Discussion
I have no doubt whatever that this will stir a few hornet's nests, but it has weighed on my mind for several days now, and I would be surprised if I was the only one with the same thoughts.
Our minds were filled with images of Saddam going to his death in a dark, bleak room filled with masked, faceless people.
But look at this again and what do you really see?
My mind was struck by the coldness, the callousness of those around him who, for whatever reason, chose to remain anonymous. Executioners guiding a man to his death, supposedly at the remit of justice for crimes committed.
Those who followed the trial would be fools if they believed that it remotely resembled a "fair" trial or indeed anything that could be termed as justice.
I can hear you all now screaming in protest that this was a butcher, a torturer, a murderer of his own people: he deserved everything he got!!
I myself am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that he was all of these things and more, but that was not why he was put on trial. The trial was a circus, a media stunt to satisfy the hunger of the United States and the ancient, tribal mentality of the Iraqis for revenge. A welcome and convenient deflection from the real bloody business of an unwarranted invasion and the subsequent abyssmal failure of the operation.
Putting this man on trial BEFORE killing him, absolved those who did so from the condition of revenge, salved the global audience, assured any onlooker that this was justified because it was justice.
I watched as he was brought forward and the undeniable thought struck me, and when it did I was appalled at the conclusions it brought, that he was the one who conducted himself in the face of his own death with absolute dignity; not a tear or a plead or even a quivering lip; refusing a mask and facing his destiny openly, unlike every other person in the room.
The image of this was so powerful that even Bush and Blair were moved and appalled by it, and I will bet my eye teeth that neither of them expected to feel like that!
Thoughts came back from my teenage years and the abolition of the death penalty in our country in 1965: the debates had raged for years, but what had finally swung it was the horrendous concept of hanging the wrong man.
The older readers here will remember the case of Timothy Evans or worse still Derek Bentley, both hanged and totally innocent; both victims of a besotted and corrupt justice system. Imagine wakening on the morning of your execution KNOWING you are innocent and those with the power have deaf ears: the ultimate nightmare.
But consider also the principles of those who would convict and take the life of another.
They do this not from evil intent, or insane, betrayed passion.
They do it with the full backing of the Crown and in a totally cold-blooded, merciless fashion: can we honestly say that there is no difference between the two?
Or could it even be concluded that to take a life in such a merciless manner, regardless of the deeds of the convicted, is devoid of true justice and most importantly humanity?
When Saddam was hanged, those who claimed justice betrayed themselves and all those who fought to bring civilisation and peace to Iraq. They were reduced to the level that he had brought Iraq down to during his bloody regime.
Many are never going to forget that, and not a few will definitely never forgive.
Let battle commence.
Our minds were filled with images of Saddam going to his death in a dark, bleak room filled with masked, faceless people.
But look at this again and what do you really see?
My mind was struck by the coldness, the callousness of those around him who, for whatever reason, chose to remain anonymous. Executioners guiding a man to his death, supposedly at the remit of justice for crimes committed.
Those who followed the trial would be fools if they believed that it remotely resembled a "fair" trial or indeed anything that could be termed as justice.
I can hear you all now screaming in protest that this was a butcher, a torturer, a murderer of his own people: he deserved everything he got!!
I myself am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that he was all of these things and more, but that was not why he was put on trial. The trial was a circus, a media stunt to satisfy the hunger of the United States and the ancient, tribal mentality of the Iraqis for revenge. A welcome and convenient deflection from the real bloody business of an unwarranted invasion and the subsequent abyssmal failure of the operation.
Putting this man on trial BEFORE killing him, absolved those who did so from the condition of revenge, salved the global audience, assured any onlooker that this was justified because it was justice.
I watched as he was brought forward and the undeniable thought struck me, and when it did I was appalled at the conclusions it brought, that he was the one who conducted himself in the face of his own death with absolute dignity; not a tear or a plead or even a quivering lip; refusing a mask and facing his destiny openly, unlike every other person in the room.
The image of this was so powerful that even Bush and Blair were moved and appalled by it, and I will bet my eye teeth that neither of them expected to feel like that!
Thoughts came back from my teenage years and the abolition of the death penalty in our country in 1965: the debates had raged for years, but what had finally swung it was the horrendous concept of hanging the wrong man.
The older readers here will remember the case of Timothy Evans or worse still Derek Bentley, both hanged and totally innocent; both victims of a besotted and corrupt justice system. Imagine wakening on the morning of your execution KNOWING you are innocent and those with the power have deaf ears: the ultimate nightmare.
But consider also the principles of those who would convict and take the life of another.
They do this not from evil intent, or insane, betrayed passion.
They do it with the full backing of the Crown and in a totally cold-blooded, merciless fashion: can we honestly say that there is no difference between the two?
Or could it even be concluded that to take a life in such a merciless manner, regardless of the deeds of the convicted, is devoid of true justice and most importantly humanity?
When Saddam was hanged, those who claimed justice betrayed themselves and all those who fought to bring civilisation and peace to Iraq. They were reduced to the level that he had brought Iraq down to during his bloody regime.
Many are never going to forget that, and not a few will definitely never forgive.
Let battle commence.
having said I agree 100 percent, and logically therefore I'm against the death penalty, this story www.maltastar.com/pages/msFullArt.asp?an=9035 from where I live (Gozo in Malta) has me back in favour - illogical in caring more for a few dogs than 100,000's of humans, yes, but maybe it shows the problem i/we have with how close an issue is to us (hence the typical headlines in a newspaper - " 100 killed in a plane/train crash, no Britains involved"
Edited by gozomark on Thursday 11th January 00:12
I don't see any other way out of it. I feel that Saddam's actions, and the hurt, misery, pain and death he inflicted, mhas meant he has forefitted his right to live. This is not the murderer of one man, but of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands. Do we think of the Hindenburg trials as a mockery of justice? They were hastily convened with only one possibly outcome for those involved. Hitler, Goering, Himmler and Goebels all cheated the noose, but if they had've been killed, would anyone have opposed that? I'm undecided on the death penalty, I agree the possibility of a wrongful conviction is a massive drawback. However like I said, I believe there are some acts that people can commit, that are so wrong that they forefit their most basis rights, that of living.
You say the execution is cold, and that I agree with, but could it have been any other way?
You say the execution is cold, and that I agree with, but could it have been any other way?
I agree Saddam's execution was a farce, totally unacceptable, however after viewing horrific footage of his victims being pushed off a tall building, bound hand and foot I have no doubt that the verdict and punishment was just.
Frightening to think his sons made him look like Andy Pandy.......
Frightening to think his sons made him look like Andy Pandy.......
[qoute=deeps]Unfortunately victims of those facing the death penalty can't talk to help you make your mind up. I strongly believe in a life for a life where guilt is irrefutable. [/quote]
That is what I mean - he killed people so is killing him right, or should "we" rise above it.
I honestly don't know.
Blair must have known this would happen when he decided to break international law...
He is as culpable as Saddam in my opinion (not as much as Bush is though).
Or is killing arabs ok? I imagine some Iraqis have a very different viewpoint.
What if Blair was found guilty of killing thousands of Iraqis through his actions - would we stand by and say " well, he was responsible for thousands of deaths"...?
That is what I mean - he killed people so is killing him right, or should "we" rise above it.
I honestly don't know.
Blair must have known this would happen when he decided to break international law...
He is as culpable as Saddam in my opinion (not as much as Bush is though).
Or is killing arabs ok? I imagine some Iraqis have a very different viewpoint.
What if Blair was found guilty of killing thousands of Iraqis through his actions - would we stand by and say " well, he was responsible for thousands of deaths"...?
jith said:
But consider also the principles of those who would convict and take the life of another.
They do this not from evil intent, or insane, betrayed passion.
They do it with the full backing of the Crown and in a totally cold-blooded, merciless fashion: can we honestly say that there is no difference between the two?
Or could it even be concluded that to take a life in such a merciless manner, regardless of the deeds of the convicted, is devoid of true justice and most importantly humanity?
When Saddam was hanged, those who claimed justice betrayed themselves and all those who fought to bring civilisation and peace to Iraq. They were reduced to the level that he had brought Iraq down to during his bloody regime.
Many are never going to forget that, and not a few will definitely never forgive.
Let battle commence.
They do this not from evil intent, or insane, betrayed passion.
They do it with the full backing of the Crown and in a totally cold-blooded, merciless fashion: can we honestly say that there is no difference between the two?
Or could it even be concluded that to take a life in such a merciless manner, regardless of the deeds of the convicted, is devoid of true justice and most importantly humanity?
When Saddam was hanged, those who claimed justice betrayed themselves and all those who fought to bring civilisation and peace to Iraq. They were reduced to the level that he had brought Iraq down to during his bloody regime.
Many are never going to forget that, and not a few will definitely never forgive.
Let battle commence.
I think there is a difference in the two, one has comitted the act of taking peoples lives and knows the consequences, the other has merely passed judgement. The Bliar Bush reasons for supporting it is not much more than a publicity stunt(although of course they didn't support it).
More importantly was he speeding when he dropped leading to loss of life?
Read the article in "The Independent".
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/.
The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is
about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to
exploit the country's massive oil reserves....
...Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for
developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing
agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and
Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30
years to extract Iraq's oil.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/.
The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is
about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to
exploit the country's massive oil reserves....
...Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for
developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing
agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and
Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30
years to extract Iraq's oil.
s".Hey! ... Look on the bright side Folks!....
At least the caniving bastard can't tell the truth about the illicit deals with "Rummy" and the Yankee administration over the years!...
One mouth closed eh? ...... a trial inThe Hague" would have made it all Public Knowledge...
Hope you're all glad to be deprived of: "the truth" out there ....
(OK....back on your heads everyone... and back to sleep!)
At least the caniving bastard can't tell the truth about the illicit deals with "Rummy" and the Yankee administration over the years!...
One mouth closed eh? ...... a trial inThe Hague" would have made it all Public Knowledge...
Hope you're all glad to be deprived of: "the truth" out there ....
(OK....back on your heads everyone... and back to sleep!)
JoolzB said:
Hollywood Wheels said:
Should this not be under General Gassing?
Not really a motoring issue, it seems to be questioning the morality of capital punishment, plus Tallbloke doesn't seem to wander in here that much.
Apologies, of course I should have said 'Pie and Piston'. This has nothing to do with Speed, Plod, or The Law.....
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff