Who decided to kill Saddam Hussein and why?
Published 1 year, 9 months ago in Making News.Just wondering whether it was necessary and justifiable to take the life of former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. Seems that another dictator, Mr G.Bush Jr, decided that he did not quite like the way Mr Hussein ruled over his country and objected to certain of his practices, so decided to invade the mid-east country and remove its leader, leaving a trail of collateral damage behind.
Essentially, Mr Hussein was arrested, charged, imprisoned, tried and executed all by foreigners. But who were these foreigners and who sanctioned the process? Was it really legal?
There’s little dispute that Mr Hussein must have been a terrible dictator and committed some terrible things, but was his execution really necessary? Could he not have simply been kept in prison for the term of his natural life? Perhaps he could have even been put to some good use and been ordered to do some sort of hard physical or other labour..
It’s a pity that the international community for law and order could not actually just go peacefully into Iraq, knock on Mr Hussein’s door and present him with a summons to appear at court on a certain date or simply arrest him without any difficulties, in a civil manner, whilst Mr Hussein peacefully complies with all orders and requests and accompanies his captors peacefully and quietly.. Just a thought- maybe in a more ideal world.
15 Responses to “Who decided to kill Saddam Hussein and why?”
Leave a Reply
Your reply will not appear on the site until it has been approved
Saddam Hussein was charged, tried and executed by Iraqis. It was Iraqis who wanted the sentence carried out in what might be described as a case of “victims’ justice.”
Despite some lack of decorum associated with the execution of the deposed tyrant and his henchmen, a parallel is probably the execution of SS Kommandant Rudolf Hoss at the scene of his crimes at Auschwitz in 1947.
We might feel some considerable unease at capital punishment, but the shadow of Saddam Hussein’s evil tyranny was such that many Iraqis lived in fear while there was ever even the remotest prospect that Saddam Hussein might return.
An interesting perspective here:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton011107.html
According to the Oxford Dictionary ‘Genocide’ is defined as ‘the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.’ President Hussein committed genocide or murder at will so if you rolled up in a blue Police uniform to his door with your summons or handcuffs he would have put a gun to your head and a bullet through your brain and denied that you were ever seen in his country. He ignored international law and knew that there was an embargo on international assasination by the Americans so even though he still had doubles roaming around all over the place to cause confusion, he felt himself safe enough to keep doing what he was doing. Do you think that people loved him, his tribe many have but everyone else was playing the game and trying to stay alive. This someone who if he did not like the look in your eyes would kill you, without trial without raising a sweat… life was cheap and death swift.
That Criminal and his henchmen was finally captured and trialled by his own countrymen. I agree that death was very harsh result but it was not suprising that it had chosen.
In the chapel of the old Fremantle Prison in WA the Ten comandments are printed in on two large boards for prisoners to ponder and reflect on their ways. The sixth comandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” has been changed to “Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder”. This is so that prison authorities could execute felons and sleep safe in the knowlege that they would still get into Heaven.
So I think that Mr Bush and his collegues are using this same principal to justify their actions. There is “Killing” and then there is “Murder” - I guess it all just comes down to how you word it!
Thanks for your comments Meinrosebud, I agree with you wholeheartedly! Thanks also Hamptonian for your insight, well put.
Before the spelling police catch up with me, I meant principle not principal, commandment not comandment, knowledge not knowlege and colleagues not collegues. Sorry, should have proofed before posting - Reddwarf you have us all terrified!!!
Oh yeah the commandments are printed on, not in on!
I agree that this vicious assassin-turned-dictator, should have faced justice, but I do not believe that justice involves the death penalty.
Civilised and democratic societies should be able to rise above the “eye for an eye” philosophy on justice and prove that they really are civilised. I believe Saddam should have died of old age in a cell that offered him none of life’s pleasures.
The amount of spin in politics that flows on to the media nowadays has you believe that the life of one person is less important than the life of another.
As for the Australian Government, it seems that it is against the death penalty only when it suits…
golden1,
I never posted anything in this posting ‘Who decided to kill Saddam Hussein and why?’ about spelling or grammar. Just because I have noted spelling and grammar in a couple of postings, does this mean I am to be ridiculed for the like of NOOK and be referred to as the Spelling Police?
Having you all terrified? Perhaps that could be positive reinforcement kicking in (Operant Conditioning - Ivan Pavlov and B F Skinner). Maybe it’s working!
Not sure what you are studying Reddwarf, but you should consider Sense of Humour 101 as a minor - You might get a kick out of it!
:)
B)
kissthetide,
apparently reddwarf is a devotee of the religion of psychology check his entries on where do your morals come from. All Nookers have faith in yourself and a strong sense of self esteem defy the spelling police as you would a parking inspector.
What a sensitive soul you are Reddwarf, but in answer to your question, Yes. I took you for a grown up, an intellegent one at that and one who could probably take a little light hearted ribbing. However, you seem to have taken umbrage, so I apologise wholeheartedly and unreservedly, ridicule was certainly not intended. In fact I was having a bit of a laugh at myself for having posted such a terribly spelled comment.
Anyway you really shouldn’t worry about being an officer of the Spelling Police, they are much more highly ranked than the Fashion Police and not nearly so reviled as the Grammar Nazis.
Saddam was tried, convicted, sentenced and executed by the Iraqi judicial system ……Was this the right course of action? we could argue about it until the cows come home .. it would change nothing He lived in an Islamic state and was subject to Islamic laws and yes they are very harsh, and I see in them little provision for mercy.
Apart from his defeat and capture, were the Iraqi courts influenced by western governments or opinion? I do not know!
My opinion, for what it is worth, on the execution of Saddam is that it was a ‘no win’ situation where they were damned if they did execute him and damned if they did not!
If they did not execute him they would have been seen and decried as weak by the insurgents who would have used that decision as a rallying cry!
If they did execute him that would be, and was, decried by the insurgents as an illegal execution….
Was the right decision made? I do not know, I only know that I am very glad that it was not my decision to make.
Should we get out of Iraq ASAP? Yes! Should we get out now? NO -
Whether we like it or not we were part of the ‘coalition of the willing, and as such we, along with all other members of that group of countries, have a responsibility to hand back to the Iraqi people their country in a condition which they can govern, and while these insurgents are killing Iraqi civilians who are simply trying to survive in what is effectively a man made disaster zone the country is un-governable by the Iraqi authorities … How do we resolve this? With great difficulty, and not by running away!
I don’t believe that Saddam Hussein being executed did any good for anyone, except perhaps for the US as it has stopped him giving more details about where he got his guns etc. Study after study has shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent to others to commit the same crime, particularly if you might be considered a ‘martyr’. Also, no matter what happened to Saddam Hussein, the people he killed were not going to be brought back from the dead, so a hanging (complete with verbal flogging beforehand) will not do any one any good, it is not justice, and it will not change the lives of the victims and their families. I agree with Shane that the ‘eye for an eye’ policy never works, ‘an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind’ is the quote I believe. Once one person is killed and someone takes revenge for that, then their side hits back, then the other side hits back, it never stops.
I believe Saddam was a necessary evil, I think he understood that he had to rule his country with an iron fist to prevent it dissolving into Civil War as it has now done. While he was in control there appears to have been a least a reasonable standard of living, hospital, schools etc. Okay he wasn’t “nice” but neither are the U.S how often have they manipulated countries, supplied weapons to very evil people, allowed despots to rule when it suited their own ends. Perhaps it’s naive of me as an outsider to think he should of been left alone, but I wonder how many Iraqis now lament his passing as they watch their country disintegrate into caos.
were was the u.s.a. when all hell broke out in rawanda no were to be seen the war in the middle east will never be at peace for there is to much hate and some one will rise up like saddam again so what do we do the answer is let the iraqis deal with it tell bush to go home for realy he is the problem