Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

The Aesthetics of Execution

By Am Johal, AlterNet. Posted January 3, 2007.


Saddam was executed partially for the violation of human rights, but also for not being a doormat to American empire. Was hanging him just?
Advertisement

It is a form of irony, that in his final moments of life, Saddam Hussein, the half-baked 'Butcher of Baghdad,' appeared more dignified than his executioners -- anonymous hooded police officers, randomly chosen, hastily carrying out last minute orders while taunting him. The cell phone video that was shown with a minute of advertising preceding it on Western media websites just added to the impromptu and anti-climactic nature of the event.

They were carrying out the red card that Hussein himself had issued on many others. It was like a World Cup match and the Muslims on the Hajj were infuriated.

But it was an amateur, botched operation which reeked of incompetence on the eve of a Muslim religious holiday. Apparently the execution chamber had a foul odour. Saddam was being sacrificed, partially for the violation of human rights, but also for not being a doormat to American empire.

His last words were, "Down with the traitors, the Americans, the spies and the Persians." When he was handed over to Iraqi guards by U.S. forces, he exchanged curses with them.

In the end, Saddam Hussein was hung in an execution chamber that he had created and often used against his enemies ruthlessly.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Hussein "wore a 1940s-style wool cap, a scarf and a long black coat over a white collared shirt."

After his verdict was read to him, Saddam shouted, "Long live the nation! Long live the people! Long live the Palestinians!" He asked for his copy of the Koran to be given to Bandar, a son of a Revolutionary Court judge who was also about to be executed.

As they began to pray near the gallows, the guards taunted him by calling out the name of radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

As one of the guards became angry, they told Saddam, "You have destroyed us. You have killed us. You have made us live in destitution."

Mr. Hussein was scornful: "I have saved you from destitution and misery and destroyed your enemies, the Persians and Americans."

The guard cursed him. "God damn you."

Mr. Hussein replied back, "God damn you."

The images which emerged looked indistinguishable from Iraqi insurgents beheading foreign journalists on home video cameras.

Were these hundreds of thousands of deaths, these billions of dollars to fight this unnecessary war and the charade of judicial process worth this kind of hastily arranged 6 a.m. photo-op? Was this an act of bravado to the Arab world? Or was it to show the Americans that the new regime meant business? Did the trauma imposed upon Shiites and Kurds mean that they were somehow fit to carry out an impartial justice or was this just sweet revenge? Did international law really prevail? Who was more free and was going to live without coercion now in Iraq?

Slovenian academic Slavoj Zizek brilliantly observed recently that, "'human rights are, as such, a false ideological universality, which masks and legitimizes a concrete politics of Western imperialism, military interventions and neo-colonialism."

Saddam coined phrases like “the mother of all battles” and was relatively harmless with his cache of errant scud missiles during the first Gulf War -- a kind of bumbling foe prone to hyperbole. He was, after all, actively supported by the United States, just like Osama Bin Laden, even though they knew about his human rights violations against Kurds, Shiites and his other political opponents in the 1980's. His picture with Donald Rumsfeld from that era is priceless.

The West grew up with him on their television sets. When he defended himself in court, it was a kind of belated, bloated performance of an amateur theater troupe -- a simulation of legal proceeding and a gesture par excellence of democratic process. His legal training from Cairo was finally being put to use in his own defense. Even former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark raised concerns about the process in Saddam's defense.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: execution, saddam hussein, iraq war

Am Johal is a Vancouver writer who has worked on inner-city issues and just completed a human rights internship in Israel.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not an American one?!?!?!?!
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 3, 2007 3:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this another "progressive" telling ordinary Americans they have no blood on their hands?

For some reason, it's ideologically convenient to maintain this Norman Rockwell image of the average American who wants peace, love and Woodstock, if only their crooked leaders would listen and spoon-feed them the truth.

I yack everytime I read this kind of crap, but as an ordinary American, I'm a glutton for punishment and abuse, so I keep reading and yacking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A REPUBLICRAT War Posted by: rwa
grammar check
Posted by: mazel on Jan 3, 2007 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When referring to death by hanging the past tense is "hanged," not "hung."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: grammar check Posted by: paschn
» RE: Myabe Saddam was hung too Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
a Republican war?
Posted by: mylesh on Jan 3, 2007 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as partisan hacks like Am Johal spew his propaganda drivel then we will always be at war and no one will ever be held responsible.
A 'Republican war'?
It was the Democrats who controlled Congress in 02 who voted NOT to have a debate on the war so they could go ahead with campaigning.
It was the Democrats who helped give Bush the blank check to go to war against the Iraqi people.
It was Clinton and the Democrats who passed the regime change law for Iraq that gave Bush the political justification for the war.
It was Madelaine Albright, and then later Bill Richardson who chose to publicly agree with her on Meet the Press, that half a million 'deaths were worth it' (as a result of the Democratically controlled Congress's sanctions on Iraq throughout the 90's)
It was John Kerry and his Democratic Party who campaigned on how Bush was not fighting the war hard enough. He wanted more troops. Very few Democrats said we shouldn't even be there, and up to now, only one has ever said that the war was illegal to begin with, yet even Cynthia McKinney dared not call Bush a war criminal.
Funny, only a Republican has just recently used the word criminal in his overall assessment of the war.
It is a D and R Congress members who continue to fund this war of aggression against the Iraqi people.

A Republican war?

Let's hope justice American-style befalls not just Bush, Cheney and Company, but Bill, Madelaine, John and their co-horts in war.

MH
Green Party activist

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a Republican war? Posted by: babs
» RE: a Republican war? Posted by: ignition
» RE: a Republican war? Posted by: philobat
It's an Zionist & Konservative Khristian War
Posted by: mat38 on Jan 3, 2007 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer of this article made some excellent points about the manner of execution Saddam was treated to. But towards the ideas got a little immature.
He says Saddam didn't "deserve" to die like this. Saddam deserved that fate as does Bush and Cheney and Perle and From and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and on and on. But, oh yeah, they are the ones with the bigger and better bombs and weapons and WMD's. So Bullshit to that. Watch Clint Eastwood's movie, THE UNFORGIVEN and notice what the ruthless killer William Munny says to Little Bill just before he blasts his face with a bullet. He says to Little Bill, who complained that he didn't "deserve to die like this" this gem, "Deserves got nothin to do with it." Think Bush understands that?
The truth is that the Iraq war is an Evangelical (Crazy) Christian War and a NeoConservative Israeli Zionist War. Those two groups joined together like shit and stink and have made the war for their own selfish agendas. Until people begin to talk about Israel and it's apartheid policies against Palestinians, and The Crazy Christian Taliban's desire to make every American stupid with religion and Jesus cumming we are never going to solve a single problem in the Middle East or here in America.
Gad Save America

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IN SEARCH OF A POLITE EXECUTION
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 3, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Sadam Hussein was not treated like the gentleman he was. I don't know much about hanging so I can't offer much.A few weeks ago, a Florida a man was put to death in a more humane way. Lethal injection. Quick and painless. Except that it took 34 minutes for the man to die. That's not an execution. It's murder. When the means of execution fails the prisoner is free to go. How come there's no investigaton in Florida. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: IN SEARCH OF A POLITE EXECUTION Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: IN SEARCH OF A POLITE EXECUTION Posted by: Conservasaurus
Several good topics here:
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Jan 3, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe someone will pick one and write an article about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Several good topics here: Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
pathetic
Posted by: paschn on Jan 3, 2007 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prescott Bush supports the Nazis,.... makes millions, his spawn for 2 generations Rule the U.S. Sheeple and become more wealthy.

G.W. steals an election, commits treason by lying the sheeple into an illegal invasion for the purpose of making his "base" wealthier, murders 655,000 human beings, holds a sham trial before executing Hussein to keep him quiet about shady little deals and we re-elect him.
Our new "leader" Pelosi "takes impeachment off the table" instead of working to reserve a trap-door next to Hussein for Gee Dubya.
Do ya see a pattern here??
So, hyperbole aside, you morons tell me.
Are "we the sheeple" a bunch of gullible fools or an icon of human rights?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pathetic Posted by: mat38
» RE: pathetic Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: pathetic Posted by: symcokid
Justice for all
Posted by: yesca on Jan 3, 2007 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the most part, crimes that Saddam died for were supported by the U.S.A., who for years supplied him with arms, funds, and intelligence to carry out his brutality. This execution was like a "mob hit". One of the gang got out of line and had to be whacked. Hypocracy rules.
Those in the U.S. who aided and abetted his murderous criminal activities should be held accountable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Justice for all Posted by: sheena2u
Robert Fisk's second take on the convenient removal of an incovenient puppet
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 3, 2007 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"He Takes His Secrets to the Grave. Our Complicity Dies with Him
How the West armed Saddam, fed him intelligence on his 'enemies', equipped him for atrocities - and then made sure he wouldn't squeal
by Robert Fisk

We've shut him up. The moment Saddam's hooded executioner pulled the lever of the trapdoor in Baghdad yesterday morning, Washington's secrets were safe. The shameless, outrageous, covert military support which the United States - and Britain - gave to Saddam for more than a decade remains the one terrible story which our presidents and prime ministers do not want the world to remember. And now Saddam, who knew the full extent of that Western support - given to him while he was perpetrating some of the worst atrocities since the Second World War - is dead.

Gone is the man who personally received the CIA's help in destroying the Iraqi communist party. After Saddam seized power, US intelligence gave his minions the home addresses of communists in Baghdad and other cities in an effort to destroy the Soviet Union's influence in Iraq. Saddam's mukhabarat visited every home, arrested the occupants and their families, and butchered the lot. Public hanging was for plotters; the communists, their wives and children, were given special treatment - extreme torture before execution at Abu Ghraib.

There is growing evidence across the Arab world that Saddam held a series of meetings with senior American officials prior to his invasion of Iran in 1980 - both he and the US administration believed that the Islamic Republic would collapse if Saddam sent his legions across the border - and the Pentagon was instructed to assist Iraq's military machine by providing intelligence on the Iranian order of battle. One frosty day in 1987, not far from Cologne, I met the German arms dealer who initiated those first direct contacts between Washington and Baghdad - at America's request.

"Mr Fisk... at the very beginning of the war, in September of 1980, I was invited to go to the Pentagon," he said. "There I was handed the very latest US satellite photographs of the Iranian front lines. You could see everything on the pictures. There were the Iranian gun emplacements in Abadan and behind Khorramshahr, the lines of trenches on the eastern side of the Karun river, the tank revetments - thousands of them - all the way up the Iranian side of the border towards Kurdistan. No army could want more than this. And I travelled with these maps from Washington by air to Frankfurt and from Frankfurt on Iraqi Airways straight to Baghdad. The Iraqis were very, very grateful!"

I was with Saddam's forward commandos at the time, under Iranian shellfire, noting how the Iraqi forces aligned their artillery positions far back from the battle front with detailed maps of the Iranian lines. Their shelling against Iran outside Basra allowed the first Iraqi tanks to cross the Karun within a week. The commander of that tank unit cheerfully refused to tell me how he had managed to choose the one river crossing undefended by Iranian armour. Two years ago, we met again, in Amman and his junior officers called him "General" - the rank awarded him by Saddam after that tank attack east of Basra, courtesy of Washington's intelligence information.

Iran's official history of the eight-year war with Iraq states that Saddam first used chemical weapons against it on 13 January 1981. AP's correspondent in Baghdad, Mohamed Salaam, was taken to see the scene of an Iraqi military victory east of Basra. "We started counting - we walked miles and miles in this fucking desert, just counting," he said. "We got to 700 and got muddled and had to start counting again ... The Iraqis had used, for the first time, a combination - the nerve gas would paralyse their bodies ... the mustard gas would drown them in their own lungs.."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Execution
Posted by: pfm on Jan 3, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saddam was quickly tried, found guilty and executed as quickly as possible to preclude him "ratting" out "W" and Bush Sr. and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, et. al. .......... the entire affair was nothing more than a Kangaroo court ........ justiec was not served and the guilty remain unpunished

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Party of the guilty Posted by: amacd
Lets see here.... a hastily put together hanging on the eve of a huge....
Posted by: Prophit on Jan 3, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Holy Day in Islam, and why is that? Are we infering incompetence???? AGAIN??? LOL As Roosevelt said, "Nothing in politics is an accident, everything is planned down to the most minute detail". So, what did Saddams hanging hide in the news???

A $2 million dollar settlement between an accused and the FBI who accused him of complicity in the Madrid bombing. Do you realize what this bodes to this administration? If word got out about this, then it would end their attempt to declare Americans enemy combatants and would force them to prosecute them under the law instead of outside the law. If we got wind of that, it would be harder than heck to get us to be afraid.

Then there was the statement by his attorney that AMERICA IS BECOMING A FASCIST STATE. This is a famous attorney, Gerry Spence. Was that it??? Who knows, but everytime Saddam is in the news its covering something up they don't want us to know.

It happened with his capture on Dec 13, 2003 when they passed a modified version of the security enhancement act without fanfare, press, or any signing statements. Nice cover huh?

I still don't think it was saddam anyway. His wife certainly didn't believe it was him. She raised all kinds of heck by saying its not my husband. I should know him, I was married to him for 25 years. So, there you go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beautifully written article
Posted by: sheena2u on Jan 3, 2007 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My sentiments exactly. It is easy to have sympathy for a man who was captured, imprisoned, humiliated, and no longer hurting anyone. He ought to have spent his life in prison. For Saddam to be hastily and crudely rushed to the gallows is extremely sad. The death penalty is barbaric, and this was the worst possible example. It was a mob lynching.

To make matters worse, it was done on the first day of Eid, a Muslim holiday whose theme is the ethics of forgiveness. No one according to Muslim law must be executed during Eid.

America has its fingerprints all over Iraq. We can't have it both ways. Bush can't say its good that Saddam died and two days later say, oh so sorry, we tried so hard to stop this thing.

If we were trying so hard to stop it then why was Bush relaxing quietly, saying nothing, at Crawford Ranch on Saturday? Why in his first statement about the execution did Bush say that we were better off without Saddam, and his killing would have no effect on the war. Then, two days later once leaders over the world have spoken against the killing, Bush's people say that we really didn't want him to be executed, and we were trying so hard to stop Saddam's killing?

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said his trial was very much flawed according to international law. The man did not even get the chance to make an appeal, or defend himself. And, many more will die. Religious leaders called for Saddam to be kept in jail at least six years or until the violence had quieted, so as not to inflame further violence. The Vatican, and leaders worldwide have denounced the execution of Saddam.

Only one thing in this article I would say differently. I do not believe the Republican party is recognizable as the Republican party. Today is overtaken by corporate interests. They say Barry Goldwater would turn over in his grave to see what the party has become. Republicans in office today are mostly a tight-knit group of greedy and corrupt men uninterested in the welfare of the American people.

We are, for better or worse, a two party system. So, I do agree that our best hope for a stronger America is found with the Democrats. The Democratic Party is a party of the people. Our best hope is to support our Democratic representatives, and hold them accountable. They will listen to us, and they will do their best for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Beautifully written article Posted by: starvinmarvy
» Amen Posted by: ketsia
Mockery and Murder and Mayhem
Posted by: philobat on Jan 3, 2007 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am only speaking for myself, when I say that I have been so angry at someone that I thought I could kill them or wanted them dead. Then after a bit of reflection, that single thought made me sick to my stomach. The question I have to world leaders is that I can stop and see my over-reactions and keep my self in a civilized, human check. So why cant they?

Killing is wrong no matter how you rationalize it. There simply is no real need for it in modern society. I am no bleeding heart goody two shoes, but I have been alive long enough to contemplate and understand the complete stupidity, arrogance and infantilistic meaning of "An Eye For An Eye" and this ridiculous supersticious evangelical nonsense supports its theory from the Bible, a book written by men in an effort to control the world and it has remained the primary source for thousands of years.

Being this literary source has caused segragation, slavery, and praise for kings for the slaughter of nations for the Glory of God- has brought nothing else (with the exception of some common sense ie, the ten comandments), we should write a new text book to guide our conscienceness to handle rogue haters toward enlightenment and acceptance.

Saddam and idiotiotic evil hate mongers like him, should be sent to Guantanamo Bay to live out their lives without contact from the outside world. Afterall isn't that what its there for?

America and Britain and most likely other world leaders put Saddam in power, should be held accountable for his reprehensible actions by restoring ownership of Iraq's resources to them, help them to set up a working government, then make a bid to assist in the rebuilding of that country.

But alas, we all know this is the humane, civilized and fair thing to do, however as long as we allow corporate greed, and infantile doctrine to dominate the landscape, humanity will be stained red from the blood of the dollar- "In God We Trust".

We are such a repetitive and boring society and thus far are deserving of the same fate as the dinosaurs and if we do not collectively make a full stop and rethink and act more humanely- we will suffer our own demise-permanetly.

Individually, we can be, and often are, miraculous and enlightened. Now if only we can get our actions together - together!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mockery and Murder and Mayhem Posted by: starvinmarvy
Dem's are the war makers in US History!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Jan 3, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am Johal - do you think that ALL dems are pure and peace loving people... you're dreaming, reading too many far left web sites.

"The last thing the United States needs is more Republicans in government. This was a Republican war, after all -- not an American one. " –----- like there is any difference? and like Korea, WW2 and Vietnam wasn't a democratic war? Does that make it any less of an American war.. The authors statement is a bit narrow minded and shows a lack of understanding of politics in this country.. (poor dems were lied to and knew no better..herded like sheep) .

As far as the death penalty for Saddam.. Well, that was up to Iraq.. I’ve said before I was surprised they didn’t behead him.. maybe they wanted to and the US talked them out of it!

If I were Bush I would have at least made a public appeal to give him life in prison …. imagine the torture the Iraqi’s would put him through.. maybe hanging was better for him!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saddam execution far more sinister
Posted by: MAD on Jan 3, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saddam was not hanged as a means of exacting karmic retribution nor was it done to achieve atonement. His execution was rather intended to incite sedition. Do you think it was an accident that some guard was allowed to film his hanging? Give us an F'ing break. It would not be an altogether difficult process preventing cameras, mobile phones or any other image-capturing device from entering the gallows chamber, yet some lucky soul made it in and was most certainly allowed to continue rolling during the whole ordeal.

Furthermore, it's hardly a coincidence that Shia taunts and slurs where distinctly audible moments before the doors swung wide. This has the intended effect of further heightening tensions between the two sects, and may have acted as the match that finally lit the fuse on the powder keg that is Iraq. As I said yesterday, Washington knows "surging" or swelling troop numbers will not accomplish this mission. BushCo needs someone to do the heavy lifting for them. After the Shi'ites and Sunnis have ended their sectarian orgy of slaughter, Bush can resume his petro-gambit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hung
Posted by: sspsllc on Jan 3, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The play on words was intentional, and ignorant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saddam Executed by America, Not Iraq
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 3, 2007 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prior to execution, Saddam was being held at a U.S. Army installation in Iraq. Additionally, he was captured by the Americans. The Maliki government is largely seen by Iraqi's as an American Puppet government. Most of Iraq is controlled by Sectarian Militias and not the U.S. installed government anyway. Consequently, do you really believe Saddam would be executed without US approval? To believe so bespeaks quite a high degree of naivete, or conservative blindness to the truth. Now, the question is, why the rapid execution of Saddam and what is the Bush/USA plan? We have to assume unfortunately there is a method to this madness, and the unrelenting bloodbath that is coming. Bush could believe total chaos in Iraq would be enough to justify massive USA intervention to the tune of several hundred thousand more troops. Of course, this would require a draft, could this be the plan? Or, it is some kind of strategy to draw in Iran and justify an attack (via Israel and her "bunker busting" nukes)? I don't know, it is hard to say. Finally, it is also possible Saddam had to be silenced quickly and decisively. The former American ally knows a little bit too much dirt. We should remember the story also that Saddam was actually offerred asylum after he was captured, Rumsfeld talked with Saddam directly and told him, if he would "call off the insurgents," the USA would arrange third country asylum, and Saddam is reported to have told Rumsfeld to "go to hell." So much for the USA sense of justice for the "bloody tyrant." Anyway, I don't know what is coming, but I doubt it will be good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gabriele Zamparini, The cat's dream
Posted by: rwa on Jan 3, 2007 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who remembers now how all this started? The rotten lies of Tony Blair’s "45 minutes" and Condoleezza Rice’s "mushroom cloud" have been used to justify the supreme international crime, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a defenseless country that had never attacked the United States, that did not have any weapons of mass destruction, that had no connection to the September 11 attacks... About one million Iraqis have been slaughtered, many more millions displaced and a civil war orchestrated. Finally Saddam Hussein, President of the Republic of Iraq, was assassinated.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called the invasion of Iraq "an illegal act that contravened the UN charter"... Since 20 March 2003 everything happening in and around Iraq is outside international law and the effects of this persisting illegality is the apocalypse before our eyes.

Instead of pointing out the barbarity of the assassination of the legitimate President of the Republic of Iraq and calling for the restoration of international law and the punishment of its perpetrators, the crows add their caw to the lynching mob and discuss the alleged crimes of the victim. ZNet, the fleet admiral of the Imperial antiwar movement's information network, published several pieces on the death of Saddam Hussein. All these pieces had the same point of view. In "TALKING POINTS ON THE EXECUTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN", Phyllis Bennis, one of the most prominent voices of the American anti-war movement, writes:

Some ask "if the trial had been fair, would the results have been different?" The conviction of Saddam Hussein for huge crimes against the Iraqi people would almost certainly be the same.

Bennis’ words ["The conviction of Saddam Hussein for huge crimes against the Iraqi people would almost certainly be the same"] simply repudiate several hundred years of civilization. The use of the word "execution" to describe what really happened, the lynching of the legitimate president of Iraq, together with focusing her essay on the alleged crimes of the victim instead of the 'supreme international crime’ of the aggressors, deliberately blind the readers and move their attention to more comfortable and safe sites.

The readers must remember that even if Saddam Hussein had been judged by an international court and had had a "fair trail", that would have been illegal under international law because that too would have been the result of that supreme international crime, the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign country. Focusing on the victim’s alleged crimes instead of the supreme international crime that our governments have been committing since March 2003 serve to validate that crime, legitimate the quisling Iraqi government and open the door to more invasions and occupations in the future.

Either we respect and uphold international law or we accept to live in a world ruled by violence and the arbitrary act of the powerful but we cannot choose which part of international law we like, according with our political view, mood and whims of the moment. The vague concept of human rights as advocated by discredited organizations such as Human Rights Watch cannot and must not disrupt the UN Charter and the whole building of international law. We have seen the result of this way of thinking and acting.

Empire is an ugly business and human rights have been used as a Trojan horse to sell it. The war of aggression against Iraq has shown very clearly that the Western antiwar movement apparatus has been another Trojan horse where racism, ideologies and self-interest have completely obscured compassion, justice and humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neverwinter
Posted by: Neverwinter on Jan 3, 2007 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It may seem wrong, however, I feel as if Saddam died the way he should have. For all of the evils he had committed simply being "a relic of the past" was not a suitable enough punishment. I'm very strict about the administration of the death penalty and had the decision been to keep him locked away I probably would be happier about the situation. I consider myself a civilised person, however the thoughts that enter my mind when I ponder all of the evils this man has wrought upon civilians who did not pose a direct threat causes me to think in an uncivil manner. Perhaps revenge was not the best answer for Saddam; perhaps the situation could have been handled better but the simple fact is that a man who humiliated his enemies and killed thousands of civilians, many of whom were children, died a humiliating death. Poetry; even though he dies a percived martyr, he is still dead.

For one to attempt to blame a single political party for the problems of this country is irresponsible. After all there were Democrats who voted in favor of this war. The viewpoints expressed by the writer of this article are marginally correct and can logically lead in the direction he's going (the Republicans did set this war up to happen, and kept it going) but to attempt to sway the blame from the American people is wrong. We are citizens of this country. The leadership took advantage of their power and caused our current quagmire. We as a country are responsible for our government's actions whether we like them or not. No amount of blame is going to solve anything. It will only keep the situation from being solved faster. I can only hope that the vipers nest can get it together this year.

-Neverwinter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Neverwinter Posted by: philobat
» RE: Neverwinter Posted by: Neverwinter
» RE: Neverwinter Posted by: philobat
» RE: Neverwinter Posted by: Neverwinter
» RE: Neverwinter Posted by: philobat
» RE: Neverwinter Posted by: Neverwinter
Do you think we should go, or do you think we should stay?
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 3, 2007 1:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two men commit murder. Only one goes to the execution chamber. Is it a travesty? Yes. Does that mean the one did not deserve to die? No.

Just because there is so much wrong with our past support of this dictator and there is so much wrong with the origins and conduct of this war does not mean Saddam did not deserve to die.

Furthermore, it is disingenuous to claim that the action was somehow American-induced. Yes, we went to war and captured him. But even if we had left the country right after the Baathist government toppled in 2003, Saddam still would have been a fugitive by the new government, and probably would have seen the end of a rope much sooner.

Is not the handover of Iraq to the Iraqis exactly what so many Americans are clamoring for? When we leave, there may very well be less democracy, not more, as radical elements take over more of government and affect more of the country's laws.

This execution, though flawed, and the trial, though abbreviated, was conducted by a newly-formed Iraqi government. If it's a crime, it's their crime, and we have to accept that.

But Saddam certainly did deserve to die.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More Naievette Posted by: sofla100
» RE: More Naievette Posted by: YogiBear
A simple comparison
Posted by: Democritus on Jan 3, 2007 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I venture to say that Saddam Hussein showed more guts on the gallows than what a tough-talking bully of a president could ever hope to muster.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A simple comparison Posted by: philobat
One good thing about the video
Posted by: truthteller on Jan 3, 2007 7:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hopefully having the unauthorized video shown will accomplish one thing - stopping conspiracy speculation that Hussein was not executed, but secreted away to appear again elsewhere someday. I remember seeing grainy, phony pictures purporting to show a vegetative JFK in a secret nursing home 20 years after Dallas in some supermarket tabloid. The phone video should at least end any doubt as to his fate.

As to his fate, it's hard to remain an opponent of capital punishment when dealing with a monster like Hussein. I already have called for the summary execution of just about the entire Bush Administration on the South Lawn of the White House at dawn by firing squad for their crimes against the People of the U. S. and Humanity. There's a difference however, between calling for the elimination of a dangerous and ruthless cabal that could re-emerge to power if allowed to escape (Bush & Co), and a pathetic and disgraced dictator like Hussein. Imprison him for life, exile him like Napoleon, but uphold the basic tenets of human rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If it Isn't Fun Don't Do It!
Posted by: b4upoo on Jan 3, 2007 10:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I really feel that absolute life sentences are a better way to go if we must execute anyone Hussein was about as evil as they get. But all of this privacy and hiding of executions takes away from the spirit of the event. A huge public party that goes on for days ending with a jerk being killed in the center of town for all to see gives the public some entertainment value and just might strike fear in some potential criminals. So if we must execute people let's at least have some fun doing it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The chimp is NOT from Texas!!
Posted by: Dboy on Jan 4, 2007 3:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"For the genius from Austin, Texas, this befit his idea of natural justice and complex metaphor: Daddy didn't get him, so I will."

Read his bio, please! "President" Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WTF?
Posted by: chinaskicharles on Jan 4, 2007 11:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When he was handed over to Iraqi guards by U.S. forces, he exchanged curses with them."

I have not read a single account anywhere on the internet that describes this or alludes to it. The only media reports on the internet that describe what happened at the handover are that Hussein was cordial with his American guards as he had been during the whole of his captivity. This would be psychologically "in character" for Hussein, who respected nothing but power. Similar to the Japanese and German behavior after their defeat in WWII. Similar to the behavior of many long-term captives who are not brutalized.

Exchanged curses with his American guards? Yeah, right. Nice try.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gary J Minter
Posted by: garyjminter on Jan 31, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even a murdering tyrant like Saddam Hussein deserved a more dignified trial and execution, especially since the United States of America was his closest ally and biggest supporter when Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured and murdered his Shiite rivals for power, and invaded Iran, in a war which lasted a decade and claimed well over a million lives.

How would American citizens feel if a foreign army invaded the USA, and put George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes, then hanged them in a small, dirty jail cell?

We must learn to extend to others the same treatment we would wish for ourselves. How many "good Christians" have forgotten the Golden Rule, the divine commandment that Jesus of Nazareth said is one of the two greatest laws of God: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..." ?

How quickly we forget!

Gary J. Minter
Beijing, China
http://aidsvillagechina.blog.sohu.com
www.healthchina.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]