Saddam Hussein to be hanged

[Jari]

...says CNN.

Are they actually trying to give the insurgency a martyr?

Without ranting about my views who the real war criminals here are, or what I think of the death sentence in general, I'll just say this: why, oh why, can't they sentence him to life in prison, since for everyone else but Saddam that would have pretty much the same effect, and it would not create a martyr. Now they just make him immortal, mark my words. Trust me, this way he'll just have his revenge beyond the grave.

I was right about the reasons for the invasion in 2003, and now I'm willing to bet money on that Saddam becomes a greater man (in influence) in death than he ever was in life. Any takers?

What's worse, you can't kill someone who's already dead.

[sarcasm]But hey, at least little W got to do what his daddy didn't do. That's gotta count for something.[/sarcasm]


EDIT: Of course, I could go 100% cynic and state that this is Karl Rove's Cocktober surprise he promised, even though it got postponed to Cocktember. The date is such a nice coincidence, after all. I might be right, as well.

EDIT2: I could also state that I can't type anymore.

 

[ChaosControl]

I think he should go behind bars for the rest of his life at least for a long time so people won't give a damn about him or what he says anymore.

 

[Kashmir]

... I'm willing to bet money on that Saddam becomes a greater man (in influence) in death than he ever was in life. Any takers?

I agree, but there is also the possiblility that some groups might fight to free him.

So your dammed if you do and dammed if you dont.

 

[Jari]

Would that be such a bad thing? He's just a man, not Satan himself (for example he's not going to magically become president of Iraq again, even if he was freed).

Besides, it's not like international law, human rights or any such things have stopped W from capturing "illegal fighters" and transporting them to who knows where. The said groups don't really have means or resources to stage a rescue from some place on the other side of the globe.

 

[Borde]

Yep, I'm with you Jari.
Sending him to the prision for life would be more efective. You know, corpses can't betray you. The can't disapoint you. They can't argue with you. If you have to use someone as a martyr, a dead man is allways a safe bet.
I don't think killing him will do any good. It would be better to process him for each and every of his crimes and imprision him for the rest of his life. Without money, without power, without friends. Until he lives to regret of his own crimes...

 

[zero88]

(...)Without money, without power, without friends. Until he lives to regret of his own crimes...

And for the grand effect, they could say that he'll be living a tortured life, just like the many lives that he had tortured.

 

[Kashmir]

The said groups don't really have means or resources to stage a rescue from some place on the other side of the globe.

I don't think it would take much for one to get a passport, strap on a bomb and blow themselves up outside the prison.

However, like i said i agree that he should be kept alive in prison. The announcement of his death sentence has allready angered quite a large group of people.

 

[Jari]

I would recommend a car bomb - or rather a truck bomb - the amount of explosives you can strap on to yourself at least somewhat comfortably is more suitable to breaking windows than walls. Not to mention, if you'd breach the outer wall, then what? The prisoners are still in their cells, there are armed guards around... more suicide bombers (Lemmings-style)?

Not only that, but Saddam has one of the most recognizable faces ever, how would he get back home (assuming that he wanted to go there), from a prison in who-knows-where? You'd need people to hide and transport him.

Not that such a thing couldn't happen, but it is fairly unlikely, all things considered.

 

[Kashmir]

Not to mention, if you'd breach the outer wall, then what? The prisoners are still in their cells, there are armed guards around... more suicide bombers (Lemmings-style)?

Id pay to see that, lol.

 

[James]

I'm glad to see him hanged, especially now that he has told the people of Iraq to co-operate.

In my opinion, the United States 'kidnapping', 'trying', and now hanging (as the first two words are very subjective), is no different from the Isarelis kidnapping Eichmann when he was hiding in Jerusalem, quickly and publically trying him, and then hanging him - the only man to be ever hanged in Israel.

The only difference is that Hussein is Hitler compared to Eichmann - Eichmann was a yes man, Hussein's just a jerk.


Let him hang.

 

[Jari]

So, tell me... how many more dead people is Saddam's death worth to you? 10? 100? 1000?

Because that's the legacy of martyrs, killing him will only escalate the violence. I hope the show is worth that, especially to the people who end up dead because of it.

I'm glad to see him hanged, especially now that he has told the people of Iraq to co-operate...

...against the occupying forces, yes. What did you think he was referring to?

In my opinion, the United States 'kidnapping', 'trying', and now hanging (as the first two words are very subjective), is no different from the Isarelis kidnapping Eichmann when he was hiding in Jerusalem, quickly and publically trying him, and then hanging him - the only man to be ever hanged in Israel.

Uhh... First of all, Eichmann was captured on the soil of another sovereign country; Argentina.

You are right about the cases having lot in common; neither man got a fair trial, neither was captured and tried by 'their own', but rather someone who had a grudge against them. If you are willing to see the "evil" people tried, at least do it at Hague, which is probably as close to fair trial as it's possible to get in such a case.

 

[James]

No, Iraqi insurgents are nationalists. There is no longer a cult-of-the-leader kind of thing going on. Saddam is already dead to the average insurgent.

Besides, the man is the epitome of the banality of evil... why should he get three squares, a nice place to sleep, and media exposure for the rest of his life?


The key difference between the Eichmann and Saddam trials would then be that Eichmann was "illegally" captured. Capturing the leader of the country you're stomping through is the accepted norm.

Saddam is guilty, without a doubt. We'll never get a fair trial, but we'll get fair judgement.

 

[Jari]

No, Iraqi insurgents are nationalists. There is no longer a cult-of-the-leader kind of thing going on. Saddam is already dead to the average insurgent.

You don't have to be a leader of a cult to become martyr. Do they recite poems about how Saddam is a great leader in elementary school (because they sure did this back in the late 80s)? Not likely, but lesser men have become martyrs.  Case in point; Hizbollah. They'll make a martyr out of anyone who is willing to die for them.

They are nationalists, yes, but some of their factions are deeply rooted in Islam. Deeply enough that I believe some of their leaders have announced Jihad against the occupying forces. And if there's something ultra conservative Islamists like, it's martyrs. Doesn't really matter that Saddam was a pretty secular guy, with his booze and stetson. They'll view him as a martyr who died fighting the great Satan, because it suits their purposes.

Besides, the man is the epitome of the banality of evil... why should he get three squares, a nice place to sleep, and media exposure for the rest of his life?

Saddam sure ain't the nicest person ever. But who are you to judge him?

Besides, in case you haven't noticed, civilized countries don't use death penalty. Thus, the question should be "Why should he die?", because execution certainly shouldn't be the norm that other things get compared against.

Let's think in totally utilitarian way for a minute; what good does killing Saddam do? It might quench the thirst for revenge in some people, but whether that is "good thing" is another matter. I'm pretty sure that even they'll eventually notice that killing Saddam didn't bring back the people who died because of him.

So, tell me: what good will it do?

 

[Midgar]

Well I think that someone in his situation should be... "Make like JeSuS and forgive". Hahaha, but I think that if anything he should have cruel and unusual punishment. I mean, everytime we send a man to life, all they do is to continue to be a drain on resources, and the taxpayers pay for the life of a horrible man. And I don't think he would ever become a martyr, and even if he did, what difference does it make? We don't go about saying "Oh poor Saddam, why did they kill him..". And not all Islamics are bad Jari >.> I've never heard of that last 'martyr' either. And people love bin Laden, not Saddam >.> If we killed bin Laden then we would truly be fucked.

 

[Izban]

Well personally im not really one for executions and thus im against his death, havent any of you seen monty python's "the meaning of life" if a life yet to be is sacred what does that make a life, plus im more one of those people who believes those responsible should be punished, for instance the people who put him in power and taught bin laden. i say put him in a ring with a knife against those responsible also with a knife and the winner walks free and the other is laid to rest in a pool of there own blood

 

[Jari]

I mean, everytime we send a man to life, all they do is to continue to be a drain on resources, and the taxpayers pay for the life of a horrible man.

It's nice that you can put a price on human life, regardless of what kind of life it is.

Besides, if you add up everything that has been poured into the war, and then add Saddam's upkeep to it... your taxpayers will never know the difference. USAF alone has asked for at least $68 billion extra in this year alone. Do you even dare to estimate how much the entire budget must be, if USAF needs $68 billion extra?

EDIT: Just to clarify; they have asked the money during this year, but $58 billion of that is meant for next fiscal year. Still, it's lot of money for a single year, almost half of USAF's annual budget.

And I don't think he would ever become a martyr, and even if he did, what difference does it make?

You don't think? Well, let me tell you, the religious leaders of the insurgency would have him declared martyr even before his neck broke from the fall. They don't care if he was a devout believer or not, they want a figurehead.

I'll quote Newsday.com:

Hussein could become a martyr for the nationalist strain of the Iraqi insurgency, and in death he might be an even more potent symbol than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. While the Islamic militant was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June, members of his al-Qaida in Iraq are still carrying out suicide bombings against civilians and security forces.

"If Saddam Hussein is executed while American troops are still occupying Iraq, he will be an even bigger hero for many insurgents," said Walid Zubaidy, an Iraqi political analyst. "He will be remembered as a leader who defied the Americans until the end."

If you don't believe me, how about a genuine Iraqi political analyst? I'd think that he knows what he is talking about.

Also, does that answer your question of what difference does it make? Few thousand more dead people is a pretty significant difference, to me at least.

And not all Islamics are bad Jari >.>

I didn't say they were. I just didn't feel like putting massive disclaimers there, stating that I was referring to the extreme nationalistic kind of Islamists. Actually, my personal feeling is that they are first extreme nationalists, and use Islam just as a means to an end - since it is a pretty powerful tool for agitation and people control.

And people love bin Laden, not Saddam >.> If we killed bin Laden then we would truly be f***ed.

You are underestimating people's affection for Saddam. They still remember how much better the things were, when he was in power. Even with all the bad things he did. Especially the Sunni minority remembers him fondly.

And overestimating Osama's influence. His main problem is that he has no country like Saddam does. And he has never been a leader in the same sense Saddam was. So, he has no compatriots, nor actual subjects. Plus not everyone subscribes to his agenda of terrorism.

You are right that killing Osama would cause a considerable ruckus, it would probably spawn some terror attacks, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

 

[Midgar]

THX for not biting my head off Jari.  :-D
 You changed my mind about everything, except that I still think that it would be wasteful if we didn't kill Saddam. Maybe some cruel and unusual punishment by bringing him back to Iraq and giving him only a few meals a week?

 

[RW_66]

I'm glad to see him hanged, especially now that he has told the people of Iraq to co-operate.

In my opinion, the United States 'kidnapping', 'trying', and now hanging (as the first two words are very subjective), is no different from the Isarelis kidnapping Eichmann when he was hiding in Jerusalem, quickly and publically trying him, and then hanging him - the only man to be ever hanged in Israel.

The only difference is that Hussein is Hitler compared to Eichmann - Eichmann was a yes man, Hussein's just a jerk.


Let him hang.

The man was hiding in a hole in the ground in Tikrit, IRAQ! Since when is removing a wanted CRIMINAL from a hole in the ground in his own country considered kidnapping? And as far as the US 'trying' Saddam.. Did he have a US judge? A US lawyer? A US court? Was he being charged under US laws? NO! He was charged, tried , and convicted by his own countrymen, under their legal system, and found guilty. Just because the US handed him over to the IRAQI authorities, does NOT mean we had anything to do with the trial or verdict. I mean, seriously, do you know a place that WOULD NOT have found him guilty of crimes against humanities?

I saw pictures back in '86-'87 of the one of the Kurdish villages that he used chemical weapons against. The men, women, and CHILDREN died in the streets. At the same time, he was fighting the Iranians. But he didn't use the chemical weapons against them, did he? So, is it only a crime against humanity if you do it to OTHER people, outside of your country?

The only thing more obvious than his guilt, was the probable penalty. Do you think Hitler would have gotten anything less? The fact that he's being allowed a somewhat 'clean' death, is a testimate to the forebearance of 'civilized' societies, in comparison to brutal dictatorships.  Personally, I think he should be shot in the leg, both his hands burnt, and then gased with some of his own chemical weapons (lightly). Then, he showed be forced to live whatever life he has left, in a crippled, ailing body until he eventually dies,.. a public display to the inhumanity of one demented individual.

 

[Synergy Blades]

Personally, I think he should be shot in the leg, both his hands burnt, and then gased with some of his own chemical weapons (lightly). Then, he showed be forced to live whatever life he has left, in a crippled, ailing body until he eventually dies,.. a public display to the inhumanity of one demented individual.

That's right - show the inhumanity of one individual by dropping to the absolute depths of inhumanity to punish him. "Hypocrite" springs to mind.

On the contrary, it would be the mark of a civilised society, in my opinion, that we do not kill others to make examples of them; the taking of another life being one of the most heinous crimes possible in law, we should therefore not perform the same crime on others in the name of vengeance. Rather, we show that we take liberties from those that have been judged, fairly, as having taken them from us. That would be a better public display of what we stand for as a democratic and fair society.

 

[Jari]

*huggles Synergy Blades*

The man was hiding in a hole in the ground in Tikrit, IRAQ! Since when is removing a wanted CRIMINAL from a hole in the ground in his own country considered kidnapping? And as far as the US 'trying' Saddam.. Did he have a US judge? A US lawyer? A US court? Was he being charged under US laws? NO! He was charged, tried , and convicted by his own countrymen, under their legal system, and found guilty. Just because the US handed him over to the IRAQI authorities, does NOT mean we had anything to do with the trial or verdict. I mean, seriously, do you know a place that WOULD NOT have found him guilty of crimes against humanities?

You are suggesting that trying him in a country occupied by US forces, a country which first "government" was in total American control (not sure how many puppets there are left, if any... they did have an election, after all), is that much different from trying him in US? I think not.

Certainly, I would prefer to see him in tried in Iraq, if the alternative is US. But I'd prefer much more to see him tried in Hague. Because that's why the freaking International Court of Justice exists. Of course, American government - and Dubya in particular - don't like this court, because they have no control over it.

If what I know is the truth - I don't pretend to know everything that has happened, and I don't pretend that everything I know is true (there certainly are multiple parties with an interest in muddying the waters here) - yes, I think that he should be convicted. I also think that he should receive a fair trial. And that no man should receive death penalty.

Assumption that 'every court would find him guilty', as correct as it might be, is not a valid reason for robbing anyone of fair trial. Nothing is.

Besides, there are already stories circulating about how Shia policeman protect only Shias, and Sunni policeman protect only Sunnis. As if the entire country wouldn't be disaster enough even without that. Anyway, that's one of the reasons I would really hope that they'd try their hardest to give him a fair trial.

I saw pictures back in '86-'87 of the one of the Kurdish villages that he used chemical weapons against. The men, women, and CHILDREN died in the streets. At the same time, he was fighting the Iranians. But he didn't use the chemical weapons against them, did he? So, is it only a crime against humanity if you do it to OTHER people, outside of your country?

Wikipedia says

The war is also noted for extensive use of chemical weapons by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops, Iranian civilians and Iraqi Kurds.

Anyways, I'm not entirely sure about your point. I don't think that anyone claimed that it would not be a crime against humanity in such case. At least I've been arguing about the need to give him a fair trial and that death penalty is not only wrong, but also very counterproductive in this case. Not about what he has done.

The only thing more obvious than his guilt, was the probable penalty. Do you think Hitler would have gotten anything less? The fact that he's being allowed a somewhat 'clean' death, is a testimate to the forebearance of 'civilized' societies, in comparison to brutal dictatorships.  Personally, I think he should be shot in the leg, both his hands burnt, and then gased with some of his own chemical weapons (lightly). Then, he showed be forced to live whatever life he has left, in a crippled, ailing body until he eventually dies,.. a public display to the inhumanity of one demented individual.

Hitler shouldn't have gotten the death penalty either (not suggesting that he ever did, obviously, but in the case he had been tried).

More to the point, why are you using Hitler's imaginary sentence against another person? Are you trying to make a precedent out of something that didn't even happen?