France and Germany oppose death penalty for Saddam

Kermit: Interesting headline to the article. The EU is opposed to capital punishment as is most of the rest of the civilized world. The fact that France and Germany are opposed to it should not come as a big surprise. Baghdad’s decision to re-instate it is worthy of a headline. It won’t surprise me if they ship Hussein off to Texas for his farewell. They really know how to do it in Texas. Bush seemed to relish it and he could really have a good time with that one. Donerail

I doubt that will happen. Could you imagine the uproar the Iraqi people to deny them of Saddam?

I don’t understand; why would someone not want to give Saddam the death penalty?

I found it interesting that France was using the Guillotine up untill 1979.

All I can say is that I’d probably rather get my head loped off than be put in a Franch prison. Come on-Human rights?! Quickly cutting a guys head off is a lot more humane than what they give you in a French prison. A French prison is basically the same thing as a death penalty; you know you’re not going to live very long.

Amero-franc: You probably should wait until he is convicted to kill him. I suppose you could kill him and then convict him but that would be very confusing. With regard to the humaneness of capital punishment, one of the problems is, you can’t ask the guy you lopped the head off what his opinion was as to how "humane" it was. Saddam Hussein’s trial should work out to be a riveting theater and it had to be Bush’s worst nightmare. Iraq re-instating the Death Penalty was another mistake in a long list of mistakes. Donerail

Amero-Franc, Many of us oppose the death penalty because we feel only God should make that decision.

Besides, a nice long stay in an Iraqi jail would be a worse punishment than death.

Amero-franc: I think, on the probable assumption that he is found guilty, he should be sent to where Manuel Noreiga is. Convicted despots could all share the same campus. Capital Punishment, though, as nice as it may sound to many, is just uncivilized.

SalB: I need to recommend a book to the forum and I can bet that you have read it. "The World Lit Only By Fire" by my fellow alumnus, William Manchester.

Donerail

"Many of us oppose the death penalty because we feel only God should make that decision."

SalB,

If you’re bringing God into this He already did.

"Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." -Gen. 9:6 (Spoken by God to our father Noah and his desendents)

Donerail KY,

I’m not the judge who is going to convict him. Saddam was a public figure, so all of those atracities that he did I already know. He already admited although, of course, not to the charges. Of course they should give him a fare tral but I think we all know he did it. It’s not like the OJ trial. I know that Saddam hasn’t plead guilty or inocent yet, but really it’s just about how bad you think things are and what the best thing to do to him is.

Before posting anything on this thread look over the link:

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Amero-Franc, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

I believe that comes out of the same bible if you want to start quoting.

hello all

The 10 Commandments state: Thou shall not kill.

Jesus said to turn the other cheek if somebody strikes you.

Don’t get me started now…

If we’re talking aobut the number of people Sadaam murdered, maybe we can start with Bush and all the number of Iraquis he has killed in his so called war for WMD. While Bush critisizes Arab people for having long range weapons and nuclear capabilities, he used DU (depleted uranium) bombs on Iraq this past year in his war. IN other words, he used lower grade NUKES on Iraq.

Maybe se should put Bush on trial for war crimes and reinstate the death penalty in his case

Amero-franc/SalB/LaVieilleBranche: Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just stop the killing. Voting the Chimp out of office will facilitate this. It would also be nice if you could keep your religion out of it. The savages believe they have allah on their side. Don’t stoop to their level. Donerail

donerail: There’s a big difference here. Jesus didn’t advocate jihad against non-believers. He went out amd tried to make friends with them instead. This seems to make much more sense to me. I was reading a leaflet the Catholoc Church passed out last year. In it were the Vatican’s 5 reasons for a just war, in other words, 5 reasons that can justify a war. In the Vatican’s assessment, Bush failed 2 out of 5 reasons. Therefore, the Church deemed his war not valid at all.

Sounds rather acceptable with me

LaVieilleBranche: I can understand that your religion is very important to you. But keep an open mind. Donerail

donerail: Haven’t I always had an open mind? re-read my posts

LaVieilleBranche: I re-read all your posts. 67.2% of the time, it appears you have had an open mind. Donerail

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

SalB,

The problem is that the people who would be forgiving are dead. That’s the way most murders work.

You seem to be mixing the idea of Civil and Criminal law. Most civilized nation have that distiction.

In a Civil trial it is based on reporations and paying things back because of offences against an indivedulal person. There is no death penalty invulved in those trials.

In a Criminal Trial it is based on crimes against the state.(government) They are often based on morality and crimes against God given rights and commands. In a Criminal trial they are not doing it because of revenge, but because of a violation of law.

In France when they used to have the Guillitine (I’m not saying I’m recomending the Guillitine or not) they had a chanter who would chant to the people of the crimes, so as not to make it look like it was because of the idividual violation.

This idea of taking away the distiction of Criminal and Civil law is puting us back in the past not forward.

In a Criminal trial it can’t just tip the scales a little it has to be without a conciderble doubt. This is way OJ got free on the Criminal Trial, but not on the Civil Trial.

Amero-franc,

Two things about guillotine. First, I know guillotine seems so cruel and barbarian that no even the US army would dare using it, but in 1789, the guillotine was deemed as the most efficient and humane way to execute a convict, since it is the most direct and quickest one. Yes, guillotine is less cruel than the electric chair or a gunshot, because its victim simply don’t feel anything at all. May I remind you that Guillotine was named after its inventor, Docteur Guillotin, a Paris physician.

Second, before 1789, to be decapitated was a privilege available only to convicts of noble descent. Common men would face hanging or clubbing. After 1789, the Revolutionaries ruled that since every men were equal before death, the ‘best’ way to execute should be granted to any convict.

That for a few historical points. Now, as Donerail wrote, civilized nations have gotten rid of the capital punishment.

Saddam’s hasty execution through a parody of justice reminds me of what French or Russian revolutionaries did right after they took over power. They killed their kings out of fear, to show to their people as well as to the whole world that there was no turning back, that from now on they were the ones in charge, and that people had better stick with them and fight for them.

I like what the Brits did with Napoleon better : exile him to some far-away island, let him be forgotten, and crown him ‘King of St. Helena’ to mock him a little.

Now these Brits had class.

CRC

Amero-Franc, I was quoting the Lord’s Prayer, not mixing up criminal and civil law. Since you were quoting the bible, I assumed you would realize the phrase was from the Lord’s Prayer. It has nothing to do with either criminal or civil law. It is Moral Law . . . an entirely different entity.

Donerail, I didn’t bring religion into it. I was trying to reach Amero-Franc in a sphere he would understand, i.e., quoting out of the same book he used. It happened to be a religious book.

crc95: I guess we will have to see just how civilized the USA is over the issue of Hussein. Oops, I mean how civilized the new Iraqi democracy is with him. I read today that Bush stated that Saddam was "beyond redemption." Wow.

SalB: Excuse me, I somehow connected the Lord’s Prayer with religion. Forgive me. Donerail

SalB,

Yes you were comfusing them. You quoted the Lords Prayer which was talking about forgiveness. Only in Crininal Law do we have the death penalty. There is really no context of forgiveness in Crininal Law.

The context of forgiveness is only within civil law. This is why the plaintiff can choose to drop charges.

"The 10 Commandments state: Thou shall not kill."

LaVieilleBranche,

It only means that in Elizabethan English. The Hebrew was "Lo ratsach". In modern English that means Murder (Not just general killing). You see; in Elizabethan English for general killing they use the word "slay". If you try to use it that way in the context of the other things that is said around that chapter you will be very confused.

Amero-franc: You never cease to amaze me. Donerail

Amero-Franc: I never said I was confused. I however, had to read your post several times because your spelling and grammar were the worst it has ever been.

I never said you were confused. I said you will be confused, if you read around the chapter that it’s in. Either one will do for there are two places.

Amero-Franc, I’m NOT talking about civil and criminal law. My original statement (way way down the thread) said that some of us don’t believe in the death penalty because we believe life and death decisions are not the choices of mere men but of a higher authority. I wasn’t discussing the death penalty in either civil or criminal court. I was discussing moral law. I can only assume that someone who quotes the Bible is at least aware of moral law and realizes it doesn’t necessarily agree with either civil or criminal law of whatever country may be involved.

Some of us believe murder is wrong no matter who is doing it, the good guys or the bad guys. I don’t even think you need to be religious to feel that way.

"I wasn’t discussing the death penalty in either civil or criminal court."

SalB,

First of all you’re not discusing the death penalty in either one because you’re on a forum not a court. I’m not just trying to be sarcastic; I don’t understand the question. Where else would you recomend we have the death penalty if not in a criminal court? I don’t think you’re advocating vigilantyism; are you? That doesn’t sound like what you were saying

"I was discussing moral law."

That’s why we make any type of law; because of moral law. If it’s amoral or immoral why have a law?

"Some of us believe murder is wrong no matter who is doing it,…"

I do too, but I think there’s a differnce between manslaughter and murder. And I also think there’s a differnce between legal and illegal manslaughter.

"I can only assume that someone who quotes the Bible is at least aware of moral law and realizes it doesn’t necessarily agree with either civil or criminal law of whatever country may be involved."

That’s true, but right or wrong they would be comming at it from another religous prospective.

Amero-franc: The intentional taking of a life that otherwise would not end itself is fundamentally against all civilized thought. The obvious exceptions would be to preserve one’s own life or when compelled to do so by the State during a war. Medical euthanasia is a somewhat related topic which comes dangerously close to confusion. There are not many countries left (besides the US, China, Saudi Arabia and a few others) that practice the death penalty – or state murder – if you will. As more time passes by, the human species is supposed to get more rational and more civilized. Donerail

Amero-Franc, Your original question was (and I quote): "I don’t understand; why would someone not want to give Saddam the death penalty?"

I was telling you why someone (me) would not want to give Saddam the death penalty. It’s just my personal reason why I would not give Saddam the death penalty. You asked; I answered. It has nothing to do with either civil or criminal law and I’m not sure how you managed to bring the courts into this simple answer.

I do know why you didn’t understand the question. I didn’t ask one.

I was answering your question, not debating you.

SalB,

How many times do I have to tell you? It’s because you brought up the concept of forgiveness. There is no context for forgiveness in criminal law.

It’s not just a philosophical concept. The court process is totally different. Instead of a Plantif there is a state appointed Prosecutor who serves the people; not himself. Do you understand? It’s not just some time of philosophy.

Anyway I find life-time incarceration to be more inhumane than capital punishment. The guy has no life, but you’re just keeping the guy’s flesh alive. That’s just disgusting.

How can you say that you have a moral objection. From where does this moral objection come from?

donerail,

How is keeping a guy in a stinking jail cell for the rest of his life more civilized?

Come on this doesn’t have anything to do with Medical euthanasia. The reason why euthanasia is different is becase the convictee deserved it. He brought it on himself by commiting a crime.

So what if 25 states in the EU don’t like the death penalty. 50 states in the US do by agreement and 38 states do by themselves. Since when did it matter how many states did what?

Amero-franc: It appears you can’t even ask yourself a coherent question. Anyway, killing convicted felons is uncivilized. Period. Keeping them "in a stinking cell" all their remaining life is also uncivilized. A civilized populace would keep them away from civilized society in humane surroundings. Your preference would also cost society more money based on the effort that must be undertaken to kill them. Unless you just want to kill ’em all as soon as the gavel falls. Hell, why you’re at it, why don’t you do away with the gavel and save even more time and money. Guys like Saddam, Uncle Joe, Chairman Mao, Big Daddy Amin, and Adolph all had similar systems. By the way, I think you need to read up on what euthanasia is. And you need to read up on why it is important how many states agree upon a particular issue. Amero-franc, a lot of us are putting in valuable time to help you with your education. Is any of this sinking in? Donerail

donerail: notice how I haven’t been replying to Amero-Franc’s posts. An idiot is an idiot is an idiot….

Amero-France, How many times do I have to tell you that I was just answering a question about my personal beliefs . . . a question that you asked. (I won’t quote it again.)

The forgiveness got brought into it because you quoted the Bible and I was showing you that you can quote almost any point of view from some place in the Bible. In other words, the point was not about forgiveness but that you can prove anything quoting the Bible. It’s kind of like statistics. You choose what you want to prove your point.

I do understand the concepts of criminal and civil law. In fact I managed a law office for five years and probably understand it better than you. I wasn’t discussing law and I am not going to discuss law. You asked how I felt. I told you. End of story.

"How many times do I have to tell you that I was just answering a question about my personal beliefs."

SalB,

May be you just like quoting the Bible for the fun of it. If you’re trying to connect it to Legal law; which you’re going to have to do if you’re going to talk about the death penalty; than let there be a connection. It’s like saying, ‘yea there is morally, but no I don’t really want to connect it’. Again if that verse really means anything to this conversation, then you’re going to have to connect it. Otherwise you’re just quoting it for the fun of it.

"I was showing you that you can quote almost any point of view from some place in the Bible."

And I was showing that you can’t. If you can do that there is absolutely no reason for a morality that contradicts itself. Hey, if you can do that just forget it.

Now, if you weren’t really making an ideological point and were only trying to show that that type of moral is faulty, where are you getting these morals? Because you’re getting them from somewhere. You can’t just say somethings wrong and not back it up.

"A civilized populace would keep them away from civilized society in humane surroundings."

Donerail,

Such a place does not exist in France or any country withour a death penalty that I know of. France really have a scaled down version of a concentration camp. Now in the US we give them color TV, magazines, video games etc. We spoil them here and we do have a death penalty.

Amero-Franc: i don’t know where u got u’re information concerning the french prison but it seems that if u will say that we don’t have electricity in France yet, it will be the same feeling that I have reading you’re comment!!!!

I’m not sure that we have as nice prison as you guyz in the US with hot tube & massages, but believe me, because i went to a prison once (my oncle work in one), and I know my country very well, most of our prisoners got TV in their room, got acces to magasines, can play some videogames, computer, internet, etc…

Just a reminder that the movie "midnight express" was not shooted in France, and we did evolve since the year 1789!!!!

And i forgot one thing, "prison for life" in France mean 30Years max, no one is able to make more than 30 years of prison. This one could not make sens i’ll give you that, but it doesn’t look very barbarian to me…

ManuNice: welcome to the forums! It’s nice to see a Frenchman in here, other than crc. It gives a real perspective on things.

Don’t mind Amero-Franc. He’s a Bush supporter and lover of all things Bush. So are Maxpower and Sweird. You cannot change their opinions on anything becaue their heads are filled with Bush propaganda. They believe what Evil Chimp and his cohorts have to say. Too bad for them.

Thank you for the welcome, and the warning, I read the forum here since a wile, and I have to admitt that on most of the topic crc95, you, salB, donerail express really well my opinion, and i don’t expect to change people, especially the one who had faith in the propaganda u are refering to. However I will, if u don’t mind, correct wrong fact or totally false statement as soon as I see one, this one on our prison who where suppose to be medieval was just to much!!! Nice site u got here and nice forum as well. Not enough french maybe for a forum who is dedicated to them but they are lazy when it come to speak a foreign language(exept for crc95!! Wow!!! He speak good english!!).

LaVieilleBranche,

I am not a lover of all things Bush. I have told you time and time again I don’t agree with everything Bush has done. I’m not even a Republican. My family has been Democrats for several generations. But guess what; so far I’m going to vote for Bush this fall. Kerry hasn’t shown himself and people who don’t show themselves are very dangerous. Hey, you might end up with someone worse than Bush.

ManuNice,

I do speak French, but the Admin banned me from speaking it. He thinks it adds to the confusion.

Anyway, Im curious about what you think about this Kerry fellow.

After all he disgraced the French side of his family by neglecting his position in France.

Manu : merci pour le compliment

Amero-franc : si tu es vraiment un Dem qui votera Chimp, alors as-tu vu F 9/11 ? Si oui, qu’en penses-tu ?

CRC

Amero-Franc:

I really don’t know about John Kerry, i know he’s name since a couple of month, so it hard to make an opinion. So far I will say that he seems like a nice person, he speak foreign language wich is not common for an American, and he did the Viet-Nam war, so I guess I he really know what he’s talking about in that matter… But again I don’t know enough to have a opinion so far…

Here’s a funny link and some really interesting article that help me to understand more:
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/
(Yes it is actually a web site!!!)

In another hand I think that Georges W Bush is a disgrace for all American people and for the great history of US. I rather see Colin Powell running for president, at least I respect him.

ManuNice: Welcome aboard. I wish I had the language skills of the folks who post here.

Amero-franc: I thought up an alternative to the death penalty. We could lock them up in a closed room with you. Within 24 hours they would hang themselves. End of problem. Donerail

Amero-Franc: I’ve seen your attempts at speaking French. Maybe the admins banned your French because it was really terrible and they were just being polite. Either way, you really need to take some French classes. Or go on Rrench IRC and practice with native speakers.

From what I’ve seen these past 3.5 years, Bush is too greedy and dangerous to be re-elected. With another 4 more years of Bush, you should expect more international alienation, as Bush isolates the USA from the rest of the world. You can already expect a new generation of young Arabs to hate the USA, thanks to the Iraq war for oil profits. The WTC disaster caused the entire world (Arab world, too) to look at the USA in a more compassionate light. However, Bush squandered all that goodwill by his oil war for profits with Iraq. But his friends in the oil business and in private security made a KILLING on profits in Iraq!!!!…so it wasn’t a total loss for Bush, even if it means many thousands of Iraq civilians are dead and many hundreds of American soldiers are dead. It’s not HIS daughters in the US Army…..so all those dead civilians and soldiers are just "collateral damage" to him. The costs of doing business. Wonder how he’d feel if it was HIS daughters who died in Iraq?

ManuNice: It would of been much better had Colin Powell been president, rather than Bush. However, it didn’t turn out that way…

donerail" hahahahahahaah

Have a kir royale on me for that one!

crc95,

Je n’ai pas dû que je suis un Dem. J’ai dû que je ne suis pas un Rep. Maintenant, je pence que les Chefs dans la partie sont dégutants.

De F 911 (ou C 488), C’est assez d’histoires de quoi Moore a fait.

LaVieilleBranche,

So I didn’t know how bad the word was. At least a knew it was at least crude.

Amero-Franc: After reading your French post and noticing the errors, I rest my case when I say to TAKE A FRENCH CLASS or go onto French IRC to practice speaking with natives.

Could you please rephrase this in PROPER ENGLISH? "So I didn’t know how bad the word was. At least a knew it was at least crude."

YOu need to TAKE AN ENGLISH CLASS, too, in addition to that French class.

LaVieilleBranche: Your post on Bushie was right on the mark. I am sure that Amero-franc will now see the light. Donerail

I’ve posted in French and the Forum Administrator has never asked me to change it . . . nor removed it. (And my French isn’t great either!)

I suspect they would encourage French on the site. It is nice to add a translation since many of us don’t speak fluently (or at all).

If you are comfortable in French, post in French. It will be good practice for the likes of me.

SalB : deal.

CRC

deal

d’accord

SalB: Your French is much better than Amero-franc’s French language skills, or should i say, LACK of language skills.

BTW, if you ever have a question on French language, feel free to ask. ManuNice, crc or I can and will be happy to help you improve

Isn’t that part of the reason this forum exists, too?

crc95: I have been meaning to ask you. Back to the guillotine. How did you know that the victims didn’t feel anything? Did one of them say that from the basket? I know Amero-franc feels that way, but who believes Amero-franc? Donerail

lol Donerail!!!

I personally don’t know, I guess the heart beat is stoping much more faster than the electric chair…

mdr Donerail

Moi je ne sais pas, à mon avis les battements de coeur doivent cesser plus rapidement que la chaise electrique…

for the last time Donerail, we will NOT try the guillotine on Amero-franc. Nice try though.

CRC

pour la dernière fois Donerail, on ne testera PAS la guillotine sur Amero-franc. Bien tenté tout de même

crc: ahahahahahah

Have a kir royale on me for that last post

it’s 3 am here … that’s a little late for Kir Royal

CRC

il est 3 heures du mat’ ici … un peu tard pour un Kir Royal

would you prefer a sleeping pill then?

Thank you. I’ll just read Chirac’s last speech at the franco-italian summit. That outta do it.

CRC

crc: I must compliment you on your wonderful English. You speak better English then many Americans I know. Amero-Franc is American and he cannot speak proper English at all. Did you ever live in the USA for an extended period of time? I’m wondering how you aquired such perfect English

Well thank you LVB, that was nice of you to say. I don’t have any special secret other than practice, practice more, and practice again. Although I had good grades in school in the english class, I believe school has only taught me 25 % of my english. The rest came from readings, conversations, movies, etc. Best way to learn, isn’t it ?

CRC

crc95: I’m just curious to hear it!!! Do u speak with a strong french accent or almost without? When u speak, American can tell where u come from? I’m asking because when I do speak, american are always confuse about where i come from, most of the time it is a mix between Australia/Texas/New-York but never France!!!

LaVieilleBranche,

First of all, I don’t have time to sit here and look over every single word I I write extreemly fast than sometimes I got back later to correct little mistakes. If you notice, I often make mistakes like "hte" "eth" and "teh" when trying to spell "the". I’m sorry if it offeneds you. The same rule appiles to my French.

Iff ewe’re goinng two com-plane aboute som-won elses rightting, luk att yer own ferst.

So far you havn’t used any French, so at least I’ve done a little better than you.

crc: yes it is the best way to learn. I had forgotten most of my French. Then I went onto French IRC (I’m still a user, and now an OP in the French channels/section), practiced, relearned how to write French. Many monthlong trips to France honed my listening/and speaking skills to where French and English are the same for me

Amero-Franc: If i may quote you, "Iff ewe’re goinng two com-plane aboute som-won elses rightting, luk att yer own ferst." I think YOU need to follw your own advice, don’t you think? On what planet did you learn to write????
However, as you want to see some French, here you go:

Vous êtes un GROS CON!!!!!!

ManuNice,

Howdy mate, I don’t try to fake nor pretend to have a specific accent so I rather try to pronounce words the best I can. I’ve had all kinds of english teachers trying to speak and teach with oxfordian or American accents in class, and we would always mock that. Since you probably had teachers like that too, you can probably relate

English-speaking people usually tell me that I rather sound American but with a French accent. I guess you’re luckier if they can’t tell about you

CRC

That’s funny. I’m American and have always lived here but when we’re in France and I speak French, everyone thinks I’m British. My teachers must have spoken French with a British accent. I assume you can tell the difference between an American and a Brit speaking French.

In the US we can tell whether someone is from NY City, Boston, Chicago, the south or Texas pretty easily. Can you tell whether someone is from the Loire, Brittany, Alsace or Provence by listening to them?

oooooh yeah there are. I’m surprised you haven’t heard of them. Especially southern French have a very strong accent that can be spotted immediately. There are some funny accents in Auvergne and Alsace also. Some other accents don’t sound very nice to my opinion, so I won’t mention them here

As you probably know, there are also local languages as well, still alive in Alsace (where even young people use it between one another), Corsica, and Bretagne.

CRC

Amero-Franc: If i may quote you, "Iff ewe’re goinng two com-plane aboute som-won elses rightting, luk att yer own ferst." I think YOU need to follw your own advice, don’t you think? On what planet did you learn to write????

LBV,

You obviously didn’t understand that I was being facetious. But then you said; "If i may" "need to follw". Now, I’m not sure if you were trying to be funny or if you are making more mistakes yourself again. If you are trying to be funny, could you please be a little more obvious. If you please, could we stay away from those type of childish remarks.

Amero-Franc: Oh, you were being "facetious?" Considering how BADLY you write English and French on a daily basis here in the forums, I assumed this was just another example of your (lack of) writing skills.

Forum: Anyone want to introduce Amero-franc to that reliable tool called The Dictionary? Donerail

This is supposed to be about France Germany and the Death penalty, so I’m going to talk about that:

Earlier you said that you had a moral objection to the death penalty. I asked you where this morality came from. In the Bible it seemed pretty clear to me that it was not only allowing the death penalty, but that God demands it.

Now, I get moral law from the Bible. If the "moral law" that you spoke of was not that from the Bible, could you explain where you got it from? Otherwise I have no way of relating or even understanding what you are talking about.

Amero-franc: You really do frighten me. Moral law is that which civilized people follow and is best described as the ability to determine "right from wrong." If you need a Book to figure that out, you are indeed in need of help. As SalB has so clearly pointed out, you can quote the Bible to back up just about any viewpoint that you want. Hammarabi gave us the real first "write up" – but civilized people know how to behave intuitively. I know this is way too deep for you, but give it a try.

Donerail

I am asking you; from where are you getting this moral law? (This Moral Law you speak of that is against capitol punishment)

The Bible?

Nature?

Etc.

Amero-Franc, I’m about the most patient person I know but I’m at the end of my rope here. In his last post donerail said, "Moral law is that which civilized people follow and is best described as the ability to determine "right from wrong."

If that doesn’t answer your question, I don’t know what will. Moral law can be derived from common sense.

You really don’t read what people say. You pick out something and react to it. That is not a dialogue. If you stop and really read what donerail said in his last post, he answered your question.

Killing people does not make the world better. Common sense.

SalB: I have to give you credit. Las Vegas odds had you reaching your limit with AF about 6 posts ago. The network news coverage of the Bastille Day parade at the Arc d’Triomphe was really nice. Looked like gorgeous weather as well. Meanwhile, here we are, trying to convince AF that killing isn’t a nice thing to do. Donerail

Luckly, the Iraqi people will decide Saddam’s fate, not France, German, Great Britain or hopefully, the U.S.

I am so jealous. We did not get any coverage of Bastille Day. Boston must be closer to France than Los Angeles . . .

BTW, there is a French Film Festival in Sacramento, CA this weekend.

SalB … don’t waste your time on French movies … go see F 9/11 if you haven’t yet !!

CRC

–

There was NO coverage or even mention of Bastille Day here in the NYC area. I had to watch the fireworks display in Paris via webcam!
I forgot about the parade up the Champs.. I could of watched that on live webcam, too…just thought about it..oh well

lhommeamericain: do you really think the Iraqi people will decide Sadaam’s fate? USA overthrows Sadaam, USA picks who can control Iraqi government, do you relaly think the USA will hand over Sadaam to an Iraq government that wouldn’t take its orders from the USA?

SalB,
You misunderstand. My question to you is; what is it that is causing it to be morally wrong? You said, "Moral law can be derived from common sense." In philosophy what you mean is that you think that through human logic you can look at nature and find morals. I don’t know what else you could be saying because you either use logic and a religious source or you use logic and nature. Whatever it is, logic is never the source.

That was pretty close to what Rousseau believed. He believed that the savage man was superior to the sophisticated man. He believed that nature was perfect and that man was basically good, so man should be able to look at the world and use his logic to make morals.

Now, if you really believe that, you are what you call you call a secular humanist.
There is a clear contradiction between this theory and the Bible. The Bible says that the heart (includes logic) of man is evil and nature is perverted and there is a way through an unnatural means we can be perfected.

Amero-Franc, I don’t misunderstand. You do.

You aren’t going to either read or understand anything I say, so I’m not saying anything else on this topic. Pick on someone else and don’t ask a question if you refuse to accept the answer.

You asked my personal opinion and I gave it. I’m not sure how you managed to turn it into this. How I derived that opinion is none of your business. Don’t try to put words into my mouth and don’t try to tell me what I "really" believe.

I quote you: "The Bible says that the heart (includes logic) of man is evil and nature is perverted and there is a way through an unnatural means we can be perfected." In my opinion that is a sick interpretation of the Bible.

Amero-franc: You managed to do it. You pushed SalB over the edge. For the benefit of those of us who don’t know, what kind of medication are you on? Donerail

"The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?" -Jeremiah 17:9

But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. -Isaiah 64:6

I know it sounds sick. That’s because it is. How can you look at the world and say God made it this way. He didn’t. We messed it up. Do you think animals and people killing animals is normal? Do you think God would create something distorted and with so much pain?

No, we messed it up and people became evil and some abnormal things had to happen. Like in the Old Testament they killed Animals for their sins to become straight with God. As a Christian I believe Jesus came and paid that penalty for me.

All I had to do was accept who I was and what he did for me.

Amero-franc: Tell me more about how you accepted who you was. You seem to be a very sick puppy. Donerail

Elmer Gantry

(As a latecomer and to the original topic)

Unfortunately, re-establishing the death penalty is somewhat irrelevant to any punishment that any court might sentence Saddam to.

Changes in the law cannot be applied retrospectively, particularly to a time before the current government were in power. This would be a complete breach of justice. If somebody does something that is not against a law, you cannot arrest them, change the law to make what they did illegal, then find them guilty. Similarly, if the do something illegal, you cannot change the law to apply a different punishment ? this is effectively deciding to give whatever punishment you like and makes a mockery of law.

Laws that apply to actions and punishments for people found guilty can only be based on the laws in effect when the crime was committed. Whilst I have no sympathy for Saddam, I feel that if the Iraq government is to have credibility, they must behave in a just and fair manner.

Similarly, if somebody does something in a country that is not against any law in that country but is against the law in a different country, then you cannot take them to a different country and find them guilty. As a trivial example, the speed limit in the UK is 70 m.p.h, but in the US is 55 m.p.h. Somebody driving at 70 in the UK is doing nothing wrong. When they visit the US, they cannot be charged and found guilty of breaking the speed limit.

js: That last post was a tad wobbly. I tried to understand the speed limit analogy but I failed. Perhaps crc95 can decipher what you were trying to say. Donerail

Actually js I would need you to elaborate on your last paragraph : you’re supposed to abide by the law of the country you’re in, so what gives with the special treatment you described ??

(you’d better be clear on this because donerail is rather sensitive on speed limit issues)

CRC

Sorry, bad explanation. I was trying to say that the US cannot go into a country with troops, hold people who are breaking neither international law nor any law of that country, take them to the US on the grounds that they have broken US law (when they were not in the US). I have made the assumption that the individuals who have been and are held in Guantanamo were/are being held for breaking some law(s). Many of those individuals in Afghanistan were not wanted international criminals, nor breaking any international or Afghanistan laws, yet were taken into US custody.

Donerail,
Please! What is it with you people, just take Saddam out back and have him shot.

js: The US had an excellent teacher when it comes to abducting people. Good ole King George. In any event, they are warmer and have much better food down at Guantanamo. I don’t want to make light of the situation but I would hazard a guess that most of those folks being detained would just as soon slit your throat as look at you. Just a guess, mind you.

Donerail

If I go to the UK, do I have to drive 55?

BTW, the speed limit in California is 70 mph and in other states it is actually higher, i.e., AZ is 80 and MT is unlimited (although they are trying to change this).

You’re right, the example is a tad wobbly. If a UK citizen is driving in the US, he must follow US traffic laws. Somehow the example didn’t read that way, however it was meant.

If you go to the UK, with all the traffic you will be lucky to be able to get to 55 m.p.h.

SalB – you expressed what I meant – you must follow the laws of the country (and time) you are in. You cannot obey the laws that will be made in the future and there is no requirement to obey the laws of other countries. Hence, in practice, Saddam has to obey the laws in effect at the time he commited the acts in question. Similarly, in practice, if found guilty he will be subject to the punishment of those crimes in effect at the time the crimes were comitted. One might think that inappropriate given what he is alleged to have done and his position at that time, but laws are laws and if we disregard them then legal justice is lost.

ok, I think I got the meaning of js’s post, thanks partly to SalB’s correction and guidance.

But donerail requested I asked this : now what if Saddam drives an english car above 70mph in MT and gets pulled over by some dumb illiterate CT cop ? What’s gonna happen in this very particular case ?

CRC

crc95: The answer is obvious. Saddam is set free and all the MT and CT cops then attack LaFrance. You then become the 51st State. Donerail

I think the argument of having to obey only the laws in force at the time of the crime may have to be readjusted a little bit if the person arrested is the one who made the laws. After all, if you make the laws, you can do anything you want. That does not make it right, or even necessarily legal. Laws should be some sort of consensus or they are not laws.

And what about the right for the winner to judge the loser? Do you think it’s fair?

Montjoly.

MontJoly: Who else would judge the loser? Would you prefer that the loser judge the loser? Donerail

This is impossible to consider without some sort of context. Who or what is winning or losing what? If you have a barbarous dictator, you would reply differently than you would reply for the winner or loser of a free democratic election.

Would you elucidate, please.

A few thoughts on some of the previous postings:

It is true that France did use the guillotine and killed many people with it. However, that was quite some time ago and people, countries and the world learn and move on to better behaviour. Just because many years ago a country had the death penalty does not mean it is valid or justifiable today.

In fact most countries have in historic times had the death penalty. However, we have become more civilised. We have discovered that there are alternatives and that as a civilised society killing somebody (or any reason) is not acceptable.

Some people raise religion and what the bible says about such things. Personally I consider that the wording used in the bible is not particularly relevant to the rights and wrongs of the death penalty. Whilst not religious myself, for many religion does play a major part in the debate from the perspective that the bible represents a moral code some people chose to live by. I probably adopt a similar moral code, though for different reasons. The reasoning behind one’s moral code is personal ? what is important is peoples attitude to taking somebody else’s life.

Certainly Europe is against the death penalty. There are constraints on extradition from European countries to the US that (for an extradited prisoner) require the US to give guarantees that the death penalty will not be used. Whilst not an issue that causes public protests, etc. many Europeans consider the US still has some way to "move forward" to join the rest of the world on such issues.

(In the above it is not my intent to denigrate the importance of religion).

Donerail&SalB: after a war or a revolution, you’ve obviously the ones who have won, and others who have lost. The problem is that the strongest wins, and the strongest is not always the fairest. Some of dictators have won wars or revolution ( Pinochet, Castro, Staline, Ceaucescu, Hitler, Franco, Danton & Robespierre ), and have judged and condamned a plenty of persons, they had the right of the power with them, but does it mean that they were right? Of course not…for us. But for them? When USA lost his war against Vietnam, some of vietnamese people have been killed by the communist regime, just because they were defending another kind of ideals. What would USA have made if they had won? the same thing, and the one who is right one day is wrong the following day…
You fight for your ideal, for your freedom, it’s ok but the one in front of you is doing the same, and you can’t judge him.
Now, in the special case of Saddam Hussein, he has killed thousands of kurdes, men, women and children, and I wouldn’t spend a second defending him, I won’t cry when "iraky’s government" will kill him. But I would prefered another way of destitution, and a fair trial by his own people.
Montjoly.

Montjoly: I do not disagree with you. It would be nice if principles and values could be disseminated in a fairer fashion. It is, afterall, what separates us from the animals. Donerail