SADAAM HUSSEIN SENTENCED TO DEATH

No one has the right to take away a life.


I hope he escapes with a freestyle move.

It was his own people's decision based on the fact that he killed may of his own people in his coutry. It was justified and I can't complain. At least he is being killed for the right reason as opposed to some people who make an ill-advised reason to do something...

I hope he escapes with a freestyle move.

Press B! B button!

What's the odds this won't happen for quite some time. I'm pretty certain that a retrial will occur on some grounds, delaying proceedings for quite some time. If I had a hundred dollars I would put $50 on him killing himself (like a lot of nazi's at the Nuremburg trials) and $50 on a retrial delaying his death 2+ years.

In my opinion I don't think he deserves to be hung. He needs to be trapped in a prison for the rest of his life while he watches his country gradually transform from his dictatoriship to some-kind of quasi democracy.

There's a clear distinction between torture and capital punishment as well in my view. Torture is worong on moral grounds and legally according to the UN accords. Armed forces should not be allowed to torture individuals for information as it is against individual human rights and it lowers the standards of warfare to similar levels the terrorists have been attempting to using suicide bombers etc. Hanging on the other hand is a very weak punishment. What do you think Saddaam fears more: death or prison where other prisoners can remind him how much damge he has done? I would think it to be the latter.

Was this a fair trial? Would any trial of such a dictator be fair with people eager to extract revenge, and in a nation that is occupied by other armies wishing to discover some positive news. This isn't an attempt to say Hussien was innocent of any crimes, just a crticism of the belief that this trial was or could be trully fair. There would have to be some bias and some agenda that lingered into the court room and into the judges minds.

Does anyone know if his trial actually got him to say anything serious at all? Last I heard he was blabbling random shit from his Koran (it's koran right?)

I do not understand any of you. Aren't you guys the same people who say it is bad for America to torture suspected (and in some cases proven) terrorists in anyway? That we should be moral? And now you guys want to stuff Saddam in a box with very little nutrients and sunlight for life? You guys are complaining that he won't suffer as much as he should because he will only "suffer for about an hour". In words of Tool, "fuckin' hypocrite!"

With that said...he deserves to die and it is great that the Iraqi's will finally get their revenge on him. It is important to note that this was a fair trial and it was run by the Iraqi's. This shouldn't cause any more anti-American rallies or hatred across the world because of the sentence, however I wouldn't put it past some people if they did.

It's about damn time he gets off the face of this planet. One down...

You wouldn't know sarcasm if it ran up and hit you right upside the head, would you? Look at the posts before mine, it's fucking scary how quickly people turn into borderline-Hitler.

I'm against the death penalty, in any shape way or form. Any nation with the slightest claim to democracy can never kill members of said state. So I'm against it from a principle standpoint. And from the moral standpoint - I just don't like the whole idea of a tooth for a tooth.

I seen a quick clip on the news of Hussein shouting something about Irag. Anyone care to back me up?

I do not understand any of you. Aren't you guys the same people who say it is bad for America to torture suspected (and in some cases proven) terrorists in anyway? That we should be moral? And now you guys want to stuff Saddam in a box with very little nutrients and sunlight for life? You guys are complaining that he won't suffer as much as he should because he will only "suffer for about an hour". In words of Tool, "fuckin' hypocrite!"

With that said...he deserves to die and it is great that the Iraqi's will finally get their revenge on him. It is important to note that this was a fair trial and it was run by the Iraqi's. This shouldn't cause any more anti-American rallies or hatred across the world because of the sentence, however I wouldn't put it past some people if they did.

It's about damn time he gets off the face of this planet. One down...

You wouldn't know sarcasm if it ran up and hit you right upside the head, would you? Look at the posts before mine, it's fucking scary how quickly people turn into borderline-Hitler.

I'm against the death penalty, in any shape way or form. Any nation with the slightest claim to democracy can never kill members of said state. So I'm against it from a principle standpoint. And from the moral standpoint - I just don't like the whole idea of a tooth for a tooth.

I wholeheartedly stand behind what you just said. Of all the politics I have studied, and all the knowledge I have earned from my education I cannot condone the death penalty on any grounds. I don't think it can be justified reasonably without undertones of revenge, hatred and power. Liberal democracies, which American is inteded tobe and Iraq is intended to be developed into, are developed on the premise of protecting the rights of the individual. If Saddam if hung then the whole system is undermined in order to achieve a small victory which is severely lacking of significance due to the fact he has been powerless and humiliated since he has been captured.

Thank God.

Saddam got the easy way out...what he needs is...

a dark jail cell with no windows just big enough that he can fit in...and letting him die a slow painful death eaten by leeches and ravenous rats feeding him just enough so he can live another day and continue to feel pain while each time a new fingernail grows..it gets yanked off by the jaw's of life. That would be a fitting end.

I have a good idea. "Saddam's daily routine" (if he can survive 1 day)

1. Gets covered in oil

2. Slides for approx 30 seconds down a large slide made like a cheese grater

3. At the bottom of the slide is a pool with with various citrus juices, which once he dives into, the bottom of the pool will burst open, and he will fall 5 meters...

4. ...Into a large mound of salt

5. Where he will immediately be whipped

6. He will then have a citrus juice shower

7. And be made to get dressed in the usual orange prison jumpsuit

8. Woken up at 5am for his next days torture

I don't think anyone is being sarcastic, Ty-land. These are the same people who say we should treat every human being with respect. These are the same people who say our troops are slaughtering and torturing suspected terrorists and that it is a violation. Yet...now they say hanging Saddam isn't good enough and he should practically be tortured for the rest of his life. This is hypocracy.

I am not saying I don't agree with you guys. Saddam deserves the most painful death we can give him. However, I just find it odd that you guys are so pro-life towards the enemy at one point but then so avengeful on another. It causes me to scratch my head a few times.

citrus and salt? how long until the "saddam hussein torture dish" starts appearing in retaurants?

Liberal democracies, which American is inteded tobe and Iraq is intended to be developed into, are developed on the premise of protecting the rights of the individual. If Saddam if hung then the whole system is undermined

Well, first a liberal government protects the freedoms of an individual...rights are things granted to you from someone, so they can't be protected. Freedoms, or "natural rights" (rights granted by god, or equivalent) are different from rights. If life is a freedom, then it cannot be taken away by the state, but if life is a right granted by the state or under the control of the state then it can be.

A democratic government can't be undermined by a hanging or the death penalty if the majority favors it as that is the basis of democracy.

The United States isn't a liberal democracy and was never intended to be a liberal democracy.

What's the odds this won't happen for quite some time. I'm pretty certain that a retrial will occur on some grounds, delaying proceedings for quite some time. If I had a hundred dollars I would put $50 on him killing himself (like a lot of nazi's at the Nuremburg trials) and $50 on a retrial delaying his death 2+ years.

It's still better than Milosevic's trial by a large margin. This was just one trial Saddam faces, for killing 150 people over an assassination attempt, he hasn't even been tried for the massacre of the Kurds yet. The hanging wouldn't occur until Spring even in the best scenario for those wanting to see Saddam killed.

Torture is worong on moral grounds and legally according to the UN accords. Armed forces should not be allowed to torture individuals for information as it is against individual human rights and it lowers the standards of warfare to similar levels the terrorists have been attempting to using suicide bombers et

Well, luckily the United States armed forces aren't torturing any signatories to the Third Geneva Convention

Was this a fair trial? Would any trial of such a dictator be fair with people eager to extract revenge, and in a nation that is occupied by other armies wishing to discover some positive news. This isn't an attempt to say Hussien was innocent of any crimes, just a crticism of the belief that this trial was or could be trully fair. There would have to be some bias and some agenda that lingered into the court room and into the judges minds.

How would you create a "fair" trial? Eliminate Iraqi jurisdiction and send him to The Hauge where he can wait in line after Milosevic's trial is done in a decade? How do you guarantee Saddam wouldn't be put before a judge who wants to protect him from the evil Americans?

If a "fair" trial would also find Saddam guilty (which it should, there's little evidence to the contrary) then does it really matter?

I don't support the war in Iraq because it has gone too far

You want the West to lose?

You want the West to lose?

I never said I wanted the West to lose. The point is: there shouldn't have been any war.
Though, when the war first started I thought that it would finish very soon so I thought it was okay to support it because "America was killing terrorists" but now everyone knows that the amount of soldiers and civilians deaths are 10, maybe 20 times higher than terrorists deaths, so I don't think there is any reason to support this war anymore. I just don't see the point to support a war that the more time passes, the more people die.

The point is: there shouldn't have been any war.

Right, there shouldn't have been a war, but Saddam invaded Kuwait, you go back in time and tell him not to.

Even so. You're saying Saddam Hussein should still be in power, almost four years closer to a nuclear weapon, with no sanctions left to keep him from acquiring further weapons and limit his terrorist activities?

Though, when the war first started I thought that it would finish very soon so I thought it was okay to support it because "America was killing terrorists" but now everyone knows that the amount of soldiers and civilians deaths are 10, maybe 20 times higher than terrorists deaths

What? Soldiers' deaths are hardly higher than Islamists deaths, estimates put the kill:death ratio for the US military at 90:1.

I don't think there is any reason to support this war anymore. I just don't see the point to support a war that the more time passes, the more people die.

Your logic means you would not have supported World War II from 1942 to 1945.

Supporting the war means you want to win it, abandoning the war (after only wanting it because it'd be "easy" which is disgusting of you) means you want to lose it.

You want to abandon it. So you want to lose it.

They should tie him down to stakes in the ground so he cant move at all. then make a medium sized cut on his chest and face and smear some blood over him and then release the vultures

The hanging sounds like the Iraqies are in the 1800's. Don't give this guy the honor of dieing. Make him suffer, longer.

Stretch his fingers and toes one by one. Then stretch his tongue, nose and ears. Then slowly have a needle stuck in his eye and push it in a tiny bit each day. Push sharp objects under his fingernails. Give him paper-thin cuts and poor alcohol on them. Pull his teeth out slowly, crushing them first and give him fillings without novocaine. Finally, give him a sex change and some breast implants. Penetrate him with a spiked bat. Twist it.

I do not understand any of you. Aren't you guys the same people who say it is bad for America to torture suspected (and in some cases proven) terrorists in anyway? That we should be moral? And now you guys want to stuff Saddam in a box with very little nutrients and sunlight for life? You guys are complaining that he won't suffer as much as he should because he will only "suffer for about an hour". In words of Tool, "fuckin' hypocrite!"

Not me. I've always been a strong supporter of the death penalty. I've grown more moderate over the past few years. I'm conservative on most non-bible related issues. The War in Iraq and gun control are probably my two biggest exceptions.

I don't think anyone is being sarcastic, Ty-land. These are the same people who say we should treat every human being with respect. These are the same people who say our troops are slaughtering and torturing suspected terrorists and that it is a violation. Yet...now they say hanging Saddam isn't good enough and he should practically be tortured for the rest of his life. This is hypocracy.

I don't know where this came from seeing I only discussed between the difference between the 2 but whatever. Nor was I implying any sarcasm, merely describing my views on the issue that had been raised earlier. But I think we are following the same argument here. I am as opposed to hanging Saddam as I am against torture, and I beleive you're saying that others are being hypocritical by opposing torture but supporting the hanging. Right?

Well, first a liberal government protects the freedoms of an individual...rights are things granted to you from someone, so they can't be protected. Freedoms, or "natural rights" (rights granted by god, or equivalent) are different from rights. If life is a freedom, then it cannot be taken away by the state, but if life is a right granted by the state or under the control of the state then it can be.

So shouldn't anewly formed democracy be promoting these set values in the first place? Wasn't one of the central critiques of Saddams regime the piss poor human rights record? Isn't hanging generally considered to be in opposition of basic human rights principals?

Basicly, if Saddam is hung then life will be considered a right granted by the State; in which they have control of. I don't think Rousseau would ever have thought the social contract he theorised would come to this. Regardless whether life is a 'natural right' or a right determined by the liberal institutions of the government, it would be a poor example of change in my view to hang a guilty man then rather make a constant example of him by having him gradually rot in a prison cell.

A democratic government can't be undermined by a hanging or the death penalty if the majority favors it as that is the basis of democracy.

And what is the majority view in Iraq? Furthermore the principles on which the government has been founded can be undermined even if a majority supports a certain action. One of those basic principles in the protection of rights and freedoms, which the structures of liberal society is designed to protect. This safeguard is present in all modern societies, and in my view it would be breaching the core humanist and liberal valuers to use capital punishment; especially in the early, fledgling stages of this countries transition to a new form of governance.

The United States isn't a liberal democracy and was never intended to be a liberal democracy.

My bad: a republic. I can see a tirade of differences between the two seeing both incorporate democratic functioning and liberal principles

How would you create a "fair" trial? Eliminate Iraqi jurisdiction and send him to The Hauge where he can wait in line after Milosevic's trial is done in a decade? How do you guarantee Saddam wouldn't be put before a judge who wants to protect him from the evil Americans?

If a "fair" trial would also find Saddam guilty (which it should, there's little evidence to the contrary) then does it really matter?

Like to contradict yourself often? First you mention the likelyhood of an ICC judge being protective of Saddam, then you argue that there's little evidence to the contrary suggesting his innocence. Hold the phone...

I would much rather a hearing at The Hague where there is a greater guarantee for impartiality. That would my first step towards a fair trial. I don't think anybody would be suggesting he's innocent on any grounds, but the difference of a fair trial would be the sentencing. If he's going to be guilty either way, then I would much rather see a court designed to handle cases in this jurisdiction (i.e. crimes against humanity) settle the issue. I'm certain that no matter where he is tried he will be found guilty, but he still deserves the basic right to a fair trial. The Hague option in my view provides this moreso than the current trial procedure.

EDITED: There's no problems or contradictions in any of the above that I said.

If Saddam is hung, that doesn't grant the state the power and authority to take away his freedom of life, it would be an violation of that by the state. If the Iraqi government permits the death penalty, it is not an absolute liberal state, but I don't believe it has ever attempted to be an absolute liberal state especially since it incorporates much of sharia law.

If a majority votes to do away with democracy, that is the only time a majority can eliminate and thus undermine democracy. You can have an authoritarian democracy where the people continue to vote away their rights. A democracy can still exist where there are no rights except the right to vote.

Mixing liberalism and democracy are two seperate things, one is a political philosophy the other is a form of government. One does not require the other. It is true that the best defense of liberalism is democracy as humans aren't usually in favor of voting away their own rights (but someone elses on the other hand...) and the best philosophy for a democracy is liberalism, but that does not predicate that a democratic state be liberal.

I don't know what a "tirade of differences" between a republic and democracy means so I cannot address that point.

Believing that a Hague judge may be protective of Saddam is irrelevent to whether the evidence presented makes a serious case. People are often want to hunt for what will reinforce their pre-determined views. Cases like the O. J. Simpson trial are clear where the evidence is overwhelming but irrational arguments carried the day. Considering the debacle that has been the Milosevic trial, I believe that any international court trial would have effectively exonerated Saddam and become a trial of the United States and the Iraq Invasion despite what the Chief Prosecutor said last February.

There's also the fact that Iraq did not sign the Rome Statute, it wasn't until mid-2005 that they were considering it, I am unaware if they did wind up signing it. In any regard, the Saddam trials started in 2004, and this particular one started in October 2005. There's also the question of whether or not Saddam even has an actual "right to a fair trial."

Of course, all the "fair trial" crap is just what those unhappy Saddam has been found guilty are using to attack the verdict while not showing overt support for Hussein.

The hanging sounds like the Iraqies are in the 1800's.

In Japan and two states in the United States, hanging is still a form of capital punishment. I think they just hung someone in Japan in the last few years, it's their preferred method of capital punishment.

The War in Iraq and gun control are probably my two biggest exceptions.

You'd contend you're liberal on these two positions probably, but you aren't.

I assume you're for gun control, which is the anti-thesis of liberal, it's authoritarian. Liberals wrote gun rights into the Constitution, authoritarians want to eliminate gun rights and/or "control" guns.

Being against ending the war in Iraq isn't really a "liberal" position. Liberals like Jefferson were greatly in favor of exporting liberalism and more democratic forms of government. What the Bush Administration has done in Iraq is traditionally liberal foreign policy. (Even when you use the perverse "liberalism" (really statism) of Wilson and FDR/Truman.) Conservatism and Populism tends to be more isolationist.

Look at Clinton, considered a liberal, had a "liberal foreign policy" right? He deployed the troops more times than any President in history. Think about the Balkin operations.

The "Liberal" and "Conservative" tags the media (and most people) uses are useless, most people are not either for freedom socially or economically, not both.

Here's an image to use:

On both of these the labels are screwed up because they used the "liberal" and "conservative" labels since that's what people know. Having "Left" and "Right" will work better.

So at the top, you have people for complete social liberty and complete economic liberty within the government, Liberals. ("Libertarians" here because of the "Liberal" misusage.) At the bottom, Authoritarians who want the state to control socially and economically. The "Left" which ignores social freedoms but controls all economics, and the "Right" which does the opposite. (Both of these states could not and have not existed for long...but that's another topic.)

The way the Democrat and Republican parties break down on average, eliminating the outliers like a Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) who's well into the blue. The Republicans are purple (so as to not break the red text and lines) and Democrats are that kinda blueish color. Despite their image, Democrats are for very few social freedoms (gay marriage...and um...well, they're against the death penalty...there's a possibility they'd be for drug legalization but they're straddling on the issue and actually are just in favor of not jailing people for it, but keeping it illegal...on arguably the biggest social freedoms issue in a long time, 96% of Democrats voted for McCain-Feingold, 78% of Republicans voted against it...most of the Republicans voting for it would be found in that blue area on the chart, remember those are just general party locations.) and are for barely any economic freedoms at all.

I didn't really mean to rant, but the labels are so non-descriptive and misleading, and teaching Political Science, it pisses me off. The great myth in this country is that the "liberals" or Democrats are for freedoms, but they're usually against freedoms in favor of greater state control. (Again, as a whole, there are obviously exceptions to the rule.)

It's like the myth that Republicans are party of the rich and Democrats party of the people. Maybe at one time, but now Republicans are the party of the upper to middle class, and the Democrats are the party of the super-rich. (Who was the richest candidate to ever run for President? John F. Kerry. What party ran the richest Presidental ticket in history and gets more big money from more big donors? Democrats.)

Sorry. It's gotta be the election getting to me...in a couple months when we finally know who's won, it'll all be over...just in time to start the 2008 Presidental Campaigns. Yippee!

Very well spoken my friend.

i think Jigsaw off Saw should get to do what he wants with Saddam. That would be worse than the death penalty

He's going to kill himself, rather then alowing his own people to hang him.

That's what I'm thinking too, this huge leader won't wanna die on other's hands... And hanging is a little too brutal? Ah well I don't know much, good luck Saddam.

this huge leader

He wasn't a leader. Period.