Saddam had a stroke, may not make it to trial

[Shyguy]

that sucks

 

[Piano Player]

I'm SO sick of this strawman argument. I think you mean Governor of ARKANSAS??? While running for President in '92, Clinton wanted to make sure he looked like he was "tough on crime" after he had let a murderer go free, who got out & ended up killing again. Very damaging to his image as Governor. So, in order to show his "new" perspective on support of the death penalty while running for President, he personally flew back to his state to be sure a brain-damaged murderer was executed. In fact, Rickey Rector didn't even realize he was going to be killed - he saved the dessert from his last meal for when he was returning to his cell & wanted to even vote for CLINTON as President in the fall??? It's a FACT, sorry, and not a conspiracy theory:

"Clinton had learned his lesson. By 1992 the presidential candidate was insisting that Democrats "should no longer feel guilty about protecting the innocent." To make his point, he flew home to Arkansas mid-campaign to watch the execution of Rickey Ray Rector, a 40-year-old black man convicted of killing a black police officer. After shooting the cop, Rector shot himself in the head and damaged his brain.

Though courts decided Rector was mentally competent to be put to death by lethal injection, evidence suggests otherwise. Rector's prison guards called him "the Chickman" because he thought the guards were throwing alligators and chickens into his cell. He would grip the bars and jump up and down like an ape. On the night of his execution, Rector saved the slice of pecan pie to be eaten before bedtime, not realizing his death would come first. He also told his attorney that he would like to vote for Clinton in the fall."

Source: Many - but I found this on: http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2000/07/nguyen-a-07-14.html

Bottom line: Let's move on now, shall we? Regarding Saddam - we are all quick to point out GOP conspiracies & "Bush lies" - yet we trust the word of Saddam's trial lawyers & doctors over there??? Right after they presented a picture of HEALTH recently, now he's supposedly dying. Even if it's true, many people who suffer small strokes are still mentally competent & he should still stand trial for his atrocities, IMO.

Ricky Rector is a sad case, and Clinton should have commuted his death sentence. Never thought I would see someone argue that because Clinton did something it was ok for Bush to do so. Bush's execution record stands alone, and he has also presided over the execution of the mentally retarded. See http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/09/texas.double.execution.03/ Bush would have presided over the execution over another mentally retarded prisoner, Emile Duhamel, but Mr. Duhamel died on death row.

Tying this in with the OP, America is one of the few counties with capital punishment at all, and certainly one of the very few that would allow the execution of an under 18 offender. The rest of the world sees us as capable of almost anything in this regard. Our obsession with Hussain makes the world believe that if Hussain were incompetent we might still see to his execution. We almost stoop to the opposition's level. The problem with this is that a good part of the world sees the current conflict as between two extreme ideologies. That makes it hard for them to pick a side, or at least feel good about joining our side.

 

[SuzQ]

Ricky Rector is a sad case, and Clinton should have commuted his death sentence. Never thought I would see someone argue that because Clinton did something it was ok for Bush to do so.

That's assuming a lot, isn't it? First of all, I tend to be against capital punishment myself. I'm a big supporter of prison ministry & feel that sometimes even the hardest of criminals have a chance of redemption by seeking Christ.

My only point about Ricky Rector is that you can't just criticize Bush alone in regards to capital punishment. It's a far-reaching, low-blow that's unfounded and irrelevant when Democratic leaders have supported the death penalty in many, many cases nationwide. I'm just sick of the Bush-bashing on that. You and I both know we're talking about the LAWS in the STATES of Texas and Arkansas, not really Clinton or Bush. My sister studied Criminal Justice & is a probation/parole officer. She said it's very difficult for a Governor to halt the execution of a prisoner if the entire prison board has reccommended the action. That's why it's such a rarity. A lawyer has to successfully raise serious questions & make a case of WHY they should overturn a court or jury's decision for the death penalty.

As far as what the rest of the world thinks, my husband is from Sweden. He and I have already discussed that there are countries much, much worse than the U.S. in regards to this form of punishment. As a woman, I know there are SEVERAL countries were women are legally beaten and KILLED by their husbands. Their husbands get absolutely no punishment. Some places still cut your hand off for stealing, don't forget.

At least we still believe in everyone receiving a TRIAL. Saddam is lucky that the new Iraqi Government is even giving him a chance to argue at HIS. Did he give his own insurgents a trial??? Nope. If Saddam were in another country, he may have just been executed, period, for his horrific crimes against the human race.

Just something else to consider....

 

[BobbieDog]

At least we still believe in everyone receiving a TRIAL. Saddam is lucky that the new Iraqi Government is even giving him a chance to argue at HIS. Did he give his own insurgents a trial??? Nope.
..
Just something else to consider....

SuzQ, I have disturbing news for you.
We no longer give everyone a trial. Many are being held, without even access to family, or represenatives of any kind.
That SH has the right to a trial is part and parcel of what we claim to be bringing to Iraq: it is what, in distinguishing what we bring from what under SH prevailed, is the justification for our intervention.
Under the protocols of such trial, SH is innocent, until proven quilty.
All of your language and perspective on SH, in betraying a certainty as to his predetermined quilt, reveals a determination on your part that SH not be given a fair trial.
Trial becomes a formal matter of justifying guilt already determined: which is not trial under law as we know it.
So what you argue for, in the case of SH, is a continuation of what you condemn him for denying to others.
Just something else to consider.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

\

Well, the Bible does say to love your enemies:

Luke 6:27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

But does Saddam really deserve such treatment? I mean yeah, maybe some of the Arabs won't hate us so much if we treat him like that but I believe that God would be happier if Saddam got the punishment that is due to him.

It's not about about what anyone really deserves. The world is in such a mess because people are too obsessed with getting what they deserve and giving others what they deserve to forgive and start living in peace.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

that sucks

I would wish a stroke on no one.

 

[SuzQ]

SuzQ, I have disturbing news for you.
We no longer give everyone a trial. Many are being held, without even access to family, or represenatives of any kind.
That SH has the right to a trial is part and parcel of what we claim to be bringing to Iraq: it is what, in distinguishing what we bring from what under SH prevailed, is the justification for our intervention.
Under the protocols of such trial, SH is innocent, until proven quilty.
All of your language and perspective on SH, in betraying a certainty as to his predetermined quilt, reveals a determination on your part that SH not be given a fair trial.
Trial becomes a formal matter of justifying guilt already determined: which is not trial under law as we know it.
So what you argue for, in the case of SH, is a continuation of what you condemn him for denying to others.
Just something else to consider.

HUH?

First of all, I don't know ANYONE in the history of the current American criminal system who was sentenced to death row by simply being arrested & thrown there???? We've even given a captured September 11th terrorist a comfortable cell, a trial, & appointed him an attorney, for pete's sake. How's that for showing American fairness & sympathy, despite this man being upset because he wasn't able to participate in helping to crash a plane full of terrified men, WOMEN & CHILDREN. We are MORE than fair in this country to criminals.

Secondly, I never said Saddam didn't deserve a fair trial. I just simply stated that other countries may not have even given him that much. At the same time you're happy the U.S.'s influence gave him a right to a trial, you also think we don't want him to have a "fair" trial??? Sure, give him a fair trial, by all means.

Hate to break it to you, but there's OVERWHELMING evidence of Saddam gassing thousands of Shiite Muslims, not to mention other horrific torture stories from those that lived & had the "pleasure" of witnessing the execution of others. You think our Vietnam Vets have nightmares for the atrocities they saw in wartime? Imagine what sick, inhumane acts these poor Iraqi's had to witness & live with, for the rest of their lives. Even if these same Iraqi's didn't like the temporary U.S. occupation, remember that they STILL cheered and ran through the streets when our soldiers brought his ugly statues down!

The verdict is in the bag, as far as his being guilty of crimes against his own country. As long as there's not a slick attorney doing it "OJ" style and setting a murderer free, I'm satisfied with how they are going to proceed with Saddam.

No matter what happens, it will ultimately be God that judges him in the end, anyway. Yes, as Jesus taught, I do pray for ALL hateful, murderous souls to seek redemption before it's too late, despite my own human emotions.

 

[9-iron]

I can. How about someone who, while governor of Texas, executed the mentally retarded.

You little pansies!!!!!!!!

And keep the rude comments and such to a minimum.

Is that minimumal enough?

 

[BobbieDog]

SuzQ, In Quantanamo bay, certainly in the UK, and presumably also in the USA, and in various holding centres around the world: many people are being held without trial, often without charge, often without access to family, often without family being able to get information about their relatives, often without access to legal representation, often without acces to medical professionals of choice.
That amounts to holding people without trial, in legal limbo, in judicial no-noman's land.
In these instances quilt seems to be predetermined. The President himself has said just how bad these mean men are: the case is closed he says; we need no trial for these men, they are quilty.
The very concept of a fair trial is being undermined by much of what is happening in foreign and homeland American policy. Guilt is now determined, to an increasing extent by profiling and assumption, carried in general culture. For a growing constituency in the custody of the USA, fair trial is now just not possible.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming Quantanamo hearings. Where the military lawyers appointed seem willing to pull the temple pillars down, and press that fair trial is not possible; where they are being supported in this by eminent legal academics.