TONY Blair said yesterday he was opposed to the execution of Saddam Hussein but made clear that he would not intervene to stop the former Iraqi dictator being hanged.
In a terse exchange with journalists, the Prime Minister appeared uncomfortable when questioned on his position over the Iraqi court's verdict that Saddam would be hanged.
His reticence came as Iraq's chief prosecutor confirmed the country's appeals court was expected to rule on Saddam's guilty verdict and death sentence by the middle of January.
In his first public pronouncement on the verdict handed down on Sunday, a visibly rattled Mr Blair told reporters: "We are against the death penalty, whether it's Saddam or anybody else."
But he added that the verdict was a reminder of the brutality of Saddam's regime.
He said: "What is important about this is to recognise that this trial of Saddam, which has been handled by the Iraqis themselves, does give us a clear reminder of the total and barbaric brutality of that regime.
That does not alter our position on the death penalty."
There were "other and bigger issues to talk about" in Iraq, he added.
Mr Blair's comments highlight the tension the British government faces between maintaining its anti-capital punishment stance while not openly attacking the US-backed Iraqi tribunal.
His remarks do not go as far as his EU counterparts in calling on the Iraqis to overturn their decision to hang Saddam, but put him at odds with the US president, George Bush, who praised the sentence as "a milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law".
Mr Blair and other ministers, including Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, have been at pains to stress that Iraq is now a "sovereign country" and they have to respect the verdict handed down by its independent court.
The British government's confidence in the judicial system of Iraq put it at odds with its EU partners, however, and with its own co-sponsorship of an EU resolution on the death penalty at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.
Italy and France yesterday urged Iraq not to execute Saddam, saying it would be ethically wrong and would risk pushing the country towards civil war.
Romano Prodi, Italy's prime minister, told reporters during his first visit to Downing Street since winning the Italian elections: "Italy is against the death penalty, so even in such a dramatic case as Saddam Hussein, we still think the death penalty must not be put into action."
Finland, which holds the rotating EU presidency, said on Sunday that the bloc was opposed to the death penalty and believed Saddam should not be executed.
Human rights groups and international lawyers have also condemned the process as "flawed", pointing to the intimidation and execution of three of Saddam's defence lawyers, and the fact that the tribunal was set up by the US administration.
But Downing Street played down the differences, saying the government had always made its position on the death penalty clear.
Pressed on whether Mr Blair would make representations to the Iraqi administration, his official spokesman said: "We remind governments of our position.
If you remind someone of their position, clearly you are asking them to consider that position."
The former Iraqi ruler was sentenced on Sunday for crimes against humanity for his role in the killing of 148 Shiite villagers after a failed assassination attempt in 1982.
A curfew had been imposed in Baghdad and two volatile Sunni areas as the country braced itself for retaliation from disgruntled former Baathists.
However, in a significant concession to Saddam's Sunni backers, the country's Shiite-dominated government said it could reinstate thousands of purged Baath Party members back into their jobs.
The disbanding of Iraq's army, security services and police has been singled out as the coalition's biggest mistake and has been blamed as a trigger for much of the violence in Iraq.
The US dissolved and banned the formerly ruling Baath Party in May 2003, a month after toppling Saddam, but later softened its stance, inviting former high-level officers from the disbanded military to join the security forces.
Mr Blair and other ministers, including Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, have been at pains to stress that Iraq is now a sovereign country and they have to respect the verdict handed down by its independent court.
A word means what I say it does ; no more, no less
I may only have approximated the qhotation, but life has just imitated Lewis Carroll's fiction.
Oh dear.
A local matter?
Certainly wasn't that way when the 2 Bs galvanised their troops.
Hyprocrite.
a sovereign country .
...
then why are we still there?
TONY Blair said yesterday he was opposed to the execution of Saddam Hussein but made clear that he would not intervene to stop the former Iraqi dictator being hanged.
Typical!
A man with principles!
I suppose that when he has murdered hundreds of thousands already with his illegal invasion, we should be grateful that one life is to be spared.
Funny isn't it, how the Blair government has intervened to try and stop the hanging of drug smugglers in various sovereign countries.
And, as #6 Pat says, if Iraq is a sovereign country, why are we still there? And why did we go there in the first place?
Blair is a liar, a hypocrite and a war criminal, and nobody in their right mind would believe a word he says.
The sooner he heads for his new job in America, working for Murdoch, the better.
Another issue nicely sidestepped by a politician/lawyer.
Nice one No.
2...
.. so true.
..
6.
..we r here,because we r here, because we r here.
...
etc...
dont u remember the ditty,still amazing 2 me that folk living on the fringes of the UK get so het up about Blair...
Davie Cam...
will not be a major change,wait see.Not a lot changes in UK Politics
7 U still whacking on about the ILLegal War,what about the hundred of thousands that would have died if it had been (so called) Legal, as for sure Bush would have got (or did he) a majority vote in the UN to go 2 War.Guess u would be able to relax then!
Legal/Illegal, its all on how the Law is seen, we all use words to suit ur own Philosophy in life.
How can the Muppet who took us to war to get rid of Saddam now stand there and say his government doesn't agree with the death sentence. Blair vacate number 10 so that we can sell it off to an Arab and put some money in the tin.
Hanging's too good for that Saddam.
It's a good kick up the @rse he needs.
If Bush had got a UN mandate, it is unlikely that he would have had to go to war, as Saddam would have caved in.
The sanctions were a mistake, the threat of total oblivion would have been a much better device.
You can't beat due process of law; it took centuries if not millenia to build up a fair legal system (habeas corpus, juries, appeals etc).; now Bush and Blair and their fellow criminals are doing their best to demolish the delicate fabric of our society which our ancestors fought and died for.
Why? To satisfy their own greed, and we let them do it.
Impeach them, kick them out of office, take them to court, let their peers decide on suitable retribution and punishment.
Can anyone furnish me with a value of my signed portrait of the indefatigable and esteemed ex-leader of the splendid nation of Iraq?
14 Bobby.
Agreed he should be locked in a cell with Anne Widicomb, and Annabel Goldie.
He's not a Muslim so pork should not upset him!
Unlikey, is not my take on it Bill..
..more likey I think.
.. come on Saddam giving in to pressure, u must be having a laff .
However thankfully we live in a Democracy as some of us would get the 4am knock at the door, 4 even posting our ideas,so as u say, vote the way u think will produce a better Leader.It seems u r a great believer in the due process of law..
(me 2)...
so am a loss of ur almost slave-like support of the Palestinians,who have no concept of the rule of law in anyway!
Geordie..
.I bid..
..ach the wife says it will clash wie the new Sofa.
..u still doing ur cat impressions nowadays.
.lol
I personally don't care if he hangs but that is only my opinion.
This country however does not have the death penalty (unfortunately) and does not agree that others have it.
Our government which has a close working relationship with the Iraqi government should be openly protesting in the strongest manner to persuade the Iraqi government not to allow this sentence to be carried out as they would and have done with other countries.
If Blair and his government are happy that this issue is a local matter then the laws should be changed to allow criminals and terrorist to be deported back to countries from which they fled to this country after committing acts in those countries which would mean them being sentenced to or having been sentenced to death.
After all it would be a local matter not an international one.
I am against the death penalty in the UK but I am for it in the case of Saddam(Yes,I am a hypocrite).
Get out of Iraq - whatever happens, there is going to be a bloodbath,Western Countries and their values are not wanted there.By being there we are making it easier for the Muslim Fanatics to blame everyone else for the deaths and misery inflicted on Iraq(Muslim killing Muslim!
!! No,it is looked upon as Christian killing Muslims,a Crusade against Islam).
The West is feeding Muslim aggression home and abroad and the fanatics are loving it.
A triple give-away - Signed Saddam photie and a Fidel mono-grammed cigar case, plus an Col Gaddafi Libyan hand sown rug!
£150 for the lot!
!!!
Am clearing oot ma office!
A could throw in a pair o' Rula Lenska's drawers as well, if ye think that wid close the deal!
If GW Bush says that its good for Saddam to Swing: .
.. Surely that should be good enough for Blair.
.Why start Wimping now
Hanging Saddam..
. I agree is abhorant..
.. However in the light that around 650 000 Iraqis have been killed by British or US troops.
.. or killed by the conditions brought about by the Invaders.
Blairs Moral Authority was Lost when he decided.. against the wishes of the people who voted for him.
. To Wage War on Iraq.
let their peers decide on suitable retribution and punishment.
In the case of Blair does that mean Lord Goldsmith and the peers who bought their peerage - little hope of justice then!
George Bush and Tony Blair invaded a sovereign country without provocation and removed its leader who will now be hung. Bush claims this was on orders from Jesus Christ.
This invasion resulted in the death of 650,00 iraqis. Bush and Blair should be tried by the International Court for War Crimes.
They may be innocent by reason of insanity.
Typical Labour hypocrisy oh yes we're against the death penalty but...
Wonder if he phoned his chum in the White house first to see if it was OK to say this.
If they don't hang him ..
...
what then? He becomes a focus, a martyr and a reason for kidnap attempts, suicide bombings and any other kind of mayhem that some nutcase wants to make into 'a cause'!
It looks like its not only Saddam with support for his prompted demise.
..
TONY Blair said yesterday he was opposed to the execution of Saddam Hussein but made clear that he would not intervene to stop the former Iraqi dictator being hanged.
Wrong person being hanged here without a doubt.It´s ok when you are on the other side of the rope, sad man bliar..
...
.
Talking of..
..
Funnily if you think of the superlatives in their era, in various entertainment media, many achieved that status aided by censorship.
Frankie goes to Hollywood, Je t'aime, Lady Chatterley's Lover, I feel Love, Donna Summer, Life of Brian, Clockwork Orange (jumped before pushed).
Already the above film has screens in the US declining to show it.
So.
..
TV rights, advertising, spin-off merchandising.
Think we're missing a trick here.
I am starting to get your number.
The lights are on but there's naebody hame.
If Bush had gotten a mandate and he most certainly did not but if he did it would have been based on him convincing the UN that Iraq had WMDs and were preparing to use them against Israel and Europe. Or that Saddam was harbouring and training Al Quaeda cells.
This being the same Saddam that the US armed and funded in his war against Iran.
So mandate or not legal or not it was still murder for profit. Because and maybe this is the hardest bit for you to understand the whole venture was about getting contol of the Iraqi oil fields and having US companies instead of French and Russian companies running them.
And what democracy is it you think you live in?
Is it the one where a Prime Minister can take a country into an ILLEGAL war without consulting the rest of the democratically elected Parliament?
As for the topic under discussion it will never be a local matter as long as the coalliton remains in the country.
Bush himself reassured the democratically elected Iraqi Prime Minister he wouldnt sack him.
And thats on record.
And you can substitute the word Israel for the word Palestinians in your statement and apply it to yourself.
We are not asking Blair to intervene; we are asking him to protest!
Commenting on this article has closed.
News RSS