westmanguy, your views are not a shock given the tenor of your posts in various threads. However, you are turning a thread about the execution of Saddam Hussein into a variety of debates: the journalistic integrity of FHNC, the death penalty, and the US justice system.
The only one of which is relevant is the death penalty so I will comment directly on your views. The simplest and truest fact is that even the most progressively just and fair justice systems convict innocent people. Fact. In Canada, the names just roll off our tongues way too comfortably (Milgaard, Marshall, Sophenow, Fox ....). And we do a much better job than the US on the matter of fair trials and the calibre of those who sit as judges. Actual Innocence
(Scheck, Neufeld & Dwyer) and Ultimate Punishment
(Turow) should be mandatory reading for anyone prior to a death penalty debate.
The simple fact is that a society that has the death penalty murders innocent people. Inevitably. Rubin Carter is hardly an isolated incident of the wrongly convicted in America. Therefore, when an innocent man or woman is executed, the society that put him to death has murdered. Since so many cite the bible (an eye for an eye ...) as the justification for the death penalty, how does societal murder jibe with "you shall not murder"?
Not to mention that the death penalty racially and intellectually discriminates and has been disproven as a deterrent to violent crime. I do not understand how can anyone after consideration truly defend such a dishonourable punishment?
I normally keep my death penalty view to myself, but your rant, as insluated from balance as it was, motivated me.
Now, do I have any doubt that Hussein is guilty? No. But, that's not a line that can ever be drawn. Those jurors who sat in judgement of Rubin Carter and David Milgaard and everyone else ever wrongly convicted were certain that they were guilty.
On principle, he should not be executed. The death penalty simply should not be applied. However, the debate in this case needs to be practical. The execution of Saddam Hussein is profoundly impractical. It will further incite violence in the region. It will further destabilize efforts to build a consensus government. And most importantly, one cannot gloss over the complicity of the US in Saddam's atrocities. None of the tinpot dictators that the US propped up over the years (Sukarno, Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, The Shah) have anywhere near the blood on American hands that Saddam does. If you execute Saddam, how is that remotely just when a great number of his atrocious deeds were tolerated by America because, in their eyes, he wasn't quite as bad as the Iranians?