Well, for starters, when someone who’s under the jurisdiction of the Us breaks a law, this is sufficient justification for prosecution of that individual under that law. It’s hard for me to believe that you weren’t already aware of that.
It also seems that you’re addressing what’s, at best, a tangentially related issue.
Do you have some basis for arguing that Hussein’s career as sovereign of Iraq was under the jurisdiction of the US?
A blurb in the Scotsman I heard about Friday 12/12/2003…
I imagine every faction and group in Iraq has their own idea about an appropriate punishment.
Well, here’s a question:
What Saddam did may have been evil in the strongest sense of the word, but was it illegal under contemporay Iraqi law? If not, how can the Iraqis legally try him?
He’s definitly guilty of crimes against humanity, but wouldn’t that fall under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention?
I can understand the pain and anger of the Iraqi people, but what’s their legal standing in this issue?
I strenuously believe in Capital punishment. However…
In Saddam’s case I think he should live as a reminder to the terrorists that followed him about what he didn’t do when he was captured even though he had a weapon with which to kill himself. He had the opporturnity to possibly take a couple of U.S. Soldiers with him. Instead, he didn’t fire a shot. He showed himself as the coward who used terror and torture to rule others. Maybe, they will realize he was not the “true believer” he made himself out to be.
When I say live, I mean under the most hideous conditions, one being with 72 whatevers who are not virgins and know how to really “entertain” their boy-toys.
Ah, hell!! Just shoot the bastard. He would probably enjoy the above scenario! :smack:
Well, I suppose if Saddam commited murder on U.S soil he could be said to have commited a crime that is punishable by the U.S. Since his crimes were commited in Iraq, on Iraqui citizens, it is up to them to try him.
Clearly, Saddam should be tried in Iraq by Iraqis. Nothing else will achieve the closure Iraq needs. If the U.S. gov’t. executed him, it could create the danger of the the buttmunch becoming a martyr for Islamic extremists, in Iraq and elswhere. If the Bush administration tries to do it all, that would be a very, very bad mistake, assuming Bush policy really has a larger goal of reducing terrorist-level hatred of the U.S.
Let the Iraqs deal with him as they see fit. With U.S. supervision, of course, behind the scenes. If, during the course of the trial, he says embarrassing things about how he was supported and coddled during the worst of his crimes by the Reagan and Bush I administrations, well, it’s about time we faced up to the grotesque hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy.
Knorf
Well, on a moral basis, he certainly deserves it.
As a practical matter, under a reconstituted Iraqi government, he’d definitely get it.
Sooo, well, he’s dead. Only question is what he tells before he’s executed.
Let the Iraqi’s decide. His crimes were, by and large, against them. Let them decide if he lives or dies.
Personally, I’d let him live. Put him in a max security prison and let him spend the rest of his life there. Hell, give him a nice view of one of his palace complexes while you are at it.
For fun, let his beard grow out again so he looks like a homeless whino and put him in a large glass cage and allow the public to view him and throw things at the cage. 
Whatever the Iraqi’s decide though…that should be his fate.
-XT
You’re apparently serious, so I’ll give you a quick response:
And the list goes on.
No matter who does the trial he’ll be put down like the rabid dog he is.
[Martha Stewart]
And that’s a good thing
[/Martha]
Still Sam, the majority of his crimes were against the Iraqi people…they should have first crack at trying him IMO.
-XT
Absolutely. I was simply responding to the amazingly silly idea that Saddam had done nothing to the U.S. that merited so much as a parking ticket.
Let the Iraqi people decide what happens to him. But before then, let’s make sure we get all the intelligence out of this guy that we can.
In the meantime, I can sense a potential crisis brewing - The U.S. isn’t going to want to turn Saddam over to the Iraqis until they’ve got all the intel they can get from him, and there may be an increasing demand for justice from Iraqis. That could cause some tension. But we’ll see.
Don’t execute Saddam Hussein. No execution could attone for the enormity of his crimes. Better let him wait for death eternal in a solidaritary bleak stone jail, praying each day for forgiveness and redemption, which , ironically, can only be given by way of the boundless love of the Christian God.
However, it can be purchased with a triple your money back guarantee from Bob.
Simon, your link isn’t a link, but with the reference to Bob, I’m assuming you think that what Saddam really needs is more slack.
I presume you feel the same way about Hitler?
Which happens to be the same as the Muslim God and the Jewish God. Can we please leave gratuitously bigoted staements out of the discussion?
Another of Saddam’s crimes against members of the Allied Coalitions – mistreatment of POWs, in both wars.
Does anybody know what the method of execution is likely to be in Iraq? Hanging? Firing squad? Bullet to the back of the head? Beheading?
Would it be okay if they made bigoted statements that weren’t gratuitious? 
(Is a Christian God one that accepts Christ as His savior? I get so confused.)
Personally I think the sight of him pathetically being picked over after rolling over when capture will be a little wind out of the sails of those who worshipped him. He’ll be asking for an international venue. I wonder what he’d have to cough up for the US to support it, rather than turning him over to the new Iraqui council where he’d get a painful execution followed by a fair trial (as he may deserve).
I seriously doubt that anyone worshopped him to begin with. The notion that Hussein was leading some band of loyalists had more to do with Bush propaganda than reality.