Saddam to be hung-Verdict

Manic Moran

Wannabe Deise wrote:

"By whose standards is it barbarous?" My most countries' standards anyway if you mean the death penalty.

But we're not talking about most countries. We're talking about the countries in question, and the effect within that country. Are the Dutch particularly immoral because they have legal prostitution and drug-smoking, and most of the rest of the world don't? Horses for courses.

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

Good for the United Nations. I suggest that anyone can voluntarily waive a right, depending on their actions.

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.

The question is if it's a wrong. You think it is, they think it isn't. Is your vote better than theirs? (especially in their own country)

As regards the death penalty mistakes are frequently made.

Is a mistake being made in the case of Saddam?

How many innocent people have been killed down through the millennia?

This is a pretty irrelevant argument in a case as cut and dry as this one.

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?

Interesting question. I guess it's a question of who you could find who'd be willing to do the raping.

I honestly don't think you can apply your cultural values to other cultures. It might be that people in Ireland and the UK are satisfied with jailing for life, but the people in Iraq or the US or Japan evidently are not. You cannot impose a cultural shift with your disapproval (Generically here, not you personally), and the effectiveness of a jail-for-life policy simply will not be as good as an execution policy until the cultural values of the society in question shift.

NTM

tallus

Slightly off topic but I was watching a programme on CH4 last night about Iraq and a guy being interviewed told a story of how someone he knew had written a phone number on a 5 Dinar note and saddam wanted him to be killed by dipping in a vat of acid, just for defacing a bank note. The executioners took pity on the guy but still had to give him a *dip* in the acid without killing him and apparently the scars were horrific.
Just one example of what a despot the man was.

zippo22

They should have shot him in the hole !

mike65

Saddam says lets all make up and be happy.

"I call on all Iraqis, Arabs and Kurds, to forgive, reconcile and shake hands," Saddam, in relatively subdued mood compared to the defiance he showed on Sunday, told the court.

Which is nice.

Mike.

flogen

mike65 wrote:

Saddam says lets all make up and be happy.
Which is nice.

Mike.

Yeah, that was bizarre; does he think it'll make any difference... I think we're all waiting for the "ah, only kidding; continue butchering each other in the name of the same God".

Haven't read this thread fully, but just to give my 2c... I think the execution of Saddam will simply give Iraqi's another issue to fight over; to some he's an animal, to others he's a hero. His death will become a sore-spot as much as it will be a healing-point.
In general terms I disagree profoundly with the death penalty... partly because I don't think anyone has the right to take a life (unless, perhaps, in self defence), partly because I'd fear them getting the wrong man (not really a worry here) but mainly because death is the easy way out.
Saddam, by killing so many and imprisoning, torturing and maiming countless more, has created a lifetime of hurt for so many families in Iraq and other countries... he now gets to leave this all behind him with a few seconds of pain from the hanging.
I'd much rather see him locked in a small cell, unable to spout his poison, unable to influence or harm, with nothing to do but think about what got him there.
Then he can die quietly rather than in this blaze of glory that will only cement his image as a man of power to many.

mike65

Check David McWillams in the indo. Interesting angle saying that Saddam is now the US' best friend in Iraq (and look after him cos you'll need him).

Mike.

flogen

mike65 wrote:

Check David McWillams in the indo. Interesting angle saying that Saddam is now the US' best friend in Iraq (and look after him cos you'll need him).

Mike.

Interesting article; I'd be amazed if the US started calling for clemency though (although they may try and pull some strings back stage first... like saying they'd rather see him tried for all crimes before he's put to death).
Maybe Saddam see's the only potential left; he's the only person who successfully (albeit tyranically) united the country and his base consists of those who want unity more than any...

nacho libre

my one cent on this: the death penalty is the easy way out.
think of all the highly intelligent serial killers who were put to death. A far better punishment for them would be a spartan prison cell where they are fed and provided with medical care but denied any mental stimulation such as access to to books, television, a biro or writing material.
of course then you'll have the civil liberty people on the case.
Another reason i'm against is because of people like Sunny Jacobs. she really is a remarkable woman without a trace of bitterness.

mackerski

flogen wrote:

he now gets to leave this all behind him with a few seconds of pain from the hanging.

The often considered "painless" hanging is the long drop, as formerly used here and in the UK and still used in many former British colonies. I can't find any online references to indicate that Iraq favours the long drop, but many of its middle-east neighbours don't (particularly Iran, that hoists victims up on crane jibs).

The Nürnberg executions were carried out using the US-favoured "standard drop" (not adjusted for victim weight) and some of the condemned took 10 minutes to die. I wouldn't go envying Saddam his painless fate just yet.

Dermot

PS: it's also far from clear that the long drop is a quick way to go. It just looks more peaceful due to the broken neck.

Mad Finn

Manic Moran wrote:

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

NTM

He said 'starting wars'. If you start a war, you're the aggressor. N'est-ce pas?

flogen

mackerski wrote:

The "painless" hanging of which you speak is the long drop, as formerly used here and in the UK and still used in many former British colonies. I can't find any online references to indicate that Iraq favours the long drop, but many of its middle-east neighbours don't (particularly Iran, that hoists victims up on crane jibs).

The Nürnberg executions were carried out using the US-favoured "standard drop" (not adjusted for victim weight) and some of the condemned took 10 minutes to die. I wouldn't go envying Saddam his painless fate just yet.

Dermot

PS: it's also far from clear that the long drop is a quick way to go. It just looks more peaceful due to the broken neck.

Did you actually read the text you quoted from me?
Do you actually know how to use quotation marks?
Who did you quote the word 'painless' from, because it certainly wasn't me?
I said that hanging is a few seconds of pain, and while I have no doubt that it's significantly more painful than something I've suffered in my life so far (thankfully), the length of time and not the amount of pain is what I was referring to.
I'm sure, regardless of method used or the length of time Saddam will hang before he actually dies, it will consist of far less pain than a biological gas attack, which is my overall point (i.e. the pain Saddam will suffer is a walk in the park when compared to the pain he has put others through, and in my mind he's getting off lightly).

Manic Moran

Depends on where you define starting a war.

If it's with the first shot, then, no, I wouldn't agree. Wars don't just start out of nothing and appear when the first trigger is pulled with no warning, there's a backstory to them.

NTM

johnthesavage

flogen wrote:

... like saying they'd rather see him tried for all crimes before he's put to death

That would be rather embarrassing for the US. Saddam was their ally in the region at the time he massacred hundreds of thousands of Kurds, not to mention the rather delicate question of exactly who supplied him with all that gas...

mackerski

flogen wrote:

Did you actually read the text you quoted from me?
Do you actually know how to use quotation marks?

Yes and yes. And my usage was careless, in that I wasn't looking to attribute the "painless" claim to you, even though my sentence went on to do exactly that. Since this has clearly caused you distress, I apologise, and I have edited my post.

That said, your actual words weren't that far off...

flogen wrote:

I said that hanging is a few seconds of pain, and while I have no doubt that it's significantly more painful than something I've suffered in my life so far (thankfully), the length of time and not the amount of pain is what I was referring to.

Yes, and it is this assertion that I challenge. With non-long-drop forms of hanging, the pain will frequently last a very great deal longer than a few seconds, ten minutes in some cases. Only victims with the good fortune to lose consciousness quickly are spared the experience of a slow death by asphyxia.

flogen wrote:

I'm sure, regardless of method used or the length of time Saddam will hang before he actually dies, it will consist of far less pain than a biological gas attack, which is my overall point (i.e. the pain Saddam will suffer is a walk in the park when compared to the pain he has put others through, and in my mind he's getting off lightly).

I don't disagree there.

Dermot

flogen

johnthesavage wrote:

That would be rather embarrassing for the US. Saddam was their ally in the region at the time he massacred hundreds of thousands of Kurds, not to mention the rather delicate question of exactly who supplied him with all that gas...

Well the US supported him at the time of the Dujail massacre, and while it may be one of the incidents they have the least direct involvement in (and in this case my definition of direct is by giving Saddam the weapons and co-ordinates to make attacks on Iran etc.) it's not something that turned them off the man and his ways.
It's quite obvious that the court, which is by all intensive purposes an American court on Iraqi soil, would be told to steer clear of how Saddam got the means to kill and focus instead on the fact that he himself ordered it.

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

I suggest that anyone can voluntarily waive a right, depending on their actions.

How many on death row are there voluntarily?

I honestly don't think you can apply your cultural values to other cultures.

You might tell that to GWB.

Depends on where you define starting a war. If it's with the first shot, then, no, I wouldn't agree. Wars don't just start out of nothing and appear when the first trigger is pulled with no warning, there's a backstory to them.

Who started this one? By all accounts an American administration that ignored the caveats of their own intelligence services.

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

I suggest that anyone can voluntarily waive a right, depending on their actions.

How many on death row are there voluntarily?

I honestly don't think you can apply your cultural values to other cultures.

You might tell that to GWB.

Depends on where you define starting a war. If it's with the first shot, then, no, I wouldn't agree. Wars don't just start out of nothing and appear when the first trigger is pulled with no warning, there's a backstory to them.

Who started this one? By all accounts an American administration that ignored the caveats of their own intelligence services.

zippo22 wrote:

They should have shot him in the hole !

But they didn't

Manic Moran

Victor wrote:

How many on death row are there voluntarily?

Anyone who by their actions volunteered to put themselves in a position where they could be put to death. i.e. they chose to kill a cop, or whatever.

NTM

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

Anyone who by their actions volunteered to put themselves in a position where they could be put to death. i.e. they chose to kill a cop, or whatever.

But what of those not insignificant numbers who are innocent?

Mad Finn

Manic Moran wrote:

Depends on where you define starting a war.

If it's with the first shot, then, no, I wouldn't agree. Wars don't just start out of nothing and appear when the first trigger is pulled with no warning, there's a backstory to them.

NTM

How about conspiring with close allies in the production of a line of argument that no sane person then or since believes-ie weapons of mass destruction?

How about ignoring the clear wishes of the international community at large as expressed by the UN?

How about flip flopping allover the place in the run up to invasion--it's about letting weapons inspectors in, no wait, it's about getting Saddam and his sons out?

How about making spurious arguments that even your own intelligence service refused to endorse about links between Saddam and Bin Laden?

America is the clear aggressor in this war. GW had better hope you don't lose it.

Wannabe Deise

flogen wrote:

In general terms I disagree profoundly with the death penalty... partly because I don't think anyone has the right to take a life (unless, perhaps, in self defence), partly because I'd fear them getting the wrong man (not really a worry here) but mainly because death is the easy way out.
... he now gets to leave this all behind him with a few seconds of pain from the hanging.

I find it interesting that so many oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it doesn't involve enough suffering for the criminal.
My own opposition is based on notion that it debases and brutalises the State and it citizens by reducing them to the level of the criminal by assuaging an amost primeval urge for revenge. If a relative or friend of mine was murdered (or raped or otherwise seriously and maliciously harmed) I would want to kill the person responsible but I would hope that the State would restrain me from doing so and not do so as my proxy either.

[An interesting aside here is what does one do with revenge killers in a society where death penalty is in use? Does State execute revenge killers for not having the patience to wait for the State to do the job for them?
What happens in alleged self defence killings e.g. abused wife stabs husband in self defence and is subsequently executed for "murder"].

On the pain point generally whether standard or long drop is used hanging normally leads to instant unconsiousness apparently so it is unlikely that Saddam will feel any pain except the mental suffering in the time coming up to his execution which looks like it will last months if not years.

Wannabe Deise

mackerski wrote:

The often considered "painless" hanging is the long drop, as formerly used here and in the UK and still used in many former British colonies. I can't find any online references to indicate that Iraq favours the long drop, but many of its middle-east neighbours don't (particularly Iran, that hoists victims up on crane jibs).

The Nürnberg executions were carried out using the US-favoured "standard drop" (not adjusted for victim weight) and some of the condemned took 10 minutes to die. I wouldn't go envying Saddam his painless fate just yet.

Do you mean Iran does not use a drop at all and just lets people strangle slowly? Nazis used to do that all the time in the east. Sick.

Presumably at Nurnberg they were unconscious while dying though, right?

Wannabe Deise

Manic Moran wrote:

But we're not talking about most countries. We're talking about the countries in question, and the effect within that country. Are the Dutch particularly immoral because they have legal prostitution and drug-smoking, and most of the rest of the world don't? Horses for courses.

Good for the United Nations. I suggest that anyone can voluntarily waive a right, depending on their actions.

The question is if it's a wrong. You think it is, they think it isn't. Is your vote better than theirs? (especially in their own country)

You are very preoccupied with cultures and countries and their right to do as they please. The idea here is that there are basic human rights which traverse national or cultural boundaries i.e. universal human rights. If you don't subscribe to such a view then there is no further argument to be had.
The UN Declaration was ratified through a proclamation by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948 with a count of 48 votes to none with only 8 abstentions but is not legally binding.

Manic Moran wrote:

Is a mistake being made in the case of Saddam?

Saddam is obviously guilty of terrible crimes but that doesn't mean he should be executed. The mistakes can be made argument is one against the death penalty in general.

Manic Moran wrote:

This is a pretty irrelevant argument in a case as cut and dry as this one.

The argument that we should be slow to deal out death to those who deserve it as we can't deal out life to those who deserve life is an argument against death penalty in general.

Manic Moran wrote:

Interesting question. I guess it's a question of who you could find who'd be willing to do the raping.

Indeed. What about torture? I am sure willing sadists could be found for the job not least in the US military (Abu Ghraib).

Manic Moran wrote:

the effectiveness of a jail-for-life policy simply will not be as good as an execution policy until the cultural values of the society in question shift.

The fact that death penalty is not a deterrent is well documented.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167

flogen

Wannabe Deise wrote:

I find it interesting that so many oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it doesn't involve enough suffering for the criminal.
My own opposition is based on notion that it debases and brutalises the State and it citizens by reducing them to the level of the criminal by assuaging an amost primeval urge for revenge. If a relative or friend of mine was murdered (or raped or otherwise seriously and maliciously harmed) I would want to kill the person responsible but I would hope that the State would restrain me from doing so and not do so as my proxy either.

Well that's a fair point too; as I said in my first post on the subject, what right has anyone to take anothers life?
And indeed how can a state punish someone for murder by doing the same themselves?
All of these reasons fit with my belief that the death penalty is an easy escape for evil people.

mackerski

Wannabe Deise wrote:

Do you mean Iran does not use a drop at all and just lets people strangle slowly? Nazis used to do that all the time in the east. Sick.

Iran uses "suspension hanging". Instead of using a gallows they fix the rope to the jib of a crane or anything else that can be raised and lowered (the gun barrel of a tank, say) and hoist the victim aloft (though not with any force sufficient to break the neck or cause rapid unconsciousness). They also hang a very great many people every year for some fairly dubious offences.

Wannabe Deise wrote:

Presumably at Nurnberg they were unconscious while dying though, right?

That's not easy to say. The method of their hanging is one that doesn't guarantee swift unconsciousness and that can cause messy injuries prior to death. This account (warning - distressing images) indicates that at least one victim didn't have a swift end to his misery, but the reference to death struggles and the fact that a standard drop was used mean that we have to assume a longer suffering than with "clean" hanging.

Dermot

flogen

mackerski wrote:

Yes and yes. And my usage was careless, in that I wasn't looking to attribute the "painless" claim to you, even though my sentence went on to do exactly that. Since this has clearly caused you distress, I apologise, and I have edited my post.

That said, your actual words weren't that far off...

Distress is a strong word, although I don't like being misquoted to sound stupid.

Yes, and it is this assertion that I challenge. With non-long-drop forms of hanging, the pain will frequently last a very great deal longer than a few seconds, ten minutes in some cases. Only victims with the good fortune to lose consciousness quickly are spared the experience of a slow death by asphyxia.

I'm no expert on hanging, but even ten minutes is a very short time of suffering for someone who has done as much damage as Saddam; it's barbaric too, of course and as isn't a great way to make a state seem like any kind of moral authority.

mackerski

flogen wrote:

Distress is a strong word, although I don't like being misquoted to sound stupid.

I didn't think or mean to imply that your words where stupid, but they were ill-informed. Your actual words:

flogen wrote:

he now gets to leave this all behind him with a few seconds of pain from the hanging

This represents a vast oversimplification of the actual ordeal Saddam may suffer. My quote marks around the word "painless" were unwarranted, but without the quotes it would have been a valid paraphrasal IMHO.

I have no sympathy with the condemned man on this occasion, but, like you, I consider that the exercise of a death penalty isn't a great sign of the state involved. The greater the degree of suffering inherent in the hanging method, the worse it is for PR.

Dermot

Manic Moran

Mad Finn wrote:

How about conspiring with close allies in the production of a line of argument that no sane person then or since believes-ie weapons of mass destruction? <et rant al>

Forgive me, but I was unaware that Bush is responsible for every time a shooting war started throughout history. I made a statement in opposition to the sweeping generalisation that all wars are those of aggression. You're focusing on Iraq.

An interesting aside here is what does one do with revenge killers in a society where death penalty is in use?

I can't speak for other countries, but in the US, the charge is usually something akin to "Second Degree Murder," which doesn't carry the death penalty. The death penalty is usually reserved around here only for particularly heinous crimes, a conviction of First Degree Muder on its own is generally just going to result in a life sentence.

Does State execute revenge killers for not having the patience to wait for the State to do the job for them?

In the US, no. See above.

What happens in alleged self defence killings e.g. abused wife stabs husband in self defence and is subsequently executed for "murder"

Nothing. Wouldn't get that far. Self defence is considered 'Justifiable Homicide' and will result in acquittal, if it even gets to trial.

You are very preoccupied with cultures and countries and their right to do as they please. The idea here is that there are basic human rights which traverse national or cultural boundaries i.e. universal human rights. If you don't subscribe to such a view then there is no further argument to be had

Do rights exist before they are enumerated? In any case, as I've explained to Victor, I believe you can, by your own actions, forfeit/waive that right. Or any other right.

The fact that death penalty is not a deterrent is well documented.

When did I say anything about a deterrence? The basic, most fundamental premise of a state judicial system is that the society must be satisfied with the results that come of its trials. Otherwise there is an incentive to go about the system, and do things yourself. Or just overthrow the justice system. Cue oft-quoted phrase: "Justice must not only be done. It must be seen to be done." The people in death penalty countries, whether you consider them barbaric or not, are of the belief that the correct reward for certain crimes is death. If the State does not mete out that reward, there is discontent.

NTM