The truth: Those who live by swords, die by swords.
You would be very surprised how often people underestimate this truth and forget about numerous historical evidences supporting it, thereby following easier ways of using forces to submit those who have different ideas. There are just so many of them laid everywhere that the swords/forces someone used came back to them with just enough blows to stike them down completely. But why are people making the same mistakes over and over again, disregarding those who are telling the truth as being naive?
Not even leaving much time to argue about the given sentence to Hussein, his execution was carried out in such a hurry. And this time, his half-brother had shared the same fate with his deceased brother. Apparently, he tried to appeal to the international community by sending a letter to the newly appointed Secretary-general of the United Nations, the supposedly supreme body to defend the fundamental right to life. Whether the Secretary-general received it or not is unclear, and probably will remain unclear for the time being. But regardless whether we can prove an international community could've been able to intervene the situation or not, which it should've, it just is wrong to terminate lives, not to mention taking lives without sufficient legitimate procedures. I have encountered with cautious articles and writings containing there was the US behind the scene letting or urging the hasty execution of two Iraqi fugitives, which seemed to be very persuasive argument. In addition, some writings of the speculations on reasons that the UN seemed relatively silent when those capital punishments were carried out as well as the first press encountering of the new seceretary-general also did attract my attention. The Secretary-general later claimed it was a simple misunderstanding to interpret his words as the many media did initially through his Madam. Spokeperson who was shown up and all wrapped up with explanatory statements to settle the situation. Giving a distance to the matter by indicating that the execution of death penalty remains on the sole sovereign right wasn't a mistake made during a transition period of a minister of one nation to a head of the UN. I see this very well planned move for long-trained professional diplomat having a thiry something years of experiences in the field. By doing so, he successfully managed to leave all the blames to Iraq for the consequences of Hussein's execution, quietly follow "advices" from the US, and at the same time, by adjusting his comments as misinterpretation of media, he also managed to accord his code along with the fundamental belief and his predeccesor's belief on the matter.
Well, it is absolutely understandable that it is crucial to have good cooperative relationship with the most powerful member of the institution in order to draw out better consequences from many upcoming complicated agendas. However, should the founding ideals of the UN give its priority to maintaining good relations with the superpower? Is this a part of his resolution to reform the organization?
