Saddam sentenced to hang for war crimes

[Master Rudy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15567363/

It's official......the end of a madman is at hand and a major step towards peace in Iraq has been taken. Read it and then post thoughts and comments. Personally I feel that getting this psycho out is a major step towards the success of our mission in Iraq. Argue about why we shouldn't be there all you want. Go ahead and call Bush a fool and an idiot. If this video that Asi found isn't proof enough that this had to be done then perhaps you'd change your mind if you were in the shoes of the Iraqi people.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...m+people&hl=en

And while I know this may make sound cruel I'm glad it's not lethal injection. That would be too humane for a man like this. Even so I feel being hung is only going to give him a fraction of the pain and fear he gave his own people for countless years.

[Asilynne]

I personally think that death is too good for him. Think of this, he dies, after that he doesnt feel anything. Its over for him, no more suffering. If your religious then yes after he dies he will suffer for eternety, well, in that case he will reach that end without any help from anyone. To me, its more painful to rot somewhere for the rest of your life, without freedom, knowing why you were in that situation, than it is to die. And I dont really believe in killing criminals anyway, ideally having them rot in prison is a far worse punishment, and it is not putting the guilt of murder on anyones shoulders. But I know in reality housing thousands of criminals is a detrimint to society and the economy and its not cost effective, and simply throwing them on an island to survive on their own doesnt work. And I do know why they sentenced Saddam to death, Saddams people wouldnt have it any other way. Had Saddam be sentanced to life in an American prison they would be unhappy, and if he were released to an iraqi prison there would be the chance of him being freed by his supporters. So I guess politically this is the best choice.
But Im not going to watch and I dont think anyone should let their children watch. Its still a death and I dont think its healthy to have a child cheer for the death of another no matter how cruel they were. My 2 cents ^v^

[DarkTemplarZero]

Eh, the death penalty. How hard I've worked over the last year and a half to fight it, thankfully New Jersey's put a stop to it for now, but that's beside the point. I can't believe they decided hanging though, that's just sick. The man was cruel and twisted, but that doesn't mean we should stoop to his level to get revenge. Besides, the trial could not even be called a trial, according to Amnesty it was "shabby affair, marred by serious flaws", some of Saddam's lawyers were murdered, hell even one of the judges left because of "political interference" (http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...n.com+%2F+News).
Also, this execution's only going to make things worse. Sectarian violence will go through the roof, even Russia's saying that the execution will have "catastrophic consequences" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061105...d_061105144116)

"But I know in reality housing thousands of criminals is a detrimint to society and the economy and its not cost effective"
Au contraire, it is actually more cost-effective to put somebody in jail for life without the possibility of parole than to execute them in the United States, mostly due to the lengthy appeals process; http://www.ecpm-us.org/issues_costs.shtml

[The_Missing_Link]

Well, it was Iraq's call to hang him as I assume they still practice that over there. And the sooner he's gone from this world, the better. People like him don't deserve to live

[mr_pikachu]

While I understand the sentiment of fighting the death penalty, and while I do think that sometimes death is too good for really bad offenders, I think there are overriding factors in this case. For one thing, this is what Iraq decided, not us. If hanging is their method of execution, then I'm hardly going to argue with it being applied to Saddam.

And for another, the death penalty is really the only safe way to assure that our Saddam problems don't continue. Seeing as Hussein was, for many years, the leader of a country who gained many followers, it is quite plausible that certain groups of people would want to break him out of prison. This is more true in his case than in most others. Considering the great destruction he caused when he was in power, I don't think we can take the risk of him ever being free again, even if it's relatively small.

[.hacker]

As many others have said, Iraq chose to hang Saddam as punishment. He deserves to suffer for the crimes he committed. I know that sounds cruel for some, but it seems "fitting."

[Roy Karrde]

Good, with him gone most of the Baths party rebels will have nothing to fight for. Now comes the question of should they show it on TV in Iraq. Now don't get me wrong I dont think we should have it on Pay Per View over here. But in a country in which this man has killed hundreds of thousands. Who has tortured and done such a blite on the people, should they not be able to view his death through out Iraq? I hope so, so many people need closure, and many will hopefully find it when they see this man die.

[mr_pikachu]

Good, with him gone most of the Baths party rebels will have nothing to fight for. Now comes the question of should they show it on TV in Iraq. Now don't get me wrong I dont think we should have it on Pay Per View over here. But in a country in which this man has killed hundreds of thousands. Who has tortured and done such a blite on the people, should they not be able to view his death through out Iraq? I hope so, so many people need closure, and many will hopefully find it when they see this man die.

Why shouldn't we have it on pay-per-view? It'd be the first program I'd ever purchase.

[Roy Karrde]

Becuase you know it will be withon the Torrent websites within a hour ~.^
All kidding aside, this is a Iraqi moment, and it shouldn't be treated as a event up there with Wrestlemania 35, and George Foreman vs Mike Tyson. They should be allowed their moment of closure.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Good, with him gone most of the Baths party rebels will have nothing to fight for. Now comes the question of should they show it on TV in Iraq. Now don't get me wrong I dont think we should have it on Pay Per View over here. But in a country in which this man has killed hundreds of thousands. Who has tortured and done such a blite on the people, should they not be able to view his death through out Iraq? I hope so, so many people need closure, and many will hopefully find it when they see this man die.

Nothing to fight for? Your enemy brutally and perhaps even publicly executes your leader without giving him the right to a fair trial in a competent court and refused to allow him to have legal counsel for the first year of his imprisonment and NOW you have nothing to fight for? >.< Think about what you're saying for at least three seconds before you post it. Quite the contrary, Saddam will become a martyr for terrorism and anti-American sentiment all over the world.

And secondly, public executions? What are we in, the dark ages? That's so barbaric. Taking pleasure in the death of another is cruel, twisted, and barbaric, no matter what they've done.

Finally, I'm surprised to see what Saddam was convicted for: executing 148 people including children. I find it ironic that he's been sentenced to death by an inept and politically driven court because he ordered the execution of 148 people through inept and politically driven courts.

[Roy Karrde]

^ Remember guys lets keep this topic from breaking out in another flame war. With that in mind don't feed the troll guys.

[mr_pikachu]

You make a valid point about the personal closure aspect of it, Roy. I suppose I hadn't thought about it that way.

Besides, you're right about the Torrent/YouTube thing, anyway. Somebody there is bound to record it.

[DarkTemplarZero]

^ Remember guys lets keep this topic from breaking out in another flame war. With that in mind don't feed the troll guys.

Relax, nobody's said anything overly stupid yet, although that's pushing it. That and the fact that you're expressing your support for public executions.

What the hell? You actually want to WATCH? Oh man, that's really twisted. I'm really afraid.

[Roy Karrde]

You know Mr_Pikachu I didn't even think about You Tube. As for being bound to record it, of course it will be recorded. Most likely shown on TV so that the Iraqi Government can prove that it is the end of Saddam's hateful regeme. That and I just think the millions he has wronged would want to see it. I know I would want to see the killer of my sister, or brother, or parents put to death.

[Jeff]

Politically motivated or not, he was tried by his own country and they decided he should swing for what he did. In the end, what matters is if you agree with the decision. He killed and tortured his own people, anyone who disagreed with him, so I think he deserves it.

[Knight of Time]

Well, this is probably some of the best news (although not the very best) I've ever heard.

I've always been against him, but now, I'm glad (yet surprised) to hear he's going to die by hanging.

One thing's for sure, this punishment is a rare one these days.

[Magmar]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Off with his head! I wanna watch it on Channel 6, to hell with Pay Per View. I'll make me some popcorn, too.

Why *should* he get a fair trial? Nobody he killed got a fair trial. And whoooo cares if we stooped to his level. Noooot meeeee. He's in Iraq, all the way out there, where he's getting the noose for being a douche. Goodbye, asshole.

[Blademaster]

Well, I don't approve of capital punishment in any way...

But there is a lesson to be learned here.

See, kids? When you act like a malicious nutjob for 30 years and then act like a total dip**** at your trial, this is what happens!

[DarkTemplarZero]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Off with his head! I wanna watch it on Channel 6, to hell with Pay Per View. I'll make me some popcorn, too.

Why *should* he get a fair trial? Nobody he killed got a fair trial. And whoooo cares if we stooped to his level. Noooot meeeee. He's in Iraq, all the way out there, where he's getting the noose for being a douche. Goodbye, asshole.

Everyone deserves a fair trial, regardless of what they've done. Doesn't anybody believe in the principles set forth in the Bill of Rights nowadays? And yes nobody he killed got a fair trial, but now Iraq has a chance to put that behind them and say that from now on we will live up to international standards and say that everyone has the right to a fair trial, and yet they failed miserably. It's easy to say that Saddam isn't human for what he did, but that's the same justification that he had for killing all those people. As Ghandi once said, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

And I really don't think he acted like a total dipshit. The man refused an offer of release if he ordered a ceasefire, refused to stand trial unless the horrific conditions he was held in would be improved and they would stop torturing him, and began a hunger strike because his lawyers were being assassinated left and right because they had no protection at all. Hell, when he was sentenced he encouraged Iraqis to unify against sectarian strife and not to take revenge against the "foreign invaders". If he wasn't a twisted dictator and guilty of dispicable crimes, I would call him heroic for standing up to the new Iraq's laughable excuse for a judicial system.

[Weasel Overlord]

[color=silver]DTZ, I think you're being a little bit reactionary here, dude.

Personally, I think that he did get a fair trial. He had lawyers, what more can you ask for, being a horrible, murdering tyrant?

And also, hanging's not the painful death it's made out to be. The rope's measured precisely so that the dimensions are right for a good clean fall which snaps the neck instantly, instead of strangling the 'hangee' to death slowly and painfully.

And while I certainly wouldn't ever watch the film, or understand why anyone would want to, I also think it should probably be available for those who need closure, as someone's already said.

[Roy Karrde]

You know DTZ some would call Hitler heroic for things that he did in helping Germany, that does not negate what he did. Nor does one act negate the millions that Saddam killed, hurt, and tortured.

Iraq is trying to find their place in the world. They should not have to stand up to international standards becuase international standards do not apply to what Saddam Hussain did. The European Union and those protesting did not experience Saddam's hatred, and to quote Sisko from Deep Space Nine "It's easy to be a saint in paradise".

Where am I getting with this? Well if we are holding Iraq up to International Standards, and how they have just come out from the horrible opression of a tyrant. Than Iraq should be held up to how say France acted post World War 2 when those that were part of Hitler's regime were placed on trial. Or how France and the rest acted at the end of World War 1.

International Standards should not apply to each situation becuase each situation is different.

As for the trial, he could have had OJ's lawyer, and he would still have been killed. No matter how many revolving door lawyers he had, the evidence was there. And you cannot discount that. Pictures of those that Saddam had ordered killed, testimonys from the families, signed documents of his. They were all there. He was guilty and everyone knew it, but it should be applauded that Iraq went through the process of a trial for this scum. No matter how many sucide bombs happened, no matter how many IEDs were planted, they continued on to show the evidence, and in the end deliver the correct verdict.

[Jeff]

My younger brothers were questioning why Saddam was given the death penalty, even though he used to be the leader of a country, and I asked them "If we had captured Hitler, what do you think we would have done with him? Just look at what we did to other Nazis guilty of crimes against humanity"

[SoulflameNinetales]

Ok, giving Saddam death I pretty much expected.

Death by hanging?!? Isn't that a little brutual?

I know that Saddam was not a nice person at all, but killing him by hanging, while giving many closure will give others the incentve to hate not only America but every other country who came over to free the people from a harsh dictorship (thro I realise that could of been also economically moviated, and not a selfless action) where people could die for having a bad day in the presense of Saddam.

I believe both Iraq's new gov't and those who were involved in depositing Saddam from power use make thier next moves carefully. I can see this either turning extremely ugly or a great win for freedom or anywhere in between. Thier decisions will decide what the future holds and even though I try to be an optimist, I cannot say that this news won't haunt me sometime in the future.

[Roy Karrde]

Well I say let the Punishment fit the Crime. Saddam gave Hundreds of Thousands death that was a whole lot more brutal than hanging. Besides Iraq cannot really pony up for those fansy lethal injection machines. As for those that hate America, they can find many reasons to hate America. But those that hate Saddam and want to see his rotting carcus dangle from a three foot long rope. Far, FAR out weigh those that want to kill Americans. And please lets not start any of this Blood for Oil crap, Blood for Oil was never true, we never went into Iraq for Oil. That argument was just cooked up by radical leftists in a desperate attempt to attack the war in Iraq even more.

[DarkTemplarZero]

First of all, I didn't call Saddam heroic. I agree he is a twisted and evil man, but I said that his idea to stand against the ridiculous Iraqi court was justified.

As for Weasel, what you can ask for is not to be tortured, to have a trial by your peers free of political influence, and to give some security to your lawyers so they don't get shot.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
The Sixth Amendment. While it might not apply in Iraq, I'd like to think that it sets an example for all judicial systems.

Hey Roy Karrde, fellow Star Trek fan, I see? Not exactly my favorite Sisko quote, although The Maquis was a great two part episode. However, I wasn't a big fan of DS9 in general, you know why? It diverged from the ideals of Star Trek and of Gene Roddenberry in order to get good ratings, because Star Trek was about idealism and nowadays idealism doesn't sell. Here's two better quotes from the original series episodes A Taste of Armageddon and The Ultimate Computer:
"[War] is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today!"
"Compassion -- that's the one thing no machine ever had. Maybe it's the one thing that keeps men ahead of them."
It's easy to make excuses, but it takes true strength of spirit to be the better man and say that "You have wronged me horribly, but I will have mercy on you because I am a better human being"

And such is the beauty of International Standards: every nation is held to them. There is no hypocrisy, no double standard, either you meet them or you don't. So do you believe that the genocide in Darfur is fine because there's a different "situation" in Sudan than say the United States? Are you saying it is alright for China to have forced labor camps and execute thousands of people per year because they're in a "different situation"? Is it alright for people to be thrown in prison for peacefully protesting their government's actions in Belarus and Turkmenistan because it's a "different situation"? Some things deserve to be put in black and white, and the right to a fair trial is one of them.

True Saddam would have been found guilty even if the trial held up to international standards, but that is beside the point. The point is that he was tortured, denied right to legal counsel, etc. No matter how you look at it, that is WRONG. Every international standard (i.e. Geneva Conventions), the U.S. Bill of Rights (Fifth and Sixth Amendments), etc. are all very clear about this; no harm without due process of law and adequate trials, regardless of the crime.

"But those that hate Saddam and want to see his rotting carcus dangle from a three foot long rope. Far, FAR out weigh those that want to kill Americans"
I don't know about that man; http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...0BC5FCDE8F.htm
Sunni Muslims seem to miss ruling Iraq and not having people being shot in the streets.

[Roy Karrde]

You cannot put International Standards on Human Emotion, you cannot blindly place laws on them, which is what your trying to do. And as you should know, nothing in this world is in Black and White, when you place things in Black and White standards you fail. As for Saddam being tortured? That is laughable, show me any proof that he was tortured, other than his own ravings? Saddam had rights to legal council but he waved it, he fired his lawyers, would not talk to them, and kicked some out.

And for your website, you post Aljazeera as a link? The most biased POS in all of the middle east. C'mon first Wikipedia, and now Al Jazeera. And to try and show that those sickafant followers of Saddam far outweigh those millions that wish to see Saddam pay for his Crimes against Humanity, is like saying that there were more Ex Nazis in Post World War 2 Germany that long for the Good ole days, than those that were hurt by the Nazi's crimes.

And to keep the roll going, I will end it with a quote.

SISKO
They'll remember. It'll take
time, and it won't be easy, but
eventually people in this century
will remember how to care.

BASHIR
But it makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Are humans really any different than
Cardassians... or Romulans? If push
came to shove, if something disastrous
happened to the Federation, and we
got frightened enough, or desperate
enough, how would we react? Would
we stay true to our ideals... or
would we just end up... here... right
back where we started?

[DarkTemplarZero]

You can place international standards on murder and mistreatment. Besides, if you can't place laws on human emotion does that mean that if somebody is angry at someone else, they have the right to assault them? That's laws on human emotion for ya. And bruises and blood clots don't lie, Saddam was beaten. More than one of his lawyers were assassinated.

And to you everything is biased. Al Jazeera may put a spin on things, but the general idea is still there. If you won't believe that, here's the AFP, in all of it's reactionary and anti-semetic glory, saying the same thing: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061105...damsunnishiite

Also, I believe you mean "sycophantic"

I'll respond with another quote:

"There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. " - Abraham Lincoln in The Savage Curtain

[Roy Karrde]

Again where is the evidence of Saddam being tortured? We have pictures of Prisoner Abuse, but do you not think that the same would come out for Saddam? As for International Standards, where were these International Standards when Saddam was butchering people? Do we expect that these victums should suddenly become saints? Do you believe that these countries that made these International Standards should have lived up to them back in the post World War 2 era? If so what sort of retribution or punishment should those countries pay? Those countries are now pointing fingers at Iraq for their decision, when in the past they have made the same decisions.

Every country that is pointing a finger at Iraq in the modern day era should take a step back and put themselves in the shoes of the Iraqis, and if they cannot they should atleast take a long look at their own history.

A democracy takes a long time to acomplish, Iraq has had one for what two years? Now that isn't saying their decision is right or wrong, but to hold Iraq up to scrutiny, especially with how they dispose of one of the worst butchers in all history, is just utterly and completely wrong. Again like I quoted, it's easy to be a saint in paradise.

As for the article, I never said it wasn't true, just that it was biased. Now of course there will be those that live in Iraq that hate the verdict, but those that rejoice in it far far outweigh those that do not like it. That is just common sense. Especially since Saddam's people were already in the minority.

Anyway to end it I will give you another quote that I think sums up the Pre War mentality with Iraq, when Saddam was playing Hide and Go Seek with Weapon Inspectors.

Sisko: Maybe so. But one thing's for certain. We're losing the peace. Which means a war could be our only hope.

[Master Rudy]

Zero I personally believe you should quit while your ahead. Every case you try to make is extremely biased and on one extreme. Let's get one thing straight. I don't like war but I do feel that it's sometimes an evil that is needed. You've got no real proof that the Iraqi government did not do the best they could to give him a fair trial under the extreme circumstances. You say no one would provide him with a laywer? The guy had his laywers being murdered left and right at first. After the first few people were scared and did not want to defend him for fear of being killed. Having the man act like a manic with all his outbursts during the trial sure as hell didn't help his case either. You say it was handled all wrong? I feel it was all as right as it could be given the situation. Wrong would have been blowing his brains out the moment they dug him out of his hole. Have you any idea how easy it would have been to do so? Saddam was armed when troops found him and all it would have taken were several dishonest solders to claim his came charging at them with his gun. But they didn't do that. They did the right thing, brought him in, cleaned him up, gave him humane treatment (that whole tourtue thing is bullshit and you know it) and last but not least let the man stand trial with a judge and jury. Try to tell me how that is all wrong and horrible? And if your going to claim he was bruised again find me pics. Blood clots? While I'm sure some cases of tourtue could cause it there are other causes as well such as various medical conditions. Try again Zero.

On another note I feel it's left wing extremists like you that make it hard for our troops to do the job they signed up for. They've constantly got to watch every little move they make for fear of hearing the cries of "IT'S WRONG! THAT'S IMMORAL!!!!" War is not a pretty thing. I will not deny the fact that ugly things come out of it. However extreme things happen in war that I personally feel are hard to judge with common laws. Imagine if you will a young teenage boy of maybe about 13 or 14 firing at a US solder. Or how about Vietnam where there were stories of very young children that had bombs straped to them that would explode the moment they got close. What the hell are you suppose to do then? Many will admit that they have done things in a war that they are not proud of and would not normally do? In a situation that is life or death the only thing in a solders mind is to stay alive and keep whoever he may be protecting alive as well. When your survival instincts kick in rational though and common laws go out the window. I pray to god that if this country ever got into a situation where they had to bring the draft back that you are not picked. I can seriously imagine you going on and on in an extreme situation about everything morally wrong with what your doing as your being shot at while your friends die.

And no doubt your going to pick apart my post, Roy's post or anyone elses post that you don't agree with. Your welcome to your opinions but do not try to present them as fact without evidence. Every time you provide either Wiki or the Daily Show as your proof you make a fool of yourself. And for christsake Al Jazeera? Give me a break. That is easily the most biased and most anti-American news channel in the world. Anything they report is either going to make America look bad or is going to make Saddam and Osama look like heroes. And while we're quoting great TV shows here I feel a need to quote one of the best characters in the history of 24:

Sec. of Defense James Heller-Spare me your sixth grade Michael Moore logic

[DarkTemplarZero]

My views are biased and extreme? I simply believe in holding everyone to one standard, I believe in consistent logic. You don't seem to believe anything I say just because I don't agree with you. However, you haven't made a single decent point or cited a single source for anything you've said, so how can you insult my sources when your "source" is whatever you happen to remember at the moment?

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE140372006
^ Amnesty International's Director of the Middle East Programme calls it "a shabby affair, marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards". I think this dude knows a bit about what he's talking about, or at least more than you considering he specializes in the Middle East.

Humane treatment? They refused him access to a freaking lawyer for a year, he was held without being formally charged of anything. Plus according to the red cross Saddam was wounded when he was examined about a month after his imprisonment: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...yer/index.html. And I didn't say nobody would provide him with a lawyer, I said that his lawyers were not protected, judging by these few articles: http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/...845265388.html, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=13435, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../09/wirq09.xml (And before you say that these articles are "biased", you can't deny that the facts in them are true, the conclusions might be spun differently, but it doesn't change the fact that these lawyers were killed). At least three seperate lawyers representing Saddam were killed during the trial. Here in the United States, we would call that a "mistrial", as one cause for a mistrial is "Misconduct by a party, juror, or an outside actor, if it prevents due process". I think THREE lawyers being assassinated constitutes preventing due process. QED.

And yes war is not pretty, but I am not talking about war crimes at the moment, that's completely off topic. And in response to Roy Karrde, you don't think that Iraq should be held up to scrutiny? Then what the hell is the point of trying to establish democracy if whenever they do something wrong you say, "Oh, they're making progress, it's ok"? I really dispise double standards. Iraqi progress with democracy is directly related to how they handle trials (I'd like to think that Democracies ensure fair and just trials), so the "victory" in Iraq is related to whether or not they are able to accurately and impartially carry out trials, and judging by the Saddam trial they're failing miserably.

Lastly, here's a quote from the great William T. Riker, "If we felt any human loss as keenly as we feel one of those close to us, human history would be far less bloody."

[Roy Karrde]

Right now I am busy watching the poll results so I skimmed the top and am going to reply with that. Amnesty International has had a hard on for the whole Anti Iraq War Movement, I wouldn't be surprised that they spoke up against it. Infact I would be shocked that they didn't speak out against it. As for the charges filed, how about crimes against humanity? Or is that too broad of a range?

As for the Lawyer thing, I have searched many times and never found a article on it, for any credibility in that clame at all you need to have some kind of proof.

For the Red Cross thing, look at his picture when he was taken in, the way he was living looks as if he was wounded already.

For the Lawyers being killed, this was a Iraqi moment, it was their dictator, their butcher, so they should have a right to try them to prove that they are legit. Saddam's lawyers were killed, the judges were also killed, as were the prosecutors and everyone else assosiated with the trial. Saddam's lawyers being killed does not mean the evidence changes, he was guilty, he knew it, everyone knew it.

As for your remarks made to me, point to me one democracy that started off exactly right from the beginning? The US who had just fought their own war for independence spent ten years trying to reistablish themseleves. And it seems that to you the only way that you would see Iraq as a proper democracy, only after three years, is for them to release Saddam. Is there no other possibility that you will accept other than he should be freed? Or placed in jail for X amount of time? Were the thousands of victums given that such luxery? He was guilty, he was tried in Iraq, he was found guilty by Iraqis, and he will be sentenced by Iraqis. End of story.

Found a interesting quote, just replace Dukat with Saddam, and Sisko with Bush. Or Bin Ladin and Bush, but Saddam killed millions and so did Dukat, and both try to justify it.

Dukat: It always comes down to that, doesn't it? My 'crimes'. I'm such a monster. Such an evil man. Behold Benjamin Sisko - supreme arbiter of right and wrong in the universe. A man of such high moral caliber that he can sit in judgement on the rest of us.

Sisko: What the hell do you want from me!? My approval? Is that what this is all about? You want me to give you permission to cause more suffering and death? Well, if that's what you're after, you might as well pull out that phaser and end this right now, because I won't give it to you!

[DarkTemplarZero]

"Saddam has not yet been officially charged with any crimes." From that site that I just gave you which had the Red Cross thing. That was written one month after he had been captured.

http://www.dawn.com/2004/05/11/int2.htm <-- Saddam's lawyers denied access.

True Saddam would have been found guilty either way, but that is irrelevant. Fair trial, regardless of the circumstances, is one of the primary aspects of democracy. Without it, a democracy is not a democracy. "And it seems that to you the only way that you would see Iraq as a proper democracy, only after three years, is for them to release Saddam". Where did I say that Saddam should be released? I said he was not given a fair trial nor did the trial meet international standards in any way, not that he should be released.

"He was guilty, he was tried in Iraq, he was found guilty by Iraqis, and he will be sentenced by Iraqis. End of story."
So by that logic you believe that Military Tribunals in Darfur sentencing people to death for selling tea without a license (See Amnesty International 2005 Report) is right? Those people were tried in Sudan, found guilty by the Sudanese Government, and were sentenced by the Sudanese Government. End of story. Or how about sentencing women to six years in prison for even seeking an abortion in Libya? Or being sentenced to eight years in prison for peacefully protesting the government's response to the Chernobyl Disaster in Belarus, as was the case with Professor Yury Bandazhevsky? What do you believe about that?

Following the quotes trend. You may think one mistrial is ok, but how many does it take for it not to be ok? Can we allow Iraq to become another China, Uzbekistan, Libya, Russia, Belarus, Sudan, etc.? ;

Admiral Matthew Dougherty: Jean-Luc, we're only moving 600 people.
Jean-Luc Picard: How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many people does it take, Admiral?

[Roy Karrde]

Saddam was shown the evidence that was overwhelming against him, he was given over a year I believe with his lawyers. And this is the most scruitinized trial since OJ, where is the misconduct? All you can bring against him is a change in lawyers which is allowed. I'm sure if I searched and found trials in which Lawyers died here in the US either by natural or un natural causes, the trial would still go on. He is also giving a appeal, if there was any way to prove he got a unfair trial, then it will be turned over in appelet court. The Iraq Democracy has given Saddam more than he deserves in terms of rights.

As for those others, were they allowed a appelet court to over turn their verdict? Were they allowed the 1,000+ lawyer team working inside and outside of the country that Saddam was given? Were those allowed to see their evidence? To confront their accusers? How can you compare what Saddam was given to those mockery of trials?

And again how was this a mistrial other than the loss of a few of all the lawyers he was given. Were the new lawyers that were brought in not allowed ample time to work on the case? Today we have cases in which lawyers are brought in at the last moment, how is that any different? Was there any proof that the presiding judge that gave the verdict in anyway biased? I have been asking where is the evidence? So where is it? Where is the proof of such misconduct other than the rantings of a far left liberal organization?

Dukat: Of course I hated them! Their superstitions and their cries for sympathy, their treachery and their lies, their smug superiority and their stiff-necked obstinacy, their stupid earrings and their broken, wrinkled noses! Yes, I hated them, I hated everything about them!

Sisko: You should have killed them all.

Dukat: Yes! Yes! That's right, isn't it? I knew it! I've always known it! I should have killed every last one of them. I should have turned their planet into a graveyard the likes of which the Galaxy has never seen! I should have killed them all.

[RedStarWarrior]

Saddam is getting what he deserves, plain and simple.

[Razola]

Hanging really isn't that cruel. If you want to discuss barbaric, Middle Age executions were basically dissections while the victim was still alive.

Issues like death penalty are sticky to cover. I think robbing a guy of over half his life, sticking him in a stinking cell, is crueler than the death penalty, for example. We can fire off snarky quotes on it all day long, but there's really not much in ways of statistics or facts besides gut feeling. Unless there's a "Cruelogram" or some measurement out these days.

But there's no reason to get primal over it. We don't need to hoot like apes around a public hangin'. Besides enraging his own supporters, it just looks bad, ya know? Kill him privately and move on.

[Asilynne]

I dont have much time to post but I have to say one thing. Stop quoting Star Trek please. I love the show dont get me wrong. I love all of them (except DS9 and Enterprise). And that is why please shut up, because you are ruining my show. I wont be able to hear Riker or Picard or Kirk from now on without thinking of this bitter never-going-to-end argument. Its just plain annoying, so please be humane to my show and quote something I dont care about like Rudy did! lol
*starts the "Save the Star Trek foundation" and starts pickiting*

Anyway, just one comment about the whole thing with the news programs putting a spin on things. While its true that the facts are there despite the spin, the spin DOES matter because while its a fact saddams lawyers were murdered, it might not be for the reason the biased things give. The "what" is true, the "why" isnt. So the spin does matter and its naiive to think otherwise.

And to jump on the bandwagon heres some quotes from something I dont really care TOO much about lol
Gundam Wing:

People who commit war are stupid, but the blood they spill is not meaningless. -- Dr. J

And I cant find the exact quote but here it is paraphrased:
Heero: You want peace but you arent willing to fight for it? Anything worth having is worth fighting for, for how can you appreciate the peace if it is not hardwon? For me peace is worth fighting for.

That quote is probably a lil messed up from the original but the idea is there.

[Razola]

A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire

Are we done all the fancy quotes?

[Weasel Overlord]

[color=silver]Thank god you got there first Asi, I'm glad I'm not the only one bloody fed up of all the Star Trek quotes. As much as I do adore that show, you could at least have picked a better person to quote than Sisko! Deep Space Nine was easily the ballsiest of all the series'... but enough on that.

Zero, what is it that makes you believe fair trials are linked to democracy so deeply? All you keep saying is 'fair trials are one of the main aspects of democracy' blah blah, but you fail to take into account the actual meaning of the word. And I quote dictionary.com here, and before anyone complains about this not being a valid source, well, I'd have used the OED Online, but I don't subscribe to it, and I'm not on my Language server to be able to use it.

de‧moc‧ra‧cy  –noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

[color=silver]And from this we can see that the 'main' aspect of democracy is, in fact, the right of the people to vote for their government.

And let's not forget that America certainly wasn't the first democracy, so don't act like it was. Rome was the first democracy, the Republic, established at around the same time as the Greek democracy. And if you like, you can twist my quotes and words to whatever end you wish, but the right to a free trial is only vaguely linked to the idea of a democracy.

And before you retaliate, which no doubt you will, let's remember this small fact. I am in no way in support of public execution, hanging or otherwise, and nor do I agree with criminals not receiving a fair trial. Maybe I should put that fact in bold, just so that you get it...

Oh, and another thing, from a British point of view, I really do think that you Americans take things like this far too seriously. *ducks from all the patriots/thrown vegetables/general anger which is sure to follow such a statement* I mean, sure, I'm patriotic too, I sort of like my country I suppose, (even if it is rainy, grey and boring, heh) but I wouldn't even fight for it. I'm not a violent person. At all. And the whole army thing sickens me to the core... but what can you do, eh? While men rule our country, war is sure to follow... *ducks again from all the righteous manly anger*

oh, and don't take that to mean that I'm a feminist either. Cos believe me, I'm far from it, snigger...

And hey, I don't even know if there was a point to my ramble! Oh yeah, stop bloody arguing about everything people ever say, Zero. It shows a complete disrespect for other people's opinions, and not to mention puts you in a really bad light. It's also really irritating to read, so just bloody quit it.

[RedStarWarrior]

Sorry, but the Republic of Rome wasn't a true Democracy, unless you consider only allowing property-owning males to vote as a true Democracy. The right to a fair trial is a part of American Democracy...why people think that applies to Iraq, I have no clue.

Lastly, men don't rule our country, as there are many high-ranking women in our government.

[Saffire Persian]

Well, I'm personally not going to gainsay the decision. The punishment is fitting, at least, in some degree, as we can all see that he was definitely a tyrant that someone needed to be taken care of. While I don't like the concept of killing at all, I think it's probably a measure that had to be done in this case, as grusome as it is.

Like Mr_Pikachu said, it's the only way to make sure Saddam doesn't continue his work. People may follow his lead and attempt to take his place, though.

One of the things that could go wrong with this Death Penalty decision, though, is that Saddam will likely be considered by many of his followers, to be a martyr. And I personally don't want to see him glorified for his crimes. And had the decision been for him to rot for life in jail, I would be just as content.