posted
You all have posted some very interesting things. I just thought I'd share my thoughts.
When I saw the newspaper this morning, my first thought was, "Oh crap." I am disturbed by the killing of Saddam Hussein. I think he was an evil, evil man, and I have no idea what I would have done with him. But having him killed seems like a bad idea.
And I think the main reason for that is that I feel like America killed him, not Iraq. This doesn't bode well for our troops who are actually there and dealing with the situation first hand. Godspeed to them.
Please don't post a link to the execution. I don't want to see it. I think it's strange that anyone desires to watch another person die. Even if he was an evil jerk who killed hundreds or thousands of people.
Posts: 511 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Saddam's execution was definitily not a Western-sytle execution.
That is itself a problem. Is Iraq not to be a Western-style Liberal Democracy?
I have surported the continuing presence of troops to pursue that goal, but I will not, can not, surport risking lives to create an Iraqi state based on God knows what. Sharia law? The law of strength?
We may have acomplished something to replace a brutal dictator with a slightly less brutal, but still Illiberal non-Democratic government, but not much. Especialy when that government cannot even protect its people.
An Iraqi state not based on Western-style Liberal Democracy will be a failure, for George Bush and Tony Blaire, for America and Britain, for Iraq, for the world.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was America a failure in the 19th century? It is possible to have a Democracy without having it be "Liberal" If the people are not "Liberal" then it will be a conservative Democracy whatever you might want.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think (and correct me if I'm wrong, Jim-Me) that he meant you should be able to stomach it. Rather, if you are in favour of someone's death, you have the responsibility to watch exactly what that means.
posted
"If the people are not "Liberal" then it will be a conservative Democracy whatever you might want."
I have never heard of "a Conservative Democracy." "Democracies," a group which currently includes all countries except for Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Myanmar and Bhutan, are usually divided into "Liberal," such as the U.S., Canada and most of Europe, and "Illiberal," such as Russia and China.
That is a rough distinction, Russia is more Liberal than China for instance and China more Liberal than Iran. However, there is no such thing as a "Conservative Democracy." Conservatism is an antidemocratic movement in non-democracies and a democratic one in Liberal Democracies. George W. Bush may be a Conservative, but he believes in Liberal Democracy.
"Was America a failure in the 19th century?"
By the standards of the day, no. By today's standards, absolutely.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the standards of today, there were no sucessful countries in the 19th century. I hope that, by the standards of 2100, the countries of today will be considered failures. I hope we continue to improve our system. I am convinced, however, that sucessful states must be Liberal Democracies and that non-Democratic countries and Illiberal Democracies are a threat to world peace and human progress.
In that, I agree with Secretary Rice.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:By killing him now, it's been an injustice to everyone else who had the right to put Sadaam on trial.
I don't understand this at all. Unless you are for cruel and unusual punishments such as torture, Saddam could not be punished for any more crimes he committed, so what's the point in trying him? A trial which cannot end in punishment is a pageant, not a trial.
quote:As mph has pointed out elsewhere, though, those in favor of his execution may have something of an obligation to watch it, as those who eat fish have something of an obligation to catch and clean one-- so that you can be aware of the reach of your actions.
I'm not sure that's what I meant, because I'm not sure what you mean.
Nevertheless, I'll cross-post here:
I very well may watch his execution. Not to delight in it, and not to get to see somone killed (once was already enough for that), but because I, as an American and supporter of the invasion of Iraq, am somewhat responsible for his execution. Choosing not to see it may be, for me, trying to avoid the consequences for my actions.
It's like in the beginning of A Game of Thrones where Ned Stark explained that if he condemned a man to death, it was his duty to personally execute him. If he didn't have the stomach to do it personally, he didn't have the moral right to order it done by others.
There are those who say that nobody has any buisness eating meat unless they're willing, at least once, to kill the animal themselves, eating the meat in full awareness of its cost. I think there's some truth to that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I don't think (and correct me if I'm wrong, Jim-Me) that he meant you should be able to stomach it. Rather, if you are in favour of someone's death, you have the responsibility to watch exactly what that means.
True... but in General Sax's defense (wow, did I just write that?) the two are not unrelated.
I just find it interesting that Bob seems to almost be lamenting that Hussein was not extradited to America for trial and Luet is almost complaining that he was. (yes, I'm aware that I'm stretching both of your meanings... and that Luet's "America killed him" could well be an extension of Bob's "America did him an injustice in letting Iraq try him")
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: There are those who say that nobody has any buisness eating meat unless they're willing, at least once, to kill the animal themselves, eating the meat in full awareness of its cost. I think there's some truth to that.
As do I, which is why I pulled that point over. I meant only to give credit for the thought and I apologize for any spin I might have placed on it in the process.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's like in the beginning of A Game of Thrones where Ned Stark explained that if he condemned a man to death, it was his duty to personally execute him. If he didn't have the stomach to do it personally, he didn't have the moral right to order it done by others.
That's what I was trying to get at. Thanks for explaining. Maybe I was tilting at windmills with Sax's post. If I was, I apologise. (I think I'm going to be a spectator until I can get my brain working again.)
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I meant only to give credit for the thought and I apologize for any spin I might have placed on it in the process.
No worries. It's just that I didn't quite understand what you were saying, so I couldn't tell if it was an accurate representation of what I said. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: By the standards of today, there were no sucessful countries in the 19th century.
I think it's rather useless to judge something like "success" on anything other than the aims of entity doing the succeeding. If my goal is to get to California, my movement Eastward is a setback, no matter how well performed or beneficial.
In terms of accomplishing what they wanted to accomplish, there were a number of hugely successful nations in the 19th century.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there any sense here that Saddam was given a fair trial that would, for example, meet a US or Western standard for what it means to have a fair trial.
Leaving aside the issue of US or Western standards, to me a fair trial was one in which an innocent party is able to prove their innocence.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Leaving aside the issue of US or Western standards, to me a fair trial was one in which an innocent party is able to prove their innocence."
Hrm. To me, a fair trial is one in which the accusers have to prove that the person they are accusing has performed the specific act they are being accused of, and the accussee has the opportunity to present the best possible defence against that accusation.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
I didn't ever say I wanted Hussein extradited to the US.
I expected him to get a fair trial. From my understanding of events, that did not happen. The result is a shame for Iraq and their current administrators and advisors. It means that they are still far from the rule of law. It means it's okay to kill another person without due process.
Maybe this is the most lawful trial they've seen in that country for decades, but from an external POV, it was practically a farce.
So...no, you are mistaken, I was not lamenting that Saddam wasn't sent here for trial. I was just pointing out that if we are supposed to be imposing ANYTHING in Iraq, it is respect for the rule of law. And, by that standard, we failed miserably in the most important action to date in our little adventure there.
That's a pretty sad showing, if you ask me.
And for an American to be in any way happy about Saddam's death sentence as a result of that trial says a lot (negative) about our own lack of commitment to the rule of law, IMO.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Leaving aside the issue of US or Western standards, to me a fair trial was one in which an innocent party is able to prove their innocence."
Hrm. To me, a fair trial is one in which the accusers have to prove that the person they are accusing has performed the specific act they are being accused of, and the accussee has the opportunity to present the best possible defence against that accusation.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Proof of innocence is not the standard...at least not as I understand US courts. Maybe someone can explain it more fully, but we don't require proof of innocence. We require proof of guilt,and if that proof is insuffiencient, the person is judged "not guilty."
I understand that the traditions of justice and judgment may be different in other countries, and that the traditions growing out of British Common Law aren't the only ones that work. I think they are probably the best ones on the planet at the moment, but that doesn't mean they are perfect either.
But...really, there are ways to conduct a trial so that at the end of the process, a reasonable person would conclude that the trial was "fair." I don't hear anyone actually coming right out and saying that Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. I hear a lot of fairly trustworthy people saying that the trial was a farce, a circus, a miscarriage of justice, and so on.
Regardless of how much I dislike the man, if we're going to encourage the rule of law, this would've been the time to demonstrate that.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob,I am not privvy to the details of the trial so I haven't commented on it one way or the other... that is to say I have no idea whether he got a fair trial by Western standards. He was bound over to the courts of the sovereign nation of Iraq, and that, I think, was the only way to handle this. Anything else would have made our "hearts and minds" situation there much worse. (edited for much elaboration and again for minor typos)
I *did* realize I was putting words in your mouth and tried to say as much in my post.
PB, my whole point is that 19th century nations were unaware of today's standards for a successful state, so pointing out that they didn't meet them really serves no purpose other than to say, as Chesterton so wonderfully put it, that we prefer Thursday to Tuesday because it is Thursday.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, would you mind naming the fairly trustworthy people saying the trial was a farce and a miscarriage of justice? not at all that I don't trust you-- I just haven't followed the trial at all and I'd just like to know who you mean.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of liberal democracies, it doesn't mean what the American media would have you think it means. It's using the older sense of 'liberal'; not left-leaning, but free. As GS points out, it's perfectly possible for a liberal democracy to be conservative, if that's what the electorate happens to feel like.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, your presentation of the opinions about the trial is fairly one-sided. I've seen quite a few reasonable people who disagree "that the trial was a farce, a circus, a miscarriage of justice, and so on":
quote:The trial faced daunting challenges. The streets of Baghdad have grown more violent. Defense attorneys were targeted outside the courtroom, and judges struggled to maintain order inside. Iraqis had no modern tradition of an independent judiciary, but insisted on holding the trial within their borders.
Despite this, some legal experts say the tribunal managed to conduct a reasonably fair trial. Dozens of witnesses were heard, and more than 1,000 pages of evidence were entered into the record.
"I don't think it was a miscarriage of justice," said Michael Scharf, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school in Cleveland who helped train the judges.
...
Supporters of the tribunal say Saddam and his attorneys were given many opportunities to mount a defense. They alternated between challenging the legitimacy of the court and undermining prosecution attempts to personally link Saddam to the retaliation.
"I am the president of Iraq by the will of Iraqis," Saddam thundered in May when asked to enter a plea.
Prosecutors needed to prove that Saddam personally approved the torture and executions without fair trials or knew about those actions and did nothing to stop them.
"There was no evidence of a direct order" from Saddam to retaliate against the village, said Marieke Wierda of the International Center for Transitional Justice, a New York-based group that helps countries heal by addressing human rights abuses. Nor did the prosecution establish in court that Iraq's system was so repressive that turning the villagers over to the Revolutionary Court was equivalent to a summary execution, she said.
Prosecutors did, however, introduce documents showing Saddam signed execution warrants drafted by the Revolutionary Court against the 148 villagers.
And in March, Saddam admitted he personally approved the razing of orchards. "I signed that decision," he said. "And nobody forced me to sign that decision."
Even though the comments hurt Saddam's case, he probably couldn't prevent himself from blurting it out, Scharf said, because he still sees himself as Iraq's leader. "He just couldn't control himself," Scharf said.
quote:Lawyers and human rights advocates broadly agreed that the Iraqi tribunal's proceedings frequently fell short of international standards for war crimes cases. But even critics of the trial said the five Iraqi judges who heard the case had made a reasonable effort to conduct a fair trial in the face of sustained pressure from Iraqi political leaders for a swift death sentence. American lawyers pointed to substantial evidence offered by the prosecution implicating Saddam in the crimes against humanity with which he was charged.
"Did this meet the standards of international justice?" asked Jonathan Drimmer, who teaches war crimes law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington. "The answer is no. But to look at the ultimate verdict, it certainly is consistent with the evidence presented."
Miranda Sissons, a senior associate at the International Center for Transitional Justice, a group that has been severely critical of some of the trial proceedings, said, "This was not a sham trial," and added, "The judges are doing their best to try this case to an entirely new standard for Iraq."
In a trial that opened Oct. 19, 2005, Saddam was accused along with seven co-defendants in the executions of 148 men and boys in the town of Dujail, 55 kilometers, or 35 miles, north of Baghdad, in 1982. The mass killings came after an apparent assassination attempt against the Iraqi leader.
Not glowing recommendations, mind you, but not universal condemnation, either.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was fast as they could not execute anybody during a holiday and not only that there was a chance that there would be even more delays.
There is also a statue in Iraqi law that forbids the execution of anybody 70 or older. I believe Saddam turns 70 in March or April.
I might watch the execution for many of the same reasons as Porter.
One other reason is that I have advocated the death penalty many times in past places, and I have yet to witness an execution that was not on the movie screen. I think it would be illuminating for me to examine my own feelings as I watch an actual person that is not a stranger to me die.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no justice in life but power. SH used his power in the way he felt fit, which was to murder a lot of people and advance his own interests. Other leaders today are also slaughterers of their own. It seems to be quite the fad.
But either way, does it matter if it is right or wrong? Is it right or is it wrong? According to which philosophy? There are endless shades of gray, and some shades of purple that somehow snuk into the pallete.
What really matters to me is what the effect of this is.
Will his execution lead to positive effects for the US or negative effects?
Anything else is arguing moralites. Still, I do admit to feeling some animalistic pleasure at his death which is, admitedly, animalistic.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for those. I had read some of that and came away reading it as pretty much condemnation. Since every bit of praise is qualified with "under the circumstances" or "for Iraq, today." That's pretty much putting the BEST face on a bad situation.
Added to that are statements from Ramsey Clark, who, while not exactly unbiased (as a member of Saddam's defense team), he's also a former US Attorney General and his opinions aren't to be sneezed at, either.
Then, there's places like Human Rights Watch. Their report after 10 months observation and interviews with key participants is here
It took me about 10 minutes to locate that batch of stuff. I've been seeing this kind of thing all over the place, but I don't really want to mess with looking up duplicate sources for the same set of quotations. I might find go look for more legal opinions out there, but the most favorable ones I've seen read like Dag's links -- not especially glowing praise and a lot of caveats.
The most damning of the reports are pretty awful, IMO.
- Government interference, - paid witnesses - witnesses reading from scripts - denial of the right to confront accusers directly
Just to name a few things.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: Ding-dong the witch is dead!
Think how much money they could have raised raffling off chances to pull the switch or the trigger or whatever. <sigh>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe in the death penalty, I don't support the war in Iraq. And seeing people hanged makes me more than miserable and reminds me of those lynching photos from decades ago. There's no reason for me to watch something like that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was Saddam still an active threat to society? And does his execution change anything? I'm not taking sides(yet), I'd just like to hear some people's answers.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
1) To lower the risk that insurgents would be able to break him out.
2) To beat the deadline of an Islamic Holiday since we have shown such deep understanding and respect for Islamic traditions in all we have done there so far.
3) To give something victorious for President Bush to include in his upcoming "Change of Course in Iraq" speech.
4) To hide it from the Press as other things have been hidden by doing them during a long holiday weekend when fewer people pay attention to the news.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there any evidence that the United States in any way influenced the timing of this execution, as Dan is implying?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He also neglected to include the best reason, which General Sax pointed out-- the quick execution prevents his supporters from coordinating a widespread reaction/protest bombing campaign.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: OK, so I'm taking odds on when the video's going to hit YouTube. Anyone? Anyone?
It was already there before you posted this. I went to see if it was there, but didn't watch it. I'm not sure why.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's an awful lot of commentary about 'barbarity' going on from a lot of people who live in circumstances very similar to mine...that is, totally free of barbarity.
I share the distaste many of you feel for capering over the man's death, or cheering over it, or celebrating it...on the part of people who live in my circumstances, that is.
On the part of the people who actually suffered his barbarity, though...I'm afraid I lack the arrogance necessary to condemn them for it. I really did try and think of a kinder word to describe it, but I just can't. I think there are very few people here who, if they'd lived under Saddam Hussein's cruelty, would have the highblown principles espoused here to be refrain from cheers.
----------
That said, General Sax you jackass, your freedom of speech has not once come under threat in this entire thread. Certainly it hadn't when you made your childish and proclomation on that subject. If you truly have served the US in uniform, you might want to serve it also with the muscle between your ears and educate yourself.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have liked for Saddam to sit through the trials. I have never been a victim of anything major, but I think having an official trial say this man did wrong, he deserves to be punished for what he did to you specifically would have a healing affect.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Since the execution was kind of a surprise event I think the car bombing is more likely linked to the holy day opportunity like so many other attacks. There is not proof of a causal relationship as yet.
It's possible that it's a coincidence Shiite areas were targetted. I'd have to say I doubt the likelihood, however.
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: What really matters to me is what the effect of this is.
Will his execution lead to positive effects for the US or negative effects?
Anything else is arguing moralites. Still, I do admit to feeling some animalistic pleasure at his death which is, admitedly, animalistic.
The degree to which a populace participates in a democracy, or other tasks which serve the national interest, depends significantly on whether members of a populace believe their nation is a just and virtuous one. As does the degree to which a populace rises to defend or uphold that nation from overthrow or conquest, military or otherwise.
These are not illusory matters. Moralities are not trivial.
Too many of the things that make a nation possible are matters of the manifest faith of the nation. If too much of that faith is lost, and people cease to care, the nation is weakened in ways that are every bit as real as a military loss or a financial sanction. Worse, perhaps.
America justifies itself as the model for freedom and democracy in the world. Land of the free, home of the brave. Where all are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When all is said and done, the only justification that can be made for the invasion of Iraq is that we intended to pursue and defend those principles.
If we seem to lose that, we lose more than power. We lose identity. We lose everything.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: "Celebrations going on in Kurdish north, Shiite south, and in Chaldean communities all over the US, most especially in Dearborn probably. "
That's is truely offensive to me, and not just becouse I am religiously, moraly and politicaly oposed to the death penalty. Even were I surporter, I would have to agree with katharina that rejoicing is barbaric.
Couple thoughts in general, after browsing through the thread. First, Prometheus, while personally I'm not rejoicing in the man's death, I can't certainly understand how rational human beings could do that, and not be barbaric. I've talked to a LOT of Chaldeans (who didn't really even feel the sort of punishment the Kurds did), some who still have family there, some who lost family to Saddam, some whose parents fled Iraq to get away from him. They're happy, they're celebrating, and I don't blame them or condemn then. Until you know what it's like to hear that the man who killed your family, or tormented them, or drove you out of your home etc is dead, I don't think laying blanket claims of barbarism is fair at all. I'm guessing here, but I don't think you know what the people who are celebrating are feeling exactly. If Osama died tomorrow, I wouldn't party in the street, but I can't lie, I might have an extra skip in my step, and I'd be happy. I wouldn't be surprised to find a fair amount of Israelis that have a bittersweet smile on their face this weekend. His death reminds everyone of what they lost, but it also satisfies a baser vengeful nature that lives in all of us.
On a separate subject, the execution video. It's not something I'd go looking for, and it's not something I'd be excited to see, but it's something I'd consider watching in an academic fashion if I had some time to kill sometime.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:but it's something I'd consider watching in an academic fashion if I had some time to kill sometime.
Haven't we had enough killing?
Again, it's easy for us to say that on this side of the ocean, we aren't the ones who paid in blood during the 80's and 90's. I don't have an opinion on whether or not Saddam should have been executed. I think he was a terrible guy, I wouldn've been okay with him being jailed for the rest of his life, light though I think that punishment is (toss in making him watch home videos of everyone that he killed and we're closer), but if the people harmed want his head, I think he gave them the right to claim it.
You say "we" in what sense? "We" as in human beings? "We" as in participants in the war on terror? Who is this "we?" If we're talking about Saddam and his crimes, the only people other than him who died are those he ruthlessly killed. My gut feeling is, why is he the only who who gets mercy? Getting a little above that, my feeling is, he didn't do anything to me, give him a life sentence, but first dibs go to the families of those he murdered.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ummm...actually I was making a joke about your reference to "killing time", and not actually trying to add any valid input to this thread.
I guess this is one of those cases where a smilie would've saved some misundertanding. Who is that hated using smilies to indicate he was joking? Tom? You see what happens when you don't use one!!!
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who is that hated using smilies to indicate he was joking? Tom?
More accurately, I liked using smilies to indicate that I was joking, but was eventually talked out of this practice by some other Hatrackers.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
