Canada still mum on the Saddam execution

BC_chick · December 31, 2006

Every country who rejects capital punishment - in spite of their stance for or against the Iraq war - have issued a statement against the execution of Saddam. Every one except Canada that is.

Even staunch Iraq-war supporters like Britain and Italy spoke out against it.

Our government, on the other hand, who insists on speaking out against un-Canadian values as we did with China... has been awfully silent on the issue....

Fortunata · December 31, 2006

Is this any surprise? Don't forget the speech in which Harper denounced Canada as a “Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term” and described the US neo-conservative movement “as a light and an inspiration to people” in Canada and “across the world.”

Guess what? Most Northern European states (welfare or not) don't believe in capital punishment and Steve's light and inspiration i.e. the Republican Party of the USA does indeed believe in capital punishment (as does I daresay many in the US not of the republican persuasion).

Harper did at one time say he wanted to hold a binding referendum on capital punishment, which indicates he favours it. That he doesn't speak out now could mean that he's afraid he'll loose votes if he voices that. And, being a typical politician, he would do anything for a vote.

Wilber · December 31, 2006

I'm against capital punishment in principal but if anyone had it coming, Saddam did. He was an Iraqi, tried in an Iraqi court and put to death by Iraqis. We don't ask for their opinion when we sentence our people.

newbie · December 31, 2006

I'm against capital punishment in principal but if anyone had it coming, Saddam did. He was an Iraqi, tried in an Iraqi court and put to death by Iraqis. We don't ask for their opinion when we sentence our people.

Yeah, all the while in U.S. custody, tried for crimes against humanity which should have taken place in the Hague. The Iraqis that killed him only had him for a few minutes prior to his execution.

geoffrey · December 31, 2006

I'm against capital punishment in principal but if anyone had it coming, Saddam did. He was an Iraqi, tried in an Iraqi court and put to death by Iraqis. We don't ask for their opinion when we sentence our people.

Yeah, all the while in U.S. custody, tried for crimes against humanity which should have taken place in the Hague. The Iraqis that killed him only had him for a few minutes prior to his execution.

Not in the least. If Canada had a criminal leader, say one that embezzeled funds for his party through a clever transfer program, they'd be tried in Canada, not in the Hague. It may be a higher crime with a higher punishment but the Iraqi's are capable of prosecuting their own.

This is a domestic Iraqi issue and Canada has no business with it.

Wilber · December 31, 2006

I'm against capital punishment in principal but if anyone had it coming, Saddam did. He was an Iraqi, tried in an Iraqi court and put to death by Iraqis. We don't ask for their opinion when we sentence our people.

Yeah, all the while in U.S. custody, tried for crimes against humanity which should have taken place in the Hague. The Iraqis that killed him only had him for a few minutes prior to his execution.

He was still tried in an Iraqi court and put to death by Iraqis for crimes against Iraqis. We don't try Canadians convicted of killing Canadians at the Hague. Why should they? Where do we get off telling them what they should do with those who have butchered their own people. Pure arrogance.

Catchme · December 31, 2006

I'm against capital punishment in principal but if anyone had it coming, Saddam did. He was an Iraqi, tried in an Iraqi court and put to death by Iraqis. We don't ask for their opinion when we sentence our people.

Yeah, all the while in U.S. custody, tried for crimes against humanity which should have taken place in the Hague. The Iraqis that killed him only had him for a few minutes prior to his execution.

Capital punishment is wrong, and is NOT what Canada in the majority is about. Harper can't afford to lose anymore voters from his base so he dares say nothing, while knowing he risks losing votes of those who were against Iraq but went CPC to punish the Liberals. His silence means he feels he would lose more by speaking out against it. Not that Canada, or rather Canadians in the majority, in anyway support either the Iraq War or Saddams and his families murder by hanging.

If Saddam had it coming so did those who allowed him to do it, and that would be George Herbert Bush

Jesse Jackson spoke truth to power when he said this today!

The Rev. Jesse Jackson: Saddam's heinous crimes against humanity can never be diminished, but he was our ally while he was doing it.... Saddam as a war trophy only deepens the catastrophe to which we are indelibly linked

Moreover, we are in Afghanistan to free up the USA in Iraq, of course we have a say in it. Notwithstanding is the fact we are not a capital punishment country and always speak out against its use, until now that is. An black eye for Canada on the world stage because of Harper.

What is irritating me in all of this though, is the oppositions silence on it! Harper's silence you expect, he is a weak kneed USA sychophant that was a traitor to Canadians before he took office. This was when he and Stockwell took ads out in the NY Times and spoke on Fox TV saying Canadians were in favour of the Iraq invasion, and wanted to go, when indeed we were not in favour, and did not want to move outside UN sanctions.

geoffrey · December 31, 2006

Saying Saddam was our (our being American I assume) ally through his crimes is showing a major ignorance of some of the more major details of most of those conflicts.

Most governments had diplomatic relations with the Nazi's. Does that mean we should have been up in arms protesting the execution of senior members of that regime because they were on our side once?

What exactly is Jesse saying here? I really get the impression he's just stiring up shit for personal gain. His comments aren't relevant in the least. All a part of the left-wing guilt culture they treasure so dearly.

BC_chick · December 31, 2006

He was an Iraqi, tried in an Iraqi court and put to death by Iraqis. We don't ask for their opinion when we sentence our people.

1) Not true. http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2005/doc_31756.html

2) Even if we as a nation had not taken a position as stated above, I still wonder why Harper was so adament about speaking out against what Chinese people do to their own people in their own courts... if that's how he really feels about what goes on "out there."

BC_chick · December 31, 2006

What is irritating me in all of this though, is the oppositions silence on it! Harper's silence you expect, he is a weak kneed USA sychophant that was a traitor to Canadians before he took office.

Yep. They (the opposition) know that anything that they say on the issue will be twisted into little sound-bytes by the Harpercrites as "the left supporting Saddam" instead of what it really is - "the left supporting Canadian values as established by our committments to the UN."

BC_chick · December 31, 2006

Don't forget the speech in which Harper denounced Canada as a “Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term” and described the US neo-conservative movement “as a light and an inspiration to people” in Canada and “across the world.”

Where have I been? This is true?!?!?!?

Catchme · December 31, 2006

Saying Saddam was our (our being American I assume) ally through his crimes is showing a major ignorance of some of the more major details of most of those conflicts.
Most governments had diplomatic relations with the Nazi's. Does that mean we should have been up in arms protesting the execution of senior members of that regime because they were on our side once?

What exactly is Jesse saying here? I really get the impression he's just stiring up shit for personal gain. His comments aren't relevant in the least. All a part of the left-wing guilt culture they treasure so dearly.

That Saddam was a tyrant is beyond dispute, but what is conveniently forgotten is that most of his crimes were committed when he was a staunch ally of those who now occupy the country. It was, as he admitted in one of his trial outbursts, the approval of Washington (and the poison gas supplied by West Germany) that gave him the confidence to douse Halabja with chemicals in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war. He deserved a proper trial and punishment in an independent Iraq. Not this

http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq12302006.html

There is simply no way to understand the reign of Saddam Hussein, nor the past few decades of Iraq's history, without including the very real and important role that the United States has played in shaping these realities. The reason that tens of thousands of American soldiers have been killed and maimed -- and that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered, and millions more plunged into hellish suffering -- is because this history has been buried, perverted, ignored or forgotten.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php

Peter Galbraith has done losts of coverage of USA involvement with Saddam leading up to the first Gulf War. Google him and you will find out more than enough evidence and links to evidence, of the USA support, sometimes overt, sometimes tacit approval given, to Saddam and assist with his war crimes.

geoffrey · December 31, 2006

He also says the US occupies the country. That's incorrect. The Iraqi government is repsonsibile for maintenance of law and order, not the Americans. This isn't 1944 France. This is a free country (they elected their people... free to change anyways) that has the Americans assisting their transition from a dictatorship to a pseudodemocracy.

It's far from perfect, it's rather ugly, but Iraqi's can try Iraqi's for murder if they wish. A big name guy doesn't deserve more special treatment than your typical murder. The media hates it, because it's not big like OJ with gloves that don't fit and the such. So they are going to rally behind this as much as they can to make a buck.

I have no doubt Saddam committed the crimes, that the trial showed this, and that the punishment was within the accordance of the current government's laws and even the laws that Saddam ruled by himself.

Beyond that, why does Canada need to say anything? What is that word going to do? You lefties really need to ground yourselves in reality a little more... it's about actions not words and I think Canada's current action in Iraq is spot on.

Fortunata · December 31, 2006

The whole thing about him being hung now is that the others upon whom atrocities were committed against, now haave no day in court. I'm thinking mostly about the Kurds. It's fine to say that he got his but there has to be something very satisfactory and, maybe, closure to having your say to a monster.

madmax · December 31, 2006

I'm against capital punishment in principal but if anyone had it coming, Saddam did. He was an Iraqi, tried in an Iraqi court and put to death by Iraqis. We don't ask for their opinion when we sentence our people.

I too am against Capital punishment, because of the fear of a Milgard, Morin or Moore possibility, or even the other kid that was sentenced to hang. Steven Truscott.

And yes Saddam knew his fate and prepared for it his whole life killing off rivals. Saddam was the only Iraqi Leader to take power without executing his predecessor. His Predecessor being the only iraqi leader not to be executed. But the trend is pretty clear, You rule in Iraq, you are going to get it someday.

I don't see it changing. It's too bad for them, but Iraqis rejecting capital punishment would be like getting them to accept democracy by force

Doesn't that second smiley look like a terrorist?

Ricki Bobbi · December 31, 2006

\
I too am against Capital punishment, because of the fear of a Milgard, Morin or Moore possibility, or even the other kid that was sentenced to hang. Steven Truscott.

And yes Saddam knew his fate and prepared for it his whole life killing off rivals. Saddam was the only Iraqi Leader to take power without executing his predecessor. His Predecessor being the only iraqi leader not to be executed. But the trend is pretty clear, You rule in Iraq, you are going to get it someday.

I don't see it changing. It's too bad for them, but Iraqis rejecting capital punishment would be like getting them to accept democracy by force

Doesn't that second smiley look like a terrorist?

Those wrongfully convicted cases don't really apply here.

Not to be obtuse but who is Moore? I have heard of all the other cases...

madmax · December 31, 2006

The whole thing about him being hung now is that the others upon whom atrocities were committed against, now haave no day in court. I'm thinking mostly about the Kurds. It's fine to say that he got his but there has to be something very satisfactory and, maybe, closure to having your say to a monster.

When the US betrayed the Kurds, and to make a deal between Saddam and the Shah of Iran, this policy of supporting Saddam became more entrenched with the Shahs departure. The Prodding of Saddam to go war with Iran (opportunism at its finest) unfortuneately led into the problem that Saddam started to lose the war, and the Kurds loyal Iraqis that they were, openly supported Iran. Rummy came by to visit Saddam ole buddy, since Iraq was miraculously no longer a terrorist supporting country, and opened all the doors for him to get bio/chem weapons. Of Course later Saddam needed to better ways to employ these chemicals, and the US provided doctrines, Satilitte photos and "observers" to aid in the chemical warfare attacks as well as the defences against such attack.

Ofcourse those nasty Kurds were a thorn in the side, and were dealt with according to the doctrine.

Halabja happened back in the 80s and not a peep from the US, other than to blame the Iranians.

The Kurds are next in the trial of Saddam Hussein. You saw him have to many moments in court to speak.

The interest in killing Saddam before the next trial, wasn't for the benefit of the Kurds.

madmax · December 31, 2006

Not to be obtuse but who is Moore? I have heard of all the other cases...

A convict whom was released after 10 years imprisonment for murder back in 1978. The supreme court rule him released because ...

off topic here

This legal theory was known as culpable homicide, and the Supreme Court of Canada struck it down in 1989 because it was based on the presumption of guilt rather than innocence.

An interesting delema.

He has been ordered to provide a DNA sample and has to comply.

He's lucky he didn't get convicted 30 years ago when the death penalty was around.

If he's got nothing to hide in his past, then the DNA sample won't be a problem.

Remember this when another thread shows up again about problems with the CPC crime bills before the house.

Wilber · December 31, 2006

If Saddam had it coming so did those who allowed him to do it, and that would be George Herbert Bush

Balls. If your son murdered someone should you go to jail for life? We have countless cases of where people who failed to prevent a crime were not held culpable. The US supported Saddam against Iran but it was his decision to go to war. It was his decision to butcher his own people and invade Kuwait. Most of Saddam's weaponry came from the former Soviet Union.

Americans get it when they fail to stop every slime ball on earth from acting badly and then they get accused of imposing themselves as the worlds policeman when they do. All they are doing is putting their own interests first like every other country.

Ricki Bobbi · December 31, 2006

An interesting delema.
He has been ordered to provide a DNA sample and has to comply.

He's lucky he didn't get convicted 30 years ago when the death penalty was around.

If he's got nothing to hide in his past, then the DNA sample won't be a problem.

Remember this when another thread shows up again about problems with the CPC crime bills before the house.

What's the first name of this Moore person? Kinda tough to look something up based on so little information.

Your timeline is a little off. The last people actually executed in Canada were put to death in 1962. So this Moore person would have been ok if he had been convicted 30 years ago.

Do explain these *problems* with the CPC crime bills.

They haven't proposed re-instating the death penalty, have they?

They haven't proposed changing the definition of presumption of innocence, have they?

Argus · December 31, 2006

Every country who rejects capital punishment - in spite of their stance for or against the Iraq war - have issued a statement against the execution of Saddam. Every one except Canada that is.
Even staunch Iraq-war supporters like Britain and Italy spoke out against it.

Our government, on the other hand, who insists on speaking out against un-Canadian values as we did with China... has been awfully silent on the issue....

Because it's not an "un-Canadian" value, whatever that is supposed to be.

In fact, a majority of Canadians has always supported the death penalty. Even decades after the abolition of the death penalty in Canada various surveys and polls showed support for reintroduction at anywhere between 50%-78%.

A large number of those who oppose the death penalty do so not due to personal values but fears regarding the incompetence of the courts and the possibility of an innocent person being convicted and executed.

You won't find our "opinion leaders" speaking much about this, however, because the chattering classes are completely out of touch with what the mainstream feels about most issues. Thus you can easily think that only a few cranks support the death penalty, or oppose unlegislated abortion or wide-open immigration or gay marriage. But the culture of the mainstream or masses is not the same as that of the political, media, artistic and academic elites insulated within their ivory towers in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal.

Argus · December 31, 2006

Is this any surprise? Don't forget the speech in which Harper denounced Canada as a “Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term” and described the US neo-conservative movement “as a light and an inspiration to people” in Canada and “across the world.”

This was many years ago - pre-Bush.

Harper did at one time say he wanted to hold a binding referendum on capital punishment, which indicates he favours it.

Or perhaps he merely favours democracy.

Fortunata · December 31, 2006

Argus, a couple of things:

1. I do not think that the majority of Canadians support the death penalty. Many Canadians can't even figure out that capital punishment means the death penalty. Sounds weird but it's true.

2. I don't care when that speech of Harper's was given. Did he not mean it? Has he changed his mind since Bush, if you think that, I would like you to back it up. By all accounts he is as staunchly behind Bush and his doctrines as ever.

Saturn · December 31, 2006

Argus, a couple of things:
1. I do not think that the majority of Canadians support the death penalty. Many Canadians can't even figure out that capital punishment means the death penalty. Sounds weird but it's true.

2. I don't care when that speech of Harper's was given. Did he not mean it? Has he changed his mind since Bush, if you think that, I would like you to back it up. By all accounts he is as staunchly behind Bush and his doctrines as ever.

In an American poll, 75% supported capital punishment and 47% supported the death penalty. :rolleyes: