For many Iraqis, the verdicts represented a moment of triumph and catharsis after decades of suffering under Mr. Hussein's tyrannical rule.
In spite of an intense security clampdown that barred vehicles and pedestrians from the street, public celebration erupted around Iraq. People danced and cheered on the street, sounded car horns and fired guns into the air, a standard gesture of celebration here. Iraqi and American security forces were bracing for a violent reaction among Mr. Hussein's armed supporters, who constitute a significant corps within the Sunni Arab-led insurgency. Iraq's security forces were put on high alert beginning Saturday night and an American fighter plane continuously circled high above the city.
November 5, 2006
"People danced and cheered on the street."
Saddam Hussein receives the death sentence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
I blame Bush....
I agree, gahrie, it is Bush's fault.
Damn the man for sending Saddam to hell where he will no doubt enjoy his many pineapples (Little Nicky reference - watch the movie to understand).
As someone who opposes the death penalty, I find it impossible to care about poor Saddam's fate.
As someone who opposes the death penalty, I'm willing to make this one exception.
Bush lied.
"For many Iraqis, the verdicts represented a moment of triumph and catharsis after decades of suffering under Mr. Hussein's tyrannical rule."
Maybe, but this strikes me as an unduly flippant sentence; and the contrast that the following paragraph provides makes it sound absurd. Furthermore the quality of life of the average Iraqi is arguably no better now than it was under that foul man's rule.
I have no fundamental problem with the death penalty, but I think this execution is a stupid fraud. It accomplishes nothing meaningful and, because it has been characterized as biased and unjust by many in the international community, it may actually serve as a means of further lowering America's status abroad (I don't know if that is actually possible at this point but...)
I'm not talking about the elections here, or domestic politics, or about Justice for Saddam; I simply find it hard believe that this man's death will bring back our lost brothers, sisters, spouses, children, grandchildren, mothers, fathers, or friends. It wil not move us one inch closer to healing Iraq, or to peace in the Middle East, nor will it bring us any closer to the end of the Terror.
Saddam will inevitably find his own way to hell; media coverage of that event, when we have so much more pressing issues to deal with, seems unwarranted.
Kettle:
I have one word for you: justice.
I'm torn. On one hand I no longer support the death penalty b/c I don't trust the state with such power [libertarian?]. I also think life in prison is a harsher punishment [which kinda contradicts my first point].
On the other, I know its dangerous to leave tyrants like Sadam alive. A few French hostages and he's back in business.
I'm certainly not celebrating the death penalty here.
What do you think the alternatives would be for a valid penalty for Saddam? Should he be tried before the ICCJ like Milosevic (what a travesty that one was!!)? Should the American commanders step in on an Iraqi court? After all it was their court, their trial and their decision. Considering what the penalties exacted for fighting off a rapist or being gay are worse than what this psycho maniac is facing.
The fact that this was a fait accompli from the getgo necessarily detracts from any sense that justice was done. That's the problem with it, and it's a problem without a solution.
Man, some of you people would have been tut-tutting after the Nuremberg decisions were handed down had you been around. A fait accompli! Dearie me!
Palladian, you beat me to it.
media coverage of that event, when we have so much more pressing issues to deal with, seems unwarranted.
"Stop reporting on something of global consequence that I perceive to hinder my party politically!"
I'm not opposed to the death penalty, just to meaningless show trials pre-wired to ostentatiously give that result. Such charades don't advance the cause of justice. In this instance we all would have been better off if Saddam had just been uncermoneously and discreetly double-tapped behind the left ear while he was still holed up in that spider hole.
Well yeah. Its obvious that under a Kerry adminstration, Saddam would still be living large. Sanctions would have been lifted and he'd be racing Iran to see who could nuke Tel Aviv first.
Stop reporting on something of global consequence that I perceive to hinder my party politically!
How could someone perceive this to help a US Political Party? Is there anyone in the US who didn't expect the result?
Kettle - I have no fundamental problem with the death penalty, but I think this execution is a stupid fraud. It accomplishes nothing meaningful and, because it has been characterized as biased and unjust by many in the international community, it may actually serve as a means of further lowering America's status abroad ...
It's no stupid fraud, but national justice using existing Iraqi law to condemn Saddam and 3 others for butchering 148 citizens in contravention of Iraq's own laws. This is not "victor's justice". No tribunal of conquering Americans and Brits decided the matter. OF COURSE the Euroweenies are miffed. They have their little ICC and Gaboonian, Cuban and Moldavan judges hired by Belgians and have pushed the idea for the sake of Transnationalism, that "International Law is supreme over national law" even for crimes of a national character. This "international community" is that of the angry Left and Left-minded NGOs that want national sovereignity and national justice systems suborned to their trite little creations.
What they did with Slobbo and a pack of Hutu machete-wielders was not impressive. Better the Iraqis themselves decide than Gaboonians..
I'm not talking about the elections here, or domestic politics, or about Justice for Saddam; I simply find it hard believe that this man's death will bring back our lost brothers, sisters, spouses, children, grandchildren, mothers, fathers, or friends. It wil not move us one inch closer to healing Iraq, or to peace in the Middle East, nor will it bring us any closer to the end of the Terror.
You forgot curing cancer or solving world hunger. Though you did employ the "Lazarus" argument that the particular types of justice you dislike are wrong if they somehow fail to bring victims back to life.
Only Iraqis can "heal Iraq" and it looks like they are hardly inclined to be in a "healing mode". Not enough blood has yet been shed to satisfy tribal honor.
Though, all things considered, including that the Americans did not coercively interrogate Saddam to discover what he knew - it would have saved lives (both Iraqi and American) if we had just shot him on the spot or dropped a grenade into his spider hole. A lesson we should remember with bin Laden before we consider giving him a 100-lawyer defense team and a 3-year long global propaganda platform. Justice in his case and the safety of many people is best served if he is whacked without trial.
How could someone perceive this to help a US Political Party? Is there anyone in the US who didn't expect the result?
Yes. If the Dem party had been in power for the last 6 years, none of this would have happened. Kerry would have "harsh words" for Saddam's wmd program, just like Bill Clinton did.
What. No riots??? No chaos???? I'm a bit dissapointed. You would think something good happened in Iraq.
"If the Dem party had been in power for the last 6 years, none of this would have happened. Kerry would have "harsh words" for Saddam's wmd program, just like Bill Clinton did."
Fenrisulven is full of shit.
a. The question isn't "does Saddam deserve the death penalty?" but rather "is killing Saddam worth more than 3,000 American deaths and more than 10,000 americans wounded? In my opinion the answer to that question is a resounding "No."
b. Even the CIA admits that the war has made America less safe by leading to increased terrorist recruitment.
c. The last time I checked, John Kerry lost an election two years ago, and the war is almost four years old. So you mean that Gore would have had 'hard words' for Saddam, and not Kerry. But of course you can't ACTUALLY mean that, because Gore, if anything, was more of an Iraq hawk than was Bush. But you can be hawkish without starting pointless, aggressive wars.
Am I happy that Saddam received the death penalty? Now that we've arrested him, sure. Would I rather have him be alive and weak and isolated, and see 3,000 more living Americans and 10,000 more healthy Americans? Of course, its not even a close question.
Speaking of our troops, the return home of several thousand soldiers from Colorado last week was delayed for four days so that it could coincide with Vice President Cheney being in town for a campaign visit. True story.
Fen: If the Dem party had been in power for the last 6 years, none of this would have happened. Kerry would have "harsh words" for Saddam's wmd program, just like Bill Clinton did.
Terry: Fenrisulven is full of shit.
You really think Gore or Kerry would have deposed Saddam? Before 9-11, the Left was pushing to lift sanctions on Iraq, because it was hurting "the children".
Gore? What has Gore been focused on since 2000? Global Warming. He thinks climate change is a greater threat than terrorism. So don't even try to play the woulda-shoulda-coulda. If Gore had won we'd still be at the UN asking Saddam to comply with resolution #xx.
And Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act but did nothing to support it. Just cheap talk while kicking the can down the road for the adults to handle.
"even the CIA says.." ? Get real. When was the last time the CIA got anything right? Soviet Union - wrong. Berlin Wall - wrong. Iraqi nuke program prior to Desert Storm - wrong. Maybe if they spent less time trying to sabatoge policies they disagree with, and ya know, actually analyzed intelligence, they'd get one right. And if you're referring to the NIE, you're distorting it.
Only one man has had the guts to make the hard choices, regardless of what it did to his poll numbers or his "legacy". Bottom line - if not for George Bush, Saddam would be racing Iran to see who could nuke Tel Aviv first.
One thing that no attempt has ever been made to measure or assess, mainly because the mainstream media would never discuss it, is the degree to which the opposition to the war by the unhinged left has made our mission more difficult there.
"Stop reporting on something of global consequence that I perceive to hinder my party politically!"
That's just it, I don't agree with the proposal that this was/is an event of global consequence. And I'm not a democrat. Both of those points were pretty clearly stated.
"You forgot curing cancer or solving world hunger. Though you did employ the "Lazarus" argument that the particular types of justice you dislike are wrong if they somehow fail to bring victims back to life."
You're right, that was over the top. But I stand by my central point - that the whole issue of the trial, at this point and in that place, is meaningless. And whether or not other nations are made of weenies or not is decidely beside the point; we still have to deal with them extensively; calling them names and mocking them is probably not the best recipe for maintaining positive bilateral relations.
"Though you did employ the "Lazarus" argument that the particular types of justice you dislike are wrong if they somehow fail to bring victims back to life."
I also did not say that I dislike this form of justice - I said I have no problem with it. I was not arguing against the action, as a means of dealing with Saddam; I was arguing against the perception that it was meaningful.
Furthermore the quality of life of the average Iraqi is arguably no better now than it was under that foul man's rule.
Even if that were true, there is now at least the potential for it to get better. While the Hussein regime was in power, there was no such hope.
Anyway, while I personally was of the opinion that they should have just shot him in the ditch they found him in, I'm glad to see Hussein's life is finally coming to a conclusion.
Furthermore the quality of life of the average Iraqi is arguably no better now than it was under that foul man's rule.
I would add that its NOT arguable. They are free. They have control over their own destiny. Some people are content to be slaves to others, and judge their "quality" of life accordingly.
As the Iraqi's recognize the responsibilities that come with Liberty, their quality of life will improve. Meantime, their mothers/sisters/daughters/wives are not being taken away in the middle of the night to be gang-raped whenever Saddam's SS marches through town, they don't fear being thrown away into a torture cell for expressing disatisfaction with the government, etc.
If the Dem party had been in power for the last 6 years, none of this would have happened.
How does that answer my question? Under which rock would a person have to be living to think that Democrats have been in power for the past 6 years?
The trial result seems to me to have been a foregone conclusion. I'm curious if there's anyone in the USA who thinks otherwise.
"The trial result seems to me to have been a foregone conclusion." Madison Man
The trial result was a foregone conclusion, Saddam on trial instead of on the throne was not a foregone conclusion.
"I would add that it's NOT arguable."
Come now, you go to far! Of COURSE it is arguable; we are talking about the nature of freedom and human happiness, some of the great cumulonimbus clouds of life. I pretty sure the matter has not yet been decided.
NYTimes Article on Lancet Study
Economist Review(may require subscription)
See, there are even Statistics to prove it - if you are so inclined. I agree with revenant though, they probably should have shot him in the ditch where they found him (pure opinion).
Post a Comment