Just coz the guy was a monster doesn't mean they have to be too.
I mean hanging? didn't that go out like in the 18th century?
2006-11-06 00:14:58 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
lol u people are just an angry bunch arent ya?
2006-11-06 00:28:53 · update #1
maybe he would prefer being thrown into an industrial shredder feet first? that was his favorite. his sons publicly raped a girl, beat her, stripped her naked covered her in honey and threw her in a room where bee hives were kept and watched her get stun to death.
quit shedding tears for monsters. Shed tears for his vicitms, and the soldiers who died to bring him to justice.
2006-11-06 00:19:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
In his country, hanging is by far the least barbaric way. He could have been drowned in a pool, stoned to death, or beaten to death - all of which are extremely barbaric and still goes on, even today. Hangings over there happen all the time and is not 18th century to the people of his country.
2006-11-06 08:24:50 · answer #2 · answered by GirlinNB 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps you should have ONE serious answer.
Hanging by the neck IS actually a very humane and non-barbaric form of killing someone, if it is done right and the neck is snapped cleanly. Serious research has shown that lethal injection is actually one of the most inhumane forms of execution dreamt up so far.
Lethal injection is designed to project an IMAGE of humanity because the condemned is rendered unable to either move or speak, but there is firm evidence to show that while dying he is in severe and constant pain and anxiety because he is slowly smothered to death (slow being about three minutes as opposed to about ten seconds with hanging or about thirty seconds with the guillotine).
The purpose of lethal injection is not for the benefit of the condemned, but for the benefit of the executioners. If the executioners, who are doing their job and have to live with that, are not forced to watch someone they do not know (and have no realistic idea of guilt or innocence) slowly writhe and quirm while dying, they are less likely to be traumatized by the experience.
2006-11-06 09:34:21 · answer #3 · answered by sdvwallingford 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What, you mean Saddam Hussein wasn't enough of a barbarian for you? You think they should be merciful and give the bastard a lethal injection?
Actually it was the guillotine that went out of vogue back in the 18th Century...hanging is still as popular today as it ever was.
2006-11-06 08:24:50 · answer #4 · answered by J.A.R. 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Some, or most, of those Middle Eastern countries are pretty darn barbaric. To them I imagine hanging isn't considered to be. I think they're stuck in the middle ages when drawing and quartering was pretty popular.
2006-11-06 08:55:19 · answer #5 · answered by Judith 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, if you are condemned to die in the USA, you can choose to die by hanging in three states. It is still on the books.
People need to see Saddam die. If he dies quietly in his cell with an IV, people will not believe he is dead and will forment "conspiracy" theories.
Hanging is too good for him.
2006-11-06 08:37:15 · answer #6 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course they can. what should be done is tie his hands behind his back and slowly lift him up by a crane in the middle of the Baghdad, or push him from the top of the court house roof. You people need to see the video of how that man massacred thousands of people then tell me how he should die.
2006-11-06 08:29:23 · answer #7 · answered by roger k 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like no,try asking that of the children or parents of the children he tortured because the parents didnt agree with his policies,many soldiers have seen the torture of what Sadams people did to children,why are you sympathizing for the monster,hanging is too good for him.
2006-11-06 08:20:40 · answer #8 · answered by halfbright 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Honey it was was not an American court that he was tried. Hanging is their punishment. If he was tried here and found guilty in one of the state that has the death penalty he would have gotten a lethal injection.
2006-11-06 08:45:02 · answer #9 · answered by wondermom 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The method of execution is not intended to have any lasting affect on the person (and I use that term loosely in this case) being executed, it is meant to have a lasting affect on those that would choose to emulate him/her.
Why do you think the terrorists behead people and blow up innocent men, women and children?
2006-11-06 08:30:18 · answer #10 · answered by ML 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋