Are You Ready? ♠ Êtes-Vous Prêt ? |

Article copy (alternate language)

Encore un de ces "arabes" qui "ne sont pas prêts pour notre modèle de démocratie Occidentale" j'imagine:

Je partage avec le Président Bush et l'ensemble du peuple américain le sens et l'attrait humain pour la liberté, la démocratie et sa propagation, les droits de l'homme, le droit de propriété et le droit de former une société civile.

Fathi Eljahmi, dissident libyen

Liberté, démocratie et sa propagation, droits de l'homme, droit de propriété (qui est, par ailleurs, l'un des droits de l'homme les plus importants - sinon le plus important - duquel découlent naturellement les autres) et droit de former une société civile.

C'est ça, la liste est plutôt exhaustive.

Il m'apparaît que M. Eljahmi est plus que prêt pour le modèle démocratique, et il ne peut être la seule voix dans le monde arabe.
Après tout, à l'instar des armes de destruction massive irakiennes, ce n'est pas parce que Blix le Gobelin ne peut pas les voir qu'elles n'existent pas.

A propos de gobelins, M. Chirac pourrait peut être nous répéter cette perle de sagesse avec laquelle il sermonne les dissidents nord-africains victimes de leurs états totalitaires ? Quel était ce "premier" des droits de l'homme selon vous Jacques ? "de manger, de recevoir des soins, une éducation et un logement", je crois ?

Ou, dans les termes de Radia Nasraoui, de "bouffer et de la fermer" ?

Rien de très surprenant venant de l'homme qui dirige ce Merveilleux Monde Socialiste, cela dit : "manger, recevoir des soins, une éducation et un logement", n'est pas le "premier des droits de l'homme", mais le rêve de l'Ultra Etatiste. "Merci de la boucler. Tout ce dont vous avez besoin, c'est d'un ticket d'alimentation et voyez, je suis celui qui les accorde. Prenez et cessez de vous plaindre."

Ironiquement, cela devrait cadrer parfaitement avec le mari de Mme Nasraoui, dirigeant du Parti communiste des ouvriers de Tunisie... Ouais, les chiens se dévorent entre eux parfois.

Quoi qu'il en soit, j'espère certainement pour ma part que Khadafi le SpookyMan ne sera pas autorisé à échanger son arsenal en contrepartie de son siège de dictateur et de s'en tirer comme ça, ainsi que les dissidents emprisonnés semblent le craindre.

Fort heureusement, M. Chirac n'est pas Président des Etats-Unis (vous le saviez vous aussi, pas vrai ?), et les déclarations de celui qui l'est sont assez éloignées du "bouffe et ferme ta gueule" de Jack :

Aussi longtemps que le Moyen Orient restera une région de tyrannie, de désespoir et de colère, il continuera à produire des hommes et des mouvements qui menaceront la sécurité de l'Amérique et de nos amis. En conséquence, l'Amérique poursuit une stratégie de liberté au Moyen Orient et au-delà. Nous défierons les ennemis de la réforme, confronterons les alliés de la terreur et escompterons des standards plus élevés de nos amis.

Pour ses opposants, M. Bush présente un défaut majeur : ce satané cow-boy n'arrête pas de faire exactement ce qu'il dit.

Oui, contrairement à John la Girouette et oui, concernant le problème du moment, nous ne pouvons que nous en réjouir.

Cela prendra certainement du temps, particulièrement puisqu'il semble plus apparent chaque jour que l'Amérique devra faire cette route sans l'Europe (à l'exception de la Grande Bretagne et d'une bonne partie de l'Europe de l'Est peut être. Ok, laissez moi reformuler cela : sans les socialistes européens de droite comme de gauche) qui se plie avec complaisance aux volontés des tyrans du Moyen Orient.

Cela étant, j'ai bon espoir qu'au bout du compte, M. Eljahmi et son peuple, tout comme les précédents dissidents d'un autre Orient, verrons la chute de leurs tyrans et la restauration de leurs droits naturels.

Pour notre bénéfice à tous et une fois de plus, grâce à l'Amérique.

1348 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

"The most important human right is the right to live" No, that would be one of the pseudo "human rights" made out and pushed by the EUropean state funded "humanists", such as the right to housing [at the expense of others]. I just doesn't make any sense in terms of natural rights - although yeah, it sounds cool and caring on paper - because living is not something that can be granted and/or justified by law in the first place (well, at least not by human laws that is. But surely, you weren't talking about God?). While "human rights" do indeed apply only to the living (As far as I'm informed, nobody ever started a campaign to stop the murder of the dead by an oppressive state, but feel free to correct me) life itself has an unpredictable albeit assured end that's (generally) out of your control - or anyone else's for that matter. A human right is an immanent principle (meaning it applies to anybody indifferently, while everybody's life is, hopefully, a very personal and varied experience) that holds its value even in time and places where it's not respected, and can't disappear, be lost or taken away completely. What's more, it doesn't pass away with you, unlike life. I can see where you're coming from (I mean, apart from France) - you apparently wanted to take a cheap shot at the death penalty "in a democracy" (Hm, I wonder which one...) - but you've started with a wrong assumption. "No state, no society should be allowed to kill its citizens. That's why death penalty isn't compatible with a democracy." Talk about a simplistic deduction... Anyway. So let's see: the "right" to live is not one (unless you're talking about abortion, but that's another debate). What is, on the other hand, is freedom and in the consecrated terms, "the pursuit of happiness", implying that we can seek happiness and wealth without the fear to be killed arbitrarily, either by the State or by another group of citizens or individuals among which we live. In other words, it means we shall not be deprived arbitrarily from our life, because we own it. Only a slave doesn't own his life, as in fact he/she doesn't own him/herself at all. See? There goes the right to ownership again, at the very root level of life, and the reason why it is the most important. It even precedes freedom actually, since self-ownership defines the grounds for liberty. You have, as we just saw, the right not to be killed arbitrarily, including by the State, but - even before you reach that point - the right not to be searched, incriminated, arrested and prosecuted arbitrarily - all kind of things that do happen in totalitarian states. In short, in any decent liberal democracy, and in the always possible event that you would violate other people's rights, you have the right to a speedy, public and fair trial by jury, with the assistance of counsel for your defense (Maybe that does ring a bell?) because, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.", one of the important terms here being "the right of others" something that your phony and self-centered "right to live" completely overlook implicitly. As far as these conditions are respected (no arbitrary arrest, prosecution and conviction, and a fair trial) I can't see any reason at all why the death penalty wouldn't be "compatible" as you put it, with a democracy. On the very contrary: since there is an ultimate crime (you acting according to your will without respecting the equal rights of others and killing somebody arbitrarily - whatever your reasons), then there has to be, naturally, an ultimate penalty (you being killed rightfully) If not, the whole notions of "Rights" and "Law" (natural law of course) simply make no sense at all, as they can be violated at will. "If the state can decide to kill you, then your "freedom" is a gift implicitely granted to you by the state." Well, that's precisely what can and does happen anytime only in a totalitarian state (Saddam Hussein anybody?), where coincidentally "“ hold on, here goes a big surprise "“ you're not free indeed, and whatever freedom you think you have, actually is a gift from the said State, - and one that it can give and take back at will, of course. That does not happen in any liberal democracy I can think about - and before you start to name some (Hm, I wonder which one...) try to make sure that "the state decide to kill" anybody... In doubt, check the part about "fair trial". But then your point was democracy and the death penalty, not dictatorship and death penalty, right? Unless you're really going to name that "democracy" you were thinking about, and it turns out to be one of the "popular" flavor "“ China, North Korea, etc. Could it be one these you had in mind I wonder?

1349 - gl

gl
- Link

DF: "since there is an ultimate crime (...) then there has to be, naturally, an ultimate penalty " Well, why should this ultimate penalty be death penalty? Which kind of justice can be infallible?

1350 - Damian Bennett

Damian Bennett
- Link

M./Mll. gl, Well, the correspondence between an ultimate crime and an ultimate penalty is proportionality. Are you arguing that the possiblity of flawed due process puts any penalty in question? Well, then everyone's off the hook. That's murderers, D&Ds, and jaywalkers. This elevates "reasonable doubt" from a standard of evidence to the psychosis of scrupulosity. Justice since time in memoriam has been represented as blind. Perfect justice awaits us in the world to come, for now we are enjoined to do the best we can. Now here's a question for the DF's French correspondents: The French weep copiously for Mumia Abu-Jamal, a convicted cop killer, upheld on numerous appeals, France advocated mightily for Ira Einhorn, but why no honorary French citizenships bestowed on Timothy McVeigh? The truth is the anti-death penalty mob is selective about its principled opposition. DGB

1351 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

Well Damian beat me to it masterfully again. I shall therefore assume that gl has his/her answer. I also assume he/she should start to understand the distinction between the penalty punishing a crime and the way justice (infallible or not) is served. These are two separate things, the later being more than often (say, in China) nothing but a sham to justify ultimate or disproportionated penalties to punish opinion crimes (that is to say imaginary crimes) As Damian put it, it's about proportionality, not justice in the sense of a set of laws enforced by a judicial system - and so I guess it's time to quote Jefferson in full now: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." And you still have to answer Damian's question by the way, to which I would add: how come the anti-death penalty mob is so concerned about it taking place in the USA under the conditions exposed here before, but just don't give a flying f* about places such as China (20.000 executions since 1990 after "grossly unfair and summary trials") North Korea, or a large chunk of Africa?

1352 - gl

gl
- Link

DF: how come the anti-death penalty mob is so concerned about it taking place in the USA under the conditions exposed here before, but just don't give a flying f* about places such as China Probably because they think that the USA have greater moral principles, and that Americans care about the possibility that death penalty sometimes results in killing the wrong guy, which can obviously not be repaired. That makes death penalty more questionable than another penalty. They do not expect a communist dictature like China to care about such a problem. That doesn't mean they support China. Just look at an organization like Amnesty International. The truth is the anti-death penalty mob is selective about its principled opposition. They focuse on the cases more convincing for their goal (= to put forward that death penalty is not "the best we can" in terms of justice). That doesn't mean they approve death penalty for other murderers.

1353 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

Probably because they think that the USA have greater moral principles (...) Again you're constructing your argumentation on the false assumption that the death penalty is not "moral" under clearly defined conditions (i.e. the Rule of Law in liberal democracies, as opposed to the rule of power and arbitrary of totalitarian regimes), which is precisely what I have been disputing so far. Therefore, the rest of your answer doesn't hold water. Sorry. You should be concerned precisely by China because the regime has little (if any) moral principles. Unless of course, you happen to have a very twisted conception of morality. (...) death penalty sometimes results in killing the wrong guy (...) I see. Throwing the baby with the bath's water again. Let's make it clear: you're making a point against the infallibility of the prosecution process here, but in any case not against the legitimacy of the death sentence itself. Finally, I leave it to Damian to catch up on your answer to his question, if he can make any sense out of it, as I'm not sure I understand what you mean actually.

1354 - Damian Bennett

Damian Bennett
- Link

M./Mll. gl, I see the Frogman has beat me to the heavy-lifting. I'll confine myself to your answer to my question. DGB: The truth is the anti-death penalty mob is selective about its principled opposition. gl: They focuse on the cases more convincing for their goal (= to put forward that death penalty is not "the best we can" in terms of justice). That doesn't mean they approve death penalty for other murderers. No, gl, it means they are selective about their principled opposition. If you miss my point, "focusing on cases" is not principled opposition. It is predilection. Let's establish what we're talking about here. A principle is a settled rule which can be uniformly applied to all items in a category. A case is a particular and distinctive item in a category. OK, that ballparks the big concepts. In principle every death sentence is a convincing case against the death penalty, otherwise any exceptions void the principle. Either the principle holds and all cases are worthy of your advocacy equally or you are arguing cases, your pet crusades. Now just what sort of principled justice are you peddling that gives preference to Messrs. Mumia and Einhorn (and good Christ, how were their cases adjudged more "convincing"?) over Mr. McVeigh? Will Eric Robert Rudolph rate your consideration as a "convincing case"? Will he merit a thimbleful of Parisian tears? Your response to the Frogman is equally fatuous. This is the same reasoning Hubert Vedrine used when condemning Israeli self-defense while excusing Pali terrorism -- the French expected more of Israel. Your expectations, whether high or low, neither heighten nor attenuate principle. Perhaps there are individual cases to be argued against the death penalty. But stop trying to steal the moral high ground by pretending you've swanned in here to arguing some be-all principle. DGB

1355 - gl

gl
- Link

you're making a point against the infallibility of the prosecution process here, but in any case not against the legitimacy of the death sentence itself. I understand the distinction between the legitimacy of the death penalty and the way this sentence is used in a particular set of rules. But when it comes to decide if the death penalty is a punishment which can be applicated in this particular set of rules, you have to deal with a moral dilemma. Since you know that applying the death penalty will result in irreperable mistakes (which is not the case for other kinds of punishment), you have to decide which moral principle is more important: 1. according to proportionnality, one who killed shall be killed 2. a decision of justice cannot result into killing an innocent then you can choose than the legitimacy of the death penalty is more important. IMHO, it needs more than proportionnality to be justified. It's this reasoning which leads to the moratorium. But it's not the reasoning of the death penalty opponents. You're right, Mr.Bennett, in principle every death sentence is a convincing case against the death penalty, otherwise any exceptions void the principle. That's what I intended to say when I wrote that focusing on cases doesn't mean they support death penalty for other criminals. Either MM. Mumia, McVeigh or Dutroux.

1356 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

I understand the distinction between the legitimacy of the death penalty and the way this sentence is used in a particular set of rules. But you obviously don't care. What's more, when I talk about the infallibility (or not) of the prosecution process, I'm referring to liberal democracies, as it should go without saying. The prosecution's case in totalitarian states is simply a joke. Since you know that applying the death penalty will result in irreperable mistakes (which is not the case for other kinds of punishment) That's utterly incorrect and this is where your whole argumentation collapses I'm afraid. Unless you happen to own the secret of time travel, I'd like to know how you could "fix" the mistake of a 30 years sentence (for instance) served in jail by an innocent. Actually, no matter the length of the imprisonment, any sentence is as "irreparable" as any other. You can't give back the days of this persons life, be it 1, 10 or 100. They're irremissibly lost and that's "irreparable" just the same. In fact, I'd love to hear what your self-proclaimed moral superiority and good feelings could lead you to tell a poor fellow who had most of his life wrecked by such sentence. If I follow your logic, I imagine we could tell him to shut up and stop complaining since after all, he's still alive… How noble of you. And please, don't tell me that it's a less serious offence, just because the poor bastard is alive to mourn his lost life. We all die one day, but I'm far from being convinced that spending the rest of your life bitterly pondering on the unjust deprivation of the first half "“ or to actually die in prison, considering that if they're convicted on the charge of murder, the alternative to death sentence would be life in prison - is in any case a more enjoyable fate. But anyway, let's push that a bit further and apply it to your moral dilemma equation: 1. One who broke the law shall be jailed 2. A decision of justice cannot result in jailing an innocent. Now what do you propose? Let's empty the prisons, wipe out the penitentiary system and completely give up the ideas of justice and law? The moral dilemma you impose onto the death penalty (and again, curiously enough, not to any other sentence) is in fact already taken into account by the judicial system of advanced countries. This is why there are extensive investigations and counter-investigations, with ever evolving techniques improved precisely to reduce the risk of error (Because here comes another Great Lesson of Life: zero-risk does not exist), this is why there are lawyers, witnesses, jury, habeas corpus (which actually deals with the other moral dilemma that you apparently don't care too much about: detention) and a whole set of appeal system relying on the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty. The way I can see it, your answer to that is: okay, considering that we may convict an innocent, then we shall not convict anybody. Including the guilty of course, since you assume that we can't really tell who is and who is not with 100% accuracy. As a side note, I'll add that if we where to follow that kind of logic, it would reduce nearly all human activity to zero (risk is inherent to the nature of life. Dealing with it is always a question of balance between potential outcomes and the expected benefits or failures), but that's another debate. It leaves you with a big problem anyway (well, several in fact) : what do you do with them? Even if I was to accept that to save an unknown and unpredictable number of potential innocents (that's 1. certainly marginal, thank to the "safety trigger" of the judicial process and 2. very likely to be decreasing according to the sophistication of investigating techniques) you shouldn't punish the murderers (Certainly a largely superior proportion, thank to the said sophistication), then you still have to face the fact that you're either going to jail innocents "“ in most case for life - or completely give up with justice. Or do you declare a moratorium and… What? Lock everybody without trial - including the handful of innocents for that matter - until you're finished talking on a very touchy subject "“ which could take several years? (and end up leaving them to jail instead of executing them...) A bit sadistic of you, if you ask me. And definitely unacceptable morally speaking. It always strike me that the case that saw the final victory of the anti-death penalty faction in France (and the lasting fame of the Socialist lawyer who "won" it, Robert Badinter) was that of Patrick Henry who turned out to be genuinely and incontestably guilty of the murder of the 7 years old Philippe Bertrand, strangled before the request of the ransom, his body let to rot under the bed of an hotel room in the mid 70s. Talk about a symbol of the protection of the innocents indeed… (Coincidentally, I also notice that the morally superior power-that-be and that know better what's good for us, carefully avoided to consult the French people on such an important question. But of course, they know better than the rabble, right?) I'm afraid that the moral dilemma you are facing is that either you arbitrarily declare that it's okay to punish the innocent in one way but not in another, or that the cause for concern that has to be questioned and improved (and is, actually) is the structural process leading to the sentence, not the nature of the sentence itself. In short, the fact that the sentence can be wrongly pronounced doesn't make it wrong per se.

1357 - lestat

lestat
- Link

Before answering the questions that DGB and DF asked me, I will restate my idea in a different way. Very similar to John's words: Just like the right to keep and bear arms is a warranty that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical state, abolition of the death penalty is the warranty that this tyrannical state won't be allowed to kill you. Consider any tyranny, and you'll see that it resorts to death penalty. The interdiction of death penalty should be written in the constitution (in any state: France, USA, etc…)

the dissident frogman