Saddam Vows No Return to 'Unjust' Court

[michaeledward]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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?

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

I mean, you really have no right to impose your will on them, and certainly society doesn't, right? It's funny how quickly discussions of moral relativism go to the way side when confronted by reality.

The bottom line, we have an obligation to ensure that or beliefs get propagated for the very reason outlined...i.e., if we don't someone may eventually impose theirs on us, much as we'd like to believe otherwise. Better to fight when you're strong, than wait until you're weak.

 

[Dan G]

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.