WOO-HOO!!!!!!!!!

'Bout damn time.

As if we didn't know this would be the conclusion...

Awesome.

Burn the motherfucker.

Sorry, but as you saw it's a hanging.

What about :boom: ??

Saddam wanted to get shot, but the judge said to hang 'em.

Hanging is cool too, almost as bad as burning.

Edit: No wait, they should put him feet first into a wood chipper.b

Or vice-versa. FARGO!

How about they just fucking kill him quick and easy and you all stop coming up with ways to torture your fellow humans beings. (Regardless of the fact the he was a fucked up sob.)

Hanging? Come on! Honestly, I thought it was concluded years ago that even a firing was a more humane approach to killing criminals. Although I do have to say, 'bout damn time.

Nah. If we torture him we can please the masses and make us feel like we've done something to help the world. It's kinda like when you talk about child abuse and most people are more concerned with eviscerating the abuser than what kind of support is being given to the child.

And besides, who really cares if he's tortured or not? Saddam is bad enough that I'm not going to shed tears for his torture, even if I think it's a waste of time.

Not sure. Don't people's necks break when they get hung right, like in "An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge"? I assume that means pain is cut off immediately...

Whatever. My attitude is that whatever is cheapest should be done. That means strangling. I don't agree with the death penalty (I mean, I think it's good to kill saddam because then he won't get out or nothing) but I wouldn't care so much if people weren't so squeemish about the deaths they support. Shot, lethal injection, electric chair....the person's going to be dead anyway. Same with the vicious bloody gruesome death; instead of satisfying a need to be civilized, against violence, etc, it's the inverse, but the process of torture doesn't actually help anything in the world. If nothing else, it's an inefficient waste of time to spend a minute or two poking their eyes out when you can just put'em out like a light. And that's just the MOST practical reason.

Actually, I wouldn't support strangulation, because it could be dangerously more disturbing for an executioner who isn't able to remove themselves from doing what their society demands of them. But I imagine that....we have hanging posts up, so why use bullets?

Well, either way...at least he's dead soon.

Interesting, by the way. Ramsey Clark was the attorney general but he's a bit of a nut, he really passionately believes that Hussein, as well as Milosevic, were alright. Now, I understand the reasoning behind representing a man like Hussein to ensure a fair trial and stuff, but he's gone as far as to justify Saddam.

That being said, I'm kinda disgusted by how america has manipulated this trial. We've gone after a (relatively, not actually) minor crime against humanity with the 1982 sentence, ignoring, say, the Halabja gasings of 1988, where a whole lot of kurdds died. The tribunal really circled around and avoided the incident...why? Well, could it be because the knowledge for making the chemical weapons was obtained from the US, along with others?

Nah, it's just chance that they ignored the deaths of as many as 7000 people.

I'd say if you're going to kill him make it quick. The woodchipper thing, that sounds like something from Happy Tree Friends. I know what he's done, but not even he deserves complete torture.

The instant we start to do something like that we become like him, whether or not it is in the name of justice. Maybe he justifies his actions as justice. It's like the Law of Relativity. We have no absolute correct moral basis to judge ourselves upon, so who's to say what is right?

Personally I think life in solitary confinement without peroll would be much better. While death may deliver a quick blow, he will slowly die over a course of years. That way he still has to pay for his actions, but we do not have the stain of murder on our souls.

Damn, at first, I thought Cadin posted. :"(

Sorry. :mellow:

I'm not going to bother quoting you, Bucket. It'd be too long. :lol:

Here's my two cents; bring back the guillotine, and televise the execution. The blade's falling is completely painless if the blade's sharp, and the gore and splatter will send both a message of fear and relief to those who see it; fear for wondering what would happen if they were ever on the business end of the blade, and relief to see a tyrant finally die in the midst of the bloodshed he seemed to relish so much.

As for the hanging, I don't believe it to be... satisfying, shall we say? If you see him hang, and he breaks his neck, there's really no closure. Just a 'snap', and then a body just kind of... hanging there. With a guillotine, you can tell when it's over, and can see the obvious signs that show he won't be getting up again. If his neck doesn't break, you're stuck listening to his strangled cries as the rope bites into his neck, creating nothing but a nice raw, bloody ring around his neck and a convulsing man on the end of the rope.

No one, I repeat, no one ever wants to see a man hung like that. That would only show the barbaric side of those who wished his death; the hideous hatred incarnate, hanging helplessly from the rope and trying to scream for mercy or escape by death as his windpipe is constricted. Then all we see in his last moments is the pathetic eyes of a man, desperate to cling onto the last strings of life... just like a dying child or terminal cancer patient. That same look of desperation; do you want that image burned into your memory?

I'm not saying he shouldn't die. I'm all for it. I'm just saying, there's a more efficient way to do it, and if we screw up this hanging, we'll be the ones who have the accusing fingers pointed straight at our hearts for being cruel and unusual. Cap him once in the head, and you'll be sure he's dead. Botch a hanging, and you'll have riots for years to come about it. >.<

While it's good to see you support y'know, killin' 'n stuff, there is always the chance of an 'accident' of the hanging where his neck isn't snapped and he just chokes for 10 minutes.

...Didn't I mention that about three times in my last post? x.x I'm saying, if you're gonna hang the guy, make the drop long enough so that there's a really high chance of him breaking his neck.

No, I mean, they should rig it so that it DOESN'T break his neck, so he just chokes for 20 minutes.

They should? That's pretty sick man. Pretty damn sick indeed

I'm telling you. If you're gonna kill him, waste no finances. Two hands can choke a man pretty effectively, let some random civilian who isn't looking for a paycheck do it. Hell, we could set up an auction and let the highest bidder off him.

I mean, if we're gonna kill him we've already made his life worth nothing...so why not get some cash out of it? Even if it makes us a backward culture and makes a connection between killing people and economic rewards. Clearly, a lot of people are already deriving an emotional reward from his death.

I seriously did a backflip when I got the news.