Saddam Hussein has been setenced to death. No surprise there.
The most frightening part is that 73% of Americans agree with this.
This is not 73% of Americans who agree that he is guilty, it is not 73% who believe that he deserves to die, it is 73% who believe that the court is right to kill him.
In other words, 73% of Americans believe that the most apropriate way to deal with a murderer is murder.
Added to the fact that the trial was itself a travesty (according to precedent, he should have been tried by a court consisting of British, American and Kuwaiti judges, not an Iraqi court which has no right to sentence for crimes comited across international borders. Nobody, aparently ever looked at the Nuremburg trials, they never do.)
No court has the legitimate power to issue a death sentence, this court, which is in violation of the only precedents avaidable, namely the Nuremburg and Tokyo courts and the more recent ICTY and ICTR.
And nobody seems to care.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Bull.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Thank you for your insightful and detailed opinion.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Figured it was all you deserved, this time.
The way you post, you will use enough words tfor everyone else in this thread.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Normaly a refusal to defend one's opinion is not the best way to win an argument, particularly when one's opinion is that sixty years of well-known legal precedent is "bull."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
What was the legal precedent FOR Nuremburg and Tokyo?
Not much, if any, at the time. I don't think Iraq cares, and I can't blame them.
Iraqi's held a trial, within their own borders, claiming that one of their previous leaders committed war crimes against his own people.
If the evidence isn't in question...and it isn't....then what is the problem? I could not care less about the procedural errors, and there were plenty.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Was anyone here expecting Sadaam to get acquitted and go for a Blizzard at a diary queen the following day? Get real.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Saddam Hussein has been setenced to death. No surprise there.
The most frightening part is that 73% of Americans agree with this.
This is not 73% of Americans who agree that he is guilty, it is not 73% who believe that he deserves to die, it is 73% who believe that the court is right to kill him.
In other words, 73% of Americans believe that the most apropriate way to deal with a murderer is murder.
Not all killing is murder. Saddam should die. It's a good thing.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"If the evidence isn't in question...and it isn't....then what is the problem? "
A man goes to die. That is the problem.
I have said before that no court has the right to issue a death sentence, and this court has less right than many.
Gecko, no. At first some people thought that he might get a fair trial, but this was clearly shown not to be the case as soon as it was announced that his case would not be heard in front of an international tribunal.
Ironicly, as the U.S. does not recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court, it has made its prefered alternative very clear: international tribunal.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Since the court tried him for crimes committed in Iraq against Iraqis, I would think Iraq would have juristiction. He did a lot of nasty stuff in Kuwait, but that's not what the trial was about. I think they got him for massacring Kurds in northern Iraq back in the 80s.
I'm not a big fan of the death sentence and wish they hadn't issued it, but I disagree that it's murder.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Not all killing is murder."
If Saddam were shooting at someone and was killed in a firefight, that would not be murder. As it is, he is now completely powerless.
"Saddam should die. It's a good thing."
You have made your peculiar love of death quite clear before. Your unique view of Judaism, which you have inevitably used to back your arguments, is not in accordance with the beliefs of most westerners, including the vast majority of Jews.
Let us punish as we did Robert-François Damiens, and then let us burn Voltaire as we march gloriously backwards to the era when justice was not contaminated by the Enlightenment. Justice for all, religious courts, tribal courts, trial by combat, trial by ordeal! Down with Liberalism, down with Humanism, down with Mercy, down with Justice, long live Vengence! Might Makes Right!
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Hmmmm, if a man goes to die is your problem, then ok. One thing is out of the way. Your opinion that is. Either way, I believed he should have died for his crimes long ago. That is my opinion. Now, I don't expect many people to agree with me, but oh well.
It may have been a joke as to how he was tried, but I'm not in total disagreement with it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I have said before that no court has the right to issue a death sentence
And yet we didn't all agree with you.
Repeating it isn't going to change that.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Pel, respectfully, you're being a bit condescending, and rude. I did have plans to come in here and discuss my views, but really, I don't think your looking for a discussion. I will follow the thread, though, and should things change, I'll jump in. Until then.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Down with liberalism and enlightenment like the French Revolution and the Guillotine?
Saddam Hussein not only failed to adequately protect the rights and lives of his citizens, he actively usurped both. Handing him over to them for disposal may not be especailly kind or liberal, but it is hardly unjust.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Let us punish as we did Robert-François Damiens, and then let us burn Voltaire as we march gloriously backwards to the era when justice was not contaminated by the Enlightenment. Justice for all, religious courts, tribal courts, trial by combat, trial by ordeal! Down with Liberalism, down with Humanism, down with Mercy, down with Justice, long live Vengence! Might Makes Right!
What a ludicrous straw man, Pel. Assuming the possibility that Hussein's trial -- or any capital punishment trial -- was not a kangaroo court, is it not possible that trial by judge and jury can reach a capital conviction without becoming an antiquated relic of a pre-rational age?
To put it another way: why should someone's tax dollars go to housing and guarding someone who will never be permitted to walk free in society and who will never be permitted to contribute to society again?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"is it not possible that trial by peers can reach a capital conviction without becoming an antiquated relic of a pre-rational age?"
No. Vengence is not a rational desire.
"why should someone's tax dollars go to housing and guarding someone who will never be permitted to walk free in society and who will never be permitted to contribute to society again?"
Seeing as life imprissionment is generaly considerably cheaper than even the trial process that goes on for a capital case, this is a non-issue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Added to the fact that the trial was itself a travesty (according to precedent, he should have been tried by a court consisting of British, American and Kuwaiti judges, not an Iraqi court which has no right to sentence for crimes comited across international borders.
OK, let's discuss.
1.) What is the precedent that says he should be tried by "a court consisting of British, American and Kuwaiti judges"? In what way is this precedent binding on Iraq?
2.) The crimes he has been convicted of are crimes that occurred in Iraq, against Iraqis. Why do you mention the "international border"?
3.) Even were your facts correct concerning which crimes he has been sentenced for, why do you think an Iraqi court has no jurisdiction because of the border? Every western democracy I'm aware of asserts criminal jurisdiction over certain acts committed abroad, acts both by its citizens and against its citizens. Now, this may be incorrect, but you're arguing precedent. Please cite the precedent if you wish to argue it.
4.) You seem to be suggesting that Hussein has been sentenced for crimes against Kuwait. Even were that true - again, it's not - the plans for invading Kuwait were made in Iraq. Overt acts in preparation for that invasion were committed in Iraq. At least in jurisdictions with their roots in English common law (U.K., Ireland, Canada, Australia, etc.), this is enough to grant jurisdiction to a court in Iraq.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I doubt that it will be so expensive to hang Hussein over there as it would be to kill him over here.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's cheaper to kill him than not.
quote: Vengence is not a rational desire.
Neither is justice.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Seeing as life imprissionment is generaly considerably cheaper than even the trial process that goes on for a capital case, this is a non-issue.
By that logic, would it not be cheaper to simply kill people immediately, without appeals, rather than granting decades of stays and appeals? I'm just saying that, if cost is a consideration, then mercy appears to be the major expense in this calculation.
Why do you believe it is more humane to imprison someone for life than to kill them? Keep in mind that it's not purely for "vengeance" that someone is imprisoned and/or killed; it's to remove the possibility that they might further harm society. Sadly, we don't have penal colonies in this country to which we can exile people we can't kill but don't want to keep around.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I have said before that no court has the right to issue a death sentence
And yet we didn't all agree with you.
Repeating it isn't going to change that.
Exactaly.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Down with Liberalism, down with Humanism, down with Mercy, down with Justice, long live Vengence! Might Makes Right!
Whatever. I'm not going to shed any tears for a mass murderer being put to death. The entire world knows Saddam is guilty of crimes against humanity--for Pel to label a death sentence "a travesty of justice" in this case is pitiful. The court was irregular, you could even call it a kangaroo court. Considering all the people involved in the trial who were murdered just for participating or just being related to someone involved in the trial, it's a miracle it was even finished.
While I'm against the death penalty in general because I don't think it can be administered justly, fairly and equitably across a population, some people certainly deserve death for their actions. And Saddam is probably in the top hundred in that category worldwide. Good riddance.
I'm am concerned about the upcoming military tribunals of enemy combatants. Unlike Saddam, some of them could be innocent and get railroaded.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Sadly, we don't have penal colonies in this country to which we can exile people we can't kill but don't want to keep around.
You know, if you could figure out a way to make penal colonies a reality again, there could be some serious money made.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
And yet every major religion, with the possible exception of Islam, and almost every post-Enlightenment thinker does agree with me, as do the governments of all but one industrialized democracy.
Clearly I am hardly alone.
" Please cite the precedent if you wish to argue it."
I have cited four, but I will narrow it down to the two most relevent, and obvious: ICTY and ICTR. Note that, in both cases, the defendents are accused of crimes within their own borders but of a type so egregious in regions so unstable that international trials were felt to be in order. It is hardly possible to argue that Saddam's actions were not egregious or that Iraq is not unstable.
[edited for clarity]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And yet every major religion, with the possible exception of Islam, and almost every post-Enlightenment thinker does agree with me
So, by definition, they're only "thinkers" if they agree with you, I guess.
quote:Clearly I am hardly alone.
I thought that you already established (by the fact that you're in the minority in this country, and you're right) that just because you have lots of company doesn't make you correct.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Further, I'm not convinced a life term with no parole shouldn't have the exact same appeal privileges. The punishment is so severe that it seems to deserve the highest level of review we make available to anyone.
The fiction we indulge ourselves in now is that the difference in appeals available is justified because a life sentence can be "corrected" whereas death is irreversible. This certainly is a reason why the former sentence can be begun prior to the end of appeals, but it shouldn't mean that the protections offered should be any less.
In other words, assume it would not be just to give a lower level of review in capital cases because of the level of punishment. Then the death penalty is only more expensive because we don't give the level of review to life in prison that we should.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Every major religion does not agree with you on this issue, Pel. You're not alone, but don't make melodramatic claims with no substance.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Serious question, Pel:
What do you mean when you say that Christianity agrees with you? Are you saying that most Christians in the world agree with you, or that most Christian denominations teach as doctrine that capitol punishment is wrong? Or that the important Christian theologians agree with you? Or something else entirely?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...an Iraqi court which has no right to sentence for crimes committed across international borders."
quote:I have cited four, but I will narrow it down to the two most relevent, and obvious: ICTY and ICTR. Note that, in both cases, the defendents are accused of crimes within their own borders but of a type so egregious in regions so unstable that international trials were felt to be in order. It is hardly possible to argue that Saddam's actions were not egregious or that Iraq is not unstable.
That's the extent you wish to discuss this? Choose a different word than "discuss," then.
Just because a court acted in a certain way once doesn't mean they did so because of the attributes you are citing. You can't say, "Court X once tried people accused of similar crimes in an international court rather than national courts" and consider that precedent.
Did the court rule that this was the only way that would have been legitimate? Did the court list the factors that should be considered when making a similar decision in the future? Heck, does the court have binding authority over this case? If not, its precedents are merely persuasive at best.
And, considering they almost certainly may be used only for persuasion, not authority, it would behoove you to demonstrate the applicability of the precedent to Hussein's case with more than "because I said they were similar."
You've cited two factors: heinousness of crime and instability. Can you demonstrate that the factors for evaluating each are present here? Can you demonstrate that there weren't any other factors considered by the court? Can you demonstrate that the court considered this decision necessary rather than merely an acceptable option?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Down with Liberalism, down with Humanism, down with Mercy, down with Justice, long live Vengence! Might Makes Right!
You know, I really shouldn't have bothered wasting my time in this thread, but I glossed over this.
Restating the position of people who disagree with you in the manner quoted here is dishonest. If you aren't capable of discussing this, please don't bother starting the thread.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Are you saying that most Christians in the world agree with you, or that most Christian debominations teach as doctrine that capitol punishment is wrong? Or that the important Christian theologians agree with you?"
Jesus said
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also…"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."
In adition, the Roman Catholic Church is probably the single biggest anti-Captial Punishment lobby in the world. Most other mainline denominations, such as Episcopalians and Methodists, are also oposed to capital punishment. l So really, all three.
"Every major religion does not agree with you on this issue, Pel. "
Would you like me to cite scripture that demonstrates that Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism are anti-Capital punishment?
It is true that Hinduism and Judaism tend to equivocate, but Buddhism and Christianity are very clear.
Most Jewish theologians are also clear in their oposistion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The Catholic Church specifically does not teach that the scripture you cited opposed capital punishment, Pel. The teaching is far more nuanced than the way you have summarized it here.
Although I think that the Church's teachings come out Hussein's execution given the details, it would evaluate the temporal attributes of the situation before deciding. If it is wrong, it is not wrong because all capital punishment is wrong, but wrong because the circumstances are such that it is not justified.
Big difference from the simplistic explanation you're giving here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'd say it can't be all that clear, considering the large number of Christians who don't believe that capital punishment is wrong (including myself), but I just wanted to know what you meant.
quote:Would you like me to cite scripture that demonstrates that Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism are anti-Capital punishment?
No thanks. While the verse you quoted from the New Testament certain can be used in an anti-capital punshiment argument, it is by no means universally agreed to mean that.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The Roman Catholic Church, like most Jewish thinkers but unlike Buddhism, does not teach that Capital punishment is theoreticly always wrong. It does however, teach that the conditions in which it is acceptable are unlikely ever to occur.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just don't believe in the death penalty period. There's something about a government or a court putting its people to death that makes me feel uneasy. Plus it's too easy on the criminal. A quick death and that's all over. Not like the poor victims that suffered for ages. I say keep them in a prison that is as spartan as possible so they can really suffer and attone for their crimes. Also I hope they do not show pictures afterwards of him being hung. I once saw these pictures of a man who was a hostage being hung on the news. They just kept showing it. It was traumatizing.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
So you feel uneasy and are morally opposed to giving criminals the quick release of death, but you condone toruring them in a prison system for the rest of their lives?
There is something warped about that, isn't there?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I believe they should make it cheaper for capital punishment. I don't think it should be slow. Quick is good. Slow is definately cruel and unusual. Now hanging, if done right, snaps the neck and all is good to go. If done wrong, the guy just hangs there strangling to death.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If I were ever executed, I'd like a choice of how I wanted to die.
I might choose the guillotine.
I would not choose lethal injection.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Guillotine is harsh. There is still debate how long you are alive after your head has been severed.
The drop in blood preassure would be so great that you probably wouldn't realize you were still alive, though.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
mph, I know what I would choose, but it may be much too inappropriate to say on this forum. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pel, you are incorrect in your summation of Jewish thought.
Shocking, really.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: So you feel uneasy and are morally opposed to giving criminals the quick release of death, but you condone toruring them in a prison system for the rest of their lives?
There is something warped about that, isn't there?
Not really. If they have commited a severe crime, hurting entire families worth of people, why should they get off easy with a few minutes of suffering compared to the years of suffering they have given. I say keep them in jail for life and don't even let them out until they are too old to do anything. Death is too easy for them.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Why not lethal injection, mph? (just curious)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I was more thinking of being given a multiple-choice exectution, not an essay problem.
Because if I could die anyway I wanted, it would be of old age after a long, happy, free life.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Synesthesia, what about people who believe in the after-life, and such?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Would you like me to cite scripture that demonstrates that Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism are anti-Capital punishment?
It is true that Hinduism and Judaism tend to equivocate, but Buddhism and Christianity are very clear.
While I'm not a practicing Hindu, I probably have the most background in the subject of any of the Hatrack posters - so I'd like to come out quickly and say that, while some sects of Hinduism may not believe in captial punishment, this is in no way true for the majority of Hindus. Most of the great Hindu epics (which teach virtue) have a lot of killing in them, and raise the question of "when is it okay to kill so-and-so [some relation to me] for so-and-so [some crime committed]? Not if is okay, period, when.
You'd have better luck with Jainism, Pel, but then you're going to lose the whole "major world religion" thing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Pel, you are incorrect in your summation of Jewish thought.
<dryly> For a change.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: And yet every major religion, with the possible exception of Islam, and almost every post-Enlightenment thinker does agree with me, as do the governments of all but one industrialized democracy.
First of all, Islam, like Christianity, is not one giant, homogeneous group. There are plenty of Christians who believe in the death penalty.
Secondly, why is it news that many Americans support the death penalty? This isn't new.
-pH
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I'd also like to take a stance on the whole "Every major religion" thing. I'm a devout Christian. I take my beliefs VERY seriously. I can guarantee I've done a more thorough study of the Bible then you have Pel, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that I believe that the death penalty is acceptable, and have zero qualms about it.
However, I'm not going to defend it. Because I don't have the time or the energy. And, as has been noted, I don't think you created this thread to "discuss" this issue. By some definitions, you could be considered trolling. I don't appreciate that.
I like you Pel. So I'm going to stay out of this thread.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
The guy sure looks like plant food to me...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Let us punish as we did Robert-François Damiens, and then let us burn Voltaire as we march gloriously backwards to the era when justice was not contaminated by the Enlightenment. Justice for all, religious courts, tribal courts, trial by combat, trial by ordeal! Down with Liberalism, down with Humanism, down with Mercy, down with Justice, long live Vengence! Might Makes Right!
HOW TO STRAWMAN WITH FLOURISH, BY PELEGIUS
Step one: find people who don't agree with you on the use of the death penalty
Step two: acccuse them of essentially being morally antithetical to civilization itself, desiring only to march lockstep into dystopian barbarism!
Step three: ???
Step four: Profit!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I also think that a lot of people, such as myself, who usually are very divided about the death penalty have no such qualms when regarding cases like Saddam's.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Added to the fact that the trial was itself a travesty (according to precedent, he should have been tried by a court consisting of British, American and Kuwaiti judges, not an Iraqi court which has no right to sentence for crimes comited across international borders. Nobody, aparently ever looked at the Nuremburg trials, they never do.)
I'm not so sure that an international court would have made the trials appear much more legitimate. Including more coalition powers would make it look like a victor's trial, and including Kurdish representatives would make it a victim's trial. Including Iran - there's a curious idea (I'm not suggesting it's preferable, of course). And remember that Tokyo and Nuremberg were also considered travesties of justice by many at the time. For example, Unit 731, which conducted biological warfare experiments on Chinese civilians, escaped punishment by trading the results of their research with the Americans.
I'm not saying that Tokyo and Nuremberg were a joke on justice, that Goering should not have been hanged, or that American occupation policy was oppressive (it was not - in fact it was positively humane). Only that it is very difficult for a victorious power to set up a court with any appearance of legitimacy, especially after the country has been cleared (to the best of their ability) of supporters of the old regime - the regime which is on trial. Also, Tokyo and Nuremberg were trials without precedent. The fact that they are the only precedents available doesn't necessarily make them good ones to follow.
I'm hardly surprised that 73% of Americans believed the sentence was justified, after almost 3000 US troops have been killed toppling Hussein's regime. Who knows how many Iraqis and Kurds he is responsible for killing?
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: No court has the legitimate power to issue a death sentence, this court, which is in violation of the only precedents avaidable, namely the Nuremburg and Tokyo courts and the more recent ICTY and ICTR.
It seems that the majority of America doesn't agree with you on the matter of capital punishment, at least when it concerns PoW's (a distinction for another thread, perhaps) responsible for crimes against humanity.
[ November 05, 2006, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I also think that a lot of people, such as myself, who usually are very divided about the death penalty have no such qualms when regarding cases like Saddam's.
Agreed.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Sam, too funny, only made more so because it's accurate. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"The Roman Catholic Church, like most Jewish thinkers but unlike Buddhism, does not teach that Capital punishment is theoreticly always wrong. It does however, teach that the conditions in which it is acceptable are unlikely ever to occur.."
"Pel, you are incorrect in your summation of Jewish thought."
But less so than your own implication, rivka. Due to the highly restrictive conditions under which Jewish Law allows the death penalty to be applied, even though Israel has carried the death penalty since its founding -- and plenty of homicides which fit the criteria of murder -- Israel has applied the death penalty once: on May31st1962 against AdolfEichmann, architect of the FinalSolution/Holocaust/Shoah.
Admittedly, Israeli military/intelligence services have carried out politically-ordered assassinations against military foes when extraction&rendition into the jurisdiction of Israeli courts was deemed impractical. However, those assassinations were&are undertaken on contemporaneous threats: ie military equivalents of police shooting a known-to-be-homicidal armed thug who refuses to surrender during the commission of a heinous crime. As far as can be determined, assassinations aren't used for revenge or as punishment for past crimes.
[ November 06, 2006, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I could do a point-by-point rebuttal. But it's not worth my time.
Let me simply say that Jewish Law applies only to Jews; that the policies of the State of Israel have little to do with Jewish Law; and that there is no consensus regarding the death penalty in secular law in Jewish thought. There are strong points of view on both sides, though.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
And the fact that Israel's covert operations against terrorists were not used for revenge or punishment is very much open to debate.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Which is why I used "As far as can be determined" as the qualifier. But it is known that many who have engaged in actions resulting in crimes against humanity (eg WWII war criminals) or murder (eg planners and enablers of suicide bombings, missile attacks, skyjackings, etc) have been allowed to keep their freedom until they could safely be brought into Israeli custody. Assassinations seem to be reserved for those thought to be actively participating in on-going suicide-bombing/etc campaigns.
[ November 06, 2006, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Without getting into all the details of the thread, I agree with Pel's statement that killing Sadaam isn't justice, it's vengeance.
While Sadaam did unthinkably monstrous things, he is still a human, and humans have the capacity to change. His death will not bring about any good in the world. It will solve nothing and only cause more hate. Sadaam would not be a danger to anyone any more. People talk about the 'cost' of keeping people alive in prison--but I say it's worth it for the sake of human decency.
Someday, I imagine we'll look back at capital punishment as a barbaric act committed by people who didn't know any better.
[ November 06, 2006, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Launchywiggin ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Justice, at least as it's normally characterized, can contain a number of reasons for certain punishments, such as rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence, and protecting the safety of the community. I think that killing Saddam can be argued to be justice based on the last three: that he has done wrong, and must be punished for it (the scales of justice need to be balanced), that killing him may give pause to other would-be-dictators, and that the Iraqi people may never feel safe - and may in fact not be safe - until he is dead.
You can argue that we should base our justice system purely on rehabilitation, or that the calculation of costs and benefits (of safety, deterrence, and regular monetary concerns) point towards keeping him alive. But simply saying that we cannot call capital punishment justice is wrong. Retribution, as carried out by the state (not individuals - that's vengeance), can be catagorized as justice.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Or one could look at the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed in sectarian and political violence since the overthrow of Saddam, and come to the conclusion that Dubya should hang with Saddam. As well as Dubya's daddy for allowing Saddam's forces to cross US military lines to suppress the Shi'ite rebellion that GeorgeHerbertWalkerBush himself encouraged. And dig up Reagan to hang alongside for aiding Saddam in gassing the Kurds.
quote:Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. *
When retribution even by the state is all too randomly applied, people should leave any irrevocably final justice to Allah.
* With thanks to Dagonee for finding the more correct version of Tolkein's words.
[ November 06, 2006, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
aspectre -
If you read some of the Middle Eastern news sources, that is PRECISELY what people are saying. Bush should be executed for what has happened to the civilians, Olmert should be executed for what happened to the Lebanese. The Shiites are happy, the Kurds are happy, (mostly, for both), but the Sunnis by and large are pissy in most places, and some of those places are where our current relations are still somewhat friendly, like Jordan.
With Saddam, I'm of mixed opinion. Personally I like the prescription given by Josh in the episode of the West Wing titled "Isaac and Ishmael." He said that terrorists should be locked in a room and forced to watch home movies of the people they killed, and every night before they go to bed, they got punched once in the mouth, every night by a different volunteer, and there'd be a long list.
I suppose that counts as torture, and I guess most Kurds don't have video cameras anyway, so it wouldn't matter, but I like the sentiment of it. Force Saddam to live every day staring at the face of people he had killed.
But really, I have trouble coming up with sympathy for someone who ordered chemical weapons used on women and children. And either way, who are any of us to impose our legal system on another FREE nation? If the people of Iraq choose to live with the death penalty, as they have done since the days when Ur was the hot spot to be, that is their decision. Saddam was tried by Iraqis, as an Iraqi, for crimes against Iraqis, and punished by Iraqi law, punished by a system he never gave the benefit of to any whom he had summarily executed.
And for Europe, I see even less real reason to complain. The majority of them sat it out, but now they want to jump in after the fact and try to impart judgement? Sorry, late to the game, and you don't get to play.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
A large minority of Americans failed to support going to war in Iraq. Should they too receive a "you don't get to play" when voicing their opinions? How about when voting?
While some folks self-induce sympathy for the condemned in order convince themselves to oppose the death penalty, many-and-possibly-most of us have no such sympathy. Opposition to the death penalty is purely pragmatic: There is no homicide more cold-blooded than execution-by-state. "The stronger (in this case the state) can kill the weaker (in this case the individual) with impugnity." gives precedent to those who have private motives for murder, and for the state to include ever increasing numbers of lesser crimes as capital crimes. If the state murders an innocent man -- and execution of an innocent is always murder, irrespective of 'i's dotted and the 't's crossed -- is there any practical way to execute the state to balance the scales? The state -- especially a FirstWorld nation -- always has the option of inescapeable imprisonment to prevent repetition of the crime by those found guilty. We aren't talking about a handul of people trapped on an island with a homicidal maniac waiting for them to fall asleep before renewing his killings. People are fallible, and mobs of people are even more so. Relying on trained manipulators (judges and lawyers) to move a mob into rendering infallible verdicts is absurd. Since verdicts cannot be infallible and death is irrevocable, judgments should not include death as an option.
[ November 06, 2006, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The guy sure looks like plant food to me...
He's so nasty, treating them rough, Smacking them around and always talking so tough We need blood and he's got more than enough!
So go get it!
(I played Orin Scrivello, DDS. What a lovely musical.)
Will Hussein's death be a rallying point for insurgents?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: In adition, the Roman Catholic Church is probably the single biggest anti-Captial Punishment lobby in the world. Most other mainline denominations, such as Episcopalians and Methodists, are also oposed to capital punishment. l So really, all three.
You forgot to mention the Southern Baptists, which I believe is the largest denomination in the US.
Oh wait, maybe you didn't forget.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I am firmly against the death penalty.
I also don't think Saddam's trial would've passed the laugh test in the US or British systems.
I am surprised on a daily basis to learn that Saddam hasn't simply been torn apart by an angry mob.
My sense of justice is that the man's life is forfeit and whatever bad happens to him now is of his own making, practically inevitable, and certainly easily foreseeable.
Having said that, however, I still do not condone the death penalty in this or any other case. I suspect that he is a wealth of information for Americans and we could learn a great deal about the consequences of our past foreign policies from this man. I suspect that society could get a lot of benefit from studying him from a psychological point of view.
The death penalty is a waste of an opportunity, imo.
It is something that should give us pause from a moral point of view, even in the case of a murdering, abusive power-mad individual like Saddam.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You forgot to mention the Southern Baptists, which I believe is the largest denomination in the US.
Nah, they're way behind the Catholics.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Due to the highly restrictive conditions under which Jewish Law allows the death penalty to be applied, even though Israel has carried the death penalty since its founding -- and plenty of homicides which fit the criteria of murder -- Israel has applied the death penalty once: on May31st1962 against AdolfEichmann, architect of the FinalSolution/Holocaust/Shoah.
Heh. This is funny. Where did you get the idea that the restrictions on capital punishment in Jewish law have any influence whatsoever on what the State of Israel does and does not do?
Those laws pertain to the Sanhedrin, which does not currently exist.
So Rivka's comment about Pelegius' ignorance was absolutely spot on.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Sorry, largest Protestant denomination.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Opposing viewpoints on capital punishment in Jewish thought -- all from the same blog. (These are all from when Tookie Williams was executed last year.)
I happen not to entirely agree with any of those viewpoints, and have argued (both the specific case and the more general issue) the matter with one of the bloggers in person. Repeatedly.
But it should be clear that there are some very different opinions -- and this isn't the entire spectrum of Jewish thought, or even close to it.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: Opposition to the death penalty is purely pragmatic: There is no homicide more cold-blooded than execution-by-state. "The stronger (in this case the state) can kill the weaker (in this case the individual) with impugnity." gives precedent to those who have private motives for murder, and for the state to include ever increasing numbers of lesser crimes as capital crimes. If the state murders an innocent man -- and execution of an innocent is always murder, irrespective of 'i's dotted and the 't's crossed -- is there any practical way to execute the state to balance the scales? The state -- especially a FirstWorld nation -- always has the option of inescapeable imprisonment to prevent repetition of the crime by those found guilty. We aren't talking about a handul of people trapped on an island with a homicidal maniac waiting for them to fall asleep before renewing his killings. People are fallible, and mobs of people are even more so. Relying on trained manipulators (judges and lawyers) to move a mob into rendering infallible verdicts is absurd. Since verdicts cannot be infallible and death is irrevocable, judgments should not include death as an option.
This is coming from a guy who hardly ever agrees with you aspectre, but in this case I agree with a lot of what you're saying there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: A large minority of Americans failed to support going to war in Iraq. Should they too receive a "you don't get to play" when voicing their opinions? How about when voting?
Not the same thing, for several reasons.
First of all, while they might have withheld aural support, they are still paying for the war whether they like it or not. And whether they like it or not, the actions of America effect how the world perceives Americans, regardless of the personal feelings of the individual, they'll still be painted with the "blood thirsty Americans" monniker by many around the world.
How they vote is how they express their will for or against the war.
With few exceptions, Europe offered no support for the war, and not only did they not offer support, they criticized the effort from the start, and haven't shut up since. They can talk all they want, it's their right to talk. But at the end of the day, when we totally ignore them, I can't imagine they'll really be surprised as to why.
Decisions are made by those who show up. They decided not to.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Saddam was just a thug with unlimited power, nothing to learn there, seen it a thousand times. Let him die and flush him like the moral mouse he is.
Pay Per View on the hanging is a good idea, the proceeds could go to the Families of his victims.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
quote:
quote: Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
When retribution even by the state is all too randomly applied, people should leave any irrevocably final justice to Allah.
Yes. Tolkein was much wiser than many give him credit for
We consider oursleves too wise and too mighty if we believe it our right to weigh human life on a scale and find it wanting, and then proceed to end life.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe someone should send an Arabic translation of Fellowship to Baghdad.
Otherwise, this is a moot point, especially when talking about American involvement. Iraqi crime, Iraqi court, Iraqi citizens, Iraqi justice.
Who are we to dictate morality to them Pelegius? We who went to Iraq and tore up their nation out of self interest.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
A garden is pruned, a widerness is nice but it does not serve the needs of mankind best.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: A garden is pruned, a widerness is nice but it does not serve the needs of mankind best.
Nor does spelling, apparently. Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Who are we to dictate morality to them Pelegius?"
We speak as one risen ape to another, pointing out what new light we have found. I wonder if Plato realized that it is better to see shadows of truth than to stare at a blank cave wall. Probably, although I dislike Plato so much that I would rather think him less astute.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Who are we to dictate morality to them Pelegius?"
We speak as one risen ape to another, pointing out what new light we have found. I wonder if Plato realized that it is better to see shadows of truth than to stare at a blank cave wall. Probably, although I dislike Plato so much that I would rather think him less astute.
Do you really think we've found any light? I mean, really? What makes us better? As Lyr said, we willfully went into their country and destroyed things. And we are the better ones why?
We're the ones who were stupid enough not to bat an eye at "Afghanistan, Afghanistan......IRAQ!" It's like a sick, twisted duck-duck-goose.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Who are we to dictate morality to them Pelegius?"
We speak as one risen ape to another, pointing out what new light we have found. I wonder if Plato realized that it is better to see shadows of truth than to stare at a blank cave wall. Probably, although I dislike Plato so much that I would rather think him less astute.
We didn't come from apes, apes and humans came from a common ancestor. So I guess you could say apes are fallen humans, if you want to put it that way.
We have no moral authority over there Pelegius. Any and all authority we have is at the point of a gun. You don't invade a country, become the source of their ire, and the one who is blamed for the deaths of women and children, and then have the audacity to tell them they shouldn't kill the man who ordered the deaths of thousands of their civilians. Oh, and you ESPECIALLY don't do it when you promised to protect them and then leave them high and dry.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I don't sound like Pelegius when I talk, do I?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Admittidly, I haven't been following the court proceedings of Sadam, but I do not feel that a death centance was unwarented or a gross misscarage of justice.
quote:jus‧tice [juhs-tis] –noun 1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. 2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice. 3. the moral principle determining just conduct. 4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment. 5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward. 6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice. 7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community. 8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate. 9. (initial capital letter) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice. —Idioms 10. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice. 11. do justice, a. to act or treat justly or fairly. b. to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice. c. to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)