Saddam Sentenced to Die
Justice – in a way – has been done: Iraq’s brutal former dictator Saddam Hussein has been found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging.
Angry, shaking and defiant, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death this morning by hanging after being found guilty of crimes against humanity.
He shouted: “Allahu Akbar!” (God is Greatest) and “Long live the nation!”, pointing defiantly at the judge.
Looking defiant and bitter as the verdict was delivered, he continued to shout “Long live the people and death to their enemies. Long live the glorious nation, and death to its enemies!”
He had refused to stand for the verdict and had to be lifted to his feet by two court bailiffs.
“Make him stand,” the judge ordered as the former president stayed seated.
Saddam was convicted of ordering the deaths of 148 Shia men and teenage boys in the town of Dujail in 1982.
This man was one of the most brutal dictators in the world during the last few decades. He might shout “long live live the people and death to their enemies. Long live the glorious nation, and death to its enemies”, but if someone never persuit what was in the best interest of the Iraqi people, it was (is) Saddam Hussein. Perhaps, of course, he means with ‘people’ the sunnis’ and with ‘glorious nation’ the sunni triangle but that’s about it.
If there is one person who deserves to die, it is Saddam Hussein.
That being said, I always have some difficulty rejoicing when someone is sentenced to death. Not because I do not believe that he does not deserve it, as I said he does, but because… killing someone in an actual fight or because it is necessary is defendable. Killing someone when that person is in no way able to do more harm (he could be locked up for the rest of his life for instance) is less defendable. The latter is not so much about protecting society, as it is about revenge.
Perhaps the above sounds strange coming from someone who passionately supported the Iraq war, but being true to myself, to my own convictions, is much more important than writing what people want or expect me to write and thus than gaining their approval.
Of course hanging Saddam is defendable, also for other reasons than ‘revenge’ or ‘justice’: one could argue that as long as Saddam would be alive he might make a difference. Perhaps one might argue that by hanging Saddam, his half-brother and his former chief judge in his Revolutionary Court, some Sunni insurgents will (finally) realize that the Saddam era has truly ended and with it their domination of Iraq. Besides that, it might also encourage the Shi’ite and Kurdish population of Iraq: perhaps they might, finally, realize that – indeed – the brutal dictatorship of Saddam has ended and that they must focus on re-building their country. Also one could also argue like Saddam’s lawyer does: that this might spark even more angry violence (watch the entire video, it is a good one, portraying Saddam as the ruthless *censored* he is).
That being said, I wonder whether it will have such a positive impact. If sectarian violence were minimal, this verdict might accomplish a lot in Iraq, but now ordinary Iraqis do not fear Saddam as much anymore as they simply fear the sectarian militias.
I use a lot of words to describe something very simple: I am divided. I am – of course – happy for the Iraqi people, for all his victims that justice has been done: that he will not be able to kill more (innocent) citizens and that he is held accountable for his horrific crimes, but privately I also have my resevervations because I simply find it difficult to rejoice about the coming death of a man (however evil he is) who is already locked up.
Also read:
Hot Air
Pajamas Media
23 Responses to “Saddam Sentenced to Die”
I don’t rejoice but I don’t regret. And I sure will be glad when it’s over.
And just think what could have been in Iraq today. That, to me, is the real story of the Saddam sentencing. Instead of national reconciliation, it’s just another point along the civil war.
He was a brutal dictator in Iraq BECAUSE the US kept him in power. He got his wepaons from us, he had agreemnets with the US Govts.
He was also a non religous Pan Arab leader. What Iraqwill toss up next as a leader will be far worse.
If you think the job of the US is to run around the world installing ‘nice guys’ then you are living in a fantasy world. Conservatives need to look at reality.
He was never as bad as the leaders of Saudi Arabia, where women can’t vote or even drive! Iraq had women in politics.
See, not black and white is it.
So if we are to celebrate this, when do we liberate and invade Saudi Arabia and free its people from the repression of the ‘Royal’ family?
Michael…
Your ME focus on this news is interesting…but what impact will it have on the election?
Yah, I know, this is a US-centric attitude, but I think an important question nonetheless.
Will it cheer the Repub base? Enrage the Dem base against Bush justice? Or nada?
Any thoughts?
You have got to be kidding. To equate, or even give superiority, to suffrage rights over brutal and wanton killing of his own people is beyond moral relativism.
Yes, Saddam was a creature of the US, yes we armed him when he was the enemy of our enemy (and by the way, his assent to power, as with the arming of the Afghan resistance group that became the Talaban, is another legacy of that great humanitarian and world peace activist Jimmy Carter). But to somehow use that as an apology or vindication for what he subsequently became is ridiculous.
And we did NOT ‘keep him in power’. Quite the opposite. We tried to get him out of power once we realized that we had backed a complete sociopath, and ultimately did.
We can argue till the cows come home about how the occupation and attempts to democratize Iraq were handled (and I don’t there asre too many people anymore that think the Bush administration did anything but ‘f’ it up to historic proportions). But only those with BDS or a love of hearing about people being fed live into meat grinders should think that removing him from power was a mistake.
A little bit strongly put Austin, but in general I agree. I do not have a lot of sympathy for the view that removing Saddam from power was in its essence a mistake or the “well there are more dictators in the world”-view. The latter one is – of course – purely a quasi-argument. That there are 10 dictators (just a random number in order to make a case) does not mean that one should not remove 1 out of power. The more logical view would be ‘you have to start somewhere’.
Yes I have some thoughts on that as I have expressed in the comment sections of other posts about the, then, impending, verdict in the Saddam trial. As I see it, it will most likely not make a big difference. The reason is quite simple: is there anybody who did not expect this to happen? Cynical perhaps, but that’s how I see it.
I do think that the Bush administration hoped that it will would help them / the GOP. However, Saddam is now sentenced to death: a good thing to many people, but the sectarian violence iwll not get less. At least not in the short run. Of course the administration could point out that it expects that this will cause a lot of Sunni insurgents to lay down their arms, but who is trusting Bush et al. when they are talking about yet another ‘turning point’?
Will it make a difference these elections? No. Perhaps a very, miniscule one, but nothing significant. Especially not when one takes the military ‘editorials’ into account. Great that Saddam is convicted, but… what about Rumsfeld? What about the military who does not trust Rumsfeld any longer? What about the increasing sectarian violence, what about…?
I, too, find it hard to rejoice at a death sentence, and usually am opposed to it. In this case, I think he gets a more humane death than those he handed out, and I am content. Not rejoicing, although I can see why many would.
I don’t think this will play much domestically other than on the right. For independents this might even be seen as an attempt at an October surprise. As far as Iraq goes I don’t see mush change there either, Saddam dies there is already so much violence that any reaction would be lost in the daily death toll. There might be some celebrations in the Kurdish/Shiite areas, but large crowds attract attention so even there things might be muted. Amazing that after all that has gone on this might be one of the biggest non events in the war.
I agree with Elrod- its great to see a brutal dictator brought to justice-but what remains in his wake is a harsh reminder of our failure to install a stable democracy. It’s a lofty goal—-but seems like its slipping away from us at this point. I am anxiously awaiting Baker’s report to see if he has found any way out of this nightmarish scenario for our military and for the Iraqis.
And all I can say is “Thank God, Saddam will never be able to orchestrate another 9/11 against us.”
Oh, wait…
This was a forgone conclusion. It will make no difference either way.
Good. Let him step off. The only way I’d feel for Saddam would be to feel for his left ear. Same way I would want to ‘feel’ for any murderer. I doubt that his impeding execution has any real political impact in the US election though.
Austin Roth, please, look into the Govt. of Saudi Arabia and tell me you want to live there. That they have elections? No. Do they support ‘terrorism’, yes. Do they offer anything to the people they govern except exploitation? No. Do they allow US miliatary access? yes – they MUSt be ‘good’ guys then right?
So, why would you insult my opinion while offering no ideas, no eidence other then knee-jrk Bush/far right BS?
How can you spererate Saddam from Egypt, Saudi Arabia ETC?
You can’t. The U.S has picked allies based on reaons other then if they are ‘democratic’ and we often support terrorists, as long as they kill ‘the other guy’.
I’d guess you are just confused.
And, please READ history and see who put him into power, and how he stayed. Are you telling me we did not supply him with arms? That we did not give him access to advanced weapons to fight Iran?
How dare you write “And we did NOT ‘keep him in power’. Quite the opposite. We tried to get him out of power once we realized that we had backed a complete sociopath, and ultimately did. ” When you are simply lying? Or at least are ignorant of history.
try reading this – it will help form opinions based in reality:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
Now, you want to talk about the USA helping to fund Al Queda? Plenty of history there. But isn’t it interesting, you build terror organizations to kill the ‘other guy’, then they turn on you. This is as old as ROme my friends.
And Michael van der Galien, I’m not sure what agenda he has, other then self promotion, but if he thinks he is going to help build a mini-USA in Iraq, and make everyon just like us (in this case the USA), he’s just helping himslef to the same crazy cookies as the Bushies.
THE only solution is for the USA to get our troops out of the region until such a time when there is a real war, not one cooked up by bored ivy League failuers, when everyone sacrifices and the world comes together to advance an agenda. Bush and Cheney, no matter how many tax dollars they spend, can not recreate WWII to help their elections. Iraq was noever a threat to us, and if you think 200,000 dead people in Iraw was worth it, I’d say you need to pack up your loved ones and see if when an American bomb rips your kid apart you still think it was worth it.
A little bit strongly put Austin, but in general I agree. I do not have a lot of sympathy for the view that removing Saddam from power was in its essence a mistake or the “well there are more dictators in the world”-view. The latter one is – of course – purely a quasi-argument. That there are 10 dictators (just a random number in order to make a case) does not mean that one should not remove 1 out of power. The more logical view would be ‘you have to start somewhere’.
Wow. I love the fact that you are committing people, soldiers, whomever (but I’d guess not you) to run around the world, taking out ‘dictators’. Is this also a call to invade Egpt? How about China? Hum, seems like world politics is COMPLICTAED and features GREY areas. And demands SUBTLE thinking, and WORKING WITH one another.
But I like the simplicity of thinking that using guns to wipe out, maybe 10, maybe 20, leaders of countries you don’t like will make everything better. Then you can install leaders you like. And I’d vote for you to pick them. Yes, one world Govt. leader should decide who rules what and where. And let’s not forget the power of money and business in this. Perhaps once in a while we can invade a country who is not making it as easy as we wish to -say, take their oil, or use their starving people to make washing machines. ETC. Suddenly you have another factor in deciding who is right and who is wrong. That is, who makes doing business best for us.
What I’m getting at, if indeed irony is something you miss out on (which I’d guess it is judging by your support of the use of the military to solve non military issues) is be careful when and why and who gets to decide unilaterally who gets to run a country.
If Saddam was soooo hated, and sooo despised wouldn’t the people have had a revolution to get rid of him? They tried and failed a few times, but if they had done it, it would have been organic to their culture and the country. I would have supported that. The violence and difficulty that any civil strife that was caused would have come from the people there. Not from an occupying power. Forcing our solution is a failure, was a failure and will always be a failure. Not sure what reality you are seeing. I think you are living in a fantasy world, damn conservatives…always-ignoring facts in favor of idealistic notions. : >
Just one more item, if you look at teh crowds celebrating the death sentence for Saddam, take a look at who is on their banners. If you want a scary, upset feeling, take a look at the Iranian based Shite Clerics who will be running things in Iraq now.
No wonder the US supported the 1963 or 64 (not sure?) revolution that put the bath party in power.
Hum, Iran controlling Iraq. There’s a thought that should have showed up in the mind of someone at the Whitehouse!
gudgup -
We had been trying to remove him since Bush 1. There is your history. Now it is your turn to go read.
I never said Saudi or Egypt or any of the others are great places full of enlightned leadership. What I did say, and still say, is that to claim that Saudi is as bad or worse than Saddam because they suppress women’s rights is moral relativism at its worst.
Saddam was worse. Easy thing to say. I can seperate and distinguish between countries, thear leaders, thier policies, etc., becuase of a abaility to analyze and contrast, as compared to a mindless ‘all bad, so all equal’ mentality you seem to be advocating.
Your opinion that Saudi is worse than Saddam was stupid; that is why I insulted it.
Oh, and you forgot to change sock puppets between your 12:38 post and 12:48 post. That, too, was stupid.
And for the record we did send arms and support to Iraq when they were fighting Iran. But to say we propped the country or Saddam up is unforgivable ignorance. The USSR was pouring aid and arms into the country like crazy and we gave them some small amount to try and wedge ouselves in and offset the influence. Whatever help we may have been was largly insignifigant. Hell France supplied more weapons and Aid than we did. If you were going to give a percentage to it 1% of the weapon transfers were from the US, about the same as Denmark. And yes I can back it up
Gudgup-
I fully support your understanding.
AustinRoth- You have been trying to remove him since Bush 1. But why?
Why don’t you try to remove all the other dictators in the middle east.
Saudi regime is of course no better than Saddam’s, if not worse. They are committing their crimes against humanity in the name of a great religion. Does that make them any better? America seems to support and arm them for whatever reason. Egypt recieves the most aid after Israel. Why? To keep the radicals at bay? Radicalism and Islamic fundametalism got strong and powerful only after people of these countries have exhausted all other options to do away with these brutal systems.
In the eyes of the oppressed peoples of these countries
America become enemy No 1. The regimes of these countries make America believe that Muslim and Arabs hate America for being Anti-Islamic. But the fact, America is being hated by peoples of these countries is for being friendly to these brutal dictators. Iran was a clear example during Shah’s regime. Iran was America’s best friend then in that region.Was not it so?
Man I don’t want to get any more off topic than we’ve already gotten but you people do realalise you’re starting to rant like that crazy guy who insists the moon landing never happened? Throwing in unconnected facts to broaden the topic to make some indirect point. To make outlandish claims and then ignore that they are refuted and make another claim abount a nother fact that still doesn’t prove the point? If everything is as bad as you think you shouldn’t have to go so far afield to make the point. When you reach that far only the “true believers” or the foolish are going to accept it.
Sue -
Well, OK, you, too, are stupid if you believe that.
I truly cannot understand the ignorance and pathalogical moral relativism that says becuase they too are bad, they have to be as bad or worse. I suspect BDS in the end, i.e., Bush hated Saddam, Bush has close ties to Saudi, so Saudi must be worse.
Saudi has an atrocious human and wonen’s right record, absolutley no doubt. They have a police state/monarchial goverenment that is far from enlighted.
But, they don’t put people feet first into meat grinders. They don’t gas entire portions of their population. They don’t wipe entire towns off the map. There are no mass garves of dissenters in Saudi.
Also playing into the Saudi situation is the fact that they don’t have the inbuilt confict religious/tribal nature that Iraq does and that the rulers didn’t come to power in a revolution thus not needing to use the opressive methods that the Baths did to maintain power as a minority in Iraq.This is not indicitive of some moral superiority but Saudi just never got as bad. Move on
AustinRoth-
Well, OK, you, too, are stupid if you believe that.
I don’t mind being called stupid. That is something that a majority of American people ascribe their president with. But I don’t believe him stupid and on the other hand I don’t mind being in league with him, the leader chosen by the most intelligent electorate.
Talking about meat grinders, gassing of people and mass graves you do not find until you are given the chance to investigate independently.You have no idea what is going on behind their iron (sorry, soft) curtains, the so called protection veils. Their society is a very closed one and the rest of the world sees only what the regime wants us to see.
CNN and other news organizations only expose what the regime deems fit, and nothing controversial. If they do otherwise they will be labelled anti-Islamic and thrown out. Being anti-Christian is OK but criticising Islam is a no go area, even for the Western Media.
It is remarkable that Saddam has been sentenced for a crime he committed in 1982, at a time when the USA was more than eager to provide support to Saddam Hussein’s regime and was complicit in some of his crimes. As usual, this fact has not even been mentioned by our amnesiac media. Donald Rumsfeld, the incarnation of this administration’s moral bankruptcy, went to Baghdad shaking hands with Saddam, on December 20, 1983 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/).
At that time, Rumsfeld knew that Saddam was a dangerous dictator (contrary to 2003, when he wasn’t dangerous any more). He knew about the 1982 massacre that has now been recognized as a “crime against humanity”. Donald Rumsfeld knew that Saddam had ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iran in breach of the Geneva conventions (contrary to 2003, when Rumsfeld knew exactly that there were no chemical weapons). And he went to Baghdad in 1983, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, offering him the support of the United States. That’s the story that will be told in the history book.