Saddam hangs

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I tried creating a political thread once....once.

LOL. Nice, very nice.

[onlydarksets]

Hooskins is right - it will exacerbate the problem. That said, the fundamental differences between the Shia and the Sunni are so deep and so rooted in hate right now, I don't know that anything is going to make it better. However, this does give the Sunni an "excuse" to kill more Shia, but they were probably going to do that anyway.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Hooskins is right - it will exacerbate the problem. That said, the fundamental differences between the Shia and the Sunni are so deep and so rooted in hate right now, I don't know that anything is going to make it better. However, this does give the Sunni an "excuse" to kill more Shia, but they were probably going to do that anyway.

This is exactly right. These two groups are similar to the Palestinians and Israelis in how deeply rooted their hatred is. They're in civil war. Saddam's execution may fan the flames for a brief period, but in the end, they're simply looking to kill each other because they hate one another.

And whether or not this will increase sectarian violence should not be a reason to not execute Saddam. If anything, Iraq needs a sense of justice and order. You kill thousands in cold blood, you get the death penalty. People need to see justice being served or they're going to totally lose faith in the Iraqi government altogether.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This is exactly right. These two groups are similar to the Palestinians and Israelis in how deeply rooted their hatred is. They're in civil war. Saddam's execution may fan the flames for a brief period, but in the end, they're simply looking to kill each other because they hate one another.

And whether or not this will increase sectarian violence should not be a reason to not execute Saddam. If anything, Iraq needs a sense of justice and order. You kill thousands in cold blood, you get the death penalty. People need to see justice being served or they're going to totally lose faith in the Iraqi government altogether.

Hm, ok I accept your point. I still believe that any kind of death sentence is ridiculous and barbaric. As a progressive society a hanging or a death sentence is terrible. I still can't believe this would even happen to a political leader.

The judgment was also reached by the majority sect, which Sadamm is not a part of. The sentence was determined by a bias party.

I dont think I life time imprisonment would be viewed as an injustice, at least to educated folk.

Like Matty I think a death sentence is morally wrong, regardless of the criminal. It only encourages that kind of action by the government, by showcasing it(especially with a hanging). The government would instill more confidence with its people if it did not rush to hang him one minute before the start of their religious holiday. It would also have a good image if it did not hang people like they did in the 17th century.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Hm, ok I accept your point. I still believe that any kind of death sentence is ridiculous and barbaric. As a progressive society a hanging or a death sentence is terrible. I still can't believe this would even happen to a political leader.

The judgment was also reached by the majority sect, which Sadamm is not a part of. The sentence was determined by a bias party.

I dont think I life time imprisonment would be viewed as an injustice, at least to educated folk.

Like Matty I think a death sentence is morally wrong, regardless of the criminal. It only encourages that kind of action by the government, by showcasing it(especially with a hanging). The government would instill more confidence with its people if it did not rush to hang him one minute before the start of their religious holiday. It would also have a good image if it did not hang people like they did in the 17th century.

Is your concern more so with the method of execution? And the fact that it was televised?

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Is your concern more so with the method of execution? And the fact that it was televised?

I think that is a huge factor for me, but either way I would rather not see a political leader, with pockets of influence be put to death. I do feel it would trigger more violence than normal. Also in this day and age, I just feel the death penalty is wrong. I do not support Virginia and its usage of the death penalty.

As for chances of parole, you can always put a prisoner away for life no parole. That solves that issue in my mind. I do understand a concern was that he could be broken out of jail by supporters, but I think that is over exaggerated by those who made this decision.

And I do not generally support war, only as a last resort. I guess that makes me a pacifist, but I feel that term has a negative connotation.

For this ruling the choice was made by his enemies, not a fair and balanced jury. I know he was a terrible person, but there have been worst political leaders that have gotten off with nothing. He just deserved life in jail.

Honestly what was gained out of this? A message? I think him being jailed has a huge message too. How does this give the Iraqis more confidence in their government? It just shows the bias towards the majority, and that hanging is acceptable as a general procedure. Killing is just answered with more killing. How is the government not like the terrorists by releasing a video of a hanging? No matter how bad your enemy is, you cannot sink down to their level, and the government just did that. I guess I would not have this much of a problem with the ruling if it wasnt a hanging, but I would not support it either way.

Seeing him hang really gives nothing back to me. Shows me their government is not modern enough to deal with the issue in a proper way. It shows the government is only going to cause more problems in the future now the majority is in power. He kills tons of people, but killing him doesn't solve the problem. The problem is this deeply rooted sectarian violence, that goes way beyond him.

Watch for more bloodshed....

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Hm, ok I accept your point. I still believe that any kind of death sentence is ridiculous and barbaric. As a progressive society a hanging or a death sentence is terrible. I still can't believe this would even happen to a political leader.

First point I have to make is that these kind of stances are based on our personalities and our values at our very core. No amount of arguing could ever persuade the other side. Some just believe killing is always wrong, no matter what. And some just believe killing is justified in some situations. Just like I could never convince you, you could never convince me. Some see Saddam die and think "that's horrible." It isn't because you're defending him, it's just that you see killing as always wrong, and that's a bigger value for you than a sense of justice (which is totally fine). Me on the other hand, I see him die and I cheer. Literally. His death literally makes me happier and feel better about the world I live in. It isn't that I'm evil, it's just that I place I higher value on justice. It's a different strokes for different folks thing, so it needs to be said that when arguing these things, a lot of the opinions go to our very core, and can never be changed. It's just good to understand the other perspective.

Originally Posted by hooskins

The judgment was also reached by the majority sect, which Sadamm is not a part of. The sentence was determined by a bias party.

This part I have a beef with though. The Iraqi government is now comprised of representatives from each of the sects. It just so happens that now the government's majority is representative of the country's majority. Saddam was a minority ruler who oppressed the majority.

This situation is no different from a Republican President and Republican Congress appointing right-leaning judges to the Supreme Court. The party in charge generally gets its way.

The majority sect should have the biggest courtroom representation. After all, they represent the Iraqi people. If Saddam were to be tried only by Bath Party members, then why the heck doesn't the Bath Party just create it's own nation? That's essentially an argument for secession from the union and is the main cause for Iraq's civil war. All Iraqi's need to learn to accept a fair and balanced democratic government, even if it means they'll be the minority, as long as their interests are represented, they can take up their issues in a non-violent manner.

Of course, complicating matters is the fact that Iraq is not a secular government. Because religion plays a role, different sects are going to feel much more passionate. They'll never be successful unless they leave religion out (good luck on that).

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

First point I have to make is that these kind of stances are based on our personalities and our values at our very core. No amount of arguing could ever persuade the other side. Some just believe killing is always wrong, no matter what. And some just believe killing is justified in some situations. Just like I could never convince you, you could never convince me. Some see Saddam die and think "that's horrible." It isn't because you're defending him, it's just that you see killing as always wrong, and that's a bigger value for you than a sense of justice (which is totally fine). Me on the other hand, I see him die and I cheer. Literally. His death literally makes me happier and feel better about the world I live in. It isn't that I'm evil, it's just that I place I higher value on justice. It's a different strokes for different folks thing, so it needs to be said that when arguing these things, a lot of the opinions go to our very core, and can never be changed. It's just good to understand the other perspective.



This part I have a beef with though. The Iraqi government is now comprised of representatives from each of the sects. It just so happens that now the government's majority is representative of the country's majority. Saddam was a minority ruler who oppressed the majority.

This situation is no different from a Republican President and Republican Congress appointing right-leaning judges to the Supreme Court. The party in charge generally gets its way.

The majority sect should have the biggest courtroom representation. After all, they represent the Iraqi people. If Saddam were to be tried only by Bath Party members, then why the heck doesn't the Bath Party just create it's own nation? That's essentially an argument for secession from the union and is the main cause for Iraq's civil war. All Iraqi's need to learn to accept a fair and balanced democratic government, even if it means they'll be the minority, as long as their interests are represented, they can take up their issues in a non-violent manner.

Of course, complicating matters is the fact that Iraq is not a secular government. Because religion plays a role, different sects are going to feel much more passionate. They'll never be successful unless they leave religion out (good luck on that).

I can agree to disagree, you are absolutely right about how most people have positions that will change in issues like these. Like I have mentioned before, I feel the death penalty only has negatives results(see other posts).


As for your beef, yeah the legislature is made up of equal representation, but I do not think that is the case for the judicial system, but I am not positive. And since religion is involved in politics, they will never be successful. I can agree with that.

[jamf]

If ladell doesn't fumble... Shit, wrong thread.

[Redskin]

And all they are really fighting about is the ammount of virgins they get when they see the pearly white gates.

IMHO

Should build a giant electric wall around the middle east and close them off from the rest of the world untill one group finally wins, then we can open the middle east back up untill the winning group has a civil war on how to where your turban properly.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Redskin

And all they are really fighting about is the ammount of virgins they get when they see the pearly white gates.

IMHO

Should build a giant electric wall around the middle east and close them off from the rest of the world untill one group finally wins, then we can open the middle east back up untill the winning group has a civil war on how to where your turban properly.

wow...pretty ignorant statement right there.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

My random thoughts on the death penalty:

#1 I really truly think that there are legitimate arguments for all sides as our death penalty system is very flawed, but IMO the death penalty is justifiable for certain people.

#2 IMHO you cannot argue that the death penalty is always wrong unless you are also a pacifist and think that ALL war is wrong and immoral.

#3 If killing a murderer "sends the wrong message," does imprisoning a kidnapper send a wrong message too?

#4 I am confused why many death penalty opponents oppose the death penalty on moral grounds and simultaneously argue "if you really want to punish a criminal, send them to prison for life. Living in prison for life without any possibility of parole is about as cruel as it gets." I'm not sure which is more cruel, the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole and the high probability of repeated sexual assault.

PS - Thus far the discussion has been good and civil, but if immature posts appear I think this thread is going to be locked in a hurry.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

My random thoughts on the death penalty:

#1 I really truly think that there are legitimate arguments for all sides as our death penalty system is very flawed, but IMO the death penalty is justifiable for certain people.

#2 IMHO you cannot argue that the death penalty is always wrong unless you are also a pacifist and think that ALL war is wrong and immoral.

#3 If killing a murderer "sends the wrong message," does imprisoning a kidnapper send a wrong message too?

#4 I am confused why many death penalty opponents oppose the death penalty on moral grounds and simultaneously argue "if you really want to punish a criminal, send them to prison for life. Living in prison for life without any possibility of parole is about as cruel as it gets." I'm not sure which is more cruel, the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole and the high probability of repeated sexual assault.

PS - Thus far the discussion has been good and civil, but if immature posts appear I think this thread is going to be locked in a hurry.

The Sheriff is all about the ordered lists today!

My own list:
#1 You are right - it's hard to ever argue in absolutes. However, this is a moral line, where some people feel that the line just can't be crossed. When you argue an absolute position on moral grounds, you can never emperically justify the marginal cases.

#2 Again, absolute positions require faith for the marginal cases.

#3 C’mon, you went to law school, so you know the difference. The death penalty is a final, unequivocal step – there is no appeal after the fact. That’s the key difference, not the nature of the crime being equivalent to the penalty.

#4 Again, I don’t think it’s about being cruel – I think it’s about drawing a moral line in the sand and saying, “If we go there, we are no better than them.”

All that said, I think you and I have the same opinion about the death penalty – it is a punishment that has its purpose and, when used judiciously, has a preventive effect on crime. There is, however, a very good argument for the other side (and I do recognize that you realize this – I just think some of your arguments trivialize the anti-capital punishment argument a bit).

[mooby]

Personally, I don't care about the death penalty. There are some that deserve it, some that don't. I do think life in prison without the possibility of parole is a harsher sentence, unless that individual likes living in prison, which is probably highly doubtful.

[JoeRedskin]

Another point that hasn't been mentioned is that, as long as Saddam remained alive and in prison, he would be a rallying point for his supporters and would remain a threat to return.