Saddam Hussein to be executed soon

Post Reply New Topic

Nope, I need none, I'm kind of on the same page as you with this.

The funny thing is, we live in an age of the internet, cameras are on every piece of equipment. I've read news reports of Saddam's death. Great, some reports even have what was said on 'camera phones' and 'hear say' but there are 2 pictures on the internet.

BIGGEST death in recent time and TWO bloody pictures. One RIGHT before they hung him, nice and lovely, and a sh***y shot of afterwards where you can't make s**t out.

CNN:
Hussein executed with 'fear in his face' < -- what? 'fear?' Is this real?

WHOA WHOA!! !

Yahoo has this:
who looked calm and composed as he stood on the gallows, had shouted angry political slogans while masked guards were bringing him into the execution chamber once used by his own feared intelligence services.

?!

What one was it? Was he calm or fearful?!

Maybe both? He was calmly fearful, or fearfully calm perhaps?

Its the news. Its biased. Unfortunately that's just part of it. I'm just waiting for the conspiracy theorists to start yelling "OMGZ FAKERZ THAT WEREN"T SADAMS BODIES!" That's bias at an all new level.

He's dead. Game over. Whether you're for or against the war, for or against the death penalty, for or against anything that involved that man, this chapter's done. Its kind of eerie to me though, I read about the execution and just kind of shrugged. "Ok, what's my horoscope look like today." I'd call that a sign of desensitization, and I think it was caused by all the media attention that he and his trial got. Before the trial was even over, all I could think was "ok, I'm sick of this, lets move on." Well, they did... though that is a bit morbid of a thought. Its almost as if in my mind the man died long ago, and only the media spectacle remained. Now that has died too, though the media will drag its corpse along as long as they can I'm assuming.

Corvus calls BS on:
Yahoo and CNN conflicting their view on how Saddam looked, one stated 'calm' while the other stated 'Fearful.'

Saddam was tried 22 years later after a crime he committed. Thank god 3000 people died during 9/11 or Saddam would have never seen a court. As well, the guy was almost assassinated. Replace 'Iraqi President' with 'American President' and I can rest assure you, more then 148 people would have died for that assassination attempt.

Where are the pictures? Too much convenience here. The only picture available is a 'before' and a horrible 'after' picture. He is buried somewhere 'secret.' Of course he is. We don't want anyone vandalizing his grave because that would be horrible (a big bunch of 'ironic' since 'we' just killed the guy for doing horrible things and now we respect him all of a sudden).

Unless I wake up tomorrow with blazing new photo's or some form of actual proof he was, in fact, executed, I will never believe it.

This, this is a death:
http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q= ... a=N&tab=wi

Mussolini, there are photo's. They killed him. This is proof! Telling me Saddam was hung then buried instantly doesn't do anything for me. Its too simple, too easy. It.. its not making any sense to me, nothing about this trial, nothing about that war made any sense. They keep changing the reasons for it, they keep changing everything..

Its not biased at a whole new level. You've been given NO PROOF but 'text' statements and hearsay. Hearsay does NOT hold up well in court yet you think it would be biased. There was NO shots of the body. How can the world rest in peace thinking he is dead without ever seeing anything? When we caught him, we didnt hide his face. Then we kill him, something we supposedly wanted to do, and we do it quickly and bury him instantly like he vanished like a fart in the wind.

The world wanted him dead and it happened in a instance of time. We have a CLEAR shot of him getting a noose around his neck then we have the worlds SHITTIEST shot ever of him dead. What happened to the other camera? Was it 'asked to leave?' Highly unlikely since someone was aloud a 'camera' phone and if that camera was aloud, why wasnt a REAL camera aloud, one that would actually show a clear image. God this is pissing me off, nothing makes sense, nothing

I honestly don't care if the man is alive or dead. I'd be happier with him alive and rotting away in a prison than dead. I'd like to believe that the U.S. isn't so incompetent as to let him simply slip away into the night when he was supposed to be executed, so if there really is some sort of conspiracy afoot to simply keep him alive, that's fine. Alive is one thing, free is another.

As for the whole camera phone issue, no media cameras may have been permitted to tape the hanging or the body. Someone with a camera phone still could have pulled it out and taped a bit. The video that's available on CNN is a video of a video of a camera phone recording, suggesting that the officials did not want the body to be a media spectacle. Unlike what we do with ex-presidents. Ok, they're never ex-presidents. Dead presidents. The recording also loops. It looks as if (to me at least) someone finally noticed the cinematographer and may have shoved them or something. It also looked like his body was in a trunk of a toyota car. (The logo can be seen coming down at the end of the video, like a trunk closing) That would make it easier to prevent people from trying to desecrate the body. Sure, he was convicted of crimes against humanity. That doesn't give anyone the right to treat his corpse with the same level of disrespect as he may have treated others during his own lifetime. No, I don't have proof that it really was him. I don't have proof he's dead. I also don't have proof that it was all some vast conspiracy. Like I said though, thanks to the media I got tired of caring long ago. As long as he's not sipping fruity drinks on some beach, I couldn't care less at this point.

janicka, your response to me was direct and to the point. I appreciate that.

That is probably a fair point. Senator Robert Taft was famously took the unpopular position of calling the Nuremberg trials unworthy of the United States and recommended something along the lines of permanant exile. While I agree most of his criticisms, I still think that an attempt at fair trial (they defendants were accused and some acquitted), with the exceptions of the Soviet Union, was important in sending a message. The Saddam trial also had it's issues (there is good article by Nicholas Burns of the New York Times on it here (link)). One was that when Saddam realized he was not being executed immediately by Iraqis, he (like Herman Goering at Nuremberg) ceased being frightened and became bellicose and threatening image of the person he no longer actually was.

Corvus, you are letting your emotions rule your mind. Saddam Hussein is dead. Why would Iraq go through the process of a fake execution? Who was that guy who looked so much like Saddam and acted so much Saddam that was hanged? The reason his grave is a secret is that we don't want him, like Hitler, to became a martyr to future Arab bathists.

Is it really surprising that there would be different viewpoints on how he reacted to the situation?



REALLY! That's interesting since American presidents have been assassinated and no where near that number of people (148) were ever executed for their assassination. In addition attempted assassinations were taken at on several different Presidents and the only one executed happened to kill the mayor of Chicago in his attempt to kill FDR.

I think it's sad Saddam killed perhaps a million people and you are more seem worried about the U.S. government.

[EDIT: That last line is perhaps badly put. But I don't understand the paranoia about the execution of a dictator. Aren't claims like this more logical against closed authoritarian regimes where secrets can actually be kept then against open democracies were the opposite is usually the case?]

Umm, ok Comparing Presidents who were assassinated. One happened AFTER a MAJOR war, another happened BY an American. Lets replace who assassinated these people with an ACTUAL group and we'll call them 'Kurds.' Now we can compare the 2. If "Kurds" attacked, hell, screw this, a group of people DID attack 'America' and now over 100,000 people have died in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This wasn't a attack via a 'war' it was simply an attack. Yes, not exactly an assassination attempt but trust me, if the Kurds did it on Mr. Bush, you'd be conscripted and shipped off to war to defend a man most in the U.S. hate.

Saddam didn't kill a million people. The whole thing is, if you gave a damn, ANY damn, you would have been posting his astrocities 22 years ago and doing so everyday. You wouldnt have dared wait until now to try him. Now, out of convenience, you give a s**t. Again, you caring about this is REAL convenient but had 9/11 not happened, you wouldnt give 2 god damn s**ts about any of this, it would just be another day for you. THIS is why I care. The U.S. government isn't all roses and peaches, sorry to break it to you, but you live in a world filled with lies, we ALL know that. Your Government is nothing special - They KNOW of genocides going on, they knew of Rwanda, unless you live in a rock, you know of Darfur! Where's your heart for them? Saddam has killed fewer people yet he is placed above everyone - why? Economic interests? Why?

Is it odd there are different viewpoints:
Calm = confident
Fearful = look like you are going to piss your pants

Big mistake. Cant say I've confused the 2 before. Can't say I mistake people 'shaking' in their pants as 'confident' but yes, I can easily see why the 2 are confused or why CNN, a blatant 'American' propaganda network would need to stress out how 'fearful' he looked.' But lets humour them and say that, being NT (most likely) and able to read body language, they got it wrong. Why stress how fearful he was? Do you question anything or just smile and nod to everything you see and hear? Sorry for asking questions but if someone doesnt then god knows what would happen. The world may still be flat and you'd be there telling me my emotions are causing me harm - Even though I write with none

You maybe content with 0 evidence, but I am not. You may believe everything you hear but I know better. I know people lie and I know they lie ALL the time. I know even my friends lie to me, why in the HELL would I believe this? Do you still think Saddam has WMD? You know, the "reason" we are there (now tell me thats not the reason anymore because they 'changed' it to a more 'honest' sounding reason of good intentions).

I just don't understand why the whole WORLD is content without 1 damn ounce of proof. Jesus, lets just never give any proof anymore, lets just 'say' we did things. "Did you execute him?" 'Yup.' Ok, I believe you, next problem. I know better then to believe a bunch of 'conveniences.' God doesnt play with Dice

Do I discount what he did? No, I think the 148 got what they had coming from them - thats Karma in work. The Genocide, no excuses. However, isnt doing 'nothing' the same as 'doing harm?' How many people die in Darfur while we do nothing? Why dont we do something, seems humanitarian? Liberating people in Iraq sets a precedent we now must follow - see why getting into national affairs is dangerous? We become responsible; the U.S. becomes responsible. Then it sits back until an interest arrises, then it springs into action. Observe the actions of government like you would the actions of people at your work or school. They are not honest and governments job is to lie so they can remain in power. America has lost more freedoms DURING this fight for so called 'freedom' and you dont even see that. Its all right infront of you.

If I am wrong on Saddam, so be it, but the guy who questions things, well, you can condemn him all you want but eventually, something will happen. The "wrong" question will be asked. They dont want you questioning things, they want you to walk around mindlessly doing your work.

For the record, there is a reason I am 'Libertarian.' Reason being is because without government, there are no lies for the people.

oh look, his grave isnt hidden anymore:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061231/ap_ ... /saddam_75

As well, about the phone - This tells me something:
If Camera's were NOT aloud, then why didn't security take away people's phones? How did someone sneak one in?
Why isnt it confiscated when they took it out. Surely someone would have seen someone taking a photo, there were only so many people there, supposedly. More questions to be asked.

America puts him in power, he kills kurds in 1982, no one cares. He kills in a genocide in 1988, no one cares although they may have 'spoke' of it (again, words aren't 'action'). He invades Kuwait, illegal, America forces him back. No one cares. Some years go by, 9/11 happens, Saddam is tried and executed for what took place in 1982. Yup, don't ask questions, its just a bunch of conveniences

Corvus - I said exactly the same thing to my husband who thought I was insane for making such a suggestion. Seriously - prison inmates stage hangings all the time to assault guards. Surely someone of Saddam's stature could convince/bribe someone to help him out with something like that. I will never believe that he was executed until I see a body. And not just those grainy cell-phone camera pics that are supposedly circulating in the Arab media. This is Hussein for hell's sake. Surely someone would have had a decent camera to snap a picture of him. Unless they conveniently had a body of Hussein's approximate height/weight with similar facial characteristics that could pass for Hussein on an extremely bad quality photo. I think you and I are now officially a conspiracy theory fringe group

I dont understand why we are so alone with it, either! No one has any proof he is dead except some text on a page. Thats it. If thats all I need to pass the truth along then I think I should take advantage of people's 'gullible' tendencies and start making stuff up. People will believe anything as long as its in the 'media' but despite the fact that the media is controlled.

And the fact that the after shot IS garbled is completely nonsense. The camera looks like it was from 1974!

People see China and how controlled ITS media is and they think they have completely accurate info. No body, no proof. He might as well be lost at sea.

Corvus: Supposedly there is some better hanging image where you see him fall through the trap door and his neck snaps. Not that I am into snuff films, but I may go looking for it once I have a chance. Supposedly that, too, was taken with a cell phone camera, though. At the moment I am importing my cd collection into itunes, and that is more important to me than seeing some $hitty image.

My husband is usually pretty sensible, but my stance on the execution has him thinking that I am nuts.

Manila: Do you know Arabic? If so, can you help us out here by searching the Arabic websites for such a video?

OK, here's the Youtube video that supposedly actually shows it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP94A6MKS9k

Now: Call for experiments. If I were to send a pic of myself on a cell phone camera, would you be able to show me hanging (as in the last few seconds of the video where you only see his face a couple of times and then have the final image of him with his neck bent)?

I watched this video, someone took a pic in it. I dont know, maybe its just me, maybe this is all real, but god damn, people, its NOT difficult to hold a camera steady

I agree with your assessment of the film.

Now, I am sure that we have our fair share of nerds, dweebs, geeks, etc. on this site. I suck at photoshop and graphic design in all its forms. But I seriously would like to conduct an experiment in which some does a snuff film of me and posts it up on this site.

And seriously if it was such an historic event, where were all the quality cameras? It's the 21st century for hell's sake.

If you know any WP members qualified to conduct such an experiment get them over here. Maybe AV Geek? What do you think?

I was busy with issues at home so I couldn't really post for a couple days. I think this may be my last post because I don't think this is really getting anywhere. I apologize to janicka, but I may not be able to get to respond to your earlier post.

First off, let me deal with your last accusation. Polls show a clear majority of Americans currently disapprove of President Bush's job approval (Realclearpolitics.com gives him an average 60% disapproval rate according to the latest polls). Those polls do not say that most Americans HATE him. Those are two different thing. I do not like Jimmy Carter, and think he was one of the worst Presidents in American history, however although his approval rating reached below 30% that did not mean Americans hated him, and it does not mean Americans hate Bush now. It would be a terrible thing if we started to hate our leaders do to political differences. It is difficult to how a functioning democratic society if the one half literally hates the other side.

You stated that more then 100,000 people died in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Some evidence to back of this claim would be appropriate. There are those opposing the war that have been known to exagerate fatality statistics.

Kurds have no reason to assassinate a U.S. president. The United States is their primary protector, and the Kurdish north is the most modern, secular, and advanced part of Iraq. Saddam Hussein apparently had a reason to when he ordered the assassination of former President George Bush in 1993. Iraqi intelligence was planning to blow him up with explosives. They were caught and executed by the Kuwaitis however. No invasion of Iraq was ordered by the Clinton administration (cruise missiles were fired into Iraqi intelligence headquarters) although killing a former head of state can be used as a valid justification for war.



The exact toll of those murdered by Saddam Hussein is still unknown. It is possible that Saddam did not kill one million people, but it is very possible that he did. It would not be unlikely. I have always said "perhaps" he killed one million people. To state definitely that he didn't is minimizing his horrors in an attempt to strengthened the anti-war position. First one lies about how many die in the war and then one suggests that the numbers killed in Iraq were perhaps lower then estimated and that things under Saddam were really better for the Iraqi people. Here are some estimates of those killed by Hussein:


(from this link)


(from this link)


[url=http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/09/murderedkilled-by-saddam-hussein.html]



Why are you questioning my personal ethics? I did not question your own? Is it correct to bring personal ethics into a political discussion? (For the record I was only 1 year old 22 years ago so I couldn't post anything)



I do admit that yes, a direct attack on the United States by terrorists from abroad caused me to wonder about U.S. security. Politicians should have been worried about it before but they weren't. Nor would the people likely stand for an attack on Taliban held Afghanistan before a direct assault on the US (there had been attacks before). There were conservatives and others calling for regime change in Iraq some time before 9/11. The support for the Kosovo campaign was partially humanitarian in nature.

Is there something wrong with worrying about national security after a major event like 9/11? People got worried about national security after Pearl Harbor and the Zimmerman telegram.

And I do care. I don't like the idea of the US backing horrible regimes, and I feel that if we have to back a nasty regime for pragmatic reasons we should use every pressure to make those dictatorial regimes answerable to the people. This policy turned Latin America around in the 1980s.

It is of interest that those who most strongly demanded we support Saddam Hussein against the Ayatollah in the Iran-Iraq war was the State Department, and the Treasury Department, not the military. They wanted stability at all costs. To be fair, Iran was technically at war at us when the Iraq invaded Iran (they were holding US hostages) we had a certain logical reason to support Iraq, even if they were ruled by a tyrant.



Who is we? Is it "the world community" as is always mentioned? If, "we" all know that then why do people have such divergent opinions of things?



I have mentioned the genocide in Darfur in my posts. It was the Bush adminstration that helped get Sudan to sign a peace treaty that allowed an area of the country to become autonomous, which allows it to be removed from the areas effected by the genocide. Unfortunately, it continues elsewhere. If I thought it were possible for U.S. forces to be deployed to fix the problem I would but at this point it is unworkable (it would result in war with Sudan, everything that entails). I endorse U.S. technical and equipment aid to those who wish to go in and attempt to stop the genocide. It would be a difficult task, just like the current Iraq struggle. Do you endorse the sending of Canadian and European troops to fight the Sudanese forces and the insurgency that will inevitably arise?



It can't be economic interests because if it was that we would just level the entire country and take what we want. We would do the same with Saudi Arabia too. We have the ability. I don't endorse that, BTW, it's horribly unethical. Iraqi oil should remain Iraqi oil. It isn't political interest since the economy revved up and the war only appears to have oil prices. Bush lost votes with Iraq war, didn't gain them. He would have been elected by a wide margin likely without it. National security has a lot to do with it.

It is not clear that more people have did in Darfur then were murdered by Saddam. I want to make clear this is not justification. Saddam was in power longer then the present situation in the Darfur has persisted. Estimates of the death toll in Darfur are generally given at about 300,000. But that has been the same total given for some time. The real total could be much higher.

...
I am not going to address the absurd conspiracy theory (and it is absurd) about Saddam not really being dead. In regards to calm vs. fearful, I did not watch the tape. I started to but I couldn't continue. It is not in my despotism to watch such things. Saddam refused to wear a mask. That is objectively speaking, brave. However, from what was described, he was nervous. This is understandable from an objective view as well.

I honestly ask this question. Why is there this obsession with making sure it is understood that Saddam *did not* die scared? He's a brutal dictator and that is what you are concerned about?
...


I would not be content with zero evidence. The Iraqis were not cooperating with the arms inspectors. There own documents (many of which were destroyed before the US arrived) speak specifically of how to deceive the inspectors. The documents speak of active weapons programs up to the time of the invasion itself (including a nuclear program just a year away from being able to build a bomb). Now perhaps some of this was like the Soviet nomenclature, desperately wishing to please Saddam, but I doubt it's all false. There were large amounts of materials sent across the border into Syria just before the war began in tractor-trailer trucks. Some of the material is likely there. It's still possible that some of it is hidden somewhere in some hidden location that we never got to.

Nevertheless, if there proved to be no WND I would still support the invasion because there were others reasons including Saddam's connections to terrorism. Additionally, Iraq is a sort of central hub in the Middle East. It's we are successfully there, the effects will be felt outward (as in fact were, in for a time).



A video tape is evidence. There is also photographs. Did Saddam's sons really die? Was the video of Osama watching 9/11 and predicting the events as they happened real (he has since admitted his responsibility in further recordings)? I mean, come on.



I don't think the 148 "got what they had coming (to?) them." You may call that Karma, but I think it is justification for murder. You ask, again, why the United States doesn't jump into the Darfur. Let me say this: If I thought if were possible for the U.S. to go in to Darfur, take the kind of losses we took in Iraq and solve the problem without at the same time making it impossible to complete our chances to win in Iraq and thus turning that country into a terrorist's haven then I would shout, "Yes! Let's do it!"

North Korea is a truly horrid place, but the military action must be a very reluctant one indeed because they apparently have some sort of nuclear capacity and are testing missiles to hit our coast line. We, and other countries are trying to deal with a solution with Iran to avoid them having nuclear weapons with the slight worry that they might actually use them in some sort of insane first strike at Israel.



List them.



If I thought Bush was lying about all of this I would support his immediate impeachment, conviction, and trial in a court of all for whatever was justified with the death penalty on the table. I question, I just don't agree with you.



Governments do often lie (although one should delineate between government in the generic and specific levels of government), but people are quite capable of lying themselves.

You're right, no fact - Turns out my number was wrong - turns out, in what I was referring to, his 1988 "genocide:"
killing 5,000 civilians, and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more < -- wiki

Now, you say "perhaps 1 million people" then you state how it could be more. Whoa, I had a point, here, but its changed to something else. You just referenced a 'war' statistic. There is a fine line between 'war' and 'genocide' and these are 2 different issues. You want to bring 'war' into this then we have a very interesting conversation to move to (America is at war, illegally, with Iraq).

My point with ALLLLLLL of this is that it sets a precedent I don't think people are ready to deal with that, yet. These 'criminals' cannot be convicted when we 'want to' like this Saddam scenario. Again, if this were an issue it should have been dealt with when the crimes took place, NOT out of convenience some years later. You know what that tells me? We REALLY don't give a s**t. We don't care if he kills people, its clear, people die in Darfur EVERYDAY. My point with this isn't to free Saddam but to point out the PRECEDENT and HYPOCRISY this sets up. People cannot deal with that.



I imagined you to be older. My point with questioning this ties into the above points of 'precedent' and 'hypocrisy' that you may or may not fall into it. But, just so you know, if you care about trying Saddam, then there's a BIG list of countries that are committing major war crimes as I type. This issue is not 'black and white' and as much as the 'west' or 'America' wants to think, it does not have all the answers. As well, the 'World' didn't support this war for a reason. The only country the TRUELY cared about capturing Saddam was America. Now, that raises a flag, in my opinion, when the rest of the world doesn't care about this trial and that only America and Iraq did. Yay, he's dead (but what country supported the attack in the first place?). You have to view everything, just not Saddam. It seems the media at focusing on Saddam. A VERY good job.



Worrying? You are now talking in fear (guess who is the best at fueling a countries own fear? (Yup, you guessed it, their own governments)). A fearful society coincidentally is a productive society (Reference: Cold War). As well, WW2 - what great achievements came from that? People ARE aware of these things.



The world is of disillusion (Reference: Buddhism).

Now, you go on about supporting of 'fixing the other problems of the world' which is great and answers anything assumptions I have placed about (in regards to hypocrisy, so don't bother responding to that, I'm going to leave it for others to read).

Do I support the troops? Saying 'yes' means diddly squat! You can support them all you want with your words but your words are nothing more then words. People talk at my work 90% of their day and they do no work. The result is more work to do later on. Now, if you want to sign up, jump on a plane, and be a hero over there, this is a different story. By all means, you'll be better then me or the next person that simply says 'yes' to that question, but it really doesn't matter what I think. It only matters of whats actually 'done.' So yes, send 'other people' to go do it. Hell, send people everywhere. Truth is, I'm not going. I can offer financial support, sure, but its the actual act that matters, not what I 'think.' Do you think all the supporters of whats going on right now are helping? Not likely. Its easy to say 'yes' when its not you actually 'doing it.'



Not quite. See, doing that - leveling a country - that doesn't look very good, does it? Hitler did that and the result was every country (almost) in the world attacking him. Its not a 'smart' thing to do when you want people on your side, leveling a country, that is.



See, this is the issue. There was no proof he was dead. When Mussolini was killed, EVERYONE knew it. You don't find it odd the only person there holding a camera was the world's shakiest person UNABLE to take a CLEAR shot? You say its absurd but I think its absurd you believe with your ears and not your eyes. Seeing IS believing, in my opinion, as years of listening to people embolish stories has taught me to not trust everything I hear. The fact he was hung then buried in the worlds fastest 'execution/burial' makes me wonder. Yes, some words on paper doesn't mean a whole lot if there aren't pictures to go along with it. You believing this, this tells me your logic towards believing doesn't extend much beyond hear say. You understand the 'hear say' isnt reliable evidence?

There is a thread discussing Palestinians fabricating stories. Look up 'Pallywood.'

He may have been very well hung but there is only 1 single piece of convenient evidence. No cameras aloud? Why was he aloud a 'phone?' Answer these questions I ask since what *I* think is absurd. If you can make such a bold statement, then YOU MUST have the answers. Answer why a camera phone was aloud when, potentially, no cameras were aloud. Answer why the footage is so horrible (in the year 2006), tell me why the camera is not held steady. I've video taped people, I've watched people video tape others, I've never seen someone video tape like they were in an earthquake unless they were running. 'How' that man was video taping an execution while on level ground was 'illogical' and 'not normal behaviour.' Christ, I feel like I was watching a horrible movie.



Connections to terrorism?
Cuba
Iran
Libya
North Korea
Sudan
Syria

See ya in those countries then. North Korea states they HAVE WMD, yet, here we are.



Aww yes, now we will outstretch the reasonings of 'logic' to ask 'What is proof?' Proof is a visual that Saddam is dead (now, you can ask me 'do you want a DNA test? How can we ever be sure?'). A CLEAR PICTURE of him clearly dead. This man had SO MUCH controversy behind him that to simply 'hang him behind close doors' then 'bury the body' in the fastest amount of time possible is a bit, well, lets put it this way: he killed "millions," supposedly, and they just vanished the body. Just like that. A TEXT headline reads "Saddam dead." Imagine if he died in the actual WAR itself. Would you be content without a picture? Maybe a headline tucked on the back of page 8 reads "Saddam dead, everyone stop worring" then gives little to no detail.



How about the privacy issue?



Yes, and people are in government. When people climb to the top, we'd love to think they don't become corrupted but, well, money + power = temptation. There's a super reason why the Rich tend to control everything.