• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

"Chemical Ali" to hang

Just thinking said:
Sorry for the tragic loss of your father.

But if I may, I keep hearing the argument being made that execution makes us no better than the killer, in that another life is taken. But I would disagree in that it is not the execution that makes us equally barbaric, but the circumstance that makes all the difference. The killer is one who knowingly and intentionally takes innocent lives from those who have not wronged, whereas execution of such a person (the killer) is more of judicial retribution. And I don't see judicial retribution as being barbaric.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Most of the rest of the civilized world thinks you're wrong.
 
Which part?

(P.S. --- most of the civilized world believes in some sort of woo.)
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
You talk about the millions of victims as if they would all favour the gallows.
Click to expand...

Well, I think we have good reason to think most would. Certainly the opinion of the late members of my family who were holocaust survivors was that there weren't nearly enough Nazis hanged at the end of the war, and that it is an outrage that so many of them only went to jail for a few years or else escaped punishment completely. This, I have good reason to believe due to my talk with many other survivors over the years, is probably the great majority's opinion.

Certainly when Eichmann was tried in Jerusalem, practically all survivors wanted him hanged (as he was), the tiny group of capital punishment opponents (mostly professors from the Hebrew University, for some reason) making lots of noise but gaining little respect.

I certainly don't wish the death penalty on the man who killed my father, for instance. Doing so is -IMO- a position of strength as I have not allowed myself to be dragged down to the same primevil and uncivilised behaviour and blood lust that caused the murder in the first place
Click to expand...

I am not saying every single murderer (or killer) should be executed. Indeed, many if not most murders occur in great rage, without much planning, and death would be usually too harsh and in any case not a deterrent.

Murder might be the worst crime, but murderers are not necessarily the worst criminals. (Indeed, most of us, I think, sometimes think, "I could kill so-and-so"; most of us, however, don't think, "h'm -- let's burgle so-and-so's house, he's got nice stuff".)

I do not know the circumstances of your father's death. If he was killed in a botched robbery, or due to a reckless driver, or because a co-worker lost it and shot him at rage over a denied promotion, etc., then I can see why you, as much as you hurt, do not think the execution of the killer would be inappropriate and will be degrading to you.

But we're speaking here of a totally different kind of crime -- of pre-calculated mass murder. If your father was a holocaust victim, one of thousands killed by his killer and his cohorts in the Nazi death camps, if his daily job was to kill Jews, I do not see how you can forgive him in the name of the victims.

You can personally forgive, yes; but, while no punishment would possibly be appropriate for such a crime, a term of years -- say, Speer's 20 years, which, in effect, means a few hours of time per victim (if that) -- is ludicrously disproportionate.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Most of the rest of the civilized world thinks you're wrong.
Click to expand...

So what? Most people believe in the existence of an invisible sky pixie called "God", too. Right and wrong are not a popularity contest.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Most of the rest of the civilized world thinks you're wrong.
Click to expand...
Opinions are like rectums.

Most of the rest of the civilized world?

Care to define that term? Most of the civilized world also turned their backs when (Godwin alert) the persecution of Jews became standard policy in the Third Reich before a war started.

I think that "most of the rest of the (allegedly civlized) world" is a useless standard to hang your moral hat upon, Kevin. :p These allegedly civlized sorts also advocated a dual key RoE in Bosnia that allowed that civil war to keep right on going ...

Civilized doesn't always equal right. Ever here of AGW? It's a consequence of our advanced civlization, I hear. ;)

DR
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
How do medieval statements like 'an eye for an eye' apply to the 21st century? Surely the point of the rule of law should be demonstrating that we are superior to Al-Majid's barbaric acts, not copying them. It's a position of strength, not weakness.
Click to expand...

His tactic was executing innocent people. That is completely different from executing a mass killer whose guilt isn't remotely in doubt.

You are "grouping by nonessentials" here, a logical flaw.
 
It's too bad Saddam's sons were killed in that shootout. They should have been stabbed in the back of the head with a big knife and forced to walk around a stadium while people cheered, until they died, just like they did to innocents.
 
Just thinking said:
Sorry for the tragic loss of your father.

But if I may, I keep hearing the argument being made that execution makes us no better than the killer, in that another life is taken. But I would disagree in that it is not the execution that makes us equally barbaric, but the circumstance that makes all the difference. The killer is one who knowingly and intentionally takes innocent lives from those who have not wronged, whereas execution of such a person (the killer) is more of judicial retribution. And I don't see judicial retribution as being barbaric.
Click to expand...

Agreed - except I learned that from watching and reacting badly to the load of shows all through the 50's and 60's where someone stops the good guy from blowing the bad guys head off (my pref was for gut shooting based on what I had heard of it at the time) saying' no, let the Law take care of it, don't fall to his level!!" You aren't falling to his level (says the me in my head) you are sending his*****************************to hell! Righteous!!! State execution is impersonal. There are things I take personally and want to handle personally.


I do not take well to the bad guys. I want them all out of everyone's misery. I do not care about their childhood, who hurt them or how as they were growing up, how their minds went wrong, whatever. And I prefer them going out in an educational way (having time to ponder how much I really don't like what they did.)
 
Darth Rotor said:
Opinions are like rectums.

Most of the rest of the civilized world?

Care to define that term? Most of the civilized world also turned their backs when (Godwin alert) the persecution of Jews became standard policy in the Third Reich before a war started.

I think that "most of the rest of the (allegedly civlized) world" is a useless standard to hang your moral hat upon, Kevin. :p These allegedly civlized sorts also advocated a dual key RoE in Bosnia that allowed that civil war to keep right on going ...

Civilized doesn't always equal right. Ever here of AGW? It's a consequence of our advanced civlization, I hear. ;)

DR
Click to expand...
and the knockout punch two!! On "civilised" vs. right!!!
 
JihadJane said:
So are we going to have to torture Rummy as well?
Click to expand...

Who is this "we" Kemo Sabe?

You and the crybabies who sing the same song as you do?

That sort of person doesn't tend to "do" much of anything, other than piss and moan ... which enables ebergetic people like Rummy (of whatever moral fiber) to fill the vacuum and do whatever, for better and worse.

DR
 
Just thinking said:
Which part?

(P.S. --- most of the civilized world believes in some sort of woo.)
Click to expand...

Nonetheless one aspect of the moral progress the civilised world has made in the last century or so is progressively marginalising the bloodthirsty idiots who love the death penalty. We're still not perfect, and the USA is very deeply imperfect in that regard, but it's progress.

Darth Rotor said:
Opinions are like rectums.

Most of the rest of the civilized world?

Care to define that term? Most of the civilized world also turned their backs when (Godwin alert) the persecution of Jews became standard policy in the Third Reich before a war started.
Click to expand...

It still counts as a Godwin when you flag it yourself.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Nonetheless one aspect of the moral progress the civilized world has made in the last century or so is progressively marginalising the bloodthirsty idiots who love the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Elitist arguments win you nothing.

And just what exactly makes one favoring judicial retribution someone who is bloodthirsty?
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Deadliest deliberate chemical warfare attack perhaps, but Agent Orange would probably top it for overall effect - "According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities, and 500,000 children born with birth defects"

Definitely Nobel Peace Prize material.

But we rise above psychopaths like Ali by not executing them.
Click to expand...

Don't forget lead paint and asbestos. Trial lawyers have made a tidy fortune off that chemical warfare waged as genocide against our own people by Pratt and Lambert and Johns Mansville.

Let's face it. America is worse than all the other horrible countries all put together. Because of Reagan. and Bush. Both Bushes. and...

help me out, here, Democrats. I'm not very good at this crap of yours that Martha Coakley and others use as Campaign Platforms.
 
Just thinking said:
Elitist arguments win you nothing.
Click to expand...

I'd say moral rather than elitist. Privileging moral people and behaviour over immoral people or behaviour isn't usually referred to as elitist.

And just what exactly makes one favoring judicial retribution someone who is bloodthirsty?
Click to expand...

The death penalty has been demonstrated to achieve nothing except satisfying bloodlust. Locking dangerous people up for life is cheaper and serves exactly the same preventative purpose. Ergo, those who support capital punishment are ignorant, bloodthirsty or both.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
I'd say moral rather than elitist. Privileging moral people and behaviour over immoral people or behaviour isn't usually referred to as elitist.
Click to expand...

It is, when you declare whatever opinion is currently popular among your social circle as the epitome of morality, and consider all other views fitting merely for primitive subhumans -- the type that votes for the other guy in national elections and similar Neanderthals.

The death penalty has been demonstrated to achieve nothing except satisfying bloodlust.
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't. It might not be a deterrent -- that is controversial -- but that some people's crimes are so horrible they have forfeited their right to life is not the same as "bloodlust". People like Ted Bundy, Chemical Ali, or Hoess (the commandant of Auschwitz) forfeited their lives many times over.

Ergo, those who support capital punishment are ignorant, bloodthirsty or both.
Click to expand...

Or simply disagree with you on what an appropriate punishment is for a certain crime.

But since your view is the standard of excellence and all other views are deficient in direct proportion to their disagreement with yours, I see your point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom