Ding-dong the witch is dead!
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
While he did a lot of horrible things, and I have very little regret at his passing, Saddam was still a human being. I don't believe a human life should ever be taken lightly. I will not mourn his death, but it does us a disservice to mock it.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Yeah! That was faster then Death Row in Texas. I hope South Park jumps on that, they have had him in hell for years...Anybody got a video link yet?
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I have not decided whether I approve of the sentence or not. However, I will say that I'm slightly frustrated that I came home to find it had already happened. Only this morning they were talking on the news about how it must be carried out within 30 days. Most of us were probably not expecting TONIGHT.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
No point in procrastinating.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
What ElJay said.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Sax, please go away.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Wow, that was...fast to say the least. It only seems like only a few days ago we talking about him being convicted.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It had to happen before noon Saturday local time or it would have had to have been delayed. Their law prohibits executions during holidays, and Eid Al-Adha is about to start.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Grow up, if you cannot open your heart to the fact that justice requires blood then you are a child. He was a mass murderer, if he was a cattle thief a century ago he would have hung, what has happened to our country that we doff hats and hang heads for the Mussolini of our time. He is dead and now like the children of the abusive father that might come home who dare not break his rules the Iraqi's can finally embrace change. I am hopeful for what this bodes, he is gone, we cannot imagine what this means for them.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Somehow, Sax, I am of the opinion that we can be better than the criminals we condemn. Our humanity is most fully displayed in our treatment of those who don't deserve it. You are the child, not I.
Regardless of the justice of the sentence, it is inappropriate to joke. So please, go away.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Eid al-Adha starts here tomorrow. It's one of the most important Muslim festivals.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Video link? Dude, you're sick... I know he was a vile person... but that's just sick...
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Bet you 10 bucks that this doesn't mark the Iraqis "embracing change" within the next six months.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
When someone calls those who disagree with him names, it isn't *they* who look silly or childlike.
Anyway, the world became a slightly better place tonight.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
I'm with ElJay on this one.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Grow up, if you cannot open your heart to the fact that justice requires blood then you are a child.
Regardless of whether one agrees with this sentiment, only a child would caper at a death of any sort. Justice, even grim justice, can be done without this.
quote:He was a mass murderer, if he was a cattle thief a century ago he would have hung, what has happened to our country that we doff hats and hang heads for the Mussolini of our time.
Refraining from making squawking monkey faces is not the same as doffing a hat. Surely you know this.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
It's ridiculous to have death as a penalty because we ALL die eventually. Saddamm should have sat through the rest of his trials. That would be worse than death for any real human being.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
Good riddance.
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
I think simple hanging was letting him off too easy. He should've had to endure some of the same tortures he put other people through.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
OK, so I'm taking odds on when the video's going to hit YouTube. Anyone? Anyone?
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Somehow, Sax, I am of the opinion that we can be better than the criminals we condemn. Our humanity is most fully displayed in our treatment of those who don't deserve it. You are the child, not I.
Regardless of the justice of the sentence, it is inappropriate to joke. So please, go away.
While I generally agree with you on the fact that mostly anyone can be changed for the better, some people are lost enough where it just becomes a waste of time to try and fix them. Best to just throw them out and let someone better take their place. No one would have let him do anything with his life even if he did miraculously realize the seriousness of all his crimes and regretted them.
On another note, Saddam hasn’t had enough of a following recently to be martyr like radical leaders are, has he?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"I think simple hanging was letting him off too easy. He should've had to endure some of the same tortures he put other people through."
"It's ridiculous to have death as a penalty because we ALL die eventually. Saddamm should have sat through the rest of his trials. That would be worse than death for any real human being."
I don't understand these thoughts. To me, the importance of this death penalty isn't to teach Saddam a lesson. It's to get rid of him from this world. As Will B said, the world is now a slightly better place without him in it. That was the point in all of that, IMO. Torturing him further wouldn't do anything else except satisfy our sadistic sides. But I agree that the death penalty shouldn't be too humane because it's also good to try to discourage future criminals ("See? This is what happens to bad men. They get hung. And people are happy about it." ), but torturing him wouldn't really help the world any more than just killing him would, IMO.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:On another note, Saddam hasn’t had enough of a following recently to be martyr like radical leaders are, has he?
*nod* As I understand it, even among the Iraqi Sunni insurgents there aren't (weren't) many fighting in his name. And of course, the Shi'a and Kurds were never too fond of him.
I'm pretty sure I know what TIME's next cover will look like.
--j_k
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Gerald Ford?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hamson:
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Somehow, Sax, I am of the opinion that we can be better than the criminals we condemn. Our humanity is most fully displayed in our treatment of those who don't deserve it. You are the child, not I.
Regardless of the justice of the sentence, it is inappropriate to joke. So please, go away.
While I generally agree with you on the fact that mostly anyone can be changed for the better, some people are lost enough where it just becomes a waste of time to try and fix them. Best to just throw them out and let someone better take their place. No one would have let him do anything with his life even if he did miraculously realize the seriousness of all his crimes and regretted them.
I didn't hold out much hope for a change of heart, and I agree he deserved to be punished. I just don't think that killing him was right, no matter what he deserved. Life imprisonment would have been fine.
****
Gaal, the problem with that is that the death penalty isn't a deterrant. If it were, you might have a case, though I think megalomaniacal dictators would do what they do anyway in the confidence of never getting caught and tried for it.
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
Ok, I seemed to get that impression too. Thanks for clearing that up j_k.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Dead repeat offenders never happen.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Wow, that was quick.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
General Sax -- as someone who is in favor of the death penalty and who does not what others to thing that all people with this view are cretins, I ask you to please stop talking.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
For the record, porter, I'm happy to respectfully disagree with such a person. I'm sorry if you got the impression I think everyone who is in favour of the death penalty is a cretin. I didn't mean to sound like that.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I'm undecided on the death penalty. While I consider any form of violence outside of self-defence to be immortal, I also find it grossly immoral (immoral, not just economically inefficient) to take taxes from law-abiding citizens and use it to clothe, feed and guard prisoners.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In that case, Euripides, what form of criminal system do you favour? Fines paid to the victim, perhaps?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Grow up, if you cannot open your heart to the fact that justice requires blood then you are a child.
We are all children, including most definitely you.
My opinion is that it is sad when ANY child dies - but especially sad when he dies because other children are so foolish to think that they understand justice well enough to sacrifice lives in its name. Saddam killed many children for precisely that reason. Now we kill Saddam for the same reason. Somewhere out there some terrorist is now plotting to kill us for that same reason too. We all think we know what justice demands, but all it ends up amounting to is a bunch of children getting killed.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Wow I was going to go to bed but I think I will stay up and post on the principle of free speech. As one who has fought and risked his life for your right to speak, I think I will retain mine.
Oh what is the Hatrack policy on links to execution video, is that like porn?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: As one who has fought and risked his life for your right to speak, I think I will retain mine.
My grandfathers and my uncles fought for my right to speak. I'm not so sure you have. Regardless, you are free to speak, just as I am free to ask you to go elsewhere if you can't speak with a bit of decency.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Wow I was going to go to bed but I think I will stay up and post on the principle of free speech.
Great idea. Start a thread on it.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: My opinion is that it is sad when ANY child dies - but especially sad when he dies because other children are so foolish to think that they understand justice well enough to sacrifice lives in its name.
Since none of us are God, your statement that we are all 'children' is silly, relative to what? Some are responsible some are cruel, there is right and wrong that humans not only can but must judge. If for no other reason then the cruelty of letting a man live in captivity, depriving him of his right to freedom or judgment. Saddam had time to ask God for forgiveness, that is all the time he needed before facing the real judge. All mistakes are sorted out by the real judge, but some people just cannot be kept around to clutter up the awareness of those they hurt. In the end we police ourselves because God does not see the need to, and this is as it should be, God is not our janitor, he is our Creator.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: I'm not so sure you have
I take that is a personal attack and I am reporting it.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
You're American. I'm Canadian. That's what that means. Have fun with the reporting.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax:
quote: I'm not so sure you have
I take that is a personal attack and I am reporting it.
I see now how important free speech is to you.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Since none of us are God, your statement that we are all 'children' is silly, relative to what?
I meant 'children' in the same way you used the term. We are all naive.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Yeah! That was faster then Death Row in Texas. I hope South Park jumps on that, they have had him in hell for years...Anybody got a video link yet?
Are you...insane?
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: No point in procrastinating.
True that...
quote:Originally posted by Tara: It's ridiculous to have death as a penalty because we ALL die eventually. Saddamm should have sat through the rest of his trials. That would be worse than death for any real human being.
That would also be too expensive.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax:
quote: I'm not so sure you have
I take that is a personal attack and I am reporting it.
Ooh! It's on!
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: You're American. I'm Canadian. That's what that means. Have fun with the reporting.
But I thought Canada wasn't a real country...
*just kidding!
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Some less so then others, and the difference is meaningful in that it makes a difference to us. We have wise men and we have villians. We have all of history to teach us when a man needs to be removed from our company and we must do the best we can. Sometimes we are so right that it makes one happy to see justice happen.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Alt: Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
What happens when we stretch human life expectancy to hundreds of years? Will Europe and Canada offer free longevity treatment to its lifetime prisoners or will that be cruel and unusual?
Just one of the cruel ironies of not executing a man. The film is coming out soon, who has the sack to show it do you think? How much of it and where? I bet CNN shows all but the drop. I wonder if his last words were a code? A single proper name unknown to people seems odd especially without all the three or four names that should go with any Muslim ID. It was not his wife's name was it? surely someone would have noticed that...
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I'm going to have to agree with Sax on this one. By the way, I WILL watch Saddam being executed, not because I'm sick, or because I'm evil, but simply because to me it's justice. And that may not be you're opinion, and you may not like it, but I ask you to respect it.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
In that case, Euripides, what form of criminal system do you favour? Fines paid to the victim, perhaps?
No, that wouldn't provide protection against repeat offenders. Ideally, I would like to see criminals jailed at a correctional facility and pay for their stay afterwards, to return the money to the taxpayers. The money would have to come from taxes in the first place, but I can see no alternative to picking the lesser of two evils (condoning crime or taking taxes to fund jails).
But I realise that doesn't work in all situations, so hence my indecision regarding life sentences and the death penalty.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
General Sax, if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath for another response from EL.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
There's something for me to respond to?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I rest my case.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
No, seriously. I didn't think either of those posts were addressed to me. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
It'd still be fun to debate, in a friendly manner. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I guess not, but I thought his posts were framed as counterpoints to yours. (their validity aside)
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well I guess I don't agree with him then. Debating, what a confusing and ugly business.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I think you guys are jumping a little too hard on General Sax. Some of his posts were very stupid things to say, but in some of them it seemed he was actually trying to make a point and not just say stupid things.
"By the way, I WILL watch Saddam being executed, not because I'm sick, or because I'm evil, but simply because to me it's justice"
What? How is it justice if you watch it? He's dead whether you watch the video or not. You watching him choke to death is not going to help make it more just in any way, IMO.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Perhaps it just makes him feel better. It's not that he enjoys watching a person hang and suffer and whatnot. He enjoys the fact that it's HIM.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Not even that. To me, I'd rather skip through the whole thing, and just see him die. To me, it'd be closure. And that's all I'd want.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
Personally, I have issues with the death penalty and when I heard he was dead, something deep inside of me felt very disturbed. Not because I liked the guy or think he was on to something with the whole genocide etc. thing, but just because the glee that I feel coming from others that he is dead. I don't mind if others are in favour of the death penalty; I can peacefully disagree with them, even if they wish to see footage of his execution. I do have issues with dancing on someone's grave.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hanging automatically makes me think of lynchings, of those pictures I saw of black men being hung. There's no way I'm looking at that, it makes me more than sick. That's why I find wanting to see such a thing so disgusting.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:My opinion is that it is sad when ANY child dies - but especially sad when he dies because other children are so foolish to think that they understand justice well enough to sacrifice lives in its name. Saddam killed many children for precisely that reason. Now we kill Saddam for the same reason. Somewhere out there some terrorist is now plotting to kill us for that same reason too. We all think we know what justice demands, but all it ends up amounting to is a bunch of children getting killed.
Thank you Tresopax for giving voice to that sentiment. Several years ago there was a KKK rally where the bystanders started a mini-riot. Some of them started attacking the clansmen. A black lady put herself in between an attacker and clansman, taking the hits off of him and on to herself. When later asked why she did this, she said all she could think about was that that man was somebody's baby.
When it comes to a need for justice or closure, I don't think that anything is as satisfying as compassion. I think that being able to see somebody as fully human, no matter their many flaws, is the best way to heal from their wrong doings.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Celebrations going on in Kurdish north, Shiite south, and in Chaldean communities all over the US, most especially in Dearborn probably.
The people who actually remember Saddam, minus the Baathists, seem pretty happy about this, jubilant even.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think Saddam even tried to use justice as a defense for many of his actions that were brought up, so I think it funny its asserted he was killed because he was "foolish to think that [he understood] justice well enough to sacrifice lives in its name". He kept arguing it was for political necessity and the good of the state. It would be good if in attempts to draw parallels there was a better basis in reality.
I happen to be against the death penalty, and even for mildly similar reasons, but lets try to argue soundly rather than prettily.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Lots of thoughts on this.
From a purely practical side:
1) One less distraction for the troops in Iraq. 2) Now we can say "Mission Accomplished" for the original mission was to remove Saddam so he could never come back. 3) The timing is interesting, with President Bush's Iraq Policy speech coming up shortly. I am betting that President Bush will reference the death of Saddam at least 3 times. 4) It is a shame that such an evil sociopath will continue to cause death and destruction, for there is a great expectation that protest killings, explosions, and chaos will follow. Not because anyone wants to keep following Saddam, but because its as good an excuse as any for those who's goal is death, destruction, and chaos.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
The insurgents tend to be fair weather fighters, they do not like to sneak out in the cold and rain to plant bombs, so this is a good time to hang him, by the time they feel frisky enough to fight they will have lost their indignation. The Iraqi's know their own people pretty well, well enough to use their laziness at least.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote: I'm not so sure you have.
If you're counting people who don't believe you've ever served, you can count me, too.
I have a number of friends in relatives in the armed forces and I can't think of a single one of them who wouldn't be embarassed to be associated with you.
quote:Originally posted by Tara: It's ridiculous to have death as a penalty because we ALL die eventually. Saddamm should have sat through the rest of his trials. That would be worse than death for any real human being.
The fact that we all die has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the death penalty is effective or morally defensible. I'm flabbergasted that that 'point' would even be raised.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
It looks like they are not showing the hanging anywhere, just the body and the walk up. The rig looks surprisingly makeshift, you would think they would have something better then a rope tied to a hand rail, I guess it did the job but I had forgotten just how backward things tend to be in Iraq. Though the point of hanging in a Muslim State is that it is an ordinary thieves death so the lack of pomp might be calculated.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Knowing me as well as you do I can only pray that I can change to be more pleasing in your eyes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For the record, I do not think it is childish to rejoice so blatantly at a death. I think it is barbaric.
While children are often barbaric, barbarians are not necessarily childish or child-like. It is possible to make an adult decision to rejoice in the bloodier, gorier parts of the human experience.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"Celebrations going on in Kurdish north, Shiite south, and in Chaldean communities all over the US, most especially in Dearborn probably. "
That's is truely offensive to me, and not just becouse I am religiously, moraly and politicaly oposed to the death penalty. Even were I surporter, I would have to agree with katharina that rejoicing is barbaric.
Had Saddam still been in power and killing people, I might have felt differently.
Out of curiosity, has the Vatican issued a statement? How about the E.U.? I know both were oposed to this....
Edited to add: Great post, Tresopax
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by ReikoDemosthenes: I do have issues with dancing on someone's grave.
"I am evil Homer. I am evil Homer."
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Here is the Vatican response:
quote: A capital punishment is always tragic news, a reason for sadness, even if it deals with a person who was guilty of grave crimes.... The killing of the guilty party is not the way to reconstruct justice and reconcile society. On the contrary, there is a risk that it will feed a spirit of vendetta and sow new violence....In these dark times for the Iraqi people, one can only hope that all responsible parties truly make every effort so that glimmers of reconciliation and peace can be found in such a dramatic situation.
I can't find any E.U. comments, but most member-states were highly critical.
From other members of the coalition in Iraq:
quote: I welcome the fact that Saddam Hussein has been tried by an Iraqi court for at least some of the appalling crimes he committed against the Iraqi people. He has now been held to account [...] The British government does not support the use of the death penalty, in Iraq or anywhere else [...] We have made our position very clear to the Iraqi authorities, but we respect their decision as that of a sovereign nation."
U.K.
No other current coalition member expressed an opinion on the excecution, although Jonathan Howard expressed his admiration for the trial process, without aparently extending to the exectution. (Australia does not practice capital punishment.)
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
quote: Oh what is the Hatrack policy on links to execution video, is that like porn?
I swear to God that if you do anything of the sort I will do all in my power to get you banned and I do not think I shall be alone.
Your views are your own, but we can do very well without that.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
While I'm not happy that Saddam died, I hope some good can come from it. Now that there is absolutely no chance of his ever harming the Iraqi people again, I hope they'll feel safe joining the police and hunting down the insurgents. I hope they have the strength to build a stronger nation now.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: I swear to God that if you do anything of the sort I will do all in my power to get you banned and I do not think I shall be alone.
Yes, very nice... but what is the policy?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
:don't feed the trolls:
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
GS:
Why not e-mail Papa Janitor?
I can't figure out whether it'd be a breech of a specific rule here, but he may be able to tell you. But really, the question is more whether or not you SHOULD post it. I personally would not and would rather that you didn't.
But...
if you really want to post it, you should definitely ask permission first. You'll get a faster response if you e-mail Papa Janitor.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
quote: Oh what is the Hatrack policy on links to execution video, is that like porn?
I swear to God that if you do anything of the sort I will do all in my power to get you banned and I do not think I shall be alone.
Goodness. That makes me want to go find a link to it just so I can post it here.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I consider Saddam's execution like putting down a dog that has been trained by a malicious owner and has been attacking children.
I'm not happy about it. I feel sorry for the dog, and I want to address the conditions that allowed it to happen. And I'm not going to cheer the death. But the dog cannot be allowed to remain near people.
Of course, in this case the owner and the dog are the same being. I'm still not going to woo-hoo.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Is there anyone out there who can speak from personal experience how it feels to know that an abuser cannot ever hurt you ever again? I think they can speak to the feelings Iraqi's must have at this point.
As I watch the video I am impressed by the fact that Saddam wanted his face uncovered while the execution party was afraid to have their faces video taped. Of course fear is for the living not the dead. Still, it shows we have a long way to go before Iraq government has the credibility it needs to replace the fear the previous administration held sway with.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:Personally, I have issues with the death penalty and when I heard he was dead, something deep inside of me felt very disturbed. Not because I liked the guy or think he was on to something with the whole genocide etc. thing, but just because the glee that I feel coming from others that he is dead. I don't mind if others are in favour of the death penalty; I can peacefully disagree with them, even if they wish to see footage of his execution. I do have issues with dancing on someone's grave
That's almost exactly my thoughts on the issue.
Especially the bolded part (my bolding).
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Of course, in this case the owner and the dog are the same being. I'm still not going to woo-hoo.
I'm glad you concluded with that or else I would have had to start a tangent.
[ December 30, 2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Is there anyone out there who can speak from personal experience how it feels to know that an abuser cannot ever hurt you ever again?
Yes, and it has much more to do with who I am than their deaths since all of them, are, in fact, still alive (as far as I know).
There is more than one way to effect a permanent change.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think they can speak to the feelings Iraqi's must have at this point.
You know, there are still a few Iraqis alive. It seems like you could eliminate the need for speculation by asking some.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Here's what Iraqi's UN embassador said:
quote:"I can understand why some of my compatriots may be cheering. I have friends whose particular people I can think of who have lost 10, 15, 20 members of their family, more," Istrabadi said.
"But for me, it's a moment really of remembrance of the victims of Saddam Hussein."
And here's what the CNN article says about the Iraqi's reaction to the exectuion:
quote: A witness to Saddam Hussein's execution in Baghdad said that celebrations broke out after the former dictator died, and that there was "dancing around the body."
"Saddam's body is in front of me," said an official in the prime minister's office when CNN telephoned. "It's over."
In the background, Shiite chanting could be heard. When asked about the chanting, the official said, "These are employees of the prime minister's office and government chanting in celebration."
Video showed Iraqis celebrating in the streets of Najaf, a Shiite holy city.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Posting that video here would be infinitely more offensive than linking to porn.
I do not think OSC wants that in what he has described as his living room.
Edited to add: If he does, OSC is not the man I thought he was and his living room is not a place I want to be.
Edited again to add: Bare in mind that OSC does not surport capital punishment. He says that this is for practical, rather than ethical, reasons, but still.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:OSC is not the man I thought he was
If only I had a nickel for every time someone has said that here on his forum. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Posting that video here would be infinitely more offensive than linking to porn.
To you. Not to everybody.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
To many.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I'm undecided on the death penalty. While I consider any form of violence outside of self-defence to be immortal, I also find it grossly immoral (immoral, not just economically inefficient) to take taxes from law-abiding citizens and use it to clothe, feed and guard prisoners.
If it makes you feel any better about your taxes, there any many studies, available with a simple Google search (ex http://uspolitics.about.com/od/deathpenalty/i/death_penalty_2.htm) that show that applying the death penalty, at least in the Western world is more expensive than life in prison.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Saddam's execution was definitily not a Western-sytle execution. I highly doubt that it was more expensive than life in prison.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: To many.
You don't get to speak for anyone but you.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, PB's probably right... given the number of people who have no problem with porn and who do have problems with public viewing of death, there's probably "many" people who would agree with him.
But JT is right, too... they can speak for themselves.
As mph has pointed out elsewhere, though, those in favor of his execution may have something of an obligation to watch it, as those who eat fish have something of an obligation to catch and clean one-- so that you can be aware of the reach of your actions.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I don't like the death penalty. But if there were a cut-and-dried case for someone deserving execution, Saddam, a mass-murderer, torturer, and tyrant, would probably fit the bill.
Still, if we had killed the murderer at the height of his power, thus preventing further atrocities, that might be something to crow about. The unkempt, Doritos-eating prisoner was just... Pathetic. Pitiful, even.
(curse word)
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I was listening on NPR yesterday and a man was talking about the travesty of killing him NOW rather than after his trials are finished. He has been put to death for one atrocity committed in 1980. What about all the other atrocities? What about the other families' stories? By killing him now, it's been an injustice to everyone else who had the right to put Sadaam on trial. The importance of keeping the trial going is that it tells his WHOLE story, not to mention the possibility of implicating others as we do more research into Sadaam's life.
So regardless of my view's about the death penalty(against), killing him this early was wrong.
That said, from reading about people literally dancing and celebrating in the streets over this, I'm feeling a total cultural disconnect from anyone who would do such a thing. I can't imagine celebrating death.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Since the execution was kind of a surprise event I think the car bombing is more likely linked to the holy day opportunity like so many other attacks. There is not proof of a causal relationship as yet.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
General Sax, You are speaking as though you were personally hurt by Saddam. You then go on to express that you don't understand why those that were hurt by Saddam and were there at the execution wouldn't want to be seen by anyone else.
There are two explanations for this: You are taking things too lightly and have not been abused by anyone in similar circumstances; or You have been oppressed / abused but do not understand the differences in your case and the cases of any others.
If either of these are not the case, you are doing yourself and us a disservice in the way you are expressing yourself in this thread. Which is why some people have asked you to stop posting.
Plainly put, you're either an ass, or a dumb ass. Either express yourself in a manner that can have some sort of empathy or stop expressing.
Those that yell fire in a theater can be prosecuted for misrepresenting themselves and the situation to others around themselves. Tread lightly.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Is there any sense here that Saddam was given a fair trial that would, for example, meet a US or Western standard for what it means to have a fair trial.
See...if we agonize in the West about the death penalty, and most Western nations have now actually abandoned it, and yet we hold up our trials as a model of fairness...well, it is sort of strange to see much ready acceptance of Saddam's sentence after the kind of trial he had.
In essence, those in the West who are okay with his death must somehow be choosing a different standard of justice than we're used to, deciding that they pretty much know he's guilty of enough atrocities that his death is warranted even without (a fair) trial, or somehow not really all that concerned about the rule of law or due process as long as the person is bad enough, or the country far enough away.
I'm sure there must be other justifications for those in the West who delight in Saddam's death, but I'm not really sure what they might be...from a Western civilization perspective, anyway.
Unless, of course, those of you who feel this way think he actually received a fair trial...
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
You all have posted some very interesting things. I just thought I'd share my thoughts.
When I saw the newspaper this morning, my first thought was, "Oh crap." I am disturbed by the killing of Saddam Hussein. I think he was an evil, evil man, and I have no idea what I would have done with him. But having him killed seems like a bad idea.
And I think the main reason for that is that I feel like America killed him, not Iraq. This doesn't bode well for our troops who are actually there and dealing with the situation first hand. Godspeed to them.
Please don't post a link to the execution. I don't want to see it. I think it's strange that anyone desires to watch another person die. Even if he was an evil jerk who killed hundreds or thousands of people.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
quote: Saddam's execution was definitily not a Western-sytle execution.
That is itself a problem. Is Iraq not to be a Western-style Liberal Democracy?
I have surported the continuing presence of troops to pursue that goal, but I will not, can not, surport risking lives to create an Iraqi state based on God knows what. Sharia law? The law of strength?
We may have acomplished something to replace a brutal dictator with a slightly less brutal, but still Illiberal non-Democratic government, but not much. Especialy when that government cannot even protect its people.
An Iraqi state not based on Western-style Liberal Democracy will be a failure, for George Bush and Tony Blaire, for America and Britain, for Iraq, for the world.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Surprise Surprise, people inside the American system of justice think it has room for improvement, and that does not mean more lawyers... hmmmm
As MPH said, if you are in favor of the death you should have the ability to stomach the execution.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Was America a failure in the 19th century? It is possible to have a Democracy without having it be "Liberal" If the people are not "Liberal" then it will be a conservative Democracy whatever you might want.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I don't think (and correct me if I'm wrong, Jim-Me) that he meant you should be able to stomach it. Rather, if you are in favour of someone's death, you have the responsibility to watch exactly what that means.
[ December 30, 2006, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"If the people are not "Liberal" then it will be a conservative Democracy whatever you might want."
I have never heard of "a Conservative Democracy." "Democracies," a group which currently includes all countries except for Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Myanmar and Bhutan, are usually divided into "Liberal," such as the U.S., Canada and most of Europe, and "Illiberal," such as Russia and China.
That is a rough distinction, Russia is more Liberal than China for instance and China more Liberal than Iran. However, there is no such thing as a "Conservative Democracy." Conservatism is an antidemocratic movement in non-democracies and a democratic one in Liberal Democracies. George W. Bush may be a Conservative, but he believes in Liberal Democracy.
"Was America a failure in the 19th century?"
By the standards of the day, no. By today's standards, absolutely.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Then I suppose Europe was too then.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
By the standards of today, there were no sucessful countries in the 19th century. I hope that, by the standards of 2100, the countries of today will be considered failures. I hope we continue to improve our system. I am convinced, however, that sucessful states must be Liberal Democracies and that non-Democratic countries and Illiberal Democracies are a threat to world peace and human progress.
In that, I agree with Secretary Rice.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:By killing him now, it's been an injustice to everyone else who had the right to put Sadaam on trial.
I don't understand this at all. Unless you are for cruel and unusual punishments such as torture, Saddam could not be punished for any more crimes he committed, so what's the point in trying him? A trial which cannot end in punishment is a pageant, not a trial.
quote:As mph has pointed out elsewhere, though, those in favor of his execution may have something of an obligation to watch it, as those who eat fish have something of an obligation to catch and clean one-- so that you can be aware of the reach of your actions.
I'm not sure that's what I meant, because I'm not sure what you mean.
Nevertheless, I'll cross-post here:
I very well may watch his execution. Not to delight in it, and not to get to see somone killed (once was already enough for that), but because I, as an American and supporter of the invasion of Iraq, am somewhat responsible for his execution. Choosing not to see it may be, for me, trying to avoid the consequences for my actions.
It's like in the beginning of A Game of Thrones where Ned Stark explained that if he condemned a man to death, it was his duty to personally execute him. If he didn't have the stomach to do it personally, he didn't have the moral right to order it done by others.
There are those who say that nobody has any buisness eating meat unless they're willing, at least once, to kill the animal themselves, eating the meat in full awareness of its cost. I think there's some truth to that.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I don't think (and correct me if I'm wrong, Jim-Me) that he meant you should be able to stomach it. Rather, if you are in favour of someone's death, you have the responsibility to watch exactly what that means.
True... but in General Sax's defense (wow, did I just write that?) the two are not unrelated.
I just find it interesting that Bob seems to almost be lamenting that Hussein was not extradited to America for trial and Luet is almost complaining that he was. (yes, I'm aware that I'm stretching both of your meanings... and that Luet's "America killed him" could well be an extension of Bob's "America did him an injustice in letting Iraq try him")
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: There are those who say that nobody has any buisness eating meat unless they're willing, at least once, to kill the animal themselves, eating the meat in full awareness of its cost. I think there's some truth to that.
As do I, which is why I pulled that point over. I meant only to give credit for the thought and I apologize for any spin I might have placed on it in the process.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:It's like in the beginning of A Game of Thrones where Ned Stark explained that if he condemned a man to death, it was his duty to personally execute him. If he didn't have the stomach to do it personally, he didn't have the moral right to order it done by others.
That's what I was trying to get at. Thanks for explaining. Maybe I was tilting at windmills with Sax's post. If I was, I apologise. (I think I'm going to be a spectator until I can get my brain working again.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I meant only to give credit for the thought and I apologize for any spin I might have placed on it in the process.
No worries. It's just that I didn't quite understand what you were saying, so I couldn't tell if it was an accurate representation of what I said. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: By the standards of today, there were no sucessful countries in the 19th century.
I think it's rather useless to judge something like "success" on anything other than the aims of entity doing the succeeding. If my goal is to get to California, my movement Eastward is a setback, no matter how well performed or beneficial.
In terms of accomplishing what they wanted to accomplish, there were a number of hugely successful nations in the 19th century.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Is there any sense here that Saddam was given a fair trial that would, for example, meet a US or Western standard for what it means to have a fair trial.
Leaving aside the issue of US or Western standards, to me a fair trial was one in which an innocent party is able to prove their innocence.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I didn't quite understand what you were saying
It amazes me how often I hear this... Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Leaving aside the issue of US or Western standards, to me a fair trial was one in which an innocent party is able to prove their innocence."
Hrm. To me, a fair trial is one in which the accusers have to prove that the person they are accusing has performed the specific act they are being accused of, and the accussee has the opportunity to present the best possible defence against that accusation.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jim-me...
I didn't ever say I wanted Hussein extradited to the US.
I expected him to get a fair trial. From my understanding of events, that did not happen. The result is a shame for Iraq and their current administrators and advisors. It means that they are still far from the rule of law. It means it's okay to kill another person without due process.
Maybe this is the most lawful trial they've seen in that country for decades, but from an external POV, it was practically a farce.
So...no, you are mistaken, I was not lamenting that Saddam wasn't sent here for trial. I was just pointing out that if we are supposed to be imposing ANYTHING in Iraq, it is respect for the rule of law. And, by that standard, we failed miserably in the most important action to date in our little adventure there.
That's a pretty sad showing, if you ask me.
And for an American to be in any way happy about Saddam's death sentence as a result of that trial says a lot (negative) about our own lack of commitment to the rule of law, IMO.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Leaving aside the issue of US or Western standards, to me a fair trial was one in which an innocent party is able to prove their innocence."
Hrm. To me, a fair trial is one in which the accusers have to prove that the person they are accusing has performed the specific act they are being accused of, and the accussee has the opportunity to present the best possible defence against that accusation.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Proof of innocence is not the standard...at least not as I understand US courts. Maybe someone can explain it more fully, but we don't require proof of innocence. We require proof of guilt,and if that proof is insuffiencient, the person is judged "not guilty."
I understand that the traditions of justice and judgment may be different in other countries, and that the traditions growing out of British Common Law aren't the only ones that work. I think they are probably the best ones on the planet at the moment, but that doesn't mean they are perfect either.
But...really, there are ways to conduct a trial so that at the end of the process, a reasonable person would conclude that the trial was "fair." I don't hear anyone actually coming right out and saying that Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. I hear a lot of fairly trustworthy people saying that the trial was a farce, a circus, a miscarriage of justice, and so on.
Regardless of how much I dislike the man, if we're going to encourage the rule of law, this would've been the time to demonstrate that.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"In terms of accomplishing what they wanted to accomplish, there were a number of hugely successful nations in the 19th century."
True, but none that succeded in matching today's standard of a sucessful state.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Bob,I am not privvy to the details of the trial so I haven't commented on it one way or the other... that is to say I have no idea whether he got a fair trial by Western standards. He was bound over to the courts of the sovereign nation of Iraq, and that, I think, was the only way to handle this. Anything else would have made our "hearts and minds" situation there much worse. (edited for much elaboration and again for minor typos)
I *did* realize I was putting words in your mouth and tried to say as much in my post.
PB, my whole point is that 19th century nations were unaware of today's standards for a successful state, so pointing out that they didn't meet them really serves no purpose other than to say, as Chesterton so wonderfully put it, that we prefer Thursday to Tuesday because it is Thursday.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Bob, would you mind naming the fairly trustworthy people saying the trial was a farce and a miscarriage of justice? not at all that I don't trust you-- I just haven't followed the trial at all and I'd just like to know who you mean.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the subject of liberal democracies, it doesn't mean what the American media would have you think it means. It's using the older sense of 'liberal'; not left-leaning, but free. As GS points out, it's perfectly possible for a liberal democracy to be conservative, if that's what the electorate happens to feel like.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bob, your presentation of the opinions about the trial is fairly one-sided. I've seen quite a few reasonable people who disagree "that the trial was a farce, a circus, a miscarriage of justice, and so on":
quote:The trial faced daunting challenges. The streets of Baghdad have grown more violent. Defense attorneys were targeted outside the courtroom, and judges struggled to maintain order inside. Iraqis had no modern tradition of an independent judiciary, but insisted on holding the trial within their borders.
Despite this, some legal experts say the tribunal managed to conduct a reasonably fair trial. Dozens of witnesses were heard, and more than 1,000 pages of evidence were entered into the record.
"I don't think it was a miscarriage of justice," said Michael Scharf, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school in Cleveland who helped train the judges.
...
Supporters of the tribunal say Saddam and his attorneys were given many opportunities to mount a defense. They alternated between challenging the legitimacy of the court and undermining prosecution attempts to personally link Saddam to the retaliation.
"I am the president of Iraq by the will of Iraqis," Saddam thundered in May when asked to enter a plea.
Prosecutors needed to prove that Saddam personally approved the torture and executions without fair trials or knew about those actions and did nothing to stop them.
"There was no evidence of a direct order" from Saddam to retaliate against the village, said Marieke Wierda of the International Center for Transitional Justice, a New York-based group that helps countries heal by addressing human rights abuses. Nor did the prosecution establish in court that Iraq's system was so repressive that turning the villagers over to the Revolutionary Court was equivalent to a summary execution, she said.
Prosecutors did, however, introduce documents showing Saddam signed execution warrants drafted by the Revolutionary Court against the 148 villagers.
And in March, Saddam admitted he personally approved the razing of orchards. "I signed that decision," he said. "And nobody forced me to sign that decision."
Even though the comments hurt Saddam's case, he probably couldn't prevent himself from blurting it out, Scharf said, because he still sees himself as Iraq's leader. "He just couldn't control himself," Scharf said.
quote:Lawyers and human rights advocates broadly agreed that the Iraqi tribunal's proceedings frequently fell short of international standards for war crimes cases. But even critics of the trial said the five Iraqi judges who heard the case had made a reasonable effort to conduct a fair trial in the face of sustained pressure from Iraqi political leaders for a swift death sentence. American lawyers pointed to substantial evidence offered by the prosecution implicating Saddam in the crimes against humanity with which he was charged.
"Did this meet the standards of international justice?" asked Jonathan Drimmer, who teaches war crimes law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington. "The answer is no. But to look at the ultimate verdict, it certainly is consistent with the evidence presented."
Miranda Sissons, a senior associate at the International Center for Transitional Justice, a group that has been severely critical of some of the trial proceedings, said, "This was not a sham trial," and added, "The judges are doing their best to try this case to an entirely new standard for Iraq."
In a trial that opened Oct. 19, 2005, Saddam was accused along with seven co-defendants in the executions of 148 men and boys in the town of Dujail, 55 kilometers, or 35 miles, north of Baghdad, in 1982. The mass killings came after an apparent assassination attempt against the Iraqi leader.
Not glowing recommendations, mind you, but not universal condemnation, either.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
quote: As GS points out, it's perfectly possible for a liberal democracy to be conservative, if that's what the electorate happens to feel like.
Did he point that out?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It was fast as they could not execute anybody during a holiday and not only that there was a chance that there would be even more delays.
There is also a statue in Iraqi law that forbids the execution of anybody 70 or older. I believe Saddam turns 70 in March or April.
I might watch the execution for many of the same reasons as Porter.
One other reason is that I have advocated the death penalty many times in past places, and I have yet to witness an execution that was not on the movie screen. I think it would be illuminating for me to examine my own feelings as I watch an actual person that is not a stranger to me die.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
There is no justice in life but power. SH used his power in the way he felt fit, which was to murder a lot of people and advance his own interests. Other leaders today are also slaughterers of their own. It seems to be quite the fad.
But either way, does it matter if it is right or wrong? Is it right or is it wrong? According to which philosophy? There are endless shades of gray, and some shades of purple that somehow snuk into the pallete.
What really matters to me is what the effect of this is.
Will his execution lead to positive effects for the US or negative effects?
Anything else is arguing moralites. Still, I do admit to feeling some animalistic pleasure at his death which is, admitedly, animalistic.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag,
Thanks for those. I had read some of that and came away reading it as pretty much condemnation. Since every bit of praise is qualified with "under the circumstances" or "for Iraq, today." That's pretty much putting the BEST face on a bad situation.
Added to that are statements from Ramsey Clark, who, while not exactly unbiased (as a member of Saddam's defense team), he's also a former US Attorney General and his opinions aren't to be sneezed at, either.
Then, there's places like Human Rights Watch. Their report after 10 months observation and interviews with key participants is here
It took me about 10 minutes to locate that batch of stuff. I've been seeing this kind of thing all over the place, but I don't really want to mess with looking up duplicate sources for the same set of quotations. I might find go look for more legal opinions out there, but the most favorable ones I've seen read like Dag's links -- not especially glowing praise and a lot of caveats.
The most damning of the reports are pretty awful, IMO.
- Government interference, - paid witnesses - witnesses reading from scripts - denial of the right to confront accusers directly
Just to name a few things.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
... video is now available online.
No desire to watch.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As I read it now, I really don't like my earlier definition of a "fair trial".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: Ding-dong the witch is dead!
Think how much money they could have raised raffling off chances to pull the switch or the trigger or whatever. <sigh>
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't believe in the death penalty, I don't support the war in Iraq. And seeing people hanged makes me more than miserable and reminds me of those lynching photos from decades ago. There's no reason for me to watch something like that.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Was Saddam still an active threat to society? And does his execution change anything? I'm not taking sides(yet), I'd just like to hear some people's answers.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
After we transferred him to Iraqi custody, I was worried that he might be aided in an escape and become a rallying point.
I would have always considered him at least a potential threat as long as he was alive.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Why Saddam was executed so swiftly.
Please take your choice:
1) To lower the risk that insurgents would be able to break him out.
2) To beat the deadline of an Islamic Holiday since we have shown such deep understanding and respect for Islamic traditions in all we have done there so far.
3) To give something victorious for President Bush to include in his upcoming "Change of Course in Iraq" speech.
4) To hide it from the Press as other things have been hidden by doing them during a long holiday weekend when fewer people pay attention to the news.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Is there any evidence that the United States in any way influenced the timing of this execution, as Dan is implying?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
He also neglected to include the best reason, which General Sax pointed out-- the quick execution prevents his supporters from coordinating a widespread reaction/protest bombing campaign.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: OK, so I'm taking odds on when the video's going to hit YouTube. Anyone? Anyone?
It was already there before you posted this. I went to see if it was there, but didn't watch it. I'm not sure why.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think there's an awful lot of commentary about 'barbarity' going on from a lot of people who live in circumstances very similar to mine...that is, totally free of barbarity.
I share the distaste many of you feel for capering over the man's death, or cheering over it, or celebrating it...on the part of people who live in my circumstances, that is.
On the part of the people who actually suffered his barbarity, though...I'm afraid I lack the arrogance necessary to condemn them for it. I really did try and think of a kinder word to describe it, but I just can't. I think there are very few people here who, if they'd lived under Saddam Hussein's cruelty, would have the highblown principles espoused here to be refrain from cheers.
----------
That said, General Sax you jackass, your freedom of speech has not once come under threat in this entire thread. Certainly it hadn't when you made your childish and proclomation on that subject. If you truly have served the US in uniform, you might want to serve it also with the muscle between your ears and educate yourself.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I would have liked for Saddam to sit through the trials. I have never been a victim of anything major, but I think having an official trial say this man did wrong, he deserves to be punished for what he did to you specifically would have a healing affect.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Since the execution was kind of a surprise event I think the car bombing is more likely linked to the holy day opportunity like so many other attacks. There is not proof of a causal relationship as yet.
It's possible that it's a coincidence Shiite areas were targetted. I'd have to say I doubt the likelihood, however.
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: What really matters to me is what the effect of this is.
Will his execution lead to positive effects for the US or negative effects?
Anything else is arguing moralites. Still, I do admit to feeling some animalistic pleasure at his death which is, admitedly, animalistic.
The degree to which a populace participates in a democracy, or other tasks which serve the national interest, depends significantly on whether members of a populace believe their nation is a just and virtuous one. As does the degree to which a populace rises to defend or uphold that nation from overthrow or conquest, military or otherwise.
These are not illusory matters. Moralities are not trivial.
Too many of the things that make a nation possible are matters of the manifest faith of the nation. If too much of that faith is lost, and people cease to care, the nation is weakened in ways that are every bit as real as a military loss or a financial sanction. Worse, perhaps.
America justifies itself as the model for freedom and democracy in the world. Land of the free, home of the brave. Where all are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When all is said and done, the only justification that can be made for the invasion of Iraq is that we intended to pursue and defend those principles.
If we seem to lose that, we lose more than power. We lose identity. We lose everything.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: "Celebrations going on in Kurdish north, Shiite south, and in Chaldean communities all over the US, most especially in Dearborn probably. "
That's is truely offensive to me, and not just becouse I am religiously, moraly and politicaly oposed to the death penalty. Even were I surporter, I would have to agree with katharina that rejoicing is barbaric.
Couple thoughts in general, after browsing through the thread. First, Prometheus, while personally I'm not rejoicing in the man's death, I can't certainly understand how rational human beings could do that, and not be barbaric. I've talked to a LOT of Chaldeans (who didn't really even feel the sort of punishment the Kurds did), some who still have family there, some who lost family to Saddam, some whose parents fled Iraq to get away from him. They're happy, they're celebrating, and I don't blame them or condemn then. Until you know what it's like to hear that the man who killed your family, or tormented them, or drove you out of your home etc is dead, I don't think laying blanket claims of barbarism is fair at all. I'm guessing here, but I don't think you know what the people who are celebrating are feeling exactly. If Osama died tomorrow, I wouldn't party in the street, but I can't lie, I might have an extra skip in my step, and I'd be happy. I wouldn't be surprised to find a fair amount of Israelis that have a bittersweet smile on their face this weekend. His death reminds everyone of what they lost, but it also satisfies a baser vengeful nature that lives in all of us.
On a separate subject, the execution video. It's not something I'd go looking for, and it's not something I'd be excited to see, but it's something I'd consider watching in an academic fashion if I had some time to kill sometime.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:but it's something I'd consider watching in an academic fashion if I had some time to kill sometime.
Haven't we had enough killing?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
>_<
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:but it's something I'd consider watching in an academic fashion if I had some time to kill sometime.
Haven't we had enough killing?
Again, it's easy for us to say that on this side of the ocean, we aren't the ones who paid in blood during the 80's and 90's. I don't have an opinion on whether or not Saddam should have been executed. I think he was a terrible guy, I wouldn've been okay with him being jailed for the rest of his life, light though I think that punishment is (toss in making him watch home videos of everyone that he killed and we're closer), but if the people harmed want his head, I think he gave them the right to claim it.
You say "we" in what sense? "We" as in human beings? "We" as in participants in the war on terror? Who is this "we?" If we're talking about Saddam and his crimes, the only people other than him who died are those he ruthlessly killed. My gut feeling is, why is he the only who who gets mercy? Getting a little above that, my feeling is, he didn't do anything to me, give him a life sentence, but first dibs go to the families of those he murdered.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
ummm...actually I was making a joke about your reference to "killing time", and not actually trying to add any valid input to this thread.
I guess this is one of those cases where a smilie would've saved some misundertanding. Who is that hated using smilies to indicate he was joking? Tom? You see what happens when you don't use one!!!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh well, you gave me a chance to expound upon my views.
And I totally made that reference on accident.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Speaking of smilies...
I've never seen anyone ue this smilie before, although it could have plenty of applications. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Who is that hated using smilies to indicate he was joking? Tom?
More accurately, I liked using smilies to indicate that I was joking, but was eventually talked out of this practice by some other Hatrackers.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: Haven't we had enough killing?
Ha Haa Haa Haa Ha mmm Ha
Only the dead have seen the end of war...
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Who is that hated using smilies to indicate he was joking? Tom?
Papa Moose.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Sterling: Your post is quite touching.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax:
quote: Haven't we had enough killing?
Ha Haa Haa Haa Ha mmm Ha
Only the dead have seen the end of war...
I'll agree with you on this one.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: OK, so I'm taking odds on when the video's going to hit YouTube. Anyone? Anyone?
It was already there before you posted this. I went to see if it was there, but didn't watch it. I'm not sure why.
I have a friend who watched it right away. I just don't know how she, or anyone for that matter, can bear to watch someone getting killed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
One of the most eye-rolling tendancies you have, General Sax, is to frequently rattle off some aphorism related to war and death.
Makes you seem quite the blowhard, although you don't exactly need help in that.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: One of the most eye-rolling tendancies you have, General Sax, is to frequently rattle off some aphorism related to war and death.
Makes you seem quite the blowhard, although you don't exactly need help in that.
Only the dead who died in a war where people fighting to make other people die in a war where people die know that people who are in wars where people die will probably die in war. And be dead with death. In war.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
See, I understood that much less than I understand the things GS writes, and yet it was more fun to read! Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm leaning toward watching it. And yet I'm not in a hurry to do so.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
It was hard to make anything out once they drop him in the chute there is very little light. Just some wriggling really, if it helps.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
What makes me a bit nervous about Hussein's execution is that I don't know if he was killed for his crimes, or whether he was killed because he is in the minority ethnic group. You can say what you want about procedural justice, but if he were Shiite, and the crimes he committed were against the Sunni, the man may still be alive, which makes me wonder if he is dead because he murdered people or whether he is dead because he murdered the wrong people. Democracy is a blunt and nearly an amoral instrument, and we forget that at our peril. (well, minorites don't forget it; we get cagey.)
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Don't worry, he was a bad man.
Posted by Sopwith, again (Member # 9457) on :
I simply saw a man once reviled and revered, now broken and bewildered, summoning up one last attempt at self-righteousness on the gallows. One last hurried "I was right, you were wrong;" one last grab at the solipsism of Saddam the ruler before the final, fatal drop.
A part of me was glad that a monster had been slain, a part of me was sickened by his execution and all of the history that led up to it in that sorry and suspect part of the world.
Saddam had finally reached the fate of so many others like himself and had been sacrificed on his own altar. Dazed, still convinced that he had done what was right in the eyes of Allah (his own very twisted vision of Allah) and that he had done what was right for his nation, he met his end in a dingy, dark room, with no one to support him present, just like so many of his own victims.
By the time of the execution, Saddam was more than a broken man. He had been broken in spirit by the time he was pulled out of that spider hole. Sure, he spoke with fire in the courtroom, but he was still the broken king without a kingdom whose only real pleasure left were the daily snack-sized bags of Fritos he received from the American guards.
Monster that he was, there was this tiny, quiet part of me that felt sorry for him. But I feel much, much sorrier for those that had died because of him.
And I worry greatly at the sound of "Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada" that rang out in that dingy chamber before Saddam's gallows drop. As one monster dies, another is born like a filthy, pestilence ridden pheonix.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Hey, sopwith, good to see you here. How ya doing? Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Muslims are torqued about when the execution occurred, distracting attention from Eid al-Adha.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Um, one clarification.
Eid al-Adha was not on the 30th in Sri Lanka, but on the 31st.
Which day Eid falls on depends on how things are done locally - as in, whether it's dependant on when the moon is sighted (cloud cover can postphone that for a day or two) or if it's dependant on modern-day scientific calculations, for example. Different regions, different sects will not necessarily do it the same way.
In Sri Lanka, Eid was originally going to be on the 31st. Then it was switched to the 1st, then a couple of days later back to the 31st. I don't know why the switcherooni, but it did surprise me to learn that Eid was on the 30th in the Middle East or other countries.
Based on when Eid was here and the rest, and that Saddam was executed the day before, I didn't realize at first that it actually was on Eid elsewhere.
It also explains why the Muslims I know here weren't the least bit upset at the timing.
[ January 01, 2007, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: quidscribis ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Posting that video here would be infinitely more offensive than linking to porn.
To you. Not to everybody.
To me as well. I'd whistle any post that contained such a link, in addition to posting the most strident condemnation I could phrase while remaining within the bounds of the posting guidelines. I'm surprised that anyone other than General Sax has even considered linking it here; it's not like it's so hard to find that a link is necessary.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: What makes me a bit nervous about Hussein's execution is that I don't know if he was killed for his crimes, or whether he was killed because he is in the minority ethnic group.
Given that judicial proceedings for the myriad other allegations against him had barely even begun, I think the execution was politically motivated.
The problems with the trial itself have already been alluded to in this thread, so I won't go into those.
I was beyond disgusted to see CNN and CTV showing parts of the execution video and shots of his corpse, and changed the channel as quickly as possible in each instance. Thankfully, the CBC had the decency to refrain from such vulgarity. I'd hoped that we might have been able to do the same here.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I really do not understand the need to keep trying a person beyond the death penalty, hang them and be done with them, no need to keep letting the lawyers slurp at the public trough.
If you want the "what else they did" out in public view, then publish it for public consumption. If people want to research it to their satisfaction they are then welcome to do so, but there is no need to let the public money keep hemoraging in a settled matter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I really do not understand the need to keep trying a person beyond the death penalty, hang them and be done with them, no need to keep letting the lawyers slurp at the public trough.
If you're opposed to the death penalty on principle, trying to delay it is quite easy to understand. And if there is more at issue than simply the person's execution, it's quite easy to understand as well. There is emotional, moral, legal, and historical weight behind a trial, a weight that's not obtained simply by 'publishing results'.
So, if you don't understand it, you simply haven't really thought about it (possible), or you have and prefer to pretend other reasons don't really exist (also possible).
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I think it is demoralizing on the public to have to endure the endless spectacle of trial (and yes dangerous in this case since his being alive gave hope to his supporters) especially when they are already condemned. Bottom line is the cost, as a friend of mine who is in sales said, stop selling once you get a yes.
This is the typical liberal tactic, any method of delay, be it fillibuster, legislating from the bench, or putting the widows on the pulpit. It is an assumption of moral superiority that justifies any tactic to obstruct the will of the body politic. (like trying to lose a war to gain back political power) to imply that my agenda is hidden or underhanded is another common liberal attack. My views are out there, to be loved or hated as people see fit. I am not trying to advocate 'delay' and call it fairness, especially when a few months of delay would have made him ineligable by law to face death.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
-o-
I agree--for wholly unliberal reasons--with those who wish he had been tried for more of his crimes, with the caveat that I would not have wanted the trial to take so long that he could not be executed.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
General Sax, you have absolutely zero concept of what justice is about. Those Iraqis who are going to speak out against not waiting for further trials are not some "liberals" whom you seem to love lumping everyone who disagrees with you. In fact, there remains a whole ethnic group over there who is now completely denied having any semblance of official recognition by the law of the atrocities they suffered. Many will be glad that the monster is no more, but the fact that he did not stand and publically hear all of is accusers is an injustice to those who did not have the opportunity to be represented. The opinions on this execution will not break down into binary 'good / not good' camps in Iraq, and let us be honest: the most important aspects here are how this will affect the Iraqi people.
To the person who questioned the level of US involvement in the move to execute so quickly, I would highly doubt anyone who posts here has the security clearance required to know the amount of involvement the US government had in the decision to execute, nor do I realistically believe that anyone who does have access to such information would be authorized to share the amount of influence the US had or possibly took advantage of. We can argue about reports from news agencies and statements of the Iraqi government being technically sovereign, but unless one or the other government decides to share with the public how much deliberation took place between governments, then we really can only speculate. I will say that to suggest no deliberation took place is extremely naive and quite ignorant of the nature of the current relationship between the Iraqi and US governments. Whether it was a suggestion from the US government (which I doubt) or more of a wink and a thumbs-up from the US when they heard about it (more likely) would be a more realistic discussion on the level of US participation in the timing of the execution.
My opinion is that an execution of the man was inevitable, if only for the number of accusations and amount of evidence to Hussein's direct involvement in the crimes. The timing feels incredibly poor to me, though, more politically motivated than it was a natural progression of justice. Perhaps the continued problems with insurgents on the Iraqi government provided the impetus, or the upcoming speech by Bush on the change in tactics in Iraq, but I am sure it was both along with other reasons, the only debatable aspect being how much of any reasons had more weight.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wouldn't have minded an expedited trial to hear more of the crimes against him, if only to give a voice to the forgotten who were brutalized during his reign, but I can sort of see why they went ahead with it. He was already sentenced to death, the other trials would have looked even more farcical on top of this. There was no way everyone would be satisfied with the outcome of this trial. But I think we would have come to this anyway for everything the man has done. His execution wasn't to make him a scapegoat, or as an offering to the US, he really DID do all or at least most of the bad things he's accused of. The timing might be political, but the act was earned during his tenure as Dictator in Chief.
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: This is the typical liberal tactic, any method of delay, be it fillibuster, legislating from the bench, or putting the widows on the pulpit. It is an assumption of moral superiority that justifies any tactic to obstruct the will of the body politic. (like trying to lose a war to gain back political power) to imply that my agenda is hidden or underhanded is another common liberal attack. My views are out there, to be loved or hated as people see fit. I am not trying to advocate 'delay' and call it fairness, especially when a few months of delay would have made him ineligable by law to face death.
You realize you might have to eat some of those words if Republicans start fillibustering Democratic legislation right?
And what is the Iraqi statue of limitations on the death sentence once a verdict is reached?
And we don't need to lose the war to win back the government, you did it for us. I'd say thank you, but I would have preferred to win it back fair and square, and not through right wing negligence and bungling, especially given the cost in blood and money.
Gotta say though Sax, the GOP party lines have gone from amusing to tired for me. Get some new material.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Bottom line is the cost
I sort of thought it was 'justice,' but people say that I'm crazy.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Once he turned seventy he could no longer be executed. That was in a few months.
I am sorry the truth with reference to the facts is 'tiresome' but they do not change to suit your attention span.
Do not count on us losing, you may 'support the troops' but you do not respect them if you think they are going to lose anything.
Saddam could only die once, and he did, dead for one murder or a hundred, it does not matter. His victims know what he did and they can now make the pilgrimage to urinate on his grave, that is the important thing.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I think it is demoralizing on the public to have to endure the endless spectacle of trial
Yep. Too bad the accused have a right to a trial. The public demoralization is practically unbearable! We should just kill everyone accused of a crime and spare the public the agony.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bob, I'm not particularly sympathetic to GS's position here, but your last response to him was wildly out of context. GS's position has been that once the accused has been convicted in a trial, there is no need for additional trials. The demoralization was cited as a cost of the additional trials to justify not having them.
It has nothing to do with killing everyone accused of a crime.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"His victims know what he did and they can now make the pilgrimage to urinate on his grave, that is the important thing."
What planet are you from? Do believe that the “universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure?”
I do find your customs intriguing.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Giving water to the dead is a measure of respect in a desert culture, (don't forget your Dune!)
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Once he turned seventy he could no longer be executed. That was in a few months.
Which accounts to many weeks, and many days past Eid and easily not a date that would facilitate political opportunism (like the coming Bush speech). Plenty of time to have him stand in court and hear his accusations.
quote:I am sorry the truth with reference to the facts is 'tiresome' but they do not change to suit your attention span.
Interesting you mention short attention spans, since it is the glaring lack of patience that is what rankles most people with regard to the timing of the execution. Perhaps you should cease calling the kettle so black.
quote:Do not count on us losing, you may 'support the troops' but you do not respect them if you think they are going to lose anything.
Only their lives, unfortunately. If I had a nickle for every time someone pontificates 'support the troops' in a statement, yet their action is equivalent to slapping a bumper magnet (made in China) on their SUV, I'd be a rich man and getting nothing but more rich every day. Good for you for claiming to have been a soldier, but when is the last time you sent a care package? I get a little sick of hearing the chicken-hawks ramble on and on about the righteousness of war and using the troops who are over there, most of them two or three tours over-extended, as a security blanket for their ham-handed armchair quarterbacking.
Support of the troops has little to do with supporting the war. I want the troops I've been sending my support to know that their contribution is appreciated regardless of, not contingent upon, whether I support the cause for which they must fight. If you really want to support the troops, then stop using their lives for your political rhetoric. In other words: shut up and do something about it. If you like, I know a few places where you can get information on sending real and honest and honorable support to some soldiers from your general locale. Then you can feel just a tiny bit more self-righteous when you use the tired 'support our troops' line on internet forums and sticking a magnet on your car.
Support isn't a fair-weather friend. Either you do it consistently, or you are all talk. I'm sure you could even create a thread here to accumulate donations for multiple care packages to our troops. Whether you are man enough to actually put forth the effort instead of spouting your impotent rhetoric is completely up to you. This is my challenge to you, General Sax: if you want to persist in your bragging on service and rhetoric about real support for the troops in this forum, then create a thread asking people to pool resources to actually do something instead of just talking about it. If you can meet the challenge, good for you. If you can't or won't, then you've proven yourself the blowhard others have suggested. Since 'freedom isn't free,' you should have no problem investing the minimal energy to 'support our troops' in this case.
quote:Saddam could only die once, and he did, dead for one murder or a hundred, it does not matter. His victims know what he did and they can now make the pilgrimage to urinate on his grave, that is the important thing.
Saddam could only die once, and all of his victims deserved the right to accuse their attacker in a public forum. Justice exists for the sake of the victim, not for the accused. In this case, justice has been served for one group of people, at the cost of allowing for justice to the other groups of people. That is the crux of the issue, not the guilt of the accused or the punishment that was due. The problem is that there are now a great number of Iraqi people who will not be afforded the justice of accusing Hussein in a public trial, which is the most fundemental piece of a criminal justice system. This concept of the victim or the state accusing the perpetrator in public forum goes all the way back to the very beginnings of civilization, and most historical instances of denying this right of justice to the victims has been viewed as holding elements of fascism. Surely, General Sax, you are not advocating that our justice systems not behave in a fascist manner. That stands against everything we in America officially stand for as a nation.
You claim to be patriotic, yet you pick and choose the concepts on which this country was founded that you would champion. Hussein is dead and most Iraqis are likely happy for the fact, but that does not bear weight on whether democratic justice has been served.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Bob, I'm not particularly sympathetic to GS's position here, but your last response to him was wildly out of context. GS's position has been that once the accused has been convicted in a trial, there is no need for additional trials. The demoralization was cited as a cost of the additional trials to justify not having them.
It has nothing to do with killing everyone accused of a crime.
But it has everything to do with true justice. Do we have trials to prolong the inevitable or do we have trials to allow the accused to stand before their alleged victims and be accused publically? I have always been under the impression that justice involves the voicing of accusations and not the rush (or avoidance) of punishment. General Sax has stated repeatedly that no more trial was necessary, when a great deal more victims deserved the chance to accuse Hussein of his crimes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Justa, I responded to a particular criticism to a particular statement, and my response is just as valid if everything you say is true as it would be if everything you say is false.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
They got to see him die, they could not expect more no matter what they said he did. Maybe it can be a new game show, Like liars poker (bullshit) put on two Iraqi families a night and have them start out with an atrocious story each, then have them one up each other until the audience says "Liar" and then expose the evidence of who was really a victim... It has everything a hit show needs...
It do find the chanting of Al'Sadr's name disturbing since there is every chance we are going to have to serve that outstanding warrant on him soon and kill him in the process, now that will be a true test of wills and the aftermath will be a real spasm.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
You have literally no understanding of what justice means to people other than yourself, General Sax. That is very sanctimonious of you.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
myself and those who think as I do, you know, the rest of us...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Bob, I'm not particularly sympathetic to GS's position here, but your last response to him was wildly out of context. GS's position has been that once the accused has been convicted in a trial, there is no need for additional trials. The demoralization was cited as a cost of the additional trials to justify not having them.
It has nothing to do with killing everyone accused of a crime.
Actually, if you read his statement closely, that was just cited as a particular of the general principal. I can't help if he didn't say it the way you think he meant it.
quote:I think it is demoralizing on the public to have to endure the endless spectacle of trial (and yes dangerous in this case since his being alive gave hope to his supporters) especially when they are already condemned. Bottom line is the cost, as a friend of mine who is in sales said, stop selling once you get a yes.
see the "especially" there?
I'll grant that your version of it is a possible interpretation. I'll even grant that it's likely to be the one GS intended. But when I read what he actually wrote, it reads as follows:
A: TRIALS demoralize the population.
A': <in this case in particular because it gives a boost to SH's supporters>
B: This is especially true if there's already been a conviction.
I think what he meant to say and what he actually said are two different things. I decided to poke fun at it.
So, sue me!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: But when I read what he actually wrote, it reads as follows:
A: TRIALS demoralize the population.
A': <in this case in particular because it gives a boost to SH's supporters>
B: This is especially true if there's already been a conviction.
What you're missing in there is "therefore we should not have trials" anywhere in that chain of reasoning. According to your recounting of what he said, your conversion of his statement to kill everyone without trial is unsupported by his original statement.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ah, yeah, it just seemed like the logical extension of a policy of no trials.
I guess he DOES leave room open for just letting people go, or putting them in jail for however long we feel like it too. Should've noted that in my reply.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Um, one clarification.
Eid al-Adha was not on the 30th in Sri Lanka, but on the 31st.
Which day Eid falls on depends on how things are done locally - as in, whether it's dependant on when the moon is sighted (cloud cover can postphone that for a day or two) or if it's dependant on modern-day scientific calculations, for example. Different regions, different sects will not necessarily do it the same way.
In Sri Lanka, Eid was originally going to be on the 31st. Then it was switched to the 1st, then a couple of days later back to the 31st. I don't know why the switcherooni, but it did surprise me to learn that Eid was on the 30th in the Middle East or other countries.
Based on when Eid was here and the rest, and that Saddam was executed the day before, I didn't realize at first that it actually was on Eid elsewhere.
It also explains why the Muslims I know here weren't the least bit upset at the timing.
Unless I'm quite mistaken, for Baathists and Sunnis Eid is begun one day earlier. So, in Saddam's and many Sunni eyes, he was executed on a holiday. I believe the Iraqi government asked a prominent Sunni political party , and were told that there was nothing rong with executing Saddam on that day. It was on Arab T.V., I'll look for a link in English.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Ah, yeah, it just seemed like the logical extension of a policy of no trials.
I guess he DOES leave room open for just letting people go, or putting them in jail for however long we feel like it too. Should've noted that in my reply.
He didn't advocate a policy of no trials. That's sloppy thinking, especially for you, Bob.
He stated a cost of having trials. That's it. (Granted, he did it in the context of saying we don't need another trial, but adding context strengthens my case, not yours, because Saddam HAD a trial.)
It's important to recognize the cost of things we are advocating. It doesn't make one more protective of civil rights to pretend that such protections have no costs.
Trials cost money. They can lead to violence. They can result in a dangerous predator being released into society. They can result in innocent people being thrown in jail or killed.
All of these are true. None of these lead directly to the conclusion "We shouldn't have trials."
They do, however, allow us to decided how to make them better and to decide which types of harms should receive priority of prevention.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
No need. I know he was executed on a day that was Eid for many Muslims in many countries. I was clarifying for those who thought Eid was not on that day but on another or who were otherwise confused about that sort of thing. Heck, it confused me for a little while.
And most Muslims here are Sunni, including my husband and his family.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Well, Iraq and Sri Lanka obviously have different Eid customs. Cool. Posted by Sopwith, again (Member # 9457) on :
Hiya Quid, things have kept me from being very active here of lates on Hatrack. I've been missing it quite a bit!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I just wanted to say I liked a lot of the things mph and Jim-Me said this thread. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm sorry, Dag. I was just poking fun.
I do think your latest post reads a lot more analysis into GS' statement than is strictly warranted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: think it is demoralizing on the public to have to endure the endless spectacle of trial (and yes dangerous in this case since his being alive gave hope to his supporters) especially when they are already condemned. Bottom line is the cost, as a friend of mine who is in sales said, stop selling once you get a yes.
Truly, this is shaping up to be a year of miracles because I actually agreed with someone General Sax said! Well, just the first part, anyway. I think it was certainly dangerous for Saddam to be alive, not because he had supporters but because he was a famous enemy of 'unpopular' major player in the region, that is us. I also think it was demoralizing to Iraqis to have him alive, partially evidenced by the fact that many people refuse to believe he's actually dead until they had a corpse in front of them.
The rest is bunk, of course. Death is not sales, for one thing.
quote:This is the typical liberal tactic, any method of delay, be it fillibuster, legislating from the bench, or putting the widows on the pulpit.
It's a typical political tactic. You're frankly a partisan sheep if you believe it's solely the province of liberals. You might make a case that liberals have been more famous for such things in the past decade (especially if you listen to 'Fair and Balanced'), but that just might have more to do with minority-party politics than the accusation you're making.
It's also entertaining how quickly you revert to liberal conspiracy-plot-overthrow-the-majority rhetoric, too. It must be a comfortable world in which you live, where your opposition is so neatly and uniformly contemptible. Doesn't really make you strain your brain very much, I expect. The only question of interest is, did you arrive at it because you don't like to strain your brain? Or do you not strain your brain because you've arrived at that philosophy?
quote:Do not count on us losing, you may 'support the troops' but you do not respect them if you think they are going to lose anything.
While I certainly agree that many who 'support the troops' don't actually respect them, your use of this train of thought is really just along the lines of, "America, love it or leave it!"
Thus, it's worth briefly addressing and then dismissing.
quote:myself and those who think as I do, you know, the rest of us...
I think that perhaps you're not so dull-witted to think that you're part of the rest of us. Most people I've talked with-a pretty wide spectrum, I think-will actually listen after the discussion is begun. You won't.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sopwith, again: Hiya Quid, things have kept me from being very active here of lates on Hatrack. I've been missing it quite a bit!
Does that mean you'll be visiting a bit more often then? Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Well, Iraq and Sri Lanka obviously have different Eid customs. Cool.
Not necessarily, and this is where I realize I wasn't clear enough.
The day Eid falls on being dependent on the sighting of the new moon can still be different for different locations. Perhaps Sri Lanka had a lot of cloud cover, so it wasn't sighted for a couple more days, so it falls on the 1st or the 2nd. Maybe in Saudi Arabia, they had a clear night and saw it immediately - it falls on the 30th.
Most places (people) will schedule Ramadan and the Eids according to local new moon sightings. Some places - or people - will say, oh, Saudi Arabia's holding it on the 30th, so we will, too.
Yet another possibility to the local sighting concept, from here, is that
quote:it is agreed upon by Muslim scholars that the new month begin 30 days after the beginning of the previous month.
Even if all Muslims everywhere followed the practice of relying on sighting the new moon, there is still variability involved on when the various Eids would fall.
I don't know what the practice in Iraq is. I'll see if I can find out.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: myself and those who think as I do, you know, the rest of us...
With the proper medication you could probably get back down to just the one voice in your head again.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: If you want the "what else they did" out in public view, then publish it for public consumption.
Unfortunately, much of the information regarding "what else he did" has now gone to the grave with him.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Unfortunately, much of the information regarding "what else he did" has now gone to the grave with him.
My understanding is that Saddam wasn't being cooperative at all with the trial. Why do you think we would have cooperated in the future? Or is there a third option I'm missing?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'd like to mention the irony of Saddam's execution occuring at the same time as the mourning of a president who's most famous presidential act was likely his decision to pardon Richard Nixon. That pardon, though it angered many at the time because it seemed to rob them of a thirst for what seemed like "justice", has since become recognize as a wise act that helped heal the nation.
It was unfortunately inevitable that in Saddam's case the thirst for what felt like "justice" was too strong to escape. Not surprisingly, it is becoming apparent that the execution will not heal the country - instead it has driven the Shiites and Sunnis further apart.
Advocates of the death penalty often say it is necessary for justice. But I think "justice" is often confused with "revenge". Justice makes things right again, which killing a person cannot do. Revenge offers a temporary satisfaction to victims, but as with Saddam, it ultimately just creates further sadness and further anger.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Unfortunately, much of the information regarding "what else he did" has now gone to the grave with him.
My understanding is that Saddam wasn't being cooperative at all with the trial. Why do you think we would have cooperated in the future? Or is there a third option I'm missing?
If he's dead, the probability of new information coming from him is zero. If he's alive, it's non-zero. At the very least all of the allegations would have been aired and he would have had an opportunity to address them.
Of course, by the time all of that could happen, he might well have been dead -- as was roughly the case with Augusto Pinochet, for example -- but I think that would have been a better outcome for Iraq.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: Justice makes things right again, which killing a person cannot do.
What if someone has a different definition of Justice than you do? What if Justice is the rule of law, not making things right again?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If he's dead, the probability of new information coming from him is zero. If he's alive, it's non-zero.
If you count getting false information from him as negative on the same scale (I'm not sure that would be justified, but it might be), we very well might get get "more" information out of dead Saddam than we would have out of a live one.
[ January 02, 2007, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
False information is still information -- just information of questionable utility.
I think he was executed simply because the Iraqi government wanted him executed and knew they probably needed to do it soon or miss their chance.
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: What if someone has a different definition of Justice than you do? What if Justice is the rule of law, not making things right again?
By that metric, the "Justness" of this trial was questionable at the very least, as has already been mentioned in this thread.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What if someone has a different definition of Justice than you do? What if Justice is the rule of law, not making things right again?
Then I think they'd be mistaken. For one thing, if justice was simply the rule of law, wouldn't that mean there could never be an unjust law? I think there have been times in the past where it was just to disobey the law, or where there have been unjust laws.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:False information is still information -- just information of questionable utility.
If that's the definition of information we're using, then I question the value of information at all.
It's like saying that "stuff" is useful. No, it's not, unless it's the right stuff.
In general, I think that false information is worse than no information at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Twinky, can't we discount the possibility of reliable, truthful information coming from Saddam Hussein as so very low it is, for practical matters, effectively zero?
I mean, I'm there with you on the "try him for more crimes" part (I don't agree, but I understand that idea and it does make sense), but forestalling the execution because he might help later? That seems very unlikely, to put it politely.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:
quote:If you want the "what else they did" out in public view, then publish it for public consumption.
Unfortunately, much of the information regarding "what else he did" has now gone to the grave with him.
Which is probably why the leadership was so anxious to execute him. I very much doubt that eg Muqtada al-Sadr retained his power through the Saddam era without giving a GREAT deal of cooperation to Saddam's regime. In the case of Muqtada, I'd bet he also eliminated rivals and other inconvenient people by turning them over to Saddam's internal security; including through providing totally false charges.
[ January 02, 2007, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...can't we discount the possibility of reliable, truthful information coming from Saddam Hussein as so very low it is, for practical matters, effectively zero?"
Even a liar reveals truthful information -- or where&how to obtain truthful information -- by the lies s/he tells.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:In general, I think that false information is worse than no information at all.
I don't think this holds in the specific case of an adversarial trial, but of course IANAL.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Twinky, can't we discount the possibility of reliable, truthful information coming from Saddam Hussein as so very low it is, for practical matters, effectively zero?
I don't think we can, no. Perhaps if his rapid execution hadn't essentially been a foregone conclusion, he might have been more cooperative. I doubt it, but I won't discount the possibility. Further, the trial process, conducted well, might well have brought to light additional information from sources other than him.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I mean, I'm there with you on the "try him for more crimes" part (I don't agree, but I understand that idea and it does make sense), but forestalling the execution because he might help later? That seems very unlikely, to put it politely.
I'd rank the reasons not to execute him in the following order:
(1) I think the death penalty is wrong. (2) I think executing him will have negative consequences for Iraq. (3) I think he should have been held to account for all of the allegations against him, not just some. (4) I think the trial and execution were largely political in nature. (5) The trial process might have brought additional information to light about the extent and nature of his crimes, associations, et cetera.
If the question is whether he should have been executed, my reasoning may as well stop at (1).
[Edited to add (2), which I omitted accidentally.]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Even a liar reveals truthful information -- or where&how to obtain truthful information -- by the lies s/he tells.
Unless the liar understands this better than you do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Even a liar reveals truthful information -- or where&how to obtain truthful information -- by the lies s/he tells.
Sure, but there's information and there's information. I mean, based on the lies Saddam Hussein tells, someone familiar with history would learn the information that Saddam was a brutal liar who didn't have much respect for anyone except himself.
That's information, but it's not very useful. Porter is quite right, too-things change with a very skillful and experienced liar.
quote:I don't think we can, no. Perhaps if his rapid execution hadn't essentially been a foregone conclusion, he might have been more cooperative. I doubt it, but I won't discount the possibility. Further, the trial process, conducted well, might well have brought to light additional information from sources other than him.
That's a pretty big 'perhaps', in the category of 'what if the sky was purple'? I mean, everyone knew Saddam would be either executed or freed by 'insurgents' of some sort in some way, or else kill himself. Life in prison was never a real possibility, and he knew that from the start.
I don't think it was possible for the trial process to have been conducted well. I mean, here in the United States and elsewhere where we've got hundreds of years of practice and reams and reams of laws written down, sometimes we still don't have good trials for simple murders or embezzlement or fraud. If screwups can happen in a sterile environment such as that-at least, an environment where sterility is possible-what real chance is there that a good trial will happen in Iraq, for Hussein?
quote:(1) I think the death penalty is wrong. (2) I think executing him will have negative consequences for Iraq. (3) I think he should have been held to account for all of the allegations against him, not just some. (4) I think the trial and execution were largely political in nature. (5) The trial process might have brought additional information to light about the extent and nature of his crimes, associations, et cetera.
These make sense to me. In most circumstances, I'm with you on number one...I say let `em rot in incarceration for the rest of their lives. But quantity has a quality all its own, and I think the quantity of murders attributed to his name merits a reexamination of my normal belief about #1.
I'd be interested to hear what the negative consequences will be for Iraq, that wouldn't have happened had he been left alive.
I think #3 feeds largely back into #1, since for all of his offenses to have been investigated and tried will take decades. I think the trial was largely political in nature, a political necessity. It's distasteful...but that's mitigated in my opinion by the fact that I literally cannot imagine a trial for Saddam Hussein within Iraq that wasn't political. Hitler's cronies weren't tried by Germans, after all.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...what real chance is there that a good trial will happen in Iraq, for Hussein?
That's exactly why I think the trial should have been carried out under the purview of something along the lines of the International Criminal Court, with a combination of Iraqi judges and foreign judges presiding. If possible I do think it would still have been best to hold the proceedings in Iraq, but that might not be possible given the security situation.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think the quantity of murders attributed to his name merits a reexamination of my normal belief about #1.
I'd be interested to hear what the negative consequences will be for Iraq, that wouldn't have happened had he been left alive.
I can't help but wonder what would have happened in Chile if Augusto Pinochet had suffered the same fate as Saddam Hussein. That's the essence of my thinking on this: even Pinochet's funeral was divisive in Chile. His execution... well, I'm no expert on Chile, but I think that would have been worse. A political show trial and premature execution? Worse still.
I guess what I'm saying is that in cases like these, I think it's better overall for the former dictator to fade away than to burn out.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think #3 feeds largely back into #1, since for all of his offenses to have been investigated and tried will take decades.
All of the charges against him would have sufficed in place of all of his actual offences, which I agree would take a prohibitively long time to prosecute. Indeed, he might well have died of natural causes even while the trials for just the extant charges were ongoing, but as I've said, I think that would have been better for Iraq than what happened.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That's exactly why I think the trial should have been carried out under the purview of something along the lines of the International Criminal Court, with a combination of Iraqi judges and foreign judges presiding. If possible I do think it would still have been best to hold the proceedings in Iraq, but that might not be possible given the security situation.
There is a question of who has the right to try Saddam Hussein, though. I mean, what does a court housed in First-World Europe have to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraqis (as well as Kurds, Iranians, and Kuwaitis, among many others)? While it almost certainly would've resulted in a more fair trial, do the ends justify the means?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What if someone has a different definition of Justice than you do? What if Justice is the rule of law, not making things right again? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I think they'd be mistaken.
______
I'd like to add that's it's even trickier to discern justice if things were never "right" to begin with, and you don't have any again to return to.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: There is a question of who has the right to try Saddam Hussein, though. I mean, what does a court housed in First-World Europe have to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraqis (as well as Kurds, Iranians, and Kuwaitis, among many others)?
Well, that's part of the reason -- that the allegations cross ethnic, religious, and national boundaries. However, looking into it a little further, it seems Jordan is the only country in the Middle East that has signed and ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC. Perhaps a special court could have been set up by the U.N. in cooperation with Iraq and the broader Arab League. I'm not suggesting that the West should have kidnapped Saddam Hussein and tried him with no Iraqi involvement.
Of course, I suppose it's entirely possible that something like this was suggested to -- and rejected by -- the Iraqi government.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: While it almost certainly would've resulted in a more fair trial, do the ends justify the means?
I think so, yes, because the result would have been more than a fair trial. I think the execution will only foster more violence, though I'd love to be wrong.
Keep in mind, too, that I'm saying this as someone who generally advocates less Western meddling in the Middle East, not more.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of course, I suppose it's entirely possible that something like this was suggested to -- and rejected by -- the Iraqi government.
It was, I believe, but I'd have to do a search for details.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I wouldn't be surprised. Given the timing, it also wouldn't surprise me if that happened at a time when I wasn't paying attention to the news at all, and so I just missed it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Whether Hussein's death was suspicious, it was plausibly not at our hands, and if there is a civil war, at least it won't be our civil war. A big crime like this could be just what's necessary to draw all of the non-Sunnis together in a deep way to validate the judicial proceeding, and while it may lead to some awful crimes against Sunnis, a state sponsored death validates a government as much as an election or a winning soccer team.
I guess what I'm saying is that even though a state court may have been brisk with administering justice, everyone who supports the outcome may have to acknowledge and possibly even respect the existence of the state and the proceedings which led to that outcome, which may be a step in the right direction.
Of course there is the opposite, everyone who doesn't support the outcome has another reason to ignore procedural democracy wholesale, but considering that Hussein wasn't a saint, summoning indignation at his death is a bit of a job.
Posted by dab (Member # 7847) on :
nuttin like a good ole fashun lynchin' ta bring the town together! swing um boys.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's a queer sense of ownership, but look at it like this, the saying goes, "If you live by the sword, you'll die by the sword." If you substitute "rule of law" for "sword," and then assume that the proposition works both ways, then we may have a government motto: "If you die by the rule of law, then you will live by the rule of law."
I just wonder if it's possible to guilt or shame all of the non-Sunni Iraqies into being good democrats, after showing them that by being good democrats, they can kill whomever they want. Once we get them down the road to rationalizing the righteousness of the procedure that killed Saddam, the serpent has already bit, and they'll be able to rationalize all sorts of great and terrible feats, permissable because they went through all of the right legal channels.
The implications of this thesis are far-reaching, but coming from a guy who isn't big on the rule of law, I think that this is something that wise people should be paying attention to. _______
On a completely different note-- but not quite substantial enough to have its own thread-- I read an article, I think it was in the Atlantic Monthly, about materialism in China. It seems that with the confluence of the one child policy, the push for economic growth, and the lack of a religious foundation, poor chinese men are out of luck in a major way. Materialism is catching hold there in a way that's qualitatively different than what we've seen in the western world. Since there are more men than women, the women have their pick, and they don't have 2000 years of Beatitudes telling them to give the poor and the meek a chance, the push for flashy cars and prospects is becoming an issue. I don't know if this portends that in 40 years, China is going to be a country of of half a billion unabashed gold diggers, pushing men to perform economically which in turn pushes US men to perform(because we like being number 1(I used the royal we, I don't mind so much being 3 or 4)) thereby affecting our national priorities and character. I'm curious to see how this plays out.
[ January 04, 2007, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
" What if Justice is the rule of law, not making things right again?"
Not all laws require or even allow capital punishment. Among Western democracies, it is actualy illegal in all but one state (that would be us.)
Just to point out that there is no relationship between capital punishment and the rule of law.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
We made a horrible mistake, can we clone the old bloody handed murderer still to make it right? We must undo this crime against humanity! Bwaaaa Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
No General Sax. We can not keep cloning Sadaam so we can execute him again and again until some type of justice is created.
There just isn't that much rope in Iraq.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
But the hanging is getting such great ratings!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wow. Some days, it's like there's this subconscious, pathological desire to lose hearts and minds in Iraq.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh It's a typical political tactic. You're frankly a partisan sheep if you believe it's solely the province of liberals. You might make a case that liberals have been more famous for such things in the past decade (especially if you listen to 'Fair and Balanced'), but that just might have more to do with minority-party politics than the accusation you're making.
It's also entertaining how quickly you revert to liberal conspiracy-plot-overthrow-the-majority rhetoric, too. It must be a comfortable world in which you live, where your opposition is so neatly and uniformly contemptible. Doesn't really make you strain your brain very much, I expect. The only question of interest is, did you arrive at it because you don't like to strain your brain? Or do you not strain your brain because you've arrived at that philosophy?
You know, that's an interesting point beyond the current discussion. I once commented elsewhere that as a nation born of rebellion (and a nation that is, perhaps, overly fond of Star Wars ) we have an overfondness of identifying with either the common man or the righteous, misunderstood, bemartyred rebels (who all will flock to join, on that magic day they see the light, tra la.)
(On a partisan note, I wouldn't be the first to comment on the absurdity of a president from a highly connected family running for a second term with a Congress in which his party held a majority trying to come across as a maverick political outsider.)
To the point where no pundit or editorialist can simply state their opinion, but have to insist that anyone who would disagree with them is... Not one of the people with common sense, not a patriot, one of those loony (insert currently demonized political leaning)... Take your pick. It's not enough to state something and actually appeal to common sense, you have to make people afraid to disagree with you.
Hmm. Not an endearing trend.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Twinky, I also think the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over former heads of state. Could be wrong though.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
I don't think that is a problem, Imogen. Even if Saddam has some functional immunity as a former head of state, this could certainly be waived by Iraq's current government or possibly by the Security Council. A larger problem is article 12 (1) of the ICC Statute which state that "[t]he Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute." I'm unsure whether this precondition can be circumvented by a Security Council referral in accordance with article 13 (b) (which would be necessary in any case since, as Twinky pointed out, Iraq has not ratified the Statute).
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"The International Criminal Court (ICC)...can only prosecute crimes that were committed on or after 1 July 2002, the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force." And while it theoretically could prosecutes heads of state, the ICC is a 'court of last resort' which can "only exercise its jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes."
"Among Western democracies, it [the death penalty] is actualy illegal in all but one state (that would be us). Just to point out that there is no relationship between capital punishment and the rule of law."
While correlation isn't proof of causation, the US is also the most lawless by far of all FirstWorld nations . ~3% of the population is currently in jail, in prison, on probation, or on parole. Note that the tabulation does not include those who have already "paid for their crime" but remain under government supervision due to "sex criminal registration" laws. Or those who have "paid for their crime" and still have their records following them when it comes to gaining employment and housing.
And a few other Western democracies have the death penalty. They just haven't used it for a long time. eg The UK was recently having debate over whether to rid itself of the last capital offense (treason during wartime, I think). etc
"China is going to be...pushing men to perform economically which in turn pushes US men to perform because we like being number 1 (I used the royal we (I don't mind so much being 3 or 4))..."
Number 3 or 4? Across the socio-economic strata from the richest to the poorest, an overwhelming supermajority of Americans think that being #40,000,000* is "enough to live the good life".
"Whether Hussein's death was suspicious, it was plausibly not at our hands..."
"...and if there is a civil war, at least it won't be our civil war."
If you don't count the American soldiers and contractors who are gonna be killed and maimed for being in the middle of that civil war, or their surviving families and loved ones. And if you exclude the trillion or so dollars that US taxpayers are gonna hafta pay for Dubya's bread&circus.
* ie A yearly income of $100thousand
[ January 04, 2007, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"You know, that's an interesting point beyond the current discussion. I once commented elsewhere that as a nation born of rebellion (and a nation that is, perhaps, overly fond of Star Wars ) we have an over fondness of identifying with either the common man or the righteous, misunderstood, bemartyred rebels (who all will flock to join, on that magic day they see the light, tra la.)"
I agree. While the U.S. lacks the Latin American and Marxist propinquity from filling cities with plazas of this and that revolution and creating groups with gloriously bizarre names like the Institutional Revolutionary Party, we are still slaves to revolution.
Liberal Democrats, who are virtually nonexistent on the American radar screen, are notoriously opposed to the "Common Man" mythos. This is not to say they are not interested in alleviating poverty or in improving the lives of the working class. Their choice in doing so through free markets combined with social services, however, is not popular with the working classes, who were traditionally Liberal. Ironically it has gained some acceptance with the wealthy and the old aristocracies and great acceptance with the Roman Catholic Church, the two groups who were originally most opposed to Liberalism. The Church, of course, prefers parties more socially conservative than the Liberals and Christian Democrats where they exist, but Liberalism is at least in line with Vatican economic teachings, in as much as any real world group is in line with the idealistic Church.
Despite their routes in, and frequent use of the term, radicalism, Liberal Democrats are anti-revolutionary at core. They believe in progress (who doesn't), but they also nurture a preference for stability which is reminiscent of their Conservative opponents
The German Free Democrats (whose motto, "So viel Staat wie nötig, so wenig Staat wie möglich!," or "As much State as needed, as little State as possible!" is an international rallying cry) once joked that it was the party of "Besserverdienenden" ("Better-earning peoples") in response to a Socialist tax on this group.
They were, in a sense, right. Their supporters, in common with almost all Liberals everywhere consists of middle-class and upper-middle class people with university degrees, not the "Common Man."
Canada, which celebrates union rather than revolution, and is a largely middle-class and educated state is the only major country I can think where a Liberal party has ruled out of coalition (Andorra, which is steadfastly Liberal, hardly counts).
However, Liberals are still a major political force in most of the Western world, seldom out of ruling or opposition coalitions. The exception is in the revolutionary states, France and the U.S., neither of which has an officially recognized Liberal party.
I am not sure if this has any meaning, but it is interesting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Irami are you SURE the women are outnumbering the men and not vice versa? Pretty sure most Chinese people opt for boys when they only have one child.
----
On a different note, I finally watched a version of the execution. Executions at least in the west are supposed to be very solemn and quite and yet they have not always been so, apparently in some parts of the middle east alot of shouting goes on.
I think I might prefer the overwhelming sound of noise were I being hung as at least when it fades away you know death is near. What do you do when everything is so silent?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BB: he just mistyped, I think its clear he meant men outnumber women from the context.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: BB: he just mistyped, I think its clear he meant men outnumber women from the context.
I suppose, it just seemed iffy to me.
"China is going to be a country of of half a billion unabashed gold diggers"
Sounds like 50/50 from that context.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I meant men outnumber women, and the article concerned people in their twenties.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If the US had stepped in an unilaterally imposed a commuting of Saddam's sentence, I think we'd have a bigger problem than currently, though that remains to be seen.
There was no way we were going to win that one, besides, if you look at Middle Eastern justice across the board, what happened is not atypical. They are big fans of swift, utterly brutal justice.
I think it was someone at the restaurant I work at once told me a story of when he visited Saudi Arabia. His guide took him all over the place and then they got to a public square. A man in the square was being put to death for something, and when they found out a westerner (or more specifically, an American) was in the crowd, he was rushed to the front of the crowd to get a first hand view and they chopped the guy's head off.
If we're so outraged by this, where's the big push from the West to reform Middle Eastern law? You'll have to forgive me, but I can't muster more support for mercy being given to SADDAM than any of the others who are killed or maimed for sometimes minor crimes. I realize he's a higher profile guy, and maybe some people see this as a poster child event for talking about the death penalty, but come on, other than sheer morality, I don't see any of the traditional arguments against the death penalty working with him.
Bottom line, what do you think would have happened to Saddam if any of the attempted overthrowings had worked in the last 20 years? What do you think would have happened if we'd turned him over and then evacuated all our troops from Iraq? I don't see any reason at all to blame the US. We would have been screwed no matter what we did, so we chose to back off and let them administer the type of justice they've chosen to adopt.
And I think China has MUCH bigger problems than golddiggers rumming amok. Farmland is being erased all over the country in the name of development, and waterways are being polluted as government inspectors ignore pollution guidelines. Factories have environmentally friendly scrubbers and cleaners to clean sewage and chemicals, but don't use them because they are too expensive, as the law only demands that they have them, not that they operate them.
They can develop their economy all they want, and steal our technology and defense secrets, but at the end of the day they seem to be doing a fine job of poisoning themselves without any help from us. We won't have to invade them to beat them, we'll just have to stop selling them bread.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), but torturing him wouldn't really help the world any more than just killing him would, IMO.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)