(UPDATE: Saddam executed) Saddam to be hanged by Sunday

Iraq
Waiting for the hangman

Dec 27th 2006
From Economist.com
Executing Saddam Hussein is a bad idea


THE statement by an appeals court judge this week confirming that Saddam Hussein will indeed face execution, possibly within days, has been greeted with little more than a shrug by many Iraqis. It may be that the ruling was considered all but inevitable. The former dictator was convicted by the Iraqi Special Tribunal in Baghdad and handed a death sentence, in November, over the killing of 148 people in the town of Dujail, in 1982. Although a second trial is ongoing, it was widely assumed that Iraq’s new government—and its American ally—wants to see Mr Hussein executed sooner rather than later. The White House has praised the ruling as part of a process “to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law”.

There are reasons why Mr Hussein’s execution might perhaps be welcomed. Justice demands that he should be held to account for the many murders, the torture, the displacement and other crimes he committed while in power. If ever the death penalty were deserved, it would be for precisely such a dictator. Although the trial had serious defects, it was not entirely for show. He received the sort of hearing in court, the opportunity to speak out in his defence, that none of his victims enjoyed. And there may, arguably, be a practical benefit. With the former leader dead, rather than languishing in prison, his supporters would lose any hope that they may, through violence, somehow bring him back to power.

Yet executing him would be a mistake. Not only is capital punishment wrong in itself, however wicked the guilty party, it is most unlikely to help bind Iraq’s wounds. His trial was flawed enough to provoke condemnation from Western human rights groups, among others, and to seed suspicion in some parts that the former tyrant’s execution is less a matter of justice and more a case of revenge. Showing greater respect for human life than he ever did would represent a rare moral victory for Iraq's rulers. Keeping Mr Hussein alive would also allow other trials detailing far greater evils than Dujail to be completed—such as the one, already begun, in which he stands accused of instigating the so-called Anfal campaign against Iraq's Kurds, in which more than 100,000 people may have been killed and millions uprooted.

The decision whether to go ahead, however, is one for Iraqis to make. Mr Hussein’s supporters may riot, or worse, when the news of his execution emerges: he himself says he will be “sacrifice” and a “true martyr” for Iraq. But the ongoing misery of daily killings is driven by many more forces than fighters loyal to their former leader—the bitter rivalry between and among Shia and Sunni groups, the influence of al-Qaeda, the activities of organised criminals and other factors matter rather more. Most Shias and many Kurds seem to welcome the verdict: they do not care a jot about the technical defects of the trial. As for the Sunnis who were loyal to the previous regime, it is the legitimacy of the present government, not the probity of the court, that is fundamentally in question. Putting Mr Hussein to death will not, of course, make him a martyr. However, nor will it do anything to encourage the reconciliation or compromise that Iraq needs.

economist

 

good...I can't wait for this...

 

Is this as reprehensible as it appears?

Why in the world do you link these two disparate facts?

 

mc mark's 148 vs 152 comment is in no way a fair comparison. however, one could argue that bush is responsible for the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths...albeit indirectly. there is definitely irony in the fact that bush went over there as a supposed liberator and promoter of democracy and freedom. yet, the only thing he has seemingly delivered is insecurity, violence, and death. i guess as long as it's not against your own people...then it's okay. based on the violence that has swept iraq since we invaded, maybe saddam wasn't too stupid about how he handled iraq in the first place. i'm not saying gassing kurds is okay. i'm saying these people seem to have a violent backbone and only violence itself can keep these people in check. otherwise, you have what we have now...which is essentially anarchy. i think we see now that it may indeed take a dictator with a powerful hand to keep that country stable. but, let the shia get their revenge with saddam's hanging. forget about his farce of a trial. then, let the shia pay in blood the price of saddam's death. the timing on this execution is all wrong if you ask me. i think he'd be better off rotting in jail. martyring saddam is a bad idea. but, they want their revenge so they will have it. saddam should have been tried in Hague just like Slobodan Milosevic...if you ask me.

 

I'm against the death penalty, but this is one I find it hard to get worked up about. Even so, is he the third of "they all die in threes"? James Brown, Gerald Ford, and Saddam Hussein, or should we be expecting someone else?

 

the real irony lies in the fact that the united states helped saddam carry out the war crimes which he is being put to death for. who supplied him with all those nasty chemical weapons again? the reagan administration made him what he was.

who was it that helped saddam in the iran-iraq war?

and what about the immorality of being on saddams side and than covertly arming the other side at the same time.

should rummy be hung too?

 

I agree
I hope doing it near a Holiday . . .a religious Holiday
does not make the situation worse

I think in this case the lethal injection in a quiet area
make his death as unremarkable as the man himself
don't make a spectacle of it . . .don't make an event

Rocket River

 

How about Peter Boyle as #1, the Godfather of Soul as #2 and President Ford as #3?

 

Another reason why jr has to kill him fast! We can't have Saddam spouting off at the mouth about all the US has done for him while daddy was CIA.

 

I think the strategy is to get them so fired during haji that more pilgrims get killed than usual...one less potential terrorist, I mean only a psycho would travel halfway round the world to participate in an annual human stampede that has killed so many already.

 

Did you know Saddam had a big penis?







Yup, he was well hung.

 

i honestly dont care lol

 

Yea, Rumsfeld turned out to be a real a-hole...playing both sides when it is convenient. He's no better than Saddam if you ask me. Maybe he should be hung along with Saddam? Good idea.

 

the timing has more to do w/ the upcomming state of the union address than any religious holiday.

 

Man, if Bush goes into a whole spiel about how justice was done, then I'm going to puke for the next seven days afterward.

 

to be fair, i dont believe that rummy was in the government so he wasnt involved w/ arms dealing to iran - that would be ollie north, the cia and probably bush sr.

rummy acted as a special envoy, a broker if you will b/t the u.s. government and saddam. seems like that would make him an accessory to war crimes.

 

than get ready, b/c if they do execute him before the s.o.t.u. than i promise that is all you will hear about.

 

Thanks for the reminder.

 

well, if he does harp on that alot, then that is in poor taste given the state of iraq. but, noone ever accused bush of having good taste. "saddam...the executioner...is gone. we can all celebrate. try not to think about the thousands of insurgents blowing you up daily because...well...the tyrant is no more."

I'm sure he will be patting himself on the back and, no, it wasn't worth it.

 

Good. The sooner the better.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq