Then you don’t understand what a right is. I agree that fair trials are a good thing for Iraq, but that’s not the most important principle. The most important bit is that every human being has the right to a trial, especially Saddam. Stuff about a person being an animal, about “not giving a fuck” about a person’s rights and brutally killing them is the language of fascism.
You know, aside from wether Saddam deserves a fair trail, there’s the related issue that this will be a landmark case in the Iraqui legal system (and probably one of the first) the more professional and rigorous they are, they better things will turn out to be for everyone else who has to face a trial in Iraq for years to come. The more fairly Saddam is treated, the more fairly future defendants will be treated. That’s got to be worth something.
Pretty much what I was trying to say. Myself, I wouldn’t execute Saddam…not because of what he ‘deserves’ or doesn’t deserve…but because I think he’s a better symbol caged up for the rest of his life than shot and buried. The key though is for the Iraqi’s to do whatever they are going to do while strictly following their code of law and giving Saddam as fair and unbiased a trial as they possibly can. Not just for their world image, certainly not for Saddam…but for themselves and their future.
-XT
I understand fine what a right is. The question was does Saddam DESERVE a fair trial. The answer IMHO is no…he doesn’t ‘deserve’ shit. He should and probably will GET a fair trial…but he deserves jack shit. I’m sorry that you are finding this hard to follow.
As for calling me a fascist (in a backhanded sort of way)…well, to put this as delicately as possible you can blow it out your ass.
-XT
Of course he deserves a fair trial. It’s his right. He deserves little else, and I guess he’ll thoroughly deserve the eventual jail sentence or whatever.
I didn’t call you a fascist, and I don’t think you are one. I understand you’re using hyperbole. However, the language you are using here is worryingly fascist - saying that someone is subhuman, not deserving of rights and deserving of cruel punishment. Can’t you see that?
All people accused of a crime deserve a fair trial. Every single one of them, including Hussein. Asserting that anyone does not deserve a fair trial may or may not be a fascist trait, but it is certainly not a stance that supports the rule of law.
Again, the problem with asserting that some people don’t deserve a fair trial is that you have to have some way of telling the difference between guilty monsters who don’t deserve a fair trial and innocent people who do. Maybe we could have some sort of judicial proceeding, with certain standards of evidence clearly laid out in advance, that would allow us to determine who deserves to have a fair trial and who doesn’t. That would be the only fair way to do it.
I’ve got a potential name for such a procedure already picked out.
Anyway, I don’t think people deserve fair trials out of some notion of perfect justice, but rather as a practical matter. As a matter of ethics I have no problem in the abstract with people enforcing their own brand of justice personally, and so I don’t have a problem–in the abstract–with someone just up and shooting Saddam. I have a right to self defense, I have a right to protect my family and my property, I have a right to protect liberal democracy, violently if need be.
However, usually there are prudential reasons for me to forgo personal enforcement of justice. I might make a mistake. In fact, history has shown that it’s very easy for people to make mistakes, kill the wrong person, kill someone for trivial reasons, and so on. And I’m afraid of other people making mistakes as well. And so I agree–along with everyone else–to give up my right to personal justice as long as a more effective collective system exists. If Saddam were not right now in prison awaiting trial for murder and crimes against humanity it would be moral to just up and shoot him. But since he IS in jail and facing trial, it would be wrong to do so.
Why is it his ‘right’? The Iraq he ruled didn’t have such rights after all. There is no universal human ‘right’ to a fair trial…its a structure imposed by SOME societies. A structure NOT imposed by the nation he ruled. Like other human monsters throughout history he doesn’t ‘deserve’ anything. Society GRANTS him the ‘right’ to a fair trial. And in Iraq’s case THEY (as a nation coming out slowly from the nightmare of his rule) ‘deserve’ to give him a fair trial…again, not for him but for himself. I realize its a subtle distinction and that you aren’t seeing what I’m saying here (you aren’t alone appearently)…and that you disagree. However, in the end even looking at it my way he still GETS the damn trial…so what difference?
Fair enough…I read what you said wrongly. My apologies.
I don’t think the language I’m using is facist at all. Perhaps you could say it totalitarian…calling it (and sounding like you are calling me) fascist is simply godwinizing this thread and needlessly inflaming things. IMHO.
And no, I don’t see it. The guy WAS subhuman in the things he did. If I were saying ALL Iraqi’s deserved such a fate or were ‘subhuman’ then I would agree with your point. Saddam, IMHO, doesn’t ‘deserve’ anything. What he’ll get (granted as a right he didn’t give his fellow citizens when he ruled) is a different matter.
Oh, and I never said Saddam should get cruel punishment. Cruel punishment would be ‘he should be boiled in oil and have his guts cut out with a spoon, then hung up and torn apart by 4 horses’. Perhaps you mistook me for one of our European brothers? I said basically he should be shot in the head (and presumably killed instantly) THEN tossed to the dogs…if they would have him. Another subtle distinction I’m sure. 
(BTW, I actually DON’T think Saddam should be killed at all but kept in a cage for life…I’m not a big fan of the death penalty. Just for the record).
-XT
A fair trial is not something one can either ‘deserve’ or ‘not deserve’ - it’s either something we do for everyone, or else we have a system that regards the concept of fair trial meaningless or irrelevant. Fair trial is the process by which we decide what the accused person deserves, or at least it should be.
I agree completely. In fact its what I was trying to say. Should have just let you post this and stayed out of the thread. 
-XT
It’s more or less a rehash of what I said above.
Moderator’s Warning: This is not appropriate for this forum. If you find yourself losing your temper while composing a post, take a deep breath and go for a walk or pet the dog or something before you hit submit.
See, this is the bit that is arguably fascist. The notion of liberalism rests on the idea that there ARE a set of natural rights, inevitably including the right to a free trial (as stemming from your right not to be punished by the state, with the exception of when you have performed a crime against the people). The Fascist concept is that individuals are subordinate to the state and any ‘rights’ are handed out by it. Similarly, you see language describing certain people as animals, or subhuman, and thus not deserving of the rights being handed out by the state. It was not my intention to Godwinise, the comparison seemed apposite.
What specificially about facism does this stem from? Why not communism? Perhaps because you think I’m a ‘republican’ and further think that ‘republicans’ are ‘facists’? Or would you like to show me specifically what about facism links it ot what I’ve said? Please…enlighten me Atticus.
-XT
Nice. Usually I’m with the mods, and I did apologize for misunderstanding. However the fascist stuff keeps on and I’m the only one spanked. Not to call you a communist or anything but folks who do this kind of thing exhibit communist type traits. Oh, I have no specific reasons why its communist but, well, it lets me slip under the rules. Hopefully you won’t take this amiss or think I’m calling YOU a communist…just the things you are saying are communist like.
-XT
Hm, the customary nonsense. As usual you say something half-baked, then spend considerable time and effort trying to defend, qualify or legitimize it. The secret trick is to avoid saying such silly things in the first place.
As far as I can see the word “fascist” came up because of the foolish claim you put forward, being that someone (Saddam in this case) doesn’t deserve a fair trial, but the larger unit (Iraq) does.
Fascism has been a fairly meaningless general insult for decades, but let’s look a bit deeper than just popular usage. Fascism is a “powerful, dictatorial state that views the nation as superior to the individuals or groups composing it” (from Wikipedia: Fascism).
First you presumed to instruct others in what someone deserves (you were trying to be “powerful” and “dictatorial”). You unequivocally stated that Saddam (“individual”) doesn’t deserve a fair trial (again, “dictatorial”), but that Iraq (“the nation as superior”) does. It was therefore legitimate to interpret your original claim as fascist to a certain extent.
Ah, a bit of the ultra-simplistic and self-righteous tit-for-tat reasoning. You might want to check Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”
Finally, note that Atticus Finch said (quite correctly) of your argument that it had “the language of fascism”. He didn’t call you a fascist.
So much horseshit in such a small package.
Uhuh. Lets see. Saddam is scum. He doesn’t ‘deserve’ anything. Iraq, as a (hopefully) emerging democracy NEEDS to show not only the world but itself that it CAN work via the rule of law. They ‘deserve’ the trial because it will help them along the path to the rule of law…and by extension because Saddam now falls under a system light years beyond the one he ruled he is ENTITLED to a fair trial. Not because he deserves it but because he is entitled to it under a better system than the one he governed under. And this, according to the twisted little sea lawyers, is fascist speak. Right. Oh, btw, I’m not saying YOU (and others) are twisted little sea lawyers…merely saying that, (quite correctly) your arguments are “the language of the twisted little sea lawyer”. So, all is good.
Yes? So? What has this to do with anything I’ve said? Nothing as far as I can see. Just more horseshit. But thanks for the link.
I don’t presume to instruct anyone. I answered the OP’s question. Does Saddam deserve a fair trial? Seems others presume to show me I’m a fascist…or, to twist it around, to tell me that while I am not a fascist (wink wink) my arguements are ‘the language of fascism’ (nudge nudge). You are tieing together (as you usually do) a string of bullshit and trying to make it a necklace for me to wear. Thanks, but no.
To recap: No…as an individual he does not deserve a fair trial. However, Iraq deserves the trial to show themselves that they CAN work by the rule of law…as opposed to how things functioned in the past. What this has to do with fascism is beyond me. That YOU think its a legitimate claim (that my arguements are fascists) doesn’t exactly add weight to the argument IMHO…but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Its ashame there is no yawn smiley. Would come in handy here. You spout the standard line about a Universal Declaration of Human Rights as if this makes it universally so. I notice a distinct lack of said rights UNDER Saddam…as well as under most ‘fascist’ or ‘communist’ or totalitarian/despotic regimes throughout the world. Where was your declaration then, ehe? The fact that Saddam is getting a fair trial seems to fly over your head. The fact that not everyone IS entitled to a fair trial throughout the world, nor does everyone receive one also seems to fly over your head. You can simply wave your Universal Declaration over your head then roll over and go back to sleep safe in the knowledge that its a ‘right’ everyone enjoys. Tell that to some peasant in North Korea…or the Iraqi’s under Saddam.
Saddam as an individual doesn’t deserve anything. He tossed that away years ago. Saddam living under a nation struggling to become a democracy, or at least struggling to conform to a higher standard is ENTITLED to a fair trial because of the system he NOW is under. Not for himself but because his nation badly needs it (and myriad other trials like it) to firmly establish that such things in the future ARE the right of Iraqi’s throughout the nation…in short if they are ever to become a democracy or at least a nation who uses law as the foundation of justice. If you choose to disagree with me, thats fine. But stop trying to paint this as a fascist stance.
Sure Abe.
Well, I’m done here unless something new comes up…or unless someone wants to debate what I’m saying in less volitile terms. Obviously the mods are cool with this kind of backhanded attack…as long as you don’t tell someone to blow it out their ass and only IMPLY the insult all is good. Well, so be it. If you guys want to continue down this path have fun with it.
-XT
In other words, according to you Saddam does not have the inalienable right of all human beings to a free trial, but a free trial will be granted to him by the state as a national expedient? That is the language of fascism again. Atticus Finch stated it very well:
“The Fascist concept is that individuals are subordinate to the state and any ‘rights’ are handed out by it.”
I hope this is starting to sound familiar. But Atticus didn’t end there, no. He further explained: “Similarly, you see language describing certain people as animals, or subhuman, and thus not deserving of the rights being handed out by the state.”
Which is what you have been doing, right down to saying that Saddam should spend the rest of his life “in a cage”! An interesting choice of words, given that we put animals in cages, and humans in prisons.
Och, come now, spare me the infantile tu quoque. The difference between my original point and your cheap mimicry is that I have the facts on my side, whereas you appear to be driven by the delirium brought on by your latest outbreak of foot-in-mouth disease.
Which can’t be that far, since an explanation followed immediately after!
No, XT, I am merely tired of the more idiotic arguments you leave to fester around these boards like redolent canine excreta. But make no mistake: no has one called you a fascist, and I don’t see any evidence that anyone even implied that you were one. That’s why the Moderators objected to your crass insult, but not to the other poster’s observation about your argment.
And it is due to that lack that Saddam’s reign was considered morally repugnant and a violation of universal human rights. Many of Saddam’s subjects were denied rights like life and fair trial, but that does not in any way invalidate those rights or their applicability. That is where “my” declaration was.
Universal human rights and the way we adhere and respond to them are also useful indicators of moral high ground. It is quite telling that you reacted with scorn and disdain as soon as I cited the Declaration… do you truly want to sit in Saddam’s camp?
Fear not, I know why you really reacted poorly to my cite: because you said “There is no universal human ‘right’ to a fair trial”, and I showed that your assertion was utterly incorrect.
What an inchoate argument! The very purpose of the declaration is to affirm that everyone is automatically entitled to such rights, that no one has to “earn” them (i.e., no need to “deserve” them). And yes, there is injustice in the world, rights are breached all the time. If all these rights could be automagically fulfilled we wouldn’t have to struggle for them, would we? We could all live happy, self-congratulatory lives of bliss. Instead we find that the world is a harsh and brutal place where some people are killed, starve, or suffer torture, and do not receive medical aid, shelter, or fair trials. Does such injustice invalidate the universal declaration? Obviously not, it incites us to correct the problem. Well, mostly, anyway: it would seem that a few among us would prefer primitive tribal reciprocity Old Testament justice instead, and don’t seem to think much of universal rights.
And yet it is, visibly the language of fascism and even one of its basic tenets. Again you repeat that Saddam doesn’t have the right to a fair trial because he is already guilty, but that the state will grant him a fair trial because it is convenient for the state to do so. See my first paragraph of this post.
It is surprising you do not yet realize why another poster would point out these problems in what appeared to be good faith. And it is disappointing that your reaction should be not introspection but instead base insults, the implied accusation that Atticus was calling Republicans fascists, pointless equivocation, and whining to mods that someone called you a fascists - which is still not true.
[Moderator Hat ON]
xtisme, Abe, cool it or take it to the Pit. Now.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
How does one DESERVE a fair trial? Everyone deserves a fair trial. Why do people act like it’s some kind of reward? He’s still gonna get executed at the end, what’s the impatience for?
Erek