Saddam to be hung-Verdict

Duffman

From the Irish Times:

'Britain said the verdict was the "ultimate expression" of Iraqi sovereignty'.

They should be kicked out of the Council of Europe and the EU. Disgraceful.

Wacker

I am against the death penalty, but I think Saddam would deserve it as much as any man could. The world will be a better place for his departure.

meepins

mike65 wrote:

Its nice to see such a well-balanced thread about the greatest tyrant (after from Mao and Stalin) of the post WW2 era.

If the law says he will be sentenced to death then thats what will happen unless posters here would like to further interfere with Iraqi law?

Mike.

Well it would be nice to see him testify against his accomplices in the US government first.

Villain

Eye for an Eye, well actually it's probably nearly a millions eyes for one here, Saddam was involved in the murder of many many kurds and others. Public hanging is too good for him imo a public stoning would be much better.

The US may have many flaws but allowing Saddam to get the death penalty isn't one.

Sponge Bob

irish1 wrote:

Eye for an Eye, well actually it's probably nearly a millions eyes for one here, Saddam was involved in the murder of many many kurds any others.

Saddam was a US 'asset' in the Middle East all the while he was killing Kurds and Iranians . He caused the death of anywhere up to 1.2 million people between the Al Anfal campaign ( more here ) against the Kurds and the first gulf war...against the Iranians..... both campaigns ran during the 1980s. After all it was he who invaded Iran , at a minimum 600,000 dead in those two concurrent wars. He should have been tried and hung for the Iran war alone . Rumsfeld would have been a defence witness there.

The US may have many flaws but allowing Saddam to get the death penalty isn't one.

Such as the fact that the US never stopped or tried to stop Al Anfal and helped to supply chemical weapons to Saddam for years .

As long as Saddam was banging away at Iran and weakening Iran the US never gave a damn as long as he paid cash.

Blackjack

QFT Spongebob.

Oddly enough, the US interest in supporting Saddam during the Iraq-Iran conflict was to protect Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's were afraid of what would happen (likely aggression) should Iran be successful in conflict against Iraq, hence the US interest.

Guess what the Saudi's have lots of in the ways of natural resources.

Hobbes

mike65 wrote:

Living icon or dead icon? I don't think there would be a any difference in the minds of those who adhere to his credo.

Mike.

Martyrs tend to make a difference.

gandalf

Hobbes wrote:

Martyrs tend to make a difference.

Yep the 1916 leaders went from traitors to heroes in the eyes of the public by being turning in martyrs by the English.

mike65

Saddam is already a 'hero' to his flock. I'm not buying the distinction this time.

Mike.

Sponge Bob

mike65 wrote:

Saddam is already a 'hero' to his flock. I'm not buying the distinction this time.

In that case the yanks should keep him alive until AFTER they leave and then his execution is a sovereign matter for a sovereign state . It would be shortsighted of them to assist in making the scumbag a martyr .

Sir Nicolae Ceausescu , a notorious scumbag but hardly as genocidal as Saddam, and was lynched in 1989 by the Romanians themselves after a very very quick showtrial ( 30 mins for the trial and then he was shot straight away ) and no defence lawyer was ever appointed. He was shot before any appeal could be mounted of course.

I never heard any protest from the UK where he was a Knight of the realm.

I never heard any murmurs of disquiet from his many many friends in the west , especially those who loudly valued freedom and democracy and lauded Sir Nicolae for his upstandingness in those respects .

And Sir Nicolae was a friend of the west , unlike Saddam since he invaded Kuwait.

aidan24326

Tristrame wrote:

/ Reactionary mode...



I know I know,the U.S is the great Satan yawn yawn Zzzzzzz

Pack in yer yankie jobs(those of you that have them) then! It's true, this country depends on 10's of thousands of U.S backed jobs as do the indirect anciliary services.

Put this high principle where the mouth is

They are after all the great Satan.

Those of us that are newly unemployed can bring our principle out to Africa and end the more significant numbers wise murdering injustices there, that we hear so little talk of on this board...

/ End Reactionary mode

No-one ever said the US as a whole is 'the great satan'. It's those who patrol the corridors of power in America that people have a problem with.

Manic Moran

The majority of the Sunni groups, including Ba'athists, have distanced themselves from Saddam, including releasing public statements on the issue. I'm not of the opinion that his execution is going to make things any worse.

Is the timing convenient? Possibly. Is it a show trial? Maybe. Is the verdict wrong? I don't think so. In this case, political expediency and justice seem to meet.

NTM

Hobbes

mike65 wrote:

Saddam is already a 'hero' to his flock. I'm not buying the distinction this time.

However his flock as it where are very small. The majority of fighting going on Iraq is because of the US occupation of Iraq.

Thats not to say that when or if the US pull out the violence will magically stop, but giving people a martyr rarely helps.

But put it in perspective. He is only being hung for the deaths of 148 people. I'm pretty sure he has killed many more then that, but what sort of justice will Iraqis want then from the death of its population by US troops?

Not that the US government is ever going to allow anyone to try US troops,

Rb

Memnoch wrote:

what a joke, rather than this show sham trial the US could have just summarily executed him when they captured him and it would have been no different.

He should have been tried in the international criminal court, off course the american's and all of saddam's former allies crimes would also have come to light in a fair and open court and we can't have that now can we?

Bush is a far worse war criminal than Saddam ever was, but then as we all know this show trial wasn't about justice for iraqi's. True justice will only come when bush blair and their cronies rot in jail for the rest of their lives but that day will never come.

I agree. The trial was an conveniently timed sham, one can only hope it won't affect the outcome of the upcoming events. Unfortunately it may though.

HoldenCaulfeild wrote:

I wonder when Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheny, Blair, Olmert etc and their corprate masters will be hung????

lol, don't get your hopes up. Unfortunate though, really is. Nothing would make me happier than to turn on the news tomorrow and see that Bush, Blair & co have been tried for their crimes. Whether the day will ever come, doubtful, but it certainly would be a great day.

Hussein certainly deserved to be tried and punished, but as has already been said in this thread (and which I fully agree with), the death penalty is not the right punishment.

Hobbes wrote:

Not that the US government is ever going to allow anyone to try US troops

You're right there Ted.

Moriarty

rb_ie wrote:

I agree. The trial was an conveniently timed sham, one can only hope it won't affect the outcome of the upcoming events. Unfortunately it may though.

Can you show me how it was a sham, exactly?

rb_ie wrote:

lol, don't get your hopes up. Unfortunate though, really is. Nothing would make me happier than to turn on the news tomorrow and see that Bush, Blair & co have been tried for their crimes. Whether the day will ever come, doubtful, but it certainly would be a great day.

Which crimes are those then?

rb_ie wrote:

Hussein certainly deserved to be tried and punished, but as has already been said in this thread (and which I fully agree with), the death penalty is not the right punishment.

Could you tell me where the line is when telling other countries how to conduct themselves when they're doing something you don't agree with?

Hobbes wrote:

Not that the US government is ever going to allow anyone to try US troops

There's a good reason for that. As demonstrated by a number of posters in this thread.

lostexpectation

I lvoe that phrase, its not saddam to be hung but 'hung until dead'


tabliod headline winner...

SADDAMNED TO HELL

Victor

mike65 wrote:

In no particular order
Mao
Pol-Pot
Stalin
Kim Il-sung
Kim Jong-il
Pinochet
Castro
Ayatollah Khomeini
Mobuto
Galtieri
Mugabe
Mike.

SO how many has this Mike chap killed? But odd that you mention Khomeini, seeing as his actions, some quite dispicable, were as a reaction to Saddam.

Memnoch wrote:

Bush is a far worse war criminal than Saddam ever was

No. Bush is bad, but not quite that bad.

Blackjack wrote:

Oddly enough, the US interest in supporting Saddam during the Iraq-Iran conflict was to protect Saudi Arabia.

Not really. They were more more interested in revenge for the Embassy kidnappings and take Iran down a few notches.

Moriarty wrote:

rb_ie wrote:

lol, don't get your hopes up. Unfortunate though, really is. Nothing would make me happier than to turn on the news tomorrow and see that Bush, Blair & co have been tried for their crimes. Whether the day will ever come, doubtful, but it certainly would be a great day.

Which crimes are those then?

Starting wars is a crime. They started this war.

Moriarty

Victor wrote:

Starting wars is a crime. They started this war.

It's not always a crime. It's not always wrong either.

Flex

Just a quick question, why is it so many people are opposed to capital punishment? Especially a case like this where the accused is guilty beyond doubt for committing such crimes?

Wacker

Flex wrote:

Just a quick question, why is it so many people are opposed to capital punishment? Especially a case like this where the accused is guilty beyond doubt for committing such crimes?

I think capital punishment is more about revenge than justice. The state should be above such things.
However, might I suggest you start a new thread for this discussion rather than hijack this one?

mike65

mike65 wrote:

Mao
Pol-Pot
Stalin
Kim Il-sung
Kim Jong-il
Pinochet
Castro
Ayatollah Khomeini
Mobuto
Galtieri
Mugabe

Wot?

No Idi?

tallus

Manic Moran wrote:

The majority of the Sunni groups, including Ba'athists, have distanced themselves from Saddam, including releasing public statements on the issue. I'm not of the opinion that his execution is going to make things any worse.

Is the timing convenient? Possibly. Is it a show trial? Maybe. Is the verdict wrong? I don't think so. In this case, political expediency and justice seem to meet.

NTM

I'm in agreement with this post, the end result is a Despot is getting his comeuppance and the world will be a better place without him.

Wannabe Deise

Moriarty wrote:

It's not always a crime. It's not always wrong either.

So far conservative estimate on iraqbodycount is 45477 civilian deaths
How many of those people would still be alive if it were not for this f#cking war?

Wannabe Deise

Flex wrote:

Just a quick question, why is it so many people are opposed to capital punishment? Especially a case like this where the accused is guilty beyond doubt for committing such crimes?

It is barbarous - that's why. Human civilization is supposed to have evolved beyond "an eye for an eye" at this stage which is why the Brits among others don't have death penalty anymore.

The fact that Saddam deserves death doesn't mean he should be executed.

Moriarty

Wannabe Deise wrote:

So far conservative estimate on iraqbodycount is 45477 civilian deaths
How many of those people would still be alive if it were not for this f#cking war?

The mis-management of post-war Iraq has no correlation with whether the invasion was a good idea in the first place or not.

To answer your question directly: almost certainly a large proportion of them would still be alive today.

mike65

Nicolae Ceausescu was dealt with in the ideal fashion - quickly, by his own.

As for

Wot? No Idi?

He, along with the likes of Benjedid (of Algeria), Muang Muang (Burma), Hafez al-Assad (Syria), the whole House of Saud (Saudi Arabia), Francisco Macías Nguema (Equatorial Guinea), Charles Taylor (Liberia) are "bubbling under".

Mike.

Manic Moran

Wannabe Deise wrote:

It is barbarous - that's why. Human civilization is supposed to have evolved beyond "an eye for an eye" at this stage which is why the Brits among others don't have death penalty anymore.

By whose standards is it barbarous? Those who consider themselves enlightened and above such things, obviously. We might consider lopping off a hand to be a barbarous penalty for thievery, but it seems to do the Saudis quite nicely. Probably works, too. We do things that other cultures consider somewhat barbaric. What sort of backwards society imprisons a man for having more than one wife? Why should we judge another society by our rules?

The fact that Saddam deserves death doesn't mean he should be executed.

You don't think that people should get what they deserve? Even if the death penalty is more about revenge than punishment, what's the problem with it? The transgressed, or next of kin of those transgressed, I guess, will want the perception of the State doing true justice and want closure, which an execution provides. I think executions are conducted for the benefit of the transgressed more than for the benefit of anyone else, and frankly, I don't have a problem with it.

NTM

Mad Finn

Moriarty wrote:

It's not always a crime. It's not always wrong either.

'Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression' was what several top Nazi leaders were convicted of at Nuremberg. And the punishment meted out by western democracies for this offence is severe. As this guy, or this guy or this guy could tell you.

Through a medium of course.

Manic Moran

He said 'Wars', not 'wars of aggression'. There is a subtle difference. Not all wars are wars of aggression.

NTM

Wannabe Deise

Manic Moran wrote:

By whose standards is it barbarous? Those who consider themselves enlightened and above such things, obviously. We might consider lopping off a hand to be a barbarous penalty for thievery, but it seems to do the Saudis quite nicely. Probably works, too. We do things that other cultures consider somewhat barbaric. What sort of backwards society imprisons a man for having more than one wife? Why should we judge another society by our rules?


You don't think that people should get what they deserve? Even if the death penalty is more about revenge than punishment, what's the problem with it? The transgressed, or next of kin of those transgressed, I guess, will want the perception of the State doing true justice and want closure, which an execution provides. I think executions are conducted for the benefit of the transgressed more than for the benefit of anyone else, and frankly, I don't have a problem with it.

NTM

"By whose standards is it barbarous?" My most countries' standards anyway if you mean the death penalty. The majority of countries have abolished the death penalty: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-countries-eng
Most of those who retain it would not have very high human rights standards generally.
Here is a list of countries that carried out executions in 2005:
BANGLADESH, BELARUS, CHINA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAPAN, JORDAN. KOREA (North), KUWAIT, LIBYA, MONGOLIA, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, SAUDI ARABIA, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, TAIWAN, USA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN

The democracies of USA, Japan and Taiwan keep interesting company on this front.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts the right to life of all human beings.

The lopping off of hands is considered barbaric by the majority of countries. No one would hold up Saudi Arabia as a paragon of virtue.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

As regards the death penalty mistakes are frequently made.

[I would not agree with bigamy or polygamy but imprisonment seems harsh if the women in question are involved of their own free will.]

How many innocent people have been killed down through the millennia? Did they deserve to live? Can you give them life? We cannot give life to people that deserve it and therefore we should be slow to deal out death to those who deserve it.

Civilised states are supposed to circumvent the "law of the jungle". Transgressors need to be punished but State executions reduce the State to role where the cycle of violence is simply extended on the rather primitive principle of revenge. Would you also favour the rape of rapists and torture of those who torture the innocent?