taken him.....for who knows what reason. Not acceptable....

And what were the odds of him staying alive in a jail in Iraq.....he would have been either killed, or freed in a raid of some sort, or legally with a change of politics/government.

Saddam had to die....there was no alternative.

[aristide1]

For a change get practical with this matter.

You mean like not addressing 90% of the quesitons addressed to you? The Bush innocent civilian body count?

[nick705]

That's completely different, in saddam's case the facts are not in question, it's just a disagreement of what the proper punishment for mass murder is.

Why is it different? Because *you* say so? Their guilt is not in doubt according to the laws of the country in which they were tried and where, like Saddam, they received "relative justice." I'm sure the parents of the children who died see them as mass murderers who deserve everything they get, so by your criteria what right do we have to interfere?

You can argue the anecdotal evidence for Saddam's guilt all you want - yes it seems overwhelming on the face of it, but unless it convicts him in a fair trial it's meaningless and the consequences are nothing more than a politically motivated lynching.

It is first and foremost a matter for the Iraqis! You think we had the right and the responsibility to tell them that they should not be able to execute sadam?

Yes, if you claim to be opposed to judicial killing on the grounds that it's plain wrong, excusing or ignoring it on the grounds that it's "not your business" is a pretty feeble response. Given how much we've already taken it upon ourselves to determine what happens in Iraq, refusing to make a simple statement of opinion on the basis of "non-interference" is humbug to say the least.

[mathias]

Of course they didn't. Saddam's career alone demonstrates that

By that logic, if there was a world in which only saddam commited genocide, saddam's actions would prove that whatever was different in that world didn't stop any genocides.

Virtually all dictatorships ultimately fall, violently - yet there is never any shortage of candidates.

So you think every dictator is either dumber or more selfless than you?

What about all the dictators that don't commit mass murder? You're acting like all dictators are scum.

Why is it different? Because *you* say so?

Because the facts of the case are not crystal clear like in saddams, not even close. Because it's about far more than a mere moral decision between life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Their guilt is not in doubt according to the laws of the country in which they were tried

Neither was that of sandy mitchel and les walker.

and where, like Saddam, they received "relative justice."

What kind justice is it if horrible things, things which the iraqi government wouldn't even have considered doing to saddam even after he was convicted, are done to them before they're actually sentenced? Just image how you would have all reacted if the iraqi authorities decided to, say, perform brain surgery on saddam to try to get more information out of him.

The way Libya undoubtedly must be seeing this, there will be no real justice for those infected until the heads of either mossad or the CIA will be killed. I wonder how you'd like that?

I'm sure the parents of the children who died see them as mass murderers who deserve everything they get

You shouldn't be:

It did not help that the tragedy happened in Benghazi, a city where Gadafy does not enjoy strong support.

so by your criteria what right do we have to interfere?

They're not exactly consistantly opposed to it, they have been looking for a huge cash settlement for not executing them.

Given how much we've already taken it upon ourselves to determine what happens in Iraq, refusing to make a simple statement of opinion on the basis of "non-interference" is humbug to say the least.

Oh, so all that outrage is not about them failing to do anything that would have actually made a difference about that, but merely about them trying to be supportive of the fledling iraqi government?

[andyb]

Mathias, I applaud you straight reasoning, and exceptional atiudude toward life, and those that should be living it All of your answers make sense and I have no argument against them.

However this is a forum and thhings are going to shift a little...... or a lot.

Saddams hanging seems.............. (in my media eyes) to have not brought on any more violence, and this may be a coincedence but there seem to be less mass murders and car bombs than I usually expect to see.

Maybe Bluefront was actually right (not necessarily for the right reasons), maybe this is the beginning of the end, this could this be compared to the "Battle Of Britain".... the turn-point in the current Iraq story.


Andy

PS: I am not trying to piss-off any Germans on purpose, but it does have a potent message/point. If you are really angry PS: me and I will change it when I read my mail tommorrow, if not then just post something very sensible, that does not affect my personal standing, but does address your concerns on the matter in question.

[nick705]

By that logic, if there was a world in which only saddam commited genocide, saddam's actions would prove that whatever was different in that world didn't stop any genocides.

I haven't a clue what you're on about, so I'll just move on.

So you think every dictator is either dumber or more selfless than you?

What about all the dictators that don't commit mass murder? You're acting like all dictators are scum.

How do you come to that conclusion? Even if that's what he actually said, how is it relevant?

Because the facts of the case are not crystal clear like in saddams, not even close. Because it's about far more than a mere moral decision between life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Neither was that of...

What kind justice is it if horrible things...

The way Libya undoubtedly must be seeing this....

They're not exactly consistantly opposed to it, they have been looking for a huge cash settlement for not executing them.

You're completely missing the point of what I'm saying. Of course the way the Bulgarian nurses have been treated is unconscionable, but if you believe we should protest or intervene on the grounds that their trial was unfair (by our standards), then it's hypocrisy unless we do the same in the case of Saddam's trial, as that was also unfair (by our standards). Both trials applied "relative justice" - the fact that Saddam was a murderer according to the prima facie evidence is irrelevent. Either he got a fair trial or he didn't, regardless of how "relatively" fair it was in comparison to what normally passes for justice in that part of the world. If it wasn't fair, then what happened afterwards was a state-sanctioned lynching.

It's a different argument to whether his punishment was appropriate assuming his guilt, but it was you who brought the Libyan case into the thread - in both cases you have a death sentence handed down after a flawed judicial process, so if we protest against one we should protest against the other.

Oh, so all that outrage is not about them failing to do anything that would have actually made a difference about that, but merely about them trying to be supportive of the fledling iraqi government?

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the British government's stated position that they're against capital punishment on the grounds they believe it's wrong in principle, and the way they give it their tacit approval when it's politically expedient. I can't see what's so hard to grasp about that.

[Denorios]

Of course they didn't. Saddam's career alone demonstrates that

By that logic, if there was a world in which only saddam commited genocide, saddam's actions would prove that whatever was different in that world didn't stop any genocides.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but if you are referring to the question of how you quantify crimes (or dictatorships) that haven't happened, then I accept your point that we can't precisely assess the effectiveness of the Nuremberg Tribunals as a deterrent. Nevertheless, there have been more than sufficient bloody dictatorships and military juntas since WWII to reasonably assert that Nuremberg was not a particularly effective deterrent.

Virtually all dictatorships ultimately fall, violently - yet there is never any shortage of candidates.

So you think every dictator is either dumber or more selfless than you?

What about all the dictators that don't commit mass murder? You're acting like all dictators are scum.

All dictators ARE scum IMHO. To me, the concentration of so much power with so little restraint in a single person's hands is so self-evidently insanely dangerous that only the most immoral of people would accept it, let alone actively seek it out. I can't think of any dictators offhand who were not responsible for mass human rights abuses.

[Kaleid]

Deal with reality......as long as Saddam was in US hands, there was little/no chance he would be set free. But....the USA will be out of Iraq shortly.

Emphasis added

Heard about the neocon Project for the New American century

In their own pre-9/11 documents they call for a permanent stay in the region even if relations with Saddam would improve. One of the main objectives is to stay to protect "the continues flow of oil". The very same reason USA has interests in Iran as well (neither IAIA nor CIA have been able to produce any evidence of a nuclear weapons program). The WMD claim was how they all agreed on how to sell the Iraq war, or as neocon Paul Wolfowitz put it as something that is mainly "bureaucratic".
To further quote one of the Iraq war architects, the very same man: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

In true Orwellian fashion it seems that telling the truth is indeed a revolutionary act. The war on terrorism appears to be bogus. People should've understood that when they started to hear Saddam instead of Osama...

A documentary..

Saddam: America's Best Enemy "Historical account of the relationship between America and Saddam Hussein. Reveals the complicity of America in Saddam's atrocities. Forty years of secrets, incomprehension and incompetence led to the occupation of Iraq":
http://www.videos.informationclearingho ... t_enemy.rm 30MB documentary.

[s_xero]

I think he kind off deserved it. But what is still weird, the most horrible and cool person ever to have wandered the earth (Stalin), is concidered more like a hero in Russia.

Put that perspective - Saddam was just a naugthy boy (no I ain't gay )

[Bluefront]

s_xero.....you may be right about Stalin. From a pure dead body count, he was probably the worst. The hero thing.....well maybe in Russia, but nowhere else. The Russians are still having teething problems with their form of Democracy. Many were probably better off under a Communist dictatorship.

FWIW......two of Saddam's henchmen were hanged today. More justice being handed down. And I'm sure there will be more crying from the soft-on-crime people.......none of whom lived under Saddam's dictatorship, none of whom suffered at the hands of the mass-murderer. One of these new hangings was of a man who reportedly was eating grapes while he watched live people being fed into a meat grinder.

I'm not crying about these new hangings either......

[loz]

And I'm sure there will be more crying from the soft-on-crime people.......none of whom lived under Saddam's dictatorship, none of whom suffered at the hands of the mass-murderer.

Whereas you did.

[andyb]

I just read about those 2 chums of Saddam (that naughty boy) being hanged. It seems that the Iraqi's made a slight mistake with one of them and ripped his head off....... oops

I have no doubt that it was done on purpose, and as they claimed this straight away they are probably expecting more pictures/videos as well.

As I have changed my mind, and I am now siding with Bluefront, there should not be any kind of backlash from these 2 hangings/decapitations as there didnt seem to be any more violence after hanging Saddam.

So I feel that this was exactly the right thing to do.

Are there any more people going bungee jumping.???

On a side-note 6 would-be mass murderers are going on trial today in London, they would have killed dozens of people a few weeks after the London bombings. Due to some idiotic laws in this country they will probably get 15 years max, and will be let out after 8. They should be hanged.


Andy

[Bluefront]

Bad people get "hanged".........for good reasons mostly. Clothes get "hung"........usually to dry out.

[andyb]

edited now.


Andy

[mathias]

All dictators ARE scum IMHO. To me, the concentration of so much power with so little restraint in a single person's hands is so self-evidently insanely dangerous that only the most immoral of people would accept it, let alone actively seek it out.

Well then, that's all the more reason to not be soft on dictators!

I can't think of any dictators offhand who were not responsible for mass human rights abuses.

Okay, how about Pilsudski, King Husein and Atta Turk?

But even if you think every dictator is a scumbag's scumbag, there's still a world of difference between the actions of someone like stalin and those of someone like pinochet.

Of course the way the Bulgarian nurses have been treated is unconscionable, but if you believe we should protest or intervene on the grounds that their trial was unfair (by our standards), then it's hypocrisy unless we do the same in the case of Saddam's trial, as that was also unfair (by our standards).

It's hypocrisy to only make a big deal about saddam due to his celebrity status, or because a lot of people are happy to see him dead. But you can't just restrain yourself to choosing between being completely indifferent and going on a protest-a-thon. You inevitably decide on what injustices you're going to pay attention to, and you should try to prioritize based on the severity of the injustice. Sadam's plight was insignificant, what was done to him was at worst not a big deal compared to what happened to, for example, Maher Arar.

Both trials applied "relative justice" - the fact that Saddam was a murderer according to the prima facie evidence is irrelevent. Either he got a fair trial or he didn't, regardless of how "relatively" fair it was in comparison to what normally passes for justice in that part of the world. If it wasn't fair, then what happened afterwards was a state-sanctioned lynching.

He ran the government when it did all those things, that's not something you can be set up for, it's not something any properly functioning court would have let him get away with. And I don't recall hearing of him claiming that he was not saddam but one of the body doubles.

Oddly enough, so far noone seems to have a problem with other people in his government being hanged almost as quickly, when what exactly their involvement was has to be a lot less clear.

It's a different argument to whether his punishment was appropriate assuming his guilt, but it was you who brought the Libyan case into the thread - in both cases you have a death sentence handed down after a flawed judicial process, so if we protest against one we should protest against the other.

No, in the Libyan case you also have a sentence other countries would never consider being handed down before the trial even takes place.

[mr lahey]

Heard about the neocon Project for the New American century

Good call Kaleid.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2411726856
The last 6 years have played out the PNAC script. I don’t believe in coincidence.

[Kaleid]

Heard about the neocon Project for the New American century

Good call Kaleid.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2411726856
The last 6 years have played out the PNAC script. I don’t believe in coincidence.

No, it's absolutely not a coincidence. Bush claimed in the presidential race that he will not seek to go to nationbuilding efforts but you don't surround yourself with people from that think thank for no reason.

[aristide1]

s_xero.....you may be right about Stalin. From a pure dead body count, he was probably the worst. The hero thing.....well maybe in Russia, but nowhere else.

Oh so you do keep count, just not Bush vs. Saddam.

How convenient.

[Beyonder]

two of Saddam's henchmen were hanged today...And I'm sure there will be more crying from the soft-on-crime people

Wrong. You continue to push these incorrect half-truths; simply because someone doesn't agree with the death penalty does not infer that they are "soft on crime."

none of whom lived under Saddam's dictatorship, none of whom suffered at the hands of the mass-murderer. One of these new hangings was of a man who reportedly was eating grapes while he watched live people being fed into a meat grinder.

Let's get one thing straight: you didn't live under Saddam's dictatorship either, nor have you ever suffered at the hands of a mass-murderer. So who are you to decide what the appropriate punishment is? The reason you're so enthused is because you think it supports your position of the death penalty as a viable correctional measure in the United States, but you're mistaken.

Iraq's interim government tried Saddam and his officials, and while I'm in no position to argue with their conclusion and punishment, I think the Economist stated it best: it was a rare opportunity to take the moral high ground, squandered. In a community so besieged by violence, I fail to see how it's going to resolve any issues. So far, all the execution seems to have done is enunciate the divide between supporters and opposition of Saddam's Baath party. It most definitely has not brought "closure" to any issue.

Beyond some weak arguments concerning the practicality of detaining Saddam, I don't think you've made a convincing case that the execution is beneficial to anyone.

[aristide1]

And I'm sure there will be more crying from the soft-on-crime people

On the contrary, I support putting Foley, Delay, and a list longer than ever before of the criminal party into jail.

Don't YOU support jail for criminals BF?

Wrong. You continue to push these incorrect half-truths; simply because someone doesn't agree with the death penalty does not infer that they are "soft on crime."

That's how they got re-elected in 2004, isn't it BF?


"We're on a mission from God."
Cheney and Bush or the Blues Brothers?

[mathias]

Wrong. You continue to push these incorrect half-truths; simply because someone doesn't agree with the death penalty does not infer that they are "soft on crime."

If you oppose the death penalty in all situations, then you are very soft on the worst end of crime. So either you're soft on crime, or you're all over the place about it.

Then again, none of you seem particularly against torture, so perhaps the one here who is on average soft on crime compared to the others is me. Oh well.

The reason you're so enthused is because you think it supports your position of the death penalty as a viable correctional measure in the United States, but you're mistaken.

Pot and kettle, it's you anti death penalty people who are taking your beliefs that the death penalty doesn't deter regular crimes and from there jumping to the conclusion that it doesn't faze criminal leaders either.

[loz]

Then again, none of you seem particularly against torture, so perhaps the one here who is on average soft on crime compared to the others is me. Oh well.

Come on, you can do better than that.
Look at Bluefront, he's much more subtil as a troll...

[Bluefront]

Whatever that means.....

As far as the crime/punishment thing goes.....we reserve the worst punishments for the worst types of crimes, hoping that will deter persons inclined to bad behavior from doing the worst sorts of crime. For the most part, it works fairly well. But there are always exceptions.....

To remove the highest punishment from the list, upsets the whole thing......a person as bad as Saddam, would have escaped hanging, would have been serving time in prison much like a common criminal, who never murdered anyone. This is not acceptable to me, and to many others.

As far as a non-Iraq citizen escaping any of Saddam's crimes...... Murder is murder, both here in the USA and everywhere else. Saddam was a murderer on a mass scale. He deserved his punishment. The fact he murdered in Iraq, rather than in the USA.....doesn't change the facts.

If you object to hanging a mass-murderer, you are soft-on-crime. I cannot think of a better label, one that can be used in polite conversation, anyway.

[Kaleid]

The problem with hanging Saddam was and still is that he becomes a martyr for many people and this has side-effects...more deaths.
There's no doubt that Saddam was a bad guy but in an objective world a lot of people who armed him and helped him to power should've been hung as well. Rumsfeld, I'm looking at you for instance.

The neocons, if allowed, will kill atleast 10x more people than Saddam if we allow them to go with their quest for world hegemony.

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectful." George Orwell

"Historically, the most terrible things--war, genocide and slavery--have resulted from obedience, not disobedience." Howard Zinn

[aristide1]

The fact he murdered in Iraq, rather than in the USA.....doesn't change the facts.

So again I ask BF, does that apply only to Saddam?

If you object to hanging a mass-murderer, you are soft-on-crime.

This statement shows an ignorance of what conditions in jails are like, and the aspect of rotting away slowly seems to beyond your grasp.