Saddam executed; Your thoughts?

[delalluvia]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061230/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam

[Kelda]

I was going to write - the sooner they do it the better (as if they had left it any longer there could have been more bloodshed via his supporters 'getting their own back')...... but after a brief scan of the story, it seems since I haven't caught the news today I have missed that they have already done it.

Lets hope everyone - Iraqi's, American's, Iranian's, Europeans, - can move on today and make 2007 one where troops can be brought home and we can try to move forwards and see a more peaceful world in 2007.

Big ask, it might be, but we can wish. 

[Lumière]

I think that he should have been tried for the other crimes against humanity before he was hastily executed, such as the genocide of thousands of Kurds by his regime. 

I don't think that his death will bring peace, Saddam is only one man .. the insurgency continues, the car bombs, the suicide attacks will surely continue. 

Since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, over 600,000 Iraqis and over 2000 US troops have been killed.  Not to mention the casualties from other allies supporting the war.  When will it end?  The time for peace is now, how long before it comes?  God only knows..

We can all hope for a peaceful 2007!

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'll say this much, and only this much: They sure don't fool around over there. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the situation, in the U.S. he'd still be sitting in a jail cell 20 years from now, more likely to die of old age than from his sentence being enforced.

[Lynne]

That's a good point, Milli, that there were plenty more crimes he needed to face at trial before a hasty sentence was carried out.  Not that the trial was remotely just - what kind of due process can it be when defense attorneys are murdered with impunity and they're quickly replaced and the show just goes on?

But, I am 100% against the death penalty.  Saddam was evil, no doubt, but life in maximum security would have suited me fine as just punishment.

IMO, killing is wrong except when your own life is in imminent danger.  And state-sponsored killing is worse - it's simply revenge dressed up as justice.

We have now lost more American soldiers lives in Iraq than were killed on 9/11 and that does not include the hundreds of thousands of civilians, Iraqi soldiers, Allied forces, contractors working to rebuild, and attorneys.  Have we captured Bin Laden?  No.  Bush's war on terror is one big-a$$ diversion tactic from the real issues.

And another casualty in this war is the US itself.  We've lost any credibility we ever had with most of the world.  You got room there in Canada for me, Milli?

Sorry..rant over.

[delalluvia]

I don't oppose the death penalty at all.

Saddam had it coming and this is pure karma catching up with him.

IMO, he got off easy.  His many many many victims suffered a lot more than he did.

Saddam's death isn't suppose to 'solve' anything.  This is pure punishment for his crimes.  And many Iraqis support the execution from all signs.  They are the ones who wanted him tried.  They got the verdict they knew was correct and the punishment they felt fit the crime.  Or at least was acceptable.

Left up to the tribal/street justice, Saddam would have been hanging upside down in front of a gas station a long time ago.

[injest]

As you watch the Shiite government hang Saddam in Iraq, remember that the Shiite government hangs gay teenagers next door in Iran.

yes it is so clear isn't it Delalluvia....so you approve of this?

the point is not whether Saddam 'had it coming' (most Shites also believe these two boys 'had it coming') it is whether we intend to be like him. It strikes me watching the coverage about the things they list as his crimes and as evidence of his inhumanity...they include these: summary and quick executions of opponents (hmmm); his viewing of executions of opponents on video (how many times has it been shown on our tvs??)

And many Iraqis support the execution from all signs.  They are the ones who wanted him tried.  They got the verdict they knew was correct and the punishment they felt fit the crime.  Or at least was acceptable.

Left up to the tribal/street justice, Saddam would have been hanging upside down in front of a gas station a long time ago

surely you draw the line at lynching? It is not the majorities opinion that decides what is just...how many blacks and gays have been lynched because of that mindset?

We went into Iraq under false pretenses...whatever you think of Saddam.

[Sheriff Roland]

Lynne got it right ...

There are only a handful a countries in the world that still sponsors state executions. Killing is wrong, and Canada ain't the only civilized country in the world ta say so.

As far as our immigration policy... We (Canada) accept(s) about 1/3 of a milion a immigrants here every year - roughly 1% of the current population - one a the reason why we shouldn't have any problems with our old age pension plan. Of course, we too have some illegal "aliens" ...

[Lumière]

What the world needs now:

[delalluvia]

yes it is so clear isn't it Delalluvia....so you approve of this?

OK, so you're asking, do I believe in capital punishment for EVERYTHING?

Of course not.  That's ludicrous.  For extreme violent crimes?  For sociopaths/psychopaths?  Most certainly.

That fits Saddam to a T.

the point is not whether Saddam 'had it coming' (most Shites also believe these two boys 'had it coming') it is whether we intend to be like him.

The Iraqi people wanted him tried and approved of his execution.  Are you saying that because people want a psychopathic mass murderer executed, punished for his crimes, that makes Joe in the Street exactly the same as Saddam?

People who've probably lived their whole lives in peace never hurt a fly and never want to, are suddenly the same as Saddam?

I don't see how the two can possibly be compared.

It strikes me watching the coverage about the things they list as his crimes and as evidence of his inhumanity...they include these: summary and quick executions of opponents (hmmm); his viewing of executions of opponents on video (how many times has it been shown on our tvs??)

Did they also list the outright murders, tortures and gassing of the Kurds?  Hmmm.

surely you draw the line at lynching? It is not the majorities opinion that decides what is just...how many blacks and gays have been lynched because of that mindset?

Of course I draw the line at lynching.  I believe in a justice system.  Mine just happens to include captial punishment for extreme violent crimes, which I approve of.

We went into Iraq under false pretenses...whatever you think of Saddam.

Yes we did, whatever I think of Saddam.

[Wayne]

If karma really does come around, then I am concerned for the safety of the United States.

Saddam was hanged for killing people in 1982 during the Reagan years when US money was pouring into his bank account.



Anybody remember the details? Weren't we supporting him in the war against Iran? And secretly sending guns to Iran as well?

How come we had to invade and overthrow him 20 years later when he had stopped killing?

[injest]

Delalluvia

I didn't say that gays and blacks that have been lynched are the same as Saddam...I am saying the PROCESS is the same....

the Shites do not have a just system set up...and there was no fair trial here. We supported Saddam publically while he murdered people. and now we turn him over to a 'drumhead' trial. Letting other people do things we can not does not absolve us of guilt. I guess we will never know now just how much we supported him...and what deals he had made with our leaders.

and the ONE thing I have learned from being online? Not everything the news tells us is true.

Your first line was you support the death penalty. You didn't qualify it.

[delalluvia]

If karma really does come around, then I am concerned for the safety of the United States.

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

[Lynne]

I thought this was interesting and not completely off-topic.  It's an excerpt from Matthew Shepard's father's speech at one of his murderer's sentencing.  The full text of his speech is here:

http://www.wiredstrategies.com/mrshep.htm

"Mr. McKinney, one final comment before I sit, and this is the reason that I stand before you now. At no time since Matt was found at the fence and taken to the hospital have Judy and I made any statements about our beliefs concerning the death penalty. We felt that that would be an undue influence on any prospective juror. Judy has been quoted by some right-wing groups as being against the death penalty. It has been stated that Matt was against the death penalty. Both of these statements are wrong. We have held family discussions and talked about the death penalty. Matt believed that there were incidents and crimes that justified the death penalty. For example, he and I discussed the horrible death of James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper, Texas. It was his opinion that the death penalty should be sought and that no expense should be spared to bring those responsible for this murder to justice. Little did we know that the same response would come about involving Matt. I, too, believe in the death penalty. I would like nothing better than to see you die, Mr. McKinney. However, this is the time to begin the healing process. To show mercy to someone who refused to show any mercy. To use this as the first step in my own closure about losing Matt. Mr. McKinney, I am not doing this because of your family. I am definitely not doing this because of the crass and unwarranted pressures put on by the religious community. If anything, that hardens my resolve to see you die. Mr. McKinney, I’m going to grant you life, as hard as that is for me to do, because of Matthew. Every time you celebrate Christmas, a birthday, or the Fourth of July, remember that Matt isn’t. Every time that you wake up in that prison cell, remember that you had the opportunity and the ability to stop your actions that night. Every time that you see your cell mate, remember that you had a choice, and now you are living that choice. You robbed me of something very precious, and I will never forgive you for that. Mr. McKinney, I give you life in the memory of one who no longer lives. May you have a long life, and may you thank Matthew every day for it."

[Wayne]

Checking back in Wikipedia...

In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons.[11] President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."[12] President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982.[13]

What a coincidence that "he who shall not be named" declared his support for Saddam against the Shiites in 1982! Why, that's the very same year as the killings of Shiites that Saddam was hanged for just a few hours ago.       

[injest]

OK, so you're asking, do I believe in capital punishment for EVERYTHING?

Of course not.  That's ludicrous.  For extreme violent crimes?  For sociopaths/psychopaths?  Most certainly.

That fits Saddam to a T.

The Iraqi people wanted him tried and approved of his execution.  Are you saying that because people want a psychopathic mass murderer executed, punished for his crimes, that makes Joe in the Street exactly the same as Saddam?

Reverend Phelps believes that gays are psychotic...and deserve to die

Did they also list the outright murders, tortures and gassing of the Kurds?  Hmmm.

we were giving him money and hailing him as a friend even AFTER he did this...and now we are going to point in horror and say he deserves to die now? twenty years later? A little slow on the moral outrage aren't we?

Of course I draw the line at lynching.  I believe in a justice system.  Mine just happens to include captial punishment for extreme violent crimes, which I approve of.

you are aware that we have executed innocent people? How many innocent people are acceptable to you?

until we can make sure that rich white people are as likely to be executed as poor minorities and we can be SURE that we are not murdering innocent people I oppose the death penalty...that includes for people or groups I don't like

[Shakesthecoffecan]

I think anytime some's death is put up in the media for examination, it is sickening thing. I am not in favor of the death penalty, so much so I have in my will that if I am murdered my killer is not to receive the death penalty. People like Sadam deserve to be locked away for the rest of their days, killing them only satisfies a blood lust we need to evolve away from.

[delalluvia]

I didn't say that gays and blacks that have been lynched are the same as Saddam...I am saying the PROCESS is the same.

So you're saying lynching and state executions have the same process?

Well, the justice system in the US is pretty much based on a trial of one's peers.  The majority (12 people on the grand jury, 12 people on a trial jury) bringing down a verdict for a single person.

Laws are made by lawmakers who were voted in by a majority of the people, who get their laws passed by a majority of the vote in the House/Senate.

I don't think you can escape that aspect of the justice process.

the Shites do not have a just system set up...and there was no fair trial here.

True, the invasion had just destroyed the justice system that existed, such as it was.  The Iraqi people - not just the Shiites,the Kurds too, - wanted Saddam tried and punished for his crimes.  This was their decision.  So the US helped set them up a court.

Fair trial?  Probably not.  But was there any real doubt of Saddam's guilt?  The outcome was already known, regardless of whether the trial was held in a kangaroo court or not.

We supported Saddam publically while he murdered people. and now we turn him over to a 'drumhead' trial. Letting other people do things we can not does not absolve us of guilt. I guess we will never know now just how much we supported him...and what deals he had made with our leaders.

Does it matter?  The US also supported Iran - under the Shah - and armed Saddam when he fought against them when the Ayatollah took over.  The US also armed Bin Laden in Afghanistan, we also sent supplies to Stalin.  Politics make strange bedfellows.  Two people/nations/groups allied against a common enemy does not make them friends.

and the ONE thing I have learned from being online? Not everything the news tells us is true.

Agreed.  I still have my suspicions.  According to al-Jereeza was it?  The tape of the execution stopped right before he swung.  Then the tape shows a body in a bag that looks like Saddam.  Reports state that Saddam was very calm as he went to the platform.  If he knew he wasn't going to be executed, that would help explain his attitude.

Your first line was you support the death penalty. You didn't qualify it.

Oops, sorry about that, I was speaking in the context of my own nation.

[Wayne]

I am not in favor of the death penalty, so much so I have in my will that if I am murdered my killer is not to receive the death penalty.
...
killing them only satisfies a blood lust we need to evolve away from.

Wow - what a great step Truman. I agree - killing just leads to more anger and more killing.

[delalluvia]

Reverend Phelps believes that gays are psychotic...and deserve to die

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.

we were giving him money and hailing him as a friend even AFTER he did this...and now we are going to point in horror and say he deserves to die now? twenty years later? A little slow on the moral outrage aren't we?

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.

you are aware that we have executed innocent people? How many innocent people are acceptable to you?

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?

until we can make sure that rich white people are as likely to be executed as poor minorities and we can be SURE that we are not murdering innocent people I oppose the death penalty...that includes for people or groups I don't like

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.

[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.

[injest]

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

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? 

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.

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.

I have enjoyed debating with you...but that comment just goes too far for me.

Have a good day.

[Penthesilea]

Executing Saddam was wrong because death penalty is wrong. Simple as that.

Death penalty is cruel, against the human dignity and it violates human rights. It is revenge, not justice. It represents the archaic, old testament law of "An eye for an eye". But an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind (Ghandi).

We don't need to discuss whether Saddam was a mass murderer. He deserved to be imprisoned for the rest of his life.

[delalluvia]

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.

I guess this depends on your personal philosophy.  I think it does.  There is no black and white in this life, why should there be anywhere else?

As for honor...well, who says they're calling themselves honorable?  Don't call yourself that and that's that.   In regards to your:

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.

I submit in response that there was a time where we did things to simulate that we did things with honor.  You read a little bit more history and you find very few things done because it was the 'right' thing to do.

[delalluvia]

I have enjoyed debating with you...but that comment just goes too far for me.

Have a good day.

I'm sorry to hear that.  What did you get offended by?  To me, this was just staing facts.

EDITED TO ADD:  Oops, sorry, just saw the highlighted portion.

Sorry, but I'm a moral relativist.  Things are moral simply because we say they are, not because they are intrinsically.  Like it or not, what you got offended by already exists in real life.  There are countries like that.  [shrug]

[Kelda]

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.

Jess - I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Can you explain what you mean a bit further? 

Sadam had an appeal and it was not held. The Iraqi law WAS upheld in this instance - while some of us may not agree with it. While members of the defebce team were killed - so were there on the other side - and there was a TEAM in place to ensure that the trial was kept going.

And the gas chambers is exactly what Hitler did. And Sadam. Has anyone holding Sadam and his cohorts done this to the best of our knoweldge?

As I said before - we all have differing opinions in the subject - and there is no right or wrong answer against the death penalty.

That is what a good debate is about - its good we have the opportunity to do this. We wouldn't have in Sadam's Iraq.

[Wayne]

That is what a good debate is about - its good we have the opportunity to do this. We wouldn't have in Sadam's Iraq.

My understanding is that gay people won't have that opportunity under the new Shiite government in Iraq either. Under the Shiite government in Iran, they hang them (see the boys pictured above in Iran).

[Wayne]

The US stands proudly with with our colleagues Iran, China, and the Congo in the right of the state to execute teenagers.

Besides Iran, only China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan and the United States are known to have put juvenile offenders to death in the past five years.

The U.S. executed nine juvenile offenders during this period; the other countries are each known to have put one juvenile offender to death.

[delalluvia]

The US stands proudly with with our colleagues Iran, China, and the Congo in the right of the state to execute teenagers.

Besides Iran, only China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan and the United States are known to have put juvenile offenders to death in the past five years.

The U.S. executed nine juvenile offenders during this period; the other countries are each known to have put one juvenile offender to death.

I think I read something similiar when the US executed Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people including 19 children in a daycare.

[injest]

My understanding is that gay people won't have that opportunity under the new Shiite government in Iraq either. Under the Shiite government in Iran, they hang them (see the boys pictured above in Iran).

Wayne

It is fine that they hung those boys for being lovers...it was the majority opinion and their own country...they can kill whoever they choose. It was just and moral!!

What difference should it make to us? *SHRUG*

[injest]

Jess - I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Can you explain what you mean a bit further? 

Sadam had an appeal and it was not held. The Iraqi law WAS upheld in this instance - while some of us may not agree with it. While members of the defebce team were killed - so were there on the other side - and there was a TEAM in place to ensure that the trial was kept going.

And the gas chambers is exactly what Hitler did. And Sadam. Has anyone holding Sadam and his cohorts done this to the best of our knoweldge?

As I said before - we all have differing opinions in the subject - and there is no right or wrong answer against the death penalty.

That is what a good debate is about - its good we have the opportunity to do this. We wouldn't have in Sadam's Iraq.

I am getting at...they (Nuremburg) waited until there was stability and the war was OVER before they started summarily executing people. I just do not understand this rush to execution...except in the light that the US leaders wanted it to be fast..

and Saddam DID rush people thru trials and execute them in a big rush...it is considered to be one of his crimes

[delalluvia]

Wayne

It is fine that they hung those boys for having being lovers...it was the majority opinion and their own country...they can kill whoever they choose. It was just and moral!!

What difference should it make to us? *SHRUG*

What do you suggest we do?  Invade?

[delalluvia]

I am getting at...they (Nuremburg) waited until there was stability and the war was OVER before they started summarily executing people. I just do not understand this rush to execution...except in the light that the US leaders wanted it to be fast.

So are you saying the Iraqi people didn't want quick justice?

and Saddam DID rush people thru trials and execute them in a big rush...it is considered to be one of his crimes

Um, how many of those people he rushed through trial and execution were mass murderers and psychopaths?

Again, you're comparing Joe in the Street to Saddam.

[injest]

The US stands proudly with with our colleagues Iran, China, and the Congo in the right of the state to execute teenagers.

Besides Iran, only China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan and the United States are known to have put juvenile offenders to death in the past five years.

The U.S. executed nine juvenile offenders during this period; the other countries are each known to have put one juvenile offender to death.

well MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!!

[Lynne]

I think anytime some's death is put up in the media for examination, it is sickening thing. I am not in favor of the death penalty, so much so I have in my will that if I am murdered my killer is not to receive the death penalty. People like Sadam deserve to be locked away for the rest of their days, killing them only satisfies a blood lust we need to evolve away from.

Truman - what an excellent idea.  I will do the same at the first opportunity.  I told my mom after 9/11 that had I been in those towers, I wouldn't want my murder to be avenged, just justice.  It's a much better idea to have it in writing.

I don't consider myself particularly religious, but I do try to conduct myself with integrity.  Being human, I obviously fail sometimes, but that's what being human is all about.  Isn't it ironic that the 'eye for an eye' justice comes from the same holy book condemning homosexuality, endorsing the murder of the men of other tribes, appropriating their women and property, etc.?  That was 2000+ years ago so I have no clue how long this evolution process is going to take.  If you disregard all the crap, there's some good guidelines there like the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, and it seems straightforward to me.  'Thou shalt not kill.' isn't followed by a long list of exceptions, yanno?

Random fact about me - the day Timothy McVeigh was executed I ate mint chocolate chip ice cream (his last meal) and I haven't been able to touch it again since.

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

Amen.

[Kd5000]

I view it as somewhat of a hollow victory for the United States govt.  It's not like the Nuremberg Trials where the war is over and the execution of leading Nazis brings some sense of closure to the whole ordeal. 

The United States has now had 2,998 soldiers killed in Iraq with no let-up.   This is not the final chapter and I don't see a happy ending for Iraq.

I'm glad the man's life ended and he didn't escape into exile (Idi Amin) or die a natural death (Pinochet) and never face a tribunal in their country.

[Wayne]

What difference should it make to us? *SHRUG*

   Jess you such a relativist!   

[Kelda]

I am getting at...they (Nuremburg) waited until there was stability and the war was OVER before they started summarily executing people. I just do not understand this rush to execution...except in the light that the US leaders wanted it to be fast..

ok Jess - thanks for clearing that up - fair point. Not necesarilly my point of view under these circumstances but I see what you are getting at.

[Wayne]

'eye for an eye' justice

Yep - and even when Jesus quoted it from the old testament, he said it was wrong! Doesn't fit with an "inerrancy of the scriptures" model. (maybe a little off-topic?  sorry!     )

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
Matthew 5 38-39, 46

[Wayne]

I oppose capital punishment just because I don't like to think of one person killing another person in cold blood. Let's face it, that's what it is. And if society pays them to do it that makes it worse. We PAY somebody to kill somebody? Yuck!   

But that is mere emotion. I think there are plenty of logical reasons for opposing capital punishment too.

If a society practices capital punishment it allows the stakes to be set to high. People have different moral principles, but if you tell them they're going to be killed unless they say what you want to hear, it makes it more likely they will say what you want to hear. So you never have any reliable information.

Consider the case of the hanged Iranian teens. They were accused of rape. But what actually happened? There were witnesses who were other teenage Iranian boys. If those other boys contradicted the state, they would be subject to hanging too. There is no way to know what actually happened.

[delalluvia]

Yep - and even when Jesus quoted it from the old testament, he said it was wrong! Doesn't fit with an "inerrancy of the scriptures" model. (maybe a little off-topic?  sorry!     )

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
Matthew 5 38-39, 46

Yes, too bad few Christians ever followed these words.

Per the Christian story, Jesus was executed anyway.  His attitude and teachings changed nothing.  All it did was put a Christian veneer on the same people and instead of being open and honest about their warring actions, they turned to hypocrisy.

See Dubya "I'm a Christian but believe in starting wars for no reason" Bush for an example.

If no one wanted to exert their power over others, were enlightened, respected the rights of others, etc. then wars and executions would indeed be unnecessary to protect those who follow this idea. Unfortunately, the world has people who have absolutely no respect for others and think nothing of abusing or killing them. Self defense or defense of a society from these sorts is not unreasonable - indeed, not defending yourself and society from such people is what is unreasonable.

Someone posted earlier that killing was bad, period.

I believe in self-defense.  If you killed someone defending yourself or your family, is it still a bad thing for you to have done?  Should you have turned the other cheek and let your abusers do whatever they want?

[Wayne]

What do you suggest we do?  Invade?

We invaded Iraq for less!   

[delalluvia]

We invaded Iraq for less!   

 

OK, wdj, I just spat out my drink LMAO over this, hand me a napkin.

[injest]

Yes, too bad few Christians ever followed these words.

Per the Christian story, Jesus was executed anyway.  His attitude and teachings changed nothing.  All it did was put a Christian veneer on the same people and instead of being open and honest about their warring actions, they turned to hypocrisy.

See Dubya "I'm a Christian but believe in starting wars for no reason" Bush for an example.

If no one wanted to exert their power over others, were enlightened, respected the rights of others, etc. then wars and executions would indeed be unnecessary to protect those who follow this idea. Unfortunately, the world has people who have absolutely no respect for others and think nothing of abusing or killing them. Self defense or defense of a society from these sorts is not unreasonable - indeed, not defending yourself and society from such people is what is unreasonable.

Someone posted earlier that killing was bad, period.

I believe in self-defense.  If you killed someone defending yourself or your family, is it still a bad thing for you to have done?  Should you have turned the other cheek and let your abusers do whatever they want?

but the Republicans held the majority...that makes it the right decision!

unfortunately, the world has people that feel if something does not affect them directly then it is not a problem...

[Wayne]

OK, wdj, I just spat out my drink LMAO over this, hand me a napkin.

We are one, regardless!     

[Lynne]

I oppose capital punishment just because I don't like to think of one person killing another person in cold blood. Let's face it, that's what it is. And if society pays them to do it that makes it worse. We PAY somebody to kill somebody? Yuck!

Can you even imagine the emotional cost it must entail for those charged with carrying out the execution, the prison guards, doctor, etc?

Someone posted earlier that killing was bad, period.

I believe in self-defense.  If you killed someone defending yourself or your family, is it still a bad thing for you to have done?  Should you have turned the other cheek and let your abusers do whatever they want?

Not sure if it was me, del, but in my first post in this thread I said that self-defense is the only situation when taking another life is acceptable IMO.

[delalluvia]

but the Republicans held the majority...that makes it the right decision!

That's how our government is run.

unfortunately, the world has people that feel if something does not affect them directly then it is not a problem...

Of course.  That's how people get through their day.  How many people right now, in the US, are thinking about the plight of the Native Americans?

They were lied to, victimized, conquered, the US tried to exterminate some of them, rounded them up, sent them to reservations.

Is ANYone - besides them of course - thinking that in all fairness, to do the right and honorable thing, we should give them the land that we cheated them out of?

Doubtful.

Is anyone tempted to pack up and leave this country so that they can?

Doubtful.

However, there are some tribes right now, in litigation, trying to win back huge tracts of land where the city of Phoenix now stands.  If they won, they probably wouldn't evict everyone, though they had the right to.

Some things don't affect others.  That's why they don't think about them.  Perhaps they should. [shrug]

[injest]

the sky is blue

[Wayne]

That's how our government is run.

I think there's more to it than that though. We don't just do what the majority say. One of the responsibilities of government is to protect minorities against the majority.

[delalluvia]

Can you even imagine the emotional cost it must entail for those charged with carrying out the execution, the prison guards, doctor, etc?

I've read that it's pretty stressful and the prison system has problems finding people who will do it.

[snort]  Then you read interviews with the victims families who are present at the execution and invariably one or more will offer to do it themselves.

I read an interview with the actor Scott Glenn once.  He finished filming 'Silence of the Lambs' and he was asked how his FBI 'training' had gone, playing as he did, Jodie Foster's character's boss at the FBI.

He said as part of the training, he was allowed to listen to a tape of some guys while they tortured this girl to death.

Scott Glenn has daughters.

His reply was, "I was against the death penalty until I listened to that tape."

[Wayne]

the sky is blue

Is not!

[injest]

Is not!

 

[delalluvia]

I think there's more to it than that though. We don't just do what the majority say. One of the responsibilities of government is to protect minorities against the majority.

Don't know what to tell you.  It's legal, a legally voted in government.  I, too, howled when the Republicans were put back into power yet again last year.  But what could I do?  Dubya won by over a million votes.

Whose fault is it?  Those million voters.

I can't live in the US, vote in a legal and - from all signs - as fair as possible election, then when someone I don't like is voted in, decide I no longer want to follow the rules.  There are laws to protect the minorities, but as I pointed out to Jess earlier, to be exempt from following laws you don't like, legally you have to present a case to the state and prove that is it illegal or immoral.

Conscientious objection comes to mind.

[David]

Why wasn't his execution televised via Pay Per View?   Send the money raised to pay for the trial.

Why did they put a scarf around his neck to prevent rope burn?    That is so stupid.


Sorry folks, but if you are a mass murderer or confessed killer, then why should my taxes be used to keep you in jail for the rest of your comfortable life?    If you are not being rehabilitated then what is the point?    

No, I don't think we should have the death penalty for lesser crimes.    But for the inhumane?   Why keep them around in a warm bed with 3 square meals a day?

Want to really punish them?    Make them commute to work in rush hour traffic choking on smog, then work some horrible job for 8 hours at minimun wage then go home to a low rent apartment and stare at whats left of your paycheck after taxes are removed.

[Wayne]

Per the Christian story, Jesus was executed anyway.

Uck - yeah - AND Peter (crucified, which I long knew) AND Paul (beheaded, which I only recently found out about ...  ).  It does not pay to disagree with authority. At least in the short term, first 300 or 400 years.

[injest]

Don't know what to tell you.  It's legal, a legally voted in government.  I, too, howled when the Republicans were put back into power yet again last year.  But what could I do?  Dubya won by over a million votes.

Whose fault is it?  Those million voters.

I can't live in the US, vote in a legal and - from all signs - as fair as possible election, then when someone I don't like is voted in, decide I no longer want to follow the rules.  There are laws to protect the minorities, but as I pointed out to Jess earlier, to be exempt from following laws you don't like, legally you have to present a case to the state and prove that is it illegal or immoral.

Conscientious objection comes to mind.

morality and legality are decided by the majority so that would be pointless

[delalluvia]

morality and legality are decided by the majority so that would be pointless

True, but there can be exceptions.  The Quakers, are one group, the Amish another.  Exceptions are made even in a country where the majority rules.

[delalluvia]

Why did they put a scarf around his neck to prevent rope burn?

Ah, I guess, for the same reason they apply alcohol to a criminal's arm before they put in a lethal injection.  Mustn't invite a nasty infection, eh?

Or after wrestling a perp to the ground, subduing him with Mace, tasers or clubs, the police put him in handcuffs, drag him to the car, then put a hand on top of his head to prevent a nasty bruise should the guy bump his head on the car door. 

[Wayne]

Why did they put a scarf around his neck to prevent rope burn?

It was actually a hood he was supposed to wear but he did not want to wear it.

I found the transaction mildly touching. Saddam says no, and the man who was supposed to put the hood on puts his hand on Saddam's chest and offers to put it around his neck instead. Saddam shrugs his shoulders, and the man proceeds.

[Wayne]

No, I don't think we should have the death penalty for lesser crimes.    But for the inhumane?   Why keep them around in a warm bed with 3 square meals a day?

We don't seem to mind doing that for Rumsfeld, who was there right through the atrocities that Saddam was hanged for. And everybody loves Reagan - we didn't get around to hanging him.



Maybe there's a different perspective from Rumsfeld, but I sure would like to hear it!  Reagan's not around to fill us in on his side of the story.

What I'm saying is, Saddam did what he did with the explicit support of the Reagan administration, whom the US populace subsequently re-elected in 1984 with full knowledge of what he had done. (I voted against him with fervor, but others prevailed.) So where does the guilt end? How many more should be hanged?

I say none, because I oppose capital punishment for all cases and in all circumstances. But for those who believe that those responsible for the killing at Dujail should be hanged, there are many more involved.

I think our culture has made Saddam a scapegoat (read the Wikipedia article for details). We have attributed to him the evils that we committed and have killed him to atone for our sins. I think it is wrong to do this, because it lets us think of ourselves as righteous when we are not. I think it makes the United States more likely to treat other countries badly in the future the same way we are treating Iraq badly now. It is our fault that they have been without water and electricity for four years.

We gave him money in 1982 to do what he did in 1982. In 1983 we said we were happy with what he was doing. Twenty years later under the direction of the same people (Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc) we invaded Iraq to capture him and turn him over to be executed for doing what we gave him money for in 1982. Just seems weird!     

[injest]

Wag the Dog....we are talking and looking at Saddam...and not Bush.

Karl Rove studied Nazi techniques..and uses them very well

[delalluvia]

Wag the Dog....we are talking and looking at Saddam...and not Bush.

Karl Rove studied Nazi techniques..and uses them very well

Agree, but in this case at least 40% of the population knows it.  The administration's not pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.  There are many many many people who never fell for this even from the first and haven't been shy about vocalizing it.