Saddam execution could 'defuse violence'

HelterSkelter

Saddam hasn't even been found guilty yet the prime minister of the puppet American Government is already saying that a death penalty will be passed.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/10/19/story281645.html

Iraq’s prime minister says Saddam Hussein’s execution would help undermine the insurgency as the ex-president’s genocide trial heard more testimony today of poison gas attacks on Kurdish villages two decades ago.

Prime minister Nouri Maliki said he hoped the trial would not last long and “shortly a death sentence will be passed against this criminal tyrant, his aides and the criminals who worked with him”.

“Definitely, with his execution, those betting on returning to power under the banner of Saddam and the Baath (Party) will loose,” Maliki said in Najaf.

Saddam and six co-defendants are on trial for their roles in Operation Anfal, a military offensive against the Kurds in 1987-88. The prosecution says some 180,000 Kurds were killed and hundreds of villages destroyed.

Saddam and another defendant are also charged with genocide, but all could face the death penalty if convicted.

Saddam is also awaiting a verdict in a first trial in connection with the deaths of about 148 Shiite villagers in Dujail after an assassination attempt against him in 1982.

A verdict in the Dujail trial is expected next month, and if convicted Saddam could also face death by hanging.

Both trials are being closely watched by the US-backed Iraqi government, which is battling an insurgency in which Saddam’s supporters play a major role.

Saddam’s supporters have long maintained that the trials are unfair and that the government has interfered in the judicial process – charges that Iraq’s new leaders have denied.

During today’s session, two witnesses testified that villagers fled in panic after a chemical weapons attack on northern Iraq in 1988, with some taking refuge in the mountains where Iraqi air force planes bombed them.

“People in my village were screaming that they were contaminated by chemical weapons,” witness Abdullah Saeed, a 79-year-old Kurd, testified.

“We loaded children, women and other persons infected with chemical weapons onto three trucks and fled to another village,” Saeed said, recalling the day in April 1988 when Saddam’s forces bombed two neighbouring villages, causing clouds of smoke to drift toward his home.

A second witness told the court that as he and other villagers fled the chemical cloud into the mountains, Iraqi air force planes bombed them.

“My nephew and another man were killed, and we left their bodies lying in the mountains,” testified Bakir Qader Mohammad, 72.

Saeed said that as the people left their village in a convoy of trucks, Saddam’s forces stopped them and took them to a detention facility, where sanitary conditions were appalling.

Witness Mohammed said the camp where they were ultimately detained in southern Iraq, Nugrat Salman, was so bad that hundreds of people died of malnutrition and diseases such as cholera.

Saeed testified that at least 1,800 of the 7,000 prisoners in Nugrat Salman died of malnutrition.

When the presiding judge questioned his casualty figure, Saeed said: “Before we were released from detention, one of the prisoners managed to steal a prison document, which showed that number.”

Saeed that after water was cut in the detention camp, a group of prisoners approached a prison warden called Hajjaj – whom earlier witnesses have accused of abusing detainees.

“We went to beg Hajjaj to give us water, but he told us: ’we cut the water so that you’d die, you came here to die’.”

The court adjourned until October 30.

Yesterday two other Kurds told the court how they survived massacres conducted after guards took them in trucks into the desert, telling them they were being moved to another detention centre.

One witness said he fell wounded into a ditch full of bodies. He said he climbed out and ran for his life past mounds in the desert, the mass graves of other victims in the offensive.

Both witnesses recalled fellow prisoners reciting the Islamic prayers before death, asking for God’s forgiveness of their sins, as they realised they were going to be shot.

Frederico

Other things which were supposed to diffuse the violence

The capture of Saddam
The attack on Fallujah
The death of Zakawi
The drafting of the constitution/the vote/the new government/the handing over of power


The simplistic rightwing war hawks must be scratching their heads. Just keep spinning the media and keep the public dumb. Out of sight out of mind.

nacho libre

Democracy won't work in a country which has no intellectual tradition of democracy. I know many will be loathe to hear it but Saddam contained the sectarian fault lines that now beset the country. He persecuted salfaists as well as the ****e extremists
I doubt his death will end the bloodletting.

constitutionus

you know in this country that'd be enough to get him off. all a lawyer would have to say is the guy couldnt get a fair trial with comments like that ala mary harney and charles haughey:D

ISAW

Frederico wrote:

Other things which were supposed to diffuse the violence

The capture of Saddam
The attack on Fallujah
The death of Zakawi
The drafting of the constitution/the vote/the new government/the handing over of power


The simplistic rightwing war hawks must be scratching their heads. Just keep spinning the media and keep the public dumb. Out of sight out of mind.

Yeah "WE will prevent violence - by KILLING PEOPLE"

" you are all free now. you are all dead but you are all free"

ISAW

nacho libre wrote:

Democracy won't work in a country which has no intellectual tradition of democracy.

But how about France, Britian, Australia, Japan, the USA, African countries ... they didnt have a tradition of democracy.



I know many will be loathe to hear it but Saddam contained the sectarian fault lines that now beset the country. He persecuted salfaists as well as the ****e extremists
I doubt his death will end the bloodletting.[/QUOTE]



Ha ha! spam filter does not allow shi'ite

Manic Moran

HelterSkelter wrote:

Saddam hasn't even been found guilty yet the prime minister of the puppet American Government is already saying that a death penalty will be passed.

Far be it for me to advise such an evidently unbiased person as yourself, but there's a slight difference between what you said (will be passed), and what the PM said (hopes it will be passed).

The one indicates pre-ordaination or a statement of official policy, and the other is an expression of personal preference or opinion. The two do not necessarily need follow from each other.

I doubt his death will end the bloodletting.

I agree. Even amongst the Ba'athist insurgent groups, the majority of them have disowned Saddam.

However:
If he's found guilty, but not put to death, what would be the result amongst the non-Ba'thists? His death may not improve matters, but might his non-death make matters worse? For all the dislike in the area of foreigners, there is a lot of ill-will to Saddam, and many would like to see him executed, and indeed expect such. Al-Dujayil was in my neck of the woods, strength of feelings towards him would be hard to overstate.

NTM

HelterSkelter

Manic Moran wrote:

Far be it for me to advise such an evidently unbiased person as yourself, but there's a slight difference between what you said (will be passed), and what the PM said (hopes it will be passed).

The one indicates pre-ordaination or a statement of official policy, and the other is an expression of personal preference or opinion. The two do not necessarily need follow from each other.

Actually it is not entirely clear from the way it is reported if he hopes there will be a death sentenance or if there will be one (assuming he is convicted). The part in quotes: “shortly a death sentence will be passed against this criminal tyrant, his aides and the criminals who worked with him”.

In any case a Prime Minister shouldn't be making statements like this before the trial has concluded and a verdict is reached. What's the point in a trial if that is the case?

bonkey

HelterSkelter wrote:

Actually it is not entirely clear from the way it is reported if he hopes there will be a death sentenance or if there will be one (assuming he is convicted).

Unless we assume the reporter was inadvertantly being grammatically incorrect, then it is entirely clear.

He expressed a wish for what he hopes will happen. That part of that wish was repeated verbatim is irrelevant.

The part in quotes: “shortly a death sentence will be passed against this criminal tyrant, his aides and the criminals who worked with him”.

Yes, and it starts with a lower-case letter indicating that its not the start of the sentence. Thus, it should not be taken on its own, but as a part of the full sentence it was offered in.

Again, unless we assume the reporter is using bad grammar, then it was part of the wish he expressed.

In any case a Prime Minister shouldn't be making statements like this before the trial has concluded and a verdict is reached.

Why shouldn't he? He has no say in the case or its adjudication.

What's the point in a trial if that is the case?

To allow the courts reach a lawful verdict. The Prim Minister has no role in that.

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Far be it for me to advise such an evidently unbiased person as yourself, but there's a slight difference between what you said (will be passed), and what the PM said (hopes it will be passed).

an we know that Bush was all in favour of the death penalty and the right for civilians to have assault rifles in their house. hardly de escalation measures are they?

The one indicates pre-ordaination or a statement of official policy, and the other is an expression of personal preference or opinion. The two do not necessarily need follow from each other.

the iraq regime will follow what the US dictate just as they followed what Saddam did. The only test is for the US to withdraw and see if Iraq continues in the way the US dictate.

His death may not improve matters, but might his non-death make matters worse?

this is stretching the limits of logic. It will be obvious WHEN (and I know they have no such law YET and I know it is an aspiration and a "personal prefgerence") WHEN the Iraq government executes Saddam the situation WILL NOT inprove.

But the logical problem is about his non death. you are asking people to believe that an unchosen alternative would have been worse than the chosen one which WILL NOT (my opinion - wait and see) improve things.

Of course it is stretching things but could you entertain the possibility that if the US DID NOT INVADE in the first place then things would have been much better now in Iraq?

For all the dislike in the area of foreigners, there is a lot of ill-will to Saddam, and many would like to see him executed, and indeed expect such.
NTM

If the "area" is the Middle East of course they opposed Saddam . Why

1. Saddam OPPOSED Muslim fundamentalists (for his own selfish reasons they threatned his dictatorship). In spite of US claims to the contrary.

2. Muslim dictatorships like Syria and Saudi arabia (who are BIG pals of the Us administration) did not want a secular leader with military power in the region who would act as he saw fit. wonder what syria think of the Us now?

Akrasia

nacho libre wrote:

Democracy won't work in a country which has no intellectual tradition of democracy. I know many will be loathe to hear it but Saddam contained the sectarian fault lines that now beset the country. He persecuted salfaists as well as the ****e extremists
I doubt his death will end the bloodletting.

Um, The first known formal democracy began in Mesopotamia (Iraq) between 4000 and 2000 BC. They do have an intellectual tradition of democracy. There isn't violence in Iraq because they can't quite grasp the concept of democracy, there is violence because the Americans can't

Sgt. Sensible

ISAW wrote:

the iraq regime will follow what the US dictate just as they followed what Saddam did.

Don't think so. The US stooge parties of Chalabi (crook) and Allawi (ex baathist thug) got wiped out in the election. The two most powerful parties in government appear to be islamic fundamentalists backed by Iran.

Manic Moran

ISAW wrote:

an we know that Bush was all in favour of the death penalty and the right for civilians to have assault rifles in their house. hardly de escalation measures are they?

Depends on your point of view there. I'm one of those chaps who has little issue with the concept of the death penalty in general, or with the concept of Saddam's possible execution in specific. Neither am I adverse to the concept of assault rifles in the house: I have an SLR in my bedroom.

But the logical problem is about his non death. you are asking people to believe that an unchosen alternative would have been worse than the chosen one which WILL NOT (my opinion - wait and see) improve things.

And you are equally asking me to believe that choosing a specific course of action will not make matters worse. Though we are agreed that an execution is not likely to have a particularly postive outcome, it does not necessarily follow that a non-execution is likely to have a positive outcome. The two are unrelated beyond the fact that they can't both happen.

Of course it is stretching things but could you entertain the possibility that if the US DID NOT INVADE in the first place then things would have been much better now in Iraq?

Yes. Yet I can also entertain the possibility that things could be worse outside Iraq if it didn't happen. In any case, what's done is done.

If the "area" is the Middle East of course they opposed Saddam .

Actually, I was referring to Iraqis of all three major ethnicities who all have their reasons to want blood revenge on the guy.

NTM

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

There isn't violence in Iraq because they can't quite grasp the concept of democracy, there is violence because the Americans can't

Third alternative. Everybody might understand the concept of democracy, but some elements might simply not be interested in applying it.

NTM

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Depends on your point of view there. I'm one of those chaps who has little issue with the concept of the death penalty in general, or with the concept of Saddam's possible execution in specific. Neither am I adverse to the concept of assault rifles in the house: I have an SLR in my bedroom.

Let me guess. you dont vote republican do you?

And you are equally asking me to believe that choosing a specific course of action will not make matters worse. Though we are agreed that an execution is not likely to have a particularly postive outcome, it does not necessarily follow that a non-execution is likely to have a positive outcome.

that isnt what you claimed! You claimed how are we to know it wont have a MORE NEGATIVE outcome.
But just taking your example.

Mr A : Lets kill Saddam
Mr B: Lets not kill him

Mr A: If we kill him things might improve.
Mr B: Or things might not improve . In fact I think we both know they wont .

Mr A: Ah but lets suppose we kill him. We then will not be able to know what would have happened if we didnt kill him. Likewise if we dont kill him we wont know how much better things migh have been if we had killed him. So by not killing him we can never find out if things might have improved if we had killed him!

Mr B: I see what you mean. Theres only one way to find out if things will improve we will have to kill him.

Note the fallacy?If P then not Q can t be used as a basis to say not P therefore Q
It si affirming a consequent or denying an antecedent. I always mix them up.

The two are unrelated beyond the fact that they can't both happen.

Killing and not killing are logically related they are logical alternatives.

Yes. Yet I can also entertain the possibility that things could be worse outside Iraq if it didn't happen. In any case, what's done is done.

Now you are switching in mid argument. i asked if things could have been BETTER if the invasion didnt happen. You are also back to the "if we dont execute him" argument with "if we dont invade" in its place.
Yes what is done is done but history should not to re commit acts which result in making the situation worse. the situation is now worse than before the invasion. Executing Saddam is probably going to make things worse. Yet people are gung ho about this also.

Actually, I was referring to Iraqis of all three major ethnicities who all have their reasons to want blood revenge on the guy.

NTM

as did american indians on the whites and Irish on the foreign planters. Now reasons for violence and justification of it ARE two different things!

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Third alternative. Everybody might understand the concept of democracy, but some elements might simply not be interested in applying it.

NTM

Hmmm interesting

Record of Iraq: Cradle of civilisation, Hanging Gardens, Literate when europe was in the "dark ages"

Record of US
http://pd.cpim.org/2001/oct14/2001_oct14_us_terror.htm

just in case you dis that source for being commie :
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Manic Moran

ISAW wrote:

Let me guess. you dont vote republican do you?

Not usually, no. Try again. (Though admittedly I will be voting for Arnie (Republican) in the state governor's election, it's more an exception for me. But heck, even the San Francisco Chronicle has thrown in its support for Arnie)

If P then not Q can t be used as a basis to say not P therefore Q

No, I agree. Evidently I wasn't making myself entirely clear. Glad to see we both agree on the fact that whether or not things get better if he is executed has no bearing as to whether or not things get better, worse, or stay the same if he is not executed.

Killing and not killing are logically related they are logical alternatives.

The alternatives are related, yes. The possible results to each alternative are not.

Now you are switching in mid argument. i asked if things could have been BETTER if the invasion didnt happen.

I'm obviously being slow tonight. How did I fail to respond to the question? Would Iraq have been better if the invasion didn't happen: Possibly yes. Would the greater world in general have been better off, it's possible no.

the situation is now worse than before the invasion.

In terms of outright violence in Iraq, yes.

Executing Saddam is probably going to make things worse.

I do not agree with that assessment. I do agree with the assessment that it will probably not make matters better. Similarly, we appear to disagree on the assessment that not executing him will make matters worse.

as did american indians on the whites and Irish on the foreign planters. Now reasons for violence and justification of it ARE two different things!

You've lost me. Bear with me, it's been a long week and a half for me.

Record of Iraq: Cradle of civilisation, Hanging Gardens, Literate when europe was in the "dark ages"

Record of US

And with respect to the current success or otherwise of something approximating democracy in Iraq, your point is?

NTM

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Not usually, no. Try again. (Though admittedly I will be voting for Arnie (Republican) in the state governor's election, it's more an exception for me. But heck, even the San Francisco Chronicle has thrown in its support for Arnie)

that does not count. I note Arnie is openly distancing himself from the bush administration.

and with the "make up morality as you go along" and false trend following looney liberals in California (IMHO) I would possibly vote Republican there!

You've lost me. Bear with me, it's been a long week and a half for me.

Reasons for violence and justification for violence are continually mixed up in N Ireland.

And with respect to the current success or otherwise of something approximating democracy in Iraq, your point is?

NTM

i hope that Iraq does get some form of democracy. I don;'t think the Us helped at all. In fact they caused most of the problems.

I didnt support Saddam when the US did. Ironically I supported the First (well Iran/Iraq was the first but I mean the Kewait one ) Gulf War because:

1. A soverign territory (and a dictatorship) Kewait was invaded.
2. It was multinational

The current occupation is 95 percent US 4 per cent UK and one percent from 20 other countries many of which are leaving. the US/Iraqi authorities is awarding the contracts to "friends" of the US. Muslim fundies have never been better. 28,000 young americans are killed or wounded 9 wait and see who looks after them). Possibly over half a million Iraqis are dead. Millions are in destitution. Much worse has happened elsewhere and the US are so overdrawn in Iraq and Pipelinestan they have nothing to spare (except in the chagos Islands maybe )

I didnt support The invasion of Iraq because after Afghanistan I suspected Us motives and I saw no evidence for their reasons to invade. I still dont!

magpie

This is nothing new. Nuremburg anyone?

nacho libre

Akrasia wrote:

Um, The first known formal democracy began in Mesopotamia (Iraq) between 4000 and 2000 BC. They do have an intellectual tradition of democracy. There isn't violence in Iraq because they can't quite grasp the concept of democracy, there is violence because the Americans can't

yes and i maybe descendant from indo-europeans?

the point is there has been no democratic institutions in Iraq over the last fifty years. So it was inevitable after saddam was removed... there would be a power vaccum and the tension between the different sects would come to the fore- granted this sectarian chasm has been aided by foreign jihadists.

I was against this war as much as anyone but i think America leaving now would risk things getting even worse(can they get any worse you say). I think if America were to leave now the Kurds could be dragged into this along with the Iranians and Turks.

I presume your thinking would be for America to leave for iraq to stabilise.

AbusesToilets

Whether you view it as helpful or not makes little difference to the reality that most Iraqis would be happy to see Saddam dead.It's pretty rare for an overthrown dictator not to be executed.Milosevic being the only recent one that comes to mind.
Personally i think it would benefit the Iraqi government to have Saddam executed,as he would no longer be able to cast doubt on the legitimacy of their position and it might save the lives of a few of the family members of those involved with his prosecution.

Sgt. Sensible

AbusesToilets wrote:

It's pretty rare for an overthrown dictator not to be executed.Milosevic being the only recent one that comes to mind.

Milosevic was not a dictator.

Memnoch

AbusesToilets wrote:

Whether you view it as helpful or not makes little difference to the reality that most Iraqis would be happy to see Saddam dead.It's pretty rare for an overthrown dictator not to be executed.Milosevic being the only recent one that comes to mind.
Personally i think it would benefit the Iraqi government to have Saddam executed,as he would no longer be able to cast doubt on the legitimacy of their position and it might save the lives of a few of the family members of those involved with his prosecution.

saddam or not the position of the iraqi puppet government is not legitimate other than by force of power.

AbusesToilets

By Sgt. Sensible
Milosevic was not a dictator

Yeah sure he wasn't,just like Hitler was a democratically elected leader.If it makes it easier i'll say Tyrant.

ByMemnoch
Saddam or not the position of the iraqi puppet government is not legitimate other than by force of power.

Only if you overlook the internationally recognised government,UN observed representitive elections etc

SkepticOne

AbusesToilets wrote:

Whether you view it as helpful or not makes little difference to the reality that most Iraqis would be happy to see Saddam dead.It's pretty rare for an overthrown dictator not to be executed.Milosevic being the only recent one that comes to mind.

Hmmm. Most of the ex-dictators of Eastern Europe weren't excuted, Ceausescu being a notable exception.

In other parts of the world you have the likes of Idi Amin still alive and well. Most seem to either escape or negotiate some form of exile.

This, of course, does not mean that Saddam should not hang.

pH

And if Saddam was innocent he'd be allowed walk out of the front door or the court?

It's a show trial leading up to a show execution, the US, British and the puppet regime just wouldn't tolerate anything but a guilty verdict and we know it, a not-guilty verdict is unthinkable.

It's a farce which will lead to yet another death, making that roughly 650,001 since this all began.

Now here's some Googling for you, what was Saddam's annual death toll while he was in power, how many people were murdered/executed on an annual basis by the Ba'ath government?

Dundalk Daily

The death penalty should not be applied here it would make a martyr of him in the arab world and make a bad situation even worse. That said I think Bush has more blood on his hands than anyone else involved.,