Saddam hangs

I think that is a huge factor for me, but either way I would rather not see a political leader, with pockets of influence be put to death. I do feel it would trigger more violence than normal. Also in this day and age, I just feel the death penalty is wrong. I do not support Virginia and its usage of the death penalty.

As for chances of parole, you can always put a prisoner away for life no parole. That solves that issue in my mind. I do understand a concern was that he could be broken out of jail by supporters, but I think that is over exaggerated by those who made this decision.

And I do not generally support war, only as a last resort. I guess that makes me a pacifist, but I feel that term has a negative connotation.

For this ruling the choice was made by his enemies, not a fair and balanced jury. I know he was a terrible person, but there have been worst political leaders that have gotten off with nothing. He just deserved life in jail.

Honestly what was gained out of this? A message? I think him being jailed has a huge message too. How does this give the Iraqis more confidence in their government? It just shows the bias towards the majority, and that hanging is acceptable as a general procedure. Killing is just answered with more killing. How is the government not like the terrorists by releasing a video of a hanging? No matter how bad your enemy is, you cannot sink down to their level, and the government just did that. I guess I would not have this much of a problem with the ruling if it wasnt a hanging, but I would not support it either way.

Seeing him hang really gives nothing back to me. Shows me their government is not modern enough to deal with the issue in a proper way. It shows the government is only going to cause more problems in the future now the majority is in power. He kills tons of people, but killing him doesn't solve the problem. The problem is this deeply rooted sectarian violence, that goes way beyond him.

Watch for more bloodshed....

oh brother........:doh:

Hooskins...do you not beleive in the death penalty...and if so, why not?

Without the death penalty there is no "Prison Break"....yeah, chew on that for a minute

I chewed, and I don't care.

I meant we as in human beings.

It's just a shame really... killing him isn't going to right the many wrongs he committed, it's only going to add fuel to the fire.

Thou shall not kill shouldn't have exceptions.

Absolutely right Matty. It's interesting to look at the countries which still allow the death penalty. We are pretty much alone amongst most developed nations in practicing capital punishment. Also, if you look at the other countries still actively executing prisoners, it's some pretty questionable company.

Countries that have abandoned the use of capital punishment - the death penalty (http://www.religioustolerance.org/executh.htm)

I meant we as in human beings.

It's just a shame really... killing him isn't going to right the many wrongs he committed, it's only going to add fuel to the fire.

Thou shall not kill shouldn't have exceptions.

Presumably you are referring to the Sixth Commandment of the Hebrew Ten Commandments. A more accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou shall not murder," making an obvious distinction between any killing at all and unlawful killing.

I think executing people because it is financially expedient is a pretty crummy rationale. Money shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether someone lives or dies. Making someone be accountable for their actions should be the motivation.

One of the biggest problems with modern society, in my humble opinion, is a lack of accountability. No one is responsible or accountable for what they do. If you murder, torture, rape and abuse an entire country for decades, you ought to be held accountable, and I see no problem with death being the penalty for that behavior.

Hm, ok I accept your point. I still believe that any kind of death sentence is ridiculous and barbaric. As a progressive society a hanging or a death sentence is terrible. I still can't believe this would even happen to a political leader.

First point I have to make is that these kind of stances are based on our personalities and our values at our very core. No amount of arguing could ever persuade the other side. Some just believe killing is always wrong, no matter what. And some just believe killing is justified in some situations. Just like I could never convince you, you could never convince me. Some see Saddam die and think "that's horrible." It isn't because you're defending him, it's just that you see killing as always wrong, and that's a bigger value for you than a sense of justice (which is totally fine). Me on the other hand, I see him die and I cheer. Literally. His death literally makes me happier and feel better about the world I live in. It isn't that I'm evil, it's just that I place I higher value on justice. It's a different strokes for different folks thing, so it needs to be said that when arguing these things, a lot of the opinions go to our very core, and can never be changed. It's just good to understand the other perspective.

The judgment was also reached by the majority sect, which Sadamm is not a part of. The sentence was determined by a bias party.

This part I have a beef with though. The Iraqi government is now comprised of representatives from each of the sects. It just so happens that now the government's majority is representative of the country's majority. Saddam was a minority ruler who oppressed the majority.

This situation is no different from a Republican President and Republican Congress appointing right-leaning judges to the Supreme Court. The party in charge generally gets its way.

The majority sect should have the biggest courtroom representation. After all, they represent the Iraqi people. If Saddam were to be tried only by Bath Party members, then why the heck doesn't the Bath Party just create it's own nation? That's essentially an argument for secession from the union and is the main cause for Iraq's civil war. All Iraqi's need to learn to accept a fair and balanced democratic government, even if it means they'll be the minority, as long as their interests are represented, they can take up their issues in a non-violent manner.

Of course, complicating matters is the fact that Iraq is not a secular government. Because religion plays a role, different sects are going to feel much more passionate. They'll never be successful unless they leave religion out (good luck on that).

First point I have to make is that these kind of stances are based on our personalities and our values at our very core. No amount of arguing could ever persuade the other side. Some just believe killing is always wrong, no matter what. And some just believe killing is justified in some situations. Just like I could never convince you, you could never convince me. Some see Saddam die and think "that's horrible." It isn't because you're defending him, it's just that you see killing as always wrong, and that's a bigger value for you than a sense of justice (which is totally fine). Me on the other hand, I see him die and I cheer. Literally. His death literally makes me happier and feel better about the world I live in. It isn't that I'm evil, it's just that I place I higher value on justice. It's a different strokes for different folks thing, so it needs to be said that when arguing these things, a lot of the opinions go to our very core, and can never be changed. It's just good to understand the other perspective.



This part I have a beef with though. The Iraqi government is now comprised of representatives from each of the sects. It just so happens that now the government's majority is representative of the country's majority. Saddam was a minority ruler who oppressed the majority.

This situation is no different from a Republican President and Republican Congress appointing right-leaning judges to the Supreme Court. The party in charge generally gets its way.

The majority sect should have the biggest courtroom representation. After all, they represent the Iraqi people. If Saddam were to be tried only by Bath Party members, then why the heck doesn't the Bath Party just create it's own nation? That's essentially an argument for secession from the union and is the main cause for Iraq's civil war. All Iraqi's need to learn to accept a fair and balanced democratic government, even if it means they'll be the minority, as long as their interests are represented, they can take up their issues in a non-violent manner.

Of course, complicating matters is the fact that Iraq is not a secular government. Because religion plays a role, different sects are going to feel much more passionate. They'll never be successful unless they leave religion out (good luck on that).


I can agree to disagree, you are absolutely right about how most people have positions that will change in issues like these. Like I have mentioned before, I feel the death penalty only has negatives results(see other posts).


As for your beef, yeah the legislature is made up of equal representation, but I do not think that is the case for the judicial system, but I am not positive. And since religion is involved in politics, they will never be successful. I can agree with that.

The smartest thing any government can do is seperate church and state. The entire middle east is governed by some sort of theocracy, and It's a dead end concept.

I'm curious to see how the new government in Iraq evolves...

It could follow the more egypt-esque style government, or go straight to the constitutional theocracy that Iran has. I'm really pulling for the former.

As for your beef, yeah the legislature is made up of equal representation, but I do not think that is the case for the judicial system, but I am not positive. And since religion is involved in politics, they will never be successful. I can agree with that.

Well the judicial system is comprised of a bunch of judges appointed and approved by the legislature. If you're suggesting that said judge would allow his sectarian bias to affect his judgment during Saddam's trial, then you're really saying you have absolutely no faith in the Iraq government's ability to appoint a competent judge.

Besides, I don't see how you can accuse the judge of being biased without really knowing what's going on. It's not like it would be a very hard case to make against Saddam Hussein. Fact: he killed thousands of defenseless people, including women and children. Exactly what did the judge do to stack the deck against him?? I see no evidence of bias during the trial (and I think you should have some evidence before you start accusing the judicial system of bias, because those are some strong words).

In your post history in this thread, I see a lot of speaking out of turn. You seem to be making claims of bias, and then turning around and saying things like the bolded part above. Let's go on what we know, OK?

Our retarded government should have handed him to The International Court. Sadly we are more inept than we realize (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/02/saddam.execution/index.html).