Saddam executed; Your thoughts?

[Wayne]

Wikipedia is the greatest!!     



Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."[6]

I would suspect Rumsfeld had something to hide, but why hide it? The truth is RIGHT THERE.

That's Donald Effing Rumsfeld saying he's happy with Iraq and shaking Saddam's hand with full and public knowledge that Iraq is using mustard gas and nerve agent against Iranian troops.

That's the SAME Donald Effing Rumsfeld who led the war on Iraq until a few days ago.

Hired by the SAME George Bush who the American public apparently re-elected in 2004 (if the Ohio vote count is to be believed).

[Shakesthecoffecan]

Oh yeah, Sadam was our buddy then, they were fighting the Iranians at the time, the people who had over run the U.S. embassy and held hostages 444 days, almost as if they were fighting the U.S. reprisal for us.

[injest]

Yep.  Many men in this world believe that women aren't as important as men and deserve to die for any rejection of them.  Are Reverand Phieps and those kind of men the majority in this country?  Nope.

so by your  reasoning when and if they DO become the majority it will be acceptable and moral to give the death penalty to whomever they choose?

It isn't the US that's trying him.  It's the Iraqis.  If they want to allow it, why not?  It's their country.

but it is not the Iraqis..it is the Shites...only PART of the country. and we had him in custody. So we are as culpable as they are.

Yes, I am aware of that.  That's why I approve in this country of the very long appeal process.  Give those condemned enough time for new information and technology to surface that might prove them innocent.

As to how many?  Well, there is a famous quote - forget by who - that goes, "I'd rather see 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man be imprisoned" or something like that.

I think whoever said that lived in a time where one person had limited impact.  A time before one person could fly a plane into a building and kill 15,000 people.  A time before one person could set off a nuclear bomb/virus into a population and kill millions, before one person could access explosives and kill not only themselves, but many other people around them.

I'm not sure how many innocents are acceptable.  I suppose sufficient before it becomes a liability to the rest.  Are the needs of the many outweighed by the needs of the few?

absolutely! the entire history of civil rights is the protection of the needs of the few!

I've heard this argument before and it makes no sense to me.  If rich white people escaped the death penalty and poor minorities did not, that only means the rich people got off easy for the same crime.  It doesn't mean the crime did not deserve the punishment the poor minorities got.

Hypothetically speaking, if Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo got the death penalty for his crimes and Ted Bundy did not, that just means Ted Bundy got off easy, it doesn't mean Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo didn't get what he had coming.

we will have to disagree here...if we can't deliver justice consistantly the system is broken and needs to be corrected...we are not talking about parking tickets we are talking about taking a life.

If you know that there is a flaw in the system and still use it; then you are responsible for the results.

[Lumière]

We can all have different opinions on capital punishment or the US invasion of Iraq or the execution of Saddam,  but we can all agree that the world needs peace. 

Too many people have lost their lives already ... we need peace .. and fast.

[Kelda]

While I believe - in this case - his punishment was just, I think what everyone here can agree on is that the rights and wrongs of exceution are indeed complex and that that no one nation or person can be seen to be all innocent here.

What we can also all agree on is that at least here - on this forum and in our owne countries- we have a freedom of speech not available to the people of Iraq under Sadam.

The fact remains - Saadam did this and now he has been punished as he rightly should have been. Who else should be punished long with him and who knew what was going on...?  Well thats a different question entirely. and one I feel we will not know - for certain - in any of our lifetimes.

A question to pose:

Saadam, like Hitler before him was an evil evil man - if Hitler had not committed suicide at that bunker, would the world have been happy for him to die a natural death in prison cell?

I very much doubt it.

I foten wonder if it is like the Rwandan situation - these people can't shoult as load as their western counterparts - and therefore their voice is not heard.

We can all have different opinions about the US invasion of Iraq and the execution of Saddam, but we can all agree that the world needs peace. 

Too many people have lost their lives already ... we need peace .. and fast.

Luise - very true - you got in before me as I was typing.

[injest]

Don't worry.  Karma is offset by lots of things.  I don't think Saddam had as many good points to offset the bad.

but Wayne wasn't talking about Saddam..he was talking about the US...and at one time I would have agreed that we have enough good points to offset the bad...but the balance is tipping.

[delalluvia]

but Wayne wasn't talking about Saddam..he was talking about the US...and at one time I would have agreed that we have enough good points to offset the bad...but the balance is tipping.

I was talking about the US as well.  The US has done some really bad things, yes.  We also still feed the world, give billions in charity and aid around the world in many forms.

I don't think Saddam had as many brownie points in his favor.

[injest]

While I believe - in this case - his punishment was just, I think what everyone here can agree on is that the rights and wrongs of exceution are indeed complex and that that no one nation or person can be seen to be all innocent here.

What we can also all agree on is that at least here - on this forum and in our owne countries- we have a freedom of speech not available to the people of Iraq under Sadam.

The fact remains - Saadam did this and now he has been punished as he rightly should have been. Who else should be punished long with him and who knew what was going on...?  Well thats a different question entirely. and one I feel we will not know - for certain - in any of our lifetimes.

A question to pose:

Saadam, like Hitler before him was an evil evil man - if Hitler had not committed suicide at that bunker, would the world have been happy for him to die a natural death in prison cell? I very much doubt it.

I foten wonder if it is like the Rwandan situation - these people can't shoult as load as their western counterparts - and therefore their voice is not heard.



Luise - very true - you got in before me as I was typing.

no he would have had a trial at Nurenburg with the rest of his cohorts...a public trial by people who were not his political rivals;  with attorneys that were able to actually live thru the entire trial...competent attorneys. and then he would have been held until appeals were heard.

there was a time we did things with honor...because we aspired to be a better people. we didn't take them summarily to the gas chambers in the concentration camps and throw them in....because we were NOT LIKE THEM...we won by being above them, not by laying in the dirt with them.

[delalluvia]

so by your  reasoning when and if they DO become the majority it will be acceptable and moral to give the death penalty to whomever they choose?

Yep, because by then, it will be their country.  It will be acceptable and moral to them.  I will have a differing opinon, obviously, so I probably wouldn't stay in that country. 

[but it is not the Iraqis..it is the Shites...only PART of the country. and we had him in custody. So we are as culpable as they are.

But the Shiites are the majority of the population.  We had him in custody to await the punishment as meted out by an Iraqi govenrment.

absolutely! the entire history of civil rights is the protection of the needs of the few!

True, but in reality it doesn't work that way, otherwise we'd have minorities telling the entire nation what could and couldn't be done and what is that but an autocracy? 

we will have to disagree here...if we can't deliver justice consistantly the system is broken and needs to be corrected...

You mean punishment, don't you?  A rich person can be tried for a crime and found gulty but not given the death penalty, while poor ones don't escape it.  The justice system was consistent.  It tried them both and found them both guilty.  They will both be punished.  It's just a matter of the degree.

So the justice system isn't broken.

If you know that there is a flaw in the system and still use it; then you are responsible for the results.

Yes, but do you know of ANY system that doesn't have a flaw?  If you wait for perfection, you will be waiting a long time.

[injest]

I was talking about the US as well.  The US has done some really bad things, yes.  We also still feed the world, give billions in charity and aid around the world in many forms.

I don't think Saddam had as many brownie points in his favor.

so you believe that you can do bad things and get away with them if you do a nice thing in addition? I don't agree...doing wrong will harm you no matter how much good you do...you can't steal with one hand and give with the other then call yourself honorable.