Vatican, Catholic Officials Say "don't Hang Saddam"

[cappie]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Vatican and Roman Catholic officials said on Sunday that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein should not be put to death even if he has committed crimes against humanity because every life is sacred.

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Council for Justice and Peace, said that carrying out the death sentence by hanging would be an unjustifiably vindictive action.

"For me, punishing a crime with another crime -- which is what killing for vindication is -- would mean that we are still at the point of demanding an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," he was quoted as saying by Italian news agency Ansa.


"Unfortunately, Iraq is one of the few countries that have not yet made the civilized choice of abolishing the death penalty," said Martino, effectively the Pope's justice minister.

Martino raised the ire of the United States government three years ago when he said the U.S. troops had treated Saddam "like a cow" when they captured him.

Roman Catholic Church teaching is against the death penalty except in the most extreme circumstances, stating that modern society has all the means needed to render a criminal harmless for the rest of his natural life without capital punishment.

Jesuit priest Father Michele Simone, deputy director of the Vatican-approved Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica, said opposing the death penalty for Saddam did not mean accepting what he had done.

"Certainly, the situation in Iraq will not be resolved by this death sentence. Many Catholics, myself included, are against the death penalty as a matter of principle," he told Vatican Radio.

"Even in a situation like Iraq, where there are hundreds of de facto death sentences every day, adding another death to this toll will not serve anything," Simone said.

"In the common mentality of Iraqis, not carrying out the death penalty (on Saddam), perhaps for internal political reasons, might be interpreted as a privilege, because killings are so common every day," Simone said.

"But saving a life -- which does not mean accepting everything that Saddam Hussein has done -- is always something positive," he said.

[cmotherofpirl]

Everyone has an opinion, but its up to the government of Iraq.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Everyone has an opinion, but its up to the government of Iraq.[/quote]

Would we say that the resolution of the genocide in Darfur is up to the government of Sudan? Or that the promotion of abortion in China is up to the government of China? Some governments are so corrupt that their moral decisions cannot be accepted, and others are just puppet regimes. I strongly suspect that Iraq's government falls into the second category.

Furthermore, Saddam was tried under Iraqi law. His first question to his judge was, "How can you try me under the laws that I signed?" According to the Iraqi laws that he implemented during his rule, he never did anything wrong - as dictator, he [i]was[/i] the law. He couldn't be tried under present-day Iraqi law, either, as that would have made his actions perfectly all right - after all, wanton murder wasn't illegal in Iraq when he was the one doing the murdering. You can't apply a new law to an action that happened before that law came into being.

The only fair (and logical) way to try him would have been under international law. But that didn't happen. If it had, he might have escaped the death penalty - and I suspect that that was why he wasn't given a trial under that law. This whole thing was a show trial, nothing more.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1112548' date='Nov 6 2006, 08:02 AM']
Would we say that the resolution of the genocide in Darfur is up to the government of Sudan? Or that the promotion of abortion in China is up to the government of China? Some governments are so corrupt that their moral decisions cannot be accepted, and others are just puppet regimes. I strongly suspect that Iraq's government falls into the second category.

Furthermore, Saddam was tried under Iraqi law. His first question to his judge was, "How can you try me under the laws that I signed?" According to the Iraqi laws that he implemented during his rule, he never did anything wrong - as dictator, he [i]was[/i] the law. He couldn't be tried under present-day Iraqi law, either, as that would have made his actions perfectly all right - after all, wanton murder wasn't illegal in Iraq when he was the one doing the murdering. You can't apply a new law to an action that happened before that law came into being.

The only fair (and logical) way to try him would have been under international law. But that didn't happen. If it had, he might have escaped the death penalty - and I suspect that that was why he wasn't given a trial under that law. This whole thing was a show trial, nothing more.
[/quote]
He was tried in his country by his people for his crimes. They found him guilty. The law requires an appeal, if that fails he will be executed.
There is no international law worth speaking about, the UN is a joke.

[Cam42]

I am not a fan of Saddam Hussein by any means, but what good can come from executing him?

What will society gain from his execution? Will it fulfill (from a Catholic point of view) what the current catechetical view holds to be a valid reason?

The Church teaches this:
[quote name='CCC #2267']Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."[/quote]

So, let's break this down.....We know it is Saddam, we know that he is responsible. Fine. Is killing him the only way of defending lives from him? Or will prison keep him from killing more people? It is logical to think that if he were put into a supermax, where he would have no contact with the outside, that he will effectively be rendered harmless. He will not be able to kill anyone else.

Are non-lethal means sufficenet to defend and protect people's saftey, when it comes to Saddam? Should the authority limit itself to this? If he is put into a solitary situation in a supermax, then it would stand to reason that the authority could limit itself to such a means. Let's not forget that no matter how many terrible things Saddam did, he is still a human person.

Does the State of Iraq have the ability to render him incapable of doing harm - without taking away from him the definitive possiblity of redemption? This is the $64,000 question. This is where the debate will rage. The arguments can go either way, but the key to this last part is the word "definitely." I think that unless one can prove beyond a doubt that there is no definitive way he could be redeemed, then it is unjust to execute him, according to current Church disciplinary teaching.

[Era Might]

I think ESPECIALLY with someone like Saddam, killing is the wrong way to go, because it's almost certainly going to be motivated for some people by feelings of hatred and vengeance, not objective justice.

However, I think the death penalty is the easy way out. He should be imprisoned, and know what it was like to keep his people imprisoned all those years to his dictatorship. Saddam may even prefer death himself. After so many years of doing whatever he wanted, it's a huge deal to suddenly be under the imprisonment of someone else, for the rest of your life, until you die.

[cmotherofpirl]

Either way people will use it to justify their political motives.

The chances of finding a place in Iraq to keep him secure for the rest of his unnatural life are slim to none.
If he loses his appeal he should be executed.

[RC_]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1112751' date='Nov 6 2006, 02:07 PM']
I am not a fan of Saddam Hussein by any means, but what good can come from executing him?

What will society gain from his execution? Will it fulfill (from a Catholic point of view) what the current catechetical view holds to be a valid reason?

The Church teaches this:
So, let's break this down.....We know it is Saddam, we know that he is responsible. Fine. Is killing him the only way of defending lives from him? Or will prison keep him from killing more people? It is logical to think that if he were put into a supermax, where he would have no contact with the outside, that he will effectively be rendered harmless. He will not be able to kill anyone else.

[b]Are non-lethal means sufficenet to defend and protect people's saftey, when it comes to Saddam? Should the authority limit itself to this? If he is put into a solitary situation in a supermax, then it would stand to reason that the authority could limit itself to such a means. Let's not forget that no matter how many terrible things Saddam did, he is still a human person.[/b]

Does the State of Iraq have the ability to render him incapable of doing harm - without taking away from him the definitive possiblity of redemption? This is the $64,000 question. This is where the debate will rage. The arguments can go either way, but the key to this last part is the word "definitely." I think that unless one can prove beyond a doubt that there is no definitive way he could be redeemed, then it is unjust to execute him, according to current Church disciplinary teaching.
[/quote]

1. To my knowledge, Iraq does not have a "supermax" prison.

2. A lifetime of solitary confinement is torture, something that the Church explicitly prohibits.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1112759' date='Nov 6 2006, 02:14 PM']
Either way people will use it to justify their political motives.

The chances of finding a place in Iraq to keep him secure for the rest of his unnatural life are slim to none.
If he loses his appeal he should be executed.
[/quote]

Yes.

[Winchester]

Eye for an eye was not a requirement. It was a limit.

Eye for an eye was not a requirement. It was a limit.

[Oik]

Saddam has been foudn guilty in a trial of his own legitimate authority. The state has the right to administer just punishment. In Saddam's case, they could legitimately execute him as to kepp him from further crimes against humanity. He is probably perceived as a threat to the country of Iraq.

That being said, I do not think Saddam should be executed.

I pray that God's Will be done, despite my opinion.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Oik' post='1113392' date='Nov 6 2006, 11:41 PM']
Saddam has been foudn guilty in a trial of his own legitimate authority. The state has the right to administer just punishment. In Saddam's case, they could legitimately execute him as to kepp him from further crimes against humanity. He is probably perceived as a threat to the country of Iraq.

That being said, I do not think Saddam should be executed.

I pray that God's Will be done, despite my opinion.
[/quote]
That being said, you don't think Saddam should be executed????

That's completely nonsensical because it's a simpleton answer to a more complex question. Mercy is guided by Justice, as Justice is tempered with Mercy. It's an "AND" equation, not an "OR".

Many of the people still setting off bombs and killing Iraqi civillians and Iraqi government persons are seeking to bring Saddam back to power. How many innocent people need to die in order to protect the sanctity of Saddam's life? What about the sanctitiy of THEIR lives or their suffering? Saddam brought this on himself. Not killing Saddam outright and giving him a trail as fair as possible was protecting his sanctity. Don't forget, prosecution Lawyers and Judges were killed during the trial. Even the identities of court clerks and guards were hidden to protect their lives. In the culture of Iraq, where people are killed quickly and easily, this trail was huge. We are not talking about this happening in American society and American politics.

To not execute Saddam, sends the message that certain people are more important than others. It legitamizes the idea that it is okay to commit acts of murder against innocent civilians for power or to keep persons in power because 'Leaders' are above the law. It also undermines the concept that the Iraqi Goververnment is legitimate and it's their responsibility, not some guy with a grenade launcher, to try, convict, and execute if necessary.

[Matty_boy]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1112755' date='Nov 6 2006, 01:10 PM']
I think ESPECIALLY with someone like Saddam, killing is the wrong way to go, because it's almost certainly going to be motivated for some people by feelings of hatred and vengeance, not objective justice.

However, I think the death penalty is the easy way out. He should be imprisoned, and know what it was like to keep his people imprisoned all those years to his dictatorship. Saddam may even prefer death himself. After so many years of doing whatever he wanted, it's a huge deal to suddenly be under the imprisonment of someone else, for the rest of your life, until you die.
[/quote]

Good points, Era. I would argue that Saddam should be killed so he would be taken out of the equation. Hypothetical (tell me if this is nuts): Terrorists take hostages, maybe someone that is for the new democracy, and they try and use that person as a bargaining chip to get Saddam back. If you have Saddam killed, they can't do that. We don't have anybody they want. Remember, we can't stick him in Gitmo because he isn't ours.

[Oik]

Anomaly,

All have offended God. The wage of sin is death. It is just that God should kill us all. Praise God, He is a Merciful God.

Now, that being said, I recognize the legitimate authority of the Iraqi govenment to kill Saddam Hussein. I will not be morally scandalized if they do so.

For my part though, I do not think he should be put to death.

If the proscribed punishment for his crime is death, it is not unjust to be merciful and not to carry that certain punishment out. Iraq is a very civilized country with a rich culture. They are in the midst of a reconstruction, but nonetheless civilized. I think tey have the means to provide justice without killing him.

But, let me reiterate, I would not be morally scandalized if the Government of Iraq, excersizing thier legitimate authority put Saddam to death.

I hope I have explained myself clearly and thoroughly.

God Bless!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Oik' post='1113805' date='Nov 7 2006, 12:56 PM']
Anomaly,

All have offended God. The wage of sin is death. It is just that God should kill us all. Praise God, He is a Merciful God.

Now, that being said, I recognize the legitimate authority of the Iraqi govenment to kill Saddam Hussein. I will not be morally scandalized if they do so.

For my part though, I do not think he should be put to death.

If the proscribed punishment for his crime is death, it is not unjust to be merciful and not to carry that certain punishment out. Iraq is a very civilized country with a rich culture. They are in the midst of a reconstruction, but nonetheless civilized. I think tey have the means to provide justice without killing him.

But, let me reiterate, I would not be morally scandalized if the Government of Iraq, excersizing thier legitimate authority put Saddam to death.

I hope I have explained myself clearly and thoroughly.

God Bless!
[/quote]
Not all have offended God the same way. That's bad theology. There is a hierachial order to sins, and a greater seriousness of the offense. What offense did a Baby commit that they deserve death?

It's unjust to put a bunch of innocent people in danger to protect and guard Sadaam, as well as the civilians that are being killed because others want the new Iraq government to fall so they can release Sadaam and put him back in power. Why is the life of Sadaam (a convicted murder) worth more than 2 or 2 dozen innocent lives? People are (and have been) killing in order to bring Sadaam to power.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Anomaly

[Oik]

Anomaly,

Please, be kind and give me the benefit of the doubt!

My short statement on all offending God is not meant to minimize sin nor is it meant to equate all sin with all sin. My post is not about sin or babies, but rather Saddam Hussein.

If you wish to discuss Ancestral sin (or Original Sin, as it is called in the West), then please, start another thread and we will discuss it there.

Rather, let us maintain the topic.


Our Faith teaches us no one in mankind is innocent. God alone, The Trinity is perfect.

As for Saddam, all life is sacred, our dignity cannot be lost, lessened or increased. Even though this is the case, legitimate authority can take the life of one who has commited a crime, even after that individual has made reparation for sin (which is probably not the case of Saddam, thought we cannot not judge his state, but most rather rely on his actions which ahve not shown any remorse or repentance, imo).