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. :-)