Saturday
30Dec2006
Bush plays his final hand in Iraq
Saturday, December 30, 2006 at 8:41AM 
From the BBC: -
Iraqi TV said the execution took place just before 0600 local time (0300GMT). A representative of the prime minister and a Sunni Muslim cleric were present.
Two co-defendants, Saddam Hussein's half-brother and a former chief judge, are to be executed at a later date.
All three were sentenced to death by an Iraqi court on 5 November after a year-long trial over the 1982 killings of 148 Shias in the town of Dujail.
Reader Comments (10)
Is he really dead? So many lies have been told along these years that I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't. On the other hand why not a public execution?
Supposedly it's filmed.
I can't see why they would keep him alive. He's a beacon for the resistance. We should remember that few places are as suspicious as the Mid East.
I won't miss the bastard.
I have never missed him. But I am decidedly against the death penalty, and against unfair trials.
He might have been a beacon for the resistance, but now he is a martyr under Islamic standards.
Absolutely. So many so-called liberals have forgone this tenant of liberalism in this instance.
Saddam was a tyrant and a murderer, but the death penalty was wrong.
I'd say it was wrong to murder him under color of law. He should have been hanged by the victors: the penalty for losing, and a salutory lesson. Now it is tawdry and without purpose.
Saddam dead and John Scarlett (Head of MI6) gets knighted...lunatics and asylums come to mind...
Oh Tom, how very medieval!
Hung from the walls of Baghdad or from a solitary tree on the road to the city? Should we have had all the victors rights? Raping and pillaging? Although, yes, it seems we may have had...
Richard,
Have you stumbled on a new scandal? Convenient intel for Peerages. Better be on to the Electoral Commission pronto.
Medieval, yes I should say so. It's the kind of lesson that crosses cultural boundaries. And has the furhter merit of eschewing doubletalk, and therefore creating a simple cause and effect, any enemy tyrant can comprehend. Our talk of democracy, and blah blah, confuse the issues and motives. I like clarity.
However, that being said, I personally would have let Saddam have Kuwait, and I would have recognized the revoloutionary government that overthrew the Shah in Iran, right away. I think no good comes from underhanded interference in the affairs of other countries. They don't have to be like us.
If I were to lead a nation to war though, I also would not settle for half measures: I would wage Roman War. Our country's are not at risk though. Honestly, in the long tedious history of human conflict have we been safer from armed conflict with our near neighbors? I beleive you all made a tunnel with the French!! What would Edward III or Napoleon think?