A good example of the confusion of vengeance with justice. I don't for a moment think Saddam was innocent or was anything other than a brutal murderous dictator. That a fair trial and humane treatment should be extended even to those who have committed the most heinous crimes is what should make "us" better than him.
well said - the upper hand is always gained when people act civilised. Unfortunately the very people that executed saddam Hussein are those who put him in power which makes them no different from Saddam Hussein who executed 800 of his own party members All the west did was topple one dictator so they can emplace another - this fraudulent attempt at installing a democracy will fail - The USA has NEVER put a democracy in place in a country it invades - they prefer working with dictators - its more predictable that way - The USA government and the british are nothing but hypocritical scum
IF justice had been served he would of been torn slowly, limb from limb. Methods of torture should definitely of been induced. He deserved to die slowly and painfully. He got away far too easy and FUCK YOU to those who think any different.
If a quick neck snap served as justive for the amount of HIS OWN PEOPLE besides others which he killed, I think you need to redefine the word justice.
You can define the word justice in a few possible ways, but I think what you are talking about is closer to vengeance and retribution. A fine distinction but an important one. Justice, with its connotations of fairness and accordance with principles and standards of law and equity, is a qualitatively different concept. Thankfully we in the civilised democracies have left behind the backwards retributive model of justice for which you yearn; it's just a shame that 1) Many people in our own society clearly don't understand what's wrong with it or even have a firm grasp of the distinction and 2) Iraq's legal system has been inaugurated with much the same notion of justice that Saddam himself employed. Political show trials and summary executions? Great leap forward that is...
Not wishing to appear on your case young man, but why cannot justice also allow for vengeance. Someone murders a member of ones family, surely revenge is a perfectly normal emotional response, limits of course are required to be set, but dismissal of revenge as dishonourable is a bit harsh really. C'mon dude, they show the trial in public its "A Show Trial", if it was held in private then what, "A Secret Coverup", I understand your political view that war should not of commenced in the first place, but that does not predispose every event thenceforce to be lies and mis-information.
Of course it's an entirely expected human response. That's why the principles of a just and dispassionate legal system are designed to remove these emotional biases from the equation. Without their removal you cannot have justice - which means equitable and dispassionate treatment for all. Clearly the fact that the trial was held "in public" does not make it a "show trial". This article might be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trial My view on the war is irrelevant to my view on the trial of Saddam Hussein. I think I deserve a little more credit than that
Man, please. Of course this is a hipforum but you cannot argue with individuals' views on a criminal that's done what he's done. Now, we are going to have to agree to disagree but I seriously have no moral respect, no sympathy, no care for that man. The fact is, he did get off lightly and I fail to see how you can't see this. It seems to me (I could be and probably am wrong) that you see this as an ideal World where peace is not uncommon. The fact is, we are killing each other as time goes on and initially wiping ourselves out. Human poison like Saddam Hussain contribute to this. By killing ONE man for the murders he committed does this make us no better than him??? Maybe not but there is one major difference which seems to of been left out. Saddam killed thousands of innocent people; 'We' kill one man who is guilty as Sin. If you can understand my point, even if just for one second, then you'll see why I don't agree with a hanging as justice.
*Fucking Christ, why can't you delete your posts when it goes ahead and submits 2 or 3, therefore causing spammage?*
It's not about sympathy or care. He "got off lightly" because we didn't inflict torture on him? Arguing that deliberately inflicting pain on someone is a jolly good idea indicates a distinct lack of enlightenment. I'm just remarking how depressing it is to find people with such backwards views here, though sadly not uncommon.
No it is not irrelevant. It is their right to think what they wish. Just like you. You know many people will percieve it how i do. I just say some will have a right to believe it is justice, end of story. How you wish to percieve and how others wil, is a entirely different story. I'm saying some will some will not. Clearly ?. Clearly we could be here all year debating it. Clearly i do not think we will agree. I can appreciate that the British goverment do not accept capital punishment as 'justice for crimes against humanity'. We have to accept the Iraqi goverments decision, and the fact their judgement has not been impeached by 'international standards and precedents'. I can appreciate that, there is also some people who wish to percieve this, differently than me. Why my 'ho hum' a few times. Depending on prejudice. It can been seen as 'justice' 'legitimate' , or not. Any manner of othe things. It depends on how you wish to see it. Do you see yourself as impartial ? , i do not. I do not see myself as impartial. It was almost a formality, the way it has been reported, and how the thousands on the streets celebrating have been ignored. Instead a 'pay back' mentality has been reported intstead of the bigger picture. I guess that makes a better story.
You continue to miss the point. People are free to be of the opinion that justice was served and to define justice in whichever way they choose, though if their definitions do not adhere to commonly accepted ones, then their opinions are mistaken. Clearly this trial and its sentence were not in accordance with international standards and precedents for a trial for crimes against humanity, and the belief that this was a just trial is wrong. It "can be seen as justice" if your understanding of the concept is limited and flawed. Fairly obviously I do not seek to stop people from holding opinions, however it is worthwhile making the point that those opinions are probably wrong.
If Saddam Hussain was single handedly responsible for the death of your entire family, friends and all connections which you have, would you be happy with a hanging for justice? I'm sure there are many many people in the World who this HAS happened to. I'm sure Saddam has made people not only suffer, but alone as well. He has traumtised lives and he got away with it for far too long, giving him ample time to destroy more. If you find peoples' 'backwards' views depressing, just imagine how you'd feel if any of Saddam's attacks had affected the lives of those you love. Maybe the realism of what he did would hit home and vengeance would be appreciated.
I've tried not too [miss your point] maybe i have !.. Judging by what you have said, i think i can understand you better now. I just think people can think and percieve what they like. Having 'payback' for the 'injustice' of the trial and his hanging imho is WRONG. That will not stop people from blowing some poor bastard/s up though. I think i'm judging this by the the notions on the 'street' . rather than thinking all 'high and mighty'. I think to a degree people can have their own logic on 'justice'. If it helps them sleep at night. I do appreciate where you are comeing from though. I think we may have to agree to disagree. A tad arrogant of you, me thinks. A tad arrogant of you, me thinks.
I am human, and it is natural to have these kinds of feelings. However, I am glad that we have a justice system designed to take these emotional biases out of the equation. No matter what my personal feelings on the matter, I am aware that my own prejudice and bias should play no part in the treatment of offenders. I like to think I am above the base desire for retribution, but knowing that as individuals we are flawed and partial, it is wise to leave these decisions to dispassionate and unbiased objective systems of law and justice and away from the kind of emotional prejudice of which you speak. I would like to think I will always find the concept of vengeance somewhat sickening, knowing that it achieves nothing other than the most base desire to revel in the suffering of others. Ask yourself what you think torturing someone like Saddam would achieve. Would you do it with sadness as some kind of necessary universal retributive justice (to what end?) or would you enjoy seeing him suffer? What does your answer say about you?
Respect and pride for all the lives he brutally took away. I guess when all said and done, I too am human.. and it seems only natural to have these feelings.
You think torturing a human being achieves respect and pride? No. It undermines your dignity. It makes you a torturer. Inflicting as much pain as you can in the name of abstract principles and past wrongs? This is ignorant and backwards reasoning. Did you never learn that two wrongs don't make a right? Again - would you do it with sadness or would you enjoy it? Yes, "an eye for an eye" seems to be part of our basic animal instinct. I would suggest it is a sign of enlightenment and of engaging with your capacity for higher thought if you attempt to see beyond the base instinct for violence. If you desire nothing more than to act according to the instinct which tells you that deliberately causing pain and suffering to a living creature is a good idea, then I feel sorry for you.
