No, I don't think we should have the death penalty for lesser crimes. But for the inhumane? Why keep them around in a warm bed with 3 square meals a day?
We don't seem to mind doing that for Rumsfeld, who was there right through the atrocities that Saddam was hanged for. And everybody loves Reagan - we didn't get around to hanging him.
Maybe there's a different perspective from Rumsfeld, but I sure would like to hear it! Reagan's not around to fill us in on his side of the story.
What I'm saying is, Saddam did what he did with the explicit support of the Reagan administration, whom the US populace subsequently re-elected in 1984 with full knowledge of what he had done. (I voted against him with fervor, but others prevailed.) So where does the guilt end? How many more should be hanged?
I say none, because I oppose capital punishment for all cases and in all circumstances. But for those who believe that those responsible for the killing at Dujail should be hanged, there are many more involved.
I think our culture has made Saddam a
scapegoat (read the Wikipedia article for details). We have attributed to him the evils that we committed and have killed him to atone for our sins. I think it is wrong to do this, because it lets us think of ourselves as righteous when we are not. I think it makes the United States more likely to treat other countries badly in the future the same way we are treating Iraq badly now. It is
our fault that they have been without water and electricity for four years.
We gave him money in 1982 to do what he did in 1982. In 1983 we said we were happy with what he was doing. Twenty years later under the direction of the same people (Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc) we invaded Iraq to capture him and turn him over to be executed for doing what we gave him money for in 1982. Just seems weird!
