Saddam Hussein: Hanging or firing squad?

Let’s assume for a moment that Saddam Hussein has been proven guilty of countless atrocities and truly deserves the harsest penalty possible.

My question is this::

What does the Iraqi people actually gain from seeing Saddam Hussein hanged?

Given how things are playing out, Americans are going to pull out of Iraq pretty damn fast once they've finished tearing it apart. The resulting chaos provides the perfect opening for that monster to claw his way back to power—assuming he’s still breathing, of course. That's why he has to be eliminated; you have to kill the fear of his return along with him. Eliminating that fear is essentially what the Iraqi people would get from an execution. A massive bonus? Seeing Bush and Rumsfeld take a hit for how Saddam Hussein's end plays out.

adriatic said:

The sentence is death by hanging. Usually, that’s viewed as a dishonorable way to go—reserved for the absolute worst of the worst.
Some people—especially military types—argue that being executed by firing squad is actually a much more honorable way to die.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Saddam Hussein has indeed committed countless atrocities and deserves the harshest punishment possible.

My question is this:

What does the Iraqi people actually gain from seeing Saddam Hussein hanged?

Or rather, what is truly in the interest of the populace and that broken nation to see the fate of their former leader decided this way?

They get nothing. The dead don't rise, and the pain doesn't just vanish into thin air.
Maybe we should have brought in everyone who survived his tortures—everyone who lost their loved ones—
,locked them in a room with him, and left it up to them to decide if he should be judged or not!
Who knows? Maybe the outcome wouldn't be at all what we expect it to be.

We don't need to hang him or line him up against a wall for a firing squad. Look, I’m not a supporter of the death penalty—period. No one has the right to play God and take a life, no matter how many atrocities someone has committed (and let's be honest, he's committed plenty). A lifetime spent rotting in solitary confinement would be more than enough punishment, but executing people? To me, that's just the absolute peak of cruelty and primitive behavior.

Yeah, maybe politics will pull a complete 180 and turn him into some kind of saintly philanthropist—or, you know, if he ends up getting executed or hanged, he’ll probably be canonized as a martyr anyway.

Honestly, I find Saddam Hussein absolutely revolting. 🙂 That said, I’m not actually in favor of the death penalty. There are plenty of reasons for that, but one thing that really sticks with me is that I wouldn't want him to suffer for such a short period. I’d rather see him thrown into solitary confinement, left to rot in total darkness until his time finally runs out.

He didn't deserve death—not really... he deserved nothing more than the most basic, primitive form of medieval torture!

It seems to me that the whole thing is just one big performance.

Hee-hee—based on what Benjamin Crem has shared, and his intel has proven reliable more than a few times now—the answer to this is pretty straightforward. You can't hang or shoot Saddam Hussein anymore because he actually passed away during those first three days of the initial strikes, following injuries sustained from the US Armed Forces bombing his residence.

This might sound like some wild conspiracy theory to you, but honestly, it’s not even that far-fetched. Why wouldn't we consider the possibility that the US government is spinning the truth? And when I say "the Americans," I'm specifically talking about the George W. Bush administration—and let's be real, they've had plenty of opportunities to mislead us in the past.

It’s a well-known fact that Saddam Hussein relied heavily on body doubles—most of them being his own cousins. I remember back before the invasion of Iraq, when one of these lookalikes appeared on television to give a speech; a huge chunk of the global media actually questioned if it was the real Saddam Hussein, pointing out tiny discrepancies like the placement of facial moles and other small details.
No one is disputing that anymore.

If you take a close look at these new photos of the defendant and compare them to the old shots of the real Saddam Hussein, you might just be able to spot the difference—though honestly, that’s getting harder by the day since these guys are sporting beards now (something the real Saddam Hussein never even had in his photos; he was strictly a mustache man).

It seems to me I can see the difference too—this guy has a much narrower face and everything. Benjamin Crem says it's obvious he's a different person, though I suppose it isn't quite that obvious to everyone else.

Besides what you're building, there's also that whole situation where some US soldiers stepped forward claiming the guy wasn't even captured in some hole in the ground—that it was all just a setup. There’s actually an article covering that over at Share International.

Here are a couple of links where you can find all the info regarding the body double:
Link 1
Link 2

And here’s an article arguing that the whole idea of Saddam Hussein being caught in some hole he dug himself is total nonsense—plus, there’s a whole list of shady details surrounding the trial, like his lawyers being denied access to him. It’s all incredibly suspicious.

A former US Marine who was actually there during the capture of the man now being branded as the former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, has come forward to claim that the version of the prisoner shown to the public is nothing more than a fabrication.
Nadim Abou Rabeh, a former sergeant of Lebanese descent, told the Saudi newspaper al-Medina that the capture actually took place on Friday, December 12, 2003—not a day later, as the US Armed Forces originally claimed. "I was part of a twenty-man unit, which included eight men of Arab descent," he noted. "We spent three days hunting for Saddam Hussein in the Dour area near Tikrit. We eventually tracked him down in a modest house in a small village, rather than in a hole in the ground like everyone reported." Abou Rabeh recounted how Saddam Hussein was taken into custody following a violent standoff that resulted in the death of a Sudanese-American Marine. According to Abou Rabeh, Saddam Hussein fired a pistol at them from a second-story window before soldiers called out to him in Arabic, telling him there was no point in resisting and that he had to surrender. He added a final observation: "...later on, a military production crew filmed a sequence showing Saddam Hussein being captured in a hole, when it was actually just an abandoned well." (Source: United Press International)

(Editorial note: According to my sources, Saddam Hussein was severely wounded during the initial bombings of Baghdad on March 20, 2003, and his injuries later took a significant toll. — Benjamin Crem, Share International, May 2003.)
"Who exactly did the US Armed Forces end up arresting? If you ask us, it certainly wasn't Saddam Hussein—it was clearly just some lookalike..." — Benjamin Crem, Share International, January/February 2004.

If I manage to track down some photos of Saddam Hussein and his lookalike, I’ll be sure to post them—hopefully that isn't too far off-topic. I just wanted to offer a quick heads-up that there are indications—and I truly believe they're legitimate—that we might be debating something that doesn't actually exist; essentially, we're stuck discussing a hypothetical scenario.

It feels to me like the whole thing is just one big staged production.

In that sense—if you ask me—this performance could be much larger than anyone currently realizes. 🙂

Saddam Hussein? An investigation is needed
News release no. 66, December 2003

Back on April 8, 2003, we put out a News report stating that Saddam Hussein had been wounded during the initial bombing of Iraq on March 20, 2003, and passed away from those injuries just two days later.
That leaves us wondering—who exactly did the US Armed Forces actually catch?



From where we stand, it’s clearly not Saddam Hussein. It looks like an obvious stand-in—and word is there are at least three of them: two cousins and a close friend, all sharing those distinct family traits. We believe he is the same man — a cousin — seen on Iraqi television on April 4, 2003, picking up a child and waving cheerfully to the crowds. His body language didn't match Saddam Hussein's at all. Even his facial features were off; his nose was much wider, and he had moles on his temple and forehead that perfectly matched the person currently in custody. Back then, pundits were more than happy to question the identity of the man on screen, but now, suddenly, everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten their doubts.

The News report says the Americans claim that DNA samples taken from the captive match Saddam Hussein. But how can they be sure? What exactly are they using as a baseline for comparison? Regardless, a cousin would naturally share some genetic markers. Given the history of proven lies from this US administration since the start of the Iraq conflict—especially regarding weapons of mass destruction—it's hard to take their word at face value.

We are certain the truth will come to light: this confused individual being held is not Saddam Hussein, but a double used in a potential plot to hide the reality of Saddam's death from the Iraqi people for as long as possible.

-------------------------------------------

To get back on topic for a moment—I honestly don't think the Iraqi people gain anything from killing this person; if anything, it’s just going to trigger even more chaos, which seems pretty obvious to me. As for the manner of death, I’d personally vote for something quick—if it were up to me, I'd choose that too.

-------------------------

To bring things a bit closer to a real discussion: do you all think a massive deception on this scale—knowing full well it isn't Saddam, but rather a lookalike—is actually possible, or does such a stunt even make sense in the real world?

Over There said:Give me a break...

Just imagine spending your entire life in solitary confinement... honestly, how many days or months would pass before you actually begged them to just kill you? Yeah, I said it.

That’s what I call the absolute PEAK of cruelty.

No one has the right to take someone else's life—period.

Given how things are unfolding, I suspect the US Armed Forces will be packing up and leaving Iraq pretty soon—once they've finished tearing the place apart. The resulting chaos could provide a perfect opening for the monster to claw his way back to power, provided he's still breathing, of course. That’s why he absolutely has to be eliminated; we need to kill off the fear of his return along with him. Eliminating that fear is really the only thing the Iraqi people would truly gain from his execution. Plus, a massive silver lining would be seeing both George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld take a hit for his downfall.

It isn't quite that simple. Sure, the Americans want out, but once you step into quicksand, getting out is a nightmare.
They are definitely looking for ways to withdraw while saving face, but let's be real—that isn't easy, and it certainly won't happen overnight.

Also, your other premise is slightly off—if I may say so. From the moment the US Armed Forces arrived until October, over 700,000 Iraqis have lost their lives; that's one out of every forty people. They're living without electricity, without running water, and without even the "luxury" of feeling safe walking down the street.

So, frankly, their lives are even worse now than they were under Saddam Hussein.
I personally don't see any chance of Saddam Hussein returning—do you really think the Americans wouldn't be able to keep him contained? Let him just slip away? They have prisons and bases all over the globe.
The only point I agree with is that the departure of US and British forces will likely trigger even greater chaos—the kind of mess they created themselves and now find themselves unable to escape.

Now that the situation has become this dire, what's needed are smart, measured moves, but—well, we can't exactly expect that. Most likely, things will stay this grim for a while, and the death toll among Iraqis will surpass a million because of this invasion. Not unless there's a change in the US presidency or some other massive shift occurs.

Bill Clinton said:So... the end doesn't justify the means... or does it?

The goal itself isn't justified—and if the objective is flawed, then the methods used to reach it are just as bankrupt.

The objective itself isn't justified, which naturally means the methods used to get there aren't either.

I’m personally against the death penalty, but I do believe that sometimes the end justifies the means—especially when we're talking about extreme measures.

Take World War II, for example. If the entire world had just taken a Ghanbdijevski stance and let Hitler and his crew run wild, things would have turned out catastrophically. Hitler would have slaughtered countless people, Nazi tyranny could have dragged on indefinitely, and the whole country—and humanity at large—would be reeling from the consequences today. In that specific scenario, defeating Hitler absolutely justified whatever was necessary. (Now, whether we should have dropped atomic bombs or something similar? That's a harder call to make, and I can't say for sure.) But that's a clear-cut case.

In my view, the dilemma of whether the ends justify the means shouldn't be generalized; it really needs to be weighed on a case-by-case basis. Even so, I remain opposed to capital punishment because, frankly, the goal behind it is flawed. Usually, the aim is some sort of retribution or vengeance—or perhaps just cutting down on prison costs. If the actual goal is simply to remove a criminal from society, then the death penalty is a massive overkill when we already have prisons to handle that.

Taylor Campbell4 said:I'm not necessarily advocating for the death penalty, but I do think that sometimes the end justifies the means—especially when we're talking about certain violent measures.

Sure, but my point is about whether the goal itself is justifiable, not just how you get there. If the ultimate objective is taking a human life, then that goal can't be justified—period. It shouldn't be. And if the goal is fundamentally wrong, then the methods used to reach it are irrelevant by extension, but that's secondary to the main issue.

Profinjena said:Sure, but I’m talking about whether the goal itself is justifiable, not just how you get there. If the end goal is murder, then it can't—and shouldn't—be justified. Period. Which means the methods used aren't either, but that's secondary.

How on earth is that secondary when the damage is already done?

Douglas Cooper said:How can the method be secondary when the objective has already been achieved?

Look, our little debates here aren't going to change his fate—so obviously, I’m speaking hypothetically about the broader issue of capital punishment. In any legal system where the death penalty is actually on the books, there is an intended goal, and I am certainly not trying to justify it. But within that specific context, whether the means used are "secondary" is a separate question entirely.

Alright then... what's the "right" punishment for murder? Spending the rest of your life rotting in a tiny cell with nothing but free meals and a newspaper to keep you company?

Douglas Cooper said:Fine... so what’s the "appropriate" punishment for murder then? Just a life sentence in a tiny cell with free meals and a newspaper subscription?

Exactly. Though, honestly, they don't even need the newspapers. 😬 Look, as a taxpayer, I’d much rather my hard-earned money go toward feeding prisoners than cast my vote for the death penalty. Besides—let's be real—if I don't pay for their food, that money isn't just going to vanish; it'll just end up in the pockets of some other crook, probably a politician, so it’s practically six of one and half a dozen of the other.
But if I actually wanted someone dead? I don't.
And yeah, even if someone were to kill someone incredibly close to me, I still wouldn't want them executed. And no, I'm not saying that just because I haven't experienced a tragedy like that myself.

He needs to be taken out... though I suppose he’s already dead inside, killed by his own actions