| Author |
Message |
Taton
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
 Posted: Dec 14, 2003 14:46 Post subject: News from Iraq |
    |
|
Saddam Hussein has been captured!!
What are your people's thoughts and Comments.
*Braces self for Mattias Welander's Critisims*
O yeah, its on the frontpage of CNN.com.
_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 14, 2003 15:17 Post subject: |
|
|
And why would I criticize the peaceful capture of a man suspected of crimes against humanity?
|
|
Taton
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 14, 2003 15:23 Post subject: |
|
|
I dont know. I was prepare myself for the worse.
Actually I though you might bringup the whole "Unjustified Attack on Iraq" thing again.
_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 14, 2003 15:39 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry, but that does not seem relevant to the situation at hand.
|
|
Taton
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 14, 2003 17:51 Post subject: |
|
|
I apolagize for jumping to conclusions.
_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion |
|
Tom Manning
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 14, 2003 18:20 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I am glad Matties that you realize that Saddam was guilty of crimes.
_________________
Tom Manning
For all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you, Stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn: Return of the King |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Tom Manning
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 14, 2003 21:32 Post subject: |
|
|
Right, by legaly he is currently inoccent, though if he were to stand before God, he would still be guilty.
_________________
Tom Manning
For all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you, Stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn: Return of the King |
|
ShadowCell
Dianoga
Joined: 23 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 02:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks he looked a lot like Karl Marx when they pulled him out of that hole?
|
|
JJ
Ree-Yees
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 03:46 Post subject: |
|
|
He's guilty, just not legally guilty yet. To be guilty he need only have committed the crime/crimes. To be legally guilty he must be convicted. Many innocent people are convicted and their convictions do not make them guilty only legally guilty. It is only their real guilt for commiting the crime that makes them guilty and that does not change with conviction.
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 13:26 Post subject: |
|
|
Which makes sense, if you live in a lawless society. I don't.
|
|
Casey Neumiller
Trandoshan
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 15:45 Post subject: |
|
|
By your reasoning, then, Mattias, is someone guilty only if they are caught? Is it the trial or the act that makes the person guilty of breaking the law?
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 15:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Since we're talking about the legal definition of guilt, here it is:
The word "guilt" alone has no meaning legally. There are only two valid legel terms in this area: "suspected guilt" and "proven guilt". In the eye of the law, no one is proven guilty until it has been proven in a court. Before that, you are either innocent in the eye of the law, or suspected to be guilty in the eye of the law.
Now, if you're talking about moral guilt - and not legal guilt, that's a completely different matter, and not relevant in this discussion.
|
|
Casey Neumiller
Trandoshan
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 15:57 Post subject: |
|
|
I believe it is perfectly applicable here. I believe some of the disagreements on this board happen because two people are use different definitions for the same word.
In this case, I'm pretty sure Tom Manning was referring to "Moral guilt," as you defined it, as opposed to "Legal guilt."
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 16:28 Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps he was, but that doesn't make it relevant. Moral guilt is something that only exist between two persons, and two persons only - in this case between Hussein and Jesus. Since Tom Manning is neither of them, such guilt does not exist in relation to him unless the guilty part has confessed it to him - something I strongly doubt Hussein has done.
|
|
Tom Manning
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 17:09 Post subject: |
|
|
If I am a hardend criminal, and I go kill a woman, and get away with it, and I don't feel guilty at all because I am so hardend, I am not guilty moraly, nor am I guilty legaly, does that mean I am totally free of the crime? No, I am still guilty, maybe not Moraly or Legaly, so I say there is a third type of guilty, though, I don't know what the term would be.
Thoughts?
oh, and your right, Saddam didn't admit sin to me.
Though God did, he also told me you had sinned Mattias, and Casey, and Resnick, and Taton. . . .
_________________
Tom Manning
For all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you, Stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn: Return of the King |
|
Tom Manning
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Nimph
Dianoga
Joined: 15 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 17:24 Post subject: |
|
|
Tom is trying to evangelise DF-21?
_________________
weee! |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 18:06 Post subject: |
|
|
Tom Manning wrote:
If I am a hardend criminal, and I go kill a woman, and get away with it, and I don't feel guilty at all because I am so hardend, I am not guilty moraly, nor am I guilty legaly, does that mean I am totally free of the crime?
Sorry, but we're not talking about the "feeling of guilt" here. Until my last post, I was talking about "legal guilt". In my last post, I was talking about "moral guilt". Now you're talking about "feeling of guilt", which is something entirely different, even though you seem to confuse it with "moral guilt".
As I said before, moral guilt only exist in relation to Jesus. It doesn't matter if you feel guilty or not - as long as Jesus consider you moraly guilty, you are moraly guilty.
But the point is, that no legal system I know of recognize Jesus as a legal authority. Thus, we have the term "legal guilt", which only exist once a court have proven a person guilty.
|
|
JJ
Ree-Yees
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 18:25 Post subject: |
|
|
I maintain my previous post that guilt is in the act. An innocent man convicted of a crime is still innocent in the act. Conviction does not require guilt nor does it dictate it. I will over look your continued anti-American slant and warped definition of civility.
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 18:42 Post subject: |
|
|
A man who has committed a crime but is found innocent by a court is legally innocent, no matter what you say.
|
|
JJ
Ree-Yees
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 18:51 Post subject: |
|
|
That notion defies logic. Guilt is based on commiting the act other wise known as the actus reus. It is mittgated by mens rea other wise known as the guilty mind. While punishment may be void due to acquital, guilt and moral blame worthiness remains. Guilt is not a result of conviction. When the jury or judge pronounce sentence they find the defendant guilty. They do not make him so.
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 19:02 Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with you, JJ, that the American "justice" system defies logic. Fortunately, civilized justice systems are not based on the American one.
|
|
JJ
Ree-Yees
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 19:06 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias, your lack of understanding of the social sciences is incredible. Albeit somewhat laughable. How you can be so motivated in your possitions by spite and hate amazes me. It certainly has blinded you to a good amount of reality.
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 20:20 Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, I graduated with the best grades possible from all courses in social sciences I took.
|
|
Taton
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 22:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Ok. Lets Straiten things out. Here in uncivilized America, we believe that someone is Innocent until proven Not Guilty. The reasons behind this go back to Jolly old Europe, where it was not always this way.
By being Innocent until proven not guilty, the jury is less likely to make a rash decision, while when a person is considered guilty beforehand the Jury would be slightly biased. Also, If someone is Guilty until proven Innocent, how does one prove that they are innocent? It's like the Salem witch trials. How do you prove that your not a witch? We can't pick and choose who he give this right too, so it applies to Saddam.
Therefore, Saddam is considerd Innocent until he it is proven that he is guilty.
About the Morally Guilty part. I think what Tom is trying to say, is that from a Christian Standpoint, Saddam is guilty in God's eyes. This is Because of the things that Saddam has done (I doubt I have to list these). This is what we mean as being "Morally Guilty", and this supercedes the laws of man.
Even if you aren't a Christian, moral law still applies. If you murder someone and it legal, does that make it right?
I might have gotten little off topic on this post, but I think that covers everything. 
_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 15, 2003 23:08 Post subject: |
|
|
Taton wrote:
Here in uncivilized America, we believe that someone is Innocent until proven Not Guilty. The reasons behind this go back to Jolly old Europe, where it was not always this way.
True. In the barbaric European systems of a couple of centuries ago, we did things pretty much like you do now. When we realized - through traumatic experiences, culminating with WWII, but starting long before that - we changed. Unfortunately, you didn't.
Taton wrote:
the jury
Juries are not used in most civilized countries.
Taton wrote:
How do you prove that your not a witch?
Being a witch does not result in legal guilt, only in moral guilt.
Taton wrote:
Therefore, Saddam is considerd Innocent until he it is proven that he is guilty.
I think that's what I said, yes.
Taton wrote:
I think what Tom is trying to say, is that from a Christian Standpoint, Saddam is guilty in God's eyes.
Quite possible. My point is, however, that only two people can really make a judgement on that point, and those are Hussein and Jesus.
Taton wrote:
Even if you aren't a Christian, moral law still applies.
Yes.
Taton wrote:
If you murder someone and it legal, does that make it right?
No.
|
|
Matt H
Dark Trooper Phase 1
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 16, 2003 06:35 Post subject: |
|
|
I think a lot of the debate this time is just a difference in what people mean by "guilt."
In terms of legal guilt, I agree with Mattias that Hussein is only legally guilty once it is proven in a court of law that he committed the crimes that he is accused of doing. If the trial does not find him guilty, than in the eyes of the law, he will not be legally guilty, no matter what he actually did.
However, I can also agree with JJ about guilt being based on commiting the act. It's not legal guilt, but guilt in the sense of "committing a breach of conduct, esp. violating the law and involving penalty." (Merriam-Webster) Guilt is the actual act of committing the breach, not proving the act was done. So if Hussein did do the crimes, he is guilty of the crimes, no matter what the courts may say. He just might not receive the legal consequences of those crimes if they don't find him guilty. But the responsibility for his actions will still be there.
If a man is framed for a crime he did not commit, and the duplicity of that which framed him is never discovered by the legal body, and the man is then found guilty, then he is "legally guilty" - guilty in the eyes of the law. But by the truth - not what people know or believe, but real facts of what actually happened, is that he is not guilty. He did not commit the breach of conduct and is not justly liable to or deserving of the penalty he is getting.
(Likewise, the person who actually committed the crime is justly responsible for the commission of the offense, and is therehore the person guilty of the crime. But if he's not found guilty in court, he will still be "not guilty," legally.)
Thus, someone can be both guilty and not guilty at the same time. You just have to use different meanings of the term.
Therefore, if people are going to discuss the guilt of Saddam Hussein, it might help if people try to use the same meaning of the term "guilt", and more importantly, know that the possibility exists for people to use a different meaning of the word and try to recognize it when it happens. These arguements that happen due to semantic differences can be a little annoying.
|
|
Fish
Gamorrean
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
|
Tom Manning
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 16, 2003 19:46 Post subject: |
|
|
What I was saying, is that if someone kills some one, and is found innocent in a court because of bad evidence or something, he is still guilty of murder, both before God and here on Earth, while he might not be guilty Legaly and if he asks for forgivness from God, he is no longer guilty of murder before God, though he is still guilty of Murder, so I stand that there is a third type of guilty, he is Guilty of the Act.
_________________
Tom Manning
For all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you, Stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn: Return of the King |
|
|
