Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saddam trial proper - Howard
news.com.au ^ | 30th December 2006

Posted on 12/29/2006 11:17:59 PM PST by naturalman1975

SADDAM Hussein was given a proper trial and was dealt with according to Iraqi law, Prime Minister John Howard said today after the execution of the former Iraqi dictator.

Saddam was executed in Baghdad, four days after an Iraqi court upheld the death sentence handed down after he was convicted for the 1982 massacre in the Iraqi city of Dujail.

"The real significance is that this man has been given a proper trial, due process was followed," Mr Howard said.

"There was an appeal that was dismissed and he has been dealt with in accordance with the law of Iraq."

The Prime Minister said the trial and execution showed Iraqis wanted to move on and resolve the deadly sectarian unrest.

"I believe there is something quite heroic about a country that is going through the pain and the suffering that Iraq is going through, yet still extends due process to somebody who was a tyrant and brutal suppressor and murderer of his people.

"That is the mark of a country that is trying against fearful odds to embrace democracy and it is a country that deserves sympathy and support and not to be abandoned," he said.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said: "The Australian Government, together with our coalition allies, will continue to support the struggle of the vast majority of Iraq's people to preserve and build upon the progress which has been achieved."

(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: saddam; saddamhussein; saddamshanging

1 posted on 12/29/2006 11:18:00 PM PST by naturalman1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
The little chicky on CNN international is freaking out about Saddam being hanged before all his trials were over.

"Why didn't WE wait?" and "Why did WE kill him now?" she kept asking her guest.

Liberals really are the center of the universe.
2 posted on 12/29/2006 11:41:54 PM PST by msnimje (You simply cannot be Christian and Pro-Abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

I do love PM Howard. And if I haven't said it yet, I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is dead. Justice has been served: fair dinkum.


3 posted on 12/30/2006 12:17:17 AM PST by Neville Megaphone (Spreading the truth in falsetto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
"Why didn't WE wait?" and "Why did WE kill him now?" she kept asking her guest.

She's trying to impose her American morals and values on people in another country.

4 posted on 12/30/2006 2:32:15 AM PST by syriacus (30,000 US deaths in Korea in 2 1/2 years under Truman (Jul, 1950 - Dec, 1952))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Doesn't matter what "Values" that SHE (CNN Chick) was trying to impose...

( CNN?? .... " VALUES " ?? Surely you Jest : using those two words TOGETHER in the same sentence!! )


The TWO IMPORTANT fact are:

1) That the "WHAT" of WHAT She said , was :

----RECORDED,
witnessed by OTHERS; as in others in The room, their
reporters,
witnessed by the International/Iraqi NEWS,
----and Now said- in the regular, expected, traditional liberal stand of Liberal Main Street Media,
IT CAN NEVER NOW BE TAKEN BACK!!! And Now can be USED on one of my next Political Posters- to show regular Americans just where the media stands if they weren't paying attention this time around! and for NEXT election(s)!

And that

2) She said it AS AN "AGENT" AND SPOKES-CHICK OF C-N-N - REPRESENTING THE VIEWS ans Stand OF (basically) NOT just CNN but ALL American Liberal Media!


Her Statement--ADDED with all the other past liberal media ones supporting TERRORISTS over the People's FREED from hem-Will ONLY help to REINFORCE in the minds of the Iraqi People-and OTHERS trying to throw off the yoke of Oppressive Regimes/Leaders, that AMERICA LIBERAL MEDIA is Definitely NOT THE ONE TO SUPPORT/Stand besides/BELIEVE in when it comes to " Picking Sides " as to who they would want supporting any other FUTURE plans for their Nation AND HELP for their Nation!


It is Just ANOTHER EXAMPLE for the people of IRAQ and those willing to TAKE THE LIFE THREATENING CHANCES of Seeking FREEEDOM from Religious oppressive Regimes (Iran), that:

Conservatives/G.W. Will NOT RUN or LEAVE YOU HIGH AND DRY! and that it is-

----LIBERALS / "Democrat Party Leaders/Candidates" and
LIBERAL MEDIA will be the ones to SELL YOU OUT!! and
SIDE in with your ENEMIES!!

Although Conservatives don't always make the "right decisions"--and ARE sometimes Slow when it comes to movements ourselves--

THANK GOD FOR people like that CNN Chick!! Thank GOD for CNN!! and the Liberal media!! for every time they OPEN THEIR MOUTHS--they can ONLY help better EXPOSE just who they are!--
and thus Better show the Major Difference between us and them!!

---*Liberals: Support TERRORISTS; For POWER-Gains,

---*Liberal MEDIA : Print Major War SECRETS on their FRONT PAGES!! (can THEY be trusted with YOUR secrets??)

---*Liberals -are shown to Take SIDES with Murdering Leaders AND THEIR MURDEROUS SONS (Usay/Qusay)
if for No other reason than NOT to be shown to be SUPPORTING THE STAND of their Opposition!

Would a Religious, Long Historically JUSTICE orientated
Race LIKE Iraqis really want to Trust LIBERALS after comments like the CNN's Chick??

Great Comments Folks!

D.A.

p.s Where's the REST of the Media in this??
Where's Bob " Can't wait long enough to bash America " Woodwards' COMMENTS??

And "WHAT" exactly will be the forth-coming NEXT
" One-Liner " to come out and be PARROTED by ALL the Media talking heads??
( You know: " Quagmire " "...Redeployment.."
Etc.??)

And: What EXACTLY was the so-called reasoning behind the
so-called Negative "reaction" and statement by the Catholic Church/ Pope concerning the "Capital-Punishemnt/ HANGING" of Saddam??
Saddam??- The ULTIMATE "Abortionist"??!
Saddam??- The ULTIMATE " Crusifier " ???!
Saddam??- The Standard PROOF of " Evil Incarnate " Upon this World!!???

What's the deal with THAT?? The Catholic Church/Pope?_SLOW to recognize and address the Church Sex Scandal's
SLOW if NOT Down Right-
( procedurally stating that THEY do NOT have the Religious Rights to TAKE SIDES in Political Stands UNLESS it is in concerning PRO-LIFE stands by Candidates)
- SILENT about supporting CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES ( over Democrat ones) during ELECTIONS!!-but FAST to condemn a Law-Conscious and Religious orientated Nations search for Justice and Freedom?!

I hope that they don't start in again throwing the baby out with the bath water. Better to say NOTHING then open their mouths like the CNN chick did!
5 posted on 12/30/2006 6:26:55 AM PST by AirBorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AirBorn
( CNN?? .... " VALUES " ?? Surely you Jest : using those two words TOGETHER in the same sentence!! )

Of course I'm jesting.

I was saying, in effect, that US liberals want to enforce their agenda on the world. They merely pretend to be open to other cultures and ways of thinking.

Their inability to stop Saddam's execution must be eating at their insides.

Lots of good points in your post.

6 posted on 12/30/2006 6:40:26 AM PST by syriacus (30,000 US deaths in Korea in 2 1/2 years under Truman (Jul, 1950 - Dec, 1952))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

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).


7 posted on 12/30/2006 9:02:58 AM PST by Dqban22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

COOL rack PM Howard


8 posted on 12/30/2006 11:33:41 AM PST by SevenofNine ("Step aside Jefe"=Det Lennie Briscoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson