The Iraq thread 4

[walker 0]

Hi Monkey Lib Front

If you want to have a go at Galloway for what he is suposed to have said with regard to the war and about UK soldiers involvement in it, that is fine and perfectly laudable.

However he was right about the ilegality of the war.  No Iraqi WMD. No Iraqi Link to Al Qaida. No Iraqi connection to 9/11. No if buts or maybes. He was right and we, and I include myself in this, were wrong.

As to this man Zuricat, he was an Iraqi business man. Living and working in Iraq of course he did business with his government, sort of hard not to. You have to do business with your government; that is your taxes, roads, police, benefits, health and social security etc.  With a dictatorship it must be ten times the case, but the fact is he donated 300,000 UK pounds to a Charity to help children dieing from cancer and other diseases. Maybe he did it to salve his consience, maybe he saw it as a tax dodge, maybe it was a publicity stunt. We will never know motivations are hard to get at.

What amazes me is that all this has come down to one person, an Iraqi citizen at that (thus not one of the external countries profiteering) with perhaps a pidling .001 percent of the whole oil for food scandal; while of the country with 52% of the Oil for food scandal oil going to it, we hear nerry a word.

Hear that? Nothing. Nowt. Nada.

That is why Gallowy called it "the Mother of all smoke Screens."

And all the oil for food scandal pales into insignificance when compared to 8 billion plus in Iraqi Oil that went missing while it was under the control of the US administration in the first 14 months of the Coalition occupation.

What about the investigation into that 8 billion?

Hear that? Nothing. Nowt. Nada.

Monkey Lib Front; for all his ability to rub people up the wrong way and say things that are annoying, the plain fact is on matters of Iraq Galloway was right and we were wrong.

Kind Regards Walker

[Acecombat 0]

I wonder how the pic got smuggled out ... .

I wanna see the guy in a court being handed a death sentence not see him in his underwear though.

[sputnik monroe 102]

He looks like he's wearing a sumo diaper.

I'm with Acecombat on this one, I'd rather see Saddam swinging from a rope then in his sumo gear.

[miles teg 1]

I'd rather not see him put to death.  Its sets a bad precidence.   That means that technically Bush can be put to death if he was found responsible for the deaths of the 100,000 + Iraqi civilians during the war and occupation he launched in Iraq.  

But people are all out for blood and so they want to see Saddam dead.  I tend to believe that the worst punishment for Saddam will be in the here-after.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[ralphwiggum 6]

I'd rather not see him put to death.  Its sets a bad precidence.   That means that technically Bush can be put to death if he was found responsible for the deaths of the 100,000 + Iraqi civilians during the war and occupation he launched in Iraq.  

But people are all out for blood and so they want to see Saddam dead.  I tend to believe that the worst punishment for Saddam will be in the here-after.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

but that's cruel and unusual punishment!

and as a sadist, I support life sentence for him

[denoir 0]

This Saddam in underwear story is plain absurd. Sure it's not newsworthy material, but when has Sun ever bothered with that? This while dozens of people are getting killed on a daily basis in Iraq..what a load of bullshit. There's far more relevant things to be worried about than pictures of Saddam in underwear.

As for Saddam's future, it's up to the Iraqis to deal with him. How they choose to punish him for his mass killings is their business. But let's just say that it is going to be a test to see how civilized their new government is.

[quicksand 0]

This is indeed no news worthy,but it is kinda of pathetic that US is implying this policy to humiliate the insurgency just like when they showed him being examined for flyes,it only shows desperation on their part.

Sure Bush has only now remembered that it is against Geneva Convention,that it violates his rights to privacy,but who the hell took the pictures in the first place?As far as I know Saddam isn't exposed in a public building as a trophy for all to take a picture with,on the contrary he is held in a maximum security undisclosed prison.

US should remember that their psy ops operation could have adverse effects just like when they showed him in the court room to the worlds surprise-decisive,unchanged,prepared and dismissing from the very first moment the court's authority.

[Bordoy 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4567341.stm

Quote[/b] ]Saddam to sue over prison photos

Saddam Hussein plans to take legal action after a British newspaper published photos of him half-naked in his prison cell and doing his washing.

"We will sue the newspaper and everyone who helped in showing these pictures," said Saddam Hussein's chief lawyer Ziad Al-Khasawneh, speaking from Jordan.

The Sun newspaper said it would fight any legal action and said it planned to publish more photos on Saturday.

The US has launched an investigation into how the photos were leaked.

The US military and legal experts said the photos - possibly taken more than a year ago - may breach Geneva Convention rules on the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

The conventions say countries must protect prisoners of war in their custody from "public curiosity".

Saddam Hussein is being held by US troops at an undisclosed location in Iraq as he awaits trial on numerous charges, including murdering rivals, gassing Iraqi Kurds and using violence to suppress uprisings.

'Aggressive' investigation

The photos show the 68-year-old former leader with a moustache, rather than the beard he sported when he was captured in December 2003, and again when he appeared in court last July.

The Sun's front page showed him wearing a pair of white underpants.

Other pictures show him washing his trousers, shuffling around and sleeping.

The Sun quoted US military sources who said they handed over the pictures in the hope of dealing a blow to the resistance in Iraq.

"It's important that the people of Iraq see him like that to destroy the myth," the paper's source was quoted as saying.

However, several Arab commentators have suggested the photos could increase anti-American feeling in the region.

Khaled al-Maeena, the editor of Saudi Arabia's Arab News told the BBC the photos would be seen as "an insult and an affront".

The Sun's managing editor Graham Dudman defended the decision to publish the images.

"People seem to forget that this is a man who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children and all that's happened to him is someone has taken his picture," he told BBC Radio 4's PM programme.

"This is a sort of modern-day Adolf Hitler. These pictures are an extraordinary iconic news image that will still be being looked at the end of this century."

A statement from the US military said it was "disappointed at the possibility that someone responsible for the security, welfare, and detention of Saddam would take and provide these photos for public release".

The US military would "aggressively" investigate, the statement said.

But President George W Bush said he did not think the photos would encourage insurgents in Iraq.

"I don't think a photo inspires murderers. I think they're inspired by an ideology that's so barbaric and backwards that it's hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think."

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for Saddam's future, it's up to the Iraqis to deal with him. How they choose to punish him for his mass killings is their business. But let's just say that it is going to be a test to see how civilized their new government is.

Whats that suppose to mean?

What do you do with a guy who has blood of thousands if not millions of people on his hands all killed directly or indirectly by his actions , pardon him or something? Or tell him to enjoy a life in jail with VIP status and a lifetimes supply of clairol black hair dye so he can look young always .....

Theres only one decision waiting for him and the sooner it gets passed the better. His death sentence. If people with such racist and selffish nature arent made an example for others then everyone in this world will think its not big deal to kill millions and then be sent to jail for life. But i think in this case maybe an exception is a good thing as ive herad reports of him suffering from blood cancer and that hes dying , i say let him die this way more painful the better.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for Saddam's future, it's up to the Iraqis to deal with him. How they choose to punish him for his mass killings is their business. But let's just say that it is going to be a test to see how civilized their new government is.

Whats that suppose to mean?

What do you do with a guy who has blood of thousands if not millions of people on his hands all killed directly or indirectly by his actions , pardon him or something? Or tell him to enjoy a life in jail with VIP status and a lifetimes supply of clairol black hair dye so he can look young always .....

Theres only one decision waiting for him and the sooner it gets passed the better. His death sentence. If people with such racist and selfless nature arent made an example for others then everyone in this world will think its not big deal to kill millions and then be sent to jail for life. But i think in this case maybe an exception is a good thing as ive herad reports of him suffering from blood cancer and that hes dying , i say let him die this way more painful the better.

Depends how they want him dead, if they are going to stone him then thats wrong. It should not be made a public exceution like in Iran and countries around there.

You say selfless nature, but hardly anyone was hungary, now alot of people are. He kept the terrorists out of Iraq, now they are crawling around like insects and killing innocent people.

[Acecombat 0]

My bad extreme bad .

I meant selfish not selfless ... jeez.

[GoOB 0]

Theres only one decision waiting for him and the sooner it gets passed the better. His death sentence. If people with such racist and selffish nature arent made an example for others then everyone in this world will think its not big deal to kill millions and then be sent to jail for life.

I doubt anyone capable of commiting horrible things like genocide in general are concerned about punishment. Thye beleive they are right in doing what they do, and that they are untouchable. Killing another man won't serve to prove anything, just the fact that the new Iraqi government has a tiny tidbit in common with the one they replaced.

[Bordoy 0]

Theres only one decision waiting for him and the sooner it gets passed the better. His death sentence. If people with such racist and selffish nature arent made an example for others then everyone in this world will think its not big deal to kill millions and then be sent to jail for life.

I doubt anyone capable of commiting horrible things like genocide in general are concerned about punishment. Thye beleive they are right in doing what they do, and that they are untouchable. Killing another man won't serve to prove anything, just the fact that the new Iraqi government has a tiny tidbit in common with the one they replaced.

It will just make him a Matyr.

[Acecombat 0]

Theres only one decision waiting for him and the sooner it gets passed the better. His death sentence. If people with such racist and selffish nature arent made an example for others then everyone in this world will think its not big deal to kill millions and then be sent to jail for life.

I doubt anyone capable of commiting horrible things like genocide in general are concerned about punishment. Thye beleive they are right in doing what they do, and that they are untouchable. Killing another man won't serve to prove anything, just the fact that the new Iraqi government has a tiny tidbit in common with the one they replaced.

What are you talking about? Do we let every man on the face of this earth walk away with anything because he thought it was right? Certain lines need to be drawn and boundaries set up, this guy crossed all of them religious/non religious hes filth , scum of the lowest kind.

If the iraqi govt hangs him they will only be hanging a criminal with the worst record in their history ever and that has NOTHING common with what saddam did!

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for Saddam's future, it's up to the Iraqis to deal with him. How they choose to punish him for his mass killings is their business. But let's just say that it is going to be a test to see how civilized their new government is.

Whats that suppose to mean?

What do you do with a guy who has blood of thousands if not millions of people on his hands all killed directly or indirectly by his actions , pardon him or something? Or tell him to enjoy a life in jail with VIP status and a lifetimes supply of clairol black hair dye so he can look young always .....

Theres only one decision waiting for him and the sooner it gets passed the better. His death sentence. If people with such racist and selffish nature arent made an example for others then everyone in this world will think its not big deal to kill millions and then be sent to jail for life. But i think in this case maybe an exception is a good thing as ive herad reports of him suffering from blood cancer and that hes dying , i say let him die this way more painful the better.

Are you seriously suggesting that the death penalty might make dictators think twice before killing people? Well, I've got news for you, until very recently, Saddam's most serious threat were his internal enemies, who would have executed him in the blink of an eye had they grabbed power. Did that stop him?

It's quite simple, the death penalty is like torture a barbaric custom which has no place in the civilized world. It is based on revenge, rather than on a consistent legal code.

Saddam's regime eliminated what they considered to be the enemies of the state. If the new government elects to kill off the Baathists, then they are doing the exactly same thing.

Capital punishment is one of the best possible criteria of how civilized a country is. Take a look at the countries that still implement it, and tell me how well they are doing on the human rights front in general.

[denoir 0]

What are you talking about? Do we let every man on the face of this earth walk away with anything because he thought it was right? Certain lines need to be drawn and boundaries set up, this guy crossed all of them religious/non religious hes filth , scum of the lowest kind.

Life in prison isn't "walking away". It's life in prison. He'll be locked up for the rest of his life and won't be able to do any more harm.

I think you are too much into revenge, which has no place in the legal system. Or where would you draw the line? Should he be tortured as well? Killed in a very painful way? I mean after all, he killed tens of thousands. Does he really deserve a quick death? etc

Quote[/b] ]If the iraqi govt hangs him they will only be hanging a criminal with the worst record in their history ever and that has NOTHING common with what saddam did!

It is exactly what Saddam did, he killed those he and his government considered to be criminals. And that's just it. You can declare anybody to be a criminal and your killings to be just. There's no possible criteria there, especially if you're the one writing the legal system. The real difference comes if you declare that killing is wrong and stick to that principle - make sure that it applies to you as well as the rest of the population.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for Saddam's future, it's up to the Iraqis to deal with him. How they choose to punish him for his mass killings is their business. But let's just say that it is going to be a test to see how civilized their new government is.

Whats that suppose to mean?

What do you do with a guy who has blood of thousands if not millions of people on his hands all killed directly or indirectly by his actions , pardon him or something? Or tell him to enjoy a life in jail with VIP status and a lifetimes supply of clairol black hair dye so he can look young always .....

Theres only one decision waiting for him and the sooner it gets passed the better. His death sentence. If people with such racist and selffish nature arent made an example for others then everyone in this world will think its not big deal to kill millions and then be sent to jail for life. But i think in this case maybe an exception is a good thing as ive herad reports of him suffering from blood cancer and that hes dying , i say let him die this way more painful the better.

Are you seriously suggesting that the death penalty might make dictators think twice before killing people? Well, I've got news for you, until very recently, Saddam's most serious threat were his internal enemies, who would have executed him in the blink of an eye had they grabbed power. Did that stop him?

It's quite simple, the death penalty is like torture a barbaric custom which has no place in the civilized world. It is based on revenge, rather than on a consistent legal code.

Saddam's regime eliminated what they considered to be the enemies of the state. If the new government elects to kill off the Baathists, then they are doing the exactly same thing.

Capital punishment is one of the best possible criteria of how civilized a country is. Take a look at the countries that still implement it, and tell me how well they are doing on the human rights front in general.

This is not about dictators think twice but for people with such motives to think twice before they commit themselves to such things yet if they still do no problem same end for them sooner or later the world wont be lost without Saddam i can guarentee that.

Death penalty is not a barbaric custom its a simple solution for people like him , murderers. Reap as you sow, what do you do as a solider in a battlefield ? Cry a river and help the guy in understanding that he shouldnt do what he did or simply put a bullet in his head and move in ? What happens to all the barbarism there? If your so eager to dish out death to someone trying to dish it out to you in the battlefield then why not here? Whats the difference?

Revenge comes hand in hand with pardon all depends on the offender and offended. Its their matter let them decide. State has no right to come in and cry a river and let the guy go and rot in jail basically he only earns a free meal daily and the easy life without fear of being mobbed/killed outside for his actions.

Its the perfect solution for people such as saddam , no one wants to see this filth walk around anymore after what he did and wanting revenge or treating him equally for what he did is not barbaric. Its called Equality for all no ones above the thing which ones hands to the other regardless of their status.

The new govt shouldnt go after killing people without prosecuting and looking at the graveness of their crimes , surely a few more people in his regime might have been equally oppressive bas*ards but saddam himself deserves no better then a death sentence.

[Acecombat 0]

What are you talking about? Do we let every man on the face of this earth walk away with anything because he thought it was right? Certain lines need to be drawn and boundaries set up, this guy crossed all of them religious/non religious hes filth , scum of the lowest kind.

Life in prison isn't "walking away". It's life in prison. He'll be locked up for the rest of his life and won't be able to do any more harm.

I think you are too much into revenge, which has no place in the legal system. Or where would you draw the line? Should he be tortured as well? Killed in a very painful way? I mean after all, he killed tens of thousands. Does he really deserve a quick death? etc

Quote[/b] ]If the iraqi govt hangs him they will only be hanging a criminal with the worst record in their history ever and that has NOTHING common with what saddam did!

It is exactly what Saddam did, he killed those he and his government considered to be criminals. And that's just it. You can declare anybody to be a criminal and your killings to be just. There's no possible criteria there, especially if you're the one writing the legal system. The real difference comes if you declare that killing is wrong and stick to that principle - make sure that it applies to you as well as the rest of the population.

Equality has a place in the legal system and revenge doesnt?

Read my first para you quoted and then you can find the answer to your second para. What saddam did was way offline you cant kill someone for not towing your line theres no criteria for it in religion/nonreligion state. As i said basic levels of human understanding are only required here , this isnt about no rules or boundaries or criteria or PC'ness. Its about basic common sense.

[denoir 0]

Death penalty is not a barbaric custom its a simple solution for people like him , murderers. Reap as you sow, what do you do as a solider in a battlefield ? Cry a river and help the guy in understanding that he shouldnt do what he did or simply put a bullet in his head and move in ? What happens to all the barbarism there? If your so eager to dish out death to someone trying to dish it out to you in the battlefield then why not here? Whats the difference?

Killing in war is for the most time self-defence. And are you seriously trying to suggest that the rules of war be applied to governing a country? War is barbaric in its nature and should hardly be emulated.

Quote[/b] ]Revenge comes hand in hand with pardon all depends on the offender and offended. Its their matter let them decide.

No, that is called "mob justice", not the "rule of law". Only the most primitive and barbaric cultures have something like that as the base of law. Think of witch burnings, lynchings of blacks etc

Quote[/b] ]Its called Equality for all no ones above the thing which ones hands to the other regardless of their status.

Yes, it is equality, if you wish to be equal to Saddam. He murdered, so I can murder him. Yes, that's equal, but that is not law.

Quote[/b] ]Equality has a place in the legal system and revenge doesnt?

I see you are not too familar with the subject of basic law. It is equality of the individual before the law. That means that two people charged with the same crime should get the same treatment and same punishment if found guilty.

Equality does not mean that you can do to a suspect what he has done to others. If somebody steals your car, it doesn't give you the right to steal his. If somebody kills your mother, it doesn't give you the right to kill his etc

Quote[/b] ]

The 12 countries with the most executions in 2004:

China - 3,400+

Iran - 159+

Vietnam - 64+

USA - 59

Saudi Arabia - 33+

Pakistan - 15+

Kuwait - 9+

Bangladesh - 7+

Egypt - 6+

Singapore - 6+

Yemen - 6+

Belarus - 5+

Gee, now there's a list you want to be on. Incidentally all the countries on the list are blacklisted by Amnesty and HRW for other human rights violations.

[miles teg 1]

I agree with both Denoir and Acecombat actuially. Denoir, revenge is an important part of Shariat law which most Middle Eastern legal systems are based on or influenced by. However in Shariat law, MERCY is much better for the victims of a crime and will greatly increase their standing in the hereafter according to Islam. But still revenge is allowed for.

If Iraqis are to judge Saddam, this is the standard they will try him by. Not some European legal code. Ultimately I guess it will be Iraqis who will judge and decide his fate.

However, I agree with Denoir because overall I also am against capital punishment in principle simply because there is always a chance of human error. However in the case of ruthless dictators like Saddam, I do not think that life in prison for him will be a bowl of cherries. I also do not think that revenge is something that legal systems should be based upon. I disagree with the eye for an eye mentality that Jewish and Islamic laws are based upon. Revenge has not gotten the human race very far as far as being better human beings. Mercy and forgiveness however have. Its easy for me to say this as I have never had a loved one murdered, but I do not suggest that it easy to do. That is why a compromise is life sentences for very horrible crimes like murder. Not only does that keep an innocent person from accidentally being given the death penalty, but it also takes away their freedom, keeps them from doing harm, and is NOT a pleasant experience. I have rarely ever heard of a prisoner who enjoyed prison. Prison IS PUNISHMENT especially when the freedom of your entire life is taken away. The closest I've been to prison was Army Basic Training and I DID NOT like not being able to wherever I wanted to go or go inside and outside whenever I wanted to without permission. That was very mild compared to prison where a person has almost no control over his day to day life and can not go anywhere except the courthouse and prison facilities.

There are other forms of punishment that Saddam can be given also. Such as bringing in victims of his regime to speak with him every so often to constantly remind him of what he did.

You never know... one day he may become repentant of his crimes and ask for forgiveness.

But right now...killing and revenge is the whole problem these days in this stupid war in Iraq and the whole War on Terrorism and the initial 9/11 attack. Killing Saddam Hussein will just validate the sense that revenge is good and just...and people will keep taking revenge.

But ultimately it will be up to Iraqis to decide Saddam's fate. I think that almost certainly he will be put to death.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Acecombat 0]

No denoir i wasnt sayin you bring war ROE's in civilian life but take that example of basic human behaviour there and apply it to similiar conditions in civil life. I base my thought on a simple notion , you kill you get killed , you dont kill you dont. Its as simple as that how difficult is this for any human to comprehend and to be compliant with. Why would a person kill then if he knows of the consequences? If hes willing to shoulder the responsibility of killing (and by this i mean cold blooded murder) then he should also be ready to take upon himself too , no one here is above the norm if you end another human life without thought prepare for the same fate if you will (different conditions apply though as the offended part may pardon the guy if they see hes truly regrets his act if not then bye bye).

Its not about revenge its about being treated equally for what you do , what was that old saying again "Treat others like you want to be treated yourself".

Quote[/b] ]No, that is called "mob justice", not the "rule of law". Only the most primitive and barbaric cultures have something like that as the base of law. Think of witch burnings, lynchings of blacks etc

No thats what you say its not mob justice i am part of no mob and even if this system wasnt part of religion i'd adher to it , it makes for a much equal law and also instills sense of fear/responsibility in a person about to commit murder he knows its the end of the line for him if he goes through thus opening channels of non-violence and in the other case if he goes through ending violence quickly by terminating the instigater.

Witch burnings have nothing to do with what i am saying here so plz dont bring in irrelevant historic issues here. We had these laws going when we were suppose to be living in a golden age when arabia was ahead of the world and blah blah.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, it is equality, if you wish to be equal to Saddam. He murdered, so I can murder him. Yes, that's equal, but that is not law.

How is killing saddam becoming his equal?

He killed people without reasoning for his pathetic reasoning , we are putting him to the gallows for ending human life and not because we dont agree with him on politics , damn is this so complicated to understand?

Quote[/b] ]That means that two people charged with the same crime should get the same treatment and same punishment if found guilty.

Oh yes it does , as you sow so shall you reap. No one on this planet has the right to end someone elses life without reasoning.

Quote[/b] ]Equality does not mean that you can do to a suspect what he has done to others. If somebody steals your car, it doesn't give you the right to steal his. If somebody kills your mother, it doesn't give you the right to kill his etc

We were talking about murder here not petty issues as thieving.

Ofcourse if someone steals my car i wont steal his i can get my car back but i cant get my life back if he murders me can i? If someone kills my mother i have every right to put him to the sword for it unless i feel pity for him or he regrets his actions sincerely and i let him off. Fair and equal for both parties involved if they are true to themselves.

Quote[/b] ]Gee, now there's a list you want to be on. Incidentally all the countries on the list are blacklisted by Amnesty and HRW for other human rights violations.

What has that got to do with Saddams death sentence or any of this? Capital punishment is not a medium to judge a countries humane'ness levels. It boils down to human character if they abuse the system and do something bad not the laws fault is it. However judgement awaits them aswell no one can escape it in the end. All these earthly punishments are puny compared to the hereafter.

@Miles

Quote[/b] ] Its easy for me to say this as I have never had a loved one murdered, but I do not suggest that it easy to do.

This is inherently why its there in islamic law its a test of ones character further , how will you behave if your merciful more reward to you and your status as a muslim rises but however if there needs be that a person (murderer) has really done something really aweful which just isnt justified in anyway (plenty of cases in modern life rape+murder , how will you react if someone in your immediate family had such an incident?) you can call for his death sentence.

In the end it all boils down to one SIMPLE criteria , treat others like you wanna treat yourself , you kill you take someones life for granted this easily and dispatch it you go. You dont then what have you to fear?

[TwentyFourSeven 0]

and the cost keeps going up

Cost of war

[denoir 0]

I agree with both Denoir and Acecombat actuially. Denoir, revenge is an important part of Shariat law which most Middle Eastern legal systems are based on or influenced by.  However in Shariat law, MERCY is much better for the victims of a crime and will greatly increase their standing in the hereafter according to Islam.   But still revenge is allowed for.

If Iraqis are to judge Saddam, this is the standard they will try him by.  Not some European legal code.  Ultimately I guess it will be Iraqis who will judge and decide his fate.

Yes, and I'm saying that it is a sign of the degree of civilization of a society. It's not a coincidence that Islamic countries are almost exclusively corrupt dictatorships. And those who arn't (like Turkey) have abandoned capital punishment. It's perhaps not the most PC thing to say, but there is a significant difference in social development between various cultures. The Bushmen in the Sahara desert have simply not gone through the social evolution as for instance the Arabs in Iraq have. While there is a lot of diversity which is just that - differences in culture, there is also social progress.

It's quite simple really, in this case it boils down to having a civilized legal system. It's about reaching the level of maturity where you go beyond the stone age logic of "you club me, me club you". It's about having a moral consistency regardless of ideology and interpretation.

Now if the Iraqis want to go ahead and introduce the death penalty (it is abolished for now) then it's their choice. I'm just saying that if they do, they will be viewed as savages by a significant portion of the civilized world. And that has consequences.

Ace:

Quote[/b] ]Its not about revenge its about being treated equally for what you do , what was that old saying again "Treat others like you want to be treated yourself".

Yes, notice the direction of that statement. "Should I kill Saddam? Well, only if I want to be killed myself."

In addition, that is a moral rule of thumb, not law.

Quote[/b] ]How is killing saddam becoming his equal?

He killed people without reasoning for his pathetic reasoning , we are putting him to the gallows for ending human life and not because we dont agree with him on politics , damn is this so complicated to understand?

Come on Ace, it's not too difficult to understand. Let me try this by example:

1. I don't think anybody should be killed, regardless of crime

2. You think that if a person for instance kills another to say steal his car, he should be killed.

3. Saddam thought that if a person made a political comment against him, he should be killed.

See the pattern? Exactly, there is none. What constitutes a crime depends on the legal system. Saddam didn't break any Iraqi laws as he defined what those should be. You may find his reasons for killing people laughable, but others find your reasons laughable as well.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan insulting the Quran is punished by death. There is a significant group of islamist extremists who think that killing infidels is justified. Do you agree with that reasoning?

It's all relative - the only absolute is what you do in the end - kill.

And that's the basis of a civilized legal system - you declare a number of actions as unacceptable, and you stick to that principle. In this case it is that killing is wrong, regardless of who does it.

Quote[/b] ]However judgement awaits them aswell no one can escape it in the end. All these earthly punishments are puny compared to the hereafter.

Oh yeah, the religious argument, how enlightened. Anywyay, if that is your opinion, then why not Allah do the punishing. Surely you can't be breaking any religious rules by not killing another human being.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes, notice the direction of that statement. "Should I kill Saddam? Well, only if I want to be killed myself."

In addition, that is a moral rule of thumb, not law.

Eh ?

I am saying we kill Saddam for what hes done , whats that got to do with me or my treatment or whatever? Someone somewhere has to the objective judge in it. Why are you applying in all your wisdom the adage to the judge whos just handing out the law ? I sense a deep lack of sense here ....

A moral rule of thumb to me sounds much better then a crappy law which allows anyone to escape with anything and not be responsible for his acts. For all the crimes and heinous activities he does if he can get away with a solitary life in a cell i'd say hell of a deal for him .

Quote[/b] ]See the pattern? Exactly, there is none. What constitutes a crime depends on the legal system. Saddam didn't break any Iraqi laws as he defined what those should be. You may find his reasons for killing people laughable, but others find your reasons laughable as well.

I think i explained this part before.

There are certain basic rules which every human being in every society and culture to some extent in a majority agree with (this hasnt got anything to do with religion even) , so if someone like Saddam commits genocide he cant get away with it everyone whos a bit human and has some soul left in him will be against him and realize the guys a complete murderous moron who needs to be put to the hanger. I've yet to come across a culture/country which says its cool to murder people and get away with it with your only excuse being i wrote the law ....

Thats the lamest thing ive ever heard btw , Saddams defense i've created my own laws , sheesh laws are created when a bunch of people sit and agree and come on a concensus on what laws and regulations they wanna live by endorsed by the people and acknowledged in general. I dont believe many iraqis endorsed those laws by their heart (no one wants to sign their own death warrants). So this whole point is moot.

Quote[/b] ]And that's the basis of a civilized legal system - you declare a number of actions as unacceptable, and you stick to that principle. In this case it is that killing is wrong, regardless of who does it.

And who might these self proclaimed civilized people be to pass on this claim on and make it a part of some sort of universal claim to civilized'ness , a line before this everything was relative and now suddenly it isnt , how hypocritical at best.

Quote[/b] ]Oh yeah, the religious argument, how enlightened. Anywyay, if that is your opinion, then why not Allah do the punishing. Surely you can't be breaking any religious rules by not killing another human being.

Ofcourse not killing is what precisely what the whole be merciful thing advocates and tells us to excuse the offender which ALSO to some extent extends his pardon in the hereafter after all if the offended is no more angry at him why should god be?

However there are certain times when you just feel too much anger/frustration inside yourself and cant let go of the murderer for what hes done to feel this you need to have to expereince it yourself its human nature embedded inside you , you cant deny it but you can over ride it if you will it in religion thats the test, but sometimes the crimes of the offender are far too great to be left alone and ignored and be put at gods wills , killing him here is to set a precedent for all others to see what happens to such filth and murderous unsympathetic inhuman beings who dont give a thought before ending someones life as easily as that.

By the way i've seen you and others in this very thread excuse the iraqi resistance for its resistance because its fighting to avenge the deaths of its people/relatives/family and to throw away the occupiers who did it , so whats up with that?

So your given the freedom to choose whatever to do since the guy took a life hes put his own at stake its as simple as THAT. Dont kill and you wont find yuorself in such a place. If you pardon him kudos to you , rewards in the end will be greater for you.

[denoir 0]

I am saying we kill Saddam for what hes done , whats that got to do with me or my treatment or whatever?

The rule of thumb is "Treat others like you want to be treated yourself", not "Treat others like they have treated you"

Quote[/b] ]A moral rule of thumb to me sounds much better then a crappy law which allows anyone to escape with anything and not be responsible for his acts. For all the crimes and heinous activities he does if he can get away with a solitary life in a cell i'd say hell of a deal for him   .

And where do you wish to draw a limit to the revenge? Just kill him? He who has killed thousands? Why not torture him first, surely he has deserved that?

What you fail to understand is that it's not about protecting him, it's about protecting you from becoming a murderer. It is about not becoming a killer yourself.

Quote[/b] ]I think i explained this part before.

There are certain basic rules which every human being in every society and culture to some extent in a majority agree with (this hasnt got anything to do with religion even) , so if someone like Saddam commits genocide he cant get away with it everyone whos a bit human and has some soul left in him will be against him and realize the guys a complete murderous moron who needs to be put to the hanger. I've yet to come across a culture/country which says its cool to murder people and get away with it with your only excuse being i wrote the law ....

And I'm saying that history has shown us that there are no such basic rules. As you can see, we can't agree on it. If we can't what makes you think the rest of the world can?

I think the death penalty is utterly barbaric and that only "human filth", as you put it, would support it. Obviously you disagree. So there are no absolutes on what is acceptable, right or wrong - only what you de facto do about it.

There are some general rules we can all agree on, but they are on a much higher level than specific implementations of law. Incidentally, one such thing, that was ratified by all UN members was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html ), that declares rules that nobody - no individual, no country, no organization - is allowed to violate. Article 3 says

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Making the death penalty a human rights violation.

Quote[/b] ]Thats the lamest thing ive ever heard btw , Saddams defense i've created my own laws , sheesh laws are created when a bunch of people sit and agree and come on a concensus on what laws and regulations they wanna live by endorsed by the people and acknowledged in general. I dont believe many iraqis endorsed those laws by their heart (no one wants to sign their own death warrants). So this whole point is moot.

Rubbish. Law is written by those in power, regardless how they came to power. Not even in the most progressive democracies are the people involved in writing the law.

Some time ago, the death penalty was abolished in Turkey, it was declared to be a violation of human rights. Should the people that wrote and implemented the previous laws be thrown in jail for violating human rights?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And that's the basis of a civilized legal system - you declare a number of actions as unacceptable, and you stick to that principle. In this case it is that killing is wrong, regardless of who does it.

And who might these self proclaimed civilized people be to pass on this claim on and make it a part of some sort of universal claim to civilized'ness    , a line before this everything was relative and now suddenly it isnt , how hypocritical at best.

It depends on the level you are looking at. Universally speaking, everything is relative. In practice, there are trends in the world. The reference trend today are western democracies, and if I understand correctly, you are a western sympathizer yourself. There are a number of different possible metrics as well as quality of life, violence in the society etc Then there's also the relative development, Arab countries are becoming more like western countries, not the other way around etc

Also, tolerance is often mistaken for relativism. A part of the western system is tolerance to diversity. I may feel utter loathing for countries that have the death penalty, but I'll accept that it's their right. While I reserve the right to have an opinion about them, I do not advocate conversion by force. The question there is of course where you draw the line of when you let your moral rules override the rules of others (stopping a genocide for instance).

Quote[/b] ]However there are certain times when you just feel too much anger/frustration inside yourself and cant let go of the murderer for what hes done to feel this you need to have to expereince it yourself its human nature embedded inside you

Yeah, that's revenge, not justice. The point of the legal system is to do what is best for society, not what appeases an individuals feelings at the the time.

Quote[/b] ]killing him here is to set a precedent for all others to see what happens to such filth and murderous unsympathetic inhuman beings who dont give a thought before ending someones life as easily as that.

That's a load of you-know-what. The death penalty has been in place around the world for thousands of years, and that hasn't prevented tyrants from mass murdering people. A very good example of it is the fact that the violent crime rates in countries that have the death penalty are far higher than in the countries that don't. It's a question of accepting violence as a means of dealing with issues. The society sets the moral standard. If the society murders its citizens it sends a clear message that killing is ok.

Quote[/b] ]By the way I've seen you and others in this very thread excuse the iraqi resistance for its resistance because its fighting to avenge the deaths of its people/relatives/family and to throw away the occupiers who did it , so whats up with that?

I don't think anybody here has approved of the murdering that the resistance in Iraq does. There's a difference between understanding and approving. I fully understand why people would want to execute Saddam, but that doesn't mean I approve of it.

There is also the question of where you draw the limit of self-defence. And as I stated earlier, war is barbaric in its nature, you can't apply the same rules to a supposedly civilized society.

Quote[/b] ]Dont kill and you wont find yuorself in such a place.

And you don't want to hold the legal system to the same standards?