Asymmetrical Information

I've been meaning to watch it, but haven't gotten around to it yet. I figure that since I wanted the guy dead, I should watch him die.

I started watching it a few days ago, but stopped before the acutal hanging.

The act of watching it made me feel uncivilized. The execution was in this dark, dirty room. It looked like the sort of place where the Soviets might have executed a poltiical prisoner. I don't expect executions to be carried out in an airy, tastefully furnsihed setting, but this place was really dirty and dingy, and that bothered me. It just seemed wrong to take someone's life in a setting like that.

Sadaam looked terrified, you could see the fear in his face, but that did not bother me, he certainly had it coming.

When they led Sadaam up the stairs and placed the noose around his neck, you could literally hear the excitment in the air. The whole room started humming, people were moving around and murmering exicitedly. That's when I exited out of the video.

I'm sure I would want to see Sadaam killed if I were an Iraqi. You've got to cut the Iraqis a great deal of slack, considering what he put them through.

But people were EXCITED. There was bloodlust in the air. You could tell that people were getting a real thrill out of seeing Sadaam brought down. That really rubbed me the wrong way.

The whole thing was very primitive, Third World, and...uncivilized. That's why I stopped watching. I felt like some dirty savage in one of those mobs they have over there, the ones where people jump up and down, shake their firsts, and chant "death to America!" or "death to Israel!" or whatever.

I am glad that Sadaam is dead, and am also glad that he received far more due process than the millions of people he killed. But the whole execution was very primitive and I did not like it at all.

Most likely a very simple case of not believing it until you see it for yourself.

Even if I did see the video I'm still not sure that would eradicate the miniscule amount of doubt that remains.

I haven't watched it, don't plan to. But I'm not the least bit disappointed that it's up there and available. The guy who took it with his cell phone is a hero. So are all the people that showed up to heckle Saddam. My bet is that violence in Iraq starts to wane in the wake of the hanging.

The contrast in the press between Ford's week-long funeral extravaganza and the hurry-up hanging of Saddam isn't lost on the American people. It's like the press thinks Saddam should have been able to plan his own execution and funeral, complete with multi-city tour and honor guard. In actuality, the Iraqis got Saddam just right, and we overdid it with Ford. Pretend all we want, he was no Princess Diana.

I watched it.

I have seen people die, some in not so pretty ways. Even so, I did wonder what my reaction would be. Being mostly in favor of the death penalty, I still think that taking a human life is a very serious matter and I am not in favor of public viewing of executions.

(There are a lot of things that I support that I would not want to view. Not out of squimishness, I just have no deisre to see them. I haven't run into too many people who are pro-choice who think an abortion-cam is a good idea, either.)

My reaction was nil. I did not feel joy, remorse, glee, satisfaction, or anything else. My immediate thought was of a video of one of the towns that he gassed. In one scene, there is a little girl in a red dress laying next to another child.

To me, at least, this is not much of a litmus test. It is not like a man who may not have had a fair trial and could be innocent (or even would have received a lighter penalty if he had been caught by a different county).

Saddam was evil. the evidence was clear. His crimes were more extreme than Jack the Ripper or John Waye Gacy could have committed in ten lifetimes. If he had been given life in prison, what would have happened if a group of Baathists had held a school bus full of kids hostage and demanded his release?

He deserved to die. Killing him was more of a chore than anything.

I watched it because I wanted to see the death of the most evil man in the world and the bloodiest dictator since Pol Pot. I felt like this guy.

I'm prepared to stand up and say that killing Saddam was not murder, it was justice served, and I watched it to bear witness. I support the death penalty, but if we are so ashamed of it that we wish to hide it away then we shouldn't be doing it. I feel similarly about abitoirs and hunting. If you aren't prepared to see how meat is made from animals, you really don't have any business eating it.

I watched it for pretty much the same reasons as and my reaction was very similar to Reagan Fan’s. I support capital punishment in general and the execution of Saddam Hussein in particular. I didn’t feel any emotions when he died (although Joe Schmoe was right about the atmosphere of the people in attendance) other than a feeling that a chore had been completed. He was a monster who deserved to die a thousand times for his crimes and his death brought a sense of closure to his reign of terror.

I’m kind of glad it was made available on YouTube but would not want it broadcast on television. I think taking a human life is a serious business and would not want it cheapened and trivialized which seems to happen to anything that’s put on television. Let those people who really are interested in watching it find it on the internet but make it something that you have to make an effort to find and watch.

I watched it, the full-length cellphone video, and I SMILED the entire time. He looked terrified, and when he winced, I smiled EVEN MORE. Too bad it didn't last longer.

I haven't watched it but I might still do so.

I think Saddam did things that deserved death. I do not think he killed "millions of people" as Joe Schmoe says, nor do I think he was "the most evil man in the world" as Reagan Fan says. But even if the number he killed was twenty thousand or two hundred thousand, and even if he is number ten or twenty on the list of evil men, someone who generally supports a death penalty can see justification for killing Saddam. I have generally supported a death penalty, and given that, I don't think there is something wrong with watching it carried out.

I have some issues with the nature of the trial he was given, but, in general, I believe that a fair process would have found him guilty of crimes worthy of death.

I do think it ought to be done a certain way, and not made into a circus. I haven't seen it yet so I can't say how it did on that score.

Sorry, I meant to cite AT, not Reagan Fan, up there.

First of all, I have no qualms or quarrels with the death penalty as such. Yes, it has its problems: so do any of the plausible alternatives.

Second, Saddam should consider himself fortunate that he was given a fair trial and then hanged. In some societies, he would have been turned over to the survivors of his victims: now that would have been...quite something, I imagine.

What did I feel? About the same thing I felt when that lousy SOB Ceausescu and his wretched wife were lined up against a wall and shot by their own Presidential Guard: good riddance to bad rubbish.

I remember when that happened, Romanian radio proclaimed that "The Anti-Christ died on Christmas day." That epitaph about fits Saddam as well.

I watched it. I thought Hussein looked calm up to the point where he got the black cloth around his throat. I guess he finally realized what was going to happen.

I think one of the reasons I watched it was to celebrate the widespread availability of information in our age. To think that something that dark and forbidden could be transmitted world wide only a few minutes after the event.

Information - in any form - is a gift. But I agree with the choice of Television not to broadcast the execution itself. I think the availability of this particular piece of information on the internet was suffice.

Okay, so I'm against the death penalty, which includes Saddam.

Jane,
Since I rarely have occasion to ask a death penalty opponent this in such a public forum, I hope you'll forgive the question: what would you do with Saddam -- that is morally proper, given his proven crimes?

I'll come clean as a death penalty advocate who watched the video. I didn't enjoy it -- who gets off on death? -- but it was very satisfying.

what would you do with Saddam -- that is morally proper, given his proven crimes?

I am neither Jane nor a death penalty opponent, but I can understand why one would oppose it in the criminal justice system. What I can't understand is any kind of ethics, except for an absolute belief that taking life under any circumstances is unjustified, that says that there is no imaginable crime that justifies death in retribution.

Interesting video. I believe I could have made one just as authentic looking. The camera goes dark at just exactly the moment it would need to to conceal the actor's save, and the lights flash off and on often enough to hide breathing. Presumably there were American observers there and enough of both religions to prevent a switch, but it's a near thing.

Of course, if I spoke Arabic I'd have a better feel for how real it might be.

what would you do with Saddam -- that is morally proper, given his proven crimes?

Good question, in addition I’d be curious what she would do with the scenario Reagan Fan envisioned in which a school bus full of innocent children are taken hostage by a group of Baathists demanding Saddam Hussein’s release. AFAIK no one ever takes hostages demanding a resurrection.

I'll come clean as a death penalty advocate who watched the video. I didn't enjoy it -- who gets off on death?

The guy the Iraqis just executed.

DCSDCWD

New Secretary-General to Fill 2 U.N. Posts This Week, Could Bring Controversy

Count me in also as one of those who wonders at Jane's opposition. Knowing that Jane at least used to agree with my foreign policy, she doesn't have that many qualms about killing people that need to be killed. Maybe it's the specificity of explicitly killing one identifiable person.

There are issues I understand with the criminal justice system. We can get the wrong person, there can be frameup jobs (Duke 3, Corey May, etc), should the state have the power to take life during peacetime... But with explicitly guilty people, especially Tyrants who have led states to slaughter thousands of people, their own citizens and those of other countries, well there's not much of a question. Unless you're a supporter of folks like Milosevic, Saddam, Gaddafi, Mao, etc what's the question?

Yes there can be some quarrel with how far down the firing squads/hangmen should reach, but that's about the only question. How senior do you have to be before your coercion becomes complicity? I much prefer the common law rule that compulsion is no excuse in murder, since you can either kill your coercer or kill yourself rather than kill an innocent, and would give free reign to eliminate all of those who participated in the regime. I'm a completist. Sure you should lie at the start, give "amnesties" to get assistance, and then get rid of the lower rungs a few years down the road. You need to consolidate power, and libertarian rules can only be established once a monopoly of force has been assured and competing forces eliminated. War is no time for libertarian rules or constitutionality. It's Hobbesian, and tieing your hands only helps your enemies.

Brad Hutchings wrote:

The guy who took it with his cell phone is a hero. So are all the people that showed up to heckle Saddam.

Oh, you mean the same people who also triumphantly shouted "Muqtada!" in reference to the radical Shiite cleric whose Mahdi militia wages urban warfare on U.S. soldiers and uses drills and razor blades in the course of carrying out sectarian murders? These people are your heroes?

My bet is that violence in Iraq starts to wane in the wake of the hanging.

An intriguing theory. The militias, having satisfied their collective blood lust with this fine lynching, will lay down their arms, recline in their dining chairs, dab their lips with napkins, and announce henceforth their intentions to embrace free market principles and hold Milton Friedman appreciation seminars.

I mean, holy fucking mother of shit-swallowing Christ.

I watched it. I consider it similarly to Witnessing, but in an atheist context. I should be well aware of what is done by my country in my name.

I oppose the death penalty, too. A state, being the lowest common denominators of a polity at best, should not have the power to kill without an extremis situation, and only carefully then. And even if one supports it, which I can imagine, surely death by hanging at the hands of sectarian yo-boys behaving like it is a Brittish soccer match is a bit much for he triumph of the Rule of Law? Anyone?

Well, back to the drills and the rape, then.

I watched it in Ogrish but didnt bother to download.

The guy is a pure evil. Even at the last moments, he is adamant and shows no remorse for all what he has done.

However, one wrong doesn't justify second wrong. That Saddam needed to be prosecuted is just. That it had been done by a non UN recognized court in a summary way is unjust. He should have been let in prison and die slowly like Slobodan Milosevic.

Would that UN that you want to "recognize" the court be the same UN that is run by Saddam's buddy diplomats, that he wined and dined while he was dropping people into shredders, and that shielded him from U.S. action for so long, and that specifically refused to remove him from power when he invaded another country? That UN?

How about a court recognized by the people of Iraq, in whose jurisdiction the mass murders occurred?

However, one wrong doesn't justify second wrong. That Saddam needed to be prosecuted is just.

Why did he need to be "prosecuted?" We in the United States use trials as a means of determining legal liability while protecting established rights of the accused. They are not intended to be the most effective way to determine the truth. What use is a trial when truth and responsibility are not in question?

That it had been done by a non UN recognized court in a summary way is unjust.

How is that unjust? Are you suggesting there is any possibility that Saddam did not willfully cause the deaths of at least many thousands of people?

If you want to see something unjust, think about this. Were any of Saddam's actions crimes under Iraq's statutes or common law at the time they were committed? Under what legal authority existing at that time was Saddam's tribunal constituted? Did it have jurisdiction over him? You can't sing about how wonderful trials and the American justice system are and then not follow any of their principles.

Saddam was an evil man who killed countless people. The just way of dealing with him would have been to hang him in a public square soon after his capture, then set up a TRC later. I don't see how charging him with non-existent crimes in a made-up kangaroo court serves any kind of justice.

And, oh, you mean this UN?

"Immoralist", while not proving himself (or herself) to be immoral, has certainly proven his (or her) lack of taste with the last line of the post above. The last line adds nothing to the argument; and, it detracts greatly from the remainder of the comment string. However, it may merely be an attempt to secure funding from the National Endowment for the "Arts".

" ... even if I were for it [the death penalty], I wouldn't want to watch it...."

With all due respect, Jane, in that hypothetical case you would be a flaming hypocrite.

If somebody supports the death penalty, they ought to be willing to participate -- at the very least as a passive witness -- and not just pay somebody else to do the unpleasant deed for them.

That said, I do think that the circus atmosphere surrounding Saddam's execution was very unseemly -- to say the least. In a way, it was Saddam's last triumph in that he managed to drag everybody else down to his level.

I'm for my wife giving birth to my baby. But I didn't want all the blood and gooey stuff come ushering forth from inside her.

I guess I'm just a big hipo.

I think it is not nice to watch a man dying (even if its Saddam) God will punish him for his sins, the human being does not have the right to kill noone!!

Immoralist: He said "starts to wane", not "suddenly turns into a tea party".

What he actually said, while not certain, or necessarily even likely, is at least possible, unlike the straw-man you invented to set alight.

Why not just argue against his actual thesis?

John: I'm for firefighters rescuing people from burning buildings. Does that mean I have to be interested in watching them do it?

I'm also for sewer repairs. Do I have to jump down in the poop, or can I just pay someone else to do that unpleasant job?

If that's hypocrisy, it's a hypocrisy I can live with without the slightest qualm.

(Though I'm also willing, if not eager, to witness an execution.

Not eager, not because of moral qualms, but because I have better things to do, like, oh, anything.

Let those wronged and the kin of the soon-to-be-deceased take the seats; their presence is more important than any random person's.)

Bush I let the guy live after Desert Storm I. That didn't work out too well for a lot of people, did it? He won't kill any more, for sure.

Meanwhile, the all holy UN baby rapers, I mean peace keepers, accomplish what? But they should decide what happens to Saddam? I guess because they are paragons of moral virtue. Of course I am cynical enough to believe that Hussein already BOUGHT the UN leadership with Oil For Food, so the chance of him seeing justice in that venue approximates the chance that Ted Kennedy received impartial judgement for a certain driving mishap...

It ought to be easy for any atheist/agnostic to justify terminating Hussein. After all, he took the rest of a lot of people's lives, so what punishment could be more fitting than him losing the rest of his? I can make allowances forthose who express sincere religious scruples.

No, I didn't download the video. I don't believe it's worth 5 minutes of the rest of my life. He's gone. The world is a better place already.

Joe Schmoe wrote:

I started watching it a few days ago, but stopped before the actual hanging. The act of watching it made me feel uncivilized. The execution was in this dark, dirty room. It looked like the sort of place where the Soviets might have executed a political prisoner. ... When they led Sadaam up the stairs and placed the noose around his neck, you could literally hear the excitment in the air. ... That's when I exited out of the video.

FWIW, this is exactly what I did.

Incidentally, I agree with James Wolcott's comments on this subject: ethics completely aside, if you can't stage-manage an execution without making a hash of things ...

I watched it. Mostly out of a sense of morbid curiousity. While I'm glad he got a trial, in his case, I don't believe it was necessary. As others have said, trials are intended to protect the innocent. There's no chance that Saddam was innocent of horrific crimes against humanity and against many individuals.

I believe he was executed in one of his own execution chambers, which I believe is fitting. A part of me would have been happy to see him dropped in one of his own plastic shredders, but that's a part I generally restrain.

I'm also curious how one argues that Saddam did not deserve death and that keeping him imprisoned, with the risk of his followers attempting to free him, would be better than executing him and moving on.

EI

If somebody supports the death penalty, they ought to be willing to participate -- at the very least as a passive witness -- and not just pay somebody else to do the unpleasant deed for them.

What kind of tortured logic is this? What does "willing to watch" have to do with anything? Who declared that this is the defining measure of "hypocrisy" (whatever that even means these days), and what was their authority to do so? Clearly, you have lost sight of the difference between root principles, ends, and means.

-- Means: The method or approach by which something is obtained.

-- Ends: The result, however obtained.

-- Root Principles: The governing statutes that one uses to determine which means and ends are acceptable.

I happen to enjoy meat consumption as part of a balanced diet, but other than gutting a fish, I doubt I could carry out the act myself. I certainly wouldn't wish to watch it performed. (Maybe it gets easier after the first couple times, I dunno. I don't hunt.) Hypocrisy? Not by any definition of the word that *I* have been familiarized with; I fully hold that it is acceptable to eat animals for food, provided they are not tortured or strangled, and are properly drained of blood prior to being cut up.

Challenge: Sort out the means, ends, and root principles latent in that statement; and then, with the knowledge that I don't wish to watch a meat-dressing operation, try to explain the hypocrisy without resorting to a just-so fallacy.

Then, explain why the death penalty is any different.

"My bet is that violence in Iraq starts to wane in the wake of the hanging."

This is funny; amusing stupidity like this is why I check out this site now and again.

The botched trial and sordid hanging of Saddam will come to be seen as an important event in the Shia-Sunni war that engulfed the region from 2006 to ?

Abortions
Execution of criminals
Assisted suicides

I think all would be outlawed (or stay outlawed) if the visuals of said events started showing up on television regularly.

That debate, however, is about the effect of TV, not about hypocrisy.

Anony-mouse,

My argument for witnessing executions and going hunting occassionally as a moral matter would be that (animal, sentient) life is special; killing is an act sufficiently serious to demand a level of personal reflection greater than extinguishing fires or repairing sewers. You should not take life unless you have a good reason for doing so, and you should be witness/participate in the consequences to put a brake on excessive willingness to kill.

I wouldn't call refusal hypocricy so much as moral cowardice; if you can only choose X by hiding from it, you are probably violating your own moral principles, and being a coward about it.

Shorter version: killing is morally significant, so watch/do it before you decide if its a good idea. Sewer repair has no moral content, so who cares?

Don't know if that's the "just so" fallacy or not, but there you go.

Sigivald wrote:

Immoralist: He said "starts to wane", not "suddenly turns into a tea party".

What he actually said, while not certain, or necessarily even likely, is at least possible, unlike the straw-man you invented to set alight.

Almost anything is at least possible, including the possibility that you'll spontaneously combust due to a chemical imbalance in your small intestine. If you want to defend Brad's statement as merely floating in the stratosphere of Planet Not Fucking Likely instead of residing somewhere in the upside down antimatter universe of Schlongzoid, go right ahead. But if you want to engage the substance of his remark, let me recall a few incidents of recent Iraq War history:

Decemember, 2003. Saddam Hussein is captured. President Bush and supporters herald this as a turning moment in the conflict, a devastating blow against the insurgency. It is strongly implied that the violence will soon wane.

January, 2005. Iraqis cast their votes for the National Assembly, dip their fingers in purple ink. Another turning point for the country, another terrific defeat for the insurgency.

June, 2006. Zarqawi killed by U.S. airstrike. Fantastic news, turning point for Iraq. Al-qaida weakened. Violence may wane????

December, 2006. Saddam hanged. Turning point, again. Unknown Internet commentator places fearless bet that violence in Iraq "starts to wane."

Tell you what. Any of you want to bet that this execution is the moment where everything in Iraq turns around, go right ahead. I'll take your bet and raise you ten Brooklyn Bridges.

Ed Reid wrote:

"Immoralist", while not proving himself (or herself) to be immoral, has certainly proven his (or her) lack of taste with the last line of the post above.

Compliment accepted. May the mighty balls of Mohammed fertilze your concubine with his unvanquishable seed.

"The botched trial and sordid hanging of Saddam will come to be seen as an important event in the Shia-Sunni war that engulfed the region from 2006 to ?"

Absotively. The way this transpired was meant to drive home the point that Shias are in charge and taking their revenge, choosing the date for the execution Sunnis -- but not Shias -- celebrate the Eid al Adha. In order for this to happen on the date it did, the Iraqi government had to declare that the day Shias -- but not Sunnis -- celebrate the Eid is the 'official' date of the Eid. So, in your face Sunnis! Booyah!

At best, the Americans (who had custody of Saddam) are completely tone deaf to sectarian rivalries, and enabled those rivalries to escalate. At worst they are complicit and sent a message to Sunnis to to cease resisting the occupation. I don't know which scenario merits "holy fucking mother of shit-swallowing Christ". Possibly both.

Yeah, violence should be on the wane any day now.

Akbar, we had long since transferred legal custody of Saddam Hussein to the Iraqi government. For our troops to have refused to hand over Saddam Hussein at any time demanded by the Iraqi government would have been an imperialist act of war against the internationally-recognized, sovereign, constitutional, and democratically-elected government of Iraq.

But, hey, if you're a fan of committing imperialist acts of war to interfere in the administration of law by internationally-recognized, sovereign, constitutional, democratically-elected governments, I guess there are grounds to criticize the handover.

Holy fucking mother of shit-swallowing Christ. Imperialist acts of war? Like invading a sovereign country that poses no imminent threat to us?

Act of war? Golly, that's the last thing we'd want, peaceful law abiding shrinking violets that we are.

I sure hope you were being sarcastic.

Your not watching it and being disparaging of those who do is a wonderful feminine sentiment and perhaps civilizing of those who have; at least we might have something of a headache. For myself, I was only disappointed that we missed the full traverse down to the end of his rope. There was a look something like one feels when one is going down in a Ferris wheel when he began to go through the trapdoor though it DID look like he took it as more ominous. I rather identified with the 9/11 victims of a terrorism he had uplifted ($25,000 for blowing up dancing Israelis anyone) and perhaps given excuse for by our Armed Forces having to be in Saudi Arabia, the defenseless Iraqi victims and our soldiers and airmen who met violent deaths being put into the cause of rescuing his country into a civil society rather more myself; so I think we're off on a good foot with this execution.

Imperialist acts of war? Like invading a sovereign country that poses no imminent threat to us?

Only if you use the leftie dipshit definition of "imperialist" as "contrary to what the Left wants". We didn't conquer Iraq to make it a subject nation-state.

I watched the download of the Saddam Shwing!!! and I enjoyed it lots. I think one of the witnesses called him a Muccacca(sp?). I wish they would have tied the body to a car and drug him around the streets of Moga...er Baghdad.

Rob Lyman's "Shorter version: killing is morally significant, so watch/do it before you decide if its a good idea. Sewer repair has no moral content, so who cares?"

For you and your culture sewer repair may not have moral content. For others it may have lots of moral or religious content, or feng shui or whatever other type of philosophical implications. For real historical examples, see Hindu religious "caste system", "untouchables".

Likewise, the killing and consumption of lower life forms contain a big moral component for some, and less or none for others. Just because someone loves the taste of sausage doesn't mean that they will find the sight of its preparation aesthetically pleasing. But lack of pleasing aesthetics does not make a thing wrong. See "childbirth".

And finally, the sanctioned execution of a mass murderer may also be inconsequential morally to many people (myself included). Whether a person is willing to spend the five minutes to watch the garbage be taken out is not a big moral issue. For you, it might be. Whatever floats your boat. See "moral relativity", "justice".

For you, first principles might include (1)that "sentient life is special, and killing it deserves reflection."

For another, first principles might include (2) that "sentient life is special, and killing mass numbers of sentients is always clearly sufficient justification for taking life away from a sentient."

Once you have done the "reflection" and come to that second conclusion, watching a video of the execution is somewhere on a continuum between reflection and voyeurism. You may choose to do it, but it is certainly not a requirement for a moral person.

I watched it.

I am against the death penalty, but felt like I owed it to myself to see what it was all about. Now I am even more opposed to the death penalty. How can we place the power of judging right and wrong and enacting life and death in the hands of humans? Humans who would engage in what was essentially a mob lynching.

I felt like I was watching an Al-Qaeda beheading or something. All the guards in ski masks and people chanting and cheering as this man faced the last moments on earth. Don't get me wrong, he was an evil man, but are the people who judged him and put the noose around his neck any better? I used to think so but now I'm not sure. When I heard that Saddam had said that his executioners weren't real men, I actually felt myself agreeing with him. It was sickening behavior.

I just don't think any human is perfect enough to make the ultimate decision of taking someone else's life unless that person is an imminent threat. If he can be kept imprisoned for life, fine with me.

I also think the whole Saddam hanging and all the attending chaos, shame, embarrassment, damage control... acted as a very revealing window into what is going on in Iraq. Those two minutes of footage contained all the sectarianism, violence, mismanagement, secret motives, and so on that have characterized this entire war. I think a lot of this stuff is not even well understood by the media, and the video was a useful glimpse into how disastrously bad the situation is. And also just how far from a sustainable multi-ethnic free society Iraq is.

I watched it. Quite frankly, given how much bloodshed I've advocated so that we could do this(among other things), I'd feel more than a little guilty if I were too squeamish to watch it.

As an interesting counterpoint, I didn't watch any of the beheading videos a few years back, and I never even considered doing so. Killing someone like Nick Berg is a vile act I doubt I could make myself watch if I wanted to. Killing someone like Saddam Hussein, even if it was done by the same methods, is something I have no problem with watching. He deserved to hang, and he hung - seems like justice to me.

Also, I'll forgive the Iraqis their jeering - if I'd have been there, I'd have said a hell of a lot worse than they did. Scott Adams has the right idea, methinks

I wouldn't call refusal hypocricy so much as moral cowardice; if you can only choose X by hiding from it, you are probably violating your own moral principles, and being a coward about it.

Lots of hedging language, that. Rightfully so: an insistance upon visual apprehension is intended to inflame the emotions, while reasonable people, within certain boundaries, regularly supress their emotional responses in order to let a logical consistency have the upper hand.

Fact is, either something is intrinsically right/wrong due to a higher-order principle being in effect, or else there is no higher-order principle, and each may fend for his own definition. If one holds to the former (e.g. "murder is wrong, and the death penalty is a just retribution for murder"), there is no inconsistency present in holding to the principle, while being thoroughly disturbed by the application.

A philosophical bully of a higher order might just as well argue that watching is a weak excuse for not doing; thus, unless you have actively participated in an execution, you have no right to favor the death penalty. Which proves just as much nothing as the argument that supporting a position is insufficient, rather you must also see it applied.

Where does that thread of one-upmanship debate finally end? I don't know, but left fully unchecked, I suspect the anarchic anhiliation of all mankind fits into it somewhere.

The argument also has a logical corrollary: if you oppose the death penalty, then you must never watch one. Which makes even less sense.

anony-mouse:

Thanks, I don't think I've seen the flaws of this form of argumentation so succinctly explained. When "you can't support A unless you've done A" is countered by "you can't support not-A unless you've done not-A," the response is always that not-A is obviously the only correct default position, and almost always without the courtesy of giving you their axioms. I'll have to keep a tally of this from now on.

How can we place the power of judging right and wrong and enacting life and death in the hands of humans? Humans who would engage in what was essentially a mob lynching.

Don't we give the state extensive powers to judge right and wrong? It has the power to assess punitive damages, both civil and criminal. I think anyone but an anarchist believes that the state has some power to judge right and wrong. Or do you mean that we can trust the state enough to take liberty and property but not life? That's a different argument.

Is that because the state can't be sufficiently certain what is right or wrong, or that can't be sufficiently certain that someone committed a wrong? The latter I understand, but if the former, are you indeed saying that there is no conceivable wrong that would justify (not even demand) a life in retribution?

That's why I find the Saddam situation so fascinating. I think everyone in our civilization outside of Ramsey Clark believes that Saddam committed wrongs about as great as anyone can conceive, and that there is no doubt that he was responsible. There are no concerns at all about process; at least there should be no dispositive ethical concerns. I don't think anyone seriously believes that Saddam would have deserved to die for his crimes, except that his executioners enjoyed it too much, or weren't quiet enough, or weren't slow enough, or wore masks to protect themselves from Sunni revenge killings. It really must be that you believe no wrong deserves death, and that's leaving out the "Free Saddam!" terrorist hypothetical. And yet, as I said earlier, probably 90% of the people who hold this view believe that killing can be justified, as in war and self-defense. It's okay to kill, say, soldiers in an army invading the territory of your ally, or a guy breaking into your house, but not a man who ordered the deaths of thousands just because he liked it? What am I not understanding here? Do messy concepts like necessity really make the distinctions absolute?

Let me explain my "wain" comment a little further. And yes, I appreciate the witty responses to it. Holy flying mother and all that ;-).

The violence in Iraq since we occupied is a sum of two things: (1) people with too much time on their hands and (2) weapons. At the beginning of the occupation, we had to deal with weapons cached away by the previous government. Now, we are most certainly dealing with weapons imported from Iran and Syria. And in fact, much of the major dramatic violence being perpetrated can be linked to Iranian agents. To the extent that adding more troops for a time works to seal porous borders, it's a strategy that may be effective. The Iranians and Syrians have been dumping gas on this fire for three years, yet it won't light up like Lebanon did.

We're probably headed to some kind of multi-decade cold war with the Iranians. But Syria is the other factor in this. Asad has either heard of or seen the Hussein hanging. It should hit close to home, because that's basically the best case ending for him. The Israelis, if provoked, would bomb him to hell. The Lebanese, given the opportunity and means, would exact revenge for Syrian sponsored assassinations of their own government officials. There's always the possibility that the Bush Doctrine continues into the next administration (D or R) and we realize that we're doing the world a favor by expanding regime change to Syria, messy as it may be. In which case, we'll dig Asad out of a rat hole, try him for having a bad haircut, and let the locals hang him, taunt him, and post it in 1080p on YouTube.

So I'd say, let's see where we are in 3 months... If Asad has been quiet, I'd say he got the message. Not that things will eventually end any different for him, but he's not going to speed up his own date with the rope. He may even be a little more cooperative with respect to his border with Iraq.

I am a high school teacher. About 90% of my students in yesterday's classes said they had seen it. We didn't get into why, but the kids definitely download it. It was the same way with the Nick Berg video, by the way.

Dan -- so why did we invade Iraq?

Twill00, anony-mouse,

I didn't say you had to watch executions or animal slaughter in order to be a moral person, or that failing to do so was immoral, I said failing to do so makes you a coward who is afraid to face the consequences of his own actions. If you're OK with being a coward, there's nothing I can do about it.

And I think that defining killing as being morally insignificant when its convenient for you to do so is a rather unserious approach to the question--and another symptom of cowardice.

Finally, I don't see why opponents of the death penalty can't watch if they like. Rather, I'd say that they ought to visit a prison and see what life in prison looks like, or spend some time with the victims of an escapee/parolee who should have been executed, or watch closely a video of a hostage being murdered because Saddam wasn't let out of prison when they demanded it.

All I ask is that everyone face the consequences of his own choices squarely and not turn away, not that people refuse to face the consequences of other people's choices.

And we confirm that killing animals is just as serious an act as killing humans.

Watching an execution means nothing. People are murdered everyday. This isn't Heisenberg's uncertainty principle at work, people get dead regardless if other people watch or not. The far right in the US right now want to watch to prove their tough guy bona fides. Most of these Bush style military backers would faint like a cheerleader at the sight of real blood.

Saddam was a real bad guy. But he was better for Iraq then we are. The last four years prove that. The only lasting democracies are built from within. We sold him the gas, we taught him how to use it, we provided satellite coordinates so he could use it most effectively, and now we have the hubris to stand in moral judgement? Pleassssse. There are lots of guys as bad as Saddam out there. Guys we never supported, that we should kill if we are so moral. Warlords in Africa, Racists in the Balkans, how about little Kim?

If Saddam was universally hated in Iraq, why wasn't he publicly executed? Why did we leak this video in such a chickenshit way? Don't tell me that security wasn't good enough to prevent those cameras from recording the execution. This war has been conducted by a cheerleader...

We sold him the gas, we taught him how to use it,

Really, evidence please.

There's always the possibility that the Bush Doctrine continues into the next administration (D or R) and we realize that we're doing the world a favor by expanding regime change to Syria, messy as it may be. In which case, we'll dig Asad out of a rat hole, try him for having a bad haircut, and let the locals hang him, taunt him, and post it in 1080p on YouTube.

Good point, one of the reasons for liberating Iraq was to send a message to the other dozen or so thugocracies in the region that we had both the will and the ability to invade their countries and topple their regimes rather than cut and run at the sight of the first American body bag. It’s one thing for Hussein or Bin Laden to find some brainwashed moron willing to blow themselves up for the promise of 72 virgins in Paradise, it’s another for them to be actually willing to die. Saddam didn’t exactly go down fighting when he thought that there was a chance that he could still live.

Golly, why not expand the strategy. Seems to be working a treat. Iran sure seems to be cowed, for example, and Iraq is now gloriously thug-free! .

And in what way is using military might to knock off a foreign leader we don't like, occupying foreign territory and imposing our way of government NOT imperialist? Seems to me the strategy is deliberately unapologetically imperialist.

I didn't say you had to watch executions or animal slaughter in order to be a moral person, or that failing to do so was immoral, I said failing to do so makes you a coward who is afraid to face the consequences of his own actions. If you're OK with being a coward, there's nothing I can do about it.

Shorter Rob Lyman: My position is the correct one, therefore I can beat you with this stick since your position is different.

Problem is, I can declare the same grounds, grab the other end of the stick, and beat you right back. Wouldn't accomplish much, however.

And I think that defining killing as being morally insignificant when its convenient for you to do so is a rather unserious approach to the question--and another symptom of cowardice.

Didn't do, wouldn't do. Why did you?

AM: You didn't, Twill00 did.

Beyond that, I don't mean to say "I'm right, you're wrong." I expressed no opinion on the morality of the death penalty, meat consumption, bug spray, etc. I affirmatively deny that "hypocrisy" is actually at work. I just think it's cowardly to hide from the consequences of your choices.

Do you actually disagree with me on that point?

A philosophical bully of a higher order might just as well argue that watching is a weak excuse for not doing; thus, unless you have actively participated in an execution, you have no right to favor the death penalty.

What makes that philosophical bullying. Of course, not everyone has time to do this. But if a person believes in the death penalty under a certain system of justice, then (aesthetics and emotional reactions aside for a moment) they shouldn't consider themselves above pulling the actual switch.

Actually, I too am against the death penalty, at least in principle, but I watched it (didn't download it!) just out of morbid curiosity - man's inhumanity to man etc. I think more sickening than 'the drop' was all the jeering - for Heaven's sake, they're just about to take the guy's life away from him and they have to jeer. Okay, Saddam was no fluffy bunny, but a bit of respectful quiet might have lent some small quantity of dignity to the revolting actuality in that disgusting environment. And now they're claiming to see his ghost in Baghdad ... he's achieved some sort of martyr status already.
A sorry business in every detail. Yeah, it does make you feel dirty. But so does an awful lot of what the good ole human race does, you just have to harden yourself to it.

Do you actually disagree with me on that point?

As written, no. I don't have much use for the extraneous baggage that was roped to it in the prior posts, however.

If someone wanted to, say, challenge an unconditional death penalty advocate with "but what if the courts have made an error in the judgement?" (and then present known examples), AND said advocate maintained his or her position while refusing to confront the reality and consequences of that challenge...that could be defined, quite fairly, as an act of cowardice.

But with Hussein, we have a man whose complicity in the torture and murder of thousands, is beyond question. He could have been summarily shot by his war captors, but was instead given a trial by a nascent Iraqi court, for whatever value it might serve in establishing a working criminal justice system in post-Hussein Iraq. There is no self-evident value or logic in the idea that this is a necessary public spectacle for death penalty proponents everywhere.

If anyone believes they found real, personal value in chosing to watch the Hussein execution, then peaches and cream for them, but their consequent benefit is not necessarily extrapolable to others who chose differently.

FWIW, I read The Rape of Nanking with a few specific personal objectives in mind, but I certainly wouldn't recommend that others do so on the basis of some sort of generalized principle.

What makes that philosophical bullying.

Bullying is usually an attempt to harrass or insult others, especially if they differ in views or mannerisms, usually to reinforce a weak position or ego on the part of the bully (and sometimes with the intent or effect of gaining weaker-minded converts to the bully's cause).

From there, I trust you can garner what a philosophical bully might look like.

AM,

So, if I understand your position, it's cowardly to refuse to confront the execution of the innocent because of (inevitable) errors, but not cowardly to refuse to confront the execution of the guilty.

That comes strikingly close to Twill00's "killing mass murderers is of no moral significance." You seem to be defining "consequences of one's choices" to mean only "bad consequences." That's fine, I suppose, for few people are too cowardly to confront the good consequences of their choices

But for my part, I think confronting the reality of execution is part and parcel of deciding whether it is a good or bad consequence, and refusal to watch reveals an uncertainty in one's convictions which borders on the immoral. To kill someone without being certain it is the right thing to do is at best a morally troubling act. And to refuse to watch because you think it might shake your convictions is cowardly.

So, if I understand your position, it's cowardly to refuse to confront the execution of the innocent because of (inevitable) errors, but not cowardly to refuse to confront the execution of the guilty.

Nope. There is no inherent shortcoming in the position "The just legal retribution for murder is the death penalty" that requires any "confrontation." If a widely documented mass-murderer hangs, then it is an application of a principle of criminal justice. (Which is not the same as saying I take pleasure in it; I do not.)

The other represents an example of an ethical dillemma (the means are capable of producing an end that defies the root principle). I was suggesting, by way of that example, a use of "coward(ice)" that fits the common definition of the word, rather than debasing it into an increasingly limp rhetorical club.

You seem to be defining "consequences of one's choices" to mean only "bad consequences."

No again. I am maintaining the important distinction between the principle and the application. If principles are only governed by reactions to applications, they are far too flighty to be principles. Arguments about "confronting it" and "cowardice" are at least a couple levels below a proper understanding of what principles are, and how they should function to govern behavior.

That's fine, I suppose, for few people are too cowardly to confront the good consequences of their choices

[Inigo]You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/Inigo]

But for my part, I think confronting the reality of execution is part and parcel of deciding whether it is a good or bad consequence, and refusal to watch reveals an uncertainty in one's convictions which borders on the immoral. To kill someone without being certain it is the right thing to do is at best a morally troubling act. And to refuse to watch because you think it might shake your convictions is cowardly.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm not prepared to be governed predominantly by my feelings (the only purpose I can find behind your proposal), especially in matters as serious as the death penalty.

And in what way is using military might to knock off a foreign leader we don't like, occupying foreign territory and imposing our way of government NOT imperialist? Seems to me the strategy is deliberately unapologetically imperialist.

Germany.

Japan.

Italy.

AM,

As you probably can tell, I am nobody's moral philosopher, so it is interesting for me to dicuss this with someone who clearly knows more than I do about he subject.

I agree that principles which are easily altered by reactions to applications are rather flimsy, although it also strikes me that it is difficult to choose appropriate principles witout some reference to the goals you hope those principles will achieve and the means they will require. Setting that aside for the moment, since principles are necessarily abstract, their interpretation might very well be guided by the reactions a particular application.

(Also, "murder justifies the death penalty" is far to specific to be a principle; if that is meant to be a principle, you're just removing the question from the realm of discussion by taking the correctness of your position as an axiom. I don't think that what you intended, but if it is, you're cheating)

To illustrate my point about interpretation of principles by reference to applications:

Principle: Punishment must be proportional to the crime.

Possible application: rapists will be sentenced to be raped. Drunk drivers will be struck by cars. Anyone causing permanent bodily harm will have the same harm inflicted on them (eye for an eye). Saddam have his genitals removed with a dirty knife and be permitted to die gradually of gangrene.

Reaction to application: hopefully, revulsion.

This suggests either that this principle needs to be reinterpreted, or that we need a new principle: even convicts will be treated humanely.

Now the question becomes: are these punishments humane? Clearly, they are not; but what about less serious ones, like a light beating for some criminals, prison for others, and execution by a quicker method for murderers? Well, how can I evaluate the relative merits of these depends largely on knowning more about them: is a prison sentence equivalent to being raped? Is execution by the proposed method really quick enough? How light is this "light" beating? Knowing those things means you have to at least watch for yourself.

If you want to vomit while watching, that's a hint that "humane" might not be the right word. Now, I agree that being ruled by feelings is a bad way to make law, but I'm not sure that pure logic can guide you to a meaningful understanding of what it means to be humane.

If you fear that your principles are being violated in the death chamber, and deliberatly avoid watching to avoid confronting that fear (because, for whatever reason, you want to be an advocate for the death penalty), I don't know of a word other than cowardice; perhaps you can propose one. If you are entirely convinced that your principles are not being violated, than watching shouldn't be a problem or a chore for you, so man up and do it.

" And in what way is using military might to knock off a foreign leader we don't like, occupying foreign territory and imposing our way of government NOT imperialist? Seems to me the strategy is deliberately unapologetically imperialist.

Germany.

Japan.

Italy. "

Not sure I get your point. Are WE Germany japan and italy in your pithy 3 word analogy? Or is it that imperialism is OK to knock off other imperialists (like germany italy and japan)? We DID invade Iraq when it was overtly imperialist in Kuwait, remember? Then we waited a dozen years for this poorly conceived misadventure. Are we Germany without the strategic brilliance? England without the continental threat? Please, correspond soonest with your insights.

The American legal system expunged itself long ago of the need for revenge. It is strictly a practical system today. We decrease sentence lengths and emphasize rehabilitation because we believe that it will be more effective than the abusive old systems, then we increase sentence lengths and forget about rehabilitation because we believe that the previous efforts were ineffective and we recognize that victims suffer. The system might not work any better than it ever did, but evidence of effectiveness is still the coin of the realm.

Saddams' death was supposedly tainted by motives of revenge. But seriously, there are an awful lot of people who can relax now. I would say it was very effective in that regard.

Comments are Closed.