Saddam hangs

Doc Savage

New member
monkey said:
As I have stated many times on this forum, I strongly believe that Western Civilization is the best civilization.
I agree. A Constitutional Republic, governed by rule of law, is as close to a perfect government humans can formulate. Though our government has strayed considerably...
monkey said:
Yes, I know, that may be bigoted, or even racist, or whatever......I don't care what I am called.....I strongly believe this, and I will stand by that.
Not bigoted, not rascist...we are the only country under virtually the same government for 200 years. If I'm not mistaken, that's a record.
monkey said:
And when I say Western Civilization, I don't mean "Christian", although the Christian tradition is a very strong component of Western Civilization, I don't think it is the most important.
To the gasp of many, I agree. The founding fathers recognized that the utilitarian aspects of Christianity were the foundations for the freedoms we enjoy. Even Benjamin Franklin (a deist, mind you, not a Christian) admonished Thomas Paine for his denouncement of "a particular Providence" and encouraged church attendance and Sunday school. Christianity should stand on its own merit and not be an imposed state religion. When truly practiced, it does.

This has been a thought-provoking thread, gents.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
As I mentioned, Saddam's end may have been catharsis and closure for some, but deterrence and pragmatism were more than enough reason to make him extinct. Suppose terrorists captured a roomfull of school children 2 or 20 years from now and demanded his release. Debating his death sentece is a luxury by comparison.

Just south of here sits the man who killed our once-future president Robert Kennedy in '68. The state has spent millions to provide for Sirhan Sirhan's care and comfort and legal support. I doubt his example has been much of a deterrent.

It's very possible we agree with what should have happened in '03 and what should happen in '07. Representative government with accountable leadership is a requirement for progress we take for granted. Hopefully someday Western Civ will be too widespread to classify geographically.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Moedred said:
Suppose terrorists captured a roomfull of school children 2 or 20 years from now and demanded his release.
Nice assumption. You have a device seen like the one seen in <i>Minority Report</i> tucked in somewhere? Besides, considering Saddam's age, I doubt he would have lived for two decades from now, especially in a harsh prison environment.

Sorry if that became out somehow rough, I just find it silly when people bring out that argument. And especially now using it has worn slim, since how many such attempts have we seen thus far? Saddam has sat behind bars since December 2003, for three years... guess that would have been more than enough time for some wackos to conjure up a plan to free "the great leader", especially when it became evident that he may end up at the end of rope.

I just have mixed feelings about this sentence. Somehow I'm not worried about it being misjustice to Saddam, it was just about as just as anything to a man with his past.

However, not too sure if it did justice to his captors.
 

JRJENNINGS86

New member
i know this is really old but just wanted to say i was there for it. my platoon stood roof top security during the Hanging. first time i ever watched a real hanging.
 

Goodeknight

New member
JRJENNINGS86 said:
i know this is really old but just wanted to say i was there for it. my platoon stood roof top security during the Hanging. first time i ever watched a real hanging.

Holy crap. Wondered why there was a new post to this thread.

I always wondered: What was the general atmosphere like? I mean, end of a long, violent dictatorship. Celebration time. But still, dude's getting hung. Kind of a downer. If it was a celebration, was it, I don't know --- animalistic? Blood thirsty?
 

JRJENNINGS86

New member
the Iraqi people were cheering loudly and throwing their shoes all over the place ( the hitting and throwing of shoes is the same as giving some one the finger, so to speak) once he droped you could just feel the release from the people. i can't really describe it but they were just so excited to finally feel safe and free from his terror. i do belive that most of the celebration lasted for several days, which ment we were really on gaurd considering not all of the Iraqi people were happy about him being put to death.
 

Nurhachi1991

Well-known member
JRJENNINGS86 said:
i know this is really old but just wanted to say i was there for it. my platoon stood roof top security during the Hanging. first time i ever watched a real hanging.

Did you guys tape it?
 

kongisking

Active member
Boy, it disturbs me to see how happy people get over the execution of a human being. Yes, he was a monster, but I believe very strongly that death is not a morally right punishment for anybody. No matter what they've done. It's the worst possible thing to do to a person, to deny them the right to live. By executing Saddam, we show that we are just as cold-blooded as he is. If we REALLY wanted to show how we are better, we would spare his life and sentence him to life in prison. Who cares if he wouldn't do the same for us, it's still the right thing to do.

Okay, I'm done making an ass out of myself. Feel free to call me an idiot, a hypocrite, a vile piece of crap, or a warped and disturbed waste of life. :rolleyes:
 

Nurhachi1991

Well-known member
Because Prison would be to good for him.... Look at it this way he was on a car ride to hell.... and he rode shotgun! :rolleyes:
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Finn said:
the Germans had been a lot better off in the forties had they been led by the Pope.
It might have been, but for the Law of Unintended Consequences. Quoting Tom Clancy:
Had Wilhelm been left in place, the Holocaust would never have happened. Why? Think about it. When a king gets his nice new gold hat, it happens in a church, and the officiating priest/minister reminds the new monarch that he/she rules at God's sufferance. (My comments here are intended to apply to the European tradition. In the Far East things were different because of their different religious and philosophical outlook on reality, on which I've commented in my books.) Kings typically take that rather seriously. The chief of government may own the government, but the King owns the PEOPLE, and he is responsible to God for their safety, and Hitler would never have had the balls to cross the Kaiser
Hope it shakes out okay four years hence regarding the aforementioned Gadaffi and others.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Kongisking, I agree with you. Execution is revenge. However, I do not exempt myself from feeling like this. Inside all of us is a monster. If a loved one were hurt or killed, I would want revenge. It's a challenge for all of us.
 

kongisking

Active member
Mickiana said:
Kongisking, I agree with you. Execution is revenge. However, I do not exempt myself from feeling like this. Inside all of us is a monster. If a loved one were hurt or killed, I would want revenge. It's a challenge for all of us.

Absolutely. We have a choice to either embrace that monster or try to smother it out. This is why I have so much respect for the Batman character, who bases his entire philosophy off of the idea that every person deserves the right to exist, at the least.

But I'm going off topic again. Saddam Hussein was a horrible, despicable fiend, but I think we really should have just locked him up for good, instead of taking the coward's way out of just killing the mutha.
 
It's easy to opine from an insulated throne.

From the NY Times, take it for what you will.

Hussein, was one of the world’s indisputably evil men: he murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead.

Good riddance.

From Time: The Sum of Two Evils

After months of recovering from an attempt on his life that put eight bullets in his left side, Uday Hussein, the eldest son of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, was ready to party. At his first outing in 1998, at the posh Jadriyah Equestrian Club, he used high-powered binoculars to survey the crowd of friends and family from a platform high above the guests. He saw something he liked, recalls his former aide Adib Shabaan, who helped arrange the party. Uday tightened the focus on a pretty 14-year-old girl in a bright yellow dress sitting with her father, a former provincial governor, her mother and her younger brother and sister.
Uday's bodyguards picked up the signal and walked through the darkened room, flicking cigarette lighters as they approached the girl's table. Uday, then 33, flipped on his too, confirming they had identified the right one. When the girl left the table for the powder room, Uday's bodyguards approached her with a choice, says Shabaan, who was Uday's business manager. She could ascend the platform now and congratulate Uday on his recovery, or she could call him on his private phone that night. Flustered, she apologized and said her parents would allow neither. One of the guards replied, "This is the chance of your life" and promised she would receive diamonds and a car. "All you have to do is go up there for 10 minutes," he urged. When she demurred again, the bodyguards pursued Uday's backup plan. They maneuvered the girl in the direction of the parking lot, picked her up and carried her to the backseat of Uday's car, covering her mouth to muffle her screams.

After three days the girl was returned to her home, with a new dress, a new watch and a large sum of cash. Her parents had her tested for rape; the result was positive. According to Shabaan's account, Uday heard she had been tested and sent aides to the clinic, where they warned doctors not to report a rape. Furious, the father demanded to see Saddam himself. Rebuffed, he kept complaining publicly about what Uday had done. After three months, the President's son had had enough. He sent two guards to the man to insist that he drop the matter. Uday had another demand: that the ex-governor bring his daughter and her 12-year-old sister to his next party. "Your daughters will be my girlfriends, or I'll wipe you off the face of the earth." The man complied, surrendering both girls.

brothers0524.jpg


It has long been known in Iraq and beyond that as venal and vicious as Saddam Hussein was, Uday was worse. Now that the regime has fallen, the quotidian details of the son's outrages are beginning to emerge. With Iraqis free to speak more openly, it has become clear that the malignancy of Uday's behavior actually exceeded that of his reputation. At the same time, new hints are emerging about his psychological state. Uday, now 38, suffered not only from the anguish of Saddam's disapproval—the son was too unprincipled even for his father—but also often from physical pain as a result of the 1996 attempt on his life. TIME has obtained a three-page medical report that lays out the until now undisclosed gravity of Uday's injuries, which nearly killed him and resulted in a stroke, brain damage and seizures in addition to the wounds to his torso and left leg. Uday displayed a compulsion to control the tiniest of details in his life, perhaps with the hope that he could stave off the situation in which he finds himself today. According to both a family servant and another source familiar with communications from Uday, despite two U.S. attempts during the war to kill Saddam as well as Uday and his younger brother Qusay, all three survived. Even now, says this other source, Uday, from a hideout near Baghdad, has reached out to the U.S., hoping to strike a deal for his safe surrender. A relative, says the source, has approached an intermediary asking, "What are the chances of working out something? Can he get some kind of immunity?" The U.S., naturally, has no intention of pardoning a man with Uday's record. The first son of Saddam Hussein seems to be the last to know he is irredeemable.

To get a closer look at the brothers Hussein, TIME interviewed dozens of sources with knowledge of the two men—butlers, maids, business associates, bodyguards, secretaries, colleagues and friends, most of whom insisted on anonymity for fear the Husseins are somehow still capable of taking revenge. We visited the sons' homes and sifted through raw material, including scores of documents, photographs, videotapes and recordings of phone taps. Here's what we found: As the first-born son, generally an unassailable position in an Arab family, Uday was seen as his father's natural heir. But he lost that status when his brutal tendencies directly touched his father. In 1988 Uday clubbed to death Saddam's favorite food taster, bodyguard Kamel Hanna Jajjo, because the man had introduced Saddam to the woman who would eventually become the President's second wife. Furious, Saddam had Uday jailed for 40 days and beaten after he struck a prison guard. The jailing fueled Uday's anger. "Your man is going to kill me," he wrote his mother, according to a copy of the letter obtained by TIME. He demanded that she find someone who can "release me from this torture." Uday said he had not been given anything but water for eight days and had spent four days in iron handcuffs. "I will either die, or I will go crazy," he wrote.

Qusay had been working for his father in small jobs in internal security when his big break came. Iraq's Shi'ite Muslims, who make up a majority in the country but have long been repressed by the minority Sunnis, revolted against the regime in dozens of cities when Gulf War I ended. Saddam gave Qusay broad authority to oversee the crushing of the uprising. He did not entirely delegate the task. An eyewitness recalls watching Qusay, dressed in gray trousers and a blue jacket, arrive in Suera, where armed guards herded 300 Shi'ite detainees onto a field. The President's son, dangling a pistol in his right hand, walked up to the men and shot four of them in the head, according to a military officer at the scene. As he pulled the trigger, Qusay screamed out, "Bad people! Dirty criminals!" Qusay then ordered the execution of the remaining prisoners, got into his car and drove back to Baghdad. It was just one of many Shi'ite exterminations that Qusay ordered or personally performed in 1991, the ex-officer told TIME. The same source, one of Qusay's security commanders, said Qusay, for example, directed the execution of 15 families in Saddam City, a Shi'ite enclave in Baghdad.

Uday demonstrated an insatiable sexual appetite. Five nights a week, some two dozen girls, all of them referred to him by his friends, were taken to the posh Baghdad Boat Club on the bank of the Tigris to meet Uday, close associates of his confirm. After drinks, music and dancing, the young women would be lined up like beauty queens for Uday's approval, and all but one or two would be dismissed. Those who stayed would join Uday in his bedroom at the club and leave with a gift of 250,000 dinars ($125), gold jewelry or sheer lingerie. "He never slept with a girl more than three times," says a former butler. "He was very picky." Uday took two days a week off from girls. He called it "fasting," his close associates say.

A chef at Baghdad's exclusive Hunting Club recalls a wedding party that Uday crashed in the late 1990s. After Uday left the hall, the bride, a beautiful woman from a prominent family, went missing. "The bodyguards closed all the doors, didn't let anybody out," the chef remembers. "Women were yelling and crying, 'What happened to her?'" The groom knew. "He took a pistol and shot himself," says the chef, placing his forefinger under his chin.

Last October another bride, 18, was dragged, resisting, into a guardhouse on one of Uday's properties, according to a maid who worked there. The maid says she saw a guard rip off the woman's white wedding dress and lock her, crying, in a bathroom. After Uday arrived, the maid heard screaming. Later she was called to clean up. The body of the woman was carried out in a military blanket, she said. There were acid burns on her left shoulder and the left side of her face. The maid found bloodstains on Uday's mattress and clumps of black hair and peeled flesh in the bedroom. A guard told her, "Don't say anything about what you see, or you and your family will be finished."

—With reporting by Amany Radwan/Amman and Adam Zagorin/Washington
 
Last edited:

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Nurhachi1991 said:
Did you guys tape it?

you sicko Nurhachi...of course they didn't tape him













































































































...taping the body means you can't see the arms and legs flail about as the air constricts in the lungs and expels out the rear. Tape, would hold all that in.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
I'm not opining, Rocket, and I don't consider my expressed views on this board as an "insulated throne." I thought my above post was fairly logical in it's presentation, but, I am also expressing something I feel.

Execution is revenge, no matter 'how justifiable' it is. I went on to say that like anyone else, I am prone to feelings of revenge. What is it we want to do when we execute someone? Is it to meter out justice? Or is it that personal savage feeling of an eye-for-an-eye?

Yes, that article about his sons tells a horrible story, but I think Saddam and his sons and any like mad man or killer should be/should have been incarcerated for as long as necessary, life if need be. Where is it going to get us if we act/react in the same way as the very people whose behaviour we abhor? "To kill the man, you must become the monster."
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Mickiana said:
What is it we want to do when we execute someone? Is it to meter out justice? Or is it that personal savage feeling of an eye-for-an-eye?
Is it justice for the victims of a tyrant to have to pay for his food and shelter after he has been rightfully deposed? I certainly agree that in a lot of situations the death penalty fails to mete out justice, but my qualms about capital punishment stem more from the thought of the State having control over life/death than from the thought of taking the life of a man who took so many others' lives. I'm not entirely sure that an "eye-for-an-eye" is inherently unjust. Perhaps forcing Saddam into a workers' camp in Siberia ala Raskolnikov might have served as a better punishment, but I don't know that this execution could be rightfully identified as victors' justice or mere revenge.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Killing someone doesn't reverse any of the damage they did. It does stop them from doing any more, but at the time of execution he wasn't still committing any of his crimes. I am not a christian in a religious orthodox way, but christian principles, as in what Jesus taught, seem like good principles. Wasn't one of them 'forgive your enemy'? What about 'turn the other cheek'?

I am bringing this up for good discussion, because, in a quieter moment, I am very uneasy about promoting the death penalty. It seems terribly inhumane, no matter how inhumane the would be recipient is. And what about the scale of judgement? At what point do we decide someone is to die for a crime?
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Mickiana said:
Killing someone doesn't reverse any of the damage they did.
No punishment can reverse non-monetary damage. Killing Saddam does not bring back a single life, but neither would locking him away for eternity.

Mickiana said:
What about 'turn the other cheek'?
Well, Jesus ended up dead on a cross. How did that work out for him?*

Mickiana said:
At what point do we decide someone is to die for a crime?
How about after they kill someone? That seems reasonable. Granted, I would not consider those "guilty" of manslaughter necessarily deserving of death. Look, under normal circumstances, I oppose capital punishment. I don't think we should take every murderer in prisons and kill them, but from a philosophical point of view, I see no reason why that eye-for-an-eye is unjust, especially when we aren't talking about accidental infringement on another's life. If you are willing to take another person's life, do you yourself deserve to live?

Of course, your problem, and mine, stems from the way that we're looking at the situation. If someone gets the death penalty, someone has to kill somebody. Killing begetting killing. That's inescapable. But note that we are not talking about murder begetting murder, and I suppose that's the key issue here. If you're walking down the street and someone kills you, that's murder. If you're walking down the street and you kill an attacker who you just saw murder a little old lady, that's not murder, for two reasons. First, it's self-defense, but that argument doesn't do any work for us when we're talking about Saddam because he was not killed in self-defense. So we have to resort to the second reason: it's justice.

When you murder someone (that is, when you kill an innocent human being), you give up your right to life. I think that's fair. I would not want the government to actually work that way, but again, I'm looking at this from a normative standpoint. Since our government is not a benevolent dictatorship, I'm not comfortable with capital punishment being thrown about. But from a theoretical standpoint, I see no reason why a murderer does not forfeit his right to life.



*I am, of course, assuming that the resurrection is just a myth... Even if Jesus did raise from the dead, I think we all know that we will not without a little divine assistance.
 
Mickiana said:
I'm not opining, Rocket, and I don't consider my expressed views on this board as an "insulated throne."
You ARE opining Mic. You're stating your opinion and the insulated throne goes for ANYONE not directly affected by the tyrant/aggressor. My point simply put is that it's easy to second guess a difficult decision made by people in harms way.

Execution is not ALWAYS revenge. I'm not in favor of the death penalty...with exceptions.

With regard to incarcerating Saddam I ask: did exiling Napoleon to Elba stop him?

Surely you don't mean to argue executing Saddam or his sons would be a frivolous decision.
Mickiana said:
Where is it going to get us if we act/react in the same way as the very people whose behaviour we abhor? "To kill the man, you must become the monster."
We live in a world full of monsters and they should be desposed of as such. I scoffed at your meager estimation of Saddam as "horrible." Not at you, mind you.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Then we are all opining from insulated thrones, unless we are directly affected by atrocities somewhere. But, I don't agree with that. Apparently Saddam was propped up by US money. Apparently the CIA loved him until he got out of control. Apparently they didn't care about his atrocities (better word than horrible) until they couldn't control him. Shouldn't these f*****g *****s be offed as well?

There is always going to be monsters. We would virtually need an ongoing program of elimination as one takes another's place. You'd at least end up becoming a total monster yourself, if not, having to start as one. Not executing a monstrous criminal doesn't mean you agree with them, it just means you are not going to become like them.

If I sound like I underestimate Saddam, please don't see that. There are no words for what he did. But there are a lot of Saddams in the world. Always was, always will be. I don't know what the solution is. I don't know if more killing is a solution. And legal differentiations are just that: killing, murder, execution. It's all the removal of life.

Saddam's execution was not frivolous at all. It had great intent behind it. It's this intent that I am discussing. I tell you right now, if someone hurt or killed someone close to me, you'd have to lock me down. I recognise this impulse in myself. But I also recognise a feeling (which may be seen as an opinion) that it would be a hollow, meaningless act that does not help anything, but probably makes things worse.
 
Top