# Death Sentence for Saddam Hussein



## Vanilla (6 Nov 2006)

Personally I was appalled to hear of the verdict in Hussein's trial. I was wondering what others thought of the sentence. 

I'm fundamentally opposed to the death sentence in any circumstance, but even apart from that, doesn't it seem likely that, if carried out, this will make a martyr of him? Won't it make the situation much worse?

Plus it would appear that the trial was far from fair:



> One of Saddams lawyers was assassinated the day after the trials opening session last year. Two more were later assassinated and a fourth fled the country.
> 
> In January, chief judge Rizgar Amin, a Kurd, resigned after complaints by Shiite politicians that he had failed to keep control of court proceedings. He, in turn, complained of political interference in the trial. Abdul-Rahman, another Kurd,
> replaced Amin.
> ...


 
It amazes me that Britain seems to condone the trial and the verdict. I'm not surprised at all about the comments from Bush and his administration. The EU presidency opposes the death sentence, there are similar views from other European countries.


----------



## TarfHead (6 Nov 2006)

According to a news bulletin on the car radio (probably Phantom), he will face death by _hanging squad_ ? How would THAT work  ?

I believe the death penalty is wrong in all cases (until of course someone close to me is a victim). Better IMHO to put him back in the hole they found him and make him live out his years in squalor.


----------



## Glenbhoy (6 Nov 2006)

To us it's pointless and probably counterproductive, but, perhaps, the Iraqi tribunal (pity ours don't have those powers ) had to come up with this verdict in order to have any credibility amongst the general populace.  Presumably the Iraqi's are pretty much in favour of the death penalty, and if so, what other sentence could they have handed down?


----------



## ClubMan (6 Nov 2006)

Vanilla said:


> It amazes me that Britain seems to condone the trial and the verdict. I'm not surprised at all about the comments from Bush and his administration. The EU presidency opposes the death sentence, there are similar views from other European countries.


Not just the presidency - opposition to capital punishment for all crimes is a central tenet of the _EU _and the _Council of Europe _more generally and its abolition is a requirement for accession countries:

European Union and the Death Penalty (Capital Punishment)

Capital punishment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The European Union and the Council of Europe both strictly require member states not to practice the death penalty. The only European country to do so is Belarus - this is one of the reasons why Belarus is excluded from the Council of Europe.


----------



## dodo (6 Nov 2006)

He could not had hoped for anything less knowing the terriable deeds he has done throught his life, he is a bad man and I would have no problem doing the hanging if I was asked,this world is getting to soft on people who commit evil acts .I just wish the death penalty was here for all child abusers aswell.


----------



## bogwarrior (6 Nov 2006)

Vanilla said:


> I'm not surprised at all about the comments from Bush and his administration.



yeah, and he's a pro-life president...
It never ceases to amaze me the attitude of some (a minority I hope) on the American right who are against abortion but pro death penalty.


----------



## Purple (6 Nov 2006)

dodo said:


> I just wish the death penalty was here for all child abusers aswell.


 A 17 year old who has consensual sex with a 15 year old is legally a child abuser. Do you think they should hand for that offence or should your comment be qualified?


----------



## Miles (6 Nov 2006)

I think hanging may be too good for him! Perhaps he should be subjected to the chemical weapons that he used against his own people and the people of Iran.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Nov 2006)

Maybe they should subject him to the _WMDs _which were the basis for invasion? Er, um...


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Nov 2006)

bogwarrior said:


> It never ceases to amaze me the attitude of some (a minority I hope) on the American right who are against abortion but pro death penalty.



...as opposed to those of us on this side of the pond who are pro-abortion but anti-death penalty...


----------



## bogwarrior (7 Nov 2006)

ubiquitous said:


> ...as opposed to those of us on this side of the pond who are pro-abortion but anti-death penalty...



yeah, an equally bizarre point of view, and not just on this side of the pond.

But my point still stands, if one finds abortion fundamentally wrong at every level, I don't see how one can ever support the death penalty....it just doesn't make sense.


----------



## dodo (7 Nov 2006)

Purple said:


> A 17 year old who has consensual sex with a 15 year old is legally a child abuser. Do you think they should hand for that offence or should your comment be qualified?


No I do not think a 17 yr old should be put to death, I think you know what I mean, ie christian brothers and priests who force rape and violence on 5 years olds, fathers who sexually abuse their own kids,


----------



## dodo (7 Nov 2006)

bogwarrior said:


> yeah, and he's a pro-life president...
> It never ceases to amaze me the attitude of some (a minority I hope) on the American right who are against abortion but pro death penalty.


America have this one right, death penalty for guilty people, unborn children are innocent so have a right to life,  people who killed other people lost that right as soon as they committed their crimes, these people on death row in the USa did not steal sweets


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Nov 2006)

dodo said:


> No I do not think a 17 yr old should be put to death, I think you know what I mean, ie christian brothers and priests who force rape and violence on 5 years olds, fathers who sexually abuse their own kids,



Would you have been happy had Nora Wall and Paul `Pablo' McCabe been executed following their conviction in June 1999 for the rape of a young girl in a Child Care home in Waterford? What would you have said when it later emerged that both were 100% innocent, and their convictions were quashed?


----------



## Guest109 (7 Nov 2006)

I am all for the death penalty for all murderers, the sooner saddam  and his cohorts are strung up the better,capital punishment need to be brought back  big time


----------



## ClubMan (7 Nov 2006)

ubiquitous said:


> ...as opposed to those of us on this side of the pond who are pro-abortion but anti-death penalty...


Not necessarily any contradiction there. It all depends on your views on when an embryo or foetus can be considered to be human.


----------



## ClubMan (7 Nov 2006)

ainya said:


> I am all for the death penalty for all murderers, the sooner saddam  and his cohorts are strung up the better,capital punishment need to be brought back  big time


You might want to consider emigrating from the _EU _to somewhere like _Belarus _or _Texas _so.


----------



## gramlab (7 Nov 2006)

Think its all gotten a bit clouded. Doesn't matter which judge convicted or sentenced him - decision was made by the US government.
Yes his crimes were terrible but anyboy who supports the verdict and welcomes it as true justice (especially anyone in power) needs to be asked why they are not actively looking for the heads of all the other despots and mass murderers in the world today. Politics, power and the good old dollar!
Keep on after them 'turrurists'  dubya


----------



## Oilean Beag (7 Nov 2006)

The correctness of his trial & detainment is quite worrying, in that there are many allegations on both sides. Perhaps in issuing a death sentence the coutt were attempting to ensure that his punishment was final & absolute. The running of this trial may not have stood up to the close scrutiny of human rights organisations & other bodies following its completion. Fear of his securing freedom in the future may have forced the hand of the court.

The court in doing so balanced one evil against another. Ensure that Saddam is punished by death & never freed _or _sentence him to life imprisonment to prevent acts avenging his death but risk him being set free at some point. 

My own personal opinion is that his execution can only cause the deaths of many more people in his name, followers & innocents. 

Given these choices I would have imprisoned him for life & hoped that the trial could hold water. If he were to be freed one day, his survival as one man could not balance the lives spared.


----------



## TarfHead (7 Nov 2006)

ainya said:
			
		

> I am all for the death penalty for all murderers .. capital punishment need to be brought back big time


 
Yeah - cos the USA have the death penalty for murder and that really stopped people commiting that crime there  .


----------



## delgirl (7 Nov 2006)

Did ClubMan say that?  

With the information I have, I don't personally believe that the trial was fair. 

The death sentence will turn him into a martyr, which in the eyes of devout muslims holds great advantages. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise and it earns special favor with Allah, not to mention all the virgins waiting for him there!!

Even though the court was supposed to be Iraqi, he will be seen as having been executed by the US resulting in more terror attacks on Western targets.


----------



## Arthur Daley (7 Nov 2006)

delgirl said:


> The death sentence will turn him into a martyr, which in the eyes of devout muslims holds great advantages. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise and it earns special favor with Allah, not to mention all the virgins waiting for him there!!


 
Whatever day it happens on will also be a huge security headache in Iraq, other arab states and the US, for about 5 years afterwards. People will be on their guard all over the place on the anniversary of Sadams martyrdom.......


----------



## icecool (7 Nov 2006)

dodo said:


> He could not had hoped for anything less knowing the terriable deeds he has done throught his life, he is a bad man and I would have no problem doing the hanging if I was asked,this world is getting to soft on people who commit evil acts .I just wish the death penalty was here for all child abusers aswell.


 

Good call. He deserves the death penalty, human rights, none fair trial doesnt come in to it nor compare to the crimes against humanity he has commited. I wonder if it will be televised?


----------



## Vanilla (7 Nov 2006)

Every one deserves a fair trial, regardless of what they are alleged to have done. 

As for wondering if his hanging will be televised, I shudder at the very thought. How could anyone want to watch the death of another human being?


----------



## dodo (7 Nov 2006)

The death sentence will turn him into a martyr, 

So what if he is seen as a Martyr, what happens then, people will die no matter what verdict was reached (such is Life) nothing can change that,


----------



## Ancutza (7 Nov 2006)

The death penalty is an abhorrence to all civilised people.  As a christian/lapsed catholic I still believe that only God has the right to grant life or take it away.

Another problem is that in such matters there is no room for the 'mediocrity' that so often pervades in the justice system.  Fair enough if the system convicts someone, jails him/her and later discovers a mistake then that individual can always be released.  This is not the case with the death penalty.

If there can be any doubt as to a safe conviction in ANY case where the death penalty is sought then there can be no justification in applying it in ANY case whatsoever.  It is much too final a punishment to risk making errors with however much one might think that a particular individual deserves it.

The correct solution for Saddam is to bury him in a maximum security prison for the rest of his natural in solitary confinement with no access to the outside world, the media or visitors.  Quite simply to forget about him.


----------



## dodo (7 Nov 2006)

Ancutza said:


> The death penalty is an abhorrence to all civilised people.  As a christian/lapsed catholic I still believe that only God has the right to grant life or take it away.
> 
> Another problem is that in such matters there is no room for the 'mediocrity' that so often pervades in the justice system.  Fair enough if the system convicts someone, jails him/her and later discovers a mistake then that individual can always be released.  This is not the case with the death penalty.
> 
> ...


I dont delieve in God 'thank God for that', if you choose to believe in something that never shows its self then I respect that but for me seeing is believing,  but as a person who believe's an eye for an eye then I am glad this monster is  going to be put to death  the quicker the better I say,  
Why does your God not show himself on sky news so we can all see him, all those who have sky news that is.


----------



## daithi (7 Nov 2006)

"..an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave us all blind and toothless"

d


----------



## edo (7 Nov 2006)

Well Dodo , I hope that you are never on the wrong end of a miscarraige of justice. 

 It does happen , The Irish, of all people should be aware of that after the Guildford 4 and Birmingham Six fiascos over the last decades - in both those cases , if capital punishment had not been abolished in the EU , they would have been executed (in fact the Judge in one of those cases made it that very apparent at the sentencing.) 

Capital Punishment is now seen in the EU and more and more nations in the same light as slavery and rightly so.After the horrors Europe has gone through in the previous century never again will the state be given the power of life and death over its citizens. It has completely failed as a deterrent , witness the USA - is it co-incidental that the least violent societies are the ones that have best and most robust legal systems with access for all and have done away with capital punishment? 

All its proponents can offer in its defense is tradition and that awful word "closure" - in other words revenge . I prefer to leave God's judgement to God - too many people would like play God themselves.

In the case of Saddam Ancutza has it spot on - life in solitary for the rest of his natural life - in a devils island location , maybe Gitmo? - to be forgotten about - then he will have anwer to his Allah.

In any case I believe the Americans wont allow him to be executed - the Sunni's are the American least worst hope of keeping Iraq intact and even the current US administration arent that dumb are they? (that is ,if they are still there - you never know after tonite if the Republicans take a big enough hit and Georgie Boy doesnt have another election to fight - the GOP might be writing their own version of cut and run with an eye on 2008)


----------



## dodo (7 Nov 2006)

edo said:


> Well Dodo , I hope that you are never on the wrong end of a miscarraige of justice.
> 
> It does happen , The Irish, of all people should be aware of that after the Guildford 4 and Birmingham Six fiascos over the last decades - in both those cases , if capital punishment had not been abolished in the EU , they would have been executed (in fact the Judge in one of those cases made it that very apparent at the sentencing.)
> 
> ...


I agree with you nobody unless 100% proven guilty like Saddam should be hung .


----------



## bankrupt (7 Nov 2006)

dodo said:


> I agree with you nobody unless 100% proven guilty like Saddam should be hung .


 
Of course, this being AAM, the spiritual home of the pedant, I feel it is incumbent upon me to point out that Saddam should be _hanged, _not _hung._


----------



## daithi (7 Nov 2006)

"..vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord.."

d


----------



## Glenbhoy (7 Nov 2006)

dodo said:


> I agree with you nobody unless 100% proven guilty like Saddam should be hung .


Dodo, what exactly is he 100% guilty of - Saddam was a leader of a nation, sometimes people in that position have to take hard decisions, for him the death of the several 100 men for which he has been convicted was probably a neccessary decision, they may have killed him if they hadn't been terminated, or at any rate were a threat to the security of the nation for which he was responsible.  Maybe, then Blair could be prosecuted for the killing of Mendez last year (not going to start on the Iraqi experience), after all, whilst he did not pull the trigger, his security forces did as they thought that he was a threat to the security of the nation (bit like Frank Connolly as Mick McD would say), who does the buck stop with?  
Look at WWII, many Nazi's were hung at Nuremburg, if they had won, possibly many Allied leaders would have been hung, after all the Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were hardly exemplary behaviour.


----------



## dodo (7 Nov 2006)

Glenbhoy said:


> Dodo, what exactly is he 100% guilty of - Saddam was a leader of a nation, sometimes people in that position have to take hard decisions, for him the death of the several 100 men for which he has been convicted was probably a neccessary decision, they may have killed him if they hadn't been terminated, or at any rate were a threat to the security of the nation for which he was responsible. Maybe, then Blair could be prosecuted for the killing of Mendez last year (not going to start on the Iraqi experience), after all, whilst he did not pull the trigger, his security forces did as they thought that he was a threat to the security of the nation (bit like Frank Connolly as Mick McD would say), who does the buck stop with?
> Look at WWII, many Nazi's were hung at Nuremburg, if they had won, possibly many Allied leaders would have been hung, after all the Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were hardly exemplary behaviour.


If you do not know what he is guilty of then I suggest you should not be here discussing Saddam Hussein, If hitler was still around there would be PC people like you defending his beliefs and explaining why he should not be put to death, I am sick of people who think no one derseve's to die, some people do deserve to die, ie Hitler,shankhill butchers,black& tans, Fred West to name a few,


----------



## rabbit (7 Nov 2006)

Saddam was guilty of the most terrible crimes - not just murder of those he opposed but grisly and barbaric torture as well. Saddam got a far fairer trial than any of his victims. But for the good old US and UK etc etc he would still be in Kuwait , with our minister for foreign affairs blessing ( ' cos our govt done damn all in Gulf war 1, just like in WW2 etc )..


----------



## dodo (8 Nov 2006)

bankrupt said:


> Of course, this being AAM, the spiritual home of the pedant, I feel it is incumbent upon me to point out that Saddam should be _hanged, _not _hung._


That's what I get for having to leave school at 10, and thanks for the correction


----------



## Glenbhoy (8 Nov 2006)

rabbit said:


> But for the good old US and UK etc etc he would still be in Kuwait , with our minister for foreign affairs blessing ( ' cos our govt done damn all in Gulf war 1, just like in WW2 etc )..


Ah, yes, Kuwait, that bastion of human rights.  Isn't it funny how the aforementioned were so quick to react to the Kuwaiti crisis as opposed to, oh I don't know, the Balkan crisis!


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2006)

Glenbhoy said:


> Ah, yes, Kuwait, that bastion of human rights.  Isn't it funny how the aforementioned were so quick to react to the Kuwaiti crisis as opposed to, oh I don't know, the Balkan crisis!


What did we do in the Balkans?
I do not agree with the death penalty in any circumstances and Saddam’s trial was clearly flawed but Ireland is in no position to lecture anyone about their conduct internationally.
Our foreign policies are utterly self-serving and our rhetoric is utterly hypocritical.


----------



## Miles (8 Nov 2006)

Purple said:


> Our foreign policies are utterly self-serving and our rhetoric is utterly hypocritical.


 
That could be said of every country in the world! So why focus on us?


----------



## Sarah W (8 Nov 2006)

Lets hope that the dealings of Saddam with Western Governments are fully and accurately reported and verified before he is hung (or poisoned before he gets to the gallows). Then let the trial of Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld et al begin.

Sarah


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2006)

Miles said:


> That could be said of every country in the world! So why focus on us?


Because many of us see fit to criticise other countries that actually try to solve problems around the world when we adopt a position of utter moral cowardice; neutrality. 
We were happy to trade with Libya when everyone else in the civilised world was severing ties in the 80's. When we were forced to stop we lobbied for years to have the embargo lifted. We are now happy to work for armament companies when we can while we criticise the countries that use those arms.
It's not that we are any worse than other countries but the moral hypocrisy gets to me.


----------



## Glenbhoy (8 Nov 2006)

Purple said:


> What did we do in the Balkans?
> I do not agree with the death penalty in any circumstances and Saddam’s trial was clearly flawed but Ireland is in no position to lecture anyone about their conduct internationally.
> Our foreign policies are utterly self-serving and our rhetoric is utterly hypocritical.


Ireland did nothing, i am not criticising any state's foreign policy, just trying to point out that the US/UK/Nato etc reacted extremely swiftly to the Kuwaiti invasion as opposed to the crisis in the Balkans which was emerging around the same time.  The point of course being that the swift reaction was not protect the human rights of the Kuwaitis, but to secure oil supplies.  Indeed the poster who commended the US/UK for forcing Saddam out of Kuwait should stop and wonder just why they didn't oust him at that time, given he was guilty of "heinous and barbaric" crimes then, or perhaps they didn't care what he did, as they don't about other dictators around the world, so long as they don't have an effect on the home country.
This is in my opinion a reasonable policy, there's no need to be hypocritical about it though, and try and pretend that the reason for intervention in country A is on humanitarian grounds, when countries X,Y,Z have similar problems, but are ignored.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2006)

Glenbhoy said:


> This is in my opinion a reasonable policy, there's no need to be hypocritical about it though, and try and pretend that the reason for intervention in country A is on humanitarian grounds, when countries X,Y,Z have similar problems, but are ignored.


I agree in general but do remember that the US and NATO went into the Balkans and the US went into Somalia for the best of reasons (even if the US bottled it half way through in Somalia). Ireland on the other hand has done bugger all (NATO peace keeping doesn’t count in this context although the US and others could learn a lot by doing some).   
All that not withstanding I think that you are right that it is a reasonable foreign policy position to look after your own countries interests. The danger is when a country tries to spread an ideology by force, even when that ideology is based on the common good. You cannot force people to have the level of commonality that is required for a democracy to function.


----------

