Bye-bye Saddam...

[IDMclean]

I think the greatest punishment that can be leveled against any individual is their own conscience. Death is a release from the prison of the flesh. For someone like Saddam all you do is let him off by killing him. All who live, perish. So what's the punishment in making it early? In justifying his life's murders? Why kill him when we have him, and can throw him in a 15 X 15 cell and feed him, clothe him and make sure he gets plenty of exercise.

 

Be the nicest people to such a poor and fragmented individual such as him. Teach him morality, show him true justice. Make him an equal to every man, woman, and child on earth. Bring him before trial for his crimes against humanity. Let him hear and see the tesitmony of those he has harmed, and wronged. Inform him, in a very indepth, thourgh way, of what exactly he has done, and what his legacy will be.

 

Why not give him a new perspective, educate him, and then have him review his own wrongs?

 

We need do nothing to punish such a person, other than to teach him right from wrong, he will do the rest.

[maikeru]

I think the greatest punishment that can be leveled against any individual is their own conscience. Death is a release from the prison of the flesh.

 

This assumes that Saddam has a conscience, which I don't think he does. He seems a textbook example of a psychopath, without empathy or remorse for others.

[Michaelangelica]

The US has been steadily processing people out of Gitmo, as you are well aware. And the US has been working on the legal framework for trying people at Gitmo, as you are well aware. Why don't you bring your comments to a thread where they belong.

 

Bill

Your words, not mine.

What is good for the goose is also good for the gander

 

David Hicks has been "steadly processed" for over 5 years now

[TheFaithfulStone]

The contrast between the process they used with him; totally transparent public trial versus his death squads in the night. Access to appeals. Access to defense. Ability to speak in his own defense and call witnesses.

 

I think the point that Michealangelica was trying to make was that prisoners at Gitmo don't have those things, as you are well aware. ;)

 

And that the Iraqis can give one of the most evil men alive a fairer trial than we can give to Osama's driver, as you are well aware.

 

TFS

[IDMclean]

This assumes that Saddam has a conscience, which I don't think he does. He seems a textbook example of a psychopath, without empathy or remorse for others.

 

I don't assume anything. He is human, that is a fact. He shows affect. He has behaviors, and as his life time of self grandification shows, he has an ego and a self. He has identity and he has desire.

 

He may trivialize the killing of others, but it none the less it is there, on his mind. The trick is then to get him to recognize and acknowledge it. Once you do that, the next trick is to get him to realize what he has done is wrong. Could take a life time to teach something like that, but then again we do have him for that long, now don't we? After that, we just sit back and let him work it out.

[Boerseun]

Once you do that, the next trick is to get him to realize what he has done is wrong. Could take a life time to teach something like that, but then again we do have him for that long, now don't we? After that, we just sit back and let him work it out.

I think trying to rehabilitate someone like Saddam is a waste of time. He killed a lot of people, is guilty of a lot of attrocities, as far as I'm concerned he has disqualified himself as a human being, and the rest of humanity shouldn't bother to worry about his 'soul', or whatever it is you have to rehabilitate.

 

What I'm arguing, is that we have to keep him alive. We can lock hom butt-naked in a pitch-black cell with stale bread and dirty water as his only fare. And we only need to open the cell every now and then when we need some new insight in some or other question about Iraq under his rule. And then we can inject him with some truth serum, seeing as he disqualified himself as a human, he forfeited any human rights to be respected, in his case.

 

But don't kill his *** - you'll be wasting a valuable resource.

And don't try to rehabilitate him, you'll waste your time.

[CraigD]

What I'm arguing, is that we have to keep him alive. We can lock hom butt-naked in a pitch-black cell with stale bread and dirty water as his only fare. And we only need to open the cell every now and then when we need some new insight in some or other question about Iraq under his rule. And then we can inject him with some truth serum, seeing as he disqualified himself as a human, he forfeited any human rights to be respected, in his case.

But then, “we” would, by nearly every treaty, national, and international law, be guilty of crimes against humanity. It’s simply illegal and indecent to lock anyone naked in a cell, opening it only to question them with drugs. Although international law and the law of many states allows crimes to be punished by execution, they don’t not allow an individual or group of human beings to “forfeit any (all) human rights”.

But don't kill his *** - you'll be wasting a valuable resource.

Saddam knew a lot about an government, military, and intelligence netword that no longer exists, with which he’s not had contact for over 3 years, of which many people who collectively knew more have willingly provided detailed information. Unless one considers Saddam to be a valuable literary asset :esmoking: or intend to allow use him as a political figurehead, it’s difficult to imagine how he could be considered valuable.

[Boerseun]

But then, “we” would, by nearly every treaty, national, and international law, be guilty of crimes against humanity. It’s simply illegal and indecent to lock anyone naked in a cell, opening it only to question them with drugs. Although international law and the law of many states allows crimes to be punished by execution, they don’t not allow an individual or group of human beings to “forfeit any (all) human rights”.

So there's a shortcoming in international law. Let's fix it!

Saddam knew a lot about an government, military, and intelligence netword that no longer exists, with which he’s not had contact for over 3 years, of which many people who collectively knew more have willingly provided detailed information. Unless one considers Saddam to be a valuable literary asset :esmoking: or intend to allow use him as a political figurehead, it’s difficult to imagine how he could be considered valuable.

If you read my earlier posts in this thread, you'll see what I mean with him being valuable. There's no way he could inform you about anything going on currently, but from a historical perspective, he's da man.

 

Sixty-odd years ago, I would have petitioned for the sparing of the lives of the nazis at Nuremburg, for this same reason. Imagine historians having had access to those guys in the decades following the war. How much clearer would our knowledge of the details of the War be, as opposed to now, where history was written exclusively by the victors?

 

Kill Saddam, and lose a good historical resource.:esmoking:

[CraigD]

But then, “we” would, by nearly every treaty, national, and international law, be guilty of crimes against humanity. It’s simply illegal and indecent to lock anyone naked in a cell, opening it only to question them with drugs. Although international law and the law of many states allows crimes to be punished by execution, they don’t not allow an individual or group of human beings to “forfeit any (all) human rights”.

So there's a shortcoming in international law. Let's fix it!

I don’t believe many laypeople or legal experts consider the lack of provisions to strip human beings of all human rights to be a shortcoming of international law, or the law of states, but rather a great and relatively recent achievement.

 

The idea of “fixing” law to legitimizing defining people as subhuman is, IMHO, a very bad and dangerous one. It has been used to legitimize slavery, large-scale genocide, the involuntary sterilization and execution of the physically and mentally handicapped, and other acts now widely considered atrocities. Although one can argue that cruel and unusual punishments would be applicable only to specific crimes, such as Saddam’s, history suggests that such limits rarely hold, and that, once accepted as legitimate for a particular crime, such a penalty will be applied to whatever crimes people in positions of power find convenient. For example, if Saddam deserves to perpetually tortured, why not child molesters? If child molesters, why not all registered sex offenders? Why not all homosexuals? Why not all people who refuse to support these policies? Rather than arguing from the fallacy of the slippery slope, I contend that permitting any punishment to violate any person’s basic human rights actually is a slippery slope.

 

Much as one might desire the historical and psychological insights that could be gained from it, I don’t believe these benefits justify the overturning of centuries of advance in government and law.

[Boerseun]

Craig, I think you're missing my point.

 

Executing someone for whatever reason, violates the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life. Regardless of how inhumane or monstrous the guy is, Capital Punishment is exactly the same thing, and cannot be condoned if you use Human Rights as your point of departure. And Human Rights cannot be used in defence of anything if you accept Capital Punishment. The two are mutually exclusive. You can defend Capital Punishement, but then Human Rights cannot be part of your argument toolbox. As simple as that.

 

The idea of “fixing” law to legitimizing defining people as subhuman is, IMHO, a very bad and dangerous one.

Almost like Gitmo. Hold the suspects offshore, and deny them due process because of laws being geographically bound. THAT is a slippery slope, my friend.

[IDMclean]

He killed a lot of people, is guilty of a lot of attrocities, as far as I'm concerned he has disqualified himself as a human being, and the rest of humanity shouldn't bother to worry about his 'soul', or whatever it is you have to rehabilitate.

 

This was his exact stance regarding the Kurds and their persicution, an atrocity that is held as one of his greatest.

 

Now, as for Soul? I don't want to save something which, in my view, does not exist. I want him to suffer. However I know of only one humaine way to cause that suffering. His conscious. I agree with letting him sit in a cell for the rest of his life. However I do not agree with putting him at sub-par conditions. I infact say we meet his needs. Three square, an adequate place to sleep, medical treatment when he needs it, plenty of exercise and lots of therapy.

 

I say let us be the example, he never was. Show him humane treatment, make a show of it. Not to directly benefit him, but to show the world how to properly conduct imprisionment and moral alternatives to the death penalty.

 

Document it, during his sessions with the psychologist gain insight, interview him. I bet you would have psychologist lining up to examine, and treat him. Real look into a true dictators headspace. What motivates them, what shapes them. Enough subject matter there to write at least a few books about.

 

I agree that he has forfeited his claim to freedom, and that his rights should be severely restricted. However I don't condone further violence against a now defenseless man.

 

The only way to show the world how you should act, is to be an example.

 

An eye for an eye, would make the whole world blind. As Gandhi would say.

[Boerseun]

An eye for an eye, would make the whole world blind. As Gandhi would say.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed guy is, in fact, not king. He's a freak of nature, a guy walking around "seeing" things. What's this "seeing" he keeps on raving about? I say we should lock him up and throw away the key, he's clearly crazy, and a danger to society. "Seeing"? Bah! Extrasensory perception is a load of baloney!

 

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed guy's a freak.

 

But I digress...

 

I agree, if anyone moans about the cost of keeping Saddam alive, I'm sure universities, historians and psychologists would gladly contribute to a fund if they can get the opportunity to interview him. And me saying we can throw him butt-naked into a hole wasn't to be taken literally, it was just to shut up those who say we should kill him because he was such a monster. We can do pretty much what we want with him, and naked in a hole was just an example of that. But we won't, because we're civilized, decent human beings. We won't lower ourselves to his standards. But whatever we do, we shouldn't kill him.

 

(And by saying 'we', I mean us as humans. He's obviously in Iraqi captivity, and we don't have much of a say about it if we claim to respect other countries sovereignty...)

[Michaelangelica]

But then, “we” would, by nearly every treaty, national, and international law, be guilty of crimes against humanity.

It’s simply illegal and indecent to lock anyone naked in a cell, opening it only to question them with drugs. .

" We" are already guilty of crimes against humanity.

One of the reasons we have Islamic terrorists. They can't tolerate our hypocrisy. Talking democracy and practicing tyranny.

Human rights have been totally disregarded at Guantanamo Bay and other US jails

David Hicks has been awaiting his trial for five years. He has been tortured with sensory deprivation and now lives alone in a small cell 22-23 hours a day.

In Australia he would be a free man as under our law he has not committed any crime.

Today the leaders (AGs) of all Australian States called for his release

[Qfwfq]

I'm against the DP in general, but I'm not the Iraqi legislative and I can't presume to dictate any more than Bush or Blair should. All we can do is voice our opinions. I wouldn't advise Iraqis to execute him at all, but it's very hard to prevent a people from wanting to kill their dictator when they finally can.

 

Saddam Hussein was perfectly aware of what he did, there's absolutely no point in "teaching" him right from wrong. He should spend the rest of his days in a cell, but so should several other people that were backing him in past times. His mistake really was that of chewing up his leash and defying his masters and thinking he could still get away with it. BTW, who was the first politician to gas the Kurds? I mean, gosh, don't uncivilized tribes deserve to be gassed? (and more...) :teeth:

[IDMclean]

Saddam Hussein was perfectly aware of what he did

 

I don't dispute that. I would dispute his understanding of the morality of his actions. If he was aware of the morality of it, I don't think he would have done it. Like any abused, mentally messed up human, his sense of morality is ofcourse going to be off.

 

He should spend the rest of his days in a cell, but so should several other people that were backing him in past times. His mistake really was that of chewing up his leash and defying his masters and thinking he could still get away with it. BTW, who was the first politician to gas the Kurds? I mean, gosh, don't uncivilized tribes deserve to be gassed? (and more...)

 

This I also do not dispute. However it does not detract from the fact that he has acted as a monsterous child. However, monsterous acts do not create of a man, a monster. A sentient being is a sentient being until the end of their days.

 

My arguement is that, though many are dead because of him, nothing can be done to bring them back. Anykind of retribution, besides confinement, safely away from the rest of society, is pointless. It does not lessen what he did, and it will not fix anything. What will have impact is treating him fairly, and with the pity that such a deranged individual deserves. He should not have our indignate sense of vengence, but our compassion.

 

It's not about who's bigger and badder. It's not about what was done, it's about what is being done here and now, and will be done in the future. It serves no purpose to kill him off, or torture or otherwise cause him harm, other than to validate his use of immoral action.

 

Really it's not about him and his actions. It's about us and our actions. An old phrase comes to mind here.

 

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

 

We can not righteously judge him, if we ourselves are immoral in our considerations, and actions.

[Cedars]

Slightly off topic but then again...

 

I wonder if they will televise saddams execution and how long before its on Utube.

 

His final donation to the accuracy of history....

[CraigD]

Executing someone for whatever reason, violates the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life. Regardless of how inhumane or monstrous the guy is, Capital Punishment is exactly the same thing, and cannot be condoned if you use Human Rights as your point of departure. And Human Rights cannot be used in defence of anything if you accept Capital Punishment. The two are mutually exclusive. You can defend Capital Punishement, but then Human Rights cannot be part of your argument toolbox. As simple as that.[/Quote]Personally, I agree, and believe that, as human civilization advances, capital punishment will pass out of law.

 

However, the argument that torture and execution are equal violations of basic human rights is, I think, disingenuous. While I may disapprove of a government that permits capital punishment, I disapprove more of one that permits prolonged torture, of which I consider incarceration in inhumane conditions to be a form. In promoting the advancement of civilization from societies where people of a particular group can be confined, compelled, and even killed without cause or repercussion by another (eg: medieval Europe) to one in which no person or government can legally deprived a person of life, it’s necessary, I think, to acknowledge that a government that executes people, but only after following due legal process, is a step in the right direction from one where people are detained and killed without due process. One cannot jump from the dark extreme to the light without passing through a large territory of grey.

 

A weird thing is happening in this thread – Boerseun appears to argue in favor of torture (or whatever term one would apply to imprisoning someone naked in the dark, punctuated only by drugged questioning sessions). In response, I appear to arguing for the state execution of a human being. I’m fairly sure neither of us actually supports our own position!

The idea of “fixing” law to legitimizing defining people as subhuman is, IMHO, a very bad and dangerous one.[/Quote]Almost like Gitmo. Hold the suspects offshore, and deny them due process because of laws being geographically bound. THAT is a slippery slope, my friend.[/Quote]I wholeheartedly agree. It’s my great hope that America’s political system is recovering from one of its periods of imbalance, that the excesses of its Executive branch will soon be set right, and all of the current inmates of GITMO and other US controlled or supported prisons will be returned to their appropriate civilian jurisdictions, where those against whom a case meeting the jurisdictions standards of proof cannot be met will be set free.

 

Some people freed by this process will almost certainly attack and kill Americans and other people. The claim, however, that Americans would rather be safe against such attacks than see our own Constitutional principles upheld and applied to people of all countries is, I think, false. America remains, I believe, a country of people who are willing to die, if necessary, for principles.