The idea that a man may decide who lives and who dies at the root of American Democracy. There is a shokcing ideal, is it not? The government - the people - decide what is best. In essence, the American people have the right not tondecide death but something far worse - they may deign to prolong the suffereing of a person because they object to death and through it mercy on some moral ground. The people can say killing is wrong and thereby condemn a dying man to years of misery or shame or humiliation. Enter the Shiavo case.
The times change, my esteemed colleage MacBeff correctly stated. There was a time when Chritsians were slaves, when blacks were slaves, and there will come a time when some other people are slaves. There was a time when death was meted out as the principal measure of punishment and there is a time when it is refrained from. There will come a time again when it reigns supreme once more.
Isstal was right as well - death is not a deterrent, for it ends the suffering of one man who has caused pain in so many. The appropriate and logical response or alternative would be to force the type of suffereign onto the delifer that he heaped onto the defiled. But that would harm the holier-tahn-thou sensitivities of so many in power. Therefore, is death the best possible alternative to our current dilemma - no. However, it is the best one that people will accept and allow.
To say that a killer of one man deserves to die is a topic of some conversation. To say that a killer of ten men does NOT deserve to die is idiotic. To say that a killer of a hundred does not deserve to die is lunacy.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, Telan. The ability to deal out death is far from the root of the American ideal. The constitution lays down the right to life and liberty above all else.
The argument is not whether or not Saddam Hussein deserves to die; he certainly does. The question is whether we, as human beings, have the right to act on that judgement call ourselves.
For there is a grave difference between believing someone deserves to die, and acting on that belief.
The Lord of the Rings quote sums it up nicely. Yes, there are many people who deserve death. But who are we to give it to them? We condemn death, and yet are so eager to dole it out to those we believe are deserving?
What does that say about us?
The idea behind life imprisonment is not one of mercy, but one of punishment and, of late, rehabilitation.
Where does that leave the soldier ordered to drop the bomb? Does the qualifier 'enemy' devalue the life there of? What about the Commander, who by his commands, leaves hundreds dead... be they enemies declared or not?
Life ends with death, this is the only relevant fact. How that death is doled out, or by whom, is largely irrelevant. The lion knows that a dead antelope is just that, dead. And by the same token, this is all the antelope knows.
This topic makes death a tool. Just or unjust, Sadam will be just as dead but the question of who and how that death is spun by the propoganda machine will remain for some time. We dwell on those things we chose to dwell on, be that our prospective on morality, our perspective on life.
You may believe that you have some authority to impose your views on another, but the only value that makes such a belief valid is the ability to do so.
" I was told that every time I drew my sword I should not only consider what I was killing, but what I was allowing to live."
Man In the Iron Mask
Do men have the power to take the life of other men - indeed they do. The right and authority to do is subjective only by country of belief system or by other boundaries. Christians while so happy to cite the bible as the reason for sparing all life seem to omit the Old Testament where heresy and blasphemy were not only condoned they wer encouraged and to kill in the name of God was righteous. Times do indeed change.
Selective scanning of the pages of history will bring out prime examples to both sides of every argument.
People trust in their governments to wield awesome authority and with that authority comes responsibility however gruesome it may be. To protect the neesds of the state to defend the populace from harm and villany sacrifices must be made within as well as without. To kill a hundred to save a thousand is simple amthematical logic. To kill one to pay for thousands is equally logical and equally just. Let history be the judge of our actions, let us not dwell on that remebrance here, today.
How many men have used that very line of logic to commit genocide?
You can explain away the death of another however you like. Societal morality is a frail and fragile construct at best. Death follows only one logic; all life ends.
Find whatever value in it you wish. Others will do the same.
The Death of Saddam Hussein is a tool and it will be taken advantage of by all parties.
I think special attention needs to be paid to the motivation, ask what is behind it? Was it bound to happen? Perhaps yes. But why now? Justification be dammed as everyone will devise their own. The simple facts of the event are what will interest me... I don't know about you.
unless they hang Saddam in the next 5 hours, dont expect it to be a major issuie for republican win. Speaking of republics, Rome had it right in terms of a government for the people, and with todays technology Im sure that such a system could easily be recreated.
