|
Saddam Better Dead than Alive
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
Should Saddam have been shot in his little fox-hole to spare us all from the ensuing fiasco of his trial?
Is a trial even possible without the possibility of the death as the ultimate punishment?
Should Saddam be kept in Iraq, and tried by Iraq, by the world, or the USA? |
|
|
| razmataz |
1) shooting Saddam in his spider hole (not fox hole!) would have meant to lower to down to his level. In a region where killing each other is more often than not an unfortunate result of disputes this can serve to be a powerful psychological precedent. History will remember Saddam Hussein captured while in the possession of arms. It would have been too easy to kill him and then frame him for resistance.
2)Any trial of of Saddam should be done either in Iraq or in front of an international tribunal. I don't see why USA should try Saddam for anything.
3)As for the death penalty I am generally against it just because as much justice it might bring it is ultimately wrong to take others' lives. Thats up to the courts to decide. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by razmataz
3)As for the death penalty I am generally against it just because as much justice it might bring it is ultimately wrong to take others' lives. Thats up to the courts to decide. |
Well I could envision no reason this man should enjoy life if he were to be found guilty of what we think he is. He has violated humanity in the worst ways imaginable. Mankind should not tolerate to have people like him alive amongst us. |
|
|
| razmataz |
| agreed... if he does get the death penalty he would have deserved it... but that doesnt make it right to kill him- just brings justice. Two different concepts. Anyways, I dont want to drag this into a discussion on the merits of the death penalty so ill leave it at that. |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| I, who am normally *against* the death penalty, would like to have seen him burn. Perhaps with his death his followers would have seen it as final. Their beloved leader couldn't even survive. Maybe they would have been lost, and all killed themselves in following? heh.. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Well I could envision no reason this man should enjoy life if he were to be found guilty of what we think he is. He has violated humanity in the worst ways imaginable. Mankind should not tolerate to have people like him alive amongst us. |
If u are talking about him using the chemical weapons in the Iran and Iraq war,well then the U.S should go to trial too,since they gave him all those weapons. |
|
|
| cfyoung4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
If u are talking about him using the chemical weapons in the Iran and Iraq war,well then the U.S should go to trial too,since they gave him all those weapons. |
But let's not forget Germany as well as other European countries since they also gave Saddam chemical weapons. In a 12,000 page weapons report the Iraqi diplomats delivered to the U.N. on December 31, 2002, it was stated that 2 U.S. companies gave chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, but also 14 German companies, 3 companies each from the Netherlands and Switzerland and 2 companies each from France and Austria also gave chemical weapons to Iraq. So it's not only America that did this. Many in the West have their share of the blame in this. I am disgusted by any country that would use or facilitate others in using these kinds of weapons. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Should Saddam have been shot in his little fox-hole to spare us all from the ensuing fiasco of his trial? |
Nah, war criminal trials can sometimes be funny. Just look at what Milosevic is doing in court. :)
| quote: | | Is a trial even possible without the possibility of the death as the ultimate punishment? |
Well, I don't see why it wouldn't be. It just depends whether the legal system endorses capital punishment.
| quote: | | Should Saddam be kept in Iraq, and tried by Iraq, by the world, or the USA? |
I don't see why he should be tried by the USA. The other two options are equally acceptable, because he screwed up many of his people as well as several foreign nations. |
|
|
| Nadi |
I think he should go through super torture and then be left to die =/
But since thats not going to happen I'm not sure where he should be tried, it shouldn't be the U.S because he didnt violate U.S laws, and he certantly isn't in our jurisdiction, I wouldnt want it to be international court either, because as the milosivich trial shows its an absolute joke. And I'm pretty sure theres no functioning judicial system in iraq at the moment either. Besides I don't know if he could get a fair trial there since some of the country absolutly loves him, and much of the rest of the country is probably still scared of him. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| i'd like to see him dead asap, before he gets the chance to use this new platform and spew out more rehtoric that will continue to do this world more evil. he'd be able to get more 'hero's fighting for his 'cause', whatever that may be and I dont want to see terrorists fighting for his release. |
|
|
| TheFutureIsNear |
mMmM US forces shoulda cleaned em out with a he grenade, and wrote it up as an "normal procedure"
Better dead than alive f0 sh0 |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by cfyoung4
But let's not forget Germany as well as other European countries since they also gave Saddam chemical weapons. In a 12,000 page weapons report the Iraqi diplomats delivered to the U.N. on December 31, 2002, it was stated that 2 U.S. companies gave chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, but also 14 German companies, 3 companies each from the Netherlands and Switzerland and 2 companies each from France and Austria also gave chemical weapons to Iraq. So it's not only America that did this. Many in the West have their share of the blame in this. I am disgusted by any country that would use or facilitate others in using these kinds of weapons. |
Two companies? I don't think so:
| quote: | Between 1985 and 1990, the US government approved licences for the export of some $1.7 billion worth of military, chemical/biological technology, a total of 771 licences in all during that period (only 39 licences were rejected). The substances include:
"Bacillus Anthracis (anthrax), Clostridium Botulinum (a source of botulinum toxin), Histoplasma Capsulatam (cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart), Brucella Melitensis (a bacteria that can damage major organs), Clostridium Perfringens (a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness), Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance), Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents." |
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&threadid=73787
I lost the link for that data, but there's a nice US senate report going into great detail about what was sold to Iraq and when, available here:
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsear.../report_s01.htm
Note that the major attack against the Kurdish people occurred in 1988 (when Hussein murdered 5000 or so people with chemical weapons purchased primarily from the US) and the US - so outraged by this event (hell, it was invoked a lot during the build-up to Gulf War 2 as evidence of Saddam's great "evil") - continued to sell Saddam these same weapons for a further two years. It would make as much (if not more) sense for Bush II to blame his dad for the travesties committed against the Kurdish, Shiite and Iranian people during the late 80s and early 90s than Saddam Hussein.
But I digress.
Killing Saddam Hussein when he was discovered would have only made him a martyr in the eyes of many - going down fighting to the death and so forth - and that may have only sparked new retaliatory attacks. By keeping him alive, I believe the US have done the right thing by themselves and the Iraqi people. I'd rather see Saddam rot slowly, on his own in a heavily guarded prison cell than to actually be put to death by the coalition in something reminiscent of a "dignified" death.
The question of who he should be tried by is also a difficult one. The US - so far as I'm concerned - have absolutely no jurisdiction to try Saddam Hussein. I would ideally like to see Saddam tried by his own people, but I'm not sure how practical that would be: I'm not familiar with the current state of the Iraqi judicial system nor am I sure what sorts of laws may have been in place that Saddam may have violated (if there wasn't a law against torture in Iraqi legislation, for instance, on what basis can they try him?). I think in this scenario, therefore, it may be more practical to try Saddam Hussein in front of an international tribunal, in the same way they're trying Slobodan Milosevic now. After all, most of Saddam's greatest crimes were committed against those of other nations/cultures (the Iranians, the Kuwaitis and the Kurds and Shiites as well, if we include them as being of a different culture to Sunni Saddam) and therefore it is international rather than domestic law he is in violation of.
Tough to say where exactly he's going to end up though. |
|
|
|
|
