Hang Saddam?

[Tuomas]

Tuomas, i don't think either Jenny or me were comparing Pinochet and Saddam at the level of the crimes they committed. For my part, I was simply trying to draw analogies between trial's of overthrown leaders, not their sins.

Well, if you think the "trial" of Saddam was a political farce -like I do- then I would agree.

 

[neonlyte]

The Pinochet Case was handled somewhat differently. To draw a paralles between the actions of Pinochet and Saddam is, I think, correct. However, Pinochet was incarcerated in England and held even though he had depolmatic immunity while the British Courts decided if he could be held, even though he was a sitting head of state.

Then he was extridited to Chile to be stripped of his office and tried by the courts that existed during his tenure.

Saddam, on the other hand, was already out of office and had been replaced by an elected government, then tried by a new court under laws that did not exit at the time of Saddam's offenses.

I think Saddam should pay for the crimes he committed, but the narrow case for which he was found guilty does not warrent the death penalty. They should wait for the next case in line, which involves Saddam murdering a village of Kurds with nerve gas. That case does not have the same quasi-legal background that the present case has.

To hang Saddam for "legally" executing "terrorists" who were condemed by the existing court system cannot but inflame the insurgency and fuel the growing civil war with his martyrdom in the eyes of his loyal followers.

Yes... need to do some research. I was kind of remembering the long delays in getting him to court once he was returned to Chile, arguement over whether the court actually had the authority to try him, as a former Head of State. i presume, from what you are saying, they had to strip him of his former position before he could attend court. I similarly presume you are correct in asserting he was tried under the same judicial system that existed when he was in power - in which case, my arguement doesn't hold water, the judical system in Iraq is completely different.

I understand the second trial of Saddam (Anfal Trial) will resume tomorrow. If they abandon the second trial as a result of the first, we might have a clearer idea of the true value of justice in today's Iraq.

 

[neonlyte]

No, they are not the same, but I'm tired of whenever "dictator" shows up in a conversation, people somehow manage to drag Pinochet into it. And most of them don't even have the slightest idea who he is, or what he did to his country. It's throwing around an entire nation's history just for a political statement...

Seriously - start a Pinochet thread. Inform us, your location tag suggests to me you might be from the continent (but I probably watch too much Discovery Channel). Plenty here will be happy to discuss Pinochet.

 

[rgraham666]

It's simply this Tuomas. Some of us make no qualifications between dictators. Not on their politics, not on their uniforms, not on their body counts. It's all the same to me.

 

[Grushenka]

If we hang him, we should hang a lot of people, including Bush.

Excellent point. Nothing more to say, these pol threads are scary.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

It also achieves to rid society of those who are condemed.

It turns society into those those who are condemned.

The new order using the exact same methods to purge the old. I guess this means there is whole new bunch of Saddams already in line to receive the same sort of justice next time the wind blows.

 

[Tuomas]

Seriously - start a Pinochet thread. Inform us, your location tag suggests to me you might be from the continent (but I probably watch too much Discovery Channel). Plenty here will be happy to discuss Pinochet.

Actually, I want people to stop dragging Pinochet everywhere, like some some macabre trophy of totalitarianism. It's particularly annoying when you go to sites like the BBC and all you see about the country is Pinochet. I can't influcence the BBC, but I can make an effort here.

Think: Chilean Wine!

 

[ishtat]

???

If execution is not an appropriate punishment what does the non hanging vote suggest is an appropriate penalty commensurate to the crime?.

The problem seems to be that whilst execution may be morally questionable it may be in the Iraqui context be politically essential. It may make him a Martyr (in Tikrit) but he will not make a comeback.

I would be interested to know whether any Spanish or Portuguese on Lit would have regretted Salazar or Franco being killed, given their records?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I would be interested to know whether any Spanish or Portuguese on Lit would have regretted Salazar or Franco being killed, given their records?

I certainly would. I'm proud of the fact that no one died as a consequence of the regime change, and I am certain that even those directly targetted by the worse of Salazar would have preferred to see him detained at Tarrafal than to be executed.

The regime leaders - Caetano (the prime minister) and Américo Thomaz (the President) - were escorted out of the country. Caetano spent the rest of his life in Brazil, while Thomaz returned to Portugal a few years later.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

If execution is not an appropriate punishment what does the non hanging vote suggest is an appropriate penalty commensurate to the crime?.

The harshest penalty compatible with the preservation of human dignity: of society's human dignity. That would be a life sentence.

The problem seems to be that whilst execution may be morally questionable it may be in the Iraqui context be politically essential.

If a judicial system wants to be seen as serious and just, it can have nothing to do with politics.

 

[neonlyte]

I would be interested to know whether any Spanish or Portuguese on Lit would have regretted Salazar or Franco being killed, given their records?

Interesting question: I live in one of those countries but I'm not a national of either. Salazar's record needs to be contextualised by the way he came to power, the memory isn't what it used to be and the reference book I need to be certain factually correct is 1500 miles away When I read his political history, I was astonished how he came to power as a result of other European countries post WW1 refusing to help Portugal financially (the detail was payment of munitions for Portugal fighting on the side of the British - but it would be important to have all the facts). The bill couldn't be paid, the country was thrown into deeper political chaos, Salazar rose to power and 45 years of dictatorship endured, all for want of a unpaid bill. What subsequently happened, to Portugal and its overseas territories, is a matter of record. However, the eventual tumbling of the dictatorship came from within the country, at the cost of a single injury (or life, can't remember which). The people running the country at the time of the overthrow were sent into exile. I don't believe any of them faced trial, though some members of the Secret Service did face trial, I believe for shooting at the 'revolutionaries' from their office windows.

 

[SeaCat]

While this may surprise some, with my record of being for capital punishment, I say let him live.

Now let me qualify that.

A) If he is hung, or shot, or killed in any other manner, then he becomes a Martyr and just another reason for so many to fight and commit their own attrocities.

B) Killing him would be much too kind. It would be over too soon. Make his ass suffer in a way that he would appreciate.

Make him spend his days doing those wonderfully nasty jobs no-one else wants to do. Make him clean out sewer pits or outhouses, with the most basic of tools. Make him dig up those lovely mass graves, with his bare hands. At the end of the day hose his ass off and dump him into a nice small hole to sleep. Make sure his punishment is broadcast daily so those he made suffer get to see him suffer. This for a man who was the ruler of a country is much worse than killing him.

Cat

 

[R. Richard]

While this may surprise some, with my record of being for capital punishment, I say let him live.

Now let me qualify that.

A) If he is hung, or shot, or killed in any other manner, then he becomes a Martyr and just another reason for so many to fight and commit their own attrocities.

B) Killing him would be much too kind. It would be over too soon. Make his ass suffer in a way that he would appreciate.

Make him spend his days doing those wonderfully nasty jobs no-one else wants to do. Make him clean out sewer pits or outhouses, with the most basic of tools. Make him dig up those lovely mass graves, with his bare hands. At the end of the day hose his ass off and dump him into a nice small hole to sleep. Make sure his punishment is broadcast daily so those he made suffer get to see him suffer. This for a man who was the ruler of a country is much worse than killing him.

Cat

The problem is that he then becomes a target for a rescue attempt by one of the Sunni groups.

Simpler solution. Have Saddam write a brief, sincere note of apology to the Iranians. Have him hand deliver said note to the Iranians.

 

[Antfarmer77]

Make him spend his days doing those wonderfully nasty jobs no-one else wants to do. Make him clean out sewer pits or outhouses, with the most basic of tools. Make him dig up those lovely mass graves, with his bare hands. At the end of the day hose his ass off and dump him into a nice small hole to sleep. Make sure his punishment is broadcast daily so those he made suffer get to see him suffer. This for a man who was the ruler of a country is much worse than killing him.

Cat

IF I thought for one second this would be his fate, instead of the sort of incarceration reserved for celebs, politicians and cops, I'd say let him live, but sadly, I seriously doubt he'd recieve that sort of comeupance.

 

[Munachi]

Actually, I want people to stop dragging Pinochet everywhere, like some some macabre trophy of totalitarianism. It's particularly annoying when you go to sites like the BBC and all you see about the country is Pinochet. I can't influcence the BBC, but I can make an effort here.

Think: Chilean Wine!

sorry to drag this back up, but couldn't help it:

try being german...

but i don't think that necessarily the associacion with pinochet just now has to do with people thinking only of him when they think of chile, or with constantly dragging him up, but rather with how that is just one of the things that has been on the news these days - there were and will be other times when it isn't, and it would have been someone else who gets mentioned...

 

[neonlyte]

IF I thought for one second this would be his fate, instead of the sort of incarceration reserved for celebs, politicians and cops, I'd say let him live, but sadly, I seriously doubt he'd recieve that sort of comeupance.

Well, you could always resort to the penalty he gave to someone who defaced a bank note, it's a little nasty, so those who want can read it on the BBC web site. It's about half way down the story.

 

[Liar]

Actually, I want people to stop dragging Pinochet everywhere, like some some macabre trophy of totalitarianism. It's particularly annoying when you go to sites like the BBC and all you see about the country is Pinochet. I can't influcence the BBC, but I can make an effort here.

Dude, it's recent, it's fairly well documented, it's simply top-of-mind for what people think of as atypical "dictator" behaviour. So it's only natuaral to compare other dictators with him. Deal.

Think: Chilean Wine!

Na, I'd rather drink chilean wine.

<Note to self, buy wine.>

try being german...

Yeah. And then there's that. :|

 

[jeninflorida]

Leave him alive.

If we use his tools we're no better than him.

I think that some leaders are afraid that he will escape, or something....then he will be back in power.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I think that some leaders are afraid that he will escape, or something....then he will be back in power.

I don't really think so Jenn. At this point there are too many Aman's and others with their own political aspirations to join with Saddam in overthrowing the government, then handing it over to him.

Saddam plays a much better part as a symbol of American terrorism.

 

[Explaura]

I am against the death sentance. I don't think people should kill eachother. However, I think the issue with Saddam has grown to force of nature proportions. I don't advocate killing him, but in another age he would have been torn apart. He didn't ask for it exactly but he did bring the avalanche on himself. And really, it seems kind of random to keep him alive with all the rage he has focused on him. He will be dead soon enough. It would be simpler logistically to kill him. But. Again, why should we. I don't beleive in revenge. But its not like we would teach him a lesson and make him into a good guy, and even if we did it's not like we would ever let him go. I guess the best point behind not killing him would be that he could go on reflecting, experienceing, liveing which i feel in itself is worthwile. But yeah, every moment he has is just good luck on his part at this point I think.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The Iraqi people see their government as a puppet of the United States. Their president does whatever he's told by the Bush-Bots. In some ways, I believe this is true.

If Saddam is to be executed, it has to be done in a way that dis-involves the United States. The proper thing to have done was to have tried him in the International Court in the Hauge. But they didn't want to touch it.

So again, Bush has put the U.S. in the middle. If you don't execute him, you cannot let him go. If you do execute him, the U.S. is the bad guy who killed him and made him a martry across the whole face of the Arab world.

 

[Pure]

Generally i don't favor executing anyone. In this case, what gives me pause is the possibility of hostage-seizing to trade for him; suicide murders, etc. Also I would not want him communicating to admirers or extended family.

Perhaps if he could be held in a remote mountain redoubt in a country with few nationals in the mideast, say, Peru.

 

[Tuomas]

sorry to drag this back up, but couldn't help it:

try being german...

but i don't think that necessarily the associacion with pinochet just now has to do with people thinking only of him when they think of chile, or with constantly dragging him up, but rather with how that is just one of the things that has been on the news these days - there were and will be other times when it isn't, and it would have been someone else who gets mentioned...

I know. I'm constantly annoyed by the way people treat Germans, as well. (And the way certain people treat Israelis for "stealing palestinian land" *rolls eyes*).

Maybe it's just because I live here, but Pinochet seems to find his way into an uncannily large amount of conversations. Why not Ché Guevara? OK, he was not head of state, but he did personally oversee the brutal murder of thousands of people...

 

[Pure]

tuo but he [Che]did personally oversee the brutal murder of thousands of people...

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

so what you want to establish is a kind of 'both sides are equally bad' ( and maybe the left is worse) thesis, right?

well, one side [C] got assassinated by the CIA, and the other[P] funded by the CIA. is that relevant?

 

[Tuomas]

tuo but he [Che]did personally oversee the brutal murder of thousands of people...

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

so what you want to establish is a kind of 'both sides are equally bad' ( and maybe the left is worse) thesis, right?

well, one side [C] got assassinated by the CIA, and the other[P] funded by the CIA. is that relevant?

Nothing of the sort: Guevara has become a cultural icon, an idolized revolutionary and a hero to angsty teen-agers. But that many Cubans know him as "The Butcher of La Cabaña" is not even known. People forget that Guevara was an unappologetic racist who advocated the wholesale slaughter of his ideologic opponents. I guess that makes him "cool".

Considering that Guevara is a much better example for the discussion here, why is he not used instead of Pinochet? For starters, Pinochet has never stood trial, so we can't compare it with Saddam's. Chile was not invaded by a foreign country, and it's Head of State forcefully seized and made to stand trial on retoractive charges, while Guevara was captured and executed under the direct supervision of the CIA. Guevara -like Saddam- had no cumpunctions about letting the world know he did his dastardly deeds, while Pinochet has alway denied any involvement in any political deaths.

So, how come Pinochet is equated with Saddam, while Guevara is considered a hero?