Janosh, you wrote -->>>>Regarding your example, I think you could better put the blame for the deaths caused by this individual on the Indian Government's policy of engaging in hostage exchange.<<<
That's a pretty simplistic answer dont you think ?
let me get this straight.
if we keep the terrorist alive and have to eventually release him to free some hostages , we would have been then called a weak state ??
and If we were to execute that terrorist on capture..jokers like Amnesty international would make a huge hue and cry in front of the UN calling us a fascist state...???
( Yes its happened in the past .)
or you say that the if death penalty wouldnt be administered , that means that individual would have been kept alive in prison
and if some hostages were taken to release him , he still shouldnt be released thus leading to the harm/ death of those hostages ? ? ? ? ?
Im sorry i dont get it ?
Next you say that sometimes terrorists do it to take revenge on state sponsored killings.
Ok fine..Ill agree with that for a moment but Im sure you realise that all "terrorist" crimes actions are not in retaliation but sometimes some "terrorist" actions are intentionally perpetrated to further their dogma on others.
for e.g
- the WTC attacks were in retaliation to the US's policy on middle east/israel
OR
Were just carried out because someone didnt like americans or westerners just cos they were americans or westerners ?
{ seen the movie "passenger 57" ? }
I dont know..perhaps you guys would know the answer ?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janosh>>We are not talking about war, we are talking about capital punishment, a case of an individual who has been been incarcerated and rendered incapable of causing harm<<<
Janosh I'll just tweak the argument a bit further along that line.
If an individual is incarcerated for life or as you put it "safely encapsulated in our penal system "...
what makes you so sure that he/she is rendered incapable of causing harm ?
As i wrote earlier or what sotthi stated..what about the masterminding plots from within prisons ?
or simply what about other crimes committed on parole ? and even if there is no parole there are cases of some mad criminals causing harm to other prison inmates or even prison guards even under solitary confinement ?
Sotthi, by your logic, it sounds as if you are suggesting the danger of someone commiting another crime after they are released (or even still within prison) is so great that the only penalty for a crime should be death. Yes, killing every convict is a foolproof solution for recidivism, but good luck with your next speeding ticket.
Janosh noone was talking about killing every convict the law can get their hands on.
also driving your car above the speed limit is in a different category than murder.
Janosh>> Yes, killing every convict is a foolproof solution for recidivism, but good luck with your next speeding ticket. So is murder the only capital offense?
If someone declares that his acts are as his holy mission in life, then continuing to believe in his "improvement" is the height of naivety and stupidity. And out of whose money do you suppose the state ought to maintain such goons who have attacked them in the first place? Good luck opening your new altruistic bank for capital offenders.
""We shall see who will die first -- me or the authorities who have arranged the death sentence for me."" --- Ahmed Saeed
Regarding the latter question, I think I have clearly stated what I limit capital punishments to.
Janosh>> Ahmed Omar Saeed was incarcerated for kidnapping... not murder.
"All four were convicted of murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap and tampering with evidence."
In his particular example, if the State executed the offender, then in your eyes, Janosh, the State is a Killer.
But if the State just incarcerates him and meanwhile refuses to engage in any hostage policy, thus leading to the death of those hostages, then that State should be applauded??
In your logic, the State ought to rather stay one execution and nevermind if many lives die. Brilliant.
That's being awfully reductivist. The reason that the hostages are taken is in many cases BECAUSE India has a long standing policy of releasing prisoners in exchange for hostages. It is in essence an incentive for kidnapping.
>> The reason that the hostages are taken is in many cases BECAUSE India has a long standing policy of releasing prisoners in exchange for hostages. It is in essence an incentive for kidnapping.
And it wasn't the outcome of a policy, but in fact the weakness of the pseudo Afghan govt. in the face of the Talibans.
Your reasoning stands on its own head. Assuming a govt. caters to policies of prisoner trades for hostages (which is ridiculous, what govt. would do that), this very 'history' of such a policy wouldn't be possible, wouldn't have had a history, if such capital offenders had been executed in the first place.
Staying capital punishment is in essence an incentive for kidnappings.
And we read recently,
"On February 3, 2006, Fawaz Yahya al-Rabeiee who had been sentenced to death for the Limburg attack and 22 other suspected or convicted Al-Qaeda members escaped from jail in Yemen. Jamal al-Badawi, who masterminded the USS Cole bombing of October 12, 2000, was also among the escapees, in total thirteen of whom had been convicted of the Cole and Limburg bombings."
There's enough history on them to make one wonder how useless life-sentences are.
Perhaps we should cut off their hands instead, thus elminating any possibility of these criminals operating power boats, airplanes, or automatic weapons. All manner of cruelty can be justified because it is pragmatic or expedient. But killing remains the business of criminals, and criminal governements.
'As long as there is a mind, jihad till the last breath'... and if that's the case, so you'd be suggesting lets deliver them to a state of comatose, right?! That wouldn't be killing because his heart would still be beating, and its ok, if his whole consciousness, history and memory is wiped out.
Ridiculous. No, its the wish to inflict suffering on someone that would render him useless and spare his life. Its that kind of inhumane infliction which is criminal.
>> But killing remains the business of criminals, and criminal governements.
Not so. If you can speak of a right to self-defense, one can also speak of a right to attack.
A state that acts to safeguard its people and the integrity of its soil, is not criminal; it is just.
The Tokyo Sarin nerve gas incident happened not once, but twice. The Japanese govt. is not a criminal for passing a death sentence on them, but just.
Guys. If killing is a perfectly legitimate method of achieving political aims, then why are these guys even on trial? Im sure in thier minds, the decision is clear. All I have to do kill a few completely subdued, defenseless hostages and I will help to deter the occupation and murder of everyone in the arab world! See! Its completely justified and honorable! But its idiotic. If killing is ok, then they have nothing to complain about. If it isnt, then then it just isnt. To sit down and nitpick over net-harm is disingenuous because it is fucking impossible. There is no way to measure negative impact of what one guy in prison may ore may not have for the extended history of the world, nor could you measure the negative impact a general lack of regard for the sanctity of life has on a culture. Theyre unfalsifiable. Your exmples are at best anecdotal and worst hypothetical and do nothing to make a moral argument.
"A state that acts to safeguard its people and the integrity of its soil, is not criminal; it is just. "
I believe it was safeguarding the state from terrorists that was used as justification for killing of several hundred protestors at Tianamen Square. But perhaps the price of protecting the state is the occassional killing of its citizenry.
>> I believe it was safeguarding the state from terrorists that was used as justification for killing of several hundred protestors at Tianamen Square
We were talking of capital punishment and not purges. Are you seeing red everywhere?
In any case, I already presented China as an example founded on extreme liberalism.
>> But perhaps the price of protecting the state is the occassional killing of its citizenry.
So now you are concerned. You showed indifference to the fate of the hostages earlier.
Why don't you also brand traditional warrior cultures throughout the world that believe/d in initiating a boy upon his martial prowess - killing, hunting, etc. were all criminal people! and criminal ages.
"We were talking of capital punishment and not purges. Are you seeing red everywhere?
In any case, I already presented China as an example founded on extreme liberalism."
I do see red everywhere - you are proposing that terror may be solved by use of capital punishment against individuals identified as enemies of the state. I'm suggesting that what consititutes "an enemy of the state" is much more problemmatic that you allow.
And what does "extreme liberalism" mean? China, with a controlled market, limited human rights and a single party political process seems a lot more like an extremely conservative, borderline fascist state. The State which you have granted the right to kill as it finds politically expedient would include China. Also Iran. And Pakistan. And North Korea. You can't talk about the legitimacy of the death penalty in a vacuum - it's ethics are tied to the process which exacts it, and I have never seen a process fit to implement it. Which one do you propose as a model? You suggest than no state is truly "liberal or democractic. That is a farce."
"So now you are concerned. You showed indifference to the fate of the hostages earlier. "
Give me a break. I am no more indifferent to the fate of any hostage than you are to the victims of systematic genocide. Let's not sully this debate by insinuating that either of us would stand by stoic while an innocent person is killed.
>> you are proposing that terror may be solved by use of capital punishment against individuals identified as enemies of the state. I'm suggesting that what consititutes "an enemy of the state" is much more problemmatic that you allow.
In my earlier messages, I 'already' stated such problematics are another matter as the history of Ireland makes clear and that -
"I limit capital punishment to traitors and proselytizers, where such crimes present themselves just all too clearly - an attack on one's soil and spirit."
And you have been trying to obfuscate the matter putting words in my mouth - speeding tickets and open firings!
Capital punishment is certainly valid in certain circumstances as real life incidents prove with blinding clarity when for instance terrorists even openly claim with pride they did that, and for such and such anti-State reasons. How much more evident than that should it be really?!
>> And what does "extreme liberalism" mean? China, with a controlled market, limited human rights and a single party political process seems a lot more like an extremely conservative, borderline fascist state.
First of all, such liberalism believes that the state is a necessary evil to prevent man from being evil and brutish. Open-statism is therefore bypassed over this realization. That does not make it conservatist for that reason. If it appears conservative, that is just rightist-liberalism (Fascism in my opinion is extreme conservatism - a different kind of Liberalism altogether).
check out a book called "Communism: A History.", by Richard Pipes - it shows how communism and liberalism derive from a common heritage of beliefs.
I read this somewhere a while back,
"If Communism was liberalism in a hurry, liberalism is Communism in slow motion. Where Communism smashed, liberalism erodes." You could say communism is an extreme form of liberalism.
And so, what I was trying to say was, when a state wants to overpower or contain something or someone but it is too weak to do so, then it desires "justice"... and punishments are handed out under this name of 'justice' which is really a synonym for its own weakness. (It is too weak to do so because it keeps undermining its own self; its ideology encourages rights of the collective, and when these impinge upon any of its policies, it cannot say anything and thus immediately speaks of justice)...
"The philosophy behind the application of capital punishment in China can best be understood from a famous line often attached to official news reports in death penalty cases: "If capital punishment is not applied, it would not be enough to calm the anger of the people."
"Capital punishment in China is not applied on a uniform basis. At times, the government will have so-called "strike-hard" campaigns aiming to warn the public against committing certain crimes. During such times, the courts will adopt a so-called "act fast, act hard" posture and will hand down punishment more severely and quickly."
>> The State which you have granted the right to kill
I have already differentiated this.
>> You can't talk about the legitimacy of the death penalty in a vacuum...
When did I ever?
Its impossible and unjust to expect a single-overarching law for all situations; circumstances vary and punishments should vary accordingly and capital punishments wherever they are deserved,- and they are deserved in some cases is my argument.
>> You suggest than no state is truly "liberal or democractic. That is a farce."
Of course. A state may be founded on liberalism, democracy, and such ideals but in practise?!
>> I am no more indifferent to the fate of any hostage than you are to the victims of systematic genocide.
But again, we weren't discussing purges; you brought in a red-herring.
Just because I approve of a State that executes an all too evident terrorist or has the right to do so, does not equal I approve of a State opening open fire. Now who's being extremely reductivist?!
oe>> Your exmples are at best anecdotal and worst hypothetical and do nothing to make a moral argument.
The examples are not just anecdotal, but real-life incidents - no way hypothetical. And they were cited not as a premise for a generalized policy of capital punishment, as if it would be a standard applicable at all times and situations and contexts,-no, but in the spirit of pointing out where capital punishment might have been valid.
if it is just for a country to kill in order to defend its soil then it seems that saddam is on trial for defending his soil and that the gassing of the kurds was justifiable. they were in fact supporting the iranians in the iraq/iran war and therefore committing acts of treason. the shiites that saddam is accused of having rubbed out were also acting in armed rebellion against a sovereign government. what do the means matter if the reasoning is valid.
It was The US and Europe which encouraged Saddam Hussein all along the 80's to attack Iran due to Iran's support for the Palestinian cause.
When their self-created demon developed a mind of his own and tried to break free, Its once upon a time masters captured him and put him on trial for acts committed under their supervision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
coming back to the topic... if we support the argument that any country should possess the right to execute all enemies( within & without ) which pose a threat to their citizens ,culture and nation..
I say again ,
that there is or should be some distinction between a legitimate execution of an enemy of the state within the framework of a legitimate judicial system
It cannot be compared to the mass ethnic cleansing of an entire populace of people collectively termed as traitors.
There is definitely some difference in the examples.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly
I'm left wondering as to who or what gives the newspaper (the australian.)or the columnist whatever , the right to comment on the judicial system of another sovereign nation ???
especially when the tone of the article was so generalised,sweeping and so condescendingly sickening without room for discussion
And the leaders of countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, from China to Singapore, that allow executions, are deficient in humanity and reason. The death penalty is wrong - no ifs, no buts----The Australian
I mean..Who the fuck are you ,for God's sake ???
It's akin a Singaporean newspaper if they say " that the nation of Australia shouldn't acknowledge its allegiance to the Crown of England ,that is wrong - no ifs, no buts!"
funny really !
Such kind of morally superior self-assumed ignorant right to masturbate one's own opinion on another system in the name of freedom of media is immature,interfering , senseless as well as deficient in reason to be utterly ignored.
Janosh, you may not believe this, but the Pope accused the Indian Constitution very recently of human rights violation! because it upholds secularism and the freedom of religion. He's called our govt. and our constitution a criminal.
And yet, in Latin America, John Paul II "abused the Protestant Christians as ‘wolves’ for targeting the Catholics for conversion"!
As regards such affairs, the Pope has quite conveniently assumed a monopoly on human rights throughout the world. And he expects to be taken seriously!
Janosh pal ,
I understand what you're trying to say but you're mixing topics.
(well I'm not a believer in the system of M Gandhi, I believe it caused more harm than good, scores of my countrymen share my views.)
anyways
Gandhi was not interested on the style of monarchy or democracy in England or its judiciary system.
What gandhi and many other freedom fighters of India were trying to do was that they were just attempting to overthrow a non-indigenous alien political rule.
We are talking about the right of the judiciary of a nation here (elected or appointed by the nation itself )to choose to execute an individual.
Look at it this way, When the US was ruled by the british , a british judicial system was in place which allowed execution.
after the US was formed ...there was a US judiciary formed which I believe continued executions.
The question is about the right of the judiciary to execute an individual.not about which political force is ruling.
--------
sotthi,
regarding the Pope's right to comment on religious freedom .He can comment all he likes or burn in his own religion's fiery hell.
It doesnt make an iota of difference on our sovereignity.
Not sure if this is entirely on point ... but I have been reading Hannah Arendt ... I thought that I was pretty stalwart in my views about evil, about what causes a person to do something bad, et cetera. And then I read Arendt's account of Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem. It contains the famous essays about the banality of evil ... the fact that everyone is capable of committing an atrocity, in the absence of responsibility and judgment.
Janosh>> You might recollect all the trouble that an English trained lawyer injected into Indian Politics. What right did this guy have?
Can't believe you just said that.
On one hand, there is Gandhi speaking for the freedom of a national self-determination (whether it be in India or S.Africa or elsewhere - for a nation and its people to determine for themselves), largely under the influence of Thoreau's essays, and the Pope on the other with a colonialist mindset speaking of 'holy' duty of 'forcefully' 'harvesting all souls for Christianity'! How nauseating to hear his tyrannical irreverent anti-natural rants garbed in the name of universal human rights! The Pope is just the other extreme of the Taliban who execute anyone who have converted to another faith out of their own will...
The following is largely one-sided I admit, but nonetheless has some truth to it at places.
Nevermore, I concur with your views largely, and of course, the Pope has every right to his freedom of expression - and I support it, since he all the more betrays the caricature he makes of human rights everytime he gives his 'sermon', and anyone with enough common sense can discern, it is truly a human being's dignity he insults with such sermons, and the very value and beauty of life, when he seeks to impose upon everyone an abs. conformist, levelling down, singular uniformity.
Smoke>> And then I read Arendt's account of Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem. It contains the famous essays about the banality of evil ... the fact that everyone is capable of committing an atrocity, in the absence of responsibility and judgment.
Arendt reasons that carrying out actions unthinkingly, following orders without having an "internal dialogue" with oneself about such acts and therefore committing them without hatred is the 'banality of evil'; but this needn't be necessarily so.
During the Iraq war, lots of American soldiers interviewed voiced the fact - that they 'knew' what they were doing was wrong, they felt they had no business in Iraq, and then stated, they were going to war anyway, because as army men it was their duty to carry out their state's orders. The 'banality of evil' can also show up despite having conscientious internal dialogues.
Are those soldiers evil?
"Wherever responsibilities are sought, it is usually the instinct of wanting to judge and punish which is at work...: the doctrine of the free-will has been invented essentially for the purpose of punishment, that is, because one wants to impute guilt...Men were considered 'free' so that they might be judged and punished--so they might become guilty..." - Nietzsche
I'll just say beware of Arendt and leave it at that.
Do you mean that one should beware of Arendt because her analysis applies unequivocally to the rote duties of a soldier as well as to the unimaginable thoughtlessness of an Eichmann? Maybe I misread the book, but I thought that was precisely Arendt's point.
VAN Tuong Nguyen was hanged today at Changi Prison
oe, well for one thing, he himself admitted his crude means and results (death and injury of innocent civilians) were unintended.
Janosh, you wrote -->>>>Regarding your example, I think you could better put the blame for the deaths caused by this individual on the Indian Government's policy of engaging in hostage exchange.<<<
That's a pretty simplistic answer dont you think ?
let me get this straight.
if we keep the terrorist alive and have to eventually release him to free some hostages , we would have been then called a weak state ??
and If we were to execute that terrorist on capture..jokers like Amnesty international would make a huge hue and cry in front of the UN calling us a fascist state...???
( Yes its happened in the past .)
or you say that the if death penalty wouldnt be administered , that means that individual would have been kept alive in prison
and if some hostages were taken to release him , he still shouldnt be released thus leading to the harm/ death of those hostages ? ? ? ? ?
Im sorry i dont get it ?
Next you say that sometimes terrorists do it to take revenge on state sponsored killings.
Ok fine..Ill agree with that for a moment but Im sure you realise that all "terrorist" crimes actions are not in retaliation but sometimes some "terrorist" actions are intentionally perpetrated to further their dogma on others.
for e.g
- the WTC attacks were in retaliation to the US's policy on middle east/israel
OR
Were just carried out because someone didnt like americans or westerners just cos they were americans or westerners ?
{ seen the movie "passenger 57" ? }
I dont know..perhaps you guys would know the answer ?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janosh>>We are not talking about war, we are talking about capital punishment, a case of an individual who has been been incarcerated and rendered incapable of causing harm<<<
Janosh I'll just tweak the argument a bit further along that line.
If an individual is incarcerated for life or as you put it "safely encapsulated in our penal system "...
what makes you so sure that he/she is rendered incapable of causing harm ?
As i wrote earlier or what sotthi stated..what about the masterminding plots from within prisons ?
or simply what about other crimes committed on parole ? and even if there is no parole there are cases of some mad criminals causing harm to other prison inmates or even prison guards even under solitary confinement ?
what then?
Sotthi, by your logic, it sounds as if you are suggesting the danger of someone commiting another crime after they are released (or even still within prison) is so great that the only penalty for a crime should be death. Yes, killing every convict is a foolproof solution for recidivism, but good luck with your next speeding ticket.
Janosh noone was talking about killing every convict the law can get their hands on.
also driving your car above the speed limit is in a different category than murder.
So is murder the only capital offense? Ahmed Omar Saeed was incarcerated for kidnapping... not murder.
Janosh>> Yes, killing every convict is a foolproof solution for recidivism, but good luck with your next speeding ticket. So is murder the only capital offense?
If someone declares that his acts are as his holy mission in life, then continuing to believe in his "improvement" is the height of naivety and stupidity. And out of whose money do you suppose the state ought to maintain such goons who have attacked them in the first place? Good luck opening your new altruistic bank for capital offenders.
""We shall see who will die first -- me or the authorities who have arranged the death sentence for me."" --- Ahmed Saeed
Regarding the latter question, I think I have clearly stated what I limit capital punishments to.
Janosh>> Ahmed Omar Saeed was incarcerated for kidnapping... not murder.
"All four were convicted of murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap and tampering with evidence."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57675,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/pearl_07-15-02.html
Murder or attempted murder, point was incarceration can prove futile sometimes.
I think Nevermore raised a good point.
In his particular example, if the State executed the offender, then in your eyes, Janosh, the State is a Killer.
But if the State just incarcerates him and meanwhile refuses to engage in any hostage policy, thus leading to the death of those hostages, then that State should be applauded??
In your logic, the State ought to rather stay one execution and nevermind if many lives die. Brilliant.
That's being awfully reductivist. The reason that the hostages are taken is in many cases BECAUSE India has a long standing policy of releasing prisoners in exchange for hostages. It is in essence an incentive for kidnapping.
Janosh>> That's being awfully reductivist.
Not at all. That's what it amounts to.
>> The reason that the hostages are taken is in many cases BECAUSE India has a long standing policy of releasing prisoners in exchange for hostages. It is in essence an incentive for kidnapping.
What bull; the list of terrorist incidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack cites only one incident of such a nature - in 1999.
Three prisoners were released, of which one of them is guess who? -Ahmed Saeed.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Airlines_Flight_814
And it wasn't the outcome of a policy, but in fact the weakness of the pseudo Afghan govt. in the face of the Talibans.
Your reasoning stands on its own head. Assuming a govt. caters to policies of prisoner trades for hostages (which is ridiculous, what govt. would do that), this very 'history' of such a policy wouldn't be possible, wouldn't have had a history, if such capital offenders had been executed in the first place.
Staying capital punishment is in essence an incentive for kidnappings.
And we read recently,
"On February 3, 2006, Fawaz Yahya al-Rabeiee who had been sentenced to death for the Limburg attack and 22 other suspected or convicted Al-Qaeda members escaped from jail in Yemen. Jamal al-Badawi, who masterminded the USS Cole bombing of October 12, 2000, was also among the escapees, in total thirteen of whom had been convicted of the Cole and Limburg bombings."
There's enough history on them to make one wonder how useless life-sentences are.
Perhaps we should cut off their hands instead, thus elminating any possibility of these criminals operating power boats, airplanes, or automatic weapons. All manner of cruelty can be justified because it is pragmatic or expedient. But killing remains the business of criminals, and criminal governements.
'As long as there is a mind, jihad till the last breath'... and if that's the case, so you'd be suggesting lets deliver them to a state of comatose, right?! That wouldn't be killing because his heart would still be beating, and its ok, if his whole consciousness, history and memory is wiped out.
Ridiculous. No, its the wish to inflict suffering on someone that would render him useless and spare his life. Its that kind of inhumane infliction which is criminal.
>> But killing remains the business of criminals, and criminal governements.
Not so. If you can speak of a right to self-defense, one can also speak of a right to attack.
A state that acts to safeguard its people and the integrity of its soil, is not criminal; it is just.
The Tokyo Sarin nerve gas incident happened not once, but twice. The Japanese govt. is not a criminal for passing a death sentence on them, but just.
Guys. If killing is a perfectly legitimate method of achieving political aims, then why are these guys even on trial? Im sure in thier minds, the decision is clear. All I have to do kill a few completely subdued, defenseless hostages and I will help to deter the occupation and murder of everyone in the arab world! See! Its completely justified and honorable! But its idiotic. If killing is ok, then they have nothing to complain about. If it isnt, then then it just isnt. To sit down and nitpick over net-harm is disingenuous because it is fucking impossible. There is no way to measure negative impact of what one guy in prison may ore may not have for the extended history of the world, nor could you measure the negative impact a general lack of regard for the sanctity of life has on a culture. Theyre unfalsifiable. Your exmples are at best anecdotal and worst hypothetical and do nothing to make a moral argument.
"A state that acts to safeguard its people and the integrity of its soil, is not criminal; it is just. "
I believe it was safeguarding the state from terrorists that was used as justification for killing of several hundred protestors at Tianamen Square. But perhaps the price of protecting the state is the occassional killing of its citizenry.
>> I believe it was safeguarding the state from terrorists that was used as justification for killing of several hundred protestors at Tianamen Square
We were talking of capital punishment and not purges. Are you seeing red everywhere?
In any case, I already presented China as an example founded on extreme liberalism.
>> But perhaps the price of protecting the state is the occassional killing of its citizenry.
So now you are concerned. You showed indifference to the fate of the hostages earlier.
Why don't you also brand traditional warrior cultures throughout the world that believe/d in initiating a boy upon his martial prowess - killing, hunting, etc. were all criminal people! and criminal ages.
"War is the Father of all Things." [Heraclitus]
"We were talking of capital punishment and not purges. Are you seeing red everywhere?
In any case, I already presented China as an example founded on extreme liberalism."
I do see red everywhere - you are proposing that terror may be solved by use of capital punishment against individuals identified as enemies of the state. I'm suggesting that what consititutes "an enemy of the state" is much more problemmatic that you allow.
And what does "extreme liberalism" mean? China, with a controlled market, limited human rights and a single party political process seems a lot more like an extremely conservative, borderline fascist state. The State which you have granted the right to kill as it finds politically expedient would include China. Also Iran. And Pakistan. And North Korea. You can't talk about the legitimacy of the death penalty in a vacuum - it's ethics are tied to the process which exacts it, and I have never seen a process fit to implement it. Which one do you propose as a model? You suggest than no state is truly "liberal or democractic. That is a farce."
"So now you are concerned. You showed indifference to the fate of the hostages earlier. "
Give me a break. I am no more indifferent to the fate of any hostage than you are to the victims of systematic genocide. Let's not sully this debate by insinuating that either of us would stand by stoic while an innocent person is killed.
>> you are proposing that terror may be solved by use of capital punishment against individuals identified as enemies of the state. I'm suggesting that what consititutes "an enemy of the state" is much more problemmatic that you allow.
In my earlier messages, I 'already' stated such problematics are another matter as the history of Ireland makes clear and that -
"I limit capital punishment to traitors and proselytizers, where such crimes present themselves just all too clearly - an attack on one's soil and spirit."
And you have been trying to obfuscate the matter putting words in my mouth - speeding tickets and open firings!
Capital punishment is certainly valid in certain circumstances as real life incidents prove with blinding clarity when for instance terrorists even openly claim with pride they did that, and for such and such anti-State reasons. How much more evident than that should it be really?!
>> And what does "extreme liberalism" mean? China, with a controlled market, limited human rights and a single party political process seems a lot more like an extremely conservative, borderline fascist state.
First of all, such liberalism believes that the state is a necessary evil to prevent man from being evil and brutish. Open-statism is therefore bypassed over this realization. That does not make it conservatist for that reason. If it appears conservative, that is just rightist-liberalism (Fascism in my opinion is extreme conservatism - a different kind of Liberalism altogether).
check out a book called "Communism: A History.", by Richard Pipes - it shows how communism and liberalism derive from a common heritage of beliefs.
I read this somewhere a while back,
"If Communism was liberalism in a hurry, liberalism is Communism in slow motion. Where Communism smashed, liberalism erodes." You could say communism is an extreme form of liberalism.
And so, what I was trying to say was, when a state wants to overpower or contain something or someone but it is too weak to do so, then it desires "justice"... and punishments are handed out under this name of 'justice' which is really a synonym for its own weakness. (It is too weak to do so because it keeps undermining its own self; its ideology encourages rights of the collective, and when these impinge upon any of its policies, it cannot say anything and thus immediately speaks of justice)...
"The philosophy behind the application of capital punishment in China can best be understood from a famous line often attached to official news reports in death penalty cases: "If capital punishment is not applied, it would not be enough to calm the anger of the people."
"Capital punishment in China is not applied on a uniform basis. At times, the government will have so-called "strike-hard" campaigns aiming to warn the public against committing certain crimes. During such times, the courts will adopt a so-called "act fast, act hard" posture and will hand down punishment more severely and quickly."
etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
That's what I mean.
>> The State which you have granted the right to kill
I have already differentiated this.
>> You can't talk about the legitimacy of the death penalty in a vacuum...
When did I ever?
Its impossible and unjust to expect a single-overarching law for all situations; circumstances vary and punishments should vary accordingly and capital punishments wherever they are deserved,- and they are deserved in some cases is my argument.
>> You suggest than no state is truly "liberal or democractic. That is a farce."
Of course. A state may be founded on liberalism, democracy, and such ideals but in practise?!
>> I am no more indifferent to the fate of any hostage than you are to the victims of systematic genocide.
But again, we weren't discussing purges; you brought in a red-herring.
Just because I approve of a State that executes an all too evident terrorist or has the right to do so, does not equal I approve of a State opening open fire. Now who's being extremely reductivist?!
You equivocate and conflate my argument.
oe>> Your exmples are at best anecdotal and worst hypothetical and do nothing to make a moral argument.
The examples are not just anecdotal, but real-life incidents - no way hypothetical. And they were cited not as a premise for a generalized policy of capital punishment, as if it would be a standard applicable at all times and situations and contexts,-no, but in the spirit of pointing out where capital punishment might have been valid.
if it is just for a country to kill in order to defend its soil then it seems that saddam is on trial for defending his soil and that the gassing of the kurds was justifiable. they were in fact supporting the iranians in the iraq/iran war and therefore committing acts of treason. the shiites that saddam is accused of having rubbed out were also acting in armed rebellion against a sovereign government. what do the means matter if the reasoning is valid.
It was The US and Europe which encouraged Saddam Hussein all along the 80's to attack Iran due to Iran's support for the Palestinian cause.
When their self-created demon developed a mind of his own and tried to break free, Its once upon a time masters captured him and put him on trial for acts committed under their supervision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
coming back to the topic... if we support the argument that any country should possess the right to execute all enemies( within & without ) which pose a threat to their citizens ,culture and nation..
I say again ,
that there is or should be some distinction between a legitimate execution of an enemy of the state within the framework of a legitimate judicial system
It cannot be compared to the mass ethnic cleansing of an entire populace of people collectively termed as traitors.
There is definitely some difference in the examples.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly
I'm left wondering as to who or what gives the newspaper (the australian.)or the columnist whatever , the right to comment on the judicial system of another sovereign nation ???
especially when the tone of the article was so generalised,sweeping and so condescendingly sickening without room for discussion
And the leaders of countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, from China to Singapore, that allow executions, are deficient in humanity and reason. The death penalty is wrong - no ifs, no buts----The Australian
I mean..Who the fuck are you ,for God's sake ???
It's akin a Singaporean newspaper if they say " that the nation of Australia shouldn't acknowledge its allegiance to the Crown of England ,that is wrong - no ifs, no buts!"
funny really !
Such kind of morally superior self-assumed ignorant right to masturbate one's own opinion on another system in the name of freedom of media is immature,interfering , senseless as well as deficient in reason to be utterly ignored.
Maybe human rights aren't limited by international boundaries?
Janosh, you may not believe this, but the Pope accused the Indian Constitution very recently of human rights violation! because it upholds secularism and the freedom of religion. He's called our govt. and our constitution a criminal.
And yet, in Latin America, John Paul II "abused the Protestant Christians as ‘wolves’ for targeting the Catholics for conversion"!
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?id=1149085229&type=ARTICLES
As regards such affairs, the Pope has quite conveniently assumed a monopoly on human rights throughout the world. And he expects to be taken seriously!
You might recollect all the trouble that an English trained lawyer injected into Indian Politics. What right did this guy have?
Janosh pal ,
I understand what you're trying to say but you're mixing topics.
(well I'm not a believer in the system of M Gandhi, I believe it caused more harm than good, scores of my countrymen share my views.)
anyways
Gandhi was not interested on the style of monarchy or democracy in England or its judiciary system.
What gandhi and many other freedom fighters of India were trying to do was that they were just attempting to overthrow a non-indigenous alien political rule.
We are talking about the right of the judiciary of a nation here (elected or appointed by the nation itself )to choose to execute an individual.
Look at it this way, When the US was ruled by the british , a british judicial system was in place which allowed execution.
after the US was formed ...there was a US judiciary formed which I believe continued executions.
The question is about the right of the judiciary to execute an individual.not about which political force is ruling.
--------
sotthi,
regarding the Pope's right to comment on religious freedom .He can comment all he likes or burn in his own religion's fiery hell.
It doesnt make an iota of difference on our sovereignity.
Not sure if this is entirely on point ... but I have been reading Hannah Arendt ... I thought that I was pretty stalwart in my views about evil, about what causes a person to do something bad, et cetera. And then I read Arendt's account of Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem. It contains the famous essays about the banality of evil ... the fact that everyone is capable of committing an atrocity, in the absence of responsibility and judgment.
Janosh>> You might recollect all the trouble that an English trained lawyer injected into Indian Politics. What right did this guy have?
Can't believe you just said that.
On one hand, there is Gandhi speaking for the freedom of a national self-determination (whether it be in India or S.Africa or elsewhere - for a nation and its people to determine for themselves), largely under the influence of Thoreau's essays, and the Pope on the other with a colonialist mindset speaking of 'holy' duty of 'forcefully' 'harvesting all souls for Christianity'! How nauseating to hear his tyrannical irreverent anti-natural rants garbed in the name of universal human rights! The Pope is just the other extreme of the Taliban who execute anyone who have converted to another faith out of their own will...
The following is largely one-sided I admit, but nonetheless has some truth to it at places.
The author follows up with presenting the distinction - 'soldiers kill; but Jihadis love to kill.'
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Bar%20Ilan.pdf
Nevermore, I concur with your views largely, and of course, the Pope has every right to his freedom of expression - and I support it, since he all the more betrays the caricature he makes of human rights everytime he gives his 'sermon', and anyone with enough common sense can discern, it is truly a human being's dignity he insults with such sermons, and the very value and beauty of life, when he seeks to impose upon everyone an abs. conformist, levelling down, singular uniformity.
Smoke>> And then I read Arendt's account of Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem. It contains the famous essays about the banality of evil ... the fact that everyone is capable of committing an atrocity, in the absence of responsibility and judgment.
Arendt reasons that carrying out actions unthinkingly, following orders without having an "internal dialogue" with oneself about such acts and therefore committing them without hatred is the 'banality of evil'; but this needn't be necessarily so.
During the Iraq war, lots of American soldiers interviewed voiced the fact - that they 'knew' what they were doing was wrong, they felt they had no business in Iraq, and then stated, they were going to war anyway, because as army men it was their duty to carry out their state's orders. The 'banality of evil' can also show up despite having conscientious internal dialogues.
Are those soldiers evil?
"Wherever responsibilities are sought, it is usually the instinct of wanting to judge and punish which is at work...: the doctrine of the free-will has been invented essentially for the purpose of punishment, that is, because one wants to impute guilt...Men were considered 'free' so that they might be judged and punished--so they might become guilty..." - Nietzsche
I'll just say beware of Arendt and leave it at that.
Do you mean that one should beware of Arendt because her analysis applies unequivocally to the rote duties of a soldier as well as to the unimaginable thoughtlessness of an Eichmann? Maybe I misread the book, but I thought that was precisely Arendt's point.
Oh well.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.