| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2006 02:25:24 PM · #51 |
a few facts need clearing up....
He doesn't get endless appeals, he gets one that the court has unlimited time to decide, but if the verdict is upheld in appeals he will be executed withing 30 days.
The second judge was not taken away due to being too lenient, he said in court that he didn't think Saddam was a dictator. A judge is not allowed to express their opinions in a hearing. It would have been teh same if he said he thought saddam was a dictator.
The trial wasn't that one sided, there were just thousands of people who wanted to testify against him for fire bombs, chemical bombs, death squads, etc...
Let him die a martyr, who cares. He knew he was doomed from the day we dug him out of that hole. thats why he made such a mockery of the proceedings with his outbursts and threats.
He had a part in killing family members of judges and the prosecussion during the hearings, he should be executed just on that.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 02:30:47 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
An eye for an eye, I say. |
Which carried to its ultimate, logical conclusion means we'll all end up blind. Whatever happened to the teachings of Jesus, who said "turn the other cheek?"
Article from The Indepemdent.
So America's one-time ally has been sentenced to death for war crimes he committed when he was Washington's best friend in the Arab world. America knew all about his atrocities and even supplied the gas - along with the British, of course - yet there we were yesterday declaring it to be, in the White House's words, another "great day for Iraq".
Article from the Asia Times Online.
The verdict on Saddam Hussein is in. He is guilty of "crimes against humanity" and is sentenced to death by hanging. His trial was generally regarded as devoid of fairness and was highly political. Even the timing of the announcement of the verdict was driven by the US mid-term elections. |
If Saddam thought that being buds with the west bought him immunity for the gasing and torturing of his own Iraqi citizens he needs to be executed just to clean up the gene pool from people being that naive.
I would say that the trial he got was probably the fairest trial any Iraqi citizen has received in the Mid-East....ever. If he had at least given his victims the same treatment then they would have had the chance to get a public hearing before dying rather than being gased in their homes while eating dinner with their husbands, wives and children simply for being of a different ethnic variation.
I'm a pretty liberal guy but anybody who sheds a tear over Saddam Hussein the man or the process is stretching the realm of reality.
Now...look in the mirror America and say to yourself..I voted for this. Because the entire American political machine put Saddam in place. We all bear the responsibility. What are you going to do about it?
Tuesday is tomorrow. Are you going to even vote? Are you going to have a discussion with your fellow voters? Your family? How about wearing a sign to the polls, helping an independent candidate out (too late now but hey).
We (Meaning America) keeps sitting around voting for this crap or being apathetic and then throwing our hands up in disgust. And don't give me this crap (it's not me) The statistics tell me that 50% of the people reading this thread won't vote tomorrow. |
Actually, it was the British, not the Americans that were responsible for the creation of Iraq placing hostile factions together under one government after WWI. The idea being that the Iraqis would be too occupied with in-fighting to cause a problem in the region. What they failed to see was the fall of the puppet regime and the rise of a dictator like Saddam who brutally suppressed the infighting and grew Iraq into a regional power. And we have the audacity to wonder why Iraqis are killing each other. It's funny to note how many Americans believe that Iraq is somehow an ancient country. Don't get me wrong, America's hands are hardly clean when it comes to facilitating Saddam.
And yes, my wife and I will vote, just as I have in every election since I turned 18.
50% would be a record turnout in most of the country, 30% is more likely if it's a good day.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 14:36:49. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 03:22:15 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
An eye for an eye, I say. |
Which carried to its ultimate, logical conclusion means we'll all end up blind. Whatever happened to the teachings of Jesus, who said "turn the other cheek?" |
You're right! That doesn't say much for human society. Of course, there are those of us who'd end up with only a couple toes after everything was said and done.
Jesus? That's all hokey pokey. Oh, I don't know, a really long book that was written by mortal men and then chopped, sliced and diced throughout history to fit the needs of a few very powerful men/organization(s) doesn't comfort me too much. Jesus doesn't carry much weight with me, thanks. I think a more correct statement would be, "whatever happened to common f*cking decency?"
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 15:23:35. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 03:34:15 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Whatever happened to the teachings of Jesus, who said "turn the other cheek?" |
Jesus? That's all hokey pokey. Oh, I don't know, a really long book that was written by mortal men and then chopped, sliced and diced throughout history to fit the needs of a few very powerful men/organization(s) doesn't comfort me too much. Jesus doesn't carry much weight with me, thanks. |
"Wide is the path and narrow is the gate"...
Good to have some volunteers to stay outside the gate.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 15:34:42.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 03:36:06 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Whatever happened to the teachings of Jesus, who said "turn the other cheek?" |
Jesus? That's all hokey pokey. Oh, I don't know, a really long book that was written by mortal men and then chopped, sliced and diced throughout history to fit the needs of a few very powerful men/organization(s) doesn't comfort me too much. Jesus doesn't carry much weight with me, thanks. |
"Wide is the path and narrow is the gate"...
Good to have some volunteers to stay outside the gate. |
eh. Glad I could help. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 03:50:29 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Whatever happened to the teachings of Jesus, who said "turn the other cheek?" |
Jesus? That's all hokey pokey. Oh, I don't know, a really long book that was written by mortal men and then chopped, sliced and diced throughout history to fit the needs of a few very powerful men/organization(s) doesn't comfort me too much. Jesus doesn't carry much weight with me, thanks. |
"Wide is the path and narrow is the gate"...
Good to have some volunteers to stay outside the gate. |
This is why I do not want religous philosophy in politics. If I were Muslim and I had a country coming over to my country talking about Jesus and going to hell if I didn't accept him as savior I would be interested in kicking their ass too. :-/
I'm not against religous faith...just not being part of governmental policy. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 03:51:36 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Whatever happened to the teachings of Jesus, who said "turn the other cheek?" |
Jesus? That's all hokey pokey. Oh, I don't know, a really long book that was written by mortal men and then chopped, sliced and diced throughout history to fit the needs of a few very powerful men/organization(s) doesn't comfort me too much. Jesus doesn't carry much weight with me, thanks. |
"Wide is the path and narrow is the gate"...
Good to have some volunteers to stay outside the gate. |
This is why I do not want religous philosophy in politics. If I were Muslim and I had a country coming over to my country talking about Jesus and going to hell if I didn't accept him as savior I would be interested in kicking their ass too. :-/
I'm not against religous faith...just not being part of governmental policy. |
Yeah, unfortunately, religion is so intertwined with the way the world works, that will never be possible. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 04:00:58 PM · #58 |
| Just don't confuse Religion with Faith - they are not the same thing, nor are they inseparable. Carry on. :) |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 04:01:43 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Whatever happened to the teachings of Jesus, who said "turn the other cheek?" |
Jesus? That's all hokey pokey. Oh, I don't know, a really long book that was written by mortal men and then chopped, sliced and diced throughout history to fit the needs of a few very powerful men/organization(s) doesn't comfort me too much. Jesus doesn't carry much weight with me, thanks. |
"Wide is the path and narrow is the gate"...
Good to have some volunteers to stay outside the gate. |
This is why I do not want religous philosophy in politics. If I were Muslim and I had a country coming over to my country talking about Jesus and going to hell if I didn't accept him as savior I would be interested in kicking their ass too. :-/
I'm not against religous faith...just not being part of governmental policy. |
Yeah, unfortunately, religion is so intertwined with the way the world works, that will never be possible. |
Thats the little secret about religion in America. You have all these faiths that say "Oh, we believe in everyone's right to worship as they see fit" but when you go to their services and hang around with them it's a little nod and a wink. Like, we say that but we all know we are just being politically correct.
It's 2007 and I feel like we are going back to the 1950's. All these people wearing flags on their lapels and quoting scripture. I mean...turn it around. Have us wearing Islamic moons on our lapels and dropping to our knees 5 times a day. This apocalypse is between the intolerants.
You don't see two agnostics fighting over which prophet has the word of God down pat. Fighting over which college football team is best yes..prophets ..not so much. :-/ |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 04:17:23 PM · #60 |
Art, tell me what you think the difference between faith and religion is. I want your p.o.v.
hokie -- you are right. Oh so right. I live in TN (right in the middle of the bible belt) and I see that kinda stuff ALL the time. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 04:23:46 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by hokie:
It's 2007 and I feel like we are going back to the 1950's. All these people wearing flags on their lapels and quoting scripture. I mean...turn it around. Have us wearing Islamic moons on our lapels and dropping to our knees 5 times a day. This apocalypse is between the intolerants.
|
Other than the different religions, I don't see a great deal of difference between the extremist muslims and the fundamental christians. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 04:35:04 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
You are right, of course, because the fact that he murdered, mutilated and tortured thousands, perhaps millions of Iraqis isn't enough for me to hate him. |
If you are happy believing this, then it's not my job to persuade you otherwise.
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Mr. jhonan, I ask you, do you not think that someone who has engaged in "crimes against humanity" should be taken to a court of law? |
I believe any leader should be held responsible for their own actions and the actions of these under their command.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 16:35:53. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 04:43:25 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
You are right, of course, because the fact that he murdered, mutilated and tortured thousands, perhaps millions of Iraqis isn't enough for me to hate him. |
If you are happy believing this, then it's not my job to persuade you otherwise. |
jhonan - do you not think he was involved in any of those crimes?
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Mr. jhonan, I ask you, do you not think that someone who has engaged in "crimes against humanity" should be taken to a court of law? |
I believe any leader should be held responsible for their own actions and the actions of these under their command. |
Right. And he was held accountable, in a trial, with jurors. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 04:52:36 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Jesus doesn't carry much weight with me, thanks. I think a more correct statement would be, "whatever happened to common f*cking decency?" |
I only mentioned Jesus because that's who our Fearless Leader professes to take orders from ... |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 04:53:00 PM · #65 |
Here is my thoughts:
1. Saddam Hussein is not the only leader to order the use of WMDs. The United States did so in WWII. However, Saddam Hussein is the only leader whose use of WMDs was against his own people in order to suppress freedom.
2. Thousands are dead at Saddam's hands.
This leads me to one of two conclusions:
a. Life Imprisonment
b. Death Penalty
Now, can you guarantee without a doubt that if we keep him alive that we can assure he'll remain imprisoned for life? If not, the danger to those who opposed Saddam and their families is exceedingly great if Saddam were to be freed.
I do not believe the security of such is reasonably possible. Especially not in the middle-east. Even if he were held in Europe or the U.S., I think it likely that either the prison he would be housed in would be attacked in an attempt to free him or, much more likely, his supporters would take a number of innoncents including women and children and hold them captive until the world freed Saddam.
So tell me, if a school full of women and children is held hostage by suppoorters of Saddam and a demand for his release is made. What do we do?
Do you release Saddam and put thousands of lives in jeopardy? Or do you tell those children that they died because the West with it's superior morality didn't have the balls to do what needed to be done to keep them safe?
Yes, I support the execution of any mass-murderer who is potentially still a dangerous threat were they ever to escape or be freed.
*****
As for the use of hanging. It is better than the more common public beheading. That said, it was probably chosen for it's visible clarity.
- Saj |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:01:16 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Mr. jhonan, I ask you, do you not think that someone who has engaged in "crimes against humanity" should be taken to a court of law? |
Originally posted by jhonan:
I believe any leader should be held responsible for their own actions and the actions of these under their command. |
Right. And he was held accountable, in a trial, with jurors. |
No, he wasn't. There was no jury. There were prosecutors, and a judge (who happened to be related to some of the victims)
But leaving that point to one side for a moment - Do you think that Saddam should be held accountable for the actions of soldiers under his command, soldiers who committed murder, rape and torture, even if he didn't directly order these acts?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:06:13 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
But leaving that point to one side for a moment - Do you think that Saddam should be held accountable for the actions of soldiers under his command, soldiers who committed murder, rape and torture, even if he didn't directly order these acts? |
Just so you know, Ray Charles could see where you're going with this question. And no, if the leader didn't order the rape, torture and murder of individuals then the leader shouldn't be held accountable.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:12:33 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Mr. jhonan, I ask you, do you not think that someone who has engaged in "crimes against humanity" should be taken to a court of law? |
Originally posted by jhonan:
I believe any leader should be held responsible for their own actions and the actions of these under their command. |
Right. And he was held accountable, in a trial, with jurors. |
No, he wasn't. There was no jury. There were prosecutors, and a judge (who happened to be related to some of the victims)
But leaving that point to one side for a moment - Do you think that Saddam should be held accountable for the actions of soldiers under his command, soldiers who committed murder, rape and torture, even if he didn't directly order these acts? |
Yes, he should. Even if he did not explicitly order such atrocities (I believe that he likely did, however), he did nothing to punish those under his command who committed such acts. If anything, he rewarded them. As a military leader, Saddam is responsible for the actions of those under his command. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:17:26 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yes, he should. Even if he did not explicitly order such atrocities (I believe that he likely did, however), he did nothing to punish those under his command who committed such acts. If anything, he rewarded them. As a military leader, Saddam is responsible for the actions of those under his command. |
I agree. This is also why I wonder about all the protection the US gives to it's generals in charge of Prison Camps and special ops that kill innocents. When we go to places like Iraq...if we dont set the highest example we are going to get called on the mat for being hypocrites. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:32:46 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yes, he should. Even if he did not explicitly order such atrocities (I believe that he likely did, however), he did nothing to punish those under his command who committed such acts. If anything, he rewarded them. As a military leader, Saddam is responsible for the actions of those under his command. |
You hit it with the punishment issue. If he had taken action against the torture and murder of the individuals then the heat would've been off him. jhonan is trying to turn this around towards the US soldiers who committed such atrocities to Iraqis and how Bush should be hung if Hussein is. Right jhonan?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:33:25 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
... If my child were to be raped, I would not want the person killed. I would want him put in prison where he himself will be raped nightly for the rest of his days! That is punishment. Prison is a form of torture. That is where the true criminals belong. Not dead, where they have no pain..... |
hmmm...for one they are away from general population, so the "punishment" is probably a lot less likely. Some are in a solitary confinement type area, since most other prisoners want to kill the rapists/pedophiles.
Mostly, you would WANT them to have a chance to be released to do this to another??? and with the way things are going in our country, soon enough it will probably be OK to rape children.
I agree with theSaj also...you keep somone of that high importance (to some) and you soon enough the hostage scenario will pop up. Why kill more innocents...kill the guilty and get it over with.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:42:49 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Mr. jhonan, I ask you, do you not think that someone who has engaged in "crimes against humanity" should be taken to a court of law? |
Originally posted by jhonan:
I believe any leader should be held responsible for their own actions and the actions of these under their command. |
Right. And he was held accountable, in a trial, with jurors. |
No, he wasn't. There was no jury. There were prosecutors, and a judge (who happened to be related to some of the victims)
But leaving that point to one side for a moment - Do you think that Saddam should be held accountable for the actions of soldiers under his command, soldiers who committed murder, rape and torture, even if he didn't directly order these acts? |
Does it matter if the judge was related to some of the victims? It's so painfully obvious that Saddam has killed people during his reign as leader of Iraq. There is absolutely no denying that fact. There's so much evidence against him that there would be no way to even try to plead innocent. His outbursts and mockery of the trial just shows that we shouldn't even have given him back for a trial; but just went ahead and killed the guy.
If there is definitive proof and evidence that soldiers under his command committed those acts, and he did nothing at all to reprimand his soldiers then yes, he should be charged. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:44:15 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
jhonan is trying to turn this around towards the US soldiers who committed such atrocities to Iraqis and how Bush should be hung if Hussein is. Right jhonan? |
I didn't mention hanging. That depends on the judicial system of wherever the trial might take place.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:52:04 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Does it matter if the judge was related to some of the victims? |
It matters if you believe that Saddam had the right to a fair trial. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 06:02:46 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Does it matter if the judge was related to some of the victims? |
It matters if you believe that Saddam had the right to a fair trial. |
No, I don't. What goes around, comes around.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 18:03:53. |
|
