Hang Saddam?

[Pure]

What d'ya think?

 

[R. Richard]

First I need a procedural question answered. Hang him by what? TIA.

 

[cloudy]

I'm wary of giving anyone another matyr.

 

[S-Des]

This one's easy. I'm against the death penalty...period. Therefore, you don't hang him. Besides, it's going to spark more violence by people looking for an excuse to be violent. Personally, if I was in charge, I'd fly over a doctor and give him a sex change operation. Let him live out the rest of his life as Sadomme

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

This question is so easy. The U.S. marched into Iraq and one of the first things that was done was to get rid of the death penalty. Then, strangely, about the same time Saddam was captured, the death penalty was reinstated. Does this mean it will be thrown out again as soon as Saddam is hanged?

My personal feeling is hanging is the LAST thing you want to do with Saddam. That will only make him a martyr to the Sunni's and throw fuel on the fire of civil war.

 

[neonlyte]

I voted hanging, much as I am against the Death Penalty, here's why:

I'm against the death penalty because errors are made in convictions, innocent people have been condemed to death, a practice that will continue in countries where the judiciary is subject to political appointment and votes are garnered upon the willingness to pass the harshest sentence.

Saddam committed genocide on the Marsh peoples. He invaded two countries, Iran in 1970's and Kuwait. He sentenced family members to death for opposing his rule. He is responsible for countless thousands of innocent deaths.

When we consider the Death Penalty, we consider it within the frames of reference of our personal beliefs, culture and society. I have no arguement with individuals whose personal beliefs and cultural beliefs dictate no human life should be taken. From the point of view of the wider society, there needs to be an ultimate penalty for wanton disregard of human life, the problem is we have reduced that sanction, in too many countries, to commonplace. Sentencing Saddam to death ought to have been a global shock directing the message that some individuals transgress against society and must pay the ultimate penalty. As it is, his sentence is the same as the guy who plugs the security guard at Walmart, it teaches nothing.

 

[matriarch]

...
Sentencing Saddam to death ought to have been a global shock directing the message that some individuals transgress against society and must pay the ultimate penalty. As it is, his sentence is the same as the guy who plugs the security guard at Walmart, it teaches nothing.

Exactly.

It teaches nothing.
It achieves nothing.
There is no point.

 

[neonlyte]

Exactly.

It teaches nothing.
It achieves nothing.
There is no point.

I agree Mat's, and I hope his sentence will be commuted to life imprisonment, the EU have already registered a strong protest. It's not really what I was arguing. We don't value life anymore, to take a life ought be the most outrageous sin - in biblical and human terms - but it's not. That makes me sad. And if we need a harsh penalty in order to stop others from commiting the same travesties as Saddam, what is it to be? It ought to be the taking of life, but as I think we both agree, the taking of life has become an empty gesture.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I Saddam committed genocide on the Marsh peoples. He invaded two countries, Iran in 1970's and Kuwait. He sentenced family members to death for opposing his rule. He is responsible for countless thousands of innocent deaths.

I cannot disagree more. You have stepped beyond the court case. Saddam was being tried on the narrow charge of condeming to death a specific group of 148 people in the town of Dejail. These people were rounded up, tried in the Iraqi courts and sentenced to death. Were the courts and the trial fair by our standards? Probably not. But, at time, that was the legal system in effect in Iraq. Now he has been sentenced for what could be construed as legal acts under the laws as the existed at the time.

This is like sentencing a judge in this country to death in 2006 for imposing the death sentence in 1960 after the death penalty was abolished and laws changed sometime in the 1990's.

I am not condoning what Saddam did. It was ruthless and wrong. But, the death sentence in this case reeks of revenge and not justice.

Unfortunately, this reminds me of the "Franky Case" here in Oregon. The head of the Oregon Prisons was murdered. A drug dealer was tried and convicted, not because he could possibly have done the crime, but because he was a drug dealer.

 

[matriarch]

I agree Mat's, and I hope his sentence will be commuted to life imprisonment, the EU have already registered a strong protest. It's not really what I was arguing. We don't value life anymore, to take a life ought be the most outrageous sin - in biblical and human terms - but it's not. That makes me sad. And if we need a harsh penalty in order to stop others from commiting the same travesties as Saddam, what is it to be? It ought to be the taking of life, but as I think we both agree, the taking of life has become an empty gesture.

Exactly. I deliberatly snipped your post and took the words that spoke to me the most, although you had advocated hanging.

My own thoughts are somewhere along the lines of the old invisible Cold War prisons in Siberia.....which, for all I know, could still be there. Anyone who ended up in one of those, appeared to simply disappear off the face of the earth.

Banishment to somewhere similar appeals to me. Alive but not living.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Exactly.

It teaches nothing.
It achieves nothing.
There is no point.

It does teach, and achieve something.

It teaches that there are consequences to your actions.
It also achieves to rid society of those who are condemed.

So there is a point.

 

[rgraham666]

Leave him alive.

If we use his tools we're no better than him.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Leave him alive.

If we use his tools we're no better than him.

His tools?

If we were to use his tools, first he would be raped, repeatedly, then sprayed with toxic chemicals that burned the flesh from his bones and then, just before he was going to die anyway, he would be beheaded.

 

[neonlyte]

I cannot disagree more. You have stepped beyond the court case. Saddam was being tried on the narrow charge of condeming to death a specific group of 148 people in the town of Dejail. These people were rounded up, tried in the Iraqi courts and sentenced to death. Were the courts and the trial fair by our standards? Probably not. But, at time, that was the legal system in effect in Iraq. Now he has been sentenced for what could be construed as legal acts under the laws as the existed at the time.

This is like sentencing a judge in this country to death in 2006 for imposing the death sentence in 1960 after the death penalty was abolished and laws changed sometime in the 1990's.

I am not condoning what Saddam did. It was ruthless and wrong. But, the death sentence in this case reeks of revenge and not justice.

Unfortunately, this reminds me of the "Franky Case" here in Oregon. The head of the Oregon Prisons was murdered. A drug dealer was tried and convicted, not because he could possibly have done the crime, but because he was a drug dealer.

Not really what I'm arguing, Jenny, but a point well made.

I was actually trying to step outside the Saddam case as well. I don't think Saddam could ever have received a 'fair trial' in Iraq. The US wouldn't hand him on to the World Court at the Haque, since they choose not to recognise it's authority. Would Saddam have received a 'fair trial' at the World Court? That too is questionable, but it would at least have been open trial subject to wider scrutiny.

On the specific point you raise, without doing a lot of research - which I'm afraid I don't have time for - the Pinochet case springs to mind. Was he not charged for crimes committed when he was 'supreme authority' ruling a different judicial system? Some crimes are beyond the boundary of decree, Saddam's certainly were. And it's worth bearing mind, the victor sets the rules, and as invariably the case with the crumbling of an autocracy, the loser pays the price.

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

If we hang him, we should hang a lot of people, including Bush.

 

[Antfarmer77]

I'd be more worried of him carrying out business as usual from inside prison than I would of his becoming a martyr.

 

[Munachi]

i am against he death penalty. so that answers that question...

 

[Tuomas]

I'm against the death penatly.

I would give him a 2x4 and lock him in a large room with a bunch of kurdish families and that's it.

I mean, if I actually cared enough about him to even bother ...

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Not really what I'm arguing, Jenny, but a point well made.

On the specific point you raise, without doing a lot of research - which I'm afraid I don't have time for - the Pinochet case springs to mind. Was he not charged for crimes committed when he was 'supreme authority' ruling a different judicial system? Some crimes are beyond the boundary of decree, Saddam's certainly were. And it's worth bearing mind, the victor sets the rules, and as invariably the case with the crumbling of an autocracy, the loser pays the price.

The Pinochet Case was handled somewhat differently. To draw a paralles between the actions of Pinochet and Saddam is, I think, correct. However, Pinochet was incarcerated in England and held even though he had depolmatic immunity while the British Courts decided if he could be held, even though he was a sitting head of state.

Then he was extridited to Chile to be stripped of his office and tried by the courts that existed during his tenure.

Saddam, on the other hand, was already out of office and had been replaced by an elected government, then tried by a new court under laws that did not exit at the time of Saddam's offenses.

I think Saddam should pay for the crimes he committed, but the narrow case for which he was found guilty does not warrent the death penalty. They should wait for the next case in line, which involves Saddam murdering a village of Kurds with nerve gas. That case does not have the same quasi-legal background that the present case has.

To hang Saddam for "legally" executing "terrorists" who were condemed by the existing court system cannot but inflame the insurgency and fuel the growing civil war with his martyrdom in the eyes of his loyal followers.

 

[Tuomas]

I'm annoyed by the comparison of Pinochet to Saddam. They were not the same, the trials very different. But, people like throwing names around... *shakes head in disgust*

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Call me old fashioned, but I believe in justice.

If anyone EVER deserved to be executed, it's Saddam. Hang him.

 

[Liar]

His tools?

If we were to use his tools, first he would be raped, repeatedly, then sprayed with toxic chemicals that burned the flesh from his bones and then, just before he was going to die anyway, he would be beheaded.

Yah, well, these were not the things he's been convicted of.

So far.

I just hope he won't be executed until he's been tried for the Kurd genocide.

But I voted no. I'm against death penalty out of principle. And I just can't bend over to the qualifier "unless it's a really bad guy".

 

[Liar]

I'm annoyed by the comparison of Pinochet to Saddam. They were not the same, the trials very different. But, people like throwing names around... *shakes head in disgust*

No two cases are ever the same, Toumas. Why specifically does the comparison "disgust" you? That's a pretty strong word without a better explanation.

 

[neonlyte]

I'm annoyed by the comparison of Pinochet to Saddam. They were not the same, the trials very different. But, people like throwing names around... *shakes head in disgust*

Tuomas, i don't think either Jenny or me were comparing Pinochet and Saddam at the level of the crimes they committed. For my part, I was simply trying to draw analogies between trial's of overthrown leaders, not their sins.

 

[Tuomas]

No two cases are ever the same, Toumas. Why specifically does the comparison "disgust" you? That's a pretty strong word without a better explanation.

No, they are not the same, but I'm tired of whenever "dictator" shows up in a conversation, people somehow manage to drag Pinochet into it. And most of them don't even have the slightest idea who he is, or what he did to his country. It's throwing around an entire nation's history just for a political statement...