It's about time, they finally executed him!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218485.stm

I think it would have been better to judge him to a life time in prison. A lot of his criminal acts are now never going to be handled and brought to justice.

We got this new guy at work who's in the National Gaurd (like the reserves, but even more gay). He got back from a tour in Iraq in November. The guy is full of stories (in fact every sentence out of the guys mouth starts 'one time in Iraq...'). One day he brought in two chunks of marble and dropped them on my desk. He said they were peices of tile from one of Saddams palaces.

So long Saddam, some jackass in Kansas has part of one of your homes that you built with the blood of your people.

Give him life in prison, where he can get first class meals, and all of the other luxuries of Prison?

That's okay, we'll get him when he reincarnates. There's an awful lot of people who love a good steak

In some ways life in prison is more cruel than hanging to someone who is obviously guilty. I suppose it depends on the individual, but give me a life without Internet? No thanks, I'll gladly take the rope.

With Hussein, I see it more about closure. It's not like you can come up with a punishment appropriate for a mass murderer. That, and it's a lot more practical to end his life than keep him alive and guard him for another 20 years just so he can die "naturally" after years of doing absolutely nothing.

Who is feeling more secure now?

Watch it Rey, or YOU'LL be next.....

Is that a wmd in your closet?

Well there are lots of Kurds who feel that they would have gotten more closure if all the trails would have ended so that the criminal acts Saddam did to them would have gone through court.

I'm sure there are also those who get closure for him being dead as well. If killing him was the only possible sentence I still think they could have waited some more and got him trailed for more of the evil things he did.

About the punishment. Now he got what he wanted and became a martyr to some people. For a guy like Saddam "first class meals" and "luxuries of Prison" can't seem that good. Life in prison was a life shame for him. After all he was a dictator so there's a pretty sharp contrast in living quality. Letting him think about all that he had lost and what he has done with his life is a more harsh punishment than ending it.

Lets hope that things will calm down i Iraq now. But I don't think so by judging from what the "experts" says in the media.

So, Bush got his revenge. I think Hussein deserved what he got, but it seems to me like he was hung to please Bush and not as a punishment for his crimes.

About time.

What?

If the coalition goes to war in Argentina, then I might join the army in hopes of being shipped there!

Also, what about criminals who continue committing crimes after going to prison? Seems like prison isn't always the answer.

Prisons aren't harsh enough to deter criminals any more. I say inmates should be strapped to chairs and forced to watch Oprah, Dr Phil, and Rikki Lake non-stop for their entire sentence.

Lets keep talking about the case this thread is about. And I don't think that Saddam could have kept committing crimes while he were in prison. You're not the sharpest knife in the kitchen are you?

I hope your suggestion for Dr. Phil was merely to educate... and not to torture

He meant those who got out of jail and then got caught committing another crime.

I feel so odd on the hearing of his punishment. Like others have said, there really isn't a punishment fit for the crime. Anything seems like an insult to the victims. And me personally, I've never enjoyed the idea of the death sentence. Still, I suppose it was the only thing we could do.

I know.

Well it wasn't. And who are 'we'? At least waiting until some more of the vital trails were to end would have been better. It was the thing that was done though and it can't be changed.

Life in prison would have been a worse fate than hanging.

Yes, we all know Prison is this luxury hotel just outside Marseille on the mediterranean coast.

Like, commiting genocide? Honestly, how do you commit crimes if you're by yourself, in a cell, under 24 hour guard?

That very much depends on the crime. It will deter petty crimes, even at moderate sentences. It may not deter murderers or mass murderers, but neither will a death sentence (because such crimes are often not commited with any thought about what happens after).

Anyway, I digress. I won't repeat my views on the death sentence, I'll limit myself to the case at hand. Am I wrong in thinking that there are still many other charges that are filed against him and for which he could (should?) have been tried? Sure, we can be practical about it and say he can only be killed once, but it does seem a bit silly, doesn't it?
The trial itself is controversial and highly debated internationally; it isn't a clear-cut case that this was a fair trial. They executed him pretty much at the first opportunity. To me this feels very much like they wanted to get it over and done with before someone took too close a look at the proceedings. I'm not too comfortable with that.

Unfortunately the Good Guys™ are pals with Turkey, whose administration isn't too fond of Kurds either.

I think it was a good idea to off him. Back in the day terrorits took hostages and demanded the release of high profile prisoners as a "prisoner exchange". Having less high profile prisoners alive would make this harder. Of course it looks like terrorism has shifted away from hostage taking and more toward mass murder. So killing or not killing him may just be a non issue.

I say he is still alive. Committing the hanging under exclusion of the public is the best hint that he was actually not killed. As long as there is no proof that he is dead, he lives.

I wouldn't go for conspiracy theories like that. Personally I find it decent that they don't show the hanging, to the point that it would be wrong to do so. I wouldn't want to see it anyway.

?? So you think there was a chance HE didn't kill hundreds/thousands of his own innocent people? There is no such thing as a fair trial in this case. He did these crimes, everyone knows it, now he's paid for them. Case closed. This isn't a normal murder case from some Joe Blow off the street. He was a highest official of a country where his actions were always known.

Even if he was somehow able to get a fair trial, the outcome would be the same. I don't think it ever was a question if he did these crimes.

On a side note, I think I would prefer a death sentence if I was saddam over spending life in prison, watching my back ever second wondering when someone would eventually kill me. And they would.

That's true, it is a matter of decency to not show it. I wouldn't want to see it either(many people would not, so it's the best excuse for the best veiling they(:P) could get). They should at least have more than one neutral person/witness notarize his death in public, because otherwise the people can't be sure that the procedure was not just cancelled after the cameras were switched off.

Well, I don't want to believe that he is still alive but I think it is a possibility.

Even if he was, does it really matter? We'll never see him again.

Did I say that? What do you think?
Of course I don't think he wasn't responsible for the death or suffering of thousands of people. That's not what I said. I said the trial is controversial, not the fact that he's guilty. The trial should have been done properly, and I get the distinct impression that it wasn't.

As I said, you can only kill him once, but that isn't the point of the trial. The point is not to kill the accused, never mind how or why, it is to do justice. I am not convinced that executing him for a relatively minor (!) crime after a dubious trial process serves justice in the way it should have been served.

Of course it wasn't, and I didn't say otherwise. Note though, he wasn't executed for his crimes against his people, he was executed for putting 148 people to death in retribution for an attempt at his life in 1982.

The point of a trial is to find out if someone is guilty or innocent (the whole innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here). If we all know he's guilty than does it really matter if the trial was done perfectly? There are sometimes exceptions in justice, and I think that's fine.

And in our society today in some places killing the guilty is justice.

That's not a minor crime. 148 people? I'm willing to bet there were some innocent friends and family members of the people who really tried to kill him mixed in there.

If they tried to get him for everything he has done, there would be legal holes and lots of money spent that doesn't have to be. The thing would have gone on for years. There is just no point in dragging it out when it doesn't have to be.

I think there may have been political motivation for executing so soon (and not trieing him for his other crimes, which I thought they were going to do). The Iraqi government needed a show of strength and executing the former big-man somewhat confers the bigman status on them. I foresee the iraqi government going after the militias next year, just in time to coincide with the much talked about 'surge' in US forces. Saddam's execution may give Al Saddre something to think about if his militia can be linked to hundreds of civilian deaths in the previous months.

While USA has been bombarded with 'evil Saddam' brainwashing, there are lots of other dictatorships around the globe that USA has little interest in fixing:

North Korea (Kim Yong II)
Saudi Arabia (Fahd)
Myanmar (Than Shwe)
Equatorial Guinea (Teodoro Obiang Nguema)
Pakistan (Musaraf)
Turkmenistan (Niyazof, recently passed away)

There are others that I can not remember right now. There were also many other dictatorships that USA had little interest in fixing the past:

Chile (Pinochet)
Spain (Franco)
Argentina (Peron)
Greece (Papadopoulos)

There are a lot more probably in both lists. The lists above clearly show that USA 'liberated' Iraq for business reasons above all.

Of course it is not only USA that supports dictatorships all over the world; all major powers have done that in the past.

Just a little reminder about the world we live in...I hope this Saddam hysteria goes away quickly, because it is only a distraction from the real problems.

He said relatively minor. Compared to all the other things he's likely to be guilty of, killing 148 people is minor.

Hey Axilmar how are things these days? First thing I saw on TV this morning was a triple car bombing in Iraq, I'm thinking that's only the tip of the resulting violence. Ok can someone explain this... back in the Gulf War Ronald Reagan funded Saddams retaliation against Iran and today we are hanging him... how did we just let it slide that he committed all those crimes or was that after the gulf war? Even so we had the power to act earlier.

I think you mean 'BEFORE the gulf war'... Anyway I think the difference was in the 80's Reagan was 'fighting' Evil Empire 1: the Soviet Union. We supported the Taliban back then too.

Slightly erroneous. Before the first Gulf War Iran and Iraq were in a bitter conflict and since the US govt didn't care much for Iran they decided to funnel some equipment into Iraq to make things interesting. You know, that whole 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thing that happens all the time.

Eventually the hostilities ceased, and you can figure things out from there.

Not too far. I heard US wants sweet water, and are focusing on us

Why doesn't it apply here? Because you don't like Saddam's face? The Innocence until Proven Guilty principle applies equally to all, including Saddam, Hitler and Stalin.

Also, how do you know he's guilty before the trial? Isn't the point of the trial to determine guilt?

"We all know it" isn't considered evidence for criminal offenses. Plus, I'd think that hanging someone to death requires some more solid proof that "we all know he did it; his eyes twitch like a guilty person!" After all, you only get to die once, so there is no room for mistakes.

If he was so obviously guilty, then shouldn't the trial be speedy and accurate? After all, there must be evidence all over the place, no? Or maybe the situation is more complicated than it seems.

It almost certainly was not a fair trial. His country was invaded and he was taken prisoner. The invaders set up the court with people all of their own choosing, and set things up in such a way as to guarantee that he was executed. It was decided that he would be executed before the trial even began. The trial was just to make the whole thing appear fair.
Look. I'm not saying that I like the guy, or even that he should not have been hung. I'm just saying that the trial was not fair.

Actually, I think I'll push the point even further. Saddam's leadership may have resulted in a lot of deaths, and poor conditions in Iraq. But what about president Bush? He's leadership has also resulted in a lot of deaths and poor conditions in Iraq. But he certainly isn't going to be executed. The people Saddam had killed were said to be trying to assassinate him. It could be said that Saddam was just defending himself. People trying to kill Bush would be disposed of pretty quickly as well. It should also be noted that Saddam probably was not breaking Iraqi law when he ordered people to death.

He wasn't a nice guy, and perhaps the world is better off without him. But make no mistake. The invasion of Iraq was not some sort of lawful duty to do the world a favour. It was an oil grab with a veil of propaganda.

That's where there's room for debate! There are many cases where the guilt is clear, in which case the purpose of the trial is to properly present the charges and determine the appropriate punishment. Admittedly, that seems a bit pointless considering it was clear they were going to kill him and you can only do so once.

Oh, yes. Most definately yes. That is to say, if you want to somehow distance yourself from, be better than, the man you're putting on trial (which actually was the point). Otherwise you might as well have had him stabbed in the night before you even reached the verdict.

After a proper trial, I would hope. Just killing people is never justice.

Learn to bloody read. I said relatively minor. Surely if he's tried for any single thing, it should have been the most serious offence he commited?
If you murder three people and steal a candy bar, should you be tried for stealing the candy bar?

I agree, which is another reason I think it was a bad idea.

The enemy of my enemy and all that. Really doesn't add stability to the world.

I would be lying if I said I'll miss him.
But Justice != Revenge

Besides it will feed some groups with even more anger

Take for example the guy that shot Reagan, he's still in jail. Somebody tried to assasinate Saddam and he gassed an entire village. Yeah, I see your point that's exactly the same type situation [/sarcasm].

People who make such claims sound delusional imo.

Which is why it cost the US hundreds of billions so far and billions more will be required. And if it was all about oil, then why have we seen record high oil and gas prices? That claim just doesn't add up.

What I respect are people who discuss the issue at hand without resorting to restating the same old tired dogmatic lines that just don't hold up to scrutiny.

Hey, I'm not claiming that he was in the right, or that he only killed people who were a threat to him. I'm just saying that that's what other people might claim. The point is that it suggests that a fair trial would be a good idea. The point of everything I said was not to defend Saddam, but rather to just push forward another side of the story. A side that casts the USA and president Bush in a bad light. Declairing war on a country is generally not a nice thing to do.

Perhaps the war didn't go as well as was hoped. Iraq is not yet secure. So the oil that has been 'liberated' is not yet readilly available. Besides, there are other things which have contributed to high oil prices. Have you heard what happend to New Orleans?

Whatever you say, nonnus29.

Not that I buy the whole "The war was just about oil" argument, but were it all about control of oil resources, I imagine that having control over them now isn't so much of an issue as having control over them in the future, when oil is scarce and more valuable. In which case, billions spent now could be recooped in the future.

In addition to what's already been said by others, what makes you think you (the consumer) were supposed to profit from the new oil?

I apologize for my post you're referring to, there was no call for a personal attack and I edited it. I know I come off as being combative and derogatory in discussions like this.

It's a common problem which many of us have, I have it. I blame the written word. In my "normal" life I try to never discuss anything important over e-mail/textual correspondence as I think the lack of nuances in text are to my disadvantage.

I don't know the specifics of Hussein's evil doings, but (given relatively equal expected sentences) usually people are tried on the most obvious—not most heinous—of the crimes. For example, the Chicago gangster Al Capone was ultimately convicted of tax invasion. Everyone knew he did much worse things, but it would have been harder to convict him. Who's going to give witness against him? Anyone who doesn't want to live very long. So just because no one is going to testify against Capone out of fear of his own life, does that mean Capone's innocent by the "fair trial"? Capone ended up being sent to Alcatraz, which is pretty steep for "tax evasion"...

Of course Hussein's trial wasn't fair. Of course he was guilty before innocent in the trial. There's no way for a fair trial. Many of Hussein's wrong doings are documented facts. For him not to be guilty would just be a mockery of the system.

I understand the desire for a token "fair" trial. One wants to have faith in the judicial system. But just getting it over with is the more pragmatic approach. Everyone here is just arguing about the means, when you ultimately agree with the end. (Maybe not necessarily the death sentence, but surely the guilty verdict.)

I fear any system that pronounces someone guilty and then give only a mock trial to appease the ignorant masses, regardless of who is put on charge and how "obvious" his guilt seems to be. If these more heinous wrongdoings really are so well-documented, then why was not a fair trial held for those?

I understand your points and think they are well made. But one of the foundations of a fair trial is to have a judge and/or jury who have no prejudice. You just cannot get that with a case like Hussein. That's my main reason for saying that a fair trial is simply impossible.

You can find 12 Americans who don't know who OJ Simpson is. But try to find 1 Iraqi who doesn't know who Hussein is.

One way to think of things is... if someone has committed several dozen heinous acts, all of which warrant death (or the equivalent maximum penalty), that person only needs to be convicted of a single act, not all of them. A dozen death sentences is the same as one, just as thirty-four life sentences is the same as one. So, you pick out the "easiest" charge and press it until you get a conviction. If Hussein had been properly tried for every single one of his supposed wrongdoings he'd have been in court for decades.

I'm not saying that's the way to go, but certainly it was on the minds of the Iraqi court participants.

Saddam was imprisoned quite a while ago. How many of such "rescue" attempts were made?

Did you notice that the execution of Saddam shows many similarities to the execution of Jesus?

At least he died as a Martyr. This is definitely worse than leaving him alive.

Any execution is similar to the execution of Jesus. Nevertheless the crimes people do, we have no right to use a medieval "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth".

Life isn't textbook. A proper trial is impossible to have for Saddam. Maybe if you got some tribe members in Africa or something.

Anyway, about the oil, as far as I've heard the US has plenty of oil. It's the refineries where the issue comes up.

Anyway, the guys dead. We all knew it would come some day.

Until they run afoul of the IRS, the RICO laws, and the Patriot Act... And the courts here where I live, IMO.

I disagree, and thankfully so do the people in such positions to make such calls. If Hitler went to court, he is already guilty in my eyes and most everyone in the world. Following these ideas blindly is foolish in my view.

Making exceptions is not right. Judge everyone with the same ruler if you want to be taken seriously.

In an ideal world, everyone would get a fair trial. Everyone would be equal under the law. But who holds that ideal? Not the typical arab nation. Legal equality and blind justice are distinctly western/US notions. So isn't enforcing the notion of equality and fairness on a culture that does not hold such ideals just as wrong as forcing democracy as some people claim?

Sure in an ideal world someone like Saddam, Hitler, Gerring, Napolean could get a fair trial, but like Rick said, to get unbiased jurors you'd have to goto the heart of Africa or some place even more remote.

Edit: the ruler comment seems to refer to the old testament passage about 'measure ye not lest by the same measure ye be met'; if so using a comment from the Jewish part of the Bible to refer to a Islamic dictator is either hilarious or profound.

Not sure from where comes the ruler stuff, but it is pretty common to say that, if you want to be just, treat everyone in the same way. If you are just, you are neutral.

The greatness of a justice system isn't measured by how it treats the best of criminals, but how it treats the worst of them. If Hitler can't get a fair trial, then what chance do other people have? If the prosecution can't find obvious evidence to condemn him, and the sentence was decided even before the trial, then what's the point of it all?

Also, where do you draw the line as far as certain guilt goes? Especially in a case where the sentence is death ...

Happy new year to everyone.

[quote ]
Hey Axilmar how are things these days?
</quote>

Not bad. I am watching one Star Trek episode after another these days...wonderful stuff. I just finished watching Enterprise and I am going into TOS. When that finishes, I will go into BSG.

EDIT: I forgot to add playing of adventure games. I finished Monkey Island 2 and I am at the end of Monkey Island 3. Tremendous fun.

And you Steve?

The sad fact is that the big powers like USA support dictators because it serves their interests, and when the dictators are no longer useful, they throw them away. The quest for spreading democracy and fighting terrorism is just a bunch of lies to cover up their acts.

What's even sadder though is that we humans learn to act in the same way in our lifes when dealing with other individuals...

In regard to the whole Saddam should be tried fairly yaddah yaddah truth and justice for all ect. I like to think of him as a mad dog. You wouldn't stroke a mad dog after he's bitten your face off and you wouldn't give it a cuddle in the hope that the dog repents it's actions. You take a large extendable biting device and bite the dog's face back. Or easier give it a lethal injection or a fat metal slug through the temple. Like it says in the bible, an eye for an eye and a tooth for the truth, ain't never seen a demon warp dealin' ... wait that was White Zombie. But it still holds true.
Anyway its the same with Saddam. Truth is some people deserve to die and Saddam was one crazy mad dog dictator. Hence he got killed. Also you have to take in to account that people from the middle east like to drink blood and steal babies (from what I was told) and they also love the death penalty long time.
Anway why would you want Saddam to have a fair trial? he wouldn't have wanted the same for you. He would have turned states evidence against you then high tailed it to the witness protection scheme.
In ending: Sadam did some stuff and got his come uppance. I'm not going to cry myself to sleep about it.

Yes I did notice that. I also noticed that his entire life mirrored that of Jesus' as well. What a swell guy he was. Offspring of a virgin's womb i heard...

Can't you say the same about anyone else? Let's try it!

"Truth is some people deserve to die, and OJ Simpson was one crazy mad dog killer".

There you have it. No need for silly trials anymore. Just associate some image of someone in your head to that of a dog and you get to kill that person instantly! Well, with your brutal efficiency, you'd save taxpayers so much money.

Why, we can dish out punishment immediately, as needed, and then later sort out the details (if we have time). And if we make a mistake? That's all ok, God will sort out the innocents up there in Heaven. So there, we're all good!

Congratulations, you have lowered yourself to the likes of famous people like Saddam and Stalin.

I hear that internet trolls like Furious Orange also drink blood from babies and steal in general, and obviously he loves the death penalty too (random non sequitur?)

Tut tut tut. Bob old bean, can't you look in your heart and realise that Saddam wasn't as lovable as you want him to be?

Hey thats grand! It seems on this thread your popularity is proportionate to the number of people you've killed (from the saddam massaging i've read so far). Here's hoping I can rack up an unreal style Kill frenzy of Saddam-esque proportions.

Also Bob, what details are people unsure of about the old Saddamiester? Are they unsure he indulged in Genocide (that being the biggest of his mighty list of crimes). Also I think whoever killed Saddam can rest easy knowing that they havn't made a mistake in having the mad dog dictator killed.
The Iraqui's Showed us Europeans a think or too as well by killing him. We just put that other mad bastard Slobodan Milosevic on trial until he died of natural causes! Maybe that was a joke on God's part. He knew we'd just give ole Slobby a pat on the head and bung him in jail so he did the difficult work for us.

[Quote Bob]I hear that internet trolls like Furious Orange also drink blood from babies and steal in general, and obviously he loves the death penalty too (random non sequitur?)
</quote>

I ain't no troll! I'm a goblin baby! And yeah in cases where the verdict is freaking obvious i'm all for the death penalty.

Perhaps you should invest in some glasses then, dear fellow, or at least some reading lessons. There hasn't been a single good thing said about Saddam in this whole thread.

Yes, some of us wanted him to receive a fair trial. But not for his sake. A fair trial benefits everyone, not just the accused.

As annoying as a troll, but weaker?

Reading and glasses are over rated. Much like Mr Hussien, and fair trials.

Time to quote Lord of the Rings again? Evert? You do it better than me :-)

I knew my copy of Lord of the Rings would be useful for something someday. I never realised it was so pro-capital punishment until now.

Now now. We don't take too kindly to troll around here (especially the less subtle kind). Please fix your quote attribution, or I will do it for you.

The omnibus edition makes a great paperweight.

Pray Bob old spoon, what exactly am I trolling for? Are all these other posts trolling the anti-capital punishment groove? Or was it a discussion? It does say in the forum description about ranting. Just wanted to get it off my chest is all.

I would fix my quote but my keyboard is in mourning for the passing of our lord Saddam and refuses to work.

Lets keep the bible out of this. I for one would not consider anything in it of any relefence to the case at hand. As for "an eye for an eye", that's plain barbarism that I would like to think we've grown out of.

That he was, and maybe (quite possibly, in fact) he did get what he deserved. That wasn't the issue though.

That's right, and they cook them over a low fire and serve them with red wine sauce and pickled onions. And crisps.

So? I aspire to be, in some sense, better than he was. A fair trial for everyone is part of the principle and way of life I happen to believe in. Are your principles cheap enough that you can shove them aside so easily? Do you think they're worth fighting over?
Since you brought the bible into it, doesn't it also say to not do onto someone what you do not want done to you?

No one is. That doesn't mean it cannot be discussed.

No, but he wasn't condemned for genocide. Do you not find it a little ironic that he was executed for killing a 148 people? If he hadn't done that, wouldn't they have executed him? Or would they have found a different reason? Maybe that's what they should have kept looking for here?

He wouldn't have been executed anyway. Anyway, never mind how much of a bastard old Slobo was, he wasn't in the league of a Saddam Hussein.

What I do not understand is that people do not see the difference in saying "Saddam was a cool guy" and saying "Saddam didn't get a proper trial, which is wrong."
Saddam Hussein was a bastard, and if I were in position his people were in, I'd gladly have killed him myself, with my bare hands if I had to. I can also well understand the relief many people feel over his death.
This does not alter the fact that I think he didn't get a fair trial, while he should have had one - even if the end result would have been the same.

Other people are bringing meaningful discussions to this thread. You are not. Instead, you are simply trolling. This is your last warning.

Isn't an eye for an eye at the heart of most civilised justice systems? Isn't the punishment meant to be proportionate to the crime? No wonder people complain when people who speed in their cars get let of with a fine.

Not really. 148 people is a lot in my book and if it means convicting him a nod is as good as a wink in Saddam's case.

In what way did Saddam not get a proper trial? He may not have been tried for Genocide but trying him for a "minor" crime of the same nature is surely better than letting him off the hook?

Bob and company keeping harping on the fair trial bit and deftly avoided HOW such a fair trial is to be carried out.

And the other thing I don't get is how they transplant our legal system and sense of 'fair' justice to another country with a completely different tradition.

I propose that Saddams trial was fair to a phenomenal degree. He was tried by his fellow Iraqis in an open trial. He was free to defend himself and argue with the judge and witnesses. What other Iraqi citizen has enjoyed such fairness in the past 20-30 years?

None, because Saddam was in power.

He got more fairness than he deserved.

Yes, the penalty must have some kind of proportion to the crime. Yes, there is proof that he authorized the killing. Yes, he probably deserved to die. But if you are trying to convince a country that your system is better than the one they used to have, you need to do it in a clear way.

From what I heard, only three countries supported his death: US, Iran and Israel. When the whole international community is against something, I consider that something is flawed.

I second that

But capital punishment is legal in some parts of America (if indeed you're taking the point of view that the American "system" is the one being expounded as better). Also the traditions of that region of the middle east, as nonnus mentions, have a strong history of capital punishment. After all that isn't a concept that has been snuck in through the back door, it already existed. And in that sense Saddam has been tried with the new system but has more than likely received the same sentence he would have had under the old system. And thats a good thing in my opinion because it shows Iraq is taking control of it's own destiny without bowing to the save the Saddam brigade.

The real problem with Saddam is not that he was executed. The real problem is that USA goes after some dictators and lets other thrive.

The issue is not if Saddam killed 148 or 148 thousand people. The issue is what we do as humanity to save us from wars and ultimately annihilation.

The west does not teach real democracy with acts like this...it only teaches that the only real value these days is power. But if the game is reversed (and it will) and countries like China get more powerful than the USA, then there will be a payback and in the same way. And that can only be back, as it will certainly mean a global nuclear war.

Have you bothered reading the rest of the thread? Yes, it is a lot. But it's a triffle compared to the other things he'd done that's why I find it ironic (and yes, I did read Matthew's post, and yes, I agree with his point).

Whoever said anything about letting him go?
And how is this a response to me observing that people seem to think that whoever says anything about the procedure of the trial is "pro Saddam"?

As you'll observe, the main complaint is not about him being put to death (though I personally am opposed to the death sentence on principle grounds), but about the trial itself.

Well, I'll certainly agree that arguing from a principle standpoint is a luxury position. That said, I'll bite. They could have started by not changing the judge three times.

EDIT: here's another question to ponder: if all he had been guilty of was the 148 deaths, would the trial and sentence (the exact sentence) have been the same? Unless the answer is a clear yes (and I don't think any of us can say that it is), the trial was not fair. The fact that he was not tried for any of the other things he did means that he cannot have been (and was not) punished for them either. That is what I see as a problem.

I've been observing the discussion for some time. While I agree in principle with what you say about the fairness of the proceedings, I'm curious to hear the answer to one specific question: how would you go about providing Saddam Hussein with a fair trial?

There are some sad facts that we all have to face. For example, two defense lawyers employed by Saddam Hussein have been killed. Do you think it was possible to prevent such a thing from happenning (using reasonable means)? If it was possible, how? Making everything about the trial secret is not a viable option, because then the public would feel cheated. If it wasn't possible, can a fair trial still be held when things like this (which are not in any way under the court's control) are happenning?

There were many other occurences that influenced the trial in some way, and also many political powers using the trial to further their own agenda, both within and outside of Iraq.

I admit that there were major flaws in the process, including the public-forced resignation of judge Rizgar Amin on grounds of being 'too lenient'. However, I also think that an absolutely fair trial for a person so well-known for his actions is an idealistic dream we can never hope to achieve.

Also, one final question. Do you think it would be better or worse for the entirety of Iraq to let the Saddam Hussein trial go on for years, which would be neccessary to have him tried on all charges?

Of course, we can't be sure, but I do think that having the trial go on and on would only destabilise the country further. If I had to choose holding a more fair but painful trial (which would with great probability achieve the same conclusion as the unfair one) or the well-being of my whole country... well, let's just say it would be a difficult choice.

In that case I'm going to argue that if Saddam was indeed tried for all his crimes, and found guilty, people would still say he didn't get a fair trial. Purely because of the situation/political atmosphere in which the trial was being held.

So really the problem isn't the crimes for which Saddam was accused but rather that he was accused at all.

As I said, I'm arguing from a luxurious position.

I find that impossible to answer, not knowing what was done to prevent it in the first place.

Definately.

I think so, but I never said it is easy (or that they didn't try). Just that the end result wasn't it.

I think it would have been better to have him tried for some of the more horrible things he did, yes. Note that there are two trials against him still in progress(!).
I wouldn't argue that the trial should have been dragged out, but the way it concluded now felt rushed - which is not a good thing.

I'm not sure. I don't think this will do much for the stability of the country either way. If anything, I think it will enrage what following he has left even more.

Care to explain that? Or are you again confusing questions and objections against the trial process and Hussein worship?

There's another little point that I'd like to raise. A few people here are going on about how it's OK that the trial wasn't all that fair, because his guilt was obvious. Then I ask you this: how is his guilt obvious to you? How do you know what he has done? How did you find out? Are your sources reliable and unbiased?
It is pretty clear to me that the western media is going to put a western bias on their stories. What has happened; who did what; why were things done this why; - all these things are answered in a way that favours the people in control of the media.
Do you think Saddam should die because you have personally witnessed the destruction he has caused, or maybe you have spoken directly to some other witnesses? Or do you think he should die because the TV and newspapers you read say so?
Removing bias is basically what fair trials are all about. As Matthew says, maybe a fair trial just wasn't possible in this case. But that doesn't make hanging him 'right'.

and just for fun:

What a crazy thing to say! Don't you think that everyone deserves as much 'fairness' as possible?

I formed my personal views mainly by reading history books. From both "western" and "middle eastern" historians. Notable authors include: The Sun, Dail Mirror, The Grauniad and to balance things out, Viz.