« More Incompetence, Plus Reading Comprehension Exercise | Main | More Fun From The Party Of Moral Values »

November 05, 2006

Comments

Terrible.

Still, would it have been too much trouble to mention how, at the time, the Reagan admin was content to pragmatically disregard and downplay Hussein's genocidal campaign (and, in the case of the gas attack on Halabja, shift part of the blame onto Iran)?

I'm sorry, I didn't see your brief mention in the update re: protesting the Anfal campaign at the time.

Jim Henley points out the convenience (for members of Bush's administration who were playing footsie with Saddam Hussein in the Reagan administration) of hanging Saddam Hussein before he can be tried for other, greater crimes committed during the Reagan administration, at least with their knowledge, and by some argument with their support.

Good article on the trial and verdict from TIME.

What Jes said. I don't think it's clear enough from the post that the Anfal campaign isn't what he was sentenced for, and he may never be tried for it.

This case, among a few others, is why I do not absolutely oppose the death penalty.

Sometimes it seems almost immoral not to impose it.

And yet, Iraq: If the fies don't get you the hangman will.

Nøel

Nøel

I was overwhelmed with joy and relief as I watched the criminals being read their verdicts. For the first time in our region tyrants are being punished for their crimes through a court of law.

The most eloquent statement I have seen thus far. I hope everyone can agree with this statement, whether you agree with the war or not.

I was overwhelmed with joy and relief as I watched the criminals being read their verdicts. For the first time in our region tyrants are being punished for their crimes through a court of law.

Should have been quoted obviously. I swear that the more I watch BSG online on this machine the more it is messing with me.

I am not absolutely for or against state-sanctioned anything, but I do like my justice delivered with a certain amount of solemnity toward the grim act itself and without the craven convenience and cheap thrills it offers to those who execute Saddam Hussein and Carla Faye Tucker and whomever it was (the retarded prisoner in Arkansas) whom Bill Clinton executed in 1992.

The Iraqi people can do with their Mussolinis what they like.

George W. Bush hasn't the gravity to appreciate their relief.

Given the pathetic nature of the "trial," we would've done about as well to let the Shiites shoot Saddam when we caught him.

Nuremberg, this wasn't.

Still, compared to the horrors for which there's never been even an official expression of remorse, or the truth even (the Armenian genocide, say), I suppose history reads better with Saddam executed than not.

let he who is without...

there but for the...

feh, may he rot in hell.

Whatever I may think of the invasion, the truth is Saddam deserves to be hanged for every single person he's killed, and it's an injustice that he can only be put to death once.

"George W. Bush hasn't the gravity to appreciate their relief."

But he does have the gravity to stetch a rope himself.

Shiriam: But he does have the gravity to stetch a rope himself.

That so completely inappropriate on a multitude of levels.

Apologies if I'm completely off base here; I'm bleary tired. But to me, Hilzoy's post gives the very strong impression that Saddam Hussein has been convicted of a particular part of the Anfal campaign against the Kurds.

But isn't that wrong? Isn't that the trial that's coming up, that may be cut short if his execution is scheduled before it's over? (That trial is the one at which the U.S. assistance, including chemicals, would be relevant evidence.)

I thought that the murders for which Saddam's been convicted are those at Dujail, against Shiites.

Again, I'm very tired, so be gentle in pointing out where I failed to read Hilzoy's plain English, or have got the story wrong.

Sorry; since this is the second such comment, I'[l update to clarify.

I was just trying to sort out how I felt about this, and decided: to hell with Saddam; I want to talk about some of his victims. These are not the victims he was convicted for, though.

Um, isn't Shiriam's comment a major posting rules violation? It's certainly in extremely poor taste.

Gromit: yes; I just skimmed the thread and went straight to updating, so I missed it. Thanks for the heads up.

Shiriam: we do not call for the death of anyone on this blog. Do it again and you will be banned.

Well, while I was looking up the rules, Hilzoy was warning Shiriam, and it's her blog (hers and others'), not mine, but . . .

. . . the rules as I read them say that one cannot call for the assassination of any person, not the "death." In this context, particularly, I take the implied threat - within what is basically just a joke, probably pretty juvenile, but it tickled me at this hour of the morning - to be not assassination, but a war crimes trial similar to that which Saddam Hussein has just experienced. (One might, of course, infer an extrajudicial lynching, and for that reason greater caution or precision of expression might reasonably be asked, if the original suggestion were serious, which AFAIK it was not.)

May I ask clarification of the rules on this point? As it happens, I oppose the death penalty myself, but it appears that this is not a group shibboleth here. Is it in fact a banning offense on ObWi to suggest (hypothetically) that someone should be tried for their crimes and, if convicted, executed? Or can we at most wish for their lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole? With or without harsh treatment as defined by the White House?

As for the suggestion that this comment was "in extremely poor taste" - surely it's a little late, on this site, to make this a hanging offense!

I thought the post was better before the updates: there was no implication Saddam is hanging for Halabja (instead of the less gaudy horrific crime he was tried for), and no implication that the invasion was justified by his crimes. The second point especially bothers me - that one can't simply say something negative about a mass murderer without receiving immediate caviling is sad.

However the posting rules parse out, I find calls for the noose to be, in a word, disgusting. That it was directed at a sitting President only compounds its offensiveness in my mind. This sort of thing might be tolerated on some of the more hateful political blogs (the rash of "Rope. Tree. Journalist." blog entries comes to mind), but those are blogs I don't read.

dr. ngo: fair enough: I suppose I should have thought about the 'after a trial' aspect of it, and probably that was implicit here. On the other hand, I did lay into Charles for calling for Jane Fonda and -- well, someone else to be shot for treason, on the grounds that he did not make the trial part explicit. On the other other hand, though, that was not in the context of talking about people who were about to be shot after a trial.

My call, then, would be: not a posting rules violation, given that the context pretty strongly implies 'after a trial and conviction for capital crimes'. That said, it would be nice, though not obligatory, if people would specify that.

Gromit: I completely agree about the offensiveness of it.

As I said at the time I think the "Jane Fonda" rule was a mistake. But I agree with Gromit.


dr ngo: "Is it in fact a banning offense on ObWi to suggest (hypothetically) that someone should be tried for their crimes"

If the comment in question had actually done such suggesting it might not have made me as unhappy.

I hope it would not be out of line to note that Iran is praising the sentence, and Osama bin Laden is almost certainly rejoicing as well.

It was intended to imply a war crimes tribunal. Like Kerry, I should just apologize for a blown joke but, following the path of that American hero, I'll just plow on. Besides, your responses have bothered me.

When at least half a million are dying for no purpose other than arrogance and intransigence, I don't really care about good taste. To sit around worrying about decorum, still talking about decency, still treating our leaders as deserving of some respect and so propping up their delusions, still paying taxes... Well, I suppose I find it hard to take that too seriously.

I normally contain such feelings in the interest of discussion. But, in the context of a post and discussion somewhat favorably considering the execution of another (former) head of state, I didn't think it was too out of line. Sorry I misunderstood.

I wonder how many of the people complaining about good taste would feel the same if they re-read my comment after taking a look at their tax bills for the last three years and calculated how many corpses they personally paid for. But of course, if we aren't dignified, the trains don't run on time.

Whatever I may think of the invasion, the truth is Saddam deserves to be hanged for every single person he's killed, and it's an injustice that he can only be put to death once.

Well, repeating again: the real injustice is that he certainly isn't going to be tried for every person he's killed. (And a further injustice is that George W. Bush, who has committed crimes similiar to the one for which Saddam Hussein has just been convicted and will be hanged for, will never be tried.)

I do in fact oppose the death penalty (and would rather like to see him locked up in a very small and windowless cell for several decades until he is old and pathetic, the only thing he's allowed to see pictures of the people he caused to be killed and tortured projected on the cell wall for 12 hours a day, with rolling commentary from the survivors) but when someone has caused this much suffering, it is impossible not to understand why people want him dead.

This is almost off topic, as I don't get the feeling anyone wants to have a generalised death-penalty debate, but the Australian state of Victoria recently began formal proceedings to pardon a man who was hanged for a murder he almost certainly did not commit. And that is why I do unreservedly oppose the death penalty.

Jesurgislac's proposed punishment for Saddam Hussein seems absolutely more appropriate, on so many levels.

(By the way, no jurisdiction in Australia still has capital punishment. And you know how vicious we Aussies are!)

Thank, hilzoy. Unlike rilkefan, I think the post is substantially improved by the updates. The entire point of the scheduling of Saddam Hussein's verdict for this time is that Americans should focus on his victims instead of ours today. I'm not prepared to do that on the regime's schedule.

Discussion of the Anfal crimes without any mention of the fact that he may never be tried for them (much less analysis of why) surprised me.

(And a further injustice is that George W. Bush, who has committed crimes similiar to the one for which Saddam Hussein has just been convicted and will be hanged for, will never be tried.)

When one lives in a moral vacuum, I suppose it only makes sense to hear silence from the regular posters at Obsidian Wings to a this kind of outrageous comment.

Jesurgislac grieves over the injustice, while Iraqi's celebrate.

Jesurgislac tries to distract from the elation and joy Iraqi's feel as she make these kinds of comments in a post that has pictures of children gassed and mass graves all caused by Hussein.

Am I the only one that has pity for her?

Don't worry, bril; plenty of us pity you.

And a further injustice is that George W. Bush, who has committed crimes similiar to the one for which Saddam Hussein has just been convicted and will be hanged for, will never be tried.

When did George W. Bush use mustard gas? When did he engage in a campaign of ethnic cleansing? And when did he imprison and murder his political opponents?

GWB is one of the worst presidents this country has ever had, but it disappoints me to see people discussing him on a thread about Saddam - even more so when they assign a moral equivalency to the two.

ThirdGorchBro: When did George W. Bush use mustard gas? When did he engage in a campaign of ethnic cleansing? And when did he imprison and murder his political opponents?

I think you get the point, 3rdGorchBro. Saddam Hussein is not about to be executed for using mustard gas, for ethnic cleansing, or for imprisoning/murdering his political opponents. He hasn't yet been tried for any of those crimes, and if he's executed soon, he never will be.

He is being executed for the torture and murder of more than 100 Iraqis.

How many Iraqis would you guess Bush has had tortured in the past three years? More than a hundred, I would guess. A lot more. How many Iraqis has Bush had murdered? That may be less than a hundred - we don't know. We may never know. I don't suppose that Bush will ever be tried for the torture and murder of Iraqis.

TGB, there's no mustard gas or ethnic cleansing involved in what Hussein has just been convicted of, which is what Jes was referring to. I believe she was at least partly inspired by this post from Jim Henley, who's hardly a wild-eyed moonbat.

And as I said upthread: it's terribly convenient for the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein should be rapidly executed before a trial could move on to consider Saddam Hussein's far worse crimes, and lawyers could require evidence from people high in the Bush administration who were aware of and perhaps complicit in the far worse crimes of ethnic cleansing, use of poison gas, and certainly, of supporting a regime which they knew imprisoned/murdered political opponents. Hanging Saddam Hussein so abruptly for what is undoubtedly a terrible crime, but a lesser crime considered on the scale of what he's done, is convenient. But it's not justice.

Whether I would equate GWB with Saddam depends mainly on whether Lancet 2 is correct. If it is, they are equivalent. Both started wars of aggression, both support torture, both are responsible for hundreds of thousands of violent deaths. Details differ.

If, on the other hand, Iraq Body Counts figures are correct and if the breakdown of killing is correct, then the comparison is overblown. Bush is still a torturer, but not nearly as big a mass murderer.

I have no difficulty equating democratically elected leaders who commit war crimes with people like Saddam. By and large, democratically elected leaders don't have the power to commit atrocities against their own people--often this just means they commit them against the Other. And lie about it. Whether Bush is in the same league as Saddam is a matter of relative bodycounts.

Set Bush aside. Can we equate Nixon and Kissinger with Saddam? I do.

BTW, if we assume that American leaders are like God in that their actions can't be judged on the same plane with mortals, there are other questions one could ask about the lesser mortals. Shouldn't the current Iraqi leaders be in the dock right beside Saddam? They're committing the same kinds of atrocities.

Saddam Hussein is not about to be executed for using mustard gas, for ethnic cleansing, or for imprisoning/murdering his political opponents. He hasn't yet been tried for any of those crimes, and if he's executed soon, he never will be.

He is being executed for the torture and murder of more than 100 Iraqis.

Fair enough, Jes, though I think we all know that those 100 Iraqis are stand-ins for all the rest who died under Saddam.

You will not see me defending Bush for any of the crimes his administration actually has committed, but I still don't see why it has to be discussed on a thread about Saddam's crimes. I think rilkefan's 2:00 AM post said what I'm trying to say, and better: that one can't simply say something negative about a mass murderer without receiving immediate caviling is sad.

I'm perfectly ok with having Saddam sit in prison for a while. I'm even perfectly ok with him getting life in prison in lieu of death.

That is, as long as he's not getting ESPN HD and Cinemax After Dark.

ThirdGorchBro: I think we all know that those 100 Iraqis are stand-ins for all the rest who died under Saddam.

Really? Now, why do you think the Bush administration preferred to choose a sample of stand-ins rather than see Saddam Hussein tried for all his crimes?

but I still don't see why it has to be discussed on a thread about Saddam's crimes

1. Because I want to discuss why the Bush administration wouldn't want to have Saddam Hussein tried for his crimes. Certainly not for the worst crimes.

2. Because Bush is, ultimately, the person responsible for deciding that Saddam Hussein should die now. I suspect this may even be the "surprise" Karl Rove said would be announced before the elections - I caught Bush on the news earlier claiming that this execution meant Iraq was on the road back to law-and-order. I would not put it past the current administration to want Saddam Hussein's execution to be announced "in time" for the elections, to give them one last chance to get news shots of happy celebrating Iraqis and a comforting spin on their war in Iraq. Would you?

Well, unless they do it today, in time won't be in time.

Well, unless they do it today, in time won't be in time.

"I would not put it past the current administration to want Saddam Hussein's execution to be announced "in time" for the elections"

Three little words.

That'd be interesting to see: Saddam Hussein will have been hanged by the neck until dead on Friday, December 15, 2006, or suchlike?

Man, Slart, some days I can't tell if you're kidding. Are you really quibbling about the difference between announcing the death sentence and announcing the scheduled date of execution?

Not quibbling that at all. If that's what Jesurgislac had intended to say, then I have absolutely no problem with that.

But my original comment will still stand: best get to it, if that's what they're going to do.

Or maybe she meant the announcement of the death sentence, in which case never mind.

Disregard that last sentence. If you were already disregarding, carry on.

Now I'm confused. Should I carry on disregarding the instruction to never mind?

"Whether I would equate GWB with Saddam depends mainly on whether Lancet 2 is correct. If it is, they are equivalent. Both started wars of aggression, both support torture, both are responsible for hundreds of thousands of violent deaths. Details differ.

If, on the other hand, Iraq Body Counts figures are correct and if the breakdown of killing is correct, then the comparison is overblown. Bush is still a torturer, but not nearly as big a mass murderer."

I'm not the go-to person on moral philosophy here, but it seems to me that the above is nonsense - "Details differ" in particular. Bush is the worst president we've had in a long time, maybe ever, and he's been advised by people I wouldn't trust to wash my car, but he's not in any normally accepted sense a bloodthirsty wood-chippering mass-murdering despot even if some of his policies have lead to similarly unbearable outcomes.

Re: your point #1, Jes, I don't see why the Bush administration wouldn't want Saddam tried for his earlier crimes (except, as you note, a guilty verdict now is certainly politically convenient for Bush).

Although we did blame Iran for the Halabja attack, probably while fully aware that it was in fact Saddam, that doesn't make us complicit in the attack itself, or in any part of the Anfal campaign.

Where did Saddam get his chemical weapons from? Not the U.S.

So we engaged in a little realpolitik in the 80s and played Iraq and Iran against each other. As far as I'm concerned, we acted in our interests and have nothing to apologize for.

Slarti: Or maybe she meant the announcement of the death sentence, in which case never mind.

I meant the announcement of the death sentence. I wasn't being intentionally obscure, but before I follow your instructions to disregard, I'm throwing a tiny party to celebrate having managed to obfusticate the champion of obfusticators. *parties* Okay, done now. *disregarding*

Rilke: but he's not in any normally accepted sense a bloodthirsty wood-chippering mass-murdering despot

Just in the accepted sense of he's sure as hell killed a lot of people. More people than Saddam Hussein, assuming the Lancet report was accurate. And while in direct figures of torture and murder Saddam Hussein is probably well ahead, once you become (as Bush has become) a despot who tortures and murders, do we really draw the line with "Well, he hasn't (yet) tortured and murdered as many people as Saddam Hussein"?

ThirdGorchBro: So we engaged in a little realpolitik in the 80s and played Iraq and Iran against each other. As far as I'm concerned, we acted in our interests and have nothing to apologize for.

That breathtaking example of moral relativism is peculiarly obscene in a thread beginning with pictures of crimes committed with US support - some of the people who died for your "little realpolitik".

That is, as long as he's not getting ESPN HD and Cinemax After Dark.

I dunno -- a few viewings of Emmanuelle In Space might've helped to break his spirit...

Jes, you and Gary Farber have finally found something you can agree on: ThirdGorchBro's foreign policy prescriptions are morally abhorrent! ;)

Okay, seriously, "crimes committed with US support"? We provided satellite intel on Iranian troop positions, as well as some military equipment, to Saddam during the 80s. We did so not because he was a swell guy, but because we didn't want Khomeini's Iran to win the war and become dominant in the Persian Gulf. We acted in our interests, in the interest of our allies, and in the interests of the rest of the developed world in general, to prevent a nation that was hostile to just about everybody from gaining de facto control over the oil flowing out of the Gulf region.

I'm not saying our hands were totally clean in Iraq, and I'm not pretending that we acted out of selfless motives. We certainly should have stopped sending arms to Iraq after the war with Iran ended. But that's a far cry from "supporting" Saddam's crimes against his own people. If the U.S. has any guilt in that matter, surely the countries that actually supplied his chemical weapons technology have much more.

And wouldn't you rather have cold hard realists in charge of America's foreign policy than feckless adventurers like Dubya?

Fair had a nice article about moral relativism in case of Iraq and the gas attacks.

I am against capital punishment, but won't feel particularly sorry for Saddam.
The pictures of gas victims are... unworthy though. It gives the impression that justice is done. But the fact that Saddam is convicted now means that justice in the Anfal campaign and related gas killings might never be done, since they might execute him well before that trial is concluded. Some people might like to follow the legal blog about the saddam trials. (legal as in about the law, not as in within the law)

I am not going to link to photo's of the children killed in Fallujah, or in bomb attacks in Iraq. They are gruesome, as are the pictures that illustrate this post. And they should be on the conscience of the current US government.

Saddam is not convicted for killing the Kurds or killing the Marsh Arabs. He is convicted for killing a relatively small group of civilians and he is convicted in a trial that is in effect little more than a kangaroo court. That is bad because it means his execution might hamper the Anfal trials, and it also means that Iraq starts it's juridicial body the wrong way. We all feel the verdict is justified because of his other crimes - but he is NOT convicted for those and others might be let of the hook if he is executed before the end of those trials.

If the U.S. has any guilt in that matter, surely the countries that actually supplied his chemical weapons technology have much more.

And WE actually convicted someone. Who appeals and wants Saddam as a witness...

From a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack">wikipedia:

Neither Saddam Hussein nor Ali Hasan al-Majid (who commanded Iraqi forces in northern Iraq in that period) have been charged by the Iraqi Special Tribunal for crimes against humanity relating to the events at Halabja. The tribunal has made a point of avoiding directly charging President Hussein with the crimes committed at Halabja. Hussein has repeatedly denied the Tribunal's legitimacy (claiming it to be a "play" of American "theatre"), and refused to sign documents reflecting the charges against him during his first public court appearance.

I don't know, Rilke, the details don't seem to matter much to me. You say Bush might be America's worst President ever. Then why wouldn't you regard him as a war criminal? Aren't there any American Presidents you regard as war criminals?

If Bush launched a war on false premises (I think that's pretty much accepted by most rational people) and if that war led to 600,000 deaths, many of them at the hands of our own forces (there's the Lancet claim, which is debateable), and if Bush ok'd the use of torture or let his underlings do it with a wink and a nod, then he is evil like Saddam is evil. Even a dimwit like Bush knew that the Iraq War might kill tens or hundreds of thousands and he went into it with obvious relish and enthusiasm. He's not shown the slightest indication of remorse over the torture policy. If I'm right about all or most of the above then he is morally depraved. You seem to think there's a fundamental category difference here between bad Presidents and evil Third World dictators. I think the difference is mainly in where the person happened to have been born.


TGB, I think it's generally accepted that in any given war, at least one side is wrong, so if you support both sides in a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people, your moral position is not too strong. But whatever. I don't expect Americans to ever judge their own country's actions by the standards they use on others, unless we are conquered in a war and forced to look at ourselves the way others see us. Not likely to happen anytime soon. And not that any other country is more honest than we are.

By the way, would it have been a violation of posting rules to advocate Saddam's lynching?

"Even a dimwit like Bush knew that the Iraq War might kill tens or hundreds of thousands and he went into it with obvious relish and enthusiasm."

Sure, but the sanctions regime was killing a lot of people, and Saddam was exterminating the Marsh Arabs, and cetera. Don't you think Bush invaded in the belief that his action would lead to a world that you and I and most of the Iraqi people would agree was better than the non-invasion world? I doubt many of Saddam's actions meet that standard.

That's probably true about Bush, Rilke, but given Bush's support for torture I think his brand of compassion is similar to that you often find in ideologues (left and right)--they care about innocent victims insofar as it gives them an excuse to do what they want to do.

BTW, I wouldn't put all Iraq War advocates into this camp. There were some who were, I'm sure, genuinely horrified at the innocent lives that would be lost, but thought the net gain would be positive. I wasn't a supporter, but I wasn't at all morally comfortable in my opposition for the reasons you mention as favoring the war. But I don't for a moment think Bush was in this category of morally anguished war supporters. (I don't think there were too many, frankly, but I know there were some.)

As for Saddam, it wouldn't surprise me if Saddam persuaded himself that he was the great modernizer of Iraq. I gather Iraq did make strides in many areas until the Iran War and then the Gulf War and sanctions wrecked it all. Which would have probably happened without Saddam, but he probably thought of himself as Iraq's benefactor, someone who had to use force when necessary to maintain his benevolent rule.

That certainly seems to have been the case with many communist revolutionaries and other dictators. Lenin and Trotsky undoubtedly thought they were killing people for the longterm good.

"Which would have probably happened without Saddam"

I meant the advances in Iraq would have happened without Saddam, not the catastrophic decisions he made to go to war with Iran and then to invade Kuwait.

Sure, but the sanctions regime was killing a lot of people, and Saddam was exterminating the Marsh Arabs, and cetera. Don't you think Bush invaded in the belief that his action would lead to a world that you and I and most of the Iraqi people would agree was better than the non-invasion world? I doubt many of Saddam's actions meet that standard.

Aren't we supposed to ask by what method we assume he was exterminating the Marsh Arabs???

The whole point is that we will never know these things IF THERE IS NO TRIAL. And if the executing him within 6 months, as they should, there will BE NO TRIAL about those issues.

Remember also that by the time the US invaded there was no justification to call it a humanitarian intervention. Which is why they didn't call it that as long as they (= the US government) felt there were other more plausible options.

I rather doubt he received a fair trail, or could. Frankly I don't much care. (I respect the OJ verdict as a citizen, but it doesn't make me think he didn't kill his wife and her friend.) A truth/reconciliation commission might be a better chance to establish the facts; academic work still better.

You know and I know and anyone paying attention knows that Saddam gassed his own people at Halabja and bears the moral onus of that, if there's such a thing as a moral onus. Donald doesn't need to wait for Bush to be put on trial to reach the informed conclusion that he's - well, see above.

My only comment on that HRW link is that I'm glad they're not in domestic violence advocacy.

Jesurgislac:
"Jim Henley points out the convenience (for members of Bush's administration who were playing footsie with Saddam Hussein in the Reagan administration) of hanging Saddam Hussein before he can be tried for other, greater crimes committed during the Reagan administration, at least with their knowledge, and by some argument with their support."


In addition, what Saddam did was the sort of thing that the Bush administration, and it's supporters, have been seeking the power to do - pick up suspects, torture confessions out them, walk them pass a secret kangaroo court on the way to execution.

And that Saddam's excuse - responding during war to an act of 'terrorism' - is exactly the sort of thing that Republicans are fond of.

You know and I know and anyone paying attention knows that Saddam gassed his own people at Halabja and bears the moral onus of that, if there's such a thing as a moral onus.

I would like to know what really happened to be honest, instead of hoping that the things the media take for granted are true. Again - we convicted the (Dutch) guy who sold the chemicals to 15 years in prison, but couldn't prove genocidal intents.

off to bed now

rilkefan, you can't simultaneously reject consequentialism and employ it in your argument to support the case for a Gesinnungsethik

novakant - as I've noted repeatedly on this blog, I don't believe in the existence of an absolute morality and so get to argue on the basis of what my interlocutors believe. I'm afraid I don't hold a brief for Gesinnung or Verantwortung esp. since I don't know what they are and suspect that the no-free-lunch theorems make the concepts nonsensical anyway - which said I don't understand where I've relied on consequentialism.

dutchmarbel, I certainly agree that the truth is nice, just arguing about how to get there. History, justice, world order, and the victims' families have claims that don't necessarily overlap.

responding during war to an act of 'terrorism' - is exactly the sort of thing that Republicans are fond of

Yes, I know all sorts of Republicans who are fond of this sort of thing. I work with some guys who have gassed hundreds of Democrats at a time on that pretext.

Bastards. You try to reason with them, but it's no good.

Rilkefan: but none of those are better served with a fake trial for a small part of what was going on - thus also making it harder to convict other people responsible.

Slarti: Yes, I know all sorts of Republicans who are fond of this sort of thing.

Yes, no doubt you do. So do I, unfortunately.

I work with some guys who have gassed hundreds of Democrats at a time on that pretext.

Saddam Hussein hasn't been tried or convicted or sentenced for gassing anyone, and it appears he never will be, Slarti, so that's an entirely inappropriate comment. Hussein has been tried, sentenced, and convicted for ordering his military forces to carry out a reprisal attack against a town where someone attempted to assassinate him. 150 of the town's men were killed in the attack or executed later - men including boys of 13 or so. About 1500 people were also imprisoned and tortured.

I know Republicans who are vehemently for reprisal attacks. I know Republicans in the US government who have voted for having people imprisoned and tortured.

In short, the crime for which Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death is a crime that, yes, Republicans are very fond of.

i only have to say to all of this is that just look and th elittle kids who didn't even make it to their 1 day of living becuase some of them died the minute they were born in the hospitals that blew also some even never made it to thei 1st birthday.. i think by hanging him is less punishment i think that they should cutt his frank and beans and keep on torturing him and then leave him on the street and the people of IRAQ have the right to burn him alive like what he did to his own people

More on my complaint.

Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't sentenced to death. He was sentenced to 15 life terms. He was murdered in prison by another inmate, Christopher Scarver. He bashed his head in with a preacher bar.

I hate saddam and iam arab.
he used to kill his own people.
he was a mother fucking son of a bitch a kiss ass and a serial killer.
i think he deserves for then just to be hanged he should have been tortured until death and i complitly agree about everything but amirca is still a fucking country.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad