http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6119428.stm

 

I wonder if his lawyers will advise him to boycott that too?

In the picture he almost looks like he has something against the verdict.

Its about time they brought back hangings!

It's a shame they couldn't think of anything more painful, in my humble opinion. It's also seems a waste of time that they took so long coming to that decision. You can see I'm not going to become a lawyer.

I wonder if we'll get to see the hanging. I'd like to see someone broadcast his execution like the american beheadings we witnessed.

they should whirl him around and then fling him at a wall of spikes. that would be hilarious.

they should whirl him around and then fling him at a wall of spikes. that would be hilarious.

 

Or maybe use that gas he used on the Kurds. Might be kinda hard to eat something after watching that though...

scaphism is another good option(look it up on wikipedia). days and days of fun with that one.

I disagree with all the bloodthirsties here. Best thing for Saddam is to put him back in his hole for the rest of his life and get over him. Public execution (especially worldwide televised) will give him more power than he's ever had before. We invaded Iraq to remove him from power so why give it back to him in the form of martyrdom? Crazies we've never even heard of will make him their poster boy.

 

I'd much rather see a page 46 artticle about him dying quietly in solitary ten years from now. He should whimper, not roar.

I agree. I'm all for a life sentance. It's better to not make him a martyr and to be sensitive to the people in Iraq who actually liked him. (?)

i think he should just die a humiliating death for the entertainment of the masses.

i think he should just die a humiliating death for the entertainment of the masses.

 

what about the people who won't be entertained, but will be up in arms, literally to revenge the death of their fallen 'hero"

still it be funny to see him beaten to death by freddie mercury impersonators wielding lollipops.

what about the people who won't be entertained, but will be up in arms, literally to revenge the death of their fallen 'hero"

 

The noise will make them easy to target.

I disagree with all the bloodthirsties here. Best thing for Saddam is to put him back in his hole for the rest of his life and get over him. Public execution (especially worldwide televised) will give him more power than he's ever had before. We invaded Iraq to remove him from power so why give it back to him in the form of martyrdom? Crazies we've never even heard of will make him their poster boy.

What I find entertaining is that the USA and UK have intervened in Iraq at every level for years now, righhhhht up until the point where the puppet they installed, lost control of, then toppled has been sentenced to the kind of death that both governments publicly denounce. And now all of a sudden the interventions seem to have dried up.

 

I wonder which (if any) politicians, religious leaders, charities or organisations will risk protesting the sentence?

What should be remembered is that this man has been found guilty of mass genicide, something that Hitler would also have been found guilty of had he been caught. The question we must ask ourself is, would we have objected to a similar sentence had it been passed against Hitler? Not only that, but think of the financial implications for keeping Saddam Hussein in jail for life....

What you really have to remember is that brutal execution is not a punishment or a deterrent for maniacal dictators. Instead, it is a means of ensuring they are no longer a threat to whatever society they are in, and a form of retribution for the survivors.

 

Technically speaking, he is not guilty of genocide, by the way. He may have genocidal tendencies, but he has never had the means to execute them (if you will pardon the pun).

I personnally think tht a lifetime in prison is worse then death. Sitting in a tiny room knowing you are never going to see the sun again would be worse for me.

Did he not wipe out a whole village?

Did he not wipe out a whole village?

Kind of, there is a thread where the truth and myths of that incident are heatedly discussed in the depths of the politics forum.

 

If he did wipe out a whole village, it would have to contain the entirety of a race in order to be true genocide.

Did he not wipe out a whole village?

 

Dude, he's wiped out whole villages.

 

Someone correct me here if I'm wrong, but they really only convicted him on like 148 counts of murder in Dujail from back in 1982.

 

To try him on every murdered, tortured and raped soul would extend his lifetime, like 10 fold.

He was guilty before the trial even started. There is no way any court would have found him innocent--too much political pressure.

He was guilty before the trial even started. There is no way any court would have found him innocent--too much political pressure.

 

The key thing was what sentence would they give him. I know the appeal is not likely going to change the sentence, but we'll see.

They might be able to bargain for a longer rope or something.

Dude, he's wiped out whole villages.

 

Someone correct me here if I'm wrong, but they really only convicted him on like 148 counts of murder in Dujail from back in 1982.

 

To try him on every murdered, tortured and raped soul would extend his lifetime, like 10 fold.

I don't think anyone thinks he's guiltless.

 

For the record, as Sayonara³ points out, we had a thread where a lot of evidence was cited which showed that many of Saddam's whole village wipings-out were part of the Iraq-Iran conflict (back when he was on our side). In particular, at Halabja where 5000 Kurds were gassed there was a big question of whether the Kurds were aiding Iran. Also in question was who used the gas (it was a type normally used by Iran, not Iraq). Also, the gas used was for dispersal, trying to force enemy soldiers from fortified positions (such gasses are fatal only if you stay where the gas is). The idea is to toss in the gas and shoot anything that runs out of the smoke.

 

My objection to the sentence is purely one of function. Publicly executed he *will* be a martyr and his crimes will be compounded by others that will be done in his name. Imprisoned for life he becomes a broken tyrant, bereft of everything a proud man would consider worthwhile. I think the latter is far more humiliating and it has the advantage of being just without meeting brutality with more brutality.

What I find entertaining is that the USA and UK have intervened in Iraq at every level for years now' date=' righhhhht up until the point where the puppet they installed, lost control of, then toppled has been sentenced to the kind of death that both governments publicly denounce. And now all of a sudden the interventions seem to have dried up.

 

I wonder which (if any) politicians, religious leaders, charities or organisations will risk protesting the sentence?[/quote']Marionettes are supposed to fall down when you cut their strings. Marionettes with oil money somehow grow a spine. Who knew?