text:
I was promised a recession.
Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.
Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.
Accountability, motherfuckers.
Usually wrong but never in doubt
When I decide to be condescending, you won't have to dream up a fantasy about it.
We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let's win this.
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Hanging Saddam
Hanging Saddam
by John Cole | December 29, 2006 10:59 am | 263 Comments
This post is in: Foreign Affairs, War
The NY Times:
The important question was never really about whether Saddam Hussein was guilty of crimes against humanity. The public record is bulging with the lengthy litany of his vile and unforgivable atrocities: genocidal assaults against the Kurds; aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait; use of internationally banned weapons like nerve gas; systematic torture of countless thousands of political prisoners.
What really mattered was whether an Iraq freed from his death grip could hold him accountable in a way that nurtured hope for a better future. A carefully conducted, scrupulously fair trial could have helped undo some of the damage inflicted by his rule. It could have set a precedent for the rule of law in a country scarred by decades of arbitrary vindictiveness. It could have fostered a new national unity in an Iraq long manipulated through its religious and ethnic divisions.
It could have, but it didn't. After a flawed, politicized and divisive trial, Mr. Hussein was handed his sentence: death by hanging. This week, in a cursory 15-minute proceeding, an appeals court upheld that sentence and ordered that it be carried out posthaste. Most Iraqis are now so preoccupied with shielding their families from looming civil war that they seem to have little emotion left to spend on Mr. Hussein or, more important, on their own fading dreams of a new and better Iraq.
What might have been a watershed now seems another lost opportunity. After nearly four years of war and thousands of American and Iraqi deaths, it is ever harder to be sure whether anything fundamental has changed for the better in Iraq.
I don't know whether it will change anything, and I do not question Hussein's guilt, regardless what kind of trial he may or may not have had. I think that is the only absolute truth that surrounds this whole mess in Iraq- any way you cut it, Hussein was a murderous thug. NBC is reporting that Hussein will be dead by Sunday, and I am under no illusion that his execution will solve any problems in Iraq, although it may ease the minds of his many victims. Perhaps a public or televised execution would serve that end.
Finally, even though I know he is guilty, and deserves to die, I still can not help but look at the pictures of the gallows and get a chill. There is something so final, so irreversible, so barbaric and primitive about capital punishment (in particular, hanging) that I still can not embrace it, even for scum like Hussein. Advocates of capital punishment will tell you that the finality and the barbaric aspect of the act are features, not bugs.
I am not so sure.
Previous Post: « Don't Worry About The Polar Bears
Next Post: I Think We're A Clone Now »
Zifnab
If its happening in Iraq, I think the operative assumption is that things can only get work.
ThymeZone
My thinking is, if it doesn't clearly and absolutely promise to make things better in Iraq, why do it? Why do anything there that is not a slam dunk to serve our interests there?
Since we obviously don't know what the effect will be — only yesterday I heard that the Decider/Rancher was "concerned" about Iraq reaction to the hanging — why the fuck would we be doing it? Have the potatoheads no concept that continuing to do whatever we want in Iraq is not a great idea, as proven by the current "grave" state of affairs there?
It's a boneheaded theatrical stunt, which may endanger our troops and put yet another nail in the coffin of our adventure there. So naturally, we're all for it.
On a principled level, it's (the sham trial) outrageous, on a personal level, it's Saddam, so who cares. At any rate, a sham trial leading to an execution doesn't seem like the greatest step forward in building a democracy.
Punchy
Mr. Cole….your apparent Pecksniffian obtuseness vis-a-vis capital punishment has now completely disqualified you from returning to the ranks of the Dark Side. Vilification by Red State forthcoming.
If anything, your vertiginous treatises on the subject has inculcated me into believing you've actually finally evolved into a progressive.
Say it with me: it's OK to be liberal. Repeat as necessary.
DoubtingThomas
Thank you John Cole. It is barbaric. It's a mark of your honor that you see the inhumanity and lack of Christianity in the Death Penalty. Would that our Christian nation agreed with you!
I have always been against the death penalty. I simply do not understand why the libertarian/conservatives both embrace it, because you would think that those who would want to limit the power and scope of government would recognize that the most powerful thing a government can do is take your life. In fact, many of the coherent arguments for gun ownership center around protecting yourself from a number of things, the government included.
At any rate, this is no new development. I have always been against the death penalty for a number of reasons.
Salty Party Snax
The Bushies, desperately in need of a new distraction, are bringing back the public hanging.
What are the odds you'll be able to view this celebrity execution on the internet an hour after it happens? Pretty good, right?
Barbaric is a strong word. I have no trouble with the concept that some people should be dead. Some offenses are so egregious and some people so irredeemable that I think the world is unquestionably a better place without them in it.
That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I think we're a worse society if we choose to take people's lives, both because of what it says about us that we're willing to kill and because of the complete inability to undo it in case of a mistake. Maybe most significantly, I think it says something about us when we decide that the risk of killing even one innocent person isn't enough reason not to put 999 other unquestionably guilty people to death.
In Hussein's case I wonder if a death sentence isn't a favor; a power-loving and arrogant person like that would suffer far more stuffed in a hole for the remainder of his natural life.
Newport 9
I'm with Punchy on this one. You don't believe in capital punishment, you don't believe in abolishing habeas corpus, you don't believe in warrantless wiretapping, you don't believe in creationism, you don't believe in deficit spending, and you don't believe in handing out billion-dollar no-bid contracts to high-level cronies.
You, Mr. Cole, are no conservative!
Since we obviously don't know what the effect will be—only yesterday I heard that the Decider/Rancher was "concerned" about Iraq reaction to the hanging—why the fuck would we be doing it?
As far as I know, we're not doing it. We have physical custody of Saddam, but it was an Iraqi trial, and it's going to be an Iraqi execution.
Unless we're prepared to advertise to the world that we see the Iraqi government as a sham with no sovereignty whatsoever, which I think would have bad consequences of its own, I don't see that the execution is up to us.
When this hits YouTube, I think a whole lot of people are going to be looking at the death penalty differently.
Well, neither does any true conservative.
What are the odds you'll be able to view this celebrity execution on the internet an hour after it happens?
Pretty good, yes. If we get lucky (speaking as an opponent of the death penalty) this will pave the way for all executions to be made public. I can't think of a good argument why they should not be public, if they represent some general decision our society has made. Currently the view seems to be that while executions are good overall for a society, it would be too degrading for any but a few to watch. This makes no sense. Just as taking a tour through a slaughter house is enough to make some people vegetarians, I think public executions might be enough to turn people against the death penalty.
I have always been against the death penalty. I simply do not understand why the libertarian/conservatives both embrace it, because you would think that those who would want to limit the power and scope of government would recognize that the most powerful thing a government can do is take your life.
That's because only criminals are executed, not real people.
I simply do not understand why the libertarian/conservatives both embrace it,
I think it's the whole "eye fer an eye" thing. In addition, it appeals to those who demand the guilty take personal "responsibility" for their actions, and the most extreme way to do so is to give one's life.
Those two attributes are most certainly conservative ideals, and therefore (I believe) underscore the support capital punishment has amongst true liberterians and conservsatives. Most of us sane and reasnonable folk recognize a lot of grey involved (and false convictions), and thus reject such simpletonian arguments.
The world already knows that the Iraqi government is an American sock puppet with no sovereignty whatsoever, what difference does it make if we add one more piece of evidence to the overwhelming stack which already exists?
"No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
"Angus MacPherson likes sugar on his porridge!"
"Then Angus MacPherson is no true Scotsman."
Gold Star for Robot Boy
My problem with the death penalty always has been its unequal application. Race and class go a long, long way in determining a defendant's punishment; he severity of the crime, less so.
Saddam, he deserves death, sure. But this trial really didn't strike me as Nuremberg v2.0, and that's not good.
p.lukasiak
what interests me about this story is the haste in which the execution is being carried out — there is a sense of "hurry up and just kill him", in a way that I think denies many of his victims the kind of closure they need. Saddam was guilty of a great deal more that the few crimes that he was convicted of, and this hurried execution seems to sweep them under the rug….
….and also helps sweep under the rug US complicity in those crimes. (
Tony J
And it is – of course – only a convenient coincidence that Saddam's speedy execution for killing 148 Shia at Dijail will put an end to speculation about what he might or might not say if he were alive to take the stand in his ongoing trial for killing thousands of Kurds at Halabja.
After all, it's not like anyone has ever suggested that the Bush Administration never intended to allow a live Saddam to talk about the assistance he recieved from his friends in the Reagan Administration, is it?
Colour me shocked and awed by the predictability of this shower of pricks.
…death penalty. I simply do not understand why the libertarian/conservatives both embrace it
They embrace it so the real american tough guy Jack Bauer fans in the heartland will support their candidates. Play to your target audience, if they think this is a tough no nonsense approach to crime then let them have their illusions while you take their vote and enrich the people you really work for.
Right, we have no power or influence over the Iraqi government at all. How silly of me.
That American prison they're keeping him in? Ignore it.
My point is that the Iraq "government" is going to be doing whatever we think it should be doing. The fact that it is wasting its time and energy on this circus and can't otherwise govern its country is an indication of how effective this US-Iraq alliance is.
If they could keep their streets safe and their electricity on, we and the Iraqis would be a hell of a lot better off.
Are we so powerless there that we couldn't tell them to focus on what matters right now, or we are going to leave them to their blizzard of car bombs and mass killings?
If we are, then we should pull out every American solider today. Fuck them and their stupid fucking country.
HankP
There are two main reasons why the Iraqi government is pushing this through so quickly:
1. It increases the apparent authority of the state to intimidate it's opponents. Let's face it, they need every scrap of authority they can gain right now, by any means.
2. It ensures that a lot of information that is embarassing to people within and outside of Iraq will never be heard.
I can understand situations where the immediate execution of a person is required, but not when they are held securely and are not a threat to anyone. I will never understand the glee and general bloodthirstiness of those who advocate for the death penalty.
Yet by pushing forward without Sunni acceptance, the Bush team failed to produce the national accord it sought among Iraq's three main groups, leaving a schism that could loom beyond Thursday's election. And the Sunni-powered insurgency that was supposed to be marginalized by an inclusive democracy remains as lethal as ever.
That's WaPo, from a year ago. The American hand on the Iraq government steering wheel has produced nothing but a giant clusterfuck. This execution circus is ver likely to be just another in the endless series of Oh Shits that we've pulled, or caused to be pulled, there for four years now.
This is the rampant speculation. That he's about to sing like a canary at this ongoing trial. Not that the Bush Team wouldn't just label him a liar, etc.
The Kurds get the raw end here. They never do get the closure that a guilty verdict in the gassing trial would/could bring. Imagine that–the Bush team screwing someone over. Surprise.
Can't we just contain him in some sort of plastic, metal-less prison so that he can't use his superpowers?
philv
Iraq's tribal culture is still very much in evidence. Saddam"s death will just lead to more revenge killing. Expect a real shit storm.
fingerhose
I don't understand all this concern for Saddam. He's scum, filth, does not deserve to be on this earth. With all the killings he's perpetrated over the years, I think hanging's too kind. I hope the rope breaks and he slowly strangles to death. Really the should gas him, or throw him in the public square and let the Iraqi's tear him to pieces. I don't understand all this bleeding heart concern for him.
I'm looking forward to the video on the internet, I'm gonna watch it in slow motion.
I don't think that Cole is opposed to making Saddam Hussein dead, but rather with the death penalty in general. I don't think that there's a lot of disagreement that Hussein's a Really Bad Guy, and that he deserves death. The question that I hear Cole raising is whether we lower ourselves into barbarism to give it to him, no matter how well deserved.
That's a subtly different question. John and I disagree on it, but I don't think that society would be hurt if I were right and his position "won". I *do* think that society would be harmed if he were right and my position "won". That would lead a conservative to conclude that we should not use the death penalty, in order to minimize the risk of unintended consequences.
For those who dream of a unified, secular Iraq, here's reality for you: those fantasies will choke their last breath when Saddam does.
Best of luck with that.
Tsulagi
I'll go against the general flow here and say Saddam is getting a fitting ending to his life.
His trial was a sham. Defense attorneys were murdered, but keep it moving. A judge allowing more of a defense than people liked, get rid of that judge and keep the same trial going with another judge. The trial was a joke, but I guess it mirrored the new Republican standard of justice in their vision of democracy.
But still, without getting into a long debate on capital punishment, Saddam is responsible for the torture and murder of Iraqi men, women, and children. My family is big on personal responsibility. If you decide to arbitrarily take a life, then be prepared to forfeit your own and accept the decision will not be yours to make.
As orchestrated as his trial was and the sentence virtually sealed in advance, at least the trial was conducted by Iraqis and he will be executed by Iraqis. He is in Iraqi custody now. It should be their call, not ours. If their Iraqi constitution ruled out capital punishment, I'd be fine with that. Again, their call.
But yeah, I'm not so naïve to think we haven't been pushing it along. Plus, the timing of his execution does seem to play favorably for the administration. After a trial that took months and months, get him to the gallows right now. In another week or so when we learn the Decider while on vacation has carefully come to the decision to "surge," I can almost hear the slogan and line: Saddam is dead and it's time for a New Move Forward. It'll be another bowel movement from the dipshit.
sigmund, carl and alfred
What would you have done, Mr Cole, had Adolph Hitler not committed suicide?
Would you 'feel' that it would be better if he were imprisoned? Would you have 'felt' better if there were a trial, whereby he might defend his own evil? Would it have made you 'feel' better that Hitler might have been allowed a platform to publicly present his hate, camouflaged as scientific or legitimate, and then be sentenced to life?
This may come as shock, Mr Cole, but there are absolutes- real absolutes. Sometimes, evil must be extinguished.
Keeping Saddam alive would be no different than keeping Hitler alive. Each would have become icon, a saint and rallying point for purveyors of evil. Notwithstanding his death over a half century ago, Hitler still serves as an icon for sick and demented individuals. Saddam will be an icon too, for those who hate.
Your self centered 'nobility' in opposing the death penalty for Saddam points to no added credibility in this particular argument. If anything, that admission puts you into conflict with more far recognized and respected moral authorities- Elie Weisel immediately comes to mind.
In any event, the self serving pompous liberal ideology that somehow, 'justice' for Saddam would be served if he were not executed, is absurd. He is not a common criminal anymore than Adolph Hitler was. Saddam remains the embodiment of evil. His crimes were not committed out of some self serving need or moment of passion. His crimes were a direct extension of the evil and hate he espoused and implemented. How nice that your 'feelings' trump the reality that even more hate might be propagated by others embracing and celebrating evil.
I suppose it is true your 'feelings' of self esteem might be fortified by the 'nobility' of your ideas. That said, if you considered the brutal loss of any of your family- the only meaningful way to comprehend the 50 million dead souls that can be attributed to Adolph Hitler at the hand of the Nazis, for example, you might want to ask yourself how, when the time comes, you will explain explain to them why keeping Hitler, et al, alive, served mankind.
By the way, to be clear, I am in opposition to the death penalty for criminals.
Nevertheless, evil isn't crime and evil isn't self serving.
Death, even for those most evil, is a sobering and meaningful event. Death is not administered as lightly, even for evil. Still, we are obligated to remove evil from our midst. We are obligated to rid ourselves of the virus that will kill us all. That kind of Justice does not only serve God's laws and Dominion- that kind of Justice serves us even more.
Cancers of hate must be excised. The cost of not doing just that is too great to comprehend.
I hope these truths penetrates your 'feelings' and consciousness.
Are you kidding me? Why does everything have to be a consipracy with you liberals. So Bush is putting Saddam to death because he might "sing like a canary".
That mass murder is a liar as well. I mean come on, you could take anything that comes out of scummy mouth seriously? I know your hatred for Bush is so deep, but taking the word of a mass murderer over our President? I don't know where to laugh or vomit.
The US and the world will be safer with this scum gone. Deal with it.
OJ Simpson got a fair trial, but it's pretty hard to find people who believe justice was done.
Nicolai Causeceu (sp?) did not get a fair trail, but most of the world, and damned near every Romanian, believes justice was done.
I'm not going to sweat Saddam's fate. Sometimes courts get the right answer and sometimes they don't. The process is important, but it isn't paramount.
Are you kidding me? Why does everything have to be a consipracy with you liberals.
Are you kidding me? How many people here have suggested the putative conspiracy?
Such moral clarity is certainly worthy of repeating. Such insight is surely the product of mills which grind exceeding fine; we have surely not seen the like outside the deciderator hisself, and surely his example in Iraq is one that all should be proud to follow.
Principles get in the way of indulging one's emotions, which is a much more reliable way to consistently reach an audience that has no time or inclination to actually think about important issues, but plenty of time to register their feelings about them (along with their feelings about reality shows, sports teams, etc.).
You're letting your Bush love get in the way of objective reasoning. Think about this: we armed him and are now helping put him to death for using the weapons we gave him. Facts don't hate or love.
If you think Saddam was a danger to the world you are exactly the kind of person Bush is looking to for support. Saddam was a third rate dictator who had been effectively starved for fifteen years before we declared he was an enemy to the world and over threw him (with minimal effort BTW) He was no danger, he was just in the way so we inflated his id. I understand your initial reaction to the words written or spoken by liberals, its natural to take sides, just don't assume the words of your chosen leaders are free from bias or spin.
I think I need a do-over.
It'll be another bowel movement from the dipshit.
While true, this must be nominated for Unfortunate Word Picture of the Day.
but taking the word of a mass murderer over our President
Yes, GW has been far, far more accurate in his predictions for Iraq than Saddam has.
Please enlighten us, in detail, as to how Saddams passing will make Iraq safer. We like to document stupidity here, so we can rub your nose in it next year.
The first quote above is from here. I don't know why it wouldn't link above but I hope it works this time.
Nothing like a nice execution to get the connies all worked up. Big run on Depends down at the Fox News Pharmacy today I'll bet.
I fondly remember the breathless presser they held the day they captured Saddam.
"We got him!"
Wow. I remember thinking, so the fuck what?
Here we are three years later … and so the fuck what?
Absolutely nothing about Iraq has gotten anything but worse.
I can't wait for the next big breathless announcement from the Idiots In Charge.
That's probably what the Romans thought a couple of thousand years ago, to use a bit of heartland phrasing. But really, is Saddam a danger right now? As Andrew observes, his mutant powers have been contained for many months now.
Punchy,
How's that for quick confirmation?
TonyJ
Tinfoil hats Unite!
Wow, you're such a poet. You are wasting your talent posting here. Too bad Saddam won't be around to read your beautiful prose.
How many people here
That's around ten percent according to my quick count.
Right around what Bush's approval rating is headed for.
Too bad Saddam won't be around to read your beautiful prose.
Why do you care if he's around to read what I write? I mean, if it will make you feel better, you should feel free to send him a letter containing it (under your own name and signature, of course). I'll be glad to release copyright to that extent.
You are wasting your talent posting here
Oh, we all are, FingerNose. We all are. You don't know the half of it.
Your sarcasm speaks volumes.
One less terrorist with a ton of money in the world? How could it not make the world safer.
mrmobi
Vomiting would be the better choice, but not because Bush is credible in any way. Those of you who will watch the hanging "in slow motion" might want to consider that what you are watching is not an execution, but the inexorable loss of your own humanity.
You might want to pause from plotting your next "pre-emptive" war to consider that we are not safer in any way with this scum gone. In fact, we have turned the region into a tinderbox.
Personally, I've always been against capital punishment, but I won't shed any tears for Saddam. He's reaping what he has sown. I'll save those tears for the thousands more who will die for no other reason than to preserve the legacy of a President who has no moral compass. They will die and be horribly wounded because he doesn't want to lose.
I don't hate the President any more, I pity him. He has made a catastrophic error and no one has had the balls to tell him it's over, except for the American People, whom he is supposed to serve. Why would he start listening to us now?
If he doesn't change course soon, the GOP is done.
Oh classy.
What are you in the third grade?
Of course, when liberals can't argue facts, the resort to name calling. Typical.
Yeah good job jg. Quote a liberal blogger to back up your point.
As opposed to your boilerplate Limbaughisms?
How could it not make the world safer.
Well, by leaving Iraq alone, contained in its fuckedupness and no particular threat to us, and creating a more stable Middle East not based on an American hegemony and phony-democracy-at-gunpoint? Just for starters. And keeping focus on Afghanistan, the Taliban and OBL.
You know, novel little ideas like that.
You left out a comma. Home schooled, were you?
Haven't you heard? Saddam's mastery of the Power of WMD will allow him to escape the hangman's noose (Iraqi holding cells lack the Kristianite shielding of the more advanced US models) and escape with a melodramatic cackle.
Then the White House will be able to frame The Surge as the last, best hope for ending his Reign of Terror.
Hey, it's only a success that hasn't happened yet.
Yeah, Saddam. The pinnacle of humanity.
Just as taking a tour through a slaughter house is enough to make some people vegetarians, I think public executions might be enough to turn people against the death penalty.
Not so. Read up on what things were like the last time executions were public, back in the 19th Century. They were like circuses. People turned out in droves to watch. Vendors worked the crowds selling snacks, drings, and toy gallows with strawdoll hangmen. Preachers turned out to give impromptu sermons.
It was exactly like any large-crowd event today, right down to the food vendors.
Televising executions will go that route. Trust me. There is no activity, no event, so stomach-turning, so "unfit for prime time," that someone, somewhere, won't show it and make a lot of money doing so.
but I won't shed any tears for Saddam
Nor will I. They could as easily have shot him on the day they found him, would have been fine with me.
The trial and execution are just for show. And if it works out as well as everything else we've done over there, it will be a bad outcome, one way or the other. Do not underestimate the capacity of the US-Iraq Alliance to produce more death and destruction that serves no particular purpose. Just a little concept that you can trace back about 20 years through several Republican administrations.
Well, by leaving Iraq alone, contained in its fuckedupness and no particular threat to us, and creating a more stable Middle East not based on an American hegemony and phony-democracy-at-gunpoint?
You have heard of terrorism. You know, those wonderful people who tore down the world trade center? Have we been attacked since 9/11? No, because we've got the terrorists wrapped up in Iraq.
No a product of our fine, fine public education system.
It strikes me that this is the last chance for the wingnuts to argue that liberals all love Saddam, think he was a great guy, etc. We really shouldn't stop them from unburdening themselves.
If you oppose capital punishment in all cases, you therefore love Saddam, not to mention that hypothetical guy who raped and murdered Kitty Dukakis. Right? Right-wing logic at its finest. Small wonder these people orchestrated such a successful war.
I can't speak for John, but I can speak for myself on that.
Yes, it would have been vastly preferably to take Hitler in to custody and try him, repeatedly, on each and every one of his war crimes. Have him testify in his own defense and give prosecution after prosecution, witness after witness, document after document catologue the horrors he perpetrated to the man's face. Let him live a hundred more years with the shame of it all.
No one was Hitler's friend by the end of 1948. He'd lost another German war, split the country in two, and shattered the last vestiges of his nation with a lost longing for Empire. Even after his death, he's been the poster child for what is wrong with the world. Keeping him alive would keep the memory fresh. I'd absolutely love to hear his take on the American Republican Party, on the Bush Family who gave him early financial support before the war, and on the policies of our modern President.
We've spared Charles Manson from execution, and he's not destroying the country as we know it. I see no disadvantage to keeping Saddam around a few more decades.
Shorter fingerhose:
STFU or I'll just say you luuuurrrvvvee Saddam! I'm a winner, baby! Wooo!! Yeah!!!
Somewhere in Freeperville, it's always 2002.
Have we been attacked since 9/11? No, because we've got the terrorists wrapped up in Iraq.
Uh huh. And it's keeping the evil space aliens away, too.
Did you come to that conclusion after using The Base approved Home Lobotomy Kit, or just get so accustomed to singing it while in the tender embraces of fellow Foley Republicans that the endorphins glazed over your brain?
Keeping Saddam alive would be no different than keeping Hitler alive.
Wow, Goodwin's Law in less than 50 posts. Nice.
As for this:
I know your hatred for Bush is so deep, but taking the word of a mass murderer over our President? I don't know where to laugh or vomit.
That's some DAMN good spoof. I'll give it a A-, and would have upgraded it to an "A" if s/he could have thrown some divisive term like "Dumbocrats" or "Democants" or something.
People turned out in droves to watch. Vendors worked the crowds selling snacks, drings, and toy gallows with strawdoll hangmen.
Jesus. Never mind. Although now that you mention it, I could see the inspiration for a new PSP–no, wait, a Wii game in public executions. Hangman for the 21st century.
spluffer
we've got the terrorists wrapped up in Iraq.
Has GOP4Me been resurrected?
You should have paid more attention then, and now:
No, because we've got the terrorists wrapped up in Iraq.
That is the single most uninformed comment I've read this week. We don't have anybody wrapped up in Iraq except the American Army, which we are in the process of breaking, according to our own Generals.
You should check the news coming out of Afghanistan. It appears we don't have anybody wrapped up there either.
Face it, this policy of pre-emptive war has failed. We have lost Iraq and are in process of losing Afghanistan. When do we stop digging? Clinton managed to keep America from being attacked from 1993 till he left office, without wasting thousands of brave soldiers lives and half a trillion dollars.
Let me ask you a question. Now that we seem to have that whole "flying jet airliners into buildings" thing under control, do you think you could stop pissing yourself long enough to consider a foreign policy that doesn't destroy the armed forces and cause financial collapse?
OK, that sealed it. DougJ? TOS? You had a good thing going, but the hyperbole just killed it. Very enjoyable, however. Made me laugh.
The Other Steve
I still say it would have been better for Hussein to meet the same end as Mussolini. Found one morning hanging from a lamp post.
But this charade of having a trial and executing him reminds me more of the Bolsheviks executing the Romanov's.
nongeophysical Dennis
You have heard of terrorism. You know, those wonderful people who tore down the world trade center? Have we been attacked since 9/11? No, because we've got the terrorists wrapped up in Iraq
Spoof detected. I know ThymeZone had this susssed out, I just thought I'd say it, for the record y'know.
While I don't think it's anything to joke about, the taking of any man's life, it's a solemn duty to execute Saddam. It needs to be shown his heinous crimes are not acceptable in this world, that demise and destruction is a probable outcome of such behavior. There's also a matter of justice, which hanging Saddam once cannot come near to being proper retribution for his crimes against others. Remember the victims, and hang him high.
I hope these Known Truths(tm) penetrates your 'feelings' and consciousness.
Shorter sigmund, carl and alfred: I sound like a spoof.
I know your hatred for Bush is so deep, but taking the word of a mass murderer over our President?
Let's see, one of them is a lying SOB who is still in denial about current realities. The other is Saddam.
Better question to ask yourself, why is Saddam more credible then Bush these days?
Sometimes courts get the right answer and sometimes they don't. The process is important, but it isn't paramount.
So this means you won't object to hearsay and coerced confessions when your trial for treason against Empress Hillary commences shortly then, I take it?
While I don't think it's anything to joke about, the taking of any man's life, it's a solemn duty to execute Saddam *Bush*. It needs to be shown his heinous crimes are not acceptable in this world, that demise and destruction is a probable outcome of such behavior. There's also a matter of justice, which hanging Saddam *Bush* once cannot come near to being proper retribution for his crimes against others. Remember the victims, and hang him high.
I'm sure everyone who agrees that Saddam needs to die can also agree to this, right?
Have we been attacked since 9/11? It's an inconvenient question I know, because you'd have to admit that Bush has done the right thing.
You are absolutely right — Bush's war in Iraq has been absolutely effective in protecting America from Little Green Footballs from Mars.
[New items on top] John Cole cannot embrace the "final, irreversible, barbaric and primitive" capital punishment "even for scum like Hussein." (Balloon Juice)
Mr. Cole just got clowned by Bra and Panties Publishing. They probably didn't mean it, but that's the way it reads. That explains the fresh Red meat here in the last hour or so.
labrat1
WMD's aside, Here's a couple of questions we should all be asking. Was it our fault for installing this monster to fight the iranians? And is it our responsibility fix the mistake at an entire countrys expense? None of this has anything to do with 9/11, any argument to the contrary is utter nonsense.
Andrew writes:
This is not me, by the way. Troubleshooters don't have time for such serious platitudes.
Have we been attacked since 9/11?
9/11, Osama not caught.
Anthrax Mailings, never caught.
Washington Sniper, caught.
Yes, the London bombing in 2005 and the attack on the Madrid bombing in 2004 never happened kids.
The terrorists all moved to Iraq, falling for George Bush's master plan: Operation "America In Range". By giving terrorists a clean, easy shot at American troops right in their own backyard, we keep those nasty insurgents from rising up in Chicago or LA (but not San Fransisco because they deserve to get bombed). And because all the terrorists are in Iraq and none are in the United States, we don't need competant airport security and we should let Dubai run our ports. But, just in case, its important to grill all Congressmen-elect with questions like "Are you a terrorist?" and "Prove to me you aren't not a non-terrorist." If they fail to confess, waterboarding helps.
We live in interesting times.
As pathetically stupid as this question is, it's worth pointing out that it assumes "we" does not include the tens of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq who are being attacked, dozens of times a day. "Oh, but that's different."
"Oh, but that's different."
Soldiers are only American citizens when a Republican needs a talking point to attack a Democrat with.
Yeah that is different, they signed up to protect our country. That is their job.
According to John F. Burns in the 1/23/03 edition of the NY Times, Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the deaths of 200,000 innocent Iraqis.
According to a BBC report released October 11 of this year, an estimated 655,000 Iraqis have met a violent end there since 2003.
FYI. You never let the King get off the ground. Lessons learned from the Peasant Rebellion in England circa 1381.
New Military Times Poll shows that our military people feel pretty much the same about Bush's disastrous handling of our Iraqi disaster as everyone else.
Probably explains the dramatic decline in Silk Pants Georgie photo-ops with our folks in uniform.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-29-poll-iraq_x.htm
It needs to be shown his heinous crimes are not acceptable in this world, that demise and destruction is a probable outcome of such behavior.
While I'm not opposed to the execution of Saddam, I'm really doubtful that any message will be sent to posterity other than that of victor's justice. Does anyone think that once X number of dictators meet a bad end, there will be no more dictators?
That is their job.
Sign on the dotted line to get your bonus and give up any right to be counted as an American citzen if someone kills you.
…and US Soldiers killed every one of them right? Therefore the US killed more than Saddam. You guys have you heads so far up your collective asses, I don't know what to tell you.
Banging my head against your collective liberal bubble is frustrating I'll tell you that. Hopefully one day you'll wake up and realize that the US isn't this big evil giant intent on destroying the world. You're lucky to live in this country, too bad you don't applicate it.
Chimposium
Salty Party Snax Says:
INNOCENT IRAQIS? Am I hearing you correctly? Aren't these the same 'innocent' people who are killing our troops in the name of Allah? Who are leveraging our oil concerns against us? We are responsible for freeing these people from a ruthless madman, and the only thanks we get are IED's and RPG's. Maybe I'm missing your point, but to me there is nothing 'innocent' about any Iraqi.
Fingerhose…is that what the girls call you?
655,000 is a lot of folks, Fingerhose. Whaddaya think, maybe it was bad sushi that got them?
We fight a couple more wars of aggression like this, it might not be such a great country for very long..
Okay, you gotta be a spoof. No one is that retarded even after using their Home Lobotomy Kit then having a permanent Bush smirk to prove their application of the device.
In Suskind's book, The One Percent Doctrine, he wrote that an AQ cell in 2003 was in place to carry out an attack on New York subways that had the potential to cause far more deaths than on 9/11. AQ had developed a way to weaponize cyanide gas. But Zawahiri called off the attack. Administration officials confirmed the account.
We found out about that planned attack well AFTER the fact. Guess Bush and the WH was too busy trying to find new ways to intercept grandma's email and listen in to her calls. (Insert here your dedicated butt boy chorus of "If AQ is calling we want to know about it.") Yep, the admin's vigilance knows no bounds. Of retardation. But damn if we don't have those petting zoos defended!
Why did Zawahiri call off the attack? My guess is that when the team asked for a go, he turned to Osama and might have said…"No way we want to distract the retard from Iraq. Hell, if he works his magic we might even have a Sunni/Shia civil war. Possibly even a failed state that will be a perfect training ground. More resources and much better than AF."
Bush has answered their prayers to Allah and gave them more than they dreamed possible. Mission Accomplished.
I'm without words to describe how much I appreciate your deigning to reaching down from your empyrean heights to bring the light of Truth(TM) and Reason(R) to the poor lumpenproletariat. I assure you that I am hanging on your every word, as I would on the words of the others of your stature with whom I have opportunities to deal.
By the way, I don't understand your use of the word "applicate" in the final sentence in that passage. Would you unbend enough to explain it, oh great sage?
Demi – "Applicate" would seem to be something the gentleman is fond of doing with his fingerhose.
Remember the victims, and hang him high every Saturday night for the next ten years, until he looks like a fucking piece of jerky.
Suggested improvement.
I'm going to pretend you're just ignorant and try to explain this out.
No one is suggesting that US Soldiers killed all 655,000 or that all 655,000 were orphans with kittens that never ever ever raised a finger against the US occupation.
However, the stark truth is that any given Iraqi had a better chance of staying alive under the iron fist of Saddam than under the Freedom Democracy of the United States. Furthermore, that all of Saddam's attrocities during his three decades of rule only racked up one third the head count that three years of US rule has achieved.
Unless you're insinuating at least 2/3rds of the 655,000 dead are members of bin Laden's AQ clone army bent on conquering the US in a hail of downed airliners, one is left to question the wisdom of invading this country in the first place.
Demi,
I love you bro, but if you want to play grammar cop you have to appropriately use the infinitive tense.
fingerhose,
People will take you more seriously if you showed some basic knowledge of the logical fallacies. Try starting with post hoc ergo propter hoc if you're pressed for time. Friendly advice. Using some semblance of modern English will also help make your patronizing stance something less than the amusing joke that it is.
This is interesting.
Accorded to the genius running Homeland Security these days, the ongoing "at large" status of Osama bin Laden is no failure, merely a "success that hasn't occured yet."
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002250.php
Basically, what I'm saying is, did getting Saddam make this worth it? How about this?
Was justice done?
I took a similar risk recently. Sushi in Montana is proportionally more dangerous than sushi in Iraq. Sushi in inner-city Philadelphia is, of course, the most dangerous in the world.
if you want to play grammar cop you have to appropriately use the infinitive tense
I'll bare that in mined in thymes to [omitted for reasons of decency].
Oh, and you missed a comma before the parenthetical "bro".
i care not if the GOP survives or dies.
however, i am extremely interested in my country surviving.
i see GWB as a threat to the country, not some pissant political party.
Am I vulnerable to a tu quoque argument? You bet. Does that discourage me from spreading my message of love and happiness? Not at all. Sometimes you have to go with the comment you have and not the one you wish that you had typed. Commenting is messy.
I'd like someone on the right to address John's query in his first comment on this post:
I simply do not understand why the libertarian/conservatives both embrace it, because you would think that those who would want to limit the power and scope of government would recognize that the most powerful thing a government can do is take your life. In fact, many of the coherent arguments for gun ownership center around protecting yourself from a number of things, the government included.
I've never understood why conservatives/libertarians were okay with this as well. The one thing I've always agreed with them on is that the government rarely is competent at anything yet on the most important issue of life and death we give the government complete trust? Those of us opposed to the death penalty might feel different if we ever saw it applied evenly and fairly. Why do conservatives mistrust the Government on every issue but the death penalty? And why do Christians support it when the very first commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? Maybe a Christian or a conservative out there can enlighten me, cause I've never been able to understand it.
This is one of my pet peeves. To those who drink the Kool-Aid, any criticism is treason. If you criticise, you hate America. HORSESHIT.
Who here is saying the US is an evil giant?
In case you didn't know, it is the duty of citizens to point out mistakes and malfeasance by their government. We just experienced an election in which the vast majority of the voting public said "Get Out of Iraq." The exit polling was clear, most Americans think we are on a disastrous course in Iraq and the war on terror.
People all over the country are waking up to the fact that the Bush administration has been using the war on terror to increase its power. We don't need a government that manipulates intelligence to justify unnecessary wars, that spies on citizens, tortures prisoners, promotes religious belief over science, and can't even respond to a natural disaster with a weeks' notice.
Pay attention in the coming months as some of the worst offenders in this government are summoned before oversight committees. It's called Democracy, and it has been AWOL for five years with Republicans in the majority, but no more.
You don't appreciate America, you take advantage of its' many benefits without any apparent concern for how healthy it is. This democratic experiment is not guaranteed to succeed, and it won't if we allow Bush to do any more damage.
This isn't a liberal bubble. It's a group of people who share a genuine concern for the course our country has taken in the past six years, a few trolls, like yourself, and a blogger who courageously took a stand against his party regarding torture a while back. The bubble is in your head, where America is always right, you're with us or against us, and you have no civil rights if you're dead!
Commenting is messy.
And it's hard work. We need to be able to spread our luv, because we said so. Our commenting is legal, and it's legal because it's not breaking any laws. Commenting is a very vague term after all, how do you define commenting?
I'm sure everyone who agrees that Saddam needs to die can also agree to this
Careful, it's a federal offense to suggest the murder of the President. Really, don't want to see anyone get their thingy caught in the door here.
Threatening a president's life is a violation of US law, and Secret Service agents will show up on the doorsteps of people who, even casually or in jest, make a statement about killing the nation's commander in chief.
My understanding is that in English, infinitives don't have tense. You guys are more like grammar security guards than grammar cops. (This has been a lighthearted contribution to relieve the tension.)
It wasn't always so. It used to be the party of Lincoln.
I'm not sure how much of a threat GWB really is right now. We'll have to see how long it takes him to precipitate a Constitutional crisis. Something tell me that some adults in the party might just stand up in the near future and say, "enough." It's a hope, really.
Here's a link to info about the relevant statute.
Just something to keep in mind as we exercise our right to criticize the little drunk in the White House.
We want regime change in the US, using peaceful and lawful means only.
You guys can laugh all you want, but just to let you know my grammar is dead.
I loved the old girl. If it wasn't for her I'd never have made adulthood.
Careful, it's a federal offense to suggest the murder of the President.
I'm not suggesting that, just a fair trial, conviction, sentencing and execution.
just a fair trial
In front of an activist judge, I hope.
because you would think that those who would want to limit the power and scope of government would recognize that the most powerful thing a government can do is take your life.
They can take our lives, but they will never take our FREEDOM.
(Incidentally, does anyone else think you could play a Fortune Cookie style game with Mel Gibson movies? Instead of appending "in bed" to every line, just add "sugartits." They'll never take our Freedom, sugartits! Spoken to a pack of smelly Scotsmen. Adds something to it, I think.
Shabbazz
You're lucky to live in this country, too bad you don't applicate it.
That's right! You're lucky enough to have flush toilets and little Pomeranian doggies in handbags, so just sit there and SHUT UP! How dare you lib-ruls suggest that any policy set forth by our glorious leader is misguided! Don't you know how luck you are to be able to buy plastic vomit on any street corner?!?
…the only thanks we get are IED's and RPG's. Maybe I'm missing your point, but to me there is nothing 'innocent' about any Iraqi.
Yeah, what's with these people?!? I mean, we start an international war that destroys their country, destroys their infrastructure, kills 650,000 of their people, dislocates hundreds of thousands of refuges — and they're not on their hands and knees singing the praises of the Glorious Freedom Loving Americans?!? The nerve of those people!!!
And why do Christians support it when the very first commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?
Actually, the first commandment is "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me."
"You Shall Not Kill" ranks 6th, right after "Honor Thy Father and Mother", but before "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."
And Michael Moore will press the big red button.
Just so we can watch the hearts of thousands of loyal wingnuts explode in their chests as they watch.
Everybody wins.
Furthermore, that all of Saddam's attrocities during his three decades of rule only racked up one third the head count that three years of US rule has achieved.
Actually, no. If you're going to blame the US for all the deaths resulting from the invasion (not so unreasonable) then you need to blame Saddam for all the deaths in the Iran-Iraq war. Which, according to the very article that the 200,000 number comes from, accounts for another 800,000 dead people or thereabouts.
Glad to take a shot at this.
Libertarians? Who knows why they believe anything? Their whole worldview is a mass of tangled fictions. Probably in this case they see restraint against capital punishment as government interference with simple justice. That's my guess.
Conservatives? Are we talking the old kind, the law and order kind? Question answers itself. It was, and is, a wedge issue for them. It proves that their lust for wedges exceeds their fear of government power, since capital punishment is the ultimate use of government power against its citizens. It also proves how far from any shred of intellectual integrity they have wandered now. The guys who want you to believe that government can't govern also want you to believe that you should give government ultimate power for any damned thing that pops into their heads.
How's that? Did I miss anything?
Not only is that not the "first" commandment, the "thou shalt not kill" interpretation disputed by language scholars, who say the actual translation is "thou shalt not murder".
Traditional translations of this phrase into English have tended to use the word kill. Certain scholars have suggested that this is not the most accurate translation. The key phrase, often translated "to kill" (rasah), began in the twentieth century to be translated "Thou shalt not murder," is seen in newer translations of the Bible such as the New Revised Standard Version. The scholar Terence Fretheim notes, "In view of certain passages (e.g., 1 Kings 21:19) it has been suggested that the verb means murder" (1991, p. 232). He goes on to note that this phrase can refer to unintentional killing (Deut. 4:41–42) or the execution of a convicted murderer (Num. 35:30). A growing number of scholars now agree that this term for killing in Hebrew that is used in the Ten Commandments is never used in Hebrew Scripture to refer to the type of killing that takes place in a war.
I can play the picture game too, I could post links to gassed kurds or the twin towers, but I'm more decent than that. Justice will be done this weekend.
Tim your latin doesn't impress me.
And as we all know, when the state kills you its not murder. It's an execution. That's totally different. Somehow.
since capital punishment is the ultimate use of government power against its citizens.
Do you ever step back and just ponder over how hairbrained so many of your "ideas" truly are? A jury of non-government citizens must first agree unanimously that execution is warranted.. government carries out the execution, but citizens decide. Given your tirade, you seem unaware of this basic fact.
Should govt similarly be prohibited from imposing life sentences on violent criminals? Because that too, is an extreme use of "government power", right? How do you arrive at this distinction given the "logic" you've put forth so far?
Tim prefers to posture rather than actually defend his positions. So sophisticated sounding though, isn't it?
you seem unaware of this basic fact.
You seem unaware of the basic fact that nothing prevents wrongful conviction. Happens all the time.
It is precisely because the system depends on human judgement that it is fallible, and unless you are willing to be wrongly executed to maintain your support of a fallible system that has the power to kill people, you have no right to support and you are a fucking liar.
State here and now that you are willing to be wrongly executed in order to support the current system, or else shut the fuck about it forever, you little turd.
When confronted with facts, you changed the subject TZ. How convenient. Your assertion was that use of capital punishment was the "ultimate use of government power" against its citizens.. completely oblivious to the fact that the decision to impose capital punishment is not made by the government, it's made by citizens.. And not just a majority of 12 citizens, but unanimous agreement among all of them. That disctinction was lost on you and others posting here, so I thought I'd let you have a reality check, then watch you squirm and backpeddle.. which is exactly what you're doing now.
Find me a case of anyone being wrongfully killed in modern times?
There is no doubt Saddam is guilty is there?
I could post links to gassed kurds or the *twin* *towers*, but I'm more decent than that.
Okay that's it. Turn in your spoofing license and go back for retraining.
Those people who were sitting in the building that our Airforce dropped a bomb on in order to try and kill Saddam who they thought was in there at the time. He wasn't.
An informed person would have asked what the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy has to do with your argument. A lazy person would ask me what it means without bothering to look it up himself. I wonder what that makes a guy who simply clears his throat? Unimpressive, maybe.
Ask yourself what exactly the absence of a successful al Qaeda attack against America proves. Can you distinguish between the alternate possibilities that A) they tried and failed, or B) they chose to attack countries other than America? You have already declared that no attack must automatically indicate (A), but I don't think that you can support that. In fact significant evidence exists that (B) is true.
So, fingerhose, here's your chance to impress me. Now that you are aware that your argument has a gaping logical hole you can do your best to fill it. Take your time.
A jury of non-government citizens must first agree unanimously that execution is warranted.. government carries out the execution, but citizens decide.
This is a classic conservative fallacy… so classic that Tim probably has a name for it.
Have you ever noticed? When government does something that conservatives like, it's "the people" doing it. "The people have the right to express their morality, through their elected representatives, by banning gay marriage."
When government does something that conservatives don't like, it's "the government" doing it TO the people. "The government thinks they know how to spend your money better than you do."
I would have thought it was completely noncontroversial to say that capital punishment is an exercise of state power… and I'm not even against capital punishment! But they do this so subconsciously I doubt they even realize they're doing it. Tim? Does it have a name?
An informed person would have asked what the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy has to do with your argument. A lazy person would ask me what it means without bothering to look it up himself
Let's see, you yourself were too lazy to state an argument.. so now you're complaining because fh didn't bother to ask why you didn't more clearly explain yourself in the first place?
Your assertion was that use of capital punishment was
the "ultimate use of government power" against its citizens.. completely oblivious to the fact that the decision to impose capital punishment is not made by the government, it's made by citizens.. And not just a majority of 12 citizens, but unanimous agreement among all of them. That disctinction was lost on you and others posting here, so I thought I'd let you have a reality check, then watch you squirm and backpeddle.. which is exactly what you're doing now.
No, you blithering idiotic asshole. Nobody here has missed any distinction.
Fact: Wrongful conviction is possible in every case, and is not uncommon.
Fact: The system is notoriously fallible.
Fact: Even if you are stupid enough to be willing to undergo wrongful execution in order to prop up your support for a fatally flawed system, you have no right to impose the system on anyone else. You have no right to threaten my life under the guise of propping up a cracked system of justice.
Fact: The lack of proof of a wrongful execution is no defense whatever against my assertion.
Shorter Darrell: Please Ban me for being a dumbass, Tim.
No fallacy, only your narrow perspective. (Most)Voters are not government employees. Neither are jurors government employees. They are not employeeds of the government. They are "the people"
Senators, congress, and those employed by government agencies and various branches of the govt. receive a government paycheck. They are "the government" .
Any other questions Steve?
nichevo
Sorry I'm back, won't be staying. Blame Don Surber's link
( http://haloscan.com/tb/donsurber/116742180413337034 ).
I only post because no one seems to have mentioned it, and all you fine, fine people, of course, are always willing to change your minds when the facts change, right?
Just wanted to mention, then, re: the "rush" to execute Saddam (never mind "Justice delayed is justice denied"):
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/12/4/105110.shtml?s=ic
He turns 70 on April 28 (born April 28, 1937). Iraqi law (the one that would apply under a government not puppeted by the US, of course) states that persons aged 70 or more shall not be executed. Therefore, there is a bit of a procedural "rush" to get it done.
Stupid law IMHO (if Hitler were alive right now I'd…well leave me out of it, would anybody want to let him go or put him in a prison (hospital, I presume)?), but again, believe it or not, it is THEIR law, not ours. Darn that wacky Iraqi sovereignty!
I had actually understood before that his birthday was in January, or that January was the critical month, but with it being late April, I suppose you could say he had a bit more time to stew. Since there had been concern about appeals and other forms of delay, perhaps they felt it was better not to wait till the last minute, to allow some margin for error. (Then again, how long has this trial been going on? What "rush?")
Or perhaps it's a New Year thing – out with the old, in with the new…but would anyone here like it better if the trap were to drop in March, or on April 27? "Four more months! Four more months!"
PS Darrell, thanks for the observation on "to kill" vs. "to murder." (Look at the bright side, though, everybody: Christians = wrong again!) Admire your tenacity – I don't know how you keep your spleen from bursting out of your abdomen like an alien baby.
Lazy? Try bored. If a guy cannot keep ahold of either our native language or the common fallacies that I don't see much point in investing time with him.
Voters are not government employees
The government derives its powers from the people, you idiot.
The people exercise the power through the government.
In this case, people like you are forcing others to accept a flawed system that can wrongfully kill them for no other reason than the fact that you think it's a good idea.
In other words, your voters can kill you. Simple as that. Kill you wrongfully.
State in writing here and now that this is acceptable to you, and then explain what makes you think you should have the authority to impose that injustice on someone else.
John Redworth
Just to toss a thought in here… it is highly unlikely that Hitler would have made it to a trial since he would have been captured by the Russians in Berlin. The Russians most likely would have killed him outright or would have taken him back to Moscow for some fun… but this is just speculation since it did not happen.
As far as Saddam goes, I believe it will be a mix of emotions as well as helping stoke the civil war terrorist attacks as one side celebrates and the other side seeks revenge… the worst part is that our troops will be in the middle of it and will become targets since it is seen as a judgement handed down by a kangaroo court sponsored by the US…
In other news, I can not wait to see the wall to wall coverage of the execution on FNC (of course with the disclaimer that children shouldn't see it)… To know that Hannity, BOR and company will not only be frothing to a point of orgasim but also to see the colorful new graphics that will be jammed down our throats as with any big event…
This annoys me. First, there aren't that many fallacies. A good site like fallacy files has the list. Second, it is just rhetoric. If he shapes the point into an actual argument, e.g. "good" government is legitimate because the people do it while "bad" government is not because it is done to the people then it is obviously a bad argument.
We do not live in a direct democracy in which popular sentiment does or should automatically translate into government action. Founders specifically put democracy-thwarting elements in there so that government can occasionally do important things that people hate. But as long as it stays implicit rather than explicit, who cares.
I still don't see what gaping hole you are referring too.
Not "no other reason", but damn justified reasons. in the case of Saddam, a child killing mass murderer.
"But Saddam is no worse that Bush!"
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, roughly translated, means "This particular type of dumbass argument has been known for so long that it got its name when educated people still mainly exchanged ideas in Latin." An etymology site has an earliest date of 1704, as it happens.
Seriously, anyone who says the equivalent of, "Oooh, Latin–I guess you think you're pretty smart, huh?" really has an intellectual inferiority complex. Get over it.
Shorter nichevo: Newsmax is credible.
The vultures are out in force today.
Not "no other reason", but damn justified reasons. in the case of Saddam *Bush*, a child killing mass murderer.
Senators, congress, and those employed by government agencies and various branches of the govt. receive a government paycheck. They are "the government".
And according to Darrell, accountable to nobody…unless they're a muti-commie-liberal Democrat.
We do not live in a direct democracy in which popular sentiment does or should automatically translate into government action. Founders specifically put democracy-thwarting elements in there so that government can occasionally do important things that people hate.
that's actually pretty well stated.
I still don't see what gaping hole you are referring too can't believe it.
~Luke Skywalker
That is why you fail.
~Yoda.
Yeah, um, asking if Tim could identify the fallacy was just rhetoric as well.
The funny thing is, Darrell thinks he interposed a devastating comeback to my post, but he didn't even manage to disagree with me. "Laws I like are passed by voters! Laws I don't like are passed by government employees! Any more questions?"
He actually illustrated my point perfectly… there's no distinction between the acts conservatives will blame on "the government," and those they will claim are expressions of "the will of the people," aside from the fact that they disagree with one and not the other. The majority has the right to ban abortion and gay marriage if they want, but if the majority wants to raise taxes, that's government theft!
Nice try, but we're talking about capital punishment in general, not Saddam Hussein, and not Iraq law.
We're talking about the fact that you claim the right to kill your fellow citizens wrongfully in order to prop up a fatally flawed justice system, but so far you have not stated that you yourself are willing to undergo wrongful execution. That makes you basically a monster.
Not that finding you a monster is any big surprise, since you are already on record as being in favor of the bombing of children for political purposes (July-August 2006).
I'm curious Tim, I'm under the impression you are a teacher, what do you teach?
What is this, payback for me treating you curtly in my first comment? I gave you the name of the fallacy and I described how you committed it. Meet me halfway. Read the definition here. Try very, very hard to see how it connects with my post above. Darrell has high hopes for you, I don't. Do it for him.
I had actually understood before that his birthday was in January, or that January was the critical month, but with it being late April, I suppose you could say he had a bit more time to stew. Since there had been concern about appeals and other forms of delay, perhaps they felt it was better not to wait till the last minute, to allow some margin for error.
This might be one of the most unintentionally hilarious bad posts ever… like a cross between Al Maviva and BIRDZILLA.
"You liberals never want to change your mind in response to facts! Well, fact, they're in a hurry to execute Saddam because his 70th birthday is coming up! Oh, wait, his 70th birthday isn't for several more months… well, watch that new fact utterly fail to change my mind!"
Add to this the pricelessly braindead argument that they need to hurry up and execute him before he can appeal again, and you have a true classic of the genre. Pity the author has proven himself to be a creepy bigot who pries into other commentors' personal lives and insults their religion, but hey, they can't all be winners.
Well, my teaching experience at this point mostly comes from TA assignments that came my way during my work on two graduate degrees, one of which isn't done yet. I enjoy teaching but at the moment it's still above my pay grade.
The fallacies stuff comes from a memorable course on logic dating way back to high school. You folks hear me harp on it often because I hate to see people fighting disarmed whether I happen to be lined up for or against whatever they're arguing. It just seems like a waste of time, and knowing that somebody is wrong without grasping why is a sure recipe for a protracted and (to me) boring flame war.
I'm opposed to logic, it gets in the way of rhetoric.
Without rhetoric, I have no weapons in arguments with my spouse.
Because, um, logic is of no use, you see.
Logic is overrated
Flame wars and name calling is the future of discussion!
He should have said you stupid liberals, arguing that a mass murdering child killer like Saddam shouldn't be executed. I'd love for Steve and other liberals like him to have the balls to be more vocal about their disapproval of Saddam's execution.. so that everybody can see just how extreme so many of you liberals really and truly are. Scream louder liberals! Be proud of who you are.
What's that bright shiny thing you just swallowed?
Also note that as soon as certain people thought they were being out nutbarred…
As much as I care about what Iraqis do with their former dictator (I don't, as long as they don't reinstate him), why should it be such a surprise if people who oppose the death penalty also oppose executing a specific person?
He should have said you stupid liberals, arguing that a mass murdering child killer like Saddam shouldn't be executed. I'd love for Steve and other liberals like him to have the balls to be more vocal about their disapproval of Saddam's execution.. so that everybody can see just how extreme so many of you liberals really and truly are.
Find one word of disapproval that I expressed regarding Saddam's execution. Just one word, that's all I ask. Oh wait, I don't disapprove… but we're the "stupid" ones, right? Let's see if Darrell will admit he was wrong, yet again.
Your blind faith that liberals are just so far out of the mainstream reminds me of Jerry Kilgore, who thought he'd win an election by pointing out that his opponent opposed the death penalty "even for Hitler." He put ads on TV right before the election featuring the father of a murder victim, going on about how outraged he was that Tim Kaine opposed capital punishment "even for Hitler." Anyone remember this guy? Maybe not, because he lost the election, and the polls even showed that this ad lost him votes. And that was in a red state.
I wonder how many elections like 2005 and 2006 it will take for Darrell to realize that people don't actually have that big a problem with liberals… certainly not when the alternative is extremists like him.
Be proud of who you are.
Mainly, we're proud that we're not you.
Pity the author has proven himself to be a creepy bigot who pries into other commentors' personal lives and insults their religion
To be clear, what Steve is calling "creepy bigotry" was, in the context of a discussion on terrorism, a comment made by nichevo that islam was a religion that believes an eternal whorehouse is their ultimate reward.
Not a doubt in mind that 80%+ of Americans have at one time or another thought the same thing. That is what constitutes a "creepy bigot" according to Steve.
What's really creepy, are so many of the leftist freaks here like TenguPhule, or "RobR" who just yesterday posted
Why must you fuck a dead man, Darrell? You Goddamned chickenshit necrophiliac ghoul
You want creepy? That is one creepy freak.
Pooh, if that was a shiny spoof then I will just have to live with getting taken twice. DougJ got me once with evolution and I swore that I would at least never let the same screen name get me again. Other than that I made no promises.
That is one creepy freak.
"Extremism in the defense of anti-Darrellism is no vice."
— Barry Goldwater
Find one word of disapproval that I expressed regarding Saddam's execution. Just one word, that's all I ask
Are you f*cking serious? You were climbing all over nichevo's ass because he wanted to dismiss Saddam's age in order to hurry with his execution. Here is what Steve wrote
Well, fact, they're in a hurry to execute Saddam because his 70th birthday is coming up! Oh, wait, his 70th birthday isn't for several more months… well, watch that new fact utterly fail to change my mind!"
You are bitching him out for not changing his mind about executing Saddam. And now you're spinning as if you didn't say such a thing. Whatever man..
Darrell will soon be posting an article suggesting that Saddam and Gerald Ford both be given nondescript burials in a common grave, since they are both enemies of freedom.
Wow — what a stupid liberal THAT guy was!
Good thing all the Christians are here to steer us Stupid Liberals right!
Yeah, no need for Newsmax to cite where they pulled that "no execution after 70" from. If they simply pulled it out from their ass to stir up their retarded readers, well then that makes it true too.
Hmmm…in the final draft of the Iraqi constitution approved by the voters, I don't see a no-hanging-after-70 clause. One thing you will see near the beginning of the document is…
Article (2) 1st- Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
Let's see, who might be the highest authority in Iraq to determine if a no-noose-at-70 law contradicts Islam? Maybe that might fall upon Sistani. So even if there were such a law, looks like that top turban would get to do a thumbs up or thumbs down on Saddam. Democracy in action.
tengufool, steve, I can practically hear the wind whistling through your empty skulls. The best thing you can think to do is put words in people's mouths.
Speaking of fallacies, tengu, under which one does disagreeing with newsmax over Saddam's birthday fall? Geez, google it whyncha? That's all I did. Since I have no idea what makes your list as "credible," try googling:
Saddam Hussein birthday Iraqi law 70
As for Steve, you wretched fop, if they are "hurrying" it would not be to avoid appeal (assuming he has any coming) but to ALLOW for one in time to beat the deadline after which no execution can occur, even if he pulls a You're-damn-right-I-ordered-the-Code-Red.
Again, do you not understand this, or is it easier to refute your own arguments rather than mine? How pathetic.
Tim, I too love the Latin, but all too many people here will seize on your link as just more buzzword fodder. None of these people actually read – script-kiddies of rhetoric. Ad hominem, of course, is the hammer they take to all nails, even those that are really screws, bolts, round pegs in square holes, Waterford crystal, or detonators. They need no instruction in that.
It wasn't me, but this is something of a spoofer endzone dance.
so that everybody can see just how extreme so many of you liberals really and truly are. Scream louder liberals! Be proud of who you are.
That's what you said in every other post in 2005 and 2006, so that dems would get trounced in November…
Maybe you should review your past rather than encourage everyone elses present. You need to find a new meme to misplace your faith in.
BJ'ers: lets all work together to help Darrell find his new value system.
If an urban legend, a popular one.
Let's see…PBS is okay, right? From PBS Frontline: World
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq501/defining_penalty.html
Saddam's
Road to Hell
Defining Justice
By Dave Johns
The Death Penalty
Are there concerns with how the death penalty may be applied in Iraq?
Iraqi law forbids the execution of anyone over 70 years old.
(I don't know who Dave Johns is. Maybe he's a right-wing deviationist or something?)
try googling:
Done. Results: NewsMax, NewsMax, NewsMax, NewsMax, NewsMax, NewsMax, and probably NewsMax, out of seven relevant hits. Thanks for the suggestion.
Speaking of fallacies, tengu, under which one does disagreeing with newsmax over Saddam's birthday fall?
Shorter nichevo: Look at the Strawman!
You're citing Newsmax for a bizzare law to justify your silly little spoofery and you're trying to claim it's a quibble about his birthday.
We have met a fallacy, and it is nichevo.
Okay, try
iraqi law 70 execution
whence PBS, above. More korrekt, these links? Geez, you could maybe use a little google-fu. Unless your goal is not to find the truth but to reinforce your argument.
Beyond the usual caveat of "I am DougJ" (as are you, of course)
I call Foul. I certainly don't consider Darrell a Goddamned chickenshit necrophiliac ghoul. That would require I presume he has a functional libido in the first place.
Using some semblance of modern English
Tim asked, and Tim shall receive. Enjoy.
I did. LOL! Let's see, first hit is of course Newsmax, then a Dread Pundit blog which cites Newsmax, followed in the third slot by the pinnacle of sane reporting, Free Republic. After that there were a few other blogs carrying that no hanging for Iraqi senior citizens generally citing Newsmax.
This has been another simple edition of playing with the retards.
You are bitching him out for not changing his mind about executing Saddam.
No, I was bitching him out for not realizing that his "70th birthday" argument was completely irrelevant. If they're executing him this weekend, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that his 70th birthday is in April. Even a child could see that.
To be clear, Darrell lies a lot. Here's what I referred to as religious bigotry, aimed directly at a commentor who identified himself as Muslim:
I mean, you are obviously willing to kill everybody in Israel to have your way, and IMHO the Israelis are more valuable than your whole ummah, let alone the Pals you use and throw away like a condom.
The problem is you don't know when to quit, because your faith is essentially a religious translation of master-race theory, and you apparently cannot allow for the fact that your ass is ours and the best thing you can do is "islam" (uh, I mean submit) to modernity.
Or maybe (to your credit) you think we haven't got the guts to waste you in cold blood. Well, a few more catastrophes laid at your door and people will wake up.
I know you don't see it like this because you're a convert and no matter how you try, you can't take Western Civ out of the boy. C'mon, do you really dig the idea of chopping off thieves' hands and stoning girls who put out?
To be additionally clear, I used "creepy" not as a modifier for "bigotry," but rather in reference to nichevo's history of repeatedly trying to uncover facts about everyone's personal life, his comments about Krista's tits, and his "jokes" about sex with TZ's 4-year old granddaughter, to choose but a few examples.
Why this person is still allowed to post here, I can only attribute to wingnut affirmative action. Tim ultimately wound up giving him about a 30-second ban, which kinda boggles my mind. I cannot imagine what he has to offer to this blog, let alone to humanity.
Ok, let's say that, ex arguendo, you are correct about the cutoff at age 70. So what? Just like you were told while learning algebra, show your work please.
whence PBS, above.
So you have two stories, neither of which offers any background evidence or even a cite of the relevant law that claims Iraq can't execute people over 70. And people think Dan Rathers was sloppy?
I'm going to take this with a big grain of salt until some actual you know, *proof* is shown that Iraq can't execute Saddam should he make it to 70.
I'd love for Steve and other liberals like him to have the balls to be more vocal about their disapproval of Saddam's execution.. so that everybody can see just how extreme so many of you liberals really and truly are.
I don't know about Steve's views of the death penalty, but I'm an opponent. I think it's barbaric. I realize that's a minority opinion, but so what? It's what I believe. The identity of the person being executed makes no difference–obviously–it's the principle of the thing.
For the Darrells of the world, I think two thought experiments are instructive. First, if you believe that Saddam deserves execution, would you personally be willing to play the role of executioner? (I expect that many people would say yes in the case of Saddam, but no in general.) Second, do you believe that execution is the ideal punishment for someone who's committed crimes of the magnitude Saddam has? How about torturing him for a year, under close medical supervision, so that he doesn't die, and then executing him? And the torture can be as grotesque as you like. At some point, though it's a different point for different people, someone will say, "Wait, this is barbaric." But there's always someone else who will say, "No, it's appropriate punishment," and maybe even, ". . .and I'm willing to carry it out."
So, what do you think? Is a relatively quick, painless death the ideal punishment for Saddam?
I will admit, it may be a dog's breakfast. They may not even know in Iraq, or as someone above said, go situational:
from googling: iraqi law 70 execution citation
http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/entry.asp?entry_id=20
Q Salam Abdul Hassan (sp) from Nowah (sp). There are some news that Saddam Hussein will be exempted from execution because he will be 70 years old soon, and there is a law that forbids to execute anybody who is 70 years old.
JUDGE JUHI: As I told you, it is an Iraqi court, and it depends on Iraqi laws. And now we are far from any sentence being passed. As I told you, we are an Iraqi court, and we depend on Iraqi laws.
Q (In English.) First, I'd say it in English. In the Iraqi law, is it possible to enforce a sentence for one case while there are other cases pending, number one? Number two, is there any area in the Iraqi law that point forbidding execution of people past 70 years old?
(Question is translated.)
JUDGE JUHI: As for the cases, if any defendant is convicted of one case, as I told you at the beginning of this press conference, every case — in every case, the decision will be taken independently. Now, the first case is before the court, and there are other cases which will be referred to the court soon. And these cases take some time, and we are keen that the victims and the witnesses have their own rights. And we give the defendants their right to defend themselves.
As for the second issue about the age, the Iraqi laws define the age. If he is liable to any punishment, it is done according to the Iraqi laws only.
Not affirmed, not denied. Maybe Judge Judy Juhi isn't such a great scholar to have the statute at hand, or doesn't want to commit himself. So I have abandoned my certainty that 70 was the cutoff (though it still seems likely enough); but at least I have looked elsewhere. Maybe it is not genuine (maybe PBS was fooled). Of course, somebody with even more interest could go dig. Be worth a MSM credit, no?
But you go ahead and cling, cling to it like a Station of the Cross, that Newsmax says it and therefore it is wrong. And don't bother with any evidence of your own to justify this. Why should you? Just pass the hand lotion.
As for "strawman," that's what you get, and deserve, when you are as imprecise as that. You never said what about the source was objectionable other than its URL. I think that deserves a hearty:
And don't bother with any evidence of your own to justify this.
Because Newsmax has never made mistakes, not once, right?
Would it have hurt you so much to have tried the edu link *before* a sleeze site? Oh wait, that would have undercut your certainty….
As for "strawman," that's what you get, and deserve, when you are as imprecise as that.
Shorter nichevo: I reserve the right to bullshit.
Ok, let's say that, ex arguendo, you are correct about the cutoff at age 70. So what?
PBS article has a date of 1/06. The Iraqi constitution was approved by voters last October. I linked to a source above that has the English language translation from 11/05.
Possibly the PBS story was researched prior to that and was relying on the previous constitution or a Saddam era law.
The current constitution would supersede that. Plus, we've helped them get beyond the kind of secular nonsense in that previous constitution. No law before Islam now, bitch. We democratized them.
The Newsmax article is from this month. They have no excuse for their laziness. Probably made good reading for their readers to start imagining an Arab ACLU equivalent was going to ride in and keep Saddam from hanging on a technicality thus denying their happiness. Would make sense in their world.
In the perfect world, I think we'd follow either the Nuremberg model or the Truth and Reconciliation model. You'd like to have a long process that gets all the crimes of the former regime out on the table, and makes sure that all the responsible people get punished. What punishment they dole out at the end of the day doesn't really matter all that much to me, to be frank. I don't have a moral problem with the death penalty; I respect that you do.
Obviously, we're not in the perfect world, and the civil disorder doesn't permit the leisure of years and years investigating every single crime of Saddam's. Most of the potential other defendants are either on the run or dead. The only sense in which this is a "rush" – and it is, no matter how many cries of "Saddam-loving moonbats!" we hear – is that all they've done is convict Saddam of a single crime, relatively minor in comparison to his long list of evil deeds. It feels a bit like convicting Al Capone of tax evasion, to my mind. But whatever. The fate of Saddam is basically a footnote at this point. You could let every single victim of the regime spit in his eye and it wouldn't fix a thing that's wrong with Iraq, so who cares. Do what you will.
Minor addition to my last comment,
The Iraqi constitution was approved by voters last October 05.
I shed no tears for Saddam, as a soft opponent of the death penalty (I have no moral qualms with it, but in practice the enforcement is far far more trouble than it is worth), I find it hard to get worked up about it. My concern is more with the obviously farcical nature of his trial. Yes, he was guilty as sin, but that is still no excuse for not doing our best (or "encouraging" the Iraqis, if you like) to run as pristine a ship as possible. These procedural "niceties" exist for one reason – experience has taught us that they are necessary, and when we start to make exceptions in the name of expediency, where does that stop? For some, certainly on the other side of torture, of removing access to any form of due process, basically allowing conviction by administrative designation.
Combine my procedural concern with the fact that the trial being seen as a sham makes us look like tin-pot boobs ourselves. The easiest way to show that Western Liberal Democracy is better is for it to actually be better, and demonstrably so. "Yes, this man is guilty and evil, but even for him there is the right to try and disprove guilt" we might say. And, given that he is guilty, he wouldn't be able to and then we can still hang him if that somehow makes you feel better.
Pooh, thank you. (Arguendo, I love it ;>)
Okay, assuming this is the case, then either they could give him three or four months and choose not to (meanies?), or they feel that three to four months is a reasonable timeframe to permit last-minute processes, or they are just at the stage where it is time to throw the switch (e.g. 30 days, as in the verdict IIRC) and if he were 50 it would still be time.
I really just wanted to refute the notion, assumed tacitly by so many here, that there was no possible reason why things should be moved along. People seemed to have no idea of this timeframe issue. And while people have clouded the issue, that in itself seems to show there is no clear refutation making the rounds as a counter-talking-point, otherwise, I feel, they would whip it out.
Pooh, it may seem a small point, but that whole argument seemed a small point. I merely wished to add what I believed to be a fact, to a discussion more or less bereft of them.
Tengu, when I make what Rather makes made probably still makes on HDTV, I promise to check more, because it will be my everlovin' job. I have admitted, which Rather never did, that I may have been taken in by an urban legend; that my info may be incomplete, and should be more closely verified.
Since this is, as I have been frequently reminded, a blog for hot air, your posture is just a little high-horse. And I remind you that, given the voracity with which you leapt on this, there must surely be a refutation; if so, pray post it. Or, as I say, believe what you want to believe, it's much easier.
BTW: Does this mean you opposed Rather? I think this may just be Tu quoque but it may be a twofer.
Steve: it really doesn't matter what is said to you, does it?
That reminds me – IIRC I had been banned at the time, but I believe someone took me to task as a bigot for a remark I made about your religious heritage and corresponding high expectations of literacy (i.e. 'A Jew should be able to read…'). I believe it directly paralleled your remark about 'being a Jew who can't stand the sight of blood.'
Did you take that as bigoted? If so, why, and was yours bigoted equally? Did you defend me (esp. as I was unable to respond, being banned)? If not, why not? I would have been satisfied with "I still think he's a creep, but this one is OK, it's just an in-joke."
I think you may speak to that before I treat you further.
I don't have a moral problem with the death penalty; I respect that you do.
Ditto; I don't think that individual beliefs in the death penalty are immoral. (I'm not a philosopher, so I don't know if there's a contradiction there, but I've known some very moral people who disagree with me on this.) Oh, well. Persuasion is all we have.
That would require I presume he has a functional libido in the first place.
Well, that's been established … he has a hard on for all liberals.
I think the medical term is "Antiprogressive Priapism."
BTW: Does this mean you opposed Rather?
I waited until all the evidence was in, then made a decision. In that instance, the Right was correct (for once) and Rathers fucked up.
You don't want to be mocked, all you have to do is behave like a rational human being and not an idiot.
But it inverts instead of exverting. What can we call that?
Are you intending to ask me here whether my comment about myself was as bigoted as your comment about me?
No, I didn't think your comment to me was bigoted; rude, but not bigoted. No, I didn't defend you, given that I thought you were an asshole who should have been banned, and I still do. Sorry if this leaves you "dissatisfied," but I don't see us as light-hearted adversaries here.
Tengu, I mean Arec Bardrin, I didn't attend the cite because I just sought confirmation of something I had heard elsewhere. I really didn't know I had to pass a litmus test. If I had cited PBS first and not Newsmax, would I be getting all this crap? No, really, just curious.
As for bullshit, your right to verbal diarrhea is of course unquestioned. Why say what you mean? "Words mean things" is so Rush Limbaugh. Really, words mean whatever you want them to mean – no more, no less. Lewis Carroll is of course a much better cite.
Tsulagi:
1) At least this was a straight answer, thank you.
2) Perhaps it is not in the Constitution, but in a relevant book of statutes like (their equivalent of) the US Criminal Code? Find the Mann Act in the Constitution, or for that matter, the age of consent. Or even murder. The judge did refer to "our laws."
3) Did you find any cite, even an outdated one, that dealt with this age issue? Hey, maybe it's in the Koran after all.
4) For the record, if there isn't this age issue, or some other legal necessity for doing it quickly, I am fine with trying him for every sidewalk he ever spat on. I do, however, think that for a host of reasons, moral and practical, this guy needs to be dead, and I do see pluses on the side of "soon."
What can we call that?
Having a stick up his butt?
Here's a fascinating dkos diary from a guy who talked to one of Saddam's appeals judges a few months back.
Steve, yes, I was accused of bigotry over the comment – you had kvetched over having to read something tedious; I made the joke in the exact same spirit that you had made the one about blood (which I thought was funny).
Why rude? Was your comment rude? If I had used your exact words back to you instead of riffing, would it still have been rude?
No, I didn't defend you, given that
you are the kind of lawyer who is not interested in justice, but in winning cases. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll do fine.
"Lighthearted adversaries?" I don't see much of that on this board, in fact I believe it was a theme of my inaugural rant on civility (an effort thoroughly wasted, to be sure) that no one here can disagree or contend politely. For instance, I don't recall where I've called you an asshole. "Wretched fop," of course, but I feel that's defensible, and provoked. As was, btw, whatever I said to those other people. (You noticed I was right about wilfred, Steve?)
And unless the correct translation is in fact "raisins," I will go to my dying day believing that a religion which uses exploitative sexual services as a bribe to do evil on earth is preaching an immoral doctrine. (And unlike 'suffering a witch to live,' it is hugely relevant and current.)
So do you, but you will not admit it. (Like masturbation: 98% of men do, 2% of men lie.) I won't press you, you'll just weasel.
But the point is that you do not do justice only to those whom you like. I bet that in other circumstances you like to assert that all the time. Justice required you to speak out for me, however half-assedly, and you preferred not to. I am not the one who should be dissatisfied with your conduct or lack of it; you are.
But being the good little lawyer type that you are, as it would be an admission against interest, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to make it. You're not that big a person.
I'll give you this, nichevo, your drivel can be funny for a little bit, but as with air-filled cotton candy you reach saturation quickly.
As for the 70 thingy, doesn't really matter what's on the books. Remember, the Deciderator's CPA threw out the old secular constitution and helped put the new one together that begins with Islam superseding all man-made laws. Ayatollahs are now the highest legal authorities in Iraq determining which laws comply with Islam and which don't. Your lord Bush has done a heckuva job.
you had kvetched over having to read something tedious
I should know better than to get involved with "nothing" here, but that strikes my as a singularly poor choice of words in this context. I might suggest intentionally provocative.
Look at this idiot, lecturing me on how "justice" requires me to tell everyone how one of his comments was actually non-bigoted.
When you admit that your other comments were disgusting and bigoted, I'll happily agree to draw the line. You reject my opinion when you don't like it but you think I'm compelled to offer it whenever it favors you. Give me a break.
I'm still waiting to hear from one of the blog proprietors how this guy gets to insult another poster's religion in such a disgusting fashion and not even get the slightest punishment for it.
Well, he has accomplished the unthinkable — made us wistful for Al Maviva. He was just as verbose, but at least he was pretty inoffensive.
The Hebrew word for kill in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is "ratsach." It means to dash to pieces, slay in anger, to murder. Killing for self-defense or for judicial reasons is not "ratsach." As a matter of fact, the Lord had various offenses which were punishable for judicial reasons in the Old Testament, to be put to death the word "muwth," which would be killing, of course, but not murder. The sixth commandment better reads "You shall not murder." It should be obvious that the Lord commanded capital punishment and sanctioned war on various occasions, and could not be saying that to kill is an absolute sin. By the way, Saddam was responsible for the deaths of 3 MILLION during his reign, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands. As far as I'm concerned, the bastard deserves a good "muwthing!" I seriously doubt his heart bled for any of his millions of victims, the people he torture mutilated for amusement and to teach his sons how to be a good little psychopathic terrorists, the many he dripped acid on the naked bodies of, attached electrodes to the testicles of, suspended in mid-air and ruthlessly beat to death, or the heaps of souls gunned down and bulldozed into mass graves over the years. Saddam Hussein is worse than rat filth, and good riddance. That Saddam can only be hanged once, if anything, is merciful.
No, I think a slow, painful, tortuous death would be just. Certainly more merciful than the fate suffered by so many thousands of his victims.. Are you libs seriously advocating some sort of mercy to this child killer? Because if you are, you should have the balls to say so to others, vocally and publicaly. It's who you are. You would defend a mass murdering child killer like Saddam.. and worse, probably. It comes with the territory with being a liberal I suppose. Am I the only one repulsed by those whining over the execution of Saddam?
Pooh, why?
Am I the only one repulsed by those whining over the execution of Saddam?
You mean, pretending to be repulsed? Yeah, probably. Not much complaining about the death of Saddam here. Some resistance to the American death penalty, which has nothing to do with Saddam. Some speculation that the execution might produce more problems in Iraq, and for that reason alone IMO is probably not a good idea. The US has an obligation first and foremost to its own citizens to act in this country's best interests. I don't think that this particular execution and its timing meets that test. But time will tell.
As for you, you're just here using the thing as your usual soapbox for your usual bullshit, or whatever it is that John and Tim pay you do do.
Daniel DiRito
See a sarcastic visual of George Bush playing a round of "Hangman"…here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
Steve, you just keep on keeping on. Believe me, I don't need your support. You don't seem to understand…well, as usual, it's the eternal question with you: fool or knave? Right conduct for you depends on you, not on me.
Any apologizing I did was to the sysop, who ISTM agreed with me more than not, but who clarified for me which line I had crossed.
So, disgusting: sure. Just trying to keep up with all you Joneses. Knew I shouldn't sink to your level. Couldn't, anyway, you're too good at it – never wrestle with a pig. As for bigoted: never.
Krista, it's kinda funny, but actually you were the one who put your tits on the table, so to speak, when you referred to mine and Cheney's. Did you forget about that part, mon choux? Or did it not seem relevant, because it would not serve your interest to mention it?
I don't see what your beef is. Are you one of these can-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it types who likes to talk like a sailor but runs to mommy's skirts when she gets some back? Not very impressive. It's what we call tit-for-tat.
It's funny, I should say, because of that blogpost you wrote about Hawkins and the boobie bloggers. For some reason that seemed to imply higher standards of decorum on your part. But, as above, that cuts both ways.
Oh, pooh: The point is that he and I are co-religionists. How would I be baiting him?
[…] Update: A sensible, right-leaning moderate chimes in: Finally, even though I know he is guilty, and deserves to die, I still can not help but look at the pictures of the gallows and get a chill. There is something so final, so irreversible, so barbaric and primitive about capital punishment (in particular, hanging) that I still can not embrace it, even for scum like Hussein. Advocates of capital punishment will tell you that the finality and the barbaric aspect of the act are features, not bugs. […]
The purpose of capital punishment is not to picnic. It is meeting out repugnance due for repugnance performed, the idea ancient, "If a man digs a pit, he will fall into it; if a man rolls a stone, it will roll back on him." It is not meant to be pretty, rather meant to deter and serve as a warning to those who would embark on evil, and justice for heinous deeds isn't meant to be a slap on the wrist or good talking to. Again, hanging, compared to the number of and horrid nature of Saddam crimes, is merciful in every way. It seems the bleeding hearts quickly forget the victims, or never think of them in the first place. There are possibly millions of people whose lives have been devastated, who also are looking for some closure. I have no sympathy for Saddam Hussein whatsoever.
ZivBnd
There are some crimes so heinous that nothing but capital punishment is just. Saddam didn't kill a few people here and there, he didn't rape 3 or 4 women and then kill them, he didn't murder the odd grandmother in her sleep… He ordered this over and over, thousands of times. How many times did the Baathists kill, rape and torture? We will never know, but we will know that the man that ordered it, the man that enriched himself on the agony of others, this sad sort of man paid with his life. We didn't ask Maliki to drop him off in a market in Kurdistan where he would have met a just reception from the people that knew him best. Iraq is going to let him die quickly, as opposed to the way his victims usually died.
You may now refer to him as the late Saddam Hussein.
I don't recall referring to yours, actually. And AFAIC, only a boor would have used my joke about Dick Cheney having man-breasts as an excuse to start quizzing me about the details of my own physique. And no, I don't dish it out if I cannot take it. I occasionally engage in ribaldry with some commenters here, but only if I have been speaking with them long enough that we all know that certain lines are not crossed.
You started making those comments about me the very first day you started posting on here. If you cannot see why your comments were inappropriate, then you likely have a very difficult time with social discourse in the real world. You just don't make the same kinds of jokes with total strangers that you would with people you've known for awhile. I can't think of a way to make it plainer than that.
You seem to have failed to notice that a major point of that post was that a lot of women bloggers (and commenters) avoid using gender-specific handles and/or putting pictures up because they know that they'll be treated very differently. I decided not to hide my gender, and have felt very comfortable engaging in lighthearted, occasionally flirtatious banter with the regulars here. It's always been done in the spirit of respect, and I always felt that those with whom I've spoken have also respected me, and would not push things too far, or, if they did, would immediately back off if I mentioned feeling uncomfortable. I've always felt very safe here.
I should probably thank you for doing me a favour, as your inquiries as to my geographical location, combined with your comments about my body, have made me regret letting down my guard so much on this site.
Good riddance. They didn't exactly give him a ton of time to file that last pre-birthday appeal, though. I wonder what we've learned.
As I said earlier in this thread, I will shed no tears for Saddam, or his henchmen, for that matter. I cannot, however, see how his death helps us in our current situation, sitting in the middle of an Iraqi civil war.
For the more sociopathic here, I have a few simple questions:
Do you think this helps our troops?
Have we achieved a glorious victory for Dear Leader? Can he pack up and go home now?
Are we safer?
And finally, when do we start building the extermination camps for the groups we decide are "terrorists?" You know you want to.
Heh, no extermination camps, thanks. But the homes and cars of neocons should be filled with a bad smell. Is that asking too much?
Well, yeah, ThymeZone, because I don't know if there are enough smelly lefty hippies to go around.
You would defend a mass murdering child killer like Saddam.. and worse, probably. It comes with the territory with being a liberal I suppose.
Because we all know good Stalinists Americans believe that fair trials are a bother, so just send them off to be tortured to death at a gulag Happy Snax(tm) Camp.
To kill one man Bush got almosty 3,000 Americans and Gods only know how many Iraqis killed, wrecked a country, pissed away America's reputation and gave Islamic terrorists everywhere a easy target to hone their skills for use elsewhere.
Yes Saddam deserved to die, but the way the farce played out, neither we nor the Iraqi 'government' *deserved* to be the ones to finish him.
don't see what your beef is. Are you one of these can-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it types who likes to talk like a sailor but runs to mommy's skirts when she gets some back?
Shorter nichevo: I have serious issues with my penis.
For some reason that seemed to imply higher standards of decorum on your part. But, as above, that cuts both ways.
Shorter nichevo II: Why don't women like it when I wave my penis around?
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
We kill in the name of justice or revenge at the expense of our humanity. In the case of Saddam, he was deserving of punishment, but the result will be more murder and destruction involving our soldiers. Another proud moment in history brought to you by the Neocons.
I said to my wife, "Good riddance, but I'm worried about what the reaction might be." She gave me a look. "What's going to happen that isn't already happening?" Smart woman I married.
Truth-o-meter says:
Krista's Post: 1000
All of What's-his-name stupid creep's posts put together: 0
'Nuff said.
Yes Saddam deserved to die, but the way the farce played out, neither we nor the Iraqi 'government' deserved to be the ones to finish him.
Yawn. So Bush finally got the guy who tried to kill his daddy. Big deal. I wonder what the Mighty Righties are going to start beating their breasts about now.
All this was at the cost of almost 3K American lives and tens of thousands of injured Americans–to date, of course. And not to be forgotten–although more than a few Americans would prefer to do–at the cost of hundreds of thousands of other Iraqis, of course.
One would have thought that, to give Saddam's execution the maximal impact on the American psyche, the Bushies would have had him executed either before Christmas or after New Years, not between Christmas and New Years when few Americans are paying attention to much of anything. It appears that the Bushies have lost all appreciation for the wonders of public relations.
Sherard
Wow. The surprises never cease here.
There is something so final, so irreversible, so barbaric and primitive about capital punishment (in particular, hanging) that I still can not embrace it, even for scum like Hussein.
One word: Pussy
You have GOT to be shitting me.
Further –
Oh please. He deserves nothing. Maybe a shive in his back from some petty thief is what he "deserves".
Well we've learned that if you need an excuse to start a war because your first few didn't pan out, grab the nearest dictator.
ThymeZone, there you are! Why don't you fuck me? You know you want to.
Oh yeah – thanks for playing!
(Krista, the water would have to be very warm to go in for this guy. He hasn't got much to live for anyway. But if you asked me nicely, I suppose I would.)
I think it's worth noting that this piece of shit is posting unchallenged on a blog that a couple days ago officially suggested we please "don't insult" Darrell.
If anyone can explain this to me, you have my address.
There is really no justification for this. I'm frankly stunned.
I've always felt very safe here.
Oh please Krista.. spare us the high school drama queen act.
"I no longer feel safe here!"
Hmmm…up thread a little bit I compared nichevo to cotton candy, fine at first but quickly tiresome. My bad. Seeing his classless attacks on Krista it's obvious he has no more relevance or worth than a GWB fart. I'll pass on responding to a fart in the future.
Then we have little Darrell. You really should apply to the WH while you can for an aide position. Since you love smelling them, your job can be to go around telling everyone "Yeah he farts, but they don't stink." A worthy job for a true believer.
Shorter Darrell: Viagra just isn't working for me anymore.
Shorter Sherad: Me!
I totally agree with John Cole. It is right that he should be killed as he is guilty and was responsible for the killing of hundreds, if not thousands over the years. I stayed up all night and watched all on the news and seeing the gallows was horrible. At the end of the day he knew he was gonna be killed and it was the right thing to do but who cared how he died, he should have been shot because hanging is something from centuries ago and so so dramatic and like something from a macbeth play. I'm glad he is gone I have to say but I'm not in agreement with how it was done.
North Dallas Thirty
Many people are here weeping about our "loss of humanity".
Where were they when Saddam was carrying out executions like this on a far larger scale for far less reasons?
Furthermore, anyone who supports abortion has zero reason to oppose the death penalty. If you can support taking a wholly-innocent life because the mother thinks it's inconvenient, it seems crazy that you can oppose taking the life of someone who, by their own choices, has broken the most fundamental laws of human society.
Saddam Hussein applied the death penalty to hundreds of thousands of innocent people. No liberals cared or lifted a finger to stop it.
The Iraqis apply the death penalty to one unquestionably-guilty individual — and it allegedly "destroys our humanity".
Oh, my heavens! Verily, we are blessed with the wise and the knowing here: as bithead spoke with authority about the Islamist roots of the Baath party, so we now have one among us who has the divine enlightment to be able to say, with confidence:
anyone who supports abortion has zero reason to oppose the death penalty. If you can support taking a wholly-innocent life because the mother thinks it's inconvenient, it seems crazy that you can oppose taking the life of someone who, by their own choices, has broken the most fundamental laws of human society.
Truly, I admire one who lets those which live, can suffer, and are innocent, live. I have met so many people who value innocent life, yet still employ exterminators in their Houses to protect them from the Vermin. I admire those who protect rats and cockroaches, for, even though they are not human, they are surely innocent, and can feel pain and suffering — and, in the case of rats, fear, unlike a human fetus at twenty weeks gestational age.
If you want to equate animals with humans, go right ahead.
But I doubt very many of your compatriots here would agree that killing a human is the same as killing a rat or a cockroach.
I doubt very many of your compatriots here would agree that killing a human is the same as killing a rat or a cockroach.
Ah, and you, in your infinite wisdom understand the intrinsic observable commonality which makes removing the support for a fetus equivalent to killing a feeling creature. Oh, Great One, teach.
For I, in my humble faith, hang on your every word.
Mountain Walker
What middle eastern strong man would ever thought this could happen to him? Must have been quite shocking for poor Saddam as he spent those final moments on the gallows. Perhaps his henchmen are getting a bit nervous now.
You're right, no middle eastern strongmen have ever met untimely ends before. Particularly not at the hands of the successor governments. No, indeed, Sadat…Gozbadeh…Faisal Al-Saud…Hussein's predecessor…those are just illusions, fleeting hallucinations in those reality-based books we call "primary historical sources".
If you're really concerned for any of Hussein's henchmen who happen to remain free, I'm sure you can send them mail. You must have some contact with them, since you seem to know about their feelings.
As I recall Human Rights Groups were protesting his coddling and support by the US and other groups for decades. Your 'we do it less' defense does not fly.
I call Bullshit. 'Liberals' were pointing out Saddam was a very bad person while he was still a US *ALLY* and the conservative 'wise men' were telling them to shut up.
The Iraqis apply the death penalty to one unquestionably-guilty individual—and it allegedly "destroys our humanity".
The US violates the Geneva Conventions to lynch one man by proxy and ends up looking like a bunch of idiots.
You found the only way to turn Saddam into a martyr, Congratulations!
Larcik-nh
revelde photos jar of mayo picture imex watches nbc cooking contest mail natural gas oven monte carlo monaco npdb bavarian inn 5220 ne 14th street des moines iowa hampshire county jail visiting hours
UNCoRRELATED says:
Saddam For the Drop This Weekend
NBC, AP and Reuters are all reporting that according to an anonymous U.S. official, Saddam will hang this weekend, possibly as early as today. The New York Times thinks this is just awful. The important question was never really about whether Saddam Hu…
Pajamas Media says:
Saddam Execution Watch
[New items on top] John Cole cannot embrace the "final, irreversible, barbaric and primitive" capital punishment "even for scum like Hussein." (Balloon Juice) Confirmation of Saddam whereabouts from Reuters: "Saddam Hussein was still in U.S. custo…
Down with Absolutes! » Blog Archive » Yep, I said it says:
The Moderate Voice says:
Ousted Iraq Dictator Saddam Hussein Is Executed
Iraq's ousted dictator Saddam Hussein has been executed &mda…
Balloon Juice says:
[…] Hanging Saddam […]
Gay Orbit » Note to Readers on Saddam's Execution™ says:
[…] Yup. I'm not surprised that I agree with John Cole. […]
Reaction to the Execution of Saddam Hussein
Iraqi Americans in Dearborn, Michigan celebrate Saddam's demise. (Reuters) [New items on top] Usually an opponent of the death penalty, Roger Simon answers John Cole and makes the case for the dispatching of "political mass murderers." Al-Arabiya TV…
Kelly on The Ballad of Nancy Hao (Jan 27, 2023 @ 7:19pm)
TiredOfItAll on Eve of Destuction (Jan 27, 2023 @ 7:19pm)