So Saddam is hanged ...

[Gav]

I'm surprised that no one has wanted to comment on this - does no one have an opinion on it?

In case you missed it here is a link to the the BBC News Online coverage.

[jeff]

I think the lack of response an indicator of how the board has become so much quieter (I'm doing my best with the Grand Canyon thread, I suppose)

Hm, back to Saddam: Evil person, I won't miss him, the trial was not done to proper standards but in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, and the execution was hurried and handled poorly in a way that guaranteed more animosity. Any surprises here?

[scrapinpeg]

There actually has been discussion on it. It was a threadjack, not a new thread, is all.

Whipe out Israel!

[Slim]

I think the lack of response an indicator of how the board has become so much quieter (I'm doing my best with the Grand Canyon thread, I suppose)

Hm, back to Saddam: Evil person, I won't miss him, the trial was not done to proper standards but in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, and the execution was hurried and handled poorly in a way that guaranteed more animosity. Any surprises here?

Not done to whos proper standards? Seems like he was treated far better by his people than he treated his people.

I still contend that a $23 M67 tossed down the spider hole was the best solution.

[jeff]

Slim, there's no doubt at all that he was better treated by the Iraqi courts than he treated his people, and that he's a monster. That's not close to the point, which is that it didn't meet the standards of law in other international tribunals. There has been a lot of documentation on the flaws of the judicial process by which he was convicted and executed.

To have maintained higher wouldn't have been for Saddam's benefit, it would be to ours: for the benefit of Iraq, the US, and others maintaining that what we do is justice under the highest standards, and not victor's revenge.

[jBirch]

Actually, the purpose of the trial was to establish, in even his firmest supporters' minds, that he is an animal and deserves to be executed. It failed to do that.

The reality is that the opposite happened: he has been framed as a reasonable pawn of a belligerent power. His trial was unjust, the verdict pre-determined and the speed of execution too fast. The state of Iraq is far worse now for ordinary civilians then it ever was during Saddam's reign and so the claims of "justice" are off sounding.

At the end of the day, Saddam was hanged for ordering the murder of 148 Shia. His war with Iran, his invasion of Kuwait, all his actions, it could be argued, were for the betterment of Iraq as a nation and not solely for his own benefit. His last words and moments were dignified and composed.

There was no dignity to the trials themselves and certainly none to the execution.

It could very well have been orchestrated better to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the man on trial was a monster and that his execution, while regrettable, was the only course of true justice.

So, as Jeff said, the overwhelming perception is that Saddam's execution was an act of victor's vengeance and not one of justice. It will likely fuel the already red-hot insurgency and drive Iraq deeper into civil war along religious schisms.

James.

[Slim]

Slim, there's no doubt at all that he was better treated by the Iraqi courts than he treated his people, and that he's a monster. That's not close to the point, which is that it didn't meet the standards of law in other international tribunals. There has been a lot of documentation on the flaws of the judicial process by which he was convicted and executed.

To have maintained higher wouldn't have been for Saddam's benefit, it would be to ours: for the benefit of Iraq, the US, and others maintaining that what we do is justice under the highest standards, and not victor's revenge.

It wasnt an international tribunal and it wasnt "international law". It was a trial in Iraq by an Iraqi court. Just because someone doesnt like how it was carried out by the Iraqis doesnt mean it wasnt, for the most part, legitimate and fair. Perhaps it wasnt perfect, but I think they did a fine job leading up to the execution given the circumstances. The execution, on the other hand, was a circus. But, I certainly didnt lose any sleep over it. Nothing good was had by keeping him alive. Out with the trash.

[Slim]

Actually, the purpose of the trial was to establish, in even his firmest supporters' minds, that he is an animal and deserves to be executed. It failed to do that.

Anyone who would dispute this is not someone that could be persuaded otherwise. So what's the point? The moral highground? Bah....

The reality is that the opposite happened: he has been framed as a reasonable pawn of a belligerent power. His trial was unjust, the verdict pre-determined and the speed of execution too fast. The state of Iraq is far worse now for ordinary civilians then it ever was during Saddam's reign and so the claims of "justice" are off sounding.

So say you and Ramsey Clark. Oh, and probably Pigeonman.

At the end of the day, Saddam was hanged for ordering the murder of 148 Shia.

Hmm...perhaps community service would have beem more appropriate?

His war with Iran, his invasion of Kuwait, all his actions, it could be argued, were for the betterment of Iraq as a nation and not solely for his own benefit.

Yeah, he really wasnt such a bag guy I guess.

His last words and moments were dignified and composed.

And this matters how?

There was no dignity to the trials themselves and certainly none to the execution.

I disagree with you on the former, but agree with you on the latter. But as I responded to Jeff....oh well.

It could very well have been orchestrated better to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the man on trial was a monster and that his execution, while regrettable, was the only course of true justice.

Who really needed more evidence? The Baath party leadership?

So, as Jeff said, the overwhelming perception is that Saddam's execution was an act of victor's vengeance and not one of justice. It will likely fuel the already red-hot insurgency and drive Iraq deeper into civil war along religious schisms.

James.

I think people will forget about him pretty quickly and it will have little or no effect on the mess that's already underway over there. Except perhaps a few more sad stories of disturbed and misguided youths hanging themselves in protest of their hero being unjustly treated.

[Maeve_Mari]

Of course the other reason for a quieter board could be the useless and freakishly flawed statements repeatedly (and fanatically) posted in response to any discussion more complex than what brand of applesauce is best.

We are left with a sadness that justice did not prevail, it was a feckless and dangerous maneuver that will forever leave the world apprehensive of the United States. And Justice.

[Slim]

We are left with a sadness that justice did not prevail, it was a feckless and dangerous maneuver that will forever leave the world apprehensive of the United States. And Justice.

"We" are?

[erooMynohtnA]

Of course the other reason for a quieter board could be the useless and freakishly flawed statements repeatedly (and fanatically) posted in response to any discussion more complex than what brand of applesauce is best.

We are left with a sadness that justice did not prevail, it was a feckless and dangerous maneuver that will forever leave the world apprehensive of the United States. And Justice.

I like Muscleman's Chunky. It's delicious.

[Phaeton]

Not only did I hear that he was hanged, but that he was well hung. Of course I wouldn't want to see the footage confirming that...

[introspective]

I guess we're all in shock. I still maintain it was a mistake. I firmly believe he should have served a sentence. We imprisoned many people after world war two and the sentence should have been the same. It was too risky for the people of Iraq. The backlash could almost be predicted. Those people really need time to settle into their new political agendas. By sentencing him to a life term, his political allies would then have the opportunity to slowly return to society's norms. What has been the unfortunate norm for those people is daily carnage. It takes time for people to assimilate to one another. They were denied that. It's still not too late. Maybe they should have a dignified ceremony to commemorate his term noted his weaknesses and from there they would have a chance. Executions are still considered to be very serious matters even here in the USA where we consider for years whether or not a prisoner should indeed be executed - while they await fate on 'death row' many times death sentences are overturned in favor of life sentences. Only our most incorrigible law breakers are executed and those usually are our truly unrepentant - 'unremorseful' serial murderers. I don't think Saddam Hussain falls into that category exactly.

On another, but loosely related topic, today on our news we saw the sight of many feloneous federal employees [politicians] sent to prison for stealing for the social security fund - these men were stealing the bread and butter from the mouths of the elderly and needly people - tantimount to a slow death. Many elders literally go without food. They live in sub-standard living conditions often having their electricity cut off for lack of money. It is truely pitiful that these same federal felons are allowed to receive 'retirement pensions' often in the six figure category. We need to also take a very good look at our own government and shape it up before we condone such heavy matters for other nations. While the Iraquis governed themselves in this matter, I believe the world court should have played a role in the proceedings offering alternative sentencing.

[Slim]

Ok....I guess thats the end of this thread.

[introspective]

who says, what are you, mr wonderful?

[jeff]

It wasnt an international tribunal and it wasnt "international law". It was a trial in Iraq by an Iraqi court. Just because someone doesnt like how it was carried out by the Iraqis doesnt mean it wasnt, for the most part, legitimate and fair. Perhaps it wasnt perfect, but I think they did a fine job leading up to the execution given the circumstances. The execution, on the other hand, was a circus. But, I certainly didnt lose any sleep over it. Nothing good was had by keeping him alive. Out with the trash.

You elaborately miss the point. That it was an Iraqi court and not an international one is not what reduces its legitemacy, but that it was so poorly done. It isn't that Saddam wasn't a monster - we know he was, or that he didn't deserve death - I think he did as well, but that the trial and rush to execution fostered the impression that this was pre-ordained victor's justice, and the circus at the end let him show more dignity than the guys hanging him - a propaganda disaster making the current Iraqi government look as if it has no more moral authority than his (and by extension, us)

You misinterpret jBirch also. He's not saying that Saddam was a jay-walker, and his point about the 148 Shia is what he was convicted of. I wish they had gone further with the many other crimes he committed, say, with the Kurds or Marsh Arabs, in order to hammer in the point about what he was. That would have been better for Iraq, and frankly, better for us. Do I have to spell out for you that a trial that listed all of Saddam's horrors would have substantiated a part of why we invaded in the first place, and a fast checkout line path to the noose prevented that from happening. That's entirely to our disadvantage.

Just calm down and be analytical instead of go into partisan hyper-reaction mode and you'll do better.

[jeff]

Slim: Ok....I guess thats the end of this thread.
introspective: who says, what are you, mr wonderful?

Slim attacks into introspective's invitation. Parry-riposte for introspective. Touch. (Slim, you walked right into that one!)

[jBirch]

Anyone who would dispute this is not someone that could be persuaded otherwise.

Ah, but that's the point of a fair and open trial. To prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the guy is guilty and that thusly, the sentence deserved.

Hmm...perhaps community service would have beem more appropriate?

Actually, I think the appropriate thing to do would have been to let him go free, take all his money into general revenue as payment for his crimes, employ him as an agent of the state helping with reconstruction and deny him a passport. THAT would have been the smart move.

Yeah, he really wasnt such a bag guy I guess.

I have no idea whether he was a bad guy or not. I have a lot of English PR that says he was the anti-Christ, but that doesn't make it so. The fact that there is a powerful insurgency under way in his name leads me to believe that there is a not insignificant number of people who believe otherwise.

My opinion of the matter is that he was an egomaniac who believed his way was the best way for Iraq. That anyone who stood in opposition to his ideas was rebelling against the state and a terrorist. Therefor, he believed that anything he did against the terrorists was justified. Including gassing an entire village.

I think his punishment should have been used as an opportunity to heal the nation and he should have been utilised to quell the rebellion, not BY the rebellion.

I disagree with you on the former, but agree with you on the latter. But as I responded to Jeff....oh well.

Disagreement is good. Why do you think the trial was fair?

Who really needed more evidence? The Baath party leadership?

Me, for one.

I think people will forget about him pretty quickly and it will have little or no effect on the mess that's already underway over there. Except perhaps a few more sad stories of disturbed and misguided youths hanging themselves in protest of their hero being unjustly treated.

I doubt Iraq will EVER forget about Saddam. You still remember Nixon and Washington, don't you?

James.

[Slim]

Ah, but that's the point of a fair and open trial. To prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the guy is guilty and that thusly, the sentence deserved.

To a jury, not the world.

Actually, I think the appropriate thing to do would have been to let him go free, take all his money into general revenue as payment for his crimes, employ him as an agent of the state helping with reconstruction and deny him a passport. THAT would have been the smart move.

I cant tell if you are serious or not.

I have no idea whether he was a bad guy or not. I have a lot of English PR that says he was the anti-Christ, but that doesn't make it so. The fact that there is a powerful insurgency under way in his name leads me to believe that there is a not insignificant number of people who believe otherwise.

My opinion of the matter is that he was an egomaniac who believed his way was the best way for Iraq. That anyone who stood in opposition to his ideas was rebelling against the state and a terrorist. Therefor, he believed that anything he did against the terrorists was justified. Including gassing an entire village.

Ok, you were serious.

Disagreement is good. Why do you think the trial was fair?

Fair under who's definition of fair? It's all relative. Fair with repect to how he had treated his people...sure. More than fair. Fair with respect to how a capital offender is treated here in the US. Probably not. But, he wasnt on trial in the US. Nor under any international court. So, yeah, it was fair enough for him. In my opinion, of course.

[jBirch]

To a jury, not the world.

Oh, but that completely dismisses the more broad question of why have trials AT ALL? What's the purpose of a jury?

Ok, you were serious.

Yup. Now that he's dead, there is no opportunity for people to find out how harmless he really is. He lives on as an idea and as a memory. There is a reason why Japanese samurai would take death over failure.

Fair under who's definition of fair? It's all relative. Fair with repect to how he had treated his people...sure. More than fair. Fair with respect to how a capital offender is treated here in the US. Probably not. But, he wasnt on trial in the US. Nor under any international court. So, yeah, it was fair enough for him. In my opinion, of course.

Fair enough. *grin* Do you think that the trial had the appearance of fairness though? Regardless of the outcome? Is there room for people of reason to find bias in the process? Is it possible that the outcome was preordained?

Here's part of what I'm saying: if it is not possible for the process to produce a verdict different then death, then what meaning did it have? What purpose did it serve?

James.