Saddam - Death By hanging

[markierung]

Not really for the death penalty, but if anyon deserves it, he does

Thing is, is might never happen. Legal bullshit will lead to year of appeals and by the time it's over, he'll either be dead or so old that it will be considered un humane to kill him

Another point, i find it so stupid how amnesty international is calling the trial a farce, claiming that Sadaam isn't getting a fair trial.

Well of course he isn't, but he doesn't deserve it. The Man killed thousands of innocent people, and now, an international organization is saying that he should be treated better? In my mind, a very important organization just lost a lot of respect.

[dark_faerie87]

Whatever happened to the old proverb of turning the other cheek? Or two wrongs don't make a right? It doesn't matter how horrible (or "evil") someone is, he or she still deserves a fair trial. Otherwise, we would just be sinking to their level. Are we saying that we're no better than Saddam? I sure hope not, but by giving him an unfair trial, it certainly looks that way.

[Pierre the Great]

he will never see the rope. Malaki is anti death penalty and he's a Kurd. He has said publicly that Saddams blood will not be shed by a Kurd. Then his deputy who could also sign the paper that would authorize his execution is Shia. Saddam was Sunni, the ensurgency was started by the Sunni groups. So if he was executed the Sunni groups would look at the Kurds and Shia as responsible. Escalating the civil war.

[option+]

Another point, i find it so stupid how amnesty international is calling the trial a farce, claiming that Sadaam isn't getting a fair trial.

Well of course he isn't, but he doesn't deserve it. The Man killed thousands of innocent people, and now, an international organization is saying that he should be treated better? In my mind, a very important organization just lost a lot of respect.

Saddam is obviously an awful person who used poison gas on other human beings (among other war crimes), but that trial was definitely not fair. Many Iraqi politicians were calling from the start for a swift trial and execution... and how many times was this trial been speeded up? The first judge was taken off the case for not going fast enough... the proposed second judge was barred from taking the trial because of a rumour that he was a Baathist 30 years ago or something. Basically, the Iraqi government went through a series of judges until they found one that they liked... the prosecutors were allowed to present evidence and call witnesses without notifying the defence... Saddam's lawyers were not given proper protection by Iraqi authorities, leading to his main defence lawyer being assassinated in Baghdad earlier this year.

I haven't even mentioned the fact that he was tried by an Iraqi court for war crimes...he should have been tried by some sort of international tribunal, like the Nazis at Nuremberg, Slobodan Milosevic, or the Rwandan Hutus and NOT by a domestic court.

I don't want to use the term "kangaroo court" because the verdict reached was probably the correct one. But make no mistake, this trial was nowhere approaching international standards of justice. It was a perfect example of victor's justice. I'm not saying that the verdict wasn't proper or that Saddam didn't deserve it, but the trial itself wasn't even close to fair.

You seem to be of the opinion that Saddam Hussein didn't deserve a fair trail because of the crimes he committed. That's fine, it's tough to argue with that. But I will stick up for Amnesty International... their job isn't to determine who is guilty and who isn't, that is the job of a court of law; it's to try and insure that people's human rights are respected. I'm sure there are many people at Amnesty who felt sick to their stomach criticizing this trial... but human rights are universal. If you ever wind up unwittingly in a Malaysian jail or something, you'll be quite happy that there are groups like Amnesty who do what they do.

Edited November 7, 2006 by option+

[Bacchus]

I don't want to use the term "kangaroo court" because the verdict reached was probably the correct one. But make no mistake, this trial was nowhere approaching international standards of justice. It was a perfect example of victor's justice. I'm not saying that the verdict wasn't proper or that Saddam didn't deserve it, but the trial itself wasn't even close to fair.

You seem to be of the opinion that Saddam Hussein didn't deserve a fair trail because of the crimes he committed. That's fine, it's tough to argue with that. But I will stick up for Amnesty International... their job isn't to determine who is guilty and who isn't, that is the job of a court of law; it's to try and insure that people's human rights are respected. I'm sure there are many people at Amnesty who felt sick to their stomach criticizing this trial... but human rights are universal. If you ever wind up unwittingly in a Malaysian jail or something, you'll be quite happy that there are groups like Amnesty who do what they do.

Totally agree with you. This is an example of Victor's justice. Not saying the Saddam isn't scum, but rather that they people who are judging him are guilty of very similar crimes. Bush could be trumped up on crimes against humanity ... both of them. More Iraqis have died because of their war, and their embargoes than Kurds by poison gas.

The point that Amnesty international is probably making by saying it is a farce is that this is not true justice in so far as Saddam broke rules that are deserving of this crime, and that these same rules will and have been used to convict other world leaders. If other world leaders would be charged for this sort of action TOny Blair, Bush, Jong Il, Chines government, etc. etc. would be hung ... because they are all guilty of crimes against humanity and mass death.

Make no mistake, Saddam is being charged because he played with the bulls and got the horns.

[Fanpuck33]

Hanging is too humane for Saddam. I say spray him with Serin gas.

[Bacchus]

Hanging is too humane for Saddam. I say spray him with Serin gas.

And what would you do to the Bushies? Sick a smart bomb on them then steal their oil? Starve them to death? Deny them proper medicine and health-care?

It is easy to hate someone your told to hate ... but if you think critically you would see that many of our world leaders deserve the same fate as Saddam.

[JustHabs]

I wonder how many "human rights" were "respected" on his countless victims.

The fact that he was allowed a trial of any sort, no matter how corrupt, is in my opinion beyond what he deserved. How many died at his hands ?..... where is the line drawn. Who protected and preserved their "human rights", it may not be in the eyes of our way the best defence, or the best trial. But why does his life deserve more than given to his victims ? It is his time to be punished for what he has done and condoned. The punishment should fit the crime.

[simonus]

Not really for the death penalty, but if anyon deserves it, he does

Thing is, is might never happen. Legal bullshit will lead to year of appeals and by the time it's over, he'll either be dead or so old that it will be considered un humane to kill him

Another point, i find it so stupid how amnesty international is calling the trial a farce, claiming that Sadaam isn't getting a fair trial.

Well of course he isn't, but he doesn't deserve it. The Man killed thousands of innocent people, and now, an international organization is saying that he should be treated better? In my mind, a very important organization just lost a lot of respect.

If one belives in the merits of a death penalty, I guess Sadaam deserves it, although I'm not sure that the general justification for death penalty works here. Are we specifically worried about crime reduction? Do we think that dictators will change their behaviours for fear of meeting Sadaam's fate? Doesn't the general psychological makeup of dictators indicate otherwise? If you simply believe that the death penalty is an efficient method for removing unacceptable people from society, I guess executing Sadaam makes sense.

How long is the Iraqi appeals process? I thought they had set it up in this case to operate very quickly. I am one that tends to believe this should have been done in an international tribunal (where, coincidentally, the death penalty probably would not have been available). Also, Mr. Clark seems not to have acted in the best interest of his client.

I differ greatly on my interpretation on the kangaroo court used to convict Sadaam. This verdict, which is obviously correct, will be challenged and doubted by many because of the methods through which it was obtained. This allows Sadaam to act as a martyr and empowers his followers. A fair trial, wherein Sadaam would certainly be still found guilty would be much stronger and enable far less doubt and rage throughout the pro-Sadaam and anti-American communities.

Fair justice can be just as strong, if not stronger, than unfair justice. The prosecution of Sadaam is righteous enough to withstand strict scrutiny. Perhaps Sadaam does not deserve justice, but we do.

[option+]

I wonder how many "human rights" were "respected" on his countless victims.

The fact that he was allowed a trial of any sort, no matter how corrupt, is in my opinion beyond what he deserved. How many died at his hands ?..... where is the line drawn. Who protected and preserved their "human rights", it may not be in the eyes of our way the best defence, or the best trial. But why does his life deserve more than given to his victims ? It is his time to be punished for what he has done and condoned. The punishment should fit the crime.

The line is here: either everyone's human rights are protected, or the concept of human rights becomes meaningless. If we use moralistic reasoning to decide who gets to keep their human rights... then where does the line get drawn there? OK, mass murderers shouldn't have human rights. How about rapists? Armed robbers? Enron-style corporate criminals? Gang members? A guy who stole a cabbage from a market? OR maybe they should have varying amounts of human rights. Mass murderers would have none, rapists a few more, armed robbers still more, etc. I would find such a system much more troublesome than one where everyone's human rights are protected full stop.

I know for a FACT that Amnesty International was on Saddam's case during the 80s for gasing the Kurds and various other human rights abuses, and I'm sure various other human rights watchdogs did the same. So in response to your question "who protected and and preserved their 'human rights'", the answer is lots of people. Or at least they tried. Unfortunately, such organizations are usually powerless. Their criticism of the Sadaam trial will in the long run mean nothing; if the Iraqi and American governments want to hang him, then he will be hung. And in the 1980s, their protests were likewise meaningless; the United States and Britain were too busy using Iraq as a proxy in a war against Iran to give a damn about what Sadaam Hussein was doing inside his own country.

Edited November 7, 2006 by option+

[Athlétique.Canadien]

And what would you do to the Bushies? Sick a smart bomb on them then steal their oil? Starve them to death? Deny them proper medicine and health-care?

It is easy to hate someone your told to hate ... but if you think critically you would see that many of our world leaders deserve the same fate as Saddam.

The Bushies may be lunatics and deserving of punishment but don't come within a mile of what Saddam did.

I hope he's not evecuted.

[JustHabs]

The line is here: either everyone's human rights are protected, or the concept of human rights becomes meaningless. If we use moralistic reasoning to decide who gets to keep their human rights... then where does the line get drawn there? OK, mass murderers shouldn't have human rights. How about rapists? Armed robbers? Enron-style corporate criminals? Gang members? A guy who stole a cabbage from a market? OR maybe they should have varying amounts of human rights. Mass murderers would have none, rapists a few more, armed robbers still more, etc. I would find such a system much more troublesome than one where everyone's human rights are protected full stop.

I know for a FACT that Amnesty International was on Saddam's case during the 80s for gasing the Kurds and various other human rights abuses, and I'm sure various other human rights watchdogs did the same. So in response to your question "who protected and and preserved their 'human rights'", the answer is lots of people. Or at least they tried. Unfortunately, such organizations are usually powerless. Their criticism of the Sadaam trial will in the long run mean nothing; if the Iraqi and American governments want to hang him, then he will be hung. And in the 1980s, their protests were likewise meaningless; the United States and Britain were too busy using Iraq as a proxy in a war against Iran to give a damn about what Sadaam Hussein was doing inside his own country.

In "theory" I understand what you are saying. But let us be realistic here, a clear cut defination of human rights and how they are protected does not exist, never has and unfortunately never will. WHY ? Because that in fact is the world we live in, that is the world we have collectively created. People aren't the same and to say that they should be treated the same is ridiculous.

What does "on Sadam's case" mean exactly ?

I think you missed my point on what I was saying as far as who protected the rights of the victims. The fact that lives were frivolously taken at will or whim was more my point. And why can't things be determined on a morality scale here ...if there were ever a situation to make a moral issue about something then this has got to be it. Things can be very skewed in the eyes of the law. Things can be misrepresented. Sometimes wrong is just wrong !

Edited November 7, 2006 by JustHabs

[option+]

By "on Saddam's case", I meant that Amnesty does what they usually do: they issues a press release condemning Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, they began a letter writing campaign to the US and British governments to try and convince them to ditch Saddam as an ally, etc. So in other words, they did much more for the victims of Saddam's atrocities in the 1980s then they are currently doing for Saddam.

A clear definition of human rights has never existed? Well, we do have the UN Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenants on Civic, Political, Economics, Social and Cultural rights, we have the Geneva Conventions, and other conventions against torture, racial discrimination, and on the rights of children. There is an entire branch of the UN (under the leadership of the UNHCR) devoted to monitoring human rights. While none of those conventions are perfect, I think it's pretty safe to say that what human rights have been well defined under international law. The problem with human rights is not that they're not well defined; it's that governments decide to ignore them.

"Sometimes wrong is wrong"; how you think is your business, but I choose not to look at things in such a black and white way. If wrong truly is wrong, then it will be proven to be wrong in a fair trial, right? By all accounts, the evidence against Saddam was so overwhelming that he would have been found guilty in any courtroom in the world. So then why plough through an unfair trial in record speed? There must be another (political) reason for that, one that surely has nothing to do with victims families and their sufferings.

I realize that I'm a complete idealist, and I know that pisses off a lot of people (in general)... but there is also a practical basis to my idealism. I tend to think that justice feels most satisfying when it has been administered properly, according to international norms. Perhaps not on a personal level, but certainly on an institutional level. What would have happened if after World War II, the Americans, Brits, French and Soviets had just shot all the Nazis they could find in the name of "justice" (which Stalin wanted to do, by the way). Well, I think that shooting people in the head after a war finished would have become normal, that going on orgies of revenge killings after conflicts would have become legitimate ways of behaving. I realize that this is what happens more often than not after wars, but there are also many instances where mass murderers have been accorded fair trials under international law, found guilty, then punished accordingly.

I don't like Saddam Hussein. But I also don't like the precedent his "trial" creates.

Edited November 7, 2006 by option+

[BTH]

Don't they have newer, less painful ways to kill people nowadays? I don't like the idea of anyone getting hanged - it's a terrible way to die.

[Fanpuck33]

Don't they have newer, less painful ways to kill people nowadays? I don't like the idea of anyone getting hanged - it's a terrible way to die.

Boo hoo. Getting gassed by the leader of your country is a worse way to die.

[MAK]

Boo hoo. Getting gassed by the leader of your country is a worse way to die.

I'm one of the few who thinks that death by hanging is too sweet for him.

[JustHabs]

By "on Saddam's case", I meant that Amnesty does what they usually do: they issues a press release condemning Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, they began a letter writing campaign to the US and British governments to try and convince them to ditch Saddam as an ally, etc. So in other words, they did much more for the victims of Saddam's atrocities in the 1980s then they are currently doing for Saddam.

A clear definition of human rights has never existed? Well, we do have the UN Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenants on Civic, Political, Economics, Social and Cultural rights, we have the Geneva Conventions, and other conventions against torture, racial discrimination, and on the rights of children. There is an entire branch of the UN (under the leadership of the UNHCR) devoted to monitoring human rights. While none of those conventions are perfect, I think it's pretty safe to say that what human rights have been well defined under international law. The problem with human rights is not that they're not well defined; it's that governments decide to ignore them.

"Sometimes wrong is wrong"; how you think is your business, but I choose not to look at things in such a black and white way. If wrong truly is wrong, then it will be proven to be wrong in a fair trial, right? By all accounts, the evidence against Saddam was so overwhelming that he would have been found guilty in any courtroom in the world. So then why plough through an unfair trial in record speed? There must be another (political) reason for that, one that surely has nothing to do with victims families and their sufferings.

I realize that I'm a complete idealist, and I know that pisses off a lot of people (in general)... but there is also a practical basis to my idealism. I tend to think that justice feels most satisfying when it has been administered properly, according to international norms. Perhaps not on a personal level, but certainly on an institutional level. What would have happened if after World War II, the Americans, Brits, French and Soviets had just shot all the Nazis they could find in the name of "justice" (which Stalin wanted to do, by the way). Well, I think that shooting people in the head after a war finished would have become normal, that going on orgies of revenge killings after conflicts would have become legitimate ways of behaving. I realize that this is what happens more often than not after wars, but there are also many instances where mass murderers have been accorded fair trials under international law, found guilty, then punished accordingly.

I don't like Saddam Hussein. But I also don't like the precedent his "trial" creates.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* The fact that you are an idealist does not piss me off in any way. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that you feel passionate about the rights of all people. But I don't exactly understand how you can have a "practial" basis in idealism as it is by defination...."impractical, imaginative and conficted by pratical considerations". Although I feel you are misinterpreting my posts you get the general idea. You are taking my words in literal form. Obviously I am well aware that there is a defination of human rights in many forms, dependant on it's supporter.

I am not a moralist, and certainly not an idealist but rather a realist. To say that that Amnesty was writing a press release or a letter writing campaign to the US to me is an almost laughable deterrent to these crimes. Now that is only my perception of an isolated situation. I know there is a just cause for organizations of this sort. I am also certain that they have helped many. But I do feel that in some situations, some people need to be made an example of, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are two that are obvious. I would feel quite comfortable and rest easy if these two men were removed from existence in any way deemed appropriate. I would love to be able to speak with a child who had to watch her mother be dragged away and killed and find her thoughts. To understand what she felt. What would she think of all of this ?

I am not trying to demean your beliefs, I am only expressing mine.*

Edited November 8, 2006 by JustHabs

[dark_faerie87]

What I don't understand about this is how will it help our society? The majority of the people who follow Hussein and Bin Laden are fanatical fundamentalists who in most cases are more than willing to die for the cause that they believe in. Keeping this in mind, executing Hussein is not going to deter these "terrorists/freedom fighters," because death is already an acceptable fate for them. If anything, it's only going to create even more polarization, which is never a good thing. So going back to my original point, the only "good" reason to kill Hussein is to "avenge" all the people he mistreated. Personally, I don't think this is an acceptable policy. Remember what Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Do we really want to blind the world?