PDA

View Full Version : For or against Saddam Hussein's execution ?



Maciamo
07-01-07, 11:53
These people protesting against the execution of Saddam Hussein (esp. since it is too late), and that of his 2 co-defendants, which the new UN Secretray has postponed because of international pressure.

There are hundreds of people dying in Iraq on a daily basis. Over 100,000 civilian deaths since the American invasion in 2003. It sounds immature, oversensitive and illogical to complain about the fate of 2 or 3 people who have been condemned to death by a court, and not about the hundreds of people (including children) who die everyday. It is partly because of Saddam and his 2 codefendants that the situation of chaos that Iraq knows now exist, so why would one want to show them sympathy ?

gaijinalways
09-01-07, 10:18
I guess because some people felt the trial was rigged or at least prejudiced aganist a proper legal defense with the execution being a foregone conclusion. Personally, yes, it seems to be for the better, though some people also objected to the timing (on a Muslim holiday) and the manner of the execution as well (with it being filmed and later shown on some Arabic channels).

needles
09-01-07, 15:27
It sounds to complain about the fate of 2 or 3 people who have been condemned to death by a court, and not about the hundreds of people (including children) who die everyday.

It's more than immature, oversensitive and illogical - it's criminal - to virtually ignore so many Iraqi deaths. And so it was the silence before Saddam's execution - no western or Arab leader was prepared to call the trial of Saddam the sham that it was or to exert any pressure to have him tried by an international court.

The complaints over Saddam's death are more to do with the fact it was done under an illegal US occupation, was unjust and had major political interference - being unduly hurried by an Iraqi government more worried that the US might start to work with their former allies the Baathists again than looking for justice, and by a US goverment unwilling to risk the secret deals of the past being unearthed.

Ma Cherie
10-01-07, 05:48
I'm kind of undecided. I don't see how Saddam's execution is going to help Iraq. What point did it make, it didn't improve America's image in the rest of world, especially in the Middle East. I really objected to them showing his execution in the public.

The trial was unfair and hastey and executing him only made him seem like a martyr.

Maciamo
10-01-07, 10:48
I'm kind of undecided. I don't see how Saddam's execution is going to help Iraq.

Better than keep him in jail from where he could have escaped, especially in the ongoing chaos and instability in Iraq, which could still last for years. It's safer this way, and to be practical, it cost less to the Iraqi government.


What point did it make, it didn't improve America's image in the rest of world, especially in the Middle East.

Half of the Iraqi wanted Saddam Hussein dead as well.


I really objected to them showing his execution in the public.
The trial was unfair and hastey and executing him only made him seem like a martyr.

How can a dictator responsible for the deaths of so many be ever seen as a martyr. This I don't understand. My image of a martyr is a saint that has never killed even a mouse and is unjustly condemn as a scapegoat for political or religious reasons. Saddam was no saint and no scapegoat...

Maciamo
10-01-07, 10:51
The complaints over Saddam's death are more to do with the fact it was done under an illegal US occupation, was unjust and had major political interference - being unduly hurried by an Iraqi government more worried that the US might start to work with their former allies the Baathists again than looking for justice, and by a US goverment unwilling to risk the secret deals of the past being unearthed.

How many judges, lawyers or politicians have been assassinated in Iraq in the last 3 years ? What if Saddam had himself been assassinated or killed in a terrorist attack ? What difference would it have made. The result is the same : he is dead.

needles
10-01-07, 14:08
How many judges, lawyers or politicians have been assassinated in Iraq in the last 3 years ? What if Saddam had himself been assassinated or killed in a terrorist attack ? What difference would it have made. The result is the same : he is dead.

Yes he is dead. And yes, what about all of those assasinated Iraqi people. But if he had been assassinated or killed the US would not appear to directly have executed him. It was exactly the appearance of legal due process that is so objectionable in his death. It is made out that he was convicted fair and square by an impartial judical system but nothing could be further from the truth. That is what sets his death apart. The pretence that this death amongst all the others was one that was based on justice.


How can a dictator responsible for the deaths of so many be ever seen as a martyr.

A martyr I see as someone dying for the cause. Whatever that may be. In Saddam's case perhaps anti-Western imperialism.

But having deaths on your hands means so very little. The recently dead former US President Ford was seen as national icon despite the active support for Indonesia's mass slaughter of one third of the population of East Timor and many other international crimes in Argentina and Chile. The fact a leader is responsible for so many deaths means nothing when it comes to their national or religious standing. Technically both Tony Blair and George Bush are war criminals if we are to apply the same rules they use against others. Yet they are seen as quite the opposite by most people.

Maciamo
10-01-07, 18:54
Yes he is dead. And yes, what about all of those assasinated Iraqi people. But if he had been assassinated or killed the US would not appear to directly have executed him. It was exactly the appearance of legal due process that is so objectionable in his death. It is made out that he was convicted fair and square by an impartial judical system but nothing could be further from the truth. That is what sets his death apart. The pretence that this death amongst all the others was one that was based on justice.

It would have been so easy for the US to engage an Iraqi assassin or a "terrorist" (e.g. bomb in a car) to get rid of Saddam before or suring his trial. Given that the US government 'supposedly' has the best political advisors on the planet, why haven't they done that instead ? It would appear less as if the US was responsible for his death, as it would be very hard to prove that the US played any role in the "accident".


A martyr I see as someone dying for the cause. Whatever that may be. In Saddam's case perhaps anti-Western imperialism.

Yet he was judged by an Iraqi court and Iraqi judges, which is what the US wanted to "deresponsabilise" (is that a neologism ?) them.

Kinsao
11-01-07, 16:08
Well i'm against capital punishment and have already said about my views on that and reasons etc... i don't think Saddam's execution was any more right than the deaths he had caused directly or indirectly in Iraq or related to his 'cause', but certainly i think he should be punished, of course, by a life inprisonment, but with as you say risk of his escape possibly being higher due to instability in Iraq under present circumstances i can understand why ppl would feel for the death penalty... doesn't change my view on it though(monetary cost of keeping him in a life inprisonment would seem to me small price to pay in order to punish for deaths/atrocities ¬_¬).

Mycernius
11-01-07, 22:53
I don't agree with his execution, but then I am against capital punishment anyway. The best thing was to let him rot in jail. Left there for long enough he would have died a lonely, forgotten old man, just like Hess. It would have been the best thing for an egotist like him, to die forgotten. Instead the recent pictures of his execution have upset a few of the old guard and will probably help with destablising the current government.
I doubt whether he would ever be regarded as a martyr. He wasn't really liked by his own people. Iran dispised him; one, for a war against them and two, because he was a Sunni not a Shiitte. Last thing Iran wanted was a stable Sunni dictorship next to it. Kuwait are happy because a threat to them has gone. In fact most of the Middle East is happy because it is one less military regime to threaten others with. An unstable country means that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan and Syria are fighting over who controls the next government as soon as the one the US has set up collapses.

MikawaObasan
06-03-07, 04:19
I don't agree with his execution, but then I am against capital punishment anyway. The best thing was to let him rot in jail. Left there for long enough he would have died a lonely, forgotten old man, just like Hess. It would have been the best thing for an egotist like him, to die forgotten. Instead the recent pictures of his execution have upset a few of the old guard and will probably help with destablising the current government.
I doubt whether he would ever be regarded as a martyr. He wasn't really liked by his own people. Iran dispised him; one, for a war against them and two, because he was a Sunni not a Shiitte. Last thing Iran wanted was a stable Sunni dictorship next to it. Kuwait are happy because a threat to them has gone. In fact most of the Middle East is happy because it is one less military regime to threaten others with. An unstable country means that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan and Syria are fighting over who controls the next government as soon as the one the US has set up collapses.

Actually the terrorist that has yet to be caught is living in the United States, and he was a graduate of Yale University. Can anyone guess what his name is? Malaysia considers him a war criminal.

MikawaObasan
06-03-07, 04:21
It would have been so easy for the US to engage an Iraqi assassin or a "terrorist" (e.g. bomb in a car) to get rid of Saddam before or suring his trial. Given that the US government 'supposedly' has the best political advisors on the planet, why haven't they done that instead ? It would appear less as if the US was responsible for his death, as it would be very hard to prove that the US played any role in the "accident".



Yet he was judged by an Iraqi court and Iraqi judges, which is what the US wanted to "deresponsabilise" (is that a neologism ?) them.

Because they used up that accident trump card in the 9-11 twin towers that George Bush orchestrated.