Posted on 12/29/2006 8:40:10 PM PST by NormsRevenge
I breathlessly await the opinion of your moral peer Rosie O'PieHole, Je$$e.
Jesse "Adulterer" Jackson knows about as much about US foreign policy as he does about morality.
Shut up and sit down.
"Imposing the death penalty, which is indefensible in any case, is especially wrong after the unfair proceedings of the Dujail trial." — Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program for Human Rights Watch.
Go to hell.
"This is an unfair verdict and if Saddam is executed or not ... he will remain a symbol and no one can delete it, neither the Iraqi government nor the Americans." — Muhssin Ali Mohammed of Tikrit, Saddam's hometown.
A symbol to worthless people.
"All sections of Iraqi society, as well as the wider international community, have an interest in ensuring that a death sentence provided for in Iraqi law is only imposed following a trial and appeal process that is, and is legitimately seen as, fair, credible and impartial." — Louise Arbour, U.N. high commissioner for human rights.
What ever. Like someone from the UN would know the difference between human dignity and their butt.
"It will not increase our moral authority in the world. ... Saddam's heinous crimes against humanity can never be diminished, but he was our ally while he was doing it. ... Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth will make us blind and disfigured. ... Saddam as a war trophy only deepens the catastrophe to which we are indelibly linked." — the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Whoa......never heard THAT before. Way to come up with something new, Jesse.
"Putting into action such an inhumane sentence casts aside the aspirations of the Iraqi people for the transformation of their country." — Ravil Gainutdin, head of the Russian Council of Muftis, to the RIA-Novosti news agency.
A Mufti, huh? An islamic sharia "scholar" lecturing the world on what is and isn't inhumane? lol. Give that pillow talk to your goats, Ravil. No one with a brain cares what you think.
Hay! Thay had ta hurry!! He wuz alredy 69!!!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I do not understand the statement from the Pope's representative AT ALL!
I can, Cardinal. Just send them to me. Glad to oblige.
There's a limerick in there, somewhere, but I shan't go there.
"Imposing the death penalty, which is indefensible in any case, is especially wrong after the unfair proceedings of the Dujail trial." — Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program for Human Rights Watch. "
I think they got his name wrong. Its not "Dicker", its "Dick^*#!"
Does this mean his eyes should have been gouged out, tongue removed, and he should have been hamstrung and left to wander the streets as a beggar?
But, but, that would be "cruel and unusual punishment".
Some, even by their very existence, form a rallying symbol and inspiration to further evil. Best to have hanged him.
The moral legitimacy of the execution of Saddam Hussein.
TYRANNICIDE AND THE CATHOLIC TEACHINGS
Tyrannicide literally is the killing of a tyrant, and usually is taken to mean the killing of a tyrant by a private person for the common good. There are two classes of tyrants whose circumstances are widely apart -- tyrants by usurpation and tyrants by oppression. A tyrant by usurpation (tyrannus in titula) is one who unjustly displaces or attempts to displace the legitimate supreme ruler, and he can be considered in the act of usurpation or in subsequent peaceful possession of the supreme power.
A tyrant by oppression (tyrannus in regimine) is a supreme ruler who uses his power arbitrarily and oppressively.
I. TYRANT BY USURPATION
While actually attacking the powers that be, a tyrant by usurpation is a traitor acting against the common weal, and, like any other criminal, may be put to death by legitimate authority. If possible, the legitimate authority must use the ordinary forms of law in condemning the tyrant to death, but if this is not possible, it can proceed informally and grant individuals a mandate to inflict the capital punishment. St. Thomas (In II Sent., d. XLIV, Q. ii, a. 2), Suarez (Def. fidei, VI, iv, 7), and the majority of authorized theologians say that private individuals have a tacit mandate from legitimate authority to kill the usurper when no other means of ridding the community of the tyrant are available.
II. TYRANT BY OPPRESSION
Looking on a tyrant by oppression as a public enemy, many authorities claimed for his subjects the right of putting him to death in defense of the common good. Amongst these were John of Salisbury in the twelfth century (Polycraticus III, 15; IV, 1; VIII, 17), and John Parvus (Jehan Petit) in the fifteenth century. The Council of Constance (1415) condemned as contrary to faith and morals the following proposition:
"Any vassal or subject can lawfully and meritoriously kill, and ought to kill, any tyrant. He may even, for this purpose, avail himself of ambushes, and wily expressions of affection or of adulation, notwithstanding any oath or pact imposed upon him by the tyrant, and without waiting for the sentence or order of any judge." (Session XV)
Subsequently a few Catholics defended, with many limitations and safeguards, the right of subjects to kill a tyrannical ruler. Foremost amongst these was the Spanish Jesuit Mariana. In his book, "De rege et regis institutione" (Toledo, 1599), he held that people ought to bear with a tyrant as long as possible, and to take action only when his oppression surpassed all bounds. They ought to come together and give him a warning; this being of no avail they ought to declare him a public enemy and put him to death. If no public judgment could be given, and if the people were unanimous, any subject might, if possible, kill him by open, but not by secret means. The book was dedicated to Philip III of Spain and was written at the request of his tutor Garcias de Loaysa, who afterwards became Bishop of Toledo. It was published at Toledo in the printing-office of Pedro Rodrigo, printer to the king, with the approbation of Pedro de Oñ, Provincial of the Mercedarians of Madrid, and with the permission of Stephen Hojeda, visitor of the Society of Jesus in the Province of Toledo (see JUAN MARIANA).
A Great theologians of the Church like St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xlii, a.2), Suarez (Def. fidei, VI, iv, 15), and Bañez, O.P. (De justitia et jure, Q. lxiv, a. 3), permitted rebellion against oppressive rulers when the tyranny had become extreme and when no other means of safety were available. This merely carried to its logical conclusion the doctrine of the Middle Ages that the supreme ruling authority comes from God through the people for the public good. As the people immediately give sovereignty to the ruler, so the people can deprive him of his sovereignty when he has used his power oppressively.
Many authorities, e.g. Suarez (Def. fiedei, VI, iv, 18), held that the State, but not private persons, could, if necessary, condemn the tyrant to death. In recent times Catholic authors, for the most part, deny that subjects have the right to rebel against and depose an unjust ruler, except in the case when the ruler was appointed under the condition that he would lose his power if he abused it. In proof of this teaching they appeal to the Syllabus of Pius IX, in which this proposition is condemned: "It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel" (prop. 63). While denying the right of rebellion in the strict sense whose direct object is the deposition of the tyrannical ruler, many Catholic writers, such as Crolly, Cathrein, de Bie, Zigliara, admit the right of subjects not only to adopt an attitude of passive resistance against unjust laws, but also in extreme cases to assume a state of active defensive resistance against the actual aggression of a legitimate, but oppressive ruler.
Many of the Reformers were more or less in favour of tyrannicide. Luther held that the whole community could condemn the tyrant to death (Sämmtliche Werke", LXII, Frankfort-on-the-Main and Erlangen, 1854, 201, 206). Melanchthon said that the killing of a tyrant is the most agreeable offering that man can make to God (Corp. Ref., III, Halle, 1836, 1076).
The pig will be driven through Halapja, where thousands of Kurds were gassed in 1998. The pig along with Sadams corpse will be sealed alive within a 12 foot cubic concrete crypt and sealed. Pigs get hungry fast.Saddam will be too impure to meet his 72 Virginians.
A monument will be built in Halapja over the crypt, open to both sexes, consisting of a large marble lined Public Urinal and Defacatory, where the Kurds can make spontaneous offerings to Sadam's memory.
Many Americans are planning on making the pilgrimage in order to submit their own offerings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.