What's wrong with hanging Saddam?
Yesterday Saddam Hussain's automatic appeal against his death sentence was rejected, and it was announced that he has to be hanged within 30 days, and that it could happen much sooner. Today, he was able to release an open letter, insisting that he would "sacrifice" himself and become "a true martyr" and calling on Iraqis to unite against "the enemies of [their] country, the invaders and the Persians". The world reaction includes a number of the usual condemnations of the death penalty, including from the British and Italian governments, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
I can't honestly see why people cannot divorce the problems with having the death penalty in their own countries, for the good reason that it tends to take away not necessarily the worst of the worst but the poorer criminals (or innocent people) who cannot afford to hire good lawyers, from the execution of a war criminal like Saddam Hussain. Saddam is not a poor black man caught with his arm round a white woman in some backwater in Mississippi, nor the learning-disabled tag-along accomplice in a robbery who did not realise that his "big buddy" had a gun and intended to use it. He's a fallen dictator with a long record of tyranny, starting pointless wars, and mass murder. I can see no reason to delay his execution other than that it may result in more details about his rule not coming out.
Comments
I recommend everyone to listen to George Galloway on Talksport radio (10am-1pm at the moment). I learn a lot from listening to him. You can listen online.
He was mentioning how this trial only tried him for the deaths of 150. And if he is killed now, that will suit the americans very well because it will stop him answering to the Hallubja trial where he would have been tried for thousands of deaths. As it was the americans and british that gave him the weapons and supported him at that time. Besides the trial was a farce. He should have been tried in the Hague.
Posted by: anon | December 28, 2006 12:41 AM
Spot on, Yusuf.
I doubt there will be many Iraqi tears shed over his hanging.
It could be argued that the outcome of his trial was a foregone conclusion, but only because he had obviously "done it". He had a fairer trial than a lot of his subjects.
I can't understand why some Muslims (not too many Iraqis) support him. He was a secular dictator.
Posted by: Old Pickler | December 28, 2006 1:22 AM
My only regret is that those who armed and supported him throughout the 70s and 80s aren't on death row.
Posted by: DrM | December 28, 2006 1:24 AM
DrM - you mean the French and the former Soviet Union, who supplied the vast bulk of arms to Saddam during that period?
Posted by: Old Pickler | December 28, 2006 11:15 AM
Too bad they cannot do what the Romans did. If you killed three people they would drown you until you blacked out. They would bring you back, and drown you again.
That way, effectively, you "died" three times. But hey, considering this guy killed thousands, that method would take awhile.
Posted by: Abu Sinan | December 28, 2006 1:45 PM
Asalamu alaykum,
I was thinking the same thing, it does not make sense to even go through the farce of a trial for heads of state, what sentence can there be for crimes on such a grand scale other than death.
Posted by: Muslim Apple | December 28, 2006 6:27 PM
I don't have a problem with Saddam's execution; however, I would have liked to have delayed it, if only to have Saddam testify concerning all his other crimes.
Posted by: JD
|
December 28, 2006 11:53 PM
No pRickler, I meant EVERYBODY, including the Americans and British who armed and aided him during the war against Iran(a war I'm sure you approved of). Not to mention the terrorists who invaded Iraq in 2003. Suffering from selective memory loss are we?
Posted by: DrM | December 29, 2006 8:42 AM
Assalaamu alaikum,
I'm irritated that they did it on the first day of Eid (for the Sunnis in the region anyway). They couldn't have waited?
Posted by: ummabdulla | December 30, 2006 8:30 AM
it seemed a bit swift for my liking. how many secrets has he taken to the grave with him? i am sure he would have had lots to tell if given the chance but the powers that be obviously struck a deal somewhere that that wouldnt be allowed to happen. he must have had some really damaging info on the house of bush. anyway, one down two to go. they are coming after you next george and tony!
Posted by: dave | December 30, 2006 1:31 PM
Insha'Allaah, we will see true justice on Al Yawmul-Qiyaamah regardless of the petty bickering of the dunya.
Posted by: Muhammed Abdul-Malik | January 3, 2007 3:13 AM