Should Saddam Have Been Hanged?

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 09:24:00 PM EST
Tags: Saddam Hussein (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Joel Layden of the Israel News Agency:

Many news media are now reporting on the fine details of what is a hanging. Providing minute by minute accounts of what would happen if the rope was too short or too long. Are we as a civilized Western world any different from the crowds that gathered to watch the French Guillotine at work or the hangman's noose in the old US West?

What distinguishes us from the Islamic terrorists that we fight is that we cherish life.
Yes, in war we can be more barbaric using pyschops as good if not better than the enemy by hanging blood dripping heads on wooden sticks. But do we need now to place Saddam's head on a wooden stick? Will video of his hanging decrease conflict or increase it in the Middle-East?

....Let Saddam die of a heart attack, AIDS, a stroke or other "natural causes" in jail. It worked for Yasser Arafat, it can work for Saddam Hussein.

America represents life. So does Israel. It's time for us to illustrate what kind of society we live in. What our values are. Yes, fight for freedom, but remember we are Christians and Jews. We are not the people who beheaded Daniel Pearl and celebrated.

Riverbend at Baghdad Burning:

Why make things worse by insisting on Saddam's execution now? Who gains if they hang Saddam? Iran, naturally, but who else? There is a real fear that this execution will be the final blow that will shatter Iraq. Some Sunni and Shia tribes have threatened to arm their members against the Americans if Saddam is executed. Iraqis in general are watching closely to see what happens next, and quietly preparing for the worst.

This is because now, Saddam no longer represents himself or his regime. Through the constant insistence of American war propaganda, Saddam is now representative of all Sunni Arabs (never mind most of his government were Shia). The Americans, through their speeches and news articles and Iraqi Puppets, have made it very clear that they consider him to personify Sunni Arab resistance to the occupation. Basically, with this execution, what the Americans are saying is "Look- Sunni Arabs- this is your man, we all know this. We're hanging him- he symbolizes you." And make no mistake about it, this trial and verdict and execution are 100% American. Some of the actors were Iraqi enough, but the production, direction and montage was pure Hollywood (though low-budget, if you ask me).

< Saddam is Dead | Late Night: Sympathy for the Devil >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Should Saddam Have Been Hanged? | 44 comments (44 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Disgust (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by aahpat on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 09:47:24 PM EST

Nothing less.

I am disgusted that this judicial assassination was carried out in the name of America. In my name.

This is an eye for an eye that promises only more blind patriotic vengeance for years to come.

Blind patriots are the largest group of disabled veterans in America. Ably represented by George W. Bush.

: Thanks for the insult (1.00 / 3) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:30:22 AM EST

Blind patriots are the largest group of disabled veterans in America. Ably represented by George W. Bush.
For all of us that served to keep you free, thanks for the insult..
And please imagine a hand with four fingers folded down.....

: BLINDED patriots (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 10:36:25 PM EST

There was a higher calling.
And Saddam Hussein was simply in the way.
In the way of Khalid al-Turki of Saudi Arabia, and of James A. Baker and the CFR.

an eye-for-an-eye (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by aahpat on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 09:56:59 PM EST

Are we blind yet?

No (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 10:26:17 PM EST

But I oppose the death penalty as a matter of principle.

Of course!!! (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Edger on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:44:45 AM EST

How else could Bush keep his wot fantasy rockin' the tiny little sheep brains of his wind up followers without creating more terrists, anyway? I mean, it's not like he's got anything else to offer. I guess they can at least not feel insecure and threatened by his intellect.

Hell... why not dig him up and hang him again same time next year?

Baathists: 'Grave consequences' if Hussein's hanged

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Baath Party, the political movement that ruled Iraq during the Saddam Hussein era, is warning there will be "grave consequences" if former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is executed.
Saying it would hold the United States responsible, a message appeared on albasrah.net Tuesday that read: "The Baath and the resistance are determined to retaliate in all ways and all places that hurt America and its interests if it commits this crime."
If the execution is carried out, the largely Sunni-Arab Baathists said they also will retaliate against members of the Iraqi High Tribunal. (Watch Hussein's letter assail "merciless tyrants" Video)
And they vowed a complete shut-down of peace negotiations between the Baathists and coalition forces.
The Baathists have been operating as part of the insurgency against the U.S. and its allies since Hussein's regime fell in 2003.

The Baath viewpoint... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Edger on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 12:40:37 PM EST

From the Baath Party of Iraq:

The execution of the president:

The Iraqi Higher Criminal Court that passed a death sentence on President Saddam Hussein is a farce. Not only is it grounded on illegality (occupying powers under international law are expressly prohibited from changing the judicial structures of occupied states[iii]); the trial itself stands distinguished in legal history by its sheer number of due process and international standard of fairness violations.[iv]
These violations have included, often with systematic effect: American imposed censorship of court proceedings; withholding evidence from the defence; forcible ejection from court of defence lawyers and the placing of defence lawyers under house arrest; denial of defence counsel access to defendants; blatant lack of impartiality of court judges; overt political interference in the selection of court officials and the prejudicing of the trial and trial outcome by statements made by invested political figures -- including George W Bush -- affirming progress towards, or demanding, execution; the replacement of four of the five originally selected court judges; lack of equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence; refusals to accept key defence submissions, especially motions challenging the competence and legality of the court; violations of key fair trial principles and standards and international humanitarian law[v]; violation of Iraqi law[vi]; intimidation of witnesses; failure to ensure the security of the defence leading to the murder of three defence lawyers.
Created by Paul Bremer, the Iraqi Higher Criminal Court was never anything but a US-orchestrated puppet court.[vii] The imposition of a death sentence after an unfair trial stands in direct violation of international law.[viii]
The truth about this court
From day one, this court has been nothing but a smokescreen: an attempt to establish a veneer of legality to an illegal invasion of a sovereign state. From day one, the final conclusion -- the illegal execution of Iraq's lawful president -- has been a fait accompli. The only question has been when.
As 2006 ends, the United States is desperate. Defeated militarily on the ground, long defeated politically and morally, the occupation is preparing to open the year 2007 with a barrage of atrocities, including the open murder of Iraq's lawful president. This, like all other US-authored atrocities in Iraq, will not allow the US and its criminal partners to impose on Iraq a future that is contrary to the fundamental interests of the Iraqi people.

The Political Program of the Baath Party

And he is doomed to repeat it (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by Sailor on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 02:53:48 PM EST

history shows time and again this thing happening

Yes, history has shown time and time again that we have propped up brutal dictators, given them arms, and they or a regime that succeeded them have turned them on us. Iran, afghanistan, iraq are just the most recent 3.

Stop propping up dictatorships.
Stop selling them arms.
Lead by example and not fear.

Asking this question (1.00 / 3) (#12)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 06:12:42 AM EST

here on this site is like asking Paula Deene if you use butter in cooking. It's like rhetorical.

Okay, I'll play (1.00 / 3) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:16:33 AM EST

Yes. Without doubt. Indeed. Months and months ago.

He was a proven stone cold killer, and the head of a political party that still has an active cadre of followers stirring up trouble and doing their own killing.

With him gone they may continue, they may not.

But with him alive there is no doubt they would.

Things can get worse, too ... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by syinco on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 11:03:13 AM EST

Jim, what your statements conveniently fail to acknowledge is that things could get worse as a result of Saddam's death, as could they have improved without his execution (and your logical argument does in fact lead to these conclusions).

To just assume that things can only get better seems akin to the folly of thought that all Bush had to do was overthrow Saddam and our troubles with Iraq are basically over ...

And even if things are to improve, I don't buy that the end would then have justified the means.


: Perhaps you didn't read... (1.00 / 2) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 04:40:41 PM EST

With him gone they may continue, they may not.
But with him alive there is no doubt they would.

And even if things are to improve, I don't buy that the end would then have justified the means.

Okay. At least we understand your position.

A great big (none / 0) (#4)
by aahpat on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 10:05:12 PM EST

TO: Fredo on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 10:00:57 PM EST

Yawn.

Is turn about fair play? (none / 0) (#6)
by aahpat on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 10:32:14 PM EST

American leaders, especially all of the Democrats and Republicans in congress who voted for the Iraq invasion, are responsible for going there destroying their country and assassinating their leaders, (after an extensive kangaroo court proceeding). What morally is left to stop them from coming here and trying to upstage bin Laden?

The motivation of outdoing bin Laden is, I believe, the only reason that America has not yet had another 9/11.

morally speaking (1.00 / 3) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:24:36 AM EST

What morally is left to stop them from coming here and trying to upstage bin Laden

What kept them from advising the US that 9/11 was going to happen? I mean, speaking of morals. That could have prevented the loss of many lives across many nations.

BTW - Can you tell me what this means?

Is turn about fair play? (1.00 / 3) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:36:51 AM EST

You should not think of war in which people and country get "turn about in the name of "fair play."

War is not fair, and it is not a game. Real people die real violent deaths. The losers who live see their culture destroyed and the winner's beliefs installed in place.

Consider living under Shari law. Homosexuals and Lesbians executed. Women forbidden to attemd schools.. No religion except Islam allowed. No ABSCENCE from reglion. Convert or die.


Too bad George Bush or his cheerleaders (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 10:35:36 AM EST

didn't understand this

You should not think of war in which people and country get "turn about in the name of "fair play."
War is not fair, and it is not a game. Real people die real violent deaths. The losers who live see their culture destroyed and the winner's beliefs installed in place.

when they embarked upon the Bush-McCain Fiasco known as Iraq without a plan for occupation. "The evil that men do lives after them" and there is very little good to be interred with Bush's bones.

For once the truth is spoken by PPJ: (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by Bill Arnett on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 01:34:04 PM EST

Consider living under Shari law. Homosexuals and Lesbians executed. Women forbidden to attemd schools.. No religion except Islam allowed. No ABSCENCE from reglion. Convert or die.

These are the very things bush has wrought on Iraq. Under Saddam women had, essentially, equal rights and could attend schools, become professionals, aid in educating the country to a very high degree, and move freely about the country.

All gone now. History.

I'm sure all Iraqi women are saying, "Nice job, mr boosh." Well, except all the women whose sons, fathers, brothers, uncles, and cousins have died in mr boosh's illegal war.

Makes ya proud, don't it?


Golden Age (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by squeaky on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 02:04:27 PM EST

Yes Bill, it looks like rule under Sadaam will be considered Iraq's Golden Age.


: And bush has brought back the Dark Ages. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Bill Arnett on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 02:08:46 PM EST

Bill wrong again. (1.00 / 1) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 04:37:22 PM EST

Bill - First, Iraq is a battle in a war.

Now if you wanted to take the view that every battle must be considered on its own, which you apparently do, the Union would never have survibed.

Hitler would have won WII.

The west coast would be bowing to Japan...


Molly Bloom (1.00 / 2) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 04:34:43 PM EST

From time to time in this life a leader must decide when to fight.

I understand that you disagree with Bush's preemptive strategy. Indeed, I understand that you would find an excuse to never fight.

Your philsophy doesn't make you right. Just confused.


If you are going to call me out (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:33:50 PM EST

at least be accurate in the views you ascribe to me.

I am not antiwar per se. I am anti-stupidity per se. I had no problem with going after Bin Laden or Al Qaida in Afghanistan after Bin ladin attacked us. That was justifiable. I had qualms about George W. Bush leading the nation in this endeavor because his track record isn't mixed- he was a failure (Arbusto, Spectrum 7 etc.). Unfortunately Bush has lived down to my expectations.

Bush's pre-emptive stratgey as you generously call it, was an invasion of a country (Iraq) that was no threat to us. What part of no threat to the USA do you not understand? I remember when we were the good guys. I liked that appelation. Think back in history, which leaders invented reasons to go to war? Do you want to be associated with them? I didn't think so.

Since you clearly don't read newspapers or magazines, try reading State of War, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End, Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone.

After you have actually learned something about Iraq, how we got there and what is going on there, get back to me.

The first step in solving a problem is recognizing you have a problem. As long as you continue with this fantasy that the Bush-McCain Iraq Fiasco is just a battle, you will never figure it out. Get a few clues.

Iraq was not a threat to us in 2002.
Bush and his minions manipulated the evidence and the press to start "pre-emptive" war.
As such it was a war of choice and a needless one at that.
Bush, Rummy et al mismangaged their war of choice, particurally in the occupation phase.
All the evidence considered, at this point, anyone who votes GOP on national security grounds clearly and unambiguously hates the United States of America.

While we are on the subject of war of choice, keep in mind, it is a war crime. Go back and read Justice Jackson

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it.

I line up with Justice Jackson. Its pretty clear where you, Bush and Cheney line up.

Jeralyn, "cherish life?" (none / 0) (#10)
by bx58 on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 12:26:16 AM EST

When America can incinerate 150,000 men,women and children in a matter of hours and STILL convince people that we "cherish life"...our history teachers must be doing something right.

Should the Israeli practice of shooting rock-throwing teens ever make it to this country will some here think the policemen doing the shooting "cherish life."

"It's time for us to illustrate what kind of society we live in. What our values are."

Go for it.

No, no and no (none / 0) (#11)
by caramel on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 03:42:55 AM EST

What a shameful end of 2006 for America, but it seems that America is doing a good job at exporting its own barbaric ways. What an exemple of "democracy" for this wonderful "new Iraq"! Another masquerade of justice, one among many others, nothing different from what goes on in America these days. This is outrageous.

Yes (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by plumberboy on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:43:22 AM EST

I agree with you this is a shame another black mark in the history of our country why are we always violent? what do they think is gained from killing a old man?I think history writers will protray this as a great day that is the really sad part so the violence and ignorance continue in the name of freedom what a shame.


: What can be gained?? (1.00 / 2) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:17:44 AM EST

Seen my 9:16AM below.

Found in a hole??? (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 01:06:37 PM EST

WMP Video - from MEMRI TV (Middle East Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project):

Ziyad Najdawi of Saddam Hussein's Legal Defense Team: Remains in Mass Graves in South Iraq Belong to Iranians and Americans; Americans Used Gas to Capture Saddam and Attached a Fake Beard to His Face

: edger - Your parnoia strikes (1.00 / 2) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 04:42:28 PM EST

again..
You really should seek treatment.

Stand (none / 0) (#27)
by Edger on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 01:12:46 PM EST

It's the truth that the truth makes them so uptight...

should he have been hanged? (none / 0) (#31)
by diogenes on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 04:14:22 PM EST

Kill him now and there are a few riots. Keep him alive for 20 years and you have to spend millions on a maximum security prison and run the risk of fanatics trying to make America look bad by staging a breakout, with associated loss of life.
Just because he gets life in prison doesn't mean that he doesn't cause any further harm either.
If the response of white supremacists to the arrest of one of their own is to whine, "If you put him in jail we will engage in terrorist attacks", then do you let them go?

So we have hanged the tyrant, killed him... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 02:13:39 PM EST

...dead.

And we STILL don't even control the six-mile stretch of highway from the Baghdad Airport to the Green Zone.

If this is not indicative of the wrong priorities, I don't know what is.


Strawman (none / 0) (#40)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:37:09 PM EST

no-one said Saddam should be let go.

I doubt seriously that a few fanatics would have tried to break Saddam out. I'd also point out we didin't seem to have a problem keeping the blind sheik locked up.


Molly, the problem is (none / 0) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 10:53:19 AM EST

that you "doubt." You don't know, and history shows time and again this thing happening, and the recent ME history is replete with kidnappings demanding release of prisoners.

Think of it like this. I don't know that there is any fire left in this pile of once burning camp fire, but I will pour more water on it to be sure it doesn't re-ignite.


: Camp fire? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by syinco on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 11:50:06 AM EST

I don't know that there is any fire left in this pile of once burning camp fire, but I will pour more water on it to be sure it doesn't re-ignite.
Ah - there's something about which I think no one here has any ethical debate - pouring water on a campfire. It's always nice to find common ground. However, we know the same cannot be said for capital punishment, or many of the other issues involved here, so I fail to see the relevance?

You don't know, and history shows time and again this thing happening, and the recent ME history is replete with kidnappings demanding release of prisoners.
So we should concern ourselves with what fanatics might do, or maybe even likely will do, and accord that significant weight as a decision factor or a justification for action? If only we had fairly done just that before deciding to invade Iraq ...
But I do appreciate that you are a careful and considerate camper. ;)

Edger (none / 0) (#37)
by jondee on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 05:14:21 PM EST

he knows a good doctor.Pay no attention to "Clone Terri" bumpersticker.