As noted below, Saddam Hussein is set to be executed between 9:30 and 10:00 PM Eastern time tonight. That’s between 7:30 and 8:00 here in Arizona. We’re having dinner at 6:00, so if all goes as planned, the dictator will face the gallows while we’re lounging around after dinner, watching the Champs Sports Bowl. I’ll probably learn the news from the telltale buzz of my cell phone, vibrating as the first of several breaking-news text messages arrives.
When the first Gulf War happened, I was nine years old. At nine, I was an even bigger dork than now (believe it or not), and I used to love writing “alternative” versions of Christmas carols. So when we attacked Iraq in January 1991, I conceived of the idea of singing “Joy to the world, Saddam is dead” when that moment — which I presumed was inevitable — came. A bit distasteful, I suppose, turning a song about the birth of the savior into a song about the death of a dictator, but I was a nine-year-old boy, and I thought it was pretty funny. Needless to say, I was bitterly disappointed when President Bush stopped short of invading Baghdad and finishing Saddam, and thus denied me the opportunity to sing my song and mean it.
In a sense, then, I suppose you could say I’ve been waiting almost 16 years to sing those words — “Joy to the world, Saddam is dead” — and the wait ends tonight. But will I sing them? Probably not. I’m a bit more reflective at 25 than I was at 9 (one would hope!), and in addition to the general distastefulness of the lyrical adaptation, I recognize now that there will be nothing joyful about Saddam’s death; it is simply justice long delayed, and woefully inadequate. As Casey wrote: “Vengeful Iraqis seem to grasp this concept with their notion that ‘A thousand deaths would not be enough for a man like Saddam.’ While the American press and politicians take satisfaction in the man being ‘held accountable by a due process that he denied his own people’, Iraqis intuitively reject the petty fiction that due process somehow instills proportion where none is possible.”
So I won’t sing. But if I happen to have a drink in my hand when the news breaks, I might propose a toast to the richly deserved end of an unspeakably evil tyrant. J.R.R. Tolkien urged Frodo (and through him, us), “Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment,” but in this case I must disagree with the good professor. I have no qualms whatsoever about judging Saddam worthy of his fate. My only wish is that it had come sooner, before he had killed so many innocents, and at a less horrific cost to those who liberated the people he enslaved, and to the liberated people themselves. But his death is still cause for — well, not for celebration, exactly, but for raising one’s glass and saying words to the effect of, “Finally. Good riddance.”
UPDATE: Welcome, InstaPundit readers!
According to TVnewser, the networks will break into programming to announce the news of Saddam’s death. I wonder, for those of us who will be watching Purdue vs. Maryland, will there will be some message on ESPN (perhaps in the scrolling bar at the bottom of the screen) breaking the news and telling people to tune to ABC?
Also, TVnewser quotes NBC as saying, “We will use care and caution in airing whatever video becomes available and will make a final decision about which images to use only after we have seen them.”
UPDATE 2: In comments, wolfwalker makes an excellent point in Tolkien’s defense:
He (or rather Gandalf, his Wise One) didn’t say “don’t deal out death.� He said “Don’t be too eager to deal out death� — in other words, don’t do it hastily or in the heat of the moment. You never know when you might need somebody later … like Gollum or Wormtongue.
But Gandalf himself never hesitated to deal out death, once he decided it was deserved — to Orcs, to dragons, to the Balrog, to the Nazgul. Saddam is at least a mortal analog of a Ringwraith; he’s earned death, and worse than death, a hundred times over.
Well said.
PLEASE NOTE: Further updates will be in new posts. If you’re viewing this post at the permalink URL, please visit my homepage for the latest.
|
Categories: Iraq, Iran & the Middle East
|
December 29th, 2006 at 7:18:28 pm
I’m gonna raise a glass myself, Brendan, probably a 12 year-old Dalwhinnie.
Stalin, Mao, Kim–unfortunate for us are the tyrants who died in their beds, a luxury they collectively denied to tens of millions. Castro to follow.
But not this time. Not this time, damnit.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:22:05 pm
I love the people who say that Saddam’s death is going to cause an all out civil war in Iraq. These people are obviously crackpot ideologues, and they’re dead wrong. I mean, who in their right mind doesn’t admit that it’s an all out civil war already?
December 29th, 2006 at 7:31:37 pm
Saddam’s death means that justice, somewhere, works. No delays, no appeals over whether the
prosecutor held his tongue right during closing arguments. This man deserves to die. And I
oppose the death penalty..at least the way its done in the US…
December 29th, 2006 at 7:41:46 pm
I’m against the death penalty too, though if anyone deserves to die it’s this guy. I find it funny, though, that days after Ford died and everyone talked about how Ford’s pardon of Nixon was, in the end, good for the country, no one has mentioned this parallel with Saddam. It’s clear the man deserves to die, but I think it’s pretty evident to kill the former leader of one faction in a sectarian civil war is probably not the best thing for the country. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, Saddam’s death is bad for Iraq.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:42:16 pm
[…]
December 29th 2006 @ 4:37 pm
War, Media, General
The Irish Trojan’s Blog » Blog Archive » The death of a monster Also, TVnewser […]
December 29th, 2006 at 7:45:25 pm
J.R.R. Tolkien urged Frodo (and through him, us), “Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment,” but in this case I must disagree with the good professor.
I must rise to the Lord of Middle-earth’s defense. :-) He (or rather Gandalf, his Wise One) didn’t say “don’t deal out death.,” He said “Don’t be too eager to deal out death” — in other words, don’t do it hastily or in the heat of the moment. You never know when you might need somebody later … like Gollum or Wormtongue.
But Gandalf himself never hesitated to deal out death, once he decided it was deserved — to Orcs, to dragons, to the Balrog, to the Nazgul. Saddam is at least a mortal analog of a Ringwraith; he’s earned death, and worse than death, a hundred times over.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:49:41 pm
Brendan, Casey, and Herr Morgenholz have the right idea: a glass to “justice, as much as can be done.”
As for the effect on Iraq, I don’t think we can know whether Saddam’s death will be good or bad, but at least this is a decision made and carried out by Iraqis. Leaving Saddam’s fate to them is the right thing to do — of that I am certain. So much the better that it happened like this rather than in a U.S. airstrike.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:50:07 pm
Good comeback, wolfwalker!
December 29th, 2006 at 7:56:57 pm
“As for the effect on Iraq, I don’t think we can know whether Saddam’s death will be good or bad”
Again, I’m pretty sure that in a sectarian civil war (or “stife,” or whatever one calls it) killing the former leader of one faction can only be bad, and predictably so.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:59:08 pm
… and that’s from one Hoosier to another, by the way.
December 29th, 2006 at 8:08:21 pm
I am very ambivilent about the death penalty. I think domestically it is constitutional (it is sort of mentioned in the Constitution after all), but I retain enough Catholicism to not like it.
I doubt it really changes anything in Iraq. There seem to be basically 2 wars tripping over themselves — our war with al-Qeada and the Shia-Sunni Civil War.
But I find more justice in with Hitler committing suicide to prevent capture or Pol Pot facing execution than I do with Stalin and Arafat dying in their beds. I will not celebrate, but I think it is justice — and it was Iraq’s choice.
December 29th, 2006 at 8:54:32 pm
This blatant violation of Mr. Hussein’s constitutional rights is an outrage! He is entitled to at least 20 years of appeals! I hope his estate sues Bush under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and gets a huge judgment.
Uh, sorry, liberal dimentia overtook me. Good riddance to that filthy you know what.
December 29th, 2006 at 8:55:43 pm
Oh, and to reply to a commenter above. Whether Saddam’s hanging is good or bad, I am sure however it is a good start.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:00:02 pm
Texasyank,
I’m pretty sure that Stalin died on the dining room floor, or was found there in the morning. He was almost certainly poisoned by members of his inner circle. None of those that were present were in any hurry to call for medical help.
Major Bill
December 29th, 2006 at 9:01:16 pm
“Whether Saddam’s hanging is good or bad, I am sure however it is a good start.”
I don’t get it. If it’s good for Iraq, then it’s a good start. Right. But if it’s bad for Iraq, you’re saying it’s a good start too?
December 29th, 2006 at 9:02:42 pm
Wouldn’t it have been nice for the Iraqi gov’t to pardon Saddam as Ford pardoned Nixon? Uh, no. There was no chance that Nixon could have placed himself at the head of a howling army and slaughtered his way back to the top. There IS a small chance that Saddam might do so, if broken out of the calabozo by ‘insurgents’. In this case, national healing will be enhanced by an execution, not a pardon.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:08:54 pm
I take your point, Insufficiently Sensitive, but that’s assuming that Saddam has to be held in Iraq. If they just held him in the Hague, like Milosovic, or other dictators, I don’t think there would be any threat.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:12:39 pm
Dead by Dawn? (Frequent updates, occasional bumps)
I’m not going to give you an excuse not to read the whole thing by excerpting it. Read it. *** End of a Dictator Confederate Yankee According to an anonymous source, the former President of Iraq will be executed by
December 29th, 2006 at 9:28:54 pm
Gandalf, however, never killed the equivalent of a “person” — only animalistic manifestations of evil.
I have no sympathy for Saddam, but we gain nothing by summarily executing him. We may take a cynical attitude toward the capital appeals process, but affording extraordinary process to those on trial for their lives reinforces and heightens our respect for the sanctity of life.
Saddam Hussein is a truly evil man whose life left this earth worse off. But his death is a grim occasion — not because he doesn’t deserve it. He does. But we should derive no satisfaction from his essentially summary execution.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:34:33 pm
Agreed NDLS2006. The act of toasting to a hanging should have left our culture about the time of the gold rush, by the way.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:50:53 pm
OMG!!! Some internet dude or dudette called “NDLS2006″ said, “we gain nothing by summarily
executing him” This forces me to, like, totally reexamine my whole world view!!!
First, “we” did not execute him. The judicial system of a duly elected, constitutional
Iraqi government did.
Next, it continually depresses me to see people on all frequencies of the political
spectrum casually imply that only Americans have free will and agency, and that when
an Iraqi court hands down a judgement, it is only because “we” told them to, whoever “we” is.
Finally, no one cares about what anyone, myself very much included, posts to the comments
section of the blog of Brendan Loy. If you want to influence public opinion, read the Federalist Papers,
listen to the speeches of JFK, and then write like Steven Den Beste or Mark Steyn. *Then* the world
*might* care about what you think.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:53:23 pm
NDLS2006 —
I agree that it is no something to celebrate, but one can hardly call this summary. He had a trial and while not perfect, no trial is perfect. He had extremely competant legal counsel. Summary is what Hussein did when he got into power, which was get the Baathist leadership in a room for a televised meeting, call out names one by one, and have them taken outside and shot.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:58:07 pm
Al Jazeera (English Service) is interviewing former CNN guy Peter Arnett. They have this big picture of Hussein in the background and are talking to all the talking heads about the execution. They expect something after morning prayers (which start shortly) and before evening praryers, which start some holiday.
Al Iraqiya is showing some stupid music video, as are most of the other Arabic channels (Kuwait TV, Syriasat, Jordan TV). Saudi TV has the Haj 24/7 coverage on so I’m just watching some prayer being led (morning prayers are about to start).
Russia Today has some really hot blonde talking about New Years in Siberia. Guess I’ll watch that for now.
I love my FTA satellite dish.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:04:45 pm
Ah, yes. The very independent Iraqi government. Where the president has discretion over all executions — well, except this one.
And I didn’t get the memo that said that every post in a comments box should be aimed to change everyone’s world view, but I’ll take it under advisement.
Regardless, my point stands. First, “duly elected, constitutional government of Iraq”? Certainly you don’t underestimate the heavy hand of the Constitutional Provisional Authority (i.e., the United States) played in the drafting of that constitution and the direction of the nominees for that election? The Bush administration is the invisible hand in Iraq; and while I don’t think that’s *necessarily* bad (of course a fledgling government needs guidance) only the blind, deaf, and dumb would suggest that Iraq’s government is acting completely outside the influence of the Bush administration.
I say “we” because this trial was not a trial under the auspices of the Iraqi Criminal Court, but of the Iraqi Special Tribunal — a court established specifically for this trial by none other than Paul Bremer.
And, yep, Saddam had a fine legal team which included many Americans — including one who wrote this article condemning the proceedings:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/04/farce-of-law-trial-of-saddam-hussein.php
December 29th, 2006 at 10:27:22 pm
and Sadaam used his time in the courtroom to rant and rave and turn it into a mockery. And the news media completely didn’t cover the evidence presented, but spent all their coverage time on the latest of Sadaam and his family and defense councils antics. And judges were let go and lawywers were murdered to intimdate them.
So,cry me a river about the defense condemning the proceedings.Boo hoo. I’ve seen some videotape of Sadaams goons throwing people off of buildings without trials, and decaptiting people and chopping peoples tongues off all without trials. Sadaam got a trial. If it wasn’t perfect, well Iraqs justice system under sadaam wasn’t perfect. There’s still a war going on, the govt is brand new and Sadaam was doing everything in his power to undermine the proceedings, including hunger strikes, walking out, screamning for hours on end.
I’m not expecting perfection, but I was expecting justice. Which is what the man got (or will get in a few hours).
Bye bye sadaam. Good riddance.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:29:02 pm
Major Bill: No one ever told me about Stalin on the dining room floor.
In that case, pour me a double.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:55:44 pm
Since the penalty for first degree murder in most western countries is life in prison those who are against the death penalty in all circumstances must believe that in the case of multiple or mass murders there should be no penalty for every murder after the first.
Abolitionists- highly civilized or cravenly stupid in the face of evil?
Terry Gain | 12.29.06 - 6:45 pm | #
December 29th, 2006 at 11:08:06 pm
NDLS2006,
Take a look at all the pics of jubilant Iraqi expats in Dearborn, MI tonight. Perhaps the Iraqi gov’t isn’t “independent” enough for your taste after decades of tyranny, but I seriously doubt it took much cajoling by the “invisible hand in Iraq” (i.e., those darn Bushies) to condemn Saddam.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:15:12 pm
Ok, Terry Gain. So if the death penalty for a case of 1rst degree murder of one person is by lethal injection in Indiana, then by your logic a mass murderer in Indiana should get some worse form of penalty (perhaps having their entrails slowly eaten).
I think in order to avoid such absurdities, you have to admit that there is an upper limit to how someone should be punished, and all people who commit a crime of a certain level should fall into that category.
So people against the death penalty could very well say in response that life in prison is sufficient for any type of murder regardless of degree.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:21:04 pm
I find it sad that there are those that would take joy from the death of a person.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:34:56 pm
Did anyone notice this? I happened to be watching CNN with Anderson Coopeer where the lawyers were discussing whether or not the trial was fair or not and in the background they were running a montage of pictures and video clips of Sadaam and in nearly 70% of them they were showing him laughing and smiling as if they were trying to show him in his best possible light. It was the same type of montage you might see at the oscars when they showed the beloved celebrities who died this year. I half expected them to start playing Louis Armstrong or something. If they want to have the lovely montage of a valued life do it for Gerald Ford or James Brown, but what on earth was CNN thinking?
Can you imagine if CNN were around when hitler died and they had a montage of a smiling, jovial Hitler photos?
Was this intended? was CNN trying to show the softer side of sadaam? are the only pictures available ones of sadaam laughing? Whatever it was, it was jarring to say the least.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:43:31 pm
dcl,
There is such a thing as justice, right? Do you take some satisfaction when someone is put awy for life in jail for killing people. What if someone said, I can’t believe people are taking a joy at the jailing of someone, knowing how horrible jail is.
what if its something minor like someone goes to jail for a year for stealing your car. Are you allowed to have the slightest bit of satisfaction that the person stealing your car got what was coming to him for stealing your car? Or if a rapist is caught and jailed, are we not alllowed to have some satisfaction that the monster who was raping women is no longer allowed to inflict pain on people. If we express the slightest amount of joy that such an event occurs are we suddenly moral monsters.
Sadaam got what was coming to him. Im not jumping around as if I won the lotto, but its enlightening to know that for all the pain he inflicted there is some balance in the universe where he was forced to pay for his crimes.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:51:47 pm
KC,
I posited that the penalty for first degree murder in most western countries is life imprisonment, not death by legal injection. Deal with my argument, not your set up.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:58:40 pm
Terry,
Ok, fine. I’ll take the argument as it applies to the country that we both actually live in. You take the argument as it applies to some other country, perhaps Norway, or something.
December 30th, 2006 at 1:11:16 am
It is impossible to answer your question without falling into rounds and rounds of recursive moral relativism. But to my mind taking pleasure in someone’s death or in their anguish, or their pain simply feeds hate and anger inside of yourself and in others and thus begets more death, anguish, pain, hate and anger. This is not to say that someone should not be asked to take responsibility for their harmful actions. Nor does it mean that they should not be punished. But I don’t see what good it does to be happy about it–to take joy from it. Reveling in death is reveling in death it makes little difference who’s death it happens to be. Why should I bother to invest so much energy into someone? It takes a lot of energy to hate someone and it takes a lot of energy to be angry with someone–if the person is truly as bad as you say they are, then you should ask yourself if they are worth the energy.
As I said, the arguments become recursive at this point as you more or less repeat your previous comment and I more or less repeat mine.
December 30th, 2006 at 1:11:56 am
“Was this intended? was CNN trying to show the softer side of sadaam? are the only pictures available ones of sadaam laughing? Whatever it was, it was jarring to say the least.”
I’d say it’s probably the latter. He tightly controlled his public image . . . it’s not like he had himself taped ordering his subordinates to kill people. I think those images make him look like the fucking loon he was. Actually, the images they keep repeating are of him in the fedora randomly shooting a rifle.
And, yes yes . . . people dancing in Dearborn. Good for them, I guess. I’d refer you to the video of Rummy shaking his hand. Even when he was gassing the shit out of the Kurds, he wasn’t a Communist, so he was okay with us. Until we decided he wasn’t and threw him in front of a court established by the CPA on charges drafted by the CPA but, ironically, using the same civil procedure code that was in place when he was still in charge. Certainly it’s no loss, but the whole thing leaves me feeling a little dirty.
December 30th, 2006 at 1:15:44 am
Dane, I was with you, sorta, until “Reveling in death is reveling in death it makes little difference who’s death it happens to be.” That’s absurd. Of course it makes a difference whose death it “happens to be.” You can argue that it’s still wrong no matter what, that’s fine, but certainly it’s more wrong to revel in the death of Gerald Ford, or Mother Teresa, or an innocent teenager killed by a drunk driver, than in the death of Saddam Hussein. The contrary proposition is completely untenable.
In any event, I wonder how you feel about my position: that Saddam’s death is nothing to take joy in, but that it’s still appropriate to raise a glass and toast justice long delayed and now finally served. It’s not a joyful occasion, but still one worth appreciating — that the right thing, IMHO, has occurred (and that’s something you seem to allow for: “This is not to say that someone should not be asked to take responsibility for their harmful actions. Nor does it mean that they should not be punished.”), and we should appreciate that the right thing has occurred, even if we’re not “joyful” or “happy” about the death. Can you see the distinction there? Or is this a black-and-white issue? Because I really think it’s actually rather complex.
December 30th, 2006 at 1:23:37 am
“First kill the lawyers”
so he cant mount a good defense
COol move Bush!
December 30th, 2006 at 1:57:42 am
Killing is wrong or it isn’t.
If killing is an acceptable form of justice, what is the difference between justice and revenge? (c.f. “Honour among them” in the 23 December - 5 January The Economist) And locate the point at which the death penalty is morally superior to a blood feud.
December 30th, 2006 at 2:01:07 am
Don’t change the subject, Dane.
We weren’t talking about whether “killing is wrong.” We were talking about whether “reveling in death” is wrong. And you said:
(Emphasis added.)
Thus, as I understand it, you are saying that it is just as wrong to “revel” in Mother Teresa’s death, as to “revel” in Saddam Hussein’s death.
That’s absurd.
Period.
(If my understanding of your sentiments on this point is incorrect, please, by all means, correct me.)
I’m not saying you can’t argue that killing is always wrong. You can certainly argue that, and I respect your viewpoint, though I disagree.
I’m saying it’s absurd to claim that, when judging the morality of “reveling” in death, it “makes little difference” who is dying. Obviously, undeniably, self-evidently, there is vast moral difference between “reveling” in the death of a totally innocent person, and “reveling” in the death of a patently evil, utterly guilty person. Even if both deaths are wrong, and even if it is wrong to “revel” in either death, it is less repugnant to “revel” in the death of the guilty person. It might still be repugnant, but it’s less so. Someone who would “revel” in the death of Mother Teresa, or an innocent teenager, or a newborn baby left in a trash can, is a far worse person than someone who would “revel” in the death of Saddam Hussein. The contrary position is just totally untenable.
December 30th, 2006 at 3:16:36 am
Would it have been morally better to have wrested Saddam out of the control of the Iraqi gummint and parked him in Europe for ten more years of media circuses with lawyers and ICC charades? Still no. He’d have been a figurehead for plenty of Middle Eastern soreheads, not to mention anti-American ones from todo el mundo, and an igniter for every riot, Marxist or Islamist. Even those who ‘don’t believe in the death penalty’ can see that his single death is preferable to all the slaughter that might be generated by wishful thinkers who’d like him back in the saddle. End of an era, properly executed.
December 30th, 2006 at 8:49:11 am
Saddam Hussein was a brutal man who met a brutal end. Hopefully this provides some comfort to those who suffered under his regime and in some way sends a signal to other tyrants out there that we mean business (looking at you, Osama Bin Laden).
However, I feel to some degree that this is anticlimactic. If this had happened three years ago, I think there would be a feeling of victory. Now, it just seems like another sorry chapter in the sorry story that is Iraq.
December 30th, 2006 at 9:16:53 am
You’re right. In death he won’t be a figurehead. Duh.
And, Brendan, toasting is a celebratory act no matter how you slice it. When you toast someone who is dead, you toast their memory. I expect that’s not what you intended here.
December 30th, 2006 at 9:29:20 am
“In death he won’t be a figurehead”
Just like Lenin, Mao and Che weren’t figureheads in death. The Saddam loyalists in the Sunni community will be rallying around this dead fucker. Just watch.
December 30th, 2006 at 9:49:42 am
And, yes yes . . . people dancing in Dearborn. Good for them, I guess. I’d refer you to the video of Rummy shaking his hand.
What does Rummy shaking Saddam’s hand have to do with anything? Like Neville Chamberlain never shook Hitler’s hand? Like Truman never patted “Uncle Joe” Stalin on the back prior to the Cold War? Please . . .
December 30th, 2006 at 9:53:30 am
Just like Lenin, Mao and Che weren’t figureheads in death. The Saddam loyalists in the Sunni community will be rallying around this dead fucker. Just watch.
Perhaps, but it goes without saying that those who put Saddam’s face on a tee-shirt will be just as ignorant as the know-nothings who celebrate Che (and Mao and Lenin, for that matter). Then again, it helps identify who the idiots are.
December 30th, 2006 at 11:41:44 am
I compare it to shooting a mad dog. There’s no pleasure in it, just grim necessity. Maybe even an erstwhile sigh as we wonder what might have been if the dog hadn’t been bit.
December 30th, 2006 at 2:14:22 pm
I prefer to identify idiots by their use of the phrase “Joe Mama.”
December 30th, 2006 at 2:16:50 pm
I thought your all’s religion says “Thou Shall Not Kill.” Did I miss the qualifiers on that commandment, saying it’s OK to kill certain people at certain times?
The commandment seems pretty straightforward, and absolute, to me.
December 30th, 2006 at 2:36:17 pm
I’ll grudgingly accept the mad dog analogy as logical.
Brendan, the question of the value of a life is relative and situational. If you really want me to put forth an argument for why Mother Teresa was an evil person it can be done–there are few that would agree with it, but there are those that certainly would–because it is a relative and situational question. But it really wouldn’t change the point that reveling in death is always wrong.
December 30th, 2006 at 3:58:54 pm
Ah… so whether Mother Teresa is more or less evil that Saddam Hussein is a “relative and situational question.” Riiiiight. And I assume the same would apply to an infant baby left in a trash can?
Regardless, we’ve now established that you are not to be taken seriously on this question. So, thanks for clarifying.
December 30th, 2006 at 7:40:29 pm
Jesus didn’t say “an eye for an eye.” He said, “turn the other cheek.”
Don’t know how people who proclaim themselves as Christians can support capital punishment when Jesus was a victim of it, regardless of how deserving Saddam may have been. I’m just glad it was the Iraqis who did it.
December 30th, 2006 at 8:57:43 pm
If you really want me to put forth an argument for why Mother Teresa was an evil person it can be done
Ugh. You are so “that guy” in an argument, aren’t you?
December 30th, 2006 at 10:13:58 pm
“I was saddened to learn that my own Catholic Church opposes the death penalty, which is unfortunate because without capital punishment we wouldn’t even have a religion.”
– Stephen Colbert
December 30th, 2006 at 10:14:47 pm
Oh, and for more on how “evil” Mother Theresa is, see Christopher Hitchens’ “The Missionary Position.”
December 31st, 2006 at 10:31:48 am
(Does the hands as weights thing) Preaching monotheism under state-sanctioned polytheism… brutal dictatorship… advocating peaceful religious revolution… gassing the Kurds…
Also, the Bible commands death repeatedly. Even genocide for being on Hebrew land before the Hebrews got there. If the Bible says to stone a man to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath and the same for talking back to your parents, it should be okay with a mass murderer whose name sounds an awful lot like Sodom. Besides, there are those who argue that the proper translation is “Thou shalt not MURDER,” which has different shades of meaning.
December 31st, 2006 at 2:09:49 pm
Sean-
I was talking about Jesus and the New Testament. Jesus specifically uses the example of “turn the other cheek” to discount “an eye for an eye.”
Many Christians are very fond of jumping back and forth between the Old Testament and the New Testament when it is convenient. Or using Paul’s letters to discount what Jesus himself said. I think if you are a follower of Jesus you would actually believe what he taught, versus pulling bits and pieces out of Leviticus whenever it suits your needs.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:28:02 am
Brendan:
I view Hussein’s death as necessary, I just won’t revel in it. It is different from say Hitler’s death as when Hitler died, it made it clear a war was soon ending. Not the case here. Same if it is ever proven that OBL has died (and I give it better than 50-50 odds that OBL is servicing a virgin sheep in Hell right now).
January 4th, 2007 at 10:08:34 am
While we all feel smug (though we disguise it with rhetorical flourishes), let us remember
who had hand in creating Hussein in the first place. I would remind people to brush up on
their history of the Iran/Iraq war in the ’80s. Yes, that means the know it all 25 year
olds too…
February 3rd, 2007 at 5:00:55 am
[…] ean its not the best thing to do and won’t, in the end, cause less suffering. Added: Brenden Loy is raising a glass to the demise of a monster. One of his commenters h […]