Saddam Executed Soon

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dustin wrote:

I think you underestimate the American governments influence on the international community.[/quote]

Ridiculous - like who? Our European brethren who love nothing more than to tout how independent they are of the American cowboy? Russia - who takes orders from no one and would have vetoed a UN Resolution going into the Balkans to rescue the Serbs in one of the foremost humanitarian missions of the 1990s? China - a totalitarian supergiant who will veto sanctions against North Korea?

Stop wasting my time.

And, considering every reason given by the Bush administration to invade Iraq has fallen flat on its face, I see no reason to believe anything they say.

Every single one? In over 20 counts?

And you miss the point - the US only cared about the threat of WMDs. They happen not to be there - so what? Saddam bluffed, we called. If the WMDs happened to not be there, that is actually good news, not bad news - and it is Saddam’s problem, not ours.

Believe them if you wish.

I’ll believe the facts as they exist rather than your fanciful presentation of warmed over “no blood for oil!” histrionics.

Of course, they violated UN sanctions for what, a decade? Conveniently though, in 2003, UN sanctions and the violation of them became important.

Well, you will have to take up Saddam’s violations throughout the 1990s with the Clinton administration and generally, Kofi Annan.

But more specific to the point - after 9-11, of course all kinds of new ‘old’ things became important. The attack completely changed our view of security in the world, and Iraq got measured through that new approach.

It was a weak argument then, and it seems even more ridiculous now.

First, assuming it was a weak argument, that doesn’t mean it was a ‘lie’, as you have tried to pass off. A ‘lie’ is a willful deception when you know the truth to be something else. Here, we had imperfect information. No problem, you don’t have to like the choice made with the imperfect information - perfectly debatable - but don’t try and convince anyone it was a ‘lie’.

My point from the beginning of this thread was that the execution of Saddam doesn’t benefit the U.S, and I stand by that comment.

Good, then stick with that, because the rest of your material is suspect. I happen to believe that Saddam’s death won’t do much for the US either.

[vroom]

It’s fascinating, though strange, to see so many people clamoring on behalf of death and revenge killings.

I do understand a desire for justice, but I don’t know if a more expensive way to achieve it could have been found in this instance.

I think you’ve made a very bad trade.

[n3wb]

holy crap! Professor X is unstoppable

[TQB]

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
TQB wrote:

M’lud, I rest my case. 2000 years of jurisprudence vindicated.

I don’t understand how you rested your case? Is this your attempt at smug sarcasm? Did you not think I was going to call you out on this intellectually lazy answer?

Thank you for illustrating how completely full of shit most of you Europeans are when it comes to this argument.

But to recap let’s try it again:

1. You are disturbed when people celebrate the death of a mass murderer seemingly oblivious to what Saddam Hussein did to a vast majority of his country for over 20 years.

2. You call “victim’s rights” a disease? That is just beyond fucked up.

3. Then you have the audacity to claim if you have beef with a murderer to “sue” (presumably civilly - since you can’t sue in criminal context) - funny, that didn’t work too well for the families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, now did it?

So I ask you again - how is your case rested or jurisprudence vindicated?

[/quote]

And a happy new year to you, too.

But as you called me out,

1. I agree that many people celebrated Saddam’s death. The point is that the criminal process has to be separated from what “people” do. The great revolution that happened in justice about 2000 years ago was to remove the plaintiff in criminal cases and replace him with society. This is crucial element in any functioning judicial system and it matters because it removes the ELEMENT OF REVENGE. One of the Founding Fathers (Madison?) put it best when he said the the Bill of Rights was needed, not to protect right-thinking people, but to protect us from right-thinking people. The real intellectual laziness comes when you abandon this to gratify a sense of revenge.

2. This brings me to the next question, what the role of the victim is in a criminal trial, namely to support the case against the defendant. When you in addition give the victim a say in the penalty, you are again introducing revenge in a criminal trial.

3. My memory is that the families of Goldman and Brown Simpson won the civil trial and were awarded damages. Obviously this does not compensate for the farce that was the criminal trial, but I fail to see how victims right representation in the criminal trial would have supported your contention, as OJ was acquitted by the jury?

TQB

[Dustin]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And you miss the point - the US only cared about the threat of WMDs. They happen not to be there - so what? Saddam bluffed, we called. If the WMDs happened to not be there, that is actually good news, not bad news - and it is Saddam’s problem, not ours.
[/quote]

I believe you are missing an evening bigger point. The U.S. invaded a country based weak evidence on false pretenses. In doing so we opened a hornets nest and have set up problems that Americans a generation from now will still be dealing with. That is bad news and it is our problem, not Saddam’s.

I’ll believe the facts as they exist rather than your fanciful presentation of warmed over “no blood for oil!” histrionics.

There were no WMDs, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Now the Bush administration says we’re in Iraq because Saddam was a bad man.

You can label me however you want, but I refuse to believe the propaganda machine that is the American media.

But more specific to the point - after 9-11, of course all kinds of new ‘old’ things became important. The attack completely changed our view of security in the world, and Iraq got measured through that new approach.

I understand that thinking, but there are other countries who are similar to Iraq that the Bush administration doesn’t apply that thinking to. North Korea undoubtedly is more of threat than Iraq ever was.

No problem, you don’t have to like the choice made with the imperfect information - perfectly debatable - but don’t try and convince anyone it was a ‘lie’.

I doubt I need to convince many people that it was a lie. I think many individuals believe that already.

Dustin

[DS_007]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
OARSMAN wrote:
Professor X wrote:
As far as the death penalty, what was being discussed was death for crimes long past for individuals who can cause no further harm to society.

I vehemently disagree with this.

In the case of Saddam (or any murderer of his ilk), everyday he was on this planet, he continued to harm society. Or do you not consider the continuing pain imposed on the family members of the hundreds of thousands killed due to his actions as a harm to society? Or how about all the potential contributions that will never be accounted for, all those young(and not so young) lives snuffed out because of one man’s lust for absolute power? How is that not a continuing harm to society? Please. What if Saddam tortured and killed your mother?

Having a hard time reading? I could care less about the life of Saddam and wrote so how many times in this thread? All you basically wrote is that the death penalty brings relief for victims. Thanks for sharing though.

Why ignore the possibility that an individual can change over time?

In the context of the conversation (rehabilitating guilty as sin mass murderers) this might be perhaps the stupidest statement you have ever uttered on this board.

Are you saying no one can be rehabilitated? Only non-murderers can?

In the case of Saddam Hussein, fuck yeah. I wouldn’t have even put on the executioner’s mask.

You are having a hard time thinking beyond Saddam, aren’t you?

And once again, are you really that naive to believe that hardened mass murderers can be rehabilitated? I didn’t really see any remorse coming from Saddam.

Again, why do you think I am discussing Saddam?

How about Ted Bundy? Or that douchebag Danny Rollings who slaughtered those undergrads at UF 15 years ago and confessed to other murders a few days before his execution. Bullshit. People like that develop an appetite for killing, once they cross that line there is no going back.

Gee, if someone has not reformed then they aren’t who I am talking about, are they? I know this is difficult, but maybe you should reread what was written before without the assumption that I am discussing Saddam and without being so limited as to only think of serial killers who are insane and can’t be reformed.

What if that person could do more good alive than dead?

Un-huh… now you’re grasping at straws, buddy.

So, no one in jail who has ever killed someone could ever do any good in society?

What if they are now involved in programs to deter youth from going down the same path?

Wow. “Let’s go hang with Uncle Saddam- he’ll tell us why it’s wrong to become a sadistic, megalomaniacal tyrant with the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands.”

Saddam…again?

Is it still as simple as “justice”?

In this case, most definitely.

This case?

Why does playing God have an on and off switch?

Who says we are playing God? Well I guess if you believe in that crap, you might be inclined to see it that way. I see it as garbage disposal.

Much like this post.[/quote]

You could care less? How much less? I think the phrase is ‘couldn’t care less’. That means that you care so little that you coudn’t possibly care less than you do. Which is to say not at all.

[Professor_X]

[quote]DS 007 wrote:

You could care less? How much less? I think the phrase is ‘couldn’t care less’. That means that you care so little that you coudn’t possibly care less than you do. Which is to say not at all. [/quote]

This is truly all you have to offer, isn’t it? I never paid attention to any posts you made until recently. Now, I can see why that avoidance was a great idea. Thanks for the grammar correction. That has changed my life.

[DS_007]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DS 007 wrote:

You could care less? How much less? I think the phrase is ‘couldn’t care less’. That means that you care so little that you coudn’t possibly care less than you do. Which is to say not at all.

This is truly all you have to offer, isn’t it? I never paid attention to any posts you made until recently. Now, I can see why that avoidance was a great idea. Thanks for the grammar correction. That has changed my life.[/quote]

I’d say that’s about as profound as anything that you have posted. It’s the same nonsense post after post. You are right and everyone else is wrong. You say you want tolerance, as long it’s a tolerance - based on race or whatever - that affects you. You have no tolerance for any kind of opposing view. Just insults and condescension.

What about the death penalty as a deterrent? Does a penatly - such as death - not serve society by deterring criminals? I think it does. I also think that the judicial system is dull the deterrent. If a criminal knew he had 12 months from the time of his conviction until his appeals must be concluded and he will be put to death then I think we’d see less violent crime.

Do I agree with the death penalty? Hard to say. Fundementally I am opposed to killing. When you see it up close and you see human suffering that occasions death in all it’s forms I think you are fundemantally opposed to it. But it’s not that simple. You mention serving society. I think the death penalty does that. Do away with the death penalty and bring back chain gangs. Make killers work themselves into exhaustion every day for the rest of their lives. If that’s a deterrent and it’s effective, go to it. Until that time, it’s the death penalty.