Stop Saddam's Execution??

[mrhnau]

The 'six month' time period is known among leftists as a 'Freidman'. New York Times writer Tom Freidman has said, continually, since the fall of the statue, that the next 'six months' will be decisive in how Iraq turns out.

This essentially proves that the American populace has a memory-span of four months or less.

Actually, that was just a random number I'm not suprised others have picked it up though.

As for a memory span of four months, I'm not suprised.

 

[Cruentus]

I'll try to do this without personally attacking as well; I just had some cheerio's and coffee so I should be O.K.

Here are the main points that I see regarding whether the consequences would be better having Saddam dead or alive:

• Maximum security prison sounds good by western/european standards, but is inapplicable in a country like Iraq where he is being held. Iraq is in civil war right now, and the limited stability that is there is (very ironically) due to US occupation. There are still many people in Iraq who, if given the opportunity, would have put Saddam right back into power, despite the atrocities that he and his regime are responsible for. Leaving him in an Iraqi prison and alive only keeps the morale high for his supporters, and leaves risk for his escape or a climb back into a position of power. In a country with Iraq’s instability, especially if we leave the country, you can better believe that this could happen. Think of Napolean of France. His staged comeback wasn't a success, but imagine if Waterloo had turned out differently?
• Killing Saddam also send the right message. You put him in prison or exile, it sends a message to "evil" dictators and would-be "evil" dictators that the consequences for atrocities may be tolerable. Leaving him alive gives hope to his supporters and other possible dictators, inviting them to take the throne and have the old Iraq all over again. On the other hand, knowing that it is likely that you will be publicly and humiliatingly put to death for your crimes sends the right message to those who would commit acts of international terrorism or atrocity. It also send the right message to Saddam sympathisors: the old Iraq under Saddam will never be again. Only when this is fully understood can the doors to a new and better Iraq be opened.
• And again I will mention, this has to do with morale. You shut down a horrible dictator and end his life, it is likely to end his movement. If he lives, then the movement is more likely to survive. You aren’t just killing a man here; your killing what that man represents. Your sending a message to his sympathisers and the world; you are shutting down what that "man" represents.
• The only proposed negative that I can see is that the some Sunni and Insurgent leaders warn that they are going to increase sectarian violence if Saddam is hanged. This may be true, however, it would be worse to leave him alive. Do you think that if Saddam was left alive, that the insurgence would turn in their weapons begin working on rebuilding the economy? Guess again. The thing is, if you respond to those threats and decide to not execute him, then your only giving positive reinforcement to terrorist threats, which is what a threat for more violence "if we don't get our way" is, in this case. Therefore, leaving Saddam alive would only encourage more sectarian violence from people who believe that violence will get them somewhere. These ideas need to be shut down all together. The best thing to do was to kill him, and let that be a big "F-U" to those who think that they can push people around with violence.

For there to be a "New and better" Iraq, the old movement needs to be shutdown. Killing Hussien is a step in that direction. Leaving him alive only leaves room for more of he same. I see this as an act of the current Iraqi government growing some nuts and trying to take charge of their own country.

So, perhaps someone can come up with one good reason as to why he should have been left alive? I am open to suggestions. Maybe I am just looking through a filtered lense, but I can't think of any good reason to have kept that man alive (at least, not anything that can't be logically destroyed).

:idunno:

 

[Andrew Green]

I wonder if we would have ever gained our freedom without outside assistance if the Brits had slaughtered entire towns in retribution for a local uprising? I wonder what Iraq would be like if Iran and Syria were not pumping money, weapons and fighters into Iraq?

Genocide and slaughtering villages is not something that American history is void of either. Nor is it something most developed countries are missing in there past.

And as far as funneling money goes, America is not "clean" on that either. Remember they funded Sudam's regime durring the Iraq-Iran war. Aided the Al-quida in the fight against the Soviets, and even put a lot of cash through Germany in the Inter-war years enabling it to get past the reperations owed to France and recover there economy.

Sadam was a bad guy, got what he deserved. But not from the right source.

Try to look at it from a Iraqi's POV, things where better before the war, not great, but better. More civillians have died because of American actions then Sudam's. Your countries economy has been destroyed, it's infastructured bombed out of existance. You are occupied by a foriegn power that seems only interested in forcing there way of life on you and has no respect for yours, and your religion.

What do you do?

I bet most American's in a similar situation would also be fighting the occupying force.

Imagine if 100 years ago some other foriegn super power had invaded, toppled your government and executed your president for genocide against the Native Americans, spit on Christian values, and forced the American style of deocracy out. What do you think the people then would have done? Welcomed there liberators with open arms? Or resisted the occupation?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Death is a part of life. Most religions have rules concerning the taking of life. To violate them is often seen as a crime against the God who issued the rules.

That Saddam was not a good man is well known.
But was he so evil that he deserved to die?
Who really is more evil? The Hitler who said "kill all the jews", or the camp guard who enjoyed his work at the ovens and showers?

The crime Saddam was convicted of was well known. It happened over a decade ago. During the intervening time, he enjoyed good relations with the United States, prior to the first Gulf War.

If this crime had not occurred, another one would have sufficed to use as a reason to deal death. The sentence was known before the first charge was issued. The rest is a formality.

As a deposed head of state, he could have been allowed to go into exile, as other, even more vicious have done.
As a captured prisoner of war, he could have been held until hostilities ceased, like so many others are.

But he was murdered, to appease the cries of blood and vengeance, which go against so many of those things we hold in common good.

His death will not bring a single lost soul back. It will not return one stolen item, heal one broken heart, or shattered body.

It will just bring more death, while those who will gain the most and celebrate the most will self gratify over the image of an old man dancing on air. The poor peasant who will be caught in the cross fire of the fanatic and the free however has only more blood to bear witness to.

And somewhere, a mother cries, for she got a visit today with the news that her most cherished has fallen.


I pray that this cycle ends soon. I fear that it will end in fire.

 

[heretic888]

[*]Maximum security prison sounds good by western/european standards, but is inapplicable in a country like Iraq where he is being held.

Was being held, anyway.

This still seems like an unworkable argument to me. If I interpret you correctly, you are saying Saddam should have been killed because he might escape?? Well, simply move him somewhere he can't escape. Who said he had to be held in Iraq?

[*]Killing Saddam also send the right message.

Time will tell, but I suspect the Sunni minority will interpret this as a referendum against them. This will likely make them even more desperate than they currectly are.

[*]And again I will mention, this has to do with morale. You shut down a horrible dictator and end his life, it is likely to end his movement.

Not if he becomes a martyr.

[*]The only proposed negative that I can see is that the some Sunni and Insurgent leaders warn that they are going to increase sectarian violence if Saddam is hanged. This may be true, however, it would be worse to leave him alive. Do you think that if Saddam was left alive, that the insurgence would turn in their weapons begin working on rebuilding the economy? Guess again. The thing is, if you respond to those threats and decide to not execute him, then your only giving positive reinforcement to terrorist threats, which is what a threat for more violence "if we don't get our way" is, in this case. Therefore, leaving Saddam alive would only encourage more sectarian violence from people who believe that violence will get them somewhere. These ideas need to be shut down all together. The best thing to do was to kill him, and let that be a big "F-U" to those who think that they can push people around with violence.[/LIST]For there to be a "New and better" Iraq, the old movement needs to be shutdown. Killing Hussien is a step in that direction. Leaving him alive only leaves room for more of he same. I see this as an act of the current Iraqi government growing some nuts and trying to take charge of their own country.[/SIZE]

If by "current Iraq government" you mean "militant Shia majority" and by "step in that direction" you mean "referendum against the Sunni minority that prospered under Hussein", then you are correct. I expect increased bloodshed and sectarian violence in the following months.

[*]So, perhaps someone can come up with one good reason as to why he should have been left alive? I am open to suggestions. Maybe I am just looking through a filtered lense, but I can't think of any good reason to have kept that man alive (at least, not anything that can't be logically destroyed).

The problem is that all of your arguments, if we assume they are valid, are essentially utilitarian in nature. The reasoning is basically that we should kill a man because it will make things easier for us. Once again, I find this a bit too Machievellian for my tastes.

I am approaching this moreso from a moral and ethical perspective, not an utilitarian one. I assume that taking the life of another human being is wrong and that following suit does not somehow "erase" this principle in some aberrant double-negative trick. I assume that how we treat our prisoners, no matter who they are, is one of the things that separates us from terrorists and violent criminals in the first place.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Death is a part of life. Most religions have rules concerning the taking of life. To violate them is often seen as a crime against the God who issued the rules.

That Saddam was not a good man is well known.
But was he so evil that he deserved to die?
Who really is more evil? The Hitler who said "kill all the jews", or the camp guard who enjoyed his work at the ovens and showers?

The crime Saddam was convicted of was well known. It happened over a decade ago. During the intervening time, he enjoyed good relations with the United States, prior to the first Gulf War.

If this crime had not occurred, another one would have sufficed to use as a reason to deal death. The sentence was known before the first charge was issued. The rest is a formality.

As a deposed head of state, he could have been allowed to go into exile, as other, even more vicious have done.
As a captured prisoner of war, he could have been held until hostilities ceased, like so many others are.

But he was murdered, to appease the cries of blood and vengeance, which go against so many of those things we hold in common good.

His death will not bring a single lost soul back. It will not return one stolen item, heal one broken heart, or shattered body.

It will just bring more death, while those who will gain the most and celebrate the most will self gratify over the image of an old man dancing on air. The poor peasant who will be caught in the cross fire of the fanatic and the free however has only more blood to bear witness to.

And somewhere, a mother cries, for she got a visit today with the news that her most cherished has fallen.


I pray that this cycle ends soon. I fear that it will end in fire.

Wonderful post, Bob. I agree completely.

 

[mrhnau]

Death is a part of life. Most religions have rules concerning the taking of life. To violate them is often seen as a crime against the God who issued the rules.

correct.

That Saddam was not a good man is well known.
But was he so evil that he deserved to die?
Who really is more evil? The Hitler who said "kill all the jews", or the camp guard who enjoyed his work at the ovens and showers?

If Saddam did not deserve to die, then is there EVER a case for capital punishment? From the tone of your post, I'm assuming you are purely against them.

If this crime had not occurred, another one would have sufficed to use as a reason to deal death. The sentence was known before the first charge was issued. The rest is a formality.

If guilt and evidence of that guilt is absolutely overwhelming, would you be content with a not guilty decision? Crime was committed. Evidence was overwhelming. Are you suprised at a guilty conviction? He would have been tried for other changes should he escape this one.

As a deposed head of state, he could have been allowed to go into exile, as other, even more vicious have done.
As a captured prisoner of war, he could have been held until hostilities ceased, like so many others are.

Could say the same about Nuremburg trials. If you are opposed to the death penalty, then this could be said about anyone and any crime.

But he was murdered, to appease the cries of blood and vengeance, which go against so many of those things we hold in common good.

incorrect. Capital punishment is not murder. They also appeased the cries of justice and the cries of the families that have been slaughtered under the overseeing eye of Saddam. we also hold that common good.

His death will not bring a single lost soul back. It will not return one stolen item, heal one broken heart, or shattered body.

Then if anyone is injured, murdered or property irrecovably damaged, we should let people out of prison or released from capital punishment? It won't bring back the property, it won't heal the individual or resurrect the slain. Why should we keep them in prison or execute anyone?

One thing this execution does is prevent recurrence. Hopefully the next dictator will think twice before killing thousands/millions.

It will just bring more death, while those who will gain the most and celebrate the most will self gratify over the image of an old man dancing on air. The poor peasant who will be caught in the cross fire of the fanatic and the free however has only more blood to bear witness to.

And somewhere, a mother cries, for she got a visit today with the news that her most cherished has fallen.

I pray that this cycle ends soon. I fear that it will end in fire.

Gee, that sound poetic and nice. Sadly, appeal to emotion does not present a solution.

Somewhere, a mother cried when her son was slain in the beaches of Normandy. Somewhere, a mother cried when her son was slain at Gettysburg. Somewhere, a mother cried when her son got in a car wreck caused by a drunk driver. Somehwere, a mother cried when her husband got cancer.... Are you going to decry every single death? Every single war?

I agree though, I hope the cycle does end soon. however, I do NOT endorse that if it demands justice not be handed out. If we start allowing every dictator, murderer, rapist, thug, terrorist off the hook because we care about their crying mother, then we have some SERIOUS issues.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If Saddam did not deserve to die, then is there EVER a case for capital punishment? From the tone of your post, I'm assuming you are purely against them.

Not in my opinion.
Even if the offender had sexually molested kittens, gutted them, force fed their rotting carcasses to 12 street urchins, who were later dismembered while still alive, and sexually violated with a racy leg lamp.

For 1 simple reason: It will not heal anything.

If guilt and evidence of that guilt is absolutely overwhelming, would you be content with a not guilty decision? Crime was committed. Evidence was overwhelming. Are you suprised at a guilty conviction? He would have been tried for other changes should he escape this one.

He was tried on this charge, because it was the one most people could grasp onto. For all the evils we've heard he did, this was the one the news would carry. Not the tortures, the imprisonments, the executions. This one.

If the head of state of a nation can be held liable for the actions of his underlings, then most US presidents also deserve to swing. Saddam is guilty over a few hundred civilian deaths. What is Bush guilty of, when there are thousands of Iraqi children dead because of his commands?

Could say the same about Nuremburg trials. If you are opposed to the death penalty, then this could be said about anyone and any crime.

If you are going to cheer for or support death penalties, then impose them equally across the board, under the same guidelines. To do otherwise is an injustice.

incorrect. Capital punishment is not murder. They also appeased the cries of justice and the cries of the families that have been slaughtered under the overseeing eye of Saddam. we also hold that common good.

Then if anyone is injured, murdered or property irrecovably damaged, we should let people out of prison or released from capital punishment? It won't bring back the property, it won't heal the individual or resurrect the slain. Why should we keep them in prison or execute anyone?

I didn't say let them loose. I said that killing them will not bring the dead back, heal the injured or such.

One thing this execution does is prevent recurrence. Hopefully the next dictator will think twice before killing thousands/millions.

Bull. If that was true then 1946-50 should have cured us good. But it didn't, because it doesn't. To think otherwise is wishful thinking.

Gee, that sound poetic and nice. Sadly, appeal to emotion does not present a solution.

Somewhere, a mother cried when her son was slain in the beaches of Normandy. Somewhere, a mother cried when her son was slain at Gettysburg. Somewhere, a mother cried when her son got in a car wreck caused by a drunk driver. Somehwere, a mother cried when her husband got cancer.... Are you going to decry every single death? Every single war?

Every death, Every war, every act of senseless violence, diminishes us all.
So yes, I will.

I agree though, I hope the cycle does end soon. however, I do NOT endorse that if it demands justice not be handed out. If we start allowing every dictator, murderer, rapist, thug, terrorist off the hook because we care about their crying mother, then we have some SERIOUS issues.

You are connecting a loathing for the death penalty with sympathy for criminals. They are not the same. I support punishing crime.
I simply do not support the false idea that death is a cure for evil.
It simply births more evil.

 

[Andrew Green]

One thing this execution does is prevent recurrence. Hopefully the next dictator will think twice before killing thousands/millions.

Governments have been killing thousands of innocent people since...well... there where governments. Sadam was far from the worst of them historically.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If the only reason to find Saddam deserving of death was the murder of several hundred civilians by individuals under his command, then do any of these individuals also deserve to have been executed:

US President under whose administration a portion of the US population is rounded up and imprisoned without charge, during which a number die.

US President under whose administration over 3,000 individuals are illegally detained, removed from the country, and held for years without charge or council, during which many are tortured and some died.

US President under whose administration tens of thousands of people are removed at gun point from their homes, force marched across the land, during which time thousands die, and whole families are executed by laughing soldiers.

Saddam may have been a bastard. He may have even deserved to die.
I still say that his, or any execution, is wrong.
Even when I may feel personally that it is right.

 

[jdinca]

Genocide and slaughtering villages is not something that American history is void of either. Nor is it something most developed countries are missing in there past.

And as far as funneling money goes, America is not "clean" on that either. Remember they funded Sudam's regime durring the Iraq-Iran war. Aided the Al-quida in the fight against the Soviets, and even put a lot of cash through Germany in the Inter-war years enabling it to get past the reperations owed to France and recover there economy.

Sadam was a bad guy, got what he deserved. But not from the right source.

Try to look at it from a Iraqi's POV, things where better before the war, not great, but better. More civillians have died because of American actions then Sudam's. Your countries economy has been destroyed, it's infastructured bombed out of existance. You are occupied by a foriegn power that seems only interested in forcing there way of life on you and has no respect for yours, and your religion.

What do you do?

I bet most American's in a similar situation would also be fighting the occupying force.

Imagine if 100 years ago some other foriegn super power had invaded, toppled your government and executed your president for genocide against the Native Americans, spit on Christian values, and forced the American style of deocracy out. What do you think the people then would have done? Welcomed there liberators with open arms? Or resisted the occupation?

I can see your points quite well, and I can't really argue against them. I fully admit that our hands are less than clean throughout our history and we've made some very stupid decisions. I truly feel that there are occasions where we made the right choice, such as invading Iraq, but then have allowed our arrogance to guide our decisions in truly stupid directions. How we handled the aftermath of taking down Saddam was truly flawed by that.

As for how we've treated other people at times in history, a joke I heard once had a jihadist talking to an Indian about how we have no will to fight. The Indian looks at him and says "just hope they don't decide to start playing Cowboys and Muslims." But I believe on the whole, America tries to walk on the right side of the path.

We've made mistakes, for sure but I do feel that the underlaying reasons for the decision were sound.

 

[Cruentus]

The problem is that all of your arguments, if we assume they are valid, are essentially utilitarian in nature. The reasoning is basically that we should kill a man because it will make things easier for us. Once again, I find this a bit too Machievellian for my tastes.

I am approaching this moreso from a moral and ethical perspective, not an utilitarian one.

Me too, though. I believe that leaders directly responsible for genocide or mass murder should not be allowed to live. That is how I feel morally about the issue; and as I said before in cases of international terrorism or mass murder/genocide where there is no question of guilt, I support the death penalty. I don't support the death penalty on a state level because of the room for error.

But I was just answering the question that you and others asked, which (to paraphrase) is basically, "How is Saddam's execution a good thing?"

From a utilitarian perspective, I believe it is. And it is important to note here that supporting Saddam's execution is not really taking sides against the Sunni's as a whole because not all of the Sunni's supported Saddam. But the sad reality that we all have to face is that there will be more bloodshed whether Saddam was executed or not.

So, it does come down to morality. I simply think that sometimes, people need to be killed. Many people don't agree with me on this, and I actually respect that opinion. I am fine when people state that opinion in an honest fashion. I get annoyed when people try to take a moral high ground in judgement of others who don't share that opinion, or when people try to downplay the severety of the atrocities committed by the person in question, or when people try to cloud the issue by irresponsibly equating others with the person in question (like equating Saddam with George Bush, for example), and so on. I am not pointing any fingers here, just stating some examples. But regardless, I think that it is intellectually and morally dishonest to do those things.

The fact of the matter is, there are very few people out there who don't believe that killing is O.K. under the right circumstance. There are very few true pacifists out there; a stance that could be argued to be immoral in and of itself. There are many people, for example, who would take a life to save a spouse or a child, or in self-defense. In fact, there are people who would say that they oppose putting Saddam to death because of a moral stance, who would support killing in a different, much less noble context. One never knows the skelatons people harbor in closets until one is staring right at them.

Yet, the intellectually and morally honest person can simply state their opinions without having too blubber around trying to attack and refute everyone who doesn't agree. Because really, how is responsible to pass judgements here regarding feelings of the death penalty? Particularly when it involves Saddam Hussein, or others like him? Most people support killing in one context or another. I am at least honest about when I think it is morally just, and when it isn't. Some other honest people may disagree with me, and that is fine.

Yet, not everyone is that honest with themselves. And I think that people need to ask some hard questions of themselves before rushing to judge or refute someone else opinions in matters like these...

 

[Don Roley]

As a deposed head of state, he could have been allowed to go into exile, as other, even more vicious have done.
As a captured prisoner of war, he could have been held until hostilities ceased, like so many others are.

So you would let him walk free at some point????

Can you assure us that he would not have taken money hidden away and continued to kill Americans by terrorist acts?

If not, he is better off dead. The message his death sends might just give other creeps in power the chance to rethink what they do. If he had been allowed to live after all the death and pain he caused, then I think that would only encourage other despots.

Even if we had kept him alive in jail, he had a history of getting out of them and causing trouble later on. Now, he can't do that.

 

[Don Roley]

Only the broken neoconservative logic is pushing the Iranian and Syrian influence, because they wish to expand the war to those states.

You might want to read up on the news.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/na...30,0,3027654.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld

One of the commanders, identified by officials simply as Chizari, was the third-highest-ranking official of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds Brigade, the unit most active in aiding, arming and training groups outside Iran, including Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, U.S. officials said. The other commander was described as equally significant to Iran's support of foreign militaries but not as high ranking.

American military forces nabbed the two men in raids last week. Their capture, U.S. officials said, represents the strongest evidence yet that Tehran is meddling in Iraq's affairs and strengthening its relationship with the government in Baghdad.

U.S. defense officials familiar with the raids said the captured Iranians had detailed weapons lists, documents pertaining to shipments of weapons into Iraq, organizational charts, telephone records and maps, among other sensitive intelligence information.

Officials were concerned by the fact that the Iranians had information about importing modern, specially shaped explosive charges into Iraq, weapons that focus the energy of a blast, allowing shrapnel to burst through vehicles, sometimes even if they are heavily armored.

They were released due to diplomatic immunity.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So you would let him walk free at some point????

Can you assure us that he would not have taken money hidden away and continued to kill Americans by terrorist acts?

If not, he is better off dead. The message his death sends might just give other creeps in power the chance to rethink what they do. If he had been allowed to live after all the death and pain he caused, then I think that would only encourage other despots.

Even if we had kept him alive in jail, he had a history of getting out of them and causing trouble later on. Now, he can't do that.

Worse individuals were released after WWII.

I can no more assure you of that, than I can that any of us will still be alive tommorow, or that dinner will be at 5.

You mean other despots like Stalin, Amin, and such?

So build better jails. I hear theres one in the area of Cuba that works well for holding folks.

 

[Andrew Green]

We've made mistakes, for sure but I do feel that the underlaying reasons for the decision were sound.

On that I would disagree with you.

What where the reasons?

Supporting terrorists? Iraq was the most secular country in the region, and as a result did not get along with Al'Quida at all. They where ideological enemies within there own region.

Weapons of Mass distruction? Nope, nothing there...

I view morality as more a question of intent and reasons rather then the end result. Suppose someone back in the 30's mugged and killed Hitler with no knowledge of who he was or what he would do, would that person have been a hero or a murderer?

They did everyone a favour (ignoring the fact that someone else probably would have filled Hitlers role), yet there intent was criminal. Steal his money and kill him. I'd say they commited a immoral act.

Sudam being overthrown may have been a good thing (again ignoring some facts, namely that Iraq is in far worse shape now) but where the reasons for overthrowing him morally right?

Remeber that the actions he was convicted for where well known and happened before the US had a friendly relationship with him, and where not the reasons given for the invasion before it happened.

And if we look at "stupid mistakes" and number of civillian lives lost from them, the US has FAR out killed Sudam's regime. Even in more recent years. The US is the only country to have used Nuclear weapons on people, it's economic sanctions against various countries have killed millions, the cold war with the USSR chopped up the world leading to many proxy wars, Vietnam being probably the biggest.

Yet no one came and toppled the US governemt and executed its presidents. Why are Sudam's mistakes unforgiveable? What has he done in recent years to warrant being invaded?

 

[exile]

The problem is that all of your arguments, if we assume they are valid, are essentially utilitarian in nature...I am approaching this more so from a moral and ethical perspective, not an utilitarian one. I assume that taking the life of another human being is wrong ..Laterz.

Heretic, I'd like to follow this point up, because I think it might turn out to be very relevant to the argument here. You're making a categorical distinction between ethical and utilitarian kinds of arguments here. OK, let's see if that distinction is really supportable in the limit. There's a point that Tulisan raises which I'd like to see your response to:

The fact of the matter is, there are very few people out there who don't believe that killing is O.K. under the right circumstance. There are very few true pacifists out there; a stance that could be argued to be immoral in and of itself. There are many people, for example, who would take a life to save a spouse or a child, or in self-defense.

Lemme elaborate a scenario based on Paul's observation here which I think you need to answer to preserve the kind of distinction between `utilitarian' and `moral/ethical' you raise. Here it is: an individual breaks into a house and threatens the life of one of the children who lives there. The threat is credible, the means are at hand and the invader shows absolutely no signs of being swayed or open to negotiations or anything else. Agreed? One of the parents, under some pretext or other, passes next to a knife block that the invader is clearly unable to see, removes a 9" filleting knife and, concealing it, get close enough to the invader to slam the knife through the assailant's carotid artery to the hilt, with every intention of killing him (something virtually guaranteed by such a strike).

Now, was the parent wrong to do that?

You're saying that the taking of a life is inherently wrong. Therefore the parent was wrong to do it. Not acting would have led almost certainly to the death of the child; thus inaction would also yield a death, the death of one of the parents' children. So in that context, was that killing wrong,, on balance?

I'm going to assume you would agree that the parent was not wrong to do what s/he did, under the circumstances—not because I assume that that's what you actually believe, but because if you do think the parent was wrong, I foresee a very long justification being necessary! Let's just look at the simpler case, where we agree the parent acted rightly.

If the parent was justified in doing what s/he did, how then does that make the execution of Saddam inherently `wrong', simply because a life was taken there too? It seems to me that the only line of reasoning here is, `well, look at the difference in the two situations'. And as soon as you get to that kind of reasoning, you've got a utilitarian, not a moral/ethical argument going. If the parent was justified in killing the attacker, the justification can only be because of the desirability of the ends served by the killing. And now you're not arguing about a qualitative difference, but a quantitative difference: the net good of the parent killing the attacker is great enough that it outweighs the net wrongness of the killing, whereas the net good of executing Saddam Hussein, or Amon Goth (the commandant of Auschwitz), or... ...does not outweigh the wrongness of the killing. You are saying, in fact, that there can be a good outcome from killing another human being which outweighs the intrinsic badness of killing another human being, only we don't have that good an outcome in the case of Saddam and Co.—and now, in effect, as the punchline to the old joke has it, we're just arguing about the price.

Have I gone astray here in some reasoning step? Very possibly, and I'd be interested to have it pointed out to me, since the issue is one which is I think at the core of this question about whether Saddam should have been executed.... and actually has a more general kind of interest beyond the specific case of any given act of killing.

 

[Don Roley]

Worse individuals were released after WWII.

I can no more assure you of that, than I can that any of us will still be alive tommorow, or that dinner will be at 5.

You mean other despots like Stalin, Amin, and such?

So build better jails. I hear theres one in the area of Cuba that works well for holding folks.

Two wrongs make a right?

Actually, you can be pretty sure that Hussein would try something if he was let free. He had a history of such things.

You miss the point. I am talking about guys that are still alive and might get the message. Not those that died of old age in ease and wealth.

Gitmo might have been a good place for Hussein to rot the rest of his life away. But letting him free to go into exile, etc, would not be a very good message to the Mugabes of the world.

 

[Cruentus]

What blows my mind is that some people seem to find it reasonable to equate American Presidents with Saddam Hussein, and other genocidal maniac's. That is about as morally responsible as me equating Dalton McGuinty of Ontario with Stalin because of his support of socialist policies. The comparison is niether fair nor fitting.

Look, I'm no Bush sympathizer, but if you can't realistically seperate his policies of which you may disagree with atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein then I am afraid that your beyond the reaches of having a logical discussion. If you can seperate the two, but are just refusing to do so to make a point, then your not being responsible or fair in this discussion.

Either way, we can conclude that when such generalizations are thrown around, that the discussion has officially gone into the gutter.

So I think that is my cue to walk away from this one. For better or for worse, I have stated my opinions, and I think I am done. The rest of you can hash this thing out.

Have fun...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

No, but 2 wrights make an airplane.

Someone answer these:
Has the execution of any leader ever served as a deterent against abuses by others? Please, I want to see proof...maybe an interview or something to back this idea up. All these evil people, caught and executed...had 1 thought in mind. "Not Me! I've got these goons, this army, these fanatic supporters, to keep what happened to X from happening to me.".

Now that Saddam is dead, has the violence slowed, the dead risen, looted property been returned, the country more stable, Americans stopped dying etc?

In regards to the question of self defense situations and lethal force, that is completely different. But, I'll answer. The use of lethal force in some situations is justified, even though killing is still wrong.