Saddam's Husein's classy execution

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I won't shed any tears for Saddam. Few people will. But that's not the point. The video and the manner in which he was executed combined to create a PR disaster. We expend all of this blood and treasure only to put a different set of idiots in power? Great.

good post.

What are our options in terms of leadership there?

In Afghanistan, we have the benefit of Karzai who generally impresses me with what little I know.

In Iraq, it appears we have few good, if any, options.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

An investigation is underway into abuses at Husein's execution:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/wo...=5070&emc=eta1

The gruesome spectacle that was this event raises the question: Can we execute another human being humanely or decently? Is there such a thing? Define it for me. It seems that any potential dignity associated with the entire enterprise always lies with the individual being executed. The state always winds up looking at best awkward, at worst barbaric.

I don't see any enthusiasm for executions outside the Deep South and Texas, and the Middle East. I say the death panalty is dying a slow death. Even the firebrand advocate of oldtime values Archea says (I'm paraphrasing), "The way it's administered sucks, but.." So again, I ask you, is there a proper way to execute another human being?

The Iraqis botched the PR aspects of this execution, and I don't favor making executions public spectacles. They should remain somber affairs, with no fanfare.

I distinguish between the concept of capital punishment, which I maintain is legally, historically, economically, morally and culturally justified and the actual implementation, which historically in our nation and in other nations is misapplied.

It is misapplied if race is a determining factor when to apply it. Same for gender.

We need to do what we can to ensure we don't execute innocent persons. It should be done without fanfare.

I'm not worried about the dignity of the executed but the dignity of the system. Saddam deserved to be shot without notice, buried where nobody could ever remember him, and no remembrance of him made.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is misapplied if race is a determining factor when to apply it. Same for gender.

We need to do what we can to ensure we don't execute innocent persons.

If pigs could fly.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If pigs could fly.

So we should nothing because we can't do it perfectly?

You know the efforts the legal system seeks to achieve no innocent person is executed. We employ many procedures to provide that protection. I worked as a federal judicial law clerk with others who specialized on death row inmates. There are diligent efforts to be fair. Let me further add, I know a relative intimately who participated in the decision whether to impose that penalty. It is a horrible thing to do. The relative related, even though it was done in other times, that it caused this relative to have to vomit profusely to consider the imposition. It is a very serious issue. But just because it is serious doesn't mean we should shirk the responsibility.

There are many abuses within our system of justice and I wager far more abuse is dealt out in the non-death punishments than in death cases.

Can we do more? Absolutely. Are we trying diligently? I believe so.

[non sequitur]

The whole trial was a sham from the beginning. Sadaam was convicted of killing 148 people in reprisal for a failed assasination attempt. Is it a coincidence that the trial didn't center around Sadaam's use of biological weapons against Iran and against the Kurds? Perhaps we didn't want the question to be raised as to where Sadaam acquired those biological weapons. Perhaps we didn't want it demonstrated that the U.S., by supplying Sadaam with biological weapons, was complicit in those crimes against humanity.

I don't condone Sadaam's reprisal for the failed assasination attempt, but it's hardly something extraordinary. I just find it hypocritical that we didn't urge the Iraqi's to try Sadaam for the real "crimes against humanity" that he committed, crimes he committed when he was in our pocket.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

The whole trial was a sham from the beginning. Sadaam was convicted of killing 148 people in reprisal for a failed assasination attempt. Is it a coincidence that the trial didn't center around Sadaam's use of biological weapons against Iran and against the Kurds? Perhaps we didn't want the question to be raised as to where Sadaam acquired those biological weapons. Perhaps we didn't want it demonstrated that the U.S., by supplying Sadaam with biological weapons, was complicit in those crimes against humanity.

I don't condone Sadaam's reprisal for the failed assasination attempt, but it's hardly something extraordinary. I just find it hypocritical that we didn't urge the Iraqi's to try Sadaam for the real "crimes against humanity" that he committed, crimes he committed when he was in our pocket.

Actually, they are in the middle of a second trial associated with the Kurd genocide:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650219135,00.html

"At his death, he was in the midst of a second trial, charged with genocide and other crimes for a 1987-88 military crackdown that killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in northern Iraq. Experts said the trial of his co-defendants was likely to continue despite his execution."

Apparently they decided that one death penalty was enough so they just went ahead and executed him.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So we should nothing because we can't do it perfectly?

You know the efforts the legal system seeks to achieve no innocent person is executed. We employ many procedures to provide that protection. I worked as a federal judicial law clerk with others who specialized on death row inmates. There are diligent efforts to be fair. Let me further add, I know a relative intimately who participated in the decision whether to impose that penalty. It is a horrible thing to do. The relative related, even though it was done in other times, that it caused this relative to have to vomit profusely to consider the imposition. It is a very serious issue. But just because it is serious doesn't mean we should shirk the responsibility.

There are many abuses within our system of justice and I wager far more abuse is dealt out in the non-death punishments than in death cases.

Can we do more? Absolutely. Are we trying diligently? I believe so.

If we can't execute humans with perfect justice we shouldn't do it.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If we can't execute humans with perfect justice we shouldn't do it.

does this apply to war also?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If we can't execute humans with perfect justice we shouldn't do it.

Nice soundbite, but we can't do anything with perfect justice so no justice should be rendered. I submit we do the very best we can.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Actually, they are in the middle of a second trial associated with the Kurd genocide:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650219135,00.html

"At his death, he was in the midst of a second trial, charged with genocide and other crimes for a 1987-88 military crackdown that killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in northern Iraq. Experts said the trial of his co-defendants was likely to continue despite his execution."

Apparently they decided that one death penalty was enough so they just went ahead and executed him.

Talk about an anti-climactic trial -- trying someone who is already dead. How much press is that going to get? Is the timing of the trials of coincidence? I don't know whether it is or not, but it's an interesting question.