2007-01-02 07:27:56 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I'll concur in the opinion that it is the traditional execution for war criminals, as opposed to the firing squad that is considered more honorable. We hanged German and Japanese war criminals after WW2, none of them got the bullet. In fact, Hermann Goering is reputed to have made a comment shortly before he took cyanide, paraphrasing of course: 'Hanging for a Reichsminister? A firing squad maybe, but never hanging.'
2007-01-02 08:07:14 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm from the Middle East and what people are saying here is that the reason for the refusal of Saddam's request for a firing squad is to humiliate him in a way that portrays him as a Sunni representative (although he's not) not simply killed but humiliated by Shiaa. Many people say also that this decision came because of American pressure on the Iraqi government in order to implement the above mentioned idea so that secterian violence in Iraq intensifies and the expected Bush plan of reinforcement of forces gets wider acceptance (we have to wait till January 15)
2007-01-02 07:44:59 · answer #2 · answered by Wissam 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hanging is quicker and more reliable. There have been firing squads that for some reason totally missed the target or even worse, only hit the target in the arms and legs.
2007-01-02 18:01:44 · answer #3 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably because firing squad is a more noble, military style death. Hanging is what the common criminal gets in Iraq. They wanted to send a message that Saddam is nothing special and not worthy of any extra respect beyond the average criminal.
2007-01-02 07:31:41 · answer #4 · answered by Ryan 3 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Hanging is the custom there. Also, the Americans wanted the hanging as that is more "watcheable" than bullets tearing through Saddam's head.
2007-01-02 07:32:25 · answer #5 · answered by commonsense 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What I heard was that the firing squad is for soldiers and he didn't deserve that honor.
2007-01-02 07:31:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
They didn't want to waste the money on a good bullet.
2007-01-02 07:43:34 · answer #7 · answered by Starla_C 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bullets would kill him instantly (one of the shooters would have probably gotten him in the head), they wanted him to suffer.
2007-01-02 07:33:52 · answer #8 · answered by I Hate Liberals 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You would have to ask them their reasoning! Anything else is speculation!
2007-01-02 07:30:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You'd have to ask George W. since he is pulling the strings of the puppet government there.
2007-01-02 07:35:39 · answer #10 · answered by Jabberwock 5 · 0⤊ 5⤋