Saddam was eliminated before he could give his account of the killing of Kurds and Iranians by the use of chemical ordnance.

Teams of investigators have combed Iraq in search of the incriminating evidence that connects Daddy Bush's toxic friends to Saddam's toxic friends.

Saddam may be gone, but the search goes on.

Adios Saddam. A true friend of the CIA.

I take it the author has never walked the streets of Singapore. I have no problem with people being against capital punishment but to try and back up the arguement that it does not deter crime is as silly as saying spanking does not bring a child in line.

Mirko,
You seem to like to ignore all the research that does indicate Capital punishment does deter crime.

Rather than simply comparing murder rates between different places, which can have many different factors affecting the murder rate, it is less problematic (although still with some problems inherent in any social research) to compare what happens to countries and states when they change from using to not using capital punishment. For instance...
The murder rate in the US doubled from 5.1 to 10.2 between 1965 and 1980 as capital punishment was abolished. As capital punishment was reintroduced, this murder rate fell to 5.7 in 1999.

There is plenty of other support for the deterrent effect of capital punishment.

Also of note is there is more than one argument for capital punishment.

Please try to be honest
please try and be honest.

Just as spanking may encourage children not to be naughty, some statistics do show that capital punishment may reduce crime rates. However, this is no reason to conclude that spanking, or capital punishment, are reasonable options. Children always respond better to explanation and reason. Their parents are better people for choosing not to smack. Societies that choose not to have capital punishment are similarly more enlightened than those that choose to kill.

Saddam's hanging just shows how barbaric we have become. We're supposed to be opposed to capital punishment, yet we have the US and Australia supporting this horrific metering out of justice.

What next for Australia - will our esteemed leader - suggest that execution be reintroduced back into Australia "in the National Interest".

The whole scenario is sickening - Saddam should have been tried in front of the World where at least some of his crimes would be made public and give a sense of closure to other nations whose people he has slaughtered.

Mr Bagaric

Was Saddam Hussein hung? I have no evidence.

Was he hanged? It appears so.

Was that convenient for the current US Government Executive Branch?
I have little doubt of that.

If you can argue moral necessity for torture, then surely you can argue moral necessity for destroying evidence.

Perhaps, in these post-Orwellian times, we can safeguard against moral catastrophe in kinder ways than than cutting out tongues or breaking necks.

Have a read of "City of Light" by Michael Doane (1992) for a look at the fields where human witness can be harvested.

By the way, what is a "moral catastrophe"?

I do not care of capital punishment is or is not a deterrent - I suspect it is not - no, I go further, it is not a deterrent - revenge is for fools and those who enjoy killing.

“There are no redeeming aspects to capital punishment. It is always brutal. More importantly, it does not deter crime.”

It will deter Sadaam Hussien from committing any more offenses.

RE “Amnesty International revealed that the homicide rate in US states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 per cent higher than in states without the death penalty”

Oh that is a Furphy. Homicide rates could equally be influenced by demographic factors, such as the mix of ethnic origins.

A state in the North East USA, which may not have a death Penalty, will have its origins and ethnic balance steeped in English Puritanism. Texas, on the other hand, with the death penalty, has a far different ethnic mix.

The idea that “bad people should not be punished because good people do not do that sort of thing” is a cop out.

“Bad people” should anticipate being punished and those who commit the ultimate in offences should expect to receive the ultimate in punishment.

Meredith Jones – “children always respond better to explanation and reason”

Yep, I made sure I told my daughters why they were being spanked. The eldest told me, more recently when aged 24, she knew she deserved it, then gave me a hug

Last Saturday morning I suppose the Sunnis and Shia all laid down their weapons and hugged each other, promising that there will now be peace. Saddam may have been a foul person ( armed and encouraged by the USA of course ) but following the logic that a nasty dictator has been removed will we see the COW invading Zimbabwe, North Korea, Nigeria, Myanmar and a host of others on a crusade to rid the world of nasties. Naturally, with their own weapons of mass destruction.

By the way runner, Singapore, roughly the size of Melbourne is a place where someone is executed about every ten days. I'll let you make your own mind up as to whether they have a serious crime problem or not.

Unfortunately for us forced to be Bush, Blair and Howard backers, going by the video clips looks like Saddam died with surprising dignity, evidently knowing that the three noted above were in a hurry to have him hanged before the real truth of the Post WW2 Middle East matter came out.

How Saddam was backed by Ronald Reagan for the Iraqi attack on Iran in 1981, Donald Rumsfeld right through the deadly eight year campaign, acting not as an observer but more as an adviser, and possibly more than a bit upset when gutsy Iran alone beat the whole bang lot of them.

Also it was American supplied chemicals which later helped Saddam get rid of more than just a few troublesome Kurds.

Those of our group who spurn truths of Middle East history as not needed old Pap, must possibly feel a bit relieved when they know they are not alone, with Bush and Howard still game to show a leg, though what future historians will make of the pair, goodness knows?

However, the diplomatic moves that Blair is trying to redeem himself with just lately, looks like he realises he'd better turn a different corner, because the end of the ensuing allied Middle East adventure is looking so much like a misadventure even worse than Vietnam.

Yes Saddam was hung for nothing. Murder has always been an early out for the State. Murder, Mirko Bagaric, like torture is not an instrument of civilisation, they are the sign of the barbarian. Both you and the State have much to learn.

My goodness, the amount of codswallop floating around this thread is almost enough to choke on.

CHRIS.. forrrr goodness sake mate.. puh-lease stop watching those Russian cold war propoganda films.... Sadaam had PLENTY of time and opportunity to say what ever he wanted to about anything in court.

Some of you blokes and Meredith included, would simply die out if you could not blame America for something. But Meredith slanders and outright vilifies parents who smack children and states which use capital punishment. meredith, because you gave it as a statement of fact, I will give my statement of fact. "You are wrong". Singapore is a good example of a well disciplined society. It would take probably just a matter of 6 months from the moment Meredith and Bob Brown and Tony Kevin and ChrisShaw and others landed there to 'fix' their deluded society, before it all fell totally apart. By and large when walking around Singapore, I feel its my own back yard, quite safe.

Sadaams hanging wont make a difference to much. But at least in terms of justice, he has now experienced what he himself did to others.
He should be THANKFUL that they did not treat him as MOHAMMED did to some other criminals. Sadaam was dead in less than a second, Mohammed ensured his victims died slowly and in the utmost agony. Inhuman !
Yet this man, died with the words '..and Mohammed is his Messenger' on his lips. Given that Mohammed was responsible for more deaths and misery than all caused by the Iraqi sectarian war, and the US invasion combined and multiplied many times over, it is inexcusable to say that.

Ask the Indians how many died due to Quran based Islamic invasions.
Ask the Assyrians how many died as a result of Quran based Islamic genocide.
Ask the Jews how many tribes were decimated by Mohammed himself.

Of all Sadaams crimes, his greatest one was to point people to Mohammed as a messenger of God with his dying breath.

I take it those who are so vehemently opposed to capital punishment think it is okay to murder unborn children?

Boaz: "Of all Sadaams crimes, his greatest one was to point people to Mohammed as a messenger of God with his dying breath."

Speaking of "codswallop"...

"Ask the Indians how many died due to Quran based Islamic invasions.
Ask the Assyrians how many died as a result of Quran based Islamic genocide. Ask the Jews how many tribes were decimated by Mohammed himself." - Boaz

... Yes, and the many Christian equivalents.

"Thou shall not kill". Christian, Muslim, or, no believer, respecting life is good advice.

Hess was in prison for life. That would have been a better model to follow.

Singapore can be a bit stifling to live there, as I have. There really is only one party and its MPs will sue critics at the drop of a hat. There is a speakers' corner, but, one needs a permit to use it!
Only Singapoeans can teach history. Not so long ago, the government paid people judged of lesser quality to be sterilised and set-up places were brighter couples could meet. Hong Kong is much freer.

Grey,

Can you say with absolute certainty, absolute, mind you, that not one innocent person has been executed in the US bwteen 1965-1999? ... not one?

TV News documentaries suggest DNA investigations indicate errors have been made.

Killing its citizens is why Saddam was prosecuted. Does it make any difference if is 20 or 20,000

The people of Kerala state in India went on strike for 3 hours in protest at the killing of Saddam Hussein on Saturday, suspicious the the American controlled court had not allowd a fair trial.

I think it was totally tacky to show the execution on Australian television news.

And I am no religious expert but I worry about executing Saddam Hussien during the time of the Haj. This action has shown great cultural insensitivity and turned a tyrant into a martyr as far as most of the world's population is concerned.

runner I think imprisonment without trial helps keeps Singapore streets "Clean".
Capital punishment does not deter nor does it punish. Crimes of passion will never be stopped, and premeditate crime is effected by the likelihood of being caught not the punishment. The US has lots of states that have the death penalty and have armed households, but those states do not show a decrease in those types of crime.

I commend Yendis for reminding us all that Mirko has for a long time endorsed torture as a reasonable approach when dealing with those we suspect as being less than reasonable.

One can only assume that while he felt hanging SH was a folly other hangings are ok.

And a happy New Year to you Baoz - I see you still are suffering from Islamanoia - sigh! So where is the lesson learnt in SH experiencing that which he visited upon others? Like he will come back a better man?

Killing is killing BD it is always a bad thing in the end irregardless of the motive and revenge is the weakest of all - and vengeance is not the domain of us wordly being is it?

Back to the cricket!

For those who oppose capital punishment -

For those who are implacably against warfare -

For those who hunger for the truth above all -

- enjoy George Galloway's podcast on the liquidation of Saddam Hussein:

http://www.georgegalloway.com/content/audio/ggshow_30dec06.mp3

(Churchill would have tipped his bowler to this)

Whatever Mirko’s credentials may be as a would-be criminologist, the last paragraph of his ‘opinion’ show that he is a disgrace as a lawyer.

To suggest that “torture is morally permissible” under any circumstances is morally moribund and flies in the face of more than 60 years of international law. At least half a dozen international conventions and covenants – from the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the 1940’s via the 1984 Convention Against Torture to the principles of the Rome Statute of 1998 underpinning the establishment if the International Criminal Court in the Hague – have established that there is there is one universal response in respect of torture: it can never, ever, at any time, for any reason whatsoever, be justified or permitted.

I guess you can take the boy out of Croatia but you can never take Croatia out of the boy.

Regards
Doc.

Saddam Hussein's execution has a compassionate foundation. He can no longer regain the leadership of a nation state, and therefore can no longer fund torture, murder, rape, mutilation uncompassionately based.

He can no longer set an example for other leaders of a system of governance based on criminal violence.

Get down there and talk to the spouses, children, parents of the murdered, the "disappeared," the pre-teens raped by Saddam's son, those raped then murdered by the latter, those fed to wild animals by his sons... and test out your theorem that the execution of Hussein was not compassion-based.

Sometimes having the state kill a killer e.g. Ted Bundy who raped, tortured and murdered many daughters of many parents is a deterrent.
Bundy can no longer torture, rape and murder. So what if you couldn't possibly be one of Bundy's victims.

Leave that ivory tower. Get down and dirty with a scientific investigation of your theory about the lack of compassion. Don't forget to take an interpreter.

Dear Mr Bagaric,
Regarding your comment:
"There are few people in human history who are more deserving of retribution and severe punishment."

You may already be aware of, or else interested in, the web page http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/index.asp

A brief quote therefrom may be edifying to you and other readers, in the context of your article:

"Observations on the Dujail Trial Opinion
By Michael P. Scharf, co-author of SADDAM ON TRIAL: UNDERSTANDING AND DEBATING THE IRAQI HIGH TRIBUNAL (2006) [advertisement deleted]"

"On December 4, 2006, the Iraqi High Tribunal publicly issued the long-awaited English translation of its Opinion supporting the November 5 Judgment in the Dujail Trial – the first trial of Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants. Available at: http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/dujail/opinion.asp . The Dujail Opinion is extraordinary in a number of respects, not the least of which is its length -- 298 single-spaced pages -- and the surprisingly detailed factual findings and sophisticated legal analysis that it contains."

"On November 20, two days before the Iraqi High Tribunal posted the Arabic version of the Dujail Trial Opinion on its Website and provided it to the Defense Counsel and Prosecutors in hard copy, one of the world’s foremost human rights NGOs, Human Rights Watch, issued a 97-page report, concluding that the “proceedings in the Dujail trial were fundamentally unfair” and that “the soundness of the verdict is questionable.” "

It seems to me that any lawyer, whether in favour of capital punishment or not, should be focusing on the issue of injustice.

Anyone can gloat (which I expect you did not); anyone can wail and do the publick handwringing. It is members of the legal profession who are eminently qualified to act efficaciously on any travesty of justice.

I look forward to your essay on the legality and implications of President Hussein's trial and execution, as an issue in international law.

It doesnt matter what Saddam was hung for.
Australians do not support the death penalty. Full Stop.
Any of you that entertain the idea that it is ok if it happens somewhere else is a hypocrite.

We still have Martin Bryant in Gaol!
Australians do not support capital punishment

Atomictights

“Any of you that entertain the idea that it is ok if it happens somewhere else is a hypocrite.

We still have Martin Bryant in Gaol!
Australians do not support capital punishment”

Speaking personally, I support the notion of hanging Sadaam Hussein.

I would, equally, support the notion that we should have hung Martin Bryant, instead of keeping him in solitary confinement for his own safety.

This Australian does support capital punishment and would vote for it if the opportunity arose.

I would support it not only for certain killers but for second offence drug dealers.

If you would like a reasoned debate on the topic, I suggest you come back next time with more than just a few ranting lines about hypocrites and a knot in your pantyhose to support your argument.

Can there possibly be a more pathetic argument than "Oh yeah, but that's different"?
If killing people is wrong, then it is always wrong. Howard and Bush both claim to 'worship' Jesus Christ, yet both claim a higher sovereignty than him, ie.
'Jesus says thou shalt not kill, thou should in fact love your enemy, but in this instance, I'll give you permission to kill, because Jesus was only God, I'm a Prime Minister/President'.
Likewise torture can never be justified. The greatest danger in any conflict is becoming your enemy.
The terrorists have already won.

It is very interesting that voters have never been given the opportunity to vote on capital punishment. This is just another example where the elite are contemptuous of public opinion, and seek to carry out their own agenda. The specious legal and ethical nostrums that are peddled today simply stagger the imagination.

Let us look at the benefits of capital punishment:

1. It enables society to revenge itself on the criminal. Many people forget the origin of law; in the early middle ages if someone killed a friend of yours all you could do was to kill him in return. This led to endless tit-for-tat killings and feuds. The establishment of law meant that violence was confined to the state, and it exacted revenge on behalf of the victim and society.

2. It means that we will definitely have no more trouble from this person. There is no way that a bleeding heart in a few years will let him out of jail.

3. It provides a deterrent. If anyone disputes this, look at Saudi Arabia and the level of theft compared to here. (In Saudi you can lose your hand for theft.)

4. It accomplishes all of the above with the least possible expenditure of public money.

The best illustration of the phoney political arguments relating to crime and punishment is the law-and-order auction that goes on before each election.

The reason that the arguments are phoney is that most people don't want people locked up for life at great public expense.

They want them to hang.

plerdsus: "The best illustration of the phoney political arguments relating to crime and punishment is the law-and-order auction that goes on before each election.

The reason that the arguments are phoney is that most people don't want people locked up for life at great public expense.

They want them to hang."

Yeah right. If that was the case, why doesn't any Australian political party campaign on a capital punishment platform? Given the descent by the major parties into the depths of populism over the last decade, if there were votes in capital punishment it would become policy in a flash.

"Speaking personally, I support the notion of hanging Sadaam Hussein.
I would, equally, support the notion that we should have hung Martin Bryant, instead of keeping him in solitary confinement for his own safety."

I would not really compare the two. Saddam was a very intelligent
fellow, who knew how to use extreme violence to achieve his political
objectives and it worked for 30 years or so for him. Bryant is on
the edge of being insane and basically not far from being an idiot,
judging by what I have read about him. I would doubt that he had
any deeper thoughts about what he was doing.

The thing is, people have a sense of justice and Saddam seems to
have affected the lives of tens of thousands, to achieve his
political aims. It was not just one crazy act, but highly calculated
over time. Many of those people have expressed the fact that seeing
Saddam swing was the happiest day of their lives. Fair enough,
I don't have a problem with that and can empathise. People want
justice seen to be done, revenge is sweet as they say.

Evolutionary psychology has examined all this and the finding was
that turning the other cheek is a dismal failure, giving it back
twice as hard, seems to be the best survival strategy.
Fair enough.

Voters in Australia voted Capital punishment OUT in the seventies.

atomictights "Voters in Australia voted Capital punishment OUT in the seventies. "

Really?

Could you direct me to the source of your research for making such a claim?

According to my research – first google hit for “australia capital punishment” http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti03.pdf

Capital Punishment was abolished as follows

Queensland 1922
New South Wales 1955
Tasmania 1968
Everywhere else 1975 except WA who “hung on” until 1984.

I would note the Morgan Gallop poles at the time recorded
1980 - - - - - - - - - -1986
43% Pro Penalty 43%
40% Life Imprison 41%
17% Undecided 16%

Per Morgan Gallop Pole File 1419 11 March 1986.

Mind you a lot of strange things were happening around 1975 (when most places abolished capital punishment) Whitlam for one. Maybe someone was putting something in the water supply.

If you were to do the same today you would find the pro-death would marginally outweigh the anti death lobby.

A crude analysis of those who responded to the OLO thread 3791

“Strengthening official opposition to death penalties”
By Tony Smith, published 9/9/2005

Concludes
7 Posters Arguing for the death penalty = 47%
6 Posters Arguing against the death penalty = 40%
2 Posters View indeterminable = 13%

Not very scientific and not a really sufficient sample but remarkably close to the 1986 pole (above).

The great statistician graces us with his formidable analytical skills once more. However, he seems to be something of an "outlier" again, since - I repeat - *no* major Australian political party is game to campaign on a pro-death penalty platform.

Not even the rodent, who has the most highly developed poll-sniffing faculties of all populist politicians.

Let us use the US as an example - some states have capital punishment and some do not.

If capital punishment is such a deterrent, why do the states with capital punishment have higher homicide rate than those who do not?

"The gap between the cumulative murder rates of death penalty and non-death penalty states actually widened in 2003, from 36% in 2002 to 44% in 2003. "The two states with the most executions in 2003, Texas (24) and Oklahoma (14) saw increases in their murder rates from 2002 to 2003. Both states had murder rates above the national average in 2003: Texas - 6.4, and Oklahoma - 5.9. The top 13 states in terms of murder rates were all death penalty states. The murder rate of the death penalty states increased from 2002, while the rate in non-death penalty states decreased." (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org)."

How to explain this? I believe it is because capital punishment teaches society that murder is acceptable, if you can justify it. Therefore certain, possibly unhinged, people will take their own situation and justify murder - just as the state teaches them.

I believe that murder and capital punishment are never justified - ultimately it only produces a more violent society. What sort of society do you want to live in?

This is what The Hon IDF Callinan AC, Justice of the High Court of Australia has said about capital punishment.

"There does seem to be little empirical data to suggest that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than imprisonment
for life without parole. The fallibility of the criminal justice system, the inability to prove the deterrence theory, and my personal revulsion of state sponsored execution of human beings
support the abolition of capital punishment. In those jurisdictions like Australia where abolition has been achieved, it is important to remember that abolition cannot be taken for granted."

http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/pdf/speech%20callinan%202005.pdf

Boaz - saddam's greatest crime was to point to mohammed as a messenger of god with his dying breath...

Umm... no, I don't even think it's a crime. What about people who do it peacefully? Does this same rule apply to a peaceful preacher who asks that people follow mohammed? Secularists don't care who you're preaching about. It ain't the same as murder.

Runner - this isn't about abortion, but if you must drag it there, it's whether or not you consider a foetus an actual child. Many of us don't. There's you're argument - not a child, not a murder - evidently, not your view, but thankfully we can agree to disagree. I just hope we always can.

In regard to the death penalty - even if you agree with it, is it okay to taunt the guy before hanging him? Is that how you establish a democracy? Say it's okay to kill your enemy in the most degrading of fashion, even if he is a tyrant?

Look at china. 68 offences receive the death penalty. Light stuff, like tax fraud and embezzlement. There is frequent interference in the judicial process. There is the briefest of spans between trial and death.
Can you honestly tell me mistakes aren't made?
So tell me... will Iraq have a foolproof legal system? from what I've seen, that is one holy hell of a long way off. Perhaps we shouldn't be killing people until we're sure.

On saddam, we're probably sure, but it wasn't a smooth trial, with so many lawyers being murdered along the way (yes, this is a bad thing). It certainly wasn't valid in the eyes of the Iraqi public, though to a large number the execution was justified... though not to all. He certainly had his supporters.

I guess what I'm getting at, is in all this chaos, shouldn't an example of civilised behaviour be given as an example? shouldn't we have let saddam live, and tried to learn all his secrets, and what made him do the things he did? Couldn't some good have come of this?

"Let us look at the benefits of capital punishment:"

"1.It enables society to revenge itself on the criminal. Many people forget the origin of law; in the early middle ages if someone killed a friend of yours all you could do was to kill him in return. This led to endless tit-for-tat killings and feuds. The establishment of law meant that violence was confined to the state, and it exacted revenge on behalf of the victim and society."
And now several middle eastern states, full of angry Muslims, have a burning desire to indulge in tit-for-tat killings and feuds against the state of America, and by extension the state of Australia.

"2. It means that we will definitely have no more trouble from this person. There is no way that a bleeding heart in a few years will let him out of jail."
Even if our victim turns out to be innocent.

"3.It provides a deterrent. If anyone disputes this, look at Saudi Arabia and the level of theft compared to here. (In Saudi you can lose your hand for theft.)"
A great argument to use in Oz, of all places; a predominantly white society originally created by the overflow of the gaols of jolly old England; the home of “deterrent” criminal punishment.

"4. It accomplishes all of the above with the least possible expenditure of public money."
Good argument. So good, in fact, it could be used to justify the death penalty for anything from minor traffic offences to calling our esteemed PM a rodent.
This argument is literally childish. For years I tried to teach my children the Golden Rule, and the need to be pro-active, not reactive; ie 'do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, not because they did it to you.
That is the natural child's response: “but he did it to me!”
Grow up.

"How to explain this? I believe it is because capital punishment teaches society that murder is acceptable, if you can justify it. Therefore certain, possibly unhinged, people will take their own situation and justify murder - just as the state teaches them."

I'd say that analysis is a little simplistic. Japan has the
death penalty, yet IIRC, their murder rate is far lower then
virtually all US States.

If you take a trip through the US, comparing North and South,
say Maine and Alabama, its like day and night, like two different
countries. The gun culture, racial tensions, lots of differences,
which would play a role between the two.

In Saddam's case, enough tens of thousands of people were affected
by his violence, that they should be considered too. Yup, some
of them badly wanted revenge and will sleep better now, fair enough.

Hopefully a few other maniac leaders, like in North Korea, Zimbabwe
and other places will take a bit of notice, that if they abuse
their populations for long enough, chances are that they might
swing off a rope

Carsten “The murder rate of the death penalty states increased from 2002, while the rate in non-death penalty states decreased." (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org)."

….I believe it is because capital punishment teaches society that murder is acceptable, if you can justify it. Therefore certain, possibly unhinged, people will take their own situation and justify murder - just as the state teaches them. Homicide rates could equally be influenced by demographic factors, such as the mix of ethnic origins. “

I repeat as I stated previously

“Homicide rates could equally be influenced by demographic factors, such as the mix of ethnic origins
A state in the North East USA, which may not have a death Penalty, will have its origins and ethnic balance steeped in English Puritanism. Texas, on the other hand, with the death penalty, has a far different ethnic mix.”

What someone believes is their own subjective assessment, based on their personal background, education and a fist full of other variables.

What is not proven is that absence of a death penalty does produce lower homicide rates.

I would suggest, simplistically put, the availability and public attitude toward guns is a far more significant factor than the absence or presence of a death penalty.

However, my suggestion is like yours, an unproven view.

To satisfy the manic cravings of one small minded poster (immediately previous to carsten’s post) I would point out that what I said above in “statistic speak” means “a null hypothesis does not prove a negative but proves nothing”. Having sorted out the statistical analysis and pacified CJMorgan I will leave him to foam at the mouth over rodent poo, a topic which seems to fill his posts (and defines their merit).

Rainier “the inability to prove the deterrence theory” that is fair observation.
However, few things in life are determined by the logic of proof (if they were we would all have sufficient house and life insurance and would not bother to try and win tatts)

TurnRightThenLeft “taunting” I agree,

Likewise the “no camera” rule failed. Executions should not be turned into public side shows.

Col: "“a null hypothesis does not prove a negative but proves nothing”"

Sure Col - but you still have to be able to reject it if you want to claim significance for your alternative hypothesis.

I'm sure you're a brilliant accountant, but you're no statistical genius, old son. I'd stick with the loopholes and small print if I were you.

“Homicide rates could equally be influenced by demographic factors, such as the mix of ethnic origins
A state in the North East USA, which may not have a death Penalty, will have its origins and ethnic balance steeped in English Puritanism. Texas, on the other hand, with the death penalty, has a far different ethnic mix.”
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 4 January 2007 10:59:12 PM

I agree that my argument is from a statistically insignificant number, and that other factors are also involved. Although I do not think the divide is as simple as non-execution NE puritan on the one hand, and Texas on the other. There are 13 CP states - it seems odd that they are also the top murder states. My questioning the effectiveness of capital punishment may well be a gut reaction. I do not think it is definitively provable - but is also what I believe.

Also, I understand countries like Japan have the death penalty and a far lower murder rate. But I think the rate would be low, regardless of the penalty - that cultural influences outweigh the penalty.

Carsten I was not promoting the idea that one state would have a lower homicide rate simply because of the historic values of its founding fathers, quite the opposite.

I made the point to illustrate that no one single factor, such as presence or absence of a death penalty, can be reasonably tested to be seen as a significant factor.

Your observation to Japan and where you presume “that cultural influences outweigh the penalty.” Would confirm, again, what I said.

So too rainiers quotation “There does seem to be little empirical data to suggest that the death penalty is a greater deterrent”

can be adopted to suggest that abolition of the death penalty is no deterrent either.

As in most things from Abortion to Zoos, subjective values and not objective reasoning determines what people choose to believe.

When it comes to the death penalty, very few objective arguments ever come to bear

Only when innocent people are executed do we realise how stupid it is.

Carsten I was not promoting the idea that one state would have a lower homicide rate simply because of the historic values of its founding fathers, quite the opposite.

I made the point to illustrate that no one single factor, such as presence or absence of a death penalty, can be reasonably tested to be seen as a significant factor.

Your observation to Japan and where you presume “that cultural influences outweigh the penalty.” Would confirm, again, what I said.

Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 5 January 2007 9:44:52 AM

I generally agreed with you. However, in the case of the US - you have a single country with a single history. Only, different states have different laws. It is (nearly) as close to an absence of external factors as you are going to get. And the (statistically sparse) evidence suggests that capital punishment does not deter homicide - but may in fact increase its likelihood

"However, in the case of the US - you have a single country with a single history. Only, different states have different laws. It is (nearly) as close to an absence of external factors as you are going to get."

What you overlook, is that the US is made up of lots of different
cultures, living in various groups and if you travel there, its as
plain as night and day. The South has large latino and black
communities, whereas Maine and Vermont hardly have any. Don't compare
apples and oranges.

If you want to understand murder rates, as Col pointed out, have
a look at the gun culture and where guns are easily available.
In some US States they can be bought at Walmart, others have
restrictions etc. Compare countries with free gun laws and those
that have limits. Then your murder rate tends to make some sense.

Perhaps best to scratch your butt a bit and think about this one
a bit more perhaps ? :)

Carsten “in the case of the US - you have a single country with a single history.”

Hardly, continental USA has a history as fragmented as Europe.

A single history? Ruptured by the direct confrontation of Civil war, the industrialised North versus the agrarian South.

A single history which saw federal troops sent in to enforce federal laws in a recalcitrant South as late as the 1960s.

Regarding “It is (nearly) as close to an absence of external factors”

Differences in internal factors are massive, including State historic political and legislative bias, the old North / South thing (noting from my experience of living in Texas, most Americans consider California and its antics as if it were some other universe, not just another state and Texans who just hang on to the status of Lone Star State, completely indifferent to anything north of the Red River).

As for “And the (statistically sparse) evidence suggests that capital punishment does not deter homicide - but may in fact increase its likelihood”

Wrong! (unless you are claiming a null hypothesis proves anything)
No statistical evidence to show that capital punishment encourages homicide.
No statistical evidence to show that abolition of capital punishment reduces homicides.

Perhaps best to scratch your butt a bit and think about this one
a bit more perhaps ? :)
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 5 January 2007 7:38:39 PM

I am not talking about the differences between Massachusetts and Texas here.

The homicide rate in North Dakota, which does not have the death penalty, was lower than the homicide rate in South Dakota, which does have it, according to F.B.I. statistics for 1998. Massachusetts, which abolished capital punishment in 1984, has a lower rate than Connecticut, which has six people on death row; the homicide rate in West Virginia is 30 percent below that of Virginia, which has one of the highest execution rates in the country.

I'm thinking......

I've put my case up. Now its time for someone to post how capital punishment IS a deterrent.

(and I don't want to get into how its more expensive to execute someone than improson them for life)

re:

" … continental USA has a history as fragmented as Europe."

That's grossly misleading, given the short history of the US republic.

Fragmentation in Europe is evident in the presence of not just different regional accents and dialects, ( eg "Southern" vs "Northern) but also distinct language families related by common grammar elements: "Italic" languages such as Italian, French, Portuguese and Spanish. Germanic languages such as German, Dutch, English and Scandinavian tongues; Slavonic, Celtic and Baltic language groups; and others as well.

Behind each of these languages is thousands of years of cultural differentiation, tribal and state fragmentation, and conflict. If North American indigenous cultures had maintained their hegemonies, maybe the idea of America being as fragmented as Europe could be argued. My guess is that English is now spoken by most Native Americans.

The US is governed by English-speakers, with English the universal language of public process.

All rather beside the point. We're here to philosophise about whether President Hussein ought to have been hanged, and whether the world is now a better place because of that.

The next hypothetical for me is what to do about President GW Bush, who has also acted illegally.

Have a look at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16230
for the full text of US Congressional Representative McKinney's floor statement on the impeachment of George W. Bush:

By Cynthia McKinney, December 8, 2006
“Mr. Speaker:
“I come before this body today as a proud American and as a servant of the American people, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

“Throughout my tenure, I’ve always tried to speak the truth. It’s that commitment that brings me here today.

“We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.

(snip)
“Mr. Speaker:

“Under the standards set by the United States Constitution, President Bush—along with Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice—should be subject to the process of impeachment, and I have filed H. Res. _ in the House of Representatives.”

Col Rouge, death penalty for second offence drug dealers? give me a break, I say release all political prisoners, aka drug dealers, today! And lock you up

Sir Vivor, Rep. McKinney is one of the few inspirational members of the US congress, that woman has got guts, shame about the rest of the spineless, useless democrats, bipartisanship my ass, if the dems. dont move to impeach Bush and Cheney they are nothing but a waste of space, and taxpayers money.

"I've put my case up. Now its time for someone to post how capital punishment IS a deterrent."

Carsten, you are free to fiddle around with figures to make your
case. The thing is, a whole lot of variables play into this argument,
you certainly have shown no reason for them to be excluded and that
your case has merit.

You have also ignored the victims. In the case of say Saddam, there
are thousands of them. Many claimed that the day he was strung up,
was the happiest day of their lives! I have no problem with the
fact that these people now sleep better.

At the end of the day, turning the other cheek is a dismal failure.
Tit for tat means that people understand that there are consequences
for their actions. Let the victimes of Saddam now sleep peacefully,
knowing that he got what he deserved, even if a few protest, too bad

Saddam wasn't hung for nothing. He was hung because he turned on his masters. We shoot rogue animals don't we? Saddam would be sitting in relative comfort and knocking off the odd Iraqi citizen as ever before had he allowed the U.N. weapons inspectors full access as Bush asked and not tried to play at "chicken". Of course when Saddam went after Kuwait I figured he had a bit of the old death wish.
I'm not going to argue the merits or detractions of capital punishment. Saddam wasn't hung for his crimes, he was hung because he was stupid. He'd been committing crimes against humanity and his own people since he was a lad and long before the USA, Britain, France, Germany, Russia or anyone else showed up to sell the idiot gas, guns or ammo.

I too am basically opposed to capital punishment. But all this fuss about Saddam! Surely there are people on death row who deserve more attention.

What about death by stoning, still practiced, according to Amnesty, in Iran? And for the offence of adultery. And usually applied to women.

Or the trial in Bangla Desh of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury? A Muslim editor and journalist in Bangla Desh he has been beaten, imprisoned and is now facing a trial for sedition, treason and blasphemy, a charge which can bring the death sentence. Why? He reported on the rise of Al Qaida and wanted to foster peace between Muslims and Jews. This disgraceful trial has been completely ignored by the lefties and the press. I wonder why.

And surely the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to dictators is so far untested. These people make the laws - they think that they can get away with whatever they decree.

And there are advantages to some people in Saddam's death. The relatives of his victims can sleep better knowing that he can no longer harm them and they now have closure. Ask yourself what would have happened if Hitler had lived and was placed in prison? Some people we are better off without.

At the end of the day, turning the other cheek is a dismal failure.
Tit for tat means that people understand that there are consequences
for their actions. Let the victimes of Saddam now sleep peacefully,
knowing that he got what he deserved, even if a few protest, too bad
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 6 January 2007 11:48:58 PM

Actually - it is the death penalty that is the dismal failure.

It does not deter murder, particularly in the case of brutal dictators like Saddam. Is the next dictator (Mugabe perhaps?) going to refrain because of the fear of execution? I think not.

Even if the guilty are executed, the victims are still dead, and the families still have to live with that loss.

It is untrue, also, that all families seek and gain closure by execution (http://www.mvfr.org/DeathPenaltyFacts.htm). And while families may claim to want execution for 'closure', I challenge you to find any example of a family member who has found closure by execution of the guilty.

Is there anyone who has been close to a victim of murder (family, friend) who is still for the death penalty?

I understand the knee-jerk reaction - and am trying to get people to think beyond that.

For me the arguement is actually very simple, ask yourself what you would rather, to be executed, or to spend every single day of the rest of your life in a maximum security prison, easy choice for me.

carsten

You are failing to understand the chasm of difference between a murderer and a murderous dictator.

Studies done on families of victims of individual murders would have little if any relevance to the Saddam, Hitler, Pinochet cases where entire populations were suppressed and lived in a state of fear. If nothing else an alive Saddam could still be released by supporters and restored to power. Thus several million Iraqis might have justifiable fears of a Saddam alive.

I am surprised that anti-capital punishment people of whom I am one would spend so much effort on such a monster when there is a real risk of re offending and consequential damage to so many, rather than address the real wrongs such as the slaughtered women in Iran and Salah Choudhury.

Carsten “The homicide rate in North Dakota, which does not have the death penalty, was lower than the homicide rate in South Dakota, which does have it, according to F.B.I. statistics for 1998. Massachusetts, which abolished capital punishment in 1984, has a lower rate than Connecticut, which has six people on death row; the homicide rate in West Virginia is 30 percent below that of Virginia”

So, have you eliminated the demographic differences of states? Like

Mix of ethnic origins
Percentage of active participants in religious observance
Differences in forms of religious observance
Economic performance
Agrarian or industrial economic base?
Education policy
Social welfare policy
Racial history, segregation / separation policy (government) and social influences (non-government)
Re-offender rates
Mass/multiple killings versus single killings
Nature of killing (spontaneous or anticipated)

The above are merely 11 of thousands of variables which may influence a homicide rate

Add that to statistical clustering and aberration and what do you have; something which says

“suggesting the absence or presence of the death penalty as an influence on homicide rates is at best coincidental since its singular influence has not been exacted separate to other influences.

Or simply put, carsten,
1 your “case” does not prove a thing and
2 as I said, previously “No statistical evidence to show that abolition of capital punishment reduces homicides.”

And

“As in most things from Abortion to Zoos, subjective values and not objective reasoning determines what people choose to believe.

When it comes to the death penalty, very few objective arguments ever come to bear”

SurVivor “" … continental USA has a history as fragmented as Europe."

That's grossly misleading,”

Segregation of the races was outlawed 200 years ago in the northern states and still official state policy in the south until the 1970’s (and likely unofficial state policy in some places today).
The original 13 states who signed the declaration of independence have a far longer post-native Indian history than the states of the North West or Alaska.

As to your comment “All rather beside the point.” Then why bother to make it?

Carl “Col Rouge, death penalty for second offence drug dealers? give me a break, I say release all political prisoners, aka drug dealers, today! And lock you up”

I would normally respond with good reason which compares the actions of drug dealers to those of psychopaths, sociopaths and contract killers.

As it is the final fourteen words in your post identify you as a cretinous moron who probably wears slip-on shoes because you are intellectually challenged by laces.

Don’t bother to challenge another post if all you can suggest is drug-dealers are political prisoners unless you can also produce evidence to support your notion that I should be locked up.

Now, return to the pond from whence you came and mix with the algae, the repartee of debate is better suited for you there than here.

Carsten “Is there anyone who has been close to a victim of murder (family, friend) who is still for the death penalty?”

My partners son was murdered in 2006 by someone turned schizophrenic from excessive and repeated cannabis consumption. I live with the effect on my partner of that tragedy daily. You know my view.

Logic “carsten - You are failing to understand the chasm of difference between a murderer and a murderous dictator.” Well Said.

Every bleeding heart ought to have a Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al- Tikriti for a life monitor. It wouldn't be long before the few remaining would be all for shooting the bastard. This guy was rogue from day one and found his niche in the secret police early on before using it to crowbar his way into national leadership. He had a simple philosophy. Kill any one who stands in your way. How he ever got to be 69 is a miracle and puzzlement to me.

carsten

You are failing to understand the chasm of difference between a murderer and a murderous dictator.
Posted by logic, Sunday, 7 January 2007 8:56:16 PM

Of course I recognise the difference between a murderer and a murderous dictator - the debate here just got a little sidetracked towards the murderer/capital punishment argument.

However, even if Saddam remained alive (and in prison), there is nothing for people to fear - he was never going to get back in power. They have more to fear with him dead and a martyr as he is now (an on-going lightning rod for militant Sunnis). Idi Amin is another example of a murderous dictator who was never even punished - he excaped, found asylum in Saudi Arabia and resided in Jedda, subsisting on a government stipend, for about 23 years until his death of natural causes in 2003. The new Ugandan government chose to keep him exiled, saying that Amin would face war crimes charges if he ever returned.

~
So, have you eliminated the demographic differences of states? Like

Mix of ethnic origins
Percentage of active participants in religious observance
Differences in forms of religious observance
Economic performance
Agrarian or industrial economic base?
Education policy
Social welfare policy
Racial history, segregation / separation policy (government) and social influences (non-government)
Re-offender rates
Mass/multiple killings versus single killings
Nature of killing (spontaneous or anticipated)

When it comes to the death penalty, very few objective arguments ever come to bear”

~
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 8 January 2007 12:30:37 AM

With the examples above, of similar adjacent states, I have largely eliminated the demographic factors you mention. The result still leans towards death penalty being no deterrant. And if you are correct that very few objective arguments can show that the death penalty is no deterrant, why not fall back on simple economics? That is is much cheaper to imprison a murderer for life than execute him. In the absence of positive evidence either way - why not choose the cheaper option?

Carsten,

Where is your evidence on costs?

In Australia, it costs in the order of $40,000 to $80,000 per year to to keep someone imprisoned. That's one or two million dollars or so, for a 20 year sentence. Surely it costs less to eliminate the miscreants and bunnies, early on.

In the US, appeals and the (in-principle)ability of prisoners to compel the courts to guarantee a fair trial, prior to execution of a death sentence, may make life imprisonment less expensive than execution.

My greatest concern is that SH did not receive a fair trial and is unlikely to receive any trial (even posthumously) over the matter of Kurdish atrocities, where there is evidence of American Government Agency complicity. SH's execution is very convenient for the current US Executive Branch folks such as GWB, Cheney, Rummy, and likely others.

See http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/dujail/, where Kevin John Heller argues that:

"Iraq is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees ... [that] ... a defendant be provided, at a minimum, with the following rights:

• To be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the charge against him;

• To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing…

• To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing…

• To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him."

An execution can be the outcome of a just process, but SH's execution was neither moral nor just; just the endpoint of another sleazy, hypocritical machination by the current US administration.

A shame Mr Bagaric does not condescend to join the commenting. Perhaps he could cite some social research and statistics which support his opinions about capital punishment, and torture to prevent moral outrage.

Col Rouge,

I am sorry the brashness of my post offended you so much, obviously I don't believe you should be locked up, but I, and many other pond dwelling life forms do find your views on drug dealers abhorrent.

I agree that large scale drug dealers (the CIA included, and yes there is plenty of evidence to support that claim) are self interested sociopaths. But the large majority of drug dealers, that are so unneccessarily clogging up our penal system generally do so to support their own habit, or through ignorance of how else to stay alive.

Most drug dealers are either poor, stupid or both. Drugs are a social and medical problem, jamming them in overcrowded prisons will, in the long run, do nothing to stop the problem.

You have been affected personally by drug use and I am sorry about that. I have witnessed the mental health of people closest to me deteriorate from drug use, it is not pretty, but I do not blame the dealers, users make the choice to put those drugs in their bodies, the question is, why, in these 'unprecedented times of economic growth' are so many people willing to infect their bodies with drugs? And does criminilisation of illicit drugs really make people stop taking them?

carsten

I think your analogy with Idi Amin is not a good one. If Idi had been tried he would have been executed. That is why his former subjects are not frightened of a return. Saddam could conceivably be put back into power and that perception of a return would affect Shiites.

As to whether the possibility of a martyrdom would lead to a worse outcome I have no idea. Remember that in general terms I am also opposed to capital punishment, but the decision was never mine and I can see why so many Iraqis wanted him dead. To me his life is less sacred than that of most other people.

That is why I would prefer discussion on more deserving cases.

But Idi Amin was not tried - well - in absentia perhaps.

The is no way even a free Saddam would regain power - have his 1/4 Sunni Iraqis rule the whole. Could never happen.

The analogy with Idi Amin is a very relevant one. Although a more exact analogy would be if Saddam was sent into exile and maintained on a pension (to a formerly friendly state - the US perhaps) to see out his days. How did the Ugandans live with themselves, knowing Idi was living free and in comfort a short plane flight away? They obviously did - which is another reason it was not necessary to execute Saddam - it achieved nothing - except martyrdom

carsten

Your focus on Saddam as martyr is an empty bag, a shell only. Even the Iraqi government dismisses the idea. The number of people willing to hold Saddam Hussein up as a martyr are not only few but, base opportunist who would hold road kill up as a righteous death if it got their name in the paper. Saddam Hussein didn't just kill Shia or Kurdish Iraqis, he killed a great many Sunni Iraqi also. He didn't do it in secret either. He hung them along the main streets of their home towns and left their bodies hanging to rot in the sun. Families remember such atrocities and anyone trying to win the hearts and minds of these people will not force the non issue of Saddam as martyr.

Carsten “With the examples above, of similar adjacent states, I have largely eliminated the demographic factors you mention.”

Let me look at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

North Dakota:South Dakota, a bit tough.

However, North Dakota is, compared to South Dakota, South Dakota has, as a State, significantly more value of Manufactured products.

North Dakota population density is lower and Declining, whereas South Dakota population is increasing.

This leads to the simple conclusion South Dakota errs toward an urbanized population, more reliant on an industrialized economy and North Dakota a more Rural population working as something closer to an Agrarian economy,

Massachusetts: Connecticut, easy

Check out the population % of Hispanics and Blacks between those two states.

West Virginia : Virginia, too easy

That aside, Check
A: population Density
B: Numbers of Blacks and Hispanics in Virginia compared to WV.
OR
D: Language other than English spoken at home.
The differences are numerous strangely including tertiary education as expressed in % with batchelor degree of those age 25+.

Now carsten,it is obvious you are no where near “getting it” and I have given you some clues (above)

So, Plot a simple chart and tell us what you can interpret from that chart.

Axis X = Homicide rate by state
Axis Y = Population % of Blacks and Hispanics by state

As for “But Idi Amin was not tried”
And Stalin died in bed.

if the world knew what they were to become they would have been torn from their mother womb rather than allowed to breath the air we share.

Carl
“Drugs are a social and medical problem, jamming them in overcrowded prisons will, in the long run, do nothing to stop the problem.”

Dealers have shown such contempt for their fellow man that they do not deserve to breath anymore and after being caught a second time.
I would as soon expect a child molester will change from his chosen perversion as would a drug dealer. Reducing prison costs would be merely a byproduct.

Actually add pedophiles to the list for execution. Nothing can be done with them either

As for “But Idi Amin was not tried”

Carl
“Drugs are a social and medical problem, jamming them in overcrowded prisons will do nothing to stop the problem.”

Dealers have shown such contempt for their fellow man that they do not deserve to breath anymore and after being caught a second time.

Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 9 January 2007 8:59:07 AM

OK OK maybe my argument is not statistically defensible - but neither are stats to show any effectiveness of the death penalty. It is something a very few countries apply these days - for no discernable benefit. In fact, in the US (and hypothetically Australia), it is more expensive to prosecute a capital case than to lock a murderer away for life.

The point, re Idi Amin, was that he was a nasty little thug who was allowed to go free and paid a pension for his natural life. The Ugandan victims are still dead. He escaped too lightly, obviously, but shows what happens when you don't kill a brutal dictator - nothing at all.

I think Carl was trying to say that locking dealers up or killing them does not solve the problem. More effort should be made towards solving the problem, than ineffective punitive actions. It might make you, Col, feel better that the dealers are in jail, or dead, but it does not slow the supply on the street - ie the problem is not addressed, and people are still dying. Besides which, drug dealers are another category - they are not forcing anything on anyone - they are simply meeting a demand, for profit. Like cigarette companies. Treat them the same, I say.

In terms of child molesters and pedophiles - castrate them, then lock them up for a good long time.

And murderers? Prison without parole. But not a cushy three-square-meals-a-day prison. Assign them some task (punching number plates or whatever) and feed them according to their productivity. If they don't want to work, they don't get fed - their choice.

Carsten “OK OK maybe my argument is not statistically defensible - but neither are stats to show any effectiveness of the death penalty.”

I would note I have not been arguing the merits of a death penalty on the basis if any statistical reasoning.

I actually wrote

Col Rouge Friday 5th January
“As in most things from Abortion to Zoos, subjective values and not objective reasoning determines what people choose to believe.

When it comes to the death penalty, very few objective arguments ever come to bear”

I recognize you now accept the merit of my view, with grace.

Now “It might make you, Col, feel better that the dealers are in jail, or dead, but it does not slow the supply on the street - ie the problem is not addressed, and people are still dying.”

It is a matter of supply and demand.

Assume the passive demand is constant. Some people will always be foolish enough to do stupid things, depending on the price.

What a society can do is leverage the price to the point where the experience if a hit of whatever does not overcome the price it costs to obtain.

The easiest way of leveraging the price is to make the role of “drug dealer” so expensive that it ceases to attract those who choose it now.

Society cannot control the price of the drugs of trade. Society can, however, control the price of being caught trading.

My view is simple. Execute enough drug dealers and those attracted to the easy money of that trade will start to balance the benefits of acquiring vast wealth offset by rapidly diminishing chance to enjoy it (or anything else for that matter).

The “problems” are
1 the curiosity of users. This is insurmountable and control would be detrimental. People should be free to do stupid things and pay the consequences.

2 the cynical opportunism of the drug dealers. This we can fix by
A the state expropriating the gains from their criminal enterprise (which it does already)
B executing them, which "ups the stakes".

It does take time.

Once more, a failure to distinguish fact from opinion:

"Society cannot control the price of the drugs of trade. Society can, however, control the price of being caught trading."

But what or who is "Society"? Is some particular arm of a government administration meant here, or are we looking at some other collection of people: say fellow drug dealers, whose territorial imperative may exceed their sense of humour)?

(not that it has anything to do with "Saddam [hanged] for nothing", or torture to prevent "moral outrage")

As for my own opinion, Death for drug pushers is overdoing it a bit. Let the punishment fit the crime, I say.

Convicted, smalltime (Australian) drug dealers should be strapped to a gurney at a Guantanamo-type facility and bombarded with flashing lights and loud recordings of 10 year old children reading random selections of Mills and Boon novels at unpredictable intervals. If this confinement includes a "cold turkey" experience, then they ought to have to write (or dictate) a sincere thank-you note before they are released.

Bigtime operators should be allowed to suffer the public shame of annual tax audits by the accounting firm of their choice. If they re-offend, they should be compelled to do community service. Where they go should be decided by their up-line.

There have been a great many news articles discussing the trial of Saddam Hussein. How many articles have been in the paper discussing the number and extent of his list of victims? How many articles discussing just why Saddam felt it necessary to terrorize his own citizens? How many articles discussing Saddam's violent rise to power? How many articles discussing Saddam's use of law and his system of justice?

Saddam Hussein had a trial of his peers. People who knew him best. There were Judges and Lawyers and evidence galore. The most damning evidence was the fantastic number of people who couldn't give their evidence because they were dead at the hands of Saddam Hussein.

Once again the rights of the criminal are held above the rights of the victims. Some twisted sense of justice.

There have been a great many news articles discussing the trial of Saddam Hussein. How many articles have been in the paper discussing the number and extent of his list of victims? How many articles discussing just why Saddam felt it necessary to terrorize his own citizens? How many articles discussing Saddam's violent rise to power? How many articles discussing Saddam's use of law and his system of justice?

Once again the rights of the criminal are held above the rights of the victims. Some twisted sense of justice.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 3:54:38 AM

Iraq is a country artificially drawn up by the English (Winston Churchill IIRC). We can see from the civil strife now what naturally happens when you force these people together. Yugoslavia is another, similar, example - with similar consequences when not held together by a 'strongman'.

Life and conditions, for the vast majority of Iragis, are by any measure worse today than they were under Saddam (especially with strong US support until ~ 1990).

I am not condoning Saddam in any way. But there are reasons for what he did.

The victims are dead, regardless. And I suspect many more people will die as a result of his execution than if he were not. So - for the average Iraqi, it would have been better if he were not executed

Saddam hanged for nothing much more than others’convenience?

Did Saddam Die For Our Sins?
Barry Lando
January 09, 2007

”Barry Lando is a former CBS "60 Minutes" producer and journalist with Time-Life. He is the author of Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush (2006).”

“The disappearance of Saddam Hussein means that a lot of current and former top officials in the United States and other Western governments can breathe easier. The story of the West’s complicity in many of the tyrant’s most horrific crimes will remain untold, at least by the one man who could have spelled it out most clearly.”

”The purpose of the Special Iraqi Tribunal was supposedly, like the Nuremburg Tribunal, to educate Iraqis and the world about Saddam and his barbarous regime. That at least was the fiction. But the crime for which Saddam paid with his life … was a trifle compared to the dictator’s far more vicious acts. On the other hand, no foreigners were implicated in those killings, which is just what the Americans, who set up and rode herd on the tribunal had in mind. In fact, one of the regulations of the tribunal, constantly overlooked, is that only Iraqi citizens and residents can be charged with crimes before that court.”

”Foreign leaders and businessmen certainly had a hand—by omission and commission—in the second case which is now continuing without Saddam (the charges against him have been dropped ). It’s based on the charge that he and his lieutenants carried out the genocidal slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980’s … But the damning fact is, as Saddam’s forces were carrying out their liquidation of the Kurds, American officials from the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations blocked attempts of the U.S. Congress and the U.N. to condemn the Iraqi tyrant. They had similarly squelched earlier efforts to condemn Saddam for his chemical attacks against Iranian troops.”
(snip)

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/09/did_saddam_die_for_our_sins.php

Or maybe SH was hanged because GWB suffers from penis envy?

I agree with Sir Vivor.

Regardless of whether or not capital punishment per se is morally defensible, which is a bit of a red herring in this issue, Saddam's expedient execution after a distinctly dubious trial has effectively stymied any possibility of the truth concerning the complicity (or otherwise) of Western agencies and arms manufacturers in his alleged crimes.

carsten
All countries are artificially drawn up. There is no natural country. Some Island countries have a better claim being defined by ocean but, still artificially drawn up as to being country.
The situation in Iraq is much more complex than the arrival of the Americans. Saddam wasn't going to last forever you know. Uday and Qusay were in line to succeed Daddy. It has been reported by Iraqi officers that Saddam had turned much of the daily governing over to his sons.And they had their own agenda and were about killing those whom they found offense. Today you have religious insurgency, tribal revenge(death squads), and local terrorist cells and foreign terrorist cadres killing each other. Yes Saddam kept a lid on this but at the cost of some 200,000 Sunni and Shia Iraqis murders and some 300,000 Kurdish murders. Glad you are able to find reasons for Saddam.

Sir Vivor
Britain and the United States offered assurances and continued to do business with German companies like Gerber and Siemens(and several others I can not remember off hand)during WWII while they were under the thumb of Hitler and the Nazi's. Lets blame the Americans for the Jewish holocaust. Or how about Britain's aspirations in the Middle East during WWI. Lets blame the British for Arab anti-Semitism and Jewish hatred. Lets not even get into the last two hundred years of Arab tribal infighting. Damn Americans. There would be peace in the land if it wasn't for them. Wait, wait, wasn't this all about GWB and Haliburton, and America controlling the M.E. oil fields?

Here's a thought. America has a lot of influence over Canada. And look at those Canadians man. Dictatorships and mass killing everywhere you look. Must be that American and British influence. Canada would be a nice place if it wasn't for those Americans. Then there's Mexico. Totally controlling Mexico.

I need a new play book. I can't keep up with all the conspiracies. :-)

Carsten “I am not condoning Saddam in any way. But there are reasons for what he did.”

And Ted Bundy was simply misunderstood!

As for the conditions of Iraqi’s. If you look at anywhere which has seen the removal of a despot a backlash of inappropriate, including criminal and violent venting occurs. Part of that is individuals testing their personal opportunities to aspire to be dictator themselves, part of it is the settling of old scores.

That, unfortunately, is human nature. Following a period of excess things do settle down. The speed at which they settle depends on many factors but what is important to understand is the backlash is unavoidable.

If Sadaam were in power today and the USA and UN agreed to remove him tomorrow, the Iraqi’s would still face the same turmoil which they have experienced over the past 4 years or so. The only difference, they would have suffered additional years of horror from the Sadaam Hussien clan.

I note Ceausescu of Romania was similarly dispatched I guess you miss his passing equally?

Maybe we should have prayer vigils for Hitler and Stalin?

Oh as for “(especially with strong US support until ~ 1990).”

I have said it before and will say it again, a common enemy makes for strange bedfellows.

Supporting a bestial dictator is a tactical expediency when faced by Iran, busily fomenting their crazy version of world revolution and USSR (pre 1990), exporting vile communism wherever they can, remember Afghanistan?

Sadaam was playing both sides anyway, that is why he ended up with a soviet airforce and soviet tanks, not that it did him much good.

People who look down their nose at the tactics used to prevail in war and say “oh someone has dirty hands” need to remember that famous George Orwell quote

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

What was the ‘common enemy’? Iran? I realise there, popular revolt removed the US friendly Shah, much to the displeasure of the US. Even now Iran is a poor country, incapable of exerting any serious influence anywhere – let alone ‘world revolution’. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spouts some (crowd-pleasing) rhetoric now and then, but it is empty – there is no capability. I don't have enough space to argue why the nuclear issue is a non-issue.

With the death of strongman Tito in Yugoslavia, the country descended into civil war and anarchy. It did not settle down – it divided into separate countries. I predict Iraq will go the same way.

Did you read the Tom Paine article a few posts earlier? “...Saddam’s slaughter of tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of Shiites in Southern Iraq following their uprising in 1991. They were answering the repeated public calls for rebellion by President George H.W. Bush. They didn’t realize Bush and James Baker didn’t really mean it. When it looked as it the insurgents might actually succeed, the American president turned his back. The White House and its allies wanted Saddam replaced not by a popular revolt which they couldn’t control, but by a military leader, more amenable to U.S. interests. So, as the United States permitted Saddam’s attack helicopters to decimate the rebels, American troops just a few kilometers away from the slaughter were ordered to destroy huge stocks of captured weapons rather than let them fall into rebel hands. How enlightening it would have been to hear Saddam recount his ...that President Bush père was actually going to help him stay in power.”

Saddam could easily have been deposed a decade ago. Just not the way the US wanted (ie the stable democracy they have now), but something less certain.

also

The US knew of the Kurdish attacks, after the Iraq-Iran war had ended, and continued to support ‘bestial dictator’ Saddam. Why? Read the article.

If you give someone a gun, watch him shoot someone (non-strategic Kurds) with it, and then hand him more bullets – have you no culpability?

carsten
"If you give someone a gun, watch him shoot someone (non-strategic Kurds) with it, and then hand him more bullets – have you no culpability?"

How about the Islamic States lending Saddam 75Billion to fight the Iranians.

The majority of Saddam's Iraqi Army was fitted out by the Russians.

# Main battle tanks

* T-72: (2003: 700; 1990: 1000)(Russian)
* T-62: (2003: 500; 1990: 1500)(Russian)
* T-54/T-55: (2003: 500; 1990: 1500)(Russian)
* Type 59/Type 69: (2003: 500; 1990: 1500)(Russian)
* Chieftain: (1990: 30) (British)
* M47 Patton/M60: (1990: 20)(American)*

# Tactical ballistic missiles

* FROG-7: (1990: 50)(Russian)
* Scud-B: (1990: 36; 2003: 27)(Russian)
* Scud launch vehicles: (2003: 6)(Russian)
* Abbas (Iraqi)
* Husseyn (Iraqi)

# Attack helicopters

* MBB Bo 105: (1990: 56)(German)
* Mil Mi-24 Hind: (1990: 40)(Russian)
* SA 316 Alouette III: (1990: 30)(French)
* SA 321 Super Frelon: (1990: 13)(French)
* SA 342 Gazelle: (1990: 50)(French)

# Anti-tank missiles

* AT-3 Sagger(Russian)
* AT-4 Spigot (Russian)
* HOT ATGM (France/Germany)
* Milan ATGM (French)
* SS.11 (Russian)

And the Iraqi Infantry rifle was the Kalashnikov AK-47

American AR-15 bullets would be useless in a AK-47
5.56(.223) vs. 7.62(.308)
I don't think the M-60 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge is interchangeable with the AK-47 either. Gotta use Russian Bullets or Chinese maybe.

Carsten “Even now Iran is a poor country, incapable of exerting any serious influence anywhere”

When the Shar was deposed and exiled Iran had significant Oil wealth. The state it is in today is not representative of where it was but is testament to the incompetence of theocracies.

I thank aqvarivs for clarifying the weaponry sources acquired by Sadaam.

I would point out Bush Senior wanted UN support to depose Sadaam before he did it. That is why the US forces stopped after destroying the Military machine and did not proceed to Bagdad. So before you blame US for everything,I suggest you cite UN as complicit by insisting on everyone doing nothing. Nothing new there, just ask the Tutsi in Rwanda or I guess you blame that on US too.

Once again, your views are seen to be lacking substance as well as reason.

I never understand some folk who go on a hell bent rampage to discredit the western allies management of the post WWII years as if all they had to do was sit back and arrange the doilies for tea. You fail to realize, had it not been for USA, ANZUS Alliance, NATO and a few other organisations your lifestyle would, likely, not include access to the internet.

Living in a democracy, where freedom of speech is taken for granted, I would guess you, like me, have a lot to thank those “rough men” (my previous post) who developed tactics and strategy and the politicians who defined policy, all on our behalf, for. However, from your posts, I would surmise, they would have nothing to thank you for.

re:

"Britain and the United States offered assurances and continued to do business with German companies like Gerber and Siemens(and several others I can not remember off hand)during WWII while they were under the thumb of Hitler and the Nazi's. Lets blame the Americans for the Jewish holocaust."

Seriously misses the point of my post. The trial and speedy execution by hanging of SH is very convenient to the current US Administration and cabinet.

If Aqvarivs wants to carry an argument to its logical absurdity and blame "The Americans" for the Holocaust, do it! Run with the ball! Maybe a class action suit can be won!

IBM helped Hitler with logistics for his blitzkriegs and death camps, Hercules Powder trained technicians from both Germany and Russia between WWI and WWII. Ford set up assembly lines in both Germany and Russia in the same period, as did General Motors. After WWII, General Motors tried to get compensation for the bomb damage done to their German factories!

GM blamed "the Americans", and tried to get American taxpayers to pay for the gamble they lost.

Gross generalities like "Blame the Americans" clumsily sidestep what Blind Freddy can see: SH was given a show trial and execution by a kangaroo court. The current US administration believes that justice has been done by a court they repeated ly interfered in, in a country they propped up with a constitution they lobbied hard for.

Is the current US executive and cabinet representative of "The Americans"? Only Bush and Cheney were voted in. The rest are political appointments by (in my opinion) the worst US Executive branch of all time. You might follow the Ehren Watada Court Martial, to learn why a US soldier currently refuses to go back to Iraq.

In someone's "better" world, SH might be hanged and resuscitated repeatedly, 30 or 40,000 times (if possible), once for each person whose murder left blood on his hands. All with room for the final dramatic, public gesture.

But gloating and hand-wringing and justifying have nothing to do with a fair trial by a properly constituted authority.

Sir Vivor

The Iraqi Government, their law and their courts system constitute proper authority. That's really the end of the story. If you want to believe that the Iraqi government and it's leadership is so lacking in fortitude that they can't manage with out the BIG USA so be it.
However, I think you do the Iraqi people a disservice.
The Boogers dead, long live freedom! Long live Democracy. PARRTAAYYY!

Check back in twenty or thirty years. If Iraq is a thriving democracy the world will be a better place and thank you America and the Coalition Forces. If not and all has been reverted to tribal chaos.
Hell, blame the Americans. That will teach them to stay home until we call them to solve the problems we decide. Heh, heh, heh.

re:

"The Iraqi Government, their law and their courts system constitute proper authority. That's really the end of the story. If you want to believe that the Iraqi government and it's leadership is so lacking in fortitude that they can't manage with out the BIG USA so be it."

Aqvarivs, you are mistaking your opinions for facts.

Others are of the opinion that, according to the rules and precedents of international law, the present Iraqi courts system do not constitute proper authority.

A market-research survey, done in Iraq, might produce a conclusive answer, but I will neither be designing nor implementing it, and I expect you will also demur the exciting opportunity.

My guess (since there's no point pretending at any expertise in prediction of the future) is that the outcome will be more in line with the statement published by the BRussell Foundation"

"http://www.brusselstribunal.org/

"If the execution of President Saddam Hussein will not lead to an international or global war, it sows the seeds, in its overt illegality, and in conjunction with Washington's exclusion of international law from international relations, for precisely this outcome."

You may disagree with them at length and at your convenience, but there is no point in arguing fine points of international law with me, as I have no recognised legal expertise.

We may agree to disagree on whether SH got a fair trial.

Regarding my confidence in the Iraqi people, there is no basis for your assumption that I have no faith in their ability to govern themselves. I would say that the current US administration has far less confidence than I.

The "War on Terror" in Iraq shows me gross mismanagement, negligence, criminality and gratuitous destruction, of the kinds that the Marshall Plan implementation successfully avoided at the end of WWII, in Germany and Japan.

I listen to news from Iraq and hear "Yanqi go home", loud and clear.
I expect the current Iraqi leadership would need far more than fortitude to survive if US troops withdrew immediately. I expect that some of them would not get a fair trial

Sir Vivor
"Aqvarivs, you are mistaking your opinions for facts."

"Others are of the opinion that..."

Since when do the opinions of the U.N. and "International Law" supersede the rightful legal expression of a duly elected democratic government.

"A market-research survey,... "

It's already been done. The Iraqi people had a free election and got out in record numbers to have their say. Better numbers I might add than the number of Australians that get out to vote.

"If the execution of President Saddam Hussein will not lead to an international or global war, it sows the seeds, in its overt illegality, and in conjunction with Washington's exclusion of international law from international relations, for precisely this outcome."

Rubbish. I had to read this tripe five times before I understood the meaninglessness of that statement.

"The "War on Terror" in Iraq shows me gross mismanagement, negligence, criminality and gratuitous destruction, of the kinds that the Marshall Plan implementation successfully avoided at the end of WWII, in Germany and Japan."

Marshall Plan wasn't in place until 4 yrs. AFTER WWII.

Different war Sir Vivor. The Allied Armies won conclusive surrender of two nations and "owned" their lands and people as victors. Note that with the exception of Russia, all lands and peoples were returned to the people/nation after installation of democratic government and the Allies went further to help with reconstruction. No one denied repayment. Great Britain just finished it's war debt payments to Canada and the USA.

Iraq was never taken from the Iraqi people. Saddam did that. The Coalition forces gave it, Iraq, back to the people.The first thing done was to get an all Iraqi government in place and working.
The Coalition Forces act as Iraqi Army and Iraqi Policemen until Iraqis themselves can get up to speed and take over.

The execution of Saddam was for the Shia Iraqis. The Kurds had their say. 50,000 odd Kurdish fought alongside Coalition troops to free Iraq. And they will have a say in any new Iraqi government.

"It's already been done. The Iraqi people had a free election and got out in record numbers to have their say. Better numbers I might add than the number of Australians that get out to vote.

The execution of Saddam was for the Shia Iraqis. The Kurds had their say. 50,000 odd Kurdish fought alongside Coalition troops to free Iraq. And they will have a say in any new Iraqi government."
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 12 January 2007 8:19:36 AM

I highly doubt Iraq had a better turnout than an Australian election (where voting is compulsory). Higher than a US election? Most probably.

However, what they achieved was an elected government dominated by majority Shia, as per their majority in the country. And the elected Iraqi government is dependent upon Muqtada al Sadr and his Mehdi army.

His Mehdi army has fought a number of battles with U.S. and Iraqi forces, including the uprisings in Najaf and Karbala two years ago. The White House has accused Iran of backing a number of Shiite militia in Iraq, including al-Sadr's Mehdi army.

As has been commented about quite extensively, how can the elected government 'crack down' on the groups and squads that are the reason it is in power? It cannot. It is a ludicrous expectation. Like a dog biting its own tail.

carsten

I'm aware of Australian compulsory voting. However, even with compulsory voting laws Australia achieves 95% turnout. Iraq on the other hand during the January 2005 elections, in spite of neighbourhood suppression, violence, and death threats achieved a 79.6% turnout.
Australians have to vote or else they can be punished. Iraqis voted knowing they could face retribution and death.

I think they we're heroic.

Changes had been made for the 2005 elections to give greater weight to Arab Sunni and Kurdish Sunni voters who make up the majority in several provinces.

"As has been commented about quite extensively, how can the elected government 'crack down' on the groups and squads that are the reason it is in power? It cannot. It is a ludicrous expectation. Like a dog biting its own tail. "

You defeat this type of power struggle by offering the people something better than what they had under Saddam or what they would have if Sadr' has he way and establishes a Shia dictatorship AKA Iran's theocracy.
Giving up and running home only insures that the Sadr's of the world succeed. I'm quite sure that the Americans could find something or some other place to spend the nearly 1Billion/day it cost to be in Iraq.
Then again, perhaps you also believe that the Americans are willing to spend 1 Billion each day and loose the lives of approximately 80 soldiers/day to reap the rewards of a couple of million dollars/day of oil.
Good deal eh! American smart businessmans.

America and the Coalition Forces in Iraq are offering Iraqis a chance at freedom and to be come participants in the free world. Thats a huge undertaking and with all the lefty opposition, the anti American rhetoric, and anti-western hatred stepping all over everything in order to inhibit success. God willing the Iraqis will have that experience.

Well, it seems that Democracy, whatever that means, is on the highest pillar and make no mistake about the magical powers of this word - able to turn dog pure into pure perfume and almost raise the dead (well, give them a fair trial then hang them, anyway). But beauty is in the eye (and nose) of the beholder.

Forget absolute numbers here, since democracy is based on proportions.

I'll bet GWB was voted in by far less than 50% of what Australians would call eligible voters (liable to be fined for not voting)

Did 40% of elegible American voters make it to the polls? I should Google it, but my guess is less than half of all possibles, red, blue, pink, green, brindle and piebald, did the democratic thing.

And how many voted for GWB? Not quite so many as votes as got given him by those You-Beaut electronic machines. Likely less than 25% of eligible American electors voted for GWB, and then the US Executive thinks it has a mandate to send more troops to Iraq and set up a sand castle (or maybe a house of cards). A democratic sand castle (or house of cards). Sand castle, since Iraq is by all accounts fairly sandy.

What I remember about US news last November was the timely TV coverage about the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine and all the palaver about rigged elections there. Along about the same time dodgy deeds were done with Diebold vote-counting apparatus. And the coverage of black Americans, lined up around the block in Ohio, in cold, rainy weather, waiting their chance to be part of "World's Greatest Democracy".

A bit less money on susso technology, a bit more on enough polling places and paper ballots, scrutineers and oversight, might see even Aqvarivs appreciating the sort of fair federal elections Australians enjoy.

Maybe "inked thumb" technology would be more honest for the American voters, like those smiling Iraqis were so proud of on TV, men and women who who thought they were going to get electricity, running water and safe streets for their decision.

America and the Coalition Forces in Iraq are offering Iraqis a chance at freedom and to be come participants in the free world. Thats a huge undertaking and with all the lefty opposition, the anti American rhetoric, and anti-western hatred stepping all over everything in order to inhibit success. God willing the Iraqis will have that experience.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 12 January 2007 12:38:33 PM

It is not anti-american/western anything..... And whatever discussions (like this) we have in the west has nothing to do with the reality of what is going to happen on the ground in Iraq - discussions here are not going to undermine anything there.

It is just ludricrous to expect a government dependent on Shiite milita, to 'control' the militia. I don't care who or where it is - but a political party, anywhere in the world, cannot survive by undermining/eliminating its support.

If Maliki did not have the support of Sadr's bloc, he would not be Prime Minister. Simple as that. And does anyone really want an Iraq driven by Sadr's ambitions? Well, like it or not, that is what they are getting.

"Why has the prime minister proven unable to rid Iraq of militias?
Maliki relies too heavily on Sadr’s bloc, which controls thirty seats in parliament, for domestic political support. Further, large segments of Iraq’s majority Shiite population actually do not favor disbanding these militias, experts say. “Even if Maliki wanted to go against the militias, he has public opinion to worry about,” says Abbas Kadhim, assistant professor of Islamic studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Many Iraqis view these Shiite groups much like some Lebanese view Hezbollah: as protectors who fill in a security vacuum and provide basic services. “It’s a myth to say the militias are bad for Iraq,” Kadhim says. “They are the only ones providing anything meaningful for Iraqis. The problem [for Iraqis] is choosing between anarchy and a militia that protects you for a price.”" http://www.cfr.org/publication/11787/maliki_and_sadr.html

carsten

You are correct. While Sadr himself is not a representative of government his personal militia of (some report)(?) 60,000 armed fundamentalist Shia from all over the Islamic world have been used by him to intimidate the new democratically elected government of Iraq.
My contention remains the same. In the face of this tyrannical religious zealot, now is not the time to fold up shop and run for home. It's, what is your word, ludricrous (your spelling) to suggest to the Iraqi people who have given so much to have their shot at freedom that Moqtada al-Sadr is the tipping stone. That the billions of dollars and the thousands of lives spent have been for not because of some bully who sees himself as the new Muhammad. Recreating Islam in the name of Moqtada Sadr.
The head cleric in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has a lot to answer for. I personally think he is hoping that by using Sadr as a thumbscrew and keeping the violence manageable that he will see his Theocracy and extend Shia Fundamentalism further in the Middle East.
With Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and Ayatollah al-Sistani in Iraq more misery will be the lot for many Muslims.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of the al-Qaida affiliate in Iraq, said: "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology. Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it".

This has nothing to do with America, this is total inter religious hatred and displaced tribal honour.

And yes friend what the world press reports impacts these events significantly. If you study the Vietnam war any you will find that the North Vietnamese used the press to exert pressure on the U.S. throughout the war. You'll also see how the press has impacted events in Iraq.

OLO? No. Not so much. :-) We don't count.

You are correct. While Sadr himself is not a representative of government his personal militia of (some report)(?) 60,000 armed fundamentalist Shia from all over the Islamic world have been used by him to intimidate the new democratically elected government of Iraq.

And yes friend what the world press reports impacts these events significantly. You'll also see how the press has impacted events in Iraq.

Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 13 January 2007 1:31:25 PM

The point is that not only does Sadr have his 60,000 (?) armed militia, he also controls 30 of the Shiite coalitions 128 seats. He controls a key group of seats that the government needs. He 'intimidates' the elected government from within, regardless of the militia. It is just like the disproportionate power a few democrat senators have/had in Australia - they hold/held the balance of power in the senate, so the elected government acquiesced to their demands. Without their support, the government could not function. Same in Iraq. Maliki's government cannot function without meeting the demands of Sadr. And it therefore cannot attack Sadr's milita.

The US military leaders estimated the coalition needed ~ 500,000 troops to control Iraq (or was that just Baghdad?). The administration put in, what, 120,000? When the administration acts against advice, and their actions fail, it is the role of the media to call them on it. It is the role of the media to report the facts, however uncomfortable they may be. It is the role of government to act responsibly, so they have nothing to fear from the media

"The point is that not only does Sadr have his 60,000 (?) armed militia, he also controls 30 of the Shiite coalitions 128 seats. He controls a key group of seats that the government needs. He 'intimidates' the elected government from within, regardless of the militia. It is just like the disproportionate power a few democrat senators have/had in Australia - they hold/held the balance of power in the senate, so the elected government acquiesced to their demands. Without their support, the government could not function. Same in Iraq. Maliki's government cannot function without meeting the demands of Sadr. And it therefore cannot attack Sadr's milita."

128 seats from 275 leaves 147 seats that is not a disproportional majority. And as I posted earlier women have to occupy 25% of the 275 and a further 35(?) seats made special to the Sunni Iraqis where they are the major pop. of those provinces.

"When the administration acts against advice, and their actions fail, it is the role of the media to call them on it. It is the role of the media to report the facts, however uncomfortable they may be. It is the role of government to act responsibly, so they have nothing to fear from the media"

FACTS; You can't be that naive. In American government the President is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He has the General staff of the Pentagon on hand as well as the NSA, CIA, FBI, and feedback from every friendly nation in the world. And you want to believe the newspapers that George don't ask no questions or listen to advice. Ya right. And Please. The papers have been attacking G.W. Bush since his inauguration and attacked every thing he has every done. George is a Republican. Right wing. Media is for the most part left wing. Media, protectors of the truth. Oh man. Thats a good one.

I'm waiting to see how they report on Iraq when the Dems are running the show. Provided they get elected. We'll see how they run the house for now.

"128 seats from 275 leaves 147 seats that is not a disproportional majority.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 13 January 2007 6:08:06 PM"

Exactly (kind of - some garbled english). The current elected government is a minority government which is why it needs the co-operation of a coalition, including Sadr, to function. I don't understand your point, unless it is to demonstrate why they have to listen to Sadr at all times.

"FACTS; You can't be that naive. In American government the President is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He has the General staff of the Pentagon on hand as well as the NSA, CIA, FBI, and feedback from every friendly nation in the world. And you want to believe the newspapers that George don't ask no questions or listen to advice. Ya right. And Please. The papers have been attacking G.W. Bush since his inauguration and attacked every thing he has every done. George is a Republican. Right wing. Media is for the most part left wing. Media, protectors of the truth. Oh man. Thats a good one."
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 13 January 2007 6:08:06 PM

The US constitution gives a lot more power to the President than the Prime Minister in Australia. He IS Commander in Chief and can declare war unilaterally - he does not need to listen to anyone else. I have no doubt he listened to the advice given, but who is paid attention to is another matter. It appears he listens to his hawkish pro-oil, pro-defense industry buddies over American interests. The truth is he has squandered the sympathy and goodwill of the world toward America after 911, has seriously weakened the American economy, and has placed the country in a costly situation from which it will be very hard to extricate itself. Although his pro-war buddies ARE profitting enormously. Those are the facts, and cannot be denied.

Whatever Sadr's reported influence is, it is only relative to the 128 seats given the nod by Ayatollah al-Sistani. Sadr's mob muscle not leadership. The current elected government is a coalition government. It does not need Sadr to function. At the moment it must consider the threat that Sadr poses TO government. Which is why the Iraqi government has given notice to Sadr that he has a decision to make. Either he will become part of the solution to a peaceful democratic Iraq or he will be outlawed. Either way he can no longer continue to operate outside of the law.

Nouri Maliki's government, with the assistance of the United states is taking proactive steps to reduce Iranian influence in Iraq. Lebanon and Syria. These steps will significantly impact Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Moqtada Sadr. Both heavily dependent on Iran to function. If Moqtada Sadr does not take heed of his governments warning he may well go the way of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The United States has the biggest national economy in the world, with a GDP for 2006 of $13.3 trillion dollars. [1] It is the world's foremost economic power. G.W.Bush and his Republicans believe the billions spent to help bring democracy and liberty to Iraq is important. Being elected twice says that the American people supported that decision. Bush does not want to extricate from Iraq. He wants to finish the job at hand. He was elected as a Republican. His duty
is to his party's line, not the Democratic party line. He's not going to place the opinions of the left over those of his party.

Bush hasn't failed but, the lefty media sure want to make it sound like failure. It was never said that Iraq would be completely up and running during Bush's time in office. Who ever the new Pres. is may have to finish the job.

This is a non partisan view supported by facts and not lefty hysteria and unfounded accusations and libelous statements.

re:

" ... G.W.Bush and his Republicans believe the billions spent to help bring democracy and liberty to Iraq is important. Being elected twice says that the American people supported that decision."

"Bush hasn't failed but, the lefty media sure want to make it sound like failure."

"This is a non partisan view supported by facts and not lefty hysteria and unfounded accusations and libelous statements."

I think Aqvarivs sincerely believes himself. Does he consider himself neither right nor left, just an unbiased observer? I wonder!

I say that GWB got in by a whisker last November, thanks to electoral fraud, and probably received valid votes from less than 30% of the potential American electorate. The World's Greatest Democracy (oh well, at least the World's Largest Economy) has a fraudulent, third-rate leader getting bad advice from cabinet members with vested economic interests in continuing conflict (that is, if they are not just telling him what to do next).

Some record for a "leader". Not a good recipe for an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, particularly given the difficulties occurring since GWB told us the war was won, back in 2003 -

I will be interested to see what happens with Rep McKinney's impreachment submission. Will GWB continue to act ultra vires? Will the democrat-controlled house call him to account next time he ignores the constitution or international treaties and/or obligations and follows "his" own rules?

All it took for Bill Clinton to get impeached was lying about a dalliance in the broom closet!

I'm interested to see whether the "lefty" press will get stuck into him like they did Presidents Clinton and Carter. Who are the "lefty press" Really Working For? Maybe Aqvarivs can help us out here -

And anyway, what does all of Aqvarivs' tub-thumping for the current US Administration have to do with "Saddam was hung for nothing"?

I say Saddam was hung to go forth and multiply, and hanged to remove evidence of US government involvement in atrocities SH's government committed in the '80's

"The United States has the biggest national economy in the world, with a GDP for 2006 of $13.3 trillion dollars."

Well lets get real here. The US is also by far the world's largest
debtor nation, with trillions of $ of debts.

Lets take a look where the US was, when Bill handed over to
George. Bill had nearly solved the ME crisis, the US budget
deficit was in fact a surplus, things were looking rosy.

Along came what no doubt history will judge as the America's
biggest idiot president, by virtue of a stacked supreme
court. The people had actually voted for Gore. In 6 years
he's managed to bog the US down to be seen as a global idiot,
with huge debts, huge deficits, hated by tens of millions,
with no people skills in sight anywhere, thanks to the arrogance
of Cheney and others.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans have died,
in order to get rid of one man and his two boys. Sounds like
intelligent to you? Think again !

Bring back Bill I say, and pay Monika a good wage to keep him
happy :)

Propaganda from the "leftie" press:

On Iraq, U.S. Turns to Onetime Dissenters
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran

"Timothy M. Carney went to Baghdad in April 2003 to run Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Minerals. Unlike many of his compatriots in the Green Zone, the rangy, retired American ambassador wasn't fazed by chaos. He'd been in Saigon during the Tet Offensive, Phnom Penh as it was falling to the Khmer Rouge and Mogadishu in the throes of Somalia's civil war. Once he received his Halliburton-issued Chevrolet Suburban, he disregarded security edicts and drove around Baghdad without a military escort. His mission, as he put it, "was to listen to the Iraqis and work with them.""

"He left after two months, disgusted and disillusioned. The U.S. occupation administration in Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), placed ideology over pragmatism, he believed. His boss, viceroy L. Paul Bremer, refused to pay for repairs needed to reopen many looted state-owned factories, even though they had employed tens of thousands of Iraqis. Carney spent his days screening workers for ties to the Baath Party."

"Planning was bad," he wrote in his diary on May 8, "but implementation is worse."

“ … Iraq's government-run businesses employed more than 100,000 people before the U.S. invasion. To Carney, it was a no-brainer: Fixing the factories would allow thousands of Iraqis to get back to work, not only allowing them to provide for their families, but also keeping them occupied. He knew from his time in other post-conflict societies that the idle and unemployed are the best recruits for insurgencies."

"But Bremer and his chief economic adviser, Peter McPherson, didn't want to pour money into inefficient state-run firms. They believed private investors would buy Iraq's government factories and set up new businesses to employ the populace. …”

"The day before he left, Carney sent a note to McPherson titled "Fatal Flaws in Budget Policy towards State-Owned Enterprises." He argued that the CPA was violating the Geneva Conventions by undermining "assets of the Iraqi people." He also accused McPherson of drawing up policy "without adequate Iraqi participation.""
(snip)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011301372_pf.html

Hey Sir Vivor. Way to stay current.

L. Paul Bremer. In his role as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, he reported primarily to the U.S. Secretary of Defense and exercised authority over Iraq's civil administration. He served in this capacity from May 11, 2003 until limited Iraqi sovereignty was restored on June 28, 2004.

Lets blame Australian history on Gough Whitlam. He is currently the oldest living Australian Prime Minister. Certainly he must of made an error or two while in office.

Aqva get real. Bremer was the one who liquidated the Iraqi army,
result was hundreds of thousands of people with no income. What
do you think they are going to do to feed their families?

Bremer was a disaster, not 30 years ago, just recently.
George W carries the responsibility for that, he's the big
chief and was the big chief then. He was Bremer's boss in
the end.

The Yanks, or some of them, still don't get it, after all this
time. Just owning lots of planes and lots of bombs, does not
mean you can rule the world. They were defeated by the Vietnamese
and now by bin Laden and co, a bunch of crazy Arabs. A dose
of humble pie is well overdue in Washington, perhaps they
are too stupid to even understand that. But then George is
no Bill, so the American people are paying a heavy price for
putting a casual blow job ahead of the intelligence of their
prez. Voting for an idiot has consequences, as they are finding
out the hard way.

"Aqva get real. Bremer was the one who liquidated the Iraqi army,
result was hundreds of thousands of people with no income."

Um, that's what invading armies do dude. They disband that countries army. See WWII Germany. See WWII Japan. See North Vietnam disband the Army of South Vietnam etc. etc..
Bremer was credited and later heavily criticized for officially disbanding the former Iraqi Army. But according to Bremer, there were no armies to disband. The brutality of Saddam's rule over his people and his own Iraqi soldiers led to many just leaving after the fall of Baghdad to go home.

"What do you think they are going to do to feed their families?"

Anything they can that doesn't have access to fire arms. Once they were vetted for pro Saddam Baathist sentiment many found work as soldiers in the new army and as policemen.

L. Paul Bremer was not a disaster and had a very distinguished career going back to the '70s.

On the day terrorists of Al-Qaeda crashed two hijacked American commercial jetliners into the World Trade Center in New York City, Bremer and 1,700 of his employees at Marsh & McLennan had offices in both towers. Bremer's office was in the South Tower. He and his people occupied floors at and "above where the second aircraft hit." At the time of his television interview with CNN on September 14, 2001, 450 of his people were unaccounted for. 295 were eventually counted as dead.

As the top civil administrator of the former Coalition Provisional Authority, Bremer was tasked with a challenging job of overseeing the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq until the country was deemed to be in a state in which it can be self-governed, he was empowered to issue decrees to modify Iraq's infrastructure. Some notable decrees have included removing all restrictions on freedom of assembly, suspending the use of the death penalty, uphold Saddam Hussein's anti-worker union laws, and establishing a Central Criminal Court of Iraq.

Yabby, wipe the blood off your chin. You must have really smashed it with that compulsive anti-American knee-jerk of yours

re
"The Yanks, or some of them, still don't get it, after all this
time. Just owning lots of planes and lots of bombs, does not
mean you can rule the world. They were defeated by the Vietnamese
and now by bin Laden and co, a bunch of crazy Arabs. A dose
of humble pie is well overdue in Washington, perhaps they
are too stupid to even understand that. But then George is
no Bill, so the American people are paying a heavy price for
putting a casual blow job ahead of the intelligence of their
prez. Voting for an idiot has consequences, as they are finding
out the hard way. "

What's so anti-American about this? I would not be surprised to discover that many Americans would agree with Yabby's sentiments, once they got past the cobbles.

My experience of Americans is that (like Australians) they range across a very broad spectrum of attitudes and dispositions, from little Hitlers to little Ghandis, and, in political discussions, are best taken one or two at time (like aspirin).

Maybe the accusation of knee-jerk anti-Americanism is a reaction to Yabby's implied attack on Aqvarivs' assumptions about the correctness of current US foreign policy toward Iraq and the Middle East, and Aqv's evident support of Mr Bremer's track record.

Maybe Aqv thinks that his/her opinions are neither right nor left, green or pink, piebald or brindle, but entirely unbiased and neutral. But I say that the inability to recognise one's own bias leaves one entirely neutered. Will Aqvarivs tell us to which side he dresses?

And as another absurd aside, I note that a coupla more of the real bad guys got strung up in Iraq the other day. Maybe Mr Bagaric can inject some more life into the topic - How were they hanged?

Sir Vivor

If your going to counter post to what I have posted you could do me the courtesy of keeping to that relevant material. I made no comment to Yabby's emotional tirade about Americans, the Vietnam war, how nice it would be to see them humiliated upon the world stage, Bush or blow jobs.

I wanted to give Yabby some understanding of L. Paul Bremer, the job he had with Iraqi civil oversight and what he was able to accomplish in his year at that post for the Iraqi people.

Yabby had labeled him a disaster. I pointed to several things he had accomplished in a single year during difficult times. Quite arguable not a disaster.

Only a mental ingrate would attempt to make the Vietnam War one of American responsibility. America didn't start the Vietnam war. America didn't loose the Vietnam war. South Vietnam did. Americas unwillingness to commit to outright war and invade North Vietnam cost, but it also kept Russian(overt) and Chinese(overt)involvement in the war to a minimum and stopped the war from escalating into a major world conflict.

I'm not necessarily pro Bush or pro American. I understand the difficult complexities of world affairs and especially that of warfare. It was my business for 25 yrs. I'm not right wing nor left wing. My concern is with people and what will best benefit humanity in the long run. Democracy is that best fit. My opinion.

And Clinton wasn't done for a blow job. He was done for lying to a court of enquiry and continued to lie in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Perjury and obstruction of justice.
By the by, Clinton served to the end of his term.

It takes a particular mind to hope for a countries public humiliation.
Especially a country who at grass roots is working hard and spending billions to make the world a better place for all.

"Especially a country who at grass roots is working hard and spending billions to make the world a better place for all."

Aqva, you clearly don't like me calling a spade a spade. Fact is
a larger and larger % of the American population are finally agreeing
with me, only they have learned the hard way. 6 years of Bush and
the neocons has been a disaster for the world and for America,
thats the reality.

Spending billions and good intentions, does not equate with
intelligence! Fact is that the Bush/Cheney team has the
arrogance of a bullpit terrier and the people skills of
a gorilla, so all the money in the world won't make much
difference.

Clinton was nailed over a private matter, the extreme
right/Starr and co, were fanatical about it, to the point
of little else. Yet still today, where he goes, he commands
respect, including the Middle East, Europe and elsewhere.
George and Dick meantime, flying the republican colours,
have shown what a disaster of a Govt can achieve in terms
of dragging a country down. George is laughed at world wide,
the neocons have all run for cover, everyone blaming everyone
else for the problems, nobody with a solution.

America today depends on the Chinese and Japanese Central
banks, for the $ not to become the peso. Hundreds of billions
of $ have been spent and borrowed, yet Osama and Zawahiri
are footloose and fancy free. Osama did say he would eventually
bankrupt America, so far he's done a good job at that, just
look at the figures!

In Iraq we basically have a civil war, yet another American
disaster. Bremer clearly did not understand Arab culture
or tradition. Just throw weapons and money at it, was the
philosophy. The embarrassing failure is there for all to
see.

Fact is that America is paying a
huge price for a Govt that lacks intelligence, lacks
humility and is getting nowhere by throwing borrowed $
at problems. People skills matter. Bill understood
that, George would not know what it meant. Thats the
reality.

Yabby if you think you need it you have my permission to call a spade a shovel. I don't care one whit. You mistake your extreme left outlook and emotional attacks on America and Bush for opinion. So be it. However it isn't necessarily factual commentary and is open for rebuttal. I offered you some facts different to your emotional outburst/rant against L. Paul Bremer. He was in office one year and did some fine work for the Iraqi people. If you found some nay sayers who poo pooed Bremers time in that official capacity. Hurray. Glad you found the chink in his human capability. Apparently Bill Clinton is your bench mark for perfection.

Under the Clinton Administration there was Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Haiti.

In December 1998 Clinton ordered four days of concentrated air attacks against military installations in Iraq. After the bombing, Hussein blocked any further UN inspections. For several years afterward, U.S. air assaults continued to target defense installations in Iraq, in response to what the Clinton administration claimed were “provocations” by the Iraqi military, including antiaircraft fire and radar locks on American planes and missiles.

Sanctions on Iraq that were imposed after the Gulf War remained in place under Clinton. UNICEF estimated that 500,000 children had died as a result by 1999.

Shall I keep going.

At least the Bush Admin. made it clear to Saddam that further to his actions that there would be war. Saddam failed to listen and got gored by the bull. Tough. Your hero Clinton would have just bombed more and killed more civilians outside of a war. And Saddam would still be up and about planning God knows what in furtherance of his Baathist Ideology.

You have a very strange morality. Kill civilians but don't declare war. You also have a very convenient memory.

Try forging your own opinion rather than cobbling together emotive news headlines and using them to belittle what you obviously have spent little time considering

re:
"Only a mental ingrate would attempt to make the Vietnam War one of American responsibility. America didn't start the Vietnam war. America didn't loose the Vietnam war. South Vietnam did."

You really believe that. Congratulations.

But what is a mental ingrate? I have not heard that term before.

"You mistake your extreme left outlook and emotional attacks on America and Bush for opinion."

ROFL Aqva, now my opinions are "extreme left" :)

I remind you that every second comedian in America has worked
out that Bush and his team are idiots, let alone most commentators
and now more and more Republicans, who finally agree with me.
One thing I have is patience and 6 years of disaster has born
me out to be correct yet once again!

Even the little old ladies who were scared by Karl Rove to vote
for Bush, with his "Osama under the bed" strategy, are realising
how wrong they got it. Read the opinion polls!

Fact is that this regime has been based on "Hopalong Cassidy"
kind of politics, just like in the Western movies. Finally its
sinking in, that money and bombs are not enough, all that America
has become is a laughing stock. Without a smart prez, they will
win no respect and remain so. Fiddling the system to deny Gore
his election win, has cost the republicans and America plenty.

Nobody said that Clinton was perfect, just that in fact he had a
brain and that he commanded respect worldwide. The rest of the world
does not get bogged down by puritanical trivia, as America does.

The sad thing about America today is that money wins elections, not
smart candidates. Just look at George and Dick etc. I rest my case :)

Sir Vivor.

Yes I do and thank you for the congrats.
Just for you. Item: Republic of Vietnam and it's allies, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand and the U.S.. If you ever get to Canberra, check out the Vietnam Forces National Memorial.

ingrate; an ungrateful person.
mental ingrate; a person with a hateful, angry, ungrateful outlook or philosophy. :-)

Yabby.

Thanks for proving my point for me. I couldn't have provided a better emotional rant. I hope you get to see your nemesis publicly humiliated and that all come to recognize your truth.
I know the whole world hates the Americans because no one from around the world wants to live there. It just recently passed the 300 million mark.

Well Aqva, I have some good US friends, from the NE by the
way. They claim that the South is another country lol, and
when they go travelling, they put Canada stickers on their
luggage. They are very ashamed of the Bush regime and disgusted
as to what they have done to the US. George and Dick are
scratchning around pretty hard to find support from anybody
these days. The recent Congress/Senate elections are just
the start of it.

Meantime I would not put it past George and Dick to go bombing
Iran now. Desperate men do desperate things in the end. All
a very sad story really.