Punishment for Saddam Hussain

Do you believe that Saddam should be executed a soon as possible to satisfy the understandable need for revenge of many of his victims, or should he be imprisoned for life to illustrate a modern civilised justice system which will be seen to be a model for the Arab world?

never return violence with violence. Just lock the guy up and throw the key away.

The death penalty doesn't work, and besides it would only turn him into a martyr in the Arab world.

They should put him on Judge Judy.

Would be interested to see the nationality split on this poll. My bet is the civilised Europeans have all voted for imprisonment whilst the bloodthirsty, gun-toting Americans vote for execution.

For once I do agree with Saddam on one thing he said yesterday - it's a show trial!

So may as well be on Judge Judy

Someboday rightly pointed out yesterday that he should have been tried at The Hague at a proper ar crimes trial.

Hey Polar Bear Pirate, please exclude the "country" of California.

We're all pacifist hippies who wouldn't hurt a fly. [img]http://www.box.net.au/~cirillo/hippie.gif[/img]

I think he should be locked up. Spending the rest of his life getting fat somewhere like the Hague is a much more appropriate punishment than execution.

Still, it's not really up to us is it? The Iraqis should decide.

Yes, in the sense that it's a public trial and that it's hard to imagine he could be absolute ruler in a regime that killed so many of it's opponents without having done anything criminal himself, which makes a guilty verdict almost certain.

No, in the sense that the term "show trial" has connotations of unfairness that I think make it inappropriate - if you conducted it properly with the evidence collected by people like Indict, he would get a fair trial for real crimes.

Oddly enough, one of the crimes that Indict mention is this one

So he's not really in a position to complain about show trials. Also, I'm guessing that even in Baathist Iraq this sort of thing would be criminal behaviour.

And to preempt any objections - yes the US and UK are nowhere near perfect when it comes to "launching aggressive wars", I admit that. Mind you there aren't any UN Security Council resolutions against them which would make them criminals

If he had affected any of my family in any way, I would want him thrown into some central square in Bahgdad for the masses to deal with. However, we are there to westernise, oops sorry, liberate these people so a trial followed by imprisonment is probably inevitable. I don't think the Arab world will see any satisfaction in Saddam getting banged up in a jail where the conditions will probably be better that some of their homes though.


The Brits never needed to launch aggressive wars! We sailed the world and taught people what cutlery to use, how to play cricket, and what tea was (after we had nicked the idea). We were loved for the benevolent way we helped the savages become cultured. Tssk.

It's just unfortunate that the other criminals won't be brought to justice - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co who invaded a sovereign country without just cause or reason or international sanction. They have also caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Still, at least the Iraqi's can look on the bright side:

Ooo a toughy.
Ordinarily I'm against the death penalty - but this is not ordinary. The guy murdered and oppressed millions of his own people - death penalty seems appropriate.

But then it would turn him into a martyr for terrorrists - even though the hardline muslims didn't like him either. So on balance I think to let him rot in a jail cell with the company of his own thoughts and guilt for the rest of his life is appropriate. (although I wonder if I guy like that is capable of guilt ?) Perhaps they should arrange daily visits from the relative of his victims to tell him of the untold levels of hurt he caused ?

Saddam will never be a martyr to Jihadis because his Ba'ath Party was secular. It has always amused me this link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Twenty minutes off a plane in Riyadh would allow anyone to suss out how far apart they are in ideology.

10 Posts and already bashing Americans. Congrats. Nice way to endear yourself to almost half the board. I expect better from a "civilized" European.

Before Saddam came to power, wasnt he put on trial for assassinating a former president there, or at least responsible for organising something similar.

Hypothetically though he is still as powerful a threat if he is thrown in jail. Should the probable happen one day and the interim government is overthrown and the coallaition troops forced to leave Iraq, he would be one of the poeple they would turn to.

What about John Walker Lindh?

You're taking away the favorite European past-time of broadly painting 291,000,000 people with the same brush! ALL AMERICANS DRIVE PICK-UPS AND HAVE GUNS AND SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY. Fact. Just ask any European.

But seriously, comparing the execution of Saddam to a serial murderer is apples and oranges. I am against the death penalty as it is pretty much accepted to not be a deterent. With Saddam, nobody is claiming that killing him will deter other loonies from gassing ethnic minorities. Will executing him stop militants from beheading innocents while demanding his release? Maybe.

Anyway, we don't have to worry about it. The Iraqis get to decide and that's a great thing either way.

As for The Hague... sorry, I'm not convinced it is anything but a joke. People that insist on tyrants and terrorists being tried at the Hague for war crimes evidently aren't interested in justice for the victims. Why look, one can commit 10 murders and get only 18 years in prison:

Bosnian Serb Gets 18 Years Jail for Camp Murders


That's 1.8 years for each person murdered by this guy. Think about that. Is your life or the life of your loved ones worth more than 1.8 years of imprisonment? I sure think so.

As for the Saddam case being a circus, the Milosevic defense (that being himself) at The Hague has called 1400 witnesses including Clinton, Blair, Howdy Doody, the Tooth Fairy, and some guy named Phil from Manitoba.

Leave the decision making to the people who suffered most under him.

I found this on BBC's Have Your Say and they pretty much embody my notion:


that's the smartest thing I've ever heard out of somebody from Knoxville (just kidding, Vandy alum here )!

IMHO, it is very wrong to have somebody trailed by his own victims. A trial should be about facts, and not about emotions. Victims will never be able to separate both.

I'm not advocating that somebody who's sons were killed by Saddam should be allowed on a jury, but surely there are people who are willing to look at the evidence and make a decision. When I say let him be tried by those who suffered under him, I'm saying generically and Iraqi person. I think the verdict would hold a lot more clout with the people when handed down by several of their own.

Besides, what is now Iraq had a rule of law back when Europeans were drawing on cave walls. I don't think we should underestimate the people to hand out justice.

18 years for the Bosnian Serbs crimes might seem short. But the 999 year sentences handed out in America are meaningless. Even if you get "life" improsonment in Europe, in most cases you could expect to be released someday.

Depends what you think prison / other sentencing is for: Is it about protecting society? Is it about reforming the individual ? or is it purely about punishment and revenge?

The interesting question is, will Saddam called Rum$feld as a witness?
After all, America, Britain and a whole load of other countries sold him poison gas knowing exactly what was going to be done with it.

he bought most of his really bad stuff from the FRENCH

anyone want to join me in a bit of froggie bashing?

@Sparkahck regarding Lindh

Ah ha! He's not REALLY a Californian...


Well when you get to the more rural areas, we do have some weirdos...that's why folks like to call it the land `o fruits and nuts!

So he's not a TRUE Californian

Oh, Sparkahck, you're building a straw man by changing my statement to one you can poke fun at. Shame on you. [img]http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/nono.gif[/img]

Rubbish. There's loads of good reasons to kill people. Would not set a very good example to the local savages to clip Saddam, thats all.

@don - Go on then, gimme a list of good reasons to kill people.

peados for a start big c.

Vegemite or Marmite eaters for seconds

Looks like I'm on the list to be killed then. (I like Marmite on toast!)
I mean if you'd put something sensible like Müncheners or Dumbass Yanks or people born with too many fingers, then I might have agreed

death penelty. (and i dont say this cuz i'm american.. cuz in most circumstances i am against it)

just to be sure he never gets out again.
besides, that would be better for him anyway... i mean if i was in his situation i'd prolly rather be executed than left to rot in jail for the rest of my life..which prolly wouldnt be too much longer anyway, but still...

Surely it's too easy to just kill him. It would be like letting him off. We should make him sit in jail and rot for many years to come so he can think about what he's done!

Has anyone noticed that people arguing in favour of the death penalty tend to use poorer grammar, spelling and punctuation than those arguing against it?

Now that would be appeal to ridicule!

Actually, it was meant to be a subtle ad hominem attack.

the way saddam would punish someone would be to go shoot their kid in front of their face. the guy should fry.

Saddam faces court with a rattle of chains


some nice reporting there - man that would be one interesting trial to be at

I was reading USA Today on the tram and laughed aloud when I got to the last sentence...

" The charges read on Thursday were broad, more a recounting of atrocities committed during Saddam's rule than specific legal points. They include gas attacks against Iraqis who opposed his regime, an illegal war against Kuwait, the murder of religious leaders, the killing of Kurds in northern Iraq, and the brutal suppression of uprisings by Kurds and Shiites after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Saddam, who took notes on yellow sheets of paper, declared that some of the events he knew about secondhand, and others he carried out as his presidential responsibility. He said the invasion of Kuwait could not be a crime because he was retaking a part of Iraq and because the Kuwaiti "dogs" were trying to turn Iraqi women into "10-dinar prostitutes."

I read that when asked about all the Kurds he's ordered to be killed etc. he answered: "I heard about it on television!"

Saddam asks to be shot


I know the Iraqis have chosen their own constitution but doesn't it strike anyone find it odd that a dictator who had scant regard for human rights and a changed regime that is supposed to hold human rights at its core are now squabbling about what kind of judicial killing be meted out to him?

Topics merged by admin

Since I am not for the death penalty as a rule, and it is outlawed in most civilized countries, there's not much to argue about...

he should suffer a long lingering death- like injecting him with different cancers or HIV and BirdFlu -then use him as guinnea pig. I am really not a sadistic person (okay maybe sometimes), but I feel people like him should suffer. A quick and easy death is too good for him.

He'll die believing he's a martyr. Lots of other people will view him as such, too. He should have been sentenced to life imprisonment, somewhere not in a Muslim country.

There's just no way a person can be punished enough for the kind of suffering Saddam caused. Any penalty is inadequate.

Does he deserve the death penalty? No one does.

did all the people who were executed or tortured to death under his regime deserve their 'death penalties' too?
although I am not sure executing Saddam is the 'right' thing to do. better to let him rot away in prison where he can do no harm, surely an apt punishment for a once wealthy, powerful man who used to have the world at his feet, to be locked away far away from his family.

i am generally against death penalty but in the case of dictators i think they should be executed.
why: in most cases former dictators are sentenced to prison, a new government 10 years later changes the law and frees them or a civil war breaks out and suddenly they are out of prison... these dictators are usually in political unstable countries were no one can guarantee they will be imprisoned for life.

How can you be generally against the death penalty ?

It's either okay to kill somebody as punishment or it isn't.

generally: in all cases except dictators... unless you can guarantee imprisonment for life. ie iraq, i don't see iraq being stable in enough to do that. so what do you do when you cannot imprison someone...

Jail him, let him get old and decrepit in jail, let his former subjects see his downfall. even if he gets released within the next 10 years I'm sure that there are enough people prepared to sing the executioners song for him.

He should be given a job as a moderator on TT

Do I need to post that Rock, Paper, Saddam thing again?

Well this sounds like Britain and the US to me. Replace gas attacks against Iraqis with cluster bombs against Afghanistanis and the illegal war with Kuwait with the illegal war against Iraq.

As for the death penalty if you want to make him a martyr then sentence him to death. Personally I don't agree with the death penalty in any situation (although I almost do in the case of Bush and Blair). I would let him rot in prison for the rest of his life.