As you watch the Shiite government hang Saddam in Iraq, remember that the Shiite government hangs gay teenagers next door in Iran.
(http://clarityandresolve.com/ex_gay_kids_iran1.jpg)
(http://clarityandresolve.com/ex_gay_kids_iran2.jpg)
And many Iraqis support the execution from all signs. They are the ones who wanted him tried. They got the verdict they knew was correct and the punishment they felt fit the crime. Or at least was acceptable.
Left up to the tribal/street justice, Saddam would have been hanging upside down in front of a gas station a long time ago
yes it is so clear isn't it Delalluvia....so you approve of this?
the point is not whether Saddam 'had it coming' (most Shites also believe these two boys 'had it coming') it is whether we intend to be like him.
It strikes me watching the coverage about the things they list as his crimes and as evidence of his inhumanity...they include these: summary and quick executions of opponents (hmmm); his viewing of executions of opponents on video (how many times has it been shown on our tvs??)
surely you draw the line at lynching? It is not the majorities opinion that decides what is just...how many blacks and gays have been lynched because of that mindset?
We went into Iraq under false pretenses...whatever you think of Saddam.
If karma really does come around, then I am concerned for the safety of the United States.
OK, so you're asking, do I believe in capital punishment for EVERYTHING?
Of course not. That's ludicrous. For extreme violent crimes? For sociopaths/psychopaths? Most certainly.
That fits Saddam to a T.
The Iraqi people wanted him tried and approved of his execution. Are you saying that because people want a psychopathic mass murderer executed, punished for his crimes, that makes Joe in the Street exactly the same as Saddam?
Did they also list the outright murders, tortures and gassing of the Kurds? Hmmm.
Of course I draw the line at lynching. I believe in a justice system. Mine just happens to include captial punishment for extreme violent crimes, which I approve of.
I didn't say that gays and blacks that have been lynched are the same as Saddam...I am saying the PROCESS is the same.
the Shites do not have a just system set up...and there was no fair trial here.
We supported Saddam publically while he murdered people. and now we turn him over to a 'drumhead' trial. Letting other people do things we can not does not absolve us of guilt. I guess we will never know now just how much we supported him...and what deals he had made with our leaders.
and the ONE thing I have learned from being online? Not everything the news tells us is true.
Your first line was you support the death penalty. You didn't qualify it.
I am not in favor of the death penalty, so much so I have in my will that if I am murdered my killer is not to receive the death penalty.Wow - what a great step Truman. I agree - killing just leads to more anger and more killing.
...
killing them only satisfies a blood lust we need to evolve away from.
Reverend Phelps believes that gays are psychotic...and deserve to die
we were giving him money and hailing him as a friend even AFTER he did this...and now we are going to point in horror and say he deserves to die now? twenty years later? A little slow on the moral outrage aren't we?
you are aware that we have executed innocent people? How many innocent people are acceptable to you?
until we can make sure that rich white people are as likely to be executed as poor minorities and we can be SURE that we are not murdering innocent people I oppose the death penalty...that includes for people or groups I don't like
Yep. Many men in this world believe that women aren't as important as men and deserve to die for any rejection of them. Are Reverand Phieps and those kind of men the majority in this country? Nope.
It isn't the US that's trying him. It's the Iraqis. If they want to allow it, why not? It's their country.
Yes, I am aware of that. That's why I approve in this country of the very long appeal process. Give those condemned enough time for new information and technology to surface that might prove them innocent.
As to how many? Well, there is a famous quote - forget by who - that goes, "I'd rather see 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man be imprisoned" or something like that.
I think whoever said that lived in a time where one person had limited impact. A time before one person could fly a plane into a building and kill 15,000 people. A time before one person could set off a nuclear bomb/virus into a population and kill millions, before one person could access explosives and kill not only themselves, but many other people around them.
I'm not sure how many innocents are acceptable. I suppose sufficient before it becomes a liability to the rest. Are the needs of the many outweighed by the needs of the few?
I've heard this argument before and it makes no sense to me. If rich white people escaped the death penalty and poor minorities did not, that only means the rich people got off easy for the same crime. It doesn't mean the crime did not deserve the punishment the poor minorities got.
Hypothetically speaking, if Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo got the death penalty for his crimes and Ted Bundy did not, that just means Ted Bundy got off easy, it doesn't mean Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo didn't get what he had coming.
We can all have different opinions about the US invasion of Iraq and the execution of Saddam, but we can all agree that the world needs peace.
Too many people have lost their lives already ... we need peace .. and fast.
Don't worry. Karma is offset by lots of things. I don't think Saddam had as many good points to offset the bad.
but Wayne wasn't talking about Saddam..he was talking about the US...and at one time I would have agreed that we have enough good points to offset the bad...but the balance is tipping.
While I believe - in this case - his punishment was just, I think what everyone here can agree on is that the rights and wrongs of exceution are indeed complex and that that no one nation or person can be seen to be all innocent here.
What we can also all agree on is that at least here - on this forum and in our owne countries- we have a freedom of speech not available to the people of Iraq under Sadam.
The fact remains - Saadam did this and now he has been punished as he rightly should have been. Who else should be punished long with him and who knew what was going on...? Well thats a different question entirely. and one I feel we will not know - for certain - in any of our lifetimes.
A question to pose:
Saadam, like Hitler before him was an evil evil man - if Hitler had not committed suicide at that bunker, would the world have been happy for him to die a natural death in prison cell? I very much doubt it.
I foten wonder if it is like the Rwandan situation - these people can't shoult as load as their western counterparts - and therefore their voice is not heard.
Luise - very true - you got in before me as I was typing.
so by your reasoning when and if they DO become the majority it will be acceptable and moral to give the death penalty to whomever they choose?
[but it is not the Iraqis..it is the Shites...only PART of the country. and we had him in custody. So we are as culpable as they are.
absolutely! the entire history of civil rights is the protection of the needs of the few!
we will have to disagree here...if we can't deliver justice consistantly the system is broken and needs to be corrected...
If you know that there is a flaw in the system and still use it; then you are responsible for the results.
I was talking about the US as well. The US has done some really bad things, yes. We also still feed the world, give billions in charity and aid around the world in many forms.
I don't think Saddam had as many brownie points in his favor.
Yep, because by then, it will be their country. It will be acceptable and moral to them. I will have a differing opinon, obviously, so I probably wouldn't stay in that country.
But the Shiites are the majority of the population. We had him in custody to await the punishment as meted out by an Iraqi govenrment.
True, but in reality it doesn't work that way, otherwise we'd have minorities telling the entire nation what could and couldn't be done and what is that but an autocracy?
You mean punishment, don't you? A rich person can be tried for a crime and found gulty but not given the death penalty, while poor ones don't escape it. The justice system was consistent. It tried them both and found them both guilty. They will both be punished. It's just a matter of the degree.
So the justice system isn't broken.
Yes, but do you know of ANY system that doesn't have a flaw? If you wait for perfection, you will be waiting a long time.
so you believe that you can do bad things and get away with them if you do a nice thing in addition? I don't agree...doing wrong will harm you no matter how much good you do...you can't steal with one hand and give with the other then call yourself honorable.
there was a time we did things with honor...because we aspired to be a better people. we didn't take them summarily to the gas chambers in the concentration camps and throw them in....because we were NOT LIKE THEM...we won by being above them, not by laying in the dirt with them.
I have enjoyed debating with you...but that comment just goes too far for me.
Have a good day.
no he would have had a trial at Nurenburg with the rest of his cohorts...a public trial by people who were not his political rivals; with attorneys that were able to actually live thru the entire trial...competent attorneys. and then he would have been held until appeals were heard.
there was a time we did things with honor...because we aspired to be a better people. we didn't take them summarily to the gas chambers in the concentration camps and throw them in....because we were NOT LIKE THEM...we won by being above them, not by laying in the dirt with them.
That is what a good debate is about - its good we have the opportunity to do this. We wouldn't have in Sadam's Iraq.My understanding is that gay people won't have that opportunity under the new Shiite government in Iraq either. Under the Shiite government in Iran, they hang them (see the boys pictured above in Iran).
The US stands proudly with with our colleagues Iran, China, and the Congo in the right of the state to execute teenagers.
Besides Iran, only China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan and the United States are known to have put juvenile offenders to death in the past five years.
The U.S. executed nine juvenile offenders during this period; the other countries are each known to have put one juvenile offender to death. (http://www.globalgayz.com/iran-news05.html)
My understanding is that gay people won't have that opportunity under the new Shiite government in Iraq either. Under the Shiite government in Iran, they hang them (see the boys pictured above in Iran).
Jess - I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Can you explain what you mean a bit further?
Sadam had an appeal and it was not held. The Iraqi law WAS upheld in this instance - while some of us may not agree with it. While members of the defebce team were killed - so were there on the other side - and there was a TEAM in place to ensure that the trial was kept going.
And the gas chambers is exactly what Hitler did. And Sadam. Has anyone holding Sadam and his cohorts done this to the best of our knoweldge?
As I said before - we all have differing opinions in the subject - and there is no right or wrong answer against the death penalty.
That is what a good debate is about - its good we have the opportunity to do this. We wouldn't have in Sadam's Iraq.
Wayne
It is fine that they hung those boys for having being lovers...it was the majority opinion and their own country...they can kill whoever they choose. It was just and moral!!
What difference should it make to us? *SHRUG*
I am getting at...they (Nuremburg) waited until there was stability and the war was OVER before they started summarily executing people. I just do not understand this rush to execution...except in the light that the US leaders wanted it to be fast.
and Saddam DID rush people thru trials and execute them in a big rush...it is considered to be one of his crimes
The US stands proudly with with our colleagues Iran, China, and the Congo in the right of the state to execute teenagers.
Besides Iran, only China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan and the United States are known to have put juvenile offenders to death in the past five years.
The U.S. executed nine juvenile offenders during this period; the other countries are each known to have put one juvenile offender to death. (http://www.globalgayz.com/iran-news05.html)
I think anytime some's death is put up in the media for examination, it is sickening thing. I am not in favor of the death penalty, so much so I have in my will that if I am murdered my killer is not to receive the death penalty. People like Sadam deserve to be locked away for the rest of their days, killing them only satisfies a blood lust we need to evolve away from.
Too many people have lost their lives already ... we need peace .. and fast.
What difference should it make to us? *SHRUG*:laugh: Jess you such a relativist! ;)
I am getting at...they (Nuremburg) waited until there was stability and the war was OVER before they started summarily executing people. I just do not understand this rush to execution...except in the light that the US leaders wanted it to be fast..
'eye for an eye' justiceYep - and even when Jesus quoted it from the old testament, he said it was wrong! Doesn't fit with an "inerrancy of the scriptures" model. (maybe a little off-topic? sorry! :D )
Yep - and even when Jesus quoted it from the old testament, he said it was wrong! Doesn't fit with an "inerrancy of the scriptures" model. (maybe a little off-topic? sorry! :D )
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
Matthew 5 38-39, 46
What do you suggest we do? Invade?We invaded Iraq for less! :laugh: :laugh:
We invaded Iraq for less! :laugh: :laugh:
Yes, too bad few Christians ever followed these words.
Per the Christian story, Jesus was executed anyway. His attitude and teachings changed nothing. All it did was put a Christian veneer on the same people and instead of being open and honest about their warring actions, they turned to hypocrisy.
See Dubya "I'm a Christian but believe in starting wars for no reason" Bush for an example.
If no one wanted to exert their power over others, were enlightened, respected the rights of others, etc. then wars and executions would indeed be unnecessary to protect those who follow this idea. Unfortunately, the world has people who have absolutely no respect for others and think nothing of abusing or killing them. Self defense or defense of a society from these sorts is not unreasonable - indeed, not defending yourself and society from such people is what is unreasonable.
Someone posted earlier that killing was bad, period.
I believe in self-defense. If you killed someone defending yourself or your family, is it still a bad thing for you to have done? Should you have turned the other cheek and let your abusers do whatever they want?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:We are one, regardless! :laugh: :-*
OK, wdj, I just spat out my drink LMAO over this, hand me a napkin.
I oppose capital punishment just because I don't like to think of one person killing another person in cold blood. Let's face it, that's what it is. And if society pays them to do it that makes it worse. We PAY somebody to kill somebody? Yuck!
Someone posted earlier that killing was bad, period.
I believe in self-defense. If you killed someone defending yourself or your family, is it still a bad thing for you to have done? Should you have turned the other cheek and let your abusers do whatever they want?
but the Republicans held the majority...that makes it the right decision!
unfortunately, the world has people that feel if something does not affect them directly then it is not a problem...
That's how our government is run.I think there's more to it than that though. We don't just do what the majority say. One of the responsibilities of government is to protect minorities against the majority.
Can you even imagine the emotional cost it must entail for those charged with carrying out the execution, the prison guards, doctor, etc?
the sky is blueIs not!
Is not!
I think there's more to it than that though. We don't just do what the majority say. One of the responsibilities of government is to protect minorities against the majority.
Per the Christian story, Jesus was executed anyway.Uck - yeah - AND Peter (crucified, which I long knew) AND Paul (beheaded, which I only recently found out about ... :-\). It does not pay to disagree with authority. At least in the short term, first 300 or 400 years.
Don't know what to tell you. It's legal, a legally voted in government. I, too, howled when the Republicans were put back into power yet again last year. But what could I do? Dubya won by over a million votes.
Whose fault is it? Those million voters.
I can't live in the US, vote in a legal and - from all signs - as fair as possible election, then when someone I don't like is voted in, decide I no longer want to follow the rules. There are laws to protect the minorities, but as I pointed out to Jess earlier, to be exempt from following laws you don't like, legally you have to present a case to the state and prove that is it illegal or immoral.
Conscientious objection comes to mind.
morality and legality are decided by the majority so that would be pointless
Why did they put a scarf around his neck to prevent rope burn?
Why did they put a scarf around his neck to prevent rope burn?It was actually a hood he was supposed to wear but he did not want to wear it.
No, I don't think we should have the death penalty for lesser crimes. But for the inhumane? Why keep them around in a warm bed with 3 square meals a day?We don't seem to mind doing that for Rumsfeld, who was there right through the atrocities that Saddam was hanged for. And everybody loves Reagan - we didn't get around to hanging him.
Wag the Dog....we are talking and looking at Saddam...and not Bush.
Karl Rove studied Nazi techniques..and uses them very well