South Park Creators Given Signed Photo of Saddam Hussein 1297
Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, were given a very special gift by US marines: a signed photo of Saddam Hussein. During his captivity, the marines forced Saddam to repeatedly watch the movie South Park: Bigger, Longer And Uncut, which shows him as the boyfriend of Satan. Stone said, "We're very proud of our signed Saddam picture and what it means. It's one of our biggest highlights."
Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Had no respect for Saddam, but any lingering respect I has for the US Military just died. What a grotesque and reprehensible institution, if this is what they do behind closed doors - the fact that they do worse (torture legally defined in the US as 'anything less than organ failure') doesn't mean that something like this isn't just plain and simply slimy.
your tax dollars at work (Score:5, Insightful)
well done america, another reason to gain respect from the world
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly.
After seeing the comments from Matt Stone and Trey Parker I lost any respect for them as well (and yes, I actually did have some).
What pathetic human beings.
Re:hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether he deserved it or not according to you or me or whoever, it's not for the US military to decide what he does and does not deserve, much less force a prisoner to do something they would obviously find very offensive, and to a muslim that would probably amount to psychological abuse, much less again and again.
He was a captured prisoner, the head of state of a sovereign nation (not that the Bushites believe that exists), tyrant or not, it's up to the Iraqis or the world court to decide his punishment and fate, not the guy holding the key to the cell that personally enjoys every second of it.
It is reprehensible and slimy, and I'm totally not surprised by it in the least!
Just look at the average type of egotistical macho jackoff that end up the in army or marines and it explains itself.
No offense to anybody that is or was in the military (some of my best friends have been), but I'm sure you can think of quite a few people that fit the bill, and if you can, you don't qualify as one of them.
Re:Huh. (Score:1, Insightful)
They made him watch a TV show that makes fun of him. It's a little childish, but I really don't see what's so reprehensible about that.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
"well, it's not like the guy treated his prisoners like honored guests"
It's not about how *he* treated his prisoners, it's about us saying and thinking we are better than he, about our ideals. And not living up to that standard.
I always thought (Score:5, Insightful)
...we were supposed to be the good guys?
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea of calling ourselves civilized (in fact, civilized enough to give ourself the moral right to depose a foreign government due to human rights violations) means that we must be prepared to honor the human rights of even those who deny them to others.
Re:hilarious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Had no respect for Saddam, but any lingering respect I has for the US Military just died. What a grotesque and reprehensible institution, if this is what they do behind closed doors - the fact that they do worse (torture legally defined in the US as 'anything less than organ failure') doesn't mean that something like this isn't just plain and simply slimy.
You are talking about making a man who gassed his own citizens being forced to watch a movie torture?!?! I hope you are trolling!
If not you need to get your priorities straight.
To top it off you have been modded insightful?!?
Damn! grow up.
Re:Fucking Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nya nya nya nya nya, you are a fag and the devil's butt monkey" - It's not really adult behaviour is it, and certainly not the behavior of a country that likes to think they are a world leader.
Take the high moral ground guys, don't play childish games like this and maybe the rest of the world might respect you.
Let's hope that the soldiers who did this are brought up on disciplinary charges.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
His kangaroo trial was conducted by Vichy [wikipedia.org] Iraqis at our urging.
Besides -- if his trial didn't meet our standards, we should have condemned the result anyway. Principles don't have geographic boundaries.
Re:hilarious (Score:4, Insightful)
I hardly ever post comments like this, but the parent of this post does not deserve negative moderation. The recent worship of the military by one segment of the population is a harbinger of fascism. Soldiers are still human beings, and by criticizing them when they err, we keep them honest and preserve both their honor and the honor of our country.
Re:Fucking Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Take the high moral ground guys, don't play childish games like this and maybe the rest of the world might respect you.
The ones who give a crap about decorum, dignity, world respect, and well, not being jackasses on the international stage are not the ones who did this. America is just like any other large group of people: there are some idiots, there are a lot of people who know better. It's a mistake to blame the whole group for something a few individuals did. So... quit judging us for the actions of a few immature soldiers and we won't judge you for (insert country-specific national disgrace here).
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's propaganda.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume Hussein really did that. That act still wouldn't justify our treatment of the man. There is no excuse for adding unnecessarily to the sum of human misery. He was tried (however poorly), found guilty, and executed. That consequence should be deterrent enough. Deliberately harassing him in the meantime does nothing except show the world that we've become petty thugs.
Do you endorse rape in our own prisons by any chance? I know plenty of people who do, and quite frankly, it's disturbing as hell. Revenge is not a valid public goal, even when you dress it up and call it "justice". Brutality diminishes us, not the criminals.
Re:Who gave them the photo? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Matt & Trey Advocating Torture? Yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)
The slightly conservative leaning duo, if they had any moral integrity...
I'm very liberal, and find southpark annoying the same way I'd imagine conservatives find Jon Stewart annoying, but saying they have no moral integrity is off. They don't share your morals. That should not be taken as a sign that they have NO morals.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the point is, regardless of who the person is you are holding in prison, you have to live by your -OWN- standards.
Thinking that you can treat people differently depending on who they are is called class justice. Sadly it happens a lot, but usually people aren't proud of it.
Re:Fucking Americans (Score:1, Insightful)
Except when this group twice votes into power people who they know damn well will be shamelessly and relentlessly brutal. Shame on us all, as a people, for allowing a small group of thugs to pillage this nation and its reputation for the past eight years.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's like saying "Hey! I didn't kill him, I just locked him into a small room with a bunch of people who hate them and gave them all guns. Don't look at me". Don't be a fool.
Re:Huh. (Score:1, Insightful)
Then what? Should we invade nations to stop hangings by force in favor of gas chambers? We need to respect the choices other people make, not micromanage every trial and tell them what seems right from our perspective (plus, hanging is still legal and an option in Washington). What good is establishing a government if we immediately undermine it because of a small disagreement over execution method?
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
No... you should just stop invading nations.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue isn't the method of execution, but the incredibly sloppy rules of evidence and courtroom conduct. We ostensibly invaded Iraq to liberate its people and bring them democracy. By applying anything short of our own standards of justice, we betrayed both these purported goals and showed our true colors.
So why did we invade at all? Moral relativism is despicable on any day, but there's a special hell for people who use it only to advance their own goals.
Seriously you guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am very surprised to see people getting up in arms about this. Is showing a prisoner a satirical movie which mocks him really torture? Not in my book. Hell, going to a regular American prison, and potentially getting raped, for committing a non-violent crime (drug possession for instance) seems much worse than being shown potentially insulting films. Give me a fucking break.
Abu Gharab, Guantanamo, Secret CIA Prisons: all very bad, very wrong, and very embarrassing for the US. Actual torture (waterboarding, sleep deprivation etc.): also very bad, wrong, and embarrassing. It is not a human right not to be mocked. Especially if the person you are mocking is the kind of person who would have had you killed had you done so in his old dictatorship. "How dare they hurt Saddam's feelings like that! What a deplorable, inhumane atrocity!" Oh the shame...
If this article is what made you embarrassed to be an American, then you obviously haven't been paying attention. Yeesh.
Re:hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you're the one who needs to read up on his trial. He was tried by Iraqis, NOT by the US. He was executed BY Iraqis, not the US.
That's like throwing a bleeding man into shark infested waters and then claiming it wasn't murder. Its not your fault the sharks got him.
In other words, Saddam was tried by the Iraqis because the US chose that he would be tried by the Iraqis. And the US released him into Iraqi custody for his so-called trial knowing full well that it would be a kangaroo court, and what the outcome would be.
Frankly, I believe the US chose to have him tried by Iraqis precisely because they could have him convicted and executed for more expediently there than in the US.
His trial was a disgusting farce knowingly and deliberately perpetrated by the US. It was on the same level as sending prisoners to secret / foreign prisons for interrogation (torture) -- the US does it precisely to get away with stuff they wouldn't be allowed to do at home. The US is still morally responsible for what happens. They know what will happen. They even take advantage of it.
Re:Fucking Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, stop it already. The "they're all the same" meme is both pernicious and false. I don't know how any thinking person could claim after these eight disastrous years, there's no substantive difference between the parties. However flawed Gore and Kerry may have been, they at least wouldn't have ignored the rule of law and run the country like a kleptocracy. We should count ourselves lucky if we get excellence, but we should at least demand competence.
If you don't care about politics, the only people elected will be the ones who don't care about you. Indifference toward elections by the general public just enables (and encouraged) politicians to cater to special interest groups at the expense of the general welfare. That's not good for anyone.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow.... I'm going to karma hell for this but... WTF is wrong with you Americans? Have you been SO blinded by the media and patriotism and hatred that you actually believe this? Don't be conned. The US could have stopped the trial at any point.
Hey, not all of us Americans suck THAT badly.
Some of us do realize that that Saddam's hearing was a puppet trial, and we had to go through something like three different judges before we found someone who'd mod the case the way we wanted.
The whole thing was a complete farce. The outcome of the trial was well-known before it began.
The saddest bit is that there are lots of Americans who like it that way. So much for justice and democracy in Iraq.
Re:your tax dollars at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh, it just shows that, at heart, you're no different from them.
How we treat evil people changes us (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you. How we treat bad people is not about them, it is about us. Saddam deserves to suffer for his crimes. But when we surrender to the bloodthirsty urge for vengeance (which can be satisfying, even - as in this case - fun), it is ourselves we corrupt. Saddam does not matter: he is beyond redemption. It is we who matter. If we treat the foulest human beings with a level of decency (decorum, seriousness), then we make it easy to respect each other. If, on the other hand, we give in to our baser instincts, we lay the groundwork for lashing out selfishly whenever it feels good.
Want to respect Saddam's victims? Then prosecute and punish him with all the seriousness, formality, and consideration you can muster. The kind of immature self-gratification described here ultimately dismisses those he tortured and killed. Their persecutor was an evil man, not a clown.
(P.S.: Just in case someone misreads me, I loved the movie. There's a big difference between that and the legitimate serious acts of the American people's political representatives and government.)
I thought... (Score:1, Insightful)
April Fool's Day was on April 1st, not April 7th. Or is this a serious article?
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's debilitating for a country's people to think in extremes. Waterboarding is indeed worse than forcing someone to sit through a film over and over. But both are bad, and we shouldn't be doing either as a civilized people.
"Not the worse" is not the same as "good". It's a subtle concept, I know.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hilarious (Score:2, Insightful)
No-one deserves abuse while in custody. Especially abuse so petty, childish, and vindictive as that described.
If you have principles, you should stick to them--especially with someone like SH. Show him that your values actually have some substance. Pathetic.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, the foreign public will judge you by your dumbest, or at least least desirable, citizen. Americans sue McDonald for hot coffee and believe the Fox network, British love crappy food and their queen, Finns are constantly drunk (unless they code neat kernels) and Russians are commies, mafia members or malware writers.
And of course the Germans are Nazis.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
In some cultures, shame is deemed worse than death. So it is probably deemed worse than torture, too.
Just because you consider bodily harm being worse than psychological doesn't mean everyone does.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
The categorical imperative [wikipedia.org] is useful, especially in this instance.
Also, don't be so quick to dismiss our conscience: it's the distillation of millions of years of evolution. For all the differences in human culture, some moral principles are absolute (and are broken only under special circumstances, like Aztek sacrifices.) Quite a bit of moral variance disappears when you control for access to information and personal liberty.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think were a tad above that?
This is the kind of crap that 3rd world despots always use in their propaganda to prove to their own people that were are imperialist war mongers - true or not they should have arrested him and treated him like any other person they held in captivity to prove to everyone that we treat everyone equally.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh.... as much as I get up in arms about due process and rule of law, this is really a tempest in a teapot. Psychological torture is real, but making someone watch a rather silly cartoon is not torture. Unless they set him up like in A Clockwork Orange, calling this torture is stretching the definition to the point of breaking.
There were a ton of other things wrong with his trial, but this wasn't one of them.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly.
Let once again say that Saddam did that, and therefore we are morally justified to torture him and treat him badly, and the other people like him. But I guess that child molesters are just as bad, so lets do that to him. And people who rape are bad as well, lets torture them. And maybe as a lesson to all prisoners, we should teach them like that.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't have to qualify as "torture" to be petty, vindictive, and pointless. There was no positive reason for doing this, and it reflects poorly on the professionalism of our soldiers and our entire army.
Re:your tax dollars at work (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? how many tax dollars do you think were spent?
We spend hundreds of billions on this war and yet we can't even hire prison guards who will conduct themselves professionally? Give me a break. As long as we're throwing our money at the problem we can at least avoid childish stunts like this.
Yup, how dare us make fun of a former dictator while he's imprisoned. How horrible of us for us to make him watch a tv show that depicted him, an oppressive dictator, in a bad light.
It makes us look like a bunch of children playing games with an imprisoned dictator while people are dying just outside the door. Honestly, the guy stood accused of extremely serious crimes. The nation was in turmoil. The international community was watching for us to set an example. Do you really think it was time for fun and games with Saddam Hussein?
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
While some of their work has been brilliant, actions like that make me suspect that in the end, they're pretty much assholes.
Re:Huh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Correction: We ostensibly invaded Iraq to install a puppet government, and set up a supply line for it's resources..
Anything else to believe is basically brainwash matter..
If you're keen on "liberating people" I'm sure a list of current dictatorship nations can be obtained with a simple google search..
I'll throw you a freebie: Zimbabwe/Mugabe
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
His kangaroo trial was conducted by Vichy [wikipedia.org] Iraqis at our urging.
Besides -- if his trial didn't meet our standards, we should have condemned the result anyway. Principles don't have geographic boundaries.
Then people would be criticizing the US for putting a puppet government in place. The whole point of this damn mess (if you're very optimistic) was to free Iraq to make their own choices.
Propaganda reached a new low (Score:5, Insightful)
Cartoons have been a tool of propaganda for about as long as they exist. Take all the WW2 comics, from Bugs Bunny fighting and making fun of Japanese soldiers instead of Elmer Fudd or Donald Duck in the infamous Der Fuehrer's Face [wikipedia.org]. Sure, that was as much propaganda as that Southpark Episodes (and the movie). It makes waging war easier when you see, in a comical setting, that your enemy is something despicable, horrible, and generally wrong.
I just couldn't imagine these movies being shown after the war to the prisoners in Nuernberg. Or even the Tenno. It was propaganda, it was supposed to boost moral at home, and when the war was over it was over.
What happened to decency? Isn't it enough to hang people in a mock trial after you beat them? And don't come with the question whether he "deserves" it. I don't frankly care. It's not about Saddam. It's about your own set of morals and decency. I know it's something I wouldn't do because I would feel like I did something wrong.
A war isn't over until it's over in the head. I'm quite glad, as an European, that the US didn't have the same revenge and hate mindset back after WW2. I like the US, and I enjoy the idea that I can go there and consider the country a 'friendly' nation towards mine. I guess I wouldn't be so lucky if the war didn't end in their, and our, heads in 45.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Alternately, I am more angry about those marines because they are not doing their best to show prisoners that they were fighting in the wrong camp.
Re:hilarious (Score:2, Insightful)
Watch your back mate:
, but it still doesn't change the fact that you should treat others as yourself.
"... one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change,..." Douglas Adams
Re:hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)
He employed an industrial plastic shredder to shred alive anyone who spoke out after having the wife raped... Hated people were fed in head first, really hated people were fed in feet first.
Wow, are you really so gullible to believe the propganda the American media spout as truth? This story is so very false. As false in fact as the WMDs America used as justification to start a war.
and nobody is fooled except the usual fools
I have rarely seen a more apt signature.
This is supposed to be funny? (Score:5, Insightful)
We (the US) pretty much pissed on international law the way we treated another head of state (regardless of what you think of Saddam). Throw in the kangaroo court we used to get him executed without the troublesome details of how we helped him establish a chemical weapons program coming out. Yes, the same one we chastised him for and used as a rationale for our bogus invasion.
I would expect the two self-important dolts who created Southpark to relish in the acknowledgment without using their own eye for satire to see what's so very wrong with the whole situation.
and the Labour Party is notionally Left Wing... (Score:5, Insightful)
There was no shredder, there were no WMDs, Saddam was still a bad man - people just seize upon whatever anecdotal evidence they hear that happens to fit with their pre-existing views.
Whilt you might feel The Guardian has a bias, they do raise some rather good points - basically there is no evidence at all, and what there is seems quite fantastically suspect.
Re:hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
I really like how he says roughly that if somebody in the military knows of people that could have that sign hung on them then they themselves are safe. It's like saying most Jews are miserly fascists, but if you happen to be a self-hating Jew and agree, you're safe. People are right to mod that down.
Re:Matt & Trey Advocating Torture? Yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:your tax dollars at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Needless cruelty isn't justified by the history of the victim.
Re:A slashdot low (Score:1, Insightful)
How is this insightful? A guy asks you an honest question and you reply that he's missing a screw in your head. How is that anything other than trolling / flamebait?
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but what basic right was denied to Saddam by making him watch South Park?
Human dignity.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does it matter who it they're guarding? These are marines and we expect them to show all due respect to their prisoners.
When exactly was the last time you ever defused a landmine or stormed a machine gun nest? How many times have you had to decide between saving your own lift by taking cover or risking death by dragging a profusely bleeding friend to safety?
Does behaving childishly towards prisoners somehow make this easier?
No, I didn't think so. Yet you sit there high and mighty talking down on the military.
Because they behaved reprehensibly. Heroic deeds don't excuse you from the right to be a decent human being.
You know what happens in a war? people get hurt and killed. Many of whom don't deserve it and many times the civilians who are caught in the cross fire don't get any compensation. People suffer horribly and soldiers have to make some very hard decisions and do things they're not proud of.
What military objective was achieved by showing a prisoner the same stupid movie again and again?
Sometimes there are not hard lines between what is justified and what goes too far.
This is a line that's quite easy to stay on the "justified" side of. Don't keep showing him the movie.
You may disagree with that becasue your life is not in danger.
Neither was theirs. Prisons are quite safe.
Tell me the same after you've been very narrowly killed and then capture the guy who killed several of your comrads and tried to kill you.
No. Being shot at doesn't give you the right to be a jerk.
You don't think you'd humiliate him, scare him and even punch him in the face if you knew he knew where other snipers were?
No. I don't think I would.
Ugly, unfair, brutal shit happens.
And I don't condone that either.
It happened on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima and it happens in Iraq.
But for clear military objectives.
If you tried to be a prim proper goody goody you'd be dead very quickly.
How many lives were saved by showing the same movie over and over?
You're a pathetic coward. If you think our soldiers are so bad at what they do, why don't you join so you can show them what a great and fair soldier you are.
Because I don't want to get shot at.
Courage gains them a lot of respect. Respect does not give them the right to be childish jerks.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hanging is one of the quickest ways to die.
How about a bullet straight through the head? It's ironic how a country so full of guns doesn't consider using them for the death penalty.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
The US invades nations for worse reasons already, not only that, but is also known to sell weapons to both sides of a conflict (Iran/Iraq), regularly interfere in other nations politics (Pinochet, Saddam), make use of depleted uranium, fund and support terrorists (The Mujahideen), regularly interfere in conflicts that don't concern it (Afghanistan, Iraq), and won't hesitate to detain people indefinately in military prisons, try the lucky ones in military court, and subject them to treatment in blatant violation of human rights treaties, etc.
Obviously imposing its will on other nations and disrespecting their sovereignity has never, ever been an issue to the US, but all of a sudden, when it's a "bad guy" who gets hung, there's talk of respecting other nations' customs and sovereignity?
What good is establishing and respecting a government when the sole reason that such a government was established, was because the last attempt of establishing a puppet government failed miserably?
Or was that whole bit forgotten already?
Re:your tax dollars at work (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Are we discussing intention or result? Because, while the result of hanging may be more humane, I don't think it's too far fetched to believe the intention of the hanging was less civil and humane.
Which is really the point. With how public that hanging was, you can be fairly sure the publicity from it was well planned out, to which it really sucks that's the message we wanted to give.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously you guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is showing a prisoner a satirical movie which mocks him really torture?
Over and over again? No, it isn't torture, but it's mean, petty, and unprofessional. It reflects poorly upon the soldiers as soldiers, Americans, and human beings. It reflects poorly upon America in general, reinforcing the "drunken frat boy with a shotgun" image we've managed to mint for ourselves. But no, it isn't torture.
Not in my book. Hell, going to a regular American prison, and potentially getting raped, for committing a non-violent crime (drug possession for instance) seems much worse than being shown potentially insulting films.
Stabbing out both of your eyes would be much worse than just one. So you don't mind if I stab out one, right? Not that I'm comparing the movie to eye-stabbery; the point is that "not-as-bad" is not the same thing as "good".
Just ask the Kuwatis... (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn right, just ask the Kuwaitis.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
This has never made any sense to me.
If you take an old and terminally sick pet to the vet, they are able to 'put them to sleep', quickly and painlessly. Does this process not work on humans?
We are able to put people into such a deep sleep that we can open them up and switch their organs over, the person having this done to them feels nothing at any stage of the process. How are we not able to apply the same process, but simply end the life of the person that has been rendered into this 'virtual coma'? I do not know about the lethal injection used for executions, but I am assuming it does not go that smoothly if experts would choose hanging.
All of this stuff sounds like it *should* be very easy to achieve. So I suspect that the reason that (in some countries) we persist in running electricity through people etc, is because we believe they *should* suffer a little bit. If that is the view somebody holds, then they are entitled to it, but they should say it, and so should the state sanctioning the execution.
I live in a country that does not have capital punishment, but I believe that it is warrented in certain cases (not going to express my criteria here), but I believe it should be used because that person can never be allowed to roam free, and letting them rot in prison is an expensive and pointless endevour, but I see no need to cause physical pain during the execution process.
See: Michael Portillo (Score:5, Insightful)
A British politician, despite the UK having no death penalty, actually did some research into execution methods [bbc.co.uk] which was televised [bbc.co.uk] as a documentary.
He concluded that the most humane method available was hypoxia, after undergoing a hypoxic experience in a barometric chamber used for Air Force training. The experience was not unpleasant, but euphoric.
In terms of equipment, you just need a mask and a cylinder of nitrogen. It's virtually impossible mis-administer. It's cheap. It's fast - it takes around 15 seconds.
Various figures in the US prison system just weren't interested, on the grounds that the prisoner wouldn't suffer enough. Despite the US constitutional prohibition on "cruel" punishment, it wasn't considered fair to the families of victims to end lives using this humane method.
I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but as Mr Portillo said : -
"As long as the state is going to kill people I think it has the obligation to do it in the way that least resembles murder."
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
We ostensibly invaded Iraq to liberate its people and bring them democracy.
No we didn't! We invaded because we were told they had WMDs and they were a threat to us. Only after the invasion did the reasons turn to "democracy".
quite the opposite I think. You created The WMDs case to give you reason to invade Iraq. And when you ran out of idea on how to prove the existence of the said WMDs, somehow the reason turns to "democracy"
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
"the ideals behind the death penalty."
That is a scary combination of words...
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
This might be a bit naive of me, but I kind of view the death penalty as less of a punishment, and more of a euthanasia sort of thing. Say you have a dog that is way too aggressive to be adopted or otherwise rehabilitated. That dog should be put down. I don't want the dog to be tortured to death, just to go to sleep and not wake up. And that's just a dog. With a human, all necessary precautions should be taken to make it not only not painful, but as comfortable as possible.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever undergone general anesthesia?
Yes. I've also regained consciousness once before the muscle relaxant had worn off completely. That's a pretty scary experience.
We know how to knock people out quickly and painlessly very well.
Well, I sure don't. Do you? An anaesthesiologist should know, but doctors usually don't want to get involved in executions.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
The other places [washingtonpost.com] reporting this say that of the 30,000 WMD's that the US claimed Iraq had prior going to war, they had found 500, degraded weapons that matched the technical definition of WMD's, but would not pose a serious threat to US citizens.
Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) noted that the administration's prewar rhetoric, including a remark by then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," helped push Congress's October 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
That kind of language, Larsen said, "always has seemed to be much bigger than the facts that we end up reviewing in retrospect."
The smoking gun and mushroom cloud image, he said, "sounds a lot better than 500 artillery shells of various amounts of degraded material that fit the technical definition of chemical weapons . . . buried in various bunkers in various states of disrepair that we are not even sure Saddam Hussein knew about."
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
So the sentiment expressed above extends to the U.S. government?
They were more than happy to overlook the gassings as long as Saddam was putting the boot to the Ayatollah's screaming masses... It wasn't until he got greedy that he became a problem.
That usually the way it works.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How we treat evil people changes us (Score:3, Insightful)
'fun'?
In what world may vengeance ever be fun?
Sorry, but then you are not really better. You just have a better excuse.
Saddams' dead Iraqis vs US/UK dead Iraquis. (Score:3, Insightful)
What IS the exact count for each? In terms of sheer body count, there's a pretty fair chance that the US/UK coalition killed more Iraquis than Saddam did during his entire reign. Of course, the coalition killed them in order to liberate them, so that's OK.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
"the ideals behind the death penalty."
That is a scary combination of words...
Really, you think pacifists (or whatever your preferred brand of idealist) are the only ones with ideals?
How naive.
Re:Huh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't kid yourself - murder is acceptable in every country. The only difference is that in your country, you accept the murders which occur when a killer is set free after serving a 10 year sentence, whereas in the countries you've listed they prefer to murder the killer. Don't pretend to be more moral just because your system results in a more indirect form of murder.
Re:Huh. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a bit saddened by the scarcity of comments like this in the thread. Is capital punishment really so widely accepted in the US?
I tend to measure civilization by three criteria:
Come on guys, you've made small but significant progress in the first two recently, why not go for the set?
In case you hadn't noticed, most of the world doesn't do this stuff anymore; even countries with the death penalty still on the books don't carry it out. Check out the company you are in and tell me you feel OK about it. (Source wikipedia)
Executions are known to have been carried out in the following countries in 2007:
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, USA, Vietnam, Yemen.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with the "screw Saddam" sentiment, but please refrain from relaying blatant propaganda.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming a bullet through the head is as reliable as you think it is (it is not), a large problem with this method of execution is the unnecessary stress it causes on the executioner. Firing squad executions are provided by a squad in no small part due to the inability to detect who was responsible for the lethal shot (there are other reasons). A point blank shooting causes a lot of psychological issues for most mentally stable people, and anyone working in the death row system should certainly be that.
It is my opinion that revenge and justice are two very separate ideas, and that state killing (if you accept such an idea; I don't) should be firmly restricted to the latter. Therefore, the quicker and more painless the execution the better, regardless of the crime.
Why is this even on /. ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Flamebait seems more accurate.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I disagree with are the people who think that locking someone in a tiny cell for the rest of their natural life is more humane than killing them.
Now, I think we need to be really careful, because you *can* reverse a life in prison penalty (and give them whatever is left of their life after you've just shitted on 20 years of it), but in cases where there is a preponderance of evidence, honestly the death penalty seems more humane to me, unless you're going to make a prison a nicer place to live than most of the people in Saddam's country had, and that seems a little ridiculous as well.
That being said, I think the current methods of execution in the US are criminal (none of them are based in any way on reasonable science, and are not considered humane ways to kill a dog, let alone a human), and the system corrupt (there is far too strong of a correlation between how little money a state spends on public defenders and how many people they execute), so I'm all for trashing our current implementation. But that doesn't mean that sometimes the most reasonable thing to do to someone is to kill them.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, I'm pretty sure the Palin crowd is NOT ashamed of anything Palin said or did.
Regarding "infiltration of parties".. are you SERIOUS?
There's a documented history of the FBI infiltrating such "threats" as as Mr. King and the civil rights movement, anti-Vietnam, anti-globalization, moms who protested the Iraq-war, Act Up, and union organizers. Real scary guys, these.
The FBI will pass up chances to infiltrate (or put less effort into) VIOLENT groups like the KKK, fringe anti-abortion groups which equate bombing of clinics with freeing Nazi concentration cam prisoners, and militias and para-military groups which flout federal law.
You let me know when CEO boards are infiltrated by the FBI or others with "leftist" agenda.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't kid yourself - murder is acceptable in every country. .
I can't even begin to decipher this statement except to say that the poster you replied to probably mean "acceptable for the state to murder people". He is absolutely correct. Murder by the state is a barbaric practice common to the countries he mentioned and not to many other civilized countries. If you don't see the difference between state sponsored murder and human on human murder then there is probably nothing to discuss. I am happy you're not American though; we have far too many people of your mind here already.
Re:Huh. (Score:2, Insightful)
How naive.
Re:I always thought (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I'm a peace-activist (or "bleeding-heart-liberal tree-hugging, dolphin-loving hippie moron" as you Texans like to call us) and usually one of the first to admit that the U.S. is no better than many of its enemies when it comes to aspects of human rights, torture and respect for life. But seriously. Making someone watch South Park does NOT constitute torture. And I'm not even a South Park fan.
Besides, it could have been a lot worse. He could have been forced to watch every Steven Segal movie ever made over and over. Or Gigli. Or Matrix 2 and 3. Or that Providence TV-series. Now THAT's torture.
PS: Don't mess with Texas - it's not nice to pick on retards DS
Re:Let start out by saying (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee, I don't remember Americans having a problem with Saddam when WE WERE PAYING HIM with our Tax Dollars to fight Iran for us.
How about embracing the teachings of Jesus? He who is without sin, cast the first stone. Didn't the United States kill 1000's of it's own people indescriminately? Oh, you must have forgotten. They were called "Native Americans", or at the time... "Indians". And we're a country that for generations endorsed SLAVERY.
Imagine, if you will.. how this country would be seen if in some kind of Star Trek "Mirror Mirror" universe, we were still doing that to this day, or that American from the 1800's was suddenly catapulted into the year 2000...
Is it really our place to stick our more developed moralities onto the rest of the undeveloped world? Is Saddam any better than Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and often raped the women (how many Black Americans are part of the Jefferson lineage?)?
So, while you sit on your high horse dispatching justice as you see fit, tell me how you think this country is so much better than Iraq that we had the right to go in there and destroy everything so that we could make life even more miserable for the average Iraqi, but now they are "free"...
At what point in your delusion do you realise that all developing nations go through a period, often lasting 100 years or more, where things are shitty? And just because we got past that period, somehow we assume that everyone else has gotten past that period as well?
Re:Huh. (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, sadly in this day, forcing someone to shave, to bath, to listen to music they don't like, to watch TV shows making fun of their ideals or image is akin to starvation, braking bones, inserting surgical instruments into the human body or operating with nothing to dull the pain, pulling off fingernails, and threatening someone with death and taking them almost there.
My what a strong race of people we have grown into. To think, your childhood and a weekend at a frat party or clubbing in the winter is now torture.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because somebody said that (famous or not) does not make it true.
Monsters should be treated like Monsters. There is no dishonor in that.
/, == tabloid news paper now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when has /. tried to descend to the level of gutter journalism? And WTF is this to do with "news for nerds, stuff that matters."?????
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, bravo that you can imagine worse kinds of torture than having to listen to loud music 24 hours a day or waterboarding.
I guess that makes everything all right then!
Pssst, you know the difference between sex and rape? It's kind of like the difference between your weekend at the frat party and the way the American Military tortures.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I thought was weird
Yeah, that's war propaganda... just sort of comes with war. People are very fickle and so you need to keep your side happy while trying to demoralize the other side. God help us if the US government ever started conducting foreign policy based on popular opinion.
Re:Errata Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:1, Insightful)
Putting waterboarding next to loud music just shows how soft we are and how cushy our little industrial existence is on this side of the planet.
It almost makes you want to institute universal conscription.
Some of you cream puffs need to crawl through mud for the next 4 years just to get back to "sane".
Like reading? (Score:4, Insightful)
Palin and her pals like to ignore the Katie Couric interview, where the world quickly learned what real intelligence is. Anyone who can't answer a simple question like "What do you read on a daily basis?" is either phenomonally incurious or just as stupid, and to lash out with nonsense like "Alaska gets the same papers as the rest of the country" after three tries to get a simple answer to a simple question -- well, they are a whackjob. Those who support said whackjob with ever more ridiculous excuses are worse.
Re:Huh. (Score:2, Insightful)
The minute of consciousness thing is a misnomer. The sudden drop in blood pressure causes immediate loss of consciousness. this is why the guillotine remains as one of the most humane forms of execution, despite its grotesque presentation.
The lack of oxygenated blood does take a bit to do any damage, but you'll be slumbering long before that.
Re:damned imperialists (Score:3, Insightful)
I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold. (Score:5, Insightful)
Saddam kills a kid with gas; US/UK kill a kid with a bomb. The kid is just as innocent and just as dead.
Saddam considered himself to be legitimately putting down a Kurdish rebellion. It was bullshit, but that was his claim.
The US/UK did not "slide on ice" into the war in Iraq by accident; they attacked Iraq when Iraq was no threat to them. It was aggressive war, pure and simple. They said it had something to do with WMD. That, too, was bullshit.
In other words, both sides claim legitimacy, and both sides are full of it. But who killed more people?
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the music that is torture, it's the fact that loud music prevents a prisoner from SLEEPING.
It's sleep deprivation, a form of torture.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
If we accept this statement as true, how can we universally define when someone is a "Monster"?
Then, how can we take that definition and roll it into a system of laws and government without it becoming corrupted?
From a vet (Score:5, Insightful)
If true, as a vet, I find the Marines' behavior unprofessional and embarrassing to the uniform. I can only hope an investigation occurs, and if guilty, that the Marines responsible are made an example of.
Saddam was a shitbag, but that doesn't mean we need to lower our moral standards and professionalism.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't think the day would come when I'd talk back on behalf of the likes of Saddam (I was in Kuwait in '91), but you are being sumdumass, today.
Not all torture is alike, and not all our respect for our marines' conduct stems from their lack of engaging in such barbarism as physical torture. Forcing a man -actually forcing him - to repeatedly watch a movie is far worse than forcing him to stand naked in the snow. The humiliation of complete control is a lot more... stark. The more petty the forced action, the worse it is for the actor, not the man being lightly insulted. What animals have we become that our vengeance on foreign tyrants is put in the hands of frat boys like these?
We're not a 'strong race', in the sense you meant, but I'd rather be civilized and strong, than just strong.
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:See: Michael Portillo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it incredibly annoying how the US uses violations of international law as a reason to demonize, sanction, or even outright invade other nations, but when the US does them, they're mentioned in passing and even cheered.
Random example: shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, after the whole statue-toppling incident, the US took the scraps of the statue to an Iraqi artist and paid him to make them a monument out of them, which they shipped to Fort Hood [toppledsaddam.org]. They also took an intact head, arm, and sword.
Okay, first off, it's completely illegal to deface artwork in the first place, whether you agree with it or not. But just completely ignoring that, this is outright looting. How many freaking times have we condemned as little more than thuggish brigands armed groups who invade one place and leave carrying out things like that? I couldn't begin to count it. And yet the US press, and the website of the museum at Fort Hood, is outright *celebrating* the looting of Iraqi bronze. WTF?
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Putting waterboarding next to loud music just shows how soft we are and how cushy our little industrial existence is on this side of the planet.
Something tells me that the point of the "loud music" wasn't to annoy you with music, but to ensure sleep deprivation. In which case, yes, I would put waterboarding right next to it.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is, however, stupidity. If monsters are such because they treat others as monsters would, then by punishing him likewise makes you, in turn, a monster deserving to be punished in the same way.
And thus is why the phrase "cycle of hatred" exists.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no reasonable form of execution. Unless you live in a barbaric country like Iran, China, or the United States where it is acceptable to murder people.
Yes, the United States, how barbaric we are. I mean we give the condemned legal council and a trial by a jury of peers and only execute in extremely heinous cases after several appeals and years of waiting to see if new evidence will surface that might warrent overturning the case or allowing for a publicly elected governor or president to intervene with a pardon. I'm sure that is just as barbaric as Iranian courts authorizing public stoning or vigilantism to recover lost family "honor" or Chinese courts performing show trials with nearly 100% conviction rates for things like "antirevolutionary activities".
Re:Errata Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget the Iraqis, the entire World (except the United States) was against Iraq when they gassed the Kurds (in 1988). The gassing of the Kurds was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Europe
The former French Presidential Administration held very strong financial ties with Saddam's regime. They defended Iraq in the UN and prevented UN action because of this. Thus the US and UK acted without UN support.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Torture is torture. The fact that they skipped the forms of torture that leave physical marks doesn't make it non torture.
The same kind of people used waterboarding, electrocution, and other stuff thirty years ago where I leave. Maybe they found out that this kind of stuff is cleaner, and as effective.
The thing with torture is this: if you take a prisoner, feed them right and treat them right, it's ok. If you take a prisoner, and mess with them, it's not ok. Even if you use "cleaner" ways of messing with them, it's not ok.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, sadly in this day, forcing someone to shave, to bath, to listen to music they don't like, to watch TV shows making fun of their ideals or image is akin to starvation, braking bones, inserting surgical instruments into the human body or operating with nothing to dull the pain, pulling off fingernails, and threatening someone with death and taking them almost there.
Shaving and bathing, ok, that's not torture, that's promoting good hygiene in a community environment so that the prisoners don't wind up with lice.
Being made to listen to music you don't like isn't so bad, but it is when you're made to listen to the same song over and over at a high volume for days. Making fun of their ideals or making them watch a movie for retribution, infantile and not even close to what I expect from professional soldiers, let alone professional soldiers under my employ.
Now...I know the RIAA will be storming my front door for this, but tonight go torrent any CD published by Disney in the last 10 years and play a random track on repeat as loud as you can, then lay in bed and try your best to sleep. Now imagine being locked in your room for six months (or two thirds of a baby, however you want to think of it) and handing the play button to someone with the mindset of a 10 year old boy poking a dead bird with a stick. Imagine what they could do to you when all you want is a nap. Tell me you wouldn't let someone break your finger to not have that happen. Go ahead, lie to me.
Re:Let start out by saying (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not so sure you have gotten past that period, as much as learned to hide it well in some cases.
At any rate, I think a lot of people in the world get very angry at the US for its high-handed assumption of morale superiority and its inherent right to shove that attitude down the throats of the rest of the world.
The US Political system is in no way superior to any other true democracy in the world. It is by no means the best system, and its tiring to hear of people treating the US Constitution as if it was handed down directly by God enshrined in a glowing white light. Sure, its a great document and contains noble sentiments, just as the US has the potential to be a great country. However, its not an inherent feature of the US, you have to keep striving for it, keep applying the rules in that document and living up to them. No mean feat I am sure.
There are other perfectly valid forms of democracy that have survived in other countries for longer than the US has existed. The English Parliamentary system for instance. They all have their faults but they are no worse or better than the US system.
Please, put an end to this Nationalistic Superiority complex. Be proud of what you have achieved but stop assuming it makes you inherently superior human beings. It gets tiring and it only makes the rest of the world hate you, not for being superior, but for being obnoxious and ignorant.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's cute and all that you think "loud music" refers to playing the radio a little loud and headbanging a bit. In regards to torture, that isn't what it refers to. It refers to playing painfully ear-splitting volumes of music for days on end. This causes sleep deprivation, migraines, and all sort of other goodies.
You may as well refer to water-boarding as "taking a dip in the tub" and pretend like it's all pathetic and cushy that we consider water-boarding to be torture.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Within the United States, in regards to United States citizens, the death penalty is legal. Torture is not. This has been the case since the founding of our country. There's no reason this should be any less valid in regards to prisoners and "enemies" who are not United States citizens.
Re:"What happened to decency?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone deserves to be treated with decency, no matter their crimes or personal failings.
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I think we need to be really careful, because you *can* reverse a life in prison penalty (and give them whatever is left of their life after you've just shitted on 20 years of it)
I think that it is really the only true argument against death penalty. Everything else I don't care about, but for the sake of justice, any sentence must leave room for later correction if needed.
but in cases where there is a preponderance of evidence
"Preponderance" is not good enough. Mistakes are still made. I honestly don't know any way to make it 100% - in the end, any conviction is based on evidence (since the judge doesn't witness the event himself), and any evidence, in any amount, can ultimately be falsified.
Re:Errata Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're just playing word games here, most of the nazis in Europe were/are for the invasion of Iraq, just like most of them hate all Arabs.
That's very much not true. A lot of neo-Nazis hate Jews so much that they're willing to side with anyone who shares the passion. Therefore you get Nazis support Arabs in general, and Iraq, Iran and Palestine in particular. I recall seeing that picture - can't find it now, sadly - of skinheads marching with two banners side by side; one had "White Power" written on it, another was "Jews Out Of Palestine".
It's not just that, though. Many Nazis view the liberal democratic political systems of European countries as "decadent". In comparison, dictatorships - especially "popular" ones - are very much consistent with Fuhrerprinzip. So they look at countries to emulate them, and, again, find them in the likes of Iraq.
Finally, there's Islam itself. And there is a bit of a surprise - some Nazis actually see Islam and its stringent moral codes as a good way to oppose the "moral degeneration" of the West. There are a few high-profile neo-Nazis who had converted to Islam largely because of that - one example is David Myatt [wikipedia.org].
Re:Saddams' dead Iraqis vs US/UK dead Iraquis. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
This millitary is composed of 18-24 year old foot soldiers. The sergeants and officers are usually older but the main fighting group is the frat boy age. This is why you don't use the military for civilian operations as it's like taking a hammer to any situation. Put these kids in charge of a detention facility (and don't believe for a minute that those 18 year old foot soldiers weren't his guards) and they do things like play movies that are humiliating to detainees. I would bet that every army in the world does stuff like this under these type of circumstances. The only thing you can do to mitigate it is to simply not put soldiers in control of detention facilities. The military really didn't have that option in this situation because Iraqi guards would have done FAR FAR worse to Saddam. So we end up taking the blame for the military acting like a bunch of Frat boys, which they are. Much of this likely could have been mitigated if other nations had donated veteran soldiers and officers to run these type of facilities.
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Saddams' dead Iraqis vs US/UK dead Iraquis. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mod parent up (Score:2, Insightful)
Where you drunk? Because I imagine that can help a lot.
Re:Huh. (Score:2, Insightful)