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.

1358 - lestat

lestat
- Link

I must admit that I've been imprecise. I do recognize the right to kill in case of self-defence (to which DGB examples refer) I also admit DF's proposition that if life is seen as a possession, then the right of possession is the most important right (that's an interesting point). Now, I don't see why the "ultimate penalty" should be death penalty. For me it's life in prison. If your idea of proportionality is the basis of your support of death penalty, then it's a surprising and fragile basis (doesn't your "proportionality" occasionally mean "similarity" ?). I don't see why the justice should be linear : it even can't be. If someone commits 10 times your (not defined) "ultimate crime", you can't apply 10 times your ultimate penalty if the said penalty is death (or life in prison). So your linearity turns out to be "degressivity" to the worst law offenders. In fact, you can't really apply mathematics-type rules to justice, but you can be sure that your "proportionality" is nothing but an illusion. Second point: There's a fault, a backdoor in your argumentation about fair trial DF: Laws can be unjust and enable executions for crimes like adultery (Iran for example), poaching (medieval France)" and so on. These aren't arbitrary decided executions, but will you defend it ? A dictatorial state can create laws that will condemn you (a dictatorship is characterised by the concentration of legislature, executive and judicial, and sometimes religious, powers). It also may make false proof (Mumia's defenders pretend such a thing, but it's another debate as you would say, right ?). The conclusion of this point would be my previous post. Death penalty means that the sentenced person is deprived of the possibility to enjoy any of the rights a human being can pretend to. Prison for life is the loss of liberty, but it's compatible with Jefferson's words quoted by DF("Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.), the rights of the others that justify this loss of liberty being the right to be protected. That makes a lot of difference, and that's why a "decent liberal democracy" shouldn't use death penalty. ** Other questions: MacVeight: Killing him was a mistake. That's exactly what he expected: killing him strengthens his ideas. In his mind, and in the mind of people like him, he is a martyr. I'm not really interested in the other cases. For China and Korea: I don't speak Chinese, neither Korean to say it in Korean. Does it mean I shouldn't say it in English ?

1359 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

"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." Thanks for the information but this is getting tiresome really, and you may consider reading what I actually wrote. I made a clear distinction, notably in my previous answers to you and lg between liberal democracies and totalitarian regimes. "if life is seen as a possession, then the right of possession is the most important right" Well, it's not exactly so much about seeing "life" itself as a "possession" than the general principle of self ownership. That makes your use of a conditional form rather queer since there really isn't much to ponder here. Unless you're ready to accept the idea of slavery, of course. "Now, I don't see why the "ultimate penalty" should be death penalty. For me it's life in prison." This is a ridiculous statement that you're obviously making without thinking. If the ultimate penalty was life in prison, then it means that death would be a less serious one and could even be considered first to punish the same offence with less severity… Say, before sentencing the repeat offenders to life in prison? Interesting logic. "If someone commits 10 times your (not defined) "ultimate crime", you can't apply 10 times your ultimate penalty" Well that's where you're making another mistake: the simple fact that it is the ultimate penalty means precisely that applying it 1 time is enough. "So your linearity turns out to be "degressivity" to the worst law offenders." Hehe. In fact, it reinforces my point: since one can commit the ultimate crime several times but can only receive the ultimate punishment once, then it definitely means one shouldn't be spared. "In fact, you can't really apply mathematics-type rules to justice, but you can be sure that your "proportionality" is nothing but an illusion." This is not about mathematics, nor is it the old "an eye for an eye" rule. You're missing the point (sorry) for "proportionalitity" is relative to the nature of the crime and the nature of the punishment answering it, not the number of time you did it. I thought that was rather obvious. "Laws can be unjust and enable executions for crimes like adultery (Iran for example), poaching (medieval France)" and so on. These aren't arbitrary decided executions, but will you defend it ? A dictatorial state can create laws that will condemn you (a dictatorship is characterised by the concentration of legislature, executive and judicial, and sometimes religious, powers)." Again, thanks for the extensive information on the means and ends of the totalitarians. See my first answer in this comment, as well as the previous ones. See the distinction I made about death sentence under the rule of law and the same sentence under the rule of power and arbitrariness. And tell me where you saw me defending its application by a totalitarian regime… If you recall, you were the one challenged for being much less voiceful to condemn it in such countries (China?) actually. But you slid into a blessed oblivion on that part. Again. "A dictatorial state can create laws (…)It also may make false proof (Mumia's defenders pretend such a thing, but it's another debate as you would say, right ?)." And you're therefore implying the United States is a dictatorial state. Must be fancy and fashionable among the other tinfoil hat bearers, but here it will only gain you a slightly amused silence, the one people usually reserve for the retarded nephew at Auntie Lulu's Christmas party. "Death penalty means that the sentenced person is deprived of the possibility to enjoy any of the rights a human being can pretend to." Nope. It means the sentenced person deprived someone from each and every rights, human or not, arbitrarily and he is being proportionally punished for that, at the end of a long legal and moral process. I shall add, as a side note, that this tendency to stand for the rights of people who don't give a damn about their victim's has some really disgusting feel. Very French Left indeed. "Prison for life is the loss of liberty, but it's compatible with Jefferson's words quoted by DF("Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.), the rights of the others that justify this loss of liberty being the right to be protected. That makes a lot of difference, and that's why a "decent liberal democracy" shouldn't use death penalty." You're not making any sense (what's the relation to Jefferson on liberty here?), and you're dodging the question of proportionality again, which is not really surprising, considering that you didn't understand it's nature. I'd say therefore that your "logical" conclusion on "why we shouldn't" doesn't hold again, and for the same reasons as before. "In his mind, and in the mind of people like him, he is a martyr." There's nothing in his mind, because he received the ultimate punishment. He's friggin' dead. As for "other people like him" I don't know… What are you talking about? Anybody in particular? "I'm not really interested in the other cases." That's brilliant, and actually resumes pretty well what I think of the anti-death penalty crowd. Thanks a lot. (Also, I didn't get the point of your last "me saying Chinese, me saying English" which is why I'm ignoring it. Feel free to precise your thought if you believe it's a crucial issue)

1360 - Nightfly

Nightfly
- Link

The notion that says, "We can't execute him, he wants to die, he'll just be a martyr" is close kin to the notion that says, "We can't fight with the terrorists, they want to die, we'll just inflame the Palestinian street." Well, the street is already in flames. They want to kill us anyway. "Death to every house, death to every Jew, etc." is a daily refrain. The media tend not to notice this, however, until somebody like Mullah Saruman bites it. And leaving that aside, do you think that Mumia, by living and writing for the past 20 or so years, is NOT considered a martyr by Mike Farrell and a host of other celebrity Lefties? Is there not a "noble movement" [retch] to free him and other cop killers? Instead, let the state introduce a few dozen of these revolting cretins to Ol' Sparky. It won't be making things any worse, and it stands a solid chance of making things better; at the least, it means that weepy, self-indulgent hippies will have to mourn their idols, instead of freeing them to prey on more innocents.

1361 - Vindavent

Vindavent
- Link

DF says: "As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friend." This sounds reasonable and makes perfect sense, the war in Irak indeed has its justification as a part of a broader attempt to get rid of terror. Unfortunately, US policy seems to follow different principles with respect to Israel, at least in the eyes of many Arabs. Wouldn't it make even more sense to support moderate palestinians (and their more legitimate claims) more effectively and take a tough stance against "terrorists", in the same way that moderate Iraqis should be supported against the more violent elements currently active in Iraq? You also say: "America will have to take this road without [...] Europe's Socialists from both the Left and the Right [...]." I would just like to add that many Europeans are at odds with the means the US is using to achieve its policy objectives, but these people may nevertheless fully agree with the underlying objective. The relevant question is the following: is the current US policy effective in achieving its objectives? I believe it is perfectly laudable to favour regimes in the middle east that are respectful of their citizens. But disagreement on how to achieve this goal should not lead to consider some entire countries as enemies almost as ugly as the Soviet Union or nazi Germany were. The differences are technical, not ideological (on this point). Of course this reasoning does not apply to everyone in Europe (or elswhere). Regarding the French Presidency, the critique of using force from the mouth of someone who does not hesitate to send troops into areas with less media coverage (i.e. Africa) in order to "protect" its citizens leaves at least a bizarre impression.

the dissident frogman