Saddam Vows No Return to 'Unjust' Court

[michaeledward]

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]

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

Or, please stop with the accusation.

Please see my post above.

 

[7starmantis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

7sm

 

[arnisador]

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]

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]

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'.

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.

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).