# Saddam Vows No Return to 'Unjust' Court



## arnisador (Dec 6, 2005)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_trial



> Saddam Hussein shouted Tuesday that he will not return "to an unjust court" when it convenes for a fifth session the following day. As the end of the session, when the judges decided to resume the trial Wednesday, Saddam suddenly shouted: "I will not return. I will not come to an unjust court! Go to hell!"
> 
> [...]
> 
> Saddam also complained that he had no fresh clothes and had been deprived of shower and exercise facilities. "This is terrorism," he said.


 
Terrorism, indeed. Sheesh! 



> At the intelligence headquarters, they put two clips in my ears," the witness said, adding that he was told that if he lied, he would be given an electric shock. When he answered a question, the shock was administered, he said.
> 
> 
> "In prison they used to bring men to the women's room and ask them to bark like dogs," he said. "My father died in prison and I was not able to see him." He added that his father, who was 65 and had heart problems, was kept in a room about 50 yards from him.
> That prompted an outburst from Saddam, who complained of his own conditions in detention. He said the court had time to listen to the witnesses' complaints "but does anyone ask Saddam Hussein whether he was tortured? Whether he was hit?"


 
Am I the only one who thinks that maybe he _just doesn't get it_?


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 6, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who thinks that maybe he _just doesn't get it_?


 
He doesn't get it, but last I heard he still thinks he runs Iraq so he is in a court he thinks has no authority over him.....personally I got to wonder if he's got some mental problems going on there too cause he is in some deep denial....


----------



## arnisador (Dec 6, 2005)

Or, of course, he may feel that being 'difficult' is an effective tactic. I don't know. But after reading his response (above) to people who were tortured by his administration, I find it hard to feel sympathy for him because he can't shower every day.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 6, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Or, of course, he may feel that being 'difficult' is an effective tactic. I don't know. But after reading his response (above) to people who were tortured by his administration, I find it hard to feel sympathy for him because he can't shower every day.


 
indeed... would justice be to install some electrodes in the showers? LOL

seriously though, complaining of no fresh clothes is a bit much... it could have been brought up in a different forum, though perhaps they were ignoring his request for clothes? Do you think he -should- be provided fresh clothes, since he kept most of his nation in poverty while he was living in palaces? Are years of persecution worth a fresh set of clothes and a shower? Then again, we claim to espouse "innocent until proven guilty"...

MrH


----------



## rutherford (Dec 6, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Or, of course, he may feel that being 'difficult' is an effective tactic. I don't know. But after reading his response (above) to people who were tortured by his administration, I find it hard to feel sympathy for him because he can't shower every day.


 
Well, his defense lawyers are also doing a lot of comparisons with the current situation.  Yesterday when a woman reported she had been forced to strip at Abu Grab, the defense asked her if the Iraqi guards took pictures of her or had her mauled by dogs . . . 

But you know what they say about two wrongs.


----------



## JAMJTX (Dec 6, 2005)

"This is terrorism," he (saddam) said.
That's the same thing John Kerry said about the U.S. Military.
Maybe when we're done with the saddam trial we can see kerry charged with treason - which is actually his second offense.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 6, 2005)

The statements of the accused should have no bearing on how the court conducts itself. It is most important that the trial advances according to the laws of the country.

That Mr. Hussein still views himself as the rightful leader of Iraq, I think, is not an unreasonable position for him to hold. He has not signed a surrender after the invasion of his country. From his point of view, it would seem that all that has occured in the last two and a half years, is the machinations of a puppet regime.

His point of view, has no bearing on the actions of the court. The court must act with integrity and must give the appearence of acting with integrity.

We must assume the country has set up rules to try Mr. Hussein in abscentia. 

I do know, there are many more cases lined up against Mr. Hussein, all of which are expected to proceed before he can be executed (assuming he is found guilty).


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The statements of the accused should have no bearing on how the court conducts itself. It is most important that the trial advances according to the laws of the country.


 
The only problem is that when Saddam was ruler of the country, he broke no laws.  So what laws did Saddam actually break?  International laws?  Really?  Since when were people held accountable to those?



> That Mr. Hussein still views himself as the rightful leader of Iraq, I think, is not an unreasonable position for him to hold. He has not signed a surrender after the invasion of his country. From his point of view, it would seem that all that has occured in the last two and a half years, is the machinations of a puppet regime.


 
Under the laws at the time of his "arrest" he was the rightfully "elected" ruler of Iraq.  Since when were laws applied ex-post-facto?



> His point of view, has no bearing on the actions of the court. The court must act with integrity and must give the appearence of acting with integrity.


 
I have no idea how this court can even try Saddam?  To call the legal questions in this case messy is the mother of all understatements.



> We must assume the country has set up rules to try Mr. Hussein in abscentia.


 
If one assumes this, then one assumes that there is an overarching set of "laws" that one is supposed to abide by...and further, Saddam somehow broke these laws.  Who made these laws?  Where did they come from?  What is the precedent?  Who enforces these laws?  

All of the answers to these questions raise a thousands more questions.



> I do know, there are many more cases lined up against Mr. Hussein, all of which are expected to proceed before he can be executed (assuming he is found guilty).


 
This trial is a joke.  And I think it will end up being a PR nightmare.  While the cry to KILL! KILL! KILL! gets louder and louder, I think the questions raised by thinking individuals will resonate just as loud.  

Unfortunately, it would have been far better for the US to just put a bullet in him and be done with it.  Saddam was the US's scumbag, bought and paid for, and putting him down like a rabid dog would have been justice enough.  This legal justice claptrap is nothing but a sham and is probably going to backfire...and I'm just being honest.  

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Kane (Dec 7, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The only problem is that when Saddam was ruler of the country, he broke no laws. So what laws did Saddam actually break? International laws? Really? Since when were people held accountable to those?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  What international laws did Stalin break? None by most standards, unless you count crimes against humanity as a law beyond international law. Tell me would you really buy into his whining and complaining for second when you think how many people he killed and how brutally he did it.

Heck when the Allies tried Nazis for crimes against humanity, did they give a crap on how these criminals felt? Does Saddam even deserve any good treatment at all? He is whining and complaining about fresh clothes, but does he deserve one? Perhaps that baby that was thrown against the wall by Saddam's bath party police would say he does not. Perhaps the thousands and thousands of people he killed would disagree. Perhaps the thousands as well as the millions who hate Saddam because of his crimes against humanity would disagree.

Does Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or any of those monsters deserve a fresh pair of clothes? Do they deserve any special treatment at all? NO!

Seriously at least for once I would put your anti-war stuff aside and realize that regime America overthrown was one of the cruelest regimes in history. If you read the amount I have read or watched as many documentaries as I have watched on the reign of Saddam Hussein you would not look at Saddam as a mere "criminal". You would look at him like he was related to Hitler or Stalin. I really find it hard to sympathize with such a monster.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 7, 2005)

I think it would have been better for all concerned if they had simply investigated, tried, and executed him on one of the many murders he committed rather than having a show trial for "crimes against humanity" (which he certainly committed). This is a lose, lose trial for the United States. As for Saddam, there should be ample evidence to convict him on a capital crime rather than draw this out to our detriment - and likely Iraq's as well.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 7, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> What international laws did Stalin break? None by most standards, unless you count crimes against humanity as a law beyond international law. Tell me would you really buy into his whining and complaining for second when you think how many people he killed and how brutally he did it.



Well, if you admit that he commited no crimes how do you get him to guilty?  By applying current western views?

I'm not going to defend him and say he was a swell guy, but, try to take cultural context into this just a little.

Was Cristopher Columbus a brutal criminal?  He's an American hero, but he did some really nasty stuff to the natives...  Same goes for a lot of American Hero's of that era.

American Civil War - The American gov't killed a lot of American people in really nasty ways, where the leaders war criminals that didn't deserve a change of clothes?

Only one country has used Nuclear weapons offensively, that's a rather large WOMD, should the people in charge of dropping it been treated as Sadam is?

This trial is a joke, defence lawyers are getting killed, In a sense legally he is still the ruler of the country, and definately was when he was captured.  He wrote the rules and broke none of them.  He should have been killed on site, taking it into courts is going to do nothing but create a mess.

Who's right and who's wrong is determined by who wins.  The battle was won, it should have ended there, Saddam should have just "dissapeared" and things would have gone over a lot smoother.

But you can't play the lawful side when the laws don't back you.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 7, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> What international laws did Stalin break? None by most standards, unless you count crimes against humanity as a law beyond international law. Tell me would you really buy into his whining and complaining for second when you think how many people he killed and how brutally he did it.
> 
> Heck when the Allies tried Nazis for crimes against humanity, did they give a crap on how these criminals felt? Does Saddam even deserve any good treatment at all? He is whining and complaining about fresh clothes, but does he deserve one? Perhaps that baby that was thrown against the wall by Saddam's bath party police would say he does not. Perhaps the thousands and thousands of people he killed would disagree. Perhaps the thousands as well as the millions who hate Saddam because of his crimes against humanity would disagree.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not defending Saddam.  However, I question the legality of the trial and I'm wondering about precedent.  

Crimes against humanity?  Really?  Would buying all of the water out from underneath peasent farmers and forcing them off their land count as a crime against humanity?  If so, see Bechtel and Bolivia.  Who holds them accountable?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2005)

The challenge is that the court must appear to act in an 'above board' manner, and it must actually act in an 'above board' manner. What the defendants did, or did not do, is not a justification the court to behave irresponsibly.

It may very well be true that trying these people for past acts against current laws can never equal a just outcome. But, the world will be satisfied, I believe, if the court behaves in a way that seems fair and is fair.

One fact that will disappoint many, is that Saddam Hussein must be present in *all* of the court cases brought against him. I believe there are currently 27 separate cases against Hussein. The current trial concerns the gassing of a Kurdish town in 1982. *Even *if (when) he is found guilty, sentencing will not be carried out until all of the other cases have been brought before the court, or dropped. It is, I think, highly unlikely that Saddam Hussein will suffer the sentence of capitol punishment. More likely, he will die a) of old age or b) an assissin like Jack Ruby.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 7, 2005)

I don't think it will get that far.  Saddam is going to spill some stuff that is going to be very embarrassing.  I think we'll see "Jack Ruby" sooner then later.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The challenge is that the court must appear to act in an 'above board' manner, and it must actually act in an 'above board' manner. What the defendants did, or did not do, is not a justification the court to behave irresponsibly.
> 
> It may very well be true that trying these people for past acts against current laws can never equal a just outcome. But, the world will be satisfied, I believe, if the court behaves in a way that seems fair and is fair.
> 
> One fact that will disappoint many, is that Saddam Hussein must be present in *all* of the court cases brought against him. I believe there are currently 27 separate cases against Hussein. The current trial concerns the gassing of a Kurdish town in 1982. *Even *if (when) he is found guilty, sentencing will not be carried out until all of the other cases have been brought before the court, or dropped. It is, I think, highly unlikely that Saddam Hussein will suffer the sentence of capitol punishment. More likely, he will die a) of old age or b) an assissin like Jack Ruby.



With regard to the court behaving reponsibly, I agree with you. It needs to remain above the problems. From my understanding of the specifics, the lawyers of SH asked for some clothes, and the judge requested it in writing, which they did not do. So, my understanding of the situation now is that its a procedural thing... I've heard this via word of mouth, yet to find a reputable source on this, so take it with a grain of salt until I can provide a link. I'll start looking for proof on that.

Regading trying based on current laws... That ones a bit tricky... How can we justify the Hagge? How can we justify enforcing basic human laws being applied to any world leader who simply does not like them? Should we just smile when tyrants start ruthlessly killing their own citizens, dropping nuclear/biological weapons on their neighbors and torturing masses due to differing political/religious views? I'm sure he is going to be found guilty of something, but I do hope it is a fair trial. Regardless, some people will still not like any guilty verdict it seems...

Regarding the multiple trials, do we know for sure all trials will happen? I'm not familiar with the Iraqi courts. It would seem a bit redundant to get 23 death penalties, or 1000+ years of imprisonment. How old is Saddam? His health? He will likely be spending the rest of his life in court unless they do enforce a death penalty verdict. I'd not be -too- suprised if a death penalty verdict comes across that other trials are put on hold pending appeals for the one death penalty trial. Wonder how many appeals are allowed in Iraqi courts? This already the highest court I assume? If so, would appeals be possible?

I think he wants this court to be a stage... He could have gone down fighting like his sons, but chose rather to hide. I wonder how much leeway he will have for getting his points across? With this perspective, do we want Osama to undergo the same type procedure? Think Osama would ever allow himself to be captured? He seems to be more of a religious figure, so think "martyrdom" would suit him better and inspire more than a "martyrdom" of Sadaam?

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 7, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Regardless, some people will still not like any guilty verdict it seems...


 
No doubt, Saddam has done (ordered) some terrible things and their is no doubt that he is guilty.  However, _guilt_ in a legal sense, implies laws...and that is just a mess.  Whose laws are they and do they apply to everyone?  

There are lots of terrible things happening in this world.  There are lots of people from a variety of places committing these terrible things.  If Saddam can be found "guilty", so can others...


----------



## arnisador (Dec 7, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Only one country has used Nuclear weapons offensively, that's a rather large WOMD, should the people in charge of dropping it been treated as Sadam is?


 
If, somehow, the U.S. had lost the war after having done that, you can certainly bet that it wouldn't have gone well for those in charge, and the history books would treat them as mass murderers of the worst sort.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 7, 2005)

Well, he made good on his threat to not return, but the trial continues anyway:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051207...gNX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


----------



## rutherford (Dec 7, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No doubt, Saddam has done (ordered) some terrible things and their is no doubt that he is guilty. However, _guilt_ in a legal sense, implies laws...and that is just a mess. Whose laws are they and do they apply to everyone?
> 
> There are lots of terrible things happening in this world. There are lots of people from a variety of places committing these terrible things. If Saddam can be found "guilty", so can others...


 
Well, Iraq is the birthplace of codified law, if not the birthplace of human life.  The laws which make up the IHC are primarily laws which were on the books while Saddam was in power, with some International Law added in.

International Law, particalarly the concept of Universal Law first appears in print during the Nuremberg Charter, but the drafters of the charter were very clear that they didn't come up with the idea and used the precedent of Pirates who were labeled ''hostis _humanis generis_,'' or enemies of mankind.  Universal jurisdiction is based on the philosophy that when a person violates international law in such a, all states have an obligation to prosecute.

Finally, all immunity of prosecution may be removed by the issuing body.  Much like the Impeachment process for American Presidents, heads of state can certainly have their immunity from prosecution removed by their own country.


----------



## Kane (Dec 7, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm not defending Saddam. However, I question the legality of the trial and I'm wondering about precedent.
> 
> Crimes against humanity? Really? Would buying all of the water out from underneath peasent farmers and forcing them off their land count as a crime against humanity? If so, see Bechtel and Bolivia. Who holds them accountable?



Your kidding me right? Are you that intoxicated in your anti-war stuff that you have even decided to deny the thousands Saddam killed in a very brutal manner? Hey maybe your right. Perhaps Pol Pot did not kill anyone either. Maybe Stalin never created gulags and perhaps the haulacast was actually a haulahoax! Hitler may have been innocent all along.

Please tell me you are not being serious when you say that statement upnorthkyosa! Seriously! Saddam is one of the most cruelest human beings of modern times. I don't mind if you are anyone else is oppose to war, this is a little extreme!


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 7, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Your kidding me right?


 
Nope.  I'm not.  Here's a little homework assignment.  Please list the laws that Saddam broke and please list the government that enforces them.



> Are you that intoxicated in your anti-war stuff that you have even decided to deny the thousands Saddam killed in a very brutal manner?


 
First of all, are you so certain that Saddam personally killed anyone?  It can easily be verified that he ordered people to be killed.  And it can easily be verified that Saddam took military actions that killed civilians.  Could there be others in this world that have done the same?  Why not hold them accountable to the same "standards (whatever they are)" that Saddam is being held to?



> Hey maybe your right.


 
For a change...



> Perhaps Pol Pot did not kill anyone either.


 
Maybe _he_ didn't.  However, I know he ordered people to be killed and ordered military actions that killed civilians.  



> Maybe Stalin never created gulags and perhaps the haulacast was actually a haulahoax! Hitler may have been innocent all along.


 
Is a haulacast something one does in Hawaii?  Perhaps this is when they chuck people into volcanoes...

_holocaust_

Seriously, this is rediculous.  Can anyone name the logical fallacy in use?



> Please tell me you are not being serious when you say that statement upnorthkyosa!


 
I seriously recommend that you go back and reread this thread.



> Seriously!


 
Seriously.



> Saddam is one of the most cruelest human beings of modern times.


 
Saddam is a bad dude, no doubt, but I think this assertion suggests may be a bit far fetched.  Lest just try to keep it real, eh?  The bottom line is that Saddam was just a two bit, US backed, dictator doing what two bit, US backed, dictators do. 



> I don't mind if you are anyone else is oppose to war, this is a little extreme!


 
Opposing the war and questioning the legality of these legal proceedings have nothing in common.  Pass the kool aide...


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 7, 2005)

I dont see a distinction in killing someone and making someone kill someone. Does one deserve lesser punishment? Also, I suggest those holding that SH never killed anyone do some reasearch. He started quite young.

The laws he broke are quite evident and enforced by both other countries and the UN.

7sm


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 7, 2005)

There is such a thing as international law. And tyrants and corrupt leaders are tried and prosecuted after the fact--the past few centuries of French history probably illustrates that.  But I think upnorthkyosa brings up a few interesting points, and I don't believe that necessarily means he thinks Saddam is a nice guy, or that he doesn't deserve what he gets.

Saddam is a thug, but he is *our* thug--we produced him, paid for him and armed him.

I don't believe America or any supposedly civilized country should ever behave in the manner of those we claim to abhor--and that means we should have fair trials; open and honest elections; humane treatment of prisoners--even if the prisoner is Saddam.  (No, I don't think a prisoner warrants designer suits or four-star dinners.)

Do I think the trial is fair?  No, I think it's a sham.  Will I feel bad when he's convicted?  No.


----------



## Kane (Dec 7, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Nope. I'm not. Here's a little homework assignment. Please list the laws that Saddam broke and please list the government that enforces them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  Actually Saddam killed his first man when he was around 10 believe it or not. He has been murdering ever since he was young. In fact one major difference many historians have made between him and Hitler is that Saddam actually witnessed the ones he killed and even a few killed.

But let's put that extremely irreverent point aside. So Hitler isn't criminal either is he? Nah, he didn't kill anyone. He only ordered people to kill, that's not a crime. Stalin sat up late at night with a list of people he would send to the gulag. Did he do a crime? Nah, he just ordered the killings.

I just can't understand how you can think the way you are thinking. Its ok, we all have are opinions but I feel as if I'm talking to a Stalin sympathizer, no offence . Saddam ordered the deaths of thousands, that is a crime against humanity I think in most people's eyes. Hitler, Pol Pot, and a whole host of dictators deserve the name mass murderer.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 7, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The laws he broke are quite evident and enforced by both other countries and the UN.


 
Oh really?  Would you mind listing the laws that Saddam broke?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 7, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Saddam ordered the deaths of thousands, that is a crime against humanity I think in most people's eyes.


 
I'll buy that, however, in order for a law to exist, a government must exist.  If it is a "crime" against humanity, then somewhere, there must exist a governing body for humanity.  

chirp chirp chirp.  

That is the sounds of the crickets that appear everytime I ask someone to point to where a "governing body for humanity" exists.

Laws people.  What laws did Saddam break?  And if indeed he broke those laws by ordering people's deaths and ordering military actions that killed civilians, then why aren't others held to those same standards?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 7, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Hitler, Pol Pot, and a whole host of dictators deserve the name mass murderer.


 
Would a leader who ordered a military action that killed between 20,000 to 100,000 civilians also be a mass murderer?

upnorthkyosa

ps - will I feel bad when Saddam is executed?  No.  Good riddance.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 7, 2005)

See this thread...

Will Saddam get a fair trial?


----------



## rutherford (Dec 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Oh really? Would you mind listing the laws that Saddam broke?


 
Here's an overview of the cases. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0510/saddam.charges/frameset.exclude.html

As for citing actual codified law, that's a bit hard for Americans who don't speak the language or know much about Iraqi law.  But, Iraqi officials had said Saddam could face as many as 500 charges. That's the number they were talking about cut down to a more manageable number for which prosecutors can amass the most direct evidence. 

And, a lot of people are upset about things for which Saddam won't be tried.  He has not been charged with the massacres of Kurdish civilians in the 1980s, of the Shiites who revolted against his rule after the first Gulf War, or the use of poison gas during the Iran-Iraq war and the first Gulf War.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2005)

See the link to the other thread I posted.  In it, a law professor examines the laws in which Saddam is being held accountable.  Basically, it's all ex post facto.  As far as international law is concerned, the laws are not being applied consistantly.  Saddam is being held to standards that others are not.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As far as international law is concerned, the laws are not being applied consistantly.  Saddam is being held to standards that others are not.



So, I apply the same logic to another situation. I see ALOT of people speeding in their vehicles. However, one day I get a ticket. So, I can go to the police, and tell them that this ticket is invalid since its not applied consistantly? A murderer gets caught. He can get out of things by claiming there are alot of non-caught murderers, so he should not be held liable? Alot of Nazis escaped to South America and elsewhere and were hunted for decades. Was the Hagge invalid since not everyone was brought to justice at the same time? I fail to see the logic here.

Sure, there are lots of international laws being broken in the world. Just because not every one is being enforced does not mean they should not be prosecuted. Perhaps in time more criminals will be brought to trial. I hope they are. Does not invalidate claims against Saddam.

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> So, I apply the same logic to another situation. I see ALOT of people speeding in their vehicles. However, one day I get a ticket. So, I can go to the police, and tell them that this ticket is invalid since its not applied consistantly? A murderer gets caught. He can get out of things by claiming there are alot of non-caught murderers, so he should not be held liable? Alot of Nazis escaped to South America and elsewhere and were hunted for decades. Was the Hagge invalid since not everyone was brought to justice at the same time? I fail to see the logic here.


 
So do I.

The analogy is illogical.  It doesn't accurately portray the situation.  A nation that engages in certain behaviors that are against "international law" is not like an individual who does something against the law.  Nations are highly visible entities and when they break "laws" it is highly visible.

Also, the whole concept of "international law" is a doozy.  International laws only apply to nations that agree that they apply.  There is no overarching entity that can force international law onto nations that do not agree...unless you are willing to say that the US is now this entity.  In which case, _that_ opens up an new can of worms entirely.



> Sure, there are lots of international laws being broken in the world. Just because not every one is being enforced does not mean they should not be prosecuted. Perhaps in time more criminals will be brought to trial. I hope they are. Does not invalidate claims against Saddam.


 
At the time that Saddam committed the "crimes" in question, what laws of his country did he break?  At the time that Saddam committed the "crimes" in question, was Iraq bound by international laws that would make his actions crimes?  In essence, what "laws" did Saddam break?

btw - An inconsistently applied law is useless tyranny...guess whose quote that is?


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So do I.
> 
> The analogy is illogical.  It doesn't accurately portray the situation.  A nation that engages in certain behaviors that are against "international law" is not like an individual who does something against the law.  Nations are highly visible entities and when they break "laws" it is highly visible.



I used several analogies. Some personal/local, some international. You disagree with the analogy of the Nazis?  Its quite accurate. I would have prefered Hitler to have been taken out before his war machine was in full swing.



> Also, the whole concept of "international law" is a doozy.  International laws only apply to nations that agree that they apply.  There is no overarching entity that can force international law onto nations that do not agree...unless you are willing to say that the US is now this entity.  In which case, _that_ opens up an new can of worms entirely.



yes, it is a doozy. from my understanding, the UN was formed shortly after WW2 to prevent another country getting totally out of control. The problem the UN now is powerless. It makes claims, but does nothing. Its not an obvious tool of enforcement. Enough claims were brought against Iraq, but nothing was done. The US filled that gap.

Now, the whole point of the origin of the UN was to prevent attrocities and tyrants such as Hitler from rising up again. So, according to your train of thoughts, if Germany was to leave the UN, claim it no longer holds its tenents, then they are free to do anything they want and invade any nation they seem fit. The UN should sit back and smile, regardless of what attrocities happens.

Another scenario. Suppose Iraq decides to invade another country that is in the UN. Since Iraq is not a full member of the UN, we should do nothing? Suppose Iraq has huge oil deals with Russia, which sits on the UN with veto power. Russia/France/Germany don't want their financial deals disrupted with Iraq, so we can't do ANYTHING since Russia/France/Germany made deals with Saddam. Sounds like a winner to me!



> At the time that Saddam committed the "crimes" in question, what laws of his country did he break?  At the time that Saddam committed the "crimes" in question, was Iraq bound by international laws that would make his actions crimes?  In essence, what "laws" did Saddam break?



What laws did Hitler break? What laws did Stalin break? With a tyrant/total monarchy, they make your own laws and violate previous laws at will. The UN (at least in theory) is supposed to prevent these bullies from getting completely out of control. Bush Sr. should have finished up the job when he went in.



> btw - An inconsistently applied law is useless tyranny...guess whose quote that is?



Pray tell. Note, the quote is not international law. I think the driving laws are tyranny, since I don't get a ticket everytime I speed. Down with driving laws! heheh. Quote that to the UN. Ask how Iraq can happily violate international law and they not enforce or approve the use of force. They have no muscle. Iraq was aware of the bought veto votes.

MrH


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 8, 2005)

All this being said, I do think the more proper venue for this trial would be something similiar to the Hagge, an international court. However, I imagine that the crimes were greatly against their own citizens and something any normal country would have laws against, that they wanted the trial in their own courts... perhaps just the sense of justice staying close to home. I did not follow the proceedings for determining who would try Sadaam... I hear alot of Kurds are watching every word of the trial with much interest...

MrH


----------



## rutherford (Dec 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> See the link to the other thread I posted. In it, a law professor examines the laws in which Saddam is being held accountable. Basically, it's all ex post facto. As far as international law is concerned, the laws are not being applied consistantly. Saddam is being held to standards that others are not.


 
Actually, I didn't see any of that.  In fact, the law professor is only talking about Fairness and as I read it he says he thinks both that the trial will be fairer than he expected and that in the end, fairness doesn't matter a whole lot.

The only person to mention ex post facto in that thread was Arnisador.

No law is applied consistently.  In order for a law to be applied, somebody must be willing to enforce the law.  Lots of crimes remain unprosecuted, even though the nature of the crime is common knowledge.  That's not even close to relevant.

Finally, please stop putting the work on your debating partners.  Its unfair of you to make a point and say, "This is how it is, go do the research if you want to prove me wrong."  This is called a Burden of Proof fallicy.


----------



## rutherford (Dec 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The analogy is illogical. It doesn't accurately portray the situation. A nation that engages in certain behaviors that are against "international law" is not like an individual who does something against the law. Nations are highly visible entities and when they break "laws" it is highly visible.
> 
> Also, the whole concept of "international law" is a doozy. International laws only apply to nations that agree that they apply. There is no overarching entity that can force international law onto nations that do not agree...unless you are willing to say that the US is now this entity. In which case, _that_ opens up an new can of worms entirely.


But it's only relevant because you want it to be relevant.  You've lost sight of the fact that this is an Iraqi court who is trying an Iraqi citizen.

The Iraqi court says that International Law applies, so it does.  Nobody has forced it on them, and they have shown remarkable independance.


> At the time that Saddam committed the "crimes" in question, what laws of his country did he break? At the time that Saddam committed the "crimes" in question, was Iraq bound by international laws that would make his actions crimes? In essence, what "laws" did Saddam break?
> 
> btw - An inconsistently applied law is useless tyranny...guess whose quote that is?


There's that question again, and we'll be able to answer them after the trial.  I assume the details of the convictions will be widely available.  In the meantime, why don't you do some of your own research.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 8, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Saddam is a thug, but he is *our* thug--we produced him, paid for him and armed him.


This is a mindset I do not understand. Because you have some type of "relationship" with someone means your responisble for everything they do in the future? If you sell me a handgun you are then responsible for me killing someone with it 20 years later? Guilty by association? If I meet you at a resturant, we talk a bit about martial arts (we both have that in common) and then I go on a killing streak that night are you then somehow guilty or responsible? Something that seems good at one moment can be used for bad at a later one.

Next, the idea of "no law broken" because he was in power is illogical and is basically sticking your head in the sand. What laws he broke are of little consequence to me. Law is a very subjective word. If I make the laws, I can't be caught. Does that mean I'm not to be held responsible for my actions? Beating, torturing, raping, disfiguring, and killing go beyond what local laws are present. These are the ambiguous "crimes against humanity" and the governing body is humanity. This was supposed to be the UN and we see how they have failed. Is it then wrong to step up and take up the slack? If I saw a police woman trying to arrest a man who overpowers her and then begins to beat and rape her, should I just shrug and say if she wanted it stoped she would stop him? If other cops were watching and laughing should I just shrug and say if it was wrong they would stop it?

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2005)

Thus far, nobody has provided any legal basis in which to try Saddam.  No one has provided a single law in which he could be held accountable to at the time of his "crimes".  There is no (real) overarching world government that enforces so called "crimes against humanity."  That whole catagory is subjective.  Heck, many people think that war itself is a crime against humanity.  Where are the definitions?  Where are the standards, the power, and where is the consistency?

BTW - if one wants to cite the UN as the body that contains these laws, fine, but know this, there are some profound implications.  According the UN laws, the war in Iraq is illegal.  The UN never gave permission specifically for an invasion.  Now we have 25,000 to 100,000 civilians dead and more on the way...for an illegal war.  Who else is a war criminal?

This is moral relativism at its best.  Isn't it wonderful! 

Comparisons of Saddam and other nasty dictators of the 20th century are accurate...but the problem is that the same questions that I'm raising now, could and would, were raised whenever one of these people were held accountable.  The bottom line is that the side who won determined who was right and who was wrong.  There never was any real legal justification...even for Nuerenburg.

That is why the pretense of a trial is a sham.  It's completely symbolic and it could be easily done away with.  Saddam will be executed because he lost, not because of any laws that he supposedly broke.

And even though justice will be served by his death, "justice" in a legal sense will never be attained.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Thus far, nobody has provided any legal basis in which to try Saddam.  No one has provided a single law in which he could be held accountable to at the time of his "crimes".  There is no (real) overarching world government that enforces so called "crimes against humanity."  That whole catagory is subjective.  Heck, many people think that war itself is a crime against humanity.  Where are the definitions?  Where are the standards, the power, and where is the consistency?



Lets try this with just one law. Murder. Certainly we can agree that murder is going to be in the previous legal system. People simply can't go around murdering.



> BTW - if one wants to cite the UN as the body that contains these laws, fine, but know this, there are some profound implications.  According the UN laws, the war in Iraq is illegal.  The UN never gave permission specifically for an invasion.  Now we have 25,000 to 100,000 civilians dead and more on the way...for an illegal war.  Who else is a war criminal?



So, we can only go to war if the UN gives us the nod? Then, every war is illegal. Every single one. Those horrible nations.

On a side note, if the rebels there would just chill out for a few months, allow us to rebuild, we would get out. Most of hte civilians killed are not from our actions, but a result of Iraqi insurgence.



> This is moral relativism at its best.  Isn't it wonderful!
> 
> Comparisons of Saddam and other nasty dictators of the 20th century are accurate...but the problem is that the same questions that I'm raising now, could and would, were raised whenever one of these people were held accountable.  The bottom line is that the side who won determined who was right and who was wrong.  There never was any real legal justification...even for Nuerenburg.



Nuerenburg is illegal now  So, what do you suggest we do with tyrants. Allow them to wreck havoc in the world?




> That is why the pretense of a trial is a sham.  It's completely symbolic and it could be easily done away with.  Saddam will be executed because he lost, not because of any laws that he supposedly broke.
> 
> And even though justice will be served by his death, "justice" in a legal sense will never be attained.



Now, if Saddam had not broken any laws, I might agree with you. If he had not murdered and endorsed the murder of thousands of people, I might agree. Now, I do agree that the trail is a bit of a sham, but I see a few trials as shams when guilt is blatantly obvious.

How do you suggest we serve "justice in a legal sense"... can we not convict him of anything? give him his country back and allow him to resume his normal daily activities? Lets just stamp him as "innocent" and dismiss the trials.

Give me some ideas here... what do YOU suggest. Give me something positive. You are consistently demeaning the process, suggest how we fix it.

MrH


----------



## arnisador (Dec 8, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Lets try this with just one law. Murder. Certainly we can agree that murder is going to be in the previous legal system. People simply can't go around murdering.


 
Well...no. But the government can (death penalty, war). Maybe he'd claim that was the situation?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 8, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> On a side note, if the rebels there would just chill out for a few months, allow us to rebuild, we would get out. Most of hte civilians killed are not from our actions, but a result of Iraqi insurgence.


 
I am wondering *why* you would believe these statements? 

Why on earth do you think "we would get out"? 

And, I would question the claim that 'MOST" of the Iraqi civilians have been killed by insurgents. Getting accurate death counts has been difficult in this conflict, however, what information is available shows the United States Military has created quite a bit of collateral damage.

www.iraqbodycount.net


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Thus far, nobody has provided any legal basis in which to try Saddam. No one has provided a single law in which he could be held accountable to at the time of his "crimes". There is no (real) overarching world government that enforces so called "crimes against humanity." That whole catagory is subjective. Heck, many people think that war itself is a crime against humanity. Where are the definitions? Where are the standards, the power, and where is the consistency?


 The Iraqi people will make that determination.  As you point out, Saddam did not break any laws while he was in power.  Likewise, this court needs to more legal standing that Saddam did while he was in power.  It's really very simple.  Saddam is now in the hands of those he formerly persecuted.  The idea that they somehow need 'legal standing' anymore than Saddam needed legal standing when he was in power, is simple legal double-speak coming from a segment of political ideology that simply wants to throw a monkey wrench in the whole works.  It is best ignored.

I guess, however, if you want to stick with legal standing, we could allow the Kuwaitis to try Saddam Hussein.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> BTW - if one wants to cite the UN as the body that contains these laws, fine, but know this, there are some profound implications. According the UN laws, the war in Iraq is illegal. The UN never gave permission specifically for an invasion. Now we have 25,000 to 100,000 civilians dead and more on the way...for an illegal war. Who else is a war criminal?


 The UN is not a law giving body.  As you pointed out earlier, there is not really any such thing as 'international law'.  There are a lot of variously binding agreements between nations.  That's a big difference.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is moral relativism at its best. Isn't it wonderful!


 The world's a complicated place.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Comparisons of Saddam and other nasty dictators of the 20th century are accurate...but the problem is that the same questions that I'm raising now, could and would, were raised whenever one of these people were held accountable. The bottom line is that the side who won determined who was right and who was wrong. There never was any real legal justification...even for Nuerenburg.


 Of course not.  That's all irrelavent, however...unless you want to argue that we should let Saddam Hussein be.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That is why the pretense of a trial is a sham. It's completely symbolic and it could be easily done away with. Saddam will be executed because he lost, not because of any laws that he supposedly broke.


 That is nothing more than your attempt to distort the nature of what is being done.  Saddam has committed countless crimes against the Iraqi people.  Your only concern, however, is how to cast this in a bad light to embarass the administration.  Moreover, you're not really doing anything but channeling Ramsey Clark.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And even though justice will be served by his death, "justice" in a legal sense will never be attained.


 Following the logic of what you said, there is no such thing as 'justice' in a legal sense, as all you've claimed is that no matter, what, trials are a sham, because they are conducted by those in power.  If that's all you have to add, then you really don't have anything to add.  

Again, that is the paradox you have created.  Because you dislike the US administration, you are in the unenviable position of having to cheer for a despotic murderer (which, i'm sure, you will rationalize as not being the case).  It's nothing more than 'Saddam may be a bad guy, but he hates Bush too, so he can't be THAT bad' thinking.  

Ironically, if you had told me three years ago that Saddam Hussein might have a hope of returning to power, i'd have called you crazy.  Now, however, with the push to leave Iraq, I can foresee a scenario where Saddam MIGHT be able to return to power (If the left has it's way).  Wouldn't that be ironic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Lets try this with just one law. Murder. Certainly we can agree that murder is going to be in the previous legal system. People simply can't go around murdering.


 
The definition of "murder" is subjective.  If Saddam was destroying his enemies or "killing the terrorists" then it wasn't murder.  The justification at the time matters.



> So, we can only go to war if the UN gives us the nod?


 
When we agreed to the UN charter we agreed to certain terms.  One of those terms regarded our ability to go to war.



> Then, every war is illegal. Every single one. Those horrible nations.


 
That does not follow.  The UN has approved of various wars in the past.  Some of them, IMO, have been worthy and some have not been so worthy...like Vietnam.



> On a side note, if the rebels there would just chill out for a few months, allow us to rebuild, we would get out. Most of hte civilians killed are not from our actions, but a result of Iraqi insurgence.


 
Check your facts.  Also note that the insurgency wasn't killing people before we took action.  We destabilized the region btw.



> Nuerenburg is illegal now


 
I never said it was illegal.  I pointed out that the same questions of precedent and law existed during those trials.  There is a big difference.



> So, what do you suggest we do with tyrants. Allow them to wreck havoc in the world?


 
We agreed to the UN charter and that has certain provisions for dealing with nasty dictators.  When we went to war, we broke our word to that charter.  Whose going to call the toughest guy on the block on it?  No one.



> Now, if Saddam had not broken any laws, I might agree with you. If he had not murdered and endorsed the murder of thousands of people, I might agree. Now, I do agree that the trail is a bit of a sham, but I see a few trials as shams when guilt is blatantly obvious.


 
I want to be sincere for a moment.  In no way am I defending anything that Saddam did.  I think that killing, gassing, torturing, raping is wrong.  In my opinion, Saddam deserves death...and I am not even a big fan of the death penalty.  However, when we bring up the topic of laws, all I want to do is point out that it opens a huge can of worms.  To call it messy is the mother of all understatements.



> How do you suggest we serve "justice in a legal sense"... can we not convict him of anything? give him his country back and allow him to resume his normal daily activities? Lets just stamp him as "innocent" and dismiss the trials.


 
Saddam is not innocent by any means.  However, he may not be "guilty" of breaking certain laws.  There is a difference.  



> Give me some ideas here... what do YOU suggest. Give me something positive. You are consistently demeaning the process, suggest how we fix it.


 
I don't know if we can fix it without instituting some sort of world government.  The tin hatter in me sees this trial as a way to illustrate the current problems and advocate for a world government.  I don't think I know enough to actually contribute something positive, however, I do know enough to see a mess when I see one.

FWIW

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's really very simple. Saddam is now in the hands of those he formerly persecuted.


 
Exactly.  Saddam lost.  He dies.



> The idea that they somehow need 'legal standing' anymore than Saddam needed legal standing when he was in power, is simple legal double-speak coming from a segment of political ideology that simply wants to throw a monkey wrench in the whole works. It is best ignored.


 
Sorry Mac.  One can't ignore "international law" and then cite it to hold another accountable.  I can see why a certain ideology would advocate ignoring that.  It certainly makes them look bad...and I don't have to do a thing but point it out.



> I guess, however, if you want to stick with legal standing, we could allow the Kuwaitis to try Saddam Hussein.


 
That actually is a pretty good idea.  Extradate him to Kuwait and let him die there.



> The UN is not a law giving body. As you pointed out earlier, there is not really any such thing as 'international law'. There are a lot of variously binding agreements between nations. That's a big difference.


 
We are in agreement on this!



> The world's a complicated place.


 
And this!



> Of course not. That's all irrelavent, however...unless you want to argue that we should let Saddam Hussein be.


 
Oh come now, you are the pragmatic one.  The side who wins determines what is right and wrong.  They determine who is a war criminal and who is a hero.  Saddam lost.  He dies.



> That is nothing more than your attempt to distort the nature of what is being done. Saddam has committed countless crimes against the Iraqi people. Your only concern, however, is how to cast this in a bad light to embarass the administration. Moreover, you're not really doing anything but channeling Ramsey Clark.


 
I'm not distorting anything.  I'm only pointing out the reality of the laws and implications of citing various laws.  I'm sorry if it puts your ideology in a bind...and btw I don't have to say a thing to cast the administration in a bad light.  

"Your doing a good job Brownie."



> Following the logic of what you said, there is no such thing as 'justice' in a legal sense, as all you've claimed is that no matter, what, trials are a sham, because they are conducted by those in power. If that's all you have to add, then you really don't have anything to add.


 
Justice in a legal sense and justice as an ideal are often (sadly) two different things.  As an LEO, I would assume that you might have experienced this a time or two.  



> Again, that is the paradox you have created. Because you dislike the US administration, you are in the unenviable position of having to cheer for a despotic murderer (which, i'm sure, you will rationalize as not being the case). It's nothing more than 'Saddam may be a bad guy, but he hates Bush too, so he can't be THAT bad' thinking.


 
Oh please.  That is a bit much, don't you think?  You are just a little miffed because I've got a point.  Haven't I been saying from the beginning that it would have been much easier for the US to take him dead?  



> Ironically, if you had told me three years ago that Saddam Hussein might have a hope of returning to power, i'd have called you crazy. Now, however, with the push to leave Iraq, I can foresee a scenario where Saddam MIGHT be able to return to power (If the left has it's way). Wouldn't that be ironic.


 
I predict that Saddam will not live through his trial...enter Jack Ruby.

*putting on the tin hat and the Dale Gribbol sunglasses *

upnorthkyosa


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The definition of "murder" is subjective. If Saddam was destroying his enemies or "killing the terrorists" then it wasn't murder. The justification at the time matters.


 What do we call torturing olympic athletes for not winning? 'Motivational therapy'?




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When we agreed to the UN charter we agreed to certain terms. One of those terms regarded our ability to go to war.


 We certainly did, but as you noted, loose knit agreements between states aren't really laws.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That does not follow. The UN has approved of various wars in the past. Some of them, IMO, have been worthy and some have not been so worthy...like Vietnam.


 The UN has done a number of things in the past, many of them nutty, some not so nutty.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Check your facts. Also note that the insurgency wasn't killing people before we took action. We destabilized the region btw.


 No, before we took action, Saddam was killing people.  Now, the insurgents are killing people in Saddam's name.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I never said it was illegal. I pointed out that the same questions of precedent and law existed during those trials. There is a big difference.


 Well, Saddam has set the precedent in Iraq.  He's fortunate their actually trying to follow a precedure instead of following Iraq 'Legal Precedent'. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> We agreed to the UN charter and that has certain provisions for dealing with nasty dictators. When we went to war, we broke our word to that charter. Whose going to call the toughest guy on the block on it? No one.


 How does the UN deal with nasty dictators? Oh, that's right, it takes bribes from them and makes them head of the Human Rights commission.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I want to be sincere for a moment. In no way am I defending anything that Saddam did. I think that killing, gassing, torturing, raping is wrong. In my opinion, Saddam deserves death...and I am not even a big fan of the death penalty. However, when we bring up the topic of laws, all I want to do is point out that it opens a huge can of worms. To call it messy is the mother of all understatements.


 Are we to assume this means you haven't been being sincere?  Laws are what the people of Iraq decide the law is.  Your presumption is that there is such a thing as objective law, which is no where evidenced.  Law is what Iraqis decide it is.  We didn't invade Iraq with the stated intent of bringing the rule of law, we attacked with the stated intent of bringing Democracy and Liberty.  Whether those are attainable goals, they are different than 'The Rule of Law'.  Saddam had the backing of 'The Rule of Law' (whatever that objectively means).



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Saddam is not innocent by any means. However, he may not be "guilty" of breaking certain laws. There is a difference.


 Ok, so he's only guilty of half of what he's charged with.  He only has to be guilty of one capital crime (they can't hang him twice). 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't know if we can fix it without instituting some sort of world government. The tin hatter in me sees this trial as a way to illustrate the current problems and advocate for a world government. I don't think I know enough to actually contribute something positive, however, I do know enough to see a mess when I see one.


 lol.  Here we go with the 'one world government' solution.  I'm sure only a socialist government will do, as well, correct?


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Saddam lost.  He dies.
> 
> The side who wins determines what is right and wrong. They determine who is a war criminal and who is a hero. Saddam lost. He dies.


Its not a question of who won or lost. There have been many "losing sides" throught history and many of them still see torture, rape and murder as "wrong". He's not going to die (I would highly doubt we do anything to him at all the way things are going now) because he lost, but because of how he treated his people. You can spin the reasoning any way you like it, but the fact is; with or without law in place forbidding his murderous and rapist actions, they are "wrong" and deserve consequence. The absence of "law" is only the excuse for refusing responsibility. He is responsible for what he did, law or no law, governing body or no governing body.

7sm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 9, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Its not a question of who won or lost. There have been many "losing sides" throught history and many of them still see torture, rape and murder as "wrong". He's not going to die (I would highly doubt we do anything to him at all the way things are going now) because he lost, but because of how he treated his people. You can spin the reasoning any way you like it, but the fact is; with or without law in place forbidding his murderous and rapist actions, they are "wrong" and deserve consequence. The absence of "law" is only the excuse for refusing responsibility. He is responsible for what he did, law or no law, governing body or no governing body.
> 
> 7sm


 If it were us, we'd just just add him to our rogues gallery collection in our federal prison system.  He could trade notes with Manuel Noriega.  No, it's the Iraqi people who are going to try Saddam Hussein, if he is convicted they will do it, and if he is executed they will build the gallows, make the rope and tie it themselves.  

Upnorth imagines some bizarre foundation of international law, or some legal precedent, or some other bizarre legal concept.  This is only a ruse. 

Saddam Hussein will be held responsible for his crimes against the Iraqi people, in the Name of the Iraq BY the Iraqi people....there is no greater foundation in law.  To claim there is any greater legal justification than this is pure fallacy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 9, 2005)

I agree with both of you.  My only point is a legal one.  Saddam deserves to be punished for his actions because they were wrong...even though there were no laws that specifically said they were wrong.  This is why I see the trial as a formality.  It is symbolic for the Iraqi people and for the world...even if its legal basis is questionable.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I agree with both of you. My only point is a legal one. Saddam deserves to be punished for his actions because they were wrong...even though there were no laws that specifically said they were wrong. This is why I see the trial as a formality. It is symbolic for the Iraqi people and for the world...even if its legal basis is questionable.


Legal basis is trite. There are absolutes, there are wrongs outside of law. Its not because someone in power said "You can't kill" that makes him deserve death, its because he took others lifes (and more). The basis of some defined law is moot, laws are made by those in power....he was in power....he didn't break his own law.

Are you suggesting we not hold others outside our nation to justice because they may not want to "play along" and "be nice" and rape and kill people? The people of Iraq are holding him accountable for crimes he committed against them....what say have we?

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 9, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> There are absolutes, there are wrongs outside of law.


 
Are there? 

This statement is a question that has been asked for millenia. I did not think there has been a 'definative' answer to it yet. 



			
				obi wan kenobi said:
			
		

> Only a Sith speaks in absolutes


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 9, 2005)

obi wan kenobi said:
			
		

> Only a sith speaks in absolutes.


 
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 9, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> We certainly did, but as you noted, loose knit agreements between states aren't really laws.


 
Then how can they be cited in order to hold someone legally accountable.



> No, before we took action, Saddam was killing people. Now, the insurgents are killing people in Saddam's name.


 
Think about how many people are dying each day in Iraq.  Saddam was not killing people on that scale.  Hell, many Iraqis have said that they were _safer_ under Saddam then they are under the Americans.  Iraq is an absolute mess now...and it is our fault...according to popular opinion across the middle east.  



> Are we to assume this means you haven't been being sincere?


 
Yes.  Sometimes.  I was on the debate team in high school and college and I regularly defended opinions that in which I did not agree.  This debate started in my head when I read a story about Saddam's trial and wondered what his defense attorneys would say.  And then I wondered whether or not anything that they did say would be published in the media over here...



> Laws are what the people of Iraq decide the law is. Your presumption is that there is such a thing as objective law, which is no where evidenced. Law is what Iraqis decide it is. We didn't invade Iraq with the stated intent of bringing the rule of law, we attacked with the stated intent of bringing Democracy and Liberty. Whether those are attainable goals, they are different than 'The Rule of Law'. Saddam had the backing of 'The Rule of Law' (whatever that objectively means).


 
I don't have to presume anything.  All I have to do is look for a world governing body that makes laws that holds everyone equally accountable...and not find anything like that.  There is no objective law.



> lol. Here we go with the 'one world government' solution. I'm sure only a socialist government will do, as well, correct?


 
Yes, absolutely!


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 9, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Are there?
> 
> This statement is a question that has been asked for millenia. I did not think there has been a 'definative' answer to it yet.


Well, actually outside of Star Wars World, there are. Rape and torture leading to disfigurement and murder is wrong, absolutely wrong. Spin it any way you like, but those actions require consequences. We dont need to have the absolute debate here, to understand what I'm saying....his actions deserve punishment. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Think about how many people are dying each day in Iraq. Saddam was not killing people on that scale. Hell, many Iraqis have said that they were _safer_ under Saddam then they are under the Americans. Iraq is an absolute mess now...and it is our fault...according to popular opinion across the middle east.


 This isn't a question of quantity of people killed. It doesn't matter who felt safe under his regime....the fact is he raped and murdered and needs to be held accountable by those he tortured. The supposed crimes of others have no bearing in his "trial". 

On a side note, I think many people felt more "safe" under Englands rule than that new America place many years ago. Safe is a subjective term....safe can mean forgotten as well.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 9, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> murder is wrong, absolutely wrong.


 
Wouldn't he say it was government-sanctioned killing, as we have in the U.S. with the death penalty? Heck, we leave most of that in the hands of governors rather than the chief executive of the nation.

To describe killing as 'murder' is already to suggest that it was inappropriate, unsanctioned killing. But when a government goes to war, it authorizes the killing of others (presumably non-citizens) and takes action to make that happen. Did George Bush order the murder of Timothy McVeigh? Could he be tried for that?

I'm all for Saddam Husseing swinging by his neck, but I don't think the legal situation is quite as simple as all that.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 9, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Wouldn't he say it was government-sanctioned killing, as we have in the U.S. with the death penalty? Heck, we leave most of that in the hands of governors rather than the chief executive of the nation.
> 
> To describe killing as 'murder' is already to suggest that it was inappropriate, unsanctioned killing. But when a government goes to war, it authorizes the killing of others (presumably non-citizens) and takes action to make that happen. Did George Bush order the murder of Timothy McVeigh? Could he be tried for that?
> 
> I'm all for Saddam Husseing swinging by his neck, but I don't think the legal situation is quite as simple as all that.


So your implying that disfiguring torture leading to rape and eventually death is not inappropriate? Or is at some time appropriate?

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> So your implying that disfiguring torture leading to rape and eventually death is not inappropriate?



Yes, you've understood me perfectly. :idunno:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> So your implying that disfiguring torture leading to rape and eventually death is not inappropriate? Or is at some time appropriate?
> 
> 7sm


 
That all depends on the definition of your terms, the context of cultural norms, and the justification behind them.  

For instance, some cultures believe that mutilating parts of an infant boy's penis is perfectly acceptable...however, this practice may be taken as disfiguring torture by others.  

And then there are those who advocate that a government should castrate sex offenders and chop the hands off of theives as punishment.  This may be taken as justice by some and by others as horribly disfiguring torture by others.  

I'm afraid that Obi-wan was right.  Here's why...as soon as one accepts that absolutes exist, one ceases to see any points of view but their own.  An absolute law is nothing but an exertion of the self's point of view on others who disagree.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 10, 2005)

Seems to me I saw a headline the other day about how *Most Americans* think there are times when torture is appropriate. Now, I was quite ashamed of this opinion. But many have posed the 'ticking bomb' question to justify the actions of which the United States Military have taken in Abu Ghraib, and the CIA has taken at its 'black sites' around the world. 

Rape is a common tool of war. 
Torture is also a common tool of war.

If these things are absolutely morally wrong, can a war ever be prosecuted that is not absolutely morally wrong?


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 10, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Rape is a common tool of war.
> Torture is also a common tool of war.
> 
> If these things are absolutely morally wrong, can a war ever be prosecuted that is not absolutely morally wrong?




Is rape used as an officially endorsed tool? Is torture used as an officially endorsed tool? Or are you dealing with a few individuals who have some psychological problems?

Get to the depth of the problem. If its rooted all the way to the top of the administration, then root it out there. Prosecute away.

If its a pandemic, and seen everywhere, you must have a common factor... So, how wide spread were these problems? I think this might help get some insight...

MrH


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm afraid that Obi-wan was right.  Here's why...as soon as one accepts that absolutes exist, one ceases to see any points of view but their own.  An absolute law is nothing but an exertion of the self's point of view on others who disagree.


artyon:


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 10, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Is rape used as an officially endorsed tool? Is torture used as an officially endorsed tool? Or are you dealing with a few individuals who have some psychological problems?
> 
> Get to the depth of the problem. If its rooted all the way to the top of the administration, then root it out there. Prosecute away.
> 
> ...


 
Great questions ... let's look at the 4 million year history of human existance to determine if rape and torture are officially endorsed tools. I am going to guess, that the answer is affirmative. Don't we even have official names for some of those times; The Spanish Inquisition.

Let's look at conflicts in Africa over the last, say 20 years, where rape is indeed a common tool in warfare. Combined with machete mutilations ... now do those machetes, taking off the hands of the other side count as torture? Hmmm ... maybe it is not brutal enough.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 10, 2005)

Rape is wrong
Rape is a tool of war
War is wrong

Sound great only its faulty logic. Rape is simply not a "tool" of war. Regardless of whether it happens or not, it is still wrong. Absolutes are simply present, your trying to broaden the meaning of rape....can't happen. Rape is rape and regardless of the cultural beliefs....wrong. To accept it in certain scenarios is to accept rape. I for one choose not to accept rape as appropriate at any time. 
To say there are no absolutes means rape is appropriate at some point or time. I'm just not ok with that....I guess we differ in beliefs thats all.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Rape is wrong
> Rape is a tool of war
> War is wrong
> 
> ...


 
If murder can be okay at times, then why not rape?  Why not torture?  Absolutes are simply _not_ present.  Context means everything.  I'm not saying that in all circumstances its right or even in most circumstances.  All I'm trying to do is point out that there may be circumstances that defy any black and white definition.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If murder can be okay at times, then why not rape? Why not torture? Absolutes are simply _not_ present. Context means everything. I'm not saying that in all circumstances its right or even in most circumstances. All I'm trying to do is point out that there may be circumstances that defy any black and white definition.


 Didn't someone say earlier in the post that we shouldn't deal in absolutes.  Using that logic, you might be right that rape isn't absolutely wrong.  Or did I misunderstand?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Great questions ... let's look at the 4 million year history of human existance to determine if rape and torture are officially endorsed tools. I am going to guess, that the answer is affirmative. Don't we even have official names for some of those times; The Spanish Inquisition.
> 
> Let's look at conflicts in Africa over the last, say 20 years, where rape is indeed a common tool in warfare. Combined with machete mutilations ... now do those machetes, taking off the hands of the other side count as torture? Hmmm ... maybe it is not brutal enough.


 Absolutely.  Historically, atrocity is a basic tool of war.  Rape is a way of breeding out the enemy.  The use of the machete to cut off the hands of the victims serves a purpose more useful than killing them out right.  It creates a burden to the tribe.  That person cannot fend for themselves, they cannot hunt, they cannot plant crops, they are now a burden that others either have to take care of or abandon.

Many Native American tribes looked at torture as something a warrior should simply expect should they fall in to the hands of the enemy.  They took stoic pride in taunting their torturers.

Genocide was the common tool of war until recent times.  Historically, if one city state defeated another city state decisively, the entire city was raised, and every man, woman and child was put to the sword.  They ceased to be as a nation.  The development of the abhorrent practice of slavery was actually a kindness as it at least spared the lives of the women and children (though, to varying degrees of living).  

The more primative the culture, the more likely they are to engage in torture and atrocity as a common practice of war.

However, I think that's kind of the point of advancing cultures, to eliminate the more primitive actions of our species.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Rape is wrong
> Rape is a tool of war
> War is wrong
> 
> ...


 
I never drew the final conclusion that war is wrong. I asked the question. It's easy to say something is a logical falacy by distorting what was actually said.

To properly respond to my argument, you need to argue that rape and torture are not tools of war, simply or otherwise. They are abhorent behaviors among soldiers, and not official policy of the warring leaders. And that war can be prosecuted without rapes and torture (something which would be difficult to prove in the current Iraq conflict, I think.) This is the argument mrHnau is attempting to make.

mrhnau is arguing, it seems, from the specific, the current war in Iraq; the current administration, the current policy of the United States military. I am presenting a case from the general; all of humankinds' experience with warfare. As we are discussing 'absolute' wrongs, it seems we need to look (as mrHnau suggests, but doesn't quite reach) at the broader question.

sgtmac_46 has argued that rape and torture are indeed tools of war. A review of history shows that it is common in warfare for rapes and torture to occur.

7starmantis, you are arguing your way to the philosophy of a 'Just War'. When is it appropriate for warfare to occur? What are the rules of engagement under which a war can be prosecuted that are justified?

Tread carefully down that path. You may not like where it leads.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If murder can be okay at times, then why not rape?  Why not torture?  Absolutes are simply _not_ present. Context means everything. I'm not saying that in all circumstances its right or even in most circumstances. All I'm trying to do is point out that there may be circumstances that defy any black and white definition.


I understand what your saying, but I just dont agree that there are situations that make rape acceptable. We can make up scenarios in our mind, devoid of any reality that may make you think rape is ok (I can't honestly think of any, but someone might), but in reality we simply cannot say this is not an absolute without also saying rape is acceptable at some point. That is something I will not do....sorry.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I never drew the final conclusion that war is wrong. I asked the question. It's easy to say something is a logical falacy by distorting what was actually said.
> 
> To properly respond to my argument, you need to argue that rape and torture are not tools of war, simply or otherwise. They are abhorent behaviors among soldiers, and not official policy of the warring leaders. And that war can be prosecuted without rapes and torture (something which would be difficult to prove in the current Iraq conflict, I think.) This is the argument mrHnau is attempting to make.


 We seem to misunderstand each other quite a bit. I didn't say you made the final conclusion, in fact I didn't say you made any conclusions, that was simply my own point.

Your post as to what I "should" have responded actually outlines what I did respond with. I did say they are not tools of war. Your saying they are, the burden of proof lies with your initial statement. If you can prove to me that rape is an official accepted tool of war then I will publically retract my posts, until then they stand. 

War as a historical theory is moot here, we are talking about current day. What has been done in the past serves to remind us of where we have come from, not hold us to how we must respond or act today.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> 7starmantis, you are arguing your way to the philosophy of a 'Just War'. When is it appropriate for warfare to occur? What are the rules of engagement under which a war can be prosecuted that are justified?
> 
> Tread carefully down that path. You may not like where it leads.


No, that is how you choose to read my posts. I am not arguing for war at all, I'm simply saying that because crimes and atrocities occur during periods of war, that alone does not make those said crimes set tools of war. There will allways be those who do what is not right, to set our society on those people is wrong and in this case quite disingenuous. Because a group of people may contain those who commit crimes does not mean the group are all criminals.

7sm


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Tread carefully down that path. You may not like where it leads.



Ooooo... 

LOL

What I am talking about is an official endorsement of these activities. Is there a handbook detailing how to rape civilians? Is there a handbook for how to torture? Is the president actively instructing soldiers to engage in such activities? Is a general/admiral/whatever kind of leader actively claiming this is good for war and good for the US? Or perhaps implied commands? Given the current situation (Iraq, Saddam times and occupation times), I think we would be hard pressed to see an official endorsement of torture (real torture that is), rape and outright murder.

War is war, and under the circumstances of war, sometimes men do act in a primal fashion. So, the questions that -must- be asked here, and in all these instances (US occupation included), is:

 "Were these the acts of individuals, or individual units acting on their own acccord, or were these individuals acting under some form of direction, either explicit or implied"

If they are acting on their own in a primal fashion, we have innocence for those leaders (US military, Saddam). If they are acting under some form of direction, we have guilt for those leaders. To me, its finding the root of the criminal activity. Is Saddam responsible if some lone Iraqi flips out and starts hacking off limbs, or some rogue commander fires some biologic weapons into Iran against explicit orders from high command? I would argue not. The argument could be applied to both sides of the equation (Saddam and US Military).

Looking back into history might be interesting, but not explicitly relevant for the current topic. I don't care to compare the US military to cavemen LOL. As a society over the past hundred or so years, we have grown. The same morality that exists in the world as a whole was obviosly not present a few hundred years ago. Or at least not as wide spread. Should we look at all the bad aspects of humanity to validate our current crimes? What good does that do us? Is history not there to teach us lessons of what not to do, and what was done correctly? 

MrH


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If murder can be okay at times, then why not rape?  Why not torture?  Absolutes are simply _not_ present.  Context means everything.  I'm not saying that in all circumstances its right or even in most circumstances.  All I'm trying to do is point out that there may be circumstances that defy any black and white definition.



Context huh... Perhaps a better phrase these days would be terminology.

Here is another perspective... As a child, you get taught "Don't play in the streets!" (Lets assume you were told that anyways!). Now, why were you told that? Someone with understanding told you! They realize there is risk in doing such a thing, and they don't want to have harm come to you.

Now, when you grow up, you understand these things. You mature, and the maturation helps you understand that it was the best thing for you at the time. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with playing in the streets? No, but when looking at it, you realize that its just plain stupid and wrong to play in the middle of the interstate when you have traffic going 100mph around you. You might, however, see it as ok to go play on the curb or traffic circle when no cars around.

Apply this to "murder". Its wrong, and as a child you are told so. However, as an adult, you start to understand that under certain circumstances, its ok (self defense, state execution of criminals, war, ect.). So in this instance, a "wrong" depends on the circumstance.


OK, before you go bonkers, lets look at another example. As a child, I was told not to touch a hot stove. As an adult, I see the pure and simple logic of not touching a hot stove. It burns! I'd be pretty silly to go and purposefully touch a stove now. I can't argue as an adult that it depends on the time in history or perhaps my parents just did not instruct me. Have people touched stoves in the past? Sure! Was it wrong and stupid then? Sure! That fact that stoves have been touched in the past does not validate my desire to touch.

Apply this to rape. You are told rape is wrong, and under no circumstance is it ever right. It does not matter if you are an adult with understanding or a child, its absoluteness is non-changing.

Make sense?

So, as societies evolve (mature into an adult), they start growing in understanding of fundamentals (rape is wrong, "murder" under certain circumstances is ok, ect). BTW, using murder in quotations because I don't see executions or war as plain murder. Perhaps a better phrase would be "killing".

MrH


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> If you can prove to me that rape is an official accepted tool of war then I will publically retract my posts, until then they stand.


 
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr540762004



> _I was sleeping when the attack on Disa started. I was taken away by the attackers, they were all in uniforms. They took dozens of other girls and made us walk for three hours. During the day we were beaten and they were telling us: "You, the black women, we will exterminate you, you have no god." At night we were raped several times. The Arabs(1) guarded us with arms and we were not given food for three days." _


 
http://www.hrw.org/about/projects/womrep/General-21.htm



> Human Rights Watch investigations in the former Yugoslavia, Peru, Kashmir, and Somalia reveal that rape and sexual assault of women are an integral part of conflicts, whether international or internal in scope.1 We found that rape of women civilians has been deployed as a tactical weapon to terrorize civilian communities or to achieve "ethnic cleansing," a tool in enforcing hostile occupations, a means of conquering or seeking revenge against the enemy, and a means of payment for mercenary soldiers. Despite rape's prevalence in war, according to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, "[Rape] remains the least condemned war crime; throughout history, the rape of hundreds of thousands of women and children in all regions of the world has been a bitter reality.



To those who think that our society (That of the 21st Century United States), is somehow more advanced than cultures that have come before us (outside of our more clever weapons), I direct you to Ecclesiastes 1 : 9




> What has been is what will be,
> and what has been done is what will be done;
> there is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 11, 2005)

Um...I said proof of official acceptance of rape, not incidents where rape was commited. The fact that people have been raped throughout the history of the world means nothing in this discussion.

Now your offering the bible as your proof?

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Um...I said proof of official acceptance of rape, not incidents where rape was commited. The fact that people have been raped throughout the history of the world means nothing in this discussion.
> 
> Now your offering the bible as your proof?
> 
> 7sm


 
So, I guess what your saying is that 'nothing means nothing to this discussion' ... except for what you believe and want to claim.

You want proof, and yet, when I post the links, you don't read them. 

extra-judicial executions,
unlawful killings of civilians,
*torture*,
*rapes*,
abductions,
destruction of villages and property,
looting of cattle and property,
the destruction of the means of livelihood of the population attacked
forced displacement.
And these proofs are not from the bible, they are documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

And who performed these atrocities:
These human rights violations have been committed in a systematic manner by the Janjawid, often in coordination with Sudanese soldiers and the Sudanese Air Force,​
P.S. And yes, I will confirm that I am an athiest, still ... but remember the Bible says that even the devil can quote scripture to further his argument. Becareful when I start using Biblical texts in my heathen manner.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I understand what your saying, but I just dont agree that there are situations that make rape acceptable. We can make up scenarios in our mind, devoid of any reality that may make you think rape is ok (I can't honestly think of any, but someone might), but in reality we simply cannot say this is not an absolute without also saying rape is acceptable at some point. That is something I will not do....sorry.


 
I'm actually in total agreement with you.  In fact, if I was the only person on earth and the only woman on earth wouldn't sleep with me, I don't think I could bring myself to do it even to save the human race.  I couldn't live with myself afterward.  

So, I guess if we were to form our own country, we would agree that rape is illegal and would could pull in lots of like minded individuals that also think it is wrong.  The bottom line is that we wouldn't have to tolerate it in the territory that we controlled.

But what would happen if our neighbors thought that raping women was aOK?  Perhaps, for whatever god awful cultural reason, it was totally justified.  Whose laws would win in the end?  The winner.  I think that both you and I would fight to stop a rape and it is totally conceivable that our little hypothetical countries would go to war over it.  If we won, our laws would suddenly be forced on them and what we saw as right would be so because of our might.

This is the central problem with international law and Saddam's trial.  There is no real legal fairness.  However, in the eyes of everyone who is participating in this discussion, I think that we would all agree that the trial is moral.  This is not an absolute though.  It is a case of might makes right.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Context huh... Perhaps a better phrase these days would be terminology.
> 
> Here is another perspective... As a child, you get taught "Don't play in the streets!" (Lets assume you were told that anyways!). Now, why were you told that? Someone with understanding told you! They realize there is risk in doing such a thing, and they don't want to have harm come to you.
> 
> ...


 
This is an absolutely wonderful segway to what I posted right to 7starmantis.  Imagine a society where rape is used to punish women, where it is used to show them that they are powerless and inferior.  Imagine a society where every male child learns to possess women in this way.  Why would any male question whether this was wrong or not?  It is just the way it has always been done.  

Now imagine that this society is the most powerful society on the planet.  Imagine that they colonized every continent and virtually exterminated the indigenous cultures.  This situation would literally make most of the men in this world rapists and little societies that treated their women like men and let them run free would be seen as sick and wrong.  In fact, they might even see _that_ as evil and seek to bring _justice_ to them.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 11, 2005)

In western military tradition, rape and attrocity is viewed as an aberation, a break down of command.  It is viewed as 'uncivilized' and 'dishonorable'.  In other military traditions, however, rape and attrocity are considered the spoils of war, AND, are often part of an organized strategy to destroy the enemy people.

Western armies have discovered this when confronted forces of other cultures.  Russian General Mikhail Skobelev said of dealing with the Islamic world in particular, and asia in general "In Asia, the duration of peace is in direct proportion to the slaughter you inflict on the enemy."

Much more a contrast can be made by British diplomat Fitzroy Maclean "The population were accustomed to being oppressed and tortured by the emirs," adding "But they were not accustomed to interference with their age-old customs and their religion."

So, actually in the Islamic world, torture and oppression is expected by most of the population....so long as you leave the customs and religion alone.  A cynical view, perhaps, but apparently beared out.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 11, 2005)

In the US Army it will land you in Levanworth, turning big rocks into little rocks.

I see we have taken the (predictable) turn into moral relativism. I prefer to think of rape as morally and universally WRONG and have no compunction of imposing that belief on others.....


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> In the US Army it will land you in Levanworth, turning big rocks into little rocks.
> 
> I see we have taken the (predictable) turn into moral relativism. I prefer to think of rape as morally and universally WRONG and have no compunction of imposing that belief on others.....


 
I guess since we have the guns to press out beliefs on others, so be it.  However, just try to imagine having someone press their beliefs onto you because they have bigger guns.  

We may have taken a turn into moral relativism, but this does not mean that every belief is equal.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 11, 2005)

I cant believe we are saying "well since their culture accepts rape, murder, genocide etc. we should just accept it because to them its right." 

Our country is full of people and descendants of people who left many of those countries because they didnt accept that idea. Why bother stopping the Holocaust? The Germans thought it was right, who were we to say otherwise and impose our will on them?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 11, 2005)

Pope Benedict disagrees with moral relativism, and so do I.

http://nationalreview.com/novak/novak200504190839.asp



> No great, inspiring culture of the future can be built upon the moral principle of relativism. For at its bottom such a culture holds that nothing is better than anything else, and that all things are in themselves equally meaningless. Except for the fragments of faith (in progress, in compassion, in conscience, in hope) to which it still clings, illegitimately, such a culture teaches every one of its children that life is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.
> 
> The culture of relativism invites its own destruction, both by its own internal incoherence and by its defenselessness against cultures of faith.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I guess since we have the guns to press out beliefs on others, so be it. However, just try to imagine having someone press their beliefs onto you because they have bigger guns.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan G (Dec 11, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> He doesn't get it, but last I heard he still thinks he runs Iraq so he is in a court he thinks has no authority over him.....personally I got to wonder if he's got some mental problems going on there too cause he is in some deep denial....


 
He's being pretty smart. If he accepts the authority of the Court over him he loses his best line of defence and best opportunity to cause delay which is to claim that the Court is in itself illegal, and/or that it has no jurisdiction over him for acts he commited as Head of State. 

Tactically it is in his best interests to delay proceedings as long as possible as his situation can't get much worse than it is now. If he is convicted at present he knows he is likely to face the death penalty, on the other hand Iraq is unstable and potentially faces a civil war so his best chance of survival is to hang on and hope that the political situation changes enough for him to bargain his way out. 

Also by refusing to accept the authority of the Court he ensures that he builds a better case for becoming an martyr figure should he be executed. The worst thing he could possibly do is enter a plea of "Not Guilty", by refusing to plead he shows defiance of the Court, causes delay,and diminishes the perception of legitmacy of the judgment the Court ultimately hands down.

A nasty piece of work by any standards, but definitely not a stupid man.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 12, 2005)

Dan G said:
			
		

> He's being pretty smart. If he accepts the authority of the Court over him he loses his best line of defence and best opportunity to cause delay which is to claim that the Court is in itself illegal, and/or that it has no jurisdiction over him for acts he commited as Head of State.
> 
> Tactically it is in his best interests to delay proceedings as long as possible as his situation can't get much worse than it is now. If he is convicted at present he knows he is likely to face the death penalty, on the other hand Iraq is unstable and potentially faces a civil war so his best chance of survival is to hang on and hope that the political situation changes enough for him to bargain his way out.
> 
> ...


 No, he didn't get and maintain power by not being audacious and creative.  Also, a year ago I wouldn't have believed there was any chance he would survive, much less return to power.  Now, i'm not so sure.  If the left in this country has anything to say about it, Saddam Hussein may yet occupy the palaces of Iraq.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 12, 2005)

Dan G said:
			
		

> He's being pretty smart. If he accepts the authority of the Court over him he loses his best line of defence and best opportunity to cause delay which is to claim that the Court is in itself illegal, and/or that it has no jurisdiction over him for acts he commited as Head of State.
> 
> Tactically it is in his best interests to delay proceedings as long as possible as his situation can't get much worse than it is now. If he is convicted at present he knows he is likely to face the death penalty, on the other hand Iraq is unstable and potentially faces a civil war so his best chance of survival is to hang on and hope that the political situation changes enough for him to bargain his way out.
> 
> ...


 No, he didn't get and maintain power by not being audacious and creative. Also, a year ago I wouldn't have believed there was any chance he would survive, much less return to power. Now, i'm not so sure. If the left in this country has anything to say about it, Saddam Hussein may yet occupy the palaces of Iraq.


----------



## Dan G (Dec 12, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> Well, Iraq is the birthplace of codified law, if not the birthplace of human life. The laws which make up the IHC are primarily laws which were on the books while Saddam was in power, with some International Law added in.
> 
> International Law, particalarly the concept of Universal Law first appears in print during the Nuremberg Charter, but the drafters of the charter were very clear that they didn't come up with the idea and used the precedent of Pirates who were labeled ''hostis _humanis generis_,'' or enemies of mankind. Universal jurisdiction is based on the philosophy that when a person violates international law in such a, all states have an obligation to prosecute.
> 
> Finally, all immunity of prosecution may be removed by the issuing body. Much like the Impeachment process for American Presidents, heads of state can certainly have their immunity from prosecution removed by their own country.


 
Nuremburg is the most recent precedent, but probably the earliest and closest precedent is the trial and execution of King Charles I of England in 1649. The Court faced very similar problems to the current situation in Iraq in trying to define in domestic law a crime that could be committed by a ruler that was himself the source of all law. 

The government of the day had similar objectives, they could have easily and legally executed Charles I under the rules of martial law, but after a bloody civil war they wished to have a trial that would establish once and for all the limits of a ruler's power in order to ensure that the rights of a people against a dictator would be established and preserved.

The indictment spelled out the duties of ruler (even a King) being:

_"Trusted with a limited power to govern by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise: and by his trust, oath and office being obliged to use the power committed to him for the good and benefit of the people, and for the preservations of their rights and liberties"_

It went on to state:

_"Much innocent blood of the free people of this nation has been spilt, many families have been undone, the public treasury wasted and exhausted, trade obstructed and miserably decayed, vast expense and damage to the nation incurred, and many parts of this land spoiled, some of them even to desolation."_

It created the concept of command responsbility:

_"Charles Stuart has been and is the occasioner, author, and continuer of the said unnatural, cruel and bloody wars, and therein guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars or occasioned thereby."_

And created the crime against natural justice of "Tyranny"

_"And the said John Cooke on behalf of the people of England does for the said treasons and crimes impeach the said Charles Stuart as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and a public and implacable enemy to the Commonwealth of England and prays that the said Charles Stuart, King of England, may be put to answer all and every of the premises and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, sentences and judgements may thereupon be had, and as shall be agreeable to justice." __[Quoted from The Tyrannicide Brief - Geoffrey Rpbertson (2005) - a book on the life of John Cooke and the reforms he pioneered]_

It might be old law, but it was (briefly) good law based on an embryonic philosophy that was later to inspire the US constitution and Bill of Rights.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 12, 2005)

The problem with so-called "moral relativism" or "cultural relativism" is that they're still intrinsically absolutistic beliefs. In essence, they are cognitive self-contradictions that deny to all others that which they claim exclusively for themselves.

It's absurd, of course, but no less absurd than any other form of moral absolutism. Any form of moral absolutism is just a thinly-veiled attempt to pass of the morals and values of one's own culture (or sub-culture, as it were) as "the" truth, to the exclusion of all others. It is ethnocentrism at its best.

What is better understood, rather, is that morality (as with any form of "truth") is essentially contextual in nature. It does not stand on its own, magically independent of context, interpretation, or observation. Instead, morality exists in webs upon webs of understanding that define its very being. It is inevitably contextual.

Contextualism is important, in that it frees us from the intellectual lunacy of relativism, but also helps us realize that our values and viewpoints are not some divine Final Truth that everything absolutely must be judged against. Even the philosophy of contextualism itself exists in broader contexts, so at no point do we find an "omega point" that we can go and judge the whole world by.

In fact, you can only make value judgements with a proper understanding of context in hand. Without it, you're just stamping your feet and puffing up your chest about nothing.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The problem with so-called "moral relativism" or "cultural relativism" is that they're still intrinsically absolutistic beliefs. In essence, they are cognitive self-contradictions that deny to all others that which they claim exclusively for themselves.
> 
> It's absurd, of course, but no less absurd than any other form of moral absolutism. Any form of moral absolutism is just a thinly-veiled attempt to pass of the morals and values of one's own culture (or sub-culture, as it were) as "the" truth, to the exclusion of all others. It is ethnocentrism at its best.
> 
> ...


 Very well put.  Your point about the often self-serving nature of morally relativistic arguments is well made.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 12, 2005)

Dan G said:
			
		

> Nuremburg is the most recent precedent, but probably the earliest and closest precedent is the trial and execution of King Charles I of England in 1649. The Court faced very similar problems to the current situation in Iraq in trying to define in domestic law a crime that could be committed by a ruler that was himself the source of all law.
> 
> The government of the day had similar objectives, they could have easily and legally executed Charles I under the rules of martial law, but after a bloody civil war they wished to have a trial that would establish once and for all the limits of a ruler's power in order to ensure that the rights of a people against a dictator would be established and preserved.
> 
> ...


 Most new law is based on old law.  We developed American law, in many instances, on English common law older than this.


----------



## Dan G (Dec 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No, he didn't get and maintain power by not being audacious and creative. Also, a year ago I wouldn't have believed there was any chance he would survive, much less return to power. Now, i'm not so sure. If the left in this country has anything to say about it, Saddam Hussein may yet occupy the palaces of Iraq.


 
If too weak in enforcing the law and maintaining the security needed for the rule of law to exist then he has a fair chance of living to run/ruin at least part of his country again. 

If too hard on controlling the security, too restrictive on the power of the replacement government or too focused on taking short term pragmatic decisions at the expense of rule of law, then government legitimacy and constitutional safeguards never get securely etablished, and someone very much like him will be running the place before long.

To my mind it isn't about left/right it is about getting it right. Easier said than done. :idunno:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 12, 2005)

Dan G said:
			
		

> If too weak in enforcing the law and maintaining the security needed for the rule of law to exist then he has a fair chance of living to run/ruin at least part of his country again.
> 
> If too hard on controlling the security, too restrictive on the power of the replacement government or too focused on taking short term pragmatic decisions at the expense of rule of law, then government legitimacy and constitutional safeguards never get securely etablished, and someone very much like him will be running the place before long.
> 
> To my mind it isn't about left/right it is about getting it right. Easier said than done. :idunno:


 I honestly don't believe the majority of the populace is concerned with how hard or restrictive we or the Iraqi government are in dealing with insurgents in restoring order.  Having lived under Saddam for decades, they are used to 'pragmatism'.  

They will only chaffe it, at the same time, we attack their culture and religious convictions.  The British learned this through centuries of dealing in that region.  

As I noted earlier, they are used to firm and decisive responses to threats.  They merely wish their religious and cultural beliefs be left in tact.  They don't chaffe at torture and violence as a means to regain control, many of them believe we are weak and ineffective at dealing with the insurgents, they merely want us to leave as quickly as possible so that they don't feel as if they have to rely on us.

In other words, it isn't the 'torture', it's who it's blamed on.  That's why there was no real general outcry that the Iraqi government was operating a 'torture' house.  They expect that as a form of government (thought hopefully they learn another way).  They would prefer we crush the insurgency quickly and decisively, and then, GET OUT.

Instead, we have become bogged down in rules of engagement.  Oh well, western warfare meets middle eastern culture.  We're not the first to misunderstand them.


----------



## Dan G (Dec 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Most new law is based on old law. We developed American law, in many instances, on English common law older than this.


 
Whilst we threw away the chance to make similar developments and allowed the over romanticised oxygen thief Charles II back in 1660, with all our best and bravest legal and constitutional reformers either being brutally executed, imprisoned or forced to flee the country taking their talents to America or Europe. A wasted opportunity that set Britain back at least 150-200 years, and a classic example of what happens if change is not accompanied by longterm security and stability.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I cant believe we are saying "well since their culture accepts rape, murder, genocide etc. we should just accept it because to them its right."
> 
> Our country is full of people and descendants of people who left many of those countries because they didnt accept that idea. Why bother stopping the Holocaust? The Germans thought it was right, who were we to say otherwise and impose our will on them?


 
Do I think stopping the holocaust was wrong?  No.  Did the US invade Europe to stop the holocaust?  No.  

I guess the way I see it is that there are no firm lines drawn in the sand on cultural issues of right or wrong.  Some cultures have abomidable practices in them, but I don't think that we should invade their countries and impose our will and culture on them.  However, sometimes, in some circumstances, I might feel differently.  

When do you feel it is right to invade another country and impose our will/culture on the people of that country?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Pope Benedict disagrees with moral relativism, and so do I.
> 
> http://nationalreview.com/novak/novak200504190839.asp


 
In the same vein, a culture of absolutism eventually burns itself out in attempting to make everyone believe the same dogma.  With absolutism, one will never have peace because one can NEVER force everyone into the same mold.  The bottom line is that peoples morals are relative and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I guess you'll remember that the next time someone tries to rob you or steals your car. They aren't wrong, they just hold a different moral view than you. Just write it off.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
If I have the power to stop them then I will.  If I have lots of people who agree with me and we democratically choose to make stuff like that illegal and we hire people to enforce those laws, I have no problem with that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No, he didn't get and maintain power by not being audacious and creative. Also, a year ago I wouldn't have believed there was any chance he would survive, much less return to power. Now, i'm not so sure. If the left in this country has anything to say about it, Saddam Hussein may yet occupy the palaces of Iraq.


 
I would like to see you lay out a scenario where this could happen.  I don't think Saddam will live out his trial.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I would like to see you lay out a scenario where this could happen.  I don't think Saddam will live out his trial.



1: We leave
2: Bathist return to power, or others sympathetic to Saddam

1: We leave
2: Country falls into civil war
3: Saddam gets "rescued" by loyalist.

1: We leave
2: Al Quida or other similar group risks a few hundred lives in an attempt to break Saddam out.
3: Civil war ensues, and in the chaos, Saddam regains power.

1: Saddam is found innocent and vindicated, and the UN finds some ridiculous way to install him. (doubt US would allow reinstallment though if still occupying)

So, the most reasonable methods for Saddam regaining power would require our abscence. I suppose Civil war would not require our abscence, but if it were to start, I think we would get Saddam out ASAP. The scale of offensive currently required to get Saddam out while we control him would be beyond the ability of Al Quida I think...

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2005)

Most of Iraq is Shia muslim and they hate everything to do with baathists and Saddam.  They will not allow him or the baathists to return to power no matter what some outside power says.  Saddam's military power has been destroyed so there is no way that he could take the country back over himself.  At best, the baathists, sunni and Saddam, if he could even form such a coalition anymore, could expect a civil war...and that would end with their extermination.

Oh yeah, Al Qaeda despises Saddam.  He is a secular infidel.  They wouldn't help him.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Most of Iraq is Shia muslim and they hate everything to do with baathists and Saddam.  They will not allow him or the baathists to return to power no matter what some outside power says.  Saddam's military power has been destroyed so there is no way that he could take the country back over himself.  At best, the baathists, sunni and Saddam, if he could even form such a coalition anymore, could expect a civil war...and that would end with their extermination.



He obviously had some followers and some loyalty, otherwise he would not have lasted as long as he did. Uprisings were quelled with mass murder. Intimidation and mass murder tend to keep you in power even if people don't like you. I'd not be suprised to see the same tactics reprised were he returns in some fashion. Regardless, most of his military is disbanded, so it would be a difficult road. Not impossible, but difficult.



> Oh yeah, Al Qaeda despises Saddam.  He is a secular infidel.  They wouldn't help him.



Really? They do have a few unifying principles, such as a vile hatred for Israel and the US occupation. They would probably favor a reinstallation of Saddam just to snub the US. Then again, I don't have the mind of Al Qaeda, my brain does not work that way.

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> He obviously had some followers and some loyalty, otherwise he would not have lasted as long as he did. Uprisings were quelled with mass murder. Intimidation and mass murder tend to keep you in power even if people don't like you. I'd not be suprised to see the same tactics reprised were he returns in some fashion. Regardless, most of his military is disbanded, so it would be a difficult road. Not impossible, but difficult.


 
The question of how Saddam maintained his power is veeeeeeeeeery interesting and very embarrassing for the US and allies.

Saddam acheived power through superior military might.  That is the only way a minority can dominate a majority.  Saddam does not have that anymore and neither does the minority.  That is why he will never get back in power.



> Really? They do have a few unifying principles, such as a vile hatred for Israel and the US occupation. They would probably favor a reinstallation of Saddam just to snub the US. Then again, I don't have the mind of Al Qaeda, my brain does not work that way.


 
The bottom line is that Saddam was a secularist and Al Qaeda would never support anyone like that.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that Saddam was a secularist and Al Qaeda would never support anyone like that.



As I said, I don't have that kind of mind...  I'd swallow and do it if it meant furthering my ultimate goal. Use him as a temporary pawn to embarrass the US and allies. Your point regarding how he maintained power is well made. We've had our fingers in that mess over there for a long time. I don't think we had a perfect match in supporting Saddam, but we did not like the alternative. So, in that way, the US was thinking of temporary pawns in a fashion that Al Qaeda will not... an interesting twist.

MrH


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, I guess what your saying is that 'nothing means nothing to this discussion' ... except for what you believe and want to claim.
> 
> You want proof, and yet, when I post the links, you don't read them.


 Your dislike for me and my post is clouding your reading of them. I said nothing of the sort, please re-read my post as you are misunderstanding the point I was making.

As for not reading your links, thats quite an assumption to make....point of fact I did read them. Dont be so quick to let your assumptions of others bleed through into your public posts of them.

Sorry if I have offended you, but I haven't seen any proof of official acceptance or mandating of rape....none. Until that has been proven, your "Tools of War" argument is lacking.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> P.S. And yes, I will confirm that I am an athiest, still ... but remember the Bible says that even the devil can quote scripture to further his argument. Becareful when I start using Biblical texts in my heathen manner.


 :idunno: Not sure I understand what your saying here. Are you saying that you know your quote is out of context, yet you use it because the devil can? I honestly dont understand your point and what it has to do with this discussion, would you please explain?

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your dislike for me and my post is clouding your reading of them. I said nothing of the sort, please re-read my post as you are misunderstanding the point I was making.
> 
> As for not reading your links, thats quite an assumption to make....point of fact I did read them. Dont be so quick to let your assumptions of others bleed through into your public posts of them.
> 
> ...


 
I make no statements about my personal feelings or thoughts concerning you. 

If Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations are not enough proof for you, nothing ever will be sufficient. 

I am obviously in a discussion with an ideologue.


----------



## Dan G (Dec 12, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> 1: We leave
> 2: Bathist return to power, or others sympathetic to Saddam
> 
> 1: We leave
> ...


Nice post. a possible further scenario:

1: any of the above happen, Neither the Coalition, Iran nor Syria like the factions that are developing giving Saddam a window to play one off against the other and return as a power proker behind the scenes, thus minimising international interference and savng face all round.

For the scenario to work Saddam needs to acheive support and respect as he lacks the immediate power he once had - something his trial may actually help him with if the prosecution fail to make their case well enough to convince enough of the iraqi public of his unsuitability for any kind of power.

Having said that I would imagine one faction or another would arrange for him to have an "accident" if it ever seriously looked like he was going to be free to wield influence again. Depending how capable and unified those organising the Sunni insurgency are, he is probably more use to his natural supporters as a martyr figure than he is alive, given his time out of power, and the international attention he would attract. Futhermore the people best placed to help him are also those best placed to lead a Sunni faction, and given his track record for bumping off rivals they have serious discentives to keep him alive when they can use him more safely as a dead figurehead.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I make no statements about my personal feelings or thoughts concerning you.
> 
> If Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations are not enough proof for you, nothing ever will be sufficient.
> 
> I am obviously in a discussion with an ideologue.



If your source of enlightenment includes Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and United Nations, then I consider you an ideologue. You trust different sources than many people do. Its part of what makes us so different. Some people trust source like Al Jazeera. Thats their perogative. I chose to not listen to such sources. Am I closed minded? If you chose to use that label, go ahead. Many chose to ignore sources like Limbaugh or extremist on the right side. Better give them the "close minded" label too. If having formed an opinion makes me closed minded, thats fine. Same thing with regard to US politics. If your source of info is Moveon.org, you will have quite differing views than if your source of info is Limbaugh. Its a matter of who you trust.

Apply your labels consistently.

MrH


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> If your source of enlightenment includes Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and United Nations, then I consider you an ideologue. You trust different sources than many people do. Its part of what makes us so different. Some people trust source like Al Jazeera. Thats their perogative. I chose to not listen to such sources. Am I closed minded? If you chose to use that label, go ahead. Many chose to ignore sources like Limbaugh or extremist on the right side. Better give them the "close minded" label too. If having formed an opinion makes me closed minded, thats fine. Same thing with regard to US politics. If your source of info is Moveon.org, you will have quite differing views than if your source of info is Limbaugh. Its a matter of who you trust.
> 
> Apply your labels consistently.
> 
> MrH


 
Please list for me which sources that you feel are independent enough to be trustworthy, rather than those whom you feel are untrustworthy.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please list for me which sources that you feel are independent enough to be trustworthy, rather than those whom you feel are untrustworthy.



Thats just of my point. Every news source has their own perspective on the news. Today its difficult to decipher the underlying motives of each news source. With each persons beliefs, you get a group of sources that you grow to trust. I think there is no unbiased news source. Taking several different sources gives you just about as good of a perspective as you can get. Ones you find to be consistently unreliable or incredibly biased, dump them. Everyone is going to develop a different list of sources. Yours are different from mine. However, making claims such as



> If Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations are not enough proof for you, nothing ever will be sufficient.



Simply means to me that these sources are meaningful to you. Others will not find these sources sufficient/reliable/reasonably unbiased. I'm one of those people (in particular with the UN).

MrH


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The problem with so-called "moral relativism" or "cultural relativism" is that they're still intrinsically absolutistic beliefs.


 
There's a spectrum that runs from "my beliefs are right" to "all beliefs are equally right" and it's hard to imagine finding a way to decide where we should be on that line that is derived from first principles that are widely accepted. Clearly, what people see as right or wrong depends on their culture/upbringing.

But the nut of it is, we clearly need a consensus on issues like this. Is it morally correct to oppose abortion because we value life, or to allow it because we respect individuals' rights? If you choose not to decide, as they say, you still have made a choice.



> cognitive self-contradictions


 
It's not clear to me that "cognitive" is a useful modifier here. What are you trying to distinguish between?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2005)

Bias is not synonomous with Fabrication.

And again, we get a "I won't trust them ... but I won't tell you who I will trust" response. I am unwilling to be educated, lest my pre-concieved notions are disturbed.


----------



## Dan G (Dec 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Do I think stopping the holocaust was wrong? No. Did the US invade Europe to stop the holocaust? No.
> 
> I guess the way I see it is that there are no firm lines drawn in the sand on cultural issues of right or wrong. Some cultures have abomidable practices in them, but I don't think that we should invade their countries and impose our will and culture on them. However, sometimes, in some circumstances, I might feel differently.
> 
> When do you feel it is right to invade another country and impose our will/culture on the people of that country?


 
Without a firmer analysis your arguments come down to personal belief. They are valid, to you and many others, but not persuasive as they do not present a model that can gain agreement other than on subjective grounds and on a case by case basis. Your approach pretty much reflects the reality of international decision making, irrespective of political view. Whilst I don't always agree with you I don't have huge issues with the approach as a personal belief system, in a complex world most opinions are to one degree or another subjective. It is possible, however, to go beyond a subjective and relativistic approach and achieve some certainty in important areas, if done with care.

The challenge facing International law is in agreeing a set of absolute common standards whilst at the same time preserving the integrity of the State from outside influence. 

The problem is that the international law of war, and international treaty law has the primary aim of protecting the integrity of a state, and of the rulers of a state. That is why the allegation that the coalition forces are engaged in regime change in Iraq is so serious. As you say the US didn't invade Europe to prevent the holocaust, the US invaded in self defence, at last in part, in support of almost universally accepted (but not universally obeyed) rules of international law, and in accordance with treaty obligations that made Germany a common agressor with Japan. Having said that I speak English as my first language, and appreciate the sacrifice the US made in achieving that, even if it wasn't the main objective.

Following the war Nuremburg was the first attempt at creating an international agrement on internal state actions that constitute a crime against humanity in general. However, no state in their right mind is going to cede jurisdiction on their internal conduct to an unidentified external power, and the bulk of international law supports this approach. This leads to the UN as a council in which member states can vote to interfere militarily with a non-member state. It remains in effect a subjective judgement as to when this is appropriate, and is obviously severely hampered where internal humanitarian abuses are concerned as too many members of the UN rightly fear setting a precedent when their own conduct is less than perfect. 

A further approach is available, and that is to set some absolute standards that can be enforced as a universal right. Arguments on subjective v absolute values are a distraction. it has been done, and very effectively, in a number of countries. The US has a body of law and a Bill of Rights that sets absolute humanitarian rights for their citizens, and the UN has produced a similar absolute list of rights. The EU has done the same, and has also set up a central court that has the power to rule on, but not physically enforce, human rights issues in member states. The crime of genocide has been defined and enforced in the International Court of Justice in the Hague. To argue that the issues are too subjective to be codified is to miss a major point, it has already been done and with some success.

The only development in international law that has yet to happen is to specify a list of absolute humanitarian laws, the breach of which allows a country to sidestep international law and effect policekeeping or regime change, and to create a mechanism where the decision to take action is approved by a defined set of criteria and evidential rules, rather than a subjective vote in the UN. Basically an international court supported by the international community. Applying the rule of law to invasion of another country is entirely possible.

Put simply:
1. it is possible to define some basic but absolute humanitarian rights;

2. it is already possible to create a legal framework for enforcement that is less political and less subjective (International courts);

3. Mechanisms for enforcement already exist, whether UN peacekeepers, or coalitions of motivated countries; 

4. Regime change and post conflict settlement has plenty of precedent - e.g. the Marshall plan (thanks again), South Africa, current activities in Afghanistan etc. 

On a lot of things I am quite happily subjective, I like to call it tolerance, but I am definitely not a relativist on core humanitarian issues like the right to a fair trial,freedom of expression, freedom from torture, illegality of genocide etc.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 12, 2005)

I must appologize up front for this being a long post, my internet connection is crapping out and I want to address all of this in one post. That being said:



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The problem with so-called "moral relativism" or "cultural relativism" is that they're still intrinsically absolutistic beliefs. In essence, they are cognitive self-contradictions that deny to all others that which they claim exclusively for themselves.
> 
> It's absurd, of course, but no less absurd than any other form of moral absolutism. Any form of moral absolutism is just a thinly-veiled attempt to pass of the morals and values of one's own culture (or sub-culture, as it were) as "the" truth, to the exclusion of all others. It is ethnocentrism at its best.
> 
> ...


This all depends on how you look at it. Choosing to see it this way, in my opinion, is only an excuse to not do the work or spend the time thinking about people who are easily forgotten. The young woman who is trying to make her life and is being beaten and raped repeatedly by the "military" is not worthy of protecting because her own culture allows these acts? As a point of fact, the culture we are discussing does not allow these acts. There must be at some point absolutes, not in religion or even really morals, but in quality of life. You could argue she might not want to be rescued, but then we wouldn't want to put words in her mouth would we? 

Your against moral and religious absolutism, and I tend to agree, but at some point the deepr you go, there must be absolutes for things such as rape. Is it ok to sit and allow a rape to continue because in their culture it might be "acceptable"? Ask the woman (or man for that matter) getting raped if its acceptable to them. Your just saying we shouldn't force our rules on them but yet allowing the rapist to force his beliefs on the victim. Where do you stop?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In the same vein, a culture of absolutism eventually burns itself out in attempting to make everyone believe the same dogma. With absolutism, one will never have peace because one can NEVER force everyone into the same mold. The bottom line is that peoples morals are relative and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.


I'm not talking about making everyone believe the same thing. Belief is not the point here, action is. Morals aren't really what I'm talking about either. Your point would lend itself to the arguemnt that rape is ok as long as the rapist believes it is ok. Thats just the other side of this coin. Is it ok to rape someone who believs its wrong if you believe its right? Is it ok to rape someone who believes rape is ok? Or is rape simply wrong? If you can't say absolutely then you leave yoruself open to accepting rape....something I can't do. I'm not saying make everyone believe rape is wrong, just make everyone stop raping innocent young women and even men. Believe what you want, action is whats important.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that Saddam was a secularist and Al Qaeda would never support anyone like that.


 For one who disagrees with absolutes, you seem pretty certain of how these religious absolutist will act in the future :wink:



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> If Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations are not enough proof for you, nothing ever will be sufficient.
> 
> I am obviously in a discussion with an ideologue.


First, lets not go down the road of personal attacks. If your point cannot be made without the use of such attacks, I propose it isn't worth being made.

Second, just because what you consider to be 100% accurate proof doesn't fit with me means nothing will ever be sufficient? You jump to extremes to make your points, this is another logical fallicy. There is plenty that would be sufficient, but I didnt see anything even in your sources that prove anything, just opinions and such. Offer me proof from unbiased or both sides of an argument and we will agree.

Your sources simply said rape is committed quite often, which I would agree with, but gave no proof of accepted or commanded rape. Because people have been wrong and ignored it doesn't mean our military orders it done. Two completely different things. 

What your saying is that rape is comitted during times of war by those participating in the war for purposes possibly connected to the war. That is fine, but not the same as saying our military commands and orders the rape of women in order to further or bring about our victory in a war.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about making everyone believe the same thing. Belief is not the point here, action is. Morals aren't really what I'm talking about either. Your point would lend itself to the arguemnt that rape is ok as long as the rapist believes it is ok. Thats just the other side of this coin. Is it ok to rape someone who believs its wrong if you believe its right? Is it ok to rape someone who believes rape is ok? Or is rape simply wrong? If you can't say absolutely then you leave yoruself open to accepting rape....something I can't do. I'm not saying make everyone believe rape is wrong, just make everyone stop raping innocent young women and even men. Believe what you want, action is whats important.


 
I'm not certain that I follow what you are saying.  here is another version of what I was trying to say.  If you rape someone in a community where rape is considered wrong, then it is wrong.  However, if you rape someone in a community of people who have no problem with rape, then you did nothing wrong.



> For one who disagrees with absolutes, you seem pretty certain of how these religious absolutist will act in the future :wink:


 
I'm not certain at all.  I can only look to what they said in the past...which is that they absolutely hate secularists...Saddam included.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> First, lets not go down the road of personal attacks. If your point cannot be made without the use of such attacks, I propose it isn't worth being made.


 
No personal attack intended. You asked for proof, and then are not willing to consider the proof offered. I am open to, and have asked for, understanding why these sources are insufficient, and receive no response other than "These sources are not acceptable to me".



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Second, just because what you consider to be 100% accurate proof doesn't fit with me means nothing will ever be sufficient?


This sentence almost makes sense. Except for the part of ascribing "100% accurate proof" to me. I make no claim that Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or the United Nations are 100% accurate. I submit them as evidence of militarily supported rapes and tortures. From the opposition, I get not contradictory evidence; I get no disputes of their claims. Only the suggestion that these sources are inadequate.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> You jump to extremes to make your points, this is another logical fallicy. There is plenty that would be sufficient, but I didnt see anything even in your sources that prove anything, just opinions and such. Offer me proof from unbiased or both sides of an argument and we will agree.


 
I do not believe I am providing 'extremes' as evidence. I am willing to discuss contradictory evidence. But I am provided no such evidence. The only evidence before us to make judgements is that submitted by these organizations. No reason to disbelieve these sources is provided.

What would suffice as proof, if these sources do not? 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your sources simply said rape is committed quite often, which I would agree with, but gave no proof of accepted or commanded rape. Because people have been wrong and ignored it doesn't mean our military orders it done. Two completely different things.


 
I submit this from the HRW article:

_We found that rape of women civilians has been deployed as a tactical weapon to terrorize civilian_
​The question I pose from this statment, is who do you propose has "deployed" this tactical weapon? 


			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> What your saying is that rape is comitted during times of war by those participating in the war for purposes possibly connected to the war. That is fine, but not the same as saying our military commands and orders the rape of women in order to further or bring about our victory in a war.
> 
> 7sm


 
I am making no claims about what "our" military commands and orders are. Although, I think that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is guilty of supporting and condoning torture of Iraqis. That is not the argument I am making here. 
Your national-centric point of view appears to be coloring your understanding of the discussion. Or, maybe you just don't want to participate in the *this* discussion.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> However, if you rape someone in a community of people who have no problem with rape, then you did nothing wrong.


 
There is an example of this type of cultural norm in an Amazon tribe. (Of course, the example is imperfect, but it's a good example nonetheless.) An anthropologist who studied the tribe married a woman from it and wrote a book on them. Unfortunately, although I read a few reviews of it at the time, I cannot recall the details--the many reviews of books on the Yanomami that I have read are blocking it out.

To say that one has done no wrong if the community approves (or doesn't object) is itself a statement of your views on the issue. This type of behaviour is acceptable in the prison community--not to everyone, obviously, but to the community as a whole--let alone what the British Navy did to young recruits for centuries. (That was so institutionalized that Winston Churchill famously listed rum, sodomy, and the lash as the only three traditions of the British Navy.) But from a majority rule/minority rights perspective, one might still argue that it's wrong.

I think it's wrong on absolute grounds, but then that reflects my view of morality. If one takes a very strict evolutionist viewpoint, one might simply account it as reproductive behaviour. Evolutionary psychologists are forever being accused of 'forgiving' or 'justifying' rape as an adaptation of the male. Animal studies lend some credence to this view, though it's not a simple matter.

This is why we have _law_ in addition to morality. Peoples' morals differ, but the law, in principle, does not.


----------



## Dan G (Dec 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm not certain that I follow what you are saying. here is another version of what I was trying to say. If you rape someone in a community where rape is considered wrong, then it is wrong. However, if you rape someone in a community of people who have no problem with rape, then you did nothing wrong.


 
A fair summation of a relativist approach. 

The question is, what is "the community"? 

Is it a religious grouping, ethnic grouping, neighbourhood group, sub-culture, dietary preference, sports club, job description, nationality, national residency, citizenship, regional identity, language grouping,fashion choice, preference in music, age group, education level, social status or membership of the human race? 

A truly relativist approach is incapable of distinguishing between communities such as the Manson family, Ghandi and followers, Greenpeace eco warriors, the inhabitants of the United States, followers of Buddhism, liberal arts students, Neo Nazi's or even Ted Bundy's community of one (29+ if you include his victims). This approach to moral problem solving clearly doesn't work well, as respecting the moral position of the liberal arts student having carnal knowledge with your family pet, whilst at the same time accommodating without judgement the diverse views of your neighbourhood Neo Nazi's as they BBQ the Tibetan monk you invited round for vegetarian snacks can leave one feeling a little bit too much like a door mat.

An absolutist doesn't have this problem because they consider the ethics and rules of their own "community" as being more important than any other. At their most extreme this type of absolutist tends to be a high achieving but often unpopular visitor (Ghengis Khan, the British Empire), or come to a sticky end (pretty much any religious martyr). This is a highly effective approach to moral problem solving, but it has a very high mortality rate.

If you arrange the "communities" into a hierarchy the problem becomes more manageable. The concepts underpinning international humanitarian law follow this principle in stating a limited number of fundamental rights that override all others, and that apply to humankind as a whole The "community" of humankind is at the top of the hierarchy, and any other "community" is a subset and is free to make whatever rules it chooses, provided those do not contravene the moral obligations and rights that apply to the "community" of humankind as a whole, or a superior "community", if any.

This approach keeps the absolutists happy (provided world conquest isn't on their list of fundamental human rights), and the relativists can be as flexible and diverse as they like on all issues that do not contravene the rules of a superior "community" in the hierarchy. Plenty of scope for argument about the order of various hierarchies of "communities", but so long as it doesn't lead to genocide then no major harm done.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2005)

One assumption that seems to be taken by all througout this discussion, is that all humans have equal rights. This is not now, nor ever has been the case. 

Throughout all of history, communities would view 'others' as chattel. Was Thomas Jefferson committing rape when he impregnated Sally Hemings? The young Hemings girl was a slave. She had no rights. Could she have cried rape? 

Now, honestly, I don't know what Jefferson and Hemings relationship was like, except that when Jefferson was in France, the Hemings girl was in her early teens. And it is assumed they were intimate at that time. (Is intimate the correct word?).

So, before every decries rape as a universal wrong, I think an examination of the de-humanization that some cultures participate in should be carefully reviewed. 

 Haven't armies throughout history dehumanized their enemies? Might the result of that be sexual assault that is not 'rape'? Can you rape a living creature that is less than human?


----------



## Dan G (Dec 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> One assumption that seems to be taken by all througout this discussion, is that all humans have equal rights. This is not now, nor ever has been the case.


The basic assumption is that it is the right of all human beings to demand and receive recognition of and treatment consistent with certain basic and fundamental human rights. Those rights continue to exist whether or not they are observed. Just as if I steal your car it remains your property, even if I have infringed your right to enjoy that property, and refuse to acknowledge your ownership of it. 
The fact that there has never been a point where mankind was able to equally enjoy the benefit of certain rights does not mean those rights do not exist.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Throughout all of history, communities would view 'others' as chattel. Was Thomas Jefferson committing rape when he impregnated Sally Hemings? The young Hemings girl was a slave. She had no rights. Could she have cried rape?
> 
> Now, honestly, I don't know what Jefferson and Hemings relationship was like, except that when Jefferson was in France, the Hemings girl was in her early teens. And it is assumed they were intimate at that time. (Is intimate the correct word?).
> 
> So, before every decries rape as a universal wrong, I think an examination of the de-humanization that some cultures participate in should be carefully reviewed.


I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think you are trying to point out that denial of any human rights by "de-humanizing" others, with slavery given as an example, is a more fundamental problem than the more emotive examples of rape as a denial of rights that have been given previously in this thread. Sally Hemming's age would make any sexual relations statutory rape today in most Western legal jurisdictions.The inability of a human being who is "owned" to give a free consent to anything is a good point. For a long time and in analagous circumstances, husbands could rape their wives in the UK with no legal sanction, as until recently a wife could not withhold her consent in law, no matter what the actual facts were. I doubt that as Jefferson's slave Sally Hemmings would have had any greater rights than as his wife, but I don't know.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Haven't armies throughout history dehumanized their enemies?


I don't believe that has always been the case at all. Saying that, it is easy to come up with plenty of examples that show armies de-humanizing an opponent.


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Might the result of that be sexual assault that is not 'rape'?


 In a word "No". Not in law and not in morality.

Absent psychiatric disorders or similar incompetence or diminishment of responsibility an inability or unwillingness to recognise the rights of others is not a defence.

Situations where combatants themselves have been "de-humanized" may provide a defence to what would otherwise be rape. An extreme example would be child soldiers in West Africa who were routinely raped, forced to witness atrocities, often on family members, and then forced to commit atrocities under duress often in their communities, including rape, as initiation ceremonies designed to traumatise them and prepare them to carry out acts of genocide and prevent them ever returning to their communities. Given their age and their undeniably traumatic experiences Western legal systems would provide them with a number of defences.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Can you rape a living creature that is less than human?


 No. It would be bestiality (still defined in many common law jurisdictions as the offence of buggery).


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 12, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The question of how Saddam maintained his power is veeeeeeeeeery interesting and very embarrassing for the US and allies.


 The soviet union aided Saddam, but it was Saddam's ability unite the Sunni's behind him.  The notion that the 'US' installed Saddam is nothing but a tin-hat fantasy.  I think we've had this debate before, and you came out short.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Saddam acheived power through superior military might. That is the only way a minority can dominate a majority. Saddam does not have that anymore and neither does the minority. That is why he will never get back in power.


 Obviously you are ignorant of Saddam's original rise to power.  From being in prison to being head of the country in less than 10 years.  He fled Iraq ahead of the hounds more than once, and was incarcerated for a time.  That Saddam Hussein could return to power, is a possibility.  It depends on if the left forces the US to withdrawl prematurely.




			
				upnorthykyosa said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that Saddam was a secularist and Al Qaeda would never support anyone like that.


 al Qaeda itself probably won't, but the insurgency is a strange hybrid of al Qaeda fighters and Saddam loyalists.  What's more, Saddam has emerged as a bit of a martyr to even many NEW al Qaeda members.


What's more, I think we've forgotten that Syria's government ruling party....are also Ba'athists, who might have an interest in maintaining a Ba'athist ruling party in Iraq, as opposed to a Shiite government.


This creates an interesting scenario, with Syria supporting the Sunni's, and, Saddam if he survives.  Iran would back the Shiites in the south.  The Kurds?  They'd be in it for themselves, and would probably declare independence.

So, if we pull out, we can watch the Islamic world erupt, with Sunni's and Syria on one side, Iran and the Shiites on the other, and the Kurds hiding out up north.

So, if we pull out, and Saddam is still alive, I think Syria might intervene on Saddam's part.  Iran won't like that one bit.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> _Haven't armies throughout history dehumanized their enemies?_





			
				Dan G said:
			
		

> I don't believe that has always been the case at all. Saying that, it is easy to come up with plenty of examples that show armies de-humanizing an opponent.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> _Can you rape a living creature that is less than human?_





			
				Dan G said:
			
		

> No. It would be bestiality (still defined in many common law jurisdictions as the offence of buggery).


 
Here is an argument ... and perhaps a way of see how rape is both a) morally reprehensible and b) a tool of warfare.

The powers that launch a war against a neighboring country create a de-humanizing portrait of the 'other'. The 'other' is perceived as less than human. Soldiers, who throughout the build-up and campaigns of battle have been told the 'other' is less than human. Because the 'other' is not equal as a human, soldiers who sexually assault them, may have a twisted view of what is occurring .. e.g. bestiality, but not rape.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Here is an argument ... and perhaps a way of see how rape is both a) morally reprehensible and b) a tool of warfare.
> 
> The powers that launch a war against a neighboring country create a de-humanizing portrait of the 'other'. The 'other' is perceived as less than human. Soldiers, who throughout the build-up and campaigns of battle have been told the 'other' is less than human. Because the 'other' is not equal as a human, soldiers who sexually assault them, may have a twisted view of what is occurring .. e.g. bestiality, but not rape.


 

One need look no further than the Japanese treatment of 'comfort women', the Rape of Nanking, and many, many other attrocities during WWII to see how rape and attrocity can become a tool of warfare.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The soviet union aided Saddam, but it was Saddam's ability unite the Sunni's behind him. The notion that the 'US' installed Saddam is nothing but a tin-hat fantasy. I think we've had this debate before, and you came out short.


 
Yes, we had this debate before and I clearly showed that the US had a huge part in supporting Saddam's regime.  Yes, there were other people involved, but the US, with its influence, money, loans, actual gifts of military equipment _and through dealings with private corporations_, was by far the largest supporter of Saddam.



> Obviously you are ignorant of Saddam's original rise to power. From being in prison to being head of the country in less than 10 years. He fled Iraq ahead of the hounds more than once, and was incarcerated for a time. That Saddam Hussein could return to power, is a possibility. It depends on if the left forces the US to withdrawl prematurely.


 
No it doesn't.  It all depends on whether or not he lives, which is probably not going to happen.  Beyond that, it depends on whether he can garner enough military support...which is not going to happen.



> al Qaeda itself probably won't, but the insurgency is a strange hybrid of al Qaeda fighters and Saddam loyalists. What's more, Saddam has emerged as a bit of a martyr to even many NEW al Qaeda members.


 
This is a good point and it may represent a change in attitude.  Stranger things have happened.



> What's more, I think we've forgotten that Syria's government ruling party....are also Ba'athists, who might have an interest in maintaining a Ba'athist ruling party in Iraq, as opposed to a Shiite government.
> 
> This creates an interesting scenario, with Syria supporting the Sunni's, and, Saddam if he survives. Iran would back the Shiites in the south. The Kurds? They'd be in it for themselves, and would probably declare independence.
> 
> So, if we pull out, we can watch the Islamic world erupt, with Sunni's and Syria on one side, Iran and the Shiites on the other, and the Kurds hiding out up north.


 
This may happen no matter how long the US stays in Iraq.  As long as the violence continues to escalate and the region's oil is up for grabs, we looking at the prospects of civil war regardless of our actions.



> So, if we pull out, and Saddam is still alive, I think Syria might intervene on Saddam's part. Iran won't like that one bit.


 
That could be possible, however, I think Saddam's reputation is bad enough that someone new and "clean" would be found for a figurehead.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 13, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm not certain that I follow what you are saying. here is another version of what I was trying to say. If you rape someone in a community where rape is considered wrong, then it is wrong. However, if you rape someone in a community of people who have no problem with rape, then you did nothing wrong.


Ok, this is exactly what I'm trying to say. Your saying its not wrong to whom? The person getting raped? I'm not saying rape is wrong as an absolute because everyone thinks it is, but because regardless of its acceptance by some cultures, its still not an acceptable practice. Are you then accepting of rape if the culture allows it? Would you not try and stop a rape occuring if the person committing the rape believes it to be ok? It goes back to my unanswered questions....

Is rape ok if the person committing the rape and the person being raped believe rape is acceptable?

Is rape ok if you believe its acceptable ragardless of what the victim believes? 

Again, your saying we can't force our beliefs on others but yet support a rapist forcing his belief of rape being ok on a young woman or man. Its a double standard that is hard to get around.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> No personal attack intended. You asked for proof, and then are not willing to consider the proof offered. I am open to, and have asked for, understanding why these sources are insufficient, and receive no response other than "These sources are not acceptable to me".


 Name calling is most deffinitely a personal attack, but lets leave it alone and continue with the discussion at hand. I am most willing to consider the evidence you offered....I have considered it, read it, and thought about it. I simply found nothing in the "evidence" you offered that shows what you are claiming it does. I didn't say the sources weren't acceptable to me, maybe you should look at who is posting what when you read this thread. What I'm saying is your evidence only shows the fact that rape is committed and has in the past often been ignored. It offeres nothing about condoned, commanded, ordered, or accepted as a general practice for the military. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> This sentence almost makes sense. Except for the part of ascribing "100% accurate proof" to me. I make no claim that Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or the United Nations are 100% accurate. I submit them as evidence of militarily supported rapes and tortures. From the opposition, I get not contradictory evidence; I get no disputes of their claims. Only the suggestion that these sources are inadequate.


 Again, you are skirting a fine line with personal attacks, why can't we leave that out of this? If your not claiming your own evidence as accurate...why should I? 
The fact still remains that I didn't say your sources were inadequate (as you have said I did twice now), I said they didn't show what you claimed they did. Again allow me to seperate and clearify what I'm saying.

I am not saying rape hasn't been committed during war time by those participating in the war. Nor am I saying rape hasn't been ignored by those participating in a war. What I *am* saying is that I see nothing to show that rape is an accepted and ordered practice among our military or the militaries of any country associated with this discussion...except Saddam's. 
The truth is we have gone off topic here....the fact of this is moot to this discussion, rape is wrong...absolutely. The rape of the Iraqi people by Saddam is one thing he should be held accountable for....regardless of weather anyone else does it too. 

7sm


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 13, 2005)

Gentlemen, let's take a breather and come back to this discussion on topic, shall we?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Name calling is most deffinitely a personal attack, but lets leave it alone and continue with the discussion at hand.
> 
> Again, you are skirting a fine line with personal attacks, why can't we leave that out of this?


 
Please quote those statements of mine which you feel are 'name calling'. 

Or, please stop with the accusation.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please quote those statements of mine which you feel are 'name calling'.
> 
> Or, please stop with the accusation.


Please see my post above.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 13, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Please see my post above.


Yes, yes...thank you. Getting back on topic, I'm going to start another thread for the absolute discussion and lets get back to Saddam's "crimes".

I think we cannot rule out his guilt because another culture may look differently at it. Rape, while maybe common and accepted by select few is not right. Ask those who have been raped before. Should we turn a blind eye because Saddam's culture accepts rape? As a point of fact, the culture of the Iraqi's does not accept rape. Becaue I'm powerful and in control means I can make my own rules?

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

The discussion was about whether he could be tried for murder, I believe--did he break any laws by killing people (directly or indirectly) while President of Iraq, or could he claim that he was no more guilty of murder than Abraham Lincoln was in the U.S. Civil War?


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 13, 2005)

Well, its really about his refusal to return to court, but I think among his crimes, murder may exist, but rape and torture do as well.

But, while we're on it, what makes his killing not murder? The fact that he said it was ok? Did the murdered person also agree?

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

Stanley Tookie Williams didn't agree with his murder:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051213...GYEcP8A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

The question is, How will you distinguish Arnold Schwarzenegger's "murder" of Stanley Tookie Williams from Saddam Hussein's murder of his prisoners? In each case, the legal authorities decided that the state would end someone's life. Obviously, we all see the differences here...but from a legal point of view, why can Arnold Schwarzenegger kill this person, and George Bush kill Timothy McVeigh, but Saddam Hussein couldn't kill his citizens?

In case it's necessary, let me say that I don't support what Saddam Hussein did, and I'll be happy to see him swing...the question is, if his solicitor makes such an argument, how does one refute it?


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 13, 2005)

For one it must be taken into consideration the manner in which the "offender" was put to death. That plays a large role in determining this.

Also, the crime must be proven (in a court of law, which has been done) that it was in fact murder. The court system we have set up approves of mandated "killings" if certain criteria have been met. The murder of a rival gang member with a nine mill and a spiked bat is hardly the same process by which we determine the death penalty. 

I understand your use of the "devils advocate" role....and I like it 

7sm


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2005)

Executing murderers is different from mass murder of political dissidents too....


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Executing murderers is different from mass murder of political dissidents too....


 
In both cases, lives are being taken by the state.  The difference is the justification.  It's moral relativism at its finest.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2005)

One is justice and protection from killers for society and the other is about a leader keeping power through murder...nothing relative about it.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In both cases, lives are being taken by the state.


 
Yes, and some level of process is involved in each case.

It's clear that what Saddam Hussein did (or ordered done) was wrong. People would disagree as to whether what Arnold Schwarzenegger did was wrong. But how are people drawing the line here? That's what's not clear. Look at what the U.S. did in ending the rebellion of the Southern states. Clearly, some of what was done would be considered war crimes, but even leaving egregious examples aside, Abraham Lincoln ordered many of what he saw as his citizens killed. He did it to keep his territory. He's a hero and Saddam Hussein is a goat. (An insult to goats everywhere, I know.) We all know one reason why: The winners write the history books. But if you're the lawyer or judge in that courtroom, how do you draw the line other than saying "Look Saddam Hussein, you're pond scum and everyone knows it." Sure, he was unpopular...is that the criterion? Bear in mind, he wasn't even overthrown by his own people, but by an invading army. This was not a popular rebellion within Iraq.

If he argues that he acted as a head of state is allowed and expected to do, what can we say? It was within his own borders, unlike Germany in WWII.

It's fine by me to set up an International Law and hold these scum to it even if they aren't signatories. It would've been fine by me to have Saddam Hussein simply taken out and shot. But if one insists on a very narrow definition of the rule of law here, then I think his lawyers have many angles to work.

My guess is that he'll eventually be convicted on, in essence, the "you're pond scum" basis. There'll be no outcries of unfairness from me. He lived by the sword, and can swing from the rope.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> One is justice and protection from killers for society and the other is about a leader keeping power through murder...nothing relative about it.


 
That's just an emotional response. Society is just as well protected from S.T. Williams if he's locked up in a cell for the rest of his life. Killing him is an extra step.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> One is justice and protection from killers for society and the other is about a leader keeping power through murder...nothing relative about it.


 
Really?  I life is a life isn't it?  When one takes life that's murder.  The only difference is the physical power backing up the justification.  This is moral relativism.

Also, Saddam could use the defense that he was just trying to protect society also and perhaps, in some cases bring justice.  Many of the people who were killed could have committed "treason" or could have been actively attempting to challenge state authority.  Also, it is instructive to remember that most of the stuff that Saddam was accused of occured during the Iran/Iraq war.  There was blood everywhere there.

I guess it comes down to this...Saddam kills 30,000 people to keep the peace and we kill 30,000 to spread democracy.  What is the difference?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> It's fine by me to set up an International Law and hold these scum to it even if they aren't signatories. It would've been fine by me to have Saddam Hussein simply taken out and shot.


 
I agree, however, if this international law isn't applied evenly and fairly, then we've just created another system of tyranny.  No one, not even people in the US, should be above it.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2005)

If you really believe that than there is nothing worth the effort of responding..

There is a difference between Justice and Vengance/Ethnic Cleansing.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> There is a difference between Justice and Vengance/Ethnic Cleansing.


 
Only in the minds of perpetrator and the victims.  The winner will determine who was right and who was wrong?  Is there any other universal standard?


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 13, 2005)

The standard of human rights or is that relative as well?

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> There is a difference between Justice and Vengance/Ethnic Cleansing.


 
You keep saying that, but have no compelling arguments for it. That's the whole point.

Everyone here thinks murder is wrong. If you don't enjoy a good philosophical debate, this may not be the place for you. The question revolves around _why_ it's wrong.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The standard of human rights or is that relative as well?


 
I've seen people try to develop an ethics out of Darwinism. Other than that, it's all a matter of philosophy, right? Was Thomas Jefferson a good person because he promoted freedoms or a bad person because he owned slaves? Just about every male who has ever lived has been a human rights abuser in terms of denying female suffrage until quite recently...and it's still not hard to find places where it's denied. You couldn't hope to get a universal agreement on human rights that covered enough cases to be worthwhile.

It's been said that the whole of the traditional Jewish law is "Do not do unto others that which is hateful to you" and that the whole of the message of the New Testament is to strengthen that to the more active "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Makes sense, but where are the first grounds on which it is built?

We have to agree on axioms, just as in any other area of intellectual investigation.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I've seen people try to develop an ethics out of Darwinism. Other than that, it's all a matter of philosophy, right? Was Thomas Jefferson a good person because he promoted freedoms or a bad person because he owned slaves? Just about every male who has ever lived has been a human rights abuser in terms of denying female suffrage until quite recently...and it's still not hard to find places where it's denied. You couldn't hope to get a universal agreement on human rights that covered enough cases to be worthwhile.


 There is actually a third way to view all this.  Thomas Jefferson was a man of his time (actually, way ahead of his time in many ways).  He held the ironic position of owning slaves...AND believing all men were created equal.  He also seemed to understand that America would suffer for it's continued patronage of the slave system (and he was right).   

I have to believe there are two directions to go, morally, toward greater, more evolved moral beliefs, or we can ratchet step back.  Sometimes a ratchet step back is unavoidable by circumstance, but it should never be confused as a 'moral' step.  I do not believe that all behavior is equall moral.  Some behavior is more moral, some is less.  How do we know a moral direction?  Sometimes only in comparision.

For example, a system that reveres human life is more moral than one that does not.  Why?  Because God says so?  No, because a system that reveres human life is higher evolved, socially.  Our system of morality has evolved along with our culture.  

Lets look at two cultures, and compare which one is the more moral.  One culture views clan membership and loyalty to the clan leader as the ideal.  Another has a highly developed ideal, codified in a constitution, outlining the rights of all peoples, and a system of laws.  Which is more 'moral'?  If you are stuck in intellectual trap of moral relativism, you are forced to say "Well, neither is more 'moral', as there is no such thing as morality".  However, it's obvious, even to them if they are honest, that the second one is more 'moral'.  



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> It's been said that the whole of the traditional Jewish law is "Do not do unto others that which is hateful to you" and that the whole of the message of the New Testament is to strengthen that to the more active "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Makes sense, but where are the first grounds on which it is built?
> 
> We have to agree on axioms, just as in any other area of intellectual investigation.


 I suggest reading Roberty Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and then, his book Lila: An Inquiry in to Morals.

In Lila, Pirsig outlines a compelling argument for the evolution of morals.  He breaks up moral debates in to biology versus social patterns, social versus intellectual and dynamic versus static.

Pirsig makes the argument, for example, that in the conflict of Fascism versus Communism, Communism was the more moral system, in theory.  How did he arrive at this?  He argued that Fascism was based on a social pattern of governing, where by loyalty to the state, or to a leader, was the most important element.  

Communism, Pirsig argued, was an intellectual, not a social construct, and was, therefore, morally superior.

We can apply this to the US.  The US was founded on a series of ideas, and it is those ideas, not a social pattern, that holds the US together at it's core.

At any rate, i've gone on far enough on the topic.  I recommend that you pick up a copy of Pirsig's books.  They are a compelling read.  I don't argue that they are the be all and end all of the topic, but they are thought provoking.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Only in the minds of perpetrator and the victims. The winner will determine who was right and who was wrong? Is there any other universal standard?



The irony is that a more moral level has the ability to overcome the level immediately below it.

Take, for example, an ultra-violent, physically powerful, murdering, raping brigand.   He is pursuing a pattern of biological quality.  On a purely biological level, he is completely moral, he's pursuing biological quality.  He can take what he wants, breed with whatever females he wants (whether they agree or not). From that perspective, he is better adapted than his victims.  His genetics will be continued, and his off-spring will carry on the same biological level of quality he will.  

He is fine as long as he is operating a purely biological level, and everyone else is to.

However, at the point at which we start evolving social quality, evolution starts viewing those with social quality as better adapted than the purely biological man.  This man who was formerly king of his domain, is suddenly confronted with a problem.  

Though he can dominate and control any man or beast, one on one or even in small groups he comes in contact with, those who have evolved social quality can overcome him...by power of the group.  They have decided that his biological quality is now a 'crime'.  Why? Because a social level of quality is more moral than a biological level of quality.

As time goes by, social man develops a system of laws and a military to keep biological man in check, because biological man only understands force.  As social man becomes more powerful, biological man finds himself restrained.

Social man is on top of the world.  At some point, however, an intellectual man evolves.  He finds the social system confining.  He sets out to change the social system.  He develops ideas beyond the original purpose of social man.  He develops mathmatics and science.  Philosophy.  Soon, government begins to be about more than simply controlling biological man for the good of the group.  Ideas become an end unto themselves.


Having said all this, some might be wondering 'what does this have to do with moral relativism'?  The answer to moral dispute can be solved by deciding where which side of the argument supports.  At it's core, is it a social versus biological argument, or a social versus intellectual argument, for example.

Take the issue of the death penalty being leveled in another room.  It's a social quality versus biological quality issue (social control versus biological quality criminals).  If we turn it in to an intellectual issue, however, we have to determine who's side we're coming in on.  The mistake is to the thing that intellectual quality can control biological quality.  Intellectual quality is powerless over biological quality, it is social control that stops crime.  

The mistake is to believe that the professor and his research can prevent biological quality from asserting itself as crime.  The reality is, biological quality can only be controlled by the soldier or the policeman, and their gun.  Why? Because police and soldiers are on the line of biological quality, yet they serve the social order, which in turn serves, in a higher evolved society, and ideal.

Intellectual quality, as Pirsig says, makes a mistake when it inserts itself in this social/biological conflict.  The reason it makes that mistake is that it views the social order as oppressive.  However, the mistake is in not understanding that, while the social order oppressing intellectual quality is wrong and absolutely immoral (say, burning books and stiffling dissent), that the social order controlling crime and pursuing criminals (biological behavior) is absolutely moral and right.  

Often, however, those on an intellectual level of quality can't tell the difference, whether it is social/intellectual oppression of social/biological oppression, so intellectuals often take the side of criminals (See Tookie).


----------



## arnisador (Dec 20, 2005)

Looks like he's heading back to court:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_saddam_trial


----------

