Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

December 26th, 2006

Tags

,

Comments

47 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Hussein Execution Upheld: 30-day Countdown

An Iraqi appeals court has upheld a ruling that Saddam Hussein should hang for crimes against humanity.

Under the statute governing the Iraqi High Tribunal, the death sentence must be carried out within the next 30 days.

A number of commenters have come out for or against the execution of Hussein over the past two years. Now that the execution appears imminent, while the situation in Iraq grows more chaotic everyday, do you think this bodes ill or well for the suffering country?

Comments to this entry

Dan tdaxp
December 26, 2006
3:51 pm
Woo hoo!

Quite good, they the executino should have been done immediately, by a tribunal composed of SCIRI, Dawa, KDP, and PUK members.

Oh well. Atleast he'll be dead in a month (supposedly).
BesottedTom
December 26, 2006
4:00 pm
This is going to make it an interesting nite where I am once the celebratory gunfire starts. I wonder if it will be bigger than the Iraqi soccer wins at the Asian Games.

I think this may be better for the country in a "now we can move ahead" sort of way. But as far as the bad guys go, they will still be here Saddam or dead Saddam.
Chris
December 26, 2006
4:07 pm
It seems likely that this will propel a spasm of violence from his tribe and his fellow sectarian Arabs. That violence will feed into the continuing cycle of sectarian violence.
Sniper One
December 26, 2006
4:18 pm
It's a good thing. All of the Iraqis who have lost family members to Saddam will finally get some justice.
ElamBend
December 26, 2006
6:57 pm
Surely, some Sunni's will use this as an excuse for increased violence, but I doubt that even the most anti-Shi'ite Sunni Nationalists (let alone the AQs) consider the return of Saddam to power as probable or desirable.

Certainly no reason to post-pone justice. Perhaps they can give him an unmarked grave in the desert like so many of his victims.
Jason W
December 26, 2006
7:10 pm
It is very difficult to predict what the reaction will be of all the parties involved. The opinion I'm most interested in is Saddam Hussein's. How will he respond after he's been executed? Positve, negative or no comment?
mark safranski
December 26, 2006
8:06 pm
It will be a useful lesson - for dictators everywhere.
subadei
December 26, 2006
10:32 pm
_How will he respond after he's been executed? Positve, negative or no comment?_

LOL. My moneys on no comment but with Saddam you never know.
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
December 26, 2006
11:53 pm
My guess is that more people will be pleased than appalled... but it will be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. And with luck it will stall the ongoing trial about the mustard gas attacks - thereby avoiding some embarrassment about who knew what, when"¦ and who provided the raw materials... That should all be pursued quietly, perhaps by a James Bond analogue... (Casino Royale is an excellent movie; I wish it was true...)
rude_brit
December 27, 2006
1:59 am
Mark one for the appalled collumn, though I definitely seem outnumbered! My ignorance stops me from predicting the eventual effects in Iraq; I never was much good at that seeing the future.
J.Kende
December 27, 2006
2:51 pm
The sooner the better.
Sinfjotli
December 27, 2006
6:24 pm
Finally, a bit of certainty to alleviate the tornado of Iraq's turmoil.
They are in dire need of a change bringing catalyst -something more figurative than an increase U.S. troops or a coalition government... it's going to come, for better or worse, and this might be it.
Kevin
December 28, 2006
6:13 am
"It will be a useful lesson "“ for dictators everywhere."

Don't buy WMDs from the US?

:P
Kevin
December 29, 2006
12:07 pm
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier"
-GW Bush
subadei
December 29, 2006
5:02 pm
According to CNN, an Iraqi judge has promised "either today or tomorrow" as a day for Hussiens execution.
Matt
December 29, 2006
7:38 pm
I can't wait to hear Jay Leno's jokes on this. Almost certainly it will be something along the line of something like...... 'some Iraqi's are so upset they blew up their cars.....in other words, just another typical day in Bagdhad'
Me.
December 30, 2006
3:25 am
Done. One murder less.
Dan tdaxp
December 30, 2006
8:42 am
An example; the best form of a lesson.

"The difference between an admonition and an example is that everyone forgets admonitions, but no one forgets examples."
Alex
December 30, 2006
4:56 pm
When will there be a trial to judge the biggest criminal on earth?
GW Bush and Tony the liar should both be sentenced to death by hanging for crime against humanity.
Jesse
December 30, 2006
6:22 pm
Alex are you kidding. They hang this bastard, a monster responsible for the murder of millions (tried for just under 150). Leave it up to a tree hugging, whale saving and baby killing piece of unpatriotic fecal matter like yourself to turn this on to GW.
Kevin
December 31, 2006
2:17 am
"An example; the best form of a lesson."

Don't buy WMD's from the US?
Dan tdaxp
December 31, 2006
4:08 am
Don't buy WMD's from the US?


I was going to say don't get in a protracted struggle with the United States, but I guess accumulating weapons you cannot safely use is a good lesson, too.
Kevin
December 31, 2006
8:10 am
The dollar floats because it is backed by military firepower
Alex
December 31, 2006
9:50 am
Mr GW Bush is personnally responsible for over 100,000 innocent deads in Iraq, don't you think he should be trialed for this crime?
Matt
December 31, 2006
5:32 pm
I knew it wouldn't take long for the Bush bashing / America Bashing / and in general bashing of the entire western civilization. While the US is far from perfect, and a lot goes on behind the scenes and all is not what it seems, at least we know and pursue basic human rights and dignity, and we're not only the first, but usually the only country to roll up our sleeves when the going gets tough and it gets ugly. Saddam Hussein is a product of his own culture and part of the world where tyranny, oppression, barbarism, brutality, and torture are the norm. I mean really, what do you expect from a part of the world where women can't even show their faces, vote, drive cars, and voice their opinions. A part of the world where preschool children are taught to hate the west, and a religion whose book teaches intolerance of other religions.
Matt
December 31, 2006
5:38 pm
oooops, I have to correct myself. I believe women are now being allowed to vote, schools, universites, and hospitals are functioning. All thanks to GW 'crimes'.
Sonagi
December 31, 2006
6:48 pm
Iraqi women gained the right to vote and run for office in 1980, shortly after Saddam made himself president, so GW deserves no credit for women's suffrage. Saddam was a secularist, and Iraq was progressive compared to its neighbors. The combined anarchy and Shiite Islamic influence have confined once-independent women behind veils and inside their homes.
Dan tdaxp
December 31, 2006
7:54 pm
Sonagi,

Very funny comment.

I imagine Hosni Mubarak also deserves credit for the "suffrage" in the Egyptian elections. It's easy to be a liberal democrat when you're assured of a 99% majority every time you run!
Sonagi
December 31, 2006
9:39 pm
Notice that I used the expression "Saddam made himself president." I was simply correcting a factual error that women in pre-occupation Iraq did not have the right to vote.
Dan tdaxp
December 31, 2006
10:49 pm
What a sick definition of voting you must have.
Sonagi
December 31, 2006
11:09 pm
Dan,

Your missing my point. Matt stated under the post-war occupation, women gained the right to vote. That is not correct. It is correct to say that the recent elections were first contested elections in Iraqi history. Gender is irrelevant. During Saddam's rule, neither men nor women enjoyed real suffrage.
Sonagi
December 31, 2006
11:10 pm
typo; should read:

You're missing my point.
Dan tdaxp
December 31, 2006
11:50 pm
During Saddam's rule, neither men nor women enjoyed real suffrage.


I agree. Thus, to avoid dishonesty, don't pretend otherwise.

Matt's correct, as it was after the war that women gained the right to vote. For that matter, men gained the right to vote at the same time. The Iraq War transformed Iraq from an absolutist dictatorship (without elections) to an illiberal democracy (with elections).

Don't seek an asinine cover for appearing clever. It doesn't become you. I hope.
Sonagi
January 1, 2007
12:01 am
I wasn't trying to 'appear clever.' I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Period. Don't read into my words meanings or intentions that aren't there. It doesn't become you.
Alex
January 1, 2007
9:25 am
When I read the reaction on my message, I strongly suggest yhat more americans should travel and visit other countries. It looks to me that the bad influence of the evangelists is terrible and are making people blind to the reality of the world.
The whole world (with some very few exceptions) is condemning USA for the unacceptable agression on Iraq, even the so loved GW Bush is recognizing that his war is a total failure, GI will have to leave Iraq in the same way they done it in Vietnam, is that not a shame?
3000 GI killed, more than 100000 innocent citizen killed, torture by american service men, assasination of civilians by GI etc etc etc.
This is a shame for this big nation and GW, Rumsfeld and others will have to account for that
Dan tdaxp
January 1, 2007
1:22 pm
Alex,

"The whole word" has condemned US actions since at least Kennedy, at that was at a time of very low religiosity.

I also suggest, if your attempt is to change opinion, that you give original reasons to oppose the Iraq War, and not just standard talking-points that have years ago warn out their freshness.
Alex
January 1, 2007
1:56 pm
OK, I do not beleive that there is any god existing, but that is not the problem.
The war USA made to Iraq is a shame, there was NO reason at all except that Iraq has some oil and that the GW and Vice President are very interested in that.
USA is NOT the envoy of god on earth and should better use its energy to help the poor people in its own country.
So I strongly support the "US go home".
Now again travel a bit outside USA to be able to state that nobody anymore support US policy.
subadei
January 1, 2007
2:19 pm
The old "we did it for oil" fascade, eh?
So the second Saddam fell troops sped to the oil fields, secured them and began piping oil back to the US?
Alex
January 1, 2007
2:27 pm
Where do you think iraqui oil is going????
To the wellfare of the iraqui people???????
How is it possible that a well educated nationis beleiving all tese stupidities tols by CNN and other FOX news...
Why is it that the whole world is now considering USA as very dangerous for peace in the world?
Is it religion that is making US citizens so childish???? To beleive everything what GW is saying, if that is the case, then we are turning back from civilization. A good prouve of that is the succes of creationism in the US
Sonagi
January 1, 2007
2:53 pm
Well, why did we invade Iraq and topple Saddam, Sbadei? I ask honestly as an American opposed to the war from the start.
subadei
January 1, 2007
8:18 pm
Alex, I don't know what sources are feeding you this bizarre idea that the US has become some sort of Christo-fascist state. Such reports are very much exaggerated.
As for the "America being dangerous for peace," you can breath a sigh of relief as I don't expect you'll be seeing any bible wielding US marines on your doorstep anytime soon.
As for President Bush, his time at the helm is down to less than two years. Contrary to the idea of some, he is not an oligarch and will be stepping aside for another elected leader in 2008.

Sonagi,
To make a long opinion short, I believe the Iraq invasion was a long term goal that was destroyed by strategic failures and simple incompetence. I think the intent was to overthrow a dictator (whom the majority of his populace hated) and effectively westernize Iraq. Iraq could then serve as a powerful prowestern presence and strategic military point for possible deployment. I think the Bush admin. imagined terrorism as the next cold war and thought that cold war tactics could be applied. I do not think a Bush Cabal awoke one morning and launched a massive campaign to steal Iraqi oil and make Haliburton richer. While these make exciting talking points for Air America and the Democratic underground they're a bit to simplistic to make much sense to me. Certainly oil was a considered factor and the US and it's allies stood to gain some attractive oil deals with the new government. But to assail the war as something so simple as "Blood for Oil" is tiresome and shortsighted IMO.
Sonagi
January 1, 2007
10:58 pm
Subadei,

I agree with some of what you wrote. US policies towards the Middle East rightfully focus on keeping oil supplies available, but no, the US did not invade Iraq in order to take control of its oil fields. The US did seek to topple Saddam, not because of how Iraqis felt about him, but because he made an enemy out of reluctant ally Uncle Sam when he invaded Kuwait.

"Blood for Oil" is not totally off the mark in that if Iraq and Kuwait had none, the US would not be military involved in the region.

I don't think the US wants to, can, or should "Westernize" Iraq; it simply wants a government that does not pose a threat to the United States or its close allies.

The PBS website has loads of interesting materials from Frontline programs about Iraq. I found in this interview with Saddam's biographer a clear and thoughtful analysis of Saddam's rise to power, presidency, wars with Iran and Kuwait, attacks on Israel, changing relationship with the United States, and support/opposition to Saddam in Iraq and across the Arab world.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html
Sonagi
January 1, 2007
11:13 pm
"Interview with Said Aburish":http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html
subadei
January 1, 2007
11:44 pm
Sonagi,

"Blood for oil" in the context you provide is accurate in that the US (and other countries) have spent "blood and treasure" on maintaining stable oil supplies in the middle east.
However the more popular context, as Alex seems to adhere to, is a simplified label with damn near zero critical consideration behind it. It's almost as intellectually blind as the Nazi comparisons tossed around in the more radical liberal forums of political discourse.

I'll certainly have a look at your Frontline link.
Sonagi
January 2, 2007
12:35 am
If you have an iron stomach, you should read the drivel over on the Al-Jazeera message boards.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
January 2, 2007
7:40 am
There is another point about Matt's comment that should be addressed, since the right to vote under a dictator would appear to have been addressed. Matt said "I mean really, what do you expect from a part of the world where women can't even show their faces, vote, drive cars, and voice their opinions." In fact, under the Baathist regime (which was not a democracy) women were able to show their faces and drive cars. An interesting article was published on this matter in the Baltimore Sun on Dec 22: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.iraqiwomen22dec22,1,2115829.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

"Before the U.S. invasion, Iraqi women were highly educated. Their strong and independent women's movement had successfully forced the government to pass the groundbreaking 1959 Family Law Act, which ensured equal rights in matters of personal law. Iraqi women could inherit land and property; they had equal rights to divorce and custody of their children; they were protected from domestic violence within marriage. In other words, they had achieved real gains in the struggle for equality. Iraqi women, like all Iraqis, certainly suffered from political repression and lack of freedom, but the secular - albeit brutal - Baathist regime did not impose tribal and religious fundamentalist laws that are now in effect and are contributing to women being kidnapped, raped and executed. "

So it is not clear whether or not Matt has any awareness of Iraqi society before the Baathist regime was toppled. At least it was not demonstrated in the posting.

Subadei: except the architects of the war in Iraq were planning it before 9/11 and the GWOT (or Long War or whatever it is called now) began. I recall Paul O'Neill speaking about that in 2004.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

Looking back, this is an amusing article (from May 2001), especially the stuff about Chalabi: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm ..

Enjoy!
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
January 2, 2007
7:43 am
Sorry about the links, the formatting of the first two created the error.

Baltimore Sun:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.iraqiwomen22dec22,1,2115829.story?ctrack=1&cset=true ...

Paul O'Neill: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml ...