Are we becoming as bad as those we oppose?

In one of the previous "Saddam is dead threads" a tangent topic emerged, and I have quoted it below:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This is absolutely sickening that they will be murdering Saddam.

He was not given a trial. He was merely given a farce masquerading as a trial in order to pretend that murdering him via hanging will not be murder.

---

No he wasn't. You know why? He wasn't giving a "fair trial" to the 100 or so Shiites he killed and gassed. Why do you even give these people trials? We know he's guilty, hang the guy. I think the execution method is highly innapropriate. Let's kill him by the way he's lived: by gas or gun.

---

I responded with:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Honestly, are you kidding me? "Why do we even give these people trials?"

Are you seriously suggesting that death penalties (or any penalties, for that matter) should be able to be handed out without trial?

Give your head a shake...

---

and was met with:

Quote:

---

Do you think there's even the remotest possibility that Saddam was innocent? That it was all just a big misunderstanding?

---

and:

Quote:

---

You're right. He never did anything. He never killed those Shiites or Kurds. He never invaded Kuwait. His regime never fell. Those were all propaganda lies. Really the whole witch thing made no sense. You don't recognize a crazy totalarian who kills by his looks, but by his actions.


YOU should be giving your head a shake.

---

Unfortunately, the thread was closed before any further discussion could take place. My point was not that I thought Saddam was innocent, but that passing any sentence over anybody should only be done after a fair trial, no matter how strongly we believe in that person's guilt.

So now I ask:

Do people really believe that we should be able to dispense "justice" without due process of law if we feel the evidence against the individual is overwhelming and undoubted?

Do I think that it should be the case, or to discuss whether it is currently bieng undertaken?

~:smoking:

Goof, we all new what the end result was going to be. Everyone in the courtroom knew he was guilty. There was plenty of evidence to support the verdict. Could the trial have been run better? Yes but if you think he wasnt given a fair trial you live in lala land. Everyone deserves to be tried with a jury even Saddam. I would also point out it was Iraqi courts and not American ones that tried him so we couldnt do much.

Generally I would say no, but here's a counter question. Nurremburg resulted in Speer walking away with his life while a Nazi radio broadcaster, who's name I forget, was executed. Is that Justice.

I think there's always a danger of justice being confused with due process, the two are never mutually inclusive.

Its kind of funny that the Iraqi justice system seems to work better than the that of the Hague. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFTS

Everyone in the courtroom knew he was guilty. There was plenty of evidence to support the verdict. Could the trial have been run better?

---

If things are so straight forward then there is no excuse for the lack of a professional trial.

Quote:

---

I would also point out it was Iraqi courts and not American ones that tried him so we couldnt do much.

---

So much is clear - however, some of the comments imply that some poeple wouldn't have cared about a proper trial anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Its kind of funny that the Iraqi justice system seems to work better than the that of the Hague. :laugh4:

---

Some 'justice' the Iraqi process brought...

Particularly the latest footage of the execution gives the impression of yet another aspect of sectarian retribution in Iraq, with this time the Shia side on top.

Unlike Milosevich(sp), a leader with a well documented record of ethnic cleansing was brought to trial and hanged.

Not perfect, but far better than the "civilized" soapbox that Milosevich's trial became.

And some wonder why America will never have her troops tried in that court. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Do people really believe that we should be able to dispense "justice" without due process of law if we feel the evidence against the individual is overwhelming and undoubted?

---

No, certainly not. Not but in the most extreme of circumstances.

So much for the obvious. More importantly, was this trial a farce masquerading as a trial as you suggest? We should not make the mistake of deeming a trial whose outcome is certain not a fair trial for that reason alone.

Politically, there was a lot of hypocracy surrounding this trial. And juridically, it was imprudently rash, unprofessional, from the first hearings all the way to the execution.

It was poor show, but not the worst I've seen. It left a bad taste in my mouth, but that's all to be honest. It doesn't conflict with my sense of justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Everyone deserves to be tried with a jury even Saddam.

---

Wait, this reminds me of something...

*googles*

Ah, the blessings of a keen memory:


https://img68.imageshack.us/img68/89...8093027jb4.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike

I would also point out it was Iraqi courts and not American ones that tried him so we couldnt do much.

---

Mwah, that's debatable. I think the judges couldn't even tie their shoelaces without American permission.

From what I witnessed yesterday on The News Hour (PBS), the execution seemed to have been carried out like some old West lynching. Saddam my not have deserved any form of dignity for his crimes, but what I witnessed was a travesty - a reinforcement for the continuation of sectarian violence. Saddam seemed to have more compossure than those witnessing his demise. What a buncha thugs, and chanting "Moqtada al-Sadr"? What was that all about? How in the world did we allow the Iraqi government to botch even the most simple task of hanging a tyrant.

I almost felt pity for Saddam. Maybe just a tinge.

But, are we becoming as bad? At times we are, but the pendalum has historically swung back to a more liberating and liberal form of conduct by those that govern. Americans tend to go along with the hype of those that wish to control our democracy, but sooner than later they wake up to the fact of what the hype was (is) really about. We witnessed that in our recent elections. Those that would subvert our laws and judicial system find themselves facing them with a wrath they never suspected, and thought they could control. e.g. McCarthy, Nixon, .......

Well, if executions w/o jury are just peachy, then there's reason to wonder why Saddam was being killed in the first place.:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

My point was not that I thought Saddam was innocent, but that passing any sentence over anybody should only be done after a fair trial, no matter how strongly we believe in that person's guilt.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

I think the execution method is highly innapropriate. Let's kill him by the way he's lived: by gas or gun.

---

Anecdote: in one of his raves Saddam demanded that if he would be given the death penalty, he'd be killed by a firing squad. He wanted to go like a military man and not like a common criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Unlike Milosevich(sp), a leader with a well documented record of ethnic cleansing was brought to trial and hanged.

Not perfect, but far better than the "civilized" soapbox that Milosevich's trial became.

And some wonder why America will never have her troops tried in that court. :shame:

---

The ICC, based on the Rome statute, is distinct from the Yugoslavia tribunal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Generally I would say no, but here's a counter question. Nurremburg resulted in Speer walking away with his life while a Nazi radio broadcaster, who's name I forget, was executed. Is that Justice.

I think there's always a danger of justice being confused with due process, the two are never mutually inclusive.

---

Wasn't the radio guy acquited? And Speer was imprisoned, a death penalty would have been disproportionate because IIRC he wasn't shown to have had any hand in any real atrocities.

Quote:

---

Are we becoming as bad as those we oppose?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

More importantly, was this trial a farce masquerading as a trial as you suggest? We should not make the mistake of deeming a trial whose outcome is certain not a fair trial for that reason alone.

---

There's a good point. Could the trial have gone better? Of course- but it's worth noting that a large portion of the unprofessionalism came from the defense team that seemed more interested in obstructing the trial than seeing it run properly.

Of course, the outcome was a forgone conclusion since, to quote an Iraqi ""It's as easy to find mass graves in Iraq as it once was to find oil". The trial was a formality and under the circumstances, a fairly well run one. The executioners certainly could've behaved more professionally, but since it's a safe bet that many of them knew people who were murdered/raped/maimed/tortured/disfigured by Saddam it's at least understandable (though still unfortunate) that they lost their composure. Imagine having the husband of a woman who was raped and murdered as the executioner of her killer. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Wasn't the radio guy acquited? And Speer was imprisoned, a death penalty would have been disproportionate because IIRC he wasn't shown to have had any hand in any real atrocities.

---

If I recall correctly they did hang Blokzeil (wasn't he Jewish?) if that's the radio guy you all mean, and they would have needless to say hanged Goebbels - but well, we all know how he died. And yes, Speer and his lawyer played it well, in my opinion (and after reading two of his books) I'd say he was simply to high up not to have known - but indeed, they didn't manage to prove that.

Anyway, sorry for the thread hijack.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Unlike Milosevich(sp), a leader with a well documented record of ethnic cleansing was brought to trial and hanged.

Not perfect, but far better than the "civilized" soapbox that Milosevich's trial became.

And some wonder why America will never have her troops tried in that court. :shame:

---

PanzerJager: "Granddad, what did YOU do in the war?"

Grandfather died fighting the bolshevik menace....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Wait, this reminds me of something...

*googles*

Ah, the blessings of a keen memory:


https://img68.imageshack.us/img68/89...8093027jb4.jpg





Mwah, that's debatable. I think the judges couldn't even tie their shoelaces without American permission.

---

You make my point you old francophile. Despite everyone knoewing he was guilty and the mountian of evidence he still deserves a trial by his peers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Grandfather died fighting the bolshevik menace....

---

The one the British and Americans were allied with against the despicable Nazis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch_guy

If I recall correctly they did hang Blokzeil (wasn't he Jewish?) if that's the radio guy you all mean, and they would have needless to say hanged Goebbels - but well, we all know how he died. And yes, Speer and his lawyer played it well, in my opinion (and after reading two of his books) I'd say he was simply to high up not to have known - but indeed, they didn't manage to prove that.

Anyway, sorry for the thread hijack.

:balloon2:

---

Yes, that's the guy. They needed someone to try on the propoganda side, all the top ones were dead so they picked out some poor sod doing his job. If you analyse those trials you'd probably find just as much wrong with them.

Saddam was guilty and he was executed, he died well under the circumstances. I'm sorry but that leaves very little bad taste in my mouth really. Although I am beggining to think that removing him was actually wrong for the Iraqi people. They're certainly worse off and the whole situation reminds me of a Greek proverb, which paraphrased is, "Freedom can only be won, not granted."

History has shown that the only democracies that survive are those formed internally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Yes, that's the guy. They needed someone to try on the propoganda side, all the top ones were dead so they picked out some poor sod doing his job. If you analyse those trials you'd probably find just as much wrong with them.

---

Well, the Dutch goverment did indeed wish to set an example and he was actually quite a famous person back then. And from what I know, even though his trial was conducted quite fast, the radio messages he broadcasted were more than enough to convict him of collaboration / treason and enough to warrant the death penalty according to the law (back then). So, I find the comparison between this trial and Saddam's to be a bit far fetched...

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The one the British and Americans were allied with against the despicable Nazis?

---

The one that the British and Americans tried to destroy, failed, then allied with because they couldnt handle the amazingly powerful Germany, then immediately turned against after it did all the hard work.

You know, the one Britain and America should have helped Germany fight against. :yes:

Hehe, this is fun. Sorry Goof... :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The one that the British and Americans tried to destroy, failed, then allied with because they couldnt handle the amazingly powerful Germany, then immediately turned against after it did all the hard work.

You know, the one Britain and America should have helped Germany fight against. :yes:

Hehe, this is fun. Sorry Goof... :shame:

---

That clears it up then. Good to know your family was so clean as to allow you free rein to gloat over the execution of a criminal. Stone, first throw, without sin and all that.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ion/index.html
From this CNN report, it seems like the US wanted a 2 week delay, but al-Maliki pushed ahead with it. Talabani sort of distanced himself from the whole affair, adding to the impression that this was pure Shiite revenge, not a proper execution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CNN

At one point, according to Sami al-Askari, an aide to al-Maliki, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad suggested a delay of two weeks. But al-Maliki and his aides rejected that, citing security concerns and rumors of possible violence swirling around the capital.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi official said, the Americans asked for written documentation to make sure the execution was legal under the Iraqi constitution.

There was one final hurdle: Would President Jalal Talabani, a Sunni Kurd who opposes the death penalty, object to the execution?

A phone call later Friday between al-Maliki and the president ended with a decision that Talabani's signature was not needed.

No explanation for the decision was given.

---

Hopefully more leaks out on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

That clears it up then. Good to know your family was so clean as to allow you free rein to gloat over the execution of a criminal. Stone, first throw, without sin and all that.

---

There is no shame in the actions of my family members during either World War, so my gloating shall continue unincumbered. :yes:

Are you so confident that your own relatives were not RAF fire bombers, or in those wonderful SAS death squads that dealt with those Germans not high enough up in rank to deserve a show trial, to be lobbing such verbal grenades? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

There is no shame in the actions of my family members during either World War, so my gloating shall continue unincumbered.

---

Yes fighting for a Nazi dictatorship that murdered millions is really something to gloat about:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes... :dizzy2:

---

:no:

Order, please gentlemen. And back to topic.

"we study history so we dont repeat it" Iv heard that for a while, now let me tell you a story. :book:

In the roman republic when Marius and Sulla still alive and hated enemies, there was a demagague; a person who tried to woo and control the masses for political control, his name was Sestorsius (or was that the spanish general? someone could check me). He tried to control a mob to take over the roman senate, but failed miserably (The mob didnt respond the way he thought...). Anyway, he and 12 of his fellow conspirators were locked in the senate house since it had no windows, and rome had no real prison. Well, while these rebels were alive the "mob" was starting riots and inciting violence, so Sulla sent a few men to the senate roof and they chucked tiles at the rebels until they died.

Point is, should they have killed them without a fair trial? Everyone knew they were guilty, there were thousands of witnesses, and while they were alive they were a pain in the arse.

Maybe I just feel like telling a good story....nothing is wrong with a good story right?