30 Dec 06
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-12-30T031552Z_01_IBO034602_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-COL.XML
Apparently the former leader of Iraq has now been executed.
Why did they go ahead with the execution? Wasn't he to be tried for several other crimes before final execution?
Also, what purpose does his death serve? Not only will it probably make him a martyr but it also delegitimizes the court, and that court desperately needs legitimacy. I would think that it would be better and more useful to keep him alive.
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by DraxusI don't think the US government wanted him tried for war crimes against Iran and the Kurds; there would probably have been revelations of US support that would have profoundly embarrassed the US. So the first trial concentrated on a purely Iraqi event; his reprisals against a town where an assassination attempt was made on Saddam.
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-12-30T031552Z_01_IBO034602_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-COL.XML
Apparently the former leader of Iraq has now been executed.
Why did they go ahead with the execution? Wasn't he to be tried for several other crimes before final execution?
Also, what purpose does his death serve? Not o ...[text shortened]... ely needs legitimacy. I would think that it would be better and more useful to keep him alive.
From the perspective of the US, it was better to kill him now after holding him essentially incommunicado since his capture; dead men tell no tales.
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAh, so the deaths caused by Saddam are now the fault of the US. Well that figures.
I don't think the US government wanted him tried for war crimes against Iran and the Kurds; there would probably have been revelations of US support that would have profoundly embarrassed the US. So the first trial concentrated on a purely Iraqi event; his reprisals against a town where an assassination attempt was made on Saddam.
From the perspe ...[text shortened]... him now after holding him essentially incommunicado since his capture; dead men tell no tales.
30 Dec 06
1 edit
Here's a rather ironic story for today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/chile_sentences
Remember that the crime that Saddam was actually convicted of and executed for was reprisal killings for an attempt on his life. That gets you death in Iraq (after your country gets invaded by the US) but gets you a villa in Spain and a ripe old age if you're Augusto Pinochet (though some of your minions get prison sentences after you die).
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by no1marauderPossibly, or maybe Iraq wanted him dead as soon as possible.
I don't think the US government wanted him tried for war crimes against Iran and the Kurds; there would probably have been revelations of US support that would have profoundly embarrassed the US. So the first trial concentrated on a purely Iraqi event; his reprisals against a town where an assassination attempt was made on Saddam.
From the perspe ...[text shortened]... him now after holding him essentially incommunicado since his capture; dead men tell no tales.
After all, what's more touching than a family reunion in hell?
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by DraxusHe would have been 70 in a couple of months and under Iraqi law couldn't be executed. So, revoltingly enough, they were in a race against time. Trying him for more crimes would have meant that he escaped execution.
Why did they go ahead with the execution? Wasn't he to be tried for several other crimes before final execution?
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by DeepThoughtDon't be ridiculous; they would have just changed any law that was inconvenient. That's what they did when they created the Tribunal (which didn't follow previous Iraqi written law).
He would have been 70 in a couple of months and under Iraqi law couldn't be executed. So, revoltingly enough, they were in a race against time. Trying him for more crimes would have meant that he escaped execution.
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by no1marauderDifficult ideologically, the illegality of the tribuneral is easier to justify - people will accept that Saddam Hussain deserved to be tried; but changing the law to remove the humanitarian bar on execution on the grounds of age would be less easy to justify - after all it's important to the new regime that they give the appearance of not being more brutal than than he was.
Don't be ridiculous; they would have just changed any law that was inconvenient. That's what they did when they created the Tribunal (which didn't follow previous Iraqi written law).
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBaloney. The reason he was executed now is the reason I gave; the US government is pulling the strings there.
Difficult ideologically, the illegality of the tribuneral is easier to justify - people will accept that Saddam Hussain deserved to be tried; but changing the law to remove the humanitarian bar on execution on the grounds of age would be less easy to justify - after all it's important to the new regime that they give the appearance of not being more brutal than than he was.
BTW, do you have any link stating that Iraqi law bars the execution of someone over 70? I can't find anything.
