Saddam sentenced to death
Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death by hanging after being found guilty of crimes against humanity.
While I’m intellectualy against the death penalty, I’m not going to shed any tears for Saddam. Quite the opposite.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Middle East
November 5th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Good riddance.
He should really be locked away for ever in a cold, dank and lonely prison (ie not a NZ prison) to live out the rest of his days with no hope of ever getting out. That would be worse. Death just seems to honourable for him. His death will see him become immortalised as a martya no doubt.
November 5th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Nah, the death penalty is under rated.
Will Hulun announce an official period of national mourning?
After all, it’s a great opportunity for a significant NZ lefty forelock tug on behalf of the nation.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
I’ll be surprised if he ever meets with the hangman.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
“Visibly trembling, Saddam cried: Long live Iraq. Long live the Iraqi people. God is greater than the occupier.”
Apparently the 3>5000 Kurds , who were murdered with mustard gas by Sadders in Halabja would have experienced almost no trembling as they died.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Oh yeah….allah akbar mateys.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
I can’t say I’m really surprised at this outcome. Which makes me question it.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Fred : Will Hulun announce an official period of national mourning? After all, it’s a great opportunity for a significant NZ lefty forelock tug on behalf of the nation.
What. A. Dick.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
I noticed Saddam was claiming his sentencing was timed to coincide with the U.S. mid-terms. You’ve got to wonder whether someone just likes to give conspiracy theorists something to do. I sense a new one coming along: “Vast government conspiracy to point conspiracy theorists in wrong direction.”
November 5th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Fair question Hemi…it’s almost as serious as Kyoto….you genius you.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
I’m not going to shed any tears for Saddam. Quite the opposite.
So when he is hanged your eyes will start sucking droplets of moisture out of the air? Weird.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:33 am
Agree – do not support the death penalty but would not be upset if I hear sentence has been passed on the morning news.
November 6th, 2006 at 1:00 am
Perhaps he had a deprived childhood…
November 6th, 2006 at 1:04 am
“I’m not going to shed any tears for Saddam. Quite the opposite.”
He’s going to shed tears for you?
November 6th, 2006 at 1:12 am
He never should have been pulled out of that bloody hole. It would have saved us from this bloody circus and craps thats going to follow.
Do they not teach spider hole clearing by grenade any more?
November 6th, 2006 at 2:04 am
“While I’m intellectualy against the death penalty, I’m not going to shed any tears for Saddam.”
Serious this time.
Would you shed tears for all that many people sentenced to death for anything we (NZ) considers serious (i.e. excluding the death penalty under sharia in some jurisdictions and people like Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi)?
Your standard US double homicide, or rapist/murderer? Most of the ‘victims’ of the death penalty – or those whom NZ would execute if we kept or re-introduced the death penalty? You oppose the death penalty, but don’t shed tears for Saddam, or Tookie Williams, or the vast majority of others judicially executed in the states. If people don’t get upset over the application of the death penalty in the extreme cases then opposition to it isn’t going to mean much – the vast majority of people sentenced to death are as unsympathetic as Saddam.
November 6th, 2006 at 5:49 am
I distinguish morally between the state proclaiming a sentence on a private citizen committing crimes vs a sentence on the head of an international organised crime network that commanded an army and security police that demonstrably undertook mass murder.
Saddam’s death is deserved. Anyone who questions his guilt may as well engage in holocaust denial.
November 6th, 2006 at 6:51 am
It’s a bit of show trial isn’t it? I think there is no doubt he murdered many of his people – he was an oppressive violent murderous dictator who deserves the same fate as the Ceaucascus.
But in this case didn’t he just sign death warrants produced by the judicial system? Weren’t all these massacres undertaken by the state? So could you pursue similar prosecutions against Tony Blair or George Bush? Wasn’t there a prima facie case against George Bush senior for war crimes, never pursued?
Hope I’m wrong. Please show that I am.
November 6th, 2006 at 7:08 am
“But in this case didn’t he just sign death warrants produced by the judicial system?”
No. In many cases the evidence showed that he ordered murders personally. No “judicial system” ordered the gassing of Kurds, for example.
“Hope I’m wrong. Please show that I am.”
You are. I did.
November 6th, 2006 at 7:30 am
But Keith, this trial wasn’t about the Kurds. That is a separate matter.
November 6th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Yes, I completely agree with kiwi_donkey. I think it’s outrageous that Saddam is getting the death penalty and George Bush isn’t. In fact, the war on Iraq was illegal. Thank fuck Don Brash didn’t get elected, otherwise he would have sent our troops into Iraq. If Al Gore was elected President there would be no wars in the world.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:04 am
This man had 100% support in the polls for many years. He can’t be killed yet, Labour still have a thing or two to learn from him.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:12 am
“I’m not going to shed any tears for Saddam. Quite the opposite.”
So you are going to suck salty drops of water up through your tear ducts? Each to their own I suppose.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:45 am
I think he should be tortured first. I suggest we send Dear Leader over to Iraq where she can read her latest speech to Saddam, he should look forward to rope after that.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:52 am
“I think he should be tortured first.”
Yea he might finally fess up to where those pesky WMDs went.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Billmon has fun with the story:
November 6th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Mission re-accomplished!
November 6th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Danyl
Good points, just as well he (Saddam) wasn’t in charge of a Labour Govt, he would have simply changed the laws retrospectively to validate his actions, after all I’m sure he thought they were in the best interest of his voting public, who by supporting him so througherly proved he was correct.
The thing about this whole debacle that made me laugh the most was that once he was caught, people from here (little ol Nu Zayland) were suddenly brave enough to go on camera and speak openly about it, for the first time ever. And what did they say…. We think US troops should get out…
Blindly they didn’t even notice that it was the very troops that they were protesting about that gave them their freedom to speak publicly for the first time ever. Go figure.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Yes that is right Burt, no-one ever argued against the war until Saddam was caught and of course without the US invasion of Iraq no-one in NZ had freedom of speech.
May I ask, what colour is the sky on your planet?
November 6th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Not going to happen soon,if at all,Saddam is the “ace in the hole” if the US wants out.
November 6th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
The only reason it wont happen soon is because he will be given the opportunity to appeal the decision.
November 6th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Another turning point, we must have made a crazy assed shape in Iraq with all of these turning points, a dodecahedron at least!
November 6th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Lets not forget the Kurds had their hand in the Turks slaughter of the Armenians. Maybe there’s big circle here? This is a very divided bit of the world and lines on the map drawn by the West won’t help now any more than it did after WW1. Sadly, there’s still lots of blood to be spilt here. Someone will pop up to replace Sadam and it will probably be another friend of the USA (initially at least). It seems better somehow when the locals pick their own dictator rather than have mediocirity thrust upon them. Democracy doesn’t seem a starter with the current boundaries and if we have democracy here why would they want it? Swapping one corruption for another seems a crappy choice.
November 6th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Interesting take from Riverbend
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#116274961239136314
November 6th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
sonic
I think the chap who is being quoted here might have a interesting take on it as well. But I guess if we apply sonic logic he will be wrong because he hasn’t called for GWB to be killed as well.
Stuff
November 6th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
“I’m not going to shed any tears for Saddam. Quite the opposite.
So when he is hanged your eyes will start sucking droplets of moisture out of the air? Weird.”
Thats the funniest thing I’ve read all day.
Thankyou sammy, thankyou
November 6th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Yes, I completely agree with kiwi_donkey. I think it’s outrageous that Saddam is getting the death penalty and George Bush isn’t.
Crikey, dumbass. Talk about living up to your pseudonym. KD was making a rather more subtle point than you might give him credit for.
Hussein used a (no doubt deeply flawed) judicial process in chosing to kill the people of Dujail. So it was judicial murder, rather than just plain old murder (‘though to my mind that doesn’t make it any less serious). Nevertheless, he just followed the outcome produced by his judiciary.
As it turns out, you can level the same charges at other leaders (flawed processes judicial murder). So… that makes those leaders vulnerable too. That’s KD’s point.
Seems a shame that the court went after Hussein on the Dujail issue – there’s plenty of other stuff to get him with.
November 6th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
The sentence seems alien to the man’s culture.Surely a public beheading would be more appropriate. Still nice to know he will be meeting his brother in law on the other side.
November 6th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
There’s been a great deal of celebration in the Shiite communities and a depressing amount of anger from Saddam supporters amongst Sunnis. Her really did set up such a divisive country.
Syria and Hamas aren’t pleased but Iran is. Makes sense.
In the West there’s some desperate clutching at conspiracy theories and the tired accusations of Saddam being supported by the US. That arument might have some merit but since those who put this forward show no concern for those countries, France, Russia, China etc, which actually did support Saddam, then it’s not a good faith argument. Maybe Saddam being a Left-wing dictator has something to do with that.
November 6th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Billmon as Daryl points out is on the money as usual. It is absolutely a vindication of the decision to go to war just like every other turning point we’ve been witness to over the last 3 years. Seems to me that the very defintion of right wing or conservative (or maybe I should be generous and confine it to those that think Dubya is stil in any way credible} is that you are so stupid you have bought into this particular fantasy and are ready to believe it yet again.
We will see after the mid terms whether Americans are as stupid.
November 6th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
What a pathetic cow we have running this country
Defending the rights of a monster like Saddam
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3851989a11,00.html
November 6th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
In the West there’s some desperate clutching at conspiracy theories and the tired accusations of Saddam being supported by the US. Maybe Saddam being a Left-wing dictator has something to do with that.
It’s well documented that the US – along with France, Russia, China, Germany et al – did business with the Hussein regime and that the Reagan government supported his war against Iran. Dismissing matters of historical record as ‘conspiracy theories’ doesn’t do much to advance your argument.
The old ‘why-do-you-complain-about-George W Bush but-remain-silent-about-Ivan-the-Terrible-murdering-his-own-son-gee-you-
must-be-an-apologist-for-Ivan-the-Terrible’ argument.
It’s disingenuous to complain that critics of the war haven’t made an issue about, say, Chinese arms sales to Iraq. For starters, China hasn’t happily done business with Iraq and then demonised it, invaded it and overthrown it’s government – the US has. And even if it had, the Chinese government is not especially receptive to criticism of it’s foreign policy, being a military dictatorship and all. Speaking out against the US, which is still a democracy with an accountable government is a worthwhile endevour. Taking the Chinese government to task – however noble an undertaking – is a waste of time (notice how well that whole ‘Free Tibet’ campaign is going?)
TSTDWR
November 6th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
It’s well documented that the US – along with France, Russia, China, Germany et al – did business with the Hussein regime and that the Reagan government supported his war against Iran. Dismissing matters of historical record as ‘conspiracy theories’ doesn’t do much to advance your argument.
The old ‘why-do-you-complain-about-George W Bush but-remain-silent-about-Ivan-the-Terrible-murdering-his-own-son-gee-you-
must-be-an-apologist-for-Ivan-the-Terrible’ argument.
It’s disingenuous to complain that critics of the war haven’t made an issue about, say, Chinese arms sales to Iraq. For starters, China hasn’t happily done business with Iraq and then demonised it, invaded it and overthrown it’s government – the US has. And even if it had, the Chinese government is not especially receptive to criticism of it’s foreign policy, being a military dictatorship and all. Speaking out against the US, which is still a democracy with an accountable government is a worthwhile endevour. Taking the Chinese government to task – however noble an undertaking – is a waste of time (notice how well that whole ‘Free Tibet’ campaign is going?)
TSTDWR
November 6th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
emmess
“What a pathetic cow we have running this country. Defending the rights of a monster like Saddam”
I agree she is a cow, but each person has their own views on the death penalty. Some would not support it for someone who killed their own children, others would see it imposed on people for what a reasonable person might consider a minor offence.
It’s a rare thing to see her speak on principal, against public opinion, please don’t discourage this behaviour.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Nothing quite as pathetic as Emmess who it would appear is brain dead, unable to distinguish between someone who oposes the death penalty and someone who supports Sadaam.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
The WMD are currently co-located with Elvis, Labour’s integrity and sonic’s brain.
An Iraqi WMD is a 7.62 Tokarev anyway. The MASS graves are big fucking clue there Sherlock.
November 7th, 2006 at 1:46 am
Thisll really stir up those shiites, with any luck theyll finish each other off
November 7th, 2006 at 7:54 am
You sound like a socialist in drag, intellectually
disagreeing with the death sentence, but
agreeing with it on this occasion. Talk about
having a dollar each way. What are you a bearded
sandal wearer? Just like your comments concerning
Trevor Mallard, admiring the larrikin side of
him. The man is an out and out creep. Your
blog to me should be in the bottom ‘left’ blogs
position. You sound like the essential
centrist.
November 7th, 2006 at 10:13 am
It takes a truly ignorant and anti-American fool to claim Saddam, whose military equipment was almost entirely Soviet and French in origin and military infrastructure largely British and German, was “supported” by “Reagan”, as if Saddam’s existence on this Earth was the fault of the US. Especially considering Reagan’s VP later went on to crush the Iraqi military in Kuwait.
November 7th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Antartic lemur must have missed all of the stories about US intel going to Saddam’s armies so they could use the US/UK/German chemical weapons to target Iranian troops.
And of course the free pass Iraq got for blowing up a US warship.
November 7th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Danyl, but the argument goes – the US supported Saddam so now they are wrong to overthrow him. Something like that.
But there is far less criticism of those countries who actually did provide most of the support AND opposed his overthrow.
It’s only the US that comes in for this. No one is saying “look at the French – they supported Saddam AND opposed getting rid of him. Let’s put Chirac in trial” (Chirac afterall considered Saddam a personal friend and sold him the nuclear reactor).
So it seems to me just anti-Americanism.
(The conspircay theory is the one about how the US has supposedly knobbled the Iraqi judges to get the timing of teh verdict right. Some evidence for this would be handy.)
November 7th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Yes Neil, but perhaps France isn’t a democracy, and therefore not worth the trouble of holding it to account?
And (technically), I thought he sold him 2 nuclear reactors…?
November 7th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Let’s see…
In the 1980′s the Reagan administration decided (along with other countries) to enable or at least allow Saddam’s survival. It’s reasons were ones of realpolitik. It was (and is) condemned for this by the Global Left.
In 2003 the Global Left organised large protests throughout the West aimed at stopping the Iraq War that would topple Saddam. Had these arguments won the day it would have enabled Saddam’s survival.
Given that the desired outcome in practice of both efforts was the same, I would be interested in knowing why the latter effort is regarded as morally and ethically superior by it’supporters.?
November 7th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Do you REALLY want to know why going on an anti-war march is different from selling Saddam Hussein attack helicopters and anthrax?
November 7th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
I think it’s a grossly inaccurate comparison and unfairly insinuates that the anti-war movement was “objectively” pro Saddam.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
The decision is a just outcome. The death penalty is most certainly warranted.
To all the idiots trying to compare George Bush with Saddam do some research, then take your feet out of your mouth.
November 9th, 2006 at 7:55 am
Neil and Danyl
First off my apologies for the delayed response. Child and business commitments come first.
I’m interested in the double standards involved.
I doubt many of the protestors were pro-Saddam (exception made for A.N.S.W.E.R. and some of the Islamic groups in the British demos) but I won’t sweat the insinuation since many of those groups have thrown around a lot of nasty innuendo themselves. The insinuation has long been made that the Reagan administration was pro-Saddam (objectively or otherwise), with all the moral baggage such a charge aquires.
At the time I had no problem with people making a moral condemnation of the Reagan administration for the types of support it gave Iraq; after all the implication of those condemning the actions was that they would never support the Saddam regime. But I thought the ‘pro-Saddam’ stuff was just polemics. The Reagan administration provided support not out of any great liking for Saddam (asked his opinion about the Iran-Iraq war Henry Kissinger replyed that it was a shame they could not both lose!) but simply because it had become a real possibility that Iraq would lose and become a Islamic theocracy. I do not recall any claims from them that what they were doing was moral.
That is not the case with anti-war efforts in general. The assumption of moral superiority is always there. It is implicit in the description and often explicitly claimed. But given that, and given their implied moral stance in the late 80’s, how can people have kidded themselves that what they were doing in 2003 was moral when it would, if successful, have enabled the Saddam regime to survive?
The realpolitik crowd made a choice that living with Saddam was better than an Islamic theocracy. The anti-war crowd of 2003 made a choice that living with Saddam was better than waging a war. If the arguments involved are pragmatic then fair enough. The difference is enablement vs. allowance but if there is a moral difference between the two in this case it seems tissue paper thin and insufficient to justify the accompanying outrage. A sin of ommission versus a sin of commission!
Which brings in Danyl’s point, I already know there is a difference between going on an anti-war march and supplying weapons; the difference is the method that enables the regime to survive but I don’t think we should fool ourselves that the former is morally superior to the latter merely because it prevents an attack that would topple the regime while the other enables the regime to actively survive an attack.
Think about it this way – would any of us have protested the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam in 1979, even knowing that the Vietnamese regime had earlier provided (together with the Chinese) weapons, training and other support? My memory is that those of us aware of the situation cheered on the Vietnamese even knowing how morally dubious their polity was.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Madeleine: how do you reconcile your statement with “Thou shalt not kill”?