I try not to advocate killing in any way. However, I also to try to think of the greater good. When I try to weigh the greater good, it seems to me more "appropriate" to rid the world of a tyrant such a Saddam hussein. I think this is also fitting to those other criminals in this world that have committed hanus acts against others. For example, person A kills person B. My hard earned money(Tax dollars) is used to put this man on trial, paying the judge, jury, prosecution, courtroom staff, and should he be found guilty, I will be paying for him to spend X amount of years rotting in a jail cell. However, say person A is sentended to capital puniushment. Then a good amount of my money would be free to use on say helping the homeless and suffering of my country. Perhaps improve the infrastructure. I could go on about countless ways it could be spent. But that doesn't happen. Many criminals get sentenced to capital punishment in trials payed for by the American public. They sit on Deeath Row for years(at the expense of the American tax payer) only to go back to trial(at our expense) and get their sentence overturned so that they can sit in prison for the rest of their natural born life(all at the expense of the American tax payer). So as you can see, wouldn't it be serving a greater good if we could rid humanity of these people once and for all? The American population(which much to my chagrin is probably the most heavily criminal populated country right now) has roughly 350 million people living here. A small percentage of these people are serious offenders of society. Something is obviously wrong with these people. Get rid of them, we're better off without wasting valuable resources just to keep them away from society.
One more point I feel I need to make. While it may not be moral to kill those who have committed serious crimes against others, consider this. The American tax payer's money gets spent to house these offenders away from society. Whats the moral thing to do? Pay for them to sit in a prison cell getting three square meals a day as well as their other commodities(be them few) as well as paying prison guards to police them, or kill them and spend that money to stop the suffering of the innocent Americans stricken by sickness, destitution, starvation, natural disasters, etc. Not to mention the countless other people around the world who are given aid by the American people. Whats moral? Keeping the vicious members of our society free from want or ridding ourselves of them so that we can help those who NEED it?
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundAnd to be honest, me too! A complete let down. That wasn't a court decision made last night. It's almost an example to the Iraqi's of a corrupt legal system that stinks. But they do don't they? Legal systems I mean? What an example of moral upstanding litigated decisions this is....... ??? God I'm gonna be sick... I wonder who pulled the financial punch?????????
Why do i feel slightly sad about the death of Saddam Hussein ?
Our country did nothing to prevent his hanging, and for that i feel sad. If they had just thrown a grenade down his foxhole when they found him, i'dve laughed like the rest but this Kangaroo court hanging has left me feel a little cold inside.
2 edits
Originally posted by zakkwylderPersonally I think you hit the nail on the head with your response. but what I await hearing is the "civilized" answer to a Saddam Hussein. No one has yet come up with an answer other than Death.
One more point I feel I need to make. While it may not be moral to kill those who have committed serious crimes against others, consider this. The American tax payer's money gets spent to house these offenders away from society. Whats the moral thing to do? Pay for them to sit in a prison cell getting three square meals a day as well as their other commod ...[text shortened]... our society free from want or ridding ourselves of them so that we can help those who NEED it?
For those who think I am completely blind towards what is really happening in Iraq, think again. Had there been any evidence of weapons of mass destruction (the quoted reason the US invaded Iraq in the first place) I would have been all for this war. Would even back Bush up to the very end on this.
If he stated that the reason was to oust a dictator with a violent and careless attitude towards its people, I may have backed that war (the lie wouldn't have been so prevalent then). I am happy to see the world rid of 1 less horrible dictator, but still can't support this war since has been a war started under false pretenses. (BTW oil is the real reason no matter what any other source says. He who controls the oil controls everything).
My opinion, Death to Saddam was justified, and certainly not rushed. More than a year in the Iraqi courts does not justify a calling this a rushed punishment. A rushed puinshment would have had him committing "suicide" in his cell under US protection. A rushed punishment would have had him killed trying to "escape". A rushed punishment would have had executed in that hole in the ground the day that troops found him.
Now the question that remains, still unanswered, what would be the appropriate punishment for a man of Saadam's stature?
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodA) I guess you're right. His version of the Iraqi government would've seen him tortured for the rest of his life.
a) he didn't design that government, the american gov did.
b) he did have it coming, which doesn't change the fact that killing a human being is wrong. it's wrong when saddam does it, it's just as wrong when his executioner does it. if there was any logic to it, by induction the executioner should be killed too, then his executioner, then his etc. his head would've been cut off and put on a spike in front of the white house. barbaric.
B) Here's my take on the death penalty: I think that the majority of murderers should not get the death penalty, despite the fact that my brother was murdered. For a long time, I held a lot of resentment, and was very pro-capital punishment. However, the murderer has a family too, that probably had nothing to do with it. So they're just as innocent as I was, and there's absolutely no need to put them through what I went through. However, I think there's a certain point where justice for many, many families outweighs the other family. And the other family has already had their revenge on all the victims' families. Also, in cases where the murderer is hardly human anymore (example: Jeffrey Dahmer), or in particularly heinous crimes, I think my tax dollars shouldn't be paying to keep them alive.
C) What a ridiculous belief.
Edit: Great post zakkwylder.
1 edit
Originally posted by KJCavalierYou yourself said it was justified, yet you ask what the appropriate punishment would be? I think you're a bit confused.
My opinion, Death to Saddam was justified, and certainly not rushed. More than a year in the Iraqi courts does not justify a calling this a rushed punishment. A rushed puinshment would have had him committing "suicide" in his cell under US protection. A rushed punishment would have had him killed trying to "escape". A rushed punishment would have had execu ...[text shortened]... ains, still unanswered, what would be the appropriate punishment for a man of Saadam's stature?
Regardless of whether or not Saddam had WOMD, he was a tyrant who did nothing but oppress his people(yet many Iraqis celebrated him for it. Like a twisted version of Stockholme's syndrome or something). That alone justifies his punishment. And if you want to look at it objectively, he was old anyways. Probably would have gone some time in the next few years, why delay the inevitable?
2 edits
Originally posted by zakkwylderZakk I think we are on the same side of the coin here.
You yourself said it was justified, yet you ask what the appropriate punishment would be? I think you're a bit confused.
Regardless of whether or not Saddam had WOMD, he was a tyrant who did nothing but oppress his people(yet many Iraqis celebrated him for it. Like a twisted version of Stockholme's syndrome or something). That alone justifies his punis ...[text shortened]... d anyways. Probably would have gone some time in the next few years, why delay the inevitable?
Maybe what I should have said was, For those who think the death penalty to barbaric for a civilized world, what would be the appropriate punishment?
EDIT: I agree with your posts and recced!
Originally posted by KJCavalierSlice the end of his skin off and drop the remaining into salt... pref toxic sea salt. Let it rest there till it turns green and instead of being kind and slicing the rest off, just do the same to his hands and his nose... and let it slowly spread to his brain. Intravenously feed the fkr and that could actually last 3 yrs. That's what they could have done. But no... just hang him. And now they are looking for Al Quaida?
Zakk I think we are on the same side of the coin here.
Maybe what I should have said was, For those who think the death penalty to barbaric for a civilized world, what would be the appropriate punishment?
quote ' We shall smoke him out!"
Yup right!
Like I said, he should have been made to pay.
But He is paying of course. $23 billion has been lifted from his bank accounts........ to where? Bush administration of course. You pat my back and I'll pat yours..
Originally posted by mikelomTorture, oh yeah, civilized.
Slice the end of his skin off and drop the remaining into salt... pref toxic sea salt. Let it rest there till it turns green and instead of being kind and slicing the rest off, just do the same to his hands and his nose... and let it slowly spread to his brain. Intravenously feed the fkr and that could actually last 3 yrs. That's what they could have done. B ...[text shortened]... counts........ to where? Bush administration of course. You pat my back and I'll pat yours..
But since that was obvious sarcasm, Payment. How much money would it take to make it alright for the untold deaths he caused?
Now since he couldn't give me enough money to help me with the loss of a dog, let alone a family member or loved one, I don't think this would be punishment enough either.
A suggestion you made started off right I suppose, but with such a great bout a=of sarcasm to really make it an unfitting response. I asked a sincere question. Give me something that will give me reason to pause and think. The best one given is so one sided and anti-Bush that it doesn't answer the question.
Originally posted by KJCavalierAs far as I'm concerned, the economics argument is a simplistic self-justification of the desire for revenge.
Personally I think you the nail on the head with your response.
......................
Now the question that remains, still unanswered, what would be the appropriate punishment for a man of Saadam's stature?
But let's get on to your question. You've captured the leader and henchmen of a repressive and deadly regime which was overthrown by force. The people of the country are by and large not your enemies. As the "international" occupying force what do you do?
Exile as with Napoleon? A Nuremberg trial as with Nazi Germany? Never mind the fact that this leader did not go out and pick a fight with the rest of the world. Your options are to let him go, exile, just lock him up without trial, summary execution, or trial followed by some sort of punishment such as execution or incarceration. Your last option is none of the above - just hand him over to the civilian government you put into place and let them worry about it.
This is a sorry and unenviable situation for the new government. Exile's a possibility - but he's still got significant internal support - or permanent house (or palace) arrest but he would never agree to any terms and conditions for such a deal. Jail without trial or even execution are out of the question. So it can only be a trail in which execution is the worst of all possible worlds. By my logic, incarceration is the only viable punishment. And you get to maintain the moral high ground.
Originally posted by buffalobillWell thought out. Just want to point out a couple spots.
As far as I'm concerned, the economics argument is a simplistic self-justification of the desire for revenge.
But let's get on to your question. You've captured the leader and henchmen of a repressive and deadly regime which was overthrown by force. The people of the country are by and large not your enemies. As the "international" occupying force wha ...[text shortened]... carceration is the only viable punishment. And you get to maintain the moral high ground.
The Iran/Iraq war. I'm not really sure who started it.
The invasion of Kuwait. The cause of the first Gulf war.
I don't think that incarceration would really work out for the government or its people for this part of the world, (I'm no scholar on middle eastern affairs), but capitol punishment seems to be a major part of punishment.)
While studies have shown that its cheaper to keep someone in prison (in the USA) than to go through the process of court battles, appeal after appeal after appeal to keep an inmate from being executed. It doesn't appear (please someone correct me if I am wrong here) to be a system of appeals in Iraq to the extent they have in USA, so I can't imagine it being cheaper than a rope and a trap door.
Is there any way to take a person of this stature and have them be a productive member of society, no matter what the productivity may be? For instance, chain-gangs (well used in the southern states). work off his debt rebuilding what has been destroyed?
Originally posted by zakkwylderThere are and have been many tyrants, dictators and mass murderers. Your logic is highly selective and lacking in principles.
Regardless of whether or not Saddam had WOMD, he was a tyrant who did nothing but oppress his people(yet many Iraqis celebrated him for it. Like a twisted version of Stockholme's syndrome or something). That alone justifies his punishment. And if you want to look at it objectively, he was old anyways. Probably would have gone some time in the next few years, why delay the inevitable?