The conviction, appeals, and execution all happened very swiftly. The crimes for which he was executed occurred in the 80s. Meanwhile he built a strong economic base and modern Arab country and lived a life of luxury until the American government intervened 3 decades later and after thousands of deaths ordered by its then President Hussein.
2006-12-30 03:44:20 · 14 answers · asked by Joir 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
No.
December 29: Vatican official says executing Saddam would be wrong: http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5865506&nav=menu83_2
December 30: Vatican spokesman denounces Saddam's execution as 'tragic': http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-12-30-vatican-saddam_x.htm?csp=34
Jesus, John 8:1-11, spares a women guilty of adultery whom the Mosaic Law said should be stoned to death.
If the guilty person's identity and responsibility has been fully determined then non-lethal means to defend and protect the people's safety from the aggressor are more in keeping with the common good and the dignity of the human person.
The Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives.
However in today's modern society, the capability of rendering the offender incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
With love in Christ.
2007-01-02 16:47:37 · answer #1 · answered by imacatholic2 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's no doubt in my mind Saddam Hussein was a bloody tyrant and that he deserved to be brought to justice for his crimes.
However, the decision to try him by an Iraqi court while the war was ongoing sets a very bad precedent. If you want to instill values of democracy, justice, transparency, due process, etc..., etc..., this is not the way to do this. It smacks of the kinds of regimes South Americans came to loathe and detest. But of course, the Bush administration only pretends to care about democratic values, just like it lied about everything else.
If the idea was to ensure fairness, justice and the international rule of law, Saddam Hussein would have been handed over to the International Human Rights Tribunal in Brussels. There could have been little doubt of the legitimacy of the proceedings there.
We have a principle in well-established democracies that says it's not just conflicts of interests which must be prevented, but the appearance of conflicts of interest as well. That goes double for democracies that are not yet established.
2006-12-30 03:55:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why do people even ask this question. Were you sitting in front of your PC with a box of tissues as you wrote this question, or are you making a homemade bomb in retaliation? Man, the guy committed major crimes against humanity, including but not limited to genocide, and he was convicted for them, and he was executed after his conviction. Obviously he didn't kill anyone you loved or cared about! If he did it wouldn't be a question of whether he deserved to be executed or not. Man go hug a tree or something, either that or go get in a fight or something, and reintroduce yourself to your manhood!
2006-12-30 03:58:34 · answer #3 · answered by adam f 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
where are you from dude... no matter what bush thought the *** hole deserved what he got. remember you reap what you sow and he got what he gave...death. if you call living a live of fear something that you would want ... move your *** over there... i thought the conviction,appeals and execution took too long. he should have been executed when they took his *** out of the hole he was so cowardly hiding in. he was given a fair trail,found guilty and hung,even so that is lots more than he gave others..
2006-12-30 03:59:22 · answer #4 · answered by jmpbkjack 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who cares WHAT Bush thinks or says? Saddam was convicted by an Iraqi court, and executed by Iraqi law.
And by the way the rest of your "facts" are just plain bullsh**it!!
2006-12-30 04:01:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
for a moment, maybe. but the ramifications on so many levels are too severe and too ugly.
And how in hell does Bush or any of his cronies have the right to say that this killing was just? don't they understand that a good part of the world hates them more than they ever hated Saddam?
2006-12-30 03:57:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not only was it fair and just, it was long overdue. I just wish we could bring this type of judicial expediency to our Country, our dirt bags spend 25 years on death row costing us hard working tax payers money to feed and house them.
We need to pick up the pace here at home
2006-12-30 03:58:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
In the Muslim world, it is very bad to kill someone unless it's a punishment for spreading corruption or killing someone else, so yeah, it was fair and just.
2006-12-30 03:52:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What about the innocents that were sentenced to death while Bush was Texas`s govern.? What about them? Who will avenge them? Come on, Bush is just an hypocrit...
2006-12-30 03:52:18 · answer #9 · answered by Carla 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes I think its fair, simply because he ended so many lives! I think murdering crosses the line!
2006-12-30 03:53:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋