Slashdot Mirror


South Park Creators Given Signed Photo of Saddam Hussein

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."

27 of 1,297 comments (clear)

  1. Huh. by MrMista_B · · 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.

    1. Re:Huh. by Duhavid · · 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.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    2. Re:Huh. by Argumentator · · 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.

    3. Re:Huh. by Unipuma · · 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.

    4. Re:Huh. by QuoteMstr · · 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.

    5. Re:Huh. by Demena · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be legally considered torture. Deliberate and repeated humiliation.

    6. Re:Huh. by will_die · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hanging is one of the quickest ways to die. You can probably find the article if you search for it but some journalist asked a bunch of people who build and maintain execution machines and that all selected hanging as the method they would prefer to have applied to them.

    7. Re:Huh. by NeutronCowboy · · 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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    8. Re:Huh. by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but what basic right was denied to Saddam by making him watch South Park?

      Human dignity.

    9. Re:Huh. by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah because you know... when we're dealing with Saddam Husein or some upper ranking member of Al Queda then it's so awful to have their only choice of television programing be South Park, right?

      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.

    10. Re:Huh. by Rob+Kaper · · 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.

    11. Re:Huh. by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your points are perfectly valid. However, considering the fact that Saddam was responsible for gassing 10,000 civilians to death inside his own country's borders, along with the rape and murder of countless others throughout the country, I'm not going to shed any tears over the method of execution. This is coming from a guy who's always been against capital punishment for various reasons; in his case, fuck him.

    12. Re:Huh. by PixetaledPikachu · · 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"

    13. Re:Huh. by mokus000 · · 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.

      --
      Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
    14. Re:Huh. by mdarksbane · · 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.

    15. Re:Huh. by YeeHaW_Jelte · · 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.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    16. Re:Huh. by Everyone+Is+Seth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have always hated this statement, as it's a logical fallacy. If it were true, the greatest nation in the world would not only let all of it's most deplorable citizens do anything they want, it would give them candy in the process. Statements like this garner admiration because they sound neat. They also serve as a tool for people looking to have evidence to support their opinions on any nation, since basically any nation will prosecute their worst criminals.

    17. Re:Huh. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What disgusting, barbarian thinking. We don't punish people to "get back at them." Hurting somebody doesn't even any scales of justice or undo any damage. The world is not a better place by humiliating Saddam; the world is a worse place.

  2. Re:hilarious by thefoul · · 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.

    --
    The runcible rhythm of ravenous raisins rolled through the rookery rambling and raving.
  3. Re:Fucking Americans by glowworm · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The parent has sort of a point apart from expressing disgust in an innapropriate manner, it is a little lame that Americans are proclaiming with glee how they insulted a foreign leader to his face before hanging him.

    "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.

    --
    Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
  4. Seriously you guys... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Seriously you guys... by Quothz · · 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".

  5. How we treat evil people changes us by Geof · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the point is, regardless of who the person is you are holding in prison, you have to live by your -OWN- standards.

    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.)

  6. Propaganda reached a new low by Opportunist · · 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. 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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. See: Michael Portillo by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A British politician, despite the UK having no death penalty, actually did some research into execution methods which was televised 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."

  9. I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold. by EWAdams · · 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?

    --
    I piss off bigots.