Should Saddam be executed??

[Sayonara]

Altough I very much like the idea of ICC and would support it whole heartedly. there is too much beurocracy. The trail of milosevic has been going on for two years and the end is nowhere in sight. and with the recent new of his bad health, they arent sure if he can make it to court anymore.

Well, the point really is "look how the mass-murdering fuck who the USA and UK didn't spend years demonising and who doesn't have a good chunk of the world's oil under his patio doesn't have the far-Western mob braying for a swift, seat-of-the-pants trial and the most unpleasant fate possible".

[Kbzon59]

Saddam has only two differences with many prersidents and leaders in the world: One, he was a dictator, two, he used chemical weapons (sparingly, i may add)

I am not denying that Saddam is a bad seed, and I apologize for making my feeling towars Death Penality a "reason", but you gotta remember that for Saddam to be executed, death penality muist be taken into the law of the new iraqi state. That is teh forst obstacle towards his execution. I persoanlly hope that such thing does not happen. becuase it would mean mass execution of iraqi soldiers.

By the way, Saddam does not go beyond a normal criminal. He is a criminal. Period. I understand your point, but Saddam should not be seem has a welcome exception just becuase he is badder than others.

[Kbzon59]

Jordan said a good point: He would be trialed by people who hate him. Whether we like it or not, it is his right to have a fair trial. Is there such a possibility if the trial is in Iraq?

By the way, what is Saddam accused of? I mean it, because "crimes against humanity" s pretty vague.

[Kbzon59]

By teh way, how are they going to judge him? What law system will the use? Common Law? or roman germanic-canonigan? I prefer the latter, since it is closer to Aristotles principle of passionless.

The jury of its peers system would be a liability, because Saddam was in the military, and the crimes he comitted were comoitted while being in the army, so he would be jufgwed by soldiers, right?

Who would apoint the jury?

Who would be the judge?

What I meant with the counterpart thingy back in time was that a person cannot be judged by someone who benefitted by the incarceration of the defendant.

[atinymonkey]

For comedy value, they are using Iraq law, ratified and passed by Hussein himself. Like most of the less refined judicial systems, they still impose the death penalty in Iraq.

[jordan]

Kinda sucks when you make the whole country hate you except for a few radicals who know they can't show their face. Then your life is on trial in front of these people. I guess it would've been better to NOT to starve them wile he lives in huge palaces, blow them up and drag the country down all around.

 

Like most of the less refined judicial systems, they still impose the death penalty in Iraq.

Subtle.

[atinymonkey]

Like a pipe smoking mongoose

[budullewraagh]

two, he used chemical weapons

i hate the way people use the term "chemical weapons"

 

first, every modern weapon involves some sort of deadly chemical, be it C3H6N6O6 or C11H26NO2PS. there are some weapons that are more cruel to use than others. in the first world war, chemical weapons were first used by the english, but perfected by the germans. both sides used these weapons in mass quantities. both sides witnessed atrocious carnage. to call "chemical weapons" "wmds" and place them in the league of nuclear weapons and biological weapons is not cool. while dangerous and awful, "chemical weapons" are not nearly as awful as other "wmds". they can cause great amounts of death, but biological weapons can screw an ecosystem for years and have much more potential for death. same with nuclear weapons. sheesh

[jordan]

But there's the whole suffering bit to chemical weapons. Biological weapons would be the same. And nuclear weapons are almost humane of the three. Looking at the effects on people and not the environment, chemical weapons could be considered mass destruction.

[budullewraagh]

i didnt deny the fact that they are painful. i just dont believe that they are nearly as bad as nuclear weapons or biological weapons

[Sayonara]

And nuclear weapons are almost humane of the three.

Do you think so?

[Skye]

I think the main point regarding the gas attacks was that it was a deliberate attack on large numbers of civilians. A similar level of abhornce would probably be felt if it were carried with conventional weapons.

[atinymonkey]

Again Mugabe, Kim Il Sung, Milosevic and on and on. Worse, and less sanctioned by the US.

[jordan]

Do you think so?

The fact that the intent of the other two is to make people suffer, yes. Granted, there is the radiation sickness bit. But, if that is kept to a minimum, then yes, nuclear weapons would in no way involve suffering, thus being more humane (though the whole subject is just horrible to be talking about in this sense).

[Sayonara]

Are you talking about existing nuclear weapons, which cause devastating effects to massive areas of land, sea and air and the contents thereof; or are you talking about fantasy nuclear weapons that somebody might one day make, and comparing those to the limited area denial bio/chem weapons that currently exist?

[Skye]

If all the other cars were speeding you still have to pay your speeding ticket, even if the cop ignores everyone else.

[bloodhound]

huh?

[Skye]

Sorry that was in reply to atinymoney's post #113.

[Sayonara]

Sorry that was in reply to atinymoney's post #113.

Yes, but the point is that whereas the cop would be up in front of a disciplinary committee...

[jordan]

All I was saying, and I have begun to see where I went wrong, is that how humane an action is can be calculated by intent. If there is suffering but that was not the intent of the action, would that be inhumane? Not as much as taking an action with the intent of causing suffering. Therefore, the way in which a nuclear bomb causes destruction is more humane than the way in which chemical and biological weapons do.

[Skye]

Yes, but the point is that whereas the cop[/i'] would be up in front of a disciplinary committee...

I don't see why this has any bearing on the guilt of Saddam though.

[budullewraagh]

he's ten times the criminal he was a year ago. seriously, the entire idea of the us "liberating" iraq is just another attempt to justify going to war. this was manufactured after the war ended.

[Sayonara]

I don't see why this has any bearing on the guilt of Saddam though.

It doesn't.

 

It has a bearing on whether or not Saddam should be executed if he is guilty, assuming that the sentence is not normally one that is conferred in the legal system that convicts him.

 

That's the point of the thread, isn't it?

[Skye]

The thing is that the tribunal can convict for offences that didn't previously exist under Iraqi law. While it follows existing Iraqi legislation for existing offences (which in some cases allows for the death penalty) it is given full discretion of sentencing for the newly enacted offences, including the death penalty.

[Aardvark]

There is the precedent of the Nurmemburg trials, the offences the Nazis were convicted of did not exist under German law but were invented afterwards.