Saddaam Hussein given death sentence

[Halo_92]

Sentencing him to death? Typical.

 

What we should do: put him back in charge of Iraq, and let him clean up the mess. Now THAT would be punishment.

I agree with you there TK. Just let him off like that, man that sucks.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

[...] just remember that in Iraq and many other places around the world, [execution is] considered perfectly reasonable and justifiable traditional punishment, especially for someone convicted of the crimes Saddam just got nailed for. Especially in Muslim countires.

Doesn't make it more right.

 

For the record, I'm against capital punishment. You only have one life, and even if you do something as hideous as taking away another person's life, your existence is still "sacred" and should not be done away with. There's also the fact that as long as execution is practiced, innocents will be put to death.

 

[...] Death by Hanging is pretty much both painless and instantaneous when done properly.

Yes. And when done improperly...

 

And let's not forget that seeing the executioners' hatred towards Saddam, I perceive the likelyhood of "accidentally" getting certain details wrong to be quite high. I'd much rather Saddam was executed humanely, to the extent you can use that word in the same sentence as "execution".

[Emperor Devon]

Assuming you have no moral qualms against murder.

Yes.

 

 

Yes. And when done improperly...

 

...it's all the better. Painful forms of execution should not be common practice, but I think there are some people who should be punished in that manner.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Why should it bother you that someone who would kill, or be responsible for ordering so many deaths, might be executed? Some actions warrant more severe punishments than others. We're not talking lifting a few candybars or boosting a car. Should I take from this that you believe all the Nazis who were hanged after Nuremberg should have instead been left to rot in Spandau prison?

To you, Totenkopf, and to all those who agree with you that Saddam should be executed for his crime... I ask a simple question.

 

If it is right for Saddam Hussein to be executed for ordering the death of other people, is it right for our leaders to be executed along with him?

 

The orders of our leaders have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. The orders of our leaders have destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. The orders of our leaders have violated international law. The orders of our leaders were and are immoral by any universally accepted standard.

 

So if you believe in death for Saddam, do you believe the same punishment for say... Donald Rumsfeld? Paul Wolfowitz?

 

If not... you're not being very even-handed.

 

I personally believe that when a man seeks to kill another creature for purely immoral reasons, he forfeits his own right to life. So you could say in a way I'm in favour of the death penalty. But I'm also in favour of only handing the death penalty fairly and evenly. If you sentence a man to death for a crime you yourself are guilty of, you are merely a hypocrite.

[edlib]

His death will serve no purpose, other than to satisfy a certain bloodlust, and a primal need for vengeance. Therefore, I personally don't see the necessity of it.

 

In fact, for him to serve out the rest of his days, alone in a jail cell, getting older, frail, and largely forgotten by the world and history would be a far, far greater punishment for someone of his mindset.

 

Dying as a martyr and a defiant tyrant to the last is giving him pretty much the death he wants.

 

But, whatever... It's probably already a done deal.

 

The timing of the announcement of the verdict and execution seem a bit suspect to me, on the eve of an important American election and all. Not saying it was politically motivated from our side in any way.... but it sure has that feel about it.

 

I wonder if our government and major media outlets (who seem so queasy about showing any of the consequences of war in the form of footage with dead bodies in it, or even a flag-draped casket...) will show his execution... or at least his corpse (like they did his sons...)

 

I suspect they will.

[Mace MacLeod]

@DE & Spider AL: I wasn't attempting to justify the use of the Death Penalty generally, nor did I touch upon the US government's culpability in both the crimes the Saddam committed while in power under the US' aegis and the overall body count caused by the US' illegal invasion and conquest of Iraq. I was simply saying by traditional Iraqi and muslim standards of justice, death is a common and appropriate penalty for the sort of crimes that Saddam did indeed commit while in power. With all the crap going on in Iraq, it's sometimes easy to lose sight of the fact that Saddam Hussein is anything but innocent and undeserving.

 

And I'm sure video footage of his execution will turn up on US tv sooner rather than later. Probably on FOX News, just before the announcement of the 1000th US military death in Iraq.

[Totenkopf]

Well, Spider, since I didn't kill anyone, I guess that means I'm not a hypocrite.

 

However, if you can produce the proof that Bush, et al were actively targeting civilians for the hell of it, then I'd agree that under those circumstances you'd have a point. But if were gonna get that elastic in deciding responsibility, then why stop there. Surely the world is full of leaders who have contibuted to the deaths of "innocents" worldwide. I guess we should include Tony Blair and any other europeans who joined in this "immoral" endeavor to unseat SH. While we're at it, lets take down the Iranians too, b/c they are far from innocent in the bloodbath we view Iraq as today.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

However, if you can produce the proof that Bush, et al were actively targeting civilians for the hell of it, then I'd agree that under those circumstances you'd have a point.

Define "for the Hell of it". Saddam definetly didn't gas those Kurds just for fun. He did it because they had this idea that they should revolt and take their homeland back.

 

And yes, Bush&Co. have deliberately killed civilians. They've bombed a Pakistani village full of civilians to kill a single Al-Q'aida leader. They've released White Phosphorous, an illegal weapon, over Fallujah. They have targetted civilians "just for the Hell of it" several times already.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Well, Spider, since I didn't kill anyone, I guess that means I'm not a hypocrite.

Neither did you pass the sentence which now hangs over Saddam's ugly bonce. I don't think you'll find that I accused you of either of those things. My final statement on hypocrisy was a general adage. One could call it axiomatic.

 

I did however touch on the idea that if you don't apply the death penalty fairly and evenly, you are indeed being hypocritical. Which is equally true.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

However, if you can produce the proof that Bush, et al were actively targeting civilians for the hell of it, then I'd agree that under those circumstances you'd have a point.

As Eagle has pointed out, neither did Saddam "target civilians for the hell of it". But frankly, having some spurious reason (WMDs) for one's killings doesn't make the killings more morally excusable.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

But if were gonna get that elastic in deciding responsibility, then why stop there. Surely the world is full of leaders who have contibuted to the deaths of "innocents" worldwide. I guess we should include Tony Blair and any other europeans who joined in this "immoral" endeavor to unseat SH. While we're at it, lets take down the Iranians too, b/c they are far from innocent in the bloodbath we view Iraq as today.

There's nothing "elastic" in that idea. That's applying a general principle universally. If Saddam deserves death for his crimes, then so do all our leaders. If you find that idea incomprehensible, I'd encourage you to go off and self-analyse a little.

 

I mean, can you think of one single moral reason why Saddam's crimes mean that he deserves death... while the moral crimes of our own leaders do not warrant such a punishment? Because I can't.

 

If Saddam should die, a lot of other people should also die. Our leaders and the allies of our leaders, the corrupt regimes we support around the world, and those who are quite frankly war criminals from our own ranks who have escaped punishment for their heinous acts since the sixties.

 

You seem to think this idea is silly... but it's just fairness. Even-handedness. Truth. Without self-delusion.

[Totenkopf]

For the record, I wasn't inferring you were acusing me of anything (hence the smilie after the sentence). Perhaps I took your sentence a bit too literally for your taste (If you sentence a man to death for a crime you yourself are guilty of, you are merely a hypocrite). Having said that, perhaps you'd like to kill/execute the soldiers carrying out the orders as well. Technically, they are guilty of the immorality you accuse their leadership of also. Or perhaps you'll permit the Nuremberg defense of "we were only following orders".

 

As to the rest of it, I simply don't agree with your premise that the death penalty is immoral. Neither do I advocate using it profigately. Still no need to get testy (...I'd encourage you to go off and self-analyse a little).

[Mace MacLeod]

Point of order: When American cluster bombs go off in residential areas and waste thousands of civilians, it's not "collateral damage" or whatever the military buzzword is for "Oops!". Cluster bombs are designed, built, manufactured and deployed to do exactly that. Also interesting to note, you guys know those nifty A-10 Warthog attack planes that the army and air force use for ground attacks? Those nose-mounted 30mm cannons actually fire depleted uranium rounds. They use uranium not for the radioactivity, but for the mass. Uranium is twice as heavy as lead, and has a far greater kinetic impact than a lead slug; so great in fact, that the round actually heats up so high it becomes molten when it strikes its target. The thing is, when it cools down, it particulates into a fine powder, which then disperses into the environment. It also might have just a little something to do with the fact that southern Iraqi children now have a 20X greater incidence of juvenile leukemia than before the first Gulf War.

 

Why do I mention this, you may ask? Because Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al will never, ever, ever see the inside of a courtroom for any of the stuff like that they've done. I absolutely agree with Spider AL in that the same standards should apply to both sets of leaders, but all of us know there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of this actually happening. At least in Iraq, this one guy who really did order thousands of innocent people killed will be executed.

[Samuel Dravis]

Yes, Sam, we are very different and the feeling is mutual.

You're "very glad" that you would kill someone who is not capable of doing harm?

 

Why should it bother you that someone who would kill, or be responsible for ordering so many deaths, might be executed?

I'd ask why it doesn't bother you to kill a person that poses no further danger. I have the same problem with those who support the death penalty in any form. They're already in custody, they cannot do anything, where is the justification?

 

Some actions warrant more severe punishments than others.

And in this case that punishment's purpose is solely and simply revenge. There's no other reason - there's no deterrent for other people, you've even said that yourself. Sure, he won't be able to commit those acts in the future... but wait, he's already in jail and can't do them anyway. I don't think that revenge is a justifiable reason to kill someone.

 

We're not talking lifting a few candybars or boosting a car. Should I take from this that you believe all the Nazis who were hanged after Nuremberg should have instead been left to rot in Spandau prison?

You may. I've also opposed killing Milosevic when he was in jail, same deal.

 

I want to say "Duh!" w/regard to your point about inflamed passions b/c we're talking about the middle east. Regardless of SH's final sentence, there will be problems. The problems won't end b/c SH is spared. If he is, it will be to a prison in Iraq, not the US, and that will likely become a lightening rod for increased attacks by sunnis looking to break him out of the klink. If he's spared, it's just as likely that the shia and kurds will be verrry POed and would stir up trouble. SH's fate is a Catch-22. So, as far as I'm concerned, there's no reason not to execute him.

So far as I'm concerned, all paths being equal, I'd choose the path that involves the least destruction. Why would you actively seek to kill people when there's no difference in the choices? Oh, that's right. Vengeance.

 

As I wasn't addressing the question of deterence w/regard to others, your point is irrelevant. Life in prison is no guarantee he won't get out (ie escape) or that he couldn't cause problems from within jail.

You can say the same about any criminal in jail for life. We should just kill 'em all. After all, they might get out. Yes, that was sarcasm.

 

You can solve him causing problems in jail by simply not allowing him the freedom to create such situations.

 

As to the whole money thing, it's not a question of whether we've got enough money, but rather if he's worth the expenditure of funds that couldn't be put to better use elsewhere. The DoD might have the cash, but it'd be better spent on ammo and spare parts.

Ah, I see. The DoD needs another bomb to use. I'm not convinced.

 

I want to see someone give me a reasonable explanation of how this act of vengeance is justified. I don't want to hear "he killed them, so he deserves it now." I know that part. I want to know why people think it is acceptable to practice vengeance in the first place.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Having said that, perhaps you'd like to kill/execute the soldiers carrying out the orders as well. Technically, they are guilty of the immorality you accuse their leadership of also. Or perhaps you'll permit the Nuremberg defense of "we were only following orders".

Anyone with even a rudimentary sense of morality will inform you that nobody can use the excuse "I was told to commit this immoral act".

 

As a purely technical matter, no-one can be forced to commit an immoral act. Even if a gun is put to your head, you have the choice to die rather than to commit an evil atrocity. He who chooses to commit the evil and survive chose the preservation of his own skin over moral rectitude. And though his decision can be understood as a human decision, it is not the moral choice.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

As to the rest of it, I simply don't agree with your premise that the death penalty is immoral. Neither do I advocate using it profigately. Still no need to get testy (...I'd encourage you to go off and self-analyse a little).

Well you can't be addressing me with the first sentence, because I've never stated in this thread that the "death penalty is immoral".

 

As for the rest, I'm never "testy". I seriously do suggest that if you feel that Saddam deserves to die and our own leaders do NOT... you need some contemplation time. Because this isn't even a very difficult moral conundrum.

 

Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod:

I absolutely agree with Spider AL in that the same standards should apply to both sets of leaders, but all of us know there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of this actually happening. At least in Iraq, this one guy who really did order thousands of innocent people killed will be executed.

Doesn't work like that, Mace. Saddam- like all men- deserves justice. Justice may involve the death penalty, but justice has to be even-handed, otherwise it's arbitrary vengeance.

 

Therefore, because none of the other war-criminals are being tried at the moment, what's happened to Saddam isn't justice, it's the victory of a group of evil barbarians over one other evil barbarian. Therefore it's not a moral occurrance, but a pathetically savage one. And nothing to be celebrated, rather to be mourned.

[Totenkopf]

You're "very glad" that you would kill someone who is not capable of doing harm?

 

I'd ask why it doesn't bother you to kill a person that poses no further danger. I have the same problem with those who support the death penalty in any form. They're already in custody, they cannot do anything, where is the justification?

 

And in this case that punishment's purpose is solely and simply revenge. There's no other reason - there's no deterrent for other people, you've even said that yourself. Sure, he won't be able to commit those acts in the future... but wait, he's already in jail and can't do them anyway. I don't think that revenge is a justifiable reason to kill someone.

 

You may. I've also opposed killing Milosevic when he was in jail, same deal. As to your opening shot.......well, you're merely putting words in my mouth. I was only saying that I very glad I'm not you either.

 

So far as I'm concerned, all paths being equal, I'd choose the path that involves the least destruction. Why would you actively seek to kill people when there's no difference in the choices? Oh, that's right. Vengeance.

 

You can say the same about any criminal in jail for life. We should just kill 'em all. After all, they might get out. Yes, that was sarcasm.

 

You can solve him causing problems in jail by simply not allowing him the freedom to create such situations.

 

Ah, I see. The DoD needs another bomb to use. I'm not convinced.

 

I want to see someone give me a reasonable explanation of how this act of vengeance is justified. I don't want to hear "he killed them, so he deserves it now." I know that part. I want to know why people think it is acceptable to practice vengeance in the first place.

 

Rather amusing. The main problem with your argument is the notion that he DEFINITELY will pose no further harm. Last I checked, crystal balls don't actually see into the future. The only guarantee a dangerous criminal seizes to be a threat is execution. That also goes to your point about the road to less destruction. Won't know for sure till we cross that rubicon what the damage will be, nor can we know the other since the die has been cast.

 

Not convinced of what, I wonder? That the DoD doesn't have the spare change or that the money couldn't be better used elsewhere? Also, never addressed the issue of deterence other than to say that the criminal in question couldn't become a recidivist.

 

Your sarcasm (as if it weren't obvious) is misplaced b/c I have not said I support a liberal use of capital punishment. As to your opening shot.......well, you're merely putting words in my mouth. I was only saying that I very glad I'm not you either.

 

I'm not sure anyone should try to rise to your bait about providing any explanation as your mind appears to be closed on this matter. Might as well try to convince an athiest of God's existence or a fundamentalist that the theory of evolution is actually fact.

[Totenkopf]

Spider--Your logic seems to be that until all other offending parties in the Iraqi war are put to death, then SH can't be justifiably executed.

 

Perhaps I'm guilty of intuitng your position. You appear to believe that killing Sadam is immoral. Since capital punishment is killing, it's not unrerasonable for someone to conclude that you believe that capital punishment is itself immoral. You just seemed to be "touching" on that "axiomatically", apparently. So, if I've read between the lines incorrectly, then perhaps I'm supposed to come to the conclusion that killing Sadam IS morally acceptable, so long as you kill/execute more than just Sadam.

 

As far as the Nuremberg deal, I'm quite well aware of the moral ramifications of such a defense. It didn't work for the Nazis. I'm just trying to ascertain how long your hitlist is before SH could be executed.

[Samuel Dravis]

Rather amusing. The main problem with your argument is the notion that he DEFINITELY will pose no further harm. Last I checked, crystal balls don't actually see into the future. The only guarantee a dangerous criminal seizes to be a threat is execution. That also goes to your point about the road to less destruction. Won't know for sure till we cross that rubicon what the damage will be, nor can we know the other since the die has been cast.

So what makes you think that he will get out or cause harm? Last I checked, crystal balls don't actually see into the future. However, there's a lot of people that have been in prison for a very long time, and they don't just escape every day. If appropriate precautions are taken then I don't see the need for a 'guarantee' of the kind you propose. Similarly, many murderers are being sentenced to life without parole instead of Death Row in the last decade because of this reasoning. Yeah, they're scum, but they can be controlled and many recognize that. What made Saddam different from the sociopaths that are in jail for life? I'd say power. Well, he's stripped of his power, and there's no reason jails would not be able to hold him.

 

Not convinced of what, I wonder? That the DoD doesn't have the spare change or that the money couldn't be better used elsewhere?

Not convinced that the DoD doesn't have the spare change.

 

Also, never addressed the issue of deterence other than to say that the criminal in question couldn't become a recidivist.

Obviously not. However, keeping him in jail with reasonable security will not raise the risk of that very much, not enough to justify his execution.

 

Your sarcasm (as if it weren't obvious) is misplaced b/c I have not said I support a liberal use of capital punishment.

I think it's an unreasonable worry that he will escape if he were to be imprisoned. Do you have any particular reason to believe he will suddenly grow wings? Sure, some of the Iraqis sympathize with him. However, I don't think it would matter if the inprisonment was done correctly. If Iraq is not up to the job, they could foist him off on the UN or something.

 

As to your opening shot.......well, you're merely putting words in my mouth. I was only saying that I very glad I'm not you either.

Your statement was ambiguous then.

 

I'm not sure anyone should try to rise to your bait about providing any explanation as your mind appears to be closed on this matter. Might as well try to convince an athiest of God's existence or a fundamentalist that the theory of evolution is actually fact.

I'd be willing to listen; that's why I asked. So far, none of you have provided such an explanation. I doubt you will have one that I will find acceptable though, so it had better be good.

[Mace MacLeod]

Doesn't work like that, Mace. Saddam- like all men- deserves justice. Justice may involve the death penalty, but justice has to be even-handed, otherwise it's arbitrary vengeance.

 

Therefore, because none of the other war-criminals are being tried at the moment, what's happened to Saddam isn't justice, it's the victory of a group of evil barbarians over one other evil barbarian. Therefore it's not a moral occurrance, but a pathetically savage one. And nothing to be celebrated, rather to be mourned.

Well, maybe it is just vengeance, but that's for the Iraqis to decide. This is their version of justice and as far as I'm concerned, they're welcome to it in Saddam's case. Sure Bush, Blair and everyone else are war criminals for their conquest of Iraq and also culpable for arming and supporting Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war which left millions dead (and not to mention for God-only-knows how many black ops CIA actions we'll never hear about) but like I said, our war criminals are never going to be tried or convicted for anything. The only way that would ever happen is if some other countries did what the US did in Iraq. The American people will never allow a President, no matter how inept or unpopular, to be tried as a war criminal. Why do you think the US doesn't support the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague? Because they're petrified one of their own might end up there. But the Iraqis themselves do undoubtably have a bonafide, civilian-slaughtering, warmongering War Criminal on their hands, and they themselves have tried, convicted and sentenced him. Whatever the case may be for inprisonment over execution, as long as he's alive, he's a figurehead. I think the country needs to be rid of him so it can finally put his influence permanently in the past and move on.

 

I'm not celebrating the Iraqi court's decision, but Saddam Hussein isn't going to be mourned in my house. As I also said before, there are a lot more people more deserving of our sympathy than him.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Spider--Your logic seems to be that until all other offending parties in the Iraqi war are put to death, then SH can't be justifiably executed.

I thought I made it quite clear "what I was saying". I said that if you believe that Saddam should be executed, but our leaders should NOT... then you're a hypocrite. Which is true.

 

It's an important thing for those of you who are celebrating the show-trial and execution of this middle-eastern dictator to remember.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Perhaps I'm guilty of intuitng your position. You appear to believe that killing Sadam is immoral. Since capital punishment is killing, it's not unrerasonable for someone to conclude that you believe that capital punishment is itself immoral. You just seemed to be "touching" on that "axiomatically", apparently. So, if I've read between the lines incorrectly, then perhaps I'm supposed to come to the conclusion that killing Sadam IS morally acceptable, so long as you kill/execute more than just Sadam.

You don't have to "intuit" anything, Tot. I've stated my position about three times already. No need to read between the lines, no need to take a wild guess. I said that if you believe that Saddam should be executed, but our leaders should NOT... then you're a hypocrite. And it doesn't take a genius to see it.

 

I never said that "killing Saddam is immoral". And even if I HAD stated that killing Saddam was immoral, anyone who believes that someone who calls one killing immoral must be against ALL killing... is being rather silly. That's a hell of an assumption to make, in fact.

 

In point of fact, in my first post in this thread I stated: "I personally believe that when a man seeks to kill another creature for purely immoral reasons, he forfeits his own right to life. So you could say in a way I'm in favour of the death penalty. But I'm also in favour of only handing the death penalty fairly and evenly. If you sentence a man to death for a crime you yourself are guilty of, you are merely a hypocrite." which I think made my position on justifiable killing quite clear. If you didn't bother to read it, it's hardly my fault.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

As far as the Nuremberg deal, I'm quite well aware of the moral ramifications of such a defense. It didn't work for the Nazis. I'm just trying to ascertain how long your hitlist is before SH could be executed.

"Hitlist"... I don't think you quite understand the situation. A middle-eastern dictator was captured during an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. He was then tried in a court with no authority under international law, and with a mandate largely from the Shia sect that has always been the enemy of Saddam, but has been given overriding authority by the US. The evidence his lawyers could submit was ludicrously curtailed by the court. A great deal of the evidence against him was submitted in a way that would have been unacceptable in any western court of law. He has now been sentenced to death by this court.

 

Let's not forget that if Iraq had NOT been invaded and Saddam was still in power... the Iraqi people would be better off. Six hundred thousand Iraqi civilians would not be dead. Iraqis would still have a financial infrastructure, education, water and power, effective security forces... the list is endless. We have completely ruined that country. However bad Saddam was for Iraq... we were worse.

 

Does Saddam deserve to die? Well as a brutal dictator if ANYONE deserves death, he does. But is this sham and mockery of justice something to be celebrated? No. So is Saddam's sentence something to be celebrated? Not unless you'd celebrate the death-sentences of our own leaders.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod:

But the Iraqis themselves do undoubtably have a bonafide, civilian-slaughtering, warmongering War Criminal on their hands, and they themselves have tried, convicted and sentenced him. Whatever the case may be for inprisonment over execution, as long as he's alive, he's a figurehead. I think the country needs to be rid of him so it can finally put his influence permanently in the past and move on.

 

I'm not celebrating the Iraqi court's decision, but Saddam Hussein isn't going to be mourned in my house. As I also said before, there are a lot more people more deserving of our sympathy than him.

Well it's good that you're not celebrating the decision. But a lot of people are. In fact, the US government is currently trying to use Saddam's sentence to regain public support for the invasion of Iraq, with some success. And since not only the invasion but the subsequent trial were illegal under international law, the whole situation is reprihensible.

 

It is important to remind those who are easily swayed that Hussein is being executed for crimes which their own leaders are undeniably guilty of. And whether those leaders will ever see justice or not, isn't relevant to the fact that all the sheeple are running around cheering the death of the loser in an immoral conflict, and calling it justice.

 

So yes, this sentence is something to be mourned, because it not only highlights our own leaders' evils, it also highlights the ignorance of the public.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Point of order: When American cluster bombs go off in residential areas and waste thousands of civilians, it's not "collateral damage" or whatever the military buzzword is for "Oops!". Cluster bombs are designed, built, manufactured and deployed to do exactly that.

Add to the list the depleted uranium rounds you mentioned and White Phosphorous, and you get a picture very unfitting a democratic nation.

 

In a perfect world, of course, there wouldn't be war-crimes as there'd be an organ capable of punishing all offenders, not just the "bad guys".

[Totenkopf]

@spider-ok, bastila, take a valium. I'm quite correct, after going over your posts, in coming to the conclusion that you believe SH's execution is moral ONLY IF a whole host of others are executed along with him. You seem exasperated that I've not addressed the other half of your equation. However, it was your own wording that resulted in your misinterpretation of my aside. Since I'm not passing sentence on SH, nor executing him, I'm not being hypocritical (nor did I accuse you of making such a direct statement). Neither, however, do I "celebrate" (what exactly do you mean here anyway?) his upcoming execution. I just accept it as a fact, knowing that it was inevitable that the Iraqi's would have gone there anyway. Like Mace, I won't be shedding any crocodile tears over his demise. Frankly, for me to be hypocritical, I'd have to embrace your interpretation of events and still say, nah....

 

BTW, I wasn't aware that the Iraqi government required a sign off by the UN to try it's own people w/in it's own borders. And, given that there are more shia (and kurds combined) than sunis, the result would have effectively been the same in a "legitimate" govt. setting. Perhaps we should ask the current government to petition under international law for the handing over of all (what, maybe 155,000+ people) who can be connected to the operation in Iraq and they can all be hanged with SH. I'm sure that with the impramateur of "international law", you'd feel quite comfortable that the right thing was finally being done.

 

Also, you are twisting words with your statement "......anyone who believes that someone who calls one killing immoral must be against ALL killing... is being rather silly. That's a hell of an assumption to make, in fact.

" I never stipulated you were against ALL killing b/c you seemed to oppose SH's execution. You came to that silly conclusion all by yourself. Note the key word is ALL and thus goes beyond the concept of executions. I'm well aware that you believe that not all killing is in fact murder. I did, afterall, read your "treatises" about empathy in another thread (my own, I believe).

 

@SD-you were making the assumption of gladness. I was no more ambiguous than you were presumptuous. The difference between us is that you don't seem to support the DP under any circumstances and I'm willing to consider it a viable alternative. Furthermore, your assumptions about the security of SH prison arrangements would only hold if he were actually jailed outside Iraq. More than a few people wouldn't mind trying to get him out, if only to blacken the new govenment's eyes. If they're not afraid to attack the US military, they'd be that much less fearful to attack Iraqi forces.

[Mace MacLeod]

Add to the list the depleted uranium rounds you mentioned and White Phosphorous, and you get a picture very unfitting a democratic nation.

 

In a perfect world, of course, there wouldn't be war-crimes as there'd be an organ capable of punishing all offenders, not just the "bad guys".

There is just such an organ: The War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, as I mentioned. Like I also mentioned, the US doesn't support it due to the above and various other shenanigans which under international law would quite rightfully see ol' Dubya and the rest of his pedigree chums front and center.

 

Well it's good that you're not celebrating the decision. But a lot of people are. In fact, the US government is currently trying to use Saddam's sentence to regain public support for the invasion of Iraq, with some success. And since not only the invasion but the subsequent trial were illegal under international law, the whole situation is reprihensible.

 

It is important to remind those who are easily swayed that Hussein is being executed for crimes which their own leaders are undeniably guilty of. And whether those leaders will ever see justice or not, isn't relevant to the fact that all the sheeple are running around cheering the death of the loser in an immoral conflict, and calling it justice.

Hey, I hear that. But these are the same people who still think that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11, despite the complete and total lack of any connection between him and al-Qaeda. Yet another moment where I'm glad to not be American.

 

The main point of what I've been trying to say is that whether his trial was illegal, immoral, cruel, barbaric, unjust by our standards or not, Saddam is anything but a clueless dupe or martyr. Whatever crimes leaders in the US, UK, or other countries have committed, Saddam did loads of nasty stuff all on his own volition. Dealt with in isolation from anyone else anywhere else, Saddam Hussein waged war on Iran, Kuwait and his own countrymen, resulting in millions of deaths all told. I'm willing to mourn a lot of people, but not him.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

@spider-ok, bastila, take a valium. I'm quite correct, after going over your posts, in coming to the conclusion that you believe SH's execution is moral ONLY IF a whole host of others are executed along with him.

Wrong.

 

Okay, I'm going to type the sentence I've been typing all along once more, and this time I'm going to dissect it and explain it in such utterly simple terms that nobody can even intentionally misunderstand it.

 

If you think Saddam should be executed, but DON'T think that our leaders should be executed, you're a goldarned hypocrite.

 

This means that if you think that Saddam should be executed; that the execution of Saddam for his crimes is justified, but you do NOT think that Georgie porgie, Tony Blair, Wolfowitz etcetera etcetera should also be executed for their crimes, then you are guilty of hypocrisy. Because the crimes of our leaders are great indeed. Possibly greater than the crimes of Saddam. And so, if you believe a certain punishment should be meted out to Saddam but you do not believe the same punishment (or worse) should be meted out to our own leaders, you are a hypocrite.

 

This statement has nothing to do with whether the act of executing Saddam in itself is moral. That's a different question. And obviously so.

 

Now, nobody ever really had an excuse for misunderstanding my original statement, and they have even less excuse for misunderstanding this portion of this post.

 

In addition, I'm not sure what calling me "bastila" is supposed to signify. But it's probably juvenile in nature, and thus an irrelevance.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

BTW, I wasn't aware that the Iraqi government required a sign off by the UN to try it's own people w/in it's own borders. And, given that there are more shia (and kurds combined) than sunis, the result would have effectively been the same in a "legitimate" govt. setting.

The question of whether the current "Iraqi government" is legitimate is a different issue to whether the government should conform to the standards of international law. Which of course it should. Unless you think it's okay to violate international law whenever you see fit... by say... invading a sovereign nation perhaps?

 

The court wasn't and isn't legal. The invasion that resulted in the court's existence wasn't legal. So how can the sentence passed by the court be "justice"? It's just a show-trial. A lynch-mob. Whether the man deserves a horrible death or not, the process is morally bankrupt and therefore the result... WHATEVER it might be, cannot be untainted.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Perhaps we should ask the current government to petition under international law for the handing over of all (what, maybe 155,000+ people) who can be connected to the operation in Iraq and they can all be hanged with SH. I'm sure that with the impramateur of "international law", you'd feel quite comfortable that the right thing was finally being done.

Curiously enough, my original statement is also the perfect answer to this paragraph.

 

If YOU believe that Saddam should be hanged for his war crimes but also believe that the architects of the conflict from our own shores should not be hanged under the same principle, then you're a hypocrite. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be a hypocrite. I try not to be a hypocrite.

 

If you're trying to ask "whom do you believe should be killed along with Saddam?" I must point out that I've never said that I want anyone to die at all. (Which, before you make one of your sweeping assumptions, does NOT mean that I disagree with capital punishment.) I've merely pointed out... shall we say... morally repugnant double standards in a certain trend in public opinion.

 

As for the international law angle, it would seem to be a basic moral standard that we apply any laws we have universally. Without the imprimatur of those international institutions that interpret and apply international law, our leaders are merely thuggish warlords.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Also, you are twisting words with your statement "......anyone who believes that someone who calls one killing immoral must be against ALL killing... is being rather silly. That's a hell of an assumption to make, in fact.

" I never stipulated you were against ALL killing b/c you seemed to oppose SH's execution. You came to that silly conclusion all by yourself. Note the key word is ALL and thus goes beyond the concept of executions. I'm well aware that you believe that not all killing is in fact murder. I did, afterall, read your "treatises" about empathy in another thread (my own, I believe).

You missed the point, Tot.

 

Your statement:

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

You appear to believe that killing Sadam is immoral. Since capital punishment is killing, it's not unrerasonable for someone to conclude that you believe that capital punishment is itself immoral. You just seemed to be "touching" on that "axiomatically", apparently.

You stated that YOU believed that I consider killing Saddam to be immoral. (Wrong.)

 

You then stated that you "reasonably" concluded that because I consider killing Saddam to be immoral, that I believe that "capital punishment in itself is immoral." (Unreasonable conclusion)

 

So you concluded that I was against all executions, because you believed (erroneously) that I was against one execution. Therefore my analogy was perfectly apt. Your assumptions have been massive and far-reaching in this thread, I have to say.

 

And finally an important rebuttal to an assertion you made in the first paragraph of your last post:

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Neither, however, do I "celebrate" (what exactly do you mean here anyway?) his upcoming execution.

Patently false. Let me quote you some quotes, from your own fair keyboard:

 

"Good riddance to bad rubbish. Now to see how long it will take them to carry out the sentence....."

 

"Frankly, yeah, I'd have no problem pulling the switch, saying "fire" or whatever was necessary to eliminate the likes of a SH or OBL or etc..."

 

To celebrate is to publically praise, to applaud, to laud widely, to glorify. It is not necessarily "having a party in your flat with a few friends". Your statements seem quite celebratory concerning Saddam's sentence. And believe you me, your views are fairly moderate in the scheme of things.

 

If I am incorrect and you do NOT approve of Saddam's sentence, well, you've been misleading us.

 

If you heard that Wolfowitz or... Rumsfeld was about to be hanged, would you say "Good riddance to bad rubbish"? Would you say "I'd have no problem pulling the switch"? If not, you're a hypocrite.

[Totenkopf]

First off, I ignored your hypothesis b/c I believe it to be irrelevant. The morality of executing Sadam (or the fairness for that matter) is not tied to whether we hold anyone else responsible for other acts not related to the charges for which he's been indicted. Hypocrisy is beside the point. As I stated, IF I bought into your interpretation of events and disagreed with your conclusions, THEN I'd be guilty of at the very least inconsistency and then perhaps the hypocrisy you so cling to. So, just so you didn't miss it, I understood your setup in the beginning, but disrearded it as irrelevant. In your arrogant rush to condescension, you obviously missed this fact. It seems to me, and it appears to be bourne out in your followup posts, that you merely wish to engage in ad hominem assault via the label hypocrite. Also, the reference to bastila was regarding how easily she got riled when challenged, which has apparently proven an apt (not immature) description of your response. You seem to possibly be exhibiting trollish behavior towards those you don't agree with in these threads.

 

Second, your contention that the war was illegal, doesn't pass muster. There was never anything other than a ceasefire declared at the end of Desert Storm. So, no peace, no new "illegal" war. It also goes to the whole point of international law you so cherish. If the UN cannot or will not enforce it's edicts, them no one is ultimatley bound by it's decisions. As mordibund as that other outfit, the League of Nations. However, perhaps you merely mean that the US should have formally declared war on Saddam, though I'm sure you'd contend that'd be illicit as well. International law is like the bastard stepchild no one wants to recognize till it benefits them. A country's internal affairs are seperate from international law. Many or most countries have their own legal systems, which predate said law. Your contention that the government is little more than a puppet does not invalidate it's right to try and execute Saddam, just b/c you don't happen to agree with how it came into existence. I believe there was voting in Iraq, BY Iraqis, for their provisional government. The trial and sentencing of SH for his actions is neither immoral nor illegal. Also, international law is not permanently binding on any nation. It's a mechanism that lacks any real teeth, except when it suits other's purposes. It's about as binding as the line "till death do us part" is to a serial monogamist.

 

It's apparent that both of us have misrepresented or misunderstood each other. While you don't outright say "killing SH is blatantly immoral b/c taking his life is wrong", you instead assert through your arguments that the manner in which he's being executed is basically "not moral" b/c 1) it doesn't satisfy your view of fair jurisprudence and 2) b/c people like Rummy and Co. don't go to the gallows with him.

 

You also, in an attempt to put yourself in the better light, omit my acknowledgrement that you don't in fact believe all killing is immoral. While I'll endeavor to edit a bit more rigourously in the future, you should strive to be less disingenuous. For instance, you try to brush aside my "belief" as being wrong, but then say elsewhere that if anyone deserved death, it was Saddam. Given your definition of immorality in other posts, are you actually saying that Saddam was/is moral? His acts seem to fit your requirements for execution. So, you are also guilty of "celebrating", though even less strenuously than you accuse me of, Saddam's sentence. I'll allow for the fact that we don't actually know one another to account for such misinterpretations. Seems were both a little too casual in our wording. You also took the comment about pulling the switch or yelling fire out of context. As I said to SD, b/c I'm not opposed to the death penalty in principle, I'd perform those actions if necessary. Good riddance to bad rubbish is basically just a dismissal, not a "celebration" as you're trying to twist it. Let's see how long it takes to carry it out is only an observation about the system in place. You're freighting those words with your own meanings, thus mischaracterizing my speech to bolster your argument, such as it were.

 

Less you wish to parse again, just admit that you think the execution of SH is immoral b/c you believe that the "taint of an immoral opeation" makes it so. I believe your words are to the effect that the sentence is little more than arbitrary vengeance, which we all know means immoral in your book. Everyone knows your views on hypocrisy by now (even those like me who got it in the beginning, but frankly didn't agree or care).

 

Let's just take off the gloves and agree to disagree.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

First off, I ignored your hypothesis b/c I believe it to be irrelevant. The morality of executing Sadam (or the fairness for that matter) is not tied to whether we hold anyone else responsible for other acts not related to the charges for which he's been indicted. Hypocrisy is beside the point.

And once again, I've never stated that the execution of Saddam is immoral. Your inability to comprehend this fact is rather astonishing.

 

My original statement stands: If you believe Saddam should be executed for his crimes, but our leaders should not be executed for theirs, then you are guilty of hypocrisy.

 

You've said nothing to indicate that you even understand this concept, much less said anything that addresses it directly. For a start, "hypothesis" is not the right word to describe my statement.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

As I stated, IF I bought into your interpretation of events and disagreed with your conclusions, THEN I'd be guilty of at the very least inconsistency and then perhaps the hypocrisy you so cling to. So, just so you didn't miss it, I understood your setup in the beginning, but disrearded it as irrelevant.

What do you mean "bought into my interpretation of events". Is my interpretation of events up for debate? I should have thought that it was obvious that Saddam's orders caused the deaths of many innocent people, and also that the orders of our own leaders caused the deaths of many innocent people. And that neither Saddam nor our leaders acted within the bounds of international law.

 

Are you even trying to debate these totally uncontestable facts? That would be silly. So since my assessment that Saddam is merely guilty of immoral and illegal deeds that our own leaders have also committed is pretty much common knowledge, my question stands. Do you support execution of our leaders as well as execution of Saddam? If not, your stance is hypocritical.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

In your arrogant rush to condescension, you obviously missed this fact. It seems to me, and it appears to be bourne out in your followup posts, that you merely wish to engage in ad hominem assault via the label hypocrite. Also, the reference to bastila was regarding how easily she got riled when challenged, which has apparently proven an apt (not immature) description of your response. You seem to possibly be exhibiting trollish behavior towards those you don't agree with in these threads

I find your emotive language to be totally unnecessary. I haven't called anyone a hypocrite, merely pointed out that if someone were to hold a certain set of immoral beliefs, they would indeed be a hypocrite. You haven't made clear whether you hold these beliefs yet, however. No, the only person attempting to engage in personal attacks is you.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Second, your contention that the war was illegal, doesn't pass muster. There was never anything other than a ceasefire declared at the end of Desert Storm. So, no peace, no new "illegal" war.

This is the standard pro-war stock argument that is always squeakily wheeled out whenever anyone notes that the invasion was illegal. It may surprise you however to find that you'll get no argument from me that the US aggression that began in 1991 never really stopped. Even after the ceasefire the US continued to smash the Iraqi people with economic sanctions that made Saddam Hussein even more powerful internally than he was before Desert Storm. Not to mention Clinton's bombing campaigns.

 

But the fact that the US always intended to go back into Iraq in force doesn't alter the fact that the current invasion of Iraq was in violation of international law. Even those involved in our own governance at a high level who are pro-war have admitted as much, when they've forgotten to toe the party line:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

 

The UN charter makes clear that without specific UN approval, no nation can use force against another nation unless in self defence. The oft-referred to resolution 1441 required a further UN resolution to actually justify going to war, and that was made clear at the time the resolution was made by prominent figures at the UN, as well as the US's own ambassador to the UN.

 

Now with that in mind, even if we were to accept your assertion that they are not technically two separate wars, but one war with an extended break in the middle, (Despite all of Bush the Elder's declarations of victory following the end of the conflict in '91) then we must face the conclusion that RESUMING the conflict in the manner that the US did, was illegal. But that's more a question of cosmetic terminology. Makes no effective difference. Whether you recognise it as a new conflict (as I do) or call it a resumption of hostilities (as you do), the 2003 invasion was and is illegal.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

If the UN cannot or will not enforce it's edicts, them no one is ultimatley bound by it's decisions. As mordibund as that other outfit, the League of Nations.

Well that's a morally bankrupt stance, Tot. It's like saying "If the policeman can't or won't chase you, you aren't bound by law not to steal." Utterly amoral. It shocks me that you would believe such a thing.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

International law is like the bastard stepchild no one wants to recognize till it benefits them. A country's internal affairs are seperate from international law. Many or most countries have their own legal systems, which predate said law. Your contention that the government is little more than a puppet does not invalidate it's right to try and execute Saddam, just b/c you don't happen to agree with how it came into existence. I believe there was voting in Iraq, BY Iraqis, for their provisional government. The trial and sentencing of SH for his actions is neither immoral nor illegal. Also, international law is not permanently binding on any nation. It's a mechanism that lacks any real teeth, except when it suits other's purposes. It's about as binding as the line "till death do us part" is to a serial monogamist.

WHAT? Our governments' excuse for invading Iraq was that Saddam was in violation of international law. But now you're suggesting that it's "legal" and "moral" for a court which is illegal under international law to TRY the man? I'm sorry, but that's so hypocritical that it borders on madness.

 

Furthermore there was voting, undoubtedly. But for a list of candidates who were vetted by the US. How can it be a democratic Iraqi election if the US decides who runs and who does not? The answer is, it cannot. Therefore the government is tainted at best, a puppet at worst.

 

And once again you trundle out the fallacy that if international law is not enforced, it ceases to be law. Does our law against theft cease to be law if the thief gets away with his theft? Of course not. And furthermore, international law is necessary if we are to behave morally as nations. Law has to be universally applied, or it is not moral.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

It's apparent that both of us have misrepresented or misunderstood each other.

Sigh. Nooo Tot, I have not misunderstood you at all. And I have not misrepresented my own position one jot, nor yours. Show me where I have.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

While you don't outright say "killing SH is blatantly immoral b/c taking his life is wrong", you instead assert through your arguments that the manner in which he's being executed is basically "not moral" b/c 1) it doesn't satisfy your view of fair jurisprudence and 2) b/c people like Rummy and Co. don't go to the gallows with him.

Both completely, completely wrong. I have never said anything of the sort. I have said that:

 

if you think Saddam deserves death for his crimes, but believe that our own leaders don't deserve death for their crimes, you're a hypocrite.

 

Not a statement that refers to the act of Saddam's execution, nor the manner in which he's being executed, nor the necessity of other people following him to the gallows.

 

I have on the other hand pointed out that the manner in which he's been SENTENCED is immoral as it is contrary to international law, the very law that he is charged with breaking in the first place. But that too is obvious.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

You also, in an attempt to put yourself in the better light, omit my acknowledgrement that you don't in fact believe all killing is immoral. While I'll endeavor to edit a bit more rigourously in the future, you should strive to be less disingenuous.

This is just flagrant nonsense. You stated that I hold certain beliefs. I proved that you were in the wrong in that matter. End of story.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

For instance, you try to brush aside my "belief" as being wrong, but then say elsewhere that if anyone deserved death, it was Saddam. Given your definition of immorality in other posts, are you actually saying that Saddam was/is moral?

Total non-sequitur. Anyone who manages to delude themselves into getting the impression from my posts that I believe Saddam to be in any way a moral man, needs their eyes checked.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

His acts seem to fit your requirements for execution. So, you are also guilty of "celebrating", though even less strenuously than you accuse me of, Saddam's sentence.

Nope. You've made it clear that you approve of this sentence, and I have made it VERY VERY clear that I believe the sentence to be tainted legally and morally, dispensed by an illegal and morally dubious court of law, appointed by an undemocratic puppet government, in a nation which was illegally and immorally invaded.

 

So where you get the idea that I am in any way sharing your elation at Saddam's sentence... I really can't fathom. You're wrong again.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

allow for the fact that we don't actually know one another to account for such misinterpretations. Seems were both a little too casual in our wording. You also took the comment about pulling the switch or yelling fire out of context. As I said to SD, b/c I'm not opposed to the death penalty in principle, I'd perform those actions if necessary. Good riddance to bad rubbish is basically just a dismissal, not a "celebration" as you're trying to twist it.

Good riddance to bad rubbish (Saddam) = To be rid of bad rubbish (Saddam) is good.

 

I didn't take this out of context, its meaning is obvious and self-contained. If anyone is too casual in their wording, it is you and only you.

 

"Frankly, yeah, I'd have no problem pulling the switch, saying "fire" or whatever was necessary to eliminate the likes of a SH or OBL or etc..." Means that not only do you approve of the sentence, you'd carry it out yourself. That isn't taken out of context. It's not "twisted" by me.

 

If you now realise that you didn't mean those things you typed and then posted in this thread, then please, retract them. Recant. Correct yourself. Feel free.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Less you wish to parse again, just admit that you think the execution of SH is immoral b/c you believe that the "taint of an immoral opeation" makes it so. I believe your words are to the effect that the sentence is little more than arbitrary vengeance, which we all know means immoral in your book. Everyone knows your views on hypocrisy by now (even those like me who got it in the beginning, but frankly didn't agree or care).

And once again I must correct you. I do not think the act of executing Saddam would in itself be immoral. I've made that clear many many times. How many times must I make it clear?

 

The sentencing of the court on the other hand, is immoral. And if anyone were to be in favour of this sentence without also being in favour of the same sentence for our own leaders, they too would be immoral. Because they'd be hypocrites.

 

If a murderer is mugged on his way home and stabbed to death by his mugger, the killing is both immoral and illegal. Why? Because even if the murderer deserved to die, the manner of his death violated the very laws and moral principles under which which he would have been charged and sentenced.

 

An illegal court that sentences someone to death could accurately- if colloquially- called a lynch mob. And even if they only hang actual murderers, their actions and sentences are still illegal and immoral, because without the mandate of law, they themselves are murderers. The parallel is fairly exact.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Let's just take off the gloves and agree to disagree.

"Agree to disagree"... You know Tot, nobody's making you debate. This is after all a debating forum. To request that someone just stop arguing with you, rather defeats the point of coming on to the debating forum in the first place.

 

Somewhat confusing.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod:

Hey, I hear that. But these are the same people who still think that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11, despite the complete and total lack of any connection between him and al-Qaeda. Yet another moment where I'm glad to not be American.

 

The main point of what I've been trying to say is that whether his trial was illegal, immoral, cruel, barbaric, unjust by our standards or not, Saddam is anything but a clueless dupe or martyr. Whatever crimes leaders in the US, UK, or other countries have committed, Saddam did loads of nasty stuff all on his own volition. Dealt with in isolation from anyone else anywhere else, Saddam Hussein waged war on Iran, Kuwait and his own countrymen, resulting in millions of deaths all told. I'm willing to mourn a lot of people, but not him.

Oh I agree with everything you say in these two paragraphs, but I must say that the way the sentence was arrived at does deserve a little mourning period. Saddam? He's undoubtedly a mass-murderer. But a lynch mob's a lynch mob. And regardless of who they lynch, the presence of a lynch mob is enough to warrant some active disapproval.

 

(edit) also worth remembering that our nations share responsibility for the deaths caused by Saddam in war, because we armed and funded him.

[Nancy Allen``]

Well Saddam had such an ego he probably thought he was well hung, now he's going to prove it.

 

Sentencing him to death? Typical.

 

What we should do: put him back in charge of Iraq, and let him clean up the mess. Now THAT would be punishment.

 

Oh that's just mean.

 

The Death Penalty is barbaric, and death by hanging even more so.

 

I agree with the notion of how wrong hanging is, but in Saddam's case he earnt it.

 

@ the above.

 

Capital punishment is indeed distasteful, but we're not exactly in charge, here. We Americans made a big stink over the "using the Iraqis to put Saddam on trial" as a publicity stunt. we have to accept the full ramifications of that. They're free to arse-rape him if they sentence him that way (though we certianly would throw a fit if they did).

 

Yeah we would, he'd enjoy it.

 

Seriously if we would've put him to death or imprison him and the Iraqis intend to put him to death then I seriously doubt some human shield can complain about it being wrong. You can bring George Bush up on the same charges and might very well get a conviction, Bush is, currently, the far lesser of the two evils. Just the same I'd be very careful of voting Republican.

 

If people have problems with the Death Penalty morally, just remember that in Iraq and many other places around the world, it's considered perfectly reasonable and justifiable traditional punishment, especially for someone convicted of the crimes Saddam just got nailed for. Especially in Muslim countires.

 

:snip: Couldn't have put that tirade better if I tried.

 

To you, Totenkopf, and to all those who agree with you that Saddam should be executed for his crime... I ask a simple question.

 

If it is right for Saddam Hussein to be executed for ordering the death of other people, is it right for our leaders to be executed along with him?

 

If they set out to kill innocent people and take over the country for themselves, yes.

 

Lost the quote of concern about him being turned into a myter, but to address the issue, the Sunnis would use it as an excuse for bloodshed no question but Saddam won't make himself out to be one, he's not the type.