Saddam To Be Executed

Now on the BBC too

BBC Story


I think it says it all about the whole process and capital punishment - now watch Civil War really explode . :(
 
I hope not - my other half is out there for 6 months and Id quite like him back in one piece. :(

And who the heck films somehting like that on a mobile phone?

(not that I can watch it - I dont have access to download media player etc on this computer)
 
krizon[/i]@Dec 31 2006 said:
After losing over two thousand of their young men in Iraq so far, do you really think that the Americans would for a moment countenance having what they'd see as the cause of their deaths on their doorstep? People want to win elections in the US - welcoming the reason for their desperate military presence in Iraq would hardly be a vote-spinner.

Since most of them have been killed whilst he was in detention, I think blaming him directly for the deaths would be difficult to sustain, although it might open up an unwelcome debate about who is indirectly responsible. I think it could be sold to them in honesty, if it were packaged as a way of reducing the number of future deaths and speeding up the exit process, I think even the Americans could understand it. In a slightly tangentle way, they dropped an atom bomb to speed up the ending of a war/ process, reasoning that the cost of conventional continuation would likely result in even heavier loss of lifes.

Lastly (wheeze, gasp), if you think that Saddam would have had the SLIGHTEST influence over the Shia and Kurdish elements, you've got a bigger wish list than Santa Claus.

I'm not sure the Kurdish are necessarily the principal agent provocateurs here and his influence would be minimal, as indeed it would be amongst the Shia.

I wouldn't necessarily discount his influence over the Medina division though, most of whom have melted back into civilian life without their previous trappings or status, and taken their weapons and training with them. This group, in addition to more regular units of Republican Guard are more tribally loyal and are probably better placed materially and practically to do more damage than any other sub Sunni grouping, and I believe they could well be critical to bringing about a peace. At the very least, they'll be more the capable of waging an urban war against the other two groups, which might even spark an iranian led invasion in the longer term. There is a scenario I believe that leads to this, and its not massively disimilar to what happened in 1914.

Clearly no one single person speaks for the Iraqi people, and can appease them all, so you're inevitably looking at cobbling together a patchwork of people to influence their own ilk in a traditional tribal way. Either that or you end up recreating a Saddam figure to impose an iron fist over all of them?

lets not forget that the current regime doesn't exactly seem to have any influence over the Sunni either.

And before you go about making irresponsible assertions that Santa Claus might have a contribution to make, you should be aware that George Bush is in the process of formulating a new policy and might be monitoring this site

And after cutting this jolly little deal, what would you do when (not if, as the man was as wily as a fox) Saddam downed tools in a year's time and told you to stuff the propaganda? Kill him off then, or torture him into submission?

Yes. Wouldn't be difficult to induce a heart attack or liver failure in him if we wanted to present it as natural causes either

You are already suggesting putting yourself into the position of a blackmailer by the offer of trading his life for your agenda, which I find dishonourable in itself.

Yes again. But then Foreign Policy is by its nature a dishonourable profession. If the end justifies the means, I could live with it in this case if it brought about less death and conflict and degree of stability and hope for the future. I'd be prepared suspend the sense of morality in the pursuit of the greater objective. As mentioned in the point above, once Saddam became dispendable there would be other ways of letting him go, without risking the conflageration, and further entrenching deep rooted hatreds and divisions that an execution inevitably will do. I've got to suspect the Americans have allowed this to happen with the express purpose of partitioning the country, on the pretext that it proves to be ungovernable? Guess which bit they'll support and seek to control?

I look forward to the newly born state of Texacoistan sitting at the head of Persian Gulf within 3 years
Click to expand...
 
Well, it's all about viewpoints, and those are mine, Warbler - right, wrong, or halfway. You seem to have a lingering notion that somehow the Republican Guard would spring back into life. Some 35,000 Iraqi troops defected as fast as their boots would shuffle to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, and were kept there at Saudi expense for years. The Republican Guard took a little longer to winkle out of their positions because they'd been kept well back, not taking the brunt of the allied forces' attacks, but they were pretty pleased to surrender in droves in the end. The idea that they'd gallantly fight to the last man, laying down their lives, etc. proved to be candy floss - yes, they tried harder because they were literally having guns held to their heads by their generals, who had rather a lot to lose (like their own heads and their families) if the counter-attacks failed.

When the best air system Iraq could offer was antiquated Scud missiles, let's face it, we weren't dealing with even half a like-for-like battle. For what was built up on both sides to be a major conflict was done and dusted in six weeks.

I'd kinda forget about anything like a serious revival of the Guard. They got pretty worked over by the civilians, as did the secret police and the regular police, all seen as direct agents of Saddam, when the war finished. A number of them have since sworn to uphold the law, etc., and have been allowed to become policemen again, but there would be a great deal of internal resistance to an RG revival.
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Dec 30 2006, 03:24 AM
In the UK, a supposedly civilised society, treason is still a capital offence.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that was changed a few years ago.
Click to expand...
I don't think so... if so it was very recently indeed, possibly during the mass 'releal' or outdated laws which went through ont he nod a few years ago.

There was much journalistic chatter when it was discovered that various gents esp James Hewitt, a serving Army officer, were sleeping with Princess Di. Adultery with the Heir to the Throne is - or was at the time - still classed as Treason.
 
Crikey Kriz, your post is obsolete already, as regards the 2,000 dead Americans it would appear.

I'm not suggesting the RG are going to reform as a conventional fighting force. The Americans are fond of calling them cowards for their refusal to fight them on the battlefield. Well let's be honest? That's no cowardice, that's just common sense. Who in their right mind is going to stand in a desert with an AK47 and an IED, and take on an enemy who can shoot a 'fire and forget' missile from 5 miles away that creeps up on you, unlocks your fridge drinks your beer, and then re-programmes your video, before blowing you up?

The analogy I quite like is with the one with the Hydra to be honest, as there's a whole host of well motivated, reasonably well funded and well trained sub groups all moving towards the same objective, but largely from different perspectives and on different agendas. We call it an insurgency in the West (another example of right wing political correctness which I was highlighting a few months ago). In truth it embodies many of the characteristics of the 'Popular Fronts' that sprung up all over Europe in the 1930's, with the pursuit of a common enemy the primary goal, whilst jockeying for a position post occupation.

You've basically got Saddamists, Nationalists, Religious extremists, Foreign Fighters, AQ, Opportune terrorists and gangsters, and heaven knows how many tribal and sub religious factions on this hydra, with the consequence that no single individual can speak for all its heads.

In a strange way it reminds of that scene from the Magnificent Seven I think it was? Where Yul Brynner is rigging up the village with a series of traps, and the Mexican peasent points out that it won't keep the bandits out. "I'm not trying to keep them out. I'm trying to keep them in".

Bear in mind that the IRA was only ever reckoned to be between 250 - 500 strong at any given time. It is this kind of fighter/ campaign that I expect former remnants of the RG to evolve into, and it won't take many of them. Every prisoner abuse, and every innocent killed, will just feed the supply chain with volunteers (and that's before you factor in anything happening in Israel). Cut off one head, and another three grow etc

Partitioning carries so many dangers too, as its going to leave a vacuum and a civil war tinder box capable of rolling out into a regional conflict at the smallest provocation. I really don't know how you reconcile it now, as just about every scenario short of staying there indefinately seems to come back to a wider regional conflict. Asking Iran and Syria to expand their borders, is just totally unpalatable and equally fraught with danger, both in terms of security and economically. I've even started thinking the seemingly ridiclious and wondering if Kuwait, with its infinately richer economy might not be able to absorb part of Southern Iraq (or strictly speaking be reunited with it), and operate as an American protectorate? Despite the geographical and population disparities, Kuwait might very well be an equal partner? God knows it looks desperate :confused:

The tragedy of this of course is that it was so unnecessary, and so mis-judged.

Wrong war, wrong target, wrong reason, wrong time
 
Originally posted by Euronymous@Dec 31 2006, 11:54 AM
No. When i`m posting on here late at night i`ll usually be naked.
Click to expand...
Though much of this thread is thoughtful and informative, imo this contribution comes into the category of Too Much Information :huh:

I'm in as I'm in charge of the doglet of Spain for a few days - and could not leave him to fac ethe fireworks alone. he's snuggled up beside me, palpitating... at least he's stopped barking!

HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE!

As for dictaros and torturers, although i to othink the death sentance is barbaric for ordinary murders, who just may be convicted by mistake in any case - for those political mass murderers who terrorise whole countries into submission, I make an exception.
 
Originally posted by Headstrong+Jan 1 2007, 12:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Headstrong @ Jan 1 2007, 12:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Gareth Flynn@Dec 30 2006, 03:24 AM
In the UK, a supposedly civilised society, treason is still a capital offence.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that was changed a few years ago.
Click to expand...
I don't think so... if so it was very recently indeed, possibly during the mass 'releal' or outdated laws which went through ont he nod a few years ago.

There was much journalistic chatter when it was discovered that various gents esp James Hewitt, a serving Army officer, were sleeping with Princess Di. Adultery with the Heir to the Throne is - or was at the time - still classed as Treason. [/b][/quote]
It was definitely taken off the books in the UK, as confirmed by Ardross, and in this article from BBC News in 1999:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/263570.stm
 
I like the 'piracy with violence' bit - was there ever non-violent piracy?

"I say, old chap! One hath receiveth information that thy vessel is fair loaded with gold and diamonds. Would ye mindeth a boarding party most awfully?"
 
Gosh Headstrong didn't that top criminal QC you were staying with keep you up to date on this ? :lol:

Section 36 CADA 1998 reads as follows


36. -(1) In section I of the Treason Act(Ireland) 1537(practising any harm etc. to, or slandering, the King, Queen or heirs apparent punishable as high treason), for the words "have and suffer such pains of death and" there shall be substituted the words "be liable to imprisonment for life and to such".

(2) In the following enactments, namely-



(a) section II of the Crown of Ireland Act 1542(occasioning disturbance etc. to the crown of Ireland punishable as high treason);



b section XII of the Act of Supremacy(Ireland) 1560(penalties for maintaining or defending foreign authority);



© section 3 of the Treason Act 1702(endeavouring to hinder the succession to the Crown etc. punishable as high treason);



(d) section I of the Treason Act(Ireland) 1703(which makes corresponding provision),

for the words "suffer pains of death" there shall be substituted the words "be liable to imprisonment for life".

(3) The following enactments shall cease to have effect, namely-



(a) the Treason Act 1790;



b the Treason Act 1795.

(4) In section 1 of the Treason Act 1814(form of sentence in case of high treason), for the words "such person shall be hanged by the neck until such person be dead", there shall be substituted the words "such person shall be liable to imprisonment for life".

(5) In section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837(punishment of piracy when murder is attempted), for the words "and being convicted thereof shall suffer death" there shall be substituted the words "and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life".

(6) The following enactments shall cease to have effect, namely-



(a) the Sentence of Death(Expectant Mothers) Act 1931; and



b sections 32 and 33 of the Criminal Justice Act Northern Ireland) 1945(which make corresponding provision).
 
Originally posted by Ardross@Jan 1 2007, 01:18 PM
Gosh Headstrong didn't that top criminal QC you were staying with keep you up to date on this ? :lol:
Click to expand...
Treason's not a topic that comes up very often over dinner, Ardross

See my response to Gareth, above. I merely posted as I thought the previous legal situation was quite droll, and an interesting anachronism, given the salacious coverage of all Princess Di's escapades

Btw, I wonder if you realise how snide some of your comments appear, esp those to the women in the forum? I realise they can't be meant that way; I mean, surely barristers are above that kind of thing?
 
Headstrong - you told us that you knew all about the presumption of innocence and appeared to attribute this to staying with a top criminal QC. I don't think it snide to make a joke about that .

As for your implied allegation of misogyny ........ I think there are many very knowledgeable and very valuable women contributors to this forum , the vast majority of whom post good sense . :ph34r:

The people who post most rubbish in Chit Chat are, almost without exception,men.
 
Back
Top