Executing Sadam

[Mercy me]

[quote name='stuckinamo' post='1120987' date='Nov 15 2006, 05:44 PM']
i don't really care who you are or what you've done.........no one deserves to be killed by another human being. that's just wrong.
[/quote]

The difference here is that it is not someone killing Saddam it is the government of the country in which he lives. Societies have the duty to protect themselves for threats.

Edited to correct spelling.

Edited November 15, 2006 by Mercy me

[Matty_boy]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1121000' date='Nov 15 2006, 04:54 PM']
The difference here is that it is not someone killing Saddam it is the government of the country in which he lives. Societies have the duty to protect themselves for threats.

Edited to correct spelling.
[/quote]

In my humble opinion, executing Saddam is society protecting themselves from the threat. Maybe I've seen too many movies, and read too many articles about terrorists taking hostages or threatening to blow up things to get a political leader out of prison, but I sincerely believe that killing Saddam, taking him out of the equation, will keep militants/terrorists from attempting to put Saddam back in power.

It's like playing a game of capture the flag. The Iraqi police are one team, the militants are another. The militants objective is to kill the Iraqi police team, while the Iraqi police are trying to capture the flag of democracy and freedom. The police cannot also "protect the flag" while trying to secure freedom. They don't have the means or manpower to do so without risk of great harm.

[Pax Christi]

I believe that once a murderer is captured and imprisoned he is no longer a threat to society. So, execution would be unjust.
It is another thing to execute someone who still walks amongst society and would cause the death of innocent people.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Pax Christi' post='1121545' date='Nov 16 2006, 11:11 AM']
I believe that once a murderer is captured and imprisoned he is no longer a threat to society. So, execution would be unjust.
It is another thing to execute someone who still walks amongst society and would cause the death of innocent people.
[/quote]

What is "society", are not the non-murderers which are imprisoned, and the police that keep them there part of at least a society?

Do they have a right not to have their lives threatened by a mass murderer? Or a very evil and dangerous man?


The fact is they do have that right, and are denined that right when evil wicked men like Sadam are allow to live among them.

[Matty_boy]

Furthermore, Pax Christi's point may apply with regards to the U.S. prison system, but Iraq is not the U.S.. We have the technology, the means, and the manpower to divert to keeping criminals like saddam in prison with little or no risk to society.

Iraq is a struggling democracy surrounded by fasict theocracies, and infiltrated by oppressive regimes which believe that killing anyone who opposes them is an action rewarded by God.

[Piamaria]

The Church knows that we do not live in an ideal world or heaven. Saddam Hussein has been proven guilty of crimes against humanity. The consequences of his remaining alive for Iraq and the rest of the world are evident. I'm just starting to study Thomistic Theology but if I understand what I've read correctly, I think he gives circumstances when the good that comes from an act is a mitigating factor. However, even if I misunderstand St. Thomas Aquinas, I still believe that sometimes (rarely) the death of a dangerous person is necessary to protect others.

And surely no one can believe that he did not get a chance to defend himself in court.

WHich doesn't mean we don't pray for him to repent. Eternity is serious business.

[Twentie Fow]

Give him the chance to let the grace of God come over him so that he may do penance in his heart! No death penalty for him.

[musturde]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1113936' date='Nov 7 2006, 01:40 PM']
Doh. The onese killing to get Sadaam back into power will stop. Who wants a Dead President? Wait. That didn't come out right.

Who wants a Dead Dictator? It's not going to solve all the problems in Iraq, just the ones killing because of Sadaam. Unless you believe that Sadaam is worth a half dozen expendable lives because he was 'The President'.
[/quote]

I agree with you, if he is prisoned, they will use that as a reason to do more attacks. However, if he dies, they'll have more of a reason to overthrow this current government and go into civil war. I dont think keeping him alive or killing him will help.

Edited November 19, 2006 by musturde

[son_of_angels]

[quote name='Twentie Fow' post='1123611' date='Nov 19 2006, 10:12 AM']
Give him the chance to let the grace of God come over him so that he may do penance in his heart! No death penalty for him.
[/quote]

Sorry, what? I've heard of far more instances of grace given to those who are aware and accept their death (a neccessary thing for all Catholics to consider) than for those who see no purpose in their life. Secondly, the idea of a person still being alive and a possible claimant to the government in Iraq is impossible to contain within the walls of a prison, and that prison would be in the hands of the people that he wronged. Is it not more likely that these political opponents would be willing to torture him for years on end?

Frankly, I hope they put him to death, for his own and for the people's sake. I would rather see him hanged than see him in a tank someday (remember Mussolini!).

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pia' post='1123340' date='Nov 18 2006, 05:14 PM']
The Church knows that we do not live in an ideal world or heaven. Saddam Hussein has been proven guilty of crimes against humanity. The consequences of his remaining alive for Iraq and the rest of the world are evident. I'm just starting to study Thomistic Theology but if I understand what I've read correctly, I think he gives circumstances when the good that comes from an act is a mitigating factor. However, even if I misunderstand St. Thomas Aquinas, I still believe that sometimes (rarely) the death of a dangerous person is necessary to protect others.

And surely no one can believe that he did not get a chance to defend himself in court.

WHich doesn't mean we don't pray for him to repent. Eternity is serious business.
[/quote]
And St. Thomas Aquinas supported the death penalty. Please see my earlier post in this thread.

[jwangkal]

I am prolife and I don't support any form of death sentence, be it on a terrorist or any other human being. We are all subject to God's judgement. "Let he who has no sin throw the first stone".
The execution of Saddam won't prevent terrorists from doing harm to the rest of humanity, in fact they will want to revenge his death.

[heavenseeker]

I have to say yes, he had so many other people exicuted for no reason at all. Its only right for him to be exicuted for it. but then again i really didnt care too much when i heard he was exicuted wit hthe exception of the thought of that he had it coming one way or another anyways.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1123723' date='Nov 19 2006, 02:07 PM']
Sorry, what? I've heard of far more instances of grace given to those who are aware and accept their death (a neccessary thing for all Catholics to consider) than for those who see no purpose in their life. Secondly, the idea of a person still being alive and a possible claimant to the government in Iraq is impossible to contain within the walls of a prison, and that prison would be in the hands of the people that he wronged. Is it not more likely that these political opponents would be willing to torture him for years on end?

Frankly, I hope they put him to death, for his own and for the people's sake. I would rather see him hanged than see him in a tank someday (remember Mussolini!).
[/quote]


I do not pretend to know what will happen now that he has been executed, nor do I know what would have happened had he been left in prison. I refuse to speculate....
However, I find your argument ridiculous. "I've heard of far more instances of grace given to those who are aware and accept their death"....You must be kidding. First of all, Saddam most obviously did not "accept" his death. He was shouting while his sentence was read, and supposedly he was still shouting and carrying on as he was lead out to where they killed him. I just can't believe you would say that we are giving someone more of a chance of salvation by killing them. That's psychological torture, and it does NOT help someone repent of their sins. Also, your argument that his 'political opponents would be willing to torture him for years on end', and therefore killing him is justified, is directly contrary to Catholic teaching. That is euthenasia, mercy killing. It is putting someone out of their misery.
The only valid arguments for executing Hussein are the ones that talk about how he is a danger to society. Anything else condoning murder.

[mroger]

I don't know exactly what the Vatican thinks about this, but when I consider respect for life, all life, I cannot do so without measuring consequence. I do not believe that one life is more valuable than another, but I do believe that two lives are more valuable than one. Moreso when this one, who, despite that he was backed in many ways by the CIA for the US, cannot be held less accountable for genocide against the Kurdish people. And his death, while grotesque and ugly, is necessary. As long as he was alive, people would continue to live in fear, and the argument that that was their sacrifice just doesn't suffice for me. Needless death has no merit, especially at the hands of a Saddam loyalist, Baath party extremist, or Al Queda insurgent who would like nothing more than to claim Saddam for themselves as a martyr to justify the killing of thousands more innocent people. Those are who my concern is for.

See, eventually the brigade of Saddam enthusiasts will have to find other means and ways for justifying their actions because they cannot bring Saddam back. Saddam alive is far more destructive to the lives of the innocent than Saddam dead. I think that I can accept both being responsible for the death of Saddam and reconcile that with my faith in Christ. I believe in the sanctity of life, even Saddam's. I believe that his death was Just. There aren't many people for whom I would feel this way, but one other is Kim Jong Il, or any leading person [who has instructed to kill] of Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al Queda. That is all.

That is probably not in agreement with the Pope, but that is just how I feel about that.

[Cam42]

Sorry guys it has been a very busy Christmas season for me and I have been working mad hours. Roughly 60-70 hrs per week. No time to post.

That being said, I fully support what the Holy See has said about the execution of Saddam.

There have been several things that have been posited on this thread that are concerning....

First, justifying the execution by OT means. The OT message was fulfilled by the PDR of Jesus Christ. While it is the inspired Word of God, it's message was completed by Jesus Christ. It is that concept that separates us from our Jewish brothers and sisters.

Secondly, justifying the exection by Aquinas. In his time, Aquinas was correct in his view, but not everything nor every circumstance is the same today as it was in his time. The death penalty is a great example of that. Today society has a much more complete way of preserving the dignity of the aggressor and protecting society from that aggressor than it did in Aquinas' time. Don't forget Aquinas is not infallible and there can and there has been advancement in his view. (Fides et Ratio, anyone?) The whole of the Neo-Thomistic movement hinges on this.

Those are the most concerning things that I see, however, my view on this and it is fully supported by Catholic teaching is this.....

The entire morality of capital punishment has changed, because there is a greater understanding of human dignity.

You will not find a Pope who, based upon the advances of the State and the understanding of the Culture of Life, will promote the practical use of the death penalty.

While no one has argued that the State does not have the right, theoretically, to the use of capital punishment.....the State should limit itself to non-lethal means, because these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Also, the State has means for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Again, the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor, but the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Let's not forget, that the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. When non-lethal means are sufficent, authority should limit itself to such means because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good, are more in conformity with the dignity of the human person, and do not remove definitively from the guilty party the possibility of reforming himself.

[quote name='Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Chuch #468'][b]What is the purpose of punishment?[/b]

A punishment imposed by legitimate public authority has the aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense, of defending public order and people's safety, and contributing to the correction of the guilty party.[/quote]
[i]CCC #2266[/i]

[quote name='CCCC #469'][b]What kind of punishment may be imposed?[/b]

The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Given the possiblities which the State has for effectively preventing crime by rendering the one who has committed an offnsed incapable of doing harm, the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if practically non-existent." (Evangelium Vitae) When non-lethal means are sufficent, authority should limit itself to such means because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good, are more in conformity with the dignity of the human person, and do not remove definitively from the guilty party the possibility of reforming himself.[/quote]
[i]CCC #2267[/i]

This is a crystal clear explaination and it comes directly from the CDF with the approval of the Holy Father. I don't think that there is any more room to talk. I think that the phrase "rare if practically non-existant" is now part of the official catechetical teaching and deference should be paid to it. Every instance of sound, official catechesis from the Holy See speaks to this AND includes this in it's explaination.

My view, which has not changed in years, is fully applicable to Saddam as it is to any other person who has been executed.

My challenge is this: Show how anyone who has been executed in modern times has fulfilled the moral requirements of what the Church teaches today? This includes Tookie and Saddam.....

[mroger]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1156644' date='Jan 5 2007, 11:37 AM']

"Let's not forget, that the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense."

"the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor"

[/quote]

So, after genocide [in the hundreds of thousands], gassing [non-nuclear WMD's], authority by fear, evil manipulation, tyranny and oppression, and an overall disposition toward violence without concern, what then, by the proposal which you present, does it take to justify a death penalty, being that it can actually be justified and proportionate in some case as you said?


Given the possiblities which the State has for effectively preventing crime by rendering the one who has committed an offnsed incapable of doing harm.

note: Don't forget that every day he was alive was costing more innocent lives [whether directly or indirectly] and would have continued to do so because I think that is important to keep in mind.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1156644' date='Jan 5 2007, 11:37 AM']
My challenge is this: Show how anyone who has been executed in modern times has fulfilled the moral requirements of what the Church teaches today? This includes Tookie and Saddam.....
[/quote]

For Saddam, I felt that I had already made the case. He is the most extreme, the outlier, the confounder, his merit falls beyond the moral requirements for execution. In addition, his existence, his very existence is harmful to millions of innocent people every day that he is alive. Killing him is also serving the "greater good" as you talked about. There IS moral equity in this.

[Cam42]

[quote name='geistesswiesenschaften' post='1157260' date='Jan 6 2007, 01:10 AM']
So, after genocide [in the hundreds of thousands], gassing [non-nuclear WMD's], authority by fear, evil manipulation, tyranny and oppression, and an overall disposition toward violence without concern, what then, by the proposal which you present, does it take to justify a death penalty, being that it can actually be justified and proportionate in some case as you said?

Given the possiblities which the State has for effectively preventing crime by rendering the one who has committed an offnsed incapable of doing harm.

note: Don't forget that every day he was alive was costing more innocent lives [whether directly or indirectly] and would have continued to do so because I think that is important to keep in mind.
For Saddam, I felt that I had already made the case. He is the most extreme, the outlier, the confounder, his merit falls beyond the moral requirements for execution. In addition, his existence, his very existence is harmful to millions of innocent people every day that he is alive. Killing him is also serving the "greater good" as you talked about. There IS moral equity in this.
[/quote]

Yes, it is justifiable. It is so, precisely because while he lived, he had the opportunity to ammend his life and seek forgiveness. Saddam cannot do that now. And actually you answer your own question with the very next statement you make.

Given the possiblities the State does have for effectively preventing crime, by rendering Saddam incapable of doing harm, there is no justifiable means for execution.

From the time that he was captured and incarcerated in 2004, he was not costing anyone, directly or indirectly, their lives. And since he was not doing that from 2004 to his execution, he could not continue to do so.

I disagree with your whole case that you made. Saddam was not nor could he be compared to the most dangerous man in modern times; Adolph Hitler.

There is no moral justification in today's society for the execution of Saddam. I would like to see a case made for the execution of Saddam based on something more than "I felt...." How about concrete proofs using the catechetical model accepted in the Roman Catholic Church today.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

The Holy See has roundly condemned Saddam's execution. I stand with the Church. The Lord can give and the Lord can take away - no judge has any right to do that.

As for all of you who are saying that Saddam's many atrocious crimes justified the death penalty, that makes it sound as if mercy operates on a sliding scale. You killed just one person, so we'll imprison you for life. You killed thousands of people, so we'll execute you. Jesus repeatedly makes it clear in the New Testament that we're to show mercy even to the worst criminals. He didn't say to St Peter, "Forgive seventy times seven times...but make sure you keep careful count!"

I know Saddam was monstrous. As I mentioned in another thread, there was a Kuwaiti girl in my old class whose mother was raped by two of Saddam's invading soliders right in front of her and her two-year-old brother. Her mum has never really recovered from the experience, but I still don't see how an execution (complete with malicious taunting) will do anything to avenge that past or evem to ensure a safer future. The many different factions in Iraq will fight each other on the flimsiest provocation. They don't need reasons to fight. They only need excuses. Removing Saddam from the equation will do nothing to stop them. There are power-hungry people out there now. They aren't fighting for Saddam's release and they never were. They're fighting for their own twisted interests.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1157554' date='Jan 6 2007, 03:04 PM']
I disagree with your whole case that you made. Saddam was not nor could he be compared to the most dangerous man in modern times; Adolph Hitler.
[/quote]
This brings up an interesting question. Just evil and dangerous does a man have to be in order to deserve capital punishment?? ("Oh, he was only responsible for the genocide of thousands, not millions")

Hitler is really not so special and unique as liberals make him out to be. There have been and are many profoundly evil men, whose crimes truly deserve death.

There seems to be absolutely no sense of justice (the virtue of "giving each man his due") whatsoever in contempoprary liberalism. (Except "social justice" of course - "making those capitalist pigs pay!")

[Jaime]

Hehehe

You're calling camster a liberal?


that's just too entertaining for words