NationStates Jolt Archive

Things could get worse in Iraq?

Court: Execute Saddam within 30 days (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_s_sentence)

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's highest appeals court on Tuesday upheld the death sentence for Saddam Hussein in his first trial and said it must be carried out within 30 days. The sentence "must be implemented within 30 days," chief judge Aref Shahin. "From tomorrow, any day could be the day of implementation."
My gut feelings tell me that this would not be a good time to execute Saddam. Actually, I don't think any time would be a good time to execute Saddam, but particularly not now.

Thoughts...comments?

Saddam wasn't the problem with Iraq. He kept order and kept the Iranians in check. I wish Saddam had never been removed from power.

Saddam wasn't the problem with Iraq. He kept order and kept the Iranians in check. I wish Saddam had never been removed from power.
I certainly was not for removing him from power in the manner in which it was accomplished. The results are sadly evident.

Saddam wasn't the problem with Iraq. He kept order and kept the Iranians in check. I wish Saddam had never been removed from power.

And he could have been bought. We spend almost $250,000,000 every day in Iraq (that's about $10,000,000 an hour, folks), we could have given Saddam some cash and presto! he'd have been our good buddy like he was back in the 1980's when Rummy made those trips to Baghdad for the photo-ops with him.

What the hell, hang him, who cares?

Under ordinary circumstances I would be all for it, but, damn, who needs another martyr in the Middle East.

Put him in solitary, with no media access, no access to anyone, and let him decline in deserved oblivion.

He knew the risks.

I'm not sure what effect this'll have on the Iraq situation. On the one hand, seeing the former dictator hang might calm the Sunni millitias; on the other, it might encourage the Shi'a and give the Sunnis a new matyr.

I guess all we can do is keep our fingers crossed.

Under ordinary circumstances I would be all for it, but, damn, who needs another martyr in the Middle East.

Put him in solitary, with no media access, no access to anyone, and let him decline in deserved oblivion.

I heard another idea...train him as a brickie...he can then help rebuild his country.

Executing him will do no good. If anything...it'll make things worse.

Still if he does get executed...I wonder what Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf will say.....!

As an aside to the discussion:

Since when. in a "democracy", does the court dictate to the State when a death penalty must be imposed? I smell a conspiracy here.

I can see a court making verdict and imposing a sentence and that is about it.

Things could get worse in Iraq?

Court: Execute Saddam within 30 days (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_s_sentence)


My gut feelings tell me that this would not be a good time to execute Saddam. Actually, I don't think any time would be a good time to execute Saddam, but particularly not now.

Thoughts...comments?

I'm thinking about ordering a pizza.


...

Oh, you mean about Saddam? Nope. None. I really don't care if he lives or dies. There are pros and cons to both. There are a surprising number of Iraqis who still have an irrational fear he might return to power that only his death will put an end to. Hell, I'm stunned at hearing that some iraqis won't even believe he's dead unless they see it televised. :eek:

On the other hand, I live in perpetual fear of seeing Saddam's face on a t-shirt like Che Guevarra. :p

I'm not sure what effect this'll have on the Iraq situation. On the one hand, seeing the former dictator hang might calm the Sunni millitias; on the other, it might encourage the Shi'a and give the Sunnis a new matyr.

I guess all we can do is keep our fingers crossed.Since Saddam Hussein had never been regarded a good Muslim, I don't think that either Sunnis or Shiites would mourn his death overmuch or see him as a martyr really.

As an aside to the discussion:

Since when. in a "democracy", does the court dictate to the State when a death penalty must be imposed? I smell a conspiracy here.

I can see a court making verdict and imposing a sentence and that is about it.

ZOMG, even Iraq has Activist Judges!

Who knows, maybe the Iraqi constitution allows their courts to tell the state what to do.

I'm thinking about ordering a pizza.


...

Oh, you mean about Saddam? Nope. None. I really don't care if he lives or dies. There are pros and cons to both. There are a surprising number of Iraqis who still have an irrational fear he might return to power that only his death will put an end to. Hell, I'm stunned at hearing that some iraqis won't even believe he's dead unless they see it televised. :eek:

On the other hand, I live in perpetual fear of seeing Saddam's face on a t-shirt like Che Guevarra. :p

I don't know if that fear really is irrational. If Saddam were left alive and the new government turned out worse then the old, Saddam could easily regain power.

I'm thinking about ordering a pizza.
Something about an execution makes you hungry?

Oh, you mean about Saddam? Nope. None. I really don't care if he lives or dies. There are pros and cons to both. There are a surprising number of Iraqis who still have an irrational fear he might return to power that only his death will put an end to. Hell, I'm stunned at hearing that some iraqis won't even believe he's dead unless they see it televised. :eek:
It could be faked on TV?

On the other hand, I live in perpetual fear of seeing Saddam's face on a t-shirt like Che Guevarra. :p
Too late?

http://prickwear.com/productcart/pc/catalog/freesaddam_thumb.jpg

The Saddam issue isn't religious, it's political. There are both Sunnis and Shia who support him, and both who oppose him. All executing him this quickly will do is turn him into a political martyr. Which will do nothing to help the US political interests in the area.

On the otherside, a T-shirt with his face on it would kick butt. I want one now.

ZOMG, even Iraq has Activist Judges!

Who knows, maybe the Iraqi constitution allows their courts to tell the state what to do.
That is kinda scary then?

Something about an execution makes you hungry?

I'm always hungry. :)


Too late?

http://prickwear.com/productcart/pc/catalog/freesaddam_thumb.jpg

You make me sad. :(

That is kinda scary then?

Why? The US Supreme Court told the State of Florida in 2000 to stop counting votes, thereby making George W Bush President. The US Courts tell the state what to do all the time, that's their job. Doesn't bother me in the least.

The Saddam issue isn't religious, it's political. There are both Sunnis and Shia who support him, and both who oppose him. All executing him this quickly will do is turn him into a political martyr. Which will do nothing to help the US political interests in the area.
I am inclined to agree with you on this matter.

On the otherside, a T-shirt with his face on it would kick butt. I want one now.
* starts taking orders.....what size, colour, and how many? :p

Why? The US Supreme Court told the State of Florida in 2000 to stop counting votes, thereby making George W Bush President. The US Courts tell the state what to do all the time, that's their job. Doesn't bother me in the least.
I think the US courts advise the States if they are in error but don't directly tell the administration what to do in general terms?

I think the US courts advise the States if they are in error but don't directly tell the administration what to do in general terms?

Well, perhaps not, though in both Massachusetts and New Jersey the courts have instructed the legislatures to address the issue of same-sex unions, so there seems to be precedent for it. But like I said, maybe Iraqi law allows the courts to do this.

EDIT: And I think that court was the Appeals court, so I suppose Saddam appealed the sentence and the court said no, you must be executed within 30 days. It's possible the law there specifies the time in which a convicted offender must have the sentence carried out upon him or her.

As an aside to the discussion:

Since when. in a "democracy", does the court dictate to the State when a death penalty must be imposed? I smell a conspiracy here.

I can see a court making verdict and imposing a sentence and that is about it.

i dont see that "democracy" implies anything in particular about the relationship between the executive and judicial.

it depends on what the iraqi constitution says and absent that, the traditions of the iraqi people.

Since Saddam Hussein had never been regarded a good Muslim, I don't think that either Sunnis or Shiites would mourn his death overmuch or see him as a martyr really.

His status as a Muslim doesn't come into it. The Sunnis benefitted greatly while he was in power and there are even some groups who want to reinstate him as president. The Shi's might see his execution as another blow to the power of the already weakened Sunnis and so step up the violence.

His status as a Muslim doesn't come into it. The Sunnis benefitted greatly while he was in power and there are even some groups who want to reinstate him as president. The Shi's might see his execution as another blow to the power of the already weakened Sunnis and so step up the violence.Indeed. Sunnis are in the pop minority, right? So why would Saddam's execution strengthen them? Or do you mean it would just boost their aggression?

He knew the risks.

And so did the CIA.

Well, perhaps not, though in both Massachusetts and New Jersey the courts have instructed the legislatures to address the issue of same-sex unions, so there seems to be precedent for it. But like I said, maybe Iraqi law allows the courts to do this.

EDIT: And I think that court was the Appeals court, so I suppose Saddam appealed the sentence and the court said no, you must be executed within 30 days. It's possible the law there specifies the time in which a convicted offender must have the sentence carried out upon him or her.

That is in fact the case. Article 27 of the statute of the Iraqi High Tribunal requires that penalties be carried out within 30 days.

Article 27 (second): "Penalties shall be enforceable within thirty days of the sentence or decision reaching finality."

See http://www.ictj.org/static/MENA/Iraq/iraq.statute.engtrans.pdf

So it appears that certain critics don't really know what they're talking about, doesn't it?

Burn, baby, burn :D

FREE SADDAM!

"We demand that he be sentenced to death," said Shahin, the appeals judge.
That quote right there is proof that the appeals court should have no authority. An appeals court cannot recommend a higher sentence.

They should execute him before January 1. We're on a roll here. Look at all the dictators who have already died in '06: Milosevic, Stroessner, Botha, Pinochet, Niyazov...why stop there?

this will not be a good thing...Hell is getting ready to break loose

kill saddam? but why end the fun trial?

I still can't figure out by what right the American court is trying him anyway. He has an american jury (hardly a jury of his peers), being tried under American laws, and American punishment. This ticks me off as much as when they took Marc Emery, except that was more disgusting because all he did was say that pot should be legal.

I still can't figure out by what right the American court is trying him anyway. He has an american jury (hardly a jury of his peers), being tried under American laws, and American punishment. This ticks me off as much as when they took Marc Emery, except that was more disgusting because all he did was say that pot should be legal.

There's a good reason why you can't figure that out: it's not an American court, it's an Iraqi court, under Iraqi law. See post 26.

You might try to at least learn something about the subject before you post.

I don't think it's a question that Saddam needs to be executed, it's just when. Personally I think right now is the right time, I mean how much worse can it get?

no more terrorist attacked but all out civil war between the two muslim sects and the khurds. although they have been quiet...

Killing Saddam Hussein may psychologically help those who fear him retaking power. Besides, a large quantity of people already display incredible fanatic tendencies. If you consider the number of innocents that have been killed, the death of one more man can hardly push the belligerents any further.

Echoing Wilgrove, I sincerely doubt that Iraq can be made more unstable, so just end the suspense for the prisoner. Nothing personal Minskia, but I believe you are being naive. There already is a civil war taking place by any description. Killing Hussein can't pull the Kurds in-they are just chilling up there in the North, practically their own autonomous nation.

To bad he has no influence in Iraq, the man kept control of his country. You look at Iraq’s past and you see that Saddams kept Iraq in check. America got in the middle of that cycle and we are witnessing the outcome. Saddam today is nothing, and he only has few willing sympathizers but the majority Shiites have no love for this man and even the Sunni Kurds also hate this man. I don't know whether Sunni neighbors would allow this staged court order to continue. I did hear that Saudi Arabia was willing to go in Iraq and support the minority Sunnis if America did leave Iraq. What a mess. Saddam also kept Iran in check and did America's dirty business in keeping Iran's influence out of the Gulf States. Did the Bush administration not foresee this quagmire?

For full effect, hopefully it'll be televised :D

To bad he has no influence in Iraq, the man kept control of his country. You look at Iraq’s past and you see that Saddams kept Iraq in check. America got in the middle of that cycle and we are witnessing the outcome. Saddam today is nothing, and he only has few willing sympathizers but the majority Shiites have no love for this man and even the Sunni Kurds also hate this man. I don't know whether Sunni neighbors would allow this staged court order to continue. I did hear that Saudi Arabia was willing to go in Iraq and support the minority Sunnis if America did leave Iraq. What a mess. Saddam also kept Iran in check and did America's dirty business in keeping Iran's influence out of the Gulf States. Did the Bush administration not foresee this quagmire?

Foresee? The Bush Administration doesn't need to foresee anything! We're winning, don't you have newspapers and TV where you live?

I've always found it interesting that Saddam's great hero, Saladin, was a Kurd.

I still can't figure out by what right the American court is trying him anyway. He has an american jury (hardly a jury of his peers), being tried under American laws, and American punishment. This ticks me off as much as when they took Marc Emery, except that was more disgusting because all he did was say that pot should be legal.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/dev2.gif

FREE SADDAM!


If you want Saddam, you're gonna have to pay for him pal! :mad:

We offer competitive financing rates. :)

If Saddams going to be killed, they should get on with it. The longer he lives the less point there is in killing him.

Saddam wasn't the problem with Iraq. He kept order and kept the Iranians in check. I wish Saddam had never been removed from power.

Same here, even if he was a total bastard.

this will not be a good thing...Hell is getting ready to break loose
Again, referring back to my gut instincts, I tend to agree with you, and that Saddam's execution will create more problems not less for the people of Iraq.

I don't think it's a question that Saddam needs to be executed, it's just when. Personally I think right now is the right time, I mean how much worse can it get?
You are out of touch with your religious leaders?

Pope John Paul denounced capital punishment as murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Christianity).

Pope John Paul denounced capital punishment as murder.
Is that really a reason not to use it?

Things could get worse in Iraq?

Court: Execute Saddam within 30 days (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_s_sentence)


My gut feelings tell me that this would not be a good time to execute Saddam. Actually, I don't think any time would be a good time to execute Saddam, but particularly not now.

Thoughts...comments?

If Saddam is executed, I can only but weep for the loss of the mercy I once thought the masses had.

If Saddam is executed, I can only but weep for the loss of the mercy I once thought the masses had.
Is mercy such a great thing?
Do you honestly think the masses possess it?
And why is executing him less merciful than leaving him to rot and be horribly mistreated by Americans?

Is that really a reason not to use it?

Partially, but there are much stronger reasons than the ideas of famous religious figures and greatly revered men, the Dalai Lama, the recently late Pope, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., to name a few. I am not much of a one to debate about the reasons, much less anything else for that matter, so I shall hope someone can do a much better job than I.

Precious intel and historical material forever lost. Go and hang the bastard. It would cost little to keep him a live (the war costs 500 billion a year), but meh.

If Saddam is executed, I can only but weep for the loss of the mercy I once thought the masses had.

Naive. The masses love a good scapegoat, always have.

Dodgy though the war in Iraq was, I couldn't bring myself to join in the protests against it. Hussein is a scumbag, and if people want him dead then I can't find it in my heart to argue with them. The only shame is that he's been brought to (some kind of) justice while other people in the same league as him will live on.

If you want Saddam, you're gonna have to pay for him pal! :mad:

We offer competitive financing rates. :)

*rummages through pockets*

I'll give you £2.17 and a litre of second-hand custard for him. He'll look really cute on my mantlepiece. :)

Naive. The masses love a good scapegoat, always have.

Dodgy though the war in Iraq was, I couldn't bring myself to join in the protests against it. Hussein is a scumbag, and if people want him dead then I can't find it in my heart to argue with them. The only shame is that he's been brought to (some kind of) justice while other people in the same league as him will live on.

I made a point of being in favour of the war near protestors. Not because I thought any of the reasons were realistic or sound, but because I object to protesting in general.

I made a point of being in favour of the war near protestors. Not because I thought any of the reasons were realistic or sound, but because I object to protesting in general.

so you were protesting the protesters because you object to protesting?

Thats makes as much sense as killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong. But then again youa re in favor of that too so I am not really surprised. Just pointing out the silly/funny where I see it. :p

I made a point of being in favour of the war near protestors. Not because I thought any of the reasons were realistic or sound, but because I object to protesting in general.Oh, but do fucking share already!

You have broght your 'no protesting' policy forth a couple of times here.

Do share. I bet it is fascinating.

Is mercy such a great thing?

Yes, I believe very much that it is. It shows that there is a certain unconditional kindness, not to mention empathy in the person if they are merciful towards others. And it is such unconditional kindness that is indeed the great leap towards a peaceful world.

Do you honestly think the masses possess it?

I have a rather optimistic hope that there is at least a little seed of it in everyone that can eventually grow into a beautiful plant if watered by someone in the right way.

And why is executing him less merciful than leaving him to rot and be horribly mistreated by Americans?

Who says he'd live in the United States if not executed?

so you were protesting the protesters because you object to protesting?

Thats makes as much sense as killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong. But then again youa re in favor of that too so I am not really surprised. Just pointing out the silly/funny where I see it. :p

I wasn't protesting in the sense that bothers me. I simply told any who asked me to join their rally that I supported the war in a rather loud voice. Also, I do believe in killing killers, not to say that killing is wrong necesseraly, but to keep people from doing it as general practice.

You have broght your 'no protesting' policy forth a couple of times here.
I cannot recall having mentioned it a vast number of times, but I may be wrong. Could you put forward some examples?

I wasn't protesting in the sense that bothers me. I simply told any who asked me to join their rally that I supported the war in a rather loud voice. Also, I do believe in killing killers, not to say that killing is wrong necesseraly, but to keep people from doing it as general practice.

Would this classify as doublethink?

I wasn't protesting in the sense that bothers me. I simply told any who asked me to join their rally that I supported the war in a rather loud voice. Also, I do believe in killing killers, not to say that killing is wrong necesseraly, but to keep people from doing it as general practice.

what it boils down to is what I initially said - you were protesting the protesters. Word it anyway you like. It doesn't make your position any less hypocritical.

Thats makes as much sense as killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong.
I remember going through a debate many moons ago with Salashie (sp?), using the example of a bright little girl asking her father about a man condemned to be executed. The man had to defend that the murderer had to be killed to prove that killing people was wrong. I wish I could find that post....I would replay it here.

Would this classify as doublethink?

No, doublethink need only be employed if I am attempting to over come a paradox or cope with two simultanious but different personal perceptions of reality. As it is I am, at the worst, proving to be a hypocrite.

Is that really a reason not to use it?
One of many, not to mention that capital punishment is barbaric at best.

what it boils down to is what I initially said - you were protesting the protesters. Word it anyway you like. It doesn't make your position any less hypocritical.
Yes, as I have just said, it does make me something of a hypocrite. But I managed to protest in such a way that few people were inconvinienced (and those who were were the ones who got in my way).

One of many, not to mention that capital punishment is barbaric at best.
I would call it practical, as long as the government doesn't have to put up with people causing it trouble over the whole thing.

Precious intel and historical material forever lost. Go and hang the bastard. It would cost little to keep him a live (the war costs 500 billion a year), but meh.
Actually, I do believe the the US would like him executed for all that he knows that hasn't been revealed yet. He could prove to be quite an embarassment for the US over time.

No, doublethink need only be employed if I am attempting to over come a paradox or cope with two simultanious but different personal perceptions of reality. As it is I am, at the worst, proving to be a hypocrite.

Ahh, so that's what doublethink is. Terribly sorry, but it's been a rather troubling book for me to understand exactly what the concepts are.

I wonder if the Iraqi government isn't wanting to kill him early as they can so that whatever reactions occur will occur while we are stil there and can help kill the saddamites? (sodomites?)

Ahh, so that's what doublethink is. Terribly sorry, but it's been a rather troubling book for me to understand exactly what the concepts are.
Its basically a way of not going insane when having to acknowledge something so heavily ingrained in your mind that on a base level you cannot disbelieve it is wrong. And so ensures that you can remain loyal to the Party while still thinking creativly enough to develop and be useful to the state.

Actually, I do believe the the US would like him executed for all that he knows that hasn't been revealed yet. He could prove to be quite an embarassment for the US over time.Yeh, but whattahell... we like to second guess. Let's just kill all people who aren't on the winner's side. It makes the science of history more interesting. I personally believe that clown would have spelled all, given 30 years time in a cell by himself.

Not going to happen... fine.

Yeh, but whattahell... we like to second guess. Let's just kill all people who aren't on the winner's side. It makes the science of history that more interesting.
Indeed it will. It will be good fun to figure it out again. Still waiting for the examples.

I wonder if the Iraqi government isn't wanting to kill him early as they can so that whatever reactions occur will occur while we are stil there and can help kill the saddamites? (sodomites?)

Nah, I think the Sodomites were people from Sodom.

*rummages through pockets*

I'll give you £2.17 and a litre of second-hand custard for him. He'll look really cute on my mantlepiece. :)

Sold! :D

Thats makes as much sense as killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong.

Nice try, but there's no equivalence.

It makes perfect sense to execute (put to death in accordance with the law) people who murder (unlawfully kill with malice aforethought) people to show that murdering (unlawfully killing with malice aforethought) people is wrong.

Indeed it will. It will be good fun to figure it out again. Still waiting for the examples.Oh, the examples of something you did, but I'm too lazy to prove? No worries. ;)
I say "I was wrong concerning Prekkendoria" if that makes it fine. And I'll top that with:" Prekkendoria is fine by me".

OMFG! Can I please have a couple of asprin and a shot of Glennlivet? Is there actually any PURPOSE in all this backbiting and syndicating? STFU!:upyours:

Yeh, but whattahell... we like to second guess. Let's just kill all people who aren't on the winner's side. It makes the science of history more interesting. I personally believe that clown would have spelled all, given 30 years time in a cell by himself.

Not going to happen... fine.
It will be an interesting 30 days. Saddam should be preserved for the historical archives. It would have been far more intertesting to try him for his chemical warfare.

OMFG! Can I please have a couple of asprin and a shot of Glennlivet? Is there actually any PURPOSE in all this backbiting and syndicating? STFU!:upyours:
You can NOT possibly have Glenlivet, cos that shit is an abomination.


The non(taste)-single-malt

You can NOT possibly have Glenlivet, cos that shit is an abomination.


uh oh. We should start a new thread so I can finally get an international education about my drinking :D

uh oh. We should start a new thread so I can finally get an international education about my drinking :DSorry... I know. I'm drinking cooking oil now. You drink what you got.

Argh. What a terrible error in judgement.

You can NOT possibly have Glenlivet, cos that shit is an abomination.

The non(taste)-single-malt

A matter of opinion. IMO Glenlivet is perfectly acceptable.

It will be an interesting 30 days. Saddam should be preserved for the historical archives. It would have been far more intertesting to try him for his chemical warfare.

He should be creamated, then his ashes should be heated/compressed until they form a synthetic diamond.


/me wonders what a Saddam diamond would go for on eBay.

They should execute him before January 1. We're on a roll here. Look at all the dictators who have already died in '06: Milosevic, Stroessner, Botha, Pinochet, Niyazov...why stop there?

They all died NATURALLY.

He should be creamated, then his ashes should be heated/compressed until they form a synthetic diamond.


/me wonders what a Saddam diamond would go for on eBay.

A Saddiamond? Probably a fair bit.

A Saddiamond? Probably a fair bit.
Who would want to own a chunk of evil?

Who would want to own a chunk of evil?

Stewy Griffin?

Who would want to own a chunk of evil?

Me.

Who would want to own a chunk of evil?

Well, it would just be a diamond with an interesting history at that point. Not really evil anymore.

Stewy Griffin?

you win this thread.

Nice try, but there's no equivalence.

It makes perfect sense to execute (put to death in accordance with the law) people who murder (unlawfully kill with malice aforethought) people to show that murdering (unlawfully killing with malice aforethought) people is wrong.

It's really cute when you try to use big words to try and hide that your argument is bullshit. Malice aforethought is the equivilent of the specific mens rea. It means simply "intent".

The executioner certainly has the mens rea, he has the intent to kill. So the only thing you've actually managed to say is "see, it's different here, it's ok when the government does it."

It's really cute when you try to use big words to try and hide that your argument is bullshit. Malice aforethought is the equivilent of the specific mens rea. It means simply "intent".

The executioner certainly has the mens rea, he has the intent to kill. So the only thing you've actually managed to say is "see, it's different here, it's ok when the government does it."

And what law school did you graduate from, and how many state bar exams have you passed? You must have ditched the day in criminal law that covered "mens rea," not to mention "actus reus".

The meaning of "mens rea" literally is "guilty mind". It specifically refers to the intent required to commit a criminal act, which is the "actus reus". Both elements must be present at the same time in order for a suspect to be found guilty of a crime.

Mens rea is absolutely not "simply "intent"".

The executioner does not have mens rea. He does not have the intent to commit a criminal act. Whether you like it or approve of it or not is irrelevant. The fact remains: no mens rea is present. Nor, for that matter, does the executioner commit any actus reus, since he is acting in full accordance with the law.

Oh, and in case you also skipped the bar review session that covered unlawful homicides, "malice aforethought" is an element that distinguishes murder (e.g., first-degree murder) from lesser unlawful homicides such as manslaughter.

It's readily apparent whose argument is "bullshit".

And FYI: I have passed four different state bar exams, and am a current member of two state bars.

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, Sparky.

Executing dictators is generally good policy. No complaints here.. would've been nice if it had been done earlier, say, decades earlier, but better late than never.

Saddam wasn't the problem with Iraq. He kept order and kept the Iranians in check. I wish Saddam had never been removed from power.

Yeah, minor problems such as '1 million people dead' surely don't count.

Yeah, minor problems such as '1 million people dead' surely don't count.

Apparently not as 1 million people died as a result of the Iraq Iran war
and Saddam was not taken to an international tribunal to be tried for
war crimes which he was most certainly guilty of both with Kuwait
and more disastrously in terms of lives lost with his criminal war on Iran.

Executing dictators is generally good policy. No complaints here.. would've been nice if it had been done earlier, say, decades earlier, but better late than never.
If Saddam had been executed decades earlier, he wouldn't have been able to fulfill the Reagan/H.W. Bush agenda of targeting Iran.

In April of 1990, Saddam was a good friend of America (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n6_v28/ai_18383046)(Bob Dole), even after the alledged gassing of the Kurds. By the latter part of 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, George the Elder Bush was comparing Saddam to Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1988%E2%80%93present)#The_Persian_Gulf_War).

What happened to cause Saddam to go from "friend" to "foe"? You might want to ask April Gillespie (http://www.bnfp.org/neighborhood/jmoore.htm)?

Saddam wasn't the problem with Iraq. He kept order and kept the Iranians in check. I wish Saddam had never been removed from power.

Yes, but think of the ratings!

Apparently not as 1 million people died as a result of the Iraq Iran war
and Saddam was not taken to an international tribunal to be tried for
war crimes which he was most certainly guilty of both with Kuwait
and more disastrously in terms of lives lost with his criminal war on Iran.
So should G.H.W. Bush also be "taken to an international tribunal to be tried for war crimes", after aiding and abetting Saddam's "criminal war on Iran"?

You will have to excuse Ronald Reagan from prosecution because he is already buried.

So should G.H.W. Bush also be "taken to an international tribunal to be tried for war crimes", after aiding and abetting Saddam's "criminal war on Iran"?

You will have to excuse Ronald Reagan from prosecution because he is already buried.

It's not the trial that gets the good TV ratings - it's the execution.

You still don't get it, do you?

So should G.H.W. Bush also be "taken to an international tribunal to be tried for war crimes", after aiding and abetting Saddam's "criminal war on Iran"?Definitely. He also should have sit on the bench right next to Saddam in the latter's recent trial, and he should receive the same verdict and punishment.

It's not the trial that gets the good TV ratings - it's the execution.

You still don't get it, do you?
Oh, I get it alright. It doesn't matter how many times you change your NS personna, you still regurgitate the same rhetoric. :p

Definitely. He also should have sit on the bench right next to Saddam in the latter's recent trial, and he should receive the same verdict and punishment.
Then I guess the only disagreement we might have here is the type of punishment?

Oh, I get it alright. It doesn't matter how many times you change your NS personna, you still regurgitate the same rhetoric. :p

???

???
Eve Online = Deep Kimchi = Sierra BTHP = Whispering Legs?

Eve Online = Deep Kimchi = Sierra BTHP = Whispering Legs?

Nope.

Nope.
That is what I was made to understand. What was your previous NS personna? It makes it easier for me to relate to your personal question. :D

That is what I was made to understand. What was your previous NS personna? It makes it easier for me to relate to your personal question. :D

I haven't had a previous NS account. This is my first one.

I've been over this with another player, who somehow thinks that there's only one poster in the DC area.

I haven't had a previous NS account. This is my first one.

I've been over this with another player, who somehow thinks that there's only one poster in the DC area.
Sorry for the confusion.

Then why did you say to me that "I still don't get it?"

Sorry for the confusion.

Then why did you say to me that "I still don't get it?"

Because in this thread, you aren't talking up the positive advantage of TV ratings.

Obviously, executing heads of state nowadays is all about ratings.

Because in this thread, you aren't talking up the positive advantage of TV ratings.

Obviously, executing heads of state nowadays is all about ratings.Of course. Can you imagine the ratings that the executions of Charles I or Louis XVI would have gotten?

Of course. Can you imagine the ratings that the executions of Charles I or Louis XVI would have gotten?

Louis had a big crowd that day. Of course, I hear it was a double-header.

Louis had a big crowd that day. Of course, I hear it was a double-header.I wonder what crowd would have come out to see Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi beheaded along with some of his CIA friends...

Because in this thread, you aren't talking up the positive advantage of TV ratings.

Obviously, executing heads of state nowadays is all about ratings.
I rarely watch TV these days and I think that TV coverage of an execution would be abominable.

Louis had a big crowd that day. Of course, I hear it was a double-header.
So you find executions are of entertainment value and that beheadings are humourous? Were you one of those that wanted a copy of Nick Berg being beheaded?

Things could get worse in Iraq?

Court: Execute Saddam within 30 days (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_s_sentence)


My gut feelings tell me that this would not be a good time to execute Saddam. Actually, I don't think any time would be a good time to execute Saddam, but particularly not now.

Thoughts...comments?

Its their law.

Its their law.From the times of British rule.

From the times of British rule.

Study History abit more. It dates back long before British Rule.

Study History abit more. It dates back long before British Rule.That would mean the Ottoman Empire. But I read just today that the laws concerning executions are from the time of British rule.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,456600,00.html

Its their law.
It is a dumb law for a new??? "democracy" to have. Also it appears that the appeals process is abreviated?

It is a dumb law for a new??? "democracy" to have. Also it appears that the appeals process is abreviated?

I agree. But if Iraq is to have any credibility as a self-governing state, then Iraquis need to figure these things out for themselves.

So you find executions are of entertainment value and that beheadings are humourous? Were you one of those that wanted a copy of Nick Berg being beheaded?

Historically, people have found them entertaining. And it all depends on who is getting the axe.

I'm sure that millions of people across the Middle East loved that video of Nick Berg - not that I enjoyed it, but hey, I'm a different audience.

It all depends on who is the Fear Factor contestant, you know.

Oh, and in case you also skipped the bar review session that covered unlawful homicides, "malice aforethought" is an element that distinguishes murder (e.g., first-degree murder) from lesser unlawful homicides such as manslaughter.

Oh yes I'm well aware, and apparently those 4 bar passages still can't help you find the point.

What, exactly, is the difference in the state of mind of the executioner and the murder?

Both, in fact, intend to kill, correct? We can at least agree on this simple premise. The murderer, and the executioner intend to kill, have the intent to take a life, yes?

OK, so what makes the difference here? It is, as you said, the intent to commit an illegal act. The taking of the life by the murderer is illegal, the taking of a life by the executioner is legal.

So the difference can be summed up as, simply "the executioner intends to lawfully take a life, the murderer intends to unlawfully take a life". And what defines lawful and unlawful? The state. So who said the murder's action is illegal and the executioner's act is legal, even though their act is the same (IE taking a life)? The state.

Well in case your 4 bar passing mind missed the point (I admit, I've only past two), let me repeat it all for you.

All you've managed to say is "see, it's different here, it's ok when the government does it." And herein we find the bullshit. If the only explanation, the ONLY difference you can draw is "well the government says it's ok when they kill someone" then you're in deep shit, because there are a great deal of us out there in the real world of practicality that believe that JUST BECAUSE the government said it's ok, doesn't actually make it so.

Certainly it's legal, you are correct thatwhile both the murderer and the executioner have the intent to take a life, only one has the intent to commit an illegal act. But that alone means nothing, it doesn't, in any way, answer the question as to whether or not that is good.

Enjoy your ride to hell Saddam.

:D

You have to admit, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Enjoy your ride to hell Saddam.

:D

You have to admit, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Oh, I want to see him piss himself when they put the noose around his neck. And I hope they fuck it up, and he has to dangle for about a half hour before expiring.

Foresee? The Bush Administration doesn't need to foresee anything! We're winning, don't you have newspapers and TV where you live?

I've always found it interesting that Saddam's great hero, Saladin, was a Kurd.

Do suspect sarcasm? :p

Oh yes I'm well aware, and apparently those 4 bar passages still can't help you find the point.

The point you were attempting to make was that lawful execution is equivalent to murder because the executioner's "intent" to kill the convicted and sentenced capital criminal was the same as the "mens rea" required to be guilty of murder. Your argument that "capital punishment is the same as murder" having been revealed as specious, you are now spinning the argument into "capital punishment is as bad as murder."

What, exactly, is the difference in the state of mind of the executioner and the murder?

Both, in fact, intend to kill, correct? We can at least agree on this simple premise. The murderer, and the executioner intend to kill, have the intent to take a life, yes?

OK, so what makes the difference here? It is, as you said, the intent to commit an illegal act. The taking of the life by the murderer is illegal, the taking of a life by the executioner is legal.

So the difference can be summed up as, simply "the executioner intends to lawfully take a life, the murderer intends to unlawfully take a life". And what defines lawful and unlawful? The state. So who said the murder's action is illegal and the executioner's act is legal, even though their act is the same (IE taking a life)? The state.

Well in case your 4 bar passing mind missed the point (I admit, I've only past two), let me repeat it all for you.

All you've managed to say is "see, it's different here, it's ok when the government does it." And herein we find the bullshit. If the only explanation, the ONLY difference you can draw is "well the government says it's ok when they kill someone" then you're in deep shit, because there are a great deal of us out there in the real world of practicality that believe that JUST BECAUSE the government said it's ok, doesn't actually make it so.

Who is "the government"? In this country, we the people are the government. The people have decided that some things are "OK" and other things aren't "OK". The people have decided that certain crimes deserve imprisonment, and certain crimes demand capital punishment.

Every criminal statute represents a value judgment. Specifically in the context of unlawful homicide, the people have made the value judgment that the value of innocent life is sufficiently high that the unlawful taking thereof with malice aforethought will result in the taker of that life forfeiting his own.

Certainly it's legal, you are correct that while both the murderer and the executioner have the intent to take a life, only one has the intent to commit an illegal act. But that alone means nothing, it doesn't, in any way, answer the question as to whether or not that is good.

The difference between murder and capital punishment does not come down to which side is morally "better" than the other, much as you presumptuously seem to suggest. It comes down to the difference between criminal intent and judgment. The executed murderer is just as dead as his victim, but he has been judged, not just killed. The majority of this society understands the difference and has democratically chosen to institute laws to that effect. Your disagreement with that democratic choice doesn't make you any better or any more moral than those with whom you disagree.

I love to see people arguing that acts that are immoral and wrong
and are obviously so are legitimate because there is a law saying
they are okay.

If you use that argument you really have to re-evaluate the whole
nazis and jews thing.

Oh, I want to see him piss himself when they put the noose around his neck. And I hope they fuck it up, and he has to dangle for about a half hour before expiring.

Couldn't say it nicer. He gets what he deserves. Wish we could streamline the process here in the states more.....

Where's Don King? This could be another 'Pay for Veiw' speical!! :cool:

I love to see people arguing that acts that are immoral and wrong
and are obviously so are legitimate because there is a law saying
they are okay.

If you use that argument you really have to re-evaluate the whole
nazis and jews thing.

Sorry, but it is certainly not "obvious" that capital punishment is either immoral or wrong, your self-righteous moralization and presumptuousness notwithstanding.

Furthermore, you've got it completely backward. The law recognizes that certain acts are moral, right and legitimate, and therefore permits them. The law also recognizes that certain other acts are immoral, wrong and illegitimate, and therefore sanctions them. Acts that are malum in se, such as premeditated murder, fall within this category. Such acts can't be made legitimate by passing a law saying they are.

Your "nazis and jews thing" argument, besides being an offensive trivialization, is also wide of the mark. Genocide falls within the malum in se category. Capital punishment does not, and never has.

Still if he does get executed...I wonder what Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf will say.....!

Let's ask him.





Apparently the answer is the sound of worms burrowing through long-dead flesh.

Oh, I want to see him piss himself when they put the noose around his neck. And I hope they fuck it up, and he has to dangle for about a half hour before expiring.
Quite the charmer, aren't you?

Quite the charmer, aren't you?

And you honestly think there's a moral difference between hanging him cleanly or hanging him messily in front of a crowd and a TV audience of billions and an equally large Internet audience on YouTube?

If it's over too quickly, and we don't see him tremble with fear before they put the hood over his head, it will be a non-event.

If I was being hung, I think I would prefer a spectacle. You know, like where they fuck it up so bad that my head comes off when they spring the trap (this has happened in more than one hanging - the rope is not stretchy enough and the weights on the feet are too heavy).

Awww, now the Hague can't try him for crimes against humanity. That would have been interesting.

Awww, now the Hague can't try him for crimes against humanity. That would have been interesting.

No, that would have been flamingly boring - like the Yugoslave war crimes trials.

Good Riddens to Saddam. Can't wait til he's executed.

No, that would have been flamingly boring - like the Yugoslave war crimes trials.

It would have been more interesting than the Iraqis trying him, he never had a snowflake's chance in hell there. There is the off chance he might have been found innocent in The Hague.

I love Jesus































Let's kill people!

Oh, I want to see him piss himself when they put the noose around his neck. And I hope they fuck it up, and he has to dangle for about a half hour before expiring.
This proves that you are not quite well. :(

I love Jesus

Let's kill people!

First of all, Jesus was sinless. Mankind are full of sins.

Second, God does mention that if you kill man, you shall be killed seven fold.

Of everybody in the world, Saddam should be the one to die, not only should he die but he should be executed by the Iraqis.

Historically, people have found them entertaining.
Then they are twisted individuals for sure.

This proves that you are not quite well. :(

Or that it's the intertubes.

Couldn't say it nicer. He gets what he deserves. Wish we could streamline the process here in the states more.....
Your country already executes too many innocent people. You want more?

First of all, Jesus was sinless. Mankind are full of sins.

Second, God does mention that if you kill man, you shall be killed seven fold.

Of everybody in the world, Saddam should be the one to die, not only should he die but he should be executed by the Iraqis.
I think you have religion confused with your personal agenda?

I think you have religion confused with your personal agenda?

Nope, not really. I'm pro-Death Penalty, I'm pro-Saddam Execution, I'm pro-God. I'm a man, I'm a sinner. This is between myself and God. God's the Ultimate Judge. I stand by what I say, in regards to Saddam's execution. The world is definately better off with out him. Kuwait doesn't need to worry about an Iraqi invasion, the Kurds don't have to worry about when they'll be gassed again, the Iraqi women don't have to worry about Saddam allowing his leaches to rape them and the Iraqi men don't have to worry about Saddam's leaches torturing them, the list goes on and on. I feel absolutely no sorrow over the execution of Saddam. I do hope it's televised atleast throughout Iraq. The Iraqi People deserve to know that they need not worry about Saddam regaining power for Saddam is dead. Justice has been served.

The difference between murder and capital punishment does not come down to which side is morally "better" than the other, much as you presumptuously seem to suggest.

It most certainly does. That's the entire point

Who is "the government"? In this country, we the people are the government. The people have decided that some things are "OK" and other things aren't "OK"...Your disagreement with that democratic choice doesn't make you any better or any more moral than those with whom you disagree.

Actually I happily live in boston, where the death penalty is illegal.

Moreover there was a time when the democratic majority thought slavery was ok. There was a time when the democratic majority thought women not having the right to vote was ok. There was a time when the democratic majority thought being gay was a sin.

And slavery is immoral, and it has always been immoral, even though at one time the majority supported it. Denying women the right to vote is immoral, and it has always been immoral, even though at one time the majority supported it. Denying gay civil liberties is immoral, and it has always been immoral, even though at one time the majority supported it.

If one believes in slavery, one is immoral. If one believes women should not have the right to vote, one is immoral. There isn't a gray area here, this isn't a "majority makes it ok" situation.

And just the same, killing someone outside of self defense is immoral, and thus, yes, I am morally superior than one who is in favor of killing another human being, due to some twisted notions of "justice".

And damned right I'm "better" and "more moral" than those who support the death penalty. Just as I am morally superior than those who would sanction slavery.

Foresee? The Bush Administration doesn't need to foresee anything! We're winning, don't you have newspapers and TV where you live?

I've always found it interesting that Saddam's great hero, Saladin, was a Kurd.

If the great Saladin is Saddam's greatest hero, than perhaps we may have misjudged him. If he is truly guilty, then it should probably be pointed out that Saladin was extremely generous although he was what one would call a war chief. This could be ultimately where his path to redemption lies.

Actually I happily live in boston, where the death penalty is illegal.

One of the many problems with Massachusetts today. Fortunately, most other states aren't as foolish.

Moreover there was a time when the democratic majority thought slavery was ok. There was a time when the democratic majority thought women not having the right to vote was ok. There was a time when the democratic majority thought being gay was a sin.

And slavery is immoral, and it has always been immoral, even though at one time the majority supported it.

Nope, not gonna get away with that one. Slavery was not instituted as a penalty for criminal acts (at least not since the days of the Roman Empire as far as I can recall--unless debtors' prisons count), but was, among other things, an economic institution. A wrongful one, certainly, but in no way analogous to capital punishment. Try again.

Denying women the right to vote is immoral, and it has always been immoral, even though at one time the majority supported it.

Again, unrelated to the issue of capital punishment.

Denying gay civil liberties is immoral, and it has always been immoral, even though at one time the majority supported it.

Not even close. So-called "gays" already have the same civil liberties as everyone else, including the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right is irrelevant. You can take that topic to another thread.

If one believes in slavery, one is immoral. If one believes women should not have the right to vote, one is immoral. There isn't a gray area here, this isn't a "majority makes it ok" situation.

Your opposition to capital punishment in view of slavery, denial of women's rights, etc. is preposterous, a logical non-sequitur. "A is bad because . . . B and C are bad!" Your entire rant boils down to, "Capital punishment is bad because I say it's as bad as slavery". Decisions democratically arrived at by society are only moral if you personally think they are. Well, it doesn't work that way, and you'll never get anywhere with self-righteous, arrogant blather like that. (Of course, that's probably a good thing.)

And just the same, killing someone outside of self defense is immoral

If you try going there, I'll argue that capital punishment is a form of societal self-defense. And since those favoring capital punishment want to protect society as a whole, and you want to protect those who have wrongly killed members of society, capital punishment advocates are therefore far more moral than you.

and thus, yes, I am morally superior than one who is in favor of killing another human being, due to some twisted notions of "justice".

And damned right I'm "better" and "more moral" than those who support the death penalty. Just as I am morally superior than those who would sanction slavery.

:rolleyes: Please, take my advice: get a rope, tie one end around yourself and the other end to a nearby heavy object, because you're so full of hot air that you could float up into the stratosphere and out over the Atlantic, and get shredded by the next nor'easter.

The fact remains: capital punishment fits capital crimes. All your sound and fury won't change a single vote. And you are not morally superior to those who disagree with you. Get over yourself.

And you are not morally superior to those who disagree with you. Get over yourself.

yes, yes I am. Just as I am morally superior to those who advocate slavery or would deny a woman's right to vote. My morality is superior to all those propositions.

Not even close. So-called "gays" already have the same civil liberties as everyone else, including the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right is irrelevant. You can take that topic to another thread.

Even if that were true (which as a so called lawyer you should know that the same line of reasoning was rejected in Loving), that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Both slavery and women's suffrage were examples of the past, and surely you don't content that gay rights have ALWAYS been where they are now, do you?

I think Lawrence v. Texas would disagree...another case you should have already been familiar with. Why would you even assume, that I would follow two examples of the past with one of the present, given that my tenses never changed?

Methinks he doth protest too much. But yes, that's a topic for another thread.

Nope, not really. I'm pro-Death Penalty, I'm pro-Saddam Execution, I'm pro-God. I'm a man, I'm a sinner. This is between myself and God. God's the Ultimate Judge. I stand by what I say, in regards to Saddam's execution. The world is definately better off with out him. Kuwait doesn't need to worry about an Iraqi invasion, the Kurds don't have to worry about when they'll be gassed again, the Iraqi women don't have to worry about Saddam allowing his leaches to rape them and the Iraqi men don't have to worry about Saddam's leaches torturing them, the list goes on and on. I feel absolutely no sorrow over the execution of Saddam. I do hope it's televised atleast throughout Iraq. The Iraqi People deserve to know that they need not worry about Saddam regaining power for Saddam is dead. Justice has been served.

I hate to tell you, but Saddam's death won't magically bring peace and stability to Iraq. Sure, he won't be having anyone killed, but that doesn't mean someone else won't be killing them instead.

capital punishment fits capital crimes.

This is, by the way, an absolutly ludicrus statement if taken at literal face value. The definition of "capital crime" is "a crime for which the penalty is death". All you have said is the death penalty fits the crimes for which the penalty is death.

There is nothing about the TYPE of crime that is inherent in the definition of capital crime. It doesn't mean "murder" or "rape" or any specific type. Littering could be a capital crime if the particular nation in question kills those who litter. By saying that the death penalty fits any crime for which the penalty is death is to say that if the government decides that the death penalty is appropriate, than the death penalty is appropriate. I am sorry I do not have such blind faith in my government, especially in recent years.

So again if tomorrow the legislature decided that littering was punishable by death, that would be ok?

After all, if it were punishable by death that would make it a capital crime, and as you said, capital punishment fits capital crimes.

Even if that were true (which as a so called lawyer you should know that the same line of reasoning was rejected in Loving), that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Both slavery and women's suffrage were examples of the past, and surely you don't content that gay rights have ALWAYS been where they are now, do you?

Loving pertained to miscegenation laws, as you well know. Loving is readily distinguishable from so-called "gay marriage" and certainly did not deal with "the same line of reasoning."

To the extent subsequent cases hold otherwise, they are wrongly decided. Much like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were wrongly decided.

I think Lawrence v. Texas would disagree...another case you should have already been familiar with. Why would you even assume, that I would follow two examples of the past with one of the present, given that my tenses never changed?

Lawrence v. Texas was and remains an abomination. Scalia's dissent is the better view.

I hate to tell you, but Saddam's death won't magically bring peace and stability to Iraq. Sure, he won't be having anyone killed, but that doesn't mean someone else won't be killing them instead.

Who said anything about "magically bring peace and stability to Iraq"?

I know it won't, the only ones who can do that is the Iraqi people but somebody needs to secure the borders around Iran and Syria and stop the insurgents from crossing. I blame the Insurgency more than anybody else in the region for stirring the pot.

Who said anything about "magically bring peace and stability to Iraq"?

I know it won't, the only ones who can do that is the Iraqi people but somebody needs to secure the borders around Iran and Syria and stop the insurgents from crossing. I blame the Insurgency more than anybody else in the region for stirring the pot.

In not quite those words, you.
Kuwait doesn't need to worry about an Iraqi invasion, the Kurds don't have to worry about when they'll be gassed again, the Iraqi women don't have to worry about Saddam allowing his leaches to rape them and the Iraqi men don't have to worry about Saddam's leaches torturing them, the list goes on and on.

Saddams death won't assure any of these things(well, except the Saddam's leaches bit). Iraq probably wasn't the nicest place to live under Saddam, and things haven't been improving lately, but Saddam's death won't change anything. Locking him up and letting him fae into obscurity would have been much better.

Loving pertained to miscegenation laws, as you well know. Loving is readily distinguishable from so-called "gay marriage" and certainly did not deal with "the same line of reasoning."


Absolutly it does. The justification for the miscegenation laws was that black people had the same right as white people, to marry others of their own race.

If you can't see how "everyone has the right to marry someone of their own race" and "everyone has the right to marry someone of an opposite gender" is the same fundamental line of logic, then you don't deserve to be a lawyer.

To the extent subsequent cases hold otherwise, they are wrongly decided. Much like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were wrongly decided.

Lawrence v. Texas was and remains an abomination. Scalia's dissent is the better view.

Oh, but those judges were appointed by democratically elected presidents and confirmed by democratically elected congressmen, what ever happened to the democratically elected process being valid?

Or is that bullshit argument of yours only work when you yourself are in favor, and the moment those democratically appointed judges make decisions you don't personally agree with, they're suddenly wrong?

In not quite those words, you.


Saddams death won't assure any of these things(well, except the Saddam's leaches bit). Iraq probably wasn't the nicest place to live under Saddam, and things haven't been improving lately, but Saddam's death won't change anything. Locking him up and letting him fae into obscurity would have been much better.

Well, then to restate my post completely you would have noticed I was talking in the regards to Saddam.

Saddam won't gas his own people, Saddam won't invade Kuwait, etc... Do get what I previously was talking about.

So, technically Saddam's death will ensure all of those things since I was in fact talking about Saddam and his atrocities against humanity. My post was completely about Saddam. Saddam will not be able to commit anymore crimes against his own people. I say again, Saddam death will ensure that Saddam doesn't commit anymore crimes against his own people.

Well, then to restate my post completely you would have noticed I was talking in the regards to Saddam.

Saddam won't gas his own people, Saddam won't invade Kuwait, etc... Do get what I previously was talking about.

So, technically Saddam's death will ensure all of those things since I was in fact talking about Saddam and his atrocities against humanity. My post was completely about Saddam. Saddam will not be able to commit anymore crimes against his own people. I say again, Saddam death will ensure that Saddam doesn't commit anymore crimes against his own people.

I figured as much, but I was making a point. Or at least trying to.

Well, then to restate my post completely you would have noticed I was talking in the regards to Saddam.

Saddam won't gas his own people, Saddam won't invade Kuwait, etc... Do get what I previously was talking about.

So, technically Saddam's death will ensure all of those things since I was in fact talking about Saddam and his atrocities against humanity. My post was completely about Saddam. Saddam will not be able to commit anymore crimes against his own people. I say again, Saddam death will ensure that Saddam doesn't commit anymore crimes against his own people.

Surely so would life in jail.

Surely so would life in jail.

And I don't see the day of Saddam's execution being a pleasant one in Iraq(relatively speaking). A rescue attempt wouldn't suprise me.

Things could get worse in Iraq?

Court: Execute Saddam within 30 days (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_s_sentence)


My gut feelings tell me that this would not be a good time to execute Saddam. Actually, I don't think any time would be a good time to execute Saddam, but particularly not now.

Thoughts...comments?

Saddam was a bastard, but at least he controlled security. Freedom over security is very noble, but on the practical side, it's just bullshit. On the other hand, I'd like to see him dead.

Sorry, but it is certainly not "obvious" that capital punishment is either immoral or wrong, your self-righteous moralization and presumptuousness notwithstanding.

You will find there are hundreds of millions of people in agreement with me
which is why it is not legal in Europe.
Even in the US it is only the backward states who keep to that immoral legislation.



Furthermore, you've got it completely backward. The law recognizes that certain acts are moral, right and legitimate, and therefore permits them. The law also recognizes that certain other acts are immoral, wrong and illegitimate, and therefore sanctions them. Acts that are malum in se, such as premeditated murder, fall within this category. Such acts can't be made legitimate by passing a law saying they are.

By definition if the law says something then it is legitimate in a narrow sense.
The law has bugger all to do with whether acts or moral or right.



Your "nazis and jews thing" argument, besides being an offensive trivialization, is also wide of the mark. Genocide falls within the malum in se category. Capital punishment does not, and never has.


It is a very unusual position to hold that the holocaust can trivialise
some other discussion.
So kudos to you for your unique perspective.

Nazi germany had many laws allowing them to commit many immoral acts.
The fact that they had legislation allowing them to commit them did not
make them either moral or right..


Malum in se only means things that we all tend to agree are wrong.
Like deliberate cold blooded killing.
You try unsuccessfully to separate cold blooded killing and state sanctioned cold blooded killing.

The laws of many countries used to deny women legal recourse if raped
if the rapist was their husband.
It attempted to make it seem like a completely different situation but
rape is rape and killing is killing.

Even backwards countries do eventually catch up so there is hope for you yet

So, technically Saddam's death will ensure all of those things since I was in fact talking about Saddam and his atrocities against humanity.
So, do you think that George Bush the Elder should be held accountable for "crimes against humanity" and suffer the same fate as Saddam?

Criminal Charges Filed Against George H.W. Bush (Sr.) in Iceland (http://www.williambowles.info/iraq/2006/0706/bush_criminal_charges.html)

Reykjavik, Iceland (3 July 2006) – A group of ten Icelandic citizens filed yesterday at the Office of the State’s Police Chief criminal charges against George H.W. Bush, former U.S. President, who is expected in Iceland this evening at the invitation of Icelands’s President Olafur R. Grimsson.

The group accuses former President Bush for participation in war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against the peace, and crimes against internationally protected persons. It demands that former President Bush be detained by the Icelandic authorities and investigation on these charges. Should the investigation conclude that legal proceedings against him are warranted, the group requests that he be tried before an Icelandic court or extradited to an international criminal tribunal which possesses the requisite jurisdiction to deal with his case. Icelandic courts are, under international law, qualified to try individuals suspected of having committed international crimes.
* awaits excuses and backpedalling......

Apparently not as 1 million people died as a result of the Iraq Iran war
and Saddam was not taken to an international tribunal to be tried for
war crimes which he was most certainly guilty of both with Kuwait
and more disastrously in terms of lives lost with his criminal war on Iran.

And who actually has the power to arrest him and send him there? You realize it would be an ad hoc war crimes trials?

Definitely. He also should have sit on the bench right next to Saddam in the latter's recent trial, and he should receive the same verdict and punishment.

Aiding and abetting is not a death penalty offense. Besides, we also did a little supporting of Iran too in case people forgotten about that little detail.

Of course. Can you imagine the ratings that the executions of Charles I or Louis XVI would have gotten?

Put it on pay per view baby. I'd watch it. Both of them had it coming.

That would mean the Ottoman Empire. But I read just today that the laws concerning executions are from the time of British rule.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,456600,00.html

Never trust everything you read in the press UB. I told you that once before.

It is a dumb law for a new??? "democracy" to have. Also it appears that the appeals process is abreviated?

And yet both the Koran and the Bible and the torah support capital punishment. Let him hang. He deserves it.

IIf you use that argument you really have to re-evaluate the whole
nazis and jews thing.

Actually no you don't for what the Nazis did was pure genocide. This is not genocide.

Awww, now the Hague can't try him for crimes against humanity. That would have been interesting.

You mean the International Criminal Court that tries warcrimes committed after the court went into affect?

So, do you think that George Bush the Elder should be held accountable for "crimes against humanity" and suffer the same fate as Saddam?

Criminal Charges Filed Against George H.W. Bush (Sr.) in Iceland (http://www.williambowles.info/iraq/2006/0706/bush_criminal_charges.html)


* awaits excuses and backpedalling......

*dies of laughter*

Aiding and abetting is not a death penalty offense.
It isn't?

Besides, we also did a little supporting of Iran too in case people forgotten about that little detail.
Which prolonged the war and resulted in more deaths. Nice. :rolleyes:

And yet both the Koran and the Bible and the torah support capital punishment. Let him hang. He deserves it.
Where does the Bible "support" capital punishment?

It isn't?

Never seen anyone who aided a murder get the chair.

Which prolonged the war and resulted in more deaths. Nice. :rolleyes:

In reality, we did not want to see either side win the war. Why do you think it ended in a stalement?

Never seen anyone who aided a murder get the chair.
You made a claim.....please back it up.

In reality, we did not want to see either side win the war. Why do you think it ended in a stalement?
You just wanted both sides to kill each other? To do your bidding? How evil is that?

Only certain factions working in Iraq would have a problem with Saddam
being executed. I don't believe that the Iraqi people would care. I'm sure they don't want him back in power again.

Never trust everything you read in the press UB. I told you that once before.
No, you would rather that everyone believe your BS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10629435&postcount=181)? :eek:

Put it on pay per view baby. I'd watch it. Both of them had it coming.
For a self confessed Christian, you don't appear to uphold Christian like morals.

For a self confessed Christian, you don't appear to uphold Christian like morals.

Can't do the time don't do the crime.

Awww, now the Hague can't try him for crimes against humanity. That would have been interesting.
That is probably why the US would like to see Saddam executed quickly. If Saddam was ever on trial at the international level, there would be a lot of finger pointing to other countries and their leaders. It would have been very interesting indeed.

Can't do the time don't do the crime.
Here are a couple for you:

"Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy"

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God"

Don'tcha just love how everything boils down to personal theology? :rolleyes:

But watching Saddam put on his circus a la Milosevic would have made excellent TV....Fox news would have gone apoplectic when he started talking about our involvement in the Iran-Iraq war...

Nope, not really. I'm pro-Death Penalty, I'm pro-Saddam Execution, I'm pro-God.
Just because Republicans claim to be pro-God, doesn't mean they are and it doesn't mean you have to think as they do.

The number of Christians taking pleasure in the prospect is disturbing. I'm guessing you're all "tradition" Christians, rather than those who converted.

Just because Republicans claim to be pro-God, doesn't mean they are and it doesn't mean you have to think as they do.

The number of Christians taking pleasure in the prospect is disturbing. I'm guessing you're all "tradition" Christians, rather than those who converted.

Probably. I have noticed "tradition" christians to be considerably more tolerable than converts. Born-agains should shut up and get back into the womb.

I am appaulled that anyone here would not want the death penalty for a horrible brutal evil dictator. Do you guys care that he tortured, raped, and killed? He tried to have George Bush assassinated! He had our captured soldiers tortured. He did really nasty things to Iraqis in secret prisons. He used chemical weapons on children. What is wrong with you people?

I am appaulled that anyone here would not want the death penalty for a horrible brutal evil dictator. Do you guys care that he tortured, raped, and killed? He tried to have George Bush assassinated! He had our captured soldiers tortured. He did really nasty things to Iraqis in secret prisons. He used chemical weapons on children. What is wrong with you people?
Should George Bush the Elder also get the death penalty, or does his complicity in Saddam's actions have no bearing on your beliefs?

Should George Bush the Elder also get the death penalty, or does his complicity in Saddam's actions have no bearing on your beliefs?

?

Should George Bush the Elder also get the death penalty, or does his complicity in Saddam's actions have no bearing on your beliefs?

This is a two fold question. The first is "Did George Bush I's conduct rise to a level of culpability to warrant a death sentence if convicted." Unless you know something that I do not, George Bush was not a traitor, deserter, murderer, war criminal, or tyrant. We would probably agree that these types of criminals should get the death penalty if their actions were bad enough. I do not know of any crimes committed by George Bush I, and I absolutely do not know of any serious capital offenses he may have committed.

Yes, George Bush I was the head of the CIA which helped Iraq against Iran. I am sure that Saddam received aid in exchange for not being friendly with the USSR. George Bush I may have been part of this. I do not know and I do not think that this is relevant.

Your second question seems to be if a murdering torturing tyrant and war criminal has a partner in crime, does this mitigate his actions? I do not see any reason why this would be a mitigating factor. If anything it would be an aggravating factor because it shows more premeditation to go out and find others to heklp you carry out a crime.

?
What is there to question? You don't think that George Bush the Elder is squeaky clean do you?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03142003.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/dawoody06082004.html

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/iraq.php

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Spiders-Web-Secret-History-Illegally/dp/0553096508

Saddam had friends in high places. I call them accomplises. They are not guilty as well?

We would probably agree that these types of criminals should get the death penalty if their actions were bad enough.
You obviously have not read the thread, because I do not agree with you at all in this matter.

I do not know of any crimes committed by George Bush I, and I absolutely do not know of any serious capital offenses he may have committed.
Aiding and abetting a murderous dictator would be one? Removing Saddam's country from the list of terrorist nations would be two? Recognizing Iraq would be three? And on and on....

Yes, George Bush I was the head of the CIA which helped Iraq against Iran.
Ummmm, during the Iran/Iraq War, George Bush was Vice President. You are a little short on your history knowledge?

The US "had" to get in bed with a lot of scumbags during the Cold War. I do not really think that we had to, but that seems to be what was going on. I am embarrassed about the crap America got involved with because of the Cold War. I think we would have a much more honorable national history if at the end of World War II, we immediately led a world war III against all the communists. Some people look back and say the cold war was great because there was relative peace. I say it was terrible because we had the opportunity to end human rights abuses and we failed by allowing the commies to exist and allying with scumbags who were anti communist but still scumbags. Saddam is a scumbag. We do not need guys like him now that the cold war is over. He had oil and we did not want the USSR to get that oil I guess.

[QUOTE=Ummmm, during the Iran/Iraq War, George Bush was Vice President. You are a little short on your history knowledge?[/QUOTE]

As Vice President he had relatively little international relations power. Prior to that position he was head of CIA where he had much more international relations power.

Actually no you don't for what the Nazis did was pure genocide. This is not genocide.

Genocide was the culmination of what they did
but they did many other things which were all "legal"
as they passed laws to make them so.
These all laid the groundwork and built up to the so called "final solution"
http://deepquote.net/h4e1q2s6blwg
some may be familiar to those who watch Israeli legislation,

The point is that legislation may exist saying something is legal
but that does not excuse a person, an administration or a state
for committing immoral and inhuman acts.

Killing is always wrong except in genuine self defence
state sanctioned killings in the form of judicially ordered executions
are morally no different from pre-meditated murder.

As Vice President he had relatively little international relations power. Prior to that position he was head of CIA where he had much more international relations power.

He was vice president when you had a president with alzheimers.
Reagan wasn't diagnosed as having it until after he left office
but my mother has alzheimer's and she wasn't diagnosed we now reckon
until at least 6 years after its onset. ie when diagnosis became unavoidable

I've often wondered if GHW wasn't a 3 time president.

Killing is always wrong except in genuine self defence state sanctioned killings in the form of judicially ordered executions are morally no different from pre-meditated murder.
I agree.

I am appaulled that anyone here would not want the death penalty for a horrible brutal evil dictator. Do you guys care that he tortured, raped, and killed? He tried to have George Bush assassinated! He had our captured soldiers tortured. He did really nasty things to Iraqis in secret prisons. He used chemical weapons on children. What is wrong with you people?

Congratulations on the glorious use of sarcasm.

Many people may have missed it.

Probably. I have noticed "tradition" christians to be considerably more tolerable than converts.
No, you misunderstood. I'm saying the tradition Christians are people who were just raised to be Christian, right-wing etc. They are only like that because it's traditional in their family, or locality. At least the converts (I'm one of them) have read the Bible lately.

Congratulations on the glorious use of sarcasm.

Many people may have missed it.

I was not sarcastic.

I was not sarcastic.

You're kidding with us now right?

I find it difficult to accept that you wrote a list of things that would equally apply to the US in Iraq
without knowing you were doing so.

Surely I am not overestimating you?

I am appaulled that anyone here would not want the death penalty for a horrible brutal evil dictator. Do you guys care that he tortured, raped, and killed? He tried to have George Bush assassinated! He had our captured soldiers tortured. He did really nasty things to Iraqis in secret prisons. He used chemical weapons on children. What is wrong with you people?
All you must do is welcome Jesus Christ our Lord into your heart, and you will see the silliness and futility of your urges for revenge.

All you must do is welcome Jesus Christ our Lord into your heart, and you will see the silliness and futility of your urges for revenge.

some of us are capable of behaving like decent human beings without resorting to mythology, thanks though.

some of us are capable of behaving like decent human beings without resorting to mythology, thanks though.
I doubt it, humanism is just a secular version of Christianity.

I was just trying to help Freedonia here.

I doubt it, humanism is just a secular version of Christianity.

Without all the jesus nonsense.

Which makes me wonder if you could even have such a thing as a "secular version of christianity" as a version of religion without the religion is hardly a version of religion at all. In other words, there's no more such thing as a "secular version of reality" as there is a dry version of an ocean.

some of us are capable of behaving like decent human beings without resorting to mythology, thanks though.

I doubt it, humanism is just a secular version of Christianity.

I was just trying to help Freedonia here.

Without all the jesus nonsense.

Which makes me wonder if you could even have such a thing as a "secular version of christianity" as a version of religion without the religion is hardly a version of religion at all. In other words, there's no more such thing as a "secular version of reality" as there is a dry version of an ocean.


Fellas fellas there is no need for you two to be arguing here.

PW was just trying to help Freedonia because he read what Freedonia wrote as being other than biting satire,
which I believe it was but which Freedonia denies.
IF PW is right about his reading of what Freedonia said then his suggestion
to Freedonia would be beneficial to the whole world and yet does not
invalidate or even challenge your statement Arthais101 that some people don't need
mythology to have decent morals.

Don't forget it is the season of goodwill and its likely to be a short one this year, possibly due to global warming.

So, do you think that George Bush the Elder should be held accountable for "crimes against humanity" and suffer the same fate as Saddam?

Criminal Charges Filed Against George H.W. Bush (Sr.) in Iceland (http://www.williambowles.info/iraq/2006/0706/bush_criminal_charges.html)


* awaits excuses and backpedalling......

There won't be any excuses and backpedalling in your attempt to thread hijack. This thread is about Saddam's execution not former President George H W Bush. You should have started a new thread or topic of that.

Back on Topic: I hope Saddam's execution is televised.

Should George Bush the Elder also get the death penalty, or does his complicity in Saddam's actions have no bearing on your beliefs?

Your determined to thread high jack but I will mention that I noticed on that link it was dated for earlier this year, 2006. When exactly was the Gulf War, 1991 I believe and Panama City incident in 1989 so if these are legitimate claims as you preach and with my understanding how things take time especially governments and the justice departments, but hell 16-18 yrs to file sounds especially suspect to me.

Your determined to thread high jack but I will mention that I noticed on that link it was dated for earlier this year, 2006. When exactly was the Gulf War, 1991 I believe and Panama City incident in 1989 so if these are legitimate claims as you preach and with my understanding how things take time especially governments and the justice departments, but hell 16-18 yrs to file sounds especially suspect to me.

You must have been a Pinochet supporter I take it?

There won't be any excuses and backpedalling in your attempt to thread hijack. This thread is about Saddam's execution not former President George H W Bush. You should have started a new thread or topic of that.

Back on Topic: I hope Saddam's execution is televised.

I don't remember the topic being "declare the depths of your barbarism here"

It was to the best of my knowledge about it being quite a bad idea to execute Saddam for political and possibly moral reasons.

If we forget for a moment what an abhorrent act such a murder would be.

It could well destabilise Iraq further once people can resist the occupation
without being held to be Saddam supporters. So from that point of view
it is very much not in US interests.

We do understand however that it is in US best interests that Saddam never be tried
for his largest crime in any court never mind the appropriate one.
Presumably that is your principal reason for being so in favour of certain execution or you
would have felt the need to discuss why if it is okay for Saddam to be
tried and executed for his crimes against Iraqis, members of the US administration
should not be subject to the same process and consequence for their
similar crimes, torture, mass murder, use of banned weaponry etc against the Iraqis

There won't be any excuses and backpedalling in your attempt to thread hijack. This thread is about Saddam's execution not former President George H W Bush. You should have started a new thread or topic of that.

Back on Topic: I hope Saddam's execution is televised.
Well, I really don't think I am hijacking the thread that I started, in that we are dealing with the circumstances of Saddam's pending execution, and history shows us that there were other players involved. Three of those players are Ronald Reagan (since deceased), George H. W. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld. There are obviously more people involved, but those are three of the key players. Much of what Saddam accomplished, was with the aid and assistance from the aforementioned three people. To disregard that would be inappropriate.

If a machine gunner is mowing down victims and someone is passing him the bullets, are they not also guilty?

Your determined to thread high jack but I will mention that I noticed on that link it was dated for earlier this year, 2006. When exactly was the Gulf War, 1991 I believe and Panama City incident in 1989 so if these are legitimate claims as you preach and with my understanding how things take time especially governments and the justice departments, but hell 16-18 yrs to file sounds especially suspect to me.
There are no time limitations to crimes committed by war criminals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_hunters). Adolf Eichmann comes to mind, as well as, many others.

Well, I really don't think I am hijacking the thread that I started, in that we are dealing with the circumstances of Saddam's pending execution, and history shows us that there were other players involved. Three of those players are Ronald Reagan (since deceased), George H. W. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld. There are obviously more people involved, but those are three of the key players. Much of what Saddam accomplished, was with the aid and assistance from the aforementioned three people. To disregard that would be inappropriate.

If a machine gunner is mowing down victims and someone is passing him the bullets, are they not also guilty?

Of course you're also disregarding the military and financial aid from Russia and France during his reign. You know, the French who provided him w/ nuclear materials/designs to start building a reactor, and the Russians whose military equipment he primarily used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

Well, I really don't think I am hijacking the thread that I started, in that we are dealing with the circumstances of Saddam's pending execution, and history shows us that there were other players involved. Three of those players are Ronald Reagan (since deceased), George H. W. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld. There are obviously more people involved, but those are three of the key players. Much of what Saddam accomplished, was with the aid and assistance from the aforementioned three people. To disregard that would be inappropriate.

If a machine gunner is mowing down victims and someone is passing him the bullets, are they not also guilty?

My apologies....I didn't realize until now that you started this topic.

There were other nations as well involved in what you have described but I keep forgetting that your position is to stand against the USA and only the USA let's forget about the French, Germany, Russians, etc... They are all Forgiven but we will never forget nor forgive America... :rolleyes:

My apologies....I didn't realize until now that you started this topic.

There were other nations as well involved in what you have described but I keep forgetting that your position is to stand against the USA and only the USA let's forget about the French, Germany, Russians, etc... They are all Forgiven but we will never forget nor forgive America... :rolleyes:

And which of those countries having done that then turned around
and brought on bloody and disastrous war with Iraq claiming the reasons
to be various, most of which were lies to start with and have since been
categorically disproven and also some truth about what a terrible man
Saddam was particularly as evidenced by actions taken by him
either with their complicity or at least providing cover from international action or sanction at the time.


As for forgiveness
its a bit like a child rapist wondering why they aren't being forgiven while continuing the rape

And which of those countries having done that then turned around
and brought on bloody and disastrous war with Iraq claiming the reasons
to be various, most of which were lies to start with and have since been
categorically disproven and also some truth about what a terrible man
Saddam was particularly as evidenced by actions taken by him
either with their complicity or at least providing cover from international action or sanction at the time.

Boy, red herrings abound in this post.

Of course you forget/ignore that many of the countries that financially and militarily supported him during the Iran/Iraq war opposed him and provided troops/bases/support against him during both gulf wars.

And which of those countries having done that then turned around
and brought on bloody and disastrous war with Iraq claiming the reasons
to be various, most of which were lies to start with and have since been
categorically disproven and also some truth about what a terrible man
Saddam was particularly as evidenced by actions taken by him
either with their complicity or at least providing cover from international action or sanction at the time.

As for the War, have you forgotten that not only did US intelligence state there were WMDs but also the intelligence of Israel, Russia, France, and the UK? Have you forgotten that all this unilateral BS talk is far from the truth considering we did and do have allies currently stationed in the Mid East. Granted we may have the vast majority but it was never the "do it alone" so many have professed.

As for Saddam, why don't you ask a Kurd about the type of dictator Saddam was? Sanctions? what a joke.....Saddam has always thumbed his nose at the UN for more than a decade because he knew that it was a failed organzation with No Back bone to enforce their sanctions and resolutions.

Boy, red herrings abound in this post.

Of course you forget/ignore that many of the countries that financially and militarily supported him during the Iran/Iraq war opposed him and provided troops/bases/support against him during both gulf wars.

The first one was UN sanctioned
for some reason the US did not seek to prevent the UN opposing
the illegal invasion of Kuwait.

The second one was not UN sanctioned
for some reason the US objected to the UN not sanctioning the illegal
invasion of Iraq and went ahead with it anyway
along with its coalition of the bullied and the bribed.

The point is not that no country should have given him aid in his criminal
war on Iran the point is that only the US has had the gall to use crimes
it was complicit in as a justification for their subsequent crime.

The first one was UN sanctioned
for some reason the US did not seek to prevent the UN opposing
the illegal invasion of Kuwait.

The second one was not UN sanctioned
for some reason the US objected to the UN not sanctioning the illegal
invasion of Iraq and went ahead with it anyway
along with its coalition of the bullied and the bribed.

The point is not that no country should have given him aid in his criminal
war on Iran the point is that only the US has had the gall to use crimes
it was complicit in as a justification for their subsequent crime.

And more red herrings. Guess when the truth hurts, some good ol' US bashing is the way to go.

As for Saddam, why don't you ask a Kurd about the type of dictator Saddam was? Sanctions? what a joke.....Saddam has always thumbed his nose at the UN for more than a decade because he knew that it was a failed organzation with No Back bone to enforce their sanctions and resolutions.

Kurds knew what type of dictator Saddam was when the US was his friend
Kurds knew what type of dictator Saddam was when the whitehouse
blocked sanctions against him after he gassed Kurds using helicopters
provided by the US and knowhow provided by the US
Iranians knew what type of dictator Saddam was when the US was helping
him kill them in their hundreds of thousands.
The US and Saddams regime are inextricably linked so you cannot use as an
excuse for US criminal actions now that they are some kind of just retribution
for US aided criminal actions before

This Saddam that exists in your imagination that thumbed his nose at the UN
for more than a decade is he related to the real one where sanctions
and un weapons inspections had achieved their goal by 1996 and only
the US prevented sanctions in place to ensure he had been disarmed of WMD
1 from not being applied correctly and appropriately in the first place
2 from being lifted when the criteria for their lifting had been achieved.

And more red herrings. Guess when the truth hurts, some good ol' US bashing is the way to go.

Ah ok I see I was misunderstanding your dialect of English

Now I understand
Red Herrings = Truth you don't like
US Bashing gets thrown in to distract.

If that is all you have then don't expect any further responses
if you wish to address specific points then please put forward your evidence
or there is nothing to discuss.

Ah ok I see I was misunderstanding your dialect of English

Now I understand
Red Herrings = Truth you don't like
US Bashing gets thrown in to distract.

Nope. Try again. Red Herrings = trying to blame everything on the US and changing the subject while ignoring the "complicity" of everyone else involved.

You are the one who doesn't like the realfacts that many countries were complicit in his crimes and , whether the invasion was "legitimate" or not, he is being held accountable for them. Some just want to keep claiming hypocrisy though.

As for my understanding of English, perhaps if you typed in coherent sentances instead of fragments like you're out of breath, it might help.

For full effect, hopefully it'll be televised :D


We'll watch it on YOutube that night.

Kurds knew what type of dictator Saddam was when the US was his friend
Kurds knew what type of dictator Saddam was when the whitehouse
blocked sanctions against him after he gassed Kurds using helicopters
provided by the US and knowhow provided by the US
Iranians knew what type of dictator Saddam was when the US was helping
him kill them in their hundreds of thousands.
The US and Saddams regime are inextricably linked so you cannot use as an
excuse for US criminal actions now that they are some kind of just retribution
for US aided criminal actions before

This Saddam that exists in your imagination that thumbed his nose at the UN
for more than a decade is he related to the real one where sanctions
and un weapons inspections had achieved their goal by 1996 and only
the US prevented sanctions in place to ensure he had been disarmed of WMD
1 from not being applied correctly and appropriately in the first place
2 from being lifted when the criteria for their lifting had been achieved.



And this is what is called US bashing when the poster conveiniently leaves out the many countries that supplied chemical agents/money/ and military equipment in far larger amounts than the US to put it all the blame on the US. I guess the Saudi's knew what kind of dictator he was when they gave him over $30B, and the French when they supplied him w. nuclear technology, and the Russians with billions in military supplies, etc. etc.

But it's all the US's fault.

Kinda pathetic really.

And this is what is called US bashing when the poster conveiniently leaves out the many countries that supplied chemical agents/money/ and military equipment in far larger amounts than the US to put it all the blame on the US. I guess the Saudi's knew what kind of dictator he was when they gave him over $30B, and the French when they supplied him w. nuclear technology, and the Russians with billions in military supplies, etc. etc.

But it's all the US's fault.

Kinda pathetic really.


The point is not that no country should have given him aid in his criminal
war on Iran, it was wrong of everyone; the point is that only the US has had the gall to use crimes
it was complicit in as a justification for their subsequent crime.

As above

As above

And yet the countries did and are all complicit in his crimes but he was the one that carried them out and continued to terrorize the populace. As above, whether the invasion was "legitimate" or not, he is being held accountable for his actions.

Those nations that supplied him w/ the nuclear/chemical/military technology all had the "gall" to condemn him when they were used against others(not Iranians). Not just the US.

My apologies....I didn't realize until now that you started this topic.

There were other nations as well involved in what you have described but I keep forgetting that your position is to stand against the USA and only the USA let's forget about the French, Germany, Russians, etc... They are all Forgiven but we will never forget nor forgive America... :rolleyes:
You err in your thinking. I am certainly not anti-American by any stretch of the imagination. I was using American political leaders as an example primarily because it has been mostly Americans calling for this execution on this thread.

Of course there is complicity by other nations and leaders, but which country led the parade to Saddam's door? The US removed Saddam from their list of terrorist nations, and even after the Iraqis used chemical weapons against the Iranians, still exchanged ambassadors with Iraq. The US didn't break off diplomatic relations with Iraq, until after the invasion of Kuwait.

In 1990, Bob Dole was referring to Saddam as a friend of America, even after the alledged gassing of Kurds. Saddam was a puppet of the US almost exclusively.

And which of those countries having done that then turned around
and brought on bloody and disastrous war with Iraq claiming the reasons
to be various, most of which were lies to start with and have since been
categorically disproven and also some truth about what a terrible man
Saddam was particularly as evidenced by actions taken by him
either with their complicity or at least providing cover from international action or sanction at the time.


As for forgiveness
its a bit like a child rapist wondering why they aren't being forgiven while continuing the rape
You are nailing all the talking points. Good work!!

And yet the countries did and are all complicit in his crimes but he was the one that carried them out and continued to terrorize the populace. As above, whether the invasion was "legitimate" or not, he is being held accountable for his actions.

Those nations that supplied him w/ the nuclear/chemical/military technology all had the "gall" to condemn him when they were used against others(not Iranians). Not just the US.

Condemning him is one thing
Invading Iraq and destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis remains a crime
For the US to pretend to justify doing so by claiming that invasion is in response
to terrible deeds they were complicit in is just so much flannel and indeed hypocrisy.

Saddam was then captured by the US.
He is responsible for appx 1,300,000 deaths
1,000,000 of them a result of his illegal war on Iran
The appropriate court for his Iranian war crime is not a dodgy Iraqi one
It was and still is in the power of the US to deliver him to the appropriate
court and the fact that they will not simply underlines the hypocrisy of your government.

The fact that Saddam has been found guilty of crimes and will be executed for them when
your current and multiple previous administrations are guilty of many or all of
the same crimes also reeks.

People are not anti american because they just have some kind of ameriphobia,
people have distaste, disdain and contempt for the United States for it's self serving actions regardless of the cost in other peoples lives.

The first one was UN sanctioned
for some reason the US did not seek to prevent the UN opposing
the illegal invasion of Kuwait.

The second one was not UN sanctioned
for some reason the US objected to the UN not sanctioning the illegal
invasion of Iraq and went ahead with it anyway
along with its coalition of the bullied and the bribed.

The point is not that no country should have given him aid in his criminal
war on Iran the point is that only the US has had the gall to use crimes
it was complicit in as a justification for their subsequent crime.

And more red herrings. Guess when the truth hurts, some good ol' US bashing is the way to go.
Those are not red herrings at all. You just refuse to accept the reality of the situation. The truth hurts alright, especially when the guilt is present.

You err in your thinking. I am certainly not anti-American by any stretch of the imagination. I was using American political leaders as an example primarily because it has been mostly Americans calling for this execution on this thread.

Of course there is complicity by other nations and leaders, but which country led the parade to Saddam's door? The US removed Saddam from their list of terrorist nations, and even after the Iraqis used chemical weapons against the Iranians, still exchanged ambassadors with Iraq. The US didn't break off diplomatic relations with Iraq, until after the invasion of Kuwait.

In 1990, Bob Dole was referring to Saddam as a friend of America, even after the alledged gassing of Kurds. Saddam was a puppet of the US almost exclusively.

Which is why Russia and France sold him nearly a Billion dollars worth of military equipment in '90 alone while the US sold him none.

Revisionist history is fun.

Those are not red herrings at all. You just refuse to accept the reality of the situation. The truth hurts alright, especially when the guilt is present.

I guess that's why you completely ignore that you claimed Saddams crimes were due mostly to the US when it wasn't the US who sold him most of the equipment or gave him most of the money. That truth must hurt you so much you keep ignoring it to present your goodfacts.

Condemning him is one thing
Invading Iraq and destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis remains a crime
For the US to pretend to justify doing so by claiming that invasion is in response
to terrible deeds they were complicit in is just so much flannel and indeed hypocrisy.

Saddam was then captured by the US.
He is responsible for appx 1,300,000 deaths
1,000,000 of them a result of his illegal war on Iran
The appropriate court for his Iranian war crime is not a dodgy Iraqi one
It was and still is in the power of the US to deliver him to the appropriate
court and the fact that they will not simply underlines the hypocrisy of your government.

The fact that Saddam has been found guilty of crimes and will be executed for them when
your current and multiple previous administrations are guilty of many or all of
the same crimes also reeks.

People are not anti american because they just have some kind of ameriphobia,
people have distaste, disdain and contempt for the United States for it's self serving actions regardless of the cost in other peoples lives.

And once again you keep ignoring the actions of everyone else to place the blame on the US. That's a Red Herring.

I guess that's why you completely ignore that you claimed Saddams crimes were due mostly to the US when it wasn't the US who sold him most of the equipment or gave him most of the money. That truth must hurt you so much you keep ignoring it to present your goodfacts.
The Reagan government gave Saddam legitimacy, and you cannot begin to understand the depth of that US commitment?

Which is why Russia and France sold him nearly a Billion dollars worth of military equipment in '90 alone while the US sold him none.

Revisionist history is fun.

# From July 18 to 1 August (Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August) the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology product sales to Iraq. End-buyers included MIMI and Saad 16. Mimi was identified in 1988 as a facility for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. In 1989 Saad was linked to CW and NW development.
# The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq invades Kuwait

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

We appreciate your love of revisionist history but suggest taking it to another
thread.

I would suggest the heading could be "the imaginary Iraq and Saddam Hussein that neocons believe in."

I guess that's why you completely ignore that you claimed Saddams crimes were due mostly to the US when it wasn't the US who sold him most of the equipment or gave him most of the money. That truth must hurt you so much you keep ignoring it to present your goodfacts.

I think we will try one last time to get this through to you.

The pressing issue is not that the US and other countries provided
weaponry and aid for Saddam to prosecute an illegal war that is at issue here.

It is the current US administrations efforts to use the illegal war that previous
US administrations supported as a just cause to prosecute an illegal invasion
against Iraq.


"Why did you kill that guy and his family?"
"He was a mugger, he mugged an old lady"
"But you also mugged that old lady with him"
"Other people mugged her too why are you picking on me"

-snip-

People are not anti american because they just have some kind of ameriphobia,
people have distaste, disdain and contempt for the United States for it's self serving actions regardless of the cost in other peoples lives.

I'm curious what nation you live in that you are so disarrayed by America. Please tell us the name of your "perfect" nation. I'd love to check/research the history of your nation.

Practically every nation has some sort of atrocities or whatnot, we are a world of humans who of which are all imperfect.

I keep forgetting that one part of being a Super Power is the high level of criticism from others, especially if you're a lone Super Power. oh well, I'll keep living my life as I please.

I'm curious what nation you live in that you are so disarrayed by America. Please tell us the name of your "perfect" nation. I'd love to check/research the history of your nation.

Practically every nation has some sort of atrocities or whatnot, we are a world of humans who of which are all imperfect.

I keep forgetting that one part of being a Super Power is the high level of criticism from others, especially if you're a lone Super Power. oh well, I'll keep living my life as I please.

For the part you snipped, he's right. He didn't say anything that isn't already known as a main reason for a dislike of American foreign policy.

Well, regardless, Saddam was convicted and sentenced to Death by hanging so nothing anybody says or does can undo this fact.

Good Riddens to Saddam less than 30 days and counting. wooo hooooooo :D

Well, regardless, Saddam was convicted and sentenced to Death by hanging so nothing anybody says or does can undo this fact.

Good Riddens to Saddam less than 30 days and counting. wooo hooooooo :D

As Saddam is in American custody, it is up to the US to decide whether
he is barbarically executed or brought before an appropriate court for
his international war crimes.

...

Practically every nation has some sort of atrocities or whatnot, we are a world of humans who of which are all imperfect.
...

So if we are getting your argument correctly it is something like

yes we are committing atrocities but then who doesn't
and that is why we are the ones who should punish millions of Iraqis for
the atrocities committed by their unelected dictatorship.
(which we helped bring into being and supported during their greatest excesses)

Now Saddam will be executed in 36 hours :D

I feel it a good time to post this picture.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/8747/34s2ntipl7.gif

Good riddance to a man who deserved a dirt nap a LONG time ago.

Well, he's gonna be executed, let's get some info out of him before he goes. Such as the location of that Hornet Pilot that was shot down (Or crashed?) at the very end of Desert Storm. A billion other things.

As Saddam is in American custody, it is up to the US to decide whether
he is barbarically executed or brought before an appropriate court for
his international war crimes.

Umm, ditch the internation war crimes. The Iraqis have already taken care of it themselves. If the iraqis wanted to brutally flog him and crucify him, it's their choice. The man was a monster and deserves whatever treatment he gets here and the hell that awaits him in the next one.

ETA: In case it hasn't been made known to you, He was found GUILTY and sentenced to DEATH, Not as you would like to think by the American imperialist Bushco dogs from wall street, but by Iraqis.

Update: Saddam will die within 36 hours. early as Friday, latest is Sunday.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/8747/34s2ntipl7.gif

NBC: Saddam to be hanged by Sunday
Ex-dictator’s execution expected to be carried out by start of Eid holiday
NBC News and news services
Updated: 7:10 p.m. ET Dec 28, 2006
Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, sentenced to death for his role in 148 killings in 1982, will have his sentence carried out by Sunday, NBC News reported Thursday. According to a U.S. military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity, Saddam will be hanged before the start of the Eid religious holiday, which begins this Sunday.

The hanging could take place as early as Friday, NBC’s Richard Engel reported.

The U.S. military received a formal request from the Iraqi government to transfer Saddam to Iraqi authorities, NBC reported on Thursday, which is one of the final steps required before his execution. His sentence, handed down last month, ordered that he be hanged within 30 days.

Earlier Thursday, Saddam’s chief lawyer implored world leaders to prevent the United States from handing over the ousted leader to Iraqi authorities for execution, saying the former dictator should enjoy protection from his enemies as a “prisoner of war.”

“According to the international conventions, it is forbidden to hand a prisoner of war to his adversary,” Saddam’s lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, said in Amman, Jordan.

“I urge all the international and legal organizations, the United Nations secretary-general, the Arab League and all the leaders of the world to rapidly prevent the American administration from handing the president to the Iraqi authorities,” he told The Associated Press.

Meets with half-brothers
Saddam met with two of his half-brothers on Thursday and passed on personal messages to his family, a lawyer said.

Badie Aref, one of Saddam's lawyers, said the rare meeting with maternal half-brothers Sabawi and Watban Ibrahim Hassanal-Tikriti, who are in U.S. custody, was at the request of the ousted Iraqi leader and took place inside his heavily guarded prison cell in Baghdad.

Aref said Saddam was in very high spirits and had sensed “something was happening relating to the sentence” when prison guards took away a small radio he had been given several months ago.

“He met Sabawi and Watban and gave them letters to his family in anticipation.... He is clearly unaware of the details of what is happening around him and prepared to give his life as a martyr to his country,” Aref told Reuters by telephone.


Aref said prison sources who told him of the family meeting said Saddam was aware of an appeals court decision to uphold his death sentence for crimes against humanity during his 24-year rule.

“He was in very high spirits and clearly readying himself,” Aref said during a visit to Dubai.

“He told them that he was happy he would meet his death at the hands of his enemies and be a martyr and not just languish in prison in oblivion.”

Aref said he was unsure if Saddam's third half-brother, Barzan al-Tikriti, who was sentenced to death along with the ousted leader, saw Saddam.

Fears that handover may spark violence
An official close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said that Saddam would remain in a U.S. military prison until he is handed over to Iraqi authorities on the day of his execution. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to address the media.

A top government official disputed the court’s ruling that Saddam must be hanged within 30 days, saying the execution should be held after that time period. The comment comes amid debate over other legal procedures such as whether the presidency is required to approve the execution.

Cardinal Renato Martino, Pope Benedict XVI’s top prelate for justice issues and a former Vatican envoy to the U.N., condemned the death sentence in a newspaper interview published Thursday, saying capital punishment goes against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

After his sentence was given, Louise Arbour, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, urged Iraq to ensure a fair appeals process and to refrain from executing Saddam even if the sentence is upheld.

Some international legal observers and human rights groups have also called Saddam’s trial unfair because of alleged interference by the Shiite-dominated government.

© 2006 MSNBC InteractiveNBC News’ Richard Engel, Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

link-ey (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384738/?GT1=8816)

Update: Saddam will die within 48 hours. early as Friday, latest is Sunday.

link-ey (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384738/?GT1=8816)

woooo hooooooo *cracks open a bottle of champagne*

woooo hooooooo *cracks open a bottle of champagne*

I'm becoming increasingly baffled by this behaviour.

Are you Iraqi?

Because unless you are, you really don't have a reason to be whooping about him being executed.

woooo hooooooo *cracks open a bottle of champagne*
Your siggy is in direct conflict with your actions. Perhaps one day this will dawn on you.

Congrats, Iraqis! You miserable barbarians! :D

So if we are getting your argument correctly it is something like

yes we are committing atrocities but then who doesn't
and that is why we are the ones who should punish millions of Iraqis for
the atrocities committed by their unelected dictatorship.
(which we helped bring into being and supported during their greatest excesses)
Why is it that the Americans on this board who are clamouring for Saddam's execution cannot see the reality of this situation? Especially the ones that call themselves Christians.

'Among the majority who are thrilled about Saddam's capture, many are calling for his quick execution, setting up a possible collision course with humanitarian groups and organizations such as the United Nations.' this is from the following link........

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1218-04.htm

and then......

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/07/02/shiites_call_for_saddams_execution?mode=PF

and here's this.....

He urged speedy moves to draw up a plan to strengthen the security apparatus “within the framework of the law and respecting human rights.”
Hakim blamed the security deterioration on “the Takfirists, pro-Saddams and all the local, regional and international powers that provide all forms of support to those terrorists.”
which came from this link......

http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/9649

and this......

http://www.webloggin.com/justice-met-iraqi%e2%80%99s-celebrate-as-saddam-is-sentenced-to-hang/

it goes on and on. I suppose I just don't understand why some people can't be happy for the Iraqi people. It seems that the majority of them are happy that Saddam was sentenced to death.

I'm becoming increasingly baffled by this behaviour.

Are you Iraqi?

Because unless you are, you really don't have a reason to be whooping about him being executed.

Nope not Iraqi but I am definately happy for the Iraqi People that the Death of the tyrant will be soon. After which they need not worry about that bastard returning to power.

Your siggy is in direct conflict with your actions. Perhaps one day this will dawn on you.

I beg to differ.

Your siggy is in direct conflict with your actions. Perhaps one day this will dawn on you.
I beg to differ.
Then I'm sure the both of you will be quite able to explain your views.

While I don't think that we Christians must all have the same political opinions, I also don't think that Jesus Christ was one to do things like scream for revenge, or chant for blood in gloating.

After which they need not worry about that bastard returning to power.
Surely you don't actually think that there is any chance of that happening, do you?