POLITICS: Saddam: To hang or not to hang?

A large sector of the new Iraqi parliament is demanding the execution of possible war criminal Saddam Hussein. However the execution of the former Iraqi leader is against the personal beliefs of Iraqi president Jalal Talabani. The Shi'ite United Iraqi Alliance insist that if president Talbani is not prepared to warrant an execution for Saddam Hussein, then he should resign.



It's kind of ironic that the newly established Iraqi government is already fighting over the punishment of Saddam Hussein when the trial hasn't even started. Regardless of the matter we all know the outcome of the trial, but the question is what do we do with the former dictator? An execution would be too simple and believe it or not, honorable. I would like to see him do community service for the rest of his meaningless life.

On one hand, if Jalal Talabani given in to these request of one division of his parliament then he will be perceived as not really a leader, but someone who takes orders or is easily influenced by members of his parliament. However, if he does not give in to their request, then I can see this causing political strife in the newly formed government. It's best to just let him do community service. Honestly.

Just imagine the former dictator knee deep in mud helping the Tsunami relief efforts. It would be humbling to say the least.

Well, there's a definite dilemma here. On one hand, if we executed him, he'd become a martyr to those that still support him (and I'm certain there are many who do), and possibly strengthening resistance in his name. On the other hand, if we allow him to live out his mortal years in a prison, he'll now be a major target for assassins and would-be rescuers alike, which would neccessitate a very strong security system (likely including troops) to both protect his life, and keep him in prison.

Both have outcomes with a potentially very high cost, be it through security or military. Both have positive and negative points.

I think what it should really boil down to is a vote by Iraqis as to his fate. After all, the Iraqis are the ones he was truly a threat to. If they view him as a criminal (which I believe a majority of them do), he should be subject to Iraqi sentencing with Iraqi penalties.

Also, keep in mind, in this second Gulf War, he was more of a victim than an aggressor. As yet, the US has not been able to justify the legality of the war besides the notion of spreading Democracy and allegations of posessing WMDs (which the US has come to realize he never actually had). In this second Gulf War, the US attacked Iraq, much like a bully in a schoolyard would attack another student.

Thing is, we don't get to choose what happens to him. He's never commited any crimes against us and he's not being tried by us. The Iraqi's will have to figure out what he's guilty of and what to do with him.

Exactly. We arent placing Saddam on trial. The Iraqi Tribunal is. The decision is totally up to his formal country which, in my eyes, is the ultimate sense of justice. Still think we should give him community service.

My idea was a sword fight between Bush and Saddam. If Saddam wins, we shoot him.

If the Iraqi government hangs Saddam then so should also hang Bush and Blair, it's not like he hasn't done anything they haven't.

They could do all three at the same time.

Originally posted by invader_chris
My idea was a sword fight between Bush and Saddam. If Saddam wins, we shoot him.

yea, that way, bush would be dead and saddam too
and everybody would be happy


I said let the Iraqi PEOPLE decide on what to do with saddam than the Iraqi parliament and president.


[edit on 23-4-2005 by ulshadow]

Originally posted by legion
If the Iraqi government hangs Saddam then so should also hang Bush and Blair, it's not like he hasn't done anything they haven't.

They could do all three at the same time.

I'm sorry but no matter how much disdain you have for both Bush and Blair, ethically they are nowhere ear the ruthlessness of Saddam Hussein

Originally posted by Simulacra
I'm sorry but no matter how much disdain you have for both Bush and Blair, ethically they are nowhere ear the ruthlessness of Saddam Hussein

So if you kill and torture over 100,000 people in an ethical way it’s all right is it?

What exactly is an ethical way to kill or torture someone anyway?

[edit on 23-4-2005 by legion]

Hanging is too good for this murdering swine.
Take a look at what he sanctioned during his time as ruler of Iraq.

I cant think of any thing that would come near to what he deserves after what he did.

Yes, he deserves to die, and rightly so, but how this will happen ,i haven't a clue.

1. beheading is out of the question it is too fast.

2. Hanging is also fast.

3. firing squard same effect too fast.

4. Now I like this one because it would be slooooooow and very paiiiiiinfull Stone him to death.

Originally posted by legion
So if you kill and torture over 100,000 people in an ethical way it’s all right is it?

What exactly is an ethical way to kill or torture someone anyway?

Show me evidence in which Bush is more atrocious than Saddam. If you dislike Bush then that's fine. But you are going to have to show me exactly way you dislike him and examples. Don't jump on the trendy 'Anti-Bush' bandwagon if it's not authentic.

The trial will be a show trial. The evidence will be presented, witnesses will be called but in the end the verdict will be guilty. Nobody can seriously believe anything different.

The education is in in the means, not the end. They will be able to see this former "god like" figure in a cage and they will have it burnt into their psyches that no man can escape the law.

His punishment will be a lifetime of incarceration or death.

Originally posted by Simulacra

Originally posted by legion
So if you kill and torture over 100,000 people in an ethical way it’s all right is it?

What exactly is an ethical way to kill or torture someone anyway?

Show me evidence in which Bush is more atrocious than Saddam. If you dislike Bush then that's fine. But you are going to have to show me exactly way you dislike him and examples. Don't jump on the trendy 'Anti-Bush' bandwagon if it's not authentic.

Bush has WMD's.
Bush could deploy them in 45 minutes.

Should we go invade him?

Originally posted by phixion

Originally posted by Simulacra

Originally posted by legion
So if you kill and torture over 100,000 people in an ethical way it’s all right is it?

What exactly is an ethical way to kill or torture someone anyway?

Show me evidence in which Bush is more atrocious than Saddam. If you dislike Bush then that's fine. But you are going to have to show me exactly way you dislike him and examples. Don't jump on the trendy 'Anti-Bush' bandwagon if it's not authentic.

Bush has WMD's.
Bush could deploy them in 45 minutes.

Should we go invade him?

yea, lets go invade him, but too bad you got nothing to invade him with lol

I hope the trial has some semblance of legitimacy, and they sentence him to 1 life sentence for every death he is held accountable for.

I suspect he will die of an infection or heart attack before the trial, if he testifies at the trial, he will certainly try to embarass bush and cheney......

Hussein absolutely deserves the right to defend himself against accusations, as does every man on this planet. Who knows what secrets Saddam holds, eh?

I respect the president's decision here. How can he condemn some executions and condone others? Those calling for his resignation are ignoring some very principle foundations of democracy. He was elected with a package of ideologies, and if one or two of them don't meet the expectations of his peers or constituents, then that's too bad. They should have figured out his stance on executions before voting him in.

Zip

Originally posted by ulshadow

Originally posted by phixion

Originally posted by Simulacra

Originally posted by legion
So if you kill and torture over 100,000 people in an ethical way it’s all right is it?

What exactly is an ethical way to kill or torture someone anyway?

Show me evidence in which Bush is more atrocious than Saddam. If you dislike Bush then that's fine. But you are going to have to show me exactly way you dislike him and examples. Don't jump on the trendy 'Anti-Bush' bandwagon if it's not authentic.

Bush has WMD's.
Bush could deploy them in 45 minutes.

Should we go invade him?

yea, lets go invade him, but too bad you got nothing to invade him with lol

'You' being?

Originally posted by Simulacra

Originally posted by legion
So if you kill and torture over 100,000 people in an ethical way it’s all right is it?

What exactly is an ethical way to kill or torture someone anyway?

Show me evidence in which Bush is more atrocious than Saddam. If you dislike Bush then that's fine. But you are going to have to show me exactly way you dislike him and examples. Don't jump on the trendy 'Anti-Bush' bandwagon if it's not authentic.

I'm not jumping on any bandwagon and I don't follow trends, I'm not a sheep.

And if you read my post properly you would have understood that I actually said they were just as bad as Saddam and not "more atrocious".











You need to face the simple facts that everything Saddam has been accused of doing your government, and mine, are doing as well.

I repeat the question I asked earlier what is ethical about murder and torture?

[edit on 27-4-2005 by legion]