I am also concerned about our part in this as a country. This man clearly was evil. The country clearly not stable. How can we be certain that this human being was given a stable trail? Please do not get me wrong, he should have been punished. Was this our right to start the ball rolling?
2006-12-30 19:46:19 · 25 answers · asked by vperry6 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I am not concerned whether or not Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. Was concerns me more: is it fair to give Hussein a trial despite the overwhelming evidence of systwmatic genocide that he enforced?
2006-12-31 07:48:26 · answer #1 · answered by syaw10 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why does it matter if this one human being was given a stable trial when we were willing to kill people who fought on his behalf (for little pay, usually just to support their families), without a second thought? Why should Hussein have been above the kind of death that average soldiers received, and that citizens are experiencing on the streets of Baghdad every day?
We made a mistake in ever allowing the trial to occur - why pretend that Justice is being served when the outcome is a foregone conclusion? How can Justice ever be done when we decide one man deserves a trial while others deserve death by smart-bomb?
2006-12-30 20:04:23 · answer #2 · answered by waefijfaewfew 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A stable trial? You mean the documented accounts of his mass murders and horrible acts, like burying families alive and poison gassing entire villages should have had a different outcome? By the way - ever see that footage? I have.
What did you expect? A hung jury? Innocent? Lesser sentence then death? Community service?
Can't be more cut and dry than this outcome. You can barely call it justice, the monster got the easy way out. And now can take his rightful place next to Hitler. May they burn in peace!
2006-12-30 19:54:51 · answer #3 · answered by UzeHerName 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I understand you feelings. I believe the people in Iraq needed to see this for closure reasons. Now they know that day is over and they are in a new era. They will have their problems but a ruthless dictator is gone.
In recent history the USA quit having public executions. In the past people were executed publicly to send a message what they did was wrong and this is the outcome of such actions. I'm not for or against public executions. I must say that it is sobering for me to watch a murderer recieve lawful punishment.
2006-12-30 20:02:42 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't care what he was charged with or how fair the trial was. Saddam Hussein would have been found guilty no matter what because America (both Republicans and Democrats) NEEDED to win that trial to look good politically and we have a lot of influence over there with the Iraqi govt. right now. It was probably up to the Iraqi court on how he was punished, but it was America who decided his verdict.
Of course we would never allow a public execution in the U.S.A., but again, a visual display of his death supposedly sends a message that we are winning over there, which is something our politicians need badly.
2006-12-30 19:59:36 · answer #5 · answered by man_of_mustard 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO I am not concerned. Alot of the Middle Eastern Countries still do public execution. Liberals are always saying we should not get involved with other countries affairs, then they cry when they do things they do not like. Iraqis tried him, Iraqi's hung him, and if they want to show it on TV that is their business. As for people in America that think it should not be shown, please tell me your not the same people that scream against censorship.
2006-12-30 20:08:12 · answer #6 · answered by mark g 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It concerned me because for all the talk about our bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq, they remain barbaric and murderous to each other. Seems to me that they could have easily used lethal injection, which we have for decades. And ban the cameras !
The only thing I can say is that the public display, also videotaped, lets the people know that he actually is dead. Think of all the rumors if Iraqi's didn't get to see it.
2006-12-30 19:56:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
So he was evil, that's not America's
problem, now there's much more bloodshed than when he was in power. The problem is so many people don't realize is there have been tribal wars in that country for thousands of years. It must be ruled with an iron thumb. They are not ready for democracy.
2006-12-30 20:02:51 · answer #8 · answered by lonetraveler 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are definitely not the only one who's concerned. As an ardent death penalty opponent, I don't think a state is ever justified in killing one of its citizens, no matter how evil. Saddam Hussein was a horrible man, but it's important to remember that his deeds were made possible by the United States. The U.S. sold him the chemical weapons that he used & supported him when he appeared to be less of a threat than the Ayatollah Khomeini. Why are they left free & unpunished for their roles in his actions?
2006-12-30 19:59:22 · answer #9 · answered by danklefsenj 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I personally do not think it is right for a hanging to be public. My husband and I were just talking about this earlier this evening, he's all for it and thinks they should televise it on paperview. I disagreed with him, and told him if they did he would have to go somewhere else to watch it.
Although He does deserve death as a sentence, hanging him seems a bit too kind for what he did to many many people. I think some type of slow torture would be appropriate. Maybe shoot him in one kneecap and let him suffer with that for a few days with out any pain killers or cleaning it. Maybe let him die from getting an infection.
or, cut off each of his toes, one by one, then his fingers, then his ears. I don't know, the possibilities are endless.
2006-12-30 19:57:25 · answer #10 · answered by mskissis 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋