Saddam, the death sentence?

[CFLarsen]

To much "inside the box" thinking!

OPTIONAL SENTENCES FOR SADDAM!

1) A hole in the ground with no way out. He can see the sky, get rained on, etc. Let him rot.

2) Four walls, wash-basin, prison bed...until he dies.

3) Guinea-pig for Iraq's new types of nerve gas.

4)...??? [awaiting more input from others]

Show "Oprah" regularly? Nah, that's against the Human Rights declaration...

Why make a martyr out of Saddam, by killing him, when you can make a loser out of him, by keeping him as a prisoner?

Kill him, and you allow people to say "He died for a cause". Instead, deny him his martyrdom. Isn't that really the worst thing you can do to him?

Two words: Rudolf Hess. Loser, Loser, Über Alles.

 

[Oxymoron]

Wehoo! I only hope they do it in public. For those that might want to avenge his death, well they hate the West anyway, they don't really need another reason to blow themselves up. Seriously, I think it's important for the people in that region to see that justice will be served and wrong doings will not go unpunished.

You might say all the footage shown over the news yesterday was propoganda, and maybe some of it was, but even if one Iraqi feels better about his country today, after this verdict, then it is justice. These folks might begin to believe their families didn't die in vain at the hands of a sociopath.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[BPSCG]

He keeps the Sunnis from "avenging his death".

That's one possible take, but unless I'm very much mistaken, Sunnis haven't been shy about shooting things up in Iraq since he was captured. I think you can make just as plausible an argument that hanging him removes the Sunnis' central rallying point; who's their "resistance" leader after Saddam attains permanent room temperature? Yes, there will be those who scream to avenge his death, but who will be their leader?

Hang him. There will be unintended consequences, both good and bad, but I can't see any good consequences flowing from letting him live. Saw Dan Rather being interviewed on Fox News yesterday (no, that is not a typo or a 1960's hallucination flashback), and he pointed out, almost right out of the box, that Saddam is first and foremost a survivor, and "he isn't dead yet." He saw a possible scenario where he ends up in exile in Jordan or some such country.

From exile to a return to power? Couldn't happen? See Napoleon, Elba, Waterloo...

 

[Tricky]

That's one possible take, but unless I'm very much mistaken, Sunnis haven't been shy about shooting things up in Iraq since he was captured. I think you can make just as plausible an argument that hanging him removes the Sunnis' central rallying point; who's their "resistance" leader after Saddam attains permanent room temperature? Yes, there will be those who scream to avenge his death, but who will be their leader?

The news stories all report heightened security just as a result of his conviction. Maybe just playing it safe, but it appears that they expect some sort of reaction. Of course, the terrorists seem to have a maddening habit of not doing things when you expect them.

And it appears they have plenty of leaders. Their attacks seem to be fairly well-coordinated.

Hang him. There will be unintended consequences, both good and bad, but I can't see any good consequences flowing from letting him live. Saw Dan Rather being interviewed on Fox News yesterday (no, that is not a typo or a 1960's hallucination flashback), and he pointed out, almost right out of the box, that Saddam is first and foremost a survivor, and "he isn't dead yet." He saw a possible scenario where he ends up in exile in Jordan or some such country.

Yeah, it's possible, but not likely. How many deposed leaders since Napoleon have made it back to major power? Ayatollah Khomeini wasn't ever really in power, so you can't count him.

Besides, whatever else he is, Saddam is a storehouse of information unlike any other. It may be hard to get it out of him (without torture), but I can see him some years from now, like a Hannibal Lecter (fictional, I know) dispensing information on how to track and subdue enemies of the government or how to hide WMDs. It seems a waste to waste him.

At least give him time to write his memoirs.

 

[SezMe]

Tricky, I wonder if Saddam would be much of a font of knowledge about anything other than who was involved in what at what level. With his known habit of killing people who gave him bad news or disagreed with him, I suspect that he was surronded with a bunch of yes-men who hid anything distasteful.

I'd add in passing that it is reminiscent of a certain sitting president, but that would be a derail.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky, I wonder if Saddam would be much of a font of knowledge about anything other than who was involved in what at what level. With his known habit of killing people who gave him bad news or disagreed with him, I suspect that he was surronded with a bunch of yes-men who hid anything distasteful.

Possibly, but there is little doubt that Saddam is, or at least was, extremely smart as well as brutal. It was no mean feat to keep UN inspectors wondering if he had WMD's in order to keep his people supporting him even though he had lost or destroyed all of them. Also, a guy with an ego like that just begs to tell people how smart he is. I'm betting he could be stroked into talking. At least you want to preserve that possibility (IMO).

 

[BPSCG]

I'm betting he could be stroked into talking. At least you want to preserve that possibility (IMO).

Hey, if he's such a font of knowledge, waterboard the hell out of him until you've extracted everything of any value.

Then hang him.

In any case, that's all entirely up to the Iraqi government. He's their prisoner, not ours. I believe the only American in any way involved in the trial was trying to get him acquitted - Ramsey Clark.

 

[DanishDynamite]

The only thing I felt certain about in regard to this trial was that the end result would be a death sentence for Saddam. No other result would be acceptable by the parties involved.

Can't say the verdict saddens me in any way.

 

[Tricky]

Hey, if he's such a font of knowledge, waterboard the hell out of him until you've extracted everything of any value.

Then hang him.

As I understand it, torture only gets the "torturee" to say whatever you want him to say. It is not that good at getting the truth.

In any case, that's all entirely up to the Iraqi government. He's their prisoner, not ours.

True. But then our opinions here wouldn't make any difference even if he was a prisoner of the US. (Unless someone on the boards here is secretly in Bush's inner circle.)

 

[Huntster]

....1. Yes,justice.

2. No,vengence, opening the door to hell.

I voted no, because the question was "does it help."

I don't think it will "help" anything.

But is it just? You bet it is.

And that is what "courts" are supposed to be about; justice.

If someone expects another outcome in terms of what it will "help" or "hurt" instead of it it's "just" is part of the problem with "justice" these days.

 

[BPSCG]

As I understand it, torture only gets the "torturee" to say whatever you want him to say. It is not that good at getting the truth.

Are you saying then, that all the information that Khalid Sheik Mohammad spilled, and was acted on, successfully, was false information?

I think that's a canard, that "torture doesn't work, because it only gets the person to say what you want him to say." It can certainly get false information out of someone, especially if he has no information to give. But if someone with actual information lies, and the torturer finds out, he's just going to go back to the torturee and pick up where he left off, until he gets the truth. And the torturee knows this; he'll eventually give up the truth, if he has it.

And you're telling us here that Saddam "is a storehouse of information unlike any other." Good. Strap him down.

 

[elaine]

Does it help what?

 

[Oxymoron]

If he looks like a murderous sociopath, and walks like a murderous sociopath, talks like a murderous sociopath, well......he's probably a murderous sociopath. Hang him.

 

[chriswl]

I'd kill Saddam while we have the chance. Soon the Americans will be out of Iraq and the country will have a proper civil war. I wouldn't bet against Saddam being installed as the head of at least one faction if he's still alive by then.

 

[Bob Klase]

"Crimes against humanity?" A BS premise. His crimes were against specific people, many of them people in Iraq who were Kurdish or Shia. He didn't do a thing to me, nor to a billion Chinese.

http://www.survivorsrightsinternational.org/definitions/humanity_crimes.mv
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

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;

[long list of other options continues]

So what do you and the Chinese have to do it?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
"Crimes against humanity?" A BS premise. His crimes were against specific people, many of them people in Iraq who were Kurdish or Shia. He didn't do a thing to me, nor to a billion Chinese.

http://www.survivorsrightsinternatio...nity_crimes.mv
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

Quote:
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;

[long list of other options continues]

So what do you and the Chinese have to do it?

We're doing something about the butcher, and the Chinese aren't?

Yet again?

 

[Ziggurat]

Executing him only makes his message more powerful.

I hear this claim quite frequently. But was the message of Ted Bundy made more powerful by his execution? Not that I can tell, that's for damned sure. Why does executing someone automatically make their message more powerful? That makes absolutely no sense. The consequent effect on someone's "message" depends a lot upon what that "message" is. What, exactly, do you think Saddam's "message" was?

His "message", to the extent that he HAD one separate from personal greed and arrogance, was one of pan-arab nationalism. That is an essentially a supremacist and despotic message, and killing Saddam doesn't in any way further that message. Quite the reverse: it demonstrates the abject failure of pan-arab nationalism.

There may be OTHER complications, but the idea that killing him is like striking down Obi-Wan in Star Wars is just as much fantasy.

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.survivorsrightsinternational.org/definitions/humanity_crimes.mv
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

So what do you and the Chinese have to do it?

Its still a BS, Ivory Tower premise.

We, me and all of those Chinese, are a part of humanity, and have not been in any way an offended party.

And furthermore:

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;

Already a crime

(b) Extermination;

Already a crime, called murder, or genocide

(c) Enslavement;

Already a crime

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

Deportation is a lawful act. You deport people to get undesirables out of your country. Forcible pop transfer is either an artifact of war, or already in the category of genocide. This one maybe can stand, and is now called "ethnic cleansing." I'll leave it alone.

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

Already a crime, see the words "violation of international law." Cite that damned law, make a charge, and bloody well get on with it. Stop making up new nebulous categories.

(f) Torture;

Already treaties and laws on that, already a crime

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

"Of comparable gravity." Thats nebulous. The others are already covered in the first two terms, and enforced sterilization is a crime under a number of satutes, such as mayhem, mutiltation, assault, aggrivated assault, grevious bodily harm, etc. However, if it needs its special law, then maek enforced sterilization unlawful, and have at it.

(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;

Already a law, this is a waste of time.

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

Kidnapping, already a law

(j) The crime of apartheid;

Discrimination, and already a crime.

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Catch all, which is "I'll know it when I see it, and we'll hang you for it if we just don't like you."

That whole list is redundant, extraneous, and a load of bollocks, with the possible exception of one or two items. The world will get along fine without this idiotic construct, crimes against humanity. The crimes listed are already enumerated as crimes, and one or two can get their own standing, just as genocide does.

Here is what a "crime against humanity" boils down to: "If we can fabricate a charge on you, and you are not strong enough to tell the UN to piss off, we'll charge you with whatever we feel like, call it a crime against humanity, to include sub para (h), and hang you. Have a nice day."

Please pardon me while I vomit.

DR

 

[Cheesejoff]

Killing Saddam will make his supporters stronger? Possibly, we can't be certain until he's actually dead.

One thing is certain, the trial was definitely not a fair one. The title 'death sentence' is misleading as it implies some form of justice. 'Revenge killing' would be more appropriate.

 

[BPSCG]

One thing is certain, the trial was definitely not a fair one.

How was it unfair?