http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6117910.stm

Hurrah. Let's hope it's done slowly.

Still, serves him right for picking an oil rich country to live in

Well, I guess that was a good closure. If he only would have followed that when he still was the leader.

That's just awful. Mankind will never learn.

They still do hangings?

Apparently they do.

Ah, because a lethal injection is so better!

It's spelled Hussein. And I don't know if I'm pro death sentence in any case. Locking him up for life could make him less of a martyr.

I wasn't aware of the fact that they use Latin scripture in Irak.

I think some ways of dying are better than others. Yes, the final result is the same, but what way would you rather go? A feeling of just going to sleep or dropping a distance with a rope around your neck? Just because it's death doesn't mean there can't be more "civilized" ways of doing it. Oddly enough death is apart of life.

What would you suggest? Prison for life? That's not what I call living. Please oh god don't say rehabilitation for Saddam.

I am against death penalty. That is so medieval. No, Saddam may not be rehabilited, but taking the life of someone is not justice, it is revenge.

As for the lethal injection, I find it interesting that some cultures are willing to execute persons, yet they question when someone asks for euthanasia. That someone takes a life does not grant anyone else the right to take his life. As I said, that is so medieval.

And it's Saddam, not Hussein, if only one name is used. Like the Chinese. Not that it matters him. Eventually.

I always find military tribunals on this scale confusing. The trial is technically about some massacre, yet it seems clear that what he's "really" on trial for is all the other atrocities, as well. And there's no heavier punishment than death, which some countries already hand out for killing one or two people... the whole thing is weird.

Couldn't have happend to a nicer guy.

What is 'justice', then? Why do we want it?

The death penalty may be considered 'effective' in that its existence may serve as a deterrent to others (emphasized eg by the medieval practice of putting heads on spikes), and in that it does conclusively remove a dangerous person's ability to do further harm. So it's hard to say it serves only as a form of revenge.
I'm not saying I support it, here: It's an ugly practice, and introduces its own moral problems -- what if, for example, those killed turned out to be not actually guilty?
But saying it's revenge, not justice, sounds a bit like a straw man to me.

Well, there are unique moral questions around both issues.

Let him free. He didn't mean it.

True, although it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical to claim that you have a moral right to kill someone against their will, but not if they consent to it.

It's not like consenting to being killed, after getting the death penalty, would removed the death penalty ... right? I mean, otherwise no one with half a brain would ever actually die for the death penalty!
So I think it's more accurately phrased as this:
"You have a moral right to kill someone when there is 'sufficient' evidence that they have done very bad things, but otherwise do not have that right. Consent does not affect the presence or absence of this moral right."

I agree totally, yet sometimes these people might not be "in their right mind", but that is all questionable also.

Then what do you do? Obviously something has to be done. You can't just let a person keep killing "civilians" anytime they please can you?

That's not correct. He's going to be tried for multiple massacres. This one in 1982 was the first case. He'll be tried separately for gassing the Kurds and slaughtering the shiites during the uprising in 1991 (or there abouts).

And not surprisingly to you all (I imagine) I'm all for the death penalty. In fact I think death by prolonged, inhumane torture would not be inappropriate in this case.

And when do you think they live? In medieval ages of their religion. It will take them 600 years till they reach the level Christianity has now. I think that hanging there is one of the more humane types of death. He could also be stoned to death.

Heh, what a coincidence, today is Guy Fawkes day: Remember, remember, the fith of november...

I'm totally disappointed by the war in Iraq. We've captured Saddam yes but now it's total chaos there and Bush still hasn't found any WMD's, guy can't even pronounce nuclear weapon. Hanging Saddam will only make the war in Iraq worse but the guy shouldn't be allowed to live either. I'm still not convinced on why we invaded Iraq anyway, we were after Osama and he's still at large. I'm afraid Iraq will be another pointless war were we pull out early and lose, only to leave Iraq worse off then when we started. Sad thing is that we feed Iraq through our purchases of their oil. They get money to purchase rocket launchers, AK-47's, and Uranium processing plants, just seems like we are only shooting ourselves in the foot here.

3 classical reasons for punishment:
1) Deter. Works for tiny offenses such as, say, speeding or shoplifting, and is basically a society's way of saying that what you've done is not acceptable. However, for more severe crimes, this doesn't hold. Countries with death penalty do not have lower murder rates than others, on the contrary.
2) Preventing the offender from doing more harm. Effectively, this means to remove the offender from society - either by locking them away for a sufficient amount of time, or by killing them.
3) Revenge. Usually disguised in religious pseudo-arguments.

I look at Iraq like this: If nothing ever chances, then nothing ever chances. When a leader continually directly kills his own countrymen, that is a bad bad thing. He is a bad man, that much is known. Put on top of that nuclear weapon suspicion, and I think something needed to be done. That being said, I think we should have focused on North Korea first, as we all know now they were more serious about a nuke.

I don't think they are directly related. There are just to many factors involved in why people kill.

Oops, I smell problems ahead... (either way, if you invade or not invade NK, but more problems if God tells your leader to do so)

Yes.
So is a leader who sends his own men into a war under false reasons, and leaving the country in absolute anarchy - with more casualties after the war is over officially than ever before.
And so are a lot of other leaders in the world, many of them directly or indirectly supported by the very US of A.

There are numerous countries in the world where there is a lot more than just suspicion. In fact, it is generally considered proven that the USA have a massive amount of nuclear weapons. I think something needs to be done about that.

The funny thing about that comment he made is that it means nothing to most of the US. You never hear anything about that comment anymore. Now when this comment is made in say the middle east, it becomes a jihad and a big deal.

It's not over yet.

Official war dates mean nothing.

It's not the, "has these weapons" that matters. It's the "unstable country with an unstable leader that elects himself and will stay in power until basically death and leads with fear" that matters. Those are the countries that you need to fear. Can you honestly tell me you fear the USA using a nuke on your country more than NK using one on your country?

[EDIT]
What do you think would happen if a third world country was the only country with nukes? Bad things. You can't prevent everyone from making nukes. So then you need nukes to let people know we have'em. The chain stops at the super power country and that happens to be the US at this point in time.

As you said, there are reasons, we call them political, for everything that is done. Your average person doesn't know every reason for why such things are done. The real reason for such moves are rarely spoken to the public. Just think of what some of these meetings must be like. I bet we would all be shocked if we heard a few meetings between any 2 countries.

The political situation is dangerous, and it is my belief US has a lot to do with it. Sure, North Korea is boasting, Afghanistan trained terrorists and Iraq killed its countrymen. However, US forgot to read Sun Tzu's Art of War. If you leave the enemy no chances, they will fight to the end. By naming some countries as "evil axis", in example, you have let those countries no other options than to take the offensive, than to prepare themselves for a full war, thus making life inside those countries even worse than before. I believe that simple speech made our world go back ten or fifteen years. Even if you or me don't feel it, those countries are right now living in Cold War.

As for nuclear weapons, there has been only one country that has effectively used nuclear weapons against citizens of another country. First, no countries had them. Then a bunch had them. Then a treaty was created to prevent those weapons from being researched by other countries. Right now, there are as many non-recognized countries with nuclear weapons as those recognized. And again the double moral of "No, you can't have nuclear weapons" yet look somewhere else when other countries like India or Israel are accused of having them is ridiculous. Of course, the political context justifies their behavior, but in the end, you promote terrorism.

You guys blow my mind; Saddam gassing civilians and Bush acting on a UN sanction are completely and totally equivalent. One is just as bad as the other. Not only that, but Saddam's son's were lunatics, drug addicts and murderers with complete impunity. That's just like Bush's sons err, no his daughters, who got into trouble drinking underage or something.

What is the color of the sky in your world?

Please educate me. Do they spell it Husein in Iraq instead of Hussein?

So a country that is labeled "evil axis" have no other option than to go to war? Not so. If Saddam would have let UN and US inspectors into any area they wanted to, Saddam would still be Iraq's leader. When countries get labeled "evil axis" they have to redeem themselves to drop the label. The problem is when pushed, leaders will shove so they don't seem weak. I think the human ego gets in the way allot.

Maybe in sligthly Orwellian oriented society you can't hear that comment anymore (you've been always at war with Iraq, we know), but in the outside world it is still heard and it's a target of laugh. Your leader is target of laugh, your second Vietnam is target of laught.

Sure I can tell you something: when you fought a war in Korea in fifties, you lost. The war ended by armistice and division of Korea to an Soviet and "prowestern" region => instability in that region. In Vietnam you left after 7 or so years of conflict, because you were unable to fight with guerilla. You left that region under Soviet influence and quite instable after the war. It was up to those people to overthrow the regime. Few years ago you invaded Afghanistan, overthrew a regime that trained terrorists, but to this very day that region is unstable, there are still terrorist groups operating.

Same applies for Iraq. It is 3 years since war and there is literally civil war underway there. The reason why Bush sr. didn't overthrew Saddam in nineties was, that he didn't wanted that region left unstable. That's just what you achieved today. So please if you want to leave Iraq now, do it so that the region is not left unstable - that is pretty much unrealistic, so "Good bye my sweetheart, hello Vietnam..." (the beginning of Full Metal Jacket). And for future please, learn how to fight against guerilla, because it seems that you miss the crucial point: if somebody weak stands against much bigger and stronger enemy, he will surely fight to the bitter end (as someone said above) and he'll use guerilla warfare, and maybe he'll win, because standard military doctrine cannot cope with it.

Phew that was a long post, maybe the longest I've ever made.

EDIT:

cough*George Walker Bush*cough

I hereby declare USA The Evil Dot and demand to see what they have in Area 51

No doubt. But to label someone as evil, you need to present proofs. As far as I remember, the proofs presented in the Iraq case (links with bin Laden, massive destruction weapons, etc) were not consistent. That has harmed the credibility of US to a great point which many still don't understand. The fact that they decided to go against the UN, and then were demonstrated they were wrong (even though they changed their speech in the middle to speak about country freedom), is a very bad precedent. So, in one point we have a set of countries labeled as evil, and in another, an accusing country that, apparently, has not the best reputation nor knowledge about the situation of those countries. It is a dangerous mixture, that ended in a full civil war in Iraq. I don't see that it will be different in Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, or any other country in the evil bag.

Neither, they spell it with Arabic lettering.

Hanging is such a waste. Why not put him to good use instead?

So when can we expect Bush and co to hang for the deaths they have caused in the middle East?

Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot. Hypocrisy is the mainstay of American democracy

[edit]

American Christianity is still in the dark ages too, if they are rejoicing the hanging sentence. At least the EU has displayed more maturity to the sentence.
[/edit]

They spell it maddaS.

No one has the right to kill another. If death punishment is in the constitution, they have the obligation to kill a man with death sentence. The laws must be followed. Killing Saddam is not fulfilling someone's rights. It's only fulfilling a sentence given by a court. I don't know if the sentence is in accordance with the Iraqi constitution or did they just use some kind of international justice. In any case the sentence must rely on laws.

Whether death punishment is right or wrong no one can tell. Everyone can speak for themselves. And vote for their own constitution, directly or indirectly, if one lives in a democracy.

It may be, but surely it's 600 years ahead of Islam. Anyway I don't care about religion as long as it stays away of me.

About that hanging: I think he deserves it. He caused death of many people, he is a symbol of resistance (well no matter if he's dead or alive) so they could try to free him. Plus he's where he is, so it's up to them how they'll solve it. I don't want to discuss here any morality about death sentence since we're speaking about Islamic country. In this I must admit, that I'm with them: they must send a clear message that the insurgency must stop, that everybody like Saddam will end like him. (hm where have I heard that last time?)

Johan: so we must hope that the democracy will stay here. Because I don't want to live in "democracy".

A teacher at secondary school usually gave us multiple choice tests, ten questions, five answers for each. Checking the right answer was +1 point. Choosing none was 0 points, and checking the wrong answer, -1 points. Since you approved with 7, choosing 2 wrong questions put you out of the test. So, since pretty young I was taught that, no matter the situation, choosing the wrong option once is already too bad. Thus, terminal sentences are not justified: the first time you fail in one, you will be already in the bordeline. Choosing wrong twice, and no matter how many times you have been right when issuing a terminal sentence, you are already a failure.

Sure, the people in the power needs to choose. We have all seen 24, where the president or Jack must choose between one or a few to counter a menace that would slay millions. And sure, if I am really pressed (say, family in danger, gun on the table, assassin running at them), I will probably kill him in a rush. But I would not do that if the assassin is tied, lying on the floor. Sometimes, I see leaders (not only US, mind you, but everywhere) to choose things in a rush, even though they have options. In a court, the judge will sentence based on experience, precedents, evidence and law. I don't question the fact that Saddam is guilty, and that according to their law, the penalty for his acts is death. I question the fact that the law states death is a valid penalty. As I said, that is barbaric. Even more barbaric than a mad leader asking his army to mass murder people, because you are supposed to be more civilized than those dictators.

Rey: that is valid for our world. But don't forget they have another society. Ok I admit that from my point of view that society is barbaric (forcing women to marry somebody, forcing them to wear that clothes etc.), but still it's some society with stated laws etc. And when they say, death is a valid punishement then it is. No matter what we do, if you don't like it see my sig, that express everything about this particular topic.

Oh, I disagree with many of their beliefs. I disagree with many of our beliefs. I disagree with many topics about capitalism, communism, even free software. However, it is the ability to choose a bit between all those beliefs that I appreciate. I feel pity for those who are not able to enjoy freedom in any way, being that speech, act, or thought. However, that freedom I cherish is the same freedom that promotes terrorists and dictators. That is why there is law, there is police, and there is jail. I respect their beliefs. Some can't choose? I feel pity for them. But it is not our task to free them. Remember the Crusades, when Christianity took the freedom role? Remember America colonization, when European countries came to "civilize" these lands? When someone picks such a role, many are bound to suffer. If you can say "Yes, the death of thousands because of my command will be worth for those left", then sure, you can act. But my moral does not allow me to say that without feeling I am doing something wrong. The only way I would feel right is if I am there, sharing the responsibilities with those suffering, with those dying. So, to put it simply, I would lead a pack of soldiers to rescue someone, but I would not sit down in a chair and order others to do that for me. I would spy some lab and report back, but I would not ask someone to do that. The fact that I can't do everything, that at one point I will have to tell someone to do that for me, is what does not make me qualify as a leader. And before you say something, one thing is asking someone to write a function you will be using later, and another very different is asking someone to either risk his life or take the life from someone else

It's spelled like this (hopefully you have the right fonts installed):

صدام حسين عبد المجيد التكريتي‎

It is read from right to left. That's the full name. The Husein part is the second word.

I share your opinions. Those things you've been talking - crusades specifically, I think we should learn from them. Yet we haven't.

The great power requieres great responsibility. But also you have to have strong moral. And I'm kind like you, I'd not be able to send somebody to kill someone else and risk life, no matter how holy the objective would be. I'm not even able to say if I'd be able to do it myself, to be in a group of soldiers.

It's not moral to do this. I was thinking about it when I was playing Operation Flashpoint. I was thinking about families of those comrades who have fallen on the battlefield. I was thinking that it's not right to them, to know that his son/father died in the war for someones order, who is sitting in some office, smoking cigar and risking only a cancer, or choke up pretzel. And then I also began to think about families of those I was looking at with the sight of my rifle. And I thought everytime I pulled the trigger that that man has family too, and surely they'll be very sad with his death. Because the death was unnecesary, it was only from a command of somebody higher. You may think that it's silly to think like this just about polygons rendered on PC. But I think that even this can be very educational and I found about myself that I'd not be able to be a soldier.

It's translated to other languages phonetically, so there's no point in arguing orthography.

Thanks. I didn't know that. All media here in the western countries spell it with two s as far as I know, which isn't the same as it being the right way. I consider myself corrected and educated. (Also thanks X-G for pointing it out above.)

I just heard in the news that, while US agreed with the death penalty, the EU asked the Iraq government not to accept it.

The UN also adviced the Iraqi government not to execute him.

Must... resist... a joke... about ...Sachs Madass...

Nonnus: Bush acting on UN sanction when invading Iraq? As I recall it, the rest of the world did Not want him to invade Iraq, and the interpretation of the original UN sanction (from the first gulf war) that let the (as usual, pretty.. 'creative') lawyers of the white house pretend that they had a 'legal' right to invade came from the false assertion that Saddam was stockpiling WMD's. -There were no indications on this except those that the white house payed to give them. -Nobody else thought this but the white house, and that was just because they insisted on believeing it.

And no - The US did not go there looking for Bin Laden - what dummy believes in a religious-extremist terrorist that wants to make all of the middle east into a religious kingdom, hiding out in the only secular country in the region? Who really believes that?

Imagine that the US had just stayed out of the middle east instead of appointing obedient tyrants and destabilizing (pretty much like in south america).. maybe those countries wouldn't have been so medieval in that case, and could have made some progress towards human rights instead. As it is now, the people there don't seem to take the idea of democracy seriously, wchich is entirely reasonable since they haven't seen any result from the forces of democracy but hypocricy and violence

And PS - Yes, Saddam is an a-hole retarded dictator, but obviously he was better at keeping the country from civil war and chaos than The Frat Pack is

An what's with this death-penalty and torture thing? Is that a Chrictian thing? I thought they would be more like "God Judges Man, Not Man", or something

Aha, now I got it.

Well its good that Saddam has been brought to justice. But what about bringing to justice George Bush or Tony Blair for war crimes against humanity?

Saddam killed many of his own people but Bush was responsible for ordering the bombing campaign on Iraq (in the beginning) where hundreds of innocent iraqis were killed.

To me George Bush and his puppy Tony Blair are no different to Saddam.

Asam

No you're not right, the US used surgical bomb hits...

Your recall is faulty; lots of countries agreed: Italy, Spain, GB, Japan, Poland, Turkey, etc...

And so easily you wax over the crimes he committed, one of which he's been sentence to hang for. Did he keep the country from civil war as you say, or oppress the population thru mass murder and genocide? The court seems to have found the latter.

And why did so many innocents die? Certainly a small percentage of our billions of dollars arsenal of smart bombs went off target. But how many hundreds more were killed due to your extremist Islamic friends using innocent people as human sheilds, operating from schools and mosques?

Anyway, it's starting to look like the only way we're going to get out this mess is to partition the country into 3 parts; kurds, sunni's and shiites just like the Balkans. Those s.o.b's couldnt' get along either.

I agree pretty much with nommus (amazing, huh?).

I know this quote is a little old, but:
[qoute]I'm totally disappointed by the war in Iraq. We've captured Saddam yes but now it's total chaos there and Bush still hasn't found any WMD's, guy can't even pronounce nuclear weapon. Hanging Saddam will only make the war in Iraq worse but the guy shouldn't be allowed to live either. I'm still not convinced on why we invaded Iraq anyway, we were after Osama and he's still at large.
</quote>

The reason for invading Iraq was not about WMDs. It was about liberating a nation from a corrupt dictator. He was also harboring terrorists, which was a problem.

Correction, these extremist islamic so called muslims are not my friends and well you shouldn't be dropping bombs and rockets down on top of a country when you know damn right that these things can go off-target. Frankly I think your guys had problems with their fundamental aiming as a lot seemed to go off where they shouldn't have.

There I agree. However, I am not sure the shiites will agree to split the country now that they control it through democracy.

But they wouldn't act so if you haven't gave them the ocassion.

(Below are facts mostly from Wikipedia, with a sentences from me marked with italic.)

Yes it was one part, you are wrong. The stated objective of the invasion was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". But focus certainly was on the first part, the weapons of mass destruction.

No his recall isn't faulty. The United Kingdom and United States attempted to get a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military force, but withdrew it before it could come to a vote after France, Russia, and later China all signaled that they would use their Security Council veto power against any resolution that would include an ultimatum allowing the use of force against Iraq.

4,741-49,697 civilian deaths up to October 2006 - as compiled from media reports by the Iraq Body Count project (IBC)

50,000 - as of June 2006 - based on compilation of official figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health and Baghdad Morgue.

655,000 excess deaths up to September 2006 - from the second (October 2006) Lancet survey of mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq:a cross-sectional cluster sample survey; See Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

We're are talking about around 750 000 civil deaths all in all. How many of those are directly by US forces? Certainly more than a hundred or so.

Mostly caused by extremists, but indirectly by US Army - they serve as targets on a shooting range, and if you miss, well then it hurts civilians.

While I cannot but feel that it somehow enevitable that Hussein gets the death sentence and do understand that people would condemn him to death, I can not but find the notion of a death sentence in itself disturbing.

Far be it from me to quote The Lord of the Rings when it comes to philosophical or ethical considerations, there is one quote I was reminded of when I heard this and again when browsing this thread, in the beginning of the book when Gandalf tells Frodo about the Ring:

I was thinking about the same quote, but decided against it, because people will say you can't apply fantasy to real life situations

I'd agree, normally. This particular quote though I've always found very true and relevant.

Actually the quote is a man applying his Christian belief to fantasy.

Nonnus was probably referring to the US interpretation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, which allowed for serious consequences if Iraq failed to comply. That, and the international approval outside the context of the UN security council -- as Nonnus said, "lots of countries agreed: Italy, Spain, GB, Japan, Poland, Turkey, etc...".

Evert and Rey: it's not about fantasy or something like that. That particular quote has some sense, so you can use it everywhere no matter how obscure the source may be. Oh by the way it's a quote by J.R.R. Tolkien - he wrote it and I treat him as a wise man.

Right, I listed countries that contributed troops or air space rights.

So, you are saying that Gandalf is the personification of Tolkien in the series?

The quote itself has nothing to do with fantasy, but with the issue at hand: judging someone to death based on his merit.

And yes, Tolkien would use a character like Gandalf (wise old man) to portray things he thinks are important. Most authors, whether intentionally or not, tend to sprinkle bits of their own philosophy into their works - devout, religious authors more so than others.

So I think the quote is especially relevant, considering that it comes from a person who most likely purposefully placed it as a way to get people to think outside the book.

Oh, as I said, I considered talking about it, but decided not to engage in a discussion whether you can request perpetual imprisonment instead of death penalty based on a quote appearing in a fantasy book.

I don't believe in death penalty as a solution. He may deserve it, but as I stated, that is not justice, but revenge. If so, why don't we castrate rapers, cut thieves' hands and burn delinquent's faces just like China over 2,000 years ago? Sure, some cultures accept it as a punishment, but from my point of view, it is not less barbaric than many customs we occidentals question from Muslims.

Consider the cost of imprisoning a young person for 50+ years. In the US I believe it's something on the order of $15K per year, times 50 is $750000. Is a wasted life that valuable? And if anyone says life is infinitely valuable, I ask them why haven't they sold their computer to donate to the Save A Child or similar. There was some discussion in The_Sea_Wolf between Larson and Hump about the guy on the mast frozen with fear that I agreed with (life was more valuable than a huge pile of diamonds to the guy on the mast, but little to Larson). Partly because you can't take the diamonds with you, I suppose.

Depends heavily on whether we're talking state or federal incarceration, and if the former which state is housing the inmate. I've read of figures ranging from 14-33K a year, again depending on where the person is stuck.

I say again: it's their law and their decission. Plus they must show to that scum that they're very serious about enemies of the state - they must show they're strong, when they're standing in the mud thanks to the USA.

Fact remains that UN didn't support the attack. And thus you were wrong.

Of course they weren't going to support any military action to enforce total compliance with resolution 1441. Why go and spoil the perfectly good oil for food gravy train Kofi and his friends were enjoying?

That is a void argument in the general case you describe. For several reasons.
First the humanitarian argument. It happens here that people get sentenced to more than 20 years of prison, only to be released early because the police screwed up and they got the wrong man. That can and will significantly impact the life and plans of the person in question, but at least he still gets to do something with his life. Now suppose that you'd killed him instead of locking him up. Oops. Ok, let's ressurrect him. Oops, this was real life. Ouch.
Second counter argument. Get these guys to do something useful while they're in prison. Get them to make cloth pins, paperclips, birdhouses, anything useful you can think off that can be done while they're in prison. They'll actually be doing something useful for society.
What's the point of killing said person up in the first place? Is it revenge? That's always a bad way to pass judgement, and the reason we have independent judges. Is it to prevent him from killing again? Then it's probably too strong a counter measure, since most people who kill someone aren't serial killers, and you're still better off trying to get them to do something useful in society.
Oh, one more question: how long do you (as in USA) keep people in prison before killing them? Isn't that almost just as wasteful in practice?

Anyway, none of that is relevant to the case of Saddam Hussein (although I suppose it would be funny in a way to have him bend paperclips for the rest of his life).

That's bullshit. Why only Iraq, and not the other countries under corrupt and oppressive dictators? Or countries harbouring terrorists? Why is he picking on the middle east? Why can't the US keep it's nose out where it's not wanted?

What? Using the same methods as communist China? No way!

However, I agree that this is a good idea. Down here, most people in prison are given the opportunity to finish school and even university, and although I don't have statistics, I don't think people who studied while in prison would consider crime again.

Bullshit: if I remember correctly official cause were the WMDs, just after that you have discovered that there aren't any (oops) you claimed that you wanted to liberate them.

HardTranceFan: cough*Black Gold*cough

Things are not that great in China and Russia too. Let's go and free them also

And invade Spain, they can't control ETA. And Colombia, they can't control the FARC.

Birdhouses?

I'm not going to step too deep in this muddy water, but what about killing people as a message to other people? "Don't be like Saddam or you will get killed." Given that, I'm totally against the death penalty, especially when I can think of Saddam making birdhouses...

The real reason was Mass Distraction and Appearing To Be Doing Something, as always.
The stated reason was that humongous stockpile of WMDs that was oh-so-surprisingly never found (hint: if the UN inspectors say there are no weapons, there are probably no weapons).
The "harboring terrorists" reason was invented well after the previous bullshit had been exposed, and is also utter bullshit.

Can't it be both?
The thing is, if you're "liberating" a country you're supposed to be making it better.

No, like I pointed out, Nonnus never said the UN did 'support the attack', he said Bush was acting on a UN sanction, which is true -- Part of Bush's justification was resolution 1441, the UN resolution that set sanctions on Iraq, and which the White House believed Saddam was violating.

I think it's really interesting how these things always fall into two camps:

1) Pacifistas: Those who believe that at no time does anyone or any country have justification to interfere with the affairs of another. Live and let live. There is no right or wrong, no good or evil, just different ways of looking at the world.

2) Non-apologists: We believe that nations and societies have the right and the obligation to take action for our own interests and to redress things we consider to be wrong.

The way I look at things; the Pacifistas practiced appeasement in Europe in the 30's, isolationism until Japan attacked peal harbor; and they practiced non-action after Bin Laden attacked the WTC and US embassies in Africa. We paid for the results of inaction with alot of blood.

Non-Apologist have taken action in Afghanistan and Iraq in an attempt to ward off the root cause of Islamic extremist; oppressive regimes in the middle east that are artificially maintained by world oil money.

Where do you fall?

My question for the Pacifistas is: What should be done about Darfur?

I think it's really interesting how people always want to try to boil things down to "You are either this or this."

I think it's really interesting that my observation is more interesting than your observation.

There are hypocrites too. Instead of saying "we want your oil", hypocrites say "we want to liberate you".

And we can keep classifying until we realize that everyone has a different view of the problem, but that would spoil the argument, wouldn't it?

No, those are Non-Apologists; 'I'm a hypcrite and I'm not apologizing.' Guess you're a Pacifista.

Hey, that was easy! "I'm right, no matter what". Impressive.

Why are these things correlated? They don't need to be (in fact, they often aren't). You can believe in sovereign state rights all while believing in an absolutist Right vs Wrong.

Armed conflicts is also not the only solution to every problem.

Really, they don't teach History in school anymore? Do you believe that you are always the White Knight?

What, do you suppose, should have been done and when? Remember, there is no such thing as "Preventive Strike" in international law. It's an act of war plain and simple.

Now you're just making stuff up.

So far, the cost of non-apology has been far greater than the cost of "pacifitasing", on virtually any scale you care to pick.

edit; n/m

That's pretty much what Turkey claimed - the US said "either you're with us, or you're against us", and bullied them into co-operation.

OICW : that's a bad cough you have there, mate . I'm aware of why the US has an interest in the middle east; it perplexes me that they'd spend so much money on the US military, rather than pumping it in research for alternative fuel sources (yes, nonnus29, I guess that brands me a pacifist ).

Unfortunately, the Bush administration's propaganda machine is blatantly obvious to the rest of the world (bar his puppet Blaire). The only people he appears to be fooling now are a some of his fellow Americans.

Can't answer the question, but a fun fact to add: while on deathrow, you're actually put on a heightened suicide watch, to prevent you from killing yourself (which is prone to happen, I hear). And if you do try to kill yourself, they will resuscitate you and keep you alive until your scheduled execution.

The procedures of the death penalty vary from state to state. Some don't even have it.

Great job you've done of it too, I must say. There are probably more Muslims pushed to extremism these days than a couple of years ago.

Hey, I know! Lets start looking for alternative energy sources. That'll teach those bastards! As a free bonus, we get to limit the damage done to the environment by burning fossil fuels.

Put him to forced labour, make him break his back mining for the rest of his days. He is being punished and makes the state profit!

Actually I'm against the deathpenalty..

but in the case of saddam.. let him walk the plank

What about someone who's been responsible for 5 lives, or 10, 50, 100, 1000... Where do you draw the line, and why?

When homicide escalates into genocide.

Also, people want closure. Life in prison might not be sufficient to the victims' relatives, considering what their upbringing most likely is...

I object to capital punishment... Usually. But in case of people like Saddam, Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic, for example, I might just look the other way.

So giving a criminal the death penalty gives his victims closure? I've heard that it doesn't for most of them. Some feels that another death makes it even harder.

Emotionally, I react like that as well. Rationally, I think it's wrong to have a double morality, and I feel it's a slippery slope one should stay well away from.

true that's a hard question .. and tyhe main reason I'm against the deathpenalty is .. What if you got te wrong person....

In the case of sadam there is no wrong person..
And he used chemical weapons against defenseless people
feed him to the sharks

"Let's invade Iraq because they have these mass destruction weapons."
---
"Ok, they hadn't any weapons. But we did a good job anyway, putting Saddam off. Let's prosecute him to get him hung."
---
"Ok, we got the death sentence for him."
"Great. I think he just deserves to die for all he has done."
"Um... he got the sentence for killing 148 people back in 1982."
"Only that? I wasn't even born then."
"Yes."
"Well, anyway. Justice has happened. Good thing justice works. He was such an evil person."
"No! Justice happened only because the events in 1982. One can only be convicted for things one is prosecuted for."
"But sure all other things he had done must have affected the court decision!"
"Well, in that case justice didn't happen."

Well ok, but in that case don't complain about terrorists destroying your sand castles, er. I mean skyscrapers. I partially agree that something must be sometimes done. But you're (US) are doing it to much and not properly. Tell me when you've won a war (when you've ended it to your satisfaction) for the last time? If I remember correctly it was the WWII, but only with the assistance of allies (in Europe) and you haven't led it from it's begining, because Roosevelt said he'll wait till Stalin and Hitler decimates their armies.

So, ok if you're a superpower let's lead some campaings to make a world better place. But do it properly at least. Plus one more thing: nobody has given you a mandate to be a world police, so don't cry if somebody else destroys your toys.

None of the other UN members have stepped up to the plate when it comes to enforcing UN resolutions, so it looks like you're stuck with us for now.

Wasn't murdering >100k civilians in Japan one of the reasons of why the war stopped?

OICW: Referring to human lives as sand castles and toys is simply childish and insensitive. It ruins the opportunity to have a sensible discussion completely.

Well you only do it when the cost versus income is in your favor. Why haven't you liberated North Korea, China and Russia if that's not the case?

You people are so impatient. Give us a few decades.

Russia already "liberated" itself back in the 80s. North Korea will eventually self destruct, and China needs to stay the way it is so we can start a new "cold war" and pump billions into weapons tech.

Iraq. Huh, you're absolutely batshit crazy if you think we'll even come close to breaking even on what we're spending over there, unless of course you're enamored with the concept of supply side economics and believe it works miracles. Which it doesn't.

Mmm, let me think about it... yes.

Ok Kent, I know it's a bit unserious but I had to express sarcasm.

In other words it would be better to push red buttons right now just in case

I suspect that a group of high officials did crunch the numbers before US went to war. But it looks like they were wrong.

Exactly.

None of you pansies answered my question about Darfur either. To hell with you all, I cast my vote today. Lets just watch were the chips may fall...

I agree.
It may not feel bad to you if your American, but.... put your self in the shoes of some-one from a different country any country. it's kind of scary.
[edit]
if you cant do it then think what if some one wanted to execute bush for going to war.

Well, yes, you're spending tax money, that's US federal money. It's not like the money blows away in the air at each cannon shot or rocket launch or whatever the toys are. The money goes to US war industry share holders.

And that's why war is profitable - well at least for someone.

One word: Israel.
The USA is suspiciously selective about where they doand where they don't want to enforce UN resolutions, don't you think?

If there's no doubt about if Saddam did this or that, finding out he's "innocent after all" won't happen. I'd think a lot of those false convictions are the result of lazy/bigoted judges. And if you set him to breaking rocks or making arts & crafts you still won't recoup even $8k let alone $15k and up.

ahem I'm late to the discussion, but...

All forms of criminal punishment must balance punishment for the individual, protection for society from that individual and discouragement for others. Before I begin I should say that I'm opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances on the simple grounds that (a) no fallible system should take steps with such serious consequences that cannot be reversed; (b) any system run by people is inherently fallible; (c) the rule of law should apply to all equally — any system which allows exceptions is open to manipulation.

In Saddam's case, I assume the following: he is guilty of the systematic murder of tens of thousands of people, and there is a general principle in law that punishment should be in some way proportional to the crime.

Firstly, there is no punishment that can fit the crime. What he has done is unimaginably awful. So what you have to do is, at best, push the punishment up to the top end of the scale. As I don't believe the death penalty should ever be on the scale, I naturally take that to be life imprisonment. I would further put him in completely isolated but otherwise humane conditions. But an alternative argument is that life imprisonment is more of a punishment for a man like him who, we are told, imagines himself above every other citizen. As it is, his perverse way of thinking probably leads him to see death as a victorious end. He can even talk it up in his head into martyrdom if he wants.

As concerns protection for society, the only thing the death penalty achieves that life imprisonment does not is certainty of conclusion. There's no chance of a dramatic political change and some sort of pardon. But I don't think the death penalty adds any further protection to society. Saddam's support structures are removed and he couldn't achieve anything without some other group to support him. If one of those were to rise to the point where they could free him from jail then society would already be at risk from the group and the addition of Saddam wouldn't do much to change things. In that case, would the continued existance of Saddam make the formation of such a group more likely? Given the high number of lawless groups currently in Iraq who are explicitly against Saddam, I don't think it would.

What about discouragement for others? I don't think that is directly applicable here. Few people sit around and make the decision about whether to commit genocide or not. Those that do are already disconnected from what you or I would consider the normal concerns of society. The best discouragment argument would be that all murderers should face the death penalty and that group therefore includes Saddam. But as I personally already reject the death penalty I naturally reject that argument.

But, after all this, what about the victims? Aren't they the ones that should be considered? This is where we get into a bit of a cultural problem. Some nations, such as the USA, are strongly in favour of letting victims help determine penalties — e.g. by letting them make comment at parole hearings. Other nations, for example most of mainland Europe, take an opposite view. Law is most enforceable when it is genuinely objective and the victims can usually only be subjective, so aren't given a direct say.

If they are allowed input, there are victims — both primary and secondary — of Saddam's acts that want the death penalty. But there are also victims that don't. So it is inaccurate to talk about them as a complete group, and I doubt if any reliable statistics are available. So I'll talk of majorities.

Supposing the majority of Saddam's victims want the death penalty for Saddam. Then do they have the right to demand it? I would argue no for the same reasons of objectivity and subjectivity stated above. But similarly if the majority of Saddam's victims don't want the death penalty then that shouldn't be conclusive either.

At the end of the day, Saddam gets the death penalty because — assuming all institutions of state are correctly representative — his countryfolk think it is a fit penalty for his crimes. So then we're entering into the same territory that makes wars such as Iraq so controversial, i.e. to what extent do the international community have the right to dictate the way sovereign states run their affairs? Presumably those who said in a blanket fashion that we shouldn't invade Iraq because we have no right to dictate the policies and actions of other states also accept that we have no right to dictate what they can and can't do with their criminals? I think in reality it is a matter of measure and degree. Ignore the facts of the invasion and the allegations of a show trial rigged to end conveniently before US mid-term elections, if you believe Saddam did the crimes then the fundamental question is where do you draw the line on things you think are universal truths and things you think are cultural decisions. I think it is a universal truth that there should be no death penalty and if I personally could somehow change the world so that Saddam got a life imprisonment then I would. But I also accept that I have no right to intrude on that decision.

As a strong supporter of democracy, I accept that others may not share my views and that society in general has a right to ignore them if they are strictly minority opinions. So then it's a priority call — do I put my belief that there should be no death penalty above my belief that everyone should have the right of self-determination? The answer is: I believe that I should use the free speech dividend of democracy to speak out against the death penalty but I don't claim any right to interfere.

So, I'm against the death penalty for Saddam, but I understand why that matters not the slightest on the grand scale of things.

On the contrary, the war was fought by troops from the US, the UK, Spain, Italy and Pakistan amongst others.

By your definition, pacifistas don't claim any right to decide about Darfur. Even for those of us who consider the use of force always a last resort and never desirable, I think the watershed may have been passed. The question goes beyond when can we interfere in the actions of another state to what do we owe the ordinary citizens of a failing state simply through a bond of common humanity. I think there is a point where the latter duty outweighs the intellectual constructs of the former, and I think the situation in Darfur is beyond that point.

But it isn't just about invading or whatever. The root problem needs to be addressed, which could ultimately mean something like South Africa's Truth & Reconciliation committees and should mean some sort of international trial and judgment of the existing war criminals. I think the best model is international expertise offered to back up local courts, e.g. tribunals headed by three local judges and two international.

And if we hadn't stepped up to the plate first, do you think the others would have jumped on board?

Most contemporary reports suggest that Bush & Powell only tried to go the UN route because of pressure from other prospective partners. So they wouldn't have been at the plate at all but for their allies.

Exactly my point. The key word being prospective.

Well I admit I'm probably being thick, but it's nice to know we aren't disagreeing!

For my money, timidity in our national leaders is not desirable. What I would prefer are leaders who want to maintain global order and are willing to go out on a limb to preserve it. However I am also opposed to gung-ho isolationism, lack of respect for the proper processes where they could be effectively used and more or less anyone who seems to think they are morally superior by default. So my feelings on Bush are very mixed! But back on the topic of passing judgment on the affairs of other states — given the number of international actions he has taken, I think I at least have the right to publically voice an opinion, negative or positive.

It's okay, this thread was meant to be hijacked. I'm surprised we haven't had a total nuclear meltdown given the political gamut seems to be well represented here.

edit:

If you don't mind my saying, that seems to be a very moderate stance (I'm taking that from the US-centric perspective on what moderate is); has your recent experience studying law altered your stance on fundamental social/economic/political issues? And if you'll also excuse a further comment, you seem much more skilled at making points without wandering off on tangents than you used to be.

As I pointed out earlier, the tens of thousands of people have nothing to do with the final sentence. Only the 148 people back in 1982. Well, I only rely on what I've read. Anyone can say he deserved his sentence for all thousands of dead people, if they want. But if the court thought so, too, and let it affect the final sentence, it is a judicial murder!

Too bad they've run out of virgins. Oops, better ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H...

That's true, he's only been found guilty of the very specific retaliation to an assassination attempt way back when. I failed to factor that into my logic. But since the better known genocides are very unlikely to come to trial, lest anyone follow up the logic of where exactly all the chemicals and arms came from in the first place, it's still relevant to discussing whether the death penalty for Saddam ever could be justified.