In retrospect I may have been a little harsh in my responses to xtisme’s ill-advised claims and language. Nonetheless, my argument is on target (and on topic), even though my prose may have contained one or two superfluous phrases.
The very idea that someone doesn’t “deserve” a fair trial is a hasty emotional reaction based on hardwired human insticts of reciprocity, not on reason. If someone does not “deserve” a fair trial then it is difficult to argue that he “deserves” appropriate punishment, and that the wronged parties “deserve” resolution, since a fair trial is the means by which fair punishment and resolution are reached.
No, Saddam doesn’t deserve a fair trial, or really any sort of trial at all.
But Iraq deserves a government that gives everyone a fair trial, and the people of Iraq deserve a social structure that values its people enough to give fair trials as a requirement of due process.
The people of Iraq have had plenty of experience with government that scorns due process because the leaders don’t think that this person, or that person doesn’t deserve a trial.
Your confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the terms:
“Deserve: To be worthy of; merit. See Synonyms at earn.”
"Entitled: To give a name or title to.
To furnish with a right or claim to something: The coupon entitles the bearer to a 25 percent savings. Every citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law. "
You seem to be making a case that ‘deserve’ means ‘entitled’…or that everyone deserves something (in this case a fair trial) as a right (which is the definition of entitled).
I don’t see it that way. I’ve been (IMO) called some nasty names because of this in this thread and grossly misunderstood in what I was driving at. Whether this is deliberate or not I can’t say. As the mods have choosen to spank me a second time however I shall withdraw and leave you to your thread.
That’s not it at all. Even the above distinction between “deserve” and “entitle” (which I previously alluded to) supports my point, because Saddam is both entitled to and deserving of a fair trial. The record is quite clear.
Summary
You said on a number of times that Saddam does not “deserve” a fair trial, that you’d be happy to see him in a “cage” the rest of his life, and that Saddam should be tried on account of Iraq. (Commendable - to me - that you advocated imprisonment rather than execution, but not the point here). Another poster disagreed and alerted you to the fact that your arguments and even language displayed fascist characteristics, and he kindly explained how. You didn’t respond with any real arguments, but complained that you were being called a fascist and scoffed that there was no such thing as a universal human right to a fair trial. I became irritated with such sloppy thinking, victimhood, and unfounded claims, and weighed in.
I also showed why Saddam (or anyone at all) does not have to “deserve” a fair trial; he absolutely does not have to “earn” or be worthy of a universal right, it is automatically his by default. I then expanded on the characteristics of your argument and language that sound fascist (like the cage comments). The whole fascism bit was emphatically not intended to insult but to show how astray an emotional reaction will lead you when used in the place of reason. I think I speak for Atticus Finch as well on that point.
Review
Saddam is entitled to a fair trial, like every human being – I suppose that point is not contested. Now, Saddam “deserves” a fair trial because, no matter what scumbag he may be, no one has to “earn” a fair trial. It is not the state of Iraq that extends fair trials on an ad hoc basis, a fair trial is Iraq’s obligation and Saddam’s right and cannot be earned (or taken away; it can simply be violated).
You had an emotional reaction to Saddam and posted it; the problem became increasingly pronounced when you kept attempting to validate your emotional reaction on grounds of reason.
I mention this because it is not an uncommon problem – as we saw just a few posts above from someone who apparently had not read the discussion. The claim that someone for whatever reason doesn’t deserve a fair trial is the foundation of vigilantism, unfair justice, violence, bias, witchhunting, and so forth. (the fascist angle has already been argued) Also importantly, having to “earn” (deserve) a fair trial logically means that Saddam has to “earn” a fair punishment!
I understand that everyone uses stock phrases, but this type really doesn’t suit you.
Ah, you proclaim victory by fiat…nice. I read the clear definitions and disagree. YMMV and all that.
And I ask again…how does what I said link to ‘fascism’? Why not communism, totalitariansim, Catholicism, or some other ‘ism’? What specifically was it about what I said that tags it to ‘fascism’? Correct me if I’m wrong here, but in fascism the individual is subserviant to the state. They aren’t ‘entitled’ to anything the state doesn’t think they are entitled too. The state decides…not society, not the people. And generally speaking, in fascist nations your ‘universal human rights’ are generally used to wipe the ass of the big man after a hearty meal.
I said society dictates what is or isn’t considered entitlement. I’m sorry that you don’t seem to understand this, but its true. ‘Society’ of course is the people…not the state. Note that in the US and most of Europe society has decided that people have a right to a just and fair trial. In many other nations they don’t do things this way. Where is your universal human rights in those places? Where does even the concept of ‘universal human rights’ stem from if not society? Is it a human instinct? Are we hard wired for it? Who decided what were ‘universal human rights’…and how? And why? Society did…notably here in the US, though not solely here. How this is the language of fascism escapes me…though obviously the mods continue to give you a pass on this so I assume you and good ole Atticus Finch aren’t alone in this thinking. Its a puzzlement to me how you can continue to think this…but hey, if thats what floats your boat, more power to ya, blah blah blah.
As for your irration…I’m militantly indifferent. Especially at this point with you continuing to harp on the same thing.
Well, I’m glad you have shown it…to your own mind at least. Its interesting to me that you have so convoluted the term ‘deserve’, using the secondary meaning of ‘earn’ instead of ‘To be worthy of; merit’, and then simply declared victory. I still do not believe that Saddam is ‘worthy’ or ‘merrits’ a fair trial…and I still think that he is entitled to one because that is the standard the current Iraq is striving to achieve.
Also, for the whole fascism bit ‘emphatically not intended to insult’ I disagree…since I don’t see how it relates to fascism at all. Therefore I took it as an insult…and the more you harp on it the more convinced it WAS an insult, at least when you bring it up. Finch I am less sure of at this point…perhaps he really didn’t see where I was going.
I took the ‘if it quacks like a duck’ thinking…i.e. if my words were fascist (when they patently were not) then I must be a fascist. And that lable is extremely insulting to me. Had you or Finch chosen to attack my use of ‘deserve’ in other terms then I would not have felt insulted at all…it would have been a debate over symantecs. I think that in reality we are saying the same thing, though where these ‘rights’ or ‘entitlements’…or in your terms where everyone ‘deserves’ a fair trial reguardless…where these things stem from I think we disagree on. You seem to think that because you tack on ‘universal’ to it that makes it so. Myself, I think that such things stem directly from society (i.e. the people)…and that its only through constant vigilance that they are maintained…and only through heroic effort that they are established in the first place. Thats why I said Iraq ‘deserves’ this trial…they are ‘worthy’ of it, they ‘merrit’ it, and if they see the process through, dotting all the ‘i’ and crossing all the ‘t’ they will have earned what they get. A system that will at least attempt to give everyone, reguardless of if they deserve it or not, a just and fair trial.
These things aren’t instinctive, they aren’t the natural order, they aren’t ‘universal’ in any way shape or form…one has but to travel to another country where folks don’t have them to see that. Even in countries that try very hard to maintain they aren’t ‘universal’. You live in Hong Kong (or at least thats what your location says)…take a little swim to the mainland then tell me how ‘universal’ human rights are. For myself, I have but to return to the barrio of my youth to see that things aren’t nearly so ‘universal’ here either.
Saddam is entitled to a fair trial…yes, I’ve said that from the first. He doesn’t have to ‘earn’ it…because his society (i.e. Iraq, the emerging Iraqi government and the Iraqi people) is attempting to rule by law instead of by fiat as was done in the past. Iraq deserves this trial to establish precident in the rule of law, for their future as a (hopefully) free nation where your ‘universal human rights’ actually has a real world meaning.
He is not ‘worthy’ of a trial though. He does not ‘merit’ a trial. He doesn’t not ‘deserve’ one. If there had been a real revolution in Iraq (instead of an invasion and conquest) then Saddam surely would have been put up against a wall to pose for gunfire…instead of being given every chance to defend himself. SOCIETY is what empowers and entitles Saddam to get that chance to defend himself. THEY decided that this was what they wanted…instead of some revolutionary justice. Not some universal right that the Iraqi people never knew…until now.
You are (again) making assumptions. I have no emotional stake in Saddam. I could give a shit one way or the other. Personally, as I said, I think Saddam should be left alive instead of executed. The wisest course (IMHO) would be to allow Saddam to live out the remainder of his life in prison, treated well but never allowed to leave. He doesn’t ‘deserve’ this either…but it would be the best thing in the long run for his nation. This would ensure that he doesn’t become a focal point due to his execution.
I became emotional only after the fascist thing was tossed out…and after that got a pass from the mods though my brief ‘blow it out your ass’ statement got me spanked. I felt this was unfair in the extreme…especially after you took up the position and continued spewing it out. And continued to get a pass.
Interesting…especially in light of the fact I said he was ‘entitled’ to a fair trial. How do you reconcile this? Perhaps you are simply spinning tales of ‘vigilantism, unfair justice, violence, bias, witchhunting, and so forth’ like so much hot air? Or perhaps you chose to harp on the ‘deserve’ thing as it gave you the in to continue the ‘fascist’ thing? I don’t know. I’m not willing to give you the benifit of the doubt in my own mind…others can and obviously do.
As to the ‘earn’ bit…again, Saddam doesn’t have to ‘earn’ anything. His society ENTITLES him to a just and fair trial…and probably a just and fair execution. I think he certainly ‘deserves’ the latter…no question there really. I still don’t believe he is ‘worthy of’ or ‘merits’ one…in short, I don’t think he ‘deserves’ one. Obviously your mileage varies…and frankly I’m tired of discussing it at this point.
I got 2 mod warnings in this thread…thats more mod warnings than I have received in the entire rest of the time I’ve been on this board. When I wrote my last post I was unsure if I could continue to discuss this with folks who were tossing around ‘fascism’ for bullshit reasons, and I was very upset at the direction of moderation which seemed (to me) to be biased. I really don’t relish getting banned as I enjoy this board quite a bit and was probably walking the edge there. I also respect the mods (generally) on this board, so I assumed that what I was taking for insults perhaps weren’t seen that way by others. On reflection I’ve calmed down and I really don’t give two shits anymore so decided to post this. I don’t expect this to make a dent in your own position…hell, you’ve already declared victory and all. I decided to post just for the hell of it.
It was explained multiple times why the language you employed could validly be argued to have fascist characteristics, and your response was to complain, act insulted, and say that it’s not really what you meant - without actually modifying your assertions. If the charge of fascist language offended you, even after being showed why such a charge was applicable, you could have modified your rhetoric. Or you could have contested the identifying elements of fascist expression.
You repeated a number of times this item:
I replied:
You also said:
Which is what I and others addressed multiple times, as in here:
My emphasis added (again) here and everywhere else in this post. Is it clearer this time?
Fascism was brought up by another poster, but it is true he might at a stretch have said Totalitarianism - which is an umbrella term and sometimes includes Fascism. But in our case Totalitarianism is a bit vaguer, meaning essentially that “the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior” (link).
Communism is “a theoretical system of social organization and a political movement based on common ownership of the means of production. As a political movement, communism seeks to establish a classless society.” (Link). It’s therefore hardly applicable in the current sense, unless of course you’re in the habit of simply lumping together all the “isms” you dislike.
That’s rather a strange quibble, considering that you are talking about basic human rights. “A society is a group of beings distinguishable from other groups by mutual interests, characteristic relationships, shared institutions, ranking and a common culture. In political science, the term is often used to mean the amalgamation of all voluntary human relationships, generally in contrast to the State, an institution of legal aggression.” (link).
The law is locally administered and set by organs of the state. Nonetheless, I can accept that what what you really meant was that Iraqi people need to witness a judicial and PR victory won by the justice system in order to renew trust in their institutions.
But what did you have in mind when you uttered stuff like the following?
See, you have posted an awful lot about “Iraq” and little about “Iraqis”. You have mentioned “society” ambiguously once before your last post, but many more times have you referred to “nation”, “democracy”, “rule of law”, “system”, and so forth - items that are not of society (although a society is defined by them) but of the state. Political, rather than social. Couple this with talk about “animals” and “cages” and ponder for a moment.
I already addressed this question, but let me do so again in more detail in the hope that you will cease to repeat the same objection.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (already quoted) adopted by the UN General Assembly (the forum that represents all UN members and that has as part of its agenda the promotion of human rights) grants every human being the right to a free trial. The Declaration itself sets out the basic rights of humans, but is itself technically speaking not legally binding; it is however frequently cited, and argued by many lawyers to be one of the foundations of International Law. It is a philosophical milestone.
Since I suspect you will argue that its non-legally binding status represents some kind of refutation to the universality of human rights, let me hasten to add that one of the Declaration’s offshoots, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightsis legally binding… and Iraq has signed and ratified it. You have, in effect and inadvertently, argued that if human rights violations take place systematically (as in Iraq under Saddam), the fundamental rights do not exist!
What does the Covenant say, you ask? “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. Article 14. Have a read and then let me know what your assertion that there is no such thing as a universal right to a fair trial was supposed to mean.
China is one of a small handful of signatories that hasn’t yet ratified this Covenant. Obviously, being a Totalitarian regime they would rather avoid doing so since human rights abuses are basically institutionalized under the Communist Party (which isn’t even Communist). Nonetheless, every person living in China “deserves” exactly the same rights you or I “deserve” - they simply don’t get as many because the Totalitarian regime chooses to withold some rights that would erode its power. Your claim that the Declaration and its offshoots are meaningless unless “society” “grants” the rights is false; the Declaration (though not legally binding) is universal, and it is states that decide how to implement and protect rights. There is no question that every human being has (but doesn’t necessarily enjoy) the same universal rights regardless of geographical location, economic or social status, incidence of human rights abuses, etc.
And that is a hugely important development in civilization and in international affairs. Your initial reaction was to scoff at it. Think about that in the context of Fascism and the insult you erroneously perceived.
Well, I am happy to say you were wrong, as previously stated. Similarly, if I call your argument racist, I am not calling you a racist. No reason to assume the worst.
As to where human rights come from, they were declared at the UN, and are applied by states. The people in a society (meaning here cultures and groups of people, not legal and political systems) provide input as to what they want, but it is the State that is charged with the protection of rights. It is States (in forums like the UN) that argue what rights should be. Everyone has the same rights regardless of how good the state is at maintaining them.
Who are you to determine what Saddam is not worthy of, and what he does not merit? And you are wrong: Saddam merits and is as worthy as the next guy of a fair trial because, as a human being, he is as worthy and meritorious of those rights as everyone else. Once a fair trial determines whether he is guilty, a tribunal will set appropriate punishment - perhaps revoking some of his rights, such as his right to freedom.
To claim that you know who is worthy of what before the accused has been tried and judged fairly is vigilante philosophy. Some people, including you I believe, subscribed to a similar philosophy (only writ large) when it came time to consider Saddam’s WMDs prior to the war. Bush decreed Saddam guilty on the basis of Neocon hot air and made sure that a “fair trial” (UN weapon inspections) could not take place, with the result that many people jumped on the finger-pointing bandwagon of fools. Yet even monsters can be wrongly accused. And that is precisely why everyone unequivocally “deserves” a fair trial under every definition of the word. Other posters pointed out as much several posts ago.
I don’t have to, since I simply provided an admonition that some of the arguments you used can lead to or be used to justify Bad Things. Remember, I pointed out that you said Saddam didn’t deserve a fair trial. My argument is that he deserves one, and is even worthy of one (if you want to quibble) on the previously stated grounds.
Review the language you have used - even just the parts I have quoted in this post - and then say that again with a straight face. People who are emotionally neutral towards someone do not consistently claim that they should be shot in the head, fed to the dogs, caged like the animals they are, and so forth.
Your closing statement is again semantically identical the your previous ones. An update is definitely in order!