Saddam Hussein's Execution and Trial - discuss

[xXru1n3dXx]

The video of the execution (the full one, not the one where it ends with the noose on his neck) is bad quality anyway, seeing as it was taken on a camera phone and the person who was taking the footage has no idea how to keep their arm straight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would have been good to see him receive solitary confinement for a good while before he was executed IMO.

[hiimben]

I personally don't think executing him, or torturing him would be hypocriticalist ( :lol: had to say it, anyone get the reference :?:) but I think that if they didn't execute him, and tried to make him understand what he was doing to people by putting them in their shoes would have been better. That way, in the slight chance that he would have seen the error of his way's be able to work out a way to make up for his sins and work on making a better Iraq. That's just my uneducated opinion on the matter though :-w :D

[FuBai]

I always find it interesting that we demonstrate to the world that killing is bad by killing someone. Don't kill, us or we'll kill you, but don't worry, we'll be right to kill you because...you did it first.

[Striker6]

 

 

 

Don't you think it's just a liiiittle bit hypocrytical, though? I mean I understand the crimes he committed were completely unacceptable but even so, you can't say he's not allowed to kill and then kill him. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The difference is though, we (or the justice system) hadn't committed crimes like he did. It's not like we're on the same playing field. Yes, killing is wrong, and by taking the life of a mass murderer we are reinforcing that to the highest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey are you forgetting something? In our quest for justice over 40,000 innocent Iraqi's have died. I know we are talking about Saddam here however I think it's quite debatable that we "haven't commited any crimes" ourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Probably more than 100,000 now, but here your equating the American war machine to the court system, and lumping them all into the same "everyone who isn't Saddam" pot. We can't do that, the justification for the war and the resulting loss of life is irrelevant, Saddam needed to be brought to justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also let's not forget that Saddam deliberately murdered all these people. The coalition forces did not invade Iraq with the intention of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying. That's called the doctrine of double effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow thats closed minded of you, in your statement you just justified the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Perhaps we didn't invade Iraq with the intention of killing thousands of people but any bright spark could work out it would happen. It isn't irrelevant because we have done exactly the same think he has done.

[____]

 

I think that death was the easy way out for him. He should have been tortured in the same way that he tourtured others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Gandhi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not see how torturing him will benefit society. It might appease the few who do not forgive. Torturing him is not the solution to the problem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I believe he should have rotted in jail. He will die anyway, right? What harm can he do in jail...seriously. However, I do not know how secure he would be in jail in Iraq.

He would've been busted out by fanatics. More innocent people would've been killed in the process. Granted they died afterwards anyways, but at least he's gone for good.

[darkmage099]

 

 

I think that death was the easy way out for him. He should have been tortured in the same way that he tourtured others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Gandhi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not see how torturing him will benefit society. It might appease the few who do not forgive. Torturing him is not the solution to the problem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I believe he should have rotted in jail. He will die anyway, right? What harm can he do in jail...seriously. However, I do not know how secure he would be in jail in Iraq.

He would've been busted out by fanatics. More innocent people would've been killed in the process. Granted they died afterwards anyways, but at least he's gone for good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not if he was in jail in America. I suppose you're right though. No torture though.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Please explain how hypocritically torturing Saddam was justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please explain why you like to use loaded language. The judgement being hypocritical, torturous or just is completely relative, depending on your beliefs. I might not believe in capital punishment but that doesn't stop me from respecting rulings which involve the death sentence. People hold different ideas of what justice is, you need to get over that the world revolves around you and let people just be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand I think it is more torturous being locked in a prison for the rest of my life knowing I will never be able to contribute to society, have regular civil liberties and lead a relatively normal life. Let's face it Saddam was either going to live life behind bars or be killed, In his situation I would have been glad for a quick and painless death.

[Grim_Jokes]

 

 

 

 

And as for those who were purposefully looking for videos of the death - I was absolutely disgusted. People want to watch a man die? That was really surprising.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He enjoyed watching it. Death of someone should never be enjoyable. Ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Better not enjoy dissecting cadavers, mutilating a dead body should never be enjoyed. Thinking like this made the anatomist profession and dissection taboo; limiting the progression of medicine for around 1500 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are many reasons why someone would enjoy watching a death and not all of them would be for sadistic pleasure. Even if it were for sadistic pleasure, what makes it so wrong? Thanks for the insight Mr Authority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? What the hell does an anatomist have to do with seeing someone hanged for political reasons?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I still stand by my statement that the so called justice has been served on the man from the moment the information. There is absolutely no need to watch the video.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And come on, we all know why Iraq was invaded in the first place. Oil. Saddam was trying to raise prices to fix Iraq's economy.

[issy2]

 

 

 

 

Please explain how hypocritically torturing Saddam was justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please explain why you like to use loaded language. The judgement being hypocritical, torturous or just is completely relative, depending on your beliefs. I might not believe in capital punishment but that doesn't stop me from respecting rulings which involve the death sentence. People hold different ideas of what justice is, you need to get over that the world revolves around you and let people just be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, what's loaded language? Secondly I was asking for someone to explain why it was justice to torture a man for killing people. Why should I respect the death penalty? I don't automatically respect something just because it's there. Thridly, we're having a discussion, the world does not revolve around me. This is happening alot now. Seriously... when did I say 'the world revolves around me'. I'm putting forward my view, not forcing you to believe it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's face it Saddam was either going to live life behind bars or be killed, In his situation I would have been glad for a quick and painless death.

 

 

 

It's called torture. It wasn't quick, or painless.

[Itsjustagame]

 

 

 

 

 

Please explain how hypocritically torturing Saddam was justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please explain why you like to use loaded language. The judgement being hypocritical, torturous or just is completely relative, depending on your beliefs. I might not believe in capital punishment but that doesn't stop me from respecting rulings which involve the death sentence. People hold different ideas of what justice is, you need to get over that the world revolves around you and let people just be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, what's loaded language? Secondly I was asking for someone to explain why it was justice to torture a man for killing people. Why should I respect the death penalty? I don't automatically respect something just because it's there. Thridly, we're having a discussion, the world does not revolve around me. This is happening alot now. Seriously... when did I say 'the world revolves around me'. I'm putting forward my view, not forcing you to believe it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's face it Saddam was either going to live life behind bars or be killed, In his situation I would have been glad for a quick and painless death.

 

 

 

It's called torture. It wasn't quick, or painless.

 

 

 

apparently you dont know that hanging snaps your neck almost right away, so it's pretty damn fast, and almost painless.

[insane]

 

 

 

 

 

Please explain how hypocritically torturing Saddam was justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please explain why you like to use loaded language. The judgement being hypocritical, torturous or just is completely relative, depending on your beliefs. I might not believe in capital punishment but that doesn't stop me from respecting rulings which involve the death sentence. People hold different ideas of what justice is, you need to get over that the world revolves around you and let people just be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, what's loaded language?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loaded language is using emotional terms that haven't been proven true to try and make a point. In this case, the word 'hypocritical'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has been explained to you time and again that Saddam murdered innocent people, while killing Saddam isn't considered murder because he is not innocent. Thus it is NOT hypocritical to kill Saddam and using such a word is fallacious and designed to stir up emotions in other people that don't realize that it isn't hypocritical.

[issy2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please explain how hypocritically torturing Saddam was justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please explain why you like to use loaded language. The judgement being hypocritical, torturous or just is completely relative, depending on your beliefs. I might not believe in capital punishment but that doesn't stop me from respecting rulings which involve the death sentence. People hold different ideas of what justice is, you need to get over that the world revolves around you and let people just be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, what's loaded language?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loaded language is using emotional terms that haven't been proven true to try and make a point. In this case, the word 'hypocritical'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has been explained to you time and again that Saddam murdered innocent people, while killing Saddam isn't considered murder because he is not innocent. Thus it is NOT hypocritical to kill Saddam and using such a word is fallacious and designed to stir up emotions in other people that don't realize that it isn't hypocritical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah... but proving your point that killing people is wrong by killing the man who did it, to me, doesn't seem quite fair. I never said Saddam was innocent, that's the last place I'm going.

[insane]

Yeah... but proving your point that killing people is wrong by killing the man who did it, to me, doesn't seem quite fair. I never said Saddam was innocent, that's the last place I'm going.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, I never said killing people was wrong. I said murdering people was wrong. I believe I explained on the first page (or second page) that using the word killing in place of the world murder, or vice versa is equivocation.

[Evilperson]

What did the U.S. really expect to happen? The Iraqi people, as soon as he died, to throw up their arms and shout, "We finally accept the Western Beliefs being shoved down our throats!!!!"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really don't mind the deat penalty, I just think the United States had way too high of expectations of what would happen afterward.

[Death_By_Pod]

Why should I respect the death penalty? I don't automatically respect something just because it's there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thridly, we're having a discussion, the world does not revolve around me. This is happening alot now. Seriously... when did I say 'the world revolves around me'. I'm putting forward my view, not forcing you to believe it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital punishment really comes down to how do you value a humans life. Deterrence and retribution are not conclusively valid reasons for capital punishment. There isn't a correct way to value a person's life, so how would you evaluate whether it is worth maintaining a person's life without knowing its value?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't respect things like racism because there is no factual basis for what people perceive to be 'race', race is a false distinction. However there is no factual basis for or against capital punishment so there is no reason to respect one position over the other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a difference between giving your opinion and making your opinion out to be something more then what it is. Using loaded language like:

 

 

 

"Please explain how hypocritically torturing Saddam was justice."

 

 

 

You're attempting to gain an emotional response out of the reader which goes beyond what the sentences meaning in an attempt to gather support and assert authority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A much better sentence would have been:

 

 

 

"Please explain why you support killing Saddam, yet you don't support Saddam's killings? Isn't hanging an inhumane way to die?"

 

 

 

This is a clear, can't be misconstrued and isn't emotionally provocative.

[SuziAngel]

There are some very interesting responses to this topic. I have read a few comments saying something along the lines of Saddam should have been left to rot in isolation for the remainder of his life. This, I do not agree with. While I can see where some people may find it satisfying to know that he was getting his just desserts, nobody seems to have taken into consideration the cost this would have incurred. Have people not paid enough emotionally for this man without having to pay financially?

[Ambassadar]

Yeah... but proving your point that killing people is wrong by killing the man who did it, to me, doesn't seem quite fair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There seems to be a lot of this type sentiment on this thread. Death penalty is all about fairness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it fair for people to have to pay taxes to support mass murderers for the rest of their life in jail?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it fair to the victim and society when a convicted murderer(who would have been executed 50 years ago) is released on parole and goes out and kills another person?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The death penalty isn't just about justice.... It is about prevention as well. How many innocent deaths could be prevented each year if we executed convicted murderers instead of releasing them on parole? How many millions and possibly billions of tax dollars would law abiding citizens be able to retain if they weren't having to completely support tens of thousands of murderers in jail? How many potential murderers would think twice before killing someone because they knew they were automatically dead if they did? How many future victims would be saved because of this? Is it fair to deny law abiding citizens this protection? Is it fair to forcibly take law abiding citizen's money to support killers?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is it the word "fair" is only used to support people that forfeited their life when they unfairly slaughtered an innocent person?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether you disagree with the death penalty or not, we should all agree the world is a better place when men like Saddam are dead.

[dangeresque]

You can't. He does deserve to die, but only because of the horror of his crimes. The death penalty isn't a "peaceful" solution, but in some cases it's necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would have to agree with you here, due to his crimes against humanity i think he did deserve the death penalty. Its just to bad that they didn't get him in the first gulf war

[dusqi]

 

 

 

Is it fair for people to have to pay taxes to support mass murderers for the rest of their life in jail?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The death penalty costs more to carry out than it does to keep a prisoner in jail for the rest of his life, because there are more stringent judicial processes to make sure that an innocent person isn't being killed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How many potential murderers would think twice before killing someone because they knew they were automatically dead if they did?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The death penalty does not discourage murders. Why? 1) because many murders are committed when people are beyond reason, such as murdering a cheating spouse. 2) because many murderers are psychopaths, who think they can beat the police and that it is a game. 3) because many murders are committed by people with mental problems who also do not stand to reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it fair to the victim and society when a convicted murderer(who would have been executed 50 years ago) is released on parole and goes out and kills another person?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A better question is, why were they let out if they had a possibility of murdering again? That's something to ask the parole board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we should all agree the world is a better place when men like Saddam are dead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, we should all agree that the world is a better place when men like Saddam aren't able to kill anyone. There is no need to kill him ourselves to show everyone that killing is bad.

[Locke]

The death penalty costs more to carry out than it does to keep a prisoner in jail for the rest of his life, because there are more stringent judicial processes to make sure that an innocent person isn't being killed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that isn't what the person said. He said its not fair to have taxes go to support a mass murderer's life. There is a difference in principle, not just in cost.

[jaxvb]

I belive this should be done for many reasons.Im glad at most of the posts on this thread :-).

[dusqi]

 

The death penalty costs more to carry out than it does to keep a prisoner in jail for the rest of his life, because there are more stringent judicial processes to make sure that an innocent person isn't being killed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that isn't what the person said. He said its not fair to have taxes go to support a mass murderer's life. There is a difference in principle, not just in cost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it's OK to have more taxes go to support a mass murderer's death? So, basically your "principle" is just revenge and blood lust.

[warri0r45]

blood lust.

=P~ =P~ =P~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I doubt that thedeath penalty is just blood lust. I suppose why we have it (in some countries, not in mine) is because they think it is the ultimate punishment.

[Locke]

 

 

The death penalty costs more to carry out than it does to keep a prisoner in jail for the rest of his life, because there are more stringent judicial processes to make sure that an innocent person isn't being killed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that isn't what the person said. He said its not fair to have taxes go to support a mass murderer's life. There is a difference in principle, not just in cost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it's OK to have more taxes go to support a mass murderer's death? So, basically your "principle" is just revenge and blood lust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, I understand that when you see capital punishment, you believe it is nothing more than revenge and blood lust. You need to understand, however, that some people view capital punishment as justice, and whether or not you agree that it is justice, people do believe that. So if I say that tax payers dollars supporting a mass murderer's death is just, it is not my belief that it is revenge or blood lust. That's your belief, not mine.

[Ambassadar]

why were they let out if they had a possibility of murdering again? That's something to ask the parole board.

 

 

 

I agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The death penalty costs more to carry out than it does to keep a prisoner in jail for the rest of his life, because there are more stringent judicial processes to make sure that an innocent person isn't being killed.

 

 

 

I would need to double check the actual numbers but I agree too much money is spent on people sentenced to death. This could be corrected. There are many ways to accomplish this without increasing the risk an innocent person would slip through the cracks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said:

 

 

 

The death penalty does not discourage murders. Why? 1) because many murders are committed when people are beyond reason, such as murdering a cheating spouse. 2) because many murderers are psychopaths, who think they can beat the police and that it is a game. 3) because many murders are committed by people with mental problems who also do not stand to reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reality and statistics say this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The swift and certain application of the death penalty throughout the early years of the century brought murder into a steady decline. The peak in homicides occurred in the 1930s--generally associated with Prohibition. Executions also peaked across the country in 1935 at 200 (roughly four per state). After that point, the murder rate dropped steadily. As homicides fell, the number of executions followed them down. By the early 1960s, capital punishment was applied only in a few well-publicized cases. Still, the concept of "going to the chair" was fixed clearly in everyone's mind. By 1963, the murder rate was triumphantly low.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then a fatal miscalculation occurred. Convinced that the problem of felony murder had been solved forever and that it was now "barbaric" to continue executions, liberals mounted a campaign to abolish capital punishment. By 1966 there was a de facto moratorium in nearly all states, and in 1971 the Supreme Court overturned all existing death-penalty laws. But at zero executions, the predictable happened. Beginning in 1966, the rate of murder skyrocketed, soaring by 1980 to more than double the 1963 rate. Moreover, this was not just a broad, general rise in murder. "Crimes of passion" stayed virtually the same. Almost the entire increase was the result of an explosion of felony murder.

 

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-death051601.shtml

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As to my point about the death penalty saving innocent people's lives here are some statistics.

 

 

 

"As Prof. Paul G. Cassell pointed out in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in 1993: "Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following those convictions. Executing each of these inmates following their initial murder conviction would have saved 821 innocent lives."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, we should all agree that the world is a better place when men like Saddam aren't able to kill anyone. There is no need to kill him ourselves to show everyone that killing is bad.

 

 

 

So say they imprison Saddam in Iraq. Then in 10 years all troops are gone from Iraq and the new Iraqi government is toppled. Saddam gets released and takes power back. How many people is he going to kill? I watched a show profiling Saddam tonight and he was averaging 100,000 murders a year of his own population when he was in office. Now imagine how many he would kill if he had actually been overthrown and regained power? It would be a bloodbath. All of this is now prevented because he and his sons are dead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It isn't about some kind of macho blood lust. It is about paying the penalty for the crime committed, preventing future violence, and protecting what would have been future victims.