Saddam executed
Over the last couple of years, I’ve written a few posts on the death penalty, putting the view that it should opposed in all circumstances, rather than just when its popular. I’t’s no surprise then that I don’t support the execution of Saddam Hussein.
It’s only human for some of the victims of his tyranny to be pleased with his death, and the fact that justice ‘of a sort’ caught up with him in a way that many other tyrants and dictators escape. It is also understandable to not feel overly upset at the fate he has met, compared with some other state sanctioned executions that are carried out. But I still believe the death penalty is wrong, something which at least on this issue the Pope agrees with me about.
While Iraq is a big enough mess regardless of what happened to Saddam, Im also not convinced it is terribly helpful to execute someone after a less than adequate trial process, particularly when he was still to be tried for crimes far greater than the one he got convicted on. It is hard to see how the appearance of a show trial followed by a rushed execution will help anything much. The fact that the allegations of genocide against the Kurds were not examined before a properly operating court of law is unfortunate, but given that Saddam was the ally of the USA and Europe through much of this period, there’s probably a lot of relief that some of the facts of who knew what about what Saddam was doing and who was supplying him with weapons and other support wont come to light in this arena.
ELSEWHERE: There will no doubt be many comment pieces in the mainstream media on this topic over the next few days. I imagine most of them will revolve around whether the execution was a good or a bad thing and whether the death penalty is OK before going back onto the topic of how much a mess Iraq is now and what should be done next. Not surprisingly, there are already many pieces on the blogosphere about it, many of which will have as much worth as much of what is in the mainstream media – albeit with a wider variety of styles and lengths. A few pieces on Australian blogs are at Suburban Scrawl, Urban Creature, The Road to Surfdom, Leftwrites, Larvatus Prodeo (times two), Kalimna, Bastards Inc, and Anonymous Lefty (whose hacked blogsite has now been un-hacked – at least I hope it has, unless someone is really trying to mess with his/our head). If you’re really keen, you can search blogs at Technorati – according to their search engine, there’s been over 1500 posts mentioning Saddam in the last 24 hours (and that’s just the ones written in English).
The Guardian newspaper describes the events at Saddam’s hanging, and a variety of reactions, including criticisms from Kurdish Iraqis that it was turned into a sectarian event by the government.
The New York Times also described the final scenes and says “America questioned the political wisdom and justice of expediting the execution, in ways that required Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to override constitutional and religious precepts.”
200 Comments, Comment or Ping
Richard Tonkin
George and Laua Bush had just sent a “Christmas Message” to the Muslim world:
“The Qur’an teaches that the sacred feast of Eid al-Adha is a time for Muslims to join family and friends in thanking the Almighty for His many blessings and to reflect on the great sacrifice and devotion of Abraham. During this festive celebration, peace-loving people around the world, including millions of American Muslims, honor Abraham’s example by sharing love and demonstrating compassion for those in need.”
-from whitehouse.gov.au
Then, just as Iraqis are about to sit down for the feast (midday today Iraqi time) Bush sends another message:
“Today, Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial — the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime.
Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule. It is a testament to the Iraqi people’s resolve to move forward after decades of oppression that, despite his terrible crimes against his own people, Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. This would not have been possible without the Iraqi people’s determination to create a society governed by the rule of law.
Saddam Hussein’s execution comes at the end of a difficult year for the Iraqi people and for our troops. Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself, and be an ally in the War on Terror. ”
Do you think the hanging was carried out today as a demonstration of “love and compassion” or just to give people something to celebrate.
Bush’s propaganda timing has reached an all-time low.
Foreign Minister Downer has been a little more blunt, saying that “It was because of Saddam’s flagrant defiance of UN Security Council resolutions that we took action against him, drawing attention also to the evil nature of his rule.”
Dec 30th, 2006
MarkL
While opposed to the death penalty except in carefully defined circumstances and for very specific things, I can see little but good in this. Dead, Hussein is a receding historical figure on whom historians will pass judgement. Dead, he cannot be used as a rallying point and above all else this is a guarantee to a people who existed for 30+ years under this monster (from the time he took over the secret police) that he can never ‘get out and do it again’.
I understand your Judaeo-Christian cultural leanings against the death penalty.
It is just that other cultures think and act differently. Correspondence with Arabs of a number of stripes has informed me that their cultural and honour society norms are very, very different on this matter. Their politics tend to be much more violent, and when the mighty fall, they, their families and their clans are routinely subject to killing and in some cases wholesale slaughter.
However, having him executed in Halabja might have been more telling a lesson.
MarkL
Canberra
Dec 30th, 2006
Tom
There’s also the possibility that Saddam is innocent and evidence may emerge that clears him. You can’t overturn a conviction if the person is dead.
This is a sad day for dictators the world over.
Dec 30th, 2006
Davo
“Fair” trial is a mockery under current American aegis. Rupert Murdoch needed the “theatrical” ratings.
Dec 30th, 2006
Donna
Does it not leave the likes of George Bush in a possibly vulnerable position in future? Might he be convicted as a war criminal one day? I realise this might be perceived as theatrical, but it’s still a thought going through my head.
Dec 30th, 2006
philip travers
Ethical matters concerning human life or death arent easy lessons in being one.Was Saddam medically mad?Are the death bringers and observers the same?Is justice only possible when either you remove ones own emotions,thoughts,and ,or,thought processes.Is the head where these dictators terrors begin ,or in a diet,sleep apneoa,or coffee and medical drug addiction.Old sexual diseases maybe!What of cannibalism as dictatorship.?These question have existances outside the death penalty illegality of the present U.S.A. ex-governor now,President G.W.Bush.Whatever ,justice Saddam deserved there is no high moral ground.It has been destroyed,and ,Isuspect Australians will hold their values to themselves about this….We are not living out as citizens the dramas of Iraq…..Instead we have anti-drama leaders like Howard….who are so relaxed about everything that I suppose he will one day be a perfect master..a guru of all ethical achievements…he will satsang us to death.
Dec 30th, 2006
Graham Bell
Andrew Bartlett and Richard Tonkin:
The hanging of Saddam Hussein – and especially its timing – will go down in history as a military and political disaster for The West on the same scale as the Fall of Constantinople.
Obviously, the words “implication” and “outcome” have been banned in the White House; nobody plays chess or poker there either….
Idiots!!
Dec 31st, 2006
Tester
MarkL wrote: “Dead, he cannot be used as a rallying point”
You haven’t heard of the word ‘martyr’?
Dec 31st, 2006
dodgyville
Even though I don’t feel particularly sorry for Saddam Hussein, I am dismayed by his execution. It seems so dysfunctional!
I was watching the news yesterday and the reporter said something along the lines of “Saddam’s execution is final proof to the Iraqi people that they no longer live under his violent regime” … it just struck me as odd that state-sponsored killing is supposed to prove that they no longer live in a tyrannical violent state!!!
I take comfort from the fact that it seems to be harder than ever before for mass murderers to escape some sort of justice, but I think it would have been better for him to face court case after court case for the next 20 years – make him answer to every surviving victim that wanted him to – and then if there had been any time left over, make him clean the sewers of Iraq (as one Iraqi commentator suggested yesterday).
Anyway, hope the rest of us have a safe and happy New Year!
Dec 31st, 2006
Evil Pundit
The hanging of Saddam Hussein – and especially its timing – will go down in history as a military and political disaster for The West on the same scale as the Fall of Constantinople.
That’s a new level of hysterical paranoia, even by your high standards.
Dec 31st, 2006
thordaddy
thordaddy says:
I’ve never read a more illuminating personal conflict between one’s liberalism and one’s own good and decent instinct.
Mr. Bartlett seems to appease his political liberalism by sacrificing his own truths and it is somewhat painful to read.
He says,
It’s only human for some of the victims of his tyranny to be pleased with his death, and the fact that justice – of a sort – caught up with him in a way that many other tyrants and dictators escape.
This seems to suggest that Mr. Bartlett expunges his humaneness because he is not “pleased” that “a sort” of “justice” was meted out for a mass murdering dictator? Yet, his declared unpleasantness does not totally detach him from his truth and the understanding that those touched by the brutal hand of Saddam have moral justification for their feelings of being “pleased.” Mr. Bartlett, as do all of those that are decrying the death penalty for Saddam, believe their abstract politically-motivated unpleasantness retain the moral high ground in assessing the issue of capital punishment.
But then Mr. Bartlett continues by saying,
It is also understandable to not feel overly upset at the fate he has met, compared with some other state sanctioned executions that are carried out. But I still believe the death penalty is wrong – something which on least on this issue the Pope agrees with me about.
And again we read the internal struggle in Mr. Bartlett’s head. Mr. Bartlett isn’t really that personally unpleased, but seemingly more concerned with the credibility of the criminal process and just believing that “the death penalty is wrong.” Why it’s “wrong” when everything in Mr. Barlett’s gut instinct feels it’s right isn’t really articulated?
Dec 31st, 2006
thordaddy
If I could continue…?
Mr. Bartlett argues that Saddam should have been tried on far more grevious crimes. What isn’t discerned is whether Mr. Bartlett is appealing to his political beliefs or his own internal truths? Certainly, one could believe that Mr. Bartlett was merely trying to legitimize Saddam’s hanging by arguing that such a conviction on more grevious crimes could result in nothing less than death upon conviction? But then he nonetheless dabbles in liberal conspiracy theory by claiming that Saddam knew things that no one else did and that could be really damaging to those having him hanged. Ho hum, I say. But this really just seems to be the back and forth personal struggle between ideology and personal gut instinct. So in reality, the call by Mr. Bartlett for Saddam being tried on more grevious crimes would only prove that Mr. Bartlett’s ideology wins the day and more people touched by Saddam’s brutal hand come away very unpleased. Abstract thought winning over personal knowledge. Mr. Bartlett is acknowledging that even on charges of genocide with conviction in hand, Saddam would still not deserve the death penalty. This is what he says, but it doesn’t seem to be what you feel.
Mr. Bartlett, please articulate further on this matter?
Dec 31st, 2006
Megan Yarrow
Have you read Craig Unger’s ‘House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship between the World’s Most Powerful Dynasties’? Referring to Halabja, Unger says:
“U.S. intelligence sources told the ‘Los Angeles Times’ that the poison gas was sprayed on the Kurds from U.S. helicopters, which had been sold to Iraq for crop dusting…According to Peter W. Galbraith, the senior advisor to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who exposed Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds, two men who were key players in the Reagan-Bush era and later became principal figures in George W. Bush’s administration that helped kill the Prevention of Genocide Act, a bill that would have imposed sanctions on Iraq for its genocidal campaign. The bipartisan bill passed the Senate unanimously just one day after it was introduced. But thanks to Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, it never became law. “Secretary of State Colin Powell was then the national security advisor who orchestrated Ronald Reagan’s decision to give Hussein a pass for gassing the Kurds,” Galbraith wrote.” (pp79-80)
Dec 31st, 2006
MarkL
Tom
“There’s also the possibility that Saddam is innocent and evidence may emerge that clears him.”
Umm. How?
His own archives alone damn him. Those mass graves also indicate something a tad amiss, and in a classic national socialist state like Iraq, all power flows from one man, and one man only.
MarkL
Canberra
Dec 31st, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Mr Thordaddy – that’s one of the strangest efforts at trying to attack someone I’ve read. How about you just say what you believe instead of trying to morph what I’ve said into some odd caricature so you can then attack it?
I presume you haven’t read any of my previous posts on the death penalty – I linked to them above so I didn’t have to outline it all again here. I suggest you go read them – my views are not specific to Saddam. Any execution provides a opportunity to repeat my opposition to the death penalty.
How I (or others) ‘feel’ personally about Saddam being killed shouldn’t bear any relationship to whether or not the death penalty is a good idea – whether in this circumstance or more widely. Otherwise, you just get a selective and inconsistent lynch mob mentality operating.
However, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that people can feel good about this specific outcome whilst still arguing it is the wrong approach and shouldn’t have happened.
The reason why I say “justice of a sort caught up with him” is not a reference to the death penalty, it is a reference to the less than adequate nature of the trial proceedings. It is certainly more of a trial than Saddam ever gave his victims, but from what I’ve read it still fell well short of our notion of a fair trial. Of course, John Howard called it ‘due process’, but I can only a assume he is either spouting propaganda lines, or else no longer knows or cares what due process really is.
It is good that one tyrant has been called to account for a few of his crimes (although there are many more which now won’t be fully examined in court), but he didn’t need to be killed for that to happen. Too many of them die peacefully of old age – plenty of them former allies of the west of course.
Dec 31st, 2006
dodgyville
Why can’t people be of two minds about the execution of Saddam?
There are many different types of opposition to the death penalty – the main one in my mind is that in most cases “you can never really sure the person was guilty”. Obviously with a clear-cut case like Saddam, you could argue a lot of reasons for opposing the death penalty in this case vanish.
Iraq won’t right itself until the culture of violence there ends … the only real argument for me is how to help end that cycle. I would argue that killing people there does nothing to end that cycle, in fact it helps entrench it. That’s why I was against the death penalty in this case, despite the clear evidence of crimes against humanity by Saddam.
However, I suspect that I am philosophically opposed to the death penalty at all, so maybe I always find arguments to support my belief! Who knows???
Dec 31st, 2006
thordaddy
Mr. Bartlett,
I believe Hussein received justice and anything less than the death penalty would be unjust. Therefore, I think you argue in favor of an unjust position based on an ideological stance even though it seemingly runs contrary your gut instinct.
Hypothetically,
How would charging Hussein with his more heinous crimes diminish the justification for the death penalty in his case?
Is it your stance that the more heinous crimes a person commits the more one must argue against his death upon conviction?
Isn’t any conviction that leads to a death penalty illegitimate in origins and judicial process?
Is arguing against Saddam’s execution a “good idea?”
Dec 31st, 2006
thordaddy
dodgyville,
People can be of two minds and Mr. Bartlett is a prime example. One mind holds steadfast to an ideological position while the other lurks deep inside his evolutionary instinct.
On the ideological side, Mr. Bartlett must maintain a position that no matter how depraved and heinous the crimes of Saddam seem, it in no way justifies a death penalty.
Yet, I don’t believe he really thinks this is right because it doesn’t feel right at the human level. I think he displays this conflict.
My position is that there are those crimes that are so depraved and heinous that they call for nothing less than the death penalty. If not, then I must argue in defense of mass-murdering tyrants
Dec 31st, 2006
Geoff
At a human level… I feel to kill anyone is wrong. What is just about any form of murder? Surely no one can feel good about it.
Personally, I don’t feel good about Saddam’s death. But then I’m not an Iraqi, nor was I brought up in their culture.
Dec 31st, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
thanks for the free psychoanalysis session, Mr Thordaddy. Seeing you know what I really think better than I do, I may as well hand the whole blog over to you so you can more accurately portray my views for readers.
Your suggestions that people opposing the death penalty are ‘arguing in defence of mass murdering tyrants’ is truly Downer-like in its logic. I am arguing in support of a principle which I believe should applied consistently. How I feel personally about any individual involved in a particular case has nothing to do with it.
Your argument is akin to saying that anyone deemed to be a ‘bad guy’ (terrorist/tyrant/heretic/etc) by ‘us’ doesn’t deserve a fair trial, and anyone suggesting they should get a fair trial is just supporting the terrorist/tyrant/heretic/etc.
I am likely to feel more upset if a ten year old child of a friend contracts terminal cancer than if Idi Amin gets terminal cancer. That doesn’t mean that I really think that terminal cancer is OK in some circumstances, or that only people who are not guilty of crimes against humanity should get treatment if they contract cancer.
Dec 31st, 2006
thordaddy
Geoff,
I feel to kill “anyone” is also wrong, but certainly not “someone” who deserves it. Are you denying that such “someone” exists? What say, a midnight predator running to his car with your daughter (or feel free to think of someone who is very important to you) in hand…? Would you feel it wrong to shoot and kill him?
I think an absolutist stance against the death penalty is a morally unjustifiable position because it says that no amount of depraved slaughter shall result in the ultimate punishment rendered by the larger society. It seems nothing more than a tacit concession to evil. It is as though you’ve stood hopelessly by while the midnight predator has driven away with your daughter. You are undoubtedly sick to your stomach, but you’ve remain ideologically pure.
Dec 31st, 2006
thordaddy
Mr. Bartlett,
Yes, you hold a “principle” that has you equally opposed to the death penalty of both the Australian trafficking drugs and that of Saddam Hussein. What isn’t clear is what that “principle” is other than an absolutist stance against the death penalty?
Who cares if the process is flawed. You’re still against the death penalty.
Who cares if the convicted murdered a rival drug dealer in cold blood or whether he murdered hundreds of woman and child in an act mass killing? You’re still against the death penalty.
That’s what you call a pricinpled and consistent position?
Your first conclusion would have you oppose all forms of punish as there is no perfect process to carry out justice. There are certainly those in jail doing life without parole that have been unjustly convicted. You should therefore oppose life without opposed especially since one will linger innocently in jail. I don’t see you making this logically consistent statement.
Your second conclusion would have you violate a cornerstone of Western jurisprudence. That cornerstone being the punishment must fit the crime. What do you give the small-time serial killer that prays on a handfull of prostitutes when all you’ve suggested for the full-fledge murderous tyrant is life without parole?
Lastly and as a side question, would Hussein even have faced trial for his crimes if you really had your way?
Dec 31st, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Mr Thordaddy, your real agenda comes out with your last question (not to mention your particularly offensive and objectionable misrepresentation of Geoff’s position).
People can be of two minds and you are a prime example. One mind holds steadfast to an ideological position while the other lurks deep inside your evolutionary instinct.
Who are you to say that execution is “the ultimate punishment”? Many people might prefer it to a life in jail, let alone cleaing the sewers of Bagdhad. Perhaps your ‘evolutionary instinct’ is just that you enjoy revenge and the idea of people being executed?
Your statement about my (supposed) first conclusion is ludicrous. As you correctly note, every justice system has flaws. This is a key argument against the death penalty. Your evolutionary instinct might not have noticed, but it is rather hard to reverse the death penalty. At least wrongful imprisonment can be ended, a person can be freed and some effort at compensation made.
That said, it is reasonable to assume that there is no doubt at all in regard to Saddam’s guilt.
As for your statement about my (supposed) second conclusion, you are obviously imposing your own judgement as to what punsihment ‘fits’ the crime. I would suggest that the pre-meditated killing of someone in cold blood doesn’t ‘fit’ any crime.
Your other statements just confuse preventing a crime with punishing one. Murky as the area can sometimes be, unintentionally (or even unavoidably) killing someone to prevent them commiting a serious crime is very different to arresting them after the fact and then taking them off and killing them.
I realise that some people support the death penalty, in some cases only for extreme cases like this. You are free to take such a position, but I suggest you do so without slandering and grossly distorting the views of anyone who believes differently.
Dec 31st, 2006
thordaddy
Mr. Bartlett,
I have no agenda and I certainly didn’t misstate Geoff’s position. I actually agreed with his statement that killing “anyone” is wrong. Unfortunately, the death penalty is usually carried out on “someone” who has committed egregious crimes. One could comprehend your stance against the death sentence involving the Australian drug trafficker, but one is not left to automatically conclude such would be your stance involving Saddam Hussein. I still don’t really know why you oppose the death penalty for a mass-murdering tyrant. What exactly is your principled opposition other than an opposition to the death penalty in ALL CASES? If I advocate for the death penalty in all cases involving premeditated murder on a consistent basis, am I not holding an equally principled position?
And I think it’s quite reasonable to ask of those who oppose Hussein’s death penalty whether they believe in any justice at all for Hussein. Would Hussein have ever seen justice were power in your hands? If not, isn’t a flawed justice better than no justice at all?
Dec 31st, 2006
philip travers
Sorry Senator for any confidence that someone else questioned your essentail understandings,and thus principle with some reality of principal.Like you I have noticed being in prison may be a worse fate than a government sponsored death penalty..one would not do to well,even with UN approval in a Iraq jail.However, I think there is a case for genocide and torture as a case for a death penalty where deceit,and other processes of denial of ones actions ,after due warning ,took place.. the right a police officer may have,under some very terrible circumstances…that would be closely reviewed…frightening to accept…frightening to judge..and more frightening to decide,where bravery isnt warranted ,or called for..but protocols take place.Specifically,I think there should be a death penalty to those countries citizens who use remote technologies to disturb the mental faculties,and distort the basic brain activity,that no reason ,in those circumstances, is going to be coherent.In and on other days, not here,I have stated this technology has been applied to Australians and I am one of them…even though the UNO has dealt with this matter..the unfortunate reality,for me ,at least,it isnt easy getting real data as evidence,when the operational base may be remote.This stuff isnt science fiction,and I would prefer to just be able to convince myself,I had a government accepted mental disorder…and I now seek revenge at law,if possible, other wise,it is the case,in a way, I am declaring intent to war…these technologies come in many forms and have been around a number of years..and their use is a as yet a indescribable contempt…endangering more people than what the normal processes of evidence can collect.I have to caution myself,because it is valid for me to accuse some other countries government organizatioon..and have already done so.This weblog is and cannot be miscontrued as responsible for my opinion.The Senator remains a law abiding citizen..and I am surely tested.
Dec 31st, 2006
Graham Bell
Evil Pundit [on 10]:
Stick around, the play has only just begun ….. this is only Scene III, Act I …. half the dramatis personae aren’t even on stage yet.
Militarily and politically for The West, Saddam Hussein was worth his weight in gold while he was being kept alive. Dead, his conveniently silent corpse is worth more to The West’s enemies than if it was made of diamonds and emeralds and rubies.
There would have been rejoicing by The West’s enemies at Saddam Hussein’s execution …. but not because an evil tyrant had gone.
Just think about it for a moment ot two …..
Dec 31st, 2006
Paul Walter
Megan Yarrow and Dodgyville came closest to echoing my thoughts.
And I certainly agree that the the thing is complex and because of its seriousness, including the vexed issue of capital punishment and suspect processes of law and retribution, that it is difficult to avoid having mixed feelings.
Megan Yarrow was smack on target, as far as I am concerned. One war criminal brought to book, but ironically as part of an ideological stunt to enable others outside of Iraq who equal or are even worse criminals, but wear expensive suits and have Brady Bunch families and marketing people in abundance, to muddy the waters as to their actual contributions to the Iraq horror, over decades.
Dodgyville demonstrate how much of a failure the crude trial and execution were: a crude, crass botch exploited as the worst PR gimmick pandering to the lowest elements of human nature, that I can remember, in a vulgar era.
That Saddam Hussein alone showed any dignity during the proceedings, made the indecently rushed and grotesque vaudeville even worse than it might have been. That it was an execution was bad enough.
But as dinner-time entertainment?
’scuse me!
In one fell swoop, global civilisation was relegated to medieval crudity and a sort of Rabelasian or Chaucerian buffoonery. The recollection of it makes a person even of this writers low vulgar sensibilities, somewhat ill and has him in recollection of Orwell’s 1984 where executions and ethnic cleansing are telecast as entertainment for the brainwashed masses.
Jan 1st, 2007
O Ekdikitis
I currently oppose the death penalty of humans in all circumstances.
I do not oppose contributing to the ending of another’s life in self-defence, during battle in a ‘just’ war, in the defence of one’s family, by accident or in a case of euthenasia or abortion.
There are circumstances where a life must be extinguished, as a last resort. The law can then decide if it really was a ‘last resort’ and whether there was negligence, or excessive force involved.
I still oppose the taking of someone’s life, when their capacity to cause harm has been removed, such as by incarceration, [or by grabbing your young daughter out of his arms].
I’ve just watched the smuggled video of the full execution and I cannot see much point in a government placing a noose around a now harmless old man’s neck, dropping him a couple of metres so that the noose either snaps his neck and/or stops the blood supply to his brain and then one of those present saying that he was treated with respect before and after the execution. I would’ve thought taking someones life, against their will, isn’t all that respectfull.
I’ve held the above views largely since the ‘beginning’ but am open to suggestions and alternate reasoning.
Jan 1st, 2007
dodgyville
Hi thordaddy,
I appreciate you arguing the case for the death penalty (it’s rare amongst my friends to hear it!!!).
I notice you did the semi-redherring by saying if anti-death penalty people had their, Saddam would never have been brought to trial at all. That is an interesting point but I have to disagree with you there.
I believe Saddam would never have been in the position to be the brutal dictator he was if he hadn’t been supported, armed and funded by the very people who know applaud the death penalty for him.
In my experience the people against the death penalty are generally against the “real-politik” of using our money and weapons to prop-up evil people who murder their citizens. You say we would never have brought Saddam to trial, I put it to you that Saddam would never have been more than a minor player if Western governments consistently applied the rules of law, basic humanity and human rights.
I hope this doesn’t derail the topic but I really wanted to answer that point you raised as it really gets my goat!
Sure in this case it’s harder to argue against the death penalty, but people against the death penalty are usually taking a longer view of the world and thinking into the future – what is actually best for Iraq and the world in general – and the answer is almost always no more executions!!!
Happy New Year everyone! Hope you’re not as hung-over as me!
Jan 1st, 2007
Evil Pundit
Actually it was mostly France and Russia that armed and supplied Saddam Hussein, and those two countries opposed the US and its allies in their efforts to depose him and bring him to trial.
So it is correct to say that it was the Dodgyvilles and Bartletts of the world who would have kept the tyrant in power — but it is wrong to imply that the US or Australia were to blame for his rise or dominance.
Once again we see the hypocrisy and weakness of the pacifist position. Pacifists and anti-death penalty advocates are objectively acting in support of evil, since they oppose any effective means of fighting it.
Jan 1st, 2007
Graham Bell
Everyone:
Australia set an example to the whole world with the way it handled another mass killer (though not on the same terrible scale), Martin Bryant.
He was not turned into a martyr or a dead hero to be emulated – but into a prisoner forever leading a very dull constrained life; someone who should not be emulated.
We will pay an enormous price for allowing the former governor of Texas, who derived a sense of power out of all the executions he approved, to get more of his jollies out of seeing his erstwhile pal hanged.
We should have striven to force Bush to follow that Australian judicial example. Not out of mercy …. but for real military and political practicalities.
(Real independence of the Iraqi courts in the Saddam Hussein case? Sincerity and independence are not quite the same thing).
Jan 1st, 2007
thordaddy
dodgyville,
Actually, I asked whether those who opposed Hussein’s death penalty would have brought justice to Hussein AT ALL if they had their way? I have yet to get a definitive answer and it’s hard to speculate a response in the affirmative since many opposed the invasion of Iraq in the first place. I’m looking for consistency.
But, you have suggested that Hussein would have been brought to trial by those who opposed his death penalty. Unfortunately, you didn’t give many details to substantiate that claim. Though, if this were true, I say it proves nothing more than an extremist belief within those opposed to the death penalty in ALL CASES including those of mass-murdering tyrants.
This absolutist stance then forces you to condemn America and its government for recognizing certain realities and then reacting to them. Let’s say that we had NO hand in the “prop-up” of Hussein? I say it’s highly speculative to suggest that such a stance would have made Hussein a more minor player. Such a stance could have as easily made him a much more formidable foe with a more vigorous backing by enemies of the US. In fact, Hussein played all sides as one would expect of the head of a very large criminal regime. This includes the US, Russia, China, France, Secular Arabs, Muslim jihadists, etc.
But again, I asked a question and didn’t assert some undeniable truth.
Jan 1st, 2007
CB
“We should have striven to force Bush to follow that Australian judicial example. Not out of mercy …. but for real military and political practicalities.”
Right, so the continuing statements from both the US and Iraq governments that the Iraqi judicial system alone processed his trial, appeal and subsequent execution are all just a sham? You now want to impose your views and attitudes onto Iraq because it doesn’t fit your sensibilities over the death penalty. For all those against the death penalty, it would be interesting to read your views on real state sanctioned violence, such as military action against a rogue state.
Jan 1st, 2007
Thai Radio
Death penalty has nothing to do with justice: it’s just revenge and murder…
Jan 1st, 2007
dodgyville
One of the good things out of this is the fantastic discussion about the nature and form of justice occurring everywhere on the planet!
I was tickled pink by this quote from an Iraqi commentator on the divided reaction to Saddam’s hanging:
“Anyone would think we had hanged Nelson Mandela.”
Jan 1st, 2007
philip travers
A put down of the Senator and another,are unfounded,on the basis of calling them pacifists,re the subject matter.I dare say a pacifist can be anyone who doesnt intentionally go out of their way to war-monger.That could also be a aussie rules footballer ready to hit back if hit..and face the rules and public condemnation.Pacifists come from all sorts of backgrounds,and it is a sly ,unthought out position to claim some sort of intellectual and moral weakness in the Senators position whilst he allows this gush of self important rhetoric to take place on his weblog..The ponderous inexactitude of thorodaddy doesnt read very well now and wont later as time moves on….This gutless attack on a patient and popular man needs to be stated here..it is like Thorodaddy doesnt recognise a fundamental matter in all this…And here it is..Australians have been killed in Iraq ex-soldiers after a buck…the undoubted insolence of Thorodaddy in his name calling and insistences of the Senators absolute position is a wrong call.If Andrew was the ruckman and was hit by Thorodaddy..he would get one from me..I cannot stand superior types they only last in the moment and not in the field….WHEN is he going to Iraq?The Senator isnt injured but was waiting for someone else to notice the bloody insult……..The Senator has stuck by his own rules.I think I would of went for the king hit.
Jan 1st, 2007
thordaddy
Philip,
If Mr. Bartlett’s position is that he opposes the death penalty in ALL CASES, it is not incorrect to say he holds an extremist stance. A more moderate and tempered stance would hold that the death penalty should be reserved for the most diabolical criminals and only be carried out under a strict, fair and transparent process.
Mr. Bartlett laments the judicial process that sent Hussein to the gallows, but such a process COULD NEVER be satisfactory enough to change Mr. Bartlett’s stance on the issue of the death penalty.
Likewise, by arguing that Hussien should have been charged on his more heinous crimes, Mr. Barlett’s opposition to the death penalty in ALL CASES would imply that Mr. Barlett would have opposed Hussein’s hanging on charges of genocide even if the process was flawless.
This is an extremist position and your bloviating does nothing to change this fact.
But more to your diatribe, I’ve neither used the word “pacifist” nor have I called Mr. Bartlett anything that could be contrived as insulting. I think you’re afraid to address the issue at hand and instead feel compelled to come to Mr. Bartlett’s rescue. Quite insulting, I say.
Jan 1st, 2007
Geoff
I said earlier…
“At a human level… I feel to kill anyone is wrong. What is just about any form of murder? Surely no one can feel good about it.
Personally, I don’t feel good about Saddam’s death. But then I’m not an Iraqi, nor was I brought up in their culture.”
Yet daddy seems to think this thinking means I’m on Hussein’s side. “And I think it’s quite reasonable to ask of those who oppose Hussein’s death penalty whether they believe in any justice at all for Hussein. Would Hussein have ever seen justice were power in your hands?”
I note as others have that the death penalty is not the only penalty a society can bring to bear on a criminal. Also that in no way does my original post say that Hussein is not a criminal guilty of crimes and warranting some form of punishment.
I merely stated my thoughts on his death and how it was carried out.
BTW… You didn’t mis-state my position? Really? Seems to me you misunderstood it.. then built a strawman.
The arguments against the death penalty cannot be faulted…
1/ The death of innocent people.
2/ It’s deterent value.
Daddy meanwhile seems rather confused…
“I feel to kill “anyone” is also wrong, but certainly not “someone” who deserves it.”
How can you say “to kill “anyone” is wrong”, then condone it in the same breath? because it is certain from what you have written that you do believe that “some” people should be killed. Which contradicts your original claim that “to kill “anyone” is wrong”.
Jan 1st, 2007
philip travers
Yes ,all true and good,but to accuse the Senator of extremism is a easily proven nonsense.Tell me this Thordaddy…We are in Australia right? The hanging took place in Iraq right? Barlett the Senator is just one Australian in a country that has a long history of working jurisprudence,right? Could it be possible for you to recognise the relationship of the geographical circumstances that are the differences between Iraq and Australia.Another point,in the whole process of evidence against Hussien on these matters ,rare, has it been that Australians trained in Australian Jurisprudence have unearthed that which Saddam was accused.Could it be that every time you parlay a proposition about the Senator more relevant exercises in equiping a description of his attitudes are required? I am sure the Senator is allowing you your points but may have already by both direct and indirect means answered you in a way that wasnt suggesting a perfection,that then lend itself to a permanent philosophical cul-de-sac.I am not sure that this moment of description of him will forever validate something extreme.. in a position that only has limited power of representation in Australia and none in Iraq.Ihave not made up my mind completely about you,and whilst it may have the essence of truth I am defending something,I think you are exposing yourself…Asimple question that I think you need to ask is,alright,if the Senator is extreme on this matter,is it a function of power or ,in fact, powerlessness?And are your opinions about him going to change that? Accuse me of what..I dont care..you and I will live another day..Bartlett has found you not guilty.That maybe why he isnt a Problem really for you.
Jan 1st, 2007
Graham Bell
CB [on 33]:
It would be a wonderful world if the rule of law and the spirit of justice prevailed in every country. Sadly it doesn’t.
Of course, it is hypocritical in wanting to save the life of a monsterous ex-dictator when the law of that country demands the death penalty for his crimes and atrocities. BUT if the alternative is a spreading conflagration that will kill thousands and harm us for generations to come …. then I would prefer to be hypocritical as the lesser of the two evils; it is the devil’s choice and I don’t like it at all.
Anyway, Saddam Hussein is dead and that’s all academic now …. so start digging your trenches …. our troubles have only just begun.
Jan 1st, 2007
thordaddy
Philip,
Again, I have not stated Mr. Bartlett to be an extremist, but have simply claimed that his stance on the death penalty is an extremist one.
If one opposes the death penalty in ALL CASES then arguments about judicial process, indictments on greater crimes or probabilities on executing an innocent man become moot. These arguments then appear to be either a smokescreen for intellectual shortsightedness or a subtle indication that the one opposing the death penalty is feeling some internal conflict.
Mr. Bartlett is opposed to the death penalty in ALL cases. Yet, he still feels compelled to justify his stance using arguments that are irrelevant to his belief in opposing the death penalty. The question is why…? I think the answer is that Hussein received justice and Mr. Bartlett feels this inside. Justice is certainly not wrong and this would make the death penalty, at least in this case, right.
Jan 1st, 2007
philip travers
The Senators position is not only defensible by more simple logic than the prior post,but isnt essentially a singularity in this world.If people do not have opinions about justice and the rule of law,then only those who have gained authority somehow,rule by default…The Senator is a professional who represents in a limited sense in a Review way ,the policies and practices of others.His thought both personal and and public have been criticised and now been placed in the nuerotic basket ,via, the use of the academic cliche.I am one person who has noticed that his anti-death penalty comes along with other attitudes including a state of mind..which can only come about by practice.What has really peeved me off the most,is the instant sets of operational psychological insights…Because I have read some works of A.R.LURIA a russian clinical psychologist that spent 20 years of his life practices on a patient that had a bullet in his head,and Luria got him to communicate and think..I am sort of saddened, by how quickly it is for some to go there, where, the motivations get descriptions.I use to do it myself,and, like a rash it will break out again.If your holding some public office,which requires a certainty,that can be accepted or rejected it is plainly to simple to suggest a hypocritical value in a attitude that has remained consistent.Wether it is right or not to consider Australian values something the Iraqis must learn .. is a a reality that exceeds the oppurtunity to do so.Academic I dont think so…
Jan 1st, 2007
humanity's grey areas
On the field?yes,I could drop Saddam.The clinical institutionalised torture belonging to the death penalty,i found abhorrent and sickening.It will be interesting to note the futures and fate of those country’s that indulge,in a community social aspect.I wonder just how accurate is their social justice system on the ground floor away from the press or politically correct comments. Just how many does the detterent work on?I know the allies response was warranted but i wonder of the view that a minority population kept power against so much power and viscious odds itself.In the management of such widespread sadism and desperate hate and division, who could have held the place together for so long?A man is ceremoniously hung for trying to do what no one else had any answers on in a country where his likes was common place.I comfort myself in the fact that he was cruel and lived by the sword.
Jan 2nd, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Mr Thordaddy, you have mispresented me and verballed me about ten times over now. Such a determined effort in throwing up smoke screens does little except hide the lack of substance in your own argument.
My position is absolutist, but it is not extremist. I think killing a person in cold blood when there is no need, which you clearly support, is extremist.
Seeing you decided from the start what I really thought or believed, without reading all my views on the topic, and also seem incapable of dealing with two separate ideas anywhere in the same vacinity without confusing them with each other, I’m afraid I see little point in continuing to point out the many ways you are wrong in what you say are my views – particularly given that it appears you are unwilling or incapable of comprehending them.
Oh, and EP – I’m not a pacificist and have said so here more than once. If you think what’s been done in Iraq is “an effective form of fighting evil”, you must have a different definition of ‘effective’ than I do.
The issue of the death penalty has nothing to do with the pros and cons of invading Iraq, but you also do not appear to say how the death penalty is a more effective form of fighting evil than no death penalty. I’ve read a few studies about the death penalty and I haven’t seen any sunstantive evidence that it actually reduces violent crime or whatever you wish to define as ‘evil’.
Jan 2nd, 2007
Geoff
Pacifism and not believing in the Death penalty are 2 totally different things.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20999269-5000117,00.html
Hanging merely sad, no deterrent
Mirko Bagaric
January 02, 2007 12:00am
HANGING Saddam was futile. He was undoubtedly a violent dictator and was directly responsible for killing thousands of innocent people…
…The pain that capital punishment causes to criminals is not outweighed by wider benefits to the community, such as in crime reduction and hence the practice is always immoral, even in relation to Saddam.
Jan 2nd, 2007
philip travers
Watch your spelling Senator..it could be construed as black magic or a nervous disorder among the powerful executioners of…ummm…your failed ….logic!Thordaddy is all right,but maybe he should try to sense the ridiculousness of maybe the habits of self-assurance..after all he is a bit of a bloody test.
Jan 2nd, 2007
red crab
i just dont understand
on the one hand its ok to invade a country to kill a dictator .
its ok to kill thousands of innocent people along the way.
its ok to send loved ones into harms way and possible death.
its ok to spend untold amounts of wealth on war while half the world is starving.
and all the accademics can do is argue about is the hanging of one man.
i seem to remember thumbing through a book once that read an eye for an eye .
a tooth for a tooth .
and something about do unto others as you would have them do to you.
so wheres your problem
why dont we all start looking at some real problems .
lets just stop have a drink of ( WATER) from the tap and think about what realy matters.
Jan 2nd, 2007
philip travers
Professor Philip here..to requote an A.L.P. Human by the name of Ferguson,which was about chewing gum,You can drink water and talk death penalties at the same time.Seeing I live out in country N.S.W. many dead bodies can lurk in water,including in Iraq.The best criticism of us,ummmmm,Lefties comes from the Sydney Institute in the SMH today Seeing I cannot stand the overstated importance of Ellis,and,Robinson,I had to clarify both my positionsA.I want a death penalty enacted against a technology and its users,when Australians decide to have more gumption,and check out the references to this via Nexus magazine.and the son of a Senator in the U.S.A. who spends much time warning about stuff is now in operation…Including on me….Now. B.I am opposed to the Death Penality whilst it is still possible to ascertain,clarify and collect data,with the mind of humans engaged in this without fear or favour.On the matter of the use of this remote technology the problem for me is a real one of evidence…Half a chance I would be taking the country of origin,the legal entity or individuals to court.Seeing all the countries that may have this technology operating,are bound up with agreements,secrecy and incompetent assessment as method… a certain country of origin and a person with a name starting with G- is I think up to it.And that is not the only country of origin,I have heard things in Australia,about, ex-Military people being reported on in the same manner..I dont know if their thoughts are,however,being put under scrambling processes…years ago I noted the problem of coincidence..and what appeared to me to be automatic writing…I was responding to mass circulation newspaper articles without reading them.Something else has happened since..some would insist,uncaringly its..schizophrenia.I do not accept clairvoyance..and I dont accept schizophrenia as my present fate.And unusual event for me involved a missing person..a N.Z.policewoman on the run from hubby,confirmed it.
Jan 2nd, 2007
thordaddy
Mr. Bartlett,
I disagree that I have “mispresented” you.
I have stated your stance as follows:
You oppose the death penalty in ALL CASES.
Your stance is therefore absolutist to which you have readily agreed.
Your stance is an extremist one.
Only the third claim is seemingly disputable. Again though, I say it is not disputable to say you hold an extremist stance in regards to your opposition to the death penalty.
Let us pretend that you had your way and Hussein was tried and convicted on genocide charges utilizing a perfect judicial process? How would this effect your stance on the death penalty for Hussein…? It would not effect it in any manner. I say this puts your stance under what most would consider an extreme position.
If you disagree with this assessment then please articulate a MORE extreme position to your own so we can have an honest debate that doesn’t devolve into of accusations of personal attack.
Jan 2nd, 2007
Geoff
“i just dont understand
on the one hand its ok to invade a country to kill a dictator .
its ok to kill thousands of innocent people along the way.
its ok to send loved ones into harms way and possible death.
its ok to spend untold amounts of wealth on war while half the world is starving.”
Ah no it’s not rc. just because something happens doesn’t mean it ok.
“and all the accademics can do is argue about is the hanging of one man.”
Well that’s not right either. And people can debate a point like the Death penalty, without it being considered THE only issue in life.
“i seem to remember thumbing through a book once that read an eye for an eye .
a tooth for a tooth .”
That’s be the Old testament or the Torah. It wouldn’t be the New Testament or the Christian bilble if that is what you are trying to inger.
“and something about do unto others as you would have them do to you.
so wheres your problem
why dont we all start looking at some real problems .
lets just stop have a drink of ( WATER) from the tap and think about what realy matters.”
If that was the case then i’m sure saddam wouldn’t have been hung and he wouldn’t have been involved in his many crimes. BTW, different things matter to different people, and there are many issues tat matter.
Jan 2nd, 2007
Graham Bell
Everyone:
The reality we will all have to face up to is that The West will have to fight against forces led by Saladin, Nasser, Saddam Hussein and his two evil sons.
“But they’re all dead” I hear you say. Well, yes, they are …. sort of. Their bodies certainly are but their spirits are definitely alive and kicking.
They are now heroes to be emulated – and being conveniently incapable of recanting or disgracing themselves, they are now ideal heroes; myths about their great deeds and wonderous qualities can be spread far and wide (and awkward truths about their brutality, greed, folly or evil can be swept right out of the stories).
They are now the heroes in myths that will inspire thousands and thousands of young Arabs to gladly throw their lives away in war against The West.
Don’t look for logic in this. There is none. This is just human nature and it’s been like this since the dawn of time.
No matter how evil Saddam Hussein was, hanging him was a d*mned stupid thing to do. So get ready to pay the price for that blunder.
Jan 2nd, 2007
Geoff
That is yet to be seen Graham. there are as many if not many more Iraqis who despise Saddam and his sons.
Of course the politics of his death also must have come into consideration. Was he alive or dead… more of a threat to iraq’s stability and future.
Jan 2nd, 2007
Deborah
Saddam’s illegal execution is part of US war plan:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BEL20070101&articleId=4275
“Purportedly, Saddam’s trial was an Iraqi affair, but Uncle Sam’s fingerprints are all over the place…”
Saddam’s execution repudiated all over the world
All rules of international law violated. Malcolm Smart, Director of the Middle East and North Africa for Amnesty International:
“Amnesty opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and we deplore the death penalty in this case. It is because we consider that the trial was flawed in serious ways that it is more concerning that the death penalty should be imposed. The independence and impartiality of the court was impugned. There was political interference. Three defence lawyers were murdered. Saddam himself had no access to legal advice for a year.” (BBC World, 30 December)
Human Rights Watch:
“The imposition of the death penalty – an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment – in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible”. (BBC World, 30 December)”
Jan 3rd, 2007
Geoff
“Saddam’s illegal execution is part of US war plan:”
Sure it was Deb…
BTW Amnesty has always been against the Death Penalty and “deplore” it anywhere.
Jan 3rd, 2007
thordaddy
Deborah,
Those that take the extremist position that the death penalty should be opposed in ALL CASES have disqualified themselves from the debate.
How can we trust the assumptions made by Human Rights Watch concerning the judicial process when such assumptions are AUTOMATIC in any proceeding that leads to a death penalty?
Jan 3rd, 2007
Graham Bell
Geoff [on 52]
You’ve made good points there.
The mathematics of revolution is that a very small but very active and tightly organized minority will almost always prevail (South America in the ’70s and ’80s is the exception but other factors prevailed in those cases).
No doubt the majority of Iraqis did despise Saddam Hussein and his evil sons however they are neither organized nor vigorous in their dislike. It is the myths and useful lies and false history that will triumph …. a triumph made so much easier now since the botched execution of Saddam Hussein.
And when it comes to myths, we have not seen the end of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal …. get ready for the “true” story of Saddam Hussein’s heroic attempt to escape from captivity to rescue his fellow Iraqis from the Americam torturers and cannibals (didn’t you know what they did with the bodies of Iraqi freedom fighters? a neighbour of a friend of someone who knew somebody who heard all about it told us so it must be true, mustn’t it?).
When faced with inspiring myths and convincing propaganda, historical accuracy doesn’t stand a chance …. (The story of all the Belgian babies who had their hands cut off by the Huns in the First World War, for example)
Jan 3rd, 2007
dodgyville
Hi Thordaddy,
It’s not extremist to be against the death penalty in this case.
I am against the death penalty because:
1. It’s probably not a deterrent
2. The law sometimes gets it wrong
3. People sometimes don’t get a fair trial
4. It’s probably not healthy to have state sponsored killing
5. It’s not much of a punishment
Now, on the surface, being against the death penalty for Saddam may seem extreme, but consider it against the five points above:
1. I doubt killing Saddam will stop the killings in Iraq, or other dictators around the world (an international war crimes trial would’ve had more effect)
2. I’ll grant you in this case Saddam was clearly a murdering criminal but what about his PM, his national guards, his secretary, his postman … will they also be executed and are they as clear cut?
3. Did he get a fair trial? The first judge was sacked because he was too sympathetic to Saddam, and as noted earlier in the this thread, what kind of functioning justice system can convict you in November and execute you in December???
4. There is a cycle of violence in Iraq that must be broken. I don’t believe more violence will fix it.
5. What about all the other victims of Saddam, shouldn’t the courts explored those? There’s a lot of dead Iraqis who will never have their cases examined now. Is that justice for them?
Anyway, other than point 2, Saddam’s execution clearly fails the other points, and it’s definitely not extreme to oppose the death penalty, even in this extreme situation.
You would be right to ask “Why does Saddam deserve a fair trial?” – Q. How are we different from Saddam? A. We give people fair trials.
Regards,
Luke
Jan 3rd, 2007
Kaye Bernard
thordaddy I reject your flawed labelling as “extremists” of those who oppose the death penalty in any circumstances.
I believe that you have chosen the word “extremist” to paint a Bush like false picture of proximity between those who hold a conviction against the death penalty and you say this demonstrates their sanctioning of crimes committed by Saddam Hussien.
Very much a ‘with us or ag’in’ us’ approach that does little to base a reasoned discussion on the death penalty in general and in the case of Saddam Hussein.
You say “Those that take the extremist position that the death penalty should be opposed in ALL CASES have disqualified themselves from the debate.” however you do not give any logical explanation as to why they are disqualified by you.
The complete opposition to the death penalty cannot be considered as “extremist” particularly from an Australian perspective given that no death penalty is the norm here as reflected in our sentencing laws.
Choosing to cast aside ones own minimum accepatable standards of decency and law leaves us as a nation looking rubbery and eats away at our credibility.
Jan 3rd, 2007
Deborah
Thordaddy, there’s nothing extreme about human rights.
BTW, who is the debate decider and disqualifier?
When will the death penalty for human rights abuses and war crimes be imposed upon Bush, Blair and Howard? Will these men who are responsible for 655,000 Iraqi deaths since “liberation” face the same trial and justice as Saddam?
Capital punishment is a hypocritical punishment, as it implies that the killing of any person is wrong, then, that same action is carried out upon another. Therefore, the people who are responsible for killing Saddam are just as guilty as he. You don’t get to be more moral and virtuous yourself, when you practice the same cruelty as the person that you kill.
Jan 3rd, 2007
philip travers
I didnt check to see if this was still open,Inow doubt that the Senator has to reappear again here.I think some one else has answered the last sets of considerations by Thordaddy.. although I wonder still why he didnt use a definition of the working proposition of what makes something extreme in a view, as against a absolutist position which isnt without a good sequence evaluation.If you were watching two films one called extremism and one called absolutism,the action and not knowing the story ending would be in extremism.Strange thing about the Senator he seems to like a bit of excitement..it took me a long time to get over the bloody musicians he admired when younger,as not a character fault so large I thought .. him a bit of a psuedo..having it easy as a Senator.Two things changed my mind his drunk episode,and his football game,and statements and apologia,then Id recognise a man struggling and thinking at the same time .He isnt extreme in nature or thought,and only his actions could remain so.You can shout when the rest of the crowd are angry,but if you are one of the players the rules are against you.I have cried for the Senator,and I am angry as one of the crowd.I would give Thordaddy one last blogpost here and then close.
Jan 3rd, 2007
Humanity's grey areas
For humanity to grow and learn to overcome problems,we as a community must and are forced to look at murder as an extreme and unwarranted answer to hormone, medical, incedent and circumstances that bring on the mostly avoidable action.We are forced to understanding to reach a better future.The planning to execute is not tolerated in a community and for any community to thrive is looked at in reality as an extremist action to problems.There are other ways to overcome and learn by example.Where is the death penalty going to take us, not in anyones heated view,but reality? One very small and minor point of the whole is that having no death penalty forces tolerance, understanding, humanity and search for answers on a community and humanity.With a death penalty those that want to kill, multiply ,and have the fearmongering desire and ability to dominate.How do we keep them out of Government and institutions when you bait the controling force and playing field of human management with an extremist view by way of death penalty? Most people who kill,want to die.The hand of the community is desired to be there,-no fellow man,we have found other ways.Extremist plus extremist equals not to be desired.
Jan 3rd, 2007
thordaddy
Luke,
I think point 1 thru 3 could apply to life without parole or any other punishment for that matter. Should we do away with this cruel and unusual punishment? I would disagree with point 4 and say that a strict and competent death penalty is a fundamental requirement for the long term health of a society. And if we agree with point 5 then point 2 and 3 don’t seem relevant to the argument.
I’ll respond to your other points later.
Deborah,
You say,
Yet, in your supposed effort to be truthful, you failed to notice that it was fellow Iraqi Muslims that convicted Hussein and then wrapped the noose around his neck. You are saying that the Iraqis that Hussien terrorized for decades are as guilty as him because they served him unrepentant justice. I don’t see the moral equivalency.
Jan 3rd, 2007
thordaddy
Kaye,
If one were to take the possible positions on the death penalty, they would probably look as follows:
Support the death penalty in ALL CASES.
Support the death penalty in LIMITED CASES.
Oppose the death penalty in LIMITED CASES.
Oppose the death penalty in ALL CASES.
Because you take the last position, YOU put yourself in an extremist position. This absolute position removes you from any reasoned discussion because “facts on the ground” will do nothing to change your position. Or maybe it will if you realize you hold and immoderate an extremist position.
Jan 3rd, 2007
Adele
So Thordaddy, do you support children being tortured for fun in LIMITED CASES, or do you oppose torturing childen in LIMITED CASES, or do you take an ‘extremist’ position and oppose torturing children in ALL CASES. Of course, if you oppose torturing children in all cases, by your logic I will then ignore you for taking an extremist position and thus having removed yourself from the debate.
Or to use the death penalty example, do you support it being carried out through leaving someone locked in a room to starve to death, or being staked to the ground and eaten alive by rats or ants? Maybe only in limited circumstances? or perhaps you’re an ‘extremist’ and oppose such a practice in ALL CASES?
Idiot
The only extremism here is Tordaddy’s extreme stupidity and arrogance. It looks to me like he is the one “removed from reasoned discussion”, as he is obviously incapable of using reason.
Jan 3rd, 2007
philip travers
The Australian legal and political bodies and from time to time in surveys etc., have not rung a loud and confident endorsement of the death penalty for reason and emotion are disquieted by such matters involving life and death…so the community has a problem ,as a community when ones individual thoughts and emotions are tested.I have read some dry old tomes on the british approach to constitutional law,and the upheaval of old legalese to the present plainer language,we have a man,amongst us confidently suggesting the present generation of blog worthy citzens will somehow go back to thoughts ushered out by legalities as unworkable a number of decades back.He says new reasons and reasoning requires this to show the extremism of just one individual,whilst others of similar office are not clambering to agree to point out this as extremism, or your average everyday person ,humble enough to live and let live.But, as a extension, the accused extremist dared to suggest,without much power, that a overseas hanging was unacceptable to him,even though the circumstances could naturally appeal to those who have found the now hanged needful of some basic human capacity.Verily over time at this blog a Thordaddy ,without the willingness to wonder,if he will be persecuted by using his real name,has blogged on and on like wearing a hangmans balaclava.I say this.There are other positions to the moment of deciding wether a death penalty is even worthy of consideration..The mind has not always effectively worked on yes or no answers,the commonality of humanity allows for multiples of responses,as both virtual and real hangings,play acting ,robotics,script writing and even reproducing the sensations of a death penalty are entirely possible.If you went through the process yourself artificially could you recommend that,which you have experienced?Thordaddy is relying on his own reasoning entirely,no one else is mentioned as being meritorious.Senator Andrew Bartlett has.Who could be proud?
Jan 3rd, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd
1,300 – the number of Iraqi children locked up in Australia’s concentration camps while the like of EP and co cheered Howard on.
5,600 – the number overall of Iraqi refugees who came on boats to Australia only to be locked up in desert concentration camps or sent to Nauru and Manus Island – loved EP’s care for the Iraqi people then.
$300 million – the amount AWB stole from the Iraqi people to feed the “monster”.
800 – the number of “communists” Saddam Hussein had assassinated in 1963 from the list supplied by his bosses the CIA.
1.3 million – the number of Iraqis starved to death while our AWB was stealing the $300 million which would have saved the lives of at least 24,000 of the children.
3 million – the number of cluster bombs left lying around to kill over 4,000 AFTER the first gulf war.
There is a 3 minute video on Information clearing house that says it all really.
Saddam was a bastard but from the first he was our bastard. It was even John Howard as minister for small business who toadied up to the Baathists and then as treasurer who set up Baath party offices in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne to help with wheat sales.
How about that? Now – tell me cretins, toadies and pundits – just precisely what did anyone in Iraq ever do to us that we would treat them this way and then blame it all on one man.
Jan 3rd, 2007
Humanity's grey areas
Many years ago, a beautiful boy was raised in the carnage around him of thuggery,in places disguising itself as religious humanity.He lived amongst the uneducated,lives common to butchery,sadism and intolerance and forced secretism and dark social circles to express ones right to exist and survive.He took it all in.Life is cheap, violence is the way,your only a thief if you get caught,might is right.Be ruthless to avoid accountability.Be cunning not open.Raised in the light of the death penalty,instilled as a child that this is the way but don’t be caught to survive.He became the biggest killer on the block and lived amongst the millions of carbon copy likes.It may not be strived for but devious is the result. Generation after generation of beautiful children hardened to merciless death and adrenaline coursed to it’s favour and conditioning making blind.A desperate and hypocrytical false view held of the community foundations beneath their children’s feet.Multiplying.
Jan 3rd, 2007
thordaddy
Adele,
I see nothing analogous between torturing children and serving justice to a mass-murdering tyrant by a process that was more fair and open than anything seen under such tyrant. Unlike the death penalty for the barbarous among us, I see only two positions on child torture, inexcusable and evil. It would be laughable to suggest that hanging Hussein was an act of evil or inexcusable.
Jan 3rd, 2007
thordaddy
philip,
I think we can see in Humanity’s grey area why society needs to have a death penalty that effectively punishes the most barbarous among us.
What is the practical effect for a society that shuns the death penalty…? Those that wreak the most perverse havoc on society gain understanding, justification and sympathy. These are the very things that most serial killers use to lure their victims. We are being duped by naive people when we throw out the death penalty. We are being duped by evil. We are saying as a society that you may murder us but we cannot kill you. What an unbelievable victory for madness and murder.
I think there is a line that can be crossed where society says, after a fair and competent trial, a person convicted of the most heinous crimes will face the ultimate punishment. Such a person will not be given the luxury of understanding and tolerance. The evil that lurks within such a person and has manifested itself in the most violent manner has nothing to contribute to society and his execution is a fundamental sign of a level-headed society.
Jan 3rd, 2007
CORAL
I’m sorry I don’t have time to read all of the posts.
I’m glad that Saddam Hussein has been executed for his crimes against humanity.
But I’m certainly NOT glad that the television news showed his head hanging out of a body bag during children’s viewing time – right after the presenter had stated that the actual execution would not be televised. Disgusting!!!
thordaddy: #Post 68.
I could not agree more. I think anyone who wanted Saddam Hussein spared the death penalty needs to have his/her head examined.
It’s further proof of the fact that we live in a spineless society in which criminals can get away with doing nearly anything.
Jan 3rd, 2007
philip travers
Calm ,under attack is our Thordaddy.Let that be stated across this land.Proud is his sense of duty to prove a Senator is extreme in view.Brave are his fingers,to those who would privilege him with say a name like cretin,toadie or,else wise.Because in the blog appearances on all matters Iraq the sweep of gushing superiority has not been the well spring of The Senator.Concentrated we will have to call Thordaddy for the woman with all the statistics wasnt pointing in the Senators direction.A discriminating gentleman is our Thordady because in the comparison of open Justice our system which hasnt got a death penalty..is not the same position as the extremist Senator,and only Thordaddy knows compelling openness,because Australias has to be left out of the comparison to once again prove Thordaddy right.
Jan 3rd, 2007
CORAL
Deborah:
You don’t seem to have any problem with the deliberate murder of unborn babies or disposal of viable human embryos – but you think Saddam Hussein ought to be saved from the death penalty?????
This seems to be a stance shared with many others.
You use the excuse that we are “just primates” when it suits you, but when males start behaving like animals, you want to “reclaim the night”.
For Chrissake, where is your head at?????
Jan 3rd, 2007
CORAL
Thank goodness thordaddy has a mind of his own. It’s a shame some other people don’t share his reasoned logic.
Jan 3rd, 2007
philip travers
Coral believes two heads are better than one,but only if Thordaddys on one subject is working…Funny thing about the Senator who according to Thordaddy is an extremist…but only on one matter the death penalty..that in fact,has a life that he leads everyday with all the pleasantries,saddened moments,relieves and dear I say it love and friendship.Astute enough to have stood for election in Australia and is still a member of the Senate,that deals with the decisions of the problems,if the Senator knew them of both Coral and Thordaddy alike.So I Guess she is talking about me.Hello Carol!.What do you know?
Jan 3rd, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd
Ah Adele and Coral. You claim you are glad Saddam swung for his crimes against his own people but why are our crimes against his people acceptable to you?
Not a word of outrage have you said about our thefts, murders and destruction of the Iraqi people.
Why of all the dictators in all the world did they swing this one? Pinochet died of old age, Pol Pot died of old age, Idi Amin.
We never invaded any of their countries did we?
Iraq has never invaded us, or bombed us or anything else so there can be only one answer.
Oil.
Jan 3rd, 2007
Geoff T.
Hello all,
Firstly I will say straight away that I do NOT agree with the death penalty of Saddam Hussein.
Some others here don’t either. However one thing Im sure we can all agree on is that in relation to dealing with Saddam two main things should be on the agenda……
1: Ensuring that a man who held much power has lost ALL of it (and yes, knowing one may become a matyre gives a meglomaniac some comfort, and power of sorts after death- he didnt deserve that). He took power (human rights, hope, etc…) from many of his people, so this at least should have been a nessersary part of the process.
2: Whilst i disagree with death sentences, I agree that overall choice should have still been at least influenced by the Iraqi people. As to how, and whether at the Hage or at Iraq, Im still not sure.
Either way, whether one agrees with the death sentence or not, maybe alternatives should at least be discussed more.
So any ideas anyone?
Jan 3rd, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
For people’s interest, I’ve just added an update to the main post.
The New York Times is now reporting that the Iraqi government has ordered an investigation into the abusive behaviour at the execution (probably wanting to find out who took the unauthorised video footage). More interestingly, the article states that “American officials said that they had worked until the last hours of Mr. Hussein’s life to persuade the Iraqi Prime Minister to delay the execution … because of the onset of a major Islamic festival, and because of constitutional and legal questions that the Americans believed threw the legitimacy of the execution into doubt.”
Jan 3rd, 2007
ken
Hols and all but its still uni debating time. God even Marilyns back. Frankly who cares…its yesterdays fish and chiops
Jan 3rd, 2007
philip travers
I guess the Senator would like to agree with Ken,but,there is always another day where passion or a sense of what is humanely required will share, for a moment at least,concerns with those who get bored easily,and those like Thordaddy who will question where that sense comes from.I have noticed you could pair The Senators name with a pear ,and they hang…and a thousand and one cliches about pears would drive anyone stark crazy, to impose by reasoning something a bartlett pairing could state and be remembered for it.I was hoping Carol would give me a thought,but she must be busy with her beliefs.And Ken had better watch out his chips dont turn out to be cheops…..Thormummy.
Jan 4th, 2007
Deborah
A hanging in the name of liberation is always worth debating.
Don’t think there’s too many Uni students here, I know I’m not one, but I guess if it’s more than a couple of lines of sarcasm directed at a chosen few, then it must be a uni debate.
Jan 4th, 2007
Deborah
Thordaddy,
The extremist position to me, has to be those who support capital punishment, nothing more extremist than a hanging at dawn. Extreme cruelty and inhumanity by the side that professes to be better than the one swinging on a rope.
“I think there is a line that can be crossed where society says, after a fair and competent trial, a person convicted of the most heinous crimes will face the ultimate punishment.”
Saddam’s hanging, (if you find out what transpired over the course of the trial) was none of those.
“Yet, in your supposed effort to be truthful, you failed to notice that it was fellow Iraqi Muslims that convicted Hussein and then wrapped the noose around his neck. You are saying that the Iraqis that Hussien terrorized for decades are as guilty as him because they served him unrepentant justice. I don’t see the moral equivalency.”
By iraqi’s do you mean the puppet regime installed by the US administration?
I’m saying that the Saddam hanging was orchestrated in every way by the US and Saddam was only sent back to Iraq at the eleventh hour, for his hanging, which was meant to appear, as Iraqi justice.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BEL20070101&articleId=4275
When will Bush, Blair and Howard hang for their illegal invasion, heinous war crimes and their responsibility in 655,000 iraqi deaths?
Jan 4th, 2007
philip travers
I apologise for my non university sarcasm and apologise to all university students on this blog for the problems that I have created.No doubt it is both the repressed nature of almost being 53 and as yet no university education.So I took up the option of looking up the website proffered by the non student Deb.s.And I wondered to myself as I found an article by Kola Detola about me sort of being part of some boot that is worth megabucks,the peace leg of the war boot worn by the west and all its interests.Thanks foe pointing out the site dear Deb.s. and of course Mr.Kola must be right about everything he says,because well you are so right about uni students Deb!Do you understand me Deb.! Mr. Kola is so right Deb! I havent even got a bank account that must mean I own the bank!And Deb have you got a bank account?
Jan 4th, 2007
Deborah
Couldn’t see any boots or bank a/c’s anywhere in the article myself. Thought it was about US involvement in Saddam’s execution.
I can completely understand your confused state though, I wondered why there was a reference to uni students and fish and chips in ken’s post too.
Maybe it’s just me, I also had a lot of trouble fathoming how pears, chops and chips related to the blog subject of Saddam Executed (post #78).
A pointless hanging makes about as much sense as boots, uni students, fish & chips, chops, pears and bank a/c’s I suppose.
Jan 4th, 2007
CORAL
philip travers:
I have tried to answer you and others, but all of my comments have been axed again for no good reason.
However, I feel content in knowing that the person who would have benefitted most from reading my answers, has had the opportunity to weigh up a number of issues against one another.
Jan 4th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Coral
I don’t know if you’ve sent other comments in that simply haven’t got through, but you’ve had no comments on this thread deleted at all.
However, you know the comment policy, so trying to play the victim is not going to stop me deleting comments that blatantly breach it.
Jan 4th, 2007
thordaddy
philip,
Let’s say that I am a diabolical criminal and in my pursuit of money I off two rival drug dealers. It was premeditated and in cold blood. In a society without a death penalty, the harshest punishment given for such a henious crime can only be life without parole.
But then diabolical criminal #2 comes along and is convicted for the rape and murder of six women. What sentence is to be given to such a monster…? Life without parole? Do you see the dilemna for most of our Western judicial systems?
You are in philosophical pickle. A bedrock of our collective judicial systems is the idea that the punishment must fit the crime. Another way to state this is to say that equal crimes will receive equal punishment. It’s a fundamental issue of fair and competent justice.
So being diabolical, I assert the fundamental unfairness and judicial corruption in the fact that I am serving equal time for the crime of murdering two drug dealers as a serial rapist and murderer of six women.
But then suddenly, the police capture and prosecutors convict a man that has kidnapped, murdered and eaten 29 children.
You can see diabolical criminal #2 following in my diabolical footsteps.
So what is your answer to this dilemna? Do you draw a line in the sand and create unfairness and injustice or do slowly but surely let evil back into society?
Jan 4th, 2007
philip travers
I lost one Senator to the comments box,if you can find it ,and is worthy here.. please post.. IF possible. So Coral and Thordaddy jumped out of the email again..now what does he want me to do?I noticed a part sentence disappear on a comparison I was making between Australias non death sentence system and the attitude of the Senator,in reading what I Posted yesterday and this morning…someone has pickled Thordaddy who is usually astute enough to insure his posts are readable.I once had a problem of recording a number of statements I was going to send ,to a newspaper on a microcassette..magnetic tape about,a subject matter here, I am running concurrently..and the tape contained exact words changed… upon listening after the initial recording/Nexus or New Dawn or Hard Evidence ORThe Planetary Association for Clean Energy Inc. Canada alerted me in a mag. magnetic tape recordings were no longer safe from remote meddling.I think in fairness Thordaddy should try again.
Jan 4th, 2007
Kaye Bernard
thordaddy proportionality in punishing offenders throughsentencing must have a limit for sake of civility. Do you agree?
The uncivil act of state sanctioned death by execution is repungent to those who absolutely object to the death penalty in all circumstances.
There are on the other hand some who would object to the death sentence on the basis that as a form of punishment the loss of liberty for life is a far worse fate and would aid in their quest for revenge punishment.
Using your example in post 86 as a reason/formulae to support the death penalty as a matter of proportionality negates your own arguement, because by your way the more henious example eg criminal with most damaged caused, recieves a lesser punishment.
Jan 4th, 2007
philip travers
I will try to answer Thordaddy even if I think he has been pickled,or left off a word or three…including the word kill.I must say I had problems with the continuity of the shoulder upon shoulder of the criminal types..and his scenario is terrible.But what he is saying about the bedrock of the judicial matters,I really am in no position to suggest he is any where near right.I thought judges were dependent on the establishment of precedents rather than administering justice as sentence to fit the peculiarities of a crime.And distinctly,precedents are stepping stones, as well as the provision of court decisions that may follow chronologically and in type of incident and the relevancy of evidences.The judges are not reliant on either the establishment of proof or the lack of it,and where a jury is concerned 12 good people are there to extract the potential for a verdict.So I think, on the balance of probability.. As a presentation of the workings of our systems,Thordaddy has assumed something that doesnt happen. To therefore be involved in virtual analysis at law, if our systems worked like that..is fanciful.Thordaddy had better remind himself to steer clear of assuming expertise within the virtual constructs of of operating law..illness could be near.If Australia was going to once again embark on that death ship the lawyers themselves and judges will hurry the process…I do not fear their reluctance even if society seems to be getting more violent…tested reason must show the way not virtual scriptwriting to suggest there is a proof that it is needed. That doesnt exist in our law today…Ajudicial review could approach Senators for revision to enable at a Federal level for notifiable crime.Be alert to how this blogs Senator sees his job.
Jan 4th, 2007
philip travers
For Deborah,And where the pears came from etc.,you could call this a closer scrutiny.B A R T L E T T.AT THE BAR..at the courts bar,sitting in court addressing the court..one of the bar…lawyers judges.Letters.. that which you find behind the names of the Uni. graduates from lettres French- I think .Middle T- a hangmans scaffold at dawn,Bartlett is also a pear, I know I picked them and sometimes it was mentioned on tins of such.Pears hang off trees.This is a theory which I call self referencing,which most people do to a certain extent,depending wether they are conscious of it and use it.Not being conscious of it means ,that, one can be manipulated by that which is unconcious or by others,and be seen by others like the investigation of criminals.From the first smile a baby recognises from parents to matters all our lives ,we, as humans are referencing ,often back to self.It is similar to the word ego in its original settings of extended understanding,but ,is a completion a continuity through the expanses of what we do or dont know about ourselves and others.IT is also very limiting,and in the case of the Senator comes with other learned responses incl.Catholicism.The reason I am saying this is Because Thordaddy was calling the Senator an extremist,and wanting an explanation of the dynamics of Absolutism, which isnt,in the Senators case dependent on his name.Another blog will follow.
Jan 4th, 2007
philip travers
Continuation of a close SCRUTINY.Deborah,Ken was suggesting,I thought, that the debate was university student like,rather than university students…which you interpreted as..that is what he meant.His spelling ,I turned to Cheops from chips…Cheops is a very ancient site in Eygpt,If my memory serves me could be found by googling.So a fish and cheops blog site and Cheops might have something to do with mummifications.That which is old and rapped.So if we have a Thordaddy, a Coral,as in corals fish etc. could be.Thormummy.And by now if you havent gone back over my blogposts, Kens and your own, It will not be surprising to others ,that if you are at a Public figures website do your darndest to think..rather than be confident in expression or display,because this subject matter is a judgement in a war zone..I am not a public figure,I started posting here,because,I was a state member of the Democrats once in N.S.W and I feel now, that this Senator here needs some support.THE fact is Deborah I mentioned Website,you mentioned article…you are using a computer.I do not need to point out to you the fundamental differences between the two.Finally to suggest I am confused, or were, is well a suckers game,if you believe it and I accept it.My intention was clear,I felt no one on the blog was a university student,and where there is no real statement as such it is purely speculative,and well sometimes,in this case a statement about yourself which may have backfired.The website you proferred is also in part,I think deceitful..and speculative and in the case of anti war people unresearched.Kola is therefore riding on it.He could not claim as he has honestly.
Jan 4th, 2007
CORAL
To me, anyone wanting to spare the life of the butcher of Baghdad is at one extreme – and anyone wanting to execute all criminals is at the other.
On the issue of courts dealing with criminals, here is what the Family First candidate for the last state election told me.
The courts have gone soft on criminals because the jails are overflowing.
So I told him that if the judges toughened up, the jails would empty out, after an initial increase in the number sentenced.
I’d advise everyone to take a good look at what goes on everywhere they go. Evil is already running amok in society because of overindulgence and insufficient punishment.
It can be seen in the homes, schools, workplaces and elsewhere. People no longer respect one another – often with good reason.
A couple of weeks ago, Peter Beattie announced on national television that he was powerless to prevent the release of an extremely dangerous serial killer.
There was a promise of close supervision, but the fellow has already disappeared and is unable to be monitored.
Perhaps people would be less zealous about capital punishment if extremely dangerous criminals were actually kept behind bars.
Jan 4th, 2007
Paul Walter
Coral, precisely!
Mailyn and Deborah were making very strong contextualising points when they mentioned past behaviours involving people who are arguably criminal as Saddam.
So, I presume you would be as happy to see members of the Bush family or Henry Kissinger strung up as much as their lackey, Saddam ( come to think of it…)?
The interference by the Americans in Iraq and their understanding of the dire consequences for millions of local people is not limited to Iraq. It is part of a pattern revealed also in an examination of US interference in Latin America, Vietnam and Cambodia. Iraq is not an anomaly. It is part of a serial long term pattern of behaviour.
Let’s put it this way. After ww2 both the Auschwitz guards and their overlords,like Goering, were bought to book. Now, Saddam, the local war lord has experienced likewise.
But will certain other war criminals likewise be brought to account?
Or will we remain deluded by the propaganda on the six o’clock news presenting leaders in the West as somehow different, for no better reason than they come from “here”; as somehow “different” and precluded from scrutiny, because they wear suits and were not actually on the scene when the cruelty they wilfully created the pre-conditions for, took place.
Remember the comment of Hannah Arendt about the “banality of evil”.
Jan 5th, 2007
Deborah
Philip, It’s not thordaddy who appears to be pickled, him I get. I still don’t know what you’re on about though, you’ve got so many plays, upon plays of words going there, do you even know what you mean?.
Your post just goes from one ramble to another, with little lucidity.
“It will not be surprising to others, that if you are at a Public figures website do your darndest to think..rather than be confident in expression or display,because this subject matter is a judgement in a war zone.”
WTF that means, I do not know, no public figures anywhere near me, just little ol’ me, at home. If the judgement in a war zone bit means Saddam’s execution, it’s clearly the topic of this thread, and what I have been posting about – don’t know about yourself though.
Jan 5th, 2007
Deborah
Coral, “You don’t seem to have any problem with the deliberate murder of unborn babies”
Actually, a baby is what you get after the birth process. I do have a problem with deliberate murder of once born babies. A baby cannot be unborn, you can’t shove them back in, you know.
It’s early term foetuses being terminated that I don’t have a problem with – if that is the woman’s choice.
“…or disposal of viable human embryos”
Nope, not a problem with that, if the IVF clinics want to assist fertility, I realise they need to dispose of some embryos. I’m also OK with stem cell transplant, hopefully SCNT will make good use of those previously disposed of embryos.
“…but you think Saddam Hussein ought to be saved from the death penalty?????”
Yes, he should have, I don’t believe that capital punishment is humane, moral or principled. You don’t think a man like Saddam is frightened of death do you? He’s become another martyr.
“This seems to be a stance shared with many others.”
Yairs, it’s not unknown for civilised people to believe that capital punishment is also murder.
“…But I’m certainly NOT glad that the television news showed his head hanging out of a body bag during children’s viewing time – right after the presenter had stated that the actual execution would not be televised. Disgusting!!!”
I don’t think that a head hanging out of a body bag could be considered ‘the actual execution’. The actual execution was the actual noose, trapdoor and hanging by the neck ’til dead bit.
If we did not hang people, then the children would not have been at risk of viewing the actual disgusting!!! reality of it.
If I had my way, I’d ensure that all those who push for the death penalty, be made to personally witness each and every execution.
‘For Chrissake, where is your head at?????”
On top of my neck, where is your relevance to the thread topic and your intelligence?
Jan 5th, 2007
philip travers
Gee.I will try again this morning.I could now try to judge the statements of Coral,fairly as I do, and not the person.She seems to be saying as a function of belief,almost God like in defiance, of, her potential to be that,about all sorts of standards dropping including the man destined by the likes of Coral as Butcher Saddam ,it is also evident that Deborah thinks the word lucidity and my efforts are always unfailingly impossible to understand in relationship to the subject matter.I think, she has made that as a choice,rather than the nature of my expressions,which were about,amongst other matters an attempt.. to add some sort of humour associated with how those who visit this site of Senators Andrew Bartlett who,has all sorts of things happening in his life besides maintaining this blog.I think she is missing the point by insisting,so far once,that my wordplays,as she calls them are ,some sort of evidence,to not know what I am about.So because I am not judging her,but maybe something she has overlooked,which,I couldnt accept as at all possible to accept..on the website (81) proferred by her,above,then why is is it hard for her to notice the writings of Kola Detola, are self-evidently deceitful?That then poses the question in my mind at least,what is she doing contributing to this website of a Senator who maybe visited and thus observed,by those around the world including potentially those in Iraq..just glad people are concerned about any matter Iraqi..and,thus,I am Australian my position is essential the same as Bartletts.But I havent always got the steady patience of a public figure.There are other corals ,that are in Queensland with a particular description ,and a world wonder.Impossible as it May seem to Coral,one dangerous criminal ,is not an example of all criminality.One crime, doesnt always proceed with similarities so cogent the same laws and attitudes must apply.The Senators position is clear.
Jan 5th, 2007
thordaddy
philip,
Who has been victorious in those Western countries that have decided to banish the death penalty? You think perhaps that society and those savy lawyers are victorious, but how about those heinous criminals that have commited barbaric acts? Aren’t they the real victors? And seeing how “civilized” society has banished the only real and effective deterrant against barbaric acts, ie., the death penalty, wouldn’t such devious individuals now seek to banish life without parole? For everything you say about the death penalty applies to life without parole… Imperfect judicial process, wrongful convictions and languishing inhumane treatment.
What will you do when a slick lawyer and a sinister criminal decide that their life without parole for a single premeditated murder is far lesser of crime than a serial killer who has murder multiple people?
Will you allow unfairness and inequality in the legal system as it concerns the APPLICATION (not in regards to certain evolution of societal laws) of the law when you fought so hard against such things in regards to the death penalty. Or, will you simply agree that all those that commit premeditated murder and are convicted are to serve life in prison without parole? Will you draw that line in the sand…? If so, remember you have already allowed the evil among us to cross that first line to their utter amazement and satisfaction.
Jan 5th, 2007
CORAL
philip travers:
At no time have I said that one dangerous criminal is an example of all criminality. This is something you have chosen to infer.
It is sometimes very difficult to understand what you write. Could you please use shorter sentences and paragraphing?
Social standards have dropped a very long way, whether you think I am God-like or not.
Deborah:
A foetus is an unborn baby, whether you want to recognise it as that or not – and you think it may be murdered to suit the mother’s convenience.
Saddam Hussein was a butcher. Surely an unborn baby has a greater right to life than he had.
I didn’t say that a head hanging out of a body bag was the actual execution – but it would have been equally disturbing to children.
I don’t need an education as to what an execution entails when you fail to understand the correlation.
I think the relevance to the thread topic would be clear to most people.
paul walters:
You have assumed correctly. I don’t care who the war criminals are or where they come from.
I think they deserve to share similar fates for similar crimes, but I cannot say that executions make me happy. They might make me a little glad for the people whom tyrants can no longer harm.
I sponsored two Latin American children through World Vision for 18 years, and became aware of some of the things that went on in that part of the world.
I try never to be deluded by what is shown on the news. Everyone needs to be aware that some things might not have been shown before or after a particular incident – very difficult when information control is being exercised on us.
I’ve appeared on the six o’clock news once, and on a current affairs program twice, on two different topics.
I thought I was treated fairly by the interviewer on 2 occasions, but on the third occasion, a completely different twist was presented.
As a freelance writer, I am well aware of the power of the press. It’s certainly true that the pen is mightier than the sword.
Jan 5th, 2007
CORAL
thordaddy:
What is your view on “justifiable homicide” in relation to the death penalty and life without parole?
Jan 5th, 2007
Deborah
Coral, you and others can always turn the TV off, on the day a person is being executed. You don’t have to sit the children in front of it.
“…the television news showed his head hanging out of a body bag during children’s viewing time – right after the presenter had stated that the actual execution would not be televised. Disgusting!!!”
Yep, you sure did say it.
Off Topic reply:
Actually, a debate about abortion is not even listed on the Senator’s site, but there were a couple of de facto ones on RU486 and Stem Cell Legislation. Perhaps you’d be better off taking your argument over there.
This is a debate with a thread topic of Saddam Executed, Saddam Executed – nothing to do with abortion.
I would have thought a freelance writer of your fame could realise that, unless of course, you’re in the style of Bolt or the Divine Miranda and have no need or use for facts and logic.
You may be in breach of the Senator’s comments policy too. – I’d look it up, but I don’t know where he keeps it.
I’m pretty sure we’re warned with dire consequences if we stray off topic though.
Jan 5th, 2007
patrickg
coral said:
“The courts have gone soft on criminals because the jails are overflowing.
So I told him that if the judges toughened up, the jails would empty out, after an initial increase in the number sentenced.”
That is utterly untrue. Despite your frequent assertions crime rates have in fact been falling for over a decade.
Research has consistently demonstrated that the biggest causal factor on crime rates is poverty, and not surprisingly crime rises when poverty does, in opposition to the general economic situation.
Furthermore, harsher sentencing laws have demonstrably had no effect on crime rates. Research has also demonstrated this but you need look no further than the United States where – despite far harsher sentencing than Australia, including your much-vaunted death penalty – crime rates are considerably higher across the board, in sync with the levels of poverty.
If you are going to defend the death penalty you will need at least some empirical data to back yourself up, I’m afraid, rather than assumptions about crime and criminality that are not t all true.
Jan 5th, 2007
philip travers
As my mother use to say,no rest for the wicked..and it was essentially good hoeing away at ,prickles and nettles,and then return here to engage in the wondrous exercise of answering questions from the Authority Mr Thordaddy, whom, like an old soldier,is a fresh with another series of shrapnel against,some undearing processes of mind,,that I must have..however,I think he cheats possibly in two ways.One.. never recognising some one elses point about reality as it is….,I repeat as it is,and the word numbers allowed ,per blog.Having said that,I now have to go back to his blog..to see if it at all possible to answer? I think he is implying by question, that a war of sorts is occuring everywhere and the lack of a death penalty just hastens some consequences to the point where the existence of parole procedure is diminished..No country,year or history of political or judges or jurisprudence is given..therefore I cannot answer due to a lack of anything that seems to pertain to reality.Reality being Countries and their justice systems..and until Mr.Thordaddy can establish some distinctive reality,eg.,country,date of decisions,court practice judges and others involved..or a suitable website,,,sorry Mr.Thordaddy…I dont want to discourage your questioning mind,but,maybe ,as the question maker ..these …I cant find a way to answer!.I can understand Corals problem,with me,but She isnt right in once sense,about what she is obviously right about.To suggest that someone can see in every location to see rising crime rates and lower standards even for those of a devout faith is just simply nonsense .Mathematically,Coral cannot be everywhere unless she is cloned… GENERALITIES are a problem that ,I think should be avoided.We all know what we thought we said in words it is another matter entirely if we succeeded,and I am having spelling problems tonight. .I now go back to the Sydney Morning Herald site.
Jan 5th, 2007
philip travers
I hope Mr. Thordaddy has not found my last post to offensive,and, it isnt necessary for him as a moment of decision,to decide because of the presence of Patrickg post,that,that will enhance my position of finding some failure in his presentation.Patrick hasnt named the source for his statements ,which ,I would like to agree with.And instinctively do.But having had Thordaddys sights on me and his binoculars areadyed when the questions arent firing… to insure accuracy rather than interpretation ,which can rapidly turn to a dogmatic position, I discovered on Deborahs proffered website@ 81.Kola Detola was suggesting being anti war ,and of the West equaled,basically, heaps of dough.Dare to look at the site.
Jan 5th, 2007
Deborah
Thordaddy, I thought I’d take a stab at #86
I actually find your described dilemma to be reasonably easy.
Every life is equal and we all have fundamental human rights, no matter what crimes were committed throughout that life. Human rights exist for the worst of us, as well as the best of us.
So, you are serving life along with all the other murderers, and you are no better than the others. To take 2 or 29 lives, the moral wrong is just the same.
We can make judgements about the diabolical deeds committed by the other two murderers, but they are still murderers, just like you, and you should all be in jail for life.
You, as a drug dealer, could be responsible for many more than 29 deaths because your clients may have overdoses, or die from hepatitis and HIV/Aids etc. You might ruin the lives of hundreds of kids by getting them addicted to drugs – some people will think your crime worse than that of the child eater and the rapist.
Whether 2 or 29 people are murdered, the killers can only give one life of their own in return. So, if you are arguing proportionate punishment, how can you get compensation for the other 28 lives from a man who is only able to give one?
Then, also using your logic, because you are making judgements about people based on their morals or deeds, you would have to believe that;
- a prostitute’s life is not equal to a modest and chaste woman’s life
- a politician or well respected public figure’s life is worth more than an ordinary unsung man’s.
- a convicted criminal’s life is not equal to that of a policeman’s (what if the conviction is only for speeding fine defaults?)
Now what about Bush, Blair and Howard? They are responsible for barbaric war crimes and 655,000 premeditated Iraqi deaths.
I would still want life imprisonment for them rather than hanging.
Jan 6th, 2007
philip travers
The law also has no bias towards those who claim,as a matter of philosophy,religion.politics,anger what is happening in the world today as we know it,in Australia,at least,until it is engaged,thats why throwing beer bottles at coppers on duty at protests is simply not on,as moral objection to the politics of the day or as criminal behaviour somewhere else,Deborah.Acourt case happens as a result of enaction or engagement of what has been established as procedure or protocol.The way Thordaddy virtualisers crime and punishment,without one reference to a actual event of judgement,in the past even means that ,he should explain himself,.rather than others explain themselves.We,if that is a correct saying,have no death penalty,I could almost be completely sure..practising judges think about these matters regularly ,and maybe even follow what happens in say, the U.S.A. for their own interests.How many court rooms sittings have you done deborah?Thordaddy?I know I have,and the judge had better concentration than anyone else.Do not be sure there is equality at law for everyone,here or overseas,because rotters like Ruddock, dont meet certain standards,and the politicians have twenty four hours before the can be arrested.Whereas, the judges themselves?
Jan 6th, 2007
Geoff T.
So are we going to talk about any ALTERNATIVES to the death sentence? Im sure this will add more usefulness to this dialogue.
Jan 6th, 2007
philip travers
I just went back to the SMH,well longer than that, to find something I overlooked a letter- from a Stephen Thomas from Wahroonga,in a summary of the week as was.I wont check his letter further,because what he was claiming about those who were opposed to the hanging of Saddam shows some contempt for being morally indignant to any issue.But what gets me is his unwillingness to recognise how he combines a oversight of his with a seemingly a failure of others.One fact must surely stand out about Saddam Hussein regime,accept for those who had been to Iraq, and, regularly is that the majority of Australians would know very little about the place..and that cannot be allowed to be the casualty of those who suggest that a bona fide assumption, that they did,when clearly as an Australian living in Australia the best of evidences of wrong doing are second hand..and a sense of trust in those suggesting such information as being true and decidely proveable at law.Weapons of M.D. were not found,but over time mass graves, were. To take a moral position against the death penalty re SADDAM is surely a moral position that stands the test of time,becuase the circumstances of why that countries present officials decided that,is still an alien form of anything like our own.Australian,not American.Somone who can afford to live in Wahroonga is showing the contempt of the well to do, a moral position,requires not the abolition of reason,but the struggle to find a form of justice.The death penalty is quick and cheap normally,and the judge and jury dont do it.And life seems already too cheap in Iraq,often caused by non-combatants like the Cheney monies and the associated failures of the contracts,which means the U.S.A. willingness to use the filthy lucre is as apparent as it always has been. Cheney has gotten off lightly,and Rumsfeld not so in comparison.Filthy lucre plus ill disciplined soldiers equals disaster,the most inexperienced President of the U.S.A. and Texas hangman.Life is Rich?
Jan 6th, 2007
thordaddy
Deborah says,
Yet, you don’t have a solid definition for what a “life” constitutes. You stated that a fetus may be aborted and so this “life” is unequal. You need to clarify your position. And because you have chosen to be one that can define and undefine “life” then it doesn’t mean much when you say we all have “fundamental human rights.” Clearly, you can define “fundamental human rights” out of existence for some and those are the innocent ones.
Then you say,
A person that mass murders should forfeit his life. That is the ultimate and most justified punishment. You say that this murderer who has violently extinguished other’s “fundamental human rights” is nonetheless secured in his own. Yet, why not define this “life” out of existence? Doesn’t such a person show a lack of all humanity? Why do feel like going soft on the most despicable around you while condemning the fetus the the might of its mother?
Why, in the case of abortion, does mother’s might make right and in the case of Saddam, society’s might doesn’t make right?
Jan 6th, 2007
Deborah
Oh, back to the abortion debate!
OK, to clarify, every life already in existence.
Yes, the life of the woman, as the life already in existence, is paramount to that of the foetus.
In the case of Saddam, his trial and execution from start to finish must have been one of the quickest on record.
Considering that the invasion was on the premise of non existent WMD’s, that Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on the US, and the Iraq economy was crippled by sanctions, what was he executed for?
Australia through AWB gave $300million to assist Saddam in his crimes, we even cleared ourselves of guilt through Cole.
Was it for regime change in Iraq- isn’t that illegal?
Why aren’t you baying for the blood of every dictator and despot in the world? Why did we welcome China’s President Hu Jintao into our own parliament and allow him to dictate the terms to Australian MP’s.?
Brian Harradine said:
“The People’s Republic of China has an appalling human rights record.
It tortures and ill-treats prisoners. It conducts more executions than all other countries combined. It carries out forced abortions and sterilisations on women. It continues to persecute the people of Tibet. It tramples on the rights of political activists. It represses the rights of workers and stops people freely expressing their religious and spiritual beliefs.”
The Australian government was not willing to confront the Chinese president on human rights issues. Australia moved to a system of bilateral human rights dialogues in 1997 when China threatened trade sanctions for any countries sponsoring the annual United Nations Commission for Human Rights resolution on China.
“…But I am offended. And so are many Australians who value freedom and loathe government-sanctioned persecution of their own people. We should never have allowed President Hu the honour of addressing our Parliament.
Why are you not so keen to debate the punishment for the mass murderers Bush, Blair and Howard?
Jan 6th, 2007
Deborah
Oh, back to the abortion debate!
OK, to clarify, every life already in existence.
Yes, the life of the woman, as the life already in existence, is paramount to that of the foetus.
In the case of Saddam, his trial and execution from start to finish must have been one of the quickest on record.
Considering that the invasion was on the premise of non existent WMD’s, that Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on the US, and the Iraq economy was crippled by sanctions, what was he executed for?
Australia through AWB gave $300million to assist Saddam in his crimes, we even cleared ourselves of guilt through Cole.
Was it for regime change in Iraq- isn’t that illegal?
Why aren’t you baying for the blood of every dictator and despot in the world? Why did we welcome China’s President Hu Jintao into our own parliament and allow him to dictate the terms to Australian MP’s.?
Brian Harradine said:
“The People’s Republic of China has an appalling human rights record.
It tortures and ill-treats prisoners. It conducts more executions than all other countries combined. It carries out forced abortions and sterilisations on women. It continues to persecute the people of Tibet. It tramples on the rights of political activists. It represses the rights of workers and stops people freely expressing their religious and spiritual beliefs.”
The Australian government was not willing to confront the Chinese president on human rights issues. Australia moved to a system of bilateral human rights dialogues in 1997 when China threatened trade sanctions for any countries sponsoring the annual United Nations Commission for Human Rights resolution on China.
“…But I am offended. And so are many Australians who value freedom and loathe government-sanctioned persecution of their own people. We should never have allowed President Hu the honour of addressing our Parliament.
Why are you not so keen to debate the punishment for the mass murderers Bush, Blair and Howard?
Jan 6th, 2007
Deborah
Thanks Philip #106, I was going to mention mitigating and causal factors in my post but ran into word limitation (thankfully, you and others say!)
And I also thought that mitigating factors would be considered by the likes of thordaddy and coral, as the problem with our justice system – preventing people from getting rightful death sentences and imprisonment for the rest of their natural lives *wink*.
Geoff T. what do you think are possible alternatives?
Jan 6th, 2007
thordaddy
philip,
And I thought you were a “progressive”-type individual…? Such individual reality is bound to change tomorrow.
It reminds me of those prescient “fear-mongers” and provocateurs of slippery-slope arguments. Some years back they predicted gay “marriage” to come on the heels of the US Supreme Court legalising sodomy. And now I offer you reality.
It seems to me philip that those that oppose the death penalty under all circumstance must then “progress” to the next logical position. I’ve gotten there before the “progressives,” but no doubt they’ll be coming.
Clearly, life without parole IS NOT a deterrant. Innocent people undoubtedly suffer this cruel and unusual punishment via a flawed and corrupt judicial system. And certainly no civilized society would lock someone in a cage until they die an animal’s death.
The question for you philip- and I extend this to all those that oppose the death penalty in ALL CASES- is why are you not opposed to life without parole in ALL CASES?
Jan 6th, 2007
thordaddy
Deborah,
You say,
If a fetus is not “already in existence” then it’s no wonder we are seeing past each other. But, I do see that you agree that in the case of abortion that mother’s might makes right.
The question I have for you is why society’s might does not make right in the case of the death penalty?
Why do you afford a mother’s right to kill her EXISTING innocent fetus, but deny society’s right to execute a wanton killer?
Jan 6th, 2007
philip travers
Tip toe through the window into the garden with me.Well I heard that..where from I dont know.Apologies to Thordaddy because as I read it,multiple copies of Deborahs thoughts have appeared.I dont want to press the point,and I do not have to fit into the limitations of description that you have describe me as,I couldnt think of a worse name to call my attitudes than progressive.I dont know why anyone would be pleased with it at all.So I suppose that wont appease the thought approaches of you,that, would frighten I am sure,both popes and galileo,oops spelling,..What I am saying is ,my understanding of the world and the universe do not operate like yours.And I also think you can do better than rely on a adoption of your previous strategy re death penalties. If you are sincere in your beliefs of some consistent failure on the part of people here arguing against the death sentence,please recognise..that there is no linear path,I am simply once again,an Australian with an opinion that is as limited in power as you,and you do not insist that you are some worthy authority by inference.I claim,both rightfully and accurately,as before,that,the problem of understanding is apparent here with a failure of yours.YOU are not representing my opinions well,and you have changed the nature of the subject matter.I am open to being persuaded by you as anyone else, could be,accept for some repetition,which seems like you have taken up the oppurtunity to act like a gunsight. RONALD REAGAN.What is the history of the parole concept Thordaddy?How long is a judges detailed review in assessing the use of parole,in these cases on average?Who in any given society should be responsible at law for the death penalty.?What are the fundamental skills that those who would make that decision, are?Are there basics s kills that are testable and at law also?The state of N.S.W. is having problems now with jury service..your depiction of things would frighten more people away again…And do you know why?
Jan 6th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
For anyone still reading the comments on this post, I’ve added another couple of links at the end of the main post detail some of the views on Arab and Muslim websites and blogs. I figure it is useful to be aware of these, rather than just talk amongst ourselves.
Jan 6th, 2007
Paul Walter
Toordaddy, don’t be innane.
You know a mother is demonstrably “alive’in the sense that she is sentient and conscious. You can not possibly claim with ceretainty that an embryo, or even a foetus (watch that spelling!) is even remotely self aware or capable of experience. Try as you may, you will not be able to sit down with an embryo and discuss, for example, today’s movements on the stock exchange. Those characteristics and functions belong to the already born, ie living, and it is neither provable or likely that an embryo posseses the same sort of faculty as an already living person.
Yes, in an ideal, unselfish, less greedy and self-obsessed and more secure world, these rights will be extended to the unborn. But the bottom line is that in the real world the mother is the only provably alive component of your equation and must take precedence.
Far from protecting killers at the expense of the innocent, Deborah is concerned at the destruction of real life that happens in places like Sadr City, or the slums of Latin America, where contraception is denied due to patriarchal religious dogmas, condemning millions to slow deaths through starvation and disease. Even the suburbs of Australia, rights are trammelled in the pursuit of the advancement of outdated abstracts and dogmatism often employed to uphold a demonstrably irrational, wasteful, accreted and atavistic cultural structures.
but your adhominem on Deborah and its attendent straw-person argumentation does not divert readers from the issues of Saddam’s show trial and at the least, the crudity of his execution and what that says about anarchic Iraq; post US intervention.
Jan 7th, 2007
philip travers
I think,the previous post,makes some good points,but,the generalities about society and culture ,do not,necessarily support an pro-abortion stance..or legitimacy..an..wellI know when I am agitated by the whole women s issue..and something there was a little bit insensitive to womengenerally.It is also fair to say an anti-abortion stance can be an open position towards all sorts of other issues including that of this post.I do not think the anti abortion stance always is a lenient one,on oneself,and it could be very disturbing to start,politically, there and travel across to other issues.I signed a petition once,for the rights of women to have abortion..Iwas emotional as I signed it..what those emotions were I cannot describe..I also saw a Demonstration between pro and anti Abortionists..and felt they as sides to a debate were both right..simply because extremism is a easy shot..I dont carry that against the anti-abortionist ..generally.But American influence is grim..and Fred Nile isnt my cup of tea.The mention of the Stock Exchange made me realise,how terrible your example is..and a problem for this society for me at least is the power and influence of them to determine negative results in non associated humans lives,including Iraq.I do not know if Thordaddy is an investor or not….Methinks the way he argues it could only be in a fixed account run by others,because his rationale is considerably failing,which by a distorted inference..it could be said you think he is one…I wont be back until tonight, and Really there is only the unravelling days left to this debate.
Jan 7th, 2007
CORAL
I still think that thordaddy is one of the few people contributing here who is demonstrating any kind of reasoned integritous logic.
True, this is not an abortion abate. But it is a life and death debate, in which we can make comparisons to determine the integrity of any particular stance across a range of issues.
To me, a person who would terminate the life of an unborn child to suit their own convenience, and preserve the lives of all mass murderers, is a person completing lacking in integrity.
The punishment can’t be the same for all murderers. Some come under the heading of justifiable homicide. Some are crimes of passion. Some are acts of war. I could list more, but I won’t due to space limitations.
To me, a psychopathic serial murderer cannot be handled in the same way as others.
I once sat through a murder trial. After hearing the evidence, I thought justice had already been done. The person murdered was a criminal who deserved what he got.
paul walters:
You have murdered your own argument about unborn foetuses.
Sure, you can’t have a debate with them. They can’t argue the case for their own preservation. These things come later if they are given a chance at life. It’s up to the community to protect them.
An unborn foetus used to be highly valued, but this has changed since Me Syndrome set in.
Geoff T:
There would be more room in the jails if people committing lesser crimes were dealt with effectively in other ways. For example, there’s no point giving them hours of community work if they aren’t going to be properly supervised.
One elderly woman I know would like to see a return to public flogging. She sees this as a cheap and effective deterrent to others.
Also, we must not overlook the fact that the government has pushed more and more people with psychiatric illnesses back out into the community – creating a very difficult job for social workers who aren’t equipped to deal with their problems – sometimes with tragic consequences.
Jan 7th, 2007
CORAL
Deborah:
I agree with you that a mother’s life is paramount to the life of the foetus – but only in cases where the mother’s life is at risk from the pregnancy – and especially if she has other young children to care for.
Jan 7th, 2007
CORAL
patrickg:
Fortunately, I don’t rely on other people’s data. The crime rate may appear to have fallen. This is what happens when governments take a “softly, softly” approach on crime to save money.
No conviction – no crime recorded.
Yes, you’re right about the USA. Their safety net for the poor is riddled with large holes with obvious consequences.
Unfortunately, John Howard is sending us inexorably straight down the same track.
Jan 7th, 2007
thordaddy
philip,
My assumption of your “progressive” leanings in no way imposes a limitation upon you. In fact, your opposition to the death penalty in ALL CASES would, by definition, make you anti-progressive. I must say though that my generalized experience has been one where those that oppose the death penalty in ALL CASES go by the progressive label. I agree that it is a deceptive misnomer, indeed.
But that aside, I would say that I start with the assumption that those most interested in seeing an abolition of the death penalty are those most responsible for the murder and mayhem found in our societies. Do you see the problem this presents? You want an abolition of the death penalty just like the homicidal deviants. How is someone like me to view someone like you with my built-in commonsense assumption? Is something that is beneficial to the barbarians around us also beneficial to society? I say no and you say yes… Who is right?
I think we could develop a better understanding if I knew your core assumption(s) for opposing the death penalty in all cases.
Jan 7th, 2007
thordaddy
paul,
I think it is fallacious to define human beings from a consciousness standpoint and say that the right to be “alive” comes from an awareness of consciousness when the very act of abortion is the termination of such an outcome.
But then you say,
This seems like a contradiction. You are saying that the right to be “alive” should be extended to the unborn even though they are unconscious, but most of our society just doesn’t feel like it.
And because the mom is “alive” she can then decide to kill her baby that should have the right to be “alive” if only her mom was in the mood to extend such fundamental human rights… Shoowee…!
This just makes your stance against the expressed consent of society to bring justice to the criminal mass murderer among them even more inexplicable.
Why does mother’s might make right in the case of abortion, but the Iraqi society’s might didn’t make right in the case of Hussein’s execution?
Is it merely because Hussein was “alive” and the fetus is not?
Jan 7th, 2007
Geoff
good grief…
A foetus is alive. (or can be)
Whether or not in will end up being a viable human life is entirely a different thing. Women miscarry every day.
How a topic about Saddam’s execution ended up with this conversation is beyond me… and any reasoning person I don’t doubt.
Thanks for those extra links Andrew. (They relate to a point I made in my first post).
Jan 7th, 2007
thordaddy
(I apologize for the multiple responses. It appears that some blogs have been previously written and only posted to my viewing recently.)
philip,
I think it a tad hypocritical to bemoan phantom “limitiations” I’ve placed upon you by way of labels while demanding a “rationale” for my support of the hanging of Hussein. But nonetheless, rationales are good things to have sometimes.
My first rationale for supporting Hussein’s hanging is because he didn’t want it.
What is your rationale for opposing same hanging?
Jan 7th, 2007
Deborah
Until you can take a foetus (not considered a person yet, no consciousness or knowledge of it’s own existence) and grow it outside the uterus, you cannot force a woman, against her will, to carry out a pregnancy and have a baby which she will then be responsible for until 18yrs (25 yrs now according to Howard). Her life, her body, her uterus, not society’s.
I can tell you that the most ardent anti-choice people won’t be on her door step offering financial or childcare assistance throughout the years.
Don’t mention adoption because if she wanted to do that in the first instance, she would. It’s not for any woman who considers abortion to be concerned about other people wanting to adopt, or other people’s wishes, she has to make the best decision for her own circumstances and psychological well being.
Thordaddy,
I am concerned at your continued ignoring of my simple question to you, although demanding answers to your ad hom debate.
What should be the punishment for the mass murderers of 655,000 innocent Iraqi’s, Bush, Blair and Howard?
How do you argue pro life, and then support capital punishment?
Jan 7th, 2007
thordaddy
Deborah,
I think to call Bush, Blair and Howard mass-murderers is a non-starter. Murder implies a malicious intent to kill. Do believe it was the malicious intent of Bush, Blair and Howard to murder innocent Iraqis?
As for the number of Iraqis “murdered” you proffer, what percentage have come at the hands of fellow Mulism fanatics and how many were actual Muslim fanatics?
Taking this into consideration would make your label of Bush, Blair and Howard as mass-murderers even more untenable especially when one recognizes that Muslim fanatics are carrying out the brunt of the murders and are the brunt of those killed by Bush, Blair and Howard.
Jan 7th, 2007
Deborah
Any leader who deliberately starts a war with another country, has to have malicious intent to begin with.
“As for the number of Iraqis “murdered” you proffer, what percentage have come at the hands of fellow Mulism fanatics and how many were actual Muslim fanatics?”
And none of this would be happening if the illegal invasion of another country, by the malicious intent of the COW had not taken place.
“You break it, you own it”
Jan 7th, 2007
philip travers
I suppose I have the same problem as you Thordady in that if neither of us answers questions put by the other then there is no acceptance and no accommodation of that acceptance ,and thus persuasion.So if we both started on a more personal basis,both simple and complex..and what is reality ..it could help.I do not concede,that I have to start from a position that suggests,for example,our systems lack of a death penalty is at fault and,the Iraq one is tantamount to a progression. I remember as a child reading about the death penalty to a man by the name of Ryan in Melbourne..and well amongst other matters my older sister married a man before that time of reading,a Ryan..he was found not guilty later…whilst Sir Henry Bolte in his time, as Premier, didnt concede much either..his famous words ..they can march to they are bloody well footsore….tends to be a memory placed in the same synapse arrangement.You have commented on,and by the living Christ, if you dont concede a point soon, about the reasonability of the Australian system, as is, the bloody crows will be after you ,and my anger,about all sorts of issues, will descend on you like all the bloody war dead that are alluded to in the latest Diary of Bartlett. That is the simple and uncomplex demeanour hiding away in my politeness,rather than what I type.Barry Jones will eat you for breakfast.The more salient reasons for a death penalty obviously ,are not an essential summary of experience or observation,of my encounter,as, the reasonable solution to an unreasonable circumstance,that is ,the hanging of Saddam Hussien,where others in Iraq,are disatisfied,to say the least,and as Bartlett has pointed out in a patient manner, the problems of LAW,this haS been for them,and others in Iraq.And including Americans.Do you Thordaddy really want to have lawful death penalties?Please answer that one,simply and cogently.Then assess how up to now ,if you are right the world needs death penalties,to me you are unwholesome.
Jan 7th, 2007
Adele
Soooo typical of the so-called ‘pro-lifers’ – defend the ’sanctity of life’ in all cirucmstances of a bunch of cells that are yet to be and often never become a person and call anyone who thinks otherwise a murderer; while also saying anyone who opposes the deliberate pre-meditated killing of a human being is an extremist. Nice logic.
Jan 7th, 2007
Graham Bell
Andrew Bartlett:
Thanks for the links to Astrolabe and Planet Irf. Beats listening to shock-jocks and their adored “surrender-monkeys”.
Thordaddy:
Don’t know about anyone else but this is one Australian with Christian heritage who still refuses to allow himself to be dhimmified and treated like a kaffir, no matter how fashionable that may be these days. When Moslems, whoever they may be, treat me with courtesy and respect then I am obliged to treat them with courtesy and respect too; good people deserve nothing less.
Now, back to the hasty bungled hanging of Saddam Hussein. We haven’t even begun to pay the terrible price of that military and political blunder.
Jan 7th, 2007
thordaddy
philip,
I have stated that a fair and competent death penalty is fundamental to the long-term health of a society including my own here in America. We can then argue what constitutes “fair” and “competent.” I see this as a straight forward position.
It is my opinion that those Western nations that have abolished the death penalty in both spirit and reality have acquiesced to the barbarians amongst them either consciously or unconsciously.
And because I’m not an Australian, it would be hard for me to comment on Australia’s death penalty position in the particulars you request.
You still haven’t revealed your core assumptions on why you oppose the death penalty in all cases. I told you that my core assumption underlying my support for a fair and competent death penalty stems from the fact that the murderous among us have been so successful in abolishing the death penalty in the most “civilized” nations.
Jan 7th, 2007
patrickg
Coral said:
Fortunately, I don’t rely on other people’s data. The crime rate may appear to have fallen. This is what happens when governments take a “softly, softly” approach on crime to save money.
I’m sorry, I’m still trying to nut this out – so you rely on your own data about crime rates then?
If you agree with me re: the US and the correlation of that nation’s poverty level and crime rate, how can you argue that Australia is somehow different?
I’m pretty sure that Australian police forces have made no major changes to the largest arrest categories (assault, theft, possession) since the crime rate was high. (I say major; obviously there have been some changes, but certainly nothing that would affect rates to the extent that they have fallen).
Also, convictions are not necessarily indicative of jailing-rates, especially in regards to petty crime like theft.
If you don’t believe in crime rates, what then do you base your assumptions about criminality on? There are precious few other indicators.
I realise I’m ignoring the main thread here, but to be honest I don’t want to get stuck into abortion and some of the more outrageous statements coming from some people here, and I’m trying to stick to what I know.
Jan 7th, 2007
Paul Walter
Just stumbled across a story at http://www.truthout org/docs 2006/010607D.shtml during my peripatetic internet wanderings (courtesy of a friend).
This discusses the move by US Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney to have Bush impeached for his numerous and serious breaches including abuse of office and its privileges (Abrahamoff?) and (wilfull?)failures to preserve, protect and defend his nation’s constitution concerning things like the Iraq war, Abu Gharaib, illegal buggings and surveillance of citizens, Gitmo etc,international interference and torture etc.
Wouldn’t it be beautiful if ALL warmongers, corporate thugs, tinpots and souless politicians who squandered $trillions worth of the world’s resources and ruined the lives of millions of ordinary people, for the basest of motives in the interests of the basest of people, were dragged out of the system. People like Saddam are surely only the visible tip of the ‘berg.
There would be hope then of enough resources and safety for all women, and children born or hoped for, in the future.
What if the only way to get rid of them was to execute them?
Hmmmm, got me there, Thordaddy.
Seriously, jailing would be better, because of the example itself, so the aptness of retaliation using violence is delegitimised.
BTW, Coral am aware of the slippery slope/expediency issues that concern you and have sympathy. Had you prefaced your comments concerning embryos and foetuses being incontrovertibly “alive” ( in a meaningful sense) with ” In my opinion…”, I would have not felt the need to challenge your comment, which I felt was getting “off topic”. In passing such a contention as “fact” without corroborative evidence, you were mistaking a fact with belief, to me.
But I understand where you are coming from, which is not that different from me concerning a hope for humanity both as species and virtue and do not doubt for a moment people like you or Thordaddy, as to idealistic concern or sincerity.
Jan 8th, 2007
Graham Bell
Everyone:
I’ll just throw some kerosene on the fire.
It SEEMS TO ME that those parts of the United States that are so enthusiastic about executing people at the drop of a hat are the same places that are so violently “anti-abortionist” and so rabidly fanatical about their great Fuehrer, Mr G W Bush, who, in their eyes, is ever-wise and can do no wrong – despite mountains of evidence otherwise. Hhmmm. Something screwy there.
Jan 8th, 2007
Geoff
“fair and competent”?
Like in the US?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/06/12/deathpenalty/main204759.shtml
Columbia University researchers tracked all capital convictions from 1973 to 1995, nearly 5,800 cases. They found serious errors in 68 percent.
“It’s not one case, it’s thousands of cases. It’s not one state, it’s almost all of the states,” says Columbia University law professor James Liebman, the lead author of the study.
Jan 8th, 2007
Deborah
Telling statistics, showing that Texas remained the state sanctioned murder capital under George Bush. The deep south kills the most.
US Bureau of Justice
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm
Capital Punishment Statistics
Executions
* In 2005, 60 persons in 16 States were executed — 19 in Texas; 5 each in Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina; 4 each in Ohio, Alabama, and Oklahoma; 3 each in Georgia and South Carolina; 2 in California; and 1 each in Connecticut, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, and Mississippi.
* Of persons executed in 2005:
— 41 were white
— 19 were black
* Fifty-nine men and one woman were executed in 2005.
* Lethal injection accounted for all of the executions.
* Thirty-eight States and the Federal government in 2005 had capital statutes.
New York Times
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/george_w_bush/index.html?offset=105&query=CAPITAL%20PUNISHMENT&field=des&match=exact
Abroad at Home; Shallow And Callous:
Anthony Lewis Op-Ed column reports that Gov George W Bush has defined himself as shallow and callous in handling of death penalty cases in Texas, where 131 prisoners have been executed in Bush’s five years in office; cites notorious examples of unfairness that contradict Bush’s repeated statements of confidence that every person put to death in Texas under his watch has been guilty and has had full access to courts
June 17, 2000 Opinion Op-Ed
Texas Lawyer’s Death Row Record a Concern:
New lawyers for Gary Graham, who is on death row in Texas, say he is innocent and are seeking to have Gov George W Bush grant him some form of clemency; portray his case as textbook example of how bad lawyering sends poor people to death row; Ronald G Mock, court-appointed lawyer, represented Graham, who is scheduled to be executed on June 22 after 19-year court battle; believes that he has had more clients sentenced to death than any lawyer in the country.
Jan 8th, 2007
thordaddy
Geoff and Deborah,
I don’t see the damning evidence you do because I start with the assumption that the criminal mind is most served by your advocacy. This means that your bias against the death penalty is influenced by those who want to see it abolished the most- the barbaric amongst us.
First, the reversal rate says nothing about the convict’s guilt or innocence. The best friend that a murderer has is an incompetent defense lawyer. And what do you know, but that much of the reversal rate was due to incompetent defense lawyers? Collaboration, perhaps?
Second, the death penalty is biased towards white males quite dramatically. I guess GW liked killing white males from Texas? But this sure does put a lie to the notion that the death penalty is racist.
Lastly, this is still no evidence that the death penalty has done what is claimed and that is put to death an innocent person.
Jan 8th, 2007
philip travers
Thank you Thordaddy- I just couldnt picture you as a Australian.I recently read a book on Abraham Lincoln,the three sets of power groups out to kill him,the wife who had brothers on the south side fighting ,and Booth the killer was in fact a stand in.I will not make my so called assumptions ,as you call them ,plain to you I think you are plainly being arrogant in language and printed disposition,the sort of proud dynamite monkey ,seeking insults,by creating some,for purposes both personal politically and money.I judge Americans ,if I have to by what I can find out about them ,their persona in public and in private…to me you are a unwanted mystery..but ,if, you travel the distance to this land enjoy the holiday.If you cop shit for your accent or being American..I will be angry..,but, dont load your unresearched garbage on me.O.K!? While you are at it,does your assumption,have a basis in recognisable history,or self belief,so you may be read back in the U.S.A.,by those who visit thisBlog?I am proud of our systems resistance to the death penalty..our judges are not exceptional human beings,plain ones with a bloody hard job..
Jan 8th, 2007
CORAL
Adele:
You are a bunch of cells yourself, just like the rest of us. Most pregnancies go on to produce healthy babies.
patrickg:
I rely on my own data to a limited degree, but seldom on the data of others. A lot of my information comes directly from the police or whatever horse’s mouth is available on a given topic.
If the police know that our weak magistrates aren’t going to back them, they don’t charge anyone. It’s a waste of their time doing a large amount of paper work.
Instead, it is easier for them to blame the victim, side with the perpetrator and save themselves the humiliation and time/cost wastage of being cut down by magistrates and do-gooders in court.
In our usually quiet neighbourhood, one neighbour almost murdered someone due to the failure/inability of the police to act.
He ended up being labelled the bad guy instead of incredible troublemakers that had been causing problems for years.
So I told the senior sergeant of police that if the innocent neighbour ended up hurting anyone, I would be the first person to back him in court with an inch thick of paperwork.
The senior sergeant’s file was 4 inches thick. He suggested “back door means” of getting rid of the troublemakers from our neighbourhood.
It’s important also to note that some criminals have friends among the police. Some have them living with them, as these people did.
Weak laws, weak punishments and corruption are the bane of any society.
If people looked behind the statistics on any matter, they would soon find they have been skewed by a lack of understanding of sometimes hidden background information.
I could cite some Family Court statistics and show how they’ve been skewed, but I’d be moving too far off topic.
Real life is a far better teacher and provider of information than a bunch of statistics compiled by heaven knows who, for heaven knows what purpose, or to satisfy what (possibly financial) agenda.
Deborah:
Your post #125 reeks of Me Syndrome yet again.
Jan 8th, 2007
Adele
It appears Coral is simply incabable of ‘responding’ without selectively quoting. Everything is just a bunch of cells – do you give equal ’sanctity of life’ to all of them (except for actual humans you determine should be killed of course)?
I suppose it’s no worse than relying on your ‘own data’ to make assertions about crime rates. Anecdotal evidence from coppers who you know – yep, a totally objective source. Sounds more likely to be coming from the horse’s arse than the horse’s mouth.
Yet even this dodgy source of ‘data’ shows you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
Crime rates are not related at all to numbers of convictions or even numbers of charges. They relate to crimes committed. Crimes don’t get ‘uncommitted’ just because a copper decides they can’t get a conviction, or there’s a bent copper destroying the evidence or whatever other excuse you want to use to justify your fantasy that we’re ’soft on crime’ and it’s creating more crime.
Jan 8th, 2007
Kaye Bernard
OK Thordaddy, it is now getting difficult for me to take you serious and I need to just run a few things you say for response;
“I don’t see the damning evidence you do because I start with the assumption that the criminal mind is most served by your advocacy.”
Setting aside those who have an absolute rejection for the death penalty for the moment, your statement presumpts that any advocacy for a person convicted ( and sententeced to death) of a crime aids and abetts the criminal mind.
Does this mean that you are saying someone like the extreme examples you gave is going to stop and think ‘I am prepared to spend the rest of my life in prison and may not face the death penalty for eating kids because there is a group of people who will back me, so I may as well go ahead with my deed?
I am interested in knowing if you have had some serious issue in your life to usher you to take such a stand and promote the death penalty (in particular in relation to crimes against children as you have raised this scenario a few times”
Jan 8th, 2007
Kaye Bernard
Coral re post 139 are you supporting taking the law into your own hands?
Jan 8th, 2007
philip travers
So it is close to midnight Australian time,and Iam fond of Coral she has a multi story to tell,and maybe ,for other reasons..Senator Bartleet may not object to her being not always on subject..And the Senator also doesnt like injustice..and can act,even for her,but maybe less priviled of the blog.A bunch of cells,a bunch of keys to cells,it is simple to meWe prison ourselves as much as others could and would by our thoughts.Wilhelm Reich sexologist famous for his line..love work and knowledge are the wellsprings of life they should also govern it.,means Coral is acceptable, the differences may be keyboard not aggravated denialism.To Kaye ,dont bother with that question……time makes it impossible .The Days and nights are long for Iraqis in a way that isnt theirs…And hopefully we will see Muslim Indonesia and Malaysia side by side ,I for one do not feel threatened by this to see the end of Americans in Iraqi is enough,but, the death penalty is spent fuel rods and failed rebuilding..everytime there is a war,the worlds real economy crumbles..and the tough get going..Thordaddy wants to ride afresh on these countries ..as theyre putting themselves in harms way reduces the need for the time and motion man and his ways…with a nuke them all .Refuse to accomodate any arguments by Thordaddy …he doesnt meet your expectations.Paramounts to tantamounts the mans a rodent.He jumped a ship and it was mine,I kicked him,but he couldnt feel it.
Jan 8th, 2007
CORAL
kaye:
No, I don’t support taking the law into your own hands, but it does occur in a lot of instances, due to the hands of police being tied.
As the senior sergeant looked at my one inch pile of papers and then at his own four inch pile, he seemed pleased with what I had said.
About 15 years ago, when there was a similar problem in our neighbourhood, a police officer decided to relate a story of how other people dealt with extremely troublesome neighbours.
He said they went in with bats and injured people. The bat wielders were charged with assault, but got off on good behaviour bonds.
The police want us to do their work for them, because their powers have been taken away – but they cannot directly say so.
The criminal mind is definitely served by the advocacy of excuse-makers and weak judges.
Yes, I think you are seeing the connection with the deterrent value of appropriate punishment. But I’m not sure whether it can be applied to the truly psychopathic.
Learning starts in infancy. Society is too soft on its children.
philip travers:
I’m glad you’re fond of me. Yes, I do have plenty of interesting stories to tell – most a lot better than these.
But I hope thordaddy doesn’t feel your kicks. Far from being a rodent, I think he’s more in touch with the real world than some contributors to this debate.
Adele:
The so-called “coppers” aren’t personal friends of mine and they aren’t my only source of information.
I find it virtually pointless answering insulting people who don’t seem to be able to think across a broad base.
But no, I don’t believe in equal sanctity of life for serial murderers.
Crime rates definitely don’t relate solely to the number of crimes committed. Many criminals are not detected, caught or charged for their statistics to be added to the said “crime rates”.
Many crimes are not recorded. For example, I could cite numerous instances of people protecting paedophiles.
Your disrespect for police is not uncommon these days.
Jan 9th, 2007
philip travers
I dont like being used Coral…I feel personally responsible for a police officer, whom I personaly liked,Who the ABC. knew some matters about his father,if it is the same family,and, he shot himself in the head.I suggested a particular form of organizational self policing how it was translated into,and culminated in a Enquiry..doesnt meet my standards of due care.Be careful about what you think,is anyones sense of agreement with you,and in using it to advance your own perceptions.We all know our bubbles of reality,they may be right for all of us,some however have power,others may assume some power to their words,and some may see a bullet lodged in the brain by someone,who couldnt change his dad,or stop the fact he fought in a unpopular war.I WILL NOW REMOVE MYSELF FROM THIS COMPUTER,SOME BLOODY ANSWERS DONT SATISFY ME EVER.
Jan 9th, 2007
thordaddy
Kaye,
Who I find hard to take serious are those that opposed Hussein’s justified hanging and opposed the resumption of the Iraq war in order to topple his regime and its collaboration with Islamic Jihad. For all practical purposes, that who is tantamount to an ally of Hussein.
Who I also find hard to take serious are those that claim Hussein’s justified death penalty was an act of incivility and barbarity while enthusiastically supporting the death penalty for a “clump of cells,” innocent of all transgression, and without judicial review. They condemn the Iraqi people for serving justice to their mass-murdering dictator as they applaud the “choice” made by a mother exercising her “rights” to serve up the death penalty to her child through her will to power over society’s most defenseless.
Lastly, WHO is the motivation behind abolishing the death penalty in Western Nations? Is it the good people, the lawyers or the murderers? Who was the motivation behind abolishing slavery? Was it the good people, the lawyers or the slaves?
philip,
Rodent…? That’s a first, but it is kind of funny especially when one recognizes that you have failed to answer ANY of my questions about your position on the death penalty.
thordaddy: Philip, why do you oppose the death penalty in ALL CASES?
philip: Uh…, Just because!
thordaddy: Philip…, Who has the most to gain from the abolishing of the death penalty…? The good people, the lawyers or the murderers?
Philip: Me, of course.
thordaddy: Philip…, Why just abolish the death penalty when all the same arguments against it can be made against life without parole?
Philip: Rodent!
Jan 9th, 2007
CORAL
philip travers:
I don’t know anything about the person who has been shot through the head. It sounds like a very sad story.
The main point I’m trying to make about the police is that they’re caught between a rock and a hard place a good deal of the time.
It has reached a point where they are often disrespected by both the good and the bad among us, due to the powerlessness of their position.
Jan 9th, 2007
Adele
I usually find it pointless answering insulting people too, Coral, but I thought I’d make an exception in your case, and cop the usual insults from you in response, because what you were saying was so delusional I thought I would do you a favour and let you know how totally off track you were.
It’s a bit rich you talking about being able to “think across a broad base”! When your “broad base” manages to get broad enough to include things like “facts”, as opposed to anecdotes and selective misrepresentations of the bits that suit your own prejudices, let us all know and we may start taking you seriously.
However, you just keep repeating the same nonsense: “Many criminals are not detected, caught or charged for their statistics to be added to the said “crime rates”.” – to say it one more time, “crime rates” relate to crimes committed, not to individual people being detected, caught or charged.
As for crimes not being recorded, such as some child abusers, I’m sure you’re right. But this would always have been the case. How do you know that the number of such crimes is going up, if they’re not recorded now and weren’t recorded before? By “word of mouth”?
And where do you get off saying I’ve got disrespect for police?! You’re the one talking about corrupt police protecting criminals, not me.
Jan 9th, 2007
philip travers
Instinctively I had you pegged as not Australian possibly a U.S.A. citizen,that wasnt a lesson in reason,but,some aspects,of applying some references in a certain way and seeing the response Mr.Thordaddy.I have now allowed myself to think you are comforted in some way by who you are as an American,which may ,in fact,be a difficult living reality to be, as any other nations citizen could have it.The one outstandingly brave thing,you have done so far is admit just that.You obviously are now combining being a dynamite monkey and rodent,which, as a description perversely could be humourous to you.I hope I have made your day,to use,now a common and shared cliche ..whose origins may have been the U.S.A. I dont want to treat you also like a schoolkid Mr.Thordaddy,a previous combined description will do for the time being.I guess there are no good humans and lawyers in the U.S.A. unable to pass being employed by whoever employs them,in the time they are employed at the courts.Obviously as a combined rodent and dynamite monkey you can withstand the time use that allows such morally persuasive arguments to be compared with….. as I call you.And it occurs to me as a joke that means I have learnt some hybrid language,squeakanbang..,must be the language Indonesia speaks in,so the President of the U,S,A,.speaks it to… clever Fuhrer…..Keep up with the news Thordaddy,the Indonesians want to send troops over there in Iraq after talking to George to stop further bloodshed,and aint got nothing to do with hanging except…..further bloodshed.Or more pointedly,Hussein is dead…I must now go back to see if what I wrote, is, that misunderstandable,that, you failed to get what I was saying.Well I guess,even though the Rumsfelds and Powells are gone, that has made no impact on you,although,George himself has to talk to Pelosi etc.
Jan 9th, 2007
philip travers
The manner in which Saddam H.was hanged was the really disturbing matter for the present leader of Britian and deputy dawg.And the problem of the numbers of dead that Saddam was guilty of at war between Iraq-Iran is a sort of support,for what has transpired as sentiment reaching out to both countries.In English!So both The Senator And myself and others non death penalty, have to resist the temptations of the practitioners of dialogues of religion..the preacher man having more wisdom in political office in the English mother country.And if I said, in my best speaking voice in public,with some contempt,some cynicism,and with some resolve….Lord.Hear my prayer.That the evil that was the action of one man apparently, will not manifest in his pious condemnors who now tally his evil, with the evil of all time..where history and culpability are forgotten and the victors write the history..and our duly found sense of morality isnt fired by standing proud in a quicksand of our own making.Lord hear my prayer and let me hear what ever is the truth about honesty.For in my heart and mind I have to rely on my own…and too often.A prayer that begins with Amen and cannot finnish, with it,as, if the witness to these realities must remain on unacceptable duty.
Jan 10th, 2007
CORAL
Adele:
Your level of understanding is clearly too low for you to take in a broadbased explanation of anything, so I’ll not waste my time answering you further.
You might also try speaking for yourself. I’m sure there are many readers who will at least try to weigh up what I have said against their own beliefs and experiences. That’s what mature adults do.
Jan 10th, 2007
thordaddy
philip,
Some of us Americans- the majority of normal ones, anyway- don’t walk around in perpetual self-loathing looking for jihadists under every rock. I know this is a popular media distortion these days, but some of us are actually at ease with this love/hate relationship we have with the rest of the world. Me, I work, raise my children and enjoy my beautiful home in San Diego. Many Australians I’ve met come here because it reminds them of home.
We also know that many of the Bush-bashers have something valuable to gain beyond a feeling of moral superiority.
I stumbled upon Mr. Barlett’s site via another Australian left-of-center site. Needless to say, they also had their panties in a bunch over the hanging of a mass-murdering dictator. Some things keep you scratching your head until you figure it out. I’m still scratching.
Jan 10th, 2007
philip travers
Answer this Thordaddy,is left of centre capable like you have of, being, accepting legal hanging,and then rejecting, next blog, in stating there are no good lawyers..they do not have the characteristics of good humans.So obviously if you were falsely arrested your compunction would be,if charged with murder,to either represent yourself or say,perhaps the court is sitting against my will,and thus illegally.You are not Touche Turtle, you know,you are responsible for your opinions.
Jan 10th, 2007
thordaddy
philip,
I’ll post this question again so you can see if you are representing what I have said correctly.
I asked,
Philip…, Who has the most to gain from the abolishing of the death penalty…? The good people, the lawyers or the murderers?
Now, you may read into this that there are no good lawyers or no good people, but this is certainly not what I said.
Do you have an answer for the above question because it is exactly where I start in evaluating my position on the death penalty?
Jan 11th, 2007
philip travers
As a courtesy and as a sign of functioning reason in engagement Mr,Thordaddy…I Simply am caught between being polite and deciding it isnt worth the effort,to answer a question that you deem important above and beyond whatever,I may state imperfectly or by question.It is safe,however,for me,and not so much for you,that law is a process in operation.If you knew the answer yourself there would be others who before you had come to a conclusion in both an operational sense of the law,and its public and private influences through any country s operating parliaments.Theoretically I assume all law has been fashioned to comply to the common good of its citizenry.That is a ongoing dispute,both officially and communely.As you seem neither to be any practicising official,lawyer or administer to any court function,nor felt challenged enough to name a meritorious figure in those capacities mentioned,past or present,your opinions are the hallmarks of the political rather than the operational.Your sense of confidence ,to me,is that of those who will not sit as jury on a case where the death penalty will outcome.Is that the truth Mr.Thordaddy?You are a virgin when it comes to the real hard stuff,of deciding their eventual death.
Jan 11th, 2007
thordaddy
philip,
You and I both know that the chances of either of us sitting on a death penalty case is almost nil. In fact, your chance is nil and my is only a little “better.” Actually though, I have never been called for jury duty. But if it were the case that I sat on a jury where the death penalty could be a possibility then I would take such an occasion with the utmost seriousness. And since I live in a state where the death penalty is legal then my chance is somewhat even greater than those states without the death penalty.
I must point out your reluctance to explain your position though. All that fabulous locution and I’m no closer to understanding your position now as I was when you first jumped in this discussion.
Jan 11th, 2007
philip travers
I am impervious to compliments Thordaddy.My problem with you is enlarged. You have a definite opinion about death penalties,you havent done any jury duty,and without even stating once,wether you have read,known,or garnered innocence or guilt in any court case,as a moment of belief or reason, yet untested by the necessity of law.. you think it is O.K. I looked up .. judge advocates death penalty.. google search and found many websites,arranging those words and adding others gives a picture that remains somewhat difficult for those attempting both evidential and scientific support for whatever proposition supports the death penalty. I even looked at your governors decision briefly re Beardslee,a man that wasnt tested completely for brain damage,and, thus mental disorder, the big mans decision on that was go ahead..but not with a noose. I would of still been hard for the ex-movie star,if he applied his thinking to it.Not one of his better decisions I would say. And Saddams defiance before his death to his insulters and detractors,was that of a man who knows his reputation will still live..So Mr.Thordaddy it occurs to me you put up one reason for the death penalty,the murderers dont want it,null and void and easily seen as such re..Saddam.
Jan 11th, 2007
andrew
MarkL in Canberra mentioned Judeo-Christian opposition to the death penalty. But the Old Testament clearly states that the appropriate penalty for murder is death. (Ezekiel, can’t remember the chapter, sorry) And the concept of trial by ordeal was very popular in Christian Europe for several centuries. And Christian candidates in the US are generally pro-death penalty (and pro-life, which is a little confusing). Sorry, but that idea is even more incorrect than it is simplistic.
Jan 11th, 2007
CORAL
The Old Testament advocates “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”.
It was written by Jewish men, primarily for their own benefit.
The New Testament was written by Christians, for the benefit of Christians and “downsizing” of the Jews’ belief that they were the “only true church”.
When the Jewish faith split into the Jews, Christians and Muslims, the Muslims wrote their own bible – and the splits have continued from there – creating all kinds of conflict throughout the world – and thousands of different faiths and tiny tinpot cults.
The same has happened with the Eastern religions.
George Bush would do better to send a team of exit counsellors into Baghdad, than the multitude of extra troops he announced yesterday.
The best way to stop fighting between religious fanatics (in this case two groups of warring Muslims) is to education them about Mind Control and to quell the idea that they belong to the “only true church”.
Once exit counsellors have dealt with religious superiority in this way, the government might have some chance of restoring peace among the people.
I don’t find it at all strange that Christian candidates in the US support the death penalty, but are otherwise pro-life.
Perhaps they base their stance on the notion that the innocent should be protected from murderers, and murderers should be terminated to preserve the lives of innocent people. This sounds reasonable to me.
But I don’t believe in an extreme position that would execute all murderers or protect all life.
Yesterday the Catholic Church in Australia said they would try to prevent rape victims from taking “the morning after” pill.
There was an outcry from the Rape Crisis Centre. I agree with them. Above all, the society needs protection from rigid thinkers, who cannot see any shades of grey.
phil travers:
Your assumption that all laws are made for the common good of the citizenry is a little naive. The taxation laws are a good example.
Jan 12th, 2007
philip travers
I AM not a perfectly arranged contender of the censor,at either Andrew Bartletts or somwhere in between. A comment went missing re The Governor,how that happened is unknowable to me.
I found it odd that the Californian G. COULD review a case ..impose a death penalty and,not stand for President because of an legal impediment. Yet..be part of killing a U.S.A. born citizen!? THE SORT OF SITUATION THAT THORDADDY IS SOOOOO HAPPY WITH. I have been complimented by Thordaddy ,re my locution,and I have complimented him about?
Jan 12th, 2007
Deborah
I don’t believe in the nonsense of religion and bible stories, therefore have the freedom of thinking for myself and opening my mind to reason, truth and fact.
You cannot argue for the death penalty and the killing fields of war, yet oppose abortion. The thinking is not logical or rational. If you are pro capital punishment and war, then you have no problem with the taking of human life, at any time.
I can argue pro choice, yet maintain a stance of anti war and capital punishment because I believe in humanity and in inherent dignity of each and every human life (even those who have to be punished by their removal from society). I don’t believe that the age of a person is measured from the time that they are conceived, it is measured from the time that they are born.
coral and thordaddy,
do the birthdays that you celebrate, reflect your conceived age + after birth age or just your birth age onwards?
coral, the “me syndrome” should be the only factor in a woman’s mind when she considers abortion, as she, and no-one else, will ultimately carry the responsibility and the burden of the choice that she makes.
I don’t believe that women enter into abortion as lightly as you suggest here, for “lifestyle choices”, how insulting. Do you have some statistics to support that theory, or are they the same as your crime statistics – no basis in fact but plenty of heresay, prejudice and bias.
The catholic church and morning after pill idiocy mentioned above, just shows that they cannot and should not, be entrusted with pregnancy counselling services in Australia.
Jan 12th, 2007
Adele
“Yesterday the Catholic Church in Australia said they would try to prevent rape victims from taking “the morning after” pill.
There was an outcry from the Rape Crisis Centre. I agree with them.”
I can’t figure you ‘pro-lifers’ out. One minute abortion is murdering babies and using embryos for stem cell research is wrong, whlie pre-meditated killing of grown human beings is OK. And yet you complain when the Catholic Church try to stop the morning after pill? Once again ‘pro-life’ for some but not for others it seems. At least the Church is logically consistent, even if they’re wrong.
Why isn’t it ‘murder’ to use the morning after pill? It still kills embryos, which are just as developed as some of those used in stem cell research. How does commiting ‘murder’ (a term you’re willing to use with abortion) become OK just because you’re killing a being that came into life through rape? Does that mean it’s still OK to kill the foetus produced from a rape at 6 months? Why not even after they’re born? You’re saying it’s to to kill them as a newly created embryo – at what stage does it become not OK to kill them, and why doesn’t this apply to other embryos.
Jan 12th, 2007
CORAL
Let me get this straight. I don’t belong to the fanatical pro-life movement, nor any branch of the Christian faith, fundamental or otherwise. I am not a proponent of war.
I am a person, not a group.
I’ve never said that using human embryos for stem cell research ought not to be possible under some circumstances.
I have no interest in arguments that don’t have any shades of grey in them, nor in mindless questions about birthdays.
I would never compare the value of an innocent child’s life with that of a mass murderer. I find it completely immoral.
I agree with abortion in exceptional circumstances. I would never want to put a rape victim through 9 months of carrying her attacker’s child – let alone expect her to raise the child, with the constant memory of the horrible details of his/her conception.
Also, the child might have inherited a gene that might turn him into a rapist as well. A mother should not have to live with these things. It is inhuman for anyone to expect it.
Jan 12th, 2007
philip travers
So Coral we can take it.. is flying solo looking for shades of grey and isnt a group? And would you enter Iraq with a working process in mind of how to stop what you think is mind control by religion? Who are your experts on that? Do you believe the Catholic Church will look after everyone that has been raped?
Jan 12th, 2007
Kaye Bernard
Coral, please elaborate on the rapist gene?
Jan 12th, 2007
The Feral Abacus
Kaye Bernard – Coral is most likely alluding to a scientific paper published several years ago that claimed to have identified a genetic basis for ‘rape’ behaviour in an insect species. The authors regrettably extrapolated this tenuous finding to humans.
Evolutionary biologists have much to answer for…
Jan 12th, 2007
philip travers
Long road these post Saddam days….as we enter the other tails of Saddams comet.I am mystified by Catholicisms consistency,when others are being questioned not so assidously..but I guess being anti war means a sort of compelling contradiction..that emanates the loss of government and law that can see a future..whereas the Pope maybe saying something that is also personal, out of the experiences of the church, then,and associated disgusting behaviour,and be in a sort of evolutionary state by his presence,of not exactly accepting being a nazi whilst..being in their uniform…I prefer the Jehovahs Witnesses story of courage there,alas punishment. They would not see eye to I on abortion with me ,and are being constantly attacked for some rogues amonst its members.Catholicism is making a pertinent statement about hanging,wether it is jinxed or not.Pope Paul suggested mothers should forgive the rapist and a little bub is a new entity…after another war in Europe had the same thing happen. Forgive ones enemy, isnt full of the relativistic reality that us humans live in,whilst the Believed in Christ did that.Me I opt out..I see no sin in the propositon of the Church..but,Ido not expect mothers,or pregnant women to forgive…after all there are biological and other events in a womans life,and child rearing is obviously hard wether the child is completely wanted or not.We can only faultily speculate on what the real Christ today would find as moral persuasion,if he had difficulty with the rule of man as is.
Jan 13th, 2007
thordaddy
Deborah,
What is the similarity between state executions and abortion…? They are both death penalties. The question is WHY you support one in one instance and not the other? I see a certain inconsistency in your stance.
So what is the difference between state executions and abortions? In the first instance, a jury (society) through a strict judicial process (with mandatory appeals in America) judges a person’s guilt or innocence. And then upon conviction and a UNANIMOUS jury recommendation (with some states giving judges final say) is sentenced to death (usually by lethal injection).
In the second instance, a mother’s will to power is the only deciding factor. If the mother feels a death penalty for her child in utero is in order, then it is. No judicial review… No consultation with the father that gave her the child… No input from fathers, sisters, grandma and all those that would welcome such a child in this world… And one could hardly argue that if hanging, electric chair or lethal injection are cruel and unusual punishment then such is the description required for an abortion.
So how do you remedy this cognitive dissonance? How do you oppose the death penalty for the guilty predators amongst us, but support the death penalty for the innocent and defenseless? You simply dehumanize that which resides inside a mother’s womb while pleading for the humanity of those that create murder and mayhem in our society.
Your stance is a hyper-individualistic stance.
Jan 13th, 2007
CORAL
phil travers:
I have been educated in Mind Control and Manipulation; and Social Psychology and Group Dynamics. For a time, I was a very successful Exit Counsellor of people from destructive religious cults.
The job in the middle east would need to be undertaken by counsellors who are very clued up on the belief systems of both warring factions – and, in particular, their differences. The team might need to start with the parliamentarians and go from there.
I think the Roman Catholic Church will try to force rape victims to give birth to their babies, under the auspices of it being “what God wants”. I am filled with disgust.
I don’t mind flying solo. The grey areas on many issues are not too hard to find.
Andrew looks for them to fill out the big picture himself.
Kaye and Feral:
I haven’t read the research pertaining to insect studies and rape.
Yet again, I rely on what I see in the people around me. After 51 years on the planet, I’ve concluded that nature has far greater input than nurture.
For example, my youngest son behaves a very great deal like my brother, even though he has almost never seen him.
It has been proven in identical twin studies, that even when they have been raised in completely separate households, they are still very much alike in their behaviour and preferences.
Admittedly, they share most (but not all) of the same genetic material provided by both mother and father.
When it comes to the male child of a rapist, the father is providing 50% of the genetic material, and for me it is reasonable to expect that the father’s behaviour could be a genetically inherited trait – which could appear in his own child, or possibly even relatives further removed.
thordaddy:
Very well said.
BTW, cognitive dissonance is very often seen in members of destructive cults. It is generally the result of very heavy indoctrination over a period of time.
Jan 13th, 2007
Dudley Sharp
Deborah writes:
“You cannot argue for the death penalty and the killing fields of war, yet oppose abortion. The thinking is not logical or rational. If you are pro capital punishment and war, then you have no problem with the taking of human life, at any time.”
This is untrue.
Reason dictates that there is a difference between taking innocent and taking guilty life and that there is a difference between just and unjust wars.
Those who oppose abortion often do so based upon it being undeserved and wrong that an innocent life is taken. Those who support the death penalty often do so based upon a just sanction for a guilty murderer.
Very different things.
You can support a just war – the effort against the Nazis in WWII – and you can oppose an unjust war – Iraq’s unprovoked attack against Kuwait but support the just war of repelling Iraq from Kuwait.
Yes, reason does matter.
Jan 13th, 2007
philip travers
Well I didnt know that,and if you have been successful,Coral, well all grace to you. I had a posting suggesting the strangeness of the rape consistency in the Popes view of relativistic morality, the biggest sin, being cock a hoop about the importance of the government of Man. Where the death penalty leaves little room for a great sinner to face God as a living human being, seeing the Catholics are aware of the need to befriend our Islamic communities in ways that are not reprehensible. And this allows God through the conversion of accepting Christ into ones life completely, seems to be the attitude re rape victims … the previous Pope suggested it re victims of those raped by Muslims. The non spiritual intellectual point is the baby is a new entity, capable of being shaped by the mothers devoutness to Christian values, and to forgive the rapist isnt to sanctify the act, as he goes his way towards the final judgement. I doubt the average Australian Catholic takes it entirely serious,and still do their Catholic stuff. Where that leaves Thordaddy I dont know. Probably just cock a hoop about the death penalty.
Jan 14th, 2007
Deborah
thordaddy, you are mistaken if you think that women just decide to have an abortion out of the blue one day.
Most of them do talk to their families, friends and their partners if they have one, (sometimes it is the father who forces the abortion). The father does not always hang around once the pregnancy is known.
The woman who has to make the gut wrenching decision by herself, truly is alone and unsupported by all around her, I feel especially sorry for her, and her circumstances.
The worst thing for her, would be to go to a pregnancy counselling service which refuses to provide all available options and proper, professional, unbiased counselling.
Anyway, what is your problem? you obviously support killing, so why do you have a problem with an abortion. You want to judge and condemn others based on your own prejudices and beliefs rather than human compassion.
I support the woman’s right, as the person already in existence, to decide over her own body, uterus and circumstances.
Jan 14th, 2007
Deborah
dudley sharp, “Reason dictates that there is a difference between taking innocent and taking guilty life and that there is a difference between just and unjust wars.”
The lives taken in war are innocent, on both sides. When did innocent soldiers fighting for their country become guilty, and when did innocent civilians become guilty?
There is nothing just about the illegal invasion of Iraq, it began with a lie, and it will end with a lie.
Jan 14th, 2007
philip travers
So Dud is on the job,but off subject,and my last post might seem a little flippant,but at last read under moderation.And Dud is a sharp as a tack in an old football boot.I was ,last here,appreciating there might be more to Coral than my cynicism would allow,and now we have another contender,Strange how Under pressure I think up new scenarios..take this one.If all the mothers of all the enemies of whoever had abortions re Iraq Kuwait,then obviously hardly anything would be happening today.So no war,plenty of angry anti abortionists ,i suppose,would be growling loudly.Then again we could ask all the Christian and Muslim leaders etc. to stop fighting to insure that healthy babies are born to help family and sustain family of nations under religious guidance that is meritorious.We would have to insist to the U.S.A.to clean up its arsenal problem,and special consideration for all mothers,including the very sick.Enemy combatants could bring forward their sick women in exchange for some form of stepped clemency,that if they have a high regard for mothers,then that is considered worthy.Mothers who already lost children even as soldiers are considered worthy,in the sense they can look on and insure proper direction of assistance.even among those who are enemies.If people kill mothers across the relious divdes these people,if wanting peace..must suggest what a worthy punishment for them should be.Because revenge is stalking Iraq the answer to that reality also means mothers can speak in a persons defence.I know I am an outsider.
Jan 14th, 2007
CORAL
Deborah:
But you still support the lives of mass murderers over the lives of the innocent unborn. This is an irrefutable fact, based on your own arguments.
You still haven’t addressed the matter of claiming that we are “just primates” went it comes to anything connected with human reproduction – but when certain men start behaving like animals, you want to “reclaim the night”.
Your arguments are dissonant right across the board. They don’t hang together at all.
Jan 14th, 2007
thordaddy
Deborah,
You say,
But I said,
You can’t talk about a woman’s “right” to choose and then pretend that her “will to power” IS NOT the “deciding factor” in the act of aborting her child. I said nothing about every individual decision-making process that a pregnant woman must go through before an abortion. I made a general statement about WHAT the “right” to choose an abortion means to society as a whole.
It means that YOU put in the hands of individual woman the right to kill that which resides inside her, i.e. her child, with NO expectation of responsibility or accountability to the larger society given such a prejudicial and discriminatory “right.” On the other hand, you claim that society does not have the “right” to execute that which has murdered innocent human lives even when society is held strictly responsible and accountable for its decision.
The dilemma you are in is very simple. If an individual woman has the “right” to kill then how do you figure that a group of individuals (society) does not also have the same “right” to kill? The dilemma gets even deeper when one realizes that a woman’s “right” to kill is unimpeded by external restraint while society’s “right” to kill must conform to a very strict and rigorous decision-making process sometimes taking decades to finalize.
Your way around this dilemma is also quite simple. You simply dehumanize that which resides inside the mother’s womb. Yet, you are seemingly impervious to the fact that such a stance tends to dehumanize all of us.
Jan 14th, 2007
Deborah
coral,
“You still haven’t addressed the matter of claiming that we are “just primates” went it comes to anything connected with human reproduction – but when certain men start behaving like animals, you want to “reclaim the night”.”
I’m not addressing, nor do I have to, posts from two completely different topics, on two different threads – they are irrelevant to this one. If I remember correctly, one topic was on stem cells, which was again hijacked by the anti-choice brigade and the other thread was on farmimg or something similar, which meandered off topic onto aboriginal communities and feminism.
Different posts, different subjects, different discussions.
I wish you would show the same restraint.
Jan 14th, 2007
Deborah
thordaddy, I have no dilemma at all.
The woman always has a right to choose, and her right is paramount.
A foetus, unaware of it’s own existence, does not have the same rights as an already existing person. You may not like it, but that is how it is, and should be – her choice, not yours.
You cannot come up with any rational argument for being pro murder in war and capital punishment on one hand, yet hypocritically opposing abortion on the other, so you try to muddy the waters with endless ad hom attacks.
Jan 14th, 2007
thordaddy
Deborah,
You can’t take YES for an answer. What you can’t explain is WHY a woman’s “right” to kill doesn’t translate into a society’s “right” to kill? How can an individual have a “right” that isn’t enjoyed by the rest of society? Why is the “right” to kill limited to certain privileged individual with no mandatory oversight while society can’t enjoy the same “right” even with mandatory oversight? Isn’t this discrimination?
Your position is illogical and inconsistent unless you simply stand by an absolutist position in both cases and continue to insist on dehumanizing that which resides inside a mother’s womb. “Something” you continue to imply does NOT already “exist.” You want to carve out certain exceptions to the “thou shalt not kill” doctrine which, coincidently, will include your “right” to kill. You also want to limit this “right” to yourself and fellow women by implying that you’re not really killing anything that “exists.”
You said earlier,
But this is exactly the point. If you are pro-abortion then you have no problem with taking human life at any time since it is a “right” to take it at its very beginning and when one is most innocent and defenseless.
But of course, you would disagree. You would say it is “right” for a woman to kill her child, but not “right” for the Iraqis to hang Saddam.
You can only say this because you have dehumanized that which resides inside a mother’s womb and hence have dehumanized all of us.
Jan 14th, 2007
The Feral Abacus
CORAL at #169 “When it comes to the male child of a rapist, the father is providing 50% of the genetic material, and for me it is reasonable to expect that the father’s behaviour could be a genetically inherited trait”
Reasonable to consider the possibility – yes. But reasonable to expect? I think that puts the case too strongly.
Jan 14th, 2007
philip travers
Well I have got round to now thinking we are actually privileged to have Thordaddy go through his stunt,over and over again,but with increasing finesse..a definite sign of somebody who is outside the range of touche turtle.But I am not sure a right at law re the death penalty or abortion..is as cut and dried as he presents..perhaps he is hoping we understand that too by the option of asking the question in its most limiting way.I cannot,see,he isnt being absolutist in his choice of using the word right in the manner he did ,without refering to a potential of the contemporary,rather than his denial by exclusion,of the importance of the development of rights under law.Which isnt outside his learning capacity just an unwillingness,in this format,to question his own questions,to something historical and definitely American.There is a precision,in his questions,that I at least noted..and the bulls eye approach to his questioning requires to jump behind the man as he fires.I sort of think the maternal paternal conflict and the paternal Thordaddy doing his stunt is clever.Whilst this maybe a quest..to prove erroneous thinking,or error, prone thinking,simply he indulges in a different design of no I cannot accept that.Some will notice the word right is a multi bullet in one- he fires.How odd I,bypassed the will to power of the mother,when they maybe taking advice,including medical.How odd to claim a fathers right,when,if he had a daughter and was raped,he may not be in such a hurry to question here.Maybe even his wife,would find it difficult to cope with a rapists child as much as he would.Touche Thordaddy.
Jan 15th, 2007
ken
While interesting points hvae been raised on thsi debate )apart from the flippant) it proves once again that people with fixated views are not capabel of persuasion and / or concession.
Principally in my mind because the more fixated the view the more likley it is that the holder has that view becasue of an emotional and / or pyscholigical life context.
What it does show is that these sort of issues are never simple and can’t be treated in a black white / right wrong sort of way. Be it abortion / capital punicshemnt or whatever there is not a definitive position, alternatvei scenarios abound.
Jan 15th, 2007
thordaddy
philip,
At this time I no longer claim to be pro-life. I think a universal pro-life stance is contradictory and therefore non-existent. This has nothing to do with my pro-death penalty stance. But rather, it has to do with my acceptance of good and evil in this world.
In all honesty, I fundamentally only care for the death penalty and abortion policy of the US. But I must admit a certain affinity for Australia that has merely manifested in an unknown manner as I have never actually been to your country.
I did not come here as a “stunt,” but merely found a very interesting debate via the world wide web. And it is because these debates are so hard to resolve that I am naturally drawn to them. I am still looking to learn from those that oppose the death penalty in all cases. I am also intrigued by those that oppose the death penalty in all cases and believe in a woman’s “right” to choose.
Jan 15th, 2007
CORAL
thordaddy:
Yes, it is intriguing indeed.
Feral:
I said it is reasonable to expect that the father’s behaviour COULD (not WOULD) be a genetically inherited trait.
Deborah:
You just don’t want to answer the question on an issue that is connected, and which further demonstrates the overall dissonance of your stance.
philip travers:
Some of us are still waiting for you to answer thordaddy’s questions.
Surely he has a right to some answers, when you are maintaining your right to keep firing bullets at him.
Jan 15th, 2007
philip travers
I thank you for your honesty,Thordaddy,I think that what you said about yourself is true.Only your efforts and attempts via the keyboard,and resilience in manner,reminds me of stuntsmanship,after all I could of choosen trapeze artist,Houdini,ventriliquist dummy of the present Variability of law across states.And a honesty that has only the deficiency that I dont accept it.Sometimes up to now you propositioned refering to the American sense of things,including,AT ease with the love-hate relationship.Your demeanor now is entirely satisfactory.The Senator is not a myth no longer,you have now had to face the fact,and done it well,your description of peoples politics isnt an excuse for you or them.I say some are ready here to lunge at words and out of any context of the attempts behind the words.I pointed out to you early ,you were exposing yourself,and,that which has followed isnt so bad to me.But,I,repeat,I doubt that when the problem gets personalised..you will be so willing to raise the flag,as it were,when the nation is still divided,as is in states and across the population.Your confidence is your own,and may or may not be mathematically derived,and methinks ,you will wait..to see if a family member,having a brush with the law,and the future laws..whereever they take the U.S isnt Pelosi andBush,or theBIg movie star on hold……
Jan 15th, 2007
Deborah
I don’t believe in a god, nor do I believe in the concept of good and evil.
“Evil” is a nice and trendy label brought to us most recently from the evangelical, conservative, religious in the US.
It is easier to do perform evil deeds upon another person if you label them as evil and deserving of whatever punishment you may have prepared for them.
By decreeing others as “ëvil”, you can dehumanise them and disassociate yourself from your own actions or participation in the “evil” violence.
Concepts of good vs evil are too simple minded to explain the complexities of human behaviour.
Jan 16th, 2007
CORAL
There are powers of good and evil at work in the world all of the time. No one needs to be religious to know this.
Jan 16th, 2007
Deborah
coral,
“But you still support the lives of mass murderers over the lives of the innocent unborn. This is an irrefutable fact, based on your own arguments
Actually no, I support the woman’s right to choose. I’m not aware of any mass murderers vs innocent unborn cases in which I supported the mass murderers. Who and where was this?
“You still haven’t addressed the matter of claiming that we are “just primates” went it comes to anything connected with human reproduction – but when certain men start behaving like animals, you want to “reclaim the night”
We are just primates, that is a fact.
The philosophy of reclaim the night in protest of male sexual assault against women and children has absolutely no relevance to the biology of reproduction and stem cell transplant. Where do you see a connection?
Jan 16th, 2007
CORAL
deborah:
I feel you are completely out of touch with the lack of integrity of your own values. That’s what cognitive dissonance is.
Male sexual assault has quite a lot to do with the act of reproduction, but a female primate would not be in much of a position to do anything about it.
Primates have no access to abortion clinics. They would not even think of aborting their offspring.
Jan 16th, 2007
philip travers
Now there is nothing worse than women fighting,when plainly,both Deborah an coral,wii continue this tiresomeless ,but boring each other silly.Since when Coral do you have to decide that Cognitive dissonance is the be all and end all that has ever been spoken on the matter,you are engaged in?What worthy religious tome to you, has those words,or somewhere else that is highminded enough that it covers all human history until today,and can be seen in these tomes described as cognitive dissonance!?If there can easily be seen the workings of good and evil,to describe the behaviour of good or evil ,is it as simple as stating …….there has always been good and evil in the world?That is where Deborah may agree with you if the problem of good and evil no longer becomes a dismissed term on the basis of,maybe,some behaviour is so unacceptable,that a simple and efficient means to describe is evil!Where it isnt a predetermined assessment that will not be configured in another way,and is used discriminately,as opposed to as a form of.You may of heard of a incident in Armidale,N.S.W. where an old man and ex-serviceman has had his head dismembered completely.There is no good in this,I say,and simply,and there is evil.On the possible finding of the killer,that which has happened remains that.Any Good is people acting to the dictates of insuring at leat justice,in terms of prosecution and whatever the verdict carries. The killer,probably doesnt know if he wants to stay alive or not,justice cannot sanction those thoughts,normally,unless predetermined,by law, or by technology.There is no moral dilemma in saying good and evil,as propositions are to simply as labels..as behaviours unpredetermined there is the possibility to agree.
Jan 16th, 2007
Megan
For anyone interested in Iraq, I’d really recommend watching ‘In The Shadow Of The Palms’, which will be screened on ABC TV this Thursday evening.
Jan 16th, 2007
philip travers
ABC TV answers all,I suppose,it isnt therefore part of the process?A camera for peace and non hanging I suppose.And whose voice will be more human than those commenting here?
Jan 17th, 2007
CORAL
Still waiting on those answers, Phil.
Jan 17th, 2007
philip travers
Until further notice..Coral..take care..and check the perimeter.
Jan 17th, 2007
Deborah
thordaddy is only interested in two issues – the death penalty and abortion in the US.
http://www.pww.org/past-weeks-2000/Death%20penalty%20rages%20on.htm
A battle is won but the war against the death penalty rages on in Illinois:
“In a touching and dramatic encounter, death penalty opponents, relatives of people sentenced to death on the basis of bogus evidence, and several former and present death row inmates met together in person and by telephone in Chicago on Aug. 31…”
“According to Patterson and his supporters, the confession (to murdering two elderly people), on the basis of which he was convicted, was wholly concocted by Police Commander Jon Burge. Burge was subsequently fired for running a torture chamber in his Chicago police station in which scores of African Americans were subjected to beatings, electroshock, suffocation and other pressures to sign false confessions.”
Jan 22nd, 2007
CORAL
And there are plenty of real murderers out there too.
Jan 22nd, 2007
Donna
Deborah and Adele
I just wanted to respond to a comment Coral made that the Catholic Church would ‘prevent’ women from using the morning after pill, and relate an experience a friend of mine had.
The Catholic Church did not say they would prevent women from taking the MAP. They just don’t stock or administer it because it’s against the church’s doctrine.
Someone I new went to the Mater at about 2am a couple of years ago, looking for the MAP. The triage nurse was being abused by a young man who apparently had taken some steroids that morning. My friend had to wait an hour or so to speak to the nurse.
When the nurse did speak to her, on hearing the matter, she invited my friend into the protective enclosure so they could have a discreet chat away from the other patients.
The nurse explained that because it was a Catholic hospital they didn’t have the MAP to give to her. But the nurse assured her she had 48 hours to get to her GP. So my friend went home and the next morning went to the GP and had the matter dealt with.
It was really good, professional, objective service, and not what some would lead you to believe.
Jan 24th, 2007
CORAL
donna:
A Roman Catholic hospital which does not stock the MAP is making it more difficult for women to procure it. They’re certainly not making it easier.
One person making one trip to one public hospital to speak with one nurse is not the only indicator of the church’s stance.
Jan 25th, 2007
Deborah
I have to agree with Coral somewhat here, it may not have affected Donna’s friend too much, but for a less knowledgeable or educated woman to front at the Mater – to then be turned away and told to go elsewhere, might make quite an obstacle for her.
That woman may end up doing nothing about her situation because of the previous rejection, and then become pregnant, creating another more difficult choice.
Deliberately not stocking or providing the MAP on request, is the same as preventing women from using it.
Jan 26th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
The 200 comment mark seems a good enough spot to close off comments on this thread, given that it’s been mostly a fair way off-topic for some time in any case (interesting though the topic of the off-topic commenting is)
Jan 27th, 2007