Blair Opposes Death Penalty for Saddam

No other civilized nation has the death penalty.
But here are some reasons why not.
We have released many people from prison for extreme crimes, because DNA later proved they didn't do it, you cant release someone from a coffin.
It also justifies killing somewhat. If government says, thou shall not kill unless there are certain circumstances that says it is justified. Well individuals can think the same thing. You may thank it doesn't matter but studies have shown that it does increase murder.. now if government said there was no reason to ever kill someone even for the most heinous crimes, people will have a harder time to justify it themselves.
last, it is revenge and not preventative.. I know some people will argue that if there was no death penalty, murder will go up, but that isn't true, it is still against the law and would still ruin your life. The reason it isn't preventative.. there are 3 reasons to kill
one:crimes of passion.. well this is like catching your wife in bed with another man with a gun in your hand.. and you aren't thinking about the consequences.. so whether it is life or death, doesn't matter
Two: insane people or serial killers.. the insane are insane no matter what the law is.
Three for profit, robberies, assassins.. etc.. ok the price for an assassin may go down if it is just life in prison but people will always kill for profit.
So it does nothing but satisfy revenge.. and that is no way to have a legal system/

No other civilized nation has the death penalty.

Congratulations, you just offended a billion people by leaving them out of you group of "civilized" nations.

Not that I am saying that we should be proud of the fact that the US legal system is being compared to the Chinese one, but calling China "uncivilized" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Dear AdipicAcid,

please do some research about China, especially when it comes down to the treatment of prisoners, orphans, and the sort.

Human-Right violations are so widespread, calling China somewhat uncivilized is definitely not a stretch.

Civilized is a relative word. Explorers thought the Incas and Mayans were uncivilized.

What about Singapore? Uncivilized? I don't think so.

Ok yeah i sort of used the word civilized to desribe countries without a death penalty so it was kind of like saying all dogs are dogs.
here is a nice map so you can see the countries that share our views that killing people is ok.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/dpindex.html
and a quote from the wiki
Among democratic countries around the world, most European and Latin American states have abolished capital punishment while the United States, Guatemala, and most of the Caribbean as well as democracies in Asia and Africa retain it.

Zaki, I understand quite a bit about Chinese human rights violations and anyone who's read my posting history knows I am no fan of the senile old men who run the PRC, but to omit the country from the list of "civilized" nations seems a bit much and weakened Joules' argument considerably by making it somewhat circular, as he has recognized.

True, but now we omit ourselves from the topic of the death penalty and we fall deep into matters of philosphy (civilized according to who? blah blah blah). The truth of the matter is, nearly all civilized nations have given up the death penalty. Keeping the death penalty is an inferior idea, because even though it is the year 2006, innocents are still getting killed with this process.

Just because bad guys kill, doesn't mean you should too.

I wish Hitler was still alive and behind bars in a maximum security prison on an island, a grumpy old man who'd cry and say "damn! I was wrong all these years! I even had jew relatives!" etc.

I rather see Saddam spend the rest of his life behind bars and admit in 40 years that what he did was unethical.

Think about how big of a political victory that is, the confrontation with a former dictator who realizes the audacity of his actions.

Imagine we catch OBL. What happens if he put him to death. He becomes a fake "martyr" and it helps his cause, and his band of wackos. But what if we give him life in prison, and after a dozen years, after re-reading the Koran, he can see that what he did was not the right "way", get in front of the camera and admit it...that kind of coverage could kill the movement all together! Not completely but it'd be a big blow.

i tend to agree with Blair on this one. the death penalty makes the end too quick.

That sounds very inhumane. I understand that Saddam was not the nicest guy, however, the respect for life is what separates the 'good' from the 'bad'.

FWIW, I understand Sadam's personal choice would be firing squad - so psychologically, the worst punishment would be a lifetime prison sentence. More humiliating, less martyr-ish.

@tschrek

If the US put Saddam back on the streets again, he'd probably bring order back to Iraq.

he'd probably bring order back to Iraq.

By killing the rest of the Kurds? Maybe we should bring his sons back to life to really get things humming again...

You think the world stage would allow Saddam become an actor again?

You are not truly against the death penalty if you will use it for revenge and safety. It is almost like Benjamin Franklin's famous quote "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." If you are willing to give up something you believe in for security, you don't deserve either.

lol no we didnt.. we actually protected the two groups with no fly zones and such..
but what we did do, is encourage and support the kurds in their assassination attempt of saddam, right up until they were about to assassinate him and then we abandoned them.

But you can be sure he wont return, if you put him in a prison in another country.
there are plenty of evil people in the world.. jeffery dalmer ate people, how would you feel if he ate one of your relatives, well we didnt even give him a death penalty.

It is wrong to take a life unless you are protecting yourself or family, and a caught criminal is no longer a threat.

well we didnt even give him a death penalty

That is because there is no death penalty in the state of Wisconsin. Dahmer got 15 life sentences.

So we give Saddam 148 life sentences. And then we put him on trial for his other genocides, as well.

Brilliant, Tony. But frankly it's not up to you. Either the Iraqis have their own judiciary or they take their lead from the US and its allies.

If, as claimed, it's Saddam being tried by his own people - well that's the way you and Bush wanted it - so you stay out of it.

Isn't that exactly what Blair is saying?

Also, if you thought it was such a bad idea why wait until the predictable verdict and predictable sentence to stick your oar in?

Maybe because the media wouldn't stop asking him?

I'm not one of Tony's biggest fans but I think you're being a bit unfair.

p.s. I'm a Brit too :)

????????

I'm torn...on the one hand, punishing him for the purpose of "justice" is important, I suppose...but on the other hand, how often are people like him deposed without being killed in the process?

You, sir, get it.

I realize it's not much of an acceptable practice (it's not universal, at any rate) these days to kill deposed rulers. But it used to be executed (pardon the pun) in part to secure the foundation of the new rulers. Granted, Saddam is not the source of all the current woes in Iraq, but he still is a symbolic leader for opposition.

Saddam must feel absolutely pissed off. He's done what countless other famed and feared leaders have done in the past, but he's getting killed for it, instead of leaving behind statues and libraries named after him. That's what you get for being on the wrong end of American political goals.

That's what you get for being on the wrong end of American political goals.

Or Soviet ones. Or Chinese. Or British, French....

Its a red poppy, rememberance of the fallen.

do you guys (Americans) not do that? It is also in support of Veterans (they sell them for a donation)

I do not associate the red poppy with the fallen.

We remember the fallen on Memorial Day and veterans on Veterans' Day.

We do it in Canada too. I'm wearing a red poppy right now. It's for the great-uncles lost in WWII.

My grandfather came from a large Catholic family. At the end of WWII, he was the only boy left.

@Radical I am Canadian too! ~~secret Canuck handshake to you~~
I always thought it was only us that did the poppy because of that poem "In Flanders Fields"...

All the remembrance gatherings, celebrations, whatever you want to call them, I ever attended had poppies given out to remember veterans, POWs, etc. (In USA). I don't think I would ever have known what they were for though if I hadn't asked my dad why he bought one from one of said gatherings. It seems like a generational change to me, maybe because of the WWII connection?

World War I ended on November 11, 1918 and this became Armistice Day. It was initially a day to remember those killed in that war; it has become a day to honour the dead from subsequent wars as well. The day was renamed Remembrance Day after World War II ended. In the UK, Remembrance Day is usually marked by two minutes of silence on the 11th hour of the day. However, the main observance takes place on the second Sunday of November, known as Remembrance Sunday. The fields where some of the deadliest WWI battles were fought are blanketed in poppies. Therefore the poppy became a symbol of remembrance, and has been sold every year since 1921.

Wait a minute. I thought the imposition of western ideals on the Iraqis was one of the boneheaded things being done in Iraq? You can't really have it both ways, I'm afraid. If the Iraqis send him to the hangman, that is an Iraqi affair, not a British or U.S. one. Unless you believe that those powers need to remain there to enforce their vision of moral behaviour upon the Iraqis, of course.

Look, I am all for getting out of Iraq now, but I at least recognize that what follows afterwards is liable to be a bloody civil war in which an awful lot of civilians are going to die. I just so happen to believe that that is also the result of us staying. The occupation was blown from the moment we went in without a plan.

That depends upon how independent the Iraqi court really was doesn't it?

Recalling the debates when the Iraqis introduced death penalty with their new constitution. Everyone knew it was meant for Saddam. And at that time Blair obtained quite some load of - justified - criticism for not throwing in his weight to prevent the death penalty from becoming part of the legal system in Iraq. He could have put up pressure, he didn't. So all his fine talk is the usual politician rubbish, and it does not cost him a thing to be against the death penalty now.

Exactly! If white man speaks with forked tongue then Tony Blair has a canteen of cutlery in his mouth.

It's also worth bearing in mind the role of the Regime Crimes Liaison Officer in all of this.

The Regime Crimes Liaison Officer (RCLO) is charged with the responsibility of "assisting" the Iraqi Higher Tribunal (IHT) with the investigation and prosecution of Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes perpetrated on the Iraqi people during the past 30 years. Where evidence is found of genocide, political persecution, torture or other crimes against humanity, the RCLO will advise members of the IHT on how to identify the perpetrators and present evidence of the crimes at trails.

I say kill him.

An eye for eye is what that region of the world best identifies.

That's exactly the problem with a lot of the middle east ... and the world. By refraining from practicing such a barbaric way of responding, the new Iraqi government would be showing an example of a new way of thinking.

I think the Iraqi people are aware of other means of punishment that fall short of death.
I wouldn't be "new" thinking.
The Iraqi people aren't children. The death penalty is final and I don't feel barbaric at all.
Besides, anything you eat was once alive and must be"killed' prior to consumption.
There are "acceptable" PC means to accomlplish this.

That's the sort of arrogant attitude that makes everybody love you so much.

Well said. I can also see why they want him dead -- for the same reason the death penalty finds support in the U.S. Getting vengence is a natural human desire.

Unfortunately, taking vengence is like a thirsy person drinking salt water. If you're thirsty enough, that water looks awfully appealing. And the Iraqis are very thirsty.

I suppose he could go to Camp Gitmo but anywhere he goes would be turned into a circus.

Not necessarily ... some of the Nazis from WWII were imprisoned for life after the Nuremburg trials and never saw the outside world again. It didn't become a circus. Saddam could be sent to Devil's Island, or Saint Helena like Napoleon ... or some other rock in the middle of the ocean.

My thoughts exactly, Surya. They should be forced to live out the rest of their lives in total obscurity, with no chance for fame or infamy ever again.

Lives of quiet, unremarkable unimportance.

Here's another twist ... what about the idea that Saddam should have been tried in an International Court, such as the Hague? I've seeded an article that argues exactly this point and suggests that this did not happen because it didn't suit US interests.

There was one obvious reason the US did not want Saddam to face the same kind of impartial international tribunal that tried Serbia's president Slobodan Milosevic and will soon try Charles Taylor of Liberia. Such a tribunal would have the right to see documents and hear testimony that would reveal the extent of US complicity in Saddam's crimes in the earlier phase of his career,
when the Reagan administration was supporting Iraq in the 1980-88 war against Iran. Hence the kangaroo court in Baghdad, and all the grotesqueries that ensued.

I was surprised to read how many of Saddam's defence counsel were assassinated or fled during his trial and to find how many judges were sacked also. Towards the end of it he was left defended only by a court-appointed lawyer who was so frightened he avoided any chance that he could be identified.

I know the guy was as guilty as sin and I'm glad to see him brought to account for his atrocities, but it would have been nice to have seen the trial conducted properly.

Thanks Surya, that backs up a lot of the material in the link I made in 12.2. The following from an article by Robert Fisk is really interesting:

Because here are a few of the things that Saddam was not allowed to comment upon: sales of chemicals to his Nazi-style regime so blatant - so appalling - that he has been sentenced to hang on a localised massacre of Shias rather than the wholesale gassing of Kurds over which George W Bush and Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara were so exercised when they decided to depose Saddam in 2003 - or was it in 2002? Or 2001? Some of Saddam's pesticides came from Germany (of course). But on 25 May 1994, the US Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs produced a report entitled "United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the Health Consequences (sic) of the Persian Gulf War".

This was the 1991 war which prompted our liberation of Kuwait, and the report informed Congress about US government-approved shipments of biological agents sent by American companies to Iraq from 1985 or earlier. These included Bacillus anthracis, which produces anthrax; Clostridium botulinum; Histoplasma capsulatum; Brucella melitensis; Clostridium perfringens and Escherichia coli. The same report stated that the US provided Saddam with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of chemical, biological and missile-system programmes, including chemical warfare agent production facility plant and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans).

Yes, well I can well see why Saddam wasn't permitted to talk about this. John Reid, the British Home Secretary, said that Saddam's hanging "was a sovereign decision by a sovereign nation". Thank heavens he didn't mention the £200,000 worth of thiodiglycol, one of two components of mustard gas we exported to Baghdad in 1988, and another £50,000 worth of the same vile substances the following year. We also sent thionyl chloride to Iraq in 1988 at a price of only £26,000. Yes, I know these could be used to make ballpoint ink and fabric dyes. But this was the same country - Britain - that would, eight years later, prohibit the sale of diphtheria vaccine to Iraqi children on the grounds that it could be used for - you guessed it - "weapons of mass destruction".

Ah, just checked and that was the other article I was looking at, so here's the link here. Lots of good reading on the subject.

I sure hope NONE of your energy come from oil.
Otherwise, your simply a hypocrit.

A passive enabler.