Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Starkweather on December 29, 2006, 09:38:56 pm
-
There had been conflicting reports as to when Saddam Hussein's sentence of death by hanging was to be carried out. It was reported that the United States would not turn him over to Iraqi authorities until immediately before the execution, in order to prevent him from being humiliated or abused. An adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saddam's death sentence would be executed before 0600 local time (2200 United States EST/0300 UTC) on December 30 - meaning about an hour before sunrise and the beginning of the feast of Eid al-Adha. The time was agreed upon during a meeting between U.S. and Iraqi officials. Saddam was executed 10:05 pm.
Three Cheers For Wikipedia.
-
Noooo! Now who will testify in the forthcoming (I can dream, can't I) trials of Rumsfeld, Cheney and all the others who supplied Saddam?!
Ah, hell, good riddance. The Sunnis will remember him fondly, everyone else...won't. Though it does seem rather laughable to me that he was prosecuted and hung for the murder of 150 peoples when clearly his crimes are far larger than that. It's almost like winning on a technicallity.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218485.stm
-
A scrolling headline read: "Saddam's execution marks the end of a dark period of Iraq's history."
Am I the only one who rolled my eyes when I read that?
-
A scrolling headline read: "Saddam's execution marks the end of a dark period of Iraq's history."
Am I the only one who rolled my eyes when I read that?
I threw up personally
-
Am I the only one who rolled my eyes when I read that?
I imagine Saddam's eyes rolled back in his head, though that's probably not the same thing.
Note that it says "a dark perdiod", meaning there are many. T'was **** before Saddam showed up, **** while he was there, and certainly **** after. Those people love them some dark periods. It's like some people are addicted to smoking, Iraq is addicted to dark periods.
-
Well I quit dammit so Iraq can ****ing quit too
-
I predict this will be mentioned, and inveitably made funny by Gary Brecher, what do you think Rictor? Since I know you are probably the only one here who reads his articles.
-
normally this sort of thing doesn't phase me, but I was listening to the conservative radio shows all today while making deliveries, and the level of unmitigated, unqualified glee for this made even me feel a little disturbed.
-
normally this sort of thing doesn't phase me, but I was listening to the conservative radio shows all today while making deliveries, and the level of unmitigated, unqualified glee for this made even me feel a little disturbed.
Even though I am a conservative, I must agree with you. The man deserved to be put to death, but just plain rejoicing over a man's death is disturbing.
-
I predict this will be mentioned, and inveitably made funny by Gary Brecher, what do you think Rictor? Since I know you are probably the only one here who reads his articles.
I don't know, his death isn't that big a deal in tactical terms. It's just a symbol, like when Zarqawi was killed. Since the moment the US stepped foot on Iraqi soil, Saddam was never running things. Remember back when they trotted Saddam out for all the world to see his dishevled, beared shame, and they said that his capture was going to end the insurgency? If Iraq has shown one thing, it's that there is no Big Boss within the insurgency - hell, there's no ten bosses.
For a man who intended to be the new Saladin (ironic, considering he gassed Saladin's tribe) things haven't exactly gone according to plan. Although I can't help but wonder whether in a few years the US will be trying to ressurect his corpse, after figuring out that the only damn thing that's going to stabilize Iraq is a strongman, and that Saddam the only one with the huevos to do it. If there's one thing more awesome than a mustachioed dictator, it's a mustachioed zombie dictator. That would make Iran sweat.
-
And now, in honour of Big S' untimely passing, I give you a series (http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly031224.htm) of comical (http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly051214.htm) drawings (http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly061206.htm).
Saddam Hussein abd al-Majid al-Tikriti, we hardly knew ye.
-
I suppose its true you can even find sympathy for the devil if you look hard enough. ::)
Its simply human nature to cheer for the good guys and boo the bad guys. In the case saddam, unquestionably, was the iconic bad guy. Some folks will celebrate his death just like they should shout out a huzzah at the violent climax of an action movie.
Saddam himself put these events in motion over 20 years ago and made no effort to avoid it.
After all this time and all the trouble he's caused, you really expect that his death could go by without a commotion?
-
now, I didn't say I didn't understand it or even sympathize with it a bit, I have no sympathy for the man, and think the world is probly a bit better today than it was yesterday with his passing, but I'm not putting on party music and dancing like some people have today, and I'm not even talking about people who would have a right to (the hundreds of thousands of his victims), I'm talking rich famous Americans sitting in a broadcast booth.
-
Meh, this was obviously more for propaganda value than any strategic or moral base.
Again, I must be the stickler to point out that the real criminals are still at large; inflicting far more damage upon the Iraqi populous than Saddam could have ever dreamed.
-
now, I didn't say I didn't understand it or even sympathize with it a bit, I have no sympathy for the man, and think the world is probly a bit better today than it was yesterday with his passing, but I'm not putting on party music and dancing like some people have today, and I'm not even talking about people who would have a right to (the hundreds of thousands of his victims), I'm talking rich famous Americans sitting in a broadcast booth.
Funny... I get the sinking suspicion that we've just pissed even more people in Iraq off and now they'll have more reason to take up arms and drive us the hell out of there, but I'm a cynic.
-
well, it was a civil war anyhow, now this'll get spin, somebody will pick up a martyr, more people will die, go USA
-
if bombing them and occupying there country for years didn't do it, do you realy think killing someone else they hate that we basicly inflicted on them is going to change anything?
-
Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!Martyr!
You get the idea.
-
I suppose its true you can even find sympathy for the devil if you look hard enough. ::)
No, I just think death penalty is wrong on ethical reasons and so do quite a few people. That has nothing to do with what Saddam did back in the 1980s. edit: ok 90s too
Its simply human nature to cheer for the good guys and boo the bad guys. In the case saddam, unquestionably, was the iconic bad guy. Some folks will celebrate his death just like they should shout out a huzzah at the violent climax of an action movie.
Saddam himself put these events in motion over 20 years ago and made no effort to avoid it.
After all this time and all the trouble he's caused, you really expect that his death could go by without a commotion?
Good and bad guys in international stage? laffo
OK, so in 1980s Saddam wages a war with Iran where a lot of people die. Then in 1991 he just kinda goes crazy and decides to annex Kuwait, getting his ass kicked but still staying in power. Then he puts down rebellions quite harshly.
In 2003 USA decides that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. "No we don't", say the Iraqis. "No they don't", say the inspectors. "BOOYAH", says the US and attacks Iraq even though Iraq submitted just before the war to allow unconditional inspections. Iraq dives into complete chaos, then Saddam (who now was actually a target of aggression mind you!) is found, put through a long farce and an abortion of a trial, then quickly hanged.
SADDAM WAS A REALLY MEAN BAD GUY THE WORST DICTATOR EVER TOTALLY DESERVED THIS LOL
-
*Snip*
*Agrees wholeheartedly*
-
Lets play a game instead
(http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/3a1b6c0d67.jpg) (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)
-
Even though I am a conservative, I must agree with you. The man deserved to be put to death, but just plain rejoicing over a man's death is disturbing.
Some people may deserve death for what they have done, but rejoicing over it? Dancing on the streets?
The ending of ANYONES life is not something to be celebrated...
-
lol davros.
i would of suspected that all these problems with killing 150 people in iraq was pressure from lower down the chain of command, witch would explain the deaths.
but what i cant figure out is why would saddam want peoples hands will be cut off if they did something bad? its beyond me.
it was a bad idea marching into iraq in the first place and with well over 4000 troops dead from the USA and 100 from the UK it shouldnt of happend, i suppose thats what you get if you just the most stupid person the the world in charge of the USA and a idoit in charge of the UK, atleast if it never happend thousands of civilians and army officers wouldnt of been killed today.
saddam is dead for what ever stupid reason the US Government can come up with, its a piss poor excuse for trying to get out of the situation, as i have said things have now become worse in iraq since saddam was removed (thats the problem for the US Government has and its not going to wash away).
-
This is all IMO, so feel free to shoot it down, as is your right, priveledge and probably gleeful responsibility
it seems to me that he didn't think that his killing of anyone was wrong, even seemed like he believed he had a moral imperative to do it
he habitually killed, it was part of his life, wheras the death penalty is regularly exercised to punish the single worst piece of behaviour in a persons life this was punishing a long history of a behaviour, an unremorseful, seemingly proud history of massacres, injustice, and bloody cruelty
and further, the raising of progeny to follow in those same blood marked footsteps
he was executed partially so that he would not be able to be freed and made a hero were the iraqi civil war to go "badly" as though a war could ever go well, also partially because it is a morale boost for a certain sector of america, generally those most responsible for supporting this war, the republican base <not saying there aren't dems, libretarians and out right marxist communists in the armed forces, just saying that it is on the whole more of a "red state">
need more troops, boost morale
sucks, but it's the world we live in
-
good reply quest techie, but for obvious reasons im not going to reply any further on this subject.
-
MAh..attacking Iraq was a mistake.
You can't bring democracy overnight in such a country. Something like that takes years, nay DECADES!
Untill such time the only way to stop a civil war and have at least some semblance of normality is a man like Saddam.
Just how many people died since the US invasion?
As much as people don't like him (with reason), he was right when he said that we'll be wishing he was there.
-
(I can dream, can't I)
Nope.
They should have beheaded him. It would have been more Arab, granted a greater appearance of Arabic legitimacy. Or perhaps gassed him. It would have been poetic justice to kill him with Sarin.
The man had to die, there was no suitable alternative punishment. I have to admit some vague admiration for how the Iraqi government handled this. They didn't sit on their ass or make a big fuss out of it, they just decided to kill the guy and they killed him. Efficency. They could do with more of that.
-
I predict this will be mentioned, and inveitably made funny by Gary Brecher, what do you think Rictor? Since I know you are probably the only one here who reads his articles.
I don't know, his death isn't that big a deal in tactical terms. It's just a symbol, like when Zarqawi was killed. Since the moment the US stepped foot on Iraqi soil, Saddam was never running things. Remember back when they trotted Saddam out for all the world to see his dishevled, beared shame, and they said that his capture was going to end the insurgency? If Iraq has shown one thing, it's that there is no Big Boss within the insurgency - hell, there's no ten bosses.
For a man who intended to be the new Saladin (ironic, considering he gassed Saladin's tribe) things haven't exactly gone according to plan. Although I can't help but wonder whether in a few years the US will be trying to ressurect his corpse, after figuring out that the only damn thing that's going to stabilize Iraq is a strongman, and that Saddam the only one with the huevos to do it. If there's one thing more awesome than a mustachioed dictator, it's a mustachioed zombie dictator. That would make Iran sweat.
I knew his death wasn't big tactically, but It just seems like Gary to make fun of a death, then tell the people who say the insurgency is gonna stop because of his death, that they are morons for thinking such thoughts.
-
I'm about 99% convinced he died instantly, having watched the google video of it. Still, wouldn't fancy going out like that...
The actual meaning of it all? There is none. He's not who the insurgents are fighting for - in fact he's next in line after the infidel on the list of things that they hate. All that happened today, is that an old man who committed terrible deeds in the past (and who perhaps deserved to die, but I'm usually against the death penalty) was executed by people who should be more worried about having a stable government and a reliable police force. About 70 other people were injured or killed in Iraq during the 24 hours that have been dominated by his death. Business as usual, Baghdad style.
In other words, nothing special happened today.
-
Well, all I can say is that the death of one man, though he killed many and committed horrible acts, will not heal Iraq. It may even divide further a divided people. It had to happen, though. The U.S. went in with the main objective of removing Saddam, and setting up a democracy. Saddam was removed and captured, and with the U.S. helping to pull the government back together a trial and death sentence was inevitable. We are now stuck with lengthy discussions about whether Saddam could have held Iraq together better than the U.S. military. All we can do, as internet commentators, is sit back and find out what Saddam's death will do to the situation in Iraq.
And then, of course, argue about it. :P
-
Too bad he just simply ceased to exist, and he won't ever have to be called to account for all the stuff he did before and after 1982. :(
On the other hand, maybe he's up there in Paradise, hanging out with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and 72 virgins. :)
-
...and 72 virgins. :)
I've never understood the draw of 72 virgins. Sure, the clumsiness and stuff would be cute for a while, but i'm thinking after about 30 or so you're going to start to want a finger up your ass.
As they say; to each his own, I guess.
-
(I can dream, can't I)
Nope.
They should have beheaded him. It would have been more Arab, granted a greater appearance of Arabic legitimacy. Or perhaps gassed him. It would have been poetic justice to kill him with Sarin.
The man had to die, there was no suitable alternative punishment. I have to admit some vague admiration for how the Iraqi government handled this. They didn't sit on their ass or make a big fuss out of it, they just decided to kill the guy and they killed him. Efficency. They could do with more of that.
Why did they have to die? Because he was A Bad Man (C) ?
-
Why should he be allowed to live?
-
the death penalty is regularly exercised to punish the single worst piece of behaviour in a persons life
Hey, sometimes you just have to kill a person. It's unfortunate, yes, but you don't always have any other choice. Rehabilitation isn't always possible - some people don't want to be a part of correct society. Life imprisonment, meanwhile, is too big a drain on finances, paying for food, board, guards, etc. for someone who, pretty much, doesn't deserve those things. Sometimes execution is the only possible answer.
this was punishing a long history of a behaviour, an unremorseful, seemingly proud history of massacres, injustice, and bloody cruelty
Hey, sometimes you just have to kill a person. It's unfortunate, yes, but you don't always have any other choice. Rehabilitation isn't always possible - some people don't want to be a part of correct society. Life imprisonment, meanwhile, is too big a drain on finances, paying for food, board, guards, etc. for someone who, pretty much, doesn't deserve those things. Sometimes execution is the only possible answer.
-
Why should he be allowed to live?
Because everyone has the right to live?
That's exactly why we punish killers and one of the very reasons why capital punishment sucks. We do not punish rape by raping the rapist, why should we kill the killers? And that's a stupid counterpoint anyways? WHY NOT?
Also, from more cynical POV: Were he alive, he could tell us just exactly what happened in Iraq during all these years - who supported whom, what went down there, who killed whom, stuff like that. Now Shiites got their revenge on him but Sunnis did not - if you happened to place revenge ahead of justice.
edit: Shiites != ****es
-
high-fives allround in the Bush household. maybe.
-
Rights can be taken away in response to criminal actions. Your right to life is really no more sancrosact then your freedom. Both can be revoked if you break the law. The more extreme the action, the greater the sanctions. When you start requiring an accountant to keep track of all the bodies, what other sanction but the most extreme is really a suitable punishment? Is it really fair to ask the very people he oppressed to pay for his continued upkeep?
I'll note that the rape analogy is a poor one at best; aside from the above, inflicting the equivalency is difficult, often impossible.
Saddam had his chance to trade information for leniency. He refused. It is doubtful he would have ever changed his mind. He supposedly went to his death still being obsinate and believing in the rightness of his actions. This ought to
also be noted for the fact that reform was probably equally out of the question. He cannot be reasoned with, he will not reform. There is no useful purpose in keeping him alive.
-
Sorry to derail the topic a bit, but I've got a question regarding Saddam. During high school, my World History teacher told me that Saddam attempted to have George H.W. Bush assassinated. I had forgotten about it since then, and I was wonder if there is even remotely one iota of truth to that statement?
-
I've so far tried to stay out of the death penalty debate, because although I believe that we don't have the right to kill a person, I know that the debate is based on personal values that differ from person to person. I believe Saddam had to die not because his crimes deserved death but because I know he was captured, I know that he would have had as fair a trial as possible under the conditions, and I know that it was pretty much guaranteed that he would be executed.
ngtm1r: If we neglect what we see as moral rights, in the pursuit of morality, aren't we being just a touch hypocritical? We do not revoke rights, we simply impinge upon them. We have decided that such things as life and liberty are essential human rights, but we cannot take rights away. Discovery of the laws governing gravity did not allow Newton the ability to turn gravity off.
-
So Saddam is supposedly dead and buried.
I just don't get how death penalty is worst penalty. As a matter of fact, it's actually merciful compared to some other punishments IMHO.
Consider this: Saddam was a human being biologically. Humans inevitably die. So how does the death penalty punish anyone? It just speeds up the inevitable.
Way worse would be to be kept alive as long as possible, without human contact, with only basic needs covered up - nutrition, medication and hygiene. Not being able to die, but being forbidden the chance to live. And inevitably, death in the end. What's the difference - other than death by capital punishment is swift, whereas the latter gives a whole lot of opportunities to think what you've done. End result is same anyway.
Further more, I personally don't believe that there is any kind of life after death, so if the idea was to punish Saddam, what's the point in ending everything?
Even if I'm wrong and Saddam's soul somehow gets sent to God to be judged, I don't think the verdict there would be any different if he died yesterday, or if he would've died ten years from now.
Call me cruel if you want, but I'm just stating the obvious here. Capital punishment is not actually punishment at all, and most definitely not capital one. Being kept alive without being allowed to live would certainly be way more horrible punishment. And when it inevitably ends, he would still be dead.
Another thing I would be in favour of is being left stranded on an island with one shot, no food, no water and no name. That's a kick-ass punishment as long as you're not able to escape. Although keel-hauling could also perhaps satisfy the bloodthirst of those millions of people who apparently wanted him dead.
-
Consider this: Saddam was a human being biologically. Humans inevitably die. So how does the death penalty punish anyone? It just speeds up the inevitable.
Why is murder a crime?
Further more, I personally don't believe that there is any kind of life after death, so if the idea was to punish Saddam, what's the point in ending everything?
Even if I'm wrong and Saddam's soul somehow gets sent to God to be judged, I don't think the verdict there would be any different if he died yesterday, or if he would've died ten years from now.
What you believe isn't relevant. Death separates us from the only existence about which we can make any affirmations, and thus we fear it. One hardly needs the fear of God's judgement to fear death.
-
The death penalty was an easy way out 4 saddam. It would be x50 times more effective to put him in a high security prison, that way he would always remember wat he used 2 have and wat he has now. Im supprised they still have the death penalty in the U.S.A. Also it was not a gd tactical move, Saddam's death is going to cause even more violence in Iraq.
-
i said i wasnt going to post anymore, i lied.
the subject of killing is a very clueless, stupid and arrogant thing.
explaination: the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being by another -- meaning a lack of knowledge of before hand of these people and what they did(innocent killed for another persons crime) also related to stupidity, then you got alot of self pride after killing someone that you hate and dont care(usa and Saddam), in this case the penalty for killing someone is usually either life imprisonment, or in law with capital punishment and then you have the death penalty.
-
Someone here was against this tremendous penalty(mostly because it's cruel and old).
Anyway I think that his death will stop-in part-some terrorists.
-
bad idea betting on the torrorists to give up fighting against the freedom way of life. it doenst really matter anyhow, all the world had its draconian way of life, the feudal system, usa's current death penatly system, saddam's chopping off peoples hands, the nazis concerntration camps and slavery, its all thier.
-
bad idea betting on the torrorists to give up fighting against the freedom way of life.
Please tell me you did not just imply Iraqi insurgents are fighting "freedom".
-
bad idea betting on the torrorists to give up fighting against the freedom way of life. it doenst really matter anyhow, all the world had its draconian way of life, the feudal system, usa's current death penatly system, saddam's chopping off peoples hands, the nazis concerntration camps and slavery, its all thier.
posting on new year is a bad idea for many reasons
-
Why should he be allowed to live?
Because sometimes living is a much worse fate than death. If you had a choice between living in a small, damp, dark, filthy cell for the rest of your life or death, which would you choose?
Saddam's gone, but Iraq is still a wreck. It changed nothing; except it removed one possible exit plan for America.
-
...except it removed one possible exit plan for America.
The "Saddam will help us" exit plan is probably in the same pile as the "launch Iraq into space and pretend it never existed" plan, so it's no great loss in that regard.
-
...
posting on new year is a bad idea for many reasons
and.. its posted so?
where the bad reasons?
-
...
posting on new year is a bad idea for many reasons
and.. its posted so?
where the bad reasons?
I think he's implying that posting is a bad thing to do on New Years because many people are drunk. That's just my take on it, but I think it's always a bad thing when you post. Stop killing the internets.
-
All right, since no one else in here feels like dancing, guess it's all up to me, then.
*turns on party music*
To be quite honest, I could give a damn less what this does to the "situation" over there, what the long-term ramifications are, who said what to whom when, or any of that bull****. We should have pushed on to Baghdad and smoked the ****er 15 years ago, but better late than never, I guess. Good ****ing riddance.
(Hmmm...how many stereotypes have I confirmed with those few statements? :p)
-
..."launch Iraq into space and pretend it never existed" plan, so it's no great loss in that regard.
Those short-sighted fools at the DoD laughed at me... I'll show them all! Them all! :drevil:
-
Because sometimes living is a much worse fate than death. If you had a choice between living in a small, damp, dark, filthy cell for the rest of your life or death, which would you choose?
Living in the cell. Most do. The human will to survive does not often consider the consequences. Besides, assuming his cell would be damp, dark, and filthy is a bit of stretch. Particularly the damp part. Consider where it would be.
-
...
posting on new year is a bad idea for many reasons
and.. its posted so?
where the bad reasons?
Your post was quite incoherent and I still have troubles fully analyzing it, so I assumed that because it was the New Year you were propably drunk, because you should have been. Because it was the New Year. And you are supposed to be drunk on the New Year night. That's what!
-
All of his posts seem drunk. :rolleyes:
-
if thats all you got then keep your opinions to yourself.
-
(http://www.thepaincomics.com/Saddam%20Lives!.jpg)
-
I prefer the hanged man with written:
S_DD_M
I told it to my class...they enjoyed it!
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6263787.stm
Hanging of Saddam's aides filmed
Iraqi government officials have shown journalists video of the hanging of two of Saddam Hussein's aides, during which one of the men was decapitated.
The film shows Barzan Ibrahim - Saddam Hussein's half-brother - and Awad Hamed al-Bandar hanged side-by-side.
Barzan, former intelligence chief, and al-Bandar, former head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court, were convicted over the killing of 148 Shias in 1982.
The government said Barzan's beheading was accidental.
The BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad says the video first shows both men being prepared for execution standing next to each other.
They were both dressed in orange boiler suits.
Executioners in balaclavas placed hoods round both men's heads, then the noose.
A short while later the footage, which is silent, shows both men fall.
Almost immediately the rope that was round Barzan's neck flicks upwards, the body dropping below.
The cameraman then shows the pit below and a headless body, bloodied at the neck and what officials say was Barzan's head still covered by a hood.
Al-Bandar's body was still hanging above, said one official who was present at the execution.
Our correspondent says officials say they are not planning to release the footage publicly.
The hangings took place at 0300 (0000 GMT), apparently in the same building where Saddam Hussein was put to death on 30 December after being convicted of the same crime.
The manner of the former Iraqi leader's execution drew international criticism after unofficial mobile phone footage showing him being taunted and insulted in his final moments was released.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said there were no such scenes at the hanging of his aides.
[/quote]
So, Iraq - the democratic model for the rest of the Middle East?
-
So, Iraq - the democratic model for the rest of the Middle East?
Yes, because capital punishment = the line, the distinguishing factor, you might say, between democracy and everything else. Regular elections, popular sovereignty, and separation of powers are just little sideline bonuses.
So if a political figure who isn't exactly Man of the Year in Iraq gets taunted and footage of it gets out? Point is, he still got hung whether he had high self-esteem going into it or not.
-
So, Iraq - the democratic model for the rest of the Middle East?
Yes, because capital punishment = the line, the distinguishing factor, you might say, between democracy and everything else. Regular elections, popular sovereignty, and separation of powers are just little sideline bonuses.
So if a political figure who isn't exactly Man of the Year in Iraq gets taunted and footage of it gets out? Point is, he still got hung whether he had high self-esteem going into it or not.
I'd say the state giving itself the right to kill enemies of society is rather a key factor in what we conceive of as democracy, yes. Democracy is essentially a byword for a state which respects basic human rights (at least in the context of 'spreading democracy across the middle east'), and I'd say the botched (not to mention sectarian) nature of both the trail and the execution is a very good exemplar of the general chaos and disarray of Iraqi 'freedom'.
-
So, Iraq - the democratic model for the rest of the Middle East?
Yes, because capital punishment = the line, the distinguishing factor, you might say, between democracy and everything else. Regular elections, popular sovereignty, and separation of powers are just little sideline bonuses.
So if a political figure who isn't exactly Man of the Year in Iraq gets taunted and footage of it gets out? Point is, he still got hung whether he had high self-esteem going into it or not.
I'd say the state giving itself the right to kill enemies of society is rather a key factor in what we conceive of as democracy, yes. Democracy is essentially a byword for a state which respects basic human rights (at least in the context of 'spreading democracy across the middle east'), and I'd say the botched (not to mention sectarian) nature of both the trail and the execution is a very good exemplar of the general chaos and disarray of Iraqi 'freedom'.
True, but the trial, sadly, was doomed to be botched at this point in Iraqi history, given that the whole country is simply a mess. What we can hope for is that Iraqis don't use this as precedent for any future trial; Saddam's death was supposed to be the 'end of an era' for the Iraqis, and let's hope they can keep that in mind.
-
I hope to see it on youtube or ebaumsworld soon...
-
It's floating all over the Internet. I can't remember where specifically I saw it, but I'm sure that if you Google for it you can find it:
aldo: for all the self-righteous cries coming out of Europe about how capital punishment is inhumane, it is actually the alternative which is far more inhumane. Better to die on your feet. Die gloriously. Or would it somwhow be better to spend the next 50 years ****ting yourself and slowly going crazy in a concrete tomb? Would Jesus have been what he is today if the Romans had just locked him up for a few decades? And Braveheart? Che Guevara? I'm not making a moral judgement on Saddam's life and actions, simply saying that capital punishment in high-profile cases at least affords the victim some measure of dignity.
Saddam was a dictator. He knew full well that he ruled by force and may eventually fall by force, and that he would recieve exactly the same treatment he afforded his victims. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
-
So you would request rape against the rapists?
Also Braveheart, Che Guevara, etc... are we supposed to idolize the people being killed? Is Saddam supposed to be idolized for him being killed?
-
It's floating all over the Internet. I can't remember where specifically I saw it, but I'm sure that if you Google for it you can find it:
aldo: for all the self-righteous cries coming out of Europe about how capital punishment is inhumane, it is actually the alternative which is far more inhumane. Better to die on your feet. Die gloriously. Or would it somwhow be better to spend the next 50 years ****ting yourself and slowly going crazy in a concrete tomb? Would Jesus have been what he is today if the Romans had just locked him up for a few decades? And Braveheart? Che Guevara? I'm not making a moral judgement on Saddam's life and actions, simply saying that capital punishment in high-profile cases at least affords the victim some measure of dignity.
Saddam was a dictator. He knew full well that he ruled by force and may eventually fall by force, and that he would recieve exactly the same treatment he afforded his victims. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The only justification for murder that any (sane) legal system allows is self-defense. Capital punishment is merely excusing murder on the basis of the character of the victim; if someone kills a rapist, or a drug dealer, we prosecute them as if they killed a saint. Justice is, and should be, blind on the character of the victim.
For all I can read, you're almost celebrating the martyrdom, rather than decrepid decline (as a life sentence would be) of Saddam. What dignity was offered to Saddam (taunted to the gallows and hung before completing his final prayer), or to William Wallace (hung, drawn and quartered - eviscarated, disembowelled and his head placed on a stick atop London Bridge alongside those of his 4 brothers)? Or Che Guevara, shot repeatedly in the legs before being executed by soldiers who were fighting over who had the right to kill him? Let's not forget how these people died, rather than colour our opinion by how they lived. Are you advocating capital punishment for the sake of the punishee?
-
So you would request rape against the rapists?
Also Braveheart, Che Guevara, etc... are we supposed to idolize the people being killed? Is Saddam supposed to be idolized for him being killed?
No, because raping someone is inhumane. Most forms of capital punishment are swift and relatively painless, particularly lethal injection, which the US employs as the sole method in the thirty-eight states that still practice it (with some exceptions, namely Nebraska and some states that offer electrocution, hanging, and firing squad as alternates to lethal injection).
As for the second paragraph, it's not as though we glorify those people who are killed, it's that we glorify them and their cause simultaneously. You might not remember someone who was thrown in prison for the rest of their lives and left to rot in there (like Sir Walter Raleigh), but you certainly would remember someone who screamed "FREEDOM!" as they had their head chopped off. There are some exceptions, of course (Nelson Mandella, anyone?) but the majority of people who are seen as martyrs are those who are killed for their cause, not thrown in jail.
And for once, I agree with you Rictor. Kudos on that post. :)
-
aldo: for all the self-righteous cries coming out of Europe about how capital punishment is inhumane, it is actually the alternative which is far more inhumane. Better to die on your feet. Die gloriously. Or would it somwhow be better to spend the next 50 years ****ting yourself and slowly going crazy in a concrete tomb? Would Jesus have been what he is today if the Romans had just locked him up for a few decades? And Braveheart? Che Guevara? I'm not making a moral judgement on Saddam's life and actions, simply saying that capital punishment in high-profile cases at least affords the victim some measure of dignity.
Then offer the convict a choice. If it really is better we'll see all of them jump at it.
What you mean is that it's better for you that they die gloriously. Better for posterity. Not better for the person actually being executed.
-
No, because raping someone is inhumane. Most forms of capital punishment are swift and relatively painless, particularly lethal injection, which the US employs as the sole method in the thirty-eight states that still practice it (with some exceptions, namely Nebraska and some states that offer electrocution, hanging, and firing squad as alternates to lethal injection).
I believe the inhumanity stems from the state killing someone full stop, not the method used. It's the very act of the state giving itself the right to kill its citizens, that sits at the root of the debate.
Of course, lethal injection uses a paralyzing drug - so it'd be impossible for the inmate to scream, etc, if suffering excrutiating pain. My understanding is that Sodium thiopental is used to overdose the inmate - however, thiopental is short living (it's not used in surgery beyong induction for this reason, apparently) and should be (but is not) tailored to the 'patient'. Additionally, the paralytical agent - Pancuronium bromide - can counteract and negate thiopental if improperly administered (and it's worth nothing that AFAIK the executioner is not trained in anaesthesia).
It then follows that the inmate suffocates through paralysation, whilst enduring intense burning pain from the administration of the potassium chloride.
A University of Miami study (admittedly in cooperation with an attorney representing Death Row inmates) discovered that 88% of executed inmates have less Thiopental in their blood than would be used for anaesthitising a patient.
-
Then offer the convict a choice. If it really is better we'll see all of them jump at it.
What you mean is that it's better for you that they die gloriously. Better for posterity. Not better for the person actually being executed.
You can't judge it that way. As ngtm1r said earlier in the thread, the human will to survive doesn't take consequences into account. The person might fear death at the moment of choice, but won't take into account prison rape, overcrowded cells, or dealing with other sociopaths in prison as a result of being imprisoned.
So really, what's better: a lifetime of this, or a few seconds of pain to end all?
I believe the inhumanity stems from the state killing someone full stop, not the method used. It's the very act of the state giving itself the right to kill its citizens, that sits at the root of the debate.
It's a basic part of the social contract: citizens can overturn the government for stepping out of its bounds, and the government can punish the citizens for breaking the law. A legitimate democracy does not give itself power, but derives it from the people. So, the measure of the punishment is up to debate, not whether the government has the authority to carry out the punishment.
-
Then offer the convict a choice. If it really is better we'll see all of them jump at it.
What you mean is that it's better for you that they die gloriously. Better for posterity. Not better for the person actually being executed.
You can't judge it that way. As ngtm1r said earlier in the thread, the human will to survive doesn't take consequences into account. The person might fear death at the moment of choice, but won't take into account prison rape, overcrowded cells, or dealing with other sociopaths in prison as a result of being imprisoned.
Just so you know how odd this argument feels, it's the equivalent of asking a nearby guard to shoot you because when you get out, the possibility of rape and overcrowded streets scare you to death (ironicly and literally).
Prison rape is not supposed to happen, if it happens there is something wrong with that prison's system. The other two also mean there is something wrong. We don't legislate law that takes into account events that happen outside the law. It would be like legislating the proper way to conduct a drug dealing operation.
So really, what's better: a lifetime of this, or a few seconds of pain to end all?
I believe the inhumanity stems from the state killing someone full stop, not the method used. It's the very act of the state giving itself the right to kill its citizens, that sits at the root of the debate.
It's a basic part of the social contract: citizens can overturn the government for stepping out of its bounds, and the government can punish the citizens for breaking the law. A legitimate democracy does not give itself power, but derives it from the people. So, the measure of the punishment is up to debate, not whether the government has the authority to carry out the punishment.
But the citizen's life is never given as part of that social contract. The government cannot take it away as it wishes.
-
Then offer the convict a choice. If it really is better we'll see all of them jump at it.
What you mean is that it's better for you that they die gloriously. Better for posterity. Not better for the person actually being executed.
You can't judge it that way. As ngtm1r said earlier in the thread, the human will to survive doesn't take consequences into account. The person might fear death at the moment of choice, but won't take into account prison rape, overcrowded cells, or dealing with other sociopaths in prison as a result of being imprisoned.
So really, what's better: a lifetime of this, or a few seconds of pain to end all?
So you're advocating capital punishment as a lesser sentence?
I believe the inhumanity stems from the state killing someone full stop, not the method used. It's the very act of the state giving itself the right to kill its citizens, that sits at the root of the debate.
It's a basic part of the social contract: citizens can overturn the government for stepping out of its bounds, and the government can punish the citizens for breaking the law. A legitimate democracy does not give itself power, but derives it from the people. So, the measure of the punishment is up to debate, not whether the government has the authority to carry out the punishment.
Whether the state appoportions itself the right is the fundamental issue here. You're drawing a strange distinction here, because clearly there is a question as to what right the state has to enforce cruel and inhumane punishments.
No doubt there are many places where 'the will of people' would justify chopping off the arms of thieves, and stoning adulterers; there are basic rights of decency, humanity, and fairness that must transcend the momentary whims of the population (the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example). The question is not 'do the people want this?', but 'is this right?'. Do we offer people the option to have sex offenders tortured and then castrated? To allow the victim to beat up their robber with a baseball bat? Is it right for the state to offer these punishments, to give into the most basic and crude instincts of revenge?
-
I believe the inhumanity stems from the state killing someone full stop, not the method used. It's the very act of the state giving itself the right to kill its citizens, that sits at the root of the debate.
It's a basic part of the social contract: citizens can overturn the government for stepping out of its bounds, and the government can punish the citizens for breaking the law. A legitimate democracy does not give itself power, but derives it from the people. So, the measure of the punishment is up to debate, not whether the government has the authority to carry out the punishment.
No doubt there are many places where 'the will of people' would justify chopping off the arms of thieves, and stoning adulterers; there are basic rights of decency, humanity, and fairness that must transcend the momentary whims of the population (the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example). The question is not 'do the people want this?', but 'is this right?'. Do we offer people the option to have sex offenders tortured and then castrated? To allow the victim to beat up their robber with a baseball bat?
The Fifth Amendment:
No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The Constitution already provides for the death penalty as being legitimate, so long as due process of law preceeds the punishment. In some cases, the trial may be less-than legit (Saddam's, for instance), and in such a case, no American court should ever pass a sentence on a criminal.
The Eighth Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Now, seeing as the Amendments wouldn't necessarily conflict with each other, why would the Constitution provide for the taking of one's life with due process of law, but outlaw this as a cruel and unusual punishment?
Because it isn't one.
I agree with you that castrating sex offenders or chopping off a person's arms are less than humane, and would be "cruel and unusual." However, no US capital punishment still enforced inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment, as death often occurs within a few seconds or minutes of the paralytic injection taking effect. The contrast, of course, would be chopping one's arm off and allowing him to bleed to death, or shattering one's ribcage with a baseball bat.
Is it right for the state to offer these punishments, to give into the most basic and crude instincts of revenge?
This sentence is interesting, because isn't the entire justice system a form of revenge, to punish a criminal for what he's done to another?
-
The Fifth Amendment:
No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The Constitution already provides for the death penalty as being legitimate, so long as due process of law preceeds the punishment. In some cases, the trial may be less-than legit (Saddam's, for instance), and in such a case, no American court should ever pass a sentence on a criminal.
The Eighth Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Now, seeing as the Amendments wouldn't necessarily conflict with each other, why would the Constitution provide for the taking of one's life with due process of law, but outlaw this as a cruel and unusual punishment?
Because it isn't one.
This is not an arguement about what is in the Constitution, but what should be. It's not so long since an electric chair that melted the eyeballs of those in it was considered a fine punishment... in some places it still is, of course.
Saying that the Constitution - a centuries old document - says something is not cruel and unusual is sufficient justification is plain wrong; society, morality has been shown to change throughout history. The US Bill of Rights was, I believe, written at a period where the genocide of the Native American race was 'ok'. You can only evaluate state executions through a modern perspective, not citing the text an (effectively) ancient document which itself (in the case of the Eighth Amendment text) is taken from the English Bill of Rights of 1669. And the UK has, of course, abolished capital punishment yet kept said text.
I agree with you that castrating sex offenders or chopping off a person's arms are less than humane, and would be "cruel and unusual." However, no US capital punishment still enforced inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment, as death often occurs within a few seconds or minutes of the paralytic injection taking effect. The contrast, of course, would be chopping one's arm off and allowing him to bleed to death, or shattering one's ribcage with a baseball bat.
Actually, that's wrong (RE: lethal injection) - the average time for a lethal injection to kill is 7-11 minutes. Also, if the anaesthetic fails (as seems to be likely, given the prior 88% figure), it's an extremely painful death. Finally, in at least one case it has taken around 35 minutes for the prisoner to die. Worth re-noting that the paralytic agent means those 7+ minutes could be spend in excrutiating, horrific burning pain and we wouldn't know, though.
Of course, we still consider a murder a heinous crime when the victim has a painless death, so I'd say the inherent cruelty is in the act of killing - not the method, or the type of victim you choose.
Finally, surely you'll note my point - that what is cruel or (perhaps more relevantly) a 'just' punishment is very much a matter of personal viewpoint when it comes to inflicting corporal punishment? There are people - a great many - who'd view the death sentence as being just punishment for rape; what is the demarcation we place, between crimes that kill and crimes that 'merely' destroy lives?
Is it right for the state to offer these punishments, to give into the most basic and crude instincts of revenge?
This sentence is interesting, because isn't the entire justice system a form of revenge, to punish a criminal for what he's done to another?
No. Justice is different from revenge - it has to be. Revenge is, simply, uncontrolled rage; the basest human instincts of violence. Revenge offers neither a fair nor just punishment.
-
You can't judge it that way. As ngtm1r said earlier in the thread, the human will to survive doesn't take consequences into account. The person might fear death at the moment of choice, but won't take into account prison rape, overcrowded cells, or dealing with other sociopaths in prison as a result of being imprisoned.
So really, what's better: a lifetime of this, or a few seconds of pain to end all?
My life is precisely that, mine. No one else should have the right to decide I should be spared the horror of living it if I am mentally competent enough to say that no matter how bad it is I wish to continue.
If you start down that road of saying other people can say "But his life will be ****. Let's end it" Then you remove my choice in the matter. How is that any different from a serial killer for who murders say junkies and prostitutes and uses the argument that he was putting them out of their misery?