Death sentance by hanging. Hows this make people feel ? I personaly have discomfort with state murder for common criminality but for this case feel it is justified.
Yeah, I'd rather he sit and rot in jail for the rest of his sorry life. Either way, I'm glad he was caught and will get what he deserves.
I have a problem with murder, be it committed in the name of a "state" or not - there's no difference. I was shocked and appalled at the barbarism of this sentence. Who is accountable for the hundreds of thousands of murders committed by all sides in Iraq in the name of "saving" that country from Saddam? Saddam actually caused fewer deaths than the policies of Britain and the USA towards Iraq have over the decades. I guess those deaths don't require us to hang someone by the neck for though. Shocking and sad.
Thing is, he has no pity, therefore he will not suffer in jail. Plus, even in jail he poses a security risk, with supporters still around. There is no easy anwser.
I think the policies of the west should have no bearing on the right or wrongs of his sentencing. We have all observed barbaric dictators in many countries now, what should be their punishment, and be aware it is from his own countrymen. Is it rational for them to leave these people alive ?
I know it has no bearing on the sentence, but it's something to think about - we condemn Saddam for killing hundreds of thousands but the West has caused more suffering than he did in Iraq. Not really; the terms of reference for the trial were set up before Iraq even had its constitution. Questions about the influence upon Iraq's new constitution of the United States don't even come into it: the trial and its sentence were entirely an American affair. What does that mean? Is it rational to refrain from killing someone? Do you need an answer?
It's a barbaric sentance for a barbaric man. After the whole 'change' of Iraq, they still resort to this kind of execution.
I remember how I felt about him and his ilk before we went to war and the actions of our governments does not change the reality of his actions. Sorry don't understand, are you saying he shouldn't of been put him on trial then? Is it rational for the Iraq state to keep him alive, when they have tens of thousands of relatives alive who observed him killing their kin?
If I were to be supportive of the death penalty, I could probably think of few people more deserving of it. However, I am universally opposed to state sanctioned murder, be they collective punishments through biological warfare against a minority group accused of an assassination attempt, or the execution of a single criminal. And being universally opposed to the death penalty, a punishment that is barbaric and should have no place in the modern world, I will not pick and choose cases. I am opposed to the execution of Saddam. Moreover, his trial was a farce, and the verdict comes very well timed to fit with the American elections. Human Rights bodies have already noted a high level of American interference with the trial from the beginning. Of course Saddam is guilty of crimes against humanity, and of course his punishment should reflect that. But that should not include execution....
Of course it doesn't. That's not the point I'm making at all. No, not at all. You suggested that this trial somehow represents justice "from his own countrymen" - it doesn't, it's American justice. What does this mean? Why does not killing someone need to be rationally justified? Not killing people is surely the behaviour we should try to uphold at all times. There are hundreds of thousands of relatives alive who observed their kin being killed by American bombs or by foreign jihadis or by fellow Iraqis - rather more of them than whose relatives were killed by Saddam. But what has their existence got to do with it?
he gets the right to appeal in a time period of twelve months "is that correct ? .if it is twelve months "aye wonder how unstable the world will be by then unless bush is brought to justice an all " also will he recieve his sentence after his appeal? . the new world order coming to a town near you ...............scarey thought .
Respect your view apart from this bit, I mean do you think him possibly innocent of the charges against him? I know there were difficulties with the proceedings, the occaisional person killed by his supporters probably did make things a bit tricky. Human rights bodies are all well and good but surely there is some better work for them to be doing than trying to look after murderous fascist dictators.
It would be a stretch to say that any Human Rights body is "looking after" Saddam Hussein. But a life is a life; all criminals deserve a fair trial and nobody deserves the death penalty - it's barbaric and outdated. What will it solve?
No, of course I don't think he's innocent. But the principle of human rights should be applied universally, or else we begin to identify people who are sub-human, and then where do we draw the line? I'm not saying he should be found innocent. The guilty verdict was likely the correct one. But that's not to say the trial itself wasn't a farce and well orchestrated to coincide with American timetables....
Fair and honest gentlemen "No taking of life is justified". I seem to justify in some extreme circumstances.
I do not believe that any human has the right to take another human's life except maybe in extreme cases of self defense. I certainly do not believe the death penalty is ever the right penalty. Saddam may very well be (and I personally believe he is) guilty. Yes he did some atrocious things and killed a lot of people, but that still does not mean it is right for him to be executed. Also, I believe he should be retrialed. Not because I believe that the verdict was wrong, but because I believe everyone has the right to a fair trial, and his certainly was not. I would expect another trial (International court or otherwise) to find him guilty also, and possibly even repeat the death sentence. If he is to be hung, I would rather it be at the end of a fair trial than this excuse for American puppetry.
In one sense, keeping saddam hussein alive would be safer. locking him up forever but if they were to break his neck like a chicken, it would officially close a chapter of history. However I doubt that Iraq will ever become stable again. it is a country gone beyond help. I feel that maybe the only way we can end the maddness is by destroying it in 100% totality.
I oppose capital punishment, but only on the grounds that it inevitably leads to wrongful executions, so I won't be losing sleep over Saddam's fate. It annoys me when people toss "Human rights" into the argument, as if there is a universal consensus on how they apply to the death penalty. I think most would agree we start off with a right not to be deliberately killed, but that doesn't mean it can't be forfeited by our behavior. Lithium, the way you are morally equivocating things is absurd. Nevermind your extremely dubious assertion that coalition actions have resulted in more deaths than Saddam's, even if that were true, numerical comparisons don't define the moral/criminal character of an action. British actions undoubtably killed hundreds of thousands of people in WWII, including many innocent civilians. It's concievable that to win the war it might have been necessary for more to die at the hands of the Allies than the Axis. Would that have made Churchill worse than Hitler?
As you might have discovered if you read my posts I was quite clearly not suggesting that numerical comparisons define the moral character of an action. Your misunderstanding of my points aside, the comparison with allied actions in WWII and the deliberate targeting of civilians in that war is a good one. We tend to think of the Nazis as wholly bad and the allies as wholly good, when quite clearly the allies perpetrated war crimes and Bomber Command in particular committed actions quite brutal and barbaric not to mention unnecessary in winning the war - such as firebombing German cities and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians at a point when axis forces were already losing the war. Was it likely that Bomber Harris would be tried for his actions which deliberately caused vast amounts of innocent deaths? No, because we apply notions of justice in an uneven and prejudiced way. This is also my point about Saddam: are the United States likely to be held accountable for the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed as a direct result of their actions, through criminal negligence, disregard for the Geneva Conventions, and deliberate actions like sanctions, the use of DU, the use of cluster munitions? Also no. Godwin's law again! What is it about conservatives and Hitler?
Descriminate mass murder of ones own people is what defines Hussain and his ilk. The USA or UK have not done so, they are at war with another nation which was ratified by there own governments, justifiable or not depends on a viewpoint, but the cases are disimilar.
