Hang Saddam?

[Pure]

whoa, tuo!

let's keep it simple:

Pure said: //you do agree that Pinochet and co. "did personally order and oversee the brutal murder of thousands of people," right?//

Yes or no. Start another thread if you like.
----

there is a not bad little biographical article about "Che" here. of course, he was quite ruthless, and appears to be responsible for 2-500 deaths at the La Cabana prison he directed, Jan-June, 1959, in the early days of Castro's regime; some of those were likely key members of Batista's army or secret police. it's unfortunate, but all real or would be revolutionary leaders have some blood on their hands, and given the conditions of a revolution, it's certain that some killed were merely 'suspects'--labeled 'counterrevolutionaries--and no one took the time to dig deeper.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535

The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand

July 11, 2005

Alvaro Vargas Llosa
The New Republic

 

[Liar]

Considering that Guevara is a much better example for the discussion here, why is he not used instead of Pinochet?

I repeat: Top-of-mind.

It's not about who IS the best candidate to compare with. But what pops up in post people's brain when the word "dictator" is mentioned. Ask the average Joe to mention ten post WWII despots. Pinochet, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Saddam will most probably be on the list, in spite of being very different cats. Che probably not, despite any sins and or virtues that are de facto his.

 

[Tuomas]

I repeat: Top-of-mind.

It's not about who IS the best candidate to compare with. But what pops up in post people's brain when the word "dictator" is mentioned. Ask the average Joe to mention ten post WWII despots. Pinochet, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Saddam will most probably be on the list, in spite of being very different cats. Che probably not, despite any sins and or virtues that are de facto his.

Exactly

 

[Tuomas]

whoa, tuo!

let's keep it simple:

Pure said: //you do agree that Pinochet and co. "did personally order and oversee the brutal murder of thousands of people," right?//

Nope.

And starting another thread would defeat my purpose

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Back on the point of the thread

It appears everyone is looking at the Saddam Execution issue from the POV of the United States. The problem is it's a much bigger issue. You have to look at it from the POV of the Arab World.

a) The U.S. is an unwanted invader.
b) The Iraqi government is a puppet of the Bush Administration.
c) Saddam is being executed for revenge over 9/11.

That's how it will play out on Al Jazzera. I hold to my position that if Saddam is to be executed he must be tried by a real court for real crimes against humanity, not the "quasi-legal" sentence of 148 villagers. And the court, sentence and execution has to be done in a way that does not involve the U.S. in any way, real or imagined.

 

[Pure]

some refs

I'm not sure how the numbers compare--once you're into the few thousands-- but Saddam and Pinochet seem roughly comparable. Admittedly Pinochet is not in the same league as Pol Pot and Stalin, but is no slacker.

One difference is that Pinochet had far more world wide connections (and sponsors) than Saddam, for example, with top Western leaders (Reagan, Thatcher, Kissinger), though Saddam was--while it was useful-- certainly befriended and funded by a number of US leaders. I'm not sure if Saddam, like Pinochet, ever enjoyed tea with Maggie T.

Here are some refs.

There is a good, up to date, bio of Pinochet (referenced) at

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.html

“heroes and killers of the twentieth century” file
site maintained by researcher Bruce Harris
---
An overview from a left wing, but respectable magazine, in late 90s:

http://www.tni.org/pin-docs/kornbluh2.htm

Prisoner Pinochet. The Dictator and the Quest for Justice

Peter Kornbluh
The Nation, 21 December 1998
------
Essay on pinochet from an Uruguayan site:
http://www.henciclopedia.org.uy/autores/CorreaDiaz/Pinochet.htm

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Could he be hoping for a commutation of sentence?

Has he made a deal with the US Forces?


Saddam in court today.

 

[ishtat]

I hold to my position that if Saddam is to be executed he must be tried by a real court for real crimes against humanity, not the "quasi-legal" sentence of 148 villagers. .

Real court for real crimes - what rubbish is that?

I think that this opinion reflects an astonishingly patronising attitude by a "Western Liberal" Would it not be more appropriate for Saddam to have been tried by an Iraqi court, not some pale imitation of a western court. In an Arab context a trial according to Sharia law would possibly have more standing locally? Many people on Lit say we should get out of Iraq. I think we should also get our western thinking and cultural prejudices out too .We are far too ready to tell the Iraqis and other Moslems what to do . They might prefer to sort out their own problems.

 

[Tuomas]

I'm not sure how the numbers compare--once you're into the few thousands-- but Saddam and Pinochet seem roughly comparable. Admittedly Pinochet is not in the same league as Pol Pot and Stalin, but is no slacker.

One difference is that Pinochet had far more world wide connections (and sponsors) than Saddam, for example, with top Western leaders (Reagan, Thatcher, Kissinger), though Saddam was--while it was useful-- certainly befriended and funded by a number of US leaders. I'm not sure if Saddam, like Pinochet, ever enjoyed tea with Maggie T.

Here are some refs.

There is a good, up to date, bio of Pinochet (referenced) at

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.html

“heroes and killers of the twentieth century” file
site maintained by researcher Bruce Harris
---
An overview from a left wing, but respectable magazine, in late 90s:

http://www.tni.org/pin-docs/kornbluh2.htm

Prisoner Pinochet. The Dictator and the Quest for Justice

Peter Kornbluh
The Nation, 21 December 1998
------
Essay on pinochet from an Uruguayan site:
http://www.henciclopedia.org.uy/autores/CorreaDiaz/Pinochet.htm

Without debating the dubious veracity of the sites, what is your point? That because more or less the same amount of people died under their government, they are the same?

Come to think of it, why isn't Clinton being charged with human rights violations, when government agents killed civilians under his 'regime'? William J. Clinton -among other things- directly orderd the bombing of a medicine factory in Sudan, killing at least one personin the attack, and, according to Noam Chomsky, tens of thousands more from lack of adequate medicine.


How come racists like "mahatma" Ghandi, and ruthless assasins like Ernesto Guevara become "heroes"? Or it is just me that thinks the world has gone mad?

 

[Pure]

i'm pleasantly surprised at the number of 'no' votes. i guess-- with a few exceptions to 'prove' the rule-- the AH is an oasis of sanity; prurient and lubricious perhaps, but sane.

i can't blame the shi'ites in Iran (and Iraq) for wanting his blood; he's killed thousands and responsible for tens of thousands.