Saddam Hussein Executed

[zubin]

you see sadam husain no longer is in the same reality as me or you
for him this is it if he understood he wouldnt tourtures others

and if if he does it doesnt make diffrance

i guss the real reason is my own selfish desire to see that criminal gets what he deservs

Mike you're constantly saying the same thing. You've mentioned that pedophiles, criminals, and sadam hussain aren't able to understand their mistakes except through torture. That's unjustified.

[mike435]

ramin their is no point for theme to understand it or not that is why i got to the conclusion that it is probably my own selfish reasons that i want this guy dead so i can see retrebutive justice served

yea you know probably it isnt that much of a good idiology
but than again what diffrance would it make if do take the high moral ground and spare this humans life.

and i think this is how most people think
i think its mans own selfish desire to see justice served and that is why they want to see this criminal hanged

[golgol85]

some situations warrant punishment. the arguement of whether punishment actually works or causes resentment that furthers the deed that got the person in trouble in the first place is a good place to argue. Take a kid who does something bad, the parent gets upset and gives the kid a time out. the kid becomes resentful and as a rebellious kid decided to do what he did before even worse. maybe we can fix the wrong mentality that gave rise to the bad deed in the first place rather than push the person further down the road to do even more bad. in saddam's case, i really dont know what to say.

[zubin]

ramin their is no point for theme to understand it or not that is why i got to the conclusion that it is probably my own selfish reasons that i want this guy dead so i can see retrebutive justice served

yea you know probably it isnt that much of a good idiology
but than again what diffrance would it make if do take the high moral ground and spare this humans life.

and i think this is how most people think
i think its mans own selfish desire to see justice served and that is why they want to see this criminal hanged

actually its interesting that you and me both agree that no one in the world should be hanged. And its only because you are an open person for discussion that I show my disagreement to you so much.

I highly disagree with your analysis of human nature to see justice served through punishments. You can call it the chicken-egg argument of criminal justice, but its clear to me that society's norms teach people to be stupidly retributive and selfish, and that they are not like that if allowed their full natural potential.

[Nutcase]

i do not believe in the death penalty, saddam may be as evil as hitler and deserves moreover a torture, but then again lets put bush and his cronies on the stand as well while we are at it. at the end of the day, wether u agree with me or not, god will give them the right kinda justice in the afterlife, that is the only comfort that i take at the end of the day, cause there is no true justice here on earth, the way u live ur life determines ur fate when u hit the bucket. god will put people in their respective places where they belong, the wrath of god cannot be measured by even the entire armies of the world, and thank goodness 4 that!

[mike435]

actually its interesting that you and me both agree that no one in the world should be hanged. And its only because you are an open person for discussion that I show my disagreement to you so much.

I highly disagree with your analysis of human nature to see justice served through punishments. You can call it the chicken-egg argument of criminal justice, but its clear to me that society's norms teach people to be stupidly retributive and selfish, and that they are not like that if allowed their full natural potential.

man i have to say not as an insult but speaking to you is like a cut you have in your mouth were the more you iritate it the more it bothers but you cant stop doing it becuase it feels so good in some ways

aligh look the reason i disagre with death penalty is becuase i think it is stupid for one person to put someone else to death, that person will be alive untill you choose to put theme to death and also it is a quagmire to kill to teach not to kill

and that is why i thik it is only selfish when we like to see people dead ot tourtared so justice is served i know i am repeating myself

but i dono think selfishnes is taugh i think it is natural and it gets nurished as we grow older all the while are concious creats trys to battle it and creates a dilemma

example is a new born from the moment he she is born is going after things and is constantly wanning things i think that is the core that nature creats us in a way to be selfsih the same is the core of survival a new born if you try to kill it it will fight for life see that again is another core that is natural built in that only our developed brain creats a dilema for it

physicly
humans are the only living lifes that have a frontal cortex and i think it is that that makes us diffrent because we have concious rational

also look another proof
humans can feel love but animals cant their is no love for them only like
best example is
humnas love theri grand kkids and socioty cares about its elders while in the animal world care is only becuase of nececity

[zubin]

some situations warrant punishment. the arguement of whether punishment actually works or causes resentment that furthers the deed that got the person in trouble in the first place is a good place to argue. Take a kid who does something bad, the parent gets upset and gives the kid a time out. the kid becomes resentful and as a rebellious kid decided to do what he did before even worse. maybe we can fix the wrong mentality that gave rise to the bad deed in the first place rather than push the person further down the road to do even more bad. in saddam's case, i really dont know what to say.

yeah exactly, that traditional style of punishment is actually proven not to work while also being coercive. so i don't get how its ever warranted....

ok I'll let you two in my perspective here. I have an underlying perspective here for why I'm saying punishment as we now know it is pretty ridiculous.


----

[zubin]

Theory Against All "Punishment", Care of Nilofar and Mike and Tapesh

the theory is somewhat based on a scientific approach such as that of the social/moral philosopher Hume and I purport that it is the most sound and empirically-supported theory.

people often see acts that in their mind translate into immoral or "bad" acts. the reason why people detect "bad" acts is that the act was not a useful act to humankind, harms others and brings insecurity, and that it is based on false thoughts and arguments. In other words, we detect someone's "mind", many times rightly and sometimes falsely, and we see how that person's mental element was flawed while bringing about harm, and this is untrustworthy behavior we'd rather not live with. Because such behavior is threatening, harmful or untrustworthy, our detection faculty could have easily evolved. Think about how useful it is to survival to detect harmful behavior. I'm not saying that this negates an essense of human beings or God; only that it is clearly an evolved behavior as well from a scientific point of view. So if you believe in God, please read this as a very useful scientific basis but not in any way one that counters the existence of God, but perhaps one that correlates or adds to the picture. It's very in line with compassion.

Next, societies have not become smart enough yet to engage in real constructive discussion, and this is due to the salience of external threats. When there are external threats, the issue is unity and constructive discussion is shunned as blind unity is much more expedient. It is for this reason that punishment exists as it does today, as not punishing people who act immorally is too different, plus when analyzing criminals the problem can always be attributed indirectly or directly to the state itself. This is the opposite of unity in the short run. Within such as system, anti-social, currupt leaders do well because there is no logic and things can be justified on the basis of racial or cultural unity against the "enemy". As they defend the race or culture, they are given credit by racists or ethnicists and get to fill their pockets and achieve an addictive and beastly rush of fake power and pride.

The above paragraph we've all heard before and is really getting cliche. What makes things beautifully coherent and comprehensive, as well as establishes my point, are a couple of final paragraphs that center themselves between the above two paragraphs. The question is how has such a system of punishment survived among non-currupt people in society, and why should people not be punished in addition to the reason given above that punishment is in fact not a reasoned response but is instead a function for unity which can be currupt by fabricating false enemies.

Supporters of punishment must say that it either works or that it is good to punish immoral people. We know it doesn't work and my argument responds to that. The more important argument to refute is the other one, that immoral people or behaviors "deserve" punishment. The problem with this argument is that just because an act is immoral, it doesn't follow that it deserves punishment. Its a jump in logic. As mentioned at the beginning, we detect immoral behavior for good reason. But the question is, how do we react? We disapprove of the act, but that doesn't mean that our disapproval must be exhibited in the form of punishment against that person. Such condemnation is simply the easy and quick response, in line with the fast-paced, unconstructive, and us vs. them mentality of today's societies also established above. This phenomenon is sometimes called "outcome bias". We look at the outcome, and then automatically hold the person committing it at fault, and this is particularly hard to inhibit when we feel the agony and extremity of the outcome. But there's no logical connection. This brings me to the last major point.

The most important and persuasive part of the argument is this: people rationalize the deservingness of punishment on either evil or fault of the person committing it. But neither of these exist in people. There is evil in the sense that it comes about through people's thought and behavior, but it is never the internal state of a human that is evil or at fault. People always internally justify those acts we call evil and immoral. Hitler genuinely thought he was helping a "superior race" against a "conspiracy", while also attempting to purely bring justice for Germans against the injustice posed on the Germans the decades before. Bush, Saddam, all people we believe are evil rationalized their actions on some noble idea, though their ideas were false and they know it in the back of their head.

Regarding fault, people are raised in a way and put into situations that make them too weak to understand that what they are doing is wrong, and to stop doing them. So its not their fault, and it is in fact illogical to punish them.

So what, just let them free? Not exactly. Though its not their fault that they were too weak or too pressured, compelling their action, they have still make a mistake. In the case of Saddam, he acted to cause the genocide of many people because he made a mistaken rationalization about those people or his circumstances, and due to his upbringing and the social system/pressure around him, then decided to act on that rationalization. That's immorality. There is actually a punishment involved in a logical reaction to this, but it is so different from what we normally call punishment that I don't say its punishment in everyday discussion. But it is a form of punishment, and many societies have used this form, calling it "restorative justice" (but they don't call it punishment, though it is a form of punishment). So the alternative to punishment actually exists out there and that supports that it is a natural method, though not proving it. I believe my argument proves it. One reason is that societies and regions that use it are areas where there was no external threat and people were given the chance for logical and truly natural and just solutions. Because of Kant's theory of retribution, as well as the unity argument above, we make the false assumption that humans generally have a nature towards punishment while this anthropological evidence clearly shows it doesn't.

The punishment is logical and consists in the person committing the behavior having to admit it and face their mistake with their victims, with an ensuing genuine and natural shame. When human beings admit that killing thousands or millions of people was their mistake, they naturally receive an amount of shame and lowness exactly proportional to their mistake, as they have for the first time seen and felt their mistake and understood the results of it for the people, families and societies involved. Is it naive that they will admit it? First, no. Many societies have had natural doctors and psychologists that are able to get such admissions, and statistics show that they are easy to get from today's natural doctors and psychologists. The only thing in the way is the fear of punishment from the state, what we call punishment. People rather plead not guilty if they are to be punished in today's fashion rather than through restorative justice. In fact, that's the whole "game" of today's system: to lie and get away with it. Its the basis of today's systems. In systems that are based on fessing up, people fess up as that is the norm and there's no way out. They will be held until they fess up, but that won't even be needed. Also, fessing up is seen as noble. Though that person will have to go through proportional shame, and may be self-shunned from society, they will feel a proportional courage and minimum human pride, and that compels the fessing up as well. And they deserve that minimum as it's not their fault.

The victims are most satified this way. They get an admission that the other was wrong and they are truly victims. Its not like Tim McVeigh where he swears to the victims watching and justifies his actions as he's put to death. In fact, the system works in a way that only when the victim is satisfied is the offender given his freedom, with the only limitation that we are not allowed to punish in the way that is currently done. With this limitation, the victim will not be able to be too greedy during the process, though they can stall it unconditionally. They get a true reflection of the causes of the crime that enables a level of forgiveness without approval of the act. Also society takes its blame and fixes itself, while also truly preventing crime. This is based on real science and the root causes of the crimes- society's original sin- are accepted and addressed. Everyone's happy. Justice is served, and punishment given. Everything is done meaningfully.

Last, this type of society also has unity through collective non-prejudiced equality and constructive discussion, though this unity is global to all humans and not group-based.


---

Sorry for this being long and unedited.... This theory is one that claims to solve not just criminal justice, but in fact all human beings unjust suffering and problems. I hope that makes it worth the read. I did not want to elaborate more given the long-ness already, but I can elaborate on the premises that lead to the conclusions. I also believe I should assume that my theory is fully false before responding to counter-arguments. Please comment if you'd like.... even initial reactions. No one has the right to say your opinion and argument is lower than anyone else's.

[zubin]

man i have to say not as an insult but speaking to you is like a cut you have in your mouth were the more you iritate it the more it bothers but you cant stop doing it becuase it feels so good in some ways

thanks!


---

think of it this way; don't you want to heal that lip sooner or later? Its necessary one time in life.

Anyway, please read my short essay and think about it. Its the all-out theory and goes with some of the things we agree on. You won't regret it also because it incorporates some advancement to many important historical philosophy views and issues in just one summarized essay.

But selfishness being natural? What do you mean? There is a level of selfishness that is natural, but I'm clearly arguing that retribution, torture and punishment as we know it is not the natural kind of selfishness.

[mike435]

thanks!


---

think of it this way; don't you want to heal that lip sooner or later? Its necessary one time in life.

Anyway, please read my short essay and think about it. Its the all-out theory and goes with some of the things we agree on. You won't regret it also because it incorporates some advancement to many important historical philosophy views and issues in just one summarized essay.

But selfishness being natural? What do you mean? There is a level of selfishness that is natural, but I'm clearly arguing that retribution, torture and punishment as we know it is not the natural kind of selfishness.

havent read your essay yet. this is reagarding second part of you post

being selfish is a natural core you are made to be selfish
but as you mined your concious i will call it develops you then start to use free will and you sart to use choice to excersise that selfsihness

great extrem example is a mother will CHOOS to die for her chiled she chooses to be selfless to save her but as she is dying her NATURAL being stasrts to resist to live even thogh her concious wants to die.

now take the mother theory and revese it to killing
killing tourture etc become the choice to excersise selfish plesure do you se how it is the other extreme end

now the question is why do we take plessure? why dosent are conciouns decide against it?
i dono

[zubin]

yeah I'm saying that we take pleasure in retribution/revenge/punishment because current society reinforces such as culture

I think I agreed with your analysis of the contrast between the animalistic and free will aspect of human beings.

However.... though people in everyday life say the animalistic part is the "natural", that's a misnomer in logical or scientific thought. something that is "human nature" is something that exists with human beings all the time, which you state pleasure in revenge/killing/punishment doesn't, as we can choose.

when we say it is the "nature" of something to be some way, we are implying that it is a permanent property of that thing, such as the nature of artists is to do art.

also, are people happy when they choose the right way over the other. This has been always an overly controversial question. The clear answer to me is that people are happier when they do choose the right away, and if this is true then "human nature" is in one sense innately good.

[Rasputin]

The good medicine which can cure disease usualy has nasty side effects which people have to bear in order to return to their healthy state. The Bush administration is like a bad medicine with pleasant side effects especially from an Iranian point of view, and by Iranian I don't mean the Islamic republic, rather the nation as whole, or as a friend of mine has so eloquently put it "the Axis of Excellence".

The Taliban were thrown out of power, be it only officially as a bad treatment of the pain caused to the Americans on September 11th, with as side effect the reopening of schools to Afghan girls.

Every one knows however that the main goal is to protect the opium and its money making machine as well as its sedating effect on the populations of the neighbouring countries. The 600% increase in the opium production which followed the invading forces of the USA, Britain and ofcourse the Netherlands is not exactly a natural turn of events.

On a comic note, there are millions of Teryakis in Iran who will consider this one to be the most pleasant side effect of the Bush charades.

In Iraq it was Mr. Hussein's turn to pack the bags. Again a bad treatment for the terror the Americans were persuaded to believe would be unleashed upon them had Mr. Hussein remained in power. The American troops found more weapons of "mass-terbation" in the Hussein palaces than they collectively had ever seen.

Another rather ironic but equally pleasant side effect for the Axis of Excellence is that both Rumsfeld and Hussein should end in the same week. We all remember the images of Rumsfeld and Hussein sharing hugs and kisses as well as weapons and sattelite images of Iranian troop positions in 1982.

One of course helped destroy the other and he had to commit political suicide in order to do so. Rumsfeld being 75 years old will spend his days watching the Iraqi civil war and Hussein will be hung on Iranian new year's day.

As he was shouting the famous two words which are designed to remind us that Allah is really great, Mr. Hussein was given his death sentence by the judge. Neither the prosecutor nor the judge ever mentioned the use of chemical weapons against the Iranians during the war and the verdict was based on the killing of 148 people after an assassination attempt on Mr. Hussein in 1982. None the less this is of the few instances in which Capital punishment doesn't seem to be such a bad phenomenon.

I am constantly reminded of watching Mr. Hussein on TV as he was walking among chemically gassed Iranian bodies, holding his rifle and announcing to his Arab friends: Look how I have killed the sons of Cyrus like Hasharaat. (Hasharaat is plural of the word Hashareh meaning Insect)

The fact that these crimes were not among the charges against Hussein in his trial reflects more the "uselessness" of the current Iranian government than anything else.

Let us remember the Iranians (Persian and Kurdish) as well as the Iraqis who fell victim to the Hussein regime.

[donsaeid]

استاندار ديوانيه عراق در گفت*وگو با فارس:

هيچ*كس نمي*تواند مانع اعدام صدام شود


استاندار ديوانيه عراق كه مشغول بازديد از استان خوزستان است، گفت:*هيچ*كس و هيچ قدرتي نمي*تواند مانع اعدام صدام اين جنايتكار بزرگ معاصر شود.


خليل جليل*حمزه با تبريك صدور حكم اعدام صدام به ملت بزرگ ايران گفت: اراده ملت و دولت عراق بر اعدام صدام استوار است و او به زودي به همراه تني چند از همكاران جنايتكار خود به دار مجازات آويخته مي*شود.
استاندار ديوانيه افزود: صدام عامل جدايي دو ملت برادر عراق و ايران طي چند دهه بود و هم اكنون بسيار خوشحال هستيم كه دشمنان اميرالمومنين و اهل بيت به ذلت و خواري دچار شده*اند.
وي به جنايات متعدد صدام در حق مردم عراق و ايران اشاره كرد و او را دشمن بشريت برشمرد كه نه تنها ملت عراق بلكه ساير ملت*هاي منطقه نيز بي*صبرانه خواهان اعدام او هستند.
وي در پايان به روح پرفتوح حضرت امام خميني درود فرستاد و بر تحكيم پيوندهاي دو ملت برادر و همسايه ايران و عراق تأكيد كرد.

[Rasputin]

هفته*نامه "آبزرور" چاپ لندن روز يكشنبه مصاحبه*اى را با پدر و مادر سالخورده "فرزاد بازفت" روزنامه*نگار ايرانى انجام داده كه ۱۷سال پيش به دستور "صدام حسين" ديكتاتور سابق عراق اعدام شد.

فرزاد روزنامه*نگار ۳۱ساله متولد آبادان و مقيم انگليس در حاليكه به عنوان خبرنگار آزاد آبزرور براى تهيه گزارش به عراق اعزام شده بود، به اتهام اثبات نشده جاسوسى دستگير و در سحرگاه ۱۵مارس سال ۱۹۹۰به دستور صدام در زندان ابوغريب بغداد اعدام شد.

درآن هنگام صدام بدون توجه به درخواستهاى بين*المللى براى رهايى بازفت گفته بود كه اين روزنامه*نگار ايرانى بايد ۶۰بار به دار آويخته شود و به دستور وى جسدش را در جعبه*اى انداخته و مقابل سفارت انگليس در بغداد رها كرده بودند.

"سوينى بازفت" پيرمرد ۷۷ساله*اى كه زادگاهش آبادان مورد تعدى سربازان رژيم بعثى صدام قرار گرفت و پسرش نيز به دستور ديكتاتور سابق عراق اعدام شد، معتقد است كه تنها جرم فرزاد از نظر صدام ايرانى بودن وى بوده است.

پدر روزنامه*نگار مقتول ايرانى در اين مصاحبه ابراز اميدوارى كرده است كه صدام نيز دقيقا به*همان شيوه و احتمالا باهمان طنابى بامجازات دار اعدام شود كه فرزند وى بدون رعايت كمترين عدالت و شفقت با آن اعدام شد.

سوينى بازفت معتقد است: حتى گرگ و ببر و كوسه از صدام بهترند. آنها پسر مرا دار زدند، فقط به خاطر اينكه او ايرانى بود.

وى همچنين گفت كه در زندگى آزارش به هيچ كس نرسيده و با تمام نفرتى كه از صدام دارد حتى طاقت مشاهده اعدام او را كه مستحق اين مجازت است، ندارد.

"نصرت بازفت" مادر سالخورده فرزاد نيز گفت كه پس از اعدام فرزندش توسط رژيم بعثى عراق سالها منتظر اجراى عدالت خداوند بوده است.

وى افزود: براى اعدام صدام حسين لحظه شمارى مي*كنم تا به مسجد رفته و نماز شكر بخوانم.

[Rasputin]

ديده بان حقوق بشر می گويد در دادگاه صدام حسين، رهبر پيشين عراق، آنقدر کاستی های حقوقی به چشم می آيد که حکم آن مبنای صحيحی ندارد.
صدام حسين دو هفته پيش (5 نوامبر) به جرم جنايت عليه بشريت به اعدام با چوبه دار محکوم شد، اما ديده بان حقوق بشر می گويد 'نقايص جدی در مراحل اداری و دادرسی و همچنين کاستی های حقوقی عمده' در دادگاه صدام موجود است که نشان می دهد محاکمه وی عادلانه نبوده است.

با اين حال مقام های دولت عراق در گفتگو با بی بی سی اين گزارش را رد کرده و گفته اند که از نظر آنها محاکمه صدام 'عادلانه و منصفانه' بوده است.

رهبر پيشين عراق دو هفته ديگر فرصت دارد تا نسبت به حکم صادر شده تقاضای تجديد نظر کند، اما وکيل وی می گويد اين اجازه به تيم وکلا داده نشده است.

خليل دليمی، وکيل ارشد صدام حسين، به بی بی سی گفته است به تيم وکلا اجازه نداده اند ورقه های مربوط به تقاضای تجديد نظر را پر کنند، اما جعفر موسوی، دادستان ارشد، به بی بی سی گفته است که چون حکم صادر شده اعدام بوده، درخواست تجديد نظر بطور خودکار در نظر گرفته می شود و افزوده که مدارک مربوط به اين درخواست به دادگاه تجديد نظر ارايه شده است.

'دادگاه تاريخی'


ديده بان حقوق بشر در بيانيه خود دادگاه صدام حسين را يکی از مهمترين محاکمه ها از زمان جنگ جهانی دوم و دادگاه سران حزب نازی آلمان (دادگاه نورمبرگ) دانسته است



صدام حسين و هفت متهم ديگر همگی به خاطر دست داشتن در کشتار 148 عراقی شيعه در شهر دوجيل به سال 1982 محاکمه شدند که علاوه بر رهبر پيشين عراق، دو متهم ديگر - يک برادر ناتنی صدام و يک قاضی ارشد دوران حکومت بعث - نيز به اعدام محکوم شدند.

ديده بان حقوق بشر در بيانيه خود دادگاه صدام حسين را يکی از مهمترين محاکمه ها از زمان جنگ جهانی دوم و دادگاه سران حزب نازی آلمان (دادگاه نورنبرگ) دانسته است.

اين سازمان مدافع حقوق بشر اعلام کرده که گزارشش بر مبنای بررسی دقيق روند دادرسی و همچنين مصاحبه با قضات، دادستان ها، وکلای مدافع و مسئولان اداری درگير در دادگاه صدام حسين تهيه و تنظيم شده است.

با اين حال هشيار زباری، وزير امور خارجه عراق، در گفتگو با بی بی سی بر منصفانه بودن محاکمه رهبر پيشين کشورش تاکيد کرده و گفته است: "ما قويا معتقديم که ... امکان دفاع به طور کامل به صدام حسين داده شده ... و همه جهانيان هم شاهد روند دادگاه بوده اند."

خبرنگار بی بی سی در بغداد می گويد ديده بان حقوق بشر از روند محاکمه صدام حسين نا اميد شده است به اين خاطر که احساس می کند اهميت بين المللی - و تاريخی - اين دادگاه در نظر گرفته نشده است.