Saddam hangs

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

The smartest thing any government can do is seperate church and state. The entire middle east is governed by some sort of theocracy, and It's a dead end concept.

I'm curious to see how the new government in Iraq evolves...

It could follow the more egypt-esque style government, or go straight to the constitutional theocracy that Iran has. I'm really pulling for the former.

The middle east is run by crooks of Benny Hinn caliber. They break more Islamic law in a day than most people do in a life time. There are a gazillion princes, most of whom spend lots of money boozing up and chasing women. Their moral compass pointed at the direction of self preservation and that's just the way our government likes it.

As for Egypt, well, what a shit hole it is. I have lived their for bit and let me tell you, the poor are very poor and the rich are very rich and the gap is getting wider. Bribery is a common theme in most transactions not to mention the fact that Egypt has had two presidents in the last 37 years. The current president, Hosni Mubarak, being in office for 26 years.

Oh and there was a recent scandal were Mubarak tried to "pass" the presidency to his son. Kinda easy thing to do when your party controls the government and you have been scratching balls all your life. The least the party could do is massage your son's balls just a tad bit. One thing is definitely clear though and that is Mubarak is very clever and knows how to scratch American balls. God help anyone modeling their government after Egypt.

[railcon56]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I meant it in a moral way of speaking, I'm not trying to get all religious because believe me, I'm about as non-religious as you can get.

I just don't think killing in any manner should be justified.

I agree with you Matty... I think killing them also lets them off the hook.. keeping a killer in an 8 ft cell forever never seeing daylight is far crueler...But to me killing is killing ....And I just can't see legalized killing or murder.... But I have no sympathy for sadam's soul....

[railcon56]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Another point that hasn't been mentioned is that, as long as Saddam remained alive and in prison, he would be a rallying point for his supporters and would remain a threat to return.

That's why I can maybe understand hanging his ass so quickly as an exception...

[Hog1]

I would waste no more thought or space in my head. He gave no quarter, and recieved none. fair deal

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Thirdly, I'm all for capital punishment. I'm not interested in paying taxes to feed death row inmates here in the states for the rest of their lives.

I'm a few days late on this one, so someone else probably already said it, but it actually costs more on average to execute someone than it does to keep them locked up for the rest of their life (mainly because of the extensive appeals process).

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by BigSKINBauer

It costs a lot more to execute someone than it does to keep them in jail for a lifetime

I should have known someone like the BSB would have been all over that one.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by railcon56

I agree with you Matty... I think killing them also lets them off the hook.. keeping a killer in an 8 ft cell forever never seeing daylight is far crueler...But to me killing is killing ....And I just can't see legalized killing or murder.... But I have no sympathy for sadam's soul....

I'm honestly not trying to crack open the proverbial "Can O' Worms" here, but what do you (and/or Matty) think about killing purely in self defense of yourself or your family?

I'm really just curious if when you say that no killing should be legalized, do you include killing out of self defense? In no way am I relating the Hussein execution to self-defense, this is just a separate but related question.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mheisig

I'm honestly not trying to crack open the proverbial "Can O' Worms" here, but what do you (and/or Matty) think about killing purely in self defense of yourself or your family?

I'm really just curious if when you say that no killing should be legalized, do you include killing out of self defense? In no way am I relating the Hussein execution to self-defense, this is just a separate but related question.

I hear this line of questioning and argument all the time. Self preservation is in the fabric of our being. If it came down to you or my family and I going six feet under you best say your prayers son. State sanctioned killing and killing in the process of defending ones self are mutually exclusive. I mean what's the rational behind state sanctioned killing besides saving the state inmate related expenses (which by the way can be recouped and then some if inmates were forced to work)?

[Hog1]

Unfortunately, our system is so F'd up, you cannot force them to work. Additionally, private companies have sued the prison system because of displaced jobs in the private sector being taken by the prison system. Hmmmmmmmmmmm, wonder whats wrong with this pic?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I hear this line of questioning and argument all the time. Self preservation is in the fabric of our being. If it came down to you or my family and I going six feet under you best say your prayers son. State sanctioned killing and killing in the process of defending ones self are mutually exclusive. I mean what's the rational behind state sanctioned killing besides saving the state inmate related expenses (which by the way can be recouped and then some if inmates were forced to work)?

If killing in self-defense is justified for the individual then it is also justified for the state as our corporate being. The state is us and we are the state, and attacks upon our corporate being are, in fact, attacks upon us individually regardless of whether those attacks are from external threats or from internal ones.

State sanctioned killing has always been a form of civil self-defense. In a war this is fairly obvious - for example, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a pretty clear cut indication that we needed to kill in order to defend our corporate being. Similarly, killing those who attack the social fabric, through the murder of other members of the society, could be seen as a form of societal self-defense. Both by permanently removing those who attack that society and by deterring others from the same, the State asks to secure the safety of its members (yes, I know - because it is so abused and arbitrary in its application, the death penalty as currently practiced in the US has practically no deterrent effect. I suggest to you, however, that a swift and consistent execution of those found guilty of first degree murder would indeed have deterrent value. It would also be damn bloody).

Just so you know, I generally oppose the death penalty for a host of different reasons (both from an ethical and practical point of view) but believe that, as someone has said before, legitimate, reasonable arguments exist on both sides of the fence.

Unfortunately, this is one of those topics that generally causes reason to head out the door (the discussion so far has been amazingly level-headed, congrats to all for not letting it degenerate).

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by saden1

I hear this line of questioning and argument all the time. Self preservation is in the fabric of our being. If it came down to you or my family and I going six feet under you best say your prayers son. State sanctioned killing and killing in the process of defending ones self are mutually exclusive. I mean what's the rational behind state sanctioned killing besides saving the state inmate related expenses (which by the way can be recouped and then some if inmates were forced to work)?

I wouldn't say they are mutually exclusive. I think JoeRedskin explained quite eloquently how the two are related.

Even though I support the death penalty, I would draw a distinction between self defense carried out under exigent circumstances and defense of the State by carrying out the death penalty.

Self defense taken against a present threat posing imminent danger to myself or others would be something like a guy busting down my door and waving a gun at my family or, in my line of work, someone pulling a gun on me at a traffic stop. I've never heard someone argue against killing in that situation, unless they are a true pacifist.

I think you could argue that execution is done in defense of the country, but it's not done to eliminate an imminent threat. Once the person is behind bars the immediate danger is eliminated. Defense of the country in cases like our response to Pearl Harbor is certainly self defense, and certainly done to face an imminent threat.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Just gotta post my two cents on capital punishment:

1. The government should NEVER have the power to kill it's own people -- too much power for the gov't.

2. People make mistakes. Therefore, it will always be possible to execute an innocent man. How can anyone argue FOR capital punishment when innocent men will die? Simple -- you just can't.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Let me go on the record and say I think we, America, executed Saddam.
Yes, he was hung in Iraq by Iraqis, but his blood is on our hands.

And 25 Million people in Iraq thank us.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Buster

And 25 Million people in Iraq thank us.

Hahaha, I must be reading the wrong things because those Iraqis still seem pretty mad at us to me.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Just gotta post my two cents on capital punishment:

1. The government should NEVER have the power to kill it's own people -- too much power for the gov't.

2. People make mistakes. Therefore, it will always be possible to execute an innocent man. How can anyone argue FOR capital punishment when innocent men will die? Simple -- you just can't.

Our current system is a joke. What is your suggestion?