I guess I’m just a fiendish sociopath, but I, personally, am able to see a difference between killing an “evil SOB” like Saddam, and killing an innocent person.
You know, this may surprise you, but the U.S. military generally doesn’t kill civilians on purpose. “Collateral damage” happens, just like in any war. But we don’t send the Secret Service in to murder the families of Saddam loyalists, and the Marines aren’t executing people for not paying their taxes.
…pardon my ignorance, but isn’t the actual rule “An Eye for an Eye” still in the Christian scriptures, somwhere?
Wow. I am reeling from that amazing factual refutation.
Next time, try addressing the arguments. If you can’t do that, take it to the pit.
For anyone worried about the existence of Iraqi law against which to try S.H., he could always be extradited to Kuwait for a little justice from that country.
Ok, then how does bringing up the actions of a few Spanish clergymen have anything to do with the perverse notion of Islamic “justice”, or its violence and brutality in general? That you can find a few other people of different religions who have done similiar things doesn’t bear at all on the facts of what Islamic nations are doing right now.
And they can be peaceful and law-abiding all they want, my statement was about their justice system being brutal and unusually cruel. That has nothing at all to do with what rank and file Moslems may or may not do, it has to do with the consequences of applying the brutal and primitive sharia as the basis of a nation’s laws.
I think that’s from the code of Hammurabi.
And again, I fail to see the relevance of finding disagreeable principles in ancient Hebrew law to the point that the Islamic notion of “justice” is perverse and disgusting. And as far as I know, Hebrew law as set out in the Old Testament hasn’t actually been the law of any nation since the Romans conquered Judea, and so has lost its relevance and isn’t of much concern today. As the sharia is still the law in many nations today, it actually is a point of valid concern in contemporary times.
To pass a law after an act in order to punish an offender retroactively seems to be stretching just a bit. I’ve always understood that one would be tried according to what the law was at the time of the crime, not according to what laws were subsequently passed.
And, if I’m correct, the Nazis were not tried by the Germans, but by an international court. Hitler may not have violated German law, but he did violate international law.
I don’t think he should be executed (same way I feel about everyone). Of course, I don’t think my opinion will matter. But my take is that this man used to roam Iraq, going from opulate palace to palace while people starved and suffered, living like a king. I can’t think of any more fitting punishment for such a man than being forced to spend the rest of his life under guard in a little box. But that’s just me.
The Nazis were tried by the Allied Powers, because they won the war. Having Germany try them would have been a disaster. Having Iraq try Saddam (hopefully with some involvement from Iran, Kuwait and Israel - okay, I’m hoping for too much, but still) would be different, and his crimes were less international by a long shot.
First you’d have to re-instate the death penalty in Iraqi law.
Personally I think he should be killed with the first WMD they find … (hmmmmm might be a long wait )
After posting, it occurred to me that one possible complication of my modest proposal might be that the supporters of the condemned man might be inflamed by the punishment, or might consider their demonised views of ‘the enemy’ to be viindicated and this might spur them to redouble their efforts…
Mangetout, that’s pretty barbaric. Lobotomy is so awful that it’s been ditched as a medical measure- what would make it OK as a punishment? Ugh. My skin is crawling. In any event, I don’t think anything that happens to Saddam will deter the resistance. Whether he’s dead or alive, they have nothing to lose.
You’re probably right - it isn’t an idea that I had any intention of defending.
My apologies Old Chap, my mindreading is rather rusty…
I understand now that when you said ‘perverse religion’ you meant ‘those that pervert a religon for their own ends’
The sharia is the law in many nations?
Which?
Sudan, maybe… a lot of other Moslem nations pay lip service to it…
Anyone who devotes themselves to dogma - be it political or religious - reduces those who don’t adhere to that dogma to… er… “For us, they were not quite human”.
At least the Nazis were honest about it.
Even hypothetically allowing that Iran did the Halabja gassing, Human Rights Watch has documented about 2,000 other Kurdish civilians gassed in the Anfal campaigns by the Iraqi military.
If I’m not mistaken, that’s what the crime of “genocide” was at Nuremberg.
RexDart,
I have a few questions regarding your post…
Salaam. A
The Perverse since following The Perverse Religion.
Note for the “let’s hate” fanclub members: You must agree that this explains everything, no? Blame RexDart for destroying your fun, I’m as always completely innocent.
The Nuremberg and Eichmann trials cited “the Law of Nations” extensively, international law punishable by any court. The principal example is piracy. The Eichmann judgment quoted Lord Blackstone (in turn quoting Lord Coke) on the Law of Nations and piracy:
“Lastly, the crime of piracy, or robbery and depredation upon the high seas, is an offence against the universal law of society; a pirate being, according to Sir Edward Coke (3 Inst. 113) hostis humani generis. As, therefore, he has renounced all the benefits of society and government, and has reduced himself afresh to the savage state of nature, by declaring war against all mankind, all mankind must declare war against him; so that every community hath a right by the rule of self-defence, to inflict that punishment upon him which every individual would in a state of nature have been otherwise entitled to do, for any invasion of his person or personal property.”
The super-short version of it is that some crimes are considered crimes of every civilized nation in the world, things that are so fundamentally wrong so as to scream “forbidden!”, and are thus punishable even though the criminal has attempted to place himself beyond the reach of the law. Ex post facto exists to prevent the inequity of requiring a person to conform their behavior to a law not yet in existence. The Law of Nations is international law already in existence even if it predates the jurisdiction, as was the case with Israel.
Nitpick :
Though the original “no-flight zones” were indeed appppproved by the UN, they were unilaterally extended by the US a couple years later, a decision which had been recognized only by the UK, and condemned by essentialy all other countries (it’s after this unilateral US decision that France withdrew its aircrafts which were surveying the previously existing no flight-zones).
So, the attacked US and UK planes weren’t necessarily enforcing a UN resolution, but more often enforcing a bilateral americano-british “resolution”.
IIRC, that was done when the GDR was integrated into West Germany - guards on duty at the Berlin wall were under orders to shoot people trying to escape into West Berlin. After the GDR was gone, members of the politbureau, which issued that order, were put on trial for this.
I think it would be optional, rather than mandatory. Islam isn’t the only religion that gets badmouthed around these parts. What purpose would be served by stifling such comments?
I won’t argue to who tries him. I suspect it’ll be an Iraqi Court, probably in 10-15 months. Probably a 7 month televised trial, followed by conviction, appeal, denial, appeal, denial and firing squad.
That’s the way I see it playing out.
All that is kinda irrelevant though, as to the original question asked; namely ** should ** he be executed?
I say yes, and here are my reasons:
It serves as a clean break for the Iraqi people. A way of putting a period at the end of his rule. Him being captured dead would’ve also done this, but only to a lesser degree. There would always be the doubt. There would always be whispers. There would always be those who chose to believe it wasn’t him. Especially among his former regime members and supporters. Him being caught alive is actually better for the CPA and the GC in the long run in my view. It gives them an opportunity to parade him enough that there will be no credible doubt that he has been caught and that’s that. No doubles, no fakes. The real deal. That’s important to everyone across the spectrum. Certainty.
It sends a clear message to insurgents in Iraq. If Iraqis themselves try, convict and execute him then there can be no doubt about what treatment ** they ** will recieve. This is a significant disincentive, as it removes permanently any hope of restoring him to power and themselves to their former positions. He ain’t coming back, and neither are they. That removes a lot of the motivation behind the attacks (mind you not all of it and not for all of them). Amongst their weaker supporters in (and on the fringe of) the cells it may have a devastating effect on morale. That means more people are likely to fall into Iraqi security hands, especially if they start dangling rewards for “witnesses” like cash, jobs and/or immunity.
It sends a clear message to the other regimes in the region. Sic Semper Tyranuus. If you cross that line with the Americans you may indeed end up out of power with a bullet in your head. It’s a base message, but like the invasion and quick collapse of the Iraqi army is one that will resonate with the other regimes in a very visceral way. It’s uncomfortable to know that your fellow unelected leader just a an hour or two military jet flying time (or closer) just got executed by the Americans (by proxy).
There are significant risks to allowing him to live. He remains a symbol as long as he breathes. Morality aside, he could be broken out. He could retain influence, he could send messages from any kind of an Iraqi jail cell. I’m not saying he would do any of this, I’m saying the possibility exists. As long as he is alive he is a threat to the new Iraqi government and a symbol to the insurgents of his toughness and the Iraqi/US’s gov’ts weakness. Many Iraqi’s spoke of shaking with emotion at his capture. Part of that was very likely relief that no longer was it possible that ** he ** would be showing up at ** THEIR ** door with Fedayeen in tow. We must remember that under his rule midnight dissapearances were ** common ** in Iraq. There is virtually no one in that country who doesn’t know of someone who was vanished over the course of his rule. That sort of ingrained fear stays with you unless there’s some dramatic end to it. The tearing down of monuments ** without reprisal! ** was Phase I. The capture is Phase II. The trial will be Phase III. The Judgement of guilt will be Phase IV. And at the end, the execution will be Phase V. It’s a catharsis the people of Iraq need.
Holding him in an American or European jail is unfeasable for about 50 different reasons. Nothing to do with cost, but rather a defiance of the clear will of the people of Iraq. It will generate no positive karma for the US there (or elsewhere really) and considerable negative karma. It will again bring his specter back into play for the insurgents and for the Iraqi people and their new gov’t. Sure, the death penalty opponents in europe may like it, but they are not the people we are trying to win influence with or show respect towards or trust in. Thje Iraqis are. It is necessary and right that ** they ** Judge their worst mass murderer by ** their ** courts and ** their ** laws. Subborning that will is both a form of cultural imperialism and a violation of the Sovereignty of Iraq. It’s also a direct slap in the face of the gov’t.
He needs to die for the people of Iraq and for his crimes against them. After they have tried him. By their hand.
Regards,
-Bouncer-