19 Comments »

1. Yeah, let’s not get into speculation. Let’s just see how things unfold – until it’s too late and it’s already happened. That’s the way it usually goes, isn’t it?!?!

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Aug 2004 on 3:19 pm | Link

2. How can the death penalty be a temporary measure? Once they’re dead they’re dead.

   If they are not sure whether to have a death penalty or not then they should wait until they’ve made that decision. People imprisoned for life could be killed later if they wanted to, but you cannot resurrect the executed.

   The cynic in me has argued elsewhere that the death penalty only exist for Saddam, pehaps thats why its only a temporary measure and they’ll abandon it once they’ve got rid of him?

   Comment by Uncarved Block — 9 Aug 2004 on 4:10 pm | Link

3. There are a lot of parent`s who were forced to watch as there children were hung up on meat hook`s and tortured and murdered that will welcome the death penalty for saddam and his evil goverment.My source for this B.B.C.news 24 and sworm statement`s from many MANY in Iraq.I forgot some don`t like fact`s that don`t fit there agenda`s.

   Comment by george dutton — 9 Aug 2004 on 4:22 pm | Link

4. This is not about your beloved ‘facts’ George. This is about principle. Either you believe in the death penalty or not.

   If you believe in the death penalty and Saddam is guilty of all he is accused of then he should be put to death. If you don’t believe in the death penalty then it doesn’t matter what he did, the death penalty is still wrong.

   My cynicism is based on the admission by the governing council that the death penalty may not be right combined with their decision to introduce it anyway. As I point out in my first post this seems to be illogical and so I wonder if there is another motive for introducing the death penalty now?

   Comment by Uncarved Block — 9 Aug 2004 on 4:48 pm | Link

5. George, what is this obsession you have with other people having an "agenda"? If everyone who posts on this site has an agenda (few of which seem to agree with your own views), then by definition does that not also mean that you yourself also have an "agenda"? That kind of belittling of other’s viewpoints is exactly the same attitude that this government (and others in the past) use to silence their critics; "if you criticise our viewpoint then it is obvious that you have an ulterior motive for thinking that way". You seem to be of the same ilk in that your arguments (such as they are) are advertising your own "agenda" by refusing to concede a single point in any argument; I have never yet seen you say "yup, I could have been wrong about that". Or, in other words, I have never yet seen you "eat your words" – the same term you used to describe the reasonable concessions made by other people when they find information which is better than their own. You accuse other people of "cherry-picking" information which backs up their "agenda"; if that is the case then the same accusation could be levelled against yourself for "cherry-picking" the few bits of (often uncorroborated) "proof" you offer. Uncarved Block said in another post that it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you – I agree, and it isn’t because we have dovetailing "agendas"; it is simply because you constantly refuse to concede when your own agrgument is unreasonable. Incidentally, I apologise because I didn’t see the link in one of your posts – it is sometimes difficult to decipher your argument because you rarely use punctuation which breaks up your rants. See, that’s twice I have apologised to you – I am not saying I want any kind of apology in return, all I (and others) ask is that you argue reasonably. Everyone has an opinion, and just because you state your opinion as fact does not make it so; it is your OPINION, sometimes backed up by "facts" which you have cherry picked to suit your own agenda. So can we just assume that EVERYONE has an agenda and stop harping on about it?!?! The idea of this site is supposed to be to debate what is going on in government, not to be lectured by George Dutton about how we are all wrong because he is right.

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Aug 2004 on 7:38 pm | Link

6. Dear Uncarved Block,I see your point.It depend`s I think on many thing`s.I was one of those that campaigned AGAINST the death penalty but as usual life is NEVER that simple.It has alway`s been a mystery to me that the kaiser escaped the death penalty after the 1st W.W.to this day I cannot understand that.Also we have the emperor of Japan after the 2nd W.W.He was left to rule!!! not as before but very nearly,the kaiser was exiled to a mansion in Holland!!!.Now that goes to show what all our system`s stand for when it come`s to the bottom line.It send`s out a message to the same as them that they can get away with it if they are BIG enough it encourages other`s in the belief that if they fail they can walk away.It makes a MOCKERY of everyone that gave there lives on both side`s of any war.Anyway I thought you two were not speaking to me again L.O.L.

   Comment by george dutton — 9 Aug 2004 on 8:39 pm | Link

7. As for you two WHY is it that you have to get PERSONAL with everyone you disagree with.You lose BIG TIME just don`t use word`s like lier,bigot.There is no reason for it EVEN if you are right in what you say.Argue your view point with reason and common sense which you two can do NO PROBLEM.

   Comment by george dutton — 9 Aug 2004 on 8:45 pm | Link

8. Reasons why death penalties are wrong:

   – No government should have permission to kill its citizens, in general.
   – The judicial system can never be guaranteed to be just; so long as the person is alive, there is a chance that a bad decision will be overturned.
   – The people who can most easily avoid the death penalty are those with the money to either bribe the system or buy the lawyers to get them off of it; hence, the people that most people want to see dead – the wealthy and palpably evil criminal mastermind – are those most likely to never be affected by the death penalty; those most vulnerable to it are the poor, whose legal aid will not be capable of providing the same quality of defense.

   Amongst a million others. And you’re right – there are a million loopholes in the law, and in many places, the law is weaker than some might like; on the other hand, those weak points are often places where, if the law were any stronger, the innocent would be unjustly punished. You can’t just run around modifying the system for the political needs of today – and that’s exactly what most of the judges are spending so much PR time trying to get across to us all.

   So. Let’s stop pretending that the law is a populist weapon to use against those which society has a gut feeling might be criminals, and have some respect for a body of rules and legislation that has to walk a very fine line in order to ensure your civil liberty isn’t trampled on by those around you calling for blood.

   Comment by Gregory Block — 10 Aug 2004 on 7:20 pm | Link

9. After deciphering the various evasions above, the answer seems to be: "The Government has no problem with British troops handing Iraqis over to be executed. The decision lies with commanders in the field."

   And how is this a hypothetical question? The British Army is responsible for security in parts of Iraq, and detain Iraqis. Will they hand people over to face the death penalty or not?

   Comment by square peg — 11 Aug 2004 on 6:34 pm | Link

10. The US army has already decided how it is going to act. Make of it what you will

    http://www.oregonlive.com/special/oregonian/iraq/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1091880082213032.xml

    Comment by Uncarved Block — 11 Aug 2004 on 7:00 pm | Link

11. I don`t know the answer to this question.I wonder!. If one of your`s, say the one that you loved the most was murdered would you still take the same view!.

    Comment by george dutton — 12 Aug 2004 on 1:10 am | Link

12. Never mind the death penalty, George Dutton has committed a far worse crime by gross misuse of the apostophe. George, you may or may not have many valid points; the problem is that by using greengrocers’ apostrophes you label yourself as a moron (that’s not to say you are one, only that, to many readers, you have given youself that label).

    Read "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" by Lynne Truss to discover the monstrosity of your crime. Alternatively, use Lindale’s First Law of Apostrophe Usage: Never use an apostrophe if you’re uncertain whether it should be there. To miss out an apostrophe is a mistake, to put in an unnecessary one gives you that unfortunate label.

    Comment by Lindale — 12 Aug 2004 on 9:14 am | Link

13. "I don`t know the answer to this question.I wonder!. If one of your`s, say the one that you loved the most was murdered would you still take the same view!."

    George: the Iraqi death penalty isn’t just for murder. It’s also for drug dealing, kidnaping, and "endangering national security". And the Danes have already refused to hand people over to be executed. Our Government are actively choosing to be complicit in this.

    Comment by square peg — 12 Aug 2004 on 7:50 pm | Link

14. Dear Lindale,I do as I please as is my right.As long as I hurt no one else.I may have thing`s to say about you if I saw you but I unlike you have better manner`s,you should look up what manner`s mean,look that up!.I am an independent mind and will do as I please if you don`t like it what can I say,try TOUGH.But that is not the problem here by putting your post on you TELL the world what you are and no mistake,people know ,people know.

    Comment by george dutton — 12 Aug 2004 on 8:27 pm | Link

15. Dear square peg,I am just talking about the death penalty for murder!. As you know the debate is a very big and complicated one!.

    Comment by george dutton — 12 Aug 2004 on 8:32 pm | Link

16. George, when someone you know is murdered it surely reinforces the feeling that killing a person is wrong. Why would I then ask the state to go and kill someone for me? That is making the situation even worse.

    Seeking revenge is an immature and very destructive way to behave. As Ghandi said, if everyone demanded \x91an eye for an eye\x92 then the whole world would go blind. The only sensible way to deal with criminals is to prevent them committing any more crimes, either through rehabilitation or imprisonment. If you are seeking punishment, then a life behind bars thinking about their crimes and their own bleak future is surely a better punishment than a quick death. An even better outcome is for a criminal to change their ways and make a positive contribution to the world around them, making some atonement for their crimes.

    Even for someone as nasty as Saddam, I would much rather see him showing genuine remorse for his acts and helping people whose lives he has ruined than see him dangling from the end of a rope. I can understand why people in Iraq hate him but if people act based on that hatred then they are just repeating his crime

    Comment by Uncarved Block — 12 Aug 2004 on 8:49 pm | Link

17. Yes there is MUCH in what you say.I think that saddam will never show genuine remorse.I am thinking of deterrents that will deter future saddam`s.I have to tell you I don`t think any deterrent would deter the like`s of saddam,the kaisar,or hitler.That of course make`s what you are saying correct.But how did the kairsar walk away from what he did.There must be some kind of reckoning.Of course I suppose the people that let them get away with it will be held responsible in the end and we know how many death penalties there are in war on both side`s.

    Comment by george dutton — 13 Aug 2004 on 12:03 am | Link

18. If there was some kind of reckoning, it would have come to Bliar, Straw, Cook, Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Powell, Allbright, and all the rest of them for the torture of Iraqi children over 10 years of sanctions and then an unjustified invasion, heaping yet more misery on the unfortunates in Iraq. The fact that Bliar was "cleared" by Christ knows how many enquiries adequately explains to me how someone like the Kaiser could have walked away. You just have to have the right friends in the right places. Or have the power to appoint the judge and jury in your own trial. That helps too; Bliar has shown us how easy that is on both counts. Sorry, I’m feeling very fatalistic tonight!

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 13 Aug 2004 on 1:40 am | Link

19. Dear Lindale,What`s wrong with greengrocer`s anyway!!!.By the way you spell apostrophe with an "r" at all time`s and an apostrophe come`s before the s in greengrocer`s.When I went to school a long time ago you would have got a ruler across your knuckle`s for doing as you suggest! I did!.There again when I went to school Australia was an Island! and then only the second largest Island on the planet!.How time`s have changed.

    Comment by george dutton — 15 Aug 2004 on 3:28 am | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.