NationStates Jolt Archive

I am against the death penalty.
So you can imagine my shock and anger at the new UN Secretariat's response to the execution of Saddam Hussein.

"All sections of Iraqi society, as well as the wider international community, have an interest in ensuring that a death sentence provided for in Iraqi law is only imposed following a trial and appeal process that is, and is legitimately seen as, fair, credible and impartial. That is especially so in a case as exceptional as this one." High Commissioner Louise Arbour, Head of UN Human Rights commitee

Is it just me or did the Human Rights Commissioner just say, "Death penalties fine. Just make sure the trial was fair?"

Also, newly elected Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon himself has not criticized the execution sufficiently enough according to critics. He wrote a letter of appeal to Iraqi High Tribunal "urging restraint", but in an official statement he said that capital punishment "was for each and every (United Nation) member state to decide."

Both of these statements seem to be in direct conflict with the traditional UN stance where the United Nations' condemns capital punishment in all scenarios. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child forbids capital punishment to be carried out on juveniles.

What does everyone else think? I am personally not convinced Ban is giving very much credit to his office.

How each Nation chooses to punnish their criminals is their right. The UN can urge restraint or even leniency, but it's ultimately up to each Nation.

How each Nation chooses to punnish their criminals is their right. The UN can urge restraint or even leniency, but it's ultimately up to each Nation.

Indeed, it's not the UN's place to make the death penalty decision for the member Nations, and they'd be very heavily criticised for doing anything that even vaguely made it look like they were thinking about thinking that it was.

I am against the death penalty.

I can tell you're clever at once.

Indeed, it's not the UN's place to make the death penalty decision for the member Nations, and they'd be very heavily criticised for doing anything that even vaguely made it look like they were thinking about thinking that it was.

Yes, because it isn't like the UN has taken a stance against other barbaric punishments before... but I guess torture and lashings and such things are less easily stomached than state-sanctioned murder.

I"All sections of Iraqi society, as well as the wider international community, have an interest in ensuring that a death sentence provided for in Iraqi law is only imposed following a trial and appeal process that is, and is legitimately seen as, fair, credible and impartial. That is especially so in a case as exceptional as this one." High Commissioner Louise Arbour, Head of UN Human Rights commitee
Suggests that they're against it - seeing as it was one of the worst trials in modern history, in fact, it was a complete joke.

That monster needed to be killed before he contaminated other minds with the vile trash he ceaselessly spewed. Preferably, a process of exorcism would need to have been undergone prior to his hanging. I believe that he was demonically possessed; I can see no other rational explanation for his actions.

How each Nation chooses to punnish their criminals is their right. The UN can urge restraint or even leniency, but it's ultimately up to each Nation.

I totally agree with that statement. It ought to be up to each state to make their own decisions ultimately, but Ban is not reinforcing the UN's traditional humanitarian stance on capital punishment repeatedly expressed by his predecessors. I think he's acting as a lapdog for the two superpowers of the UN Security Council, the US and China, who still practice capital punishment.

Suggests that they're against it - seeing as it was one of the worst trials in modern history, in fact, it was a complete joke.

I think UNProtectorates is aghast that the UN did nothing to stop the execution other than write a letter urging restraint and pushing for a fair trial.

That monster needed to be killed before he contaminated other minds with the vile trash he ceaselessly spewed. Preferably, a process of exorcism would need to have been undergone prior to his hanging. I believe that he was demonically possessed; I can see no other rational explanation for his actions.Hm... so basically him being allowed freedom of speach is worse than the atrocities he's been accused of?

I can't think of a better example how people can be irrational.

Yes, because it isn't like the UN has taken a stance against other barbaric punishments before... but I guess torture and lashings and such things are less easily stomached than state-sanctioned murder.

Heel boy, I'm no fan of the death penalty myself. I'm just not suprised the UN isn't wasting it's time by setting itself on the opposite side of the fence from America.

That monster needed to be killed before he contaminated other minds with the vile trash he ceaselessly spewed. Preferably, a process of exorcism would need to have been undergone prior to his hanging. I believe that he was demonically possessed; I can see no other rational explanation for his actions.

Oh come on, try a bit of subtlety. You could be a lot funnier if you didn't just wade in with some silly comment like that.

I totally agree with that statement. It ought to be up to each state to make their own decisions ultimately, but Ban is not reinforcing the UN's traditional humanitarian stance on capital punishment repeatedly expressed by his predecessors. I think he's acting as a lapdog for the two superpowers of the UN Security Council, the US and China, who still practice capital punishment.

and how do you suggest he reinforce the stance... send in peacekeepers to rescue Saddam? sanctions on Iraq for carrying out the execution?

That monster needed to be killed before he contaminated other minds with the vile trash he ceaselessly spewed.
Ah, the irony makes me chuckle. :)

Personally, I'm pro-death penalty, but that aside, yes the UN has no rights to determine what punishments member states are allowed or not allowed to use. In somewhere like Iraq, where people get murdered on a daily basis, you can't really expect the Iraqi government to be particularly concerned about the execution of a mass-murderer himself.

I totally agree with that statement. It ought to be up to each state to make their own decisions ultimately, but Ban is not reinforcing the UN's traditional humanitarian stance on capital punishment repeatedly expressed by his predecessors. I think he's acting as a lapdog for the two superpowers of the UN Security Council, the US and China, who still practice capital punishment.As a South Korean, it's probably the looming issue with North Korea that's on his mind at the moment. It's difficult arguing against the execution of Saddam, since he certainly is someone that deserves it.

and how do you suggest he reinforce the stance... send in peacekeepers to rescue Saddam? sanctions on Iraq for carrying out the execution?

Although that first scenario is very funny and intriguing to think about, I wouldn't suggest anything out of the UN's jurisdiction.

I think Ban could have done more than write a letter. Perhaps some kind of public statement condemning capital punishment. I know that putting his neck out like that could be putting him on shaky ground with the US and China, but I would respect him a lot more for showing some courage.

The UN has already decided that juveniles ought to be exempt from capital punishment. Why not adults?

Oh come on, try a bit of subtlety. You could be a lot funnier if you didn't just wade in with some silly comment like that.

Can you proffer any other explanation for his hideous, gruesome actions other than demonic possession? Such gross acts are devoid of any and all humanity; Saddam was not acting as a human being when he committed those atrocities. Some other being was contaminating him with its evil poison.

Can you proffer any other explanation for his hideous, gruesome actions other than demonic possession? Such gross acts are devoid of any and all humanity; Saddam was not acting as a human being when he committed those atrocities. Some other being was contaminating him with its evil poison.

I mean, that's closer to what I'm talking about, but you still sound like you're in an Ed Wood film. Loosen up. Talk less about evil poison, more about sinister suggestions.

Less is more.

Can you proffer any other explanation for his hideous, gruesome actions other than demonic possession? Such gross acts are devoid of any and all humanity; Saddam was not acting as a human being when he committed those atrocities. Some other being was contaminating him with its evil poison.You give the devil too much credit. Humanity doesn't need the inspiration.

Less is more.

Although I do appreciate your constructive criticism, my views on this matter are firmly established and cannot be swayed by an unknown individual with ambiguous goals and purposes. Therefore, I must reiterate my appeal: please tell me how a human being could have committed the disgusting atrocities which characterize Saddam Hussein.

Although that first scenario is very funny and intriguing to think about, I wouldn't suggest anything out of the UN's jurisdiction. I consider sending in the troops (peacekeepers) to be on the extreme end... which is why I mentioned it. ;)

I think Ban could have done more than write a letter. Perhaps some kind of public statement condemning capital punishment. I know that putting his neck out like that could be putting him on shaky ground, but I would respect him a lot more for showing some courage.

The UN has already decided that juveniles ought to be exempt from capital punishment. Why not adults? well, it could be due to several factors, one being the speed that Saddam was executed. Two, the powderkeg that is Iraq. (telling them they can govern themselves then say but...) Three, unless you have hard proof and not speculation that the trial was NOT fair...

and Juvies and Children being sentenced the DP would fall under child abuse/exploitation.

You give the devil too much credit. Humanity doesn't need the inspiration.

QFT.

Therefore, I must reiterate my appeal: please tell me how a human being could have committed the disgusting atrocities which characterize Saddam Hussein.

Bad things like that happen all around the world. It's just one of those things that's characteristic of humanity, I guess.

I'm quite happy that the UN didn't stick it's nose in more (mostly for the reason that I don't think there should be a UN).

The power of the sword was given to the civil government to defend and punish and the UN is trying to deprive that power from them, which is a sin.

QFT.I must admit, I stole that from a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon :(

I'm quite happy that the UN didn't stick it's nose in more (mostly for the reason that I don't think there should be a UN).

The power of the sword was given to the civil government to defend and punish and the UN is trying to deprive that power from them, which is a sin.
Baldrick: Really?
Blackadder: No, not really.

Baldrick: Really?
Blackadder: No, not really.

Yes, really. Read the Old Testament and then read where Paul says we are to obey the Law, even under the new covenant.

[QUOTE=JuNii;12192745]I consider sending in the troops (peacekeepers) to be on the extreme end... which is why I mentioned it. ;)
QUOTE]

That's interesting. Do the UN Peackeeping forces have jurisdiction to interefere in a nationstates criminal justice system? Could they extract an accused person on trial from an independent national criminal court?

Therefore, I must reiterate my appeal: please tell me how a human being could have committed the disgusting atrocities which characterize Saddam Hussein.
By being, well, humans. *Shrug*

Three, unless you have hard proof and not speculation that the trial was NOT fair...

Would the report from Human Rights Watch suffice? I think it says a lot...

A report issued in November 2006 by Human Rights Watch identified numerous serious flaws in the trial of Hussein for the Dujail executions. The 97-page report, “Judging Dujail: The First Trial Before the Iraqi High Tribunal,” was based on 10 months of observation and dozens of interviews with judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers.

The report found, among other defects, that the Iraqi High Tribunal was undermined from the outset by Iraqi government actions that threatened the independence and perceived impartiality of the court. It outlined serious flaws in the trial, including failures to disclose key evidence to the defense, violations of the defendants’ right to question prosecution witnesses, and the presiding judge’s demonstrations of bias.

Hussein’s defense lawyers had 30 days to file an appeal from the November 5 verdict. However, the trial judgment was only made available to them on November 22, leaving just two weeks to respond. The Appeals Chamber announced its confirmation of the verdict and the death sentence on December 26.

“It defies imagination that the Appeals Chamber could have thoroughly reviewed the 300-page judgment and the defense’s written arguments in less than three weeks’ time,” said Dicker. “The appeals process appears even more flawed than the trial.”
The report (http://hrw.org/reports/2006/iraq1106/)

I already created this exact same thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513159).

Yes, really. Read the Old Testament and then read where Paul says we are to obey the Law, even under the new covenant.The funny thing is, we agnostics don't give a damn about the old testament...

Can you proffer any other explanation for his hideous, gruesome actions other than demonic possession? Such gross acts are devoid of any and all humanity; Saddam was not acting as a human being when he committed those atrocities. Some other being was contaminating him with its evil poison.

To deny that humans are capable of atrocities or to decry those that do such crimes as abnormal are two of the greatest rationalizations for one's own atrocious acts. One merely needs to view themselves as human or normal, and in their own mind thus cannot commit monstrous deeds.

That's interesting. Do the UN Peackeeping forces have jurisdiction to interefere in a nationstates criminal justice system? Could they extract an accused person on trial from an independent national criminal court?
No. The peacekeepers have the specific mandate they're given when the operation is established. And they are, as you may note, peacekeepers, not an UN army.

The funny thing is, we agnostics don't give a damn about the old testament...

Well, we Biblical Christians give a lot of stuff (Is it possible to give a damn?:confused:).

Just letting you know what other views are out there.

I must admit, I stole that from a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon :(
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Calvin_%26_Hobbes_-_Calvin.png
I already created this exact same thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513159).
I guess people needed fresh blood?

Well, we Biblical Christians give a lot of stuff (Is it possible to give a damn?:confused:).

Just letting you know what other views are out there.

The Bible would only matter in a theocracy based on it. Guess how many there are.

Hint: The number starts with the letter "o".

That's interesting. Do the UN Peackeeping forces have jurisdiction to interefere in a nationstates criminal justice system? Could they extract an accused person on trial from an independent national criminal court?Dunno. *shrugs.* Probably not.

Would the report from Human Rights Watch suffice? I think it says a lot...
The report (http://hrw.org/reports/2006/iraq1106/)
that would be up to the UN to see if it's enough and how much it says.

Well, we Biblical Christians give a lot of stuff (Is it possible to give a damn?:confused:).

Just letting you know what other views are out there.There are. Not all Christians hate the UN. It seems more typical of American Christians, just as it seems typical of American conservatives. That's why I don't give your bible-based UN hatred much credit; if it were valid, I doubt there'd be any Christians that are unopposed to the UN at all.

The Bible would only matter in a theocracy based on it. Guess how many there are.

Hint: The number starts with the letter "o".

If you want to discuss the merits of theocracy, start a thread about it. I was showing a view which most persons in the world don't know about.

They think that excecution is all about revenge and "deterant". Most persons in the world don't think that there may be religions whose beliefs say that God dictates what powers and responsibilities each sphere of society is to have.

How each Nation chooses to punnish their criminals is their right. The UN can urge restraint or even leniency, but it's ultimately up to each Nation.

Agreed. That is why I agree with the UN Secretary General.

There are. Not all Christians hate the UN. It seems more typical of American Christians, just as it seems typical of American conservatives. That's why I don't give your bible-based UN hatred much credit; if it were valid, I doubt there'd be any Christians that are unopposed to the UN at all.

Heard of denominations?

And the label "Christian" does not guarantee Christian.

There are. Not all Christians hate the UN. It seems more typical of American Christians, just as it seems typical of American conservatives. That's why I don't give your bible-based UN hatred much credit; if it were valid, I doubt there'd be any Christians that are unopposed to the UN at all.

please, alot of typical American Christians don't hate the UN either. ;)

Suggests that they're against it - seeing as it was one of the worst trials in modern history, in fact, it was a complete joke.

Oh brother :rolleyes:

They think that excecution is all about revenge and "deterant". Most persons in the world don't think that there may be religions whose beliefs dictate what powers and responsibilities each sphere of society is to have.To be honest, shouldn't you rather be asking "If He witnessed an upcoming execution, what would Jesus do?" instead of looking at the OT for answers?

And the label "Christian" does not guarantee Christian.
No True Scotsman, eh?

Heard of denominations?

And the label "Christian" does not guarantee Christian.

According to people who label themselves "Christian"?

Heard of denominations?

And the label "Christian" does not guarantee Christian.Yeah, one thing most of them have in common is that they consider themselves the only ones :D

UN sec general does not protest the death penalty
UN sec gen is South Korean
South korea has the death penalty.
the UN korean Sec Gen does not protest Saddams execution :eek:

please, alot of typical American Christians don't hate the UN either. ;)Which is why I've come to the conclusion that it's more of an American conservative thing than an American Christian thing, much less a Christian thing.

Agreed. That is why I agree with the UN Secretary General.

Personally, I agree with former Secretary General Kofi Annan:

''The forfeiture of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process. Let the states that still use the death penalty stay their hand lest in time to come they look back with remorse knowing it is too late to redeem their grievous mistake.''

That is a statement I can respect.

To be honest, shouldn't you rather be asking "If He witnessed an upcoming execution, what would Jesus do?" instead of looking at the OT for answers?

No. Jesus is God and God does not change. So how can we have the Old Testament Law (which Jesus said He came to fulfill and not to remove) and what Jesus did. Answer: Jesus is God and has the power to forgive above and beyond the Law. He was speaking to that particular time and those particular persons' hearts. Which is not to say we cannot learn from that incident. But, in absence of Jesus physical body here with us, we must follow the Law, making sure that our hearts are not judging (as Jesus says in the New Testament) and that we are merely fulfilling God's judgements which He has commanded us to carry out for Him (not that He needs us to, but that He has chosen to have us to).

No True Scotsman, eh?

That's the extreme of it.

According to people who label themselves "Christian"?

What does Christian mean?

Do I fit that definition? Does Joe Schmoe fit that definition?

No. Jesus is God and God does not change. So how can we have the Old Testament Law (which Jesus said He came to fulfill and not to remove) and what Jesus did. Answer: Jesus is God and has the power to forgive above and beyond the Law. He was speaking to that particular time and those particular persons' hearts. Which is not to say we cannot learn from that incident. But, in absence of Jesus physical body here with us, we must follow the Law, making sure that our hearts are not judging (as Jesus says in the New Testament) and that we are merely fulfilling God's judgements which He has commanded us to carry out for Him (not that He needs us to, but that He has chosen to have us to).

So I assume you don't eat shellfish, don't eat anything mixing dairy and meat, don't eat pork or rabbit, and don't wear clothing of mixed materials?

What does Christian mean?


Christian; noun; one who believes that Jesus of Nazereth was the Messiah, or anointed one.

For everyone asking me about my view on this, please ask for clarification of my view only. Otherwise, it would probably be best to start another thread so this one isn't hijacked any more than it already is.

Personally, I agree with former Secretary General Kofi Annan:



That is a statement I can respect.

And Koffi Annan has alot to learn about a thing called soveriegnty.

What does Christian mean?

I don't know if I'm qualified to answer that. I'd say anyone who believes that Jesus sacrificed his life for some spiritual purpose (No matter how spurious).
My point is that you appear to believe that you are more qualified to decide who a Christian is than a non-Christian who calls themself a Christian, simply on the basis that you call yourself a Christian. It just seems a little... "off".


Do I fit that definition? Does Joe Schmoe fit that definition?
Yeah, I mean, again, I'm not really sure I can answer that properly. I'd call you a Christian, but mainly because you label yourself as one.

And Koffi Annan has alot to learn about a thing called soveriegnty.

Yeah! How dare that evil bastard say that killing is wrong! God would never approve of such a statement!

And Koffi Annan has alot to learn about a thing called soveriegnty.

Never the less, Kofi has a lot more courage in defying morally wrong state practices than Ban ever will. Sovereignty is over-rated anyway.

No. Jesus is God and God does not change.Ahuh. That's probably why Matthew 5:38-39 contradicts Leviticus 24:19-20. :rolleyes:

And Koffi Annan has alot to learn about a thing called soveriegnty.So does George Bush, but why aren't you lambasting him?

Never the less, Kofi has a lot more courage in defying morally wrong state practices than Ban ever will. Sovereignty is over-rated anyway.

He might but he has no authority on what states do.

So does George Bush, but why aren't you lambasting him?

That's because he had authorization to go into Iraq passed by Congress with both Repubs and Dems voting for it. If you have a problem, take it up with Congress for giving him the go ahead.

He might but he has no authority on what states do.He was giving advice, not orders. He does have the authority to do that.

He was giving advice, not orders. He does have the authority to do that.

So does the world court :D

That's because he had authorization to go into Iraq passed by Congress with both Repubs and Dems voting for it. If you have a problem, take it up with Congress for giving him the go ahead.Why should Congress have any authority over Iraq if the UN has no authority over the US?

So does the world court :DIndeed. They can also deliver binding sentences. :D

Why should Congress have any authority over Iraq if the UN has no authority over the US?

I did not say that Congress had authority over Iraq did I? No I did not. They just authorized Bush to use force to oust a dictator that has flaunted the UN one to many times.

Indeed. They can also deliver binding sentences. :D

Depends on the nation and if they want the World Court to be binding on them. The US is not one of those nations though we were at one point.

I did not say that Congress had authority over Iraq did I? No I did not. They just authorized Bush to use force to oust a dictator that has flaunted the UN one to many times.So how is removing some countries recognized leader not messing with their sovreignity?

And why do you consider Annan's statements so anti-sovereignity when you don't seem to think the same of actual interference in a nations government?

Depends on the nation and if they want the World Court to be binding on them. The US is not one of those nations though we were at one point.Indeed. However that's because there's this idea of sovereignity that's highly upheld in the UN, regardless of what some people want to have you believe ;)

So how is removing some countries recognized leader not messing with their sovreignity?

And why do you consider Annan's statements so anti-sovereignity when you don't seem to think the same of actual interference in a nations government?

Can only let things go so far before people are forced into action.

Indeed. However that's because there's this idea of sovereignity that's highly upheld in the UN, regardless of what some people want to have you believe ;)

Touche

*hands you over a cookie*

Can only let things go so far before people are forced into action.Huh? Not so, according to the British memos out there: "What has been heightened is not the threat that Saddam poses but the perception of that threat." (or something along those lines. I'm too busy eating my cookie to hunt for it)

Touche

*hands you over a cookie*Thanks! :)

Huh? Not so, according to the British memos out there: "What has been heightened is not the threat that Saddam poses but the perception of that threat." (or something along those lines. I'm too busy eating my cookie to hunt for it)

Threats are always heightned. Anyone in politics knows that :D It is when they are underthreatened that trouble brews if the threat is real.

Ah, the irony makes me chuckle. :)

Unfortunately, I don't think even the forum owner has a "Launch cruise missile at physical IP address" button for anti-troll work.

UN are weak and ununited, they are all under the power of the United State of America ( for you unpolitical people out there USA) anyway, does the UN stopped any wars, Nooo I demand a reform of the UN

Saddam is another pawn of America, who disobeyed his master, now the Americans terminated him so I think his death has no meaning.

PS: hell, who even know that that was the real Saddam, and not a guy in cheap disguise, for all we know, Saddam and Benladden could be in a tunnel somewhere drinking beers

PS: hell, who even know that that was the real Saddam, and not a guy in cheap disguise, for all we know, Saddam and Benladden could be in a tunnel somewhere drinking beers

Er, welcome to the forum?

Er, welcome to the forum?

Do not feed the new troll.

Do not feed the new troll.

Just being friendly. With some love and affection, the most demented troll can become a much-loved member of the forum.

That monster needed to be killed before he contaminated other minds with the vile trash he ceaselessly spewed. Preferably, a process of exorcism would need to have been undergone prior to his hanging. I believe that he was demonically possessed; I can see no other rational explanation for his actions.
Then why not exorcise him before the hanging? That way he’d be fine and you wouldn’t have to kill him?

But enough patronizing, Saddam wasn’t even an ideologue. He was a pragmatic, yet cruel, dictator with no clear message.

The funny thing is, we agnostics don't give a damn about the old testament...

In Soviet Russia, the Old Testament doesn't give a damn about YOU! :p





Sorry, couldn't resist.

Iraqi PM says he refused U.S. call to delay hanging (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/09/maliki.hussein/index.html)

I guess the US wanted to wait on the Hanging after all.

So does George Bush, but why aren't you lambasting him?

Touché. :cool: