Heartland

Ramone wrote:I think they should give him a season ticket at Newcastle United and make him suffer a slow agonising death for all eternity.

James' idea deserves to be considered too. But I don't think Saddam has enough cojones to make it really interesting.

More bad taste:
Brilliant name for a punk band, though.

Blimey, I can't imagine what will happen if they go ahead with it

I was thinking, what would've been the best as it's quite obvious he'd die anyhow.

Apart from the current choice, death penalty there were some possibilities like a public lynching right after he got caught (Mussolini-style), a public hanging with a real fast fake trial (Ceaucescu-style, I heard an Iraqi on the radio this morning very much in favour of that), or even the soldiers that caught him finishing him off right away. Or even just getting killed in another revolution instead of this one. (I'm aware this all sounds quite barbaric, but just some random thoughts I'm having at the moment)

Also, I'm thinking about this: Wasn't Nürnberg the way Europe got rid of it's past filled with war? Big difference being that actually was a quite fair trial, but still, getting rid of those people also made their friends think it all over and join in to regular society again?

I don't know it myself either way, but what would Europe have looked like if the convicts of Nürnberg got a 'lifelong' sentence and got out of prison after a while, i.e. 20 years and got back into public life. Wouldn't have been too good for the whole of society I think...

Either way, just brainstorming a bit, what do you guys think?

Obviousman wrote:I don't know it myself either way, but what would Europe have looked like if the convicts of Nürnberg got a 'lifelong' sentence and got out of prison after a while, i.e. 20 years and got back into public life. Wouldn't have been too good for the whole of society I think...

Either way, just brainstorming a bit, what do you guys think?

Rudolf Hess was found guilty at Nuremberg in 1945 and imprisoned for life. He died in custody in 1987 (42 years later) by suicide. He was certainly not released after 20 years.

lazarus corporation wrote:

Obviousman wrote:I don't know it myself either way, but what would Europe have looked like if the convicts of Nürnberg got a 'lifelong' sentence and got out of prison after a while, i.e. 20 years and got back into public life. Wouldn't have been too good for the whole of society I think...

Either way, just brainstorming a bit, what do you guys think?

Rudolf Hess was found guilty at Nuremberg in 1945 and imprisoned for life. He died in custody in 1987 (42 years later) by suicide. He was certainly not released after 20 years.

Ah, thanks, I didn't remember that By the way, to clarify some more, I just said 20 years to say something, but much more meant current 'lifelong' sentences in most countries go for a limited number of years (I think it's 25 or 30 years or so in Belgium, don't know about other countries)

Yes - it's certainly true that many countries consider a 'life' sentence to be around 20 years.

I'd be happy if Saddam got a proper life sentence (as in the old 'life means life'). That way he could still be questioned in detail throughout his long imprisonment about the crimes he committed - any answers might at least give some peace to the people whose relatives 'disappeared' during his reign.

But that could be quite embarassing and inconvenient for the West since (as Ramone mentioned earlier in this thread) it was the West that put him in power and therefore enabled him to do these things...

Obviousman wrote: Also, I'm thinking about this: Wasn't Nürnberg the way Europe got rid of it's past filled with war? Big difference being that actually was a quite fair trial

Roughly speaking, yes it was. But when you look at it real close, it wasn't absolutely beyond reproach. Quite embarassing in fact, but of course times were different.

lazarus corporation wrote:I'd be happy if Saddam got a proper life sentence (as in the old 'life means life'). That way he could still be questioned in detail throughout his long imprisonment about the crimes he committed - any answers might at least give some peace to the people whose relatives 'disappeared' during his reign.

Thank you for being the first person to give me an argument that might make life a better option than death, I was really getting desperate for that This trial is not about ethics, it's about results, this way it'd bring a better result indeed and so be a better solution.

But that could be quite embarassing and inconvenient for the West since (as Ramone mentioned earlier in this thread) it was the West that put him in power and therefore enabled him to do these things...

If you want to be a true bringer of civilisation you must go through the hard bits, the bits that will be used against you, as well, such is life. But as they have been bringing hardly any extra civilisation to Iraq before, I doubt they will do so now.

Badlander wrote:

Obviousman wrote: Also, I'm thinking about this: Wasn't Nürnberg the way Europe got rid of it's past filled with war? Big difference being that actually was a quite fair trial

Roughly speaking, yes it was. But when you look at it real close, it wasn't absolutely beyond reproach. Quite embarassing in fact, but of course times were different.

That's what I put the 'quite' in there for But even then, at least it wasn't put on Europe by a completely alien regime (as in both the allied forces and Western Europe were/are Western nations, the USA doesn't compare to Iraq quite in the same way)

lazarus corporation wrote:Yes - it's certainly true that many countries consider a 'life' sentence to be around 20 years.

I'd be happy if Saddam got a proper life sentence (as in the old 'life means life'). That way he could still be questioned in detail throughout his long imprisonment about the crimes he committed - any answers might at least give some peace to the people whose relatives 'disappeared' during his reign.

But that could be quite embarassing and inconvenient for the West since (as Ramone mentioned earlier in this thread) it was the West that put him in power and therefore enabled him to do these things...

I agree with everything said, well put. I don't beleive in the death penalty no matter what I should add. Lock these monsters up for life and throw away the key but no to state-sactioned murder. My earlier post says why I think that way.

Badlander wrote:

Obviousman wrote: Also, I'm thinking about this: Wasn't Nürnberg the way Europe got rid of it's past filled with war? Big difference being that actually was a quite fair trial

Roughly speaking, yes it was. But when you look at it real close, it wasn't absolutely beyond reproach. Quite embarassing in fact, but of course times were different.

Chapters do need to be closed in order to move on, which was what I beleive the objective of Nürnberg was. I don't know enough about the Nürnberg trials but what I do know is that not all the war criminals got their just deserves. The Catholic Church hid a number of nazis, how many others got away without punishment from the church and other regimes?

The Saddam trial (he is to face more charges on Tuesday I think it is) was a show trial in my opinion, the objective was to "remove him". Putting him on trial in Iraq would ensure he was "removed", litteraly. A way to kill him in a seemingly "honest" and "fair" way. If it is right to execute Saddam, why is it right not to execute the likes of the so-called Chemical Ali? He was as much as a monster as Saddam was.

Regarding other points. The West are a cause of many 'problems' around the world, including Iraq. The British in particular carved up the world, invaded and slaughtered countless people. India, Pakistan, Ireland - the list goes on and on.

I hear you people, and they're all well thought out and reasoned arguements, but I'd still cut his goolies off.

He was a complete and utter cnut, let's face it.

James Blast wrote:I hear you people, and they're all well thought out and reasoned arguements, but I'd still cut his goolies off.

He was a complete and utter cnut, let's face it.

Words of wisdom.

James Blast wrote:I hear you people, and they're all well thought out and reasoned arguements, but I'd still cut his goolies off.

He was a complete and utter cnut, let's face it.

Just because I'm against the death penalty does not mean I'm against cutting off his goolies. I'm also for the removal of George Bush's goolies. Mind you, they had a problem when it came to his circumsision - as there is no end to that prick.

Saddam himself quite rightly pointed out very early on that this trial was a circus, while ironically providing the most comical moments himself.

All in all, a sad but predictable state of affairs, which is not to say that Saddam is any less guilty than charged.

I actually felt some mild sympathy for him when pictures of his dead sons were being shown. That can't have been a pleasant experience. Guess now he knows how it feels..

DeWinter wrote:I actually felt some mild sympathy for him when pictures of his dead sons were being shown. That can't have been a pleasant experience. Guess now he knows how it feels..

Would that be what deemed "creul and unusual punishment" or would the images shown as part of the trial bypass that, being called evidence or something somehow? To me, that would indicate part of the process to break him, which they didn't as he was defiant throughout. I wonder how he will behave in today's trial?

For what I've seen of today's trial he was much more quiet than usual. And he looked more pale as before as well, I'd say...

I suppose a man has a right to be quiet and pale when he knows he's going to die, and in a pretty sordid way. I'm not sure what sickens me more, the sentence, or Blair and Bush refusing to intervene to stop it, claiming Iraqi's right to self determination. Didn't stop them interfering before..

DeWinter wrote:I suppose a man has a right to be quiet and pale when he knows he's going to die, and in a pretty sordid way. I'm not sure what sickens me more, the sentence, or Blair and Bush refusing to intervene to stop it, claiming Iraqi's right to self determination. Didn't stop them interfering before..

That's Blair and Bush for you. I suppose they will claim that they don't want to interfeer with the Iraqui justice system. A convenient excuse but as you say, it never stopped them interfeering before. Blair has stated he is against the death penalty so why hasn't he said anything about Saddam's sentence? The two-faced, grinning twit.

On a different note. When Blair is supposed to be questioned by the Police for the 'Cash for honours' scandal, can he at least be impeeched over that? It dosen't seem likely that he'll be impeeched over Iraq and the lies that he spouted over the case for war. How many lives have been lost over Blair's (and Bush's) lies?

Is it just me or is Blair's grip on reality as far removed as is Saddam's?

Blair may possibly be the first Prime Minister to face criminal charges. The investigation is being handled by the CPS, but the decision on prosecutions will be made by Lord Goldsmith, a friend of Blair's, and the same man who changed his mind rather rapidly on the legality of the Iraq war.
Blair may have managed what I thought no-one could, and have become more reviled than Margaret Thatcher. Mrs T divided opinion, Blair unites it, but purely in the negative.

DeWinter wrote:Blair may possibly be the first Prime Minister to face criminal charges. The investigation is being handled by the CPS, but the decision on prosecutions will be made by Lord Goldsmith, a friend of Blair's, and the same man who changed his mind rather rapidly on the legality of the Iraq war.
Blair may have managed what I thought no-one could, and have become more reviled than Margaret Thatcher. Mrs T divided opinion, Blair unites it, but purely in the negative.

No wonder he's called Tefflon Tony then. Would I be correct in saying that Lord Goldsmith, being a friend of Blair's, should not be in charge of any case involving Blair as it would be a conflict of interest? Or is the term 'friend' a figure of speech?

Saddam spent 30 yrs keeping the waring factions of the middle east under control, all at the request of the great west who supplied him with everything he needed inorder to do what whatever our great leaders told him to do. The whole trial and outcome is a f**king joke. He was tried in Iraq by Kurds and was refused permission to use Bush and Rumsfeld as defense witnesses - he would have requested Thatcher and Blair if they had had any awareness of what they have contributed to the state of things.
Why was Iraq stormed? Because they chose to deal in petroeuros and not dollars. They were then swiftly followed by the rest of the middle east, then China, then South America, leaving the USA and it's stupid Island colony of Brits (who chose not to have the euro) floundering in international debt that was about to drown them.
It was wrong to invade Iraq but right to kill Saddam!?! It's all f**ked up and you believe it all like a flock of sheep.
Hang em high ! Saddamned to Hell! Go and learn something rather than believing the f**king propaganda from the executioners.

a.r.kane wrote:Go and learn something rather than believing the f**king propaganda from the executioners.

Right.

RetroGoth wrote: I don't beleive in the death penalty no matter what I should add. Lock these monsters up for life and throw away the key but no to state-sactioned murder.

How can you not agree with the death penalty? Obviously you have never had any of your friends or family killed by someone. I have and lost way to way of my friends from someone snuffing out their lives. I would be the first in line to pull the hangman's noose.

A life sentence in prison is like winning the lottery. Free meals and a roof over your head for the rest of your life, hell were do I sign up at?
Plus the taxpayers get to pay for it all.

Many people get arrested and go to jail just because it's an easier life.

You have the right to believe what you wish and I also do.

Do I believe the war in Iraq was wrong? Yes, but I think that back in the Gulf War the allied forces should have just rode on in and taken him out instead of cowering to the United Nations and retreating.

Saddam should have been executed back when he had all the oil wells lit on fire and wreaked environmental devastation on that region. Back then the whole world though he was a madman and he played with your sympathy since then.

There is my two cents......a little against the grain of the forum and the conversation.

If you also remember when Saddam came into power he had all of those opposed against him executed also. There is that video from some years ago where he called out the names of those who were his enemy and they removed them from the audience only to never to see them again.

He showed no mercy, why should we.

because that brings us down to his level.

incarcerate. cut off the oxygen of publicity.