View Full Version : Saddam Hussein sentenced to death
Read about it here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061105/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_verdict).
Anyone surprised by this?
that was surprising....not
Rodion Romanovich
11-05-2006, 12:24
Yes it was surprising that they would be the same as Saddam by handing out death penalty for those they dislike. To me it's lowering themselves to the same level as Saddam. The point of law is to stand as a mediator between the wrath of those who want revenge and those who have committed crimes just as they stand between those who haven't committed crimes and might be innocent, and between those who wish to commit crimes and those who would be their victims. Most criminals see themselves as avengers, not the starters of a conflict, which is the same feeling the judge has. Is then the judge any different from the murderer? I would have thought life sentence in prison would have been the way to judge Saddam - keeping him there for necessity and not for primitive bloodthirst of slaying what you fear and despise.
:no:
I agree, it was not a fair trial, what kind of example does that set to the rest of the world?
I don'y know what the fair punishment would be (i'm against the death penalty, but in this case can see why many people worldwide would see it as neccessary. ) IMO i think life sentance is better, but thats debatable.
Yes, Saddam did some terrible things, but his trial has been a complete farce, with the verdict never in doubt, and no real evidence given in his defence etc.
Saddam has infact gaine from the trials uselessness (if thats a word) with his outbursts making headlines and generally fuelling the anger and sectarian violence in Iraq.
My other worry is that the US (+ allies) will try to use Saddams death as propoganda ("o' look, we'v killed Saddam, mission success)
:no:
I agree, it was not a fair trial, what kind of example does that set to the rest of the world?
I don'y know what the fair punishment would be (i'm against the death penalty, but in this case can see why many people worldwide would see it as neccessary. ) IMO i think life sentance is better, but thats debatable.
Yes, Saddam did some terrible things, but his trial has been a complete farce, with the verdict never in doubt, and no real evidence given in his defence etc.
Saddam has infact gaine from the trials uselessness (if thats a word) with his outbursts making headlines and generally fuelling the anger and sectarian violence in Iraq.
My other worry is that the US (+ allies) will try to use Saddams death as propoganda ("o' look, we'v killed Saddam, mission success)
wanna bet some money that he gets executed just before the next US presidential election?
wanna bet some money that he gets executed just before the next US presidential election?
:yes:
Major Robert Dump
11-05-2006, 13:42
Who is Saddam is he one of those Menendez brothers I thought he already had a trial?????
King Henry V
11-05-2006, 14:02
Finally. The whole thing was an absolute farce. We all know that he did it, so the trial was just a complete charade. And to think people actually got killed because of this charade is absolutely horrendous. They should just have put a bullet through his head when they caught him and say that "he was trying to escape", just like they did with his two sons. Then none of this "If you find him guilty, they will be much more violence in Iraq" crêpe. Now, the US have got themselves into a pickle: imprison him and he remains a living symbol for the terrorists and there is the chance of him escaping/being freed if he is imprisoned in Iraq, which would probably have been the case. Then again, kill him and he becomes a martyr. Like I said, it would have been so much better to shoot him when they found him.
Finally. The whole thing was an absolute farce. We all know that he did it, so the trial was just a complete charade. And to think people actually got killed because of this charade is absolutely horrendous. They should just have put a bullet through his head when they caught him and say that "he was trying to escape", just like they did with his two sons. Then none of this "If you find him guilty, they will be much more violence in Iraq" crêpe. Now, the US have got themselves into a pickle: imprison him and he remains a living symbol for the terrorists and there is the chance of him escaping/being freed if he is imprisoned in Iraq, which would probably have been the case. Then again, kill him and he becomes a martyr. Like I said, it would have been so much better to shoot him when they found him.
well...but then if he was shot when trying to "escape" wouldn´t he still be a martyr for his supporters?
King Henry V
11-05-2006, 15:05
Perhaps, but not as much as he is going to be now with this big execution business. Or they could have just dumped his body somewhere or buried it, end off. Of course, they wouldn't have been able to do the whole "We've got Saddam!" PR coup, but with hindsight it would hav been the best thing.
Devastatin Dave
11-05-2006, 15:07
Let him swing...
(worst part of the obvious attempt of starting a flamewar edited out by Ser Clegane)
I know that liberals eveywhere will be in great mourning since they've tried everything possible to save this man, but take solice in the fact that there are still plenty of cute cuddly murdering dictators to have worship.:laugh4:
KukriKhan
11-05-2006, 15:42
from Xiahou's linked article: "... The death sentences automatically go to a nine-judge appeals panel, which has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.
A court official told The Associated Press that the appeals process was likely to take three to four weeks once the formal paperwork was submitted.
So, 2007 sometime, or later, for final action.
Del Arroyo
11-05-2006, 15:45
If they had never found Sadaam people over there would still be afraid of him. His psychological grip on the nation was immense. By humiliating him, we have broken it.
As far as execution, "live by the sword, die by the sword". I also find it beyond oblivious that anyone should object to killing such a violent man in a country where hundreds are dying violently every day.
He's just not a particularly relevant figure anymore.
Kanamori
11-05-2006, 15:54
Hanging... not a very pretty way for anyone to go, and I'm not so sure that they'll have it high enough to break his neck, but he certainly wasn't known for his pretty ways.
I'd actually bet that Saddam was surprised to hear that he'd get the death penalty. It seems that totalitarians play as many mind games w/ themselves as they do on they're people terrifying and torturing them.
https://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6378/1in9.jpg
I'd be thinking the same thing as that kid: "Don't get so excited ya shoot me w/ that, idiot."
...On a totally related note.
Tribesman
11-05-2006, 16:15
quote of edited post
You see Dave it just happened that the Euro pussies were too busy laughing about the stream of right wing american gay sex scandals .
Oh and in case you hadn't noticed western civilised nations don't string people up anymore , we leave that nonsense for tin-pot regimes to continue until they see sense .
take solice in the fact that there are still plenty of cute cuddly murdering dictators to have worship.
Yes Dave I applaud the fact that your governmeent has an unblemished record when it comes to getting all cute and cuddly with murdering dictators Including just by some strange coincidence the one that this topic is about .
You really should take your medication Dave .
Patriarch of Constantinople
11-05-2006, 17:20
:no:
I agree, it was not a fair trial.
My other worry is that the US (+ allies) will try to use Saddams death as propoganda ("o' look, we'v killed Saddam, mission success)
Oh please, was he fair to all the Kurds and villages he destroyed? killing hundreds of people.
And I don't think Saddam matters to America anymore, they're focused more on Osama Bin Laden. I mean Saddam isn't even news anymore.
Patriarch of Constantinople
11-05-2006, 17:21
I think they should kill him by the way he lived, either gun squad or gas
rory_20_uk
11-05-2006, 17:22
I thought that hanging is a (relatively) pleasant way to go, if done properly. Quick, painless and reliable.
If Iraq tears itself apart over this, so be it. Their court convicted him.
~:smoking:
Ser Clegane
11-05-2006, 17:36
Attempts to use this topic to make insults and/or start a flamewar will not be tolerated :stare:
Countering forum rules violations by other violations is also not acceptable. Don't let yourself be dragged into flamewars.
Thanks
Ser Clegane
As another poster said, there was zero question about his guilt, but it's a shame that his trial couldn't have more gravitas. The whole thing feels a bit kangaroo-court, which is too bad. Evil, murdering madmen should be smacked down by the full dignity and majesty of the law. Then they can swing.
Anybody care to make a prediction of how this will or won't affect the insurgency?
Oh please, was he fair to all the Kurds and villages he destroyed? killing hundreds of people.
And I don't think Saddam matters to America anymore, they're focused more on Osama Bin Laden. I mean Saddam isn't even news anymore.
The guy was guilty as hell.....that doesn´t change the fact that what went on was not a fair trial....
as for not mattering to america....I think the US administration will try to make him matter a great much....because then can put him up on the "win" column while Osama is god knows were.
lancelot
11-05-2006, 18:09
Not sure how I feel about this verdict...dont like the guy and he certainly deserves it but this kinda seems to make a mockery of the judicial process.
Did anyone else find it weird that (at least in the UK) media coverage of this seemed to dry up, then suddenly out of the blue...wham- he is guilty!
He is supposedly guilty of killing a bunch of people in an Iraqi town...but isnt the Iraqi ''justice system'' and how they deal with assasinations or whatever else is going on within Iraq their business?
Does a foreign power have the right to invade, oust the legitimate government and then put him on trial for how they deal with their own internal affairs? This seems to be setting a very dangerous precident...
Kralizec
11-05-2006, 18:14
Finally. The whole thing was an absolute farce. We all know that he did it, so the trial was just a complete charade. And to think people actually got killed because of this charade is absolutely horrendous. They should just have put a bullet through his head when they caught him and say that "he was trying to escape", just like they did with his two sons. Then none of this "If you find him guilty, they will be much more violence in Iraq" crêpe. Now, the US have got themselves into a pickle: imprison him and he remains a living symbol for the terrorists and there is the chance of him escaping/being freed if he is imprisoned in Iraq, which would probably have been the case. Then again, kill him and he becomes a martyr. Like I said, it would have been so much better to shoot him when they found him.
This post reminds me of Winston Churchil, arguing against the Neurenberg tribunal (before it actually existed)
His arguments were fairly the same, and he felt they should just shoot every Nazi that occupied a high position and get done with it.
Stalin was in favour of a tribunal, but we all can all guess what sort of tribunal he envisioned.
Roosenvelt and his successor Truman favoured war tribunals, and this eventually persuaded the British as well.
While "History is written by the victors" is a reasonably accurate cliche, I think that if Churchills favoured method was used, there'd be a lot more nazi-sympathizers right now. Just because the guilt of the Nazis was obvious back then doesn't mean it will be so for all future generations.
King Henry V
11-05-2006, 18:15
The trial was a farce already. God knows how long it would have gone on for if "the law" had been respected to the letter. The fact is no trial can be truly fair when everyone knows the verdict beforehand.
Oops, few days before US elections, hazards of the calendar…
Now, the guy was guilty. And I don’t think most of the insurgents are actually fighting in the name of Saddam. I think they don’t care. Dead, it will be useful, alive he is a liability. As soon he will be hanged, he will become a true leader of the Arab cause; let’s forget crimes, Halabjah and the Kurdish villages made piles of stones. Within 10 years after his death, the entire Arab world even the Kuwaiti (err, perhaps not them) will celebrate his memory, of the guy who said no to the US and died.
Spare his life; sent him in a cell and let him died of natural causes, he is more an actual ally in the US war than an opponents. At least, he is still a reminded for the Iraqis what was before. Some optimistic still think things are better now.
His death will be a major mistake. Well, not the US has shown a great deal of management in all this Iraqi adventure, but it could be time to think.
And, of course, the court was not impartial and not fair. However, even if it would, it would have change nothing to the fact he was guilty...
Samurai Waki
11-05-2006, 19:04
The Trial is a farce, we should've transported him to The Hague, like we do with most world leaders:yes:
Patriarch of Constantinople
11-05-2006, 19:42
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrialSaddam.jpg
this cracked me up
Anybody care to make a prediction of how this will or won't affect the insurgency?
At the least, it won't change. It certainly won't get any better, considering how the whole thing stinks of bogusness. Besides, anyone who thinks that this about Saddam seeing justice is fooling themself; this is all politics, one country capturing another country's figurehead and destroying him. I read the article and the only that enters my mind is the US government screaming to the world, "Look at my hyooooj baaaalls!"
Prince of the Poodles
11-05-2006, 20:33
And he goes the way of the Nazis... good riddance, and hopefully they'll put his execution on pay per view. :2thumbsup:
Politically it would have been better if he had been shot when they first found him, or if he had suffered a mysterious death in custody like another tinpot dictator you may remember recently. If he must die.
Morally I am against the death penalty, even for a character like Saddam.
This does not make me a dictator-worshipping lefty liberal as suggested by a post earlier in the thread.
Kralizec
11-05-2006, 20:48
I had a discussiont today with someone. I felt that while I'm against the death penalty, I didn't feel sorry for the guy and wouldn't pick this case to start a protest march. The other one felt the opposite way, she felt sorry for Hussein and would have marched if there would be a demonstration :inquisitive:
Major Robert Dump
11-05-2006, 20:56
Tookie Hussein has been framed by overzealous, racist cops. I hope right before the hanging he doesn't poop or pee for like 4 days so it gets all over everybody when they do hang him. He should insist on wearing crotchless pants and not tell anyone why.
Kralizec
11-05-2006, 21:03
Tookie Hussein has been framed by overzealous, racist cops. I hope right before the hanging he doesn't poop or pee for like 4 days so it gets all over everybody when they do hang him. He should insist on wearing crotchless pants and not tell anyone why.
Hussein, hurting the Great Satan even after he died :laugh4:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-05-2006, 21:33
He should be Beaten badly then Hanged, some Justice for all of the People He Murderd (not killed, Murdered).
Is it surprising that he got the death sentence? No.
Considering all the innocent people Saddam has tortured and murdered, I think he got off lightly.
AntiochusIII
11-05-2006, 21:43
He should be Beaten badly then Hanged, some Justice for all of the People He Murderd (not killed, Murdered).Ah, I see.
Justice, what an interesting word. So is murder. Lovely primitive instincts, both.
:book:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-05-2006, 21:44
Lightly?? tell me what would have be more Worser then this please??
*is stunned by this turn of events*
I always thought that with all the time he spent helping old ladies across the road and sponsoring orphanages, he would get off scott free.
Crazed Rabbit
11-05-2006, 22:22
The other one felt the opposite way, she felt sorry for Hussein and would have marched if there would be a demonstration
Holy crap, talk about disconnection from the real world.
CR
I had a discussiont today with someone. I felt that while I'm against the death penalty, I didn't feel sorry for the guy and wouldn't pick this case to start a protest march. The other one felt the opposite way, she felt sorry for Hussein and would have marched if there would be a demonstration :inquisitive:
There are so many things wrong with that, it's quite humorous.
lancelot
11-05-2006, 23:46
*is stunned by this turn of events*
I always thought that with all the time he spent helping old ladies across the road and sponsoring orphanages, he would get off scott free.
:laugh4:
As another poster said, there was zero question about his guilt, but it's a shame that his trial couldn't have more gravitas. The whole thing feels a bit kangaroo-court, which is too bad. Evil, murdering madmen should be smacked down by the full dignity and majesty of the law. Then they can swing.
Anybody care to make a prediction of how this will or won't affect the insurgency?
I dont know how it could've had more "gravitas". The outcome was a forgone conclusion from the very beginning- it's good enough that they at least went thru the motions of a trial. This is the equivelant of someone gunning down a person on the 50yd line during the SuperBowl. Literally everyone knew he was guilty- the trial was a mere formality.
As to his execution... if anyone deserves to be hanged, he does. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but I'm certainly not going to sweat this- at all.
IRONxMortlock
11-06-2006, 01:49
As to his execution... if anyone deserves to be hanged, he does. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but I'm certainly not going to sweat this- at all.
I know how you feel Xiahou. I am completely opposed to the death penalty though so I don't agree with his execution. Life in prison would be a more fitting punishment for this guy.
As for the "trial" and this sentence, is anyone at all surprised at the result? He was a dead man walking the moment he was captured.
What is curious is the timing of this sentence. If Bill O'Reily can claim North Korea denonated its nuke to influence these US elections can I say this was timed to do something similar?
Papewaio
11-06-2006, 02:08
I'm not a fan of the death penalty for joe smith civilian.
I do see a difference for traitors, war crimes and politicians (I don't class them as civilians as politicians should be the ones telling the armed forces what to do, so they are where the buck should stop).
Crimes against the state or those carried out by the state can and should warrant at the highest level a death penalty.
Kanamori
11-06-2006, 03:25
Well, I doubt people whispering in the Judge's ear about timing would hit the media, and I can't see anything that would personally give him interest to do so.
When people are hanged so that their neck breaks, I would imagine that the mind works at some level until there is no more oxygen. Painless, probably as far as sensations in the body go, but I bet that my mind would not stay so calm surveying the image around knowing what happened...
professorspatula
11-06-2006, 03:33
It's a pity that meddling Skywalker killed the Rancor, or I'd have suggested throwing Saddam into its pit.
I'm not a fan of the death penalty for joe smith civilian.
I do see a difference for traitors, war crimes and politicians (I don't class them as civilians as politicians should be the ones telling the armed forces what to do, so they are where the buck should stop).
Crimes against the state or those carried out by the state can and should warrant at the highest level a death penalty.
I pretty much agree with that.
Life in prison would be a more fitting punishment for this guy.Probably- but it's not practical. As long as he lives, some morons somewhere in Iraq would be dreaming of freeing him/returning him to power. There's only one way permanently quash that line of thinking... I'd guess it's also important for any 'new' Iraq to put Saddam behind them as it were. :shrug:
And he goes the way of the Nazis... good riddance, and hopefully they'll put his execution on pay per view. :2thumbsup:
Stylish and popular among pseudo-intellectuals?
IRONxMortlock
11-06-2006, 11:11
Probably- but it's not practical. As long as he lives, some morons somewhere in Iraq would be dreaming of freeing him/returning him to power. There's only one way permanently quash that line of thinking... I'd guess it's also important for any 'new' Iraq to put Saddam behind them as it were. :shrug:
However perhaps in death he will help create more instability if he becomes known as maryter?
I am fully against the death penality in every situation but to be honest, I not going to be crying when this scumbag gets the rope.
It seems farcical to the extreme. A puppet government that doesn't even control the country, with a puppet judge conducting a laughable trial... for propaganda purposes. Those in the streets celebrating at Saddam's death, haven't got a clue what's going on, and those demonstrating, in his support, they haven't got a clue either. Yet the media siezes on this imagery as always and uses it. What total and utter B/S. Iraq is a mess and executing this 'has been' is not going to improve it in any way. The whole key to achieving democracy in a country is to first achieve stability. You can't just invade a country, turn it into an anarchistic, highly factional, mess of hate, and paramilitary activity and then hope to install a democracy there. Iraq had far more stability before this war. There were other ways to go about removing this dictator and letting the people found their own democracy. The US and it's allies chose the wrong way.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-06-2006, 13:57
Oh please, was he fair to all the Kurds and villages he destroyed? killing hundreds of people.
And I don't think Saddam matters to America anymore, they're focused more on Osama Bin Laden. I mean Saddam isn't even news anymore.
Nope, the politically awake are focused on Tuesday's elections and the Saddam verdict matters only to the extent that it may/won't influence the polls.
Most of the rest of America is focused on Dancing with the Stars and the end-game in Survivor!
Seamus Fermanagh
11-06-2006, 14:05
Spare his life; sent him in a cell and let him died of natural causes, he is more an actual ally in the US war than an opponents. At least, he is still a reminded for the Iraqis what was before. Some optimistic still think things are better now.
His death will be a major mistake. Well, not the US has shown a great deal of management in all this Iraqi adventure, but it could be time to think.
And, of course, the court was not impartial and not fair. However, even if it would, it would have change nothing to the fact he was guilty...
Actually, let's go your idea a notch better and make that: alive in a cell and broadcast it 24-7 on the net. Watching him become a progressively feebler old man (as we all do) will hammer the strongman mystique -- his only remaining threat -- pretty well.
I disagree with the state taking life save in time of war or in the "heat of the moment" in a cops/robbers situation. Tribesy is a bit too snooty in his "we're past that" post above -- sounds too much like the ancient Greeks and their "barbarians" attitude stuff -- but DevDave was baiting him. I don't think the death penalty barbaric, and must acknowledge that it does prevent recidivism, but would prefer the state to take a more detached" course of action.
CrossLOPER
11-06-2006, 14:25
And he goes the way of the Nazis... good riddance, and hopefully they'll put his execution on pay per view. :2thumbsup:
Hell, why not parade him down the street and make it a public event? Wouldn't that be absolutely great?!? I mean there's nothing better than putting a guy's death on public display, right?
I'd be more interested to see if he actually faces execution. There's an appeals process etc and there has been scepticism on both BBC and Cnn as to whether the sentance will actually be carried out.
In fairness, the charges he was facing were pretty low key stuff considering all the Kurds and marsh arabs he had killed.
No one has mentioned the use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and troops in the 80's. I suppose the fact that he was supplied by the US and UK makes it not a crime to gas people.
edit for typos
yesdachi
11-06-2006, 15:22
I got a nickel that says some sneaky jailer clicks a photo of him on the neck stretcher and sells it to the Sun for a million bucks.
I'll take you bet and raise you 5 dollars, what say you? Any other takers?
Edit:
Would it be completely tastless to start taking bets on whether Saddam swings or not?
:creep: :hanged:
I'd be more interested to see if he actually faces execution. There's an appeals process etc and there has been scepticism on both BBC and Cnn as to whether the sentance will actually be carried out.
In fairness, the charges he was facing were pretty low key stuff considering all the Kurds and marsh arabs he had killed.
No one has mentioned the use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and troops in the 80's. I suppose the fact that he was supplied by the US and UK makes it not a crime to gas people.
edit for typos
This trial has 'only' been about one of the mass murders implicating Saddam. A next trial is already scheduled, as I understand it, involving the gassing of the Kurds.
The appeals process will last another few months, I gather, while he may also have to stand trial for another one of his 'ecapades' of mass murder.
I am not an advocate of the death penalty and I do not think that killing Saddam will change anything inside the country or outside it for the better. It was important to capture him but everything else around the trial has simply been a farce.
Never mind. Good riddance if he will ever go...
Quid
This trial has 'only' been about one of the mass murders implicating Saddam. A next trial is already scheduled, as I understand it, involving the gassing of the Kurds.
The appeals process will last another few months, I gather, while he may also have to stand trial for another one of his 'ecapades' of mass murder.
I am not an advocate of the death penalty and I do not think that killing Saddam will change anything inside the country or outside it for the better. It was important to capture him but everything else around the trial has simply been a farce.
Never mind. Good riddance if he will ever go...
Quid
So, will Saddam go through these other trials in their entirety, be sentenced again and then be executed. It wouldn't make much sense really. I mean can he be sentenced to multiple deaths or just jail time now.:dizzy2:
I would understand how the Kurds could feel cheated if Saddam didn't stand trial for his crimes against them specifically, but he's been sentanced, so just get it over with already. It's not like the procedural flaws in the recent case will save him the gallows.
Banquo's Ghost
11-06-2006, 17:14
I'm not at all convinced that the trial has been a farce. Of course, one part of me advocates that the trial should have been held independently at the Hague, but it is equally true that nations emerging from a dictatorship should prosecute those responsible themselves - as both national catharsis and to put their nascent judicial system to the hardest test.
This choice is a tough one.
If the trial is to be held in the country where the crimes were committed (which I must say I tend to favour) then the trial is likely to be flawed - but then almost all trials are. So much the more so for leaders and statesmen. The trick is to minimise the flaws. Unfortunately, because of the mistakes made in general in administering the occupation of Iraq and the spiral into civil war, the trial became both a side-show and even more flawed. Saddam's reasonably fair trial should have been the jewel in the crown of a newly established Iraqi government, providing a break with the past and reassurance in the law for the future.
For those arguing for a swift, non-judicial execution, there are two points I would put forward. First, as Thomas More noted, if you deny the law to the devil, the devil is not bound by law when he turns round on you. Second, the prosecution of heads of state has always been a thorny issue - mostly, international law protects heads of state from prosecution by other powers. If it did not, President Bush and many others would find themselves arrested on a regular basis.
For example, General Pinochet, at least as nasty a dictator as Saddam (and one-time good buddy too) was finally allowed to leave the UK after just such a legal attempt to hold him responsible for the deaths and torture he caused. Why isn't that nasty old man about to swing from a rope? Largely because his own country has not found itself capable of bringing the prosecution itself, and no foreign power has invaded to do the job for them.
This is as it should be (even though Pinochet is one of many people's "first against the wall" choices) otherwise anarchy would prevail in international relations.
So the trial of a head of state is not clear cut: The crimes he commits may be obvious crimes, but Saddam's defence - that he had the right as head of state - is a defense that deserves to be properly heard. It does not provide a "get-out-of-jail-free" card, but requires that motive and situation be properly examined by the people who his actions affected.
Goofball
11-06-2006, 17:56
wanna bet some money that he gets executed just before the next US presidential election?
From what I understand, that is highly unlikely. According to Iraqi law, a sentence must be carried out within 30 days of being confirmed by the courts. In this case, there is an automatic appeal because it is a death sentence, but the talking head legal analysts on TV this morning estimate that the appeal process should take less than 30 days. So worst case (or best case, depending on your point of view), Saddam should be dead within 60 days.
Now, on to the death penalty question. There have been many comments to the effect of "I'm against the death penalty, but this is not a case I would fight against" in this thread.
I have to disagree with that point of view. If you are against the death penalty on principle, then this is exactly the case you should be speaking out against. It's easy to be against the death penalty for the mentally retarded kid who was sexually abused his whole life before he finally snapped and killed somebody, because at least you can work up an ounce or two of real compassion for him. On the other hand, it's difficult, if not impossible to have any empathy or compassion for Saddam. He is a dirtbag who is almost certainly guilty of everything he has been accused of. Also, just about everybody in the world feels the same way about him, so saying that he should not be put to death will be a decidedly unpopular point of view, opening oneself (as we have already seen in this thread) to scorn and personal attack.
But the thing that makes principles so difficult to stick to is that they can not be allowed to bow to expedience. Otherwise, they're not principles anymore.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-06-2006, 18:01
I'm not at all convinced that the trial has been a farce. Of course, one part of me advocates that the trial should have been held independently at the Hague, but it is equally true that nations emerging from a dictatorship should prosecute those responsible themselves - as both national catharsis and to put their nascent judicial system to the hardest test.
This choice is a tough one.
If the trial is to be held in the country where the crimes were committed (which I must say I tend to favour) then the trial is likely to be flawed - but then almost all trials are. So much the more so for leaders and statesmen. The trick is to minimise the flaws. Unfortunately, because of the mistakes made in general in administering the occupation of Iraq and the spiral into civil war, the trial became both a side-show and even more flawed. Saddam's reasonably fair trial should have been the jewel in the crown of a newly established Iraqi government, providing a break with the past and reassurance in the law for the future.
For those arguing for a swift, non-judicial execution, there are two points I would put forward. First, as Thomas More noted, if you deny the law to the devil, the devil is not bound by law when he turns round on you. Second, the prosecution of heads of state has always been a thorny issue - mostly, international law protects heads of state from prosecution by other powers. If it did not, President Bush and many others would find themselves arrested on a regular basis.
For example, General Pinochet, at least as nasty a dictator as Saddam (and one-time good buddy too) was finally allowed to leave the UK after just such a legal attempt to hold him responsible for the deaths and torture he caused. Why isn't that nasty old man about to swing from a rope? Largely because his own country has not found itself capable of bringing the prosecution itself, and no foreign power has invaded to do the job for them.
This is as it should be (even though Pinochet is one of many people's "first against the wall" choices) otherwise anarchy would prevail in international relations.
So the trial of a head of state is not clear cut: The crimes he commits may be obvious crimes, but Saddam's defence - that he had the right as head of state - is a defense that deserves to be properly heard. It does not provide a "get-out-of-jail-free" card, but requires that motive and situation be properly examined by the people who his actions affected.
Banquo:
Hello, this is the BACKROOM. Take this reasonableness and considered evaluation elsewhere.
yesdachi
11-06-2006, 18:08
But the thing that makes principles so difficult to stick to is that they can not be allowed to bow to expedience. Otherwise, they're not principles anymore.
Life is an organic and flowing thing with few black or white instances, why should we stick so firmly to a principal when nothing else in the world stands so firm. I consider my principles to be a guide and not an absolute.
Kralizec
11-06-2006, 18:30
Goofball: that makes sense and I applaud your consistency.
How many people does China execute every year? (and other countries)
Now I think that marching in protest for all these people is a bit to much, but picking out Saddam out of all of them...
And face it, if there's only one catagory of people that deserves death, it's murderous dictators.
Goofball
11-06-2006, 18:42
Life is an organic and flowing thing with few black or white instances, why should we stick so firmly to a principal when nothing else in the world stands so firm. I consider my principles to be a guide and not an absolute.
Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. The way I think of principles is that they are absolute. That's what makes them principles. I have many general "ideas" that act as a moral guide, but that I recognize can be applied and examined on a case by case basis. But principles shouldn't change unless there is overwhelming evidence that your basis for adopting the principle in the first place was flawed. That's also why there are very few ideas that I hold as principles. The death penalty is one of them.
CrossLOPER
11-06-2006, 18:46
How many people does China execute every year? (and other countries)
I think China is in a slightly different category in terms of a nation when compared to what Iraq is supposed to be, given that its model is the US.
macsen rufus
11-06-2006, 19:13
Back to the question of what effect will his execution have -- I don't believe there will be any "national catharsis". It will result in further polarisation (if there's any room for escalation left in Iraq) with those celebrating his death and those mourning it at even greater loggerheads. With the passing of the man is born the mythos.
Personally I'd prefer to see him rot in a cell, as happened with Hess at Spandau. I agree that seeing the ex-strongman wither away will remove the fear he used to create.
As to whether the trial was fair, I'm not sure if that was ever going to be possible, but it certainly fell short of the standards that should be expected (Counsel getting killed etc is not a good sign, IMHO...). As a demonstration of a functional democracy it also failed.
All the hand-wringing about what Saddam did to the Kurds is very noble so far after the fact, and was used as one of the justifications for invasion alongside the non-existant WMDs. However at the time it occured, the response from the "coalition" members was pretty much to deny it happened, and even if it did, well "Would sir like some more gas to go, maybe?" about sums up the fuss we made. And we've let the Turkish get away with atrocities just as bad against their Kurdish minority, but like Saudi they are "on side", so their barbarisms are all justified, aren't they? For now.
So sure, put Saddam on trial for gassing Halabjah, too, but there should be representatives of the UK, US and French governments in the dock with him.
As far as I can see, Iraq is a failure -- I don't just mean the invasion, the attempted "bringing of democracy", but the very idea of Iraq as an entity. If Saddam's death would bring some sort of closure to the whole sorry story that was the made-up non-country of Iraq, then there may be some cause for celebration. But it won't. The scale of the human suffering that has arisen to remove this man from power is colossal. What he did whilst he was in power was appalling. But we can't just shake our heads and pretend we didn't put him there, keep him there, and give him much of the means to perform his atrocities.
yesdachi
11-06-2006, 19:54
Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. The way I think of principles is that they are absolute. That's what makes them principles. I have many general "ideas" that act as a moral guide, but that I recognize can be applied and examined on a case by case basis. But principles shouldn't change unless there is overwhelming evidence that your basis for adopting the principle in the first place was flawed. That's also why there are very few ideas that I hold as principles. The death penalty is one of them.
Perhaps a topic for a different time but I don’t think I have any principals according to your definition. :shrug:
Banquo's Ghost
11-06-2006, 21:23
Banquo:
Hello, this is the BACKROOM. Take this reasonableness and considered evaluation elsewhere.
Sorry, Seamus. :embarassed:
EDIT*:
Judge: How do you know he's a war criminal?
Prosecutor: He looks like one. [Pause for effect]. He's got a moustache.
International Community: BUUUUUUUURNNN HIM!!! BUUUURRN HIM!
* With due apologies to Terry Jones and the Pythons :bow:
Better? :bounce:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-06-2006, 21:27
I know how you feel Xiahou. I am completely opposed to the death penalty though so I don't agree with his execution. Life in prison would be a more fitting punishment for this guy.
As for the "trial" and this sentence, is anyone at all surprised at the result? He was a dead man walking the moment he was captured.
What is curious is the timing of this sentence. If Bill O'Reily can claim North Korea denonated its nuke to influence these US elections can I say this was timed to do something similar?
What? Did I just read that? You Like this guy to have Life in Prision? Someone Who Killed Thousands Of People Should Have Life? Yeah, Really good idea you got there :no:
Seamus Fermanagh
11-06-2006, 21:32
Sorry, Seamus. :embarassed:
EDIT*:
Judge: How do you know he's a war criminal?
Prosecutor: He looks like one. [Pause for effect]. He's got a moustache.
International Community: BUUUUUUUURNNN HIM!!! BUUUURRN HIM!
* With due apologies to Terry Jones and the Pythons :bow:
Better? :bounce:
Whew....Thanks. I was worried there for a bit. If we don't continue our rabid and unthinking ways, where will Tribesy, DevDave, and Div have a chance to play?:2thumbsup:
I think spending all your life in jail, where it wouldn't suprise me if people would get tortured, is a bigger punishment then to be killed quite quickly. Also there might be serious consequenses if he's killed.
Banquo's Ghost
11-06-2006, 21:35
Now, on to the death penalty question. There have been many comments to the effect of "I'm against the death penalty, but this is not a case I would fight against" in this thread.
I have to disagree with that point of view. If you are against the death penalty on principle, then this is exactly the case you should be speaking out against. It's easy to be against the death penalty for the mentally retarded kid who was sexually abused his whole life before he finally snapped and killed somebody, because at least you can work up an ounce or two of real compassion for him. On the other hand, it's difficult, if not impossible to have any empathy or compassion for Saddam. He is a dirtbag who is almost certainly guilty of everything he has been accused of. Also, just about everybody in the world feels the same way about him, so saying that he should not be put to death will be a decidedly unpopular point of view, opening oneself (as we have already seen in this thread) to scorn and personal attack.
But the thing that makes principles so difficult to stick to is that they can not be allowed to bow to expedience. Otherwise, they're not principles anymore.
Quite right. In my opinion, this is one of the best cases for illustrating the essence of temporary vengeance in using the death penalty. The need for vengeance is strong, even in those who otherwise would eschew capital punishment.
I would argue (as most know, I implacably against capital punishment) that a swift execution is rather merciful. Saddam should be sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour - that labour being to work at the mass graves of his victims, exhuming their bodies with naught but a shovel and then re-interring each in a proper, dignified grave dug by his own hand. In quiet times, he should be made to construct a memorial with photos of each, and a written account of their life. Perhaps this might bring home to him the individual tragedies he has inflicted.
As has been mentioned, his increasing fragility and humiliation would soon erase the strong man image. And for those who believe in a divine justice awaiting him, to which an execution will speed him, I say only that Hell will still be there in twenty years or however long his natural life will last.
Good he was convicted, but he shouldn't be executed. Not a good way to end an era of staggering violence with a killing. Not that it's ended yet anyway...
He should spend the rest of his life in prison. Let him die a broken old man in prison. Not a martyr, just a pathetic old man.
What? Did I just read that? You Like this guy to have Life in Prision? Someone Who Killed Thousands Of People Should Have Life? Yeah, Really good idea you got there :no:
All human beings have a right to live. No matter how many misdeeds Saddam Hussein has done, he still qualifies for a human being, thus, death penalty is not fitting.
Now, I'm all for sealing him in solitary confinement and melting the keys into commemorative coins, but outright killing people? That is not justice ... it is vengance.
Dying is easy ... living is hard.
Prince of the Poodles
11-06-2006, 22:40
From what I understand, that is highly unlikely. According to Iraqi law, a sentence must be carried out within 30 days of being confirmed by the courts. In this case, there is an automatic appeal because it is a death sentence, but the talking head legal analysts on TV this morning estimate that the appeal process should take less than 30 days. So worst case (or best case, depending on your point of view), Saddam should be dead within 60 days.
Now, on to the death penalty question. There have been many comments to the effect of "I'm against the death penalty, but this is not a case I would fight against" in this thread.
I have to disagree with that point of view. If you are against the death penalty on principle, then this is exactly the case you should be speaking out against. It's easy to be against the death penalty for the mentally retarded kid who was sexually abused his whole life before he finally snapped and killed somebody, because at least you can work up an ounce or two of real compassion for him. On the other hand, it's difficult, if not impossible to have any empathy or compassion for Saddam. He is a dirtbag who is almost certainly guilty of everything he has been accused of. Also, just about everybody in the world feels the same way about him, so saying that he should not be put to death will be a decidedly unpopular point of view, opening oneself (as we have already seen in this thread) to scorn and personal attack.
But the thing that makes principles so difficult to stick to is that they can not be allowed to bow to expedience. Otherwise, they're not principles anymore.
Wow. Well said.
I dont have a problem with the death penalty or this particular case, in fact I applaud it, but that is definitely a principled stand I can respect.
You'll be getting no scorn from me. :bow:
Don Corleone
11-06-2006, 22:43
Well, I'm glad to hear Goofball's eloquent summary, as I've been thinking I really wanted to drop my 'anti-death-penalty' stance, just this once. But I knew it wouldn't be right. A culture of death is a culture of death. As hard as it is to believe, even Saddam Hussein is not beyond forgiveness. I suppose in a way I should take that as a relief.
I really like BQ's sentence. It has a certain poetic justice to it, spending the rest of his life putting names and faces to the nameless, faceless thousands he murdered.
From a practical standpoint, killing Saddam Hussein will ironically immortalize the myth of being somehow super-human. Generations from now, there will be Sunnis saying things to the affect of "And it took the most powerful nation in the world two separate illegal invasions to bring our great man down. And even then, facing the full might of the US Armed Forces, he was able to defy them for a time. And when they finally got their hands on him, they orchestrated a trial and executed him, because they were afraid of him". :no:
It would have been far better to dedicate a web broadcast to him the day he started crying and asking for clemency, as the blisters on his hands cracked from digging all those graves out in the hot sun.
Major Robert Dump
11-06-2006, 22:59
I think spending all your life in jail, where it wouldn't suprise me if people would get tortured, is a bigger punishment then to be killed quite quickly. Also there might be serious consequenses if he's killed.
If you tie the knot just right, it can take the hanger 30 minutes to die. I seem to recall a jewish executioner who was killing a group of nazis who all did the sig heil (sp) salute right before they were hanged, and this guy was so pissed he made them suffer. I just remember hearing that in a history class, don't remember any of the names as I was probably hungover
If you tie the knot just right, it can take the hanger 30 minutes to die. I seem to recall a jewish executioner who was killing a group of nazis who all did the sig heil (sp) salute right before they were hanged, and this guy was so pissed he made them suffer. I just remember hearing that in a history class, don't remember any of the names as I was probably hungover
thats horrible :no:
Die Saddam Die!!!!!
Muhaha!!
(If you don't like it shut up! There's plenty of room on the gallows for you!) :D
thats horrible :no:
Of course done right (and presumeably will be in this case) it's as instant as possible. Long drop and a crack and the neck is broken...
Wiki it.
Crazed Rabbit
11-07-2006, 00:09
thats horrible :no:
I know, 30 minutes is much too short. An hour would've been better.
CR
I know, 30 minutes is much too short. An hour would've been better.
CR
no death at all would be better :shame:
AntiochusIII
11-07-2006, 00:19
I find it ironic that people that believe themselves to have the greatest appreciation for freedom in their own lives also have such disregard for life and a taste for vengeance. Justice, go ahead. Vengeance, you convince me not.
Like I said, wondrous primitive instincts we have here.
What's the point of suffering, or vengeance, or death? To quench your inner bloodthirst; to make your armchair justice so much more appealing; to pretend the world is going to be truly better off as a broken man -- responsible as he was of countless crimes -- is killed off and reduced to mere symbolism?
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-07-2006, 00:25
All human beings have a right to live. No matter how many misdeeds Saddam Hussein has done, he still qualifies for a human being, thus, death penalty is not fitting.
Now, I'm all for sealing him in solitary confinement and melting the keys into commemorative coins, but outright killing people? That is not justice ... it is vengance.
Dying is easy ... living is hard.
I don't Care, I really don't. He Derserved to Die. Sticking him in Jail would be a waste of time. Having him died a old man? Really makes me sick to read some of you people's posts about letting him live, really does :no:
I don't Care, I really don't. He Derserved to Die. Sticking him in Jail would be a waste of time. Having him died a old man? Really makes me sick to read some of you people's posts about letting him live, really does :no:
I think Antiochus answers this better than i could....
What's the point of suffering, or vengeance, or death? To quench your inner bloodthirst; to make your armchair justice so much more appealing; to pretend the world is going to be truly better off as a broken man -- responsible as he was of countless crimes -- is killed off and reduced to mere symbolism?
:2thumbsup:
Papewaio
11-07-2006, 00:44
There is a practice on farms called culling. You cull from the herd the cattle that don't have the features that you desire... often this includes aggresive animals. So a death sentence does not have to be seen as an act of revenge, it is us helping evolution progress they way we want to. Just like having special cribs for premature babies so that we can bend evolution to our desires.
World is woefully overpopulated. So as a practically resort we should cull out the most violent or should we leave them in charge and let them cull out a lot of others thereby helping to curtail the worlds population explosion?
In the end has Saddams inhumanity to individual men been a humane boon to all of mankind?
barbed tongue cutting my own cheek
Reenk Roink
11-07-2006, 00:46
:hanged:
The smiley face should be eviler looking...
With a moustache too...
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-07-2006, 00:57
In the end has Saddams inhumanity to individual men been a humane boon to all of mankind?
barbed tongue cutting my own cheek
Um No m8. That is what we call genocide, not culling.
Papewaio
11-07-2006, 01:03
Did you read the quote you posted?
Goofball
11-07-2006, 01:30
I don't Care, I really don't. He Derserved to Die. Sticking him in Jail would be a waste of time. Having him died a old man? Really makes me sick to read some of you people's posts about letting him live, really does :no:
Take it down a few notches there, cowboy. Saddam is going to be killed; you're getting your vengeance. Your world should be a happy little place right now. What do you care if a few of us misguided hippies and Christians don't want to see more death? Don't make yourself sick over it.
BTW, I find ginger ale always helps when I'm feeling nauseous...
:yes:
Actually for Saddam the death pently does not equate to justice. The man was a despot who had absolute control over his population. The fitting punishment for such a man would be to have him locked up for the rest of his life in a little cage with him having to answer and immediately obey each individual that provides him a task to accomplish. And allow some of the people to come up with some really hard tasks that individuals normally don't like doing. Which for a former despot will be even harder.
If the new government of Iraq can make a mockery of the man - his influence will decrease significantly.
“Someone Who Killed Thousands Of People Should Have Life?” Does it apply for every body?:beam:
“And it took the most powerful nation in the world two separate illegal invasions to bring our great man down. And even then, facing the full might of the US Armed Forces, he was able to defy them for a time. And when they finally got their hands on him, they orchestrated a trial and executed him, because they were afraid of him”. Exactly, he will become the flag for the next terrorist generation, the Arab “Che”, the Robin Hood of the Mesopotamia. How long it will take, I don’t know, but if you see than for some Hitler and Stalin are still heroes…:inquisitive:
Um No m8. That is what we call genocide, not culling.
Ah, so killing one man is okay, but killing a thousand is not?
Where does the line of acceptable find itself? Two lives? Ten? A hundred? Where does it suddenly stop being acceptable to execute people, and why is that line there? Why such an arbitrary line, why not place it a bit more forward, so that more justice can be done? And why stop there, why not even more forward?
It is a very slippery slope you are walking on.
“Someone Who Killed Thousands Of People Should Have Life?” Does it apply for every body?:beam:
“And it took the most powerful nation in the world two separate illegal invasions to bring our great man down. And even then, facing the full might of the US Armed Forces, he was able to defy them for a time. And when they finally got their hands on him, they orchestrated a trial and executed him, because they were afraid of him”. Exactly, he will become the flag for the next terrorist generation, the Arab “Che”, the Robin Hood of the Mesopotamia. How long it will take, I don’t know, but if you see than for some Hitler and Stalin are still heroes…:inquisitive:
I wonder what revisionist came up with the bolded text in this quote. Especially the part about 2 seperate illegal invasions. It seems someone has distorted the truth a great deal with those words......
Er, that was exactly the point.
yesdachi
11-07-2006, 16:43
I find it ironic that people that believe themselves to have the greatest appreciation for freedom in their own lives also have such disregard for life and a taste for vengeance. Justice, go ahead. Vengeance, you convince me not.
Like I said, wondrous primitive instincts we have here.
What's the point of suffering, or vengeance, or death? To quench your inner bloodthirst; to make your armchair justice so much more appealing; to pretend the world is going to be truly better off as a broken man -- responsible as he was of countless crimes -- is killed off and reduced to mere symbolism?
So, dying an old broken man in prison isn’t suffering, vengeance and eventually death?
I’m a sucker for closure and would just as soon see him taken care of permanently. The vision of him every few years as the news checks up on him is a little too much IMO (and to see hear about his book deal, movie script, etc). Kind of like how we get to see Charlie Manson every 7 when he is up for parole.
And why deny our primitive instincts in this case when we embrace them in others? We are who we are.
Not that my opinion matters to the powers that be, but I say let him swing so we can close the door on the topic forever.
“I wonder what revisionist came up with the bolded text in this quote. Especially the part about 2 seperate illegal invasions. It seems someone has distorted the truth a great deal with those words......”: Er, I think there is a misunderstanding here and it is my fault. The first sentence refers to a guy who didn’t see why Saddam should life and my answer was quite ironic when I thought about some useful battles where thousand of soldiers died with no reasons or purpose (Nivel, Mangin, Franchet d’Esperay, for the French). The second sentence was about how the death of Saddam will be used as martyr, later.:shame:
“I wonder what revisionist came up with the bolded text in this quote. Especially the part about 2 seperate illegal invasions. It seems someone has distorted the truth a great deal with those words......”: Er, I think there is a misunderstanding here and it is my fault. The first sentence refers to a guy who didn’t see why Saddam should life and my answer was quite ironic when I thought about some useful battles where thousand of soldiers died with no reasons or purpose (Nivel, Mangin, Franchet d’Esperay, for the French). The second sentence was about how the death of Saddam will be used as martyr, later.:shame:
Sounds good. The first part I had a major problem with since it is a gross distortion of the truth, but I knew it was not you that stated that. I just wondered where it came from.
The second part - I sort of agree with you. Executing Saddam makes him a martyr, it would be better for the new Iraqi government to make him a pirrah (SP) without executing him.
GreatEmperor
11-07-2006, 21:08
Ah, so killing one man is okay, but killing a thousand is not?
Where does the line of acceptable find itself? Two lives? Ten? A hundred? Where does it suddenly stop being acceptable to execute people, and why is that line there? Why such an arbitrary line, why not place it a bit more forward, so that more justice can be done? And why stop there, why not even more forward?
It is a very slippery slope you are walking on.
I agree with you there will be difficulties with placing the line.
but don't you think there's a huge difference between one man and THOUSANDS?
There will be no need of placing a line here since there are thousands of people killed. Not a few. For me.. I think the death penalty is too light for him.. the word beast would be a compliment for him..
This men deserves the worst penalty there is.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-07-2006, 21:23
I have often heard people argue that we should not "make them a martyr."
Why?
Could someone cite for me a few examples of where someone's "martyrdom" generated a significantly different result in some conflict?
Che' Guevera -- executed in Bolivia after a string of defeats. No pro-soviet revolutions succeeded as a result of his example.
John Brown -- executed following the raid on Harper's Ferry. No slave rebellion erupted. Abolitionists did not leap forward to destroy the South. Ending slavery did not become an objective of the Union until after 1863 and even that measure was, initially, more of an expediency.
By contrast, the Shah of Iran chose not to kill Khomeni and the European powers chose not to kill Napoleon Bonaparte so as not to create a "martyr" and then these exiles returned and kicked their political opponents out (btw, on the next try, someone made sure Napoleon was poisoned).
I don't favor the death penalty, but I've alwasy been skeptical of this "martyr" argument.
I have often heard people argue that we should not "make them a martyr."
Why?
The why is because some believe that the current Iraqi government is nothing other then a puppet government of the United States and that the trail was nothing other then a sham.
Could someone cite for me a few examples of where someone's "martyrdom" generated a significantly different result in some conflict?
At work so I can't provide research material for this one. The Islamic Revolution gained significant ground from past martyr's of the Shah's.
“I don't favour the death penalty, but I've always been sceptical of this "martyr" argument”: And what if the Romans would have sentence Christ to ASBO, or community work?
“Could someone cite for me a few examples of where someone's "martyrdom" generated a significantly different result in some conflict?” It is tough question, but yes it worked: The Thermopiles, Stalingrad, Valmy… When the mystic aspect takes off, it can prologue a battle, Dien Bien Phu for the French in Viet Nam. This aspect can’t be deny, and the “Martyrs” are part of the building of this spirit.
Joan of Arc was more efficient as a martyr than as warrior… In April, the Foreign Legion celebrates Camerone where 40 legionnaires choose to die to protect a convoy. This fact, this battle, still give to the Foreign Legion this cachet, which participates in what makes the Legion an elite unit.
More seriously, a martyr won’t win a battle. But you can’t deny that Che Guavara is more efficient in recruiting now than he was in Bolivia. It is this capacity to create a myth and then to recruit which is the use of a martyr. John Brown’s body is still marching and it is difficult to evaluate how Americans were convinced by his cause, but his death probably awake some. How many is difficult to evaluate, but the Armies of the Union marched on.
If you tie the knot just right, it can take the hanger 30 minutes to die. I seem to recall a jewish executioner who was killing a group of nazis who all did the sig heil (sp) salute right before they were hanged, and this guy was so pissed he made them suffer. I just remember hearing that in a history class, don't remember any of the names as I was probably hungover
Wel is isn't supposed to go like that and 30minutes versus a lifetime, I wander.
I agree with you there will be difficulties with placing the line.
but don't you think there's a huge difference between one man and THOUSANDS?
There will be no need of placing a line here since there are thousands of people killed. Not a few. For me.. I think the death penalty is too light for him.. the word beast would be a compliment for him..
This men deserves the worst penalty there is.
And why is there a difference between ruthlessly killing one man or a thousand?
And where is that point? Where is that difference? How many lives before it becomes unacceptable? Why maintain the line at that point? After all, execution is justice, is it not? So, how far does that line of acceptability go?
Answer me this, and you will get no more comments from me about this.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-07-2006, 23:29
Ah, so killing one man is okay, but killing a thousand is not?
Where does the line of acceptable find itself? Two lives? Ten? A hundred? Where does it suddenly stop being acceptable to execute people, and why is that line there? Why such an arbitrary line, why not place it a bit more forward, so that more justice can be done? And why stop there, why not even more forward?
It is a very slippery slope you are walking on.
Killing Thousands of people is ok, but killing the man who ordered the massarces are not? Wow, Real Smart people :no:
Papewaio
11-07-2006, 23:34
Actually very smart. A long prison sentence and dying of old age in prison, but getting tv to see how your opponents and their children prosper... perfect modern revenge.
Actually very smart. A long prison sentence and dying of old age in prison, but getting tv to see how your opponents and their children prosper... perfect modern revenge.
Irak prosper? He's got to get quite old then, no?
Don Corleone
11-08-2006, 20:45
Sounds good. The first part I had a major problem with since it is a gross distortion of the truth, but I knew it was not you that stated that. I just wondered where it came from.
The second part - I sort of agree with you. Executing Saddam makes him a martyr, it would be better for the new Iraqi government to make him a pirrah (SP) without executing him.
It came from me. I don't believe that bogus crap, but I'm just telling you what the party line among hot-blooded Sunni Muslims will be if Saddam gets executed.
I do not believe in executing Saddam (or anyone for that matter). I do not believe that the US conducted two "illegal" invasions, or that Saddam held off the combined might of the US forces. I'm just trying to say how it will be portrayed.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-08-2006, 23:12
Just seeing him in Jail for Life isn't right. Making him suffer before he gets excuted is far more better.
Kill him and kill him quick! Get him out of the world before he can do more destruction! Don't toy, don't piss people off, just put the murderer/rapist/terrorist/torturer to death!
AntiochusIII
11-08-2006, 23:47
So, dying an old broken man in prison isn’t suffering, vengeance and eventually death?Ah, but what is that prison's purpose?
To remove him from society; however, this call for death penalty specific to this thread is simple bloodlust, in which the last couple posts demonstrates.
We are safe from afar; we are safe to judge him and be amused at his hanging corpse. We are safe to be outraged and angry and call him names while most of us did not even suffer from it -- a few may have family members who died fighting against him, a few might fought against him themselves, a few suffered, directly or indirectly, under his crimes; but most of us simply sit in front of our computers and express satisfaction at yet another death.
Mind you, I have not truly expressed opinion at this particular case. In my opinion, the Iraqis, as a sovereign nation, and as a group of people who directly suffers from his crimes, has, at least theoretically, agreed to the execution of one of their own. As much as I despise the death penalty in all usages and forms, I do not believe I have much ground to say against such a decision when the country I resides in still refuses to give up the very same practice, and appears to embrace even more bloodlust at the same time.
This sentence and the whole "trial" were completely illegitimate and bogus. The first judge might have tried to give Saddam a bit of a fair trial, so the puppet government removes him and puts in a puppet judge. :idea2:
I notice how the corrupt media always report "Under Iraq law, there is a the death penalty by hanging".
Actually, under "Iraq law" there was no grounds to charge Saddam with anything because there are provisions in Iraq's Constitution that said the President of Iraq can't even be charged for that kind of stuff.
Media are a bunch of a incompetent hypocrites.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-09-2006, 04:19
Actually, under "Iraq law" there was no grounds to charge Saddam with anything because there are provisions in Iraq's Constitution that said the President of Iraq can't even be charged for that kind of stuff.
While in power, Saddam WAS Iraqi law. Of course he couldn't contravene it. However, he did lose the war. The winners then get to decide the loser's fate. An old story.
Daes d'mar, the game of kings, power politics....label it what you will, the stakes are pretty high and "all in" has a pretty total meaning.
yesdachi
11-09-2006, 20:01
Ah, but what is that prison's purpose?
To remove him from society; however, this call for death penalty specific to this thread is simple bloodlust, in which the last couple posts demonstrates.
Prison is not a removal from society, it is only a separator.
To some people I believe it is bloodlust, but for me (his crimes are enough for me but I am willing to capitol punish more often than most) it is more about moving on. I think it is possible but it will be more difficult with Saddam commenting (letters, interviews, phone conversations, etc.) on current events via the media.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.