Nope. If you're thinking about propaganda, that's just not a good enough reason for me.
The deaths of his sons were different - that was done after the fact to simply quash rumours, and their deaths were as a result of a battle. It's definitely not the same set of circumstances.
Deliberate and pre-meditated executions shouldn't be filmed, it's just wrong.
Of course, I also believe that deliberate and pre-meditated executions themselves are wrong - just like our Government...
What, you reckon that showing the film of their former leader being led to the gallows will quieten things down? How's that work then?
And even if it were true, pandering to terrorist / insurgents seems a poor reason to do it.
But judging from the protests, it's hardly an act likely to unify the Sunni and Shia parts of Iraq - more the opposite I'd think.
We have a free press in the UK. They reported the news.
I do not agree with the death penalty, under any circumstances. But I do agree with the freedom of the press. Another nation, which I do not live in, executes a former leader, that's news, big news. If that nation releases pictures and film of the execution I believe that a newspaper should be free to have that news on its front page.
Much of the other stuff on this thread, especially what Trouble posted is irrelevant to the question. It's a simple question, why confuse the issue with other debate topics?*
*Please start another thread if you really, really must answer this rhetorical question.
I am not suggesting that the media should be censored; I am suggesting that they should use more restraint in what they broadcast and publish.
The fact that something is big news, for which read the public will be very interested in it, does not mean that it is in the public interest for it to be shown. To give one random example, the German who was convicted of murdering and then eating his lover made videos of his gruesome cooking skills. I trust that you would not suggest that these videos be shown on television news.
Newspapers and commercial radio stations are not there for 'public interest'. They are commercial organisations and publish what they think will interest the public - enough to sell newspapers or increase viewership figures.
If you don't like it I suggest that you go and live in a country where they tell the media what they can and can't say - although you might find that country is being run by somebody like Saddam who is still getting away with it. Although the sight of Saddam's killing might give them pause for thought.
Last edited by Spin dryer; 2nd-January-2007 at 02:23 AM.
Assumption and opinion. We can not assume that it is incumbent on newspapers to exercise their power responsibly. Can we assume that the paper will do what is going to maximise the return for its shareholders? I think this is more likely. And it is just an opinion that newspapers have not acted responsibly in this case - I don't have an opinion about this as I've not read all newpapers.
However, I do think that what and how the news is reported is a reflection of the public demand for news. In short, we, the public, get the newspapers we deserve. Occasionally the media get it wrong, but they do a lot of research to make sure those occasions are infrequent.
That's not a valid comparison.
To repeat myself: Saddam's execution was NOT shown on British TV. They showed him with a rope around his neck, but no more. That's hardly graphic and shocking. It certainly can't be compared with footage of a cannibal cooking his lover.
I do wonder if all the opposition that has been expressed to Saddam's execution is more a product of the way the British public is insulated from the shocking, brutal and barbaric things that go on elsewhere in the world, rather than the product of a thought-through, rational argument against the death penalty. Our news tends to be sanitised and death and suffering seem to be censored by the British media, so when we get a glimpse of someone who is obviously about to die, we are scandalised.
I may be in a minority of one here, but I believe the right sentence was carried out. Saddam got off much more lightly than his victims. He probably died instantly, whereas the victims of his chemical weapons would have died in agony.
Possibly, but as always sweeping generalisations like that fall over when you express them to a wide enough audience.
I haven't been "insulated from the shocking, brutal and barbaric things that go on elsewhere in the world" and I find the idea of deliberately causing pain or death quite sickening.
It isn't what 'I reckon'. I just think it's too easy for us sitting in our armchairs thousands of miles away and living in a wholly different climate to second guess the requirements of the Iraq government in such appallingly violent times.
In my view it seems likely that there are some 'insurgents' for whom the post-invasion situation has been about returning Iraq to a Hussein or at least a Ba'ath regime. It also seems likely that some of those insurgents might well be discouraged if they believe he is dead. Also, if it is true (as has been suggested in several places) that it is Saddam's own orders that began the insurgency, it may well be that convincing evidence of his death will lessen some of their enthusiasm. This wouldn't lead immediately to a reduction of violence, of course; even if that does not happen that will not be evidence that there was no effect. I can envisage making the same decision if I were in the Iraqi administration - "OK, it might not bring about a lessening of the violence, but then again it might."
If his trial had been in Britain he would have been given an ASBO, a council house and a load of state benefits.
As a point of information, I am greatly saddened to learn that the execution was attended by a bunch of the Iraq equivalent of chavs who taunted him. Execution might just about be justified, but making a three ring circus of it is inexcusable.
Interestingly, if someone hadn't filmed it with their camera, we wouldn't know about this...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks