Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Certainly not justice: on Saddam Hussein’s execution

Clearly, Saddam Hussein has committed crimes against humanity and acts of genocide – many of them whilst on the payroll of western governments. He must be held accountable and justice must be served but not in this way. Not in a sham victor’s court. And not the death penalty.

In a country which has been turned into a swamp and nightmare, the death penalty only further brutalises a brutalised society. It cannot be allowed to take place.

According to Mansoor Hekmat, ‘capital punishment is the most deplorable and appalling form of intentional murder since a political authority, publicly, with prior notice, on behalf of society, with the utmost legitimacy and ruthlessness, decides to murder someone, and announces the date and time of the event.’ (See full interview below.)


Read the Worker-communist Party of Iran's PR and an interview with Mansoor Hekmat on Capital Punishment, the most Deplorable form of Deliberate Murder, below:

On Saddam Hussein’s Death Sentence

On Sunday, November 5 right wing international press outlets published the verdict of Saddam Hussein and his step brother’s death sentences with hysterical jubilation and euphoria. They sold this verdict as ‘serving justice’ on behalf of the victims of Saddam’s criminal rule and declared that people in Iraq, except in ‘the Sunni dominated areas’ celebrated this verdict. They broadcast an image of the Iraqi people as vengeful and supportive of the US government and its army.

The nature of Saddam’s regime and its record is very clear for the people of the world and the majority of people in Iraq. For decent people everywhere, Saddam, Khamenei, the Taliban and Bush are all criminals and, to the same extent, deserve to be brought to justice.

However, this puppet court does not have the right to do so, does not represent the people of Iraq, is not an independent institution nor is it serving ‘justice’ by executing Saddam Hussein. The timing of this verdict which coincides with the USA’s mid-term elections exposes the political motivation of this charade. The court verdict seems to be on order of the US government amidst the electoral contest and an attempt to defuse people’s opposition to Bush’s policies which in the last month alone has brought home more than a hundred body bags to the US.

One day, Saddam Hussein and his co-criminals have to stand trial in an independent and just court with full access to a defence. However, apart from political exploitation of the verdict of the puppet court, this verdict restores the death sentence in Iraq, and this itself reveals the foundations on which ‘project Iraqi freedom’ is to be built upon. The death sentence for Saddam and his brother is the continuation of the invasion of Iraq, destruction of Iraqi society, destruction of civility and life of Iraqi people, the abandonment of the Iraqi people to the mercy of ultra-reactionary groups and re-establishment of state promoted murder in Iraq. This court and its verdict declare the moral and political bankruptcy of the United States government and the allies.

The Worker-communist Party of Iran resolutely opposes capital punishment and fights for its abolition internationally. The execution of prisoners of war only demonstrates the military barbarity and criminality which sees its survival in the continuation of the same crime and order. A humane outlook and opposition to capital punishment is not only for sunny days; on the contrary it must be implemented when criminals are on trial. Defence of human dignity and humanity is not an empty slogan, but must be applied to criminals as well. The restoration of capital punishment has always been argued as an attempt to ‘safeguard society from crime’ but in reality, it has been the main tool of the ruling classes to suppress and physically remove opponents of the dominant force. The hanging of Saddam Hussein and his brother will not reduce even an iota of the miseries of the people of Iraq, but will enhance the dimensions of terror, revenge, vengeance, intimidation and crime. The execution of this verdict, not only moves Iraqi society into another cycle of tribal and religious hatred and confrontation, but in the name of ‘the people of Iraq’ and ‘justice’ will sanction the setting up of gallows to hang citizens and opponents of the pentagon appointed government in Iraq.

Justice has never been achieved with killing and hanging criminals. We must remove the source of injustice and crime. The Worker-communist Party of Iran calls for a vast and comprehensive movement to abolish capital punishment internationally. In opposition to the deceitful actions of the leaders of the ‘New World Order’ and outrageous celebration of ‘freedom of people’ with setting up of gallows, the socialist movement must more than ever before insist on the abolishment of capital punishment and condemn such criminal state policies.

Worker-communist Party of Iran
6 November 2006

Capital Punishment, the most Deplorable form of Deliberate Murder
Interview with Mansoor Hekmat

Question: In its literature, the Worker-communist Party of Iran has clearly spoken about the necessity of abolishing capital punishment. What is the WPI's reasoning behind the necessity of abolishing capital punishment?

Mansoor Hekmat: Capital punishment is the state's terminology for murder. Individuals murder each other, but states sentence individuals to 'capital punishment.' The demand to end capital punishment and prohibit murder stems from opposition to intentional, deliberate and planned murder of one by the other. That a state or ruling political force is responsible does not make the slightest difference to the fact that we are dealing with intentional murder. Capital punishment is the most deplorable and appalling form of intentional murder since a political authority, publicly, with prior notice, on behalf of society, with the utmost legitimacy and ruthlessness, decides to murder someone, and announces the date and time of the event.

Question: With the abolishment of capital punishment, how can grievances be filed against murderers?

Mansoor Hekmat: It is an interesting question. With the abolishment of capital punishment, right from the start, a leading murderer, the state, will immediately be stopped. Your question implies that capital punishment has been invented to file grievances against murderers or that lawmakers found it suitable for the crime of murder after lengthy deliberations. Capital punishment, however, has nothing to do with murder in society. It has its own history. It is the state's rights and powers over citizens today as a continuation of the state's rights and powers in the past. When Agha Mohammad Khan Ghajar blinds and kills residents of an entire town, he is not objecting to a specific crime. When a horse thief in America is hanged or a soldier who has escaped military service is executed, they are not registering a grievance in a judicial sense, but rather they are putting people in their places and forcing them to submit to rules and regulations. They are terrorising people. They are governing. In today's world, capital punishment is not just a so-called punishment for murder, it is also a punishment for unauthorised sex, hoarding, believing in common ownership, forming opposition parties, mocking of god and prophets, homosexuality, etc. From the beginning of state rule, the killing of inhabitants has always been and is a pillar of forcing people into submission. The history of capital punishment is not found in judicial debates about crime and punishment, but rather in the history of class rule and the state. States kill their citizens today. This must be stopped.

You ask if there is no capital punishment, what we can do with murderers. The killing of murderers is a repetition of murder. This cannot be done. What else can be done depends on the judicial philosophy of society. In the current system, a murderer could be imprisoned. Perhaps in an ideal society, people could be protected from the repetition of murder, or the murderer could be made to understand its offensiveness, without even taking away his/her freedom. In an ideal society, it may even be possible to create conditions so that pre-meditated murder does not occur.

Question: How would the WPI treat the Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guards) and torturers who are captured and found guilty of murder?

Mansoor Hekmat: There are no capital punishment or life sentences in our system of laws. Clearly, these people should be imprisoned and worked on so that they can return to society and be forgiven.

Question: Without capital punishment, how will families of the murdered obtain justice?

Mansoor Hekmat: The idea that the family of the victim owns the victim's blood and that justice is a debt owed by society is a backward and unacceptable concept. The victim's family's sadness and sorrow is undeniable. But if capital punishment is allowed to appease their sorrows, why is murder not excused for similar emotions? Can anyone who has suffered humiliation, been crushed, lost everything, become a drug addict, bankrupt or homeless commit murder to appease bitter emotions? Is the state a killing machine, which individuals refer to for retribution? Is justice a concept replacing retribution? The meaning of justice should be discussed later. The concept is not so objective and beyond the class system that some might think.

Question: Would not the abolition of capital punishment result in increased crime?

Mansoor Hekmat: No, the reverse. As I said before, the long list of state sponsored murders will immediately stop. The US government and its prosecutors are the busiest professional murderers in that country. The abolishment of capital punishment is like arresting 150 serial killers at once! Furthermore, a society that legally permits the killing of human beings can never prevent its repetition by the general public. The abolition of capital punishment and declaring the value of human life is the first step in the struggle against a culture of murder in society. Official statistics clearly show that in Holland, Scandinavia and Britain where capital punishment are prohibited, the murder rate (in ratio to the population) is far less than in the United States.

Question: In your opinion, what should be the objectives of punishing criminals?

Mansoor Hekmat: I am not sure if punishment is basically a good word for a humane judicial system. In my opinion, aside from prevention and removing the social, economic and cultural bases of crime, society must first, with minimal use of force and minimal deprivation of the offender's normal life, protect itself from the repetition of an offence. Secondly, it must help these individuals transform. I think that retribution and punishments that make examples of persons must be banned. We must reach a point where society so distances itself from violence that it treats it like natural disasters, rushing in to help the victims, making efforts to avoid its repetition and minimise the damage, without sacrificing anyone by throwing them in the volcano or the sea.

Question: If the abolition of capital punishment is to value human life and the right to live, then how do we pursue the demand for the freedom of political prisoners who have killed innocent human beings during the course of their political actions? What should be done to a fighter who has planted a bomb on a bus or other place and consequently killed one or more persons? Must we demand their freedom?

Mansoor Hekmat: I do not call an individual who plants a bomb on buses and planes, a fighter. Unfortunately, for a specific period, this method became popular in some legitimate movements and was later elevated to an art of killing under the guise of politics by some reactionary movements. I do not have general formula to deal with them. It depends on the state they are fighting against, on the judicial standards of the given country and its legal legitimacy and on the conditions under which it occurs. In my opinion, the case of those who bomb non-military targets is not a political case. It is possible to provide secondary political reasons for the crime, but the case is not a political one. However, if those who have attacked non-military targets are to be arrested and tried, several Western presidents and prime ministers, hundreds of American and European bureaucrats, generals and commanders will be the first to be accused. I see no difference between Timothy McVeigh who committed such a massive crime in Oklahoma and those who bombed shelters, schools and houses, killing so many in Baghdad.

Question: Which authority must try these?

Mansoor Hekmat: A power that has legal legitimacy. According to their definition, despotic governments do not have such legitimacy. In my opinion, to try the general Schwartzkopfs and the Bin Ladens, acceptable courts could be found or created even in this bourgeois world.

Question: What is your definition of a political prisoner?

Mansoor Hekmat: In my opinion, there are two categories of political prisoners and prisoners of war, which are relevant to this discussion. A political prisoner is someone who is in prison for opposing a government. Accordingly political prisoners must be freed. There should not be any trial. Anyone who has carried out political activities against a government must not be arrested. Moreover, prisoners of war have not committed any crimes and must not be deprived of their civil rights, including freedom. This of course is not only a matter between states. In my opinion, members of guerrilla organisations who have declared war on states and have been captured must be entitled to the same rights as prisoners of war. Current laws must profoundly be changed in favour of these prisoners. Imprisoning an individual and depriving him/her of their normal life must be banned. But arrangements could be made to prevent the individual from re-joining his/her army until the end of the war or until it is ensured that s/he will not take part in the war again. Finally, we have another concept of war crimes. This concept must be seriously redefined and include all instances in which forces attack non-military and civilian structures. In recent years, we have witnessed the most widespread war crimes committed by western and local governments in different countries such as Iraq and Yugoslavia. There are many war criminals that roam freely among people as leaders, national heroes and patriots who must be tried.

Question: What are the reasons behind Islamic fundamentalists' insistence and eagerness on annihilating and killing their opponents?

Mansoor Hekmat: I have not researched whether someone is first attracted to murdering and then becomes an Islamic fundamentalist or vice versa but I am sure the answer is somewhere in your question.

The above is a summary of an interview first published in Persian in Khavaran, the quarterly of the Organisation in Defence of Political Prisoners in Iran, Fall 2000. It was reprinted in International Weekly No. 26, November 3, 2000. The English version is a reprint from WPI Briefing. Translators: Maryam Namazie and Fariborz Pooya.
Maryam Namazie

Renegade Eye Addendum: See Hitchens Denounces Execution of Saddam


Graeme said...

There has already been enough killing in that country

Anonymous said...

The Saddam verdict divided Iraq into two parts.One supporting it,other group is up in arms to fight.

My name is Mark Johnson, and I've been visiting Renegade Eye for past few months

I’m a recent UC Berkeley Political science grad and I along with some fellow Princeton alums have been working hard to launch our own internet startup called Rizzleweb.com.
Rizzleweb is basically an online political community where people can log on and write performance reviews\comments for congressmen, senators, the president, and various other local and state officials across the country. I was hoping that if it would not be too much trouble you could place a link of our site on your blog. If this is not possible (which we completely understand), we still hope you will check out our site, and post some reviews.
Your contribution will encourage us to put more effort in improving our website.
Mark Johnson

? said...

This is an ironic development. But if you are wondering where I may have been...check out this new

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry; did I miss something? Wasn't Hitchens a rabid supporter of 'the war in Iraq?'

beatroot said...

“…the death penalty only further brutalises a brutalised society. It cannot be allowed to take place.”

I agree about the brutalizing effect of capital punishment, but who the hell are you or me to tell the Iraqis about how to treat their dictator? I don’t think they need any more lecturers from interfering liberals like the EU or Amnesty International, or this blog.

I am afraid that the execution of Saddam will be very popular with most Iraqis (apart from a handful of his cronies and supporters – the ones currently murdering Shia). So be it.

From the French revolutionaries’ beheading of Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette to the execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceauşescu in Romania in 1989, history is peppered with the executions of former rulers. So what? Not the most important issue in Iraq by any means.

sonia said...

The Iraqis will do what they want, and no European bleeding-heart has a moral right to tell them what to do. Europeans executed their national socialist war criminals in the late 40's, and only LATER abolished their death penalty. But now, they are shamelessly demanding that the Iraqis abolish their death penalty BEFORE executing their national socialist war criminal, Saddam Hussein. Those arrogant anti-death penalty bastards deserve to be told to go to hell!

MarxistFromLebanon said...

Personally Sonia, it is you who should go to hell.

First you are convinced that Iraq is democratic...then you think the verdict is 100% Iraqi while the time line emerged in a short while before the US elections (while the trial continued). I hate Saddam for the murders of the communists and the proletariat

Second, Saddam is not Socialist, he is a baathi, so again you and your Neo-Con buddy get the information correct.

Third, the US invasion has caused the death of Iraqis more than Saddams almost 3 decades... so please shed some light on that matter.

Fourth, I don't mind seeing Saddam getting the rope, as long as Bush follows him for the crimes against the world.


MarxistFromLebanon said...

One more note: elections of a country under invading armies is not democratic...so spare me CNNish sentiments

jams o donnell said...

Hmm well perhaps the people of England should be considered self righteous becaue we had the temerity to execute one of our monarchs back in 1649 and YET there is opposition to the execution of Saddam, oh the sheer arrogance!

Considering it wrong to execute Saddam is not a matter of self righteousness. For me it is simply a case of opposing the death penalty in all circumstances, full stop.

CSC said...

There can be no justice in capitalist courts, especially kangroo ones set up by imperialist occupiers. The Iraqi people need to settle their problems with Saddam themselves, this bullshit will solve nothing and must be fully opposed.

Frank Partisan said...

Kitt: Hitchens opposes the death penalty on principle.

beatroot:Your view is in line, with your hands off the Middle East. I'm against the death penalty universally.

Sonia: Welcome back to the fold. On your blog, you pointed out Saddam's trial was fairer than Zinoviev's. I would hope you have higher standards.

Mark Johnson: I would link to your site, only it doesn't have a way to link back.

CommonSense: Thank you for taking part in the discussions.

Flying Monkey has returned!

GraemeAnfinson and Jams I agree.

MFL: Next time don't hold back.

Frank Partisan said...

Riverbend AKA Baghdad Burning on the Saddan decision.

Riverbend On The Saddam Decision

roman said...

Stating that the Iraqi justice system is a kangaroo court and puppet of the US does not change the fact that Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer. He has received his day in court and been found guilty and sentenced to die by hanging. The trial's very public and open evidentiary presentations satisfied most observers. Sounds like he's received more justice than most murderous tyrants. The same whiners who called the Iraq invasion criminal interference are now complaining about the death sentence and demanding its prohibition. Hypocrisy?

CalabazaBlog said...

I Linked to This Blog too,see you soon!!!!


MarxistFromLebanon said...

Roman, this does not cover the fact of the Iraqi death tolls during Saddam's regime and under US imperial rule. Remember, the US and UK coalition INVADED (and NOT LIBERATED) Iraq because there was suspicion of weaponry of mass destruction.

There is a difference in getting rid of Saddam's regime and destroying Iraq, and in any case it is up to the people to rebel or not. IN CASE YOU WANT TO REPLY THAT THE PEOPLE DIDN'T REBEL, WELL ASK YOURSELF WHO MADE SADDAM INDESTRUCTIBLE AGAINST OPPOSITION IN IRAQ, AND PARTLY WAS DUE TO US EMPOWERMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME BY THE US IN ORDER TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN. Again the people are paying for the blunders of the US foreign policy.


beatroot said...

I am against the death penalty too. But what people do with dictators is not my business. And I am not going to moralize about this and I don't, in the context of Iraq, think it's even a very important thing to talk about either. Saddam swings? Ho hum...yawn...

Frank Partisan said...

Roman: Who are you talking about. Maryam and myself, are universally against the death penalty.

Beatroot: You are correct that executing Saddam is ho-hum. The question is who will be executed next? A rape victim, a woman without a veil?

Sean Pelette said...

I'm a little sceptical of a CP member denouncing capital punishment. Just how far would he go in defending the revolution for instance? That is the problem faced by all revolutionary movements upon seizing power.

Is 'Death to tyrants!' just a slogan?

Personally I abhore the death penalty; it represents too much power for the state. Nevertheless, as the Jane's Addiction song goes, "Some people should die, that's just unconscious knowledge".

Such is the case with Saddam Hussein.

The welcoming of the sentence by over 2/3 of Iraqis is proof that this was not a puppet court that did not represent the Iraqi people. It was not a perfect court by any means, but show me one that is.

Riverbend's opinions are those of a petulant child of Baathist priveledge. No amount of articulate whining on her part will bring back those carefree days when the only thing Iraqis had to worry about were what to shop for.

LeftyHenry said...

I don't know what's worse; death penalty, or life in prison without parole. Seems to me life in prison is equally as bad and hopeless of a situation.

mullet said...

Beatroot -if it's not your business what people do with their dictators, then how can you also be against the death penalty?

Sonia, I see the point you are making - but still....fuck the pope - but he had a point: culture of death....

roman said...

Ren and Maryam,

It is noble to be against the death penalty and I sincerely respect those who lobby and promote this idea. Some day it will be universally accepted. At present, the death penalty is still a common and accepted practice in many countries. My comment was meant to bring forth the idea of interference of customary legal practice in a sovereign nation. To DEMAND that Hussein's sentence be commuted to life in prison is just this type of interference. When 2/3 of the nation's population agrees with the verdict, no one, including the occupying forces should demand otherwise. To do so deligitimizes Iraq's judicial system and will, in fact, relegate it to kangaroo status.


You said: "the US and UK coalition INVADED (and NOT LIBERATED) Iraq because there was suspicion of weaponry of mass destruction."
This statement is contrary to logical reasoning and is historical revisionism. In order to liberate a nation, it must be invaded. One cannot happen without the other.
WMD was only one of the reasons for invasion. To refresh your memory, there were the matters of the consistent defiance and contempt for years of UN resolutions, the flounting of agreements resulting from the Kuwaiti invasion, the constant firing on planes enforcing the no-fly zones. There are a few more but I'm sure that bringing these up again will have no affect on those who suffer from a condition known as "selective memory". I do agree that all foreign forces should get out of Iraq. So as soon as all those Revolutionary Guard infiltrators from Iran and assorted Jihadists from all over the ME are out, we will see a decline in sectarian violence and thus allowing the coalition forces to finish rebuilding Iraq and ultimately also exit at the earliest possible time.

MarxistFromLebanon said...

Roman, I enjoy your reductionist view without any reasoning (or Stalin's way of rewriting history).

For starters, the invasion of Kuwait was given a green light on the eve of the US ambassador over there.

Second, you neglect that historically USA supported dictatorships, one of them is Saddam.

Third, this is not a liberation (since even the UN did not approve of it) + the death tolls under their occupation is the biggest proof of such an invasion. Once you enter a country, then you invaded it, and the US case, they destroyed Iraq. Mr. Zarqawi didn't do anything till the USA came and destroyed Iraq's network. Moreover, you can't force a people to be liberated or you decide about it (just as your government did with Saddam and empowered him in the past) so this is hypocracy just as the USA tried to repair a reaction (its own blunder) with another blunder. So expect the death tolls of Iraqis and US soldiers to rise more and more.

Fourth, it was Bush who made it clear that the "crusades" on Iraq would be launched to destroy weapons of Mass Destruction, so stop justifying this movement, it was an illegal movement that killed Iraqis more than Saddam's almost three decades (something you and your Neo-Con buddies seem to be hiding).

Fifth, what do you mean 2/3 of Iraq is celebrating it. For starters, the only ones who celebrated the entrance of the US forces (and not UK mind you since Iraq was under British invasion which was labeled as mandate before), and even now they are rebelling against them because Kurdish nationalism is on its peak. The Shiites celebrate the death of Saddam but remember that they are 1/3 of the nation (it is a sect and not a movement btw) who prefer close ties to Iran). The Sunnis got different radical groups, and the number 1 terrorist organization Qa'eda active (Sunni extremist movement) and others on the rise. So again, Iraq is divided into a trio while each is waging a war on the other. So you tell me, what liberation? Actually, next you will tell me that the US troops should be given flowers even though they are invadors to a land. No matter, US does not stand for democracy just as it supported (again) totalitarian regimes (including Taliban if you would like to be reminded).

So who is re-writing history? Go learn Arabic and read what the Iraqi intellects are saying, they call the US as invadors (or they are un-democratic as well because they oppose US presence?)

Jeez, what hypocrites, please go to Iraq and see for yourself Roman... my dear CNNed victim.


Agnes said...


"-if it's not your business what people do with their dictator" - a dictator per country for more than 2 decades is enough I guess. And indeed, not an average serial killer or mass murderor.

Beet, "So what? Not the most important issue in Iraq by any means" - it is symbolic, though. And symbols can be weapons, and not of the less dangerous kind.

MFL, "WHO MADE SADDAM INDESTRUCTIBLE AGAINST OPPOSITION IN IRAQ" - he had support from both sides in something we called Cold War. He was extremely popular and got huge support from the Eastern Bloc.

"For starters, the invasion of Kuwait was given a green light on the eve of the US ambassador over there." ??? The problem - as far as I know - was exactly that not many woke up on the eve of THAT war.

sonia said...


The Shiites celebrate the death of Saddam but remember that they are 1/3 of the nation

That's a flat-out lie. Shiites are 60% and Kurds 20% of the Iraqi population. They both support the execution of Saddam. The only Iraqis who are angry about the verdict are the Sunnis, who ruled over Iraq like white people ruled South Africa under apartheid. They are only 20% of the population and shrinking fast now, as many Sunnis are fleeing from Iraq to escape the rightful vengeance of the Shiites and the Kurds.

MarxistFromLebanon said...

Redwine, he had support from both sides, but during the Iranian - Iraqi war, the US supported Saddam.

Sonia, It was not the Sunnis who ruled Iraq like whites over S. Africa. It was Saddam and his goons big difference.

Second, Shiite is the largest number yes but I was refering to the tripartite Iraq. Iraq before Mr. Sykes and Pico was divided intro three provisions: North - Middle - Lower. Actually the North was carved out from Turkey to take the Mosul area (British Greed) for the oil. Each provision contained certain sect concentration. Actually Peretz proposed in his article "Blood Frontiers" that all three groups should be armed (guess why?).

There is no rightful vengeance as you make me doubt your democracy which is semi-fascist these days. Sunnis, SHiites, and Kurds are sects (well the Kurds is a whole special story). What about Iran's influence on the Shiite since it is the axis of the Shiites ever since Khomeini overthrew the Shah? hmmmmmmmm? Now you support the Shiites (who were celebrating Hezbollah's achievements in Iraq?) So again, Sonia, your "democracy" only implies survivor of the fittest and ethnic cleansing (how democratic).

Remember, Religion is the opium of the masses, and this is the perfect case.


roman said...


You said, among other things: "For starters, the invasion of Kuwait was given a green light on the eve of the US ambassador over there."

Are you kidding? Why would the US want Saddam to invade Kuwait only to expend huge amounts of capital and manpower to drive him back out? Your assessment makes absolutely no sense. No green light was ever given. That is total fabrication.

IG said...

I see the undertone of the racist idea that AmeriKKKas invasion of Iraq was ok and that they were supporting democracy and other rightwing mierda(shit).

The people of Iraq support the verdict given to saddam, thats all good. but it doesnt take away from the fact that the white, racist christian euroamericans have murdered countless of innocent iraqis and continue to fight against the peoples resistance to imperialism. The real enemy in Iraq is the united states and the ones who need to get run out are the pigs in the u.s military. These are the bastards that put Saddam in power in the first place.

I want to leave a bit of lyrics from my Brother Immortal Technique to you.

"They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bullshit, I'll show you why it's totally wrong

Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights

I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem

I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga

You ever clock someone who talk shit, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms

And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons
We sold him that shit, after Ronald Reagan's election

Mercenary contractors fightin' a new era
Corporate military bankin' off the war on terror

They controllin' the ghetto, with the failed attack
Tryna distract the fact that they engineerin' the crack"

Solidaridad desde Aztlan a Irak

Frank Partisan said...

Roman: MFL is correct.

"In July 1990, days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein and gave him what many believe to be a green light for invading Kuwait.

Speaking for President Bush (41), Glaspie said, "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Hussein invaded Kuwait beginning a war that has yet to end." Third World Traveler's story on Saddam.

MarxistFromLebanon said...

what renegade eye said, that is what is mass believed over here, and that is what the newspapers in the Arab media wrote quoting the US ambassador over there.

But if you think of it, think of Cheney's corporation(/s) making all that money with the hegemony on reconstructing Iraq. (check www.corpwatch.org & the book Iraq Inc. by Pratap Chatterjee).

Again Roman, checking both sides of the story with proper research will get you the facts you will see (whether you like'em or hate'em) rather what you want to see or hear.


Pursey Tuttweiler said...

I enjoyed reading both the post and the comments. I too am universally against the death penalty, and do not understand why one commenter said we had no right to moralize about what Iraq does to Saddam. There are few things I feel I have the right to moralize about, but killing and violence are up there. I do not accept, condone or endorse either, except for the occasional pillow fight.

roman said...

Ren & MFL,

Excerp from Wiki: "In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had "repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait." She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: "We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid.""

This version makes more common sense than imagined conspiracy and conjecture. Glaspie's words meant nothing to Saddam Hussein. He owed Kuwait approximately $14 Billion for bankrolling the war with Iran and Kuwait angered Saddam because they would not forgive the debt. Sorry, no green light.

Frank Partisan said...

Glaspie made an error, not realizing Saddam was speaking of the whole country of Kuwait, not just two islands there.

See: What Really Happened

MarxistFromLebanon said...

I said take a look at Corpwatch.org and Iraq Inc. (book)

Wiki most of the time is not as credible as it looks in several issues.


Anonymous said...

Renegade Eye, somehow you manage to get commentators to cover most of the topics in your blog from almost every political perspective. Many interesting views here.

Jennifer said...

He shouldn't be executed. How can he be punished in the same way for doing what has been declared to be wrong?! Either murder is the answer or it isn't.

brian said...

I don't believe in the death penalty, but I won't shed a tear for Saddam

Here's my issue though: After one conviction and a hearing on the punishment, the law says he has to be executed within 30 days. But Saddam is guilty of more than one crime, and he had accomplices for some of them. The US just wants to off Saddam before he can go to trial for a crime in which the US supported him so Saddam's accomplices in America can get off.

Curry St John said...

And yet, now it is done. Saddam has been hung. And what good will come of it? That's what I want to know. I Googled "some people should die, that's just unconscious knowledge", in thinking of using it for a blog post of my own, re: Saddam's death, and I found this blog post.

Anonymous said...