This is more a poll to see what folks think, but knowing the topic I put it in GD because a debate could spark as to whether or not Saddam SHOULD get the axe, as well as perhaps the legal process being used in Iraq to decide that question. Appearently Saddan can be executed after this first trial without appeal if he’s found guilty (something I’d say is kind of a slam dunk). Here is a story on it for anyone interested.
Anyway, should Saddam get the axe? Though I don’t normally try and put my answer in a GD thread I start this is really just a poll so I’ll break my own rule and say:
No, I don’t think Saddam should be executed, despite what he’s done. I think it would be better for all concerned if he simply rots in prison for the rest of his life. Perhaps rotting in prison will allow him to experience some remorse for what he did to his own people and to contemplate and reflect on those action. He’s really a symbol of nothing these days, not a even a rallying cry for his own Ba’athist hold outs who, IMHO, are fighting to retain their own power…not to re-instate Saddam.
WILL Saddam get the axe? Yes, I think he will. I’d say the odds are pretty high in favor of posing for gun fire, hanging or whatever the Iraqi’s do in this case. Should? See above.
Related question: What will the reaction in Iraq be if Saddam is executed? Will people care? Be outraged? I know the Baath party folks still wish they were in power, and Saddam was the former focus of that power, but is he beloved? Despised? Will his execution exacerbate the problems between the Kurds, Shia, and Sunni, or make no difference at all?
As to the OP, I think he will, though, frankly, I don’t care way or the other. Whatever makes the Iraqis happy.
I would doubt that Saddam is executed being that we supposedly had a ‘coalition of the willing’ that helped in the capture of Saddam, and all nations within said coalition besides the US are vehemently opposed to execution.
In all seriousness, I think there ARE a lot of potentially troubling “technicalities” in this trial, the primary one being jurisdiction.
Saddam was an evil bastard and deserves to be punished, but I don’t believe the Iraqis have legal grounds to try him. He should be tried by an international court for war crimes.
Saddam didn’t technically break any Iraqi laws. He was the law. Legally, you can’t go back and try someone for actions which were legal at the time. However, international law trumps national law in this circumstance, meaning that genocide may be legal in a certain country, but it is illegal, and can be punished, by international courts. Thus, the Iraqis really shouldn’t be the ones trying him. They may have the MORAL grounds to try him, but not necessarily the LEGAL grounds.
Should Saddam be executed? Well, I’m anti-death penalty, and if I’m against it for your average murderer, I have to be against it for a mass murderer, as well. Secondly, I believe it’s a greater punishment for him to have to rot in a prison cell for the rest of his life, especially considering his ego mania. Alone, forgotten, powerless and without the luxuries to which he was accustomed-- it must be hell for him.
Will he get the axe? Yes, undoubtedly. I would bet the farm on it.
I’ve got to imagine there was some sort of agreement in place before his capture. A lot of the European countries greatly dislike capital punishment. I could be very wrong though, I just can’t see Spain helping to capture a criminal only to have him get executed.
Only if the Iraqi legal system gets it together well enough to actually try him.
We’ve been hearing “real soon now” since at least September 2004.
I can’t imagine they’d let him off with anything less than beheading. Drawing and quartering, and the “death of a thousand hooks” are probably also under consideration.
There’s plenty of legal precedent for Iraq to try him, most notably the Eichmann trial. A head of state can still violate the “Law of Nations” by committing crimes against humanity, despite the fact that he has entered into no treaty and has violated no law of his own sovereign. If Hussien has committed genocide or other crimes against humanity, he is subject to universal jurisdiction and can be tried by any state.
The notion of crimes against humanity, although evolving, is not at all new and did not originate with Nuremburg and Eichmann. The concept is called hostis humani generis, or “enemy of all mankind”, and originated with the Romans in reference to piracy (“Pirata est hostis humani generis”). A pirate has in effect declared war against all of humanity and attempted to place himself beyond the reach of all laws, and thus placed himself within the jurisdiction of all, wherever he may be found. This has been the prevailing view for centuries:
Blackstone’s Commentaries, Book 4, Chapter 5: “Of Offenses Against the Law of Nations.”
By way of example, Congress is empowered by the Consititution to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations,” i.e. crimes of such international scope so as to invoke universal jurisdiction. The Alien Torts Claims Act of 1789 allows any individual to flie civil suit against any person who commits an offense against another in violation of the Law of Nations or any international treaty; it is still in force today and is still filed under. The modern definition of hostis humani generis has grown to include, among other things, genocide, torture, and slave trading. Any violation of the Law of Nations is a crime everywhere and is punishable by any government.
The guy was toast the moment they yanked him up from his hole. I can sort of get my head around the idea of making his trial an “exercise in justice”, but the outcome is so predictable, the verdict so foregone, I fail to see any true redemptive value in the effort. Does anyone seriously doubt his guilt? Will this not be little more than a show trial, no matter how sincere the effort? Those who hate Saddam will get their wish, and those who support him will only be more embittered. His execution is an inevitable formality in the ongoing Iraq debacle, and will not matter one whit in regards to the outcome of the conflict. If the place slides into civil war, or turns into an Iranian satellite (or both), I doubt very much if people in the region will look back with much of a sense of justice when recalling the Infidels’ ritual slaughter of Saddam under the American puppet regime.
I dunno. I supsect that murder was illegal in Saddam’s Iraq. If it can be proved that he had people murdered, then he’s guilty of murder. Was there a law that said “anything Saddam does is legal”?
Of course he will – killing Saddam is a sure-fire way of ensuring he doesn’t spill the beans on his cozy relationship with previous American Presidents.
Members of the Iraqi ruling class, maybe most of the members of the ruling class have secrets they do not want to see the light of day. Who collaborated? Who squealed like a stuck pig on whom? They feel by killing Saddam they can protect themselves.
Of course in this modern age, all of that stuff is written down somewhere, but this will be their thinking.
I agree, it would be more just to let him rot in jail.
He won’t get the “axe” he’ll get the rope. And technically he did commit crimes under Iraqi law since he ignored Iraq’s criminal code and constitution whenever it suited him. EG there were laws saying rape, murder, torture, etc were illegal, but they weren’t enforced. And even if he did alter Iraqi law to make every action he took legal then all the new Iraqi government would have to do is pass a law retroactive criminal law.
