Saddam Hussein sentenced to death

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

* With due apologies to Terry Jones and the Pythons :bow:

Better? :bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IRONxMortlock

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

* 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gertgregoor

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

thats horrible :no:

---

I know, 30 minutes is much too short. An hour would've been better.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I know, 30 minutes is much too short. An hour would've been better.

CR

---

no death at all would be better :shame:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

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....

Quote:

---

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:

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

:hanged:

The smiley face should be eviler looking...

With a moustache too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Did you read the quote you posted?