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