World Reacts To Saddam Verdict

Death Sentence Unleashes Fears Of Violence, Questions About Trial's Fairness

(CBS/AP)  In a world sharply divided on Iraq since the U.S.-led war began in 2003, Saddam Hussein's death sentence Sunday unleashed fears of fresh violence and new questions about the fairness and impartiality of the tribunal that ordered him to hang.

Underscoring the fault lines that split the international community and widened the divide between Muslims and Christians, Islamic leaders warned that the verdict could inflame those who revile the United States — undermining U.S. policy in the volatile Middle East and inspiring terrorists to strike.

"The hanging of Saddam Hussein will turn to hell for the Americans," said Vitaya Wisethrat, a respected Muslim cleric in Thailand, where a bloody Islamic insurgency is raging in the country's south.

"The Saddam case is not a Muslim problem but the problem of America and its domestic politics," he said. "The Americans are about to vote in a midterm election, so maybe Bush will use this case to tell the voters that Saddam is dead and that the Americans are safe. But actually the American people will be in more danger with the death of Saddam."

Iranians are praising the death sentence against ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The verdict was announced across Iran by the country's state-run television, which interrupted regular programming to give the word. One parliamentary spokesman called Saddam a "vampire" and the verdict "a matter of happiness."

For many Iranians, memories remain of destruction suffered after Saddam invaded their country in 1980, launching a deadly war that would last eight years.

"I am happy that finally he got what he deserved," said Ahmad Gharakhani, who lost a leg in the Iran-Iraq war.

But Robab Safdarzadeh, 65, said Saddam's verdict and sentencing will not reverse the past. "The death of Saddam will not bring our dead children to life," she said.

Iranian leaders hailed the death sentence and said it hoped that Saddam — denounced by one lawmaker as "a vampire" — still would be tried for other crimes. Meanwhile, one Iranian political commentator is linking today's verdict to U.S. politics and the upcoming midterm elections; he says Saddam's death sentence will be helpful for Republicans.

In Kuwait, the tiny emirate that Saddam occupied from August 1990 to February 1991, many were jubilant.

"This is justice from heaven. He should have been hanged a long time ago. This is the smallest punishment for someone who executed tens of thousands of people," said Abdul-Ridha Aseeri, who heads the political science department at Kuwait University.

Kholoud al-Feeli, 40, a Kuwaiti communications specialist, said death was too good for the former dictator.

"Death to him is merciful," she said. "I wanted life in prison. He will die but people (he hurt) will continue to suffer."

Reaction was mixed across the Arab world. Some Muslims saw the sentence as divine justice, but others denounced it as a farce, maintaining that Iraq is more violent now than it was under Saddam.

"If Saddam is condemned to death, then they must make it fair and sentence Mr. Bush to death ... and they should send Israel's Ehud Olmert to death, too, because of what he did in Lebanon," said Ibrahim Hreish, a jeweler in Amman, Jordan.

Key U.S. allies welcomed Sunday's verdict, which had been widely expected, and said Saddam got what he deserved for crimes against humanity committed during years of brutal dictatorship.

"I welcome that Saddam Hussein and the other defendants have faced justice and have been held to account for their crimes," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in a statement. "Appalling crimes were committed by Saddam Hussein's regime. It is right that those accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people should face Iraqi justice."

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt called the verdict "deeply satisfying," despite the EU's distaste for capital punishment, but stressed that it won't solve Iraq's problems.

Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, called Saddam "an evil tyrant" and said the death sentence — which will be subject to an automatic appeal before he can be hanged — came as no surprise.

But Amnesty International questioned the fairness of the trial, and international legal experts said Saddam should be kept alive long enough to answer for other atrocities. Only then, they said, will Iraqis brutalized by years of his despotic rule see true justice done.

"This was an opportunity to turn the page in Iraq, after thirty years when unfair trials were the norm — if there were any trials at all this was a chance to set the tone for the future of Iraq," Malcolm Smart Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Program told CBS's Sunday Morning. "And it's failed miserably because of inadequate planning, inadequate attention to the basic human rights needs of a fair trial."

Sonya Sceats, an international law expert at the Chatham House foreign affairs think tank in London, said that postponing Saddam's execution will allow the tribunal to find out about other crimes the former dictator is said to have committed. She also said that the tribunal "has not shown itself to be fair and impartial — not only by international standards, but by Iraqi standards."

"There is significant evidence of political pressure," she said.

Chandra Muzaffar, president of the Malaysian-based International Movement for a Just World, also voiced concerns that Saddam's trial was flawed because it "violated many established norms of international jurisprudence, such as in the way the court was constituted and how the charges were brought against Saddam."

"But Saddam was undoubtedly a brutal dictator, and even though I wouldn't subscribe to the death penalty, he deserves to be punished severely for the enormity of his crimes," said Chandra, a well-known Muslim social commentator.

Chandra said there was bound to be a violent reaction in Iraq to the verdict.

"We would expect a reaction from the resistance in Iraq, whether it is immediate or not, in the form of suicide bombings or other violence," he said.

Vatican and Roman Catholic officials said on Sunday that Hussein should not be put to death even if he has committed crimes against humanity because every life is sacred.

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Council for Justice and Peace, said that carrying out the death sentence by hanging would be an unjustifiably vindictive action.

"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," he was quoted as saying by Italian news agency Ansa.

In Russia, the Kremlin-allied head of the international affairs committee in the State Duma, or lower house of parliament, told Ekho Moskvy radio the sentence will deepen divisions in Iraq.

But the official, Konstantin Kosachyov, said he doubted that Saddam would actually be executed.

"A death sentence will apparently split Iraqi society even further," Kosachyov said. "On the other hand, it seems to me that the death sentence against Saddam Hussein will probably not be carried out. It will be stopped one way or another, either by the president of Iraq or by other means. It is most of all a moral decision — retribution that modern Iraq is taking against Saddam's regime."

In Pakistan, the opposition religious coalition claimed that American forces have caused more deaths in Iraq during the past 3 1/2 years than Saddam during his 23-year reign, and insisted President Bush should stand trial for war crimes.

"Who will punish the Americans and their lackeys who have killed many more people than Saddam Hussein?" asked Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a senior lawmaker from the Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal coalition, which is critical of Pakistan's military cooperation with the United States.

"What goes around comes around. ... in the future, Bush must face the same fate," Ahmed said.

Some saw the verdict as intentionally timed to coincide with Tuesday's pivotal midterm elections in the U.S. Congress, where Democrats are fighting to regain control.

"The Bush administration, which has lost the trust of the American people, needs some sort of victory," said Abbas Khalaf, Iraq's ambassador to Russia during the Saddam era, denouncing the proceedings as "a purely political trial."

Associated Press correspondents worldwide contributed to this story.

[thgdriver]

antoniorego...... watch yourself out here, they will hold your feet to the fire if you misinterpret a word.

It's ok though, if you are a Democratic Senator and you mess up a joke and call two million in uniform a bunch of dummies and drop outs.

I still can't figure out what kind of Senator tells jokes about Iraq and 2,800 dead troops.

(Lay off the moron stuff).

[thgdriver]

djermano sez;

"America only needs to remember Vietnam".

I do, I remember (Democrat) JFK sent in a few advisors.

I remember (Democrat) Johnson escalating it to the point of "58,000" dead. Telling the troops to fight with our hands tied behind our backs.

Truman (Democrat) did the same thing in Korea.

[thgdriver]

Arch_Druid said;

"over 2,800 American forces dead"
"I'd call that a tragedy and not a recipe for a continued GOP majority".

While I think one is too many, maybe the "Democrats". can find someone of "leadership" like (Democratic) President Johnson, during Vietnam---- "58,000 dead"!

[djermano]

Such is Bush a guy who will make friends with you in order to stab you in the back. Such is Saddam and a country he maintained, because of other dictators in the MiddleEast. Lets not forget Kuwait is a dictatorship, Jordan, and the Saudi's. How could Saddam maintain his country when surrounded by other dictators? Bush is claiming Saddam was in the way of establishing Democracy in the Middle East? Such Nonsense.
So America blessed Saddam with weapons for Iraq to fight Iran. Iraqi soldiers at one time died in the name of America as they laid their lives down in fighting America's war against Iran. America never gave Saddam anything for fighting America's war, as his soldiers died on the field.
And then one day Iran seized American hostages and Ronald Reagan gave Iran weapons, so Iran could kill more of Saddams troops. They claimed he killed children...yet children are incapable of carrying explosives to kill him?
America only needs to remember Vietnam when American GI's would shoot down small kids fearing they would lob a grenade at them.
This is not going to work for Republicans, it will backfire, only reminding the voters tomorrow how Saddam was used. And while he tried to protect the interests of his country, even after Britain and America still hold stolen Kuwait from Iraq, his death will be remembered.
It is in my opinion very bad news for Democracy in Iraq.

[arch_druid]

Skimming through the comments, I saw the how dare anyone blame this country! posts. Beyond the fact that slightly over 50% truly gullible people voted for a liar in 2004, THIS COUNTRY can not be blamed for Bush's foreign policy failures. There were also a number of glad we got Hussein and how dare anyone defend him! posts. Well now, don't count on me to cry over the fellow nor argue that he ought not deserve it. I am certainly not going to shed a tear for the Butcher of Baghdad and figure that yes, he does deserve it. My problem is with the sort of foreign policy that has Rumsfeld shaking hands with a guy who'd kill in a heart beat 10s of thousands of his countrymen. Then demand an invasion (in a letter) out of self interest. In order to achieve this "milestone" that ends tyranny and brings about the "rule of law", over 2,800 American forces dead and 10s of thousands of dead Iraqis. I'd call that a tragedy and not a recipe for a continued GOP majority.

[arch_druid]

Skimming through the comments, I saw the how dare anyone blame this country! posts. Beyond the fact that slightly over 50% truly gullible people voted for a liar in 2004, THIS COUNTRY can not be blamed for Bush's foreign policy failures. There were also a number of glad we got Hussein and how dare anyone defend him! posts. Well now, don't count on me to cry over the fellow nor argue that he ought not deserve it. I am certainly not going to shed a tear for the Butcher of Baghdad and figure that yes, he does deserve it. My problem is with the sort of foreign policy that has Rumsfeld shaking hands with a guy who'd kill in a heart beat 10s of thousands of his countrymen. Then demand an invasion (in a letter) out of self interest. In order to achieve this "milestone" that ends tyranny and brings about the "rule of law", over 2,800 American forces dead and 10s of thousands of dead Iraqis. I'd call that a tragedy and not a recipe for a continued GOP majority.

[nynative1340]

chicatibu, you obviously don't know what you are talking about either. I doubt any liberals are shedding tears over Saddam's death sentence. After all, it was Rumsfeld who was over there shaking Saddam's hand during the '80s, and giving him weapons with which to kill Iranians. Reagan and Rumsfeld also gave the Iranians weapons with which to kill Iraqis. It's no wonder they hate us. Too bad they didn't kill each other off.

FYI--Saddam is a Sunni; 80 percent of the world's Muslims are Sunni, so I think there are going to be a few p*ssed off Sunnis when (if) Saddam is executed.

[nynative1340]

antoniorego wrote: To to the m0r0n that wrote the comment below. 3800+ US soldiers have died not 25,000.

It ain't nice to call someone a m0r0n, especially when you don't know what you are talking about.

In my dictionary "casualty" is defined as "a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture, or through being missing in action."

So NorCalRuss is correct when he said 25,000 US casualties.

[bob_burd]

Waterboard him until he is on the brink of death, 26 or 27 times.....then leave him under after the final dunk, after telling him they are going to.

He got a fair trial; his crimes were proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, his guilt is only in question among the idiots and bleeding heart imbeciles of the world. Anyone who thinks this scumbag shouldn't be executed should be lobotomized.

Selah

[gaye5]

Yep, It doesnt add up, many thousands were slaughtered by Saddam every year and his people still want him back, so let's just give him back to them so as he can kill more thousands, it could save us in the long run.
Does this mean that the Iraqi people didnt really want peace that they acturally love violent and that they enjoy the fear. Well it appears so as they say that there will be great violence to America if Saddam is hung...
And as for our own people saying that we shouldnt have gone into Iraq!!!!!, regardless of what the investigations said, Saddam DID have weapons of mass distruction.
They would have been a foolish race of people if Iraq had of had their weapons on display for the investigators so of course Iraq had hidden them. Good gracious, Bush told them he was coming for 18 months giving them plenty of time to ship them off shore or bury them under the sand as they did with some Russian war planes...
If America hadnt gone into Iraq, we would not only have Iran to worry about now but Iraq...

[norcalruss]

Does it come as any great surprise to any intelligent person the outcome of this trial exactly TWO DAYS before the US mid-term election when Iraq has a puppet government and court run by Shias? Saddam is a bad man who probably deserves what he gets and shouldn%u2019t get much sympathy from anyone, but at what cost? To date the US government has spent nearly $400,000,000,000 on Bush%u2019s boneheaded unjust war that has done little more than destroy Iraq, turn millions of Iraqis into refugees, cause hundreds of thousands of Iraqis casualties, 25,000 US casualties, and make more people in the world hate us. Saddam was convicted for killing 150 people while the real ***** of evil, George Dumbo Bush, ***-head Cheney, and Ronald Dumsfeld have blood on their hands from killing a thousand times as many people. If there was any justice in the world Bush and Cheney would be impeached from office and face a war crimes tribunal and Dumsfeld should have been fired a long time ago.

[einsteinian2]

Bush: You think hangin' 'em will get us enough votes?
Cheney: Yeah you're right. It's just not...spectacular enough. How about water torture?
Bush: Works for me!

[chicatibu]

CBS editorial writers need to switch over to FOX News for their facts. The world isn%u2019t divided on Saddam%u2019s death sentence, most of the world hasn%u2019t responded yet. Perhaps a few Liberals in our own Congress may be shedding a tear or two for Saddam but beyond that there%u2019s dancing in the streets. Having said that the only people who matter are the Iraqis and from all reports they%u2019re elated.
This is an example of news that isn%u2019t news yet, it%u2019s speculation and poor speculation at that.

[einsteinian2]

Bush to Laura: "Yeah! The guy who tried to kill my dad is gonna die! Call the general and get our troops outta there pronto!"

[lewyoowy]

get real at


you have a sick outlook on events....thats cuz you are frustrated that facts dont conveniently match up to your skewed view of the events as they happened or are happening......you really need to learn how to read

[ressigmann]

"The history lesson Rumsfeld should be learning is the tragic lesson of Vietnam where unpopular "police action" was to stop the "domino effect" of spreading Communism."

There is another history lesson you need to learn, before World War II France and Britian could have easily stopped Hitler in the 30s by resorting to military means. The war that came about because they did not killed tens of millions. Waiting for the ax to fall instead of preventing it from falling is foolish.

[nbibby]

It is no great loss that Saddam is scheduled to be forcably ejected from the species. Much of the debate around this topic appears to be the "does the end justify the means", there is no clear cut answer to such questions.
Two things are evident to me. Firstly hanging Saddam is on the whole a good thing. Secondly American values, as expessed by it's foriegn policy have moved in a negative direction, this is a bad thing. I am sad to see such a shift towards fear, agression and loss of confidence. The west led by the US is giving up freedom and justice in pursuit of securing freedom and justice.
The US needs to reject the singular fear of terrorism and embrace the wider challenges of our shared environments.
The US needs to find better leaders that will truely lead you away from becoming the very evil you fight.

[marcelde]

"Mission Accomplished!" the Unlearned Lesson of Vietnam

George Bush's triumphal announcement of "Mission Accomplished" could be viewed as correct if we agree that the mission was to kill thousands of our troops, uncounted civilians, destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, destroy any residual respect of the rest of the world for us, and set the stage for a civil war in Iraq.

In accomplishing that "mission" we have already lost over 2,800 U.S. military, diverted critical funds from the War on Terror, and to quote Rumsfeld, ..."still have not learned history's lessons"

The history lesson Rumsfeld should be learning is the tragic lesson of Vietnam where unpopular "police action" was to stop the "domino effect" of spreading Communism. Those who suggest we "still have not learned history's lessons" ignore 58,249 soldiers that needlessly died there. That war left Vietnam a Communist country, but our trading partner. Those who objected to that war want to Support Our Troops" by bringing them home out of harm's way. We need to actively resist mindless leaders who suggest that weapons of mass destruction, never found in Iraq, are the cause of 911, and that every culture is eager to embrace our form of democracy. Our soldiers who are dying in Iraq are another "Inconvenient Truth" just as those in 1970 whose names are engraved on the Vietnam War Memorial.

[ressigmann]

The ICC could not convict Milosevic of killing Albanians, what do they think they could do with Saddam. Yeah it might be hard for a man who let one of his sons rape and murder at his pleasure, and used chemical weapons on a civilian populace to get a fair trial. However, considering how many people he has killed can there be any real doubt that he is guilty. I think the Iraqis showed restraint when they did not simply hang him and be done with it. But sending Saddam to the kangaroo court of the ICC would be foolish.

[samthetvcat]

I find it troublesome that this verdict and sentence were rendered just days before the mid-term election since it may give off the appearance of lacking legitimacy. Like holding people accountable for their crimes through the rendering of just punishment is supposed to restore social order. But for a country that's on the verge of chaos, the handing down of this verdict and sentence at this time seems like it might just achieve the opposite.

I'm assuming the Republicans had the ability to postpone the verdict and sentencing until after the election so I also have to assume that they allowed it to go ahead. If the hope was that it would motivate their disillusioned base into going out to the polls so that they could retain the majority in Congress so that they could better fight the war, I think the question needs to be asked whether the tradeoff was worth it if there is a spike in violence in the coming days, particularly if the Republicans fail to win back their majority.

I mean, this is a tough, complicated war with no easy answers, I acknowledge that fact. However, I think these kinds of questions need to be asked when we consider how the Iraq situation is being handled. Perhaps Rumsfeld and company overvalue what can be achieved through might and fight and undervalue what can be achieve through diplomacy . . .