Saddam Executed

Good riddance, I say - but it does spark a debate about execution. Is it right to take someones life - no matter how evil they have been? I don't know, but if he would have been ordered to spend the rest of his days in prison, there will no doubt have been an attempt to free him.

I guess he now will find out if his holy wars and such have been as he expected.
 
Understand that I am against capital punishment in all forms, so that is my primary opposition to Saddam's execution.

However, there are other reasons.  Hussein is one of the most important political figures of the 1990s and 2000s.  His death strips us of the opportunity to learn from that figure.  Imagine if he had memoirs of his reign, and how the first Gulf War affected it, and then his downfall.  That could be a fascinating source.  We might understand dictators better - too often those who create these states are slain by those who overthrow them.  To this day, we guess at the minds of Hitler and Stalin, and wonder, why, how.

The risk of violence, to me, seems imminent.  Even if it is Sunnis and Shi'ites fighting in Iraq, someone will use this death against another.  The Iraqi court did not seem to consider this, and the amount of Iraqis dying daily in the multi-sided violence.  Sunnis vs. Shi'ites vs. Coalition/Iraqi Gov't Forces.  Seems to me that things just might get worse...

Finally, I challenge the authority of the court to begin with.  The USA (which established the court of Iraqis) has violated its own series of precedents that led to the creation of the World Court at the Hague.  Seems to me that, according to precedent, dictators and those accused of violation of human rights while in control of or a major part of a governmental apparatus are brought up before multinational tribunals to ensure that not just a reactive body of populace is drawn upon.  While the Nuremburg trials were certainly not completely fair to the accused (considering that the judges came from the victorious nations), imagine if they had been tried by a panel of Auschwitz survivors.  Similarly, imagine if the Tokyo Trials had been sat upon by captured Allies who had served as POWs.  Look at the recent trial of Slobodan Milosevic.  The idea of creating an international body of justice was to punish those who abuse the highest level of national office to the point of combined global revulsion.

Of course, stretching Saddam's neck seems to have been a priority, and the Hague, I believe, does not hand out capital punishments.


Albie: I disagree.  Saddam was not popular enough to try and free, and those in his own party who might have attempted are similarly imprisoned or, alternatively, are deceased, like Saddam's sons.  He has scarcely been a rallying point for violence currently, except for a deliberate attack on his lawyers earlier in the year.  It is with his death that people will find a martyr - they can use Saddam, without having to consider restoring him or rewarding him or freeing him.  It's a picture they can use, paid for the US gov't and the Iraqi gov't.
 
LooseCannon said:
Understand that I am against capital punishment in all forms, so that is my primary opposition to Saddam's execution.
Click to expand...

Normally, I would agree, but I feel that Saddam is a special case; here is someone who remorselessly and willfully killed thousands of people, and I feel that simply throwing him in a cell until he dies, while being (arguably) more humane, is not decisive enough.

The risk of violence, to me, seems imminent.  Even if it is Sunnis and Shi'ites fighting in Iraq, someone will use this death against another.  The Iraqi court did not seem to consider this, and the amount of Iraqis dying daily in the multi-sided violence.  Sunnis vs. Shi'ites vs. Coalition/Iraqi Gov't Forces.  Seems to me that things just might get worse...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't think that Saddam's death will make that much difference, either way.  The sectarian warfare is independent of the international political climate (in that, it will continue despite anything that happens in Iraqi politics), and the Coalition are going to come under fire on a daily basis, even if Saddam had been kept alive.  I don't think things can get much worse than they already are in Iraq.  I was expecting to hear more reports of violence, but, thus far, there have only been two attacks in Iraq today (killing a 'mere' 60 people :mad:)...perhaps the curfew and heightened security can be thanked for this.

Finally, I challenge the authority of the court to begin with.  The USA (which established the court of Iraqis) has violated its own series of precedents that led to the creation of the World Court at the Hague.  Seems to me that, according to precedent, dictators and those accused of violation of human rights while in control of or a major part of a governmental apparatus are brought up before multinational tribunals to ensure that not just a reactive body of populace is drawn upon.  While the Nuremburg trials were certainly not completely fair to the accused (considering that the judges came from the victorious nations), imagine if they had been tried by a panel of Auschwitz survivors.  Similarly, imagine if the Tokyo Trials had been sat upon by captured Allies who had served as POWs.  Look at the recent trial of Slobodan Milosevic.  The idea of creating an international body of justice was to punish those who abuse the highest level of national office to the point of combined global revulsion.
Click to expand...

Bush presented Saddam as 'The Enemy', just as he did with Bin Laden; he erroneously believes that political decapitation will make a difference in the situation...perhaps he is so egotistical, he believes that all leaders are seen as 'indespensible' as he is.  And I can't begin to imagine what would have happened if Saddam had been tried (rightly) by The Hague...perhaps the backlash from his enemies in Iraq would have been more disastrous.

[/quote]Albie: I disagree.  Saddam was not popular enough to try and free, and those in his own party who might have attempted are similarly imprisoned or, alternatively, are deceased, like Saddam's sons.  He has scarcely been a rallying point for violence currently, except for a deliberate attack on his lawyers earlier in the year.  It is with his death that people will find a martyr - they can use Saddam, without having to consider restoring him or rewarding him or freeing him.  It's a picture they can use, paid for the US gov't and the Iraqi gov't.
[/quote]

Saddam fled and hid in a hole for months(?).  I don't believe that the insurgents can claim that he was a 'martyr' to the cause.  If he had been captured fighting, perhaps, but he was caught in a state of fear; some will, obviously, try to use his image as a banner, but I don't think many will follow such a standard.

All in all, I don't think Saddam's death will make that much of a difference in Iraq, either way.  Most of the violence has moved on from 'supporting Saddam' to 'killing the invaders' or the 'other sect'.
 
LooseCannon said:
Albie: I disagree.  Saddam was not popular enough to try and free, and those in his own party who might have attempted are similarly imprisoned or, alternatively, are deceased, like Saddam's sons.  He has scarcely been a rallying point for violence currently, except for a deliberate attack on his lawyers earlier in the year.  It is with his death that people will find a martyr - they can use Saddam, without having to consider restoring him or rewarding him or freeing him.  It's a picture they can use, paid for the US gov't and the Iraqi gov't.
Click to expand...
He still has his supporters - but OK, they may not be powerful enough to attempt such a daring act.

Raven said:
Normally, I would agree, but I feel that Saddam is a special case; here is someone who remorselessly and willfully killed thousands of people..
Click to expand...
It still may not be reason enough to execute people - who should decide it should come to this? And does it make it right? But then again, who would feel for him? The world will always be a better place without people like him.
 
Raven said:
Normally, I would agree, but I feel that Saddam is a special case; here is someone who remorselessly and willfully killed thousands of people, and I feel that simply throwing him in a cell until he dies, while being (arguably) more humane, is not decisive enough.
Click to expand...

No such thing as a special case. There is nothing worse than robbing someone of their freedom, specially someone like Saddam who was used to doing whatever the hell he wanted. Put him in prison the rest of his days... trust me, that's worse than hanging him. But oh well. I find LC's points valid, even if the product would be another Mein Kampf, at least we would hear his side of the story, plus it's always fun to see Bush sr. and jr. reffered to as "Great Satan" :D
 
Who are you, Raven, to decide who lives or dies?  The very nature of applying the death penalty to someone who proscribed deaths for thousands perpetuates the cycle of barbarism - it does not break it.

Let's put the question this way.  At what point, after how many murders, does a man forfeit his life?

Is it after one?

Two?

Four?

Fifty?

A hundred?

A thousand?

Ten thousand?

How many human lifes lost deserve the death of another?
 
LooseCannon said:
Who are you, Raven, to decide who lives or dies?  The very nature of applying the death penalty to someone who proscribed deaths for thousands perpetuates the cycle of barbarism - it does not break it.

Let's put the question this way.  At what point, after how many murders, does a man forfeit his life?

Is it after one?

Two?

Four?

Fifty?

A hundred?

A thousand?

Ten thousand?

How many human lifes lost deserve the death of another?
Click to expand...

You're generalising the issue.  Normally, I oppose the death penalty, but in this case, I feel that no punishment, not even removing all his freedom, would have been enough for such a dictator as Saddam.  You have to look at it from the point of view of his victims; he ordered their killings without remorse, without any thought for them as human beings.  Is it doing their memories justice to allow him to live?

But then again, you could ask which would be the more humane option; imprisoning him for life in solitary confinement, or having killed him now...
 
LooseCannon said:
Who are you, Raven, to decide who lives or dies?  The very nature of applying the death penalty to someone who proscribed deaths for thousands perpetuates the cycle of barbarism - it does not break it.

Let's put the question this way.  At what point, after how many murders, does a man forfeit his life?

Is it after one?

Two?

Four?

Fifty?

A hundred?

A thousand?

Ten thousand?

How many human lifes lost deserve the death of another?
Click to expand...
It depends.  For instance,  when someone kills one person,  normally I'd be against his death penalty.  But,  suppose he killed that person in a very sick way (there's no need to define that I believe).  Then,  the death penalty would be ok by me.  Same thing goes with serial killers,  pedophiles and other sick bastards :mad:
 
You don't make sense Raven, either you oppose Capital Punishment or you don't. It's like a woman saying she is a feminist and pro-life... That is just not possible.

@sneaky: and you answered you're own question, more often than not, serial killers and pedophiles are sick, they need treatment, not death.

Capital Punishment is ridiculous, we are condeming a murder (or two or fifty) by performing a public one. The state is deciding who is worthy enough to even live, you know what message that sends to people? The kind of message that lets racists know it's ok to kill a nigger because his worthless, the message that tells a homophobe it's fine to kill a fag because they are worthless or a man to beat a woman because she's a worthless bitch, hell if the state can do it, why can't I? 

Research shows that Capital Punishment doesn't deter crime (one of the reasons given as to why to have it) and in fact certain types of homocide INCREASE because of it (the ones mentioned above are good examples.) The U.S and Japan are two of three I believe industrialized nations that still have it on the books and USE IT (others like Australia have it on the books, but haven't used it in years). This is to say economical development should go hand in hand with cultural development, in other words it is a very enlightened view to realize that killing a killer doesn't fix anything, two wrongs don't make a right. the U.S and Japan are highly industrialized nations, but both still have a mentallity akin to the one held 200 years ago or more by most of the world.
 
This is a really interesting discussion. I agree with what Onhell is saying here about capital punishment (although I don't quite see how a woman can't be a feminist and pro-life at the same time). The following quote from Tolkien pretty much sums up my opinion on this:

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends" (LOTR-The Fellowship of the Ring)
 
Raven said:
You're generalising the issue.  Normally, I oppose the death penalty, but in this case, I feel that no punishment, not even removing all his freedom, would have been enough for such a dictator as Saddam.  You have to look at it from the point of view of his victims; he ordered their killings without remorse, without any thought for them as human beings.  Is it doing their memories justice to allow him to live?

But then again, you could ask which would be the more humane option; imprisoning him for life in solitary confinement, or having killed him now...
Click to expand...
I am not generalizing.  It's a simple question.  Saddam murdered more people than some others, therefore he deserves to die.  Remorse?  So?  People murder without remorse every day.  It's obviously not a question of that.  It seems, to me, to be a numerical question.  My stance is simple.  Nobody has the right to deny life to another.  That should apply to the State as well, else the State fosters an attitude of hypocrisy at the highest level.  Punishing murder with murder is fundamentally incorrect, else we would still use Hammurabi's laws.  We don't because long years of history have shown that eye for an eye, life for a life, fail to work.  Even when it comes to dictatorship, there is still no right to execute anyone, a mass murderer, or a slayer of one.  Human life is the most precious thing in this universe, and everyone has the capacity to contribute, even from behind bars, even if they are never free, and we should not be so quick to quench that which we cannot provide.

SneakySneaky said:
It depends.  For instance,  when someone kills one person,  normally I'd be against his death penalty.  But,  suppose he killed that person in a very sick way (there's no need to define that I believe).  Then,  the death penalty would be ok by me.  Same thing goes with serial killers,  pedophiles and other sick bastards :mad:
Click to expand...

This is disgusting.  Now you advocate applying the death penalty to those who you deem in violation of your moral code.  And, to the contrary, you have to define "sick", because what one person considers sick, another will not.  Similar to pedophilia, which I consider abhorrant, but not "sick".  In fact, I am offended by the thought that you would rather inject someone with poison than attempt to rehabilitate them.  Serial killers and pedophiles are two completely different cases.  The primary often deals with mental illness, the second biology and sexual preference, and the idea of executing someone based on their sexual preference is, in fact, horrible.  Would you kill a homosexual because he or she is homosexual?
 
I am against the execution of Saddam. I consider it to be immoral, and  also to be the "easy way out". It's just not punishment enough, so you don't really suffer for your crimes. Another thing is, that if you are given the penalty of death, there is no way back if you would be proven innocent after your execution (and no, I don't think Saddam is innocent at all) and if you kill someone for their crimes, then you are not better. Enough said.
 
I had a feeling this would veer towards a death penalty debate.

An interesting side note is the reaction to this in the Middle East. This report suggests that Libya has set three days of mourning for his passing. It also states that he was "admired if not particularly loved."

He was the scourge of the West, but a hero to some in the Middle East. To quote the character played by the great Art Malik in True Lies:

"You bomb our countries from afar like cowards - and you dare to call us terrorists!"

By his execution, makes the people responsible just as cowardly.
 
I have a friend who is from Iraq. He (with his parents) moved to the US when he was around 10 years old - in the mid-80s, in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war. This friend has told me that he has lost several family members because of Saddam, and was always scared for those who didn't get out.

Last night on NBC News (before Saddam was executed, but after it was known the execution was coming soon), a journalist picked a random person off the street and asked how Saddam had affected their life. Answer: 27 relatives killed. Fluke? The next random person selected said 14 family members killed.

Capital punishment is not about deterrence. It is about giving scum what they deserve. Saddam was scum, and deserved to die.
 
Onhell said:
You don't make sense Raven, either you oppose Capital Punishment or you don't. It's like a woman saying she is a feminist and pro-life... That is just not possible.
Click to expand...

Because you cannot split all criminal cases into a black-and-white scenario.  I oppose capital punishment, but I believe there should be an exception in Saddam's case.  His case is special, due to the nature of his crimes and the high-profile nature of his case.  There is no doubt that he was guilty of his crimes, and does not view them with any kind of remorse at all.  LooseCannon speaks of the sanctity of human life, and I agree with him; life is to be held sacred.  However, I think that Saddam needs to be punished heavily for what he did; if he was imprisoned, he would die in prison, no doubt.  Locking him up for all the years of his life would not provide justice enough, I feel (although I am starting to believe it would have been more of a punishment to him)...this is a case of doing what would be maximum punishment to Saddam, I feel.

This thread is clearly going on a tangent, so I might as well throw some fuel onto the fire, so to speak.  Elisabeth Bathory, a Hungarian countess in the 17th Century, was the most prolific mass murderer in history.  She killed hundreds of young women by her own hands, after bringing them to her castle (as maids, for education, and what have you).  When the local residents finally brought her to trial, she was imprisoned in a small cell in her own dungeons for the rest of her life.  As far as I'm aware (or so the story goes), she was hardly ever allowed out, and food was given to her through a hatch.  Meanwhile, three of her collaborators were executed for aiding her in her crimes.  Bathory herself was exempt from such treatment, as she was a noble.  Now, which of them received the more just and more severe penalty, do you think?  The collaborators who had their lives taken from them, or Bathory, who was left to 'rot in a cell'?

And, in reference to SneakySneaky's post, he was referring to pedophiles as serial killers, not simply for their preference.  However, I wouldn't advocate the death penalty on pedophiles, as I feel the death penalty is only justified in the most extreme of cases.  And there are such things as special cases, I believe.
 
Onhell said:
You don't make sense Raven, either you oppose Capital Punishment or you don't. It's like a woman saying she is a feminist and pro-life... That is just not possible.
Click to expand...

Onhell, I disagree with you at this point. Isn't this a bit of a black and white view on the case?

It's like saying that a very cruel dictator, responsible for countless executions is in your eyes the same as a psychotic man who killed one single person. The reason (the deeds done) why someone gets a punishment is important for the verdict. To ignore the deeds is an offense to all the people who have suffered under his reign.

At the moment, I admit, that I have difficulties in forming my opinion on the execution of Hussein. In general I am against the death penalty. Maybe I also would have preferred a longlife prison sentence for him. It didn't happen.
However, I won't bark so much about it when I think about the death penalties of the recent Lybia case.:

5 Bulgarian nurses and 1 Palestinian doctor got the death penalty in Libyan court. They are accused of killing children in a hospital by deliberately infecting them with Aids. It is scientifically proved that the virus was in the hospital 2 years BEFORE those people started to work there.  :mad:

This case is not 100% over yet (no executions yet) and I am following it with the greatest interest, curious for the final conclusion.

edit: I have a problem with the timing of Saddam's execution. Saddam should have had trials for the wars against Iran and Kuwait.
 
Forostar said:
Onhell, I disagree with you at this point. Isn't this a bit of a black and white view on the case?

It's like saying that a very cruel dictator, responsible for countless executions is in your eyes the same as a psychotic man who killed one single person. The reason (the deeds done) why someone gets a punishment is important for the verdict. To ignore the deeds is an offense to all the people who have suffered under his reign.
Click to expand...

exactly, no deed deserves death.
 
Raven got my point on pedophiles,  and I agree with him on the subject of death penalties.  I oppose them,  but there are cases that should be an exception.  When you've got a sick mind, imprisoning him/her has a lot of risks.  a) the risk of him/her escaping,  b) the risk of him appearing to have become "normal",  and being freed,  only to continue what he/she did.  Although,  I don't deny there are possibilities of that person becoming sane,  honestly,  do you people think that some serial killer who did foul things to his victims,  has a chance?

Personally I don't think Saddam's death penalty is a punishment to him.  There are two kinds of murderers.  Those who are sick in mind,  and those who have political/economical etc.  profits from murder and they don't care about the human life.  The first,  deserve imo a death penalty.  The latter don't.  You're doing them a favor by killing them.  If they rot in a God forsaken cell,  and face being beat and raped,  that is a proper punishment.  By killing them,  only the victim's relatives feel some justice. 
 
I really think death penalty is fine under some circumstances, for example, let's pick a member who does not support capital punishment, Onhell:

What happened if someone murdered in a very brutal way someone you deeply cared about?   I wouldn't think that guy needs treatment or going to jail, I would cheer the guy's death.

I know what Sneaky meant when he said only the family would be "happy" about this, but IMO, it's only a matter of putting ourselves in the victim's shoes.

Now I completley agree with SMX, people who are scum deserve to die, and like I said before, if someone kills a member of my family or a friend to which I deeply care, I think I've got the right to say who lives and who dies.

These are only my 2 cents, but I think I've been clear enough in my points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top