A Deal For Saddam?

[Annie]

Somehow this has more of a European ring to it, than Iraqi...

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/n...ml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/11/ixportaltop.html

Saddam may escape noose in deal to halt insurgency
By Adrian Blomfield in Baghdad
(Filed: 11/04/2005)

Saddam Hussein could avoid the gallows under a secret proposal by insurgent leaders that Iraq's new administration is "seriously considering", a senior government source said yesterday.

A reprieve is understood to be among the central demands of Sunni nationalists and former members of Saddam's Ba'ath party who have reportedly begun negotiations with the government amid the backdrop of a bloody insurgency which claimed 30 lives during the weekend.

Saddam Hussein: life in prison
Officials say they are looking for a way of joining the political process after January's election, which was boycotted by most of the once-powerful Sunni minority.

"We are trying to reach out to the insurgents," the source said. "We don't expect them to stop fighting unconditionally. Sending Saddam to prison for the rest of his life is not a huge price for us to pay, but it will save them a lot of face."

The official said those involved in the negotiations included senior members of Saddam's Fedayeen militia and the Jaish Mohammed, a grouping of former army officers that operates under the guise of an Islamist organisation.

But it is unclear if those at the talks genuinely represent a majority of the deeply fragmented insurgency. While a deal could represent an important step towards ending the violence that has plagued postwar Iraq, a reprieve for Saddam would infuriate many in the country. He is unlikely to come to trial before the end of this year, but Jalal Talabani, Iraq's new president, has already begun to prepare his people for a possible reprieve.

Asked about the fate of Saddam in an interview yesterday in the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat, the president, who is a Kurd, stated his personal opposition to a death sentence.

"I am among the lawyers who signed an international petition against the death penalty around the world and it would be a problem for me if Iraqi courts issued death sentences," he said.

Though Mr Talabani's powers are largely ceremonial, he has the power, as the head of a three-man presidential council, to commute death sentences. The two vice presidents that make up the remainder of the council, Ghazi al Yawar, a Sunni, and Adel Abdul Mahdi, a Shia, have not stated their positions.

Further demonstrating his determination for a political settlement to the insurgency, Mr Talabani proposed an amnesty for fighters last week. But al-Qa'eda's wing in Iraq, which is led by Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, yesterday rejected the offer and dismissed Mr Talabani as an American "agent".

Though they regard Mr Talabani as a hero, many Kurds said they opposed any plans not to execute Saddam.

"Anything but death for Saddam would be a travesty of justice," said Nawzad Othman, a greengrocer whose brother was among 5,000 Kurds killed in the notorious chemical weapon attack on Halabja in 1988. "A murderer like that cannot be allowed to live."

Iraq's new government, dominated by the majority Shia community and its Kurdish coalition partners, faces a tricky balancing act. Its attempts to reach out to all parties were boosted yesterday when the outgoing interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, a secular Shia, agreed to join the new government after weeks of negotiation. It was unclear if Mr Allawi or any of his bloc would take cabinet posts.

Shia MPs in the cleric-backed United Iraqi Alliance, which won 51 per cent of the vote in the election, are unhappy with the development and accuse Mr Allawi of corruption.

 

[dilloduck]

Somehow this has more of a European ring to it, than Iraqi...

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/n...ml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/11/ixportaltop.html

The Sunnis would go against Islamic law for Saddam ??

 

[Annie]

It's a bad idea! Theres no negotiating with those kinds regardless. This will simply allow Saddam freedom again before long and then all the work done will be for nothing. Have to wonder if the efforts are worth it if the new government is actually giving any consideration to it.

It's why I said it sounded more European than Iraqi. The Telegraph is conservative, but still European. I wonder about this piece.

 

[NATO AIR]

If the Sunnis in question don't represent a significant part of the insurgency, no way this deal should be pulled off.

 

[Gunny]

This is dumb. I say put him into a chipper feet first so he can experience some of what he dished out to who knows how many.

The Sunni's acted like children and screwed themselves. They deserve what they got. Perhaps next time they'll try to put a little more mature thought into the matter.

 

[Shattered]

"I am among the lawyers who signed an international petition against the death penalty around the world and it would be a problem for me if Iraqi courts issued death sentences," he said.

"Anything but death for Saddam would be a travesty of justice," said Nawzad Othman, a greengrocer whose brother was among 5,000 Kurds killed in the notorious chemical weapon attack on Halabja in 1988. "A murderer like that cannot be allowed to live."

 

[5stringJeff]

No way Saddam should be allowed to live. No way.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Somehow this has more of a European ring to it, than Iraqi...

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/n...ml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/11/ixportaltop.html

Ok, no death penalty, he gets life in prison, but he has to do it without his hands or his tongue. It seemed like a justifiable punishment to him while he was in power, let him be punished in the same way.

 

[Gunny]

Well, we could send him to Abu Ghraib and let those former guards serve out their sentences as HIS guards. :bat:

 

[IControlThePast]

If all of you are for doing to him what he did to others, what makes you any better, why does that morally make it right? Wouldn't someone be just as justified if they came along and then did it to you?

I think that Saddam will probably be killed. Talibani is running a newly elected government, still not quite a firm one either. I doubt he would go against the mass opinion of his constituents and not kill Saddam. There might be a new anti-Talibani insurgency if he did make the deal.

 

[Shattered]

If all of you are for doing to him what he did to others, what makes you any better, why does that morally make it right?

We'll do it right the first time, thus making sure he can never do it again. :cof:

 

[IControlThePast]

We'll do it right the first time, thus making sure he can never do it again. :cof:

There is quite a difference between sawing out his tongue and giving him a more human death than Terri Shiavo though...you can "do it right" without sending him through a meatgrinder.

 

[Shattered]

There is quite a difference between sawing out his tongue and giving him a more human death than Terri Shiavo though...you can "do it right" without sending him through a meatgrinder.

Eh..details. Whatever's cheapest.. We've already wasted enough money on him.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

If all of you are for doing to him what he did to others, what makes you any better, why does that morally make it right? Wouldn't someone be just as justified if they came along and then did it to you?

I think that Saddam will probably be killed. Talibani is running a newly elected government, still not quite a firm one either. I doubt he would go against the mass opinion of his constituents and not kill Saddam. There might be a new anti-Talibani insurgency if he did make the deal.

To me the difference is that Saddam deserves it. This wouldn't be just for the pleasure of it or because someone was just abusing their power, like he did to plenty of people while he was in control of Iraq.

I don't know what they will decide, but I'm sure they'll come up with a proper punishment.

 

[green lantern]

Well, we could send him to Abu Ghraib and let those former guards serve out their sentences as HIS guards. :bat:

now there is an idea!!!

 

[Gunny]

If all of you are for doing to him what he did to others, what makes you any better, why does that morally make it right? Wouldn't someone be just as justified if they came along and then did it to you?

Sometimes moral righteousness needs to take a back seat to the reckoning.

 

[IControlThePast]

To me the difference is that Saddam deserves it. This wouldn't be just for the pleasure of it or because someone was just abusing their power, like he did to plenty of people while he was in control of Iraq.

I'm just getting hung up on the logic again. He deserves it because he did it to others, correct? Therefore wouldn't you deserve to have done to you what you did to Saddam?

What moral rightousness takes a backseat to reckoning, we wind up with more terrorists and more problems. There's a reason why we don't make countries pay exorbitant sums after losing a war like we did after WW1, cause people get upset over it and are then politically controlled against us.

 

[Gunny]

I'm just getting hung up on the logic again. He deserves it because he did it to others, correct? Therefore wouldn't you deserve to have done to you what you did to Saddam?

What moral rightousness takes a backseat to reckoning, we wind up with more terrorists and more problems. There's a reason why we don't make countries pay exorbitant sums after losing a war like we did after WW1, cause people get upset over it and are then politically controlled against us.

When moral righteousness costs lives, I'm putting common sense in the lead. Who do you think you are kidding? Ever been to teh Middle East? These people don't think we are morally right. The Europeans certainly don't. SO just WHO are we impressing? Ourselves?

We go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties which results in a tactical error. Then, no matter how many of our troops die as a result, the media STILL reports that "civilain casualties were a result of our actions."

We're in a war. We are morally right in fighting the war. That does not mean we have to tie our troops hands behind their backs with a bunch of ridiculous, morally-superior rules of engagement that manage to cost US more lives. The objective is to win, and bring back as many alive as possible.

Saddam Hussein doesn't deserve to live. He EARNED that. Put a bullet in his head and be done with it instead of keeping him alive; thus, fueling the morale of those screwball idealists who no matter what they think, possess REAL weaposn that fire REAL bullets.

 

[IControlThePast]

When moral righteousness costs lives, I'm putting common sense in the lead. Who do you think you are kidding? Ever been to teh Middle East? These people don't think we are morally right. The Europeans certainly don't. SO just WHO are we impressing? Ourselves?

We go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties which results in a tactical error. Then, no matter how many of our troops die as a result, the media STILL reports that "civilain casualties were a result of our actions."

We're in a war. We are morally right in fighting the war. That does not mean we have to tie our troops hands behind their backs with a bunch of ridiculous, morally-superior rules of engagement that manage to cost US more lives. The objective is to win, and bring back as many alive as possible.

Saddam Hussein doesn't deserve to live. He EARNED that. Put a bullet in his head and be done with it instead of keeping him alive; thus, fueling the morale of those screwball idealists who no matter what they think, possess REAL weaposn that fire REAL bullets.

Despite many people in the Middle East not liking us, there are still quite a few of them who are not terrorists, but have potential to become terrorists if we don't watch our actions. If we put him in the meatgrinder, we're just saying to them that we're just another Saddam by a different name.

Nobody here has proposed not killing Saddam. Even I say it is an acceptable punishment. But how does executing him with a bullet to the head instead of a meatgrinder "tie our troops hands behind their backs," and not "bring back more troops alive?"

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Despite many people in the Middle East not liking us, there are still quite a few of them who are not terrorists, but have potential to become terrorists if we don't watch our actions. If we put him in the meatgrinder, we're just saying to them that we're just another Saddam by a different name.

Nobody here has proposed not killing Saddam. Even I say it is an acceptable punishment. But how does executing him with a bullet to the head instead of a meatgrinder "tie our troops hands behind their backs," and not "bring back more troops alive?"

I don't agree with your line of thinking. Anybody over there that wants Saddam dead would cheer at the thought of him being punished the same way he punished so many others. Anyone that would have a problem with it is already aligned with the terrorists in one way or another. If there are a few that would be pushed that way, it could be any number of things that could push them. If it's not Saddam's punishment, it's something else.

Now, to reply...again...to if punishing Saddam the way he punished others makes someone just as bad as Saddam, the answer is still no.

Let me put it this way: It's not so much the punishment as the reason the punishment is given. Saddam ordered the murder of people just because he could. He would have their family watch, and if they didn't applaude, they would be killed as well.

If a person is given the power to decide how Saddam is now punished, and they decide he should be tortured and killed as that same family watches and applaudes, it's a decision based on different reasons. Saddam did it as an abuse of power, the person punishing Saddam did it because it is a justifiable punishment.