Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death, after a court found him guilty of crimes against humanity for ordering killings in the town of Dujail in 1982.

Guards led Saddam away after he shouted "long live Iraq, long live the nation" in response to the verdict.

Iraq's former Chief Justice, Awad Hamad al-Bandar, was also sentenced to death by hanging for presiding over hearings that ordered the killings of about 150 people in Dujail. Saddam's half-brother Barzan Ibrahim, was another sentenced to death.

Saddam's former vice-president, Taha Yassin Ramadan was sentenced to life in jail.

Other defendants who were tried with Saddam also appeared before the verdict hearing.

The first, a minor Ba'ath party official, was acquitted. Three others were then sentenced to jail terms of at least 15 years.

Some of the tightest security ever seen in Iraq has been put in place for the hearing, after supporters of Saddam threatened bloodshed if he was sentenced to death.

Soon after the verdict was announced, Sky News reported a machine-gun battle broke out in northern Baghdad between police and unidentified gunmen. However, the Associated Press reported celebratory gunfire across Baghdad.

A panel of appeal judges will now review the death sentence against Saddam. If no grounds to appeal the decision are found, the former dictator may be executed within 30 days.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/061105/23/11b22.html

Meh. Not exactly a shock. The verdict was a foregone conclusion.

At least his trial and everything is over now.srug

I think this was the obvious out come ...i think if he was sentenced to anything other that people would of thought it was a conspiracy or something

Originally posted by ladygrim
I think this was the obvious out come ...i think if he was sentenced to anything other that people would of thought it was a conspiracy or something

Of course

I am happy he is sentenced to death.

There was this really funny MAD comic, where it says, "Sadam's favorite methods of death." And it shows all these people being tortured to death, and then you see him in a courtroom saying, "Uh.... shooting team?"

You don't find that funny?

Bunch of Saddam Husseins are sentencing a Saddam Hussein to death. Nice.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Bunch of Saddam Husseins are sentencing a Saddam Hussein to death. Nice.

My thoughts as well. Maybe not as radical. But still, it has this weird..lets kill a killer and feel good about ourselves anyways feeling to it, doesn't it?

Oh great now they gonna make a Martyr outta him. Thats gonna make him just as powerful after death as he was in life.

They should have left him to rot in a prison somewhere.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Bunch of Saddam Husseins are sentencing a Saddam Hussein to death. Nice.

No kidding.

The American lust for blood continues. Bush thinks he is God and can ordain a man's time to die.

CONGRATULATIONS AMERICA FOR STNADING UP WHAT SADDAM HUSSEIN STOOD FOR! I HOPE HIS LAGACY LIVES ON!

This was done in an Iraqi court, if people are implying that Americans gave the verdict. The judge was also an Iraqi citizen.

Yes...and there was NO American influence in the trial!?!

How many times were judges changed?

Why was there no international supervision?

This is just one of Stalin's showtrials.

Oh sorry, are we hating on the US? I though we just didn't like the death penalty.

We the US is still barbaric enough to allow capital punishment. However, in both my states, it has been permenantly and temporarily restricted.

Hooray for Federalism.

Hell, until four years ago Texas was executing the mentally retarded.

Originally posted by Alliance
We the US is still barbaric enough to allow capital punishment. However, in both my states, it has been permenantly and temporarily restricted.

Hooray for Federalism.

Hell, until four years ago Texas was executing the mentally retarded.

Well, better mentally retarded than real humans, right? ....right?

Yeah. How else are we going to cleanse society? Hitler had it right man.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yeah. How else are we going to cleanse society? Hitler had it right man.

Hitler had the right idea. He was just an underachiever. Kill them all. Kill them all Bill Hicks says.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Bunch of Saddam Husseins are sentencing a Saddam Hussein to death. Nice.

.......in a nutshell, yes.

Big surprise.... They could have just skipped the whole trial and started with the executing part.. It's not like it was a fair trial. Judges leaving, Saddam's lawyers being killed, prosecutors to scared to continue. Worthless trial which ended with an obvious conclusion.

Originally posted by Alliance
This is just one of Stalin's showtrials.

Funny, they incidentally forgot to add they're gonna hang him.

dance
dancedance
dancedancedancewoohoo!

This is barbaric.

http://www.theproblemsite.com/hangman/images/hangman_hung.gif

To deny the death penalty for such a horrible monster is to say "You are human but your victems obviously weren't". Happens in Europe all the time.

Originally posted by Da preacher
This is barbaric.

Its Bush. Haven't you caught on yet? You've had SIX YEARS!

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
To deny the death penalty for such a horrible monster is to say "You are human but your victems obviously weren't". Happens in Europe all the time.

...what? That is the most stupid thing I read all week. I mean....wow....screamed "Heil Hitler" lately?

Originally posted by Bardock42
...what? That is the most stupid thing I read all week. I mean....wow....screamed "Heil Hitler" lately?

so true.

Originally posted by fini
Oh great now they gonna make a Martyr outta him. Thats gonna make him just as powerful after death as he was in life.

They should have left him to rot in a prison somewhere. No way. I disagree with that. Really, hussein is not as big as he was and when he dies, everyone will forget about him. Trust me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...what? That is the most stupid thing I read all week. I mean....wow....screamed "Heil Hitler" lately?

Oh cut the &^%&*( crap. The death penalty is a fair and just punishment for murder, and most certainly for someone like Saddam Hussein. Europe routinely lets brutal killers out of prison after a few years because to keep them in any longer would "be against human dignity". You might as well take a shit on the victems graves, it's the same thing.

^^^True.

Im not saying that if youre trying to defend hussien is wrong or anything but its kinda idiotic to do so since theres already alot of evidence of his crimes against humanity in Iraq and other parts in the world.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Oh cut the &^%&*( crap. The death penalty is a fair and just punishment for murder, and most certainly for someone like Saddam Hussein. Europe routinely lets brutal killers out of prison after a few years because to keep them in any longer would "be against human dignity". You might as well take a shit on the victems graves, it's the same thing.

Wait? How is killing another any better than the crime?

And they're HANGING him for christ sake. The Guillotine is a more advanced form of punishment. Stoning him to death is the only thing more barbaric.

This is a fricking Stalinistic showtrial with Bush parading Saddam out to be hung in front of thousands just so Bush can get a good press picture.

Its animalistic.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Oh cut the &^%&*( crap. The death penalty is a fair and just punishment for murder, and most certainly for someone like Saddam Hussein. Europe routinely lets brutal killers out of prison after a few years because to keep them in any longer would "be against human dignity". You might as well take a shit on the victems graves, it's the same thing.

I have these days, when I think Death penalties are alright..cause people suck anyways..and we would have less criminals if we kill everyone that breaks the law...on other days I see the hypocrisy in killing someone because they killed someone and my conscience decides to disagree with it...well, today I have one of the clear moments. The death penalty is hypocritical. We shouldn't enforce it and than pretend to be all better than the person we killed.

Originally posted by Alliance
Wait? How is killing another any better than the crime?

And they're HANGING him for christ sake. The Guillotine is a more advanced form of punishment. Stoning him to death is the only thing more barbaric.

This is a fricking Stalinistic showtrial with Bush parading Saddam out to be hung in front of thousands just so Bush can get a good press picture.

Its animalistic.

****ing right it is. Get me a bowl of popcorn and a front row seat. It's not as kickass as the Gladiators in the Colosseum, but it'll do for a good hour or so.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
****ing right it is. Get me a bowl of popcorn and a front row seat. It's not as kickass as the Gladiators in the Colosseum, but it'll do for a good hour or so.

See, that I like...he sees that he is a hypocritical ****, but at least he admits it.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
****ing right it is. Get me a bowl of popcorn and a front row seat. It's not as kickass as the Gladiators in the Colosseum, but it'll do for a good hour or so.

Professional Gladiators did NOT fight for capital punishment. Executions were seperate from the games.

Ignorance!

You are Saddam. I know it.

He should have to with through prison. A prison filled with sex starved Lepers.

Originally posted by Alliance
Wait? How is killing another any better than the crime?

And they're HANGING him for christ sake. The Guillotine is a more advanced form of punishment. Stoning him to death is the only thing more barbaric.

This is a fricking Stalinistic showtrial with Bush parading Saddam out to be hung in front of thousands just so Bush can get a good press picture.

Its animalistic. Should I say "O rly?" or "R u Shur?"

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Oh cut the &^%&*( crap. The death penalty is a fair and just punishment for murder, and most certainly for someone like Saddam Hussein. Europe routinely lets brutal killers out of prison after a few years because to keep them in any longer would "be against human dignity". You might as well take a shit on the victems graves, it's the same thing.

You're funny...

Brutal murderers often face penalty's like life. Which in this country at least actually means life. Also Europe isn't one country, the laws are different in the country's in Europe and even in the EU they are completely different meaning the penalty's for crimes are also different. A murderer in this country for instance can get 4 years for murder, that is true. But they have to go to an asylum after that.

Which often means that they can stay in there for the rest of their lives, or at least a very large part of it.

Now the death penalty in some cases is deserved. But then what if people are innocent? Innocent people are still being executed today even in the US, because the criminal justice system isn't fool proof. Besides killing people is seen as inhumane and is against the laws of humanity. So it would be a bit hypocritical if we would kill people for committing crimes against humanity then now wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
He should have to with through prison. A prison filled with sex starved Lepers.

Sounds pretty babaric to me as well.

Revenge is such an idiotic idea.

Originally posted by Alliance
Wait? How is killing another any better than the crime?

And they're HANGING him for christ sake. The Guillotine is a more advanced form of punishment. Stoning him to death is the only thing more barbaric.

This is a fricking Stalinistic showtrial with Bush parading Saddam out to be hung in front of thousands just so Bush can get a good press picture.

Its animalistic.

You're obviously forgetting his victems. Why is there always sympathy for the killer (or in this case the initiator of) but never for the victems? You people make me sick.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
You're obviously forgetting his victems. Why is there always sympathy for the killer (or in this case the initiator of) but never for the victems? You people make me sick.

They're dead, who cares....

But seriously killing somebody because he killed somebody won't make those people get back, it's just a hypocritical way of punishing people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sounds pretty babaric to me as well.

Revenge is such an idiotic idea.

Eh. He slightly deserves it.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
You're obviously forgetting his victems. Why is there always sympathy for the killer (or in this case the initiator of) but never for the victems? You people make me sick.

No, we are not forgetting his victims.

His victis are either dead in which case they have no need for him to be killed or they are now rid of him, but why should they (or anyone for that matter) now have the right to make him a victim of theirs?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sounds pretty babaric to me as well.

Revenge is such an idiotic idea.

Ok I have it, Let's set Saddam up with a new life in the US, apologize to him for his past few years in confinment (obviously too harsh a punishment for genocide), give him a free condo in Malibu and a new Lexus. While we're at it let's let all the worlds violent criminals out of prison and give them our children to rape.

Jesus H fukking Christ, with attitudes like yours not wonder the world is fukked up.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Eh. He slightly deserves it.

I am not the one to judge that. I think I have no right to torture anyone beyond what is necessary to keep society safe. To kill him is just taking more rights than anyone should have.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Ok I have it, Let's set Saddam up with a new life in the US, apologize to him for his past few years in confinment (obviously too harsh a punishment for genocide), give him a free condo in Malibu and a new Lexus. While we're at it let's let all the worlds violent criminals out of prison and give them our children to rape.

Jesus H fukking Christ, with attitudes like yours not wonder the world is fukked up.

Well, if it stops him from harming people I would not see a problem with that at all.

And, no, the world is certainly ****ed because of people like me...actually last I checked the US was lead by some ****head who totally digs killing off criminals...you'd probably like him, you seem to share the fascist believes.

Originally posted by Fishy
They're dead, who cares....



Exactly, who cares. And when someone murders your family I'll have a drink and say, "oh well, just some more European trash, who cares"

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not the one to judge that. I think I have no right to torture anyone beyond what is necessary to keep society safe. To kill him is just taking more rights than anyone should have.

That's why I say send him to a Leper colony; I'm not killing him, a disease is doing my work for me. I'm completely devoid of blame.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
That's why I say send him to a Leper colony; I'm not killing him, a disease is doing my work for me. I'm completely devoid of blame.

Yeah, or lets throw him down a cliff...we are completely innocent..gravity killed him.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Exactly, who cares. And when someone murders your family I'll have a drink and say, "oh well, just some more European trash, who cares"

Accepted. Although I would like if you'd not call them trash, but that's up to you as well. You are not very reasonable, are you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, if it stops him from harming people I would not see a problem with that at all.

And, no, the world is certainly ****ed because of people like me...actually last I checked the US was lead by some ****head who totally digs killing off criminals...you'd probably like him, you seem to share the fascist believes.



No, I'm not a fascist nor do I care for Bush, but with attitudes like yours I could support genocide, as long as it only happened to people like you.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
You're obviously forgetting his victems. Why is there always sympathy for the killer (or in this case the initiator of) but never for the victems? You people make me sick.

No I am not and its disgusting for you to say so.

Killing Saddam does not solve the problem, it does not bring these people back. If killing Saddam would right wrongs, I'd be all for it, but its just another wrong thrown onto a huge pile. Killing Saddam does not bring peace, only lust, greed and thirst for blood.

Saddam is a vile thing, but if you sink to his level, and you execute him(not even bringing up the public and barbaric method of execution) you become him. You stand for everything Saddam did. I do not.

I'm on the right side the anti-Saddam side. You two would get along great killing people.

Originally posted by Bardock42




You are not very reasonable, are you?


Look who's talking.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
No, I'm not a fascist nor do I care for Bush, but with attitudes like yours I could support genocide, as long as it only happened to people like you.

Hmm, yeah, that's what Hitler thought. Just with Jews, not people like me.

You don't see what an unbelievable hypocrite you are, do you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, or lets throw him down a cliff...we are completely innocent..gravity killed him.

Yup.



So do you want to kill German people or intelligent people?

Originally posted by Alliance
No I am not and its disgusting for you to say so.

Killing Saddam does not solve the problem, it does not bring these people back. If killing Saddam would right wrongs, I'd be all for it, but its just another wrong thrown onto a huge pile. Killing Saddam does not bring peace, only lust, greed and thirst for blood.

Saddam is a vile thing, but if you sink to his level, and you execute him(not even bringing up the public and barbaric method of execution) you become him. You stand for everything Saddam did. I do not.

I'm on the right side the anti-Saddam side. You two would get along great killing people.


No, you peice of excrement. He killed anyone and everyone who he saw as a threat to his power. I only support the lawful execution of barbaric killers after a trial. There's a HUGE difference.

Explain how killing is not killing?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yup.



So do you want to kill German people or intelligent people?


Neither, only people who think a slap on the wrist is sufficient punishment for murder or genocide.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
No, you peice of excrement. He killed anyone and everyone who he saw as a threat to his power. I only support the lawful execution of barbaric killers after a trial. There's a HUGE difference.

He was the law in that country. It certainly was just as lawful as this trial.

You support killing people because they killed people. That is what it comes down to.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
No, you peice of excrement.

He killed anyone and everyone who he saw as a threat to his power. I only support the lawful execution of barbaric killers after a trial. There's a HUGE difference.

Why are you throwing around insults?

Actually, you missed Alliance's point.




So you want to commit genlcide against others because they don't believe in the same thing as you. Didn't Saddam do that too?

Originally posted by Bardock42
He was the law in that country. It certainly was just as lawful as this trial.

You support killing people because they killed people. That is what it comes down to.



Hence, you become the killer.

Originally posted by Alliance
Explain how killing is not killing?
I just did, but obviously you're too dense to understand it.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Exactly, who cares. And when someone murders your family I'll have a drink and say, "oh well, just some more European trash, who cares" Thats pretty much the thing others must think about. Saddam is a cold hearted evil person that shouldnt even be called a human. He gave up his humanity with crimes like this and he must die. Revenge? What revenge? Its punishment!!!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
He was the law in that country. It certainly was just as lawful as this trial.


Just as Hitler used to be the law in yours



You support killing people because they killed people. That is what it comes down to.

Now you get it

Originally posted by JacopeX
Thats pretty much the thing others must think about. Saddam is a cold hearted evil person that shouldnt even be called a human. He gave up his humanity with crimes like this and he must die. Revenge? What revenge? Its punishment!!!!

Its bloody revenge. Why should we emulate Saddam and kill people. Why should we give up our hummanity?

Originally posted by JacopeX
Thats pretty much the thing others must think about. Saddam is a cold hearted evil person that shouldnt even be called a human. He gave up his humanity with crimes like this and he must die. Revenge? What revenge? Its punishment!!!!

And the people, by killing him, do not "lose" their humanity? Why? Because you do not like their victim?

Also, I am not actually against capital punishment. As I said I can see that it is easy and useful...but a) it is often used for the wrong reasons and b) it is indeed quite hypocritical.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
I just did, but obviously you're too dense to understand it.

Well, i guess you have nothing further to state since you've resorted to insults. Since you can't back up your points any more, i guess your position has unraveled.

Originally posted by Alliance
Its bloody revenge. Why should we emulate Saddam and kill people. Why should we give up our hummanity?


Is it also revenge if we just lock him up because we felt he was wrong and yet he didn't, either way you can call punishment revenge, death penalty or life in prison.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus


Yes, just as Hitler used to be the law in my country. What is your point? Because you think the laws of your country are better than the laws of his country you can do the same things he did as long as it is accepted by your laws?

Point taken, but one solves the problem and the other solves the problem by supporting everything Saddam did.

Lock him up, throw away the key and let him rot himself to death. But DON'T support his methods.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, just as Hitler used to be the law in my country. What is your point? Because you think the laws of your country are better than the laws of his country you can do the same things he did as long as it is accepted by your laws?

Originally posted by Soleran
Is it also revenge if we just lock him up because we felt he was wrong and yet he didn't, either way you can call punishment revenge, death penalty or life in prison.

That's what I mean. It is seen as punishment or revenge. That are (in my opinion) wrong reasons for laws. It should be to protect society from future crimes..which, I have to admit, is made sure with the death penalty. So if you can live with the blatant hypocrisy...that's fine...I just don't like people that talk like it is something he deserves for doing something and that they are so much better besides calling for his death.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And the people, by killing him, do not "lose" their humanity? Why? Because you do not like their victim?

Also, I am not actually against capital punishment. As I said I can see that it is easy and useful...but a) it is often used for the wrong reasons and b) it is indeed quite hypocritical. I guess you are one of those who are against it.

I belive that death sentence would be better than life. Killing is a crime period and you face serious punishment for that. Life sentence is not enough trust me. Theres people who deserve it, and the charges can even be very sick a brutal. You are being dolt by calling the US and the president barbaric when the killer himself is way more barbaric and killed many upon many people. Or youre eighter one of those who support the conspiracy behind the goverment!

Originally posted by JacopeX
I guess you are one of those who are against it.

I belive that death sentence would be better than life. Killing is a crime period and you face serious punishment for that. Life sentence is not enough trust me. Theres people who deserve it, and the charges can even be very sick a brutal. You are being dolt by calling the US and the president barbaric when the killer himself is way more barbaric and killed many upon many people. Or youre eighter one of those who support the conspiracy behind the goverment!

As I said. No. I am not against it per se. It is a useful tool. I am against a certain state of mind, people in favour of the death penalty have. Hmm, this reminds me of an argument I had about gun control, where I also argued the anti-gun side without being actually against access to guns..I think Soleran participated. I wonder if my opinions changed, I can't recall.

"Killing is a crime period and you face serious punishment for that"...I suppose that is the point. Is the death penalty not killing someone? Why is life sentence not enough. why should I trust you? What makes life sentence less of a useful punishment but without taking a life?


"You are being dolt by calling the US and the president barbaric when the killer himself is way more barbaric and killed many upon many people."

That is also and idiotic statement. I can't call a barbaric practice "barbaric" because there are even more barbaric practices? Come on now..just think that through once more.

I had pretty much forgotten about Hussein, really....

I thought the trial would go on until the end of time

I suppose that is the point. Is the death penalty not killing someone? Why is life sentence not enough. why should I trust you? What makes life sentence less of a useful punishment but without taking a life?


It's enough, just taxing on the government, which already has a bunch of druggies to deal with.

I have always been of the opinion that using the death penalty is people thinking that two wrongs make a right.

Originally posted by Lana
I have always been of the opinion that using the death penalty is people thinking that two wrongs make a right. same here

Good.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Good. And that should end the thread!

But its not.

Originally posted by JacopeX
And that should end the thread!

Then why did you post?

Why is it always people who say "Bring back hanging" who always say "Hangings too good for them"? I wish these people would make their right wing minds up.

who actually sentence leaders to their faith what if a court found GWB guilty of certain aspects would the sentence be followed

Indirectly GWB has probably been responsible for half as many deaths as Saddam. Maybe even as many. Watching the news tonight of the opening attack on Baghdad and wondered just how many people died for every explosion seen.

and what court judge leaders with even a sent of credibility

Originally posted by amity75
Indirectly GWB has probably been responsible for half as many deaths as Saddam. Maybe even as many. Watching the news tonight of the opening attack on Baghdad and wondered just how many people died for every explosion seen.
And Roosevelt was responsible for even more. Your point is?

Anyway, Bush did not carry out this trial. Bush did not sentence this man to death. Bush did not decide he was going to be hanged. Iraqi's did. Be angry at them. Not us. Despite what some people in the world may think, the US does not control EVERYTHING.

Originally posted by Kinneary
And Roosevelt was responsible for even more. Your point is?

Anyway, Bush did not carry out this trial. Bush did not sentence this man to death. Bush did not decide he was going to be hanged. Iraqi's did. Be angry at them. Not us. Despite what some people in the world may think, the US does not control EVERYTHING. And YOUR point is?

Stop. Blaming. Us.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Stop. Blaming. Us.

We had a discussion about the Death Penalty. No one blames "you".

Originally posted by Kinneary
Stop. Blaming. Us. I'm not blaming you or America. Fkn hell, I can just imagine turning on the news and seeing the newsreader saying "Kinneary was to blame for all the shit in the world today purely because he's American". Do you really think GWB gives a monkeys about the opinions of the American people?

It's about time.

Not that a trial was even needed.

A trial wasn't needed. But a showtrial was. With a verdict conveniently postponed to a few days before November midterms in which a party with a history of timing national security "events" to coincide with the political calendar stands to suffer defeat, by an independent judiciary with no ties to the U.S. administration, despite having U.S. advisers and trying Saddam under statutes that were drafted by the U.S.

Saddam could have been tried in the ICC, a permanent judiciary specifically for the trial of individuals for genocide and crimes against humanity. But he wasn't.

What other option to the Death Penalty is there that is effective?

THANK GOD THAT HE'S GOING TO GET HANGED! IT'S WHAT HE DESERVES FOR KILLING ALL THOSE PEOPLE ON 9/11! NOW HE WON'T BE ABLE TO KILL ANY MORE AMERICANS! GOD BLESS THE US!

Originally posted by Kinneary
And Roosevelt was responsible for even more. Your point is?

Anyway, Bush did not carry out this trial. Bush did not sentence this man to death. Bush did not decide he was going to be hanged. Iraqi's did. Be angry at them. Not us. Despite what some people in the world may think, the US does not control EVERYTHING.


And in what way was Roosevelt responsible for more deaths?

Originally posted by LuckyLover
What other option to the Death Penalty is there that is effective? Death by hanging only serves as a flashpoint to further escalate sectarian division between the Sunni and Shiite population.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Death by hanging only serves as a flashpoint to further escalate sectarian division between the Sunni and Shiite population.


Actually, just to be symantical, removing the lynch pin on the bag of shit that is current Iraq serves to further escelate the violence between the two. I wonder why Dubya senior didn't do it in '91?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Death by hanging only serves as a flashpoint to further escalate sectarian division between the Sunni and Shiite population.

What difference would it make if they gassed, shot or stoned him? He's still dead.

The emphasis was actually on the death sentence part rather than on the method employed.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The emphasis was actually on the death sentence part rather than on the method employed.

I see... They're going to war with each other regardless until one is a clear victor. So having Saddam swing from the gallows or be imprisoned for life won't make a difference or enough of a difference either way in the Shiite vs. Sunni conflict.

Originally posted by Robtard
I see... They're going to war with each other regardless until one is a clear victor. So having Saddam swing from the gallows or be imprisoned for life won't make a difference or enough of a difference either way in the Shiite vs. Sunni conflict.


No. The difference is the, as I said before, lynch pin on teh bag of shit. When you empty the garbage, do you spread it all over the floor before you pick it up and take it out? Because that's what Bush has done. He's spread shit all over the place and decided to tell you he's the only one that can protect you from teh smell. No one argues how great Saddam was. That's a strawman argument. But to remove him from power when he was the only one holding that region back from civil war is irresponsible. That's why Bush the First didn't do it in '91. He didn't want to have to clean it up. But, Bush teh second is only serving the interests of his bakers...who are profitting HUGELY from this war. And the best part about Bush 2 is that he's doesn't GIVE A SHIT! Soon, he'll be out of power and he and his friends will have made enough money to go out and get plastered on coke and booze and not give a shit. (that last line was a joke by the way....i support our troops) (okay, teh last two lines involved a joke....)

This all really goes back to the "what have Americans got to answer for?" thread. Or something like that. "why do you hate Americans", "why does america hate everyone else?" "Stop the Insanity!"...One of those threads.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No. The difference is the, as I said before, lynch pin on teh bag of shit. When you empty the garbage, do you spread it all over the floor before you pick it up and take it out? Because that's what Bush has done. He's spread shit all over the place and decided to tell you he's the only one that can protect you from teh smell. No one argues how great Saddam was. That's a strawman argument. But to remove him from power when he was the only one holding that region back from civil war is irresponsible. That's why Bush the First didn't do it in '91. He didn't want to have to clean it up. But, Bush teh second is only serving the interests of his bakers...who are profitting HUGELY from this war. And the best part about Bush 2 is that he's doesn't GIVE A SHIT! Soon, he'll be out of power and he and his friends will have made enough money to go out and get plastered on coke and booze and not give a shit. (that last line was a joke by the way....i support our troops) (okay, teh last two lines involved a joke....)

This all really goes back to the "what have Americans got to answer for?" thread. Or something like that. "why do you hate Americans", "why does america hate everyone else?" "Stop the Insanity!"...One of those threads.

My man, we're talking about the good vs. bad of killing Saddam, not if removing him from power was a wise move or not. What's done is done, so unless you're somehow implying that Saddam should be restored to power (which I do not think you are), your post is kinda irrelevant here.

Originally posted by Robtard
My man, we're talking about the good vs. bad of killing Saddam, not if removing him from power was a wise move or not. What's done is done, so unless you're somehow implying that Saddam should be restored to power (which I do not think you are), your post is kinda irrelevant here.


Then you are talking out of your ass. If George W Bush was willing to do what was needed in an area like Iraq, then our troops would have been in there with Napalm and machine guns, killing everybody. GB the First knew what would happen....so by your tactics, teh debate you mention is invalid!

As X said, a show trial was needed. Which is odd in my mind. Not because he didn't deserve a trial, but because this government has done away with them for everyone else. Why else would we (our representatives) be voting our president the authority to decide what is and is not torture...or how the geneva convention applies to our actions, etc? It's all just a show. In fact, a long time ago I mentioned that it was a travesty to even debate torturing someone in the year 2006. But that wasn't because i didn't think that people weren't being tortured! I think the revelation that torture sites and black prisions being revealed is a little too far towards those who want them to exist at all!.

Your point is that them killing each other was always going to happen but why not remove someone like Saddam who kept them in check by killing them anyway? Well, that goes back to the time of WW1....how about, why force three groups who hate each other to live in the same useless country to begin with? And that certainly wasn't decided by anyone alive in the US today! But we're having planes driven up our ass for it, aren't we?

Now that you mention it there is lovely hypocritical irony in affording Saddam Hussein, whose guilt has been established over the past two decades, a very expensive, very public trial; while at the same time detaining thousands of people without charge and refusing to grant them any judicial trial.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Then you are talking out of your ass. If George W Bush was willing to do what was needed in an area like Iraq, then our troops would have been in there with Napalm and machine guns, killing everybody. GB the First knew what would happen....so by your tactics, teh debate you mention is invalid!

As X said, a show trial was needed. Which is odd in my mind. Not because he didn't deserve a trial, but because this government has done away with them for everyone else. Why else would we (our representatives) be voting our president the authority to decide what is and is not torture...or how the geneva convention applies to our actions, etc? It's all just a show. In fact, a long time ago I mentioned that it was a travesty to even debate torturing someone in the year 2006. But that wasn't because i didn't think that people weren't being tortured! I think the revelation that torture sites and black prisions being revealed is a little too far towards those who want them to exist at all!.

Your point is that them killing each other was always going to happen but why not remove someone like Saddam who kept them in check by killing them anyway? Well, that goes back to the time of WW1....how about, why force three groups who hate each other to live in the same useless country to begin with? And that certainly wasn't decided by anyone alive in the US today! But we're having planes driven up our ass for it, aren't we?

Not sure what you're talking about, I am not nor have I defended Bush's actions. The topic is Saddam's sentencing.

I agree the trial was for show, he was going to be found guilty from the start and it is no coincidence he just happens to be found guilty just a fews days before elections.

No, that wasn't my point at all. The fighting started like it is because of Saddam's removal, I fully understand that he keep that region under control with an iron grip. But the point being to the topic, killing him or not killing him now will not affect the fighting in a major way.

Originally posted by LuckyLover
What other option to the Death Penalty is there that is effective? I'd let him go free but give him a job as a toilet cleaner or something.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, that wasn't my point at all. The fighting started like it is because of Saddam's removal, I fully understand that he keep that region under control with an iron grip. But the point being to the topic, killing him or not killing him now will not affect the fighting in a major way.

Okay, you admit that Saddam being removed was an impetus for the start of this shitfest.

Follow me now....

Should our democracy be sustained at the cost of every one elses' democracy? Also know as freedom, by "modern thinkers"?

If yes, then our democracy was threatened by Iraq's oppression.

If no, then why have sacrifeced our own democracy because Bush has told us Iraq was responsible for 9/11?

If Saddam was removed to obtain freedom, despite the explosion of Islamic fascism that has followed, did we ever really expect "democracy" to take hold?

Was it good to remove the infrastructure of a country under the control of a madman to fill teh coffers of US buisness? And if it was, then how are we any better than the madman himself?

Next, if the execution of that madman could replace or remove the lynchpin of the bag of SHIT! we've (the US, under GWB) already opened, would it make a difference in the building of a time machine?

Lastly, would Amercia be bright enough to turn back the hands of time and replace our own "madman' if we could?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Okay, you admit that Saddam being removed was an impetus for the start of this shitfest.

Follow me now....

Should our democracy be sustained at the cost of every one elses' democracy? Also know as freedom, by "modern thinkers"?

If yes, then democracy was never the issue in Iraq.

If no, then we agree.

If Saddam was removed to obtain freedom, despite the explosion of Islamic fascism that has followed, did we ever really expect "democracy" to take hold?

Was it good to remove the infrastructure of a country under the control of a madman to fill teh coffers of US buisness? And if it was, then how are we any better than the madman himself?

Next, if the execution of that madman could replace or remove the lynchpin of the bag of SHIT! we've (the US, under GWB) already opened, would it make a difference in the building of a time machine?

Lastly, would Amercia be bright enough to turn back the hands of time and replace our own "madman' if we could?

No, I do not think we have the right to shit on others.

I think it was expected in a fantasy dream like expectation; it hasn't happened in the time table the Bush cabinet had hoped. The area has been ruled by the sword for hundreds of years, it is asinine to think a Democracy would spring forth virtually overnight, especially taking into account the initial piss-poor planning that went into Saddam's overthrow and securing Iraq.

Was it good to ruin a country for personal wealth? Obviously no, but making that stick and be fact is next to impossible.

I do not think Saddams death will change anything so I cannot answer that. It will make the Iraqis that where oppressed under Saddam feel good, but killing him will not right Iraq.

That is a loaded question, I personally wouldn't go back in time and replace Bush even with 20/20 hindsight vision at my disposal. Just like I wouldn't go back and kill Hitler while he was still an art student for the simple reasoning that something worse would happen instead of Bush. It is a far cry, but what if Gore won and a nuke happy WWIII would be the outcome?

Originally posted by Robtard
No, I do not think we have the right to shit on others.

I think it was expected in a fantasy dream like expectation; it didn't happen in the time table the Bush cabinet had hoped. The area has been ruled by the sword for hundreds of years, it is asinine to think a Democracy would spring forth virtually overnight, especially taking into account the initial piss-poor planning that went into Saddam's overthrow and securing Iraq.

Was it good to ruin a country for personal wealth? Obviously no, but making that stick and be fact is next to impossible.

I do not think Saddams death will change anything so I cannot answer that. It will make the Iraqis that where oppressed under Saddam feel good, but killing him will not right Iraq.

That is a loaded question, I personally wouldn't go back in time and replace Bush even with 20/20 hindsight vision at my disposal. Just like I wouldn't go back and kill Hitler while he was still an art student for the simple reasoning that something worse would happen instead of Bush. It is a far cry, but what if Gore won and a nuke happy WWIII would be the outcome?

It is your "BUT! can we make it stick?" mentality that is the problem.

It's just like my mother always saying: "It's politics, what can you expect?" version of a mentality. Nothing will stick until we make it stick!

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
It is your "BUT! can we make it stick?" mentality that is the problem.

It's just like my mother always saying: "It's politics, what can you expect?" version of a mentality. Nothing will stick until we make it stick!

Problem with what? You? I see that as a major point... Just claiming that Bush lied without proof that will stick is the problem in my opinion. I have a serious issue with the Democratic party right now, they have attacked Bush and stupidly accused him on irrelevant issues for the last several years and this takes away from the major issue, i.e. Iraq, the economy, foreign policy. Every time some "moonbat" yells "Bush DID it!" without having any condemning proof backing the accustion, Bush's meat shield is able to smack it down it makes Bush look better and the Democrats look inept. That is my problem...

I'd let him go but I'd force him to get a job as an Iraqi toilet cleaner.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

Blah blah blah blah

Are they making this pay-per-view? How about a corporate sponsor?

Originally posted by amity75
I'd let him go free but give him a job as a toilet cleaner or something.
Originally posted by amity75
I'd let him go but I'd force him to get a job as an Iraqi toilet cleaner.

Two times, eh? You're really proud of that one, aren't you?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Two times, eh? You're really proud of that one, aren't you?

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb


Ironic....on so many levels.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb


Ironic....on so many levels.

You're ironic.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
You're ironic.

No, I'm German. You ... are ironic.

Is that an ellipsis or a pause?

Ironic.

Do it!

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Is that an ellipsis or a pause?

Ironic.

Do it!

It is three dots that I had to type so the dot monster doesn't eat my penis.

Indeed.

WOAH...are you going all Starsky and Hutch on me, *****?

Whoah! This is sad...not even CNN care about this story. They didn't even bother posting a huge picture of Saddam with the words "Sentence to Death" in the main page. This guy hug the news for years and doesn't even the spotlight anymore. Amazing...no one gives a **** about Saddam anymore.

Oh well, good news all around.




And for the liberals in the thread, you really amaze me.


Capital punishment is certainly a good thing, and here is a simple reason why:


Taxes.

It's federal taxes, (our money) that pay for the several hundred thousand dollars that it costs to feed, clothe, and keep a single person incarcerated for the normal terms of a life sentence.


I see no reason why the general public should have to pay to keep a killer alive.

To pay for them to file grievance forms about only having vanilla and not chocolate Hagen Daas ice cream. (ask my step dad, a Sargent at San Quentin prison)


Keeping regular people incarcerated costs us enough space, time, and money as it is....

The murderers and child rapists (IMO) shouldn't be allowed to cause more pain to the general public, and to victims specifically, by having our money go to support their life needs.



And certainly not for a piece of shit like Saddam that we know used mustard gass and killed thousands of his own people and people in
Kuwait.


That's a slap in the face for Iraqi's to have to pay for his necessities.


Wouldn't your energies be wasted better in a thread or protest line to demonstrate your support for the killing of a fetus?

(and they call US hypocrites)

When is the execution and is it going to be televised? I'd prefer if it didn't interfere with the NFL playoffs. Maybe a Thursday night?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Oh well, good news all around.




And for the liberals in the thread, you really amaze me.


Capital punishment is certainly a good thing, and here is a simple reason why:


Taxes.

It's federal taxes, (our money) that pay for the several hundred thousand dollars that it costs to feed, clothe, and keep a single person incarcerated for the normal terms of a life sentence.


I see no reason why the general public should have to pay to keep a killer alive.

To pay for them to file grievance forms about only having vanilla and not chocolate Hagen Daas ice cream. (ask my step dad, a Sargent at San Quentin prison)


Keeping regular people incarcerated costs us enough space, time, and money as it is....

The murderers and child rapists (IMO) shouldn't be allowed to cause more pain to the general public, and to victims specifically, by having our money go to support their life needs.



And certainly not for a piece of shit like Saddam that we know used mustard gass and killed thousands of his own people and people in
Kuwait.


That's a slap in the face for Iraqi's to have to pay for his necessities.


Wouldn't your energies be wasted better in a thread or protest line to demonstrate your support for the killing of a fetus?

(and they call US hypocrites)

Here we go. Another one.

WRONG!

It costs FAR MORE to execute someone then to keep them in prison for life. Fact.
Google it, then come back.

We'll be waiting for another idiotic excuse as to why capital punishment is good.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A trial wasn't needed. But a showtrial was. With a verdict conveniently postponed to a few days before November midterms in which a party with a history of timing national security "events" to coincide with the political calendar stands to suffer defeat, by an independent judiciary with no ties to the U.S. administration, despite having U.S. advisers and trying Saddam under statutes that were drafted by the U.S.
Which, I conjecture, is why Bush showed confidence in the Republican party's odds in the election despite the Foley scandal.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Here we go. Another one.

WRONG!

It costs FAR MORE to execute someone then to keep them in prison for life. Fact.
Google it, then come back.

We'll be waiting for another idiotic excuse as to why capital punishment is good. While googling that perhaps he should also have a quick looksie at who supplied chemical and biological weapons to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War and beyond. And which officials in that Administration, who are now in this Administration were in full knowledge of the use of chemical weapons, and continued to maintain diplomatic ties with Iraq.

Of course that's if he isn't a bit too busy listening to Rush, and watching O'Reilly on FOX and preaching with Ted Haggard.. oh that's right Ted's one of those homos now.

The only reason that capital punishment is so expensive is because we make it so expensive. Criminals need to start going the way of Old Yeller.

If state governments started allowing brand names like Count Chocula or White Lily to get involved, and then allowed a broadcasting company to televise it, it would alleviate some of the financial burden. You could probably get $0.5 million from the corporations and $1.0 million in TV rights per electrocution.

*It sounds stupid (and it is) but when you consider every other damn thing in this country is sponsored or stained by advertising, it makes a little sense*

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Here we go. Another one.

WRONG!

It costs FAR MORE to execute someone then to keep them in prison for life. Fact.
Google it, then come back.

We'll be waiting for another idiotic excuse as to why capital punishment is good.

WRONG!


I'm sorry, exactly how much do you think a 6 ft. length of rope is going to cost?

Certainly not more than it would have cost to pay for Saddam's room and board for another 20 years.




As for murderers and child rapists here, a bullet isn't too expensive.

Execution costs can be changed.

Caring for a prisoners needs for over 15 years will not change in cost, and probably only go higher as liberal people would love to make them more "comfortable" to treat them more "humanely".


BAH!

Take your bleeding heart elsewheres, I have no need for you to tell me that my tax money should fund a killers life needs while paying for the death of millions of fetuses.

Hmm...this thread has been quiet for six minutes. Everybody must be out researching this capital punishment cost. I can't wait for the results - who's going to be the first one to buzz in?

its all such a sad hypocrisy...the death penalty in general

Originally posted by botankus
Hmm...this thread has been quiet for six minutes. Everybody must be out researching this capital punishment cost. I can't wait for the results - who's going to be the first one to buzz in?


Me, me, me I say the cost should be less then 10 dollars, for the bullet and the time involved.

This is for the anti-death penalty people...

Cost factors aside, wouldn't you rather have a cold blooded murderer be put to death instead locking his/her ass in a cage for life?

Originally posted by Soleran
Me, me, me I say the cost should be less then 10 dollars, for the bullet and the time involved.


Well if the cost is the leading factor in being pro or anti death penalty and not the moral issue of killing someone, the Chinese have perfected it. They have 'death buses' that go from city to city administering the lethal injection.

http://static.kolesa.ru/uploads/2006_06/news_chinese_death-busL.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
This is for the anti-death penalty people...

Cost factors aside, wouldn't you rather have a cold blooded murderer be put to death instead locking his/her ass in a cage for life?

"in a cage" is a bit melodramatic imho. i just cant get over the hypocricy of convicting someone of killing and call it "murder" and then turn around and kill them, calling it "justice". i just cant wrap my simple mind around it

Originally posted by sithsaber408
WRONG!


I'm sorry, exactly how much do you think a 6 ft. length of rope is going to cost?

Certainly not more than it would have cost to pay for Saddam's room and board for another 20 years.




As for murderers and child rapists here, a bullet isn't too expensive.

Execution costs can be changed.

Caring for a prisoners needs for over 15 years will not change in cost, and probably only go higher as liberal people would love to make them more "comfortable" to treat them more "humanely".


BAH!

Take your bleeding heart elsewheres, I have no need for you to tell me that my tax money should fund a killers life needs while paying for the death of millions of fetuses.


Please stop embarrasing yourself.
Its one thing to be ingorant, and complitely different to be annoying one at that.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial%20facts

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Here we go. Another one.

WRONG!

It costs FAR MORE to execute someone then to keep them in prison for life. Fact.
Google it, then come back.


The reason it costs more to "execute" someone isn't due to the cost of killing/murdering them, its in the cost of keeping them in jail and having man hours spent on the outside (which costs money)
to make sure they are absolutely guilty.

Originally posted by Soleran
The reason it costs more to "execute" someone isn't due to the cost of killing/murdering them, its in the cost of keeping them in jail and having man hours spent on the outside (which costs money)
to make sure they are absolutely guilty.

Court appeals + proceadures that are mandatory = lots and lots of money.
In California, capital trials are six times more costly than other murder trials.

Cost is about the weakest argument for Death Penalty.

Originally posted by PVS
"in a cage" is a bit melodramatic imho. i just cant get over the hypocricy of convicting someone of killing and call it "murder" and then turn around and kill them, calling it "justice". i just cant wrap my simple mind around it


Well, a prison is like a cage, but that is a non-issue.

Simple:

A murderer kills someone wrongfully out of malicious intent.

The death penalty punishes that person to the maximum extent for their crime.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Court appeals + proceadures that are mandatory = lots and lots of money.

Cost is about the weakest argument for Death Penalty.


Ok, so that means what then after that's done it costs around 10-15k a year to keep inmates alive after that process etc etc and thats knowing that they are never going to be released.

My point is that the cost factor portrayed by those that are anti-death penalty is not a true cost of execution if folks are just considering the cost of killing someone and not the process.

Originally posted by Robtard
The death penalty punishes that person to the maximum extent for their crime.

punishment is revenge. the system of law in a free society is based on rehabilitation and keeping the population safe, NOT on punishment. so long as he is dethroned and behind bars, he is no longer a threat. yet thats not good enough.

what we see here is not justice. it is revenge. revenge imho is evil on a personal basis, never mind in a court of law.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, a prison is like a cage, but that is a non-issue.

Simple:

A murderer kills someone wrongfully out of malicious intent.

The death penalty punishes that person to the maximum extent for their crime.
Wait.

And killing someone on Death Row is not malicious? Hows that?

Originally posted by PVS
punishment is revenge. the system of law in a free society is based on rehabilitation and keeping the population safe. so long as he is dethroned and behind bars, he is no longer a threat. yet thats not good enough.

what we see here is not justice. it is revenge. revenge imho is evil on a personal basis, never mind in a court of law.


I have to agree with the assessment that sometimes locking away a person is not good enough. IMO, if a person kills another just for personal gain, malicious intent or for pleasure, that person in turn deserves to die. Why should someone without regard for another's life go on living, even behind bars safely tucked away? Maybe it is revenge and nothing more, but in some cases, I think it is justified.

Originally posted by Robtard
I have to agree with the assessment that sometimes locking away a person is not good enough. IMO, if a person kills another just for personal gain, malicious intent or for pleasure, that person in turn deserves to die. Why should someone without regard for another's life go on living, even behind bars safely tucked away? Maybe it is revenge and nothing more, but in some cases, I think it is justified.


Well why should they be locked in a jail without anyway to get out, that's punishment just the same as the death penalty is.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Please stop embarrasing yourself.
Its one thing to be ingorant, and complitely different to be annoying one at that.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial%20facts

I'm "embarrasing myself and being ignorant", yet you refuse to acknowledge that killing Saddam Hussein by hanging within 30 days is NOT going to cost the Iraqi people more than what it would have cost them to keep him alive for many years.



Thank you for all of the numbers and facts, and for proving my point:

Convicted murderers and child rapists should be executed quickly, within a month of conviction, if there is DNA evidence, video evidence, or a confession from the accused.

They should be executed cheaply, with a rope or a bullet.

They don't need an appeal, and they certainly don't need a new trial for stabbing an inmate or guard in prison, usually to delay their execution, a few days before it was schedueled to happen. (again, ask my stepdad, a Seargent at San Quentin prison)


All the millions of dollars spent that you posted are from our taxes, and it's a huge waste of time and money to either:

Keep a convicted murderer in prison for life

or

Kill them "humanely".


Life is simple in terms of a murderer or (IMO) a child rapist:

You f*cked up, game over.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Wait.

And killing someone on Death Row is not malicious? Hows that?


Lets use John Wayne Gacy as an example... He tortured, raped and killed 33 young men solely for his own personal pleasure. a.k.a malicious intent.

The justice system sentencing him to death was not breed from malicious intent, you can argue that it is "revenge" to some degree, but that is different than maliciously killing someone.