Saddam Gets Death Penalty

[ans]

Yes, the whole thing had a very seedy, informal tone to it. If they were going to hang him, they should have done it properly, not in some ramshackle squalid shed. You could argue that he deserved an ignominious execution I guess, but I think the vast majority would have preferred something a little more official looking.

[Roger Smelly]

Where is health and safety when you need them

 

If you ask me the whole thing stinks, saddam was an evil man after all he was a dictator and like all of these ego maniac's someone always gets persecuted.

 

What i will say is why do america fund the likes of saddam, bin laden and other nutters then turn on them calling them the enermy ?

 

America is making a rod for its own back if you ask me.

[Alias]

If the trial was fair and he's sentenced to death, surely 'his rights' end there? I think it makes little odds that he got called a few names on his death bed, why would the state seek to protect someone they have condemned to death?

[WilDDog]

If the trial was fair and he's sentenced to death, surely 'his rights' end there? I think it makes little odds that he got called a few names on his death bed, why would the state seek to protect someone they have condemned to death?

 

I agree.

 

On another note, anyone could lead Iraq at the moment as the people seem very easily led.

They cheered when Saddams statue came down, they cheered when Saddam was caught, and now they're pissed off because he was hung.

Talk about indecisive.

 

They need a leader like Tony Blair or George bush to show them the right path.

[Lonan3]

If the trial was fair and he's sentenced to death, surely 'his rights' end there? I think it makes little odds that he got called a few names on his death bed, why would the state seek to protect someone they have condemned to death?

There are questions about whether his trial was fair or not, and there are certainly doubts remaining about the appeal procedure. This is not to say that the wrong decision was taken simply that, in order to satisfy the demands of justice, everything has to be transparently 'above board' when it come to exercising a death penalty.

The likelihood is that the cult of Saddam will now fade - but it is the question of what, exactly, will fill the vacuum left behind that certainly ought to be a priority. In fact, it ought to have been a prioity a long time ago but seems to be one of the many things that wasn't included in the plans fro Iraq after the invasion.

As for the way that the execution was carried out - it bore more marks of a lynching than an official execution and is probably every bit as repugnant as some of the terrorist 'executions' seen in recent years.

[keyboarder]

On another note, anyone could lead Iraq at the moment as the people seem very easily led.

They cheered when Saddams statue came down, they cheered when Saddam was caught, and now they're pissed off because he was hung.

Talk about indecisive.

 

They need a leader like Tony Blair or George bush to show them the right path.

 

Well that's a nice simplistic view of things. Iraqi's eh, pfff.....

[Declan]

If the trial was fair and he's sentenced to death, surely 'his rights' end there? I think it makes little odds that he got called a few names on his death bed, why would the state seek to protect someone they have condemned to death?

 

Because if the new Iraqi state wants to be better than Saddam was it has to act better than Saddam did.

 

And if Bush, Blair and the West wants to claim to have any moral authority left, they can't be capturing someone then handing him over to face a kangaroo court, that excutes him with undue haste, and seemingly, no right of appeal, with the joyous taunts of his enemys ringing in his ears.

 

I can't believe the silence of the British and American goverments on this. This is exactly what these countries are meant to stand against. In fact after the WMD lie was exposed, the justification for the war became the establishment of the rule of law and human rights in Iraq. Two great Liberal Democracies and it's left to John Prescott to utter the only quibble!

[Gladys]

The man was an abomination, the trial was an abomination and the execution was an abomination.

 

Nothing for humanity to be proud of in any of this.

[VinnieK]

I can't believe the silence of the British and American goverments on this. This is exactly what these countries are meant to stand against. In fact after the WMD lie was exposed, the justification for the war became the establishment of the rule of law and human rights in Iraq. Two great Liberal Democracies and it's left to John Prescott to utter the only quibble!

 

I agree entirely with the sentiment, although I can in part understand the position of those two governments. Saddam's fate was one that was heavily debated the moment he was captured, which a fair proportion of that debate concerning exactly this situation. Both Governments, as far as I can remember, briefly expressed a preference for a custodial sentence over execution early on in the process, but one major concern was raised (both by politicians and the media) regarding their opinion and involvement in Saddam's trial: That being that any attempt to influence the sentencing or of withholding Saddam would only further undermine the fledgling Iraqi government, which since its founding has had to fend off charges of being a western puppet and help encourage or somehow vindicate the claims of those who may wish to seize power for themselves.

 

It's certainly not pretty, and whether it was the right thing to do is questionable, but there's a vast amount of real politik going on at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if John Prescott was actively encouraged, if not specifically chosen, to raise concerns about the trial and sentencing in order to express the disatisfaction of the British Government, without straining the relations between the Prime and Foreign Minister and their Iraqi counterparts too much.

[Ean]

Beckett also came out against the sentence, and said she spoke for the British Government. Something along the lines of "we are glad that Saddam has been tried in Iraq by an Iraqi court but Britain cannot condone the death sentence."

[3v0]

Found this on the interweb, it is the end of a news article written about the video of the hanging and pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole thing, there is more of it but this is pretty much the main point it is trying to make:

 

"Whether you think the dictator should have been hung, or merely left to rot in misery, you probably didn't want to see him outclassing his executioners. Thanks to a cameraphone and YouTube, we heard his brilliant one-line riposte to a taunt, and thanks to YouTube we saw his final prayer interrupted. And thanks to YouTube, we're part of the spectacle, as Stephen Moss writes today:

 

"Saddam's killers have achieved the impossible: they have made us feel sympathy for him, for his grace under pressure. There may not have been dignity in the dying, but there was courage. A five-star death.

 

For someone who terrorized civic society for thirty years and launched a war that cost a million lives, it doesn't quite seem fair.

 

Thanks, Web 2.0 - but there is such a thing as "too much information".

[slinkydevil]

Found this on the interweb..... etc.

 

Good post.

[Lonan3]

And just to add to the 'fun'

 

Ban Ki Moon, the former South Korean Foreign Minister, received a warm welcome from staff at the UN headquarters on Manhattan's East River when he turned up for his first day at work yesterday.

But his spokeswoman was forced to issue a clarification after Mr Ban said that capital punishment should be a decision for individual member states.

The UN has an official stance opposing capital punishment and Ban’s predecessor Kofi Annan reiterated it frequently. The organisation's top envoy in Iraq, Ashraf Qazi, restated it again after the former Iraqi dictator was hanged on Saturday.

 

SOURCE

 

Which, yet again, leaves the UN looking like a toothless tiger!

[Lonan3]

Probably the best comment on the whole sorry affair - from cartoonist Martin Rowson in today's Guardian:

 

[Albert Tatlock]

And just to add to the 'fun'

 

Ban Ki Moon, the former South Korean Foreign Minister, received a warm welcome from staff at the UN headquarters on Manhattan's East River when he turned up for his first day at work yesterday.

But his spokeswoman was forced to issue a clarification after Mr Ban said that capital punishment should be a decision for individual member states.

The UN has an official stance opposing capital punishment and Ban’s predecessor Kofi Annan reiterated it frequently. The organisation's top envoy in Iraq, Ashraf Qazi, restated it again after the former Iraqi dictator was hanged on Saturday.

 

SOURCE

 

Which, yet again, leaves the UN looking like a toothless tiger!

...or simply they have got the wrong guy for the job. There has never been a better time to re-enforce the authority of the UN and that requires a strong leader. I don't think this guy will 'cut the mustard'.