Should Saddam be executed?

[Marley23]

2. It sends a clear message to insurgents in Iraq. If Iraqis themselves try, convict and execute him then there can be no doubt about what treatment they will recieve.

I don’t think suicide bombers are terribly afraid of being executed. And attacking the US Army is nearly as suicidal.

This is a significant disincentive, as it removes permanently any hope of restoring him to power and themselves to their former positions. He ain’t coming back, and neither are they. That removes a lot of the motivation behind the attacks (mind you not all of it and not for all of them).

Maybe, but I think that depends on their grasp of reality.

3. It sends a clear message to the other regimes in the region. Sic Semper Tyranuus. If you cross that line with the Americans you may indeed end up out of power with a bullet in your head. It’s a base message, but like the invasion and quick collapse of the Iraqi army is one that will resonate with the other regimes in a very visceral way. It’s uncomfortable to know that your fellow unelected leader just a an hour or two military jet flying time (or closer) just got executed by the Americans (by proxy).

Saddam’s execution adds to that only marginally. I won’t debate the ‘baseness,’ but I have to say- "Sic Semper Tyrannus’ my ass. They’re all tyrants, and we’ve made it abundantly clear that we don’t CARE if they’re tyrants.

4. There are significant risks to allowing him to live. He remains a symbol as long as he breathes.

Dead men are just as good, or maybe better, as symbols than living men. Surely the word “martyr” is not unknown to you at this stage.

5. Holding him in an American or European jail is unfeasable for about 50 different reasons.

Agreed, and it won’t happen.

Sure, the death penalty opponents in europe may like it, but they are not the people we are trying to win influence with or show respect towards or trust in.

Ha! No shit.

Subborning that will is both a form of cultural imperialism and a violation of the Sovereignty of Iraq.

I don’t disagree with your basic point, but I think it’s a bit late to start worrying about those things NOW.

[Ranchoth]

*Originally posted by RexDart *
**And again, I fail to see the relevance of finding disagreeable principles in ancient Hebrew law to the point that the Islamic notion of “justice” is perverse and disgusting. **

My point is, if you judge an entire religion as being “perverse” based on on their concepts of justice, other western religions—such as Chrstianity, or Judaism—could just as easily be called “perverse” as well.

The Inquisition is such an example…“perverse” justice, but carried out by Christianity. One might want to condemn Christianity as being a perverse religion then, by that right.

[Sam_Stone]

I’m not normally a fan of the death penalty, but in this case I’ll make an exception.

The execution of Saddam would:

1. Allow the people he tormented and the families of those he killed to feel a little retribution and get on with their lives, and

2. Eliminate the possibility of endless terror threats, kidnappings, etc. as his ex-regime goons use whatever leverage they can find to force the release of Saddam. Famous terrorists in jail are very dangerous.

[Aro]

Sorry if this has been asked and answered, but a quick question:

What makes Saddam a terrorist? A bloody tyrant, yes. A brutal dictator, yes. A murdering fuck, yes. A war criminal, perhaps. But a terrorist?

Is this just a convenient label to use as it has become the buzzword of recent times?

[jjimm]

IIRC, there are links from the 80s between Saddam and international terrorism - he ran training schools - and of course in the 1990s he tried to blow up Bush Snr; he also (allegedly) paid $10,000 to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber. Whether he was involved with Al Qaeda, that’s quite another thing, but I think he could be construed as having been involved in terrorism in the past.

[the_bean_1]

jjimm : IIRC, there are links from the 80s between Saddam and international terrorism - he ran training schools - and of course in the 1990s he tried to blow up Bush Snr; he also (allegedly) paid $10,000 to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber. Whether he was involved with Al Qaeda, that’s quite another thing, but I think he could be construed as having been involved in terrorism in the past

First of all the Palestinians have been running training camps for years, so have Syria and many other countries in the world, indeed Southern Ireland have harboured terrorists (IRA), why havnt we invaded those countries and held their leaders accountable.
If he did try to have Bush Snr blown up, so what? The US dropped enough ordanace to try to kill him, alls fair in love and war right?
the link to Al Qaeda is clutching at straws, just another excuse to legitimise the war.
By all means execute him, but lets not make up tenuous reasons to do so.

[Aro]

Jjimm was responding to my query above, not making some political point. (thanks, BTW)
His post was only to show why some people may consider Saddam a terrorist - which was answered. He was not attempting to justify the label.

And your entire counter argument is made up of Tu Quoque-tastic points. But they are completely irrelevant to the case at hand.

[jjimm]

Rarely do I get “savaged” by a left-winger… the_bean, you don’t know my politics at all. I even agree with some of your points - but you’re missing my point, which is as Aro stated, not a political statement.

[gluteus_maximus]

Of course Saddam Hussein must die.
He’s a security risk to all those who put and kept him in power and bought oil from him for the past 20 years or so.

[carnivorousplant]

*Originally posted by RexDart *
** they were fighting Islam at the time too, **

And Jews.

[sailor]

He also slept with children at his ranch and had cosmetic surgery done to his face to look more like Hitler. What more proof do we need?

[Aldebaran]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mangetout *
I think it would be optional, rather than mandatory. Islam isn’t the only religion that gets badmouthed around these parts. What purpose would be served by stifling such comments? /QUOTE]

Normal behaviour that inlcudes normal decency and respect?

Or is that maybe The Great Unknown Never Heard of?
Salaam. A

[Mangetout]

Optional decency and respect is much more valuable than enforced decency and respect (as it is much more likely that those showing respect would be sincere); freedom of speech is much more valuable than ‘correct’ speech, because ‘correct’ might not be everyone’s idea of what is right. But these are just my opinions.

[Aldebaran]

Well you are in disagreement with conduct rules of other message boards, even of those wh are US based.
My opinion on this whole US concept of “freedom of speech” is that it very often used as a cover up for defending and allowing what I call undecent rudiness and disrespect and Law of the Wilderness in action.
But that is just my opinion.

Salaam. A

[carnivorousplant]

What is “Law of the Wilderness”?

[Aldebaran]

Ask a lion and then ask his prey… You shall get only the lion to repond.

Salaam. A

[Rashak_Mani]

hhmm… there is a difference between “deserving” to be executed. Which most would agree too. Saddam certainly deserves it… its an entirely different thing “should he be executed”. If after all the “new” Iraq doesn’t have the capital punishment can they kill Saddam ?

[Grey]

I would say not, but to automatically remove the option from the Iraqis (i.e. even if you do wish to execute him you’re not allowed) seems patronizing to the extreme.

I say following his sentencing, Saddam is given a gun, a bullet and a small room. Let him make the choice, death by his own hand, death by the state or life imprisonment.