Saddam Hussein's execution: V

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Please... a games forum :yes:

---

:no:

I can't believe how much fanfare this bloody thing has created, even at the org.

Having thus rudely intruded upon this thread and imply that some of its participators are acting like a bunch of big idiots (no names, nope), I shall therefore retreat and leave to you my worthless non-contribution with a little note that I'm gonna stay away and far from it all 'til the dead man's corpse is worm food no longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

I can't believe how much fanfare this bloody thing has created, even at the org.

Having thus rudely intruded upon this thread and imply that some of its participators are acting like a bunch of big idiots (no names, nope), I shall therefore retreat and leave to you my worthless non-contribution with a little note that I'm gonna stay away and far from it all 'til the dead man's corpse is worm food no longer.

---

Why post, isn't that spam :beam:?

This illegal "execution" was one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen.

I saw footage on the news showing Saddam's mutilated corpse with his head twisted in such a perverse way that could not have been achieved without his neck being broken. Extremely sick.

This "execution" is definitely on par with any of the terrorists' murder films to have come out. ~:shock:

Navaros, tell me, are mass graves ok to see? Aren't Saddam's Soliders shooting people in the back of the head sick? What comes around goes around. If I was Saddam, I would take my punishment, no matter how sick it would be, because if I did that, I would derserve that punishment. you may disagree of course,not stoping you guys, but that what I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

Navaros, tell me, are mass graves ok to see? Aren't Saddam's Soliders shooting people in the back of the head sick? What comes around goes around. If I was Saddam, I would take my punishment, no matter how sick it would be, because if I did that, I would derserve that punishment. you may disagree of course,not stoping you guys, but that what I think.

---

Agreed.

But then again, gassing people and shooting them in the head is way better than a hanging :thumbsdown:

If one is so outraged/sickened/disgusted by such a video, why watch it? My tv has a channel selector and an off switch; I refuse to watch this. I've seen enough dead bodies lately, and don't need to see any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

If one is so outraged/sickened/disgusted by such a video, why watch it? My tv has a channel selector and an off switch; I refuse to watch this. I've seen enough dead bodies lately, and don't need to see any more.

---

That's what I never get.

"OMG THEY KILLED HIM! OH I GOT TO PROTEST AFTER I WATCH IT AGAIN!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

This illegal "execution" was one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen.

I saw footage on the news showing Saddam's mutilated corpse with his head twisted in such a perverse way that could not have been achieved without his neck being broken. Extremely sick.

This "execution" is definitely on par with any of the terrorists' murder films to have come out. ~:shock:

---

Actually, I believe that a clean neck break is the preferred result of a hanging. Otherwise the person being executed suffers an even more prolonged and painful death from slow stragulation. I haven't seen the vid, but hope that it was relatively quick for him.

Though I oppose the death penalty, I am surprised at your characterization of this execution as illegal. Execution has always been considered to be among the powers reserved to a polis.

Sadly, you are correct in citing a degree of parallel with the murder films authored by terrorists. These snippets of film have become part of the "hearts and minds" battle that comprises one element of this struggle.

Even more sadly, there is a broad "market" for such videos -- for the same reason that traffic jams result from people rubbernecking at an accident scene. Not the nicest aspect of human curiosity.

Navaros is right in that the execution was eerily similar to a cheap, grainy, terrorist video.

They should have done it a little more professionally - or a lot more. Its done now, though. :shrug:

I think the main sticking point here is a matter of priorities. So a question. What is worse dying or living a life that is useless and impotent.

That said I hope we can all agree that all humans have an intrinsic value no matter what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

This illegal "execution" was one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen.

I saw footage on the news showing Saddam's mutilated corpse with his head twisted in such a perverse way that could not have been achieved without his neck being broken. Extremely sick.

This "execution" is definitely on par with any of the terrorists' murder films to have come out. ~:shock:

---

Well that's what a hanging does, breaks your neck and makes you lose control of your bodily functions. Agree about the movie, especially with sounds it's more like Nick Berg having his head cut of. They could have done it with more dignity, now they allowed him to go like a martyr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

If one is so outraged/sickened/disgusted by such a video, why watch it? My tv has a channel selector and an off switch; I refuse to watch this. I've seen enough dead bodies lately, and don't need to see any more.

---

Well, the station I was watching it on didn't give a warning beforehand or say anything even remotely like: "We are about to show you the mutilated corpse of Saddam with his head twisted in such a sickeningly perverse way that could only ever be achieved with a broken neck."

Rather, they just showed it.

In any case refusing to see it would not lessen the reality that what was done to Saddam was a crime against humanity that should never have happened.

Quote:

---

Navaros, tell me, are mass graves ok to see? Aren't Saddam's Soliders shooting people in the back of the head sick? What comes around goes around. If I was Saddam, I would take my punishment, no matter how sick it would be, because if I did that, I would derserve that punishment. you may disagree of course,not stoping you guys, but that what I think

---

I'm no Saddam expert, but from the all the reports I've seen that mention Saddam's alleged crimes, he only ever killed people in self defense because they tried to kill him first. The secret service and FBI and CIA does the same thing to the people who try to kill USA's President.

Quote:

---

Though I oppose the death penalty, I am surprised at your characterization of this execution as illegal. Execution has always been considered to be among the powers reserved to a polis

---

There are/were laws in Iraq's constitution that the President of Iraq can do anything that Saddam did and not be charged for it. Even if the puppet government of Iraq claims to have removed the laws, the "new laws" cannot be retroactively applied to anything Saddam did while he was President of Iraq. Therefore the execution was illegal by any reasonable stretch. Not to mention the farce instead of a trial he got or the illegal invasion of Iraq in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

I'm no Saddam expert, but from the all the reports I've seen that mention Saddam's alleged crimes, he only ever killed people in self defense because they tried to kill him first. The secret service and FBI and CIA does the same thing to the people who try to kill USA's President.

---

You need to read more widely. Saddam was a brutal murderer and killed many thousands of innocents. This is not seriously in doubt from any reputable source. Since you are a supporter of the Iranian regime, I would imagine you would disapprove of Saddam's vicious and unwarranted attack on that country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

There are/were laws in Iraq's constitution that the President of Iraq can do anything that Saddam did and not be charged for it. Even if the puppet government of Iraq claims to have removed the laws, the "new laws" cannot be retroactively applied to anything Saddam did while he was President of Iraq. Therefore the execution was illegal by any reasonable stretch. Not to mention the farce instead of a trial he got or the illegal invasion of Iraq in the first place.

---

This contention was in fact the main reason for a proper trial. Were Saddam's actions, however brutal, given legality because he was head of state? As you imply, many other leaders have taken decisions that have led to death and suffering, yet are not charged. Apart from the "winner sets the rules" argument, the answer to this is that we have a concept of international law, which seeks to hold leaders to a higher moral account. This has increasingly challenged the notion of blanket immunity for state leaders.

It is also why Saddam should have faced trial on wider charges than he did, for the charge he was sentenced on would almost certainly have failed in a fair court because of the "valid actions of head of state" argument. As others have noted, charges brought under international law would have given him a chance to reveal what arrangements he had with his previous "friends" which was deemed undesireable.

Therein lies the farce associated with this trial, not its outcome.

It is perhaps ironic in the light of your post, that in fact the President of Iraq, Jalal Talebani is opposed to the death penalty and was sidelined when he vacillated over the signing of the death warrant. Under Iraqi law, the president's refusal to sign would not have stopped the execution, but it would have been necessary to delay it for the full thirty days after appeal before his permission was no longer required. By rushing the execution without Talebani's signature, the government broke their own constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It is perhaps ironic in the light of your post, that in fact the President of Iraq, Jalal Talebani is opposed to the death penalty and was sidelined when he vacillated over the signing of the death warrant. Under Iraqi law, the president's refusal to sign would not have stopped the execution, but it would have been necessary to delay it for the full thirty days after appeal before his permission was no longer required. By rushing the execution without Talebani's signature, the government broke their own constitution.

---

Which is why authorities in the USA urged the delay of the execution by Iraq, so as not to contravene the Iraqi Constitution.

However, if Navaros is correct as to the existence of laws effectively rendering Saddam "above the law" in his own state, then Iraq may have been on poor legal ground. This would have made the Hague the better venue, as the whole point of that court is the "higher standards" argument you make.

Navaros, be careful when arguing legalities. The US-led invasion of Iraq was a "legal" response to Saddam's refusal to adhere to the full text of aggreements made in ending the Kuwait incursion. In strict legal terms, by failing to adhere to the agreements, Saddam returned the USA to a legal and previously authorized use of force against his regime. Yes, the UN refused to support the action, Yes, the majority of world governments were opposed to such an action, and Yes, the return to force for removing Saddam guaranteed Iraqi civilian deaths that many think need not have occurred. All points of consideration, but irrelevant in "strictly" legal terms.

You can't argue strict legalism on one hand without accepting the strict legalism on the other -- poor argument strategy.

Official arrested over Saddam video

Quote:

---

The person believed to have recorded Saddam Hussein's execution on a mobile phone has been arrested.


An adviser to Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, did not identify the person. But he said it was "an official who supervised the execution" and who is "now under investigation".

---

At first it seems to point to the National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubayi. But it might as well be National Assembly member Sami al-Askari (a good chum of Nouri al-Maliki), who was also present.

A little George Orwell to put things in perspective:

Properly speaking, there is no such thing as revenge. Revenge is an act which you want to commit when you are powerless and because you are powerless: as soon as the sense of impotence is removed, the desire evaporates also.

Who would not have jumped for joy, in 1940, at the thought of seeing S.S. officers kicked and humiliated? But when the thing becomes possible, it is merely pathetic and disgusting. It is said that when Mussolini's corpse was exhibited in public, an old woman drew a revolver and fired five shots into it, exclaiming, "Those are for my five sons!" It is the kind of story that the newspapers make up, but it might be true. I wonder how much satisfaction she got out of those five shots, which, doubtless, she had dreamed years earlier of firing. The condition of her being able to get near enough to Mussolini to shoot at him was that he should be a corpse.

Good quote Lemur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A little George Orwell to put things in perspective:

Properly speaking, there is no such thing as revenge. Revenge is an act which you want to commit when you are powerless and because you are powerless: as soon as the sense of impotence is removed, the desire evaporates also.

Who would not have jumped for joy, in 1940, at the thought of seeing S.S. officers kicked and humiliated? But when the thing becomes possible, it is merely pathetic and disgusting. It is said that when Mussolini's corpse was exhibited in public, an old woman drew a revolver and fired five shots into it, exclaiming, "Those are for my five sons!" It is the kind of story that the newspapers make up, but it might be true. I wonder how much satisfaction she got out of those five shots, which, doubtless, she had dreamed years earlier of firing. The condition of her being able to get near enough to Mussolini to shoot at him was that he should be a corpse.

---

well said

so then this begs the question - revenge or fear - fear that if they did not kill him quickly - it left the door open for his return in the ensuing chaos to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Navaros is right in that the execution was eerily similar to a cheap, grainy, terrorist video.

They should have done it a little more professionally - or a lot more. Its done now, though. :shrug:

---

How exactly could they have done it more professionally? Do you really need to be a proffessional to execute someone?

O O I got it, they should all wear nice tuxedos and with lit candles all around the room.

Just stopped by to say that the Saddam video provided me with one of the best moments of my life. See you guys around......:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Moderator note: heavily edited by me. Glad you stopped by, Dave. ~Kukri.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Just stopped by to say that the Saddam video provided me with one of the best moments of my life. See you guys around......:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Moderator note: heavily edited by me. Glad you stopped by, Dave. ~Kukri.

---

Awwww, it was edited by Kukri. Dam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Econ21

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I want to have a go with a fourth thread, because the execution has created a strong, negative, feeling in me that I don't think has been articulated so far.

When I first realised that Saddam was likely to be executed - long ago, at the start of his trial - I had mixed feelings. I could see the Nuremburg analogy and I reviled the man. But confronting the reality has hardened my view against it. Seeing an old man with a noose around his neck, surrounded by hooded executioners, is a disturbing image. It reminds me of those awful "snuff" videos of the terrorists and their soon to be beheaded orange clothed prisoners. It invokes pity and sadness because it shows a man about to die. And it angers me because my government (the UK) has been complicit in what led up to it and because it lowers "our side" to a level perilously close to that of Saddam and the jihadi terrorists. I would like to say that we don't kill people in cold blood, that we don't torture, that we don't deprive people of liberty for years without trial. But I can't.

I am against capital punishment and in essence, the issue of capital punishment is almost all this case boils down to. But, like most red blooded people, I can momentarily waiver in my opposition to the death penalty when faced with a specific heinous crime or monstrous criminal. Yet, somehow, Saddam's case just reinforced my opposition to any executions.

This is despite my firm belief that Saddam was a gangster and a particularly murderous one. And I have no reasonable doubt that he committed the crime for which he was executed, as well as many more.

But there is just something repellant in coldly taking a helpless man's life. If in war, an enemy soldier is pointing a gun at you, I would have no hesitation in saying kill him. I am not a pacifist. But to take a man's life when there is a simple non-violent alternative (life imprisonment) just seems wrong. I know I can't persuade anyone of that view - it's axiomatic; you either share it or you do not. A life has an instrinsic value, whether it's that of an old mass murderer in a cell, or a newborn baby in Iraq. Taking it unnecessarily seems disrespectful of humanity, malign and I want to say devoid of love, to use the language probably derived my Christian upbringing.

I am generally suspicious of "slippery slope" arguments, but they do seem to apply here. Once you start killing people in cold blood, it becomes easier to contemplate launching a missile into an Al Jahazeera office because you don't like their message, taking a few captured insurgents round the back to be summarily executed or poisoning a dissident who is agitating against you. Executions seem to entail a state sponsored level of brutality that weaken our sensibilities and defenses against lethal abuses of state power.

Will there be an instrumental benefit in having taken Saddam's life? To be honest, I don't really care. That's not the point. You could make arguments either way, although it does not seem auspicious (some Iraqi Sunnis apparently viewing the execution as a declaration of war).

Maybe we can't discuss this issue in a civilised manner. Maybe the battlelines are too clearly drawn. It's too much a case of "one for our side!" and "gotcha!". American soldiers are being killed every week in Iraq and Saddam, probably wrongly, is identified as the figurehead of the killers. (If it were OBL instead of Saddam on the gallows, I might momentarily waiver again. But after this experience, I doubt it.) But let's try to discuss it without flames or cheap shots.

---

Sorry to only mention it this late into the thread, but this is actualy a brilliant post Econ. It expessses many of my feelings and doubts very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Just stopped by to say that the Saddam video provided me with one of the best moments of my life. See you guys around......:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Moderator note: heavily edited by me. Glad you stopped by, Dave. ~Kukri.

---

Dave! Good to see you. I miss your company here in the backroom.

I think I can imagine what your post must've read like before it was edited. I think we all missed out on another classic. :laugh4:

In fact, somebody should make something like a 'Dev Dave text generator'. Or maybe a 'Babeldave'. You know, you type a nuanced opinion, press enter, and then this program translates it into a classic Dave rant full of curses and obscene imagery and which automatically generates one warning point per twenty words.
Oh, the endless possibilities...:beam:

I'm in full agreement with econ21 and a few of the others. An execution like this will never solve anything. It won't miraculously make Iraq, or the world as a whole, a better place.

Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture, how actions effect the wider population instead of giving in to those that were obviously after Saddam's blood from the start, and going after one man. All the reasoning that he was bad, and he deserved it and gassed civilians is now irrelevant to the current situation in Iraq and does nothing to solve it.

Pursuing this simplistic type of "eye for an eye" justice, where a marvel comic style villain (Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc) is seen as responsible for everything, and the toppling of this "mastermind" will end the worlds problems and see his supporters evaporate is rather naive. This is precisely what causes secularism oops sectarianism, makes a state factionalise and only breeds hatred providing a recruitment pool for militants. In Israel where palestinian terrorist leaders are bombed in civilian areas, killing civilians in the process, there is not much prospect of peace. It creates martyrs, resentment and deep hatred that spans generations of people. If the revenge/retribution cycle is to be broken, something or someone has to give.

The one thing that the Ba'athists did do, which the coalition forces are failing miserably to do, was keeping the various ethnic groups within Iraq and the two main religious groups coexisting somewhat peacefully. Taking a bad regime and kicking the legs from under, then starting again from the ground up, is not the answer. This has, quite predictably caused the country to splinter. Slow controlled change to a democracy is a better way, not a military operation lead by culturally incompatible foreign invaders, seeking to "install" democracy because they believe they know better. Often those that the foreign force place in power as their puppet regime are a lot cleverer than you think. And many of these are people that have been waiting in the wings for the old regime to fall, and are just as bad as people like Saddam. Fine examples of this were the so called "northern alliance" in Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The one thing that the Ba'athists did do, which the coalition forces are failing miserably to do, was keeping the various ethnic groups within Iraq and the two main religious groups coexisting somewhat peacefully. Taking a bad regime and kicking the legs from under, then starting again from the ground up, is not the answer. This has, quite predictably caused the country to splinter. Slow controlled change to a democracy is a better way, not a military operation lead by culturally incompatible foreign invaders, seeking to "install" democracy because they believe they know better. Often those that the foreign force place in power as their puppet regime are alot cleverer than you think. Amny of these are people that have been waiting in the wings for the old regime to fall, and are just as bad as people like Saddam. Fine examples of this were the so called "northern alliance" in Afghanistan.

---

What should have been done, if we were going to invade and topple Saddam whatever the case, we should have gone in and done so cleanly (which we did). Then we should have left the civil infrastructure in place (it's never a good idea to build from scratch), placing our own people at the top of strategically important areas (the military being the foremost). Then run the place as an old-fashioned colony, with a western strikeforce handy to intimidate the population, a native force beholden solely to the occupiers (pay them well, give their close relatives jobs/hold them as hostages), and regional princes jostling to become good collaborators. That's the imperial formula that has worked throughout history, that allowed the British to hold down India with fewer than 1 soldier per 1000 population.

Unfortunately, as I've said before, America's idealistic foundations prevent them from being the kind of devious bastards that can pull these schemes off successfully. Opting for the just rather than the pragmatic, they end up making things worse for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Just stopped by to say that the Saddam video provided me with one of the best moments of my life. See you guys around......:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Moderator note: heavily edited by me. Glad you stopped by, Dave. ~Kukri.

---

All just a joke to you huh, got a point but it's poorly executed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Pursuing this simplistic type of "eye for an eye" justice, where a marvel comic style villain (Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc) is seen as responsible for everything, and the toppling of this "mastermind" will end the worlds problems and see his supporters evaporate is rather naive. This is precisely what causes secularism, makes a state factionalise and only breeds hatred providing a recruitment pool for militants.

---

Hi Caravel. Did you mean sectarianism here?

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Unfortunately, as I've said before, America's idealistic foundations prevent them from being the kind of devious bastards that can pull these schemes off successfully. Opting for the just rather than the pragmatic, they end up making things worse for everyone.

---

Quite so. We really do fall for our own ideals. That's what led our neo-cons to convince themselves that Iraq would be the liberation of France redux. We're just not practical at putting a boot on someone's neck as an occupier. We really haven't done it much, historically, or we'd have removed our Amerind aboriginals far more efficiently and our Southern Border would be the current Northern border of Columbia.

The only time we ever made the subjugate, educate, liberate model work was in the Phillipines 1899-1913. Today's media would crucify the system employed too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Hi Caravel. Did you mean sectarianism here?

:bow:

---

You know, what... I did. :laugh4:

Thanks for pointing that out. :bow: