End of the Road for Baghdad's Butcher
Friday, December 29, 2006 at 10:11PM CNN's Anderson Cooper at 11 PM EST reported that video and or photos of the hanging execution would be shown on CNN, but with warning. He explained that CNN will not haphazardly throw images up but CNN's top executives will carefully and respectfully review the images/video before possibly making it available to the public. CNN ardently stood behind their decision to air the enemy propaganda film of insurgents murdering our soldiers but solemnly will review whether to air photos of Saddam's execution. It would appear the executives at CNN are more considerate to Saddam than our soldiers.
Saddam Hussein began his career in 1959 as part of seven-man hit squad to assassinate Iraqi leader Gen. Abdel Karim Kassem. The plot fails, Saddam went into exile...
July 1979 in Iraq, Saddam staged a palace coup and President Bakr resigns. Among Saddam's first actions after assuming the presidency is purging the Ba'ath Party of any potential enemies. Saddam called a meeting of the Ba'ath Party leadership and insists it be videotaped. He announces there are traitors in their midst and reads out their names. These individuals cried, some begged for their lives, and fear fully overtook the auditorium while Saddam callously smoked a cigar. One by one, the individuals are led out and executed.
This would be representative of Saddam's reign.
There is no way to describe the horror that Saddam inflicted upon his people. My husband, who served with the 82nd ABN DIV in 2003-04, told me last night a story about a torture building he helped Iraqis reconstruct into a cultural center in Baghdad. He was given a tour of the rooms that previously witnessed the most gruesome of murders and torture at the hands of Saddam at his order. Now the torture prison brings together Shiites, Sunnis, Christians and Muslims as they read, learn and explore in a cultural center that defies the efforts of Saddam Hussein. This was a very symbolic turnaround; what Saddam used for evil has been turned into good.
Just after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 US forces found a children's prison where kids as young as 7 were incarcerated as punishment for whatever perceived offense Saddam believed their parents had committed. Some children, 12 and 13, had been jailed for 5 years. The conditions were unspeakable.
With the last mid-term elections and a possibility that Democrats could take the White House in 2008, Iraqis have grown increasingly nervous in the past year about Saddam living in a jail cell as Democrats tout their ambitions for a full and swift withdrawal from Iraq. The fear that Saddam could regain power was a very real one. This execution was necessary in every way; for national unity, for moral equity, for social justice..
This execution was carried out affording Saddam the dignity he did not give his victims. An execution is never a joyous thing, but it is sometimes a necessary thing. This has never been truer but for the case of Saddam Hussein and humanity.
This is another gigantic step toward the healing of Iraq’s past and the brightness of Iraq’s future. The fall of Saddam is complete.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/841659
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (209)
Hoo-rah.
May God grant him mercy to his soul... I suspect it needs lots of prayers.
A genocidal tyrant has been brought to justice. And the bubble the MSM lives in has been penetrated, even if only for a moment.
BYE!!!
AubreyJ.........
DELETED
The Vatican on Saturday denounced Saddam Hussein's execution as "tragic" and said it risked fueling revenge and new violence in Iraq.
"Killing the guilty one is not the way to rebuild justice and reconcile society," the spokesman said. "On the contrary, there is the risk that the spirit of revenge is fueled and that the seeds of new violence are sown."
In an interview published in an Italian daily earlier in the week, the Vatican's top prelate for justice issues, Cardinal Renato Martino, said executing Saddam would mean punishing "a crime with another crime."
In one of the late Pope John Paul II's encyclicals, "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) in 1995, the pontiff laid out the Catholic Church's stance against capital punishment, saying that in a modern world, with improved prison systems, cases in which the death penalty could be justified were "practically non-existent."
Amy, it is clear why you list your blog as being "Conservative Republican"
before "Christian/Catholic". Don't you think your faith should come first? Who has greater authority, The Holy Roman Church or George W. Bush?
Osama who?
Grumpy, Osama killed a fraction of the people Saddam did. That should bring you comfort. Or.. are you saying Saddam should still be on the throne? I know you have friends in high places!
How many Americans Amy?
How many Americans what?
"Osama killed a fraction of the people Saddam did."
How many Americans did Saddam kill?
Sister Rose,
I side with the Church. This is what the Catechism says:
Sister Rose, perhaps you're not aware of the threat a living Saddam posed to Iraq. Imagine 2008 and a Saddam in a jail cell. Imagine Democrats winning the White House and a full withdrawal from Iraq. Imagine utter chaos. Imagine Saddam being helped from prison and retaking power. This is a totally legitimate scenario. If you watched any of the coverage at all about the execution, you would have heard experts in the field saying that Iraqis were scared that America would pull out with Saddam still alive and that he could retake Iraq. This is why Iraqis were so relieved when they saw photos of Uday and Qusay dead.
You have no idea what it is to be terrorized by a madman, to lose family members for no apparent reason, to live in a state of fear. This was Iraq under Saddam.
You're neglecting to acknowledge that the Catholic Catechism, which has higher authority than a "Vatican spokesperson", makes these points:
- the death penalty is not "exclude the death penalty"
- the criminal can be redeemed through his execution, i.e., it can have a medicinal purpose.
- if the criminal still poses a threat to society, the death penalty is permissible.
All of these apply to Saddam Hussein. He was a mass murderer of enormous proportions.
St. Paul, who before his conversion to Christianity,was a Rabbi, both a student and teacher of the Law. He wrote this in his letter to the Romans (13:3-4):
The (executioner's) sword, or death penalty, acts as a minister of God.
Sister Rose, George W. Bush didn't execute Saddam Hussein, Iraq executed Saddam Hussein. You're welcomed to try to reason with a majority of Muslims. Moreover, it can be said that Saddam led himself down this road. IF THE DEATH PENALTY IS APPROPRIATE FOR ANYONE, IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR SADDAM HUSSEIN.
No statement, representative or Pope is above Church doctrine.
I'm highly offended by your comment:
You have no idea what I have given up for my faith and I won't begin to tell you about my personal life in a public blog. My life consists of putting Christ first over my will, and the Church over my own beliefs when there is a conflict. I have done this in very life altering ways that the majority of Catholics do not. From birth control to Marian traditions, I have given the benefit of the doubt to the Church in obedience to Christ. Your comment is obviously that of one who doesn't know me.
I would not be a conservative if not for my faith. I would not be a mother if not for my faith. I would not be a wife if not for my faith. Which do you think is less vulnerable and risky to publicly write about, these things or POLITICS?
Perhaps you should ask yourself, "Which comes first? Who has the greater authority, the Vatican spokesperson or the Magesterium?" I am not on the wrong side of this issue.
grumpy, you might ask yourself how many Iraqis Saddam killed. It was Iraq that tried and executed Saddam, and rightly so. We provided them the opportunity to do so.
And Saddam has killed 3000 Americans. Soldiers know that HE is the reason we're in Iraq. Bury your head in the sand and say Bush is the reason but he was simply man enough to take on this issue.
Which doesn't change the point of "Osama who?".
Bush has sacrificed 3,000 Americans while going after a man who had nothing to do with the killing of the first batch of 3,000 Americans.
That's 6,000 American deaths now caused by 9/11 with more to come. Osama is getting just what he wanted.
Hence the comment, Osama who?
grumpy, soldiers sacrifice themselves, they are not martyrs. Re-enlistment and recruitment rates for 2006 were 100% or over in every branch. Blame the soldiers for their deaths...or better yet, blame insurgents and terrorists.
With this much resistence to the execution of Saddam I wonder how bitter you'd be if Osama would attain the same fate. Would you hate Bush even more then?
Amy,
Nice blog! Tell John SSG Perez says hello!
Saddam got what he deserved! He got off easy if you ask me. What he did to his people is not acceptable. The US should have taken care of him the first time and we let him be. As a soldier I am glad he is gone. As a Christian I will pray for his soul!
THE BUTCHER OF BAGHDAD IS DEAD!!! LET'S DANCE AND EAT CAKE!!!!!!!!!
Now that I got that out of my system, great response to the Sister Amy!!! Send my love to the family!
"The Catrholic Church's position on the death penlty is fairly complex, and requires careful study and reflection-much confusion abounds as to its preent position. It is not as permisive as some conservatives hope it would be. But as Cardinal Dulles demonstrates, neither can it be constured as abolitionist."
I've been focusing a lot of attention on this subject over the past week and a half. It's appaling how many people in the media and blogosphere-both con and lib-seem incapable of recognising the point of the quote just given. A good, balanced treatment of the subject can be found here:
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2006/12/capital-punishment-cardinal-martino.html
Here is my view conerning comments by Cardinal Martino (I am of course assuming that the press quoted him correctly):
Cardinal Martino said: "You can't think of compensating for one crime with another one."
He likewise said: "For me, punishing a crime with another crime, which is what killing for vindication is, would mean that we are still at the point of demanding an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Unfortunately, Iraq is one of the few countries that have not yet made the civilized choice of abolishing the death penalty."
The more I study the Church's nuanced position on this subject the more I find myself thinking that the Cardinal's remarks are More political/polemical rather than pastoral, and cloud the Church's teaching rather than clarify it.
Since making those comments in a blog combox i discovered that the Cardinal's words had been somewhat "carpentered" together by media "spin". The impression was being given that his compensating crime with crime was a criticism of the death penalty as such. In fact, the first crime he was referring too was the war in Iraq itself which, (this is arguable) does not fit the Church's "just war" criteria. In his mind then, Saddam's death sentence must also be seen as a crime. Thus interpreting the Cardinal's words as a wholesale denial of the states right to excercise the death penalty is wrong.
Amy, You quoted the Catechism #2267 and highlighted part of the text, however, that which follows your highlight must be the determining factor. Every Catholic should admit the right of the state to inflict capital punishment but focus must not be overly paid to the right without adaquate attention being paid to whether or not is is justifiable in a given situation.
"If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."
Mr. Fart writes:
"Bush has sacrificed 3,000 Americans while going after a man who had nothing to do with the killing of the first batch of 3,000 Americans."
You are completely misinformed about the facts. The Clinton administration made Regime Change our official foreign policy position on Iraq in 1998. All the leading democrats supported the position. We were already at war with Iraq since 1990 and were operating dangerous no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. The UN condemned Iraq for violating not less than 13 security council resolutions. Saddam expelled UNSCOM in 2002.
You go ahead and perpetrate the fraud that President Bush went "after a man who had nothing to do with the killing of the first batch of 3,000 Americans."
I prefer to live in reality.
SSG Perez, welcome! Great to see you here! Ruth, Happy New Year!
"With this much resistence to the execution of Saddam..."
What "resistence to the execution"? I'm glad he's dead. I wish every murderous dictator would die.
What's that got to do with Osama?
"...I wonder how bitter you'd be if Osama would attain the same fate. Would you hate Bush even more then?"
Hell no. I might even credit him for doing something he claimed he would do. Bring Osama in "dead or alive". (Before he later said that he "doesn't really think abvout him (Osama) that much").
"You go ahead and perpetrate the fraud that President Bush went "after a man who had nothing to do with the killing of the first batch of 3,000 Americans."
All the facts you stated are essentially true. And?
Tell me what those facts have to do with the killing of the first batch of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
DELETED
DELETED
DELETED
Grumpy,
How many reasons were given by the administration for going to war? Why do you insist on focusing on just one? Certainly justification for the war in Iraq is debatable, but myopia in a debate with multiple and complex issues strikes me as being a logical error. Certainly, debating on the single issue would be justified if your arguement was "A 9/11 connection cannot be used to justify the war in Iraq." But to win that arguement and then jump to the conclusion that the war cannot be justified at all would be a logical fallacy. Unless I misunderstand the point and direction of your arguemt (if so, sorry) this seems to be what you are attempting.
Dim Bulb:
GoF is maintaining the the straw man fallacy that there are "two foreign policies". Its a convenient gimmick employed by liberal demigogues who refuse to acknowledge that we have a COMPREHENSIVE foreign policy, a COMPREHENSIVE national defense strategy, and a COMPREHENSIVE war plan to win the GWOT. The libs want to make a false dichotomy between Iraq and Afghanistan, between the Persian Gulf War and OIF. No such dichotomy exists, although they have made major inroads among the uninformed. That kind of pablum will not get traction here on Amy's blog where most participants are news-savvy, educated and street smart.
Reality is we have not been attacked a single time since 911 and most terrorists in the world like UBL are running for their lives. Let Saddam be an example: If you don't police up your own terrorists, we'll take you down, too.
There are NOT two GWOTs.
Sixth Commandment says "thou shall not kill."
Romans 3:23 says: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
John 8:7 says: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
What words are above that of God Himself and those of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
KEvron, you are not welcome here anymore. I know your IP continually changes so you can dodge the IP ban, but all further comments from you will be deleted on sight.
well, no doubt there are going to be many people who will say he shouldn't have had to die, etc etc but to me I do'nt think there was any other choice. He had to be made accountable for his actions...
Sixth Commandment says "thou shall not kill."
Actually, Sister, the literal translation from the original work of the Bible was thou shalt not "murder" which is much different.
2 Chronicles 6:23
then hear from heaven and act. Judge between your servants, repaying the guilty by bringing down on his own head what he has done. Declare the innocent not guilty and so establish his innocence
What Saddam has done is now "on his head".
Johnny and Dim,
Please read my original comment. I was not opening a debate about the reason for this war, but merely noting that we have done squat about capturing the man who was directly responsible for 9/11.
Amy was all in heaven about the hanging of Saddam. I just thought she needed that sobering thought.
I've not been debating the reasons for the war, merely answering the responses that have been given to my simple observation. Goodness knows the reasons for this debacle of a war have already been done to death.
Sister Rose,
Being the good Catholic family that we are, my husband leads the kids in a nightly scripture study. We went over this in Numbers 35 the other night:
1 On the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho, [a] the LORD said to Moses.......
Catholics cannot divorce themselves from Old Testament Judaism, particularly since Jesus was a good, devout Jew Himself. Of course, He also claims total unity with the Father so the moral law of God from the Father does not change to the Son. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of Levitical priestly sacrifices which occur in the Mass (I'm establishing the continuity of the Old Testament into the New). That said, you can tell (and this is only one example) that God has specific requirements for those who murder. You can take the 6th commandment out of context all you want but in reality God is guilty by your standards because it is He who not only condones but demands the death penalty for murder.
His purpose is to establish sanctity for human life, intolerance for murder and a system of justice. Surely you can see how Saddam Hussein fits into this equation.
And I'm not the one casting stones here, Sis, or questioning your Catholicity. I'm also not the one who threw any stones at Saddam but you might recall the words of St. Paul as I cited above about the executioner being the minister of God (Romans 13:3-4). God gave us minds to use.. we're allowed to come to conclusions and make observations, and it is our duty to say sin is sin. Murder is sin. Saddam was a mass murderer. Even according to the Catholic Catechism, as I laid out above, Saddam falls into the category of permissible death penalty candidate and then some.
"Sister Rose" is occupying that high ground whereby she/he collects all the benefits of liberty without the costs. Its easy to preach pacifism when others fight to keep you safe.
Jesus commends Soldiers in Matthew 8:5-13 and never once suggests they leave the profession of arms, even as occupiers of Judea. Also Soldiers are among the first gentile converts (Luke 3:14, Acts 10) and at no time do John the Baptist (Luke 3:14) or the Apostles (Acts 10) nor Christ Himself (Matthew 8:5-13) condemn the profession of arms or the military vocation. These are clear encounters with Soldiers in the New Testament. Pacifism as presented by the lopsided spin of the Vatican official or Sister Rose are manifestly not inline with the New Testament, the Teaching Authority of the Church (Catechism) or the Church Fathers.
Amy correctly identifies St. Paul's text from Romans 13 as applicable. The execution of Saddam was the action of the State of Iraq (Romans 13), not of any individual (6th commandment).
"Sister Rose" is occupying that high ground whereby she/he collects all the benefits of liberty without the costs. Its easy to preach pacifism when others fight to keep you safe.
Jesus commends Soldiers in Matthew 8:5-13 and never once suggests they leave the profession of arms, even as occupiers of Judea. Also Soldiers are among the first gentile converts (Luke 3:14, Acts 10) and at no time do John the Baptist (Luke 3:14) or the Apostles (Acts 10) nor Christ Himself (Matthew 8:5-13) condemn the profession of arms or the military vocation. These are clear encounters with Soldiers in the New Testament. Pacifism as presented by the lopsided spin of the Vatican official or Sister Rose are manifestly not inline with the New Testament, the Teaching Authority of the Church (Catechism) or the Church Fathers.
Amy correctly identifies St. Paul's text from Romans 13 as applicable. The execution of Saddam was the action of the State of Iraq (Romans 13), not of any individual (6th commandment).
Grumpy said:
Wow, talk about taking me out of context. I said this in my original article:
One thing I'm not is "all in heaven about the hanging of Saddam", grumpy. You're 100% wrong about that. If anything I have been disturbed over it and particularly over the need for it in the first place. It may interest you to know that my family prayed for him during family prayers just hours before his execution. It may interest you to know that I have been praying for the soul of Saddam Hussein for days leading up to his execution. What kind of compassion have you shown him, besides wishing him justice?
Sister and Ruth,
Actually, neither kill or murder does the underlying Hebrew word justice. The Hebrew word used in the decalogue in Exodus 20;13 IS RATSACH (raw-tsakh'). It is used in the piel form meaning to murder, slay, or kill. In other words it means more than just homicide. It can refer to a killing which is accidental, premeditated, or done in vengence. It does not preclude retribution.
Numbers 35:10-11 "Tell the Israelites: 'when you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, select for yourselves cities to serve as cities of asylum where a homicide(ratsach) who has killed someone unintentionally may take refuge."
Num 35:27 "If the (unintentional) homicide leaves of his own accord the bounds of the city of asylum where he had taken refuge, and the avenger of blood finds him beyond these bounds and kills (ratsach) him, the avenger incurs no blood guilt."
Romans 13 admits the right of the state to inflict the death penalty. One cannot equate capital punishment (if properly administered) with murder.
"What kind of compassion have you shown him, besides wishing him justice?"
None. Why would I?
"Please read my original comment. I was not opening a debate about the reason for this war, but merely noting that we have done squat about capturing the man who was directly responsible for 9/11." Mr. Fart
Haven't done squat? I guess the liberation of 25 million Afghans is "squat"? The deployment of thousands of combat troops for a year at a time, with great sacrifice of life, limb, time and treasure is nothing? And I suppose UBL is hiding out in some cave somewhere (similar to Saddam's lavish digs at the time of his capture) because we haven't done squat to get him?
Please sir, think about the thousands of combat vets you impugn with remarks like these. UBL may have eluded us for now, but like Saddam, he'll make a mistake, that is, if he's even alive. In the meantime, please recognize the outstanding contributions of the US and its Coalition partners in liberating and rebuilding the Republic of Afghanistan.
I don't have a problem with people being pacifists, each man has both the right and obligation to follow his conscience. However, each also has a duty to ensure that their consciences are rightly formed.
If someone is a "pure pacifist" it seems to me his conscience is not fully formed on the matter:
"The contemporary world too needs the witness of unarmed prophets, who are often the objects of ridicule.[1030] “Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defence available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, PROVIDED THEY DO SO WITHOUT HARMING THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. OF OTHER MEN AND SOCIETIES. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risk of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death” (COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH #496. My emphasis).
...we have done squat about capturing THE MAN...
Concentrate.
Thank you for the clarity Dim Bulb.
I think it's easy to say that other countries including the USA have done squat about capturing Osama but unless you're there or have been there on the front lines or involved in some way in the search then you really don't know and it's not fair to pretend that you do know when you don't, if that makes sense.
"...we have done squat about capturing THE MAN...
Concentrate." GoF
Its pointless trying to reason with you. You ignore the obvious expenditure of blood and treasure spent to destroy terrorists (including UBL), depose rogue regimes, rebuild infrastructure, facilitate free elections where none had ever existed, etc...
And I'm certainly not going to waste my precious Christmas holiday time explaining what you already know but refuse to accept.
Happy New Year
---
Sixth Commandment says "thou shall not kill."
---
Yep. And "we" didn't, a duly elected government executed it's own policies on the matter... something the Bible warns will justifiably happen to those who provoke their governing authorities.
---
Romans 3:23 says: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
---
What we're talking about in that verse is an issue between man and God. That's a completely separate conversation from issues between man and his government.
---
John 8:7 says: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
---
Jesus spoke those words to angry mob of hypocrites for committing a sin God can forgive if forgiveness is sought. If someone commits a capital crime, they've violated the laws of the state and, thus, deserve the due penalty for their crime.
If Saddam committed himself to Jesus before his death, my only conclusion can be that he would be forgiven for his sins and be given the gift of pardon which Jesus died on the cross to purchase for him... but that doesn't and shouldn't get him off the hook for the crimes he has committed.
Wouldn't it have been great if someone would have told Saddam about the 10 Commandments? Especially #6.
Heavens, here's something rich. I was talking to my priest a few years ago about the commandments and why Catholics and protestants have the 10 commandments in a different order. Protestants list them this way:
The Catholic Church lists the commandments slightly differnt. Look at #'s 5 & 6.
Here's a brief explanation.
"Good Catholics" know that Protestants and Catholics number differently commandment #'s 5/6 and 8-10. How come SISTER Rose didn't know this? I'm just a lay person.
I am no fan of Saddam, but I hope I can die as nobly as him with the name of my God on my lips. Complete video of Saddam's hanging here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7532034279766935521
So I guess I can figure out why the Catholics left out #3.
Ruth, I'm not sure where Amy sourced that 10 Commandments list from, but the worshipping of images is forbidden in Catholicism. The veneration of Saints is not.