Saddam to Hang....

[mark the shoeshine boy]

As you probably have read or heard by now, Sadaam is suppose to hang within thirty days...is this wise right now ? Or should we wait ? How do you feel about the outcome of this course of action ?

mark the shoeshine boy

[Austin]

Unfortunately, this is not going to solve any of the problems of this country.

[joea527]

Even if the US disagrees with the timing. I think It is important to allow the Iraqi legal system to work independently. If our goal is to have an independent Iraqi government it is important not to interfere in their judicial system.

[MJB]

Well, difficult question. As much as I despise murderers--especially one who could hurt a child (as Saddam ordered many Kurds to their death)--I must remain opposed to taking defenseless lives.

It results in a blood thirst. Lock him away, throw away the key, cut off his outside world communication, make him disappear--but don't actively take a life outside of direct self-defense or defense of others.

I have seen deaths--I have pronounced people dead. When I first did that I was shaking for a day! Now, I no longer shake--I am bothered by it--but move on to the next task when the time comes. Something inside of me has become hardened to human death which though necessary in my line of work; still, this is probably not a good thing. Actively executing people, no matter how awful, poses the risk of hardening especially the executioner but us as a civilization. We become hardened to death--life perhaps becomes a bit less precious. I actually feel for the person who will tie and place the noose around Saddam's neck while he stands there defenseless. Will that person in 10 years all of a sudden realize what he did and be damaged by that? Do we as a society which allows the death penalty, take providence over life that is not ours to take? Do we become hardened?

Part of the trauma absorbed by soldiers and police officers, etc...is their need to use force. We need to be conscious of the psychologic toll of that. At least there, one can argue the immediacy of self-defense or defense of others. With this type of execution, this argument still exists but is much less direct.

Finally, why are we lowering ourselves to Saddam's level even to a tiny degree? Saddam was murderous. While Saddam received a trial (fair or otherwise I won't debate now), why should we, like Saddam, become executioners?

[Straight Arrow]

I agree with MJB. I believe that capitol punishment is always the wrong choice. It is never justified. No human being has the authority to deem another's life expendable. In the case of Saddam, who knows what might be learned from him some day in the future if he is permitted to live. The rest of us will gain nothing from his death but we could come to a better understanding of our world if his life is spared.

[LorenzoJunkie]

I agree with everything I've read on this thread so far, and I've gotta say I'm reassured by the gentleness and thoughtfulness of the members of this forum. I've participated in a few other threads lately with some folks who were not as gentle in their thoughts about others as one would expect among gentlemen (and ladies) so interested in the fine art of men's grooming! :smile:

[ratcheer]

As you probably have read or heard by now, Sadaam is suppose to hang within thirty days...is this wise right now ? Or should we wait ? How do you feel about the outcome of this course of action ?

mark the shoeshine boy

Hanging is too good for him. But, for better or worse, they need to get rid of him, permanently.

Tim

Sorry if I am not gentle enough.

[TimmyBoston]

What do you think about Saddam's comments about the Iraqi people respecting the US and other foreign involvement in their country?

It's hard to believe the sincerity of man like Saddam, but hopefully his words will carry some weight.

[Scorpio]

I seriously doubt he wrote those comments. He has to pay for what he has done. As a supporter of the death penalty I believe that hanging is too good for him.

on another note...looky there #600

Raf

[TimmyBoston]

I seriously doubt he wrote those comments.

I've been wondering the same thing.

[JohnP]

As you probably have read or heard by now, Sadaam is suppose to hang within thirty days...is this wise right now ? Or should we wait ? How do you feel about the outcome of this course of action ?

mark the shoeshine boy

Mark, I don't think it is really up to us, so when you say should we wait, I have to point that part out. When we turned sovereignty back over to the Iraqi government, it became up to them. If they are ever to truly succeed, then we cannot second guess them or their court system every step of the way. We already honor their requests to remove troops from certain areas when their government requests it, so if we are trying so hard to help their government take the reigns of power, why would we then pull the rug out from under them and say, you can impose justice on your citizens, except when it is Saddam, or except when we Americans (British, Canadians, Dutch, etc etc) disagree with the outcome.
The death penalty is indeed a grave and serious punishment, and should be treated as such; I agree in a perfect world there wouldn't be the death penalty, unfortunately this isn't a perfect world, and neither is Iraq. It is important, I think, that an Iraqi court convicted Saddam in a trial in which he was represented by some of the best legal representation available (a U.S. Attorney general...representation doesn't get much better than that) and sentenced to death by his countrymen. Saddam then lost an appeal, also in front of Iraqis. It is less important, I think, whether we agree or not with the principle of capital punishment, than the fact that it would seem Saddam had a fair trial, under the new court system of the new government, he was allowed an appeal, and was found wanting by Iraq, not by the United States. They are a fledgling republic, and this is a very volatile time. If we wish to have any success at all there, (and be able to leave) we cannot second guess them every step of the way. The culture in Iraq is considerably different than here. In some states in the U.S. one can murder an entire family in cold blood, and the worst punishment available to the courts is to give the murderer 3 square meals a day, a free place to sleep, TV, exercise and legal help. For the rest of his life. While you and I have to go to jobs, work, and none of the above is guaranteed. To Iraqis, and I imagine, most in the middle east, this is likely not a deterrent nor is it considered justice. Unless there is some secret behind the scenes deal with the U.S. to save Saddam and merely claim he has been executed, he will hang within 30 days. I don't know from there. We can debate this all month long (and I would quite enjoy it to be honest) but ultimately it isn't our choice, and if we are visibly seen to plead with the Iraqi government to let him go, they will be seen as merely U.S./Coalition puppets, in a time when they need to be seen as strong. It will be obvious they are to a certain degree pro-U.S. but they have to be strong on their own and able to go against what the U.S. wishes if necessary for them to gain validity. If we are to tell them "govern yourselves" then we should let them.
John P.

[rtaylor61]

The 30 day time limit is the law of their land. Hmmm, now, who has been enforcing those laws? I'm not normally a proponent of the death penalty except in extreme cases. And in this case, sell tickets, popcorn, and bring out the marching band. Hang this bastard. But only after his final meal. Which should be given about a week before the hanging. The man is responsible for untold suffering. Let them administer a bit of his own justice to him.

Randy

[SA_bmatth]

Saddam's certainly no more deserving of life than these people (http://a.abcnews.com/International/wireStory?id=2738041).

I've never looked it up myself but have heard it reported by various outlets that capital punishment is suspended when the convict reaches 70 years of age. Saddam turns 70 in April.

[JohnP]

What do you think about Saddam's comments about the Iraqi people respecting the US and other foreign involvement in their country?

It's hard to believe the sincerity of man like Saddam, but hopefully his words will carry some weight.

Tim, I don't kow if he wrote those or not, but it isn't entirely unbelievable to me. In spite of whatever horrors the man inflicted, no one becomes the leader of a nation without being smart. There are various ways I could look at that. Either 1) he didn't write them 2) he wrote them and a) is in despair and these are the submissive pleadings of a doomed man or b) hopes some secret deal with the U.S. will save him c)they are a message to his people hinting that either they fight on or to avoid more bloodshed and play along with the occupying forces as the "best bet" for future success. (I don't know which)
It's really a vague statement, and it is hard to take it at face value if indeed Saddam did write it, as if someone wrote it FOR him they certainly could have had a little more imagination, I would think.
John P.

[moses]

I agree with both Mitch and John. I rather strongly disagree with the death penalty. At the same time, it is a matter for Iraqi law. He got a pretty fair trial. There is no honest doubt of his guilt, either of the crimes charged or others just as bad. Iraqi law apparently says he should hang. So be it. I don't believe it is ultimately right, but I also don't figure I have any say in it. If that is the law, it should apply to him as much as to anyone else.

On another, more practical level, I do think it rather unfortunate that he is to be executed. I think there is some credence to theory that this execution is rather polarizing, inflamatory, and generally inclines some poeple to set Saddam up as even more of a martyr. Ulimately, it would probably be much better for everyone if he could just slip away into the obscurity of a permenant imprisonment. Or at least the decades of appeals that would accompany a US death sentence.

But imposing the rule of law, and demonstrating that no one is above it is probably more important.

-Mo

[Sue]

What will change with his death? Rid the world of a monster, yes. But, what will be the aftermath? Saddam took life from many, does that give license to take his?

Let him dream of his palaces and life of wealth and plenty in a cage or in stocks.

How many ppl would demand death if they were the one to personally execute him? If any volunteers, I doubt they have actually seen someone take their last breath.

Who among us has earmed the right of vengeance?
Sue

[JohnP]

Sue,
that is why the Iraqis are executing him. It isn't anything we are doing at all. I've met plenty over there that would string him up themselves. No doubt, losing one's entire family due to one relative falling out of favor with Saddam has made quite a few of them willing.
After all, a man's OWN wife makes him sleep on the couch, not the disgruntled neighbor across the street....
if that makes any sense, anyway...
John P.

[moses]

What will change with his death? Rid the world of a monster, yes. But, what will be the aftermath? Saddam took life from many, does that give license to take his?

Let him dream of his palaces and life of wealth and plenty in a cage or in stocks.

How many ppl would demand death if they were the one to personally execute him? If any volunteers, I doubt they have actually seen someone take their last breath.

Who among us has earmed the right of vengeance?
Sue

Personally, I agree with you Sue. Totally. Kind of like that line from Tolkien....

Although, I must say, perhaps not here, but I imagine there are plenty of people in Iraq who have personally seen death, and would still be lining up for the chance to execute him. Vengance is an awfully powerful motivator, it just has no place in the law.

-Mo

[Sue]

I am very torn on the entire issue of Saddam and our involvement in the mideast. Not a day goes by that some of our finest men and women lose their lives. A young man (Marine) I care about very much will be leaving shortly for Iraq. Will his wife raise their two little girls wihout their Daddy?

What turns ppl like Saddam into monsters? What happens to an innocent baby to turn them into an adult murdering phychopath? I'm serious; look into any infants beautiful face and have that baby grow up to be a Saddam, Hitler, Gacy or Dammer. How? What went so wrong?

If it were my familu. I don't think I would hestate to defend them by any means necessary. How do these tyrants gain so much control? Why arent they stopped early on? I know there are no concrete answers. I just don't understand.

Now here we sit a half world way debating killing Saddam and how. It's all so very sad.
Sue

[castlecraver]

I find the whole situation very sad. I believe it was yesterday that I heard the news that we've lost more Americans in this operation than died in the 9/11 attacks.

What's another life? We (the "civilized" world) talk a good talk about caring about the value of human life, but in practice, its another story. I'm strongly opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. I think its barbaric. I won't stand up for Saddam's crimes, but its just another progression in the cycle of punishing death with death, something that has been practiced in the middle east for many centuries, with truly devastatingly violent consequenses. This of all things should be an indicator that eye-for-an-eye justice leaves everybody blind.

[Sue]

John P.
Now about tha couch sleeping..........to coin a phrase from Nancy Reagan, " Just say NO ". ~ or ~ agree only if she'll carry you there and tuck you in. :001_smile
Sue

[SA_bmatth]

What gives people the right to punish a pick pocket? Or vandal? Not having done the crimes ourselves. Same with punishing murderers.

As for the victim's family having to do the snuffing themselves if capital punishment is to be carried out...google RAWA. They've video taped quite a few such families over the years. They all looked pretty giddy to me.

[James707]

What turns ppl like Saddam into monsters? What happens to an innocent baby to turn them into an adult murdering phychopath? I'm serious; look into any infants beautiful face and have that baby grow up to be a Saddam, Hitler, Gacy or Dammer. How? What went so wrong?

There is evil in this world and the people you namer are evil personafied. Evil has to be recognized for what it is...Evil. Think less of me if you like, but I would have thrown the switch on any of the above mentioned.

[joel]

What will change with his death? Rid the world of a monster, yes. But, what will be the aftermath? Saddam took life from many, does that give license to take his?

What will change with his death? Yet another example to the future Saddam's and Hitlers of the world... that tyranny, genocide, and torture will not be tolerated, and will eventually lead to your own demise.

The freedom we cherish most in life... the freedom to live - is the only freedom you can take from those who have nothing... the countless Kurds AND Iraqui's that man was responsible for killing... without more than a shirt on their back - their only freedom, life.... was taken from them.

In prison... he can still live... he can still read... and he could still enjoy life. While I am not religious - I am a realist, and if you rape, kill and torture - I feel you have EARNED the right to receive the same.




How many ppl would demand death if they were the one to personally execute him? If any volunteers, I doubt they have actually seen someone take their last breath.


I have seen many take their last breath.... some of age, some of disease, some of terrible falls/car accidents, and others of brutal acts of violence.

I would not only volunteer - but I would pay $ for the honor of taking out that scumbag..... but if I were in charge of administering his capital punishment - it surely wouldn't be hanging, and it surely would take longer than 30 days...

[Scorpio]

What will change with his death? Yet another example to the future Saddam's and Hitlers of the world... that tyranny, genocide, and torture will not be tolerated, and will eventually lead to your own demise.

The freedom we cherish most in life... the freedom to live - is the only freedom you can take from those who have nothing... the countless Kurds AND Iraqui's that man was responsible for killing... without more than a shirt on their back - their only freedom, life.... was taken from them.

In prison... he can still live... he can still read... and he could still enjoy life. While I am not religious - I am a realist, and if you rape, kill and torture - I feel you have EARNED the right to receive the same.


I have seen many take their last breath.... some of age, some of disease, some of terrible falls/car accidents, and others of brutal acts of violence.

I would not only volunteer - but I would pay $ for the honor of taking out that scumbag..... but if I were in charge of administering his capital punishment - it surely wouldn't be hanging, and it surely would take longer than 30 days...

+1

[JohnP]

...What turns ppl like Saddam into monsters? What happens to an innocent baby to turn them into an adult murdering phychopath? I'm serious; look into any infants beautiful face and have that baby grow up to be a Saddam, Hitler, Gacy or Dammer. How? What went so wrong? ...
Sue that is the question of questions. If we answer it correctly, we will have done the world and its people a great service. Prevention is infinitely better than the "clean up" is. The problem is, I tend to think the answer to the question is different for different people.
Dammer, I think, and Gacy...may have had issues from birth that were aggravated. Saddam, however, was created, and allowed to thrive in a totally negative direction.
John P.

[Xert]

Ah yes, prevention. Otherwise known as removing the log from your own eye before it spreads anymore twigs.

I have no ethical problem with the death penalty as such, although I generally find it presumptuous, inefficient, and ineffective. What bothers me in this case, however, is not the moral status of the sentence, but the fairness of the trial. To say that Iraqis are trying him is true but misleading, for a different group of Iraqis could be assembled to try him and come to the opposite conclusion. I agree wholeheartedly that the fact that he is being tried by Iraqis is of a great deal of importance, but what is also crucial is that he is tried by the right Iraqis under justly Iraqi laws - something that is very difficult to achieve under the influence of an occupying country which very strongly desires Saddam's death and has repeatedly declared him to be guilty.

[Amyn]

Optimistic view of the situation
I hope that the death of Saddam Hussein proves to be a symbolic victory for the newly established government in Iraq.

I hope it unites all those Shias, Sunnis, Kurds who have suffered from the persecution of this ruthless dictator.

A hefty price has been paid for creating a Non-Saddam government. Numerous American soldiers and thousands more Iraqis.

The reason I do not say democratic government is because it is impossible to implement a carbon copy of the democracy in the Western world in the Middle East. From a cultural and historical perspective this is simply impossible.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is grossly misinformed and does not understand the Cultures, Traditions and History of the Middle East.

A Pessimistic View
This is all nothing. There will be 3 countries when the US does leave Iraq. And the region will be in greater turmoil than it was before.

[JohnP]

Ah yes, prevention. Otherwise known as removing the log from your own eye before it spreads anymore twigs.

I have no ethical problem with the death penalty as such, although I generally find it presumptuous, inefficient, and ineffective. What bothers me in this case, however, is not the moral status of the sentence, but the fairness of the trial. To say that Iraqis are trying him is true but misleading, for a different group of Iraqis could be assembled to try him and come to the opposite conclusion. I agree wholeheartedly that the fact that he is being tried by Iraqis is of a great deal of importance, but what is also crucial is that he is tried by the right Iraqis under justly Iraqi laws - something that is very difficult to achieve under the influence of an occupying country which very strongly desires Saddam's death and has repeatedly declared him to be guilty.

I agree, almost.
First, I think just because another jury may would have found him not guilty (especially by the more lenient laws of the U.S. G.B. or Canada, for instance) does not mean it would have. The same can be said about trials here, as well. It is always possible a different jury would have found him not guilty.
In Iraq, I am not so sure that would happen, regardless. The occupying country may well be convinced of Saddam's guilt, or perhaps even that he deserves death. I do not think that is necessarily why a jury composed of Iraqi citizens would convict. My gut feeling tells me that just because an Iraqi wants Saddam to die doesn't mean necessarily he is pro-U.S. (or anti, for that matter) at all....
Your thoughts?
John P.

[joel]

Saddam to hang by Sunday. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384738/)

Let him swing....

[MJB]

I will reiterate what I have said before. I'm with Sue.

Joel, my friend, you are a gentleman. You have served your country for the good and continue to work protecting others. However "Let him swing" are not the words of a gentleman. Gentleman rise above evil and lead by setting a brighter example. They meet the expectations and go one step forward. They see the transgressions of others, they oppose them, they defend those in need, but they should never allow themselves to be lowered to the level of someone like Saddam. They should never celebrate death--regardless of how awful the person dying may be. "Let him swing" are the utterances of Saddam Hussain and the like--resistance revenge as all I see it doing is dragging us down towards Saddam's type mentality, a place I never wish to be.

Saddam was and is evil. He purposefully and selfishly denied many innocent souls their lives. I cannot and will not defend Saddam. Still, let us rise well above him. Should Saddam remain in jail--yep. Should he have limited freedoms--yep. Should he have access to the world media--nope. Should we (civilaization as a whole) kill him at a time when the threat can be removed, I say no.

[joel]

I will reiterate what I have said before. I'm with Sue.

Joel, my friend, you are a gentleman. You have served your country for the good and continue to work protecting others. However "Let him swing" are not the words of a gentleman. Gentleman rise above evil and lead by setting a brighter example. They meet the expectations and go one step forward. They see the transgressions of others, they oppose them, they defend those in need, but they should never allow themselves to be lowered to the level of someone like Saddam. They should never celebrate death--regardless of how awful the person dying may be. "Let him swing" are the utterances of Saddam Hussain and the like--resistance revenge as all I see it doing is dragging us down towards Saddam's type mentality, a place I never wish to be.

Saddam was and is evil. He purposefully and selfishly denied many innocent souls their lives. I cannot and will not defend Saddam. Still, let us rise well above him. Should Saddam remain in jail--yep. Should he have limited freedoms--yep. Should he have access to the world media--nope. Should we (civilaization as a whole) kill him at a time when the threat can be removed, I say no.

Well.... we can agree on one thing... I sure am no getleman :lol:

[Mottern Man]

Saddam to hang by Sunday. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384738/)

Let him swing....

I am with you brother. I know I did not go over their for him to a "pardon".

[BroJohn]

The Iraqis could always extradite Saddam to Kuwait. Certainly the Kuwaiti's would be far less squeamish in dealing with him than most of the posters to this thread would favor.

As it is, the Iraqi government will deal with him as it will. <shrug> Doesn't bother me one little bit.

-- John Gehman

[SA_bmatth]

Watching Saddam die would bother me less than having to hear an appeal to emotion.

[AandW]

Saddam to hang by Sunday. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384738/)

Let him swing....
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[JohnP]

There are far worse things happening to people in Iraq, to people far less deserving of it, than hanging. Personally I feel he got off easily considering. Just seems interesting to me that so many post about why are "WE" executing him or why don't "we" stop it. He was tried and convicted in spite of having some of the best legal defense WE could provide for him. If we are truly serious about the new government in Iraq succeeding, "we" need to let them carry out justice as they see fit. He was given a chance, twice. People complain that "we" interfere too much, so when we do not, they complain that "we" should interfere. Of all the people who I would fight to allow to have another chance at life, Saddam is not on the top of my list....
John P.

[Xert]

I agree, almost.
First, I think just because another jury may would have found him not guilty (especially by the more lenient laws of the U.S. G.B. or Canada, for instance) does not mean it would have. The same can be said about trials here, as well. It is always possible a different jury would have found him not guilty.
In Iraq, I am not so sure that would happen, regardless. The occupying country may well be convinced of Saddam's guilt, or perhaps even that he deserves death. I do not think that is necessarily why a jury composed of Iraqi citizens would convict. My gut feeling tells me that just because an Iraqi wants Saddam to die doesn't mean necessarily he is pro-U.S. (or anti, for that matter) at all....
Your thoughts?
John P.

John, I agree wholeheartedly.

My point was merely that trumpeting the fact that the jury was composed of people of Iraqi birth is almost always a smoke screen which hides the far more crucial question of why those specific Iraqis and why the specific laws that Saddam's being tried under. Like I said, I have no moral objection to Saddam facing the death penalty (though I strongly object for purely practical reasons). But, despite my comfort with his sentence, I frankly find the notion that he was properly tried by a competent court without any bias and under universally intended laws to be nonsense. Pure propaganda.

[MJB]

John--

The turn "we" refers to us as a global civilization. When the American justice system executes someone, Americans are all responsible.

Hitler killed very few--he may have ordered the execution of tens of millions but millions of Germans actually did the job. When Saddam gassed innocent people, Saddam did not push the button--hundreds of Iraqis all got in line a participated. When a judge orders someone to death, we who have set up the system and defended, protected, enabled, and carried out the actions of that system all bear some responsibility.

People are celebrating the fact that someone who is presently defenseless (granted a bad bad guy) is going to be killed. Many of us seem gleeful about it--that to me is very disturbing.

Please allow me this extreme example: when the Iranians stone someone to death, I am appalled. Its like a big party and everyone gets to join in for the fun of heaving stones at someone until they're dead--group think takes over and the evil of the situation is lost on those people. Now, Saddam is not about to be stoned but can we not see the at least a shadow of a reflection of this bad behavior in ourselves? Are we not in some small way exhibiting the same blood thirst.

So "we" cannot all decline any responsibility for executions or the actions of our own justice system or one that "we" put in place. As far as celebrating this man's exectuion, I would prefer an idea of exectuion as a necessary evil not an accomplishment to be cheered. Also we all need to realize the to some small extent this has been made possible through our actions--even mine as a loyal American and an honest taxpayer. My only option choice remains to speak my mind and vote my conscience.

[JohnP]

MJB,
I see where you are coming from, but don't quite agree. I do not feel necessarily any need to celebrate Saddam's punishment; it is merely something that has to be done. Nor do I feel I should feel remorse over his plight, which I feel he in large part created himself by his tactics (against his own people, and I'm not just talking about gassing Kurd villages) during his rise to power. When you say we are all responsible when the U.S. justice system executes someone, you are right, in a sense. Responsibility is not a bad thing, and every society has the responsibility to police itself, correct bad elements, and remove or eliminate elements critically dangerous to others in the society (e.g. murderers) and hopefully to deter others from the same path. Executions are nothing to necessarily be cheerful about but at the same time are a responsibility, not a guilt, IMHO. It is part of the cycle of life. To paraphrase a biblical proverb, one reaps what he sows. Unlike the many various people under his command, who as you say, participated in the various slaughters, he gave the orders in the first place, and demonstrated early on that those who dissent would meet the same or worse fate than his victims. I do not agree with your notion of collective guilt. Honestly if there is any guilt to be considered, it is for allowing he and his monstrously evil political engine to remain in power as long as we did, not for Saddam's meeting with justice. Of course Saddam is defenseless. Justice is sometimes cold and cruel, and unlike combat, has nothing to do with him having ability to fight. His fair chance started with the first list he gave to his lieutenants of people to be "eliminated" and ended with his apparent pride in his actions during his trial. Even Hitler was apparently a seemingly nice guy, one on one. Yet look at the horrors he had carried out by people fearing for their own lives lest they do his bidding.
I think the only reason he is still alive today was that he was protected from the outside during his imprisonment for trial. I think the Iraqis themselves (except for a few extremely loyal types, who, honestly have their own problems to deal with) would have torn him to shreds like an animal.
So...I see what you mean now, by the collective "we", I just disagree is all, if only on the basis it is far too general of a way of looking at things for me. I do not think an execution of a man deserving of it is something to feel guilty about. Mercy is a good thing too, don't get me wrong, but it isn't our place to give it to him, but rather his victims.
John P.

[SA_bmatth]

The turn "we" refers to us as a global civilization. When the American justice system executes someone, Americans are all responsible.

Quantify "global civilization" for us. And what do you mean "are all responsible"? A "blood on our hands" responsible or a "result of our policies" responsible? I'm just trying to distinguish where the emotion stops and starts.


Hitler killed very few--he may have ordered the execution of tens of millions but millions of Germans actually did the job. When Saddam gassed innocent people, Saddam did not push the button--hundreds of Iraqis all got in line a participated. When a judge orders someone to death, we who have set up the system and defended, protected, enabled, and carried out the actions of that system all bear some responsibility.

Hitler would have hanged alongside the other architects. But I don't understand what your point here is? Are you arguing for more executions or, failing that, none? If they get the "hundred of Iraqis" that participated and hang them as well would that make it better?


People are celebrating the fact that someone who is presently defenseless (granted a bad bad guy) is going to be killed. Many of us seem gleeful about it--that to me is very disturbing.

Is there something wrong with that other than how it makes you feel?


Please allow me this extreme example: when the Iranians stone someone to death, I am appalled. Its like a big party and everyone gets to join in for the fun of heaving stones at someone until they're dead--group think takes over and the evil of the situation is lost on those people. Now, Saddam is not about to be stoned but can we not see the at least a shadow of a reflection of this bad behavior in ourselves? Are we not in some small way exhibiting the same blood thirst.

Shadow of a reflection? First, gee whiz. Second, no. Unless you believe all life is equal and all killing is evil. If so then, yeah, Gandhi and a whole slew of Tibetan monks are roasting alongside Pol Pot and Idi Amin.

Little fun test. Your mother or Saddam...one has to die. Still reluctant to judge the relative value of life? One's a murderer and one's...mom. Silly you say? Not much more silly than trying to equate the stoning of a women for sex by religious police and execution of a mass murderer by a secular court. One of these things (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcveigh/chamber.jpg) is not like the other (http://static.flickr.com/16/90937346_c95cb4b206_m.jpg)[shocking image but not graphic].


So "we" cannot all decline any responsibility for executions or the actions of our own justice system or one that "we" put in place. As far as celebrating this man's exectuion, I would prefer an idea of exectuion as a necessary evil not an accomplishment to be cheered. Also we all need to realize the to some small extent this has been made possible through our actions--even mine as a loyal American and an honest taxpayer. My only option choice remains to speak my mind and vote my conscience.

Why should anyone want to decline responsibility for the execution of a known killer? Personally I find allowing someone to live out their days enjoying all the little things in life after denying that right to someone else a sign of moral immaturity. This discussion is taking place on a web site where we turn a monotonous routine into a near fetish so I don't think I have to go into detail about how life can be made better by the most seemingly inconsequential of things. Placing a murderer in a cell with time enough to learn the joys of toilet wine harms "civilization" more, in my opinion, than putting him in the ground with his victim.

If I offended you then, well, not sorry. You set up the playing field for discussion with you and the beautiful people on one side and everyone who disagrees with you opposite. It's not fishing for honest debate; it's squelching it by painting your opponents as somehow morally or emotionally inferior. Strip away all the anecdote and emotion and the argument is basically "Good people think this way, therefore, you should too!" Someone disagrees and, QED, he's not good people.

[joel]

John--

The turn "we" refers to us as a global civilization. When the American justice system executes someone, Americans are all responsible.

Hitler killed very few--he may have ordered the execution of tens of millions but millions of Germans actually did the job. When Saddam gassed innocent people, Saddam did not push the button--hundreds of Iraqis all got in line a participated. When a judge orders someone to death, we who have set up the system and defended, protected, enabled, and carried out the actions of that system all bear some responsibility.

People are celebrating the fact that someone who is presently defenseless (granted a bad bad guy) is going to be killed. Many of us seem gleeful about it--that to me is very disturbing.

Please allow me this extreme example: when the Iranians stone someone to death, I am appalled. Its like a big party and everyone gets to join in for the fun of heaving stones at someone until they're dead--group think takes over and the evil of the situation is lost on those people. Now, Saddam is not about to be stoned but can we not see the at least a shadow of a reflection of this bad behavior in ourselves? Are we not in some small way exhibiting the same blood thirst.

So "we" cannot all decline any responsibility for executions or the actions of our own justice system or one that "we" put in place. As far as celebrating this man's exectuion, I would prefer an idea of exectuion as a necessary evil not an accomplishment to be cheered. Also we all need to realize the to some small extent this has been made possible through our actions--even mine as a loyal American and an honest taxpayer. My only option choice remains to speak my mind and vote my conscience.

You love to harp on this "unarmed" and "defenseless" part. You also do not take into account the HUNDREDS of people he has personally killed/tortured (with his hands) throughout his reign of terror - as he got a sick pleasure out of it. Want to talk about unarmed/defenseless? How about being strapped to a chair while old Saddy's going at you with a drill?

Unarmed and defenseless my ass.... that is total B.S. He had an ARMY to defend him (which did, and albeit doing a terribly poor job, he nonetheless had an army defending him) and to this day has some of the top lawyers on the planet DEFENDING him. In a court, and civilly speaking - that is being heavily armed.

The simple fact of the matter is - Saddam was DEFEATED, and DISARMED. They found him with a pistol, and he did not defend himself (like his sons had). He has plenty of defense... just not the power of his own - as the man is a coward - nonetheless, his defenses and his "arms" were FAR greater than any person I can immediately think of to be charged with corporal punishment.

If you are in a sword fight to the death with your foe - and you knock the sword from his hand - and run him through - is that not "civil" and is he still "defenseless?" If you destroy an enemies radar systems - and blow up their surface to air missiles - then we shouldn't bomb them because they are defenseless and unarmed? Would it still be ethical if we gave Saddam a Knife (thus he is armed) then shot him?

I am sorry - but all of this in my opinion is a giant red herring. You do not believe in the death penalty, and more power to you, and you have every right to not believe in it... being that you live in the U.S. - under U.S. law, and have the freedom of speech, but without having lived in Iraq - or been there (have you?) I feel it is unreasonable to criticize, as if it were your daughter picked up - severely beaten, cut and raped - picked up by Saddam's son, then thrown out of a moving car in front of your house, you might feel differently. If it were you - or your brother who were taken in and tortured and imprisoned for months without reasonable cause or justification.... you might feel differently. Regardless - it is their decision, their government, and their blood - not ours. They have lived in turmoil and torment for decades, not us. It is VERY easy to become a keyboard commando, and a stand on a high moral ground when you are a mere observer... as it is much easier to criticize and contemplate, then to live, experience and understand.

Sure.... you may not believe in the death penalty, but this is no simple "criminal" and the horrors in which he unleashed are for the most part unknown to the public, and in their culture for THOUSANDS of years - vengeance has been deeply seated in their culture and justice system, to criticize THEIR choices as their own democracy is highly offensive - as it insinuates they are not doing it right, as it should be done your way... Consider this - even under Saddam's own "laws" he would/should be put to death. These people are doing what they know, understand, and live. Their world is quite a bit different than yours, and to not see that, and not see THEIR need to do these things, is simply ignorant. Sure.... you may not agree with it, but you should understand it, and not criticize it. You are safe.... protected... harbored..... they.... are not. To not even experience the feeling of such constant danger/fear makes it unable for you to criticize, at least in my opinion.

George Orwell once said "Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Violence, as sad as it may be.... is a part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as there is, and always will be sick individuals who WISH to harm others, and without adequate defense, and without adequate punishment, you have chaos.

If the day ever comes, when your societies, and families safety as a whole is in grave danger on your home front, I assure you, your opinion will change.

[JohnP]

This is getting good...:biggrin:
SA (not sure what your name is yet) I loved the "mother or...." comparison.
Some very interesting points being made by both sides at this point.
I think to value life and to take it are not mutually exclusive. I also find it interesting that even those who seem to disagree with Saddam's execution do so not on the basis that he is undeserving of it, but based on a general disagreement with the death penalty itself, which is (and is not at the same time) a wholly different discussion than one specifically about Mr. Saddam Husayn al-Tikriti, who will be joining his victims shortly according to news I heard this morning which say he could hang as early as today, now.
John P.

[rikrdo]

Swing, Baby !!
Sooner the Better...

[SA_bmatth]

Sorry, good ol' Texas thunderstorm knocked the computer offline. Matt is fine. SA if you want to save a keystroke.

Well, the "mother or..." was more tongue in cheek than anything. Illustrating one absurdity with another.

But I should have went with my first instinct and kept quiet. A Hitler bomb and now a chickenhawk sighting. I think that's a good sign that this thread should die ASAP.

[JohnP]

Matt,
I take your point, but it was funny nonetheless.
Personally I think there's nothing wrong with people disagreeing, it's how the best debates seem to happen. Just so long as things remain to a degree civil, which has been demonstrated before, can and does happen here. We've debated things that would have had bloodshed on other boards, and remained extremely civilized considering.
Chickenhawk? WHERE!??
John P.

[maclean3]

CNN just reported that Saddam has been handed over to Iraqi custody and the sentence will be carried out by tomorrow AT THE LATEST. Political views of the death penalty aside, I'm waiting to see what effect the execution has on the number of riots/suicide attacks/hostage takings directed at both our military personnel and the Iraqi civilians. I'd say the next several days and weeks are going to be increasingly tense and dangerous over there.
Jack

[JohnP]

I concur.
John P.

[Xert]

I do not feel necessarily any need to celebrate Saddam's punishment; it is merely something that has to be done.
Ah, but I hardly think that your own lack of emotional retribution is universal, John.


Hitler would have hanged alongside the other architects. But I don't understand what your point here is? Are you arguing for more executions or, failing that, none? If they get the "hundred of Iraqis" that participated and hang them as well would that make it better?
The point is that the head of state is made the fall guy for an entire system of wrongdoing, for which he should be punished (though arguably not by execution) but not at the risk of losing the ability to focus on rooting out the rest of the people.




People are celebrating the fact that someone who is presently defenseless (granted a bad bad guy) is going to be killed. Many of us seem gleeful about it--that to me is very disturbing.
Is there something wrong with that other than how it makes you feel?
You don't have a problem with social sadism?



Shadow of a reflection? First, gee whiz. Second, no. Unless you believe all life is equal and all killing is evil. If so then, yeah, Gandhi and a whole slew of Tibetan monks are roasting alongside Pol Pot and Idi Amin.

Little fun test. Your mother or Saddam...one has to die. Still reluctant to judge the relative value of life? One's a murderer and one's...mom. Silly you say? Not much more silly than trying to equate the stoning of a women for sex by religious police and execution of a mass murderer by a secular court. One of these things (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcveigh/chamber.jpg) is not like the other (http://static.flickr.com/16/90937346_c95cb4b206_m.jpg)[shocking image but not graphic].
It's not necessary to say that all life is equally valued. Simply holding that life is valuable in and of itself means that it should not be taken if at all avoidable. And the depth of thorough thought that is necessary in such a grave instance is hardly possible if one is emotionally clamoring for a death of retribution.

[moses]

Simply holding that life is valuable in and of itself means that it should not be taken if at all avoidable.

I don't think your assumption {life is valuable} necessarily leads to your conclusion {it shoudl not be taken if at all avoidable}. Or at least it is a little more complicated than that simple statement suggests. Maybe it should be taken because that results in loss of fewer lives in the future, by showing that such acts will be punished. (Although, really, people might want to step back and think about that argument for a moment, in this context. Surely no one really believes that the possibility of being executed if it all falls through is going to prevent anyone from becoming a totalitarian, despotic, dictator?). Or maybe it should be taken because something else, justice say, is more valuable, even though taking the life would be avoidable. Or even, it might suggest that when someone takes the lives of many others, their own should be forfeit, because of the magnitude of the wrong they have done.

I actually agree with you, in generally, in the sense that I do not support the death penalty. I just don't think that it is so simple.

-Mo

[Xert]

Mo, I agree entirely. My point that "it should not be taken if at all avoidable" was meant to encompass circumstances under which it might not be avoidable for other ethical considerations, as you point out. The key point of my response was merely that valuing human life doesn't force you to value it equally - it only means that taking it is never a light matter since something of value is nonetheless being lost, even if correctly so.

[SA_bmatth]

The point is that the head of state is made the fall guy for an entire system of wrongdoing, for which he should be punished (though arguably not by execution) but not at the risk of losing the ability to focus on rooting out the rest of the people.

How does putting a head of state to death for crimes he instigated in any way jeopardize the pursuit of underlings? Hitler was dead prior to Nuremberg yet the Allies had no problems detailing exhaustively all the machinations of the Nazi state.


You don't have a problem with social sadism?

Awww, social sadism. So, all those lawyers who wax philosophical on their exams about doing good or bringing people to answer for injustice are suffering from sadism? Excuse me if I disagree. I don't see how feeling good that illegal/wrong/etc. acts are punished somehow makes one a sadist.


It's not necessary to say that all life is equally valued. Simply holding that life is valuable in and of itself means that it should not be taken if at all avoidable. And the depth of thorough thought that is necessary in such a grave instance is hardly possible if one is emotionally clamoring for a death of retribution.

That's a distinction with no difference. But I agree with you that emotion should have no place in a debate like this. The emotional appeals have been done by both sides but the one to which I replied was clamoring for something different than retribution.

[moses]

Mo, I agree entirely. My point that "it should not be taken if at all avoidable" was meant to encompass circumstances under which it might not be avoidable for other ethical considerations, as you point out. The key point of my response was merely that valuing human life doesn't force you to value it equally - it only means that taking it is never a light matter since something of value is nonetheless being lost, even if correctly so.

Indeed. Fair enough. I do agree that saying it has value does not force you to place equal value. The mother v. Saddam point is a slightly amusing (when you don't think about it too hard) example, and not invalid. But it certainly does not demonstrate any logical flaw in a philosophy that the death penalty is wrong based on the value of human life. Personally, I'm not sure that is really my reason for opposing it. Partly perhaps. Also partly the fact that our legal system is flawed. And the closer I get to it, the more I respect it in some ways, but also the more I see the flaws, and how serious they can be at times. Ultimately, having the death penalty = executing innocent people, sooner or later. But that is a topic for another thread.

-Mo

[SA_bmatth]

it only means that taking it is never a light matter

Who said it was a "light matter"? That's clarifying a comment made to me so should I go ahead and assume?

[SA_bmatth]

Ok, explain to me how assigning some uniform value to human life in general is not the exact same thing as saying that each particular life is of equal value?

[AandW]

Brainroom: Saddam Hussein's Atrocities
Friday, December 29, 2006
AP

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

Chronicle of the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein:

Hussein's regime killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and its neighbors for over two decades.

Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of Hussein's actions.

Hussein has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

1980-88: Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.

1983-1988: Documented chemical attacks by Iraqi regime caused some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.

1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.

1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

1991: bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000.
2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror

2001 Amnesty International report: "Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Human Rights Watch: Hussein's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.

Refugees International: "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis"

Iraq's 13 million Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, faced severe restrictions on their religious practice

FBI: Iraqi government was involved in a plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993 visit to Kuwait.

The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors.

From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.

(Sources: Office of the White House Press Secretary: Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime; April 4, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/iraq/20030404-1.html; "Iraq: Crimes Against Humanity," State Department, May 7, 2002, http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes; "Iraq: U.S. Alleges Role in Bush Death Plot," Facts on File May 20, 1993; http: www.2facts.com; http://www.2facts.com/stories/temp/10882temp1993053677.asp)


This is why Sadaam shpould die. Add the numbers. How many people has Sadaam tortured and killed? We should show mercy? His life is more valuable than those listed above that he deserves to be spared?

I am curious, what is a just punishment for poor poor defenseless Sadaam if death is not acceptable?

[Xert]

Indeed. Fair enough. I do agree that saying it has value does not force you to place equal value. The mother v. Saddam point is a slightly amusing (when you don't think about it too hard) example, and not invalid. But it certainly does not demonstrate any logical flaw in a philosophy that the death penalty is wrong based on the value of human life. Personally, I'm not sure that is really my reason for opposing it. Partly perhaps. Also partly the fact that our legal system is flawed. And the closer I get to it, the more I respect it in some ways, but also the more I see the flaws, and how serious they can be at times. Ultimately, having the death penalty = executing innocent people, sooner or later. But that is a topic for another thread.

-Mo

Mo, I share your sentiments exactly. Incidentally, you must see The Life of David Gale.


Who said it was a "light matter"? That's clarifying a comment made to me so should I go ahead and assume?

I do indeed think that glee at an execution trivializes it.


Ok, explain to me how assigning some uniform value to human life in general is not the exact same thing as saying that each particular life is of equal value?
Two dollars is unequal to twenty dollars is unequal to two hundred dollars. They are unequal values, but they are all of the same sort of values nonetheless.

It's not complicated. Assigning value to members of a category (i.e. humans) in no way necessitates that the individual memberes (i.e. peoeple) be valued equally.

[Nick75]

My personal opinion is that no-one has the right to take a human life. I think having Saddam live in some cramped prison cell for the rest of his days is depriving him of his right to a life in a more fitting (and prolonged) manner, which will give him plenty of time to make him think about the wrongdoing that he's done in his life. The death penalty is only stooping down to the same level as uncivilised, evil lunatics like Saddam himself, Hitler etc. and can't be accepted in any civilised society. No-one has the right to play God. What use are these individuals when they're dead and gone? They need to live from day to day for the rest of their sorry lives and realise what they've done wrong. Then maybe some sort of good can come over what cannot now be undone. Incarcerating them is the only solution, yet killing them in such a brutal way is simply stepping beyong the boundaries of what is acceptable in a civilised society, and doesn't bring about any kind of a solution whatsoever. It just leaves a disturbing imprint in everyone's mind and is a sad pointless end to a sad state of affairs.

[SA_bmatth]

I do indeed think that glee at an execution trivializes it.

And dispassion can do the same. It depends on the perspective.


Two dollars is unequal to twenty dollars is unequal to two hundred dollars. They are unequal values, but they are all of the same sort of values nonetheless.

That would be an apt analogy if we were discussing the relative value of 1 life versus 20 but we're not. We're comparing one dollar to one dollar. The value is assigned by to whom it belongs. My dollar means more to me than your dollar.


It's not complicated. Assigning value to members of a category (i.e. humans) in no way necessitates that the individual memberes (i.e. peoeple) be valued equally.

It's definitely not complicated.

[SA_bmatth]

State-sanctioned murder is different than murder committed by an individual. Always has been. You can say both are equally egregious but they are two different things.

[vespergo]

i definately think he should be put to death for all the crimes upon the Kurds.

[ratcheer]

i definately think he should be put to death for all the crimes upon the Kurds.

The Kurds? How about his own family? Didn't he once have a relative killed, then his head severed and placed on his (the victim's) wife's doorstep?

The man is a monster. He deserves no humanitarian consideration. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Tim

[Xert]

And dispassion can do the same. It depends on the perspective.
Are you suggesting that passions are a better means of making decisions than reason?


That would be an apt analogy if we were discussing the relative value of 1 life versus 20 but we're not. We're comparing one dollar to one dollar. The value is assigned by to whom it belongs. My dollar means more to me than your dollar.
I'm not sure how you're disagreeing with me. My point with the analogy of currency was simply that saying that all things have value makes no statement on their equal value. They may or they may not, but there is no logical necessity, as you suggested there must be.

[MJB]

What good will come of this?

None of the victims of Saddam's horrors will be brought back. No grieving mother will see her child again. I don't really believe that this act of revenge will comfort the bereaved, it may distract them but comfort is not there in this.

We risk elevated Saddam to a martyr. Many will see hime as divine.

Yes, I oppose the death penalty. I also beleive in self-defense--if a choice between Saddam and Mom comes up--Saddam goes--that's self-defense.

If you percieve that I represent myself as the moral high-ground, that's your perception and yours alone. I have made my points and made them respectfully but strongly and sometime even personally.

Now matter how horribble it is. Now matter what he did. I think the death penalty in this situation like all others is misguided and unfortunate. We could have thrown Saddam is a jail and thown away the key. This would have silenced him in a much more powerful way that hanging. In the meantime, there was a trial--how many people died to allow us this day of Saddam's handing--the lawyers and such who were murdered in the effort to disrupt the trial.

Saddam has an army--he had power--now he has NONE. He has a following that will surely be energized--they will retaliate foolishly and more will die--all so Saddam can't have the pleasure of reading a book in an 8' by 12' room with cement walls, iron doors, and a flimsy mattress. Somewhere the unnecessary killing must stop and it should be us who stop it not continue the spiral.

I fear that I have become somewhat a somewhat lone contrarian in this thread--tough place to be--but I believe in what I say. Still, I hope I don't ruin your celebration over this death too much. I just can't see what could be joyous and good in taking a man, tying his hands behind his back, putting a hood over his head, and fashioning a good thick noose around his neck and behind his ear, then march him only a trap door and let the bottom fall out. It's a gruesome act--I hope we don't become hardened to that.

[MJB]

It's done. Is it time for the fireworks smiley?

[Scorpio]

:thumbup: and that was too good for him.

Raf

[Mama Bear]

I am struggling with the concept of folks being sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. I feel he gave up his right to human sympathy long, long ago and doesn't deserve to be honored with my feelings. I could care less that he is dead.. finally. I hope he spends eternity if there is such a thing with all of the people who he caused to die, being told by them how they feel about him and what he did to them and reliving the pain he gave to others over and over... I am sure there is a special place for people like him somewhere. Other than this, there are other things going on in the world that are much more important to me right now... that I care a whole hell of a lot more about... I have no sympathy for him whatsoever...

Edit, don't take me wrong, I am sure that there are many people who are very, very happy right now... and deservedly so!!

[inkling]

I'm enjoying a fine bourbon to toast Iraqi justice. :saddam:

Actually, I'm very surprised at how slow and methodical the legal process was. I had expected the Iraqis to treat Saddam like the Italians treated Mussolini.

[Sue]

MJB,
You are not alone here. First I have to say I do not feel sorry for Saddam in any way. He is a monster who represents nothing human. Even the lowliest animan does not commit the carnage he has. He is an aberration of humanity.

Having said that, your description of confinement would be more suitable IMO. That doesn't run the risk of making him a martyr, which I think his hanging may result in.

I don't think anyone committing a murder stops to think, "Oh .... gee, I better not put a 357 in this guys gut, I might get the death penalty. I'll just beat him up instead". I really don't think the death penalty deters those who would commit murder.

What about Saddams army? Or his followers? Surely there were those who didn't sitck around due to force or fear. Common sense would say there are some of like thinking in his shadow.

Where did they go? Are they disbanded and disarmed? There is no one ready to become the next tyrant? No one to lead retaliaton? I worry about all our fine service men and women in Iraq.

I don't think we have heard the end of him by his twisting in the wind. I pray that I am wrong.

I also must say I think this thread has maintained a respectful demeanor that would be difficult to find in most groups of ppl with such diverse opiinion on a hot button issue such as this.
Sue

[JohnP]

I think justice has been served, and that is that. His largest offenses were against his own countrymen, and it is his own countrymen who tried, convicted, sentenced, and executed him. Unlike in his days of power, Saddam was apparently not tortured to death. It is no longer in the hands of the living.
I will say I somewhat envy the speed of the Iraqi justice system. How many times in the US would a mass murderer not only go through a trial, but also the appeal, and the sentence be carried out so swiftly (not just on Saddam) as in Iraq. Here we clothe, feed, entertain, and generally spoil our mass murderers for decades before they get might have there sentence carried out. For this, my hat is off to the Iraqi justice system. With our own system, often the heinous crime is a distant memory to the offender by the time he meets his end, and often he bears little resemblance to the person who committed the crime in the first place. We could learn a lot from the new Iraqi system, at least with regard to swiftness.
For someone to be executed today for something he was imprisoned for 20 years ago, is too long of a wait IMHO.
I think if the US had tried strongarming the Iraqi courts into letting Saddam go (Ramsey Clark actually did try...) there would have been uproar I think.
John P.

[rafikz]

I do not sympathize for Saddam ; on the other side, I don't what to think of a man who was named Iraqi president by the CIA ; who is really responsible? I guess we'll never know

[JohnP]

Not quite...
I think many people give the CIA FAR too much credit. After all, for as sneaky and nasty as some of the spooks can be, they still take their orders from bureaucrats.
Saddam simply killed those who were opposed to him and named himself president. CIA simply helped him fight the Iranians, who during the Iran Iraq war (and perhaps now) were more of a threat to the U.S. and Western Europe than Iraq was. Honestly I think if they could have figured a way for each country to mutually annihilate the other without involving our own troops, they might would have done it.
We may never know.
Often people who know the things we like to speculate about have been sworn to secrecy for like 70 years or something like that, after which all the parties involved will likely be dead or won't care anyway.
John P.

[rafikz]

True John
That's just sad

[mark the shoeshine boy]

I think Saddam came to the end of his rope.....and HUNG on...

[PR22]

I'm pretty disgusted that he was hanged. I don't believe in celebrating the death of another human being, especially not someone who's 69 years old. How do you dissuade violence with more violence? If you think what Saddam did was so terrible, what do you think should be the punishment for the Bush administration who's responsible for the deaths of 650,000 innocent Iraqi men, woman and children who wanted no part in Bush's war?

We invaded Iraq on the false pretenses of Saddam having WMD's. Then it was changed because Saddam was a "bad guy". Wonderful, how come Pinochet didn't get the same treatment as Saddam? Last I checked he murdered people and was a dictator also. Oh right, it's because he's America's dictator. It's ok to mass murder people as long as your on America's side.

I don't believe the Iraqi people were equipped to handle this case, there's a war still going on, geez. You had judges, and lawyers being murdered on a regular basis. Can anyone honestly believe that this was "justice"? The only thing Saddam's hanging will do is unite the Iraqi insurgency to hate America even more.

I'm pretty disgusted that I voted for Bush, these animals have distorted everything that being a Republican meant and twisted it into some kind of ignorant zombie religious base.

I apologize if I offended anyone, my anger isn't towards anyone who didn't have a hand in American policy making.

[SA_bmatth]

Are you suggesting that passions are a better means of making decisions than reason?

We weren't talking about courts or law. We were talking about reactions by lay people in the streets. Walk out in the middle of them and try to reason and tell me the reaction. I've seen plenty of rage spewed by people who demand a certain reaction to things. It's human nature...I don't get offended.


I'm not sure how you're disagreeing with me. My point with the analogy of currency was simply that saying that all things have value makes no statement on their equal value. They may or they may not, but there is no logical necessity, as you suggested there must be.

You responded to me; not the other way around. So, yes, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I never said life has no value but that it's relative. If you were agreeing with me then much ado about nothing. If you were claiming there's some philosophical constant then I say: dogma. Might as well quote scripture or put angels on pin heads or tell me you like beets. There's nothing worth arguing there.

[SA_bmatth]

If you percieve that I represent myself as the moral high-ground, that's your perception and yours alone. I have made my points and made them respectfully but strongly and sometime even personally.

You did nothing but talk about good/bad and argued from emotion. All based on your personal value judgements. That is not debate. That's proselytizing. You're doing it again by the way. Who cares that no one rose from the dead? Who cares about the grieving mothers?

[rtaylor61]

What good will come of this?

Justice has been served. Remember, the execution was only following the laws of the land WHICH HE ESTABLISHED. The sentence he received is the same sentence he would have doled out to anyone else. One thing sets him apart from proably hundreds if not thousands of others that he executed. Saddam was without a doubt, guilty.

Randy

[MJB]

You did nothing but talk about good/bad and argued from emotion. All based on your personal value judgements. That is not debate. That's proselytizing. You're doing it again by the way. Who cares that no one rose from the dead? Who cares about the grieving mothers?

Is this not about emotion? This is about killing--please let there remain emotion in that! If it was all a calculated equation, we would have buried Saddam in a prison until dead from age that would have cost a lot less. It would have made him disappear a lot more. The math says there was no purpose in doing this.

If again, lives were saved in this then argue that but I don't see that any lives were saved. If this were a cost saver then argue that but this trial must have cost millions--far less than putting Saddam away for 10 to 20 years in a secluded prison. It doens't seem to be dissuading other psychopaths like Kim Jong Il, Qaddafi (who has declared national days of mourning for Saddam), not to mention the creepo in Iran.

The only thing this was about is emotion--nothing more. Its about revenge--inherently emotional, not calculated. Its about who we are--do we want to be the person who ties a noose around the neck of a disarmed man or do we want to be a greater force. Speak softly and carry a big stick--be brave and fight the good fight. This is shouting out "We got you you jerk!" not about speaking softly. Now Saddam is front page news BBC, CNN, FOX, and all across the Arab world. Nothing less than Saddam, would have wanted.

Am I bothered by some of the things said here--sure am, because I am distressed seeing any callousness to taking a life (no matter how incredibly repugnant that life is), as if it is truly our providence. If your conscence is bothered by what I say--look inward not at me. You don't need to tell me that I am prostelytizing--I know I am, I have no problem with that becuase I have a point.

Now, let's be frank--I really could care less about Saddam's death. I was more bothered by the death of my dog that the loss of Saddam. I mourn more for the victims of Saddam, 9/11, OKlahokma City, etc than I ever will for Saddam. I bet we agree here. I just believe in an ultimate respect for life and fear that the more we consider it our right to take life, the less the value of life will become. This example by it's media coverage just shows a gratuitous thirst for violence and pointless revenge that I find distressing.

[MJB]

Justice has been served. Remember, the execution was only following the laws of the land WHICH HE ESTABLISHED.

We should want to follw in that example?

[rtaylor61]

We should want to follw in that example?

That is not the point. The laws are in place and have not been changed. Right, wrong, ethical, moral, whatever, those are the laws of their land. It doesn't matter what we think of them. I'm more concerned that we here in the USA allow people to continuously drink and drive with multiple DUI infractions. These folks are passing out death sentences and we let it happen. Saddam earned his justice. I'm a bit more concerned about our laws.

Randy

[SA_bmatth]

Is this not about emotion?

Maybe for you. Well, definitely for you. I'm completely indifferent about it. If Saddam lived or died I couldn't care less.


This is about killing--please let there remain emotion in that! If it was all a calculated equation, we would have buried Saddam in a prison until dead from age that would have cost a lot less. It would have made him disappear a lot more. The math says there was no purpose in doing this.

Yes, please. Appealing to emotion may be a fallacy but gosh darn! it works so well. It is an equation for me. You take someone's life I assume, a priori, you've forfeited your's. I can change my mind from there if need be. And I usually do. For the Saddams or Amins of the world I've little sympathy but for everyone else I tend towards Xert's view. It's not that I oppose capital punishment on moral grounds; I just don't trust the wisdom of crowds(juries).


If again, lives were saved in this then argue that but I don't see that any lives were saved.

I don't care if lives were saved.


If this were a cost saver then argue that

I don't care about the economics of it.


It doens't seem to be dissuading other psychopaths

I don't care about deterrence.


The only thing this was about is emotion--nothing more.

Again, for you maybe. I don't understand why you can't accept YOUR emotions for what they are--YOUR'S. And no one else's.


Its about revenge--inherently emotional, not calculated.

I don't care about revenge.


Its about who we are--do we want to be the person who ties a noose around the neck of a disarmed man or do we want to be a greater force.

Appeal to emotion. Try a soapbox it might go over better. I also hear that if you hire a celebrity more people will follow. Maybe a marketing class at a JUCO.


Speak softly and carry a big stick--be brave and fight the good fight. This is shouting out "We got you you jerk!" not about speaking softly.

Will that fit on a bumpersticker?


Now Saddam is front page news BBC, CNN, FOX, and all across the Arab world. Nothing less than Saddam, would have wanted.

Too bad we can't ask him. By the way, if he lived he'd be tried a second, and third, and .... time so he'd have been in the news regardless. PR isn't a good reason to oppose capital punishment. If anything it makes the imposition of it that much more arbitrary and capricious. Unless you think the media cares a whit about Ali Sixpack as much as it cares about Saddam.


Am I bothered by some of the things said here--sure am, because I am distressed seeing any callousness to taking a life (no matter how incredibly repugnant that life is), as if it is truly our providence. If your conscence is bothered by what I say--look inward not at me. You don't need to tell me that I am prostelytizing--I know I am, I have no problem with that becuase I have a point.

My conscience wasn't bothered. I didn't jump into this because you wounded my soul. I didn't react in any way until you saw fit to lecture Joel on what the proper emotional response should be. If you hadn't done that I wouldn't be here obviously wasting my time. I'm really not looking to build a congregation. No converts for me thanks. Your point is that you don't like it. Nothing more. Kudos. See someone with their heart on their sleeve be sure to do a bit of gladhanding. You'll feel better.


I bet we agree here. I just believe in an ultimate respect for life and fear that the more we consider it our right to take life, the less the value of life will become. This example by it's media coverage just shows a gratuitous thirst for violence and pointless revenge that I find distressing.

I do agree with you but that is pointless. My feelings about anything else have no bearing on this. And I don't care how Saddam's execution made anyone feel--you or the dancing Iraqis. I can, however, understand both.

[MJB]

That is not the point. The laws are in place and have not been changed. Right, wrong, ethical, moral, whatever, those are the laws of their land. It doesn't matter what we think of them. I'm more concerned that we here in the USA allow people to continuously drink and drive with multiple DUI infractions. These folks are passing out death sentences and we let it happen. Saddam earned his justice. I'm a bit more concerned about our laws.

Randy

The HE ESTABLISHED part must have had me confused.

Yes, this was an Iraqi court but one cannot argue for a second without their fingers crossed behind their backs that the US was anything but a great big part of it.

Just think, we could have had the last memory of Saddam as a snivelling rodent, dirty, unkempt crying for mercy. We could have forced him to have a shave--think about that opportunity. Instead he is the defiant man in court, martyred by the hoards, bravely refusing a hood during his execution. For some we will elevate him to the level of Jesus--sounds horrible but for some very true. Oh well, another opportunity lost.

[SA_bmatth]

We could have forced him to have a shave

Forcibly shave a Muslim. Tsk tsk.

Oh well...off to the Texas/Iowa game. Toodaloo.

[Sue]

SA
I couldn't care less.
I don't care if lives were saved.
I don't care about the economics of it.
I don't care about deterrence.
I don't care about revenge.
Hhmm, that's a lot of huge "I don't care's".
Sue

[JohnP]

I'm pretty disgusted that he was hanged. I don't believe in celebrating the death of another human being, especially not someone who's 69 years old.
I understand your being upset that the Iraqis would execute Saddam in this way, however justice eventually finds us all, even if we are almost 70 years old. While no one generally wishes to die, depending on the methods used, hanging is not necessarily any more horrible a death than others, and perhaps less so. We all suffer the consequences of our actions, some sooner, some later. When Saddam was younger and in power, even the families of those who simply disagreed with him in public often disappeared. I have met more than one survivor of these political cleansings. I do agree that even though he perhaps deserved his fate, there is a difference in applauding justice and revelling in someone's misfortune. After all, we all pay the piper in the end, and pay for our wrongs. All of us. Saddam received his justice as it should be. So will we all.

How do you dissuade violence with more violence? If you think what Saddam did was so terrible, what do you think should be the punishment for the Bush administration who's responsible for the deaths of 650,000 innocent Iraqi men, woman and children who wanted no part in Bush's war?
IMHO Justice isn't necessarily about dissuading more violence at all. To be honest, I think if we had SAVED Saddam somehow that would have created more violence than letting them enforce their own laws. If anything, the Iraqis have shown their people that in the new Iraq, NO one is above the law. Many there feared Saddam would be spirited away or given special treatment due to his former position as a leader. I think it was a good move that he was not given preferential treatment. As for your comment about 650,000 innocent Iraqi men women and children, first off, where do you get this number, how do you KNOW they wanted no part in the war, did an Iraqi tell you this, and if it was, which province was he/she from? It matters. For one thing, Iraqis overwhelmingly supported us removing Saddam another time, but that time we screwed them pure and simple due to some last minute bureaucratic snivelling on our side of the pond. Saddam's helicopters slaughtered them like cattle, the very day they expected US air support to keep them safe during their fight for liberation. So it is hard for such people to trust we will stay the course until they have control, now. Many of them no doubt will not support any "liberating" action until they see for themselves we are serious this time. Many of the provinces not under control yet are under the authoritarian control usually of zealots from outside Iraq. Would you support liberating forces (from any country) if you knew admitting so would mean the new religious guy down the street from (Chechnya, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc) would behead you for said beliefs, claiming you were an unfaithful Muslim? This is exactly what many Iraqis face, and why I take much of what I hear coming from certain areas with a grain of salt. After the strongarms are gone, the tune ALWAYS changes. Perhaps not entirely pro-U.S. but definitely not nearly so against as before. Some are no doubt surprised we do not kill them for disagreeing. It isn't something that has been common in Iraq for the last 30 years or so...


We invaded Iraq on the false pretenses of Saddam having WMD's. Then it was changed because Saddam was a "bad guy". Wonderful, how come Pinochet didn't get the same treatment as Saddam? Last I checked he murdered people and was a dictator also. Oh right, it's because he's America's dictator. It's ok to mass murder people as long as your on America's side.
I disagree on your first point. Claiming false pretense of WMD's is misguided. Saddam had and used them in the past, his own people told him he still had them and was rapidly approaching (if he didn't already have) nuclear weapons. If Saddam believed he had them, people on both sides of the political aisle here believed he had them (even the Clinton administration) so did the Israelis, the Syrians and the Iranians....how then, is it a false pretense? Bush did not invent any WMD story, it was there from the beginning. The claim it was all a lie invented by the administration is a falsehood itself, propagated by those seeking to reduce Bush and the Republican party's favor with voters during an election year. It has NEVER been established that Saddam did not have WMD's, and more evidence seems to support that he did, than otherwise. In fact, many of those same people in the spotlight claiming everything was a lie can be seen on video earlier saying just the opposite, and even before Bush came to office. Some people unfortunately will not be satisfied until a mushroom cloud appears over our own people over there, or troops start coming back with Anthrax and chemical burns. Even then, people will claim it was our own doing, and finding a Nuke isn't the sortof thing we would admit. Unless we knew ABSOLUTELY we had ALL of them. To do anything otherwise would risk one of the remaining weapons being moved, or worse, used. A nuclear warhead is quite small considering its capabilities. Perhaps a 3 foot by 3 foot box could hold some of them. It took MONTHS to find Saddam himself, and he is considerably larger, and shows on thermal imaging. Nukes do not. For crying out loud, we can't even stop millions of illegal immigrants from jumping the border HERE. Why do you think a nuke/bio/chem weapon would be so easy to find, or hard for Saddam to smuggle away when the writing was on the wall? Just as yourself, however, I've heard some pretty believable rumors. We already know Saddam had Sarin and perhaps a few other nasties, also considered WMD's. Hans Blick didn't find anything, but how is that a surprise, when his UN inspectors had to announce far in advance where they were going, often had to wait while trucks left a compound, and for years, weren't even allowed to search anywhere. Some places were even ALWAYS off limits. I'm sure drug smugglers here wish they could use the same benefits. "Sure officer, search the house, but not until my buddy's truck leaves, and you can't go into the bedroom". This was what was occurring before the invasion. He ordered some used on a few villages...one of the charges brought against Saddam, incidentally.
For the next point, why don't we get ALL the bad guys? I wish we could do more, but simply, we aren't THAT powerful, and political assassination has fallen out of favor. I'm sorry, but we just can't kill EVERYBODY, nor is it wise to commit to fights which weaken us against genuine strategic threats to our own interests, unless we absolutely have the manpower. During the Clinton administration we had one of the largest reductions in strength in U.S. history. Not a good time to jump into major wars without at least something to gain for the butcher's bill we would be paying.


I don't believe the Iraqi people were equipped to handle this case, there's a war still going on, geez. You had judges, and lawyers being murdered on a regular basis. Can anyone honestly believe that this was "justice"? The only thing Saddam's hanging will do is unite the Iraqi insurgency to hate America even more.
I don't think so. These sound like the fears spread by many who either haven't been to Iraq or doubt the sincerity of the Iraqi people in general. No doubt people in England did not think the fledgling colonists were prepared to run a country, either, and there were some volatile years, but it did happen. Of course it was Justice. Justice is not always the same thing as "tasteful". Justice is hard, cold, and unfeeling. Justice and mercy are not one and the same.


I'm pretty disgusted that I voted for Bush, these animals have distorted everything that being a Republican meant and twisted it into some kind of ignorant zombie religious base.
It is your choice who to vote for, of course. Perhaps I even agree that the current Republican party has twisted its form, but I cannot for the life of me see the "zombie religious base" you refer to however. If anything, I see less and less difference between the socialists posing as Democrats and those posing as Republicans. They both tell their constituency they will do one thing, but ultimately while the words are different, the actions are much the same, IMHO. Too many globalists who could care less what happens to the U.S.(or fill in name of one's country) so long as they get THEIRS, and not enough nationalists who believe we should get along with other countries, not merge sovereignty with them.


I apologize if I offended anyone, my anger isn't towards anyone who didn't have a hand in American policy making.
No apology necessary. We all are strongly opinionated about at least one thing or another on here, and so long as we are respectful in our discussions with each other there is nothing to apologize for. Imagine how boring things would be if we all agreed on everything.....

John P.

[crackstar]

Being that I'm Jewish, and Saddam was bent on Israel's destruction, all I can say is good riddance, and it couldn't happen to a nicer bastard.

Jeff

[Xert]

We weren't talking about courts or law. We were talking about reactions by lay people in the streets. Walk out in the middle of them and try to reason and tell me the reaction. I've seen plenty of rage spewed by people who demand a certain reaction to things. It's human nature...I don't get offended.
It's not a question of taking offence, it's a matter of trivializing the taking of a human life. People who are celebrating with glee are hardly considering the weighty nature of killing another human being. It becomes about revenge instead of justice.

You responded to me; not the other way around. So, yes, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I never said life has no value but that it's relative. If you were agreeing with me then much ado about nothing. If you were claiming there's some philosophical constant then I say: dogma. Might as well quote scripture or put angels on pin heads or tell me you like beets. There's nothing worth arguing there.
Well, since I agree entirely with you here (though I do think that there's an interesting Kantian argument that might be made at another time), we must have had some misunderstanding. My apologies.

[PR22]

I understand your being upset that the Iraqis would execute Saddam in this way, however justice eventually finds us all, even if we are almost 70 years old. While no one generally wishes to die, depending on the methods used, hanging is not necessarily any more horrible a death than others, and perhaps less so. We all suffer the consequences of our actions, some sooner, some later. When Saddam was younger and in power, even the families of those who simply disagreed with him in public often disappeared. I have met more than one survivor of these political cleansings. I do agree that even though he perhaps deserved his fate, there is a difference in applauding justice and revelling in someone's misfortune. After all, we all pay the piper in the end, and pay for our wrongs. All of us. Saddam received his justice as it should be. So will we all.

Do you honestly believe that this is the doing of the Iraqi people? Saddam should have been tried in Hague, as any other war criminal. Instead he's tried in a kangaroo court, those judges were nothing more than puppets to their U.S. masters.

Do you find it odd that for all the trials that Saddam has going against him, he's found guilty of and hanged for one of the smallest ones? Don't you agree that his war with Iran, his invasion of Kuwait were far more consequential than killing 148 Kurds? This isn't meant as a disrespect to human life, but to point out that this trial was nothing more than a farce. Did you find it odd how quickly they hung Saddam?

Saddam was hung for no other reason than to cover up his involvement with the US government. I mean you wouldn't want someone to put a mic in front of him so that he could point out his ties with Bush Sr, Cheney, and Rumsfeld now would you?

U.S. foreign policy isn't about getting "bad guys" if that was the case people like Saddam and Pinochet would never have been in power to commit their crimes in the first place. It's about protecting U.S. administration's interests.

I think your going a bit off topic about the WMDs. There is no evidence that Saddam ever had WMDs. The "what if he had WMDs hidden" arguement isn't valid. That arguement can be made for anyone and anything. The flying Spaghetti Monster could have WMDs hidden somewhere. Relying on your assumptions instead of factual evidence can only lead to more harm than good.

I'm getting too off track on the reasons Saddam was killed, but I don't think I'm alone in my thinking that this "Justice" was a sick joke. The only thing I've seen with this administration is a complete disregard for human life.

Justice would have been having a competent Judge and lawyer present cases without fear of being murdered, in a neutral setting. What happened to Saddam wasn't Justice. Saddam's death put a bigger wedge between Sunni's and Shiites. A Shiite led government killing the Sunni elected leader of a soverign nation.

Here's an article about the death toll, this article is based on the JHU study:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

Gotta love Bush's estimate of "30,000" Iraqi civilian deaths that was done by a U.S. research group, and the U.K.'s "50,000" civilian deaths.

I don't believe for a minute that the U.S. or U.K. government would be honest about the number of civilians they murdered. After all it could dissuade interest in the war, killing so few "Terrorists" and so many innocent people.

Yes I'm sure there are Iraqi people celebrating Saddam's death, that's what U.S. news source would show. But I don't think you'll find the same coverage as you do here around the world (in fact there are plenty of Muslims who are pissed off that Saddam was excuted during the holy time), for example these are some of the responses to Saddam's hanging on U.K.'s BBC:

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5096&start=0&tstart=0&&&&edition=2&ttl=20061230213931#paginator

What we see in media coverage isn't what's shown across the world. Treating other people and nations like this will only hurt the U.S. later on.

[Joe Chandler]

Saddam took life from many, does that give license totake his?

Yes, it does. He, through his conscious actions, forfeited his right to live among decent people. The death penalty is a good thing in some cases. It won't repair the damage he did, or bring back the lives he took, but it does a wonderful job of breaking him of the habit. And the simple fact is, anyone who intentionally takes another's life, outside of self defense, or defense of another, has (in my estimation) forfeited the right to his own life. Equating a murderer's rights to anyone else's is cowardly and poisonous to society. Mercy for the guilty is treason to the innocent, and I submit, a prime mover in our world's disregard for human life. You protect those who don't harm others, and punish relentlessly those who do.

[Straight Arrow]

OK everyone. It's over. Stop and reflect. Move ahead and do the right thing. Good debate!

[JohnP]

Do you honestly believe that this is the doing of the Iraqi people? Saddam should have been tried in Hague, as any other war criminal. Instead he's tried in a kangaroo court, those judges were nothing more than puppets to their U.S. masters.
First off, for this discussion to continue much further, feel free to sign with your first name, it is only gentlemanly in such a debate and conveys openness and honesty. It also gets tiring writing "PR22" all the time. Secondly, Iraq has never agreed to be subject to the justice at the Hague, nor should they. Quite a few countries have issue with a secrettribunal of foreigners in a Swiss courtroom somewhere deciding the fate of their countrymen. The Geneva conventions were conceived by multinational agreement at the Hague; that doesn't mean any nation has to agree to the Hague therefore having Jurisdiction over trials carried out in those countries. That would be like insisting the Mayor of New York control what occurs at the UN, which happens to meet in New York.
I also disagree with your position that the judges were somehow US puppets. Such are the fears of those who fail to give the Iraqis proper credit. Otherwise why not just try him under the provisional military authority and simply have US execute him? We could have, you know. Yet did not. In fact, the only Americans in the room besides Saddams enlisted (low-level) guards and the news media were his DEFENSE team, which apparently included some heavy hitters you or I could only dream of having on our side. Saddams outbursts and pride in what he did were more his downfall than the courts. He could have won, but not only did he underestimate the will of his countrymen who he had treated as cattle for so long, but was too PROUD of the horrors he had carried out, and when he finally realised the court was serious, I think it was a little late for him.


Do you find it odd that for all the trials that Saddam has going against him, he's found guilty of and hanged for one of the smallest ones? Don't you agree that his war with Iran, his invasion of Kuwait were far more consequential than killing 148 Kurds? This isn't meant as a disrespect to human life, but to point out that this trial was nothing more than a farce. Did you find it odd how quickly they hung Saddam?
Not really. His invasion of Kuwait or his war with Iran are not, I think, the issue the Iraqi people had with him. Killing troops of an enemy nation, while unsavory, is different than killing one's own defenseless people, for which crimes IMHO the people there had much more issue with.


Saddam was hung for no other reason than to cover up his involvement with the US government. I mean you wouldn't want someone to put a mic in front of him so that he could point out his ties with Bush Sr, Cheney, and Rumsfeld now would you?
His ties to the American government as far back as the Iran Iraq war have never been a secret. We let quite a few despots remain in power, if only because there are so many and we have to choose our fights. Saddam had earned his fate more than once, but this time he made his threats at a time when they were taken more seriously by an administration with less sense of humor. Perhaps had 9/11 never happened, Saddam would continue to be merely "contained" as before, but now the time for taking risks with those claiming to be able to inflict massive loss of life on our nation's civilian populace is over.


U.S. foreign policy isn't about getting "bad guys" if that was the case people like Saddam and Pinochet would never have been in power to commit their crimes in the first place. It's about protecting U.S. administration's interests.
Ummmmm that's what I just said. National policy of a nation should ALWAYS be about the best interests of that nation. You did not read my post carefully enough, apparently. There are PLENTY of bad guys to get. The government's job is to decide which one it would be in the nation's best interests to go after first. The feel-good notions are left to others to decide. We simply cannot get them ALL. At some point or other, the rest of the world has to be held accountable for doing its own dirty work.


I think your going a bit off topic about the WMDs. There is no evidence that Saddam ever had WMDs. The "what if he had WMDs hidden" arguement isn't valid. That arguement can be made for anyone and anything. The flying Spaghetti Monster could have WMDs hidden somewhere. Relying on your assumptions instead of factual evidence can only lead to more harm than good.
How is it off topic? you were the one saying the invasion was based on a lie by the administration; I merely countered your argument. As for your statement about there being no evidence, where are you getting your information here because it is patently false. He gassed those Kurd villages with something and it wasn't air freshener. No, I would bet a case of your favorite that the information you are using came from someone who had either never been to Iraq or had perhaps never left the green zone, which might as well be a slum of New York for all the "view of Iraq" it provides. You are actually using the same reasoning you accuse me of. At the very least I have been to Iraq, I have seen disturbing things (as have others) and drawn my own conclusions. Saddam told all his neighbors he had WMD's. We called his bluff. There is no lie in that. Of course this "flying spaghetti monster" you speak of could have hidden WMD's, but this is not the point. You have listed ZERO factual evidence for your claim there was no WMD's, and it is telling that the politicians now making that claim (they did not before interestingly enough) had never been to Iraq, and those who did went there well AFTER Saddam was out of power and went on "guided tours" of safe areas. That is a Disney tour, not a fact-finding mission.


I'm getting too off track on the reasons Saddam was killed, but I don't think I'm alone in my thinking that this "Justice" was a sick joke. The only thing I've seen with this administration is a complete disregard for human life.
Your disagreement with the U.S. administration actually has nothing to do with Saddam's execution. Very simply, the U.S. did not try him nor did we convict him (if anything he was more valuable to the United States ALIVE as an intelligence asset than dead) the Iraqis did. Just curiosity, if Germans at the end of WWII, shocked with the realizations that Hitler had authorized the death camps, had executed Adolf Hitler, would you have somehow still felt it was the Americans' fault? I think you are underestimating the Iraqi people. How many of your NEIGHBORS do you think would go vote knowing it could mean their death? Compared to that, I think the typical American has gone soft and is not the steely, honest, straight shooter they were known for being in previous generations, but a flinching, weak, whiner, fat on the spoils earned by his fathers. The outside world sees this. The Iraqi people are not of such squeamish stock. Give them a chance, do not underestimate them. They are not stupid, nor are you or I intellectually superior somehow based on our differing upbringings.


Justice would have been having a competent Judge and lawyer present cases without fear of being murdered, in a neutral setting. What happened to Saddam wasn't Justice. Saddam's death put a bigger wedge between Sunni's and Shiites. A Shiite led government killing the Sunni elected leader of a soverign nation.
Again, you are speculating, and there is no basis for this. On your first point, the locations of the trial as well as Saddam's location at any given time was heavily protected due to fears Iraqis would attempt to take justice into their own hands before the court had heard the evidence. I've met more than one Iraqi who would likely risk a hail of bullets for a single chance to rip Saddam apart themselves. If anything the trial prolonged his life. For your second point here, I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam's being alive served to give hope to some Sunni's that they could continue to not participate and would again come to power in Iraq. They were and are the minority in Iraq, and held power only through brutal tactics that would make the former East German Stasi pale with discomfort. Saddam wasn't so much elected as he had those who were against him killed. The guy BEFORE him was elected. Which man, interestingly enough, ceased to breath shortly after Saddam's accession to power...


Here's an article about the death toll, this article is based on the JHU study:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

Gotta love Bush's estimate of "30,000" Iraqi civilian deaths that was done by a U.S. research group, and the U.K.'s "50,000" civilian deaths.

I don't believe for a minute that the U.S. or U.K. government would be honest about the number of civilians they murdered. After all it could dissuade interest in the war, killing so few "Terrorists" and so many innocent people.
You make it seem that for some reason Washington post's numbers are any more trustworthy than that of participating governments. Did you read it? the sources used for the poll are what amounts to un named and unverifiable sources. They claim to have gained the numbers by "interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country" Who did they interview? They might as well have made the story up, and given the WP's mutual hatred of the current administration, they stand to gain much and lose little by doing so. So ultimately no one really knows how many have died, and it is interesting to note that even those interviewed apparently did not, for the most part, say it was murder at the hands of U.S. troops, as you say, but that people had died. That tells us nothing at all. It is also interesting to see that even the estimate in the study does NOT say these were deaths as a result of US or British action...it is not U.S. troops, after all, beheading dissident Iraqi's and recording it on their camera-phones. Rather, in the power vacuum in some areas, strongarm groups with much to lose, knowing they are out of favor with the new government (especially the ones composed of foreigners who originally entered Iraq with intent to fight Americans) are acting out the time honored process of killing their opposition, thusly trying to creat a piece of the "pie" for themselves, and to attempt to prevent the new government from stabilizing.. These simply were not people "murdered" by U.S. or U.K. forces. Murder is a heavy accusation to make, and you had better be able to back the accusation up, along with proof that it was at the hands of U.S. or British forces. If you continue to believe this, feel free to enlist, go over there yourself, and report such doings to the proper authorities when you see them. It does happen, and when it does such events do get reported and people stand trial. Otherwise you simply are making accusations you cannot back up, and neither can the WP writer in this case. It is obvious he had his own bias already and did not present merely the facts, but gave it a little "spin" as well to help his career at the paper. Why is it you think, that some imbedded reporters send home articles EVERY SINGLE DAY, yet only the bad or negative ones get published? There is an old saying in the media, "If it Bleeds, it Leads". This is what I think is happening here.


Yes I'm sure there are Iraqi people celebrating Saddam's death, that's what U.S. news source would show. But I don't think you'll find the same coverage as you do here around the world (in fact there are plenty of Muslims who are pissed off that Saddam was excuted during the holy time), for example these are some of the responses to Saddam's hanging on U.K.'s BBC:

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5096&start=0&tstart=0&&&&edition=2&ttl=20061230213931#paginator

What we see in media coverage isn't what's shown across the world. Treating other people and nations like this will only hurt the U.S. later on.
Interestingly enough, again a biased source. This is a link to posts by Muslims and others in the UK (NOT Iraq) who have for YEARS hated USA, Bush, UK...all of it, and furthermore don't have a CLUE what is happening in Iraq. Their opinions bear no more importance than yours or mine. When I can find recordings of mobs of Muslims in London chanting "Nuke, Nuke Washington, Death to Tony Blair, Death to George Bush" I seriously doubt these same people can be relied on for anything approaching a lack of bias in their posts. FWIW I've seen nothing on US news either about Iraqis celebrating or otherwise, merely that security methods were in place to reduce chances say, that one militia there would burn the mosque of an opposing sect of Islam with the worshippers inside.
Anyway good debate so far, even if we've had it's brother in previous posts....:biggrin:
John P.

[berzerkeleyan]

...this "flying spaghetti monster" you speak of...

Just in case you really didn't know who the FSM (http://www.venganza.org/) was. :biggrin:

[JohnP]

:lol: :lol: :a29:
Who would have thought...
John P.

[PR22]

First off, for this discussion to continue much further, feel free to sign with your first name, it is only gentlemanly in such a debate and conveys openness and honesty. It also gets tiring writing "PR22" all the time. Secondly, Iraq has never agreed to be subject to the justice at the Hague, nor should they. Quite a few countries have issue with a secrettribunal of foreigners in a Swiss courtroom somewhere deciding the fate of their countrymen. The Geneva conventions were conceived by multinational agreement at the Hague; that doesn't mean any nation has to agree to the Hague therefore having Jurisdiction over trials carried out in those countries. That would be like insisting the Mayor of New York control what occurs at the UN, which happens to meet in New York.
I also disagree with your position that the judges were somehow US puppets. Such are the fears of those who fail to give the Iraqis proper credit. Otherwise why not just try him under the provisional military authority and simply have US execute him? We could have, you know. Yet did not. In fact, the only Americans in the room besides Saddams enlisted (low-level) guards and the news media were his DEFENSE team, which apparently included some heavy hitters you or I could only dream of having on our side. Saddams outbursts and pride in what he did were more his downfall than the courts. He could have won, but not only did he underestimate the will of his countrymen who he had treated as cattle for so long, but was too PROUD of the horrors he had carried out, and when he finally realised the court was serious, I think it was a little late for him.


Not really. His invasion of Kuwait or his war with Iran are not, I think, the issue the Iraqi people had with him. Killing troops of an enemy nation, while unsavory, is different than killing one's own defenseless people, for which crimes IMHO the people there had much more issue with.


His ties to the American government as far back as the Iran Iraq war have never been a secret. We let quite a few despots remain in power, if only because there are so many and we have to choose our fights. Saddam had earned his fate more than once, but this time he made his threats at a time when they were taken more seriously by an administration with less sense of humor. Perhaps had 9/11 never happened, Saddam would continue to be merely "contained" as before, but now the time for taking risks with those claiming to be able to inflict massive loss of life on our nation's civilian populace is over.


Ummmmm that's what I just said. National policy of a nation should ALWAYS be about the best interests of that nation. You did not read my post carefully enough, apparently. There are PLENTY of bad guys to get. The government's job is to decide which one it would be in the nation's best interests to go after first. The feel-good notions are left to others to decide. We simply cannot get them ALL. At some point or other, the rest of the world has to be held accountable for doing its own dirty work.


How is it off topic? you were the one saying the invasion was based on a lie by the administration; I merely countered your argument. As for your statement about there being no evidence, where are you getting your information here because it is patently false. He gassed those Kurd villages with something and it wasn't air freshener. No, I would bet a case of your favorite that the information you are using came from someone who had either never been to Iraq or had perhaps never left the green zone, which might as well be a slum of New York for all the "view of Iraq" it provides. You are actually using the same reasoning you accuse me of. At the very least I have been to Iraq, I have seen disturbing things (as have others) and drawn my own conclusions. Saddam told all his neighbors he had WMD's. We called his bluff. There is no lie in that. Of course this "flying spaghetti monster" you speak of could have hidden WMD's, but this is not the point. You have listed ZERO factual evidence for your claim there was no WMD's, and it is telling that the politicians now making that claim (they did not before interestingly enough) had never been to Iraq, and those who did went there well AFTER Saddam was out of power and went on "guided tours" of safe areas. That is a Disney tour, not a fact-finding mission.


Your disagreement with the U.S. administration actually has nothing to do with Saddam's execution. Very simply, the U.S. did not try him nor did we convict him (if anything he was more valuable to the United States ALIVE as an intelligence asset than dead) the Iraqis did. Just curiosity, if Germans at the end of WWII, shocked with the realizations that Hitler had authorized the death camps, had executed Adolf Hitler, would you have somehow still felt it was the Americans' fault? I think you are underestimating the Iraqi people. How many of your NEIGHBORS do you think would go vote knowing it could mean their death? Compared to that, I think the typical American has gone soft and is not the steely, honest, straight shooter they were known for being in previous generations, but a flinching, weak, whiner, fat on the spoils earned by his fathers. The outside world sees this. The Iraqi people are not of such squeamish stock. Give them a chance, do not underestimate them. They are not stupid, nor are you or I intellectually superior somehow based on our differing upbringings.


Again, you are speculating, and there is no basis for this. On your first point, the locations of the trial as well as Saddam's location at any given time was heavily protected due to fears Iraqis would attempt to take justice into their own hands before the court had heard the evidence. I've met more than one Iraqi who would likely risk a hail of bullets for a single chance to rip Saddam apart themselves. If anything the trial prolonged his life. For your second point here, I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam's being alive served to give hope to some Sunni's that they could continue to not participate and would again come to power in Iraq. They were and are the minority in Iraq, and held power only through brutal tactics that would make the former East German Stasi pale with discomfort. Saddam wasn't so much elected as he had those who were against him killed. The guy BEFORE him was elected. Which man, interestingly enough, ceased to breath shortly after Saddam's accession to power...


You make it seem that for some reason Washington post's numbers are any more trustworthy than that of participating governments. Did you read it? the sources used for the poll are what amounts to un named and unverifiable sources. They claim to have gained the numbers by "interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country" Who did they interview? They might as well have made the story up, and given the WP's mutual hatred of the current administration, they stand to gain much and lose little by doing so. So ultimately no one really knows how many have died, and it is interesting to note that even those interviewed apparently did not, for the most part, say it was murder at the hands of U.S. troops, as you say, but that people had died. That tells us nothing at all. It is also interesting to see that even the estimate in the study does NOT say these were deaths as a result of US or British action...it is not U.S. troops, after all, beheading dissident Iraqi's and recording it on their camera-phones. Rather, in the power vacuum in some areas, strongarm groups with much to lose, knowing they are out of favor with the new government (especially the ones composed of foreigners who originally entered Iraq with intent to fight Americans) are acting out the time honored process of killing their opposition, thusly trying to creat a piece of the "pie" for themselves, and to attempt to prevent the new government from stabilizing.. These simply were not people "murdered" by U.S. or U.K. forces. Murder is a heavy accusation to make, and you had better be able to back the accusation up, along with proof that it was at the hands of U.S. or British forces. If you continue to believe this, feel free to enlist, go over there yourself, and report such doings to the proper authorities when you see them. It does happen, and when it does such events do get reported and people stand trial. Otherwise you simply are making accusations you cannot back up, and neither can the WP writer in this case. It is obvious he had his own bias already and did not present merely the facts, but gave it a little "spin" as well to help his career at the paper. Why is it you think, that some imbedded reporters send home articles EVERY SINGLE DAY, yet only the bad or negative ones get published? There is an old saying in the media, "If it Bleeds, it Leads". This is what I think is happening here.


Interestingly enough, again a biased source. This is a link to posts by Muslims and others in the UK (NOT Iraq) who have for YEARS hated USA, Bush, UK...all of it, and furthermore don't have a CLUE what is happening in Iraq. Their opinions bear no more importance than yours or mine. When I can find recordings of mobs of Muslims in London chanting "Nuke, Nuke Washington, Death to Tony Blair, Death to George Bush" I seriously doubt these same people can be relied on for anything approaching a lack of bias in their posts. FWIW I've seen nothing on US news either about Iraqis celebrating or otherwise, merely that security methods were in place to reduce chances say, that one militia there would burn the mosque of an opposing sect of Islam with the worshippers inside.
Anyway good debate so far, even if we've had it's brother in previous posts....:biggrin:
John P.

I'm not going to argue each point, but to clarify about the links I posted:

The Washington Post is a (well known) Conservative paper, John Hopkins University isn't random, they have credibility at stake, also it was done with the collaboration of Iraqi MDs.

BBC UK is not a Muslim biased site. If you read the comments, the vast majority of the posters were not and had nothing to do Islam (I read almost all the comments), many of the posts were non muslim Brits.

We have differing views on the world, good debate.

Prasanna

[JohnP]

I'm not going to argue each point, but to clarify about the links I posted:
Fair enough.


The Washington Post is a (well known) Conservative paper, John Hopkins University isn't random, they have credibility at stake, also it was done with the collaboration of Iraqi MDs. Prasanna, the Washington post is of late in a "pissing contest" for lack of better terms with the administration, regardless of its political leanings, it would seem. The article however did not say Iraqi MD's were interviewed but that random households were polled throughout Iraq, which is why when a news report says "poll" and "estimate" it then washes its hands of challenges to the veracity of it's report. My intent was not to challenge the credibility of Johns Hopkins or even the Washington Post, but to show that in this case we are meant to believe one thing, when they did not actually say it.


BBC UK is not a Muslim biased site. If you read the comments, the vast majority of the posters were not and had nothing to do Islam (I read almost all the comments), many of the posts were non muslim Brits.
Which is why I said "Muslims and others..." my biggest problem is that the link was to posts made by Englishmen rather than Iraqis, and was not "news" reported elsewhere in the world, but rather postings from people such as you and I. I included the Muslims as posting simply in response to your statement many were upset over the timing of his execution. I'm sure many were and I do not disagree with your statement, but simply feel it is not quite the same thing if say an American or British Muslim disagrees with Saddam's execution or its timing, and if Iraqi Muslim or otherwise felt the same way.


We have differing views on the world, good debate.

Prasanna

Again, fair enough! Good to hear your views, to be honest the timing one was a new one for me, as I'm not extremely familiar with the holy times of Islam.
We learn something new every day it would seem.
John P.

[Mr.Benn]

I'm not going to argue each point, but to clarify about the links I posted:

The Washington Post is a (well known) Conservative paper.

No, it's not. Courtesy of Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_post#Political_leanings):


The Post claims that its news coverage is politically neutral or strives to be. Conservatives often cite the Post, along with The New York Times, as exemplars of "liberal media bias." Some liberals, on the other hand, view the Post as "culturally and politically conservative" [3] and supportive of the Washington establishment and the status quo.

* When the paper makes a political endorsement, the endorsements have historically been for Democratic candidates. (As late publisher Katherine Graham noted in her memoirs Personal History, the paper long had a policy of not making endorsements for presidential candidates. In 2004, however, the Post endorsed John Kerry.)[4] It has occasionally endorsed Republican politicians, such as Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich.[5]
* It has regularly published a political mixture of op-ed columnists, many of them left-of-center (including E.J. Dionne and Richard Cohen) and a few right-of-center (including George Will and Charles Krauthammer)
* Its editorial positions are mostly liberal, yet it has taken rare conservative stances: it has steadfastly supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, warmed to President George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, opposed a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq War, and advocated free trade agreements, including, among others, CAFTA.

I think you may have the WaPo confused with The Washington Times (which is more well known for leaning conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times#Political_leanings)).

[joel]

Still, I hope I don't ruin your celebration over this death too much.

You won't - I'll be poppin' a bottle of champagne to honor this wonderous occasion as I watch the video of him gettin offed.

I heard one of the CNN reporters asking one of Saddams half-brothers how he was doing with they saw him last - to which they replied "Oh, he's just hangin' out"

:lol:

[joel]

Equating a murderer's rights to anyone else's is cowardly and poisonous to society. Mercy for the guilty is treason to the innocent, and I submit, a prime mover in our world's disregard for human life. You protect those who don't harm others, and punish relentlessly those who do.

Truer words have not been spoken. A big +1 from out here in Cali.

[azbanbo]

Crappy video but--> http://pandachute.com/videos/leaked_saddam_being_hung_video

[PR22]

@ John

I'd like to agree to disagree :smile:

@ Mr.Benn

Thanks for the clearing up the confusion with WaPo and Wash. Times.

I got what I wanted to say off my chest :smile: .

[Mama Bear]

Just in case you really didn't know who the FSM (http://www.venganza.org/) was. :biggrin:

Pastafarianism! Spew Alert..... :blink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[AandW]

And the simple fact is, anyone who intentionally takes another's life, outside of self defense, or defense of another, has (in my estimation) forfeited the right to his own life. Equating a murderer's rights to anyone else's is cowardly and poisonous to society. Mercy for the guilty is treason to the innocent, and I submit, a prime mover in our world's disregard for human life. You protect those who don't harm others, and punish relentlessly those who do.

Well said! Very well said!

[Mama Bear]

Well said! Very well said!

Well said indeed!! I couldn't agree more, thank you Joe...:thumbup1:

[Mama Bear]

Do you honestly believe that this is the doing of the Iraqi people? Saddam should have been tried in Hague, as any other war criminal. Instead he's tried in a kangaroo court, those judges were nothing more than puppets to their U.S. masters.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5096&start=0&tstart=0&&&&edition=2&ttl=20061230213931#paginator

What we see in media coverage isn't what's shown across the world. Treating other people and nations like this will only hurt the U.S. later on.

These are some brilliant points... ones I did not think of and I am glad that you shared your view. You are right in that it was a highly orchestrated hanging.... as so much of our lives nowadays also seem to be.....

I know that it is naive to pray for better leaders than we have, but I am glad that there are people out there that are asking some good questions and making some really, really good points.

Hussein was blatant in his disregard for human life. I am glad that he is gone... but he is not the only one.......

[rafikz]

The U.S government should stop putting "puppet" presidents that become dictators in some countries ; none of what happened in Iraq would have happened ;
Remember Pinochet and Noriega, to name a few?

[MJB]

Yes, it does. He, through his conscious actions, forfeited his right to live among decent people. The death penalty is a good thing in some cases. It won't repair the damage he did, or bring back the lives he took, but it does a wonderful job of breaking him of the habit. And the simple fact is, anyone who intentionally takes another's life, outside of self defense, or defense of another, has (in my estimation) forfeited the right to his own life. Equating a murderer's rights to anyone else's is cowardly and poisonous to society. Mercy for the guilty is treason to the innocent, and I submit, a prime mover in our world's disregard for human life. You protect those who don't harm others, and punish relentlessly those who do.

You've made several excellent points. Among them is that the damage Saddam did cannot be undome.

Well, Saddam was at this point was in no position to harm anyone. So what does it say of those who enacted the execution. After all "anyone who intentionally takes another's life, outside of self defense or defense of another, has (in my estimation) forfeited right to his own life." Maybe he has forfeited his right to life--who's obligation is it to carry out the execution.

To me this isn't about Saddam's rights. This isn't even about the victims, unfortunately, neither you or I can help them as much as we may like. I very much respect while wholehaeatedly disagree with your closing sentiment--that by not punishing (presumably through the death penalty) people like Saddam we lessen the value of life. I am all about, and all of my arguments have been about the value of life and maintaining a value and preserving the sanctity of life. I just fear that when people become the executioners we devalue life. Therefore, I argue that in carrying out exectuions we ultimately damage ourselves.

I am not Amish--otherwise, I wouldn't (a) be on the net or (b) enjoy shaving. Still, do you remember the reaction to the Amish community when that deranged man shot the school girls? You had to be postively moved by that--if not well I have no argument. If so-- Showing the ability to resist a blood thirst for vengance in our hearts to Saddam would have spoken volumes. It would have shown us as a people who wouldn't lower ourselves to any level of unneeded violence. We came in--we put him down--we protected those who needed to be protected and we removed the threat once and for all--but we didn't just kill for the sake of it.

Now, I have never defended Saddam--and I won't. Heck, I have argued for some pretty harsh treatment--scuttling him off to a isolated cell and cutting off all outside contact (one hour exercise in a concrete hallway, three bland meals, 2 minute shower 3 times a week)--humane but ultimately miserable, some might argue a worse fate than a quick death.


P.S. I think I am going to continue to read but at least for now resist further posts here. I do appreciate the forum but realize, I have become obsessed with this thread. I am passionate about my oppposition to capital punishment. I realize that for two days I have hardly touched the shaving threads. I will read on and while I may post again here--probably best not.

[Xert]

Yes, it does. He, through his conscious actions, forfeited his right to live among decent people. The death penalty is a good thing in some cases. It won't repair the damage he did, or bring back the lives he took, but it does a wonderful job of breaking him of the habit. And the simple fact is, anyone who intentionally takes another's life, outside of self defense, or defense of another, has (in my estimation) forfeited the right to his own life. Equating a murderer's rights to anyone else's is cowardly and poisonous to society. Mercy for the guilty is treason to the innocent, and I submit, a prime mover in our world's disregard for human life. You protect those who don't harm others, and punish relentlessly those who do.
I submit that such a bold statement should be thoroughly defended.

[rtaylor61]

This is obviously a "hot topic", but I still want to express one last thought. We will never all agree on this subject. Period. But, IMO, Saddam was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Fair trial? Doesn't matter...he is guilty. Does killing him change anything? Doesn't matter, he is guilty. Does killing him bring anyone back? Doesn't matter, he is guilty. He made the decision to "live by th sword", now he can "die by the sword", so to speak. Every day we have people killed by drunk drivers. Every day we have people shot or killed in robberies and other activities to support drug habits. And we are arguing about the hanging of a man who is as bad or worse than Hitler. Personally, I hate to admit that while watching the CNN video of the noose being put around his neck, I liked the fact that those around him had on masks. And when the sash was put around his neck, I enjoyed the look of fear in his eyes. If George, Sr. had finished the job, Jr. would not have had to finish it. The man was a monster. And while some may say "May God have mercy on his soul", I hope he spends an individual eternity burning in hell for each and every death he is responsible for. The man was intelligent, and knew what he was doing, and what he was responsible for. Hanging for him was easy. He should have been hoisted by a crane and caused to die the way that so many others died. He got off easy in his mortal life.

Randy

[SA_bmatth]

It's not a question of taking offence, it's a matter of trivializing the taking of a human life. People who are celebrating with glee are hardly considering the weighty nature of killing another human being. It becomes about revenge instead of justice.

And someone else(me for instance) could say they are properly valuing a human life--indifference or happiness at the death of a butcher. Take that Iranian picture I posted. It makes for a great test. Post it somewhere with a caption of "child serial killer executed" and a week or two later post the same picture with a caption of "adulterer executed". You'll get two very different responses and rightly so. I wouldn't presume anyone is a moral cretin for reacting one way or another. It's human nature.

Though after watching the videos just now I definitely don't feel the same as yesterday. It's like something out of a B movie--the lighting, chanting, etc. You'd think they'd go out of their way to atleast give an appearance of solemnity. But then again I'm not a Kurd/Shi'ite/Marsh Arab....

[SA_bmatth]

SA
I couldn't care less.
I don't care if lives were saved.
I don't care about the economics of it.
I don't care about deterrence.
I don't care about revenge.
Hhmm, that's a lot of huge "I don't care's".
Sue

In the context of deciding Saddam's fate....

I'm not a lump of clay. Of course, if those things were all favorably true I'd react positively like most other people.

[SSLStudio]

What will change with his death? Yet another example to the future Saddam's and Hitlers of the world... that tyranny, genocide, and torture will not be tolerated, and will eventually lead to your own demise.


I would not only volunteer - but I would pay $ for the honor of taking out that scumbag..... but if I were in charge of administering his capital punishment - it surely wouldn't be hanging, and it surely would take longer than 30 days...

+2 3-4-5 where are we yet?

For sure he got the easy route, I have seen the photos of his regime doings.
No thanks I agree here Eye for an Eye at his level of Torture he got the easy route ID def. have something more chemical in mind for the guy which reminds me off another horror type Ali Chemicali another right hand of Saddam but I think we took care of that #$#%#@.