PDA

View Full Version : Saddam Hussein


TSR
11-05-2006, 05:23 PM
Ok, this is major league news, but i don't see a thread on it already. So please excuse me if there is, its probably me being a t*t.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6119428.stm

Saddam Hussein. Sentenced to death by hanging. What a screw up. yes, the guy deserves to die, but we need to think about this. Killing him will make him a martyr. I don't want to go to deep into this if i dont have to, as my views are very strong and will probably consist of crude language. So what does everyone else think?

@ED- Argh, senate chambers. Those replies need time, concise thinking and effort to do. I lack the capacity nor the desire to do such a thing ;)

Emperor Devon
11-05-2006, 05:26 PM
There actually was a thread in the Senate Chambers. But onto this, it's about time. Good riddance.

Negative Sun
11-05-2006, 05:28 PM
Yes, killing him by testicle-ripping-and-bleeding-to-death would be much better, and I think it would make him les of a martyr...I mean, who would want to worship a guy without balls?

Darth InSidious
11-05-2006, 06:22 PM
Hmm.

Does he deserve to die? Erm...Maybe.

But by killing him, the Iraqi government is no better than him, IMO.

Personally, I'd imprison him for life with the Tellytubbies...

HerbieZ
11-05-2006, 06:25 PM
Im glad he's been found guilty and that he will be punished for the deaths of innocent people but i don't think anyone should be forced to die for their crimes. It's slightly Jedi of me but it's what i just think. There are many fates worse than death. Working at a KFC in Levenshulme i believe is one.

Darth InSidious
11-05-2006, 06:49 PM
What's wrong with being 'slightly Jedi'?

I think it's laudable.

TK-8252
11-05-2006, 07:01 PM
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.

Mace MacLeod
11-05-2006, 07:06 PM
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

lukeiamyourdad
11-05-2006, 07:14 PM
What we should do: put him back in charge of Iraq, and let him clean up the mess. Now THAT would be punishment.


Hehe, he might actually prove to be effective at the job.

Mav
11-05-2006, 07:31 PM
I'm not a fan of the death penalty, just leave him in a prison. But the thing that's really odd... death by hanging? wouldn't lethal injection be more humane?

Point Man
11-05-2006, 09:03 PM
It's better than he deserves.

Emperor Devon
11-05-2006, 09:07 PM
wouldn't lethal injection be more humane?

It would be more humane, which is precisely why we're not doing it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Anfal_campaign)

One example out of many...

It's better than he deserves.

QFE.

mimartin
11-05-2006, 09:21 PM
It's better than he deserves.
Agreed!

Jeff
11-05-2006, 10:01 PM
I'd prefer to see life imprisonment over this. For a couple reasons, it's against my moral views, it's more punishment to spend life in prison than to just die, and like some of you said he'll be a martyr to his followers.

Mav
11-05-2006, 10:13 PM
It would be more humane, which is precisely why we're not doing it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Anfal_campaign)

One example out of many...Even though someone may have done the awful things that Hussein has done, I'm not denying that, employing the attitude that we have the "right" to exert equal punishment on said individual is foolish.

I'd prefer to see life imprisonment over this. For a couple reasons, it's against my moral views, it's more punishment to spend life in prison than to just die, and like some of you said he'll be a martyr to his followers.QFE

Emperor Devon
11-05-2006, 10:19 PM
Even though someone may have done the awful things that Hussein has done, I'm not denying that, employing the attitude that we have the "right" to exert equal punishment on said individual is foolish.

I would call one hanging a far from equal punishment in proportion to genocide on such a scale...

Mav
11-05-2006, 10:26 PM
I would call one hanging a far from equal punishment in proportion to genocide on such a scale...Well in the case of genocide, I doubt it is possible to kill one person several thousand times. So in that sense, his death, no matter how inhumane you would like to be, will never be equal punishment. I feel that execution, in any circumstance, is not a means to which problems are solved or debts are paid.

Jae Onasi
11-05-2006, 10:26 PM
Folks, the Americans aren't imposing the sentence, the Iraqis are. They're the ones who tried and sentenced him, and the ones who will execute him.
And here's how much I'll mourn: Yep, that's pretty much it, we can move on now.

lukeiamyourdad
11-05-2006, 10:54 PM
Folks, the Americans aren't imposing the sentence, the Iraqis are. They're the ones who tried and sentenced him, and the ones who will execute him.

Don't accuse people against the death penalty of anti-americanism when the United States have not been mentioned yet.
As far as I know, the concept of death penalty is not exclusive to the USA, so discussing it without mentioning said country is totally possible.

Emperor Devon
11-05-2006, 11:07 PM
So in that sense, his death, no matter how inhumane you would like to be, will never be equal punishment.

Unfortunately, yes. However, a hanging is a closer punishment than just a lethal injection.

I feel that execution, in any circumstance, is not a means to which problems are solved or debts are paid.

It's justice. If someone commits a crime, they should be punished according the severity of it. And in the case of genocide, it is a very severe one. :)

Jae Onasi
11-05-2006, 11:23 PM
Don't accuse people against the death penalty of anti-americanism when the United States have not been mentioned yet.
As far as I know, the concept of death penalty is not exclusive to the USA, so discussing it without mentioning said country is totally possible.

To be honest, I wasn't thinking of anti-Americanism at all, just a clarification on who was responsible for sentencing Hussein. I didn't connect death penalty issues with anti-Americanism, either. Those are 2 entirely separate issues. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty in the US simply because all the appeals cost the states more money in the long run than just housing the criminal. Yeah, that may be cold, but if they're guilty, they're going to spend time in jail for the rest of their lives or die with no hope of rehabilitation and release no matter what, so we may as well do it in the least expensive way possible.

The only reason I posted that was because it sounded like some folks were thinking the US was involved (which would be natural, given our involvement there), when in fact it's the Iraqis who are taking responsibility for their own people. The US and a number of other countries are over there in Iraq so that the Iraqi people can have the right to convict a dictator of heinous crimes. It's a pleasure to see the Iraqis taking the initiative to try and convict Hussein, whether or not they actually put him to death.

lukeiamyourdad
11-05-2006, 11:32 PM
The only reason I posted that was because it sounded like some folks were thinking the US was involved (which would be natural, given our involvement there), when in fact it's the Iraqis who are taking responsibility for their own people.

This is where it was unclear since I didn't see anyone who sounded like he thought the US was involved with the sentence. Honestly, I don't see it anywhere.
I guess it all was a case of misinterpretation.

MdKnightR
11-05-2006, 11:32 PM
Hanging is too good for him. I'd suggest public castration, followed by disembowelment and then behead him!

lukeiamyourdad
11-05-2006, 11:43 PM
I don't really understand the need of killing him. Isn't it a bit too sweet? I'd rather have him rot at the bottom of the hole he was captured in. Surely, those who want "justice" must prefer having him suffer many years for what he did rather then spending a few seconds choking on rope.

Mav
11-06-2006, 01:21 AM
I don't really understand the need of killing him. Isn't it a bit too sweet? I'd rather have him rot at the bottom of the hole he was captured in. Surely, those who want "justice" must prefer having him suffer many years for what he did rather then spending a few seconds choking on rope.I agree, I don't see the need to kill him, or anyone else for their crimes, goes back to the whole eye for an eye thing. However, it does seem like quite a few people here want to see him executed, I wonder if they would do it with their own hands though? I know I couldn't do it, nor do I want to.

Diego Varen
11-06-2006, 01:31 AM
He does deserve to die after what he has done in Iraq. If they don't kill, do as lukeiamyourdad said and let him rot in the bottom of the hole he was captured in.

MdKnightR
11-06-2006, 02:08 AM
I don't really understand the need of killing him. Isn't it a bit too sweet? I'd rather have him rot at the bottom of the hole he was captured in. Surely, those who want "justice" must prefer having him suffer many years for what he did rather then spending a few seconds choking on rope.

The problem with "letting him rot" is who's gonna pay the bill to keep the sorry SOB alive for the next 20+ years? People say that the death penalty is not a deterrent for crime, but it most certainly is. Supposing for a moment that opponents of capital punishment are right and it doesn't deter others from committing crime, it at the very least deters the one executed from ever harming others again!

Negative Sun
11-06-2006, 09:58 AM
Let's throw him in the Great Pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the almighty Sarlacc...

That would be a fitting punishment I think :)

Vaelastraz
11-06-2006, 10:36 AM
Hanging? Didn't know that was the method of death penalty in the Iraq.

I'm against the death penalty, so no comment from me on that...

Ztalker
11-06-2006, 10:48 AM
I'm against the death penalty too.
it's an easy way out for a mass-murderer like him. He should be sentenced life-long. His prison inmates will punish him much harder then that stupid rope can. :smash:

Plus, I just want to go to his prison, with some popcorn, and watch him getting beat up by his mates, thus becoming a prison b*tch. THAT's what he deserves.

RC-1162
11-06-2006, 11:18 AM
finally. what took them so long?
now all we need is someone to get rid of the other PITA we have.
<_<
>_>

manoman81
11-06-2006, 11:50 AM
Folks, the Americans aren't imposing the sentence, the Iraqis are. They're the ones who tried and sentenced him, and the ones who will execute him.

I was just about to say something to that effect. Also, I would rather it be the Iraqis than the US. If the US was the one to sentence him, we'd be in more trouble.

.....Granted he should been sent to the Hague, but that's another thread...

Darth333
11-06-2006, 11:53 AM
The problem with "letting him rot" is who's gonna pay the bill to keep the sorry SOB alive for the next 20+ years? People say that the death penalty is not a deterrent for crime, but it most certainly is. Supposing for a moment that opponents of capital punishment are right and it doesn't deter others from committing crime, it at the very least deters the one executed from ever harming others again!
I am not convinced about that. Not only I oppose to death penalty per se but I fear that Saddam's execution could only worsen the already chaotic situation in Iraq.

Jae Onasi
11-06-2006, 12:21 PM
@LIAYD--even momerators can have the occasional confused moments and writings with incomplete clarity :) , but it was Emperor D's comment
"It would be more humane, which is precisely why we're not doing it." and Mav's
"...employing the attitude that we have the "right" to exert equal punishment on said individual is foolish" that triggered my thoughts. I took the 'we' to mean 'we Americans', and thought it was necessary to clarify. No worries on the understanding thing. It never occurred to me that people could perceive it the way you did (or I would have written it differently), but I can see how you got to that conclusion.

I am not convinced about that. Not only I oppose to death penalty per se but I fear that Saddam's execution could only worsen the already chaotic situation in Iraq.

I'd tend to agree with that, but unless they housed him in a maximum security prison in another country, I'm concerned it would be all to easy for him too escape.

JediMaster12
11-06-2006, 04:09 PM
Saddam is getting hanged by order of the Iraqui court system. As one who thinks enough killing has been had, it is extreme. then again we used to think it the right thing to do in the Old West out on the frontier. As someone who believes in trial by jury, while I don't the facts that were presented, I would say that Saddam will get his due. President Bush claimed that it was a milestone. Personally I have not seen progress made in Iraq. Now I am hearing that the snipers have gotten better at killing our boys over there or even just injuring them. As far as I am concerned, Saddam was a tyrant who abused the power that we helped him gain in the first place and now he is paying the price. Hanging, lethal injection, fine by me though I think an execution squad would be an extreme.

Emperor Devon
11-06-2006, 07:03 PM
I took the 'we' to mean 'we Americans', and thought it was necessary to clarify.

I hadn't been thinking when I said 'we'. :)

Out of general curiosity, though, why are so many people against the death penalty? It's not as if he's being hanged (yes, that's proper grammar) without reason.

CSI
11-06-2006, 07:31 PM
To kill a Saddam Hussein is not the problem people should concern--at least I don't care about if he's hanged or drowned or shot. I think the biggest problem should be how to prevent another Saddam Hussein from rising in Iraq.

Totenkopf
11-06-2006, 08:36 PM
Draw and quarter, anyone?

But seriously, we're not talking about execution of a jaywalker. I mean, in his case, if there were a scintilla of true doubt about SH's identity, you might have a point about capital punishment being extreme. However, that doesn't seem to be a problem in this case. Also, the Iraqis need no pressure from the US to kill this sob anyway b/c he's made enough internal enemies of his own these past 30+ years. There's no reason to send him to the Hague, however, as Iraq has the right to punish it's own criminals. The UN did little to bring this man down and thus has no jurisdiction over his fate. Hanging may be to good for him, but he is getting his just reward. :smash:

ET Warrior
11-06-2006, 10:27 PM
Out of general curiosity, though, why are so many people against the death penalty? Because the ideas of vengeance and retribution like that are barbaric and outdated? As a species and society it would be nice to evolve past our animal need for such things? Because human life is intrinsically valuable and nobody has the right to determine when and how to end it?

Mav
11-06-2006, 11:38 PM
Because the ideas of vengeance and retribution like that are barbaric and outdated? As a species and society it would be nice to evolve past our animal need for such things? Because human life is intrinsically valuable and nobody has the right to determine when and how to end it?I couldn't have said it better myself. QFE.

Emperor Devon
11-06-2006, 11:41 PM
Because the ideas of vengeance and retribution like that are barbaric and outdated? As a species and society it would be nice to evolve past our animal need for such things? Because human life is intrinsically valuable and nobody has the right to determine when and how to end it?

And what of how Saddam ordered the deaths of thousands? Shouldn't his punishment be somewhat equal to his crimes?

JediMaster12
11-06-2006, 11:45 PM
Buddhists believe that all life is sacred. It is an inheret tenement in our moral system and most people do value life. That is what the insurgents count on when they use children and women to try and ambush the convoys. Retribution is not outdated and is in fact very much alive today. However, we must have some sort of justice system in order to keep what we call law and order otherwise chaos ensues.

lukeiamyourdad
11-07-2006, 12:30 AM
And what of how Saddam ordered the deaths of thousands? Shouldn't his punishment be somewhat equal to his crimes?

Are we inherently better then him if we order his death?


Perhaps I'm too idealistic, but I always believe that someone can be redeemed. Ok, Saddam may be a special case, but I'm talking about death penalty as a whole.

People say that the death penalty is not a deterrent for crime, but it most certainly is.

Statistics would prove you wrong. The United States has a pretty high crime rate for a country that has the death penalty when compared others that don't. Of course, it oversimplifies the issue as many other variables can come into play. I simply say that the idea that death penalty alone is a deterrent for crime has already been proven false.

Totenkopf
11-07-2006, 12:57 AM
Actually, how do you prove a negative like that? Fact is, we don't really know what effect that capital punishment has on influencing people not to commit a capital crime. It might be more accurate to claim that since you can't quantify the impact, it would be better to drop the issue as a whole. You have no way of knowing that those people already guilty of capital offenses would do if death were swift b/c you're not there when they make that decision either. And you can't necessarily take for granted what people say b/c they may only be telling you what they believe you want to hear. One thing about deterence is irrefutable, dead men can't recidivise.

Emperor Devon
11-07-2006, 01:03 AM
Are we inherently better then him if we order his death?

As we're not conducting large-scale civilian killings, I'd venture yes. But what matters is that we're serving justice.

Perhaps I'm too idealistic, but I always believe that someone can be redeemed. Ok, Saddam may be a special case, but I'm talking about death penalty as a whole.

The death penalty should be used infrequently, in my opinion. Saddam, though, seems far from redeemable.

lukeiamyourdad
11-07-2006, 01:14 AM
Actually, how do you prove a negative like that? Fact is, we don't really know what effect that capital punishment has on influencing people not to commit a capital crime. It might be more accurate to claim that since you can't quantify the impact, it would be better to drop the issue as a whole. You have no way of knowing that those people already guilty of capital offenses would do if death were swift b/c you're not there when they make that decision either. And you can't necessarily take for granted what people say b/c they may only be telling you what they believe you want to hear. One thing about deterence is irrefutable, dead men can't recidivise.


Then why have capital punishment if nobody knows the actual effect of it?
Indeed, it is not easy to quantify the effects, but if you don't know why you're doing it, it kills its purpose.
If you kill the criminal it deters him from doing anything else since he's quite obviously dead. However, is that the point of capital punishment? Is it not used to tell other criminals to not commit crimes? After all, if that was not the idea behind it, keeping the criminal behind bars for the rest of his life would achieve the same end.

The fact remains that the US crime rate is not lower then other countries that don't use capital punishment. The question is why? I specifically mentioned that many variables will come into play, either it be the social net, the mentality, the help given to the lower classes, etc. There's no real practical way to test this.

Totenkopf
11-07-2006, 01:34 AM
This should be a bit of a no-brainer. The actual effect of capital punishment is a dead criminal. You probably meant the deterence effect. I'm not so sure it tells them not to commit crimes (the laws actually do that), but puts them on notice that death is a distinct possibility in their "near" (15-20 after appeals, I s'ppose) future. The problem with criminals is, as you rightly note, that we don't know what exactly is the deciding factor (nature v nurture) in their choice to run afoul of the law. Still, if the death penalty isn't going to stop people from committing capital crimes, it's equally obvious that the prospect of life behind bars doesn't deter either.

MdKnightR
11-07-2006, 01:37 AM
Statistics would prove you wrong. The United States has a pretty high crime rate for a country that has the death penalty when compared others that don't. Of course, it oversimplifies the issue as many other variables can come into play. I simply say that the idea that death penalty alone is a deterrent for crime has already been proven false.

The problem with the death penalty in the U.S. is that it is not swift enough. Criminals here are executed after sitting on death row for about 20 years and then they are "put to sleep" in a silent ceremony. That's long enough for the general public to forget why they are there in the first place. If it were swiftly dealt and done in public without anesthesia (I prefer the guillotine), the people would get to see the horrors of execution and it would be quite effective in deterring future crime.

Emperor Devon
11-07-2006, 01:45 AM
^^^
That sounds bold. Are you advocating it for just certain types of crimes?

TK-8252
11-07-2006, 12:39 PM
The problem with the death penalty in the U.S. is that it is not swift enough. Criminals here are executed after sitting on death row for about 20 years and then they are "put to sleep" in a silent ceremony. That's long enough for the general public to forget why they are there in the first place. If it were swiftly dealt and done in public without anesthesia (I prefer the guillotine), the people would get to see the horrors of execution and it would be quite effective in deterring future crime.

I partly agree with you. I do think that the way we execute people now is lousy. I mean, an execution shouldn't be like a surgical procedure. Now, a guillotine is far too extreme for me, but hey, nothing wrong with a good ol' firing squad.

But here's where I disagree - the fact that they sit on death row for a couple decades, while tedious for those who are victims of the person's crimes, isn't a BAD thing. That's how long it takes for the appeals process to play out. If we just up and executed people after their conviction, we'd end up executing innocent people.

Just on a final note, I'm against the death penalty - not because I don't think it would fit the crime, but because I don't believe in government having that much power. Government always manages to screw things up, so they'll screw up executions too. There have been innocent people executed in the past, and as long as there is a death penalty, there will continue to be innocents executed.

TSR
11-07-2006, 01:28 PM
And what of how Saddam ordered the deaths of thousands? Shouldn't his punishment be somewhat equal to his crimes?
Maybe if we made a way to ressurect people within the 30 days till his death, we could kill him thousands of times. But what good would that do?

the people would get to see the horrors of execution and it would be quite effective in deterring future crime.

To me, this sounds slightly...crude, perhaps?

Darth InSidious
11-07-2006, 04:55 PM
Buddhists believe that all life is sacred. It is an inheret tenement in our moral system and most people do value life. That is what the insurgents count on when they use children and women to try and ambush the convoys. Retribution is not outdated and is in fact very much alive today. However, we must have some sort of justice system in order to keep what we call law and order otherwise chaos ensues.

Indeed. As Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Totenkopf
11-07-2006, 05:55 PM
Buddhists believe that all life is sacred.

So, from your understanding, JM12, how univerasally is that dictum applied? From the lowliest of plant life? Also, are there any caveats to that belief? I've never personally studied buddhism and was interested in your take on the whole buddhist angle on the life/death topic, esp w/regards to capital punishment. thanks.

Emperor Devon
11-07-2006, 08:33 PM
Maybe if we made a way to ressurect people within the 30 days till his death, we could kill him thousands of times. But what good would that do?

Just as much good as making criminals serve prison time.

lukeiamyourdad
11-07-2006, 09:09 PM
So, from your understanding, JM12, how univerasally is that dictum applied? From the lowliest of plant life? Also, are there any caveats to that belief? I've never personally studied buddhism and was interested in your take on the whole buddhist angle on the life/death topic, esp w/regards to capital punishment. thanks.


From what I understand from buddhism, the only life that is held sacred is the ones that you can reincarnate as.
I believe that when the principle was created, it didn't have bacteria and other various microscopic lifeform in mind.
So anything, living and breathing, visible to the naked eye and has a certain consciousness, if only basic. That would exclude plant life.
Buddhist are veggies afterall :) We have to eat!

JediMaster12
11-08-2006, 01:34 PM
From my understanding, it was the ideal that all life is connected to one another, each working together to create the world we live in. Native Americans have this philosophy as well, being one with the Earth and the like. My use in this discussion was to point out that here in the States we tend to value life, even those of criminals. If you want to look at the religious angle, Christians view life as a sacred thing as well. Just look at the kerfuffle over abortion and euthanasia (forgive spelling). I used the Buddhist angle mainly for the reason to support the idea that because we value life that goes for the low rates of execution.

MdKnightR
11-09-2006, 01:23 AM
^^^
That sounds bold. Are you advocating it for just certain types of crimes?

Well, certainly! I wouldn't suggest it for theft. That's what a chopping block is for. ;) The Arabs got that punishment right. I knew someone who visited Saudi Arabia and found it amazing that street merchants would have piles of coin sitting out in the open and no one would steal the money. A thief has a harder time stealing without a hand!

I think we need public execution for capital crime and public whipping with a cane for misdemeanor offenses. And I believe that paddles should be back in our schools. I know I got into a lot less trouble before they began taking them out of the principal's office because I feared getting my backside tanned. ISS is for wussies! The problem in the United States is that we have forgotten the value of "healthy fear."

Emperor Devon
11-09-2006, 01:34 AM
Well, certainly! I wouldn't suggest it for theft. That's what a chopping block is for. ;) The Arabs got that punishment right. I knew someone who visited Saudi Arabia and found it amazing that street merchants would have piles of coin sitting out in the open and no one would steal the money. A thief has a harder time stealing without a hand!

It's not the most civilized punishment, but it definitely helps.

I think we need public execution for capital crime and public whipping with a cane for misdemeanor offenses.

I agree with you there. If there'll be punishment, you might as well make it public. Events like those leave a much stronger imprint upon people than reading about something in the news.

And I believe that paddles should be back in our schools. I know I got into a lot less trouble before they began taking them out of the principal's office because I feared getting my backside tanned. ISS is for wussies! The problem in the United States is that we have forgotten the value of "healthy fear."

Aren't you a teacher, MdKnight? ;)

MdKnightR
11-10-2006, 12:57 AM
Aren't you a teacher, MdKnight? ;)

Yep! ;)

Emperor Devon
11-10-2006, 01:04 AM
Yep! ;)

Heh, I'm not very surprised you'd advocate corporal punishment in school, then. :D

JediMaster12
11-13-2006, 10:09 PM
Hey from what I hear, kids didn't get into much trouble back in the day when there was corporal punishment.

Dark_Lady
11-13-2006, 10:14 PM
Yeah, they didn't. Did you hear about the American teenager who went to Singapore? He started doing vandalism or something, and they gave him a public beating. That kid stayed far on the right side of the law for the rest of the time he was there. :D

JediMaster12
11-13-2006, 11:28 PM
Oh yeah. You pull crap in foreign countries, they'll bust you big time.