| Submit your comments on this article | ||||
| Iraq-Jordan | ||||
| Red | ||||
| 2004-02-12 | ||||
The Red
"We’re busy. Talk to you later." [click] Doumani told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Amman, Jordan, that the neutral, Swiss-run ICR And then she starts making sense: She said there is nothing in the Geneva Conventions that would prohibit Saddam’s being tried by a coalition tribunal. "It can also be by an ad hoc international tribunal that can be established by a resolution of the Security Council," she said. "We could envision that it could happen (that the Iraqis try Saddam) once authority is transferred to the Iraqis in June and military tribunals are established again," Doumani said. But the International Criminal Court wasn’t mentioned. Two points for Nada.
No, really? "Some people, especially in Iraq, thought that as long as he was given this POW status he cannot be prosecuted, which is totally wrong, because you have plenty of articles in the Third Geneva Convention where it can even go as far as a death sentence. Oh, the Euros will be ever so unhappy! "But he cannot be tried for simply participating in hostilities because the whole idea for a POW is that he is a soldier doing his job in defending his country, so you cannot try him for defending or for fighting. You can only try him if he went beyond and committed a war crime or a crime against humanity or a crime prior to war."
She sure made the surprise meter twitch -- an NGO representative who knew the law and made sense! | ||||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #35 If anyone really wants the biblical posistion on capital punishment read Genesis 9:5-6,Romans13:1-7 |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-2-13 12:16:01 AM |
| #34 Aris - there are other scenarios. For example locally (Pennsylvania), convicted (multiple) murderers have been *pardoned* by the governor, then commit more murders after their release. Obviously someone sentenced to "life withot the possibility of parole" shouldn't be pardoned, but it happens. |
| Posted by: Lurker 2004-2-12 9:43:06 PM |
| #33 anon MDiv> You didn't provide me with anything more specific than their *names* to assert your position that these church fathers supported the death penalty, so what other resort did I have other than google for "Origen death penalty" and try to locate the passages that others had located before me? If you had been more specific with quotes, same way I had tried to be specific with quotes, it might have been easier for me, and politer of you. Old Patriot> I don't think it's good to use the fear of incompetent parole board in deciding whether the death penalty should exist or not -- because then we could equally well start using the fear of incompetent juries during appeals and say that murderers shouldn't get an appeal, and the fear of incompetent juries and say that *suspected murderers* shouldn't get even a trial, they should be killed on the spot... I'm assuming that when we are talking about the abolition of death penalty, we're talking about it's substitution with life in jail. In which case the only scenario in which such a convicted prisoner will get out to harm others is if he escapes, not get released. Robert> I've googled enough for one thread. Help me out and tell me where I can find info about number of innocent people killed by condemned lifers that escaped, and we'll start having some facts on which to start reaching a conclusion. But until that time, it's other people who first made the implicit suggestion that this number is high enough to be worth considering, given how "Dead men cannot harm others."... Other people ought to support it -- and criminals getting released from jail and killing more folk isn't a good enough an answer IMAO, because I never suggested that death penalty convicts should get *released*, I'm talking about a scenario where only *escape* would manage to get them out. remote man> I have already mentioned that I have no problem with the death penalty for former dictators -- and my reasons is what you stated, it being the execution of a regime. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-2-12 8:32:24 PM |
| #32 Let the Iraqi's try him as they see fit. Enough said. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-2-12 8:01:55 PM |
| #31 The key to OP's comment is that just locking a former national leader up keeps some core of his followers energized. Imagine, for instance, what might have happened had Hitler been imprisoned. Think of the SS nut cases that would have kept up the fight simply because they knew he was alive. This goes far beyond just the execution of a murderer. It has to do with the execution of a regime. Saddam and his top lieutenants should all hang so that he and his ilk can never bring harm to Iraq again. |
| Posted by: remote man 2004-2-12 7:19:44 PM |
#30 Aris, here is one of several interesting comments I've found doing a search on "recidivism" and "murder". There are those that support your assertion - the most adamant of those by Amnesty USA. This one has this interesting quote in the second paragraph:
I would hate to see any innocent person die. That includes the victim of a convicted killer that's gotten some psychobabble-crazed parole board convinced they've "changed" just as much as any 'innocent' accused. I don't doubt there are fraudulent convictions in this country, and the likelihood of such convictions in other countries is equally high. That doesn't stop me from wanting to see any person who consistently preys on others removed from my society - permanently, if necessary. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-2-12 5:56:57 PM |
| #29 Okay, how do I say this gently? Aris, googling an author you've never read, from a very long time ago, for a particular passage is ... shall we say ... not the deepest way to understand his teaching? |
| Posted by: anon MDiv 2004-2-12 5:07:45 PM |
| #28 Go Aris! Raise Hell! Okay.. NMM, Murat, AntiWar, Mr.Muck... examine Aris and learn from a pro. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-2-12 4:46:53 PM |
| #27 Those wrongly applied executions probably kill far more innocent people than the ones who happen to be killed during the rare cases where a lifer manages to escape from jail. And your evidence for this is, what, exactly? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-2-12 3:32:49 PM |
| #26 Old Patriot> Those who think differently are deluded into believing either in "rehabilitation", or that by locking someone up they can absolutely guarantee they will never harm another. Both have been proven fallacious so often the entire idea is ridiculous. It has also been proven fallacious the idea that there don't exist serious miscarriages of justice. Those wrongly applied executions probably kill far more innocent people than the ones who happen to be killed during the rare cases where a lifer manages to escape from jail. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-2-12 3:08:43 PM |
| #25 Hmm... Origen's comments in book VII, Chapter 26 of his "Contra Celsus" seem very ambiguous to me. He writes: "For Christians could not slay their enemies, or condemn to be burned or stoned, as Moses commands, those who had broken the law, and were therefore condemned as deserving of these punishments; since the Jews themselves, however desirous of carrying out their law, are not able to inflict these punishments. But in the case of the ancient Jews, who had a land and a form of government of their own, to take from them the right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country, of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to subject them to sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them; for their very laws would in that case restrain them, and prevent them from resisting the enemy. " But he then follows this up with an indication that God didn't want that Jewish state to any longer exist or any of the things that it used to follow -- and he says that "all the devices of men against Christians have been brought to sought; for the more that kings, and rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more they have increased in number and grown in strength." This whole passage indicates to me that Origen felt the death penalty to be a thing of the past, as dead as the jewish state was during the time of his writing -- and unnecessary as the Christians can't be hindered by the punishments of their enemies, in contrast to Israel who (he felt) needed death penalty in order to survive. Or so I take it to mean, anyway. Opinions may differ. Still haven't checked up on Ignatius. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-2-12 3:03:13 PM |
| #24 Valentine, you ignorant twit, Jesus supposedly said "Whoever has no sin, let them cast the first stone" in an execution case which would have been quite clear-cut lawful under Mosaic law. And ofcourse he also stopped his followers from using violence even in a matter of clear self-defense, when he said "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" and stopped Peter from defending him. And Valentine, who said anything about Moses' commandment? I'm talking about Christian teachings here, not Judaic ones. anon MDiv> I haven't read Origen and Ignatius, but I thought that both of them condemned Christian participation in death penalty -- I will try to google for more info. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-2-12 2:43:52 PM |
| #23 Any person has the God-given right to live free of fear. Those who threaten, those who instill fear, threaten the basis of all laws. They are tyrants, and must be removed from society. Once a certain level of tyranny has been reached, the only sure way of removing them from society, and guaranteeing that they will no longer harm others, is through execution. Dead men cannot harm others. This is the sole legal basis for a death penalty, and at the same time the absolute moral justification for it. Those who think differently are deluded into believing either in "rehabilitation", or that by locking someone up they can absolutely guarantee they will never harm another. Both have been proven fallacious so often the entire idea is ridiculous. Hang the bas$$$$ from one of his own statues, if any of them still stand. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-2-12 2:35:39 PM |
| #22 Aris you obsfucating twit, the Catholic Church and for that matter most of the rest of the Christian denominations did many arguments about this for a long time, what they determined was that the commandement in question comes down to saying "You shall not murder". There is a major difference between killing and murdering. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2004-2-12 2:11:08 PM |
| #21 The good Russian Orthodox priest whose site you reference does not quote the early church in full, Aris. He omits, for instance, "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword", but also the writings of Origen and Ignatius both on this topic. The one Western theologian he cites is not considered one of the influential Fathers of the Church. But if we go, for instance, to Tertulllian (who is) we will find a rather different message. I am not saying that there isn't a case to be made against the death penalty. I *am* saying that you have not made it, at least for Christians. Not surprising, since you say you yourself aren't one. (smile) |
| Posted by: anon MDiv 2004-2-12 10:25:22 AM |
| #20 Any caveats or conditions? |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2004-2-12 10:00:43 AM |
| #19 I don't believe in abortion. |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-2-12 9:49:05 AM |
| #18 Saddam has the same right to life as anyone. What are your thoughts on abortion, Antiwar? |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2004-2-12 9:30:29 AM |
| #17 "Wow, Aris, you're such a hardass. When I kill 500,000 I want you as my judge. SR" Actually in the vast majority of the democratic world, whether I was your judge or not wouldn't have much difference since the death penalty is outlawed one way or another. We are talking legislation and politics here, not judicial decisions. :-) And actually, personally, I can make an exception for dictators regardless of number of people killed or not. As long as its their own formerly oppressed nation that chooses to kill them. anon MDiv> I should have probably said "early" Christianity, rather than "traditional". Once it got turned into a state religion, Christianity's message started getting compromised -- and the absolute opposition towards the death penalty was the first thing to go, it seems. http://www.stjohndc.org/stjohndc/English/Command/9205.htm |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-2-12 9:11:12 AM |
| #16 OTOH, I'm not awake enough to click on the right button to correct my typing errors. LOL - off to find some caffeine. |
| Posted by: anon MDiv 2004-2-12 9:07:14 AM |
| #15 Saddam has the same right to life as anyone. Because he executed does not deny that fact. He was wrong to execute all those people. To kill is immoral.He commited a heinous crime by his taking of life,but it would be equally immoral for his life to be taken. |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-2-12 9:05:57 AM |
| #14 Aris, I'm sorry - you are simply wrong about the position of "tradition Christianity" on the death penalty. While there have been exceptions, most church authorities acknowledge the right of the state to administer justice, up to and including death for heinous crimes. As far as I'm concerned, Saddam's torture chambers quality as heinous crimes for which he has not repented. As to my right to comment on this matter, I was raised and Chrismated in the Orthodox church and have read the eastern Church Fathers carefully. As an adult I was trained to be an Episcopal priest and have read both the Roman and Protestant theologians as well. This forum is not the place for me to quote 2000 years of theology on the authority of the state or on civil (as opposed to ecclesiastical) justice. But if you are really interested in the topic, email me at the address provided and I'll respond privately. |
| Posted by: anon MDiv 2004-2-12 8:52:30 AM |
| #13 Antiwar,the death penalty for a maniacal tryant, who will benefit from due process of law, is not the same as the penalty imposed on those tortured and then executed on the whim of this man and his lawless regime. The difference between the application of justice under the law and out-and-out mayhem and murder shouldn't be too hard for even you to grasp. |
| Posted by: GK 2004-2-12 8:46:32 AM |
| #12 Jackal, you are indeed a hypocrite. |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-2-12 8:44:53 AM |
| #11 Oh, Good Lord. I suppose that you thought that Goering should not have been given the death penalty, either? To show mercy to a murderer is an insult to his victims. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2004-2-12 8:33:56 AM |
| #10 I am also anti-Death penalty -- but I can also definitely make an exception for people with more than a million deaths in their hands. Wow, Aris, you're such a hardass. When I kill 500,000 I want you as my judge. SR |
| Posted by: Steve YAO 2004-2-12 8:29:46 AM |
| #9 Right so it's ok (by the communal braincrew) to execute Saddam but wasn't for him to execute?? HYPOCRITES TALKING. |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-2-12 8:22:43 AM |
| #8 From the Christian angle, Antiwar is ofcourse completely correct -- christianity (traditional christianity atleast) forbids the death penalty, no ifs and buts. Vengeance is left to God's authority alone, not Man's. That's a religious argument which can't really bear dispute either on a logical or an emotional basis, given how it's a matter of faith alone. -- As for me, though I don't consider myself a Christian, I am also anti-Death penalty -- but I can also definitely make an exception for people with more than a million deaths in their hands. Saddam should be killed, in a decision made by an Iraqi court. And I don't think you'll find that many "Euros" strongly objecting to that. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-2-12 8:15:14 AM |
| #7 "So why then should Saddam be executed" Several million Iraqi,Kuwaiti,and Irainian dead scream from the grave for his death. Take your head out of the sand,clean the blood off your rose colored glasses,and pay attention. Some people deserve nothing less that death! |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-2-12 7:54:31 AM |
| #6 "So why then should Saddam be executed" Several million Iraqi,Kuwaiti,and Irainian dead scream from the grave for his death. Take your head out of the sand,clean the blood off your rose colored glasses,and pay attention. Some people deserve nothing less that death! |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-2-12 7:54:29 AM |
| #5 So why then should Saddam be executed. Anyone still doubt that Antiwar is fu&ked up? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-2-12 7:22:40 AM |
| #4 Killing is never right not for Saddam not for anyone.Executing Saddam Hussein will not bring back those he executed anyway America has the death penalty should we execute Bush for executing people on death row? i expect your answer is no. So why then should Saddam be executed.God said only he has the right to take human life and who knows better God or you? |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-2-12 6:38:50 AM |
| #3 Shouldn't be executed? And what pray tell shall we do? Give him a life sentence in a cushy cell somewhere where people can rant and rave about freeing him cuz he wasn't all that bad (your own words here antiwar) all the time, or perhaps letting him have a chance to become a martyr? Or perhaps you just don't want the Iraqis to get their own justice seeing as how it was them that he killed? |
| Posted by: Valentine 2004-2-12 6:16:19 AM |
| #2 Saddam should be tried of course but he should not be executed as if he is how can we condemn him for executing.Besides retribution does not solve anything an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-2-12 5:46:18 AM |
| #1 Can he be tried for NOT defending his country, or doing his job? For not participating in hostilities, and instead hiding in a septic tank somewhere? |
| Posted by: Ben 2004-2-12 5:24:37 AM |