Was it right to hang Sadam Hussain?

Question

Then broadcast it on national tv?

Answer 1

We should have prevented him from being executed. I'm not saying Hussein didn't deserve punishment. In fact back in the early '90s I was all for his execution. Did I mature since then? Yes, but that has nothing to do with my decision that he shouldn't have been executed. If the world was more like it was then I'd still have been all for executing him. Now, however, I would have preferred he was locked away somewhere in a deep dark hole and allowed to rot for the rest of his miserable life rather than be excuted.

And why is that? Because in this present world my fear was and still is that all executing did was to quite possibly turn him into a marytr. That's the last thing we need, people killing themselves in his name long after he's been executed. And worse, his execution potentially gives people like bin-Laden more fuel to use.

Answer 2

There are simply to many variables, he was a tyrant no doubt. He had killed thousands and indeed had no respect for human rights.

What is completely;y ignored when he was massacring his own people, US completely condoned him. Saddam killed millions of Iranians backed by US, it'll be US that would supply Saddam with WMD's (at highest levels). Saddam would use these chemical weapons against innocent Kurds, but there was no condemnation, rather US still supported Iraq.

So how come it was acceptable then but suddenly morality kicks in. US has literally backed and supported (and still is), histories worst tyrants and dictators. Where is morality then?

The point I'm making the reason it lost it's meaning or justification, is simply selection. Human rights only come into play when you don't have anything to gain or doesn't suit you or he's your advisory. Each country rather than respecting human rights, looks after it's own interests, ie recently China and Russia against Darfur. Of course US can't preach morality as it would simply be thrown back and reminded no of times US has vetoed, supported and aided dictators and tyrants - and still is.

Yes it was right to hang him and yes it should've been broadcasted. It was supposed to be a deterrent. However it wasn't simply b/c it is 'HYPOCRACY'. Why wasn't he hanged during the 80's when he committed those crimes. How come other tyrants and dictators are not being charged and hanged. How come countries supporting those tyrants and dictators not condemned.

So justice should only be implied when it suits your own needs. Regardless he was a tyrant, backbone of a democratic society is free trial, he didn't get one. Rather it was a show case trial. How come people who colluded with Saddam were not charged, did you see Rumsfeld there???

The process had no legitimacy not b/c of illegality of the war but b/c of suffocation and abuse of 'Justice' and 'Human Rights', by people claiming to be implementing justice!

Answer 3

It's what they're people wanted as far as broadcasting the execution. Was it right? Well, for the common good, of course it was right. This man was a horrible tyrant whom deserved to be put to death. He gassed the Kurds, executed tens of thousands of Shiites and tortured political dissenters.

Answer 4

Well Hussein deserved it as much as anyone in history. But from our perspective it was a stupid strategic mistake to go back to Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 nor any real WMD. Al Queada hardly existed in Iraq before our invasion. Just one small camp in the north. Hussein and Bin Ladin were enemies. The fact is they would as soon kill each other as Americans. If not sooner. Iraq distracted critical resources from Afastghain and probably is why Bin Ladin is still around. Focusing on that area would have ended this war long ago. And the ultimate winner in Iraq will be Iran simply because we put a s**+'ite government in power. The lives and money we spent in Iraq would have been better spent focusing on Bin Ladin.....That said the execution was more like settling a tribal feud than anything else. But putting it on TV was largely to make sure people believed he was dead. Both his supporters and opponents. But it was macabre to western society......By the way James I of England died of old age. It was his son Charles I who was executed......

Answer 5

I think it was a low- blow.  We are suppose to adhere to a higher moral standard.  The act of showing an execution reverts us back to medieval times.  Hussein did deserve to be punished though.

Answer 6

Firstly it was the Iraqi people who sentenced and executed Saddam not the U.S. We just incarcerated him. I seen the video of him being led into the room and such and him exchanging shouts with the guards and yes I do feel it was justified. He murdered as many as two million of his own people. He launched nerve gas attacks on the Kurds. What he got was two good for him and he was executed in one of the very rooms his henchman used to torture others in his name how strangely ironic and appropriate.

Answer 7

Right or wrong vs what? There is no universal standard for right or wrong. To a pacifist Monk any killing would be considered morally wrong even monsters such as Hitler or Stalin. To a militant nationalist  if it leads to a better country it can be justified.

In short many world leaders have been executed for leading their countries. (James I of England, Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico, Louis XVI of France) Heck even Saddam took power in Iraq by killing King Faisal II of Iraq in a coup. I am not saying all these regicides are right or wrong they are just historical facts. Saddam was not the first leader to be killed nor will he be the last.

Answer 8

I think that it would have been good if they had let him live in quiet desperation for a while longer after sentencing.  Just until he was stripped of all his pride and righteous indignation.  Then they could execute him.