Gillie on 31/12/2006 at 04:36
I too mingan think your post says it all
I too feel it was wrong. As another human I emphasise with him too.
All the atrocities,his regime has caused for thier own people is maybe just cause in some peoples eyes. It still will change nothing.
Gray on 31/12/2006 at 04:52
On the TV news today, they interviewed Iraqi refugees that fled to this country. Their verdict was unanimous: they were so very happy he was dead. I can understand that.
One woman said that this execution wasn't so much a human rights issue as it was closure for the thousands of victims of his oppression and violations. I can understand that too.
But still, I disagree. Granted, what right do I have, as a priviliged European, largely untouched by all these events, to speak out what Iraq should do with a former Iraqi dictator? Not much.
But, my stance is this: does this execution really help the Iraqi, or cause more problems? My view is that it would have been more beneficial for them, and the stability of the whole region, if all is transgressions were put to light, examined and tried by a court. So far, they only tried a small number of his atrocities. Had all of them come to light, no matter how long the proceedings would take, it would have illuminated the bigger issue of his repeated inhumanity.
And, as executed, there's always a risk of becoming a martyr for his supporters. There are quite a number of them. Those who were priviledged under his regime. His execution may just have been the match that ignited an already loaded powder keg.
But, of couse, I may be wrong. And, in this case, I really hope so.
Pyrian on 31/12/2006 at 05:26
What I want to know is, why do my fellow death-penalty opponents decide to make their point at such an utterly retarded time? Seriously, you could hardly do more to damage the cause than to champion sparing Saddam Hussein.
SD on 31/12/2006 at 05:32
Quote Posted by Gray
Granted, what right do
I have, as a priviliged European, largely untouched by all these events, to speak out what Iraq should do with a former Iraqi dictator? Not much.
I disagree. Saddam was charged with crimes against humanity, which is a crime under international law. He ought to have been tried at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. And had he been captured by any of the allied powers who have some degree of respect for international law (ie anyone other than the Americans), he
would have been tried in an international court. As citizens of the world, his crimes of global significance under international law are as much our business as they are the business of the Iraqis.
Quote:
And, as executed, there's always a risk of becoming a martyr for his supporters. There are quite a number of them. Those who were priviledged under his regime. His execution may just have been the match that ignited an already loaded powder keg.
Now that old chestnut that says you'll make him a martyr... I've never thought it stacks up. You can't not bring people to justice because you fear recriminations. If a person is guilty of a crime, you can't not follow through with the sentence because their supporters threaten to raise merry hell if you do. That sort of cowardice has no place in the justice system.
In any case, things really can't get any worse in Iraq than they are now.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
What I want to know is, why do my fellow death-penalty opponents decide to make their point at such an utterly retarded time? Seriously, you could hardly do more to damage the cause than to champion sparing Saddam Hussein.
On the contrary, this is entirely the correct time when you should be standing against the death penalty. An opponent of the death penalty needs to be clear that capital punishment is wrong, even when the man in question is as guilty and evil as it is humanly possible to be.
demagogue on 31/12/2006 at 05:53
Quote Posted by StD
As citizens of the world, his crimes of global significance under international law are as much our business as they are the business of the Iraqis.
I'm wary of this way of thinking in practice, as much as I could agree in spirit. Sure, it's easy for "us" (by which you mean Western Europe and America; we'd like to think other countries have the capacity to care about "crimes of global significance", but the facts don't support it, and anyway they aren't "us") to *say* we care about bringing justice to crimes-against-humanity level perpetrators, but the people of Iraq have significant special interest sometimes at odds. It's not that we don't have an interest; it's that the interests of different groups pull in different directions, and we need to be sensitive to the bigger picture.
Iraqi's have to rebuild a country in which Bathists, Saddam's party, needs to be integrated, while also avoiding perceptions of impunity. It's not just his "followers" we are talking about; it's an entire political community that can't just be dismissed, particularly in a time of massive sectarian violence. While at the same time, of course no one wants Saddam to go free with impunity.
Too much outside interference, and you get a very narrow focus on "bringing justice to the big criminals" -- what matters to English-speaking, educated, white males 1000 miles away -- with little foresight into the bigger problems of transitional justice and State rebuilding -- what matters to Arabic-speaking, uneducated men, women, and children 100 miles away ... Should Bathists below Saddam get amnesty to re-enter gov't? How far? But then that makes Saddam's execution appear more arbitrary.
Which raises the question: Is the trial and execution of Saddam seen as letigimate across Iraqi society (where perceptions of "outside interference" is an influential factor to legitimacy); does it really demonstrate to Iraqis that it was his *crimes* for which he was executed, as opposed to victor's justice?
And for that matter, what is the real "crime" that he will be perceived to be executed for? Murder of 100 people (note quite the crime against humanity a middle-class European can credibly claim to care more about than the local justice system)? Genocide (the penalty didn't actually cover this, for one reason because the case wasn't as strong as the murder case)? Strong-arm political tactics more generally (which is still going on)? The reason why he was actually caught and tried in the first place: Flirting with WMD? Upsetting the Bush administration? Or what the political opposition wants to really dislike Saddam for, what most of the actual cheering was probably about: not fairly distributing oil wealth? Pulling Iraq into a 10 year deadlock war with Iran? Indefinately detaining his political opposition?
When political sectarianism is the main problem in Iraq right now, perceptions like this matter, and it calls for some sensitivity. My feeling is things actually *can* get worse in Iraq, and we'd do well to focus on the big picture each step of the way.
Edit:
Quote Posted by StD
On the contrary, this is entirely the correct time when you should be standing against the death penalty. An opponent of the death penalty needs to be clear that capital punishment is wrong, even when the man in question is as guilty and evil as it is humanly possible to be.
I can agree with this. I'd think it may be better in the long-run to show opposition to the death penalty in this sort of case than where most of the emphasis is now, which is wrongful executions (the post-execution DNA exonerations). Although the latter have more practical value in the short-run, in the long run the former type of opposition better demonstrate that the opposition to the death penalty is really an ideological one to its core, not just about problems with potential error, racial bias, procedural abuse, etc. It'd be a problem if the short-run view "wins", only to undermine the long-run view in the end.
Aerothorn on 31/12/2006 at 06:21
Quote Posted by Pyrian
What I want to know is, why do my fellow death-penalty opponents decide to make their point at such an utterly retarded time? Seriously, you could hardly do more to damage the cause than to champion sparing Saddam Hussein.
I actually disagree with this, too. Well, sorta. It's not about being opposed to the death penalty in this case (at least, not for me - the issue never really came up). It's about the fact that the trial was a sham, everyone (other than the US government, of course) acknowledged that it was a sham, and yet no one did anything. Iraq is sovereign, so I guess no one could - oh, wait, the US was the one holding him! And were fully complicit!
Ignoring humanitarian reasons, ignoring any feelings whatsoever for what this means for the future of the Iraqi justice system and all that jazz, that scares me personally. If our government is fully willing to support mock-trials that directly result in executions in another country - what's to make me think they wouldn't be happy to pull the same stunt here?
Flawed thinking, I know - yeah, they may LIKE too, but even our deeply flawed legal system has a few minor safeguards against that, I think/hope. Still, yeah, I was more pissed off about the US News Media's complicity in the death (i.e. not calling the US and Iraqi governments out for interfering with the trial and whatnot) than at the death itself.
Then again, I'm half-awake and I just finished watching The Conversation, so my thinking's a tad loopy.
Pyrian on 31/12/2006 at 08:46
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
On the contrary, this is entirely the correct time when you should be standing against the death penalty. An opponent of the death penalty needs to be clear that capital punishment is wrong, even when the man in question is as guilty and evil as it is humanly possible to be.
An inefficient argument. Many won't even agree with it. For that matter, I don't. I have no problem whatsoever with executing the guilty and evil. My problem with the death penalty is that justice systems are not and can never be perfect.
To build a consensus and get something done, it's better to compromise with the people who agree with you for different reasons than to isolate yourself through stubbornness.
Quote:
Although the latter have more practical value in the short-run, in the long run the former type of opposition better demonstrate that the opposition to the death penalty is really an ideological one to its core, not just about problems with potential error, racial bias, procedural abuse, etc.
In the long run, you're just reducing the potential appeal of your argument as well as the immediate appeal. BTW, you're wrong that "the" opposition is ideological in that brand;
your opposition may be, but others are not.
Quote:
If our government is fully willing to support mock-trials that directly result in executions in another country - what's to make me think they wouldn't be happy to pull the same stunt here?
I agree with this, although I'm not sure the death penalty aspect of it is necessary; they've already taken at least one U.S. citizen and tortured him until he was declared unfit to be tried - or to bear witness against his torturers, conveniently.
jay pettitt on 31/12/2006 at 11:00
Nothing that isn't disheartening comes out of Iraq (except the rather jolly/sharp (
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) Baghdad Burning and even that's been mopey of late) - this is no different.
SD on 31/12/2006 at 15:40
Quote Posted by Pyrian
An inefficient argument. Many won't even agree with it. For that matter, I don't. I have no problem whatsoever with executing the guilty and evil. My problem with the death penalty is that justice systems are not and can never be perfect.
Then you're wrong to describe yourself as an opponent of the death penalty.
Fingernail on 31/12/2006 at 15:43
No one has yet pointed out that in the title of this thread, there is only one "d", rather than the more conventional two.
So here am I, pointing it out in the name of truth, justice, and the Oxford comma.
