Saddam Execution

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonI'm conflicted. Not over Saddam's death, really. Such a man, who has taken so many lives, deserves a terrible fate. Were he not killing his own people, the word for his mass murdering would be "genocide." His Stalin-esque style of tyranny was twisted and sick.

At the same time, I can't bear to watch the news coverage. When I heard they had showed his death on national television I felt ill. Death is a frightening thing, to me. To exist one moment and the next be a lifeless doll truly scares me. I wonder if it's wrong to be so sickened by death, yet believe Saddam deserved the fate he met.

Am I being hypocritical, then? In that I wouldn't pull the hangman's switch, but I think he deserved death? I don't feel like I'm acting out of some bloodlust, nor do I think my presumption that man's justice should dictate life and death is somehow playing God. But at the same time, I couldn't do it myself. Perhaps it's hypocrisy; maybe it's just respect for death itself.

It's healthy to have a respect for death. Not so much to fear it. We spend our lives trying to avoid something that is, in the end, unavoidable. As far as taking a life, I agree. I wouldn't want to do it. I doubt I could pull the switch or flip the lever or push the plunger. I was raised, and I expect you were as well, to respect life. We, as Americans anyway, rarely talk about death when we are growing up. Even precocious children will get some mumbly excuse or half-hearted explanation when they question their folks about death. It's not until we come to know of our own mortality that we begin to THINK about our deaths.

Don't get me wrong, I don't look forward to death or treat it lightly. I don't. But on the other side, I am not going to limit myself, my thoughts or my actions because of an overly-sensitized fear of dying. Common sense and limits.

Maybe it's a religious thing. I am not afraid to die (not too crazy about the whole dying thing though) because of my belief system. Now does that mean that I would not be sweating bullets at the end? Of course not. I would be scared out of my mind. Who wouldn't be afraid? But the idea of being here today and not tomorrow...that's okay. And if I'm wrong? No harm, no foul.

Earthman, I had to laugh and agree with you about hurting animals as well. If I had to go out and catch my own food, I promise you that I would be eating a lot of dandelions and such. I LOVE a good steak but if I had to smack a cow in the head with a ball bat to get it, well, I think I would pass.

I don't really have deep political thoughts like most of you but if you ask me, Saddam was executed for executing others, does that make us any better?

He deserved to be in prison for the rest of his life behind bars, execution is the easy way out for him....

Originally Posted by: heknowsnothingI don't really have deep political thoughts like most of you but if you ask me, Saddam was executed for executing others, does that make us any better?

He deserved to be in prison for the rest of his life behind bars, execution is the easy way out for him....

I don't know - that sounds like a pretty solid thought to me. I agree with you to a point. The Iraqi's sentencing him to death and then carrying it out does not make them any better than Saddam theoretically. All murder is wrong. Passion killings, depraved indifference, negligent homicide, war, executions. It's all wrong. Agreed.

Sadly, the world we inhabit does not always operate on right and wrong. Justice is the ultimate gray area. What's justice to one is murder to another. What is genocide to one is ethnic cleansing to another. What is killing innocent animals to one is simply feeding ourselves to another.

In a perfect world, there would be no need for capital punishment. In a perfect world, the world does not spawn evil. It's an ugly, ugly thing sometimes. We little carbon based bi-peds do the best we can with what we've got.

Well yes, when you put it like that, I suppose everyone is going to see things diferently.

But even if it was justice, did it have to be so violent? Hanging is just so old and unfair. It makes me sick thinking about it, it is such a horrible way to die. He should have been given lethal injection or at least shot like he wanted.

Even after all the horrendous things he has done, I felt sorry for him dying like that. And many people will probably flame me for saying that, but it's my thoughts.

Originally Posted by: heknowsnothingWell yes, when you put it like that, I suppose everyone is going to see things diferently.

But even if it was justice, did it have to be so violent? Hanging is just so old and unfair. It makes me sick thinking about it, it is such a horrible way to die. He should have been given lethal injection or at least shot like he wanted.

Even after all the horrendous things he has done, I felt sorry for him dying like that. And many people will probably flame me for saying that, but it's my thoughts.

I wish I knew the answer to that. My theory is that it sates the bloodlust of the state/society. Plus, and I am going way out on a limb with this one, I don't know if you want a 'clean' execution. There has to be a horror around it. When it's too clean, it's too easy. If you take the horror out of it and it becomes too antiseptic, then society would be too willing to feel like their hands were clean in it.

Does that make any sense? I dunno. Sorry if that's just pointless pontificating.

Originally Posted by: heknowsnothing... But even if it was justice, did it have to be so violent? Hanging is just so old and unfair. It makes me sick thinking about it, it is such a horrible way to die. He should have been given lethal injection or at least shot like he wanted.

Even after all the horrendous things he has done, I felt sorry for him dying like that. And many people will probably flame me for saying that, but it's my thoughts.

"Shot like he wanted"? He should have been killed in a way that made him suffer like his victims. Being shot by Sadam meant having gasoline forced down your throat so that your body would explode and burn when the bullets hit.

I have no pity for that waste of skin. His death is the logical result of the sad realisation that some people are just made wrong, and the human race is better of without them. And maybe the grim determination to rid ourselves of such vermin is a necessary survival skill.

Like the willingness to kill an animal for food. No matter how many layers of civilization we use to insulate ourselves from certain unpleasant facts, your steak is still a slice of an animal that someone had to kill and cut up.

Lordathestrings said it. He should've been tortured, in all fairness. "Shot like he wanted?" Come now. What rights does that piece of garbage have? He commited genocide on his own people. He dumped them in mass graves. He has no rights. Hanging wasn't enough in my opinion. You reap what you sew my friends.

Originally Posted by: grizzlymintLordathestrings said it. He should've been tortured, in all fairness. "Shot like he wanted?" Come now. What rights does that piece of garbage have? He commited genocide on his own people. He dumped them in mass graves. He has no rights. Hanging wasn't enough in my opinion. You reap what you sew my friends.

He was found guilty of ordering the killing of 148 people in Dujail, not of genocide. He may have been the worst piece of scum the world has ever known, but because his execution was hurried we'll only be left with the assumption that all the whispers are true. Perhaps that's what he deserves...

So Saddam was evil and deserved torture? What if the people he tortured were evil and deserved it? Shaky ground....

yeah, you don't know saddams reasons for killing all of those people. In his mind, he must of had a reason, people just don't kill for no reason.

Also, lats, he may have been an evil killer, but like I originally said, does it make us an better for killing him? He could of been dealt with in other ways.

Originally Posted by: renHe was found guilty of ordering the killing of 148 people in Dujail, not of genocide. He may have been the worst piece of scum the world has ever known, but because his execution was hurried we'll only be left with the assumption that all the whispers are true. Perhaps that's what he deserves...

So Saddam was evil and deserved torture? What if the people he tortured were evil and deserved it? Shaky ground....

He gassed his own people and tossed them in mass graves. I don't care what the courts accused him of specifically.

Ok, so now we just went from "does it make us any better for killing Saddam because he killed" to "what if he had a reason for killing those people." Ha. Quit fighting for this piece of scum. He deserves none of your sympathy. Do a little research on what he actually did. I wrote a paper on it last year. Wish I still had it. He gassed thousands and thousands of his own people, Kurds.

http://www.contactomagazine.com/saddamtrialkurds.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Originally Posted by: grizzlymintHe gassed his own people and tossed them in mass graves. I don't care what the courts accused him of specifically.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because what you're accused of doesn't matter, it's whether people half way across the globe with a shaky grasp of the 'facts' think you're guilty or not. So you steal a loaf of bread, and I execute you for murder - is that OK? Is it 'justice'?

[QUOTE=grizzlymint]Ok, so now we just went from "does it make us any better for killing Saddam because he killed" to "what if he had a reason for killing those people." Ha. Quit fighting for this piece of scum. He deserves none of your sympathy. Do a little research on what he actually did.

I was trying to point out that the argument that it's OK to torture people if they 'deserve' it has an obvious flaw - I wasn't trying to say genocide is OK if the people deserve it... man ;) I'm not fighting for him. Like I've said if you read what I've posted, he may well have deserved to be executed, but I think he should have stood trial for all his crimes and been executed for genocide, as opposed to being executed for ordering the killing of 148 people, which is obviously a different scale of crime.

I am not sympathetic to him either... I simply think you should be held to account for your actions, not just charged with the easiest one to prove and executed. All they wanted to do was kill him, and that was seen as justice. I might even agree, I just think they should have tried to hit him with all of it first...

Ren, lets not exaggerate now. He was still accused of murdering 100 w/e amount of people. Stealing a loaf of bread is a wee bit different hoss.

So anyways. Its essentially well known that he commited genocide on his own people. Whether you delay his fate through proving that in the courts makes no difference at all. You can prove it while hes dead.

But its all good. He's dead now. Doesn't matter.

stop making a big deal that it was his own people. Does it matter who's people he killed? Are you saying it would make it alright if he killed Jews, or Americans?

Originally Posted by: ren
I simply think you should be held to account for your actions, not just charged with the easiest one to prove and executed.

So you think guys like Al Capone should have never been charged for tax evasion becuase it was the only thing that the government could PROVE that he did wrong...

Or are you saying that Sadaam shouldn't have been executed for ordering the murders of 148 (I'm sure he's ordered more)??

Despite all of our views on what real "justice" is... thousands upon thousands of criminals walk the streets every year because a prosecution lawyer could not come up with "sufficient" evidence to PROVE them guilty of the crimes they were charged with... Sadaam was a dictator in the very same light that Hitler was... No one cries for Hitler. Just because the crimes against humanity that Hitler committed were on a larger scale doesn't make the crimes that Sadaam comitted that much less grotesque...

He's dead... It doesn't really matter to me whether he's rotting in a jail cell or not but the one thing I'm sure we all can agree on is: He's dead...

Originally Posted by: heknowsnothingstop making a big deal that it was his own people. Does it matter who's people he killed? Are you saying it would make it alright if he killed Jews, or Americans?

No, it doesn't matter that it was his own people or others. But the fact that it was his own really adds to the grotesquery of the crime. It can't be confused with killings under that nifty little banner we know as war. It makes the evil even more heinous.

Originally Posted by: aschlemanSo you think guys like Al Capone should have never been charged for tax evasion becuase it was the only thing that the government could PROVE that he did wrong...

Or are you saying that Sadaam shouldn't have been executed for ordering the murders of 148 (I'm sure he's ordered more)??

Despite all of our views on what real "justice" is... thousands upon thousands of criminals walk the streets every year because a prosecution lawyer could not come up with "sufficient" evidence to PROVE them guilty of the crimes they were charged with... Sadaam was a dictator in the very same light that Hitler was... No one cries for Hitler. Just because the crimes against humanity that Hitler committed were on a larger scale doesn't make the crimes that Sadaam comitted that much less grotesque...

He's dead... It doesn't really matter to me whether he's rotting in a jail cell or not but the one thing I'm sure we all can agree on is: He's dead...

The fact that he was tried for a capital offense (several counts of it) and those were the ones they could prove. He was found guilty and executed. Even if they were only able to prove that he ordered the death of one person and murder was a capital offense, he would have been executed. He was executed for the crime(s) for which he was found guilty. Period.

The families of the the thousands of others who were murdered never had their voice heard in court, this is true. It's sad but if you wait to try someone for multiple felony counts until you can prove each and every one beyond the shadow a doubt, he'll die of old age in prison. Then who gets justice? He would have still been jailed for the crimes for which he was charged. Not the thousands of others. They still would not have had their day in court.

Although unfair in a biblical sense (eye for an eye) they need to take solace in the fact that he was served the ultimate justice and paid the final price. He paid for the crimes for which he was convicted and for those he was never charged with. It's both fair and unfair at the same time.

And yes, we can agree that he is dead. And whether it be now or 20 years from now after spending his days being beaten and abused...the point is, the man who thought he was a God, the man who orchestrated the deaths of thousands, is dead. There's no going back.

And yet despite the fact that his regime was toppled and they found him hiding, filthy, wild-eyed and unshaven, in a hole in the ground, he was tried, convicted and executed, the US and her allies are still embroiled in a war where three thousand American soldiers and Lord only knows how many allied soldiers have died. Iraqi civilians are dying daily in this war and it will continue until someone, somewhere, wakes up and sees what is happening there.

Yes, Saddam is dead. On that we can agree.

I think that pretty much sums it up there Hunter...now what do we talk about? :p

Originally Posted by: heknowsnothingstop making a big deal that it was his own people. Does it matter who's people he killed? Are you saying it would make it alright if he killed Jews, or Americans?

*chuckle*

Talk about making something out of nothing. I believe hunter summed that one up nicely.

Good friendly dispute though guys. Good job. :D

Justice... does eye for an eye does justice? Bible say so... and it also says you shall not kill... right?

A lot of people wanted Saddam dead, but let's face it... does it makes the situation better? I think not... does it makes the hatred felling grow?... yes I think it does at least on some segment of the muslim world.

World situation is very delicate, and the way to go should be chosen carefully.

He had a trial, he did some pretty radical stuff?... hell yes, I think it was used to set some kind of example, a poster boy to put it in some way, but I think that the way he was executed was pretty medieval, the whole issue was bout human rights (and belive me, I can get pretty upset and crazy when someone does harm to others with lots of advantage) but the chair or lethal inyection cuold kill him too.

The point of the brutality of hanging has been raised several times now, but I'd like to offer that death is often instantaneous by snapping the neck, which seemed to be the case for Saddam in fact. Take that as opposed to bleeding out from bullet wounds, or even probably the worst of all, the electric chair. There are numerous "horror" stories of that thing, that I won't go into detail about here.