posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was anyone here expecting Sadaam to get acquitted and go for a Blizzard at a diary queen the following day? Get real.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
