… Well, I’m not actually… For a variety of reasons, I oppose capital punishment in all instances but one — genocidal or mass-murdering dictators. Those swine (from Hitler to Saddam) must be eradicated because they have too many followers who can spring them from prison to kill again (possibly again on a mass scale).
Today we have the blood-curdling story of Saddam’s lawyer Ziad Khasawneh informing us: “President Saddam Hussein urged the unity of his Iraqi people, regardless of their religious and ethnic creed, to confront U.S. plans to divide their country on sectarian grounds.” The lawyer also added Saddam urged people of all persuasions to “shoulder a historic responsibility,” presumably by not voting and blowing up as many of their fellow citizens as possible.
You wonder how Mr. Khasawneh looks at himself in the mirror. [He probably has no problem.-ed. Probably not.] Nevertheless, we must put up with him. Democracy building, as we learn by the day, is tough. Even mass psycho-killers must have a defense.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
18 Comments
1. dr. sanity:Saddam has always been psychologically reinforced in his meglomaniacal behavior by the international community in the past–with the sole exception that Bush finally called his bluff and carried through with his ultimatum. But it takes more than one one exception to cause someone to alter their entrenched thinking. Saddam has probably come to the conclusion that since he is still alive, that he will continue to be protected by the U.S. and can safely resume his taunting and mischief-making.
I completely agree with you, Roger, about the sole exception to no death penalty. I hope that justice comes very swiftly for Hussein and without the media circus that is sure to accompany a prolonged trial. The world is a better place with him not in power, but it will be even better when he is no longer among the living.
Dec 20, 2004 - 9:39 am 2. PeterUK:Saddams lawyer is only putting foreward mitigating circumstances,however Ifear that once the legal and media circus has got hold of this it will be reduced to propaganda grandstanding.
The smears will come thick and fast,eagerly lapped up by a MSM keen to get an anti-Bush stick to beat the US with,only too happy to ignore Saddam’s history as a mass murderer .
Is Saddam’s mother still alive? I can just see a frail little old lady on the witness stand saying,”My Saddam was always a good boy until he was lead astray by the Great Satan”
Dec 20, 2004 - 9:45 am 3. marek:A post mortem defense would be the most appropriate one.
Dec 20, 2004 - 9:53 am 4. Bruce W.:But assuming away the security/escape concerns, what method of punishment would you say fits the crime(s)?
I like to imagine a soundproof, glassed in zoo-like exhibit with three residents. Saddam, OBL and, to avoid accusations of racism and to make it more fun, Milosevic. The TV only has Fox News, and the Old Testament is the only book. Food is served in one large portion (and, what the heck, it’s all certified Glatt Kosher).
This cell was originally designed (in my mind) for OBL on or about September 13, 2001. When I saw the Halabja gassing victims and when mass graves were uncovered, I added Sodomy Sadaam to the party.
Ooops…fantasy over…back to work. But seriously would like to hear what you might view as just rewards for these animals.
Dec 20, 2004 - 10:18 am 5. Charlie (Colorado):Even mass psycho-killers must have a defense.
Not to be contrary, but … why?
In this context, we’re not going to see much of an argument that Saddam actually personally killed all those people in the mass graves. It’s all the issue that Saddam was the dictator-on-call when this stuff was done. It seems pretty darn unlikely that any verdict but death is likely … or appropriate. And what possible defense can he offer? It would appear that there’s no possible doubt that he was DoC when this stuff happened, and we’ve got plenty of corpus delicti.
Why not just list his offenses and shoot him, without an extended charade?
Dec 20, 2004 - 10:29 am 6. Terrye:Would it be capital punishment if we just unlocked the cell and let the Kurds have him?
People who hate Bush will defend this man at their peril. I don’t think that even the George Galloways and Michael Moores of this world really want to try and make a case for this guy.
Dec 20, 2004 - 11:14 am 7. Patrick S Lasswell:“You wonder how Mr. Khasawneh looks at himself in the mirror. [He probably has no problem.-ed. Probably not.] ”
It really helps that he actually casts no reflection… Funny thing that.
Dec 20, 2004 - 11:17 am 8. kynna:I am tormented by capital punishment. I’m against it except for genocidal mass murderers, terrorists (no tears shed for McVeigh), child murderers, and now pregnant lady stalker/murderer/mutilators. You’d think I was pro-capital punishment, wouldn’t you?
Dec 20, 2004 - 11:19 am 9. Rick Ballard:“Why not just list his offenses and shoot him, without an extended charade?”
The trials and executions of Saddam and his henchman will serve as notice of the return of law to the Iraqi people. I fail to see the necessity of long or complicated legal processes but the trial and execution of despots in accordance with the law of the country where they ruled may actually ameliorate some of the retributive violence that is to be expected as the Iraqis assume more responsibility for their own security. Hanging Saddam may save Tikrit from a pogrom by the Kurds. I can’t think of any reason from my understanding of ME custom why the majority of Iraqi’s would not applaud and encourage a systematic hunt for and elimination of the al Tikriti clan.
I do applaud Charlie’s sentiment, though. It may have been wiser to just toss in a grenade when Saddam was in his hole.
Dec 20, 2004 - 11:30 am 10. Tollhouse:The obsession with legal process is going to destroy this nation. Some things extend beyond the Rule of Law. Nuremburg in today’s hyperlegalistic context would never have been possible. Not a single one of those Nazi’s would have faced the death penalty. And the Geragos’ would have had a field day with the lack of “real” evidence, and the reliance on circumstantial evidence.
Dec 20, 2004 - 11:35 am 11. Roger:I understand your point about Nuremburg, Tollhouse, but take concilation in the fact that Geragos’ track record hasn’t been particularly good lately.
Dec 20, 2004 - 11:37 am 12. charlotte:Perhaps OJ should help Saddam find the real killers of Iraqis who died during his benevolent rule.
Worked for him, even though not a single legitimate lead materialized.
Dec 20, 2004 - 11:54 am 13. truepeers:When we are sure beyond a shadow of a doubt (i.e. more than the reasonable doubt required of the jury) that someone is a murderer, whether of a few or of millions, someone who has not simply acted in a moment of passion, what is wrong with capital punishment? Why restrict the penalty to the genocidal? This is a website peopled by many ex-liberals. And isnít the case against c.p. based on the usual liberal hypocrisies, about assuming and expecting a higher standard for ourselves than we expect from the “lowlifes” who murder? Those who oppose c.p. must either portray the murderer as a victim, unable because of some life problem to know right from wrong, or assume their own inherent superiority ñ we assume godly powers of forgiveness and refuse to take life like others do (the logical extension of which is a reticence to engage in just wars in countries where killing soldiers and civilians has become a daily norm).
Instead of making the killer accountable to the extent of his crime, we put him away for long enough that he may hopefully reform himself. But in doing so we perform an act that erodes the possibility of a true atonement. By denying our retribution of the murder, we put ourselves on a pedestal that the murderer can never obtain. Any effort to atone for his sins ñ e.g. a lifetime of clearing land mines ñ is an impossible attempt to climb on our pedestal. The more heroic his efforts, the more he is compromised by his desire for heroism and to be recognized for such, when perhaps it would be more just that he just quietly disappear. Why shouldnít we expect the murderer who comes to the self-realization that allows him to take responsibility for his act, to commit suicide, if we, the self-righteous, havenít done the dirty job first? Is the case against c.p. simply that we should give the killer the chance to kill himself? C.P. opponents usually say they are against it because killing is wrong. Yes, but isnít real forgiveness only possible if we admit ourselves to be as sinful as the killer? Is there any solid position between an eye for an eye, and the liberal utopia?
Dec 20, 2004 - 12:27 pm 14. ricpic:Nothing is worse than death.
Don’t let the obfuscators fool you. For all their defenders’ blather about the horrors of life imprisonment in solitary, killers will take it over death — every time.
And that is why death is the APPROPRIATE punishment for death.
Dec 20, 2004 - 1:01 pm 15. richard mcenroe:Charlie(Colorado), Rick Ballard ó
“He made a furtive movement sir!”
“Specialist, you called in a JDAM on him. Are we supposed to try this sponge now?”
“It’s guilty DNA, sir!”
Since I have pointed guns at people with every intention of shooting them, I cannot say I object to the death penalty. I think, in the end, it is the ultimate expression of society’s repudiation of an action.
That said, I am uneasy with giving the state the power to impose a punishment it cannot retract. Even if you don’t believe every anti-capital punishment horror story, mistakes certainly have been made in the past. Perhaps, grueling as it is, the current system is the only tolerable one…
Dec 20, 2004 - 7:42 pm 16. Occam's Beard:Face it – if there’s a single instance in which you favor capital punishment, under any circumstances whatever, then you don’t oppose it; you support it.
Which is fine, but don’t try to have it both ways (”oppose it, but …”). It’s not as though some murderers have cloven hooves that distinguish them as deserving death, while others do not. It’s a judgment call in each case.
Dec 20, 2004 - 9:42 pm 17. AlanC:Sorry Roger, but Mr. Beard’s right.
Opposition to CP is an absolute position. Endorsement of CP can be “nuanced” to a fare-thee well i.e. how sure, how many, how nasty, etc.
But, say yes one time and you are no longer an opponent.
Dec 21, 2004 - 8:17 am 18. Paul DeWindt:I have never understood how capital punishment can be fine for mass murderers, yet wrong for those who “only” murder once or twice. Where is the magic number? The injustice done to one murder victim doesn’t depend on whether that victim is alone or part of a group of similar victims. This viewpoint seems to cheapen the lives of some victims – aren’t all murders equally horrendous? I suppose I could agree with sentences of life in prison for murderers if that could be guaranteed. But feckless politicians have repeatedly proven “Life in Prison” to be illusory. Had the IRA murderers Tony Blair released been executed he never could have freed them, even in the lofty pursuit of “peace” with terrorists.
Dec 23, 2004 - 1:29 pm