Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Herra Tohtori on November 05, 2006, 03:29:23 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4507568.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4507568.stm)
SUNDAY 5 NOVEMBER
Summary: Saddam Hussein is found guilty of crimes against humanity for the killing of 148 Shias in Tigris river city of Dujail in 1982.
He is sentenced to death by hanging.
Now that is indeed a humane way to end someone's life. :wtf:
Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?
I personally tend to view death sentence "less bad" than simply putting a person into jail for remainder of his or her life. Arguably, death itself lasts a short time, and everyone dies eventually anyway... so spending 20 years in prison would be more tormenting to me at least than death.
Discuss.
-
Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?
yeah.
-
'Live on Fox!'...
I can see it now:/
-
You know Flip, I wouldn't be surprised. Disgusted perhaps, but not surprised.
Bush propably declares the hanging day as national holiday, or something...
-
Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?
No.
-
Wait, Saddam was found guilty?! My... my God, I just didn't see it coming. It's unbelievable!! My flabber is thoroughly gasted!
-
It might be that my double sarcasm detector is not functioning at Sundays, but the point is not whether or not he is guilty of atrocities (he is).
The point is to
A. discuss if hanging as a method of killing a person is acceptable
B. argue whether or not ending Saddam's life "manually" has any point whatsoever.
At A I would say that utilizing hanging as method of capital punishment is not what I would expect from a "democratic, free country". But perhaps the change from the days of Evil has not yet had time to remove barbarous punishments from Iraqi legislation. Despite the fact that I would see that kind of things rather a primary concern in liberation process. Oh well.
On B I usually argue this:
-Saddam is a human being.
-Human beings inevitably die.
-Conclusion: Saddam will die even without help.
The contents of the hypothetical afterlife can not be known... I don't know whether or not Saddam will go to hell or get to heaven, but I'd say when he dies doesn't matter to where he goes. On the other hand, if there is no afterlife, dying itself doesn't take that long after all, and thus it would be a release.
More effective punishment would be if he was kept alive, but forbidden to live. Cover basic needs - let him sleep, eat and be, but that's it. Make him live as long as possible. Arguably, the contents of the afterlife will not remarkably change during the years of life he would have left.
I think forcing to stay alive, yet forbidding life would be much more badass a punishment than simple death sentence...
-
I was merely commenting on the fact that they might as well have skipped the trial, because there was no way in hell that Saddam was going to get anything less than death.
Regarding his sentence, it would arguably be better to keep him alive to aid in any investigation behind the invasion such as the [albeit questionable] allegations raised in another thread. He could give a unique perspective as to the actions of the government just prior to and during the invasion, and is thus far more valuable alive than dead. Indeed, killing Saddam now will only serve to exacerbate violence by pro-Saddam elements in- and outside of Iraq, and while some may argue that it will provide a morale boost to 'friendlies' and vice versa to 'hostiles', the effect will undoubtedly be negligible considering the current conditions within the troubled nation.
My own opinion on the subject, for those few [read: none] who want to read it, is that this is surprisingly ironic given that he is being killed for ordering the murder of 148 people, while the American leadership is lauded for ordering the deaths of hundreds of thousands [though indirectly]. It troubles me that most simply dismiss the fact without a second thought.
Finally, let's just leave the notion of an 'afterlife' out of this discussion, as we don't want this to become a debate on that particular issue. While I for one enjoy metaphysical discussions on the usefulness of the death penalty when applied to the possible existance of the supernatural, this is neither the time nor the place for such a discussion.
-
So, we are going to kill Saddam, in order to punish him for killing more people. I have always viewed the death penalty as becoming the person you are trying to punish, in microcosm. So by killing Saddam, no matter how evil he may be, the Iraqis are in a small fashion, becoming the person they are trying to punish.
We should just jail him for the rest of his life. A far more apt punishment for one as himself. Force him to experience the conditions he foisted upon others. The irony would be truely fitting, I think.
EDIT: Person C here.
-
aw, hanging? I was expecting more of the "decapitation + dragging the decapitated body around town" thing.
...
:nervous:
seriously though, he may be better alive, rotting in prison for the rest of his life, for the reasons that mefustae said, although it may be hard to discern at times whether he's telling the truth or making stuff up to smear his enemies.
-
i woulda preferred him being launched from a giant trebuchet, but that's just me.
-
You know, this crap that Beckett is coming out with is just annoying. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6118134.stm
Now finding him guilty is one thing, but to have the UK effectively say "hey we approve of you hanging him" when we don't even support capital punishment...
-
In jail you'd still have to feed and cloth him, and so on. Death sentence will get rid of him.
Does he deserve the sentence? I don't know. If he has done all the bad things US and South Park claim he has, then by all means swat the ****er. But considering the mess that is the invasion, I don't have a clue what the **** is going on. What happened before, during and after US incursion in to middle east, well let's just say I haven't yet encoutered information that I'd consider completely credible. Not that I really have interest in finding any. I'll wat a year or so, for some nice documetary on TV.
So Saddam got the death sentence. Do I approve death penalty? Yes, I reckon it's fitting for really evil men. Is Saddam an evil man? Well he's been judged by people with ****load of more information and resources than what I have. So I just have to trust them.
Suppose he wouldn't get the rope? What then? Sit the rest of his life in a windowless concrete room? Wheter that would be better than death comes down to personal prefrence. Third option would be to let him loose, but I have a feeling that wouldn't be prudent.
Saddam will be punished. His blood will be on the hands of those who judged him, or took some part in his trial. If the penalty was just, then yay and all that. If he's getting hanged for no good reason, the truth will propably come out eventually and those responsible will end up suffering.
-
You'd be amazed how desperately a human being will cling to life no matter how horrible it is, once faced with the prospect of possible death. Especially secular individuals, and Saddam was no religious nut.
As for executing him, I've always been against the death penalty. I believe life is something special, unique and remarkable that should be treasured in all it's forms - even the darkest kind of life.
There is no argument that Saddam should be punished, and life in jail would be acceptable. Of course, the people who used him, gave him his power, and his chemical weapons, are walking free and living a very long and comfortable life...
-
Although I'm generally against the death penalty it's mainly on the grounds of the danger of executing the innocent due to miscarriages of justice. I couldn't care less if Saddam hangs for moral reasons because he is actually guilty. Which means that my objections become.
a) Why just him and not the westerners who helped him even though they knew he was committing crimes against humanity?
b) Will his execution cause more bloodshed than simply leaving him to rot in a cell? I tend to feel that it will.
As for the trial itself it's worth pointing out that Saddam wasn't the only person on trial for the crime. As such even though everyone knew that Saddam was guilty and would be found as such the same thing can't be said about his co-defendants. In fact one of them was a aquitted. That alone makes the trial worth it.
-
'Live on Fox!'...
"Do you want to know more?"
-
death by snoo snoo!!!
-
I was merely commenting on the fact that they might as well have skipped the trial, because there was no way in hell that Saddam was going to get anything less than death....
Everyone deserves due process of law. Even if he did not provide it to anyone he wanted killed.
-
I don't understand the justification of the death penalty because 'Saddam was evil', because the first thing any trial should do is make sure that the character of the victim is disregarded in trying and indeed sentencing the criminal. And I'm not sure why the inverse is applied to what is, after all, state-sanction murder.
Personally, I can't think of a more appropriate, more fitting punishment for a dictator who spent his life in luxurious palacial compounds than to live out his days in a tiny, grey concrete cell, each day more pathetic than the last. Not only is execution in my mind morally wrong for any criminal, in this case it's doubly wrong as it will only mythologise and martyr Saddam; it will give him one last chance to present himself as a rallying call to his loyalists, and only encourage the romanticised notion of him (to some Iraqis) as a 'good' dictator who brought the sort of stability and general security that has evapourated in Iraq.
-
I fail to see how killing 148 people, many of whom were probably actually involved in the assasination attempt anyways, constitutes a crime against humanity.
There's like 7 billion humans. Killing 148 of them is like Humanity getting a bit of grit in it's eye.
And, ****, I'm damn ****ing sure the 'cost effective' brigades of the various multi-nationals have put out products they knew for a fact would kill more than 148 people, figuring the cost of 148 lost law suits would be less than the profits from 250mil units sold. But you don't see them being tried for crimes against humanity.
Hell, in WW2 there were probably thousands of bomber crews who were personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of innocent civillians. But you don't see them being tried either.
-
death by snoo snoo!!!
LOL! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
I fail to see how killing 148 people, many of whom were probably actually involved in the assasination attempt anyways, constitutes a crime against humanity.
There's like 7 billion humans. Killing 148 of them is like Humanity getting a bit of grit in it's eye.
And, ****, I'm damn ****ing sure the 'cost effective' brigades of the various multi-nationals have put out products they knew for a fact would kill more than 148 people, figuring the cost of 148 lost law suits would be less than the profits from 250mil units sold. But you don't see them being tried for crimes against humanity.
Hell, in WW2 there were probably thousands of bomber crews who were personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of innocent civillians. But you don't see them being tried either.
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/part-a.htm#2
Article 7: Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
-
I'm just in awe of the fact there's a website actually called "preventgenocide.org".
-
If widespread murder is a crime against humanity, then where's Fred West's trial? Or Shipman's? Or Dahmer's?
Same with rape.
And the various world gangs never get tried for any of the mass-forced-prostitution they run.
And the same with the rest of it. According to that ****, not letting the BNP candidates speak during the elections was a crime against humanity, because they were being persecuted for their political beliefs.
-
well your options were probly, hanging, firing squad, and beheading. so he probably got off light in that sense.
-
Yada yada yada. Guess what sunshine, world isn't perfect. The reason why Saddamn is in trial, and not your rapist rabble and whatever ****ing assorted filth, is that Saddamn happened to be apolitical figure. A nation leader even, who happened to be on a black list of a more powerful leader. Saddam is on trial because he was important. It's about politics, first and foremost. Furthermore Saddamn just happened to be on the losing side. And you know what happens to losers.
That is how the world works.
"Waaa! The trial was injust! Humanity is evil!" Get over it.
-
And it's because of attitudes like that that you're all stuck on this ****ty, backwater rock....
-
If I were going to be put to death, this would be my preference:
Firing Squad > Hanging > Gas > Lethal Injection > Beat to death
I really think that hanging is more humane than lethal injection, mainly because it's much, much quicker.
-
Pinochet used to have his political prisoners thrown out of airplanes over the ocean. Now that's an execution.
-
I just saw in the news... Saddam requested to be shot to death. Request was denied and he gets the rope.
And hanging, if done properly (which I do believe it is officially done) is indeed quite quick. But I think bullets are more dramatic.
-
If widespread murder is a crime against humanity, then where's Fred West's trial? Or Shipman's? Or Dahmer's?
Same with rape.
And the various world gangs never get tried for any of the mass-forced-prostitution they run.
And the same with the rest of it. According to that ****, not letting the BNP candidates speak during the elections was a crime against humanity, because they were being persecuted for their political beliefs.
you're cute when you troll :)
-
If widespread murder is a crime against humanity, then where's Fred West's trial? Or Shipman's? Or Dahmer's?
Same with rape.
And the various world gangs never get tried for any of the mass-forced-prostitution they run.
And the same with the rest of it. According to that ****, not letting the BNP candidates speak during the elections was a crime against humanity, because they were being persecuted for their political beliefs.
you're cute when you troll :)
Que? That's a relatively on-topic, reasonable post - especially when you consider it's from anon...
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4507568.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4507568.stm)
SUNDAY 5 NOVEMBER
Summary: Saddam Hussein is found guilty of crimes against humanity for the killing of 148 Shias in Tigris river city of Dujail in 1982.
He is sentenced to death by hanging.
Now that is indeed a humane way to end someone's life. :wtf:
Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?
Given the total backwardness of the middle east, do you really need to ask?
-
As for the trial itself it's worth pointing out that Saddam wasn't the only person on trial for the crime. As such even though everyone knew that Saddam was guilty and would be found as such the same thing can't be said about his co-defendants. In fact one of them was a aquitted. That alone makes the trial worth it.
I wasn't aware of that, thanks for bringing my attention to it. But regardless, for Saddam it was effectively a kangaroo trial, as any possible chance of aquitting him would have been hastily quashed by the US [forgive the cliche].
-
I think the question is, do you really think that it will happen? (Sadam being knocked off)
-
Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?
Depends on how you do it. If you do it right hang's just a quick snap of the neck and lights out. Do it wrong with too short a rope and it's death by suffocation. Normally the intent is to do it right, but sometimes somebody screws it up.
-
I don't understand the justification of the death penalty because 'Saddam was evil', because the first thing any trial should do is make sure that the character of the victim is disregarded in trying and indeed sentencing the criminal. And I'm not sure why the inverse is applied to what is, after all, state-sanction murder.
Personally, I can't think of a more appropriate, more fitting punishment for a dictator who spent his life in luxurious palacial compounds than to live out his days in a tiny, grey concrete cell, each day more pathetic than the last. Not only is execution in my mind morally wrong for any criminal, in this case it's doubly wrong as it will only mythologise and martyr Saddam; it will give him one last chance to present himself as a rallying call to his loyalists, and only encourage the romanticised notion of him (to some Iraqis) as a 'good' dictator who brought the sort of stability and general security that has evapourated in Iraq.
But didn't he bring order to Iraq which disapeeared lickity-split once he was gone?
And aside from a small group of Iraqi Sunnis (well, what's left of them in a decade or so, after the US leaves and al-Sadr's boys go to work) no one is going to lionize him. The Shia and Iranians obviously hate him. The other Arabs Sunnis (Saudi, Kuwait) etc hate him for trying to attack them. The West hates him because, well, he was a butcher. The Kurds hate him. The Israelis hate him. He could indeed have been something vaguely approaching a new Saladin, a pan-Arab leader, but that sort of went down the drain in '91.
-
Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?
No.
i disagree, a properly conducted drop-hanging at the gallows is probibly more humane than a botched electricution or laying strapped to a table for 20 minutes while a large quantity of liquid is pumped into your veins. the gas chamber is probibly the best of the worst, youre breathing corrosive gas for several minutes and youre done.
being shot in the back of the head at point blank range, the guilotine, the gallows all seem more humane to me, its fast, its cheap, but only the gallows is hemane on the witnesses as there is not a large amount of gore for them to endure. if i was to choose a means of my execution, i think hanging would be at the top of my list.
but for saddams case, id go for dismemberment, and vivisection.
-
...the guilotine...
Zuh? I was under the impression that you stayed aware for a few seconds after your head was severed. Not a very nice way to go, if true.
-
wel the brain runs on glucose in the blood stream. think of it as cutting a fuel line in your car while driving. the brain runs out of gas and shots down quickly. you may have some nervous reactions, blinking, facial gestures, but thats no different than cutting off a lizzard's tail.
with leathal injection, the mind is given about 20 minutes to drive itself insane under the amount of drugs required to induce an overdose. id definately rather have a few seconds of my body being cut off than several minutes of drug induced dimentia.
-
I would want something spectacular that would make all the people watching feel bad about doing it, so I could give a nice "how are you better than me!!!". speech right before the seven headed genetically modified sea cucumber ate me.
-
in response to everything anon said:
its not what crimes you commit, its who you piss off in the process :D
-
Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?
No.
i disagree, a properly conducted drop-hanging at the gallows is probibly more humane than a botched electricution or laying strapped to a table for 20 minutes while a large quantity of liquid is pumped into your veins. the gas chamber is probibly the best of the worst, youre breathing corrosive gas for several minutes and youre done.
and that makes it acceptable how?
there's also not 12 in a dozen of correctly conducted hangings either. most of the time the executed chokes to death instead of getting their neck broken.
then there's that that Saddam would've been convicted of killing ****ing Jesus.
-
I'm surprised anyone thinks there's some sort of desire or interest to make execution humane. The closest there is, is a desire to make it look just humane enough to hide the nature of it as state-sanctioned and performed murder, whilst making it just visible enough to satisfy the public bloodlust.
-
Being exploded could be arguably the fastest way to die.
TNT collar FTW.
...or not.
-
Straddling a nuclear bomb upon detonation ftw! If you've got to go out, you might as well take everyone to hell with you!!
-
most of the time the executed chokes to death instead of getting their neck broken.
Bah. It's a science: weight of subject, velocity, how much force you need to snap a neck, how long of a rope you need. :p
-
Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?
No.
i disagree, a properly conducted drop-hanging at the gallows is probibly more humane than a botched electricution or laying strapped to a table for 20 minutes while a large quantity of liquid is pumped into your veins. the gas chamber is probibly the best of the worst, youre breathing corrosive gas for several minutes and youre done.
and that makes it acceptable how?
there's also not 12 in a dozen of correctly conducted hangings either. most of the time the executed chokes to death instead of getting their neck broken.
then there's that that Saddam would've been convicted of killing ****ing Jesus.
my argument wasnt weather or not capital punishment was moral. i just wanted to make a point that some of the morally acceptable means of execution are in fact worse than older tried and true ways, such as drop hanging. im not at all concerned with the ethics of capital punishment. i certainly dont think that it is good for anyone to lock criminals up and let em rot at the public's expense. the budget for any prison should be zero. the prisoners should either be done away with immediately or be incarcerated in a self-suffieteint prison system.
prisoners should be expected to earn a living just like the rest of us. i dont think being a violent anti-social assole exepmts somone from having to work for their keep. im pretty sure there are a number of prisons in the us that infact make more money than they spend (which feeds back into the prison system to improve conditions for prisoners and lesson the burden on the tax paying public as well). i think it is cruel to force prisoners who are scheduled for execution to sit in a prison cell for years before sentance is carried out. if youre gonna waste a man you at least should have the decency to do it immidiately and with as little suffering on the part of the one being executed.
that said its important to know that executions, of any kind , are not always 100% bug free. humans are just not that easy to kill. there are a million things that can go wrong. to make matters worse alot of the execution equipment was improvised or outdated. theyre just arent many engineers that do this kind of stuff. i dont like to thump sources, but if you look at any list of statistics involving failure rates of different types of executions (failure meaning the person being executed is forced to endure a level of suffering outside the limits of what is considered acceptable), youl probibly note that the worst ways to die are the ones we use the most, and that hanging is amont the perfered means of execution.
-
Bah. It's a science: weight of subject, velocity, how much force you need to snap a neck, how long of a rope you need. :p
Unfortunately, the bolded part of the equation can only be determined by an empiric test, which is of course impossible to commit without actually breaking the person's neck, in which case hanging is no longer necessary... Someone may have stronger neck than others, and then that person will end up suffocating. :rolleyes:
For punishment purposes, death sentence doesn't make any sense. It is only justified by will for vengeance. It's not actually a punishment at all if you think about it.
-
there is actually a table that exocutioners use to referene drop lenght to body weight. if this is followed then theres a good chance the execution will be successfull. this table is an least a couple hundred years old, but sence the physics they used to calculate the table are the same ones we use now, it doesnt make much a difference. you might however revise the table to take other detaild into consideration, such as the width and build of the neck or the rope thickness for example. most failed hangings are usually because of stuff like not properly weighing the prisoner, using the wrong kind of rope, or perhaps the prison offitials do something intintionally to make em suffer more.
-
This is a great thread. :lol:
-
Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?
Depends on how you do it. If you do it right hang's just a quick snap of the neck and lights out. Do it wrong with too short a rope and it's death by suffocation. Normally the intent is to do it right, but sometimes somebody screws it up.
I tend to disagree with that. Your neck snaps and you are practicly paralizyed, but your brain is still very much alive, atleast for some time untill the oxigen in it runs dry.
The best death is by swallowing a lot of sleeping pills. You die piecefulyl in your sleep :D
-
Wait, so the verdict comes a few short days before the US Mid-term Elections! Coincidence? I think not!!
-
I know, they've had nearly/over (i forget which ) 3 years to toast his naughty-personage.
-
Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?
Depends on how you do it. If you do it right hang's just a quick snap of the neck and lights out. Do it wrong with too short a rope and it's death by suffocation. Normally the intent is to do it right, but sometimes somebody screws it up.
I tend to disagree with that. Your neck snaps and you are practicly paralizyed, but your brain is still very much alive, atleast for some time untill the oxigen in it runs dry.
The best death is by swallowing a lot of sleeping pills. You die piecefulyl in your sleep :D
yea right. i tried that once, i remember raving like a madman at all the hallucinations all night long, im suprised the cops didnt get me. seriously i was worshiping stray cats and calling forth satan, not a good way to execute people :D
-
'Live on Fox!'...
"Do you want to know more?"
Too lazy to read anything past page one, but... am I the only one who got the reference?
-
Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?
No.
i disagree, a properly conducted drop-hanging at the gallows is probibly more humane than a botched electricution or laying strapped to a table for 20 minutes while a large quantity of liquid is pumped into your veins. the gas chamber is probibly the best of the worst, youre breathing corrosive gas for several minutes and youre done.
and that makes it acceptable how?
there's also not 12 in a dozen of correctly conducted hangings either. most of the time the executed chokes to death instead of getting their neck broken.
then there's that that Saddam would've been convicted of killing ****ing Jesus.
my argument wasnt weather or not capital punishment was moral. i just wanted to make a point that some of the morally acceptable means of execution are in fact worse than older tried and true ways, such as drop hanging. im not at all concerned with the ethics of capital punishment. i certainly dont think that it is good for anyone to lock criminals up and let em rot at the public's expense. the budget for any prison should be zero. the prisoners should either be done away with immediately or be incarcerated in a self-suffieteint prison system.
prisoners should be expected to earn a living just like the rest of us. i dont think being a violent anti-social assole exepmts somone from having to work for their keep. im pretty sure there are a number of prisons in the us that infact make more money than they spend (which feeds back into the prison system to improve conditions for prisoners and lesson the burden on the tax paying public as well). i think it is cruel to force prisoners who are scheduled for execution to sit in a prison cell for years before sentance is carried out. if youre gonna waste a man you at least should have the decency to do it immidiately and with as little suffering on the part of the one being executed.
that said its important to know that executions, of any kind , are not always 100% bug free. humans are just not that easy to kill. there are a million things that can go wrong. to make matters worse alot of the execution equipment was improvised or outdated. theyre just arent many engineers that do this kind of stuff. i dont like to thump sources, but if you look at any list of statistics involving failure rates of different types of executions (failure meaning the person being executed is forced to endure a level of suffering outside the limits of what is considered acceptable), youl probibly note that the worst ways to die are the ones we use the most, and that hanging is amont the perfered means of execution.
Yes (and/or) no.
-
'Live on Fox!'...
"Do you want to know more?"
Too lazy to read anything past page one, but... am I the only one who got the reference?
No you're not, Federation YAY !
-
You know Flip, I wouldn't be surprised. Disgusted perhaps, but not surprised.
Bush propably declares the hanging day as national holiday, or something...
Sorry to burst your "BU$H!!!111" bubble, but the Iraqis decided on hanging. At least it beats the hell out of the traditional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning) method of execution.
As for the trial itself it's worth pointing out that Saddam wasn't the only person on trial for the crime. As such even though everyone knew that Saddam was guilty and would be found as such the same thing can't be said about his co-defendants. In fact one of them was a aquitted. That alone makes the trial worth it.
I wasn't aware of that, thanks for bringing my attention to it. But regardless, for Saddam it was effectively a kangaroo trial, as any possible chance of aquitting him would have been hastily quashed by the US [forgive the cliche].
The evidence against Saddam is so overwhelming that there was never a question of what would happen to him.
-
The evidence against Saddam is so overwhelming that there was never a question of what would happen to him.
It'd be nice to have a transparent, fair and honest justice system, though. We really need some sort of international court, one administered somewhere nice and usually neutral - maybe Holland - which can perform these trials to prevent the farce of show trials in the 'victim country'. But where would we find such a thing? Why does none exist?
Ah.
-
The evidence against Saddam is so overwhelming that there was never a question of what would happen to him.
It'd be nice to have a transparent, fair and honest justice system, though. We really need some sort of international court, one administered somewhere nice and usually neutral - maybe Holland - which can perform these trials to prevent the farce of show trials in the 'victim country'. But where would we find such a thing? Why does none exist?
A fair and honest court for Iraqi prisoners, in Holland? Are you nuts? I'm sure the opinion of Holland towards the United States and its affairs are anything but "nice and neutral". Besides, being able to prosecute Saddam themselves is a big morale boost for the Iraqis. I think being able to take care of their own **** in this case would be a point of pride for them.
-
It's called the War Crimes court, and it was good enough for the Nazis.
And what does Hollands opinion of the US have to do with, what you yourself said was an Iraqi judgement?
-
Is hanging an acceptable way to execute a human being nowadays?
No.
But a bullet through the head is..
-
The evidence against Saddam is so overwhelming that there was never a question of what would happen to him.
It'd be nice to have a transparent, fair and honest justice system, though. We really need some sort of international court, one administered somewhere nice and usually neutral - maybe Holland - which can perform these trials to prevent the farce of show trials in the 'victim country'. But where would we find such a thing? Why does none exist?
A fair and honest court for Iraqi prisoners, in Holland? Are you nuts? I'm sure the opinion of Holland towards the United States and its affairs are anything but "nice and neutral". Besides, being able to prosecute Saddam themselves is a big morale boost for the Iraqis. I think being able to take care of their own **** in this case would be a point of pride for them.
:rolleyes:
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot the United States now owned the middle east. What in the name of **** has the US got to do with the trial of an Iraqi dictator for crimes against the Iraqi people. And as for an Iraqi morale boost, isn't a transparent and fair trial (rather than the kangaroo court we got, which has been patently a farce) a rather more important thing when you're ostensibly trying to build a free democratic state?
And as for this frankly bizarre 'Holland hates us' notion.... what on earth are you on about? Have you even heard of the International Criminal Court? The one formed by the UN Security council? The fact that you seem to be unaware of this is a very, very sad indictment to me - as is the notion that an invented Dutch bias against the US would somehow result in a less fair trial than one conducted by the victims in a country where the defense lawyers are being killed in the middle of a violent insurgency.
But a bullet through the head is..
No.
-
I'm actually quite concerned about the sort of rumours being spread throughout America by the Media there, some of the statements I've heard on here about Europe and European countries are so mis-informed it's incredible.
-
I'm actually quite concerned about the sort of rumours being spread throughout America by the Media there, some of the statements I've heard on here about Europe and European countries are so mis-informed it's incredible.
Any examples so we can giggle at them?
-
Well, the one that leapt to mind was the recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal about how Europe is being 'invaded' by the Middle East and will soon be a Muslim society, when even the UK, one of the must multi-cultural countries in Europe has about 2-3% Middle-Eastern population. This was based on evidence that, 60-70 years after the baby boom, lots of old people were dying....
It was also stated that 'Europe has an unmanageable welfare system', quite an amazing statement considering the EU consists of multiple countries with a massive range of political stances/welfare systems etc, some have no welfare whatsoever, which is pretty manageable when you get down to it. Or the assumption that because Europe is Pro-choice, that we are the abortion capital of the world. Despite having one of the lowest abortion rates.
The problem with blanket opinions like that is that everyone thinks they are so obviously right that no-one ever bothers to check the facts.
-
'Live on Fox!'...
"Do you want to know more?"
Too lazy to read anything past page one, but... am I the only one who got the reference?
Popcorn! Get yer' popcorn!
(really, it was in the paper 0.o)
Lessee... electrocution, hanging, drugs, suffocation, removal of head, or standing in the same small room for the rest of your life...
I can't stay in the same room for more than 8 hours...
-
:rolleyes:
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot the United States now owned the middle east. What in the name of **** has the US got to do with the trial of an Iraqi dictator for crimes against the Iraqi people. And as for an Iraqi morale boost, isn't a transparent and fair trial (rather than the kangaroo court we got, which has been patently a farce) a rather more important thing when you're ostensibly trying to build a free democratic state?
It is likely that a tribunal in Europe would be biased in favor of Saddam Hussein due to political leanings. Most of Europe does not think highly of the War on Terror and would very much like to undermine it.
And as for this frankly bizarre 'Holland hates us' notion.... what on earth are you on about? Have you even heard of the International Criminal Court? The one formed by the UN Security council? The fact that you seem to be unaware of this is a very, very sad indictment to me - as is the notion that an invented Dutch bias against the US would somehow result in a less fair trial than one conducted by the victims in a country where the defense lawyers are being killed in the middle of a violent insurgency.
I'm sorry, is that the UN International Criminal Court? The same UN that puts dicatorships on the Human Rights Council? The UN is a farce in terms of human rights, honesty, and peace, and here's the proof: Human Rights Council membership. The bad choices are in red. Also, do you know who the people shooting were? Saddam Hussein's people. They were trying to get him off the ****ing hook, and you take this as evidence he's being given a "kangaroo trial".
Algeria
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brazil
Cameroon
Canada
China
Cuba (CUBA?!?!)
Czech Republic
Djibouti[
Ecuador
Finland
France
Gabon
Germany
Ghana
Guatemala
India
Indonesia
Japan
Jordan
Malaysia
Mali
Mauritius
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
Nigeria
Pakistan (This may be one of the worst countries in the world for human rights)
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Republic of Korea (I assume this is South Korea, which isn't exactly a saint itself, although better than North Korea)
Romania
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Switzerland
Tunisia
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Zambia
The UN is a joke. Do you know who was the last major figure to be tried at the Hague? Slobodan Milosevic. The trial dragged on for years and years until the ****er DIED OF OLD AGE. Every international administrative body ever set up has failed. The League of Nations failed. The UN failed. The Hague failed. Justice and administration should be left to nations.
-
This is exactly what I mean. I could define America by Abu Ghraib, the 'sexed up' intelligence of the Iraq war and the War itself. Human Rights, Honesty and Peace?
It's easy to look only at the parts you don't like, I would no more define the US by the actions of Fred Phelps than I would define the UN by Khofi Annan's son. Both the US and the UN are far far more than the Media's latest little soundbite.
Edit : And Milosevich did NOT die of old age.
Milošević was found dead in his cell on March 11, 2006 in the UN war crimes tribunal's detention centre, located in the Scheveningen section of The Hague.
Autopsies soon established that Milošević had died of a heart attack. He had been suffering from heart problems and high blood pressure. However, many suspicions were voiced to the effect that the heart attack had been caused or made possible deliberately - by the ICTY, according to sympathizers, or by himself, according to critics. Shortly before his death, Milošević had requested to be treated in a Russian heart surgery centre, but the Tribunal had refused to permit that, mistrustful of Russian guarantees that an escape would be made impossible. At the same time, Milošević had expressed fears that he was being poisoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87#Death_of_Milo.C5.A1evi.C4.87
-
It is likely that a tribunal in Europe would be biased in favor of Saddam Hussein due to political leanings. Most of Europe does not think highly of the War on Terror and would very much like to undermine it.
It's true. Last night, I sneaked into Europe's ultra-secret treehouse while they were having a meeting, and I heard them say that they love terror and that Saddam Hussein is friends with Osama bin Laden so they should give him 6 months suspended. Then they just LOLed about how it will make the Americans angry because they hate terrorism.
-
<snip>BALLY!</snip>
I'm afraid I'll have to dissect this properly now...
The UN is a farce in terms of human rights, honesty, and peace
Alrighty. Let's see - the UN several times tried to send medical aid to the Iraqi people while Saddam was in power. Guess who led the vetoes blocking that move? That's right, your glorious homeland - the US of A! More importantly, who put Saddam in power in the first place? Well, the CIA helped that's for sure. And where did he get all those weapons from? I do believe... that's right, American and British companies sold him them. Not doing too well so far are you?
We haven't even covered Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, or the use of phosphorus shells in Iraq. Spotting a pattern yet?
Now, by no means is the UN perfect. God knows, I've had my rants about them in the past. However, when you start your argument by saying:
"It is likely that a tribunal in Europe would be biased in favor of Saddam Hussein due to political leanings."
things tend to get a little iffy.
and you take this as evidence he's being given a "kangaroo trial".
I would never want to speak for another man, but I'm going to argue this based on the fact I assume aldo took the court proceedings, and the essentially predetermined outcome, as the evidence of his trial being a lemon.
The Hague and such like institutions are based on a simple premise - bringing to justice those who have inflicted atrocities against the civilian population of their own or of others nations. Saddam would've been tried, and most likely found guilty. However, had his trial taken place in an international court many people on the "good" side of this war would've been called as witnesses, and had their own sins laid bare for all to see. Take from that what you will.
I'll also finish this post by stating once again what I've had to reinforce many times to the people I argue with about these issues: I like America. I grew up watching US TV shows, and as a kid often wished I'd grown up on your side of the pond. So don't try to skew my comments as simple US bashing.
-
I'm in with Vyper here, when I was young, we all looked to the US as somewhere we wished we were, it was at the edge of culture and technology, everything happened in the US.
Admittedly a lot of it was TV Glitz, but I've always had a fondness for what the US represented, I guess in a way I feel more dissapointed than angry at recent events.
-
Alrighty. Let's see - the UN several times tried to send medical aid to the Iraqi people while Saddam was in power. Guess who led the vetoes blocking that move? That's right, your glorious homeland - the US of A!
Exactly what medical aid for whom? And remember that back then we were trying to crush Saddam Hussein without military force, and just letting people send money and goods into his country would only strengthen him.
More importantly, who put Saddam in power in the first place? Well, the CIA helped that's for sure. And where did he get all those weapons from? I do believe... that's right, American and British companies sold him them. Not doing too well so far are you?
Do you know anything about the political climate of the 70s? The Soviets were considered a threat to the existence of the human race due to their enormous nuclear stockpiles. Any measure to contain the spread of their influence was acceptable. Saddam happened not to like Communism, so in he went. Unfortunately, the magical American fortune tellers didn't predict that the Soviet Union would fall right as it appeared to reach a new height of power and that Saddam would turn around and **** us in the ass. The world was different 30 years ago. Much different. The only lunatic terrorists running around were from Iran, and Saddam didn't like them either.
We haven't even covered Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, or the use of phosphorus shells in Iraq. Spotting a pattern yet?
Guantanamo? Are you ****ing NUTS? The prisoners in Guantanamo are probably the best-treated in the entire world! We give them Qu'rans that may only be touched by Muslim soldiers wearing gloves, we rearrange the toilets so they don't face Mecca when they ****, there are lots of convenient arrows pointing towards Mecca, all their food is specially prepared to cater to their religious edicts, and they are given Geneva Convention rights even though the Geneva Convention DOES NOT APPLY TO UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS AND TERRORISTS! You can take your Gitmo bull**** and shove it up your ass. Never mind that Gitmo is where we send the absolute worst terrorists. The inmates there for the most part ought to be dead.
I would never want to speak for another man, but I'm going to argue this based on the fact I assume aldo took the court proceedings, and the essentially predetermined outcome, as the evidence of his trial being a lemon.
If you are responsible for murdering thousands upon thousands upon thousands, you were the leader of a dangerous nation that gave $25,000 apiece to the families of suicide bombers, and your nation hates you, you will probably be found guilty, no?
The Hague and such like institutions are based on a simple premise - bringing to justice those who have inflicted atrocities against the civilian population of their own or of others nations. Saddam would've been tried, and most likely found guilty. However, had his trial taken place in an international court many people on the "good" side of this war would've been called as witnesses, and had their own sins laid bare for all to see. Take from that what you will.[/quote[
The Hague Court is a nice idea, but it doesn't work. If it did work, Slobodan Milosevic would have been punished instead of the trial dragging on for several years until he expired of old age. As for our own sins laid bare, it's true that we screwed some things up, in things that we did do (Abu Ghraib) and didn't do (why is Muqtada al-Sadr still alive? It's probably too late to kill him now.).
I'll also finish this post by stating once again what I've had to reinforce many times to the people I argue with about these issues: I like America. I grew up watching US TV shows, and as a kid often wished I'd grown up on your side of the pond. So don't try to skew my comments as simple US bashing.
Well, I didn't see you say "BU$H!!!!11", so that's a good sign. :)
-
it just keeps getting wider and wider doesn't it?
-
just letting people send money and goods into his country would only strengthen him.
Would one not usually consider medical aid an exception to that rule?
Do you know anything about the political climate of the 70s? The Soviets were considered a threat to the existence of the human race due to their enormous nuclear stockpiles. Any measure to contain the spread of their influence was acceptable. Saddam happened not to like Communism, so in he went. Unfortunately, the magical American fortune tellers didn't predict that the Soviet Union would fall right as it appeared to reach a new height of power and that Saddam would turn around and **** us in the ass. The world was different 30 years ago. Much different. The only lunatic terrorists running around were from Iran, and Saddam didn't like them either.
It seems you're missing my point, so I'll make it explicit: you can't say that the UN is somehow useless in regards to international affairs when your own nation has committed deeds far worse. By comparison the UN is a flipping exercise in perfection.
If you did get my point, you're implying there should be two standards: one for the UN and one for the US. That, my young friend, ain't going to happen.
Saddam did not "**** you in the ass" - Kuwait agreed to give him oil fields in exchange for fighting Iran. They never coughed up. Saddam decided to take them, the US said "oi, less of that you work for us". Saddam chose to ignore that little fact, and went in anyway. He hardly ****ed you in the ass.
The only lunatic terrorists running around were from Iran, and Saddam didn't like them either.
Actually there were plenty of ****ing nutters in Ireland, but your countrymen decided to turn a blind eye when US currency flowed from New York to Belfast in support of the IRA. That, is a side issue however. What isn't, is the fact that Saddam didn't much like people like bin Laden either. Hell, he was running the one middle eastern nation that effectively quashed Islamic extremists.
If you are responsible for murdering thousands upon thousands upon thousands, you were the leader of a dangerous nation that gave $25,000 apiece to the families of suicide bombers, and your nation hates you, you will probably be found guilty, no?
Yes but the point there is that before his trial, in a fair judicial system, he has yet to be proven guilty. Hell the guy obviously ordered murders and chemical strikes - but the point was his trial should have proven that.
The Hague Court is a nice idea, but it doesn't work.
So, you only want justice so long as it's dispensed as quickly as possible - to hell with the consequences? Just hurry up and find 'em guilty before they pop their clogs? Besides, he died of a heart attack not old ****ing age.
Well, I didn't see you say "BU$H!!!!11", so that's a good sign.
He did invade a nation that had nothing to do with a global war on terror that we are now losing. So he scores pretty low on my intelligence chart for that one.
Never mind that Gitmo is where we send the absolute worst terrorists. The inmates there for the most part ought to be dead.
Once again, you're just skipping over the part where justice and common decency kick in. You can't just jail or execute someone because you happen to think they're a terrorist - you have to prove it in a court of law, where they have a chance to defend themselves.
-
Not to mention that since those people were captured in Afghanistan surely his entire argument about how people should be put on trial in their own country falls to pieces.
Why is right that "Terrorists" should be put on trial in the US but Saddam should be put on trial in Iraq?
And why if he's claiming that the Hague takes too long to prosecute crimes are we still waiting for trials for the people in gitmo to start more than 4 years later?
-
It is likely that a tribunal in Europe would be biased in favor of Saddam Hussein due to political leanings. Most of Europe does not think highly of the War on Terror and would very much like to undermine it.
That's blatantly racist; you think that because of politics that europe is incapable - despite being an entire group of nations including key NATO allies it's painted as 'hostile' because the public spoke their mind against this idiot War On Anxiety - of giving a fair trial?
I'm sorry, is that the UN International Criminal Court? The same UN that puts dicatorships on the Human Rights Council? The UN is a farce in terms of human rights, honesty, and peace, and here's the proof: Human Rights Council membership. The bad choices are in red. Also, do you know who the people shooting were? Saddam Hussein's people. They were trying to get him off the ****ing hook, and you take this as evidence he's being given a "kangaroo trial".
I took the predetermined outcome as the kangeroo part - and if Saddams people were shooting (and they undoubtedly were, but not in this case), why were the defence lawyers killed?
Let's imagine, for a minute, there was a doubt about Saddams' guilt - y'know, the same principle fair legal systems are run by. Do you really think Iraq, now run by a party heavily aligned with Iran who has a strong interest in killing Saddam and his cohorts, occupied by a country that hates Saddam and quite possible invaded for revenge against him, and descending into sectarian anarchy was ever going to be the place to have a fair trial?
Guantanamo? Are you ****ing NUTS? The prisoners in Guantanamo are probably the best-treated in the entire world! We give them Qu'rans that may only be touched by Muslim soldiers wearing gloves, we rearrange the toilets so they don't face Mecca when they ****, there are lots of convenient arrows pointing towards Mecca, all their food is specially prepared to cater to their religious edicts, and they are given Geneva Convention rights even though the Geneva Convention DOES NOT APPLY TO UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS AND TERRORISTS! You can take your Gitmo bull**** and shove it up your ass. Never mind that Gitmo is where we send the absolute worst terrorists. The inmates there for the most part ought to be dead.
That's a blatant lie. Aside from the illegality of just abducting people on the basis of (literally) wearing a swatch, the Geneva Convention does not allow the illegal detention of civillians; they have to be handeled by the civil legal system of the country they were taken from. Moreso, the Geneva convention is also violated by not allowing the detainees a free and fair legal hearing when they claim POW status. And that's just the start of it.
I find it amazing that catering to the religious convictions of inmates - people detained indefinately without charge or trial, often tortured, and also who were quite possibly handed over by the Northern Alliance sans evidence for bounty money - is seen as being nice. It's the provision of one basic human right - remember when we still had those? Human Rights? The various UN conventions - not just Geneva - that the US signed and has discarded for foreigners at Gitmo and black sites?
Let's not forget that Gitmo has housed such dangerous reprobates as a 13 year old and 98 year old.
Word to the wise; none of these people have been convicted of any crime. In a supposedly free and fair country like the US, I'd expect the concept of justice to be important - or is justice only something meted out to Americans? No wonder people hate you, in that case.....
EDIT; in any case, someone whose response to criticism is 'shove it up your ass' is, in my view, an idiot.
-
Ditto
-
Would one not usually consider medical aid an exception to that rule?
What medical aid for whom? You must demonstrate that it is medical aid. Furthermore, aid going into countries like Iraq is very likely to be seized by warlords or corrupt governments. We send billions upon billions upon billions of dollars worth of aid, and millions still starve because the aid materials are stolen.
It seems you're missing my point, so I'll make it explicit: you can't say that the UN is somehow useless in regards to international affairs when your own nation has committed deeds far worse. By comparison the UN is a flipping exercise in perfection.
If you did get my point, you're implying there should be two standards: one for the UN and one for the US. That, my young friend, ain't going to happen.
Saddam did not "**** you in the ass" - Kuwait agreed to give him oil fields in exchange for fighting Iran. They never coughed up. Saddam decided to take them, the US said "oi, less of that you work for us". Saddam chose to ignore that little fact, and went in anyway. He hardly ****ed you in the ass.
I'm saying that events that happened at the height of the Cold War should be held to a different standard than events happening now. The political climate was different, the motives are different, and the players are different. What, pray tell, have we done that's so bad, besides Abu Ghraib, and the perpetrators of said incident were punished severely. I think we show too much restraint in the war on terror. Recently there was a top-level Al-Qaeda meeting and we couldn't blow them up because there was a cemetery nearby. If we can't kill terrorist leaders for fear of damaging a cemetery, we don't have the guts to win the war on terror. Plus that leaves aside his general belligerence towards the United States.
Furthermore, Saddam Hussein launched a military invasion and occupation of Kuwait, which is an act of war and tantamount to conquest. They also launched missile attacks on neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia. Saying that Kuwait was the bad guy in the Gulf War is unconscionable!
Actually there were plenty of ****ing nutters in Ireland, but your countrymen decided to turn a blind eye when US currency flowed from New York to Belfast in support of the IRA. That, is a side issue however. What isn't, is the fact that Saddam didn't much like people like bin Laden either. Hell, he was running the one middle eastern nation that effectively quashed Islamic extremists.
Islamic extremists that threatened his regime. That's part of Saddam's whole "murder my enemies" strategy. I really doubt he gave a **** about mujahideen in Afghanistan (who we thought would return to normal after beating the commies--oops).
Yes but the point there is that before his trial, in a fair judicial system, he has yet to be proven guilty. Hell the guy obviously ordered murders and chemical strikes - but the point was his trial should have proven that.
I think that they managed to carry out a trial amidst repeated attempts of sabotage is impressive. I really don't feel an ounce of sympathy for Sodamn Insane and if they had dragged him out of his hole and shot him in the head the day they found him, I wouldn't have felt sympathy either.
So, you only want justice so long as it's dispensed as quickly as possible - to hell with the consequences? Just hurry up and find 'em guilty before they pop their clogs? Besides, he died of a heart attack not old ****ing age.
I think that a trial that lasts five years despite reams of evidence on atrocities committed by Milosevic is unacceptable. We didn't even try O.J. Simpson for five years before acquitting him, and that was one of the most hotly contested criminal cases ever. A case like that of Hussein and Milosevic is a done deal from the start.
He did invade a nation that had nothing to do with a global war on terror that we are now losing. So he scores pretty low on my intelligence chart for that one.
Saddam Hussein provided vast amounts of money to families of suicide bombers (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml) and provided shelter and even training to terrorists (http://husseinandterror.com/) and his presence was a threat to regional stability. Concession accepted.
Once again, you're just skipping over the part where justice and common decency kick in. You can't just jail or execute someone because you happen to think they're a terrorist - you have to prove it in a court of law, where they have a chance to defend themselves.
As terrorists and unlawful combatants, the Guantanamo detainees have no stated right under the Geneva Conventions to civilian trials. There is nothing in international law against us putting them through military tribunals or just shooting any more terrorists we find on the spot and not taking prisoners at all.
-
As terrorists and unlawful combatants, the Guantanamo detainees have no stated right under the Geneva Conventions to civilian trials. There is nothing in international law against us putting them through military tribunals or just shooting any more terrorists we find on the spot and not taking prisoners at all.
Since you haven't convicted one of them yet, despite your comments about Milosevich, how do you know they are terrorists and therefore not subject to the convention? It hasn't even been confirmed that the people in Guantanamo were even fighting, let alone terrorists, most of them were handed over to the Americans for rewards, and as the British found out in Afghanistan that's not that way to get good results. (The UK offered to pay farmers to burn their opium crop, the next year twice as many farmers grewe opium in the hope of getting free money).
So, basically, you already have them down as tried, guilty and executed when the trials haven't even begun? And you accuse Europe of prejudice?
-
Since you haven't convicted one of them yet, despite your comments about Milosevich, how do you know they are terrorists and therefore not subject to the convention? It hasn't even been confirmed that the people in Guantanamo were even fighting, let alone terrorists, most of them were handed over to the Americans for rewards, and as the British found out in Afghanistan that's not that way to get good results. (The UK offered to pay farmers to burn their opium crop, the next year twice as many farmers grewe opium in the hope of getting free money).
So, basically, you already have them down as tried, guilty and executed when the trials haven't even begun? And you accuse Europe of prejudice?
Wouldn't the US forces already know what the people they're offering rewards for have done? I think it would be "$50,000 reward for <insert name of a prominent terrorist leader>", not "turn in a terrorist and get $50,000". Furthermore, I didn't say we shouldn't give them any sort of trials. I think military tribunals are the optimal method of trial and punishment for these terrorists.
Besides, as it stands, American criminals awaiting trial would probably kill to swap their jail out for the conditions of Guantanamo Bay. We're that good to them.
-
Problem was, they weren't looking for Terrorists by name, they were simply saying 'Bring us Terrorists and we'll give you $20 each for them', like the Witch Trials, human nature was enough to do the rest.
-
Double post...
http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?pageNum_rsListArticles=5&totalRows_rsListArticles=193&type=Interviews
Yes, the site is biased, I'll admit, but take a read through the stories of some of the people who have been released without charge.
-
As terrorists and unlawful combatants, the Guantanamo detainees have no stated right under the Geneva Conventions to civilian trials. There is nothing in international law against us putting them through military tribunals or just shooting any more terrorists we find on the spot and not taking prisoners at all.
Yes there is. It's enshrined in any number of international accords. For one thing, summary execution violates both the right to have POW status determined by a fair court (Geneva convention), and the detention without trial and with presumption of guilt violates the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 14). It also violates Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (equality before the law).
There is no accord which permits the execution of any person both prior to (as we are) a fair trial.
Since you haven't convicted one of them yet, despite your comments about Milosevich, how do you know they are terrorists and therefore not subject to the convention? It hasn't even been confirmed that the people in Guantanamo were even fighting, let alone terrorists, most of them were handed over to the Americans for rewards, and as the British found out in Afghanistan that's not that way to get good results. (The UK offered to pay farmers to burn their opium crop, the next year twice as many farmers grewe opium in the hope of getting free money).
So, basically, you already have them down as tried, guilty and executed when the trials haven't even begun? And you accuse Europe of prejudice?
Wouldn't the US forces already know what the people they're offering rewards for have done? I think it would be "$50,000 reward for <insert name of a prominent terrorist leader>", not "turn in a terrorist and get $50,000". Furthermore, I didn't say we shouldn't give them any sort of trials. I think military tribunals are the optimal method of trial and punishment for these terrorists.
It wasn't. They were paying bounties on Taliban or Al-Queda fighters - essentially anyone who was handed over by the Northern alliance. The criteria for detention were possesion of a weapon, khaki clothes, and a swatch.
Military tribunals fail to satisfy the conditions of a fair court; with lower standards of evidence, no guarenteed right to appeal, not held publicly but secretly, amongst others. How happy would you be to see a Us soldier charged with murder, go on trial in a secret Iraqi or Afghani court?
And I can't help but wonder.... why are the Taliban irregulars but not the Northern Alliance regulars deemed unlwaful combatants?
EDIT; here's an example; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Hagi_Fiz - detained for 8 months, a senile, toothless 72 year old charged with holding an Al-Queda card which turned out to be a bus pass.
-
Does it depend who holds most territory, or the poulation majority?
-
Regarding Deroy Murdock - show me evidence from someone other than a gay, black, conservative with something to prove and we'll talk.
-
to have POW status determined by a fair court (Geneva convention)
The problem with that in this case is that they are, perforce, totally ineligible for POW status under any circumstances, as they were not fighting for a recognized government. A technicality perhaps, but the Taliban was not extended formal diplomatic recognition by very many people. I don't think even Pakistan did so.
Since you haven't convicted one of
It wasn't. They were paying bounties on Taliban or Al-Queda fighters - essentially anyone who was handed over by the Northern alliance. The criteria for detention were possesion of a weapon, khaki clothes, and a swatch.
This has always amused me, because if what you say is true, then why are there not vastly greater numbers of detainees? You could apply that description to probably more than 50% of the total population of Afghanistan. If it was really so lucrative, really so commonplace, then why are there not 10,000 people still sitting in cellblocks in Gitmo? Either something has been vastly oversimplified in that description or there was a filter along the line that kept the huge numbers of people answering to that description out. Either way, it doesn't work.
-
I noticed that Woolie completely failed to justify why it is fair that Saddam should be put on trial in Iraq but terrorists captured in Afghanistan shouldn't be.
So I'll restate it every time he posts until he does :p
-
from: Flipside on November 09, 2006, 04:35:24 PM
Since you haven't convicted one of
It wasn't. They were paying bounties on Taliban or Al-Queda fighters - essentially anyone who was handed over by the Northern alliance. The criteria for detention were possesion of a weapon, khaki clothes, and a swatch.
This has always amused me, because if what you say is true, then why are there not vastly greater numbers of detainees? You could apply that description to probably more than 50% of the total population of Afghanistan. If it was really so lucrative, really so commonplace, then why are there not 10,000 people still sitting in cellblocks in Gitmo? Either something has been vastly oversimplified in that description or there was a filter along the line that kept the huge numbers of people answering to that description out. Either way, it doesn't work.
Yo seem to have mixed quoters there ;) Seriously though, I think the problem is, like the Witch-finders, the first people to go are those who look a bit 'odd' or live by themselves, or looked at someone a bit funny, basically, I suspect a lot of 'settling old scores' took place among the Iraqis when this offer was made.
-
The problem with that in this case is that they are, perforce, totally ineligible for POW status under any circumstances, as they were not fighting for a recognized government. A technicality perhaps, but the Taliban was not extended formal diplomatic recognition by very many people. I don't think even Pakistan did so.
It's not relevant; the Geneva convention states;
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)
Otherwise, any country could refuse to recognise the legitimacy of whoever they were fighting and thus justify war crimes. The Taliban forces cover all 3 of those; any 'illegal combatant' status would have to be determined by b,c, and d (2), which would require a fair tribunal to determine. A Taliban soldier, even if wearing ****ty khakis, would probably satisfy the b,c,d clauses unless he was a suicide bomber or somesuch. (b is curious, i'll admit - how do troops have a 'fixed recognisable sign from a distance' in an ordinary army?)
This has always amused me, because if what you say is true, then why are there not vastly greater numbers of detainees? You could apply that description to probably more than 50% of the total population of Afghanistan. If it was really so lucrative, really so commonplace, then why are there not 10,000 people still sitting in cellblocks in Gitmo? Either something has been vastly oversimplified in that description or there was a filter along the line that kept the huge numbers of people answering to that description out. Either way, it doesn't work.
Because there isn't room for 10,000 people in Guantanamo.....plus, there are the people handed over to the US by the Northern Alliance for bounty.
There are an estimated 1,500+ held in US camps in Afghanistan in places such as Khost, Asadabad, Jalalabad, Bagram and Kandahar.
This is not including black sites, of course, such as Diego Garcia, or in Thailand or Poland (amongst others). Or rendition to Saudi Arabia, Syria (stopped because of the rather obvious bad PR-ness of that), Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt etc.
And of course ignoring the 14,500 held in Iraq, who for the sake of argument I presume are Iraqis (and AFAIK are uncharged).
Apparently the US has detained in total over 80,000 people since 2001, but I'm not sure of a source for that figure.