Stanley Tookie Williams - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-13-2005, 03:04 AM   #106
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


I don´t give a f.
I guess that helps with the hypocrisy of an anti-death penalty statement coupled with a desire for the death of the governor.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 03:06 AM   #107
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


That may be your view, and you´re entitled to it.

I am a Christian and therefore I strongly support the death of tyrants. Other then killing tyrants (which is justified and even a necessity, according to the Bible), I don´t support it.
Care to expand on this unique exception in Scripture?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 03:38 AM   #108
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 09:23 AM
It's done. 12:35 am PST unofficial time of death.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 03:41 AM   #109
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:53 AM
Justice delayed is justice denied.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 03:43 AM   #110
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 07:53 AM
I can go to bed feeling safer tonight.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 03:47 AM   #111
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Justice delayed is justice denied.


That's just so trite.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 03:48 AM   #112
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:53 PM
ok.

from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15108a.htm
and
http://www.davidkopel.com/Misc/Mags/Policraticus.htm


The idea is implicit in much of the Old Testament, which is full of righteous Hebrews overthrowing tyrants. And certainly the history of Republican Rome and classical Greece has many similar stories. But in the first millennium of Western Christianity, Christians fell under the sway of the law of the Roman Empire, which emphasized absolute obedience to government, and claimed that the government was above the law. Cicero, who lived in the last days of the Republic, was the last great writer to articulate the right of revolution.

John of Salisbury was the first Western writer to provide a detailed theory of tyrannicide. He went even further, and made tyrannicide a positive duty:

"[I]t is not only permitted, but it is also equitable and just to slay tyrants. For he who receives the sword deserves to perish by the sword.

"But 'receives' is to be understood to pertain to he who has rashly usurped that which is not his, now he who receives what he uses from the power of God. He who receives power from God serves the laws and is the slave of justice and right. He who usurps power suppresses justice and places the laws beneath his will. Therefore, justice is deservedly armed against those who disarm the law, and the public power treats harshly those who endeavour to put aside the public hand. And, although there are many forms of high treason, none is of them is so serious as that which is executed against the body of justice itself. Tyranny is, therefore, not only a public crime, but if this can happen, it is more than public. For if all prosecutors may be allowed in the case of high treason, how much more are they allowed when there is oppression of laws which should themselves command emperors? Surely no one will avenge a public enemy, and whoever does not prosecute him transgresses against himself and against the whole body of the earthly republic."

Tyrannicide literally is the killing of a tyrant, and usually is taken to mean the killing of a tyrant by a private person for the common good. There are two classes of tyrants whose circumstances are widely apart -- tyrants by usurpation and tyrants by oppression. A tyrant by usurpation (tyrannus in titula) is one who unjustly displaces or attempts to displace the legitimate supreme ruler, and he can be considered in the act of usurpation or in subsequent peaceful possession of the supreme power. A tyrant by oppression (tyrannus in regimine) is a supreme ruler who uses his power arbitrarily and oppressively.

While actually attacking the powers that be, a tyrant by usurpation is a traitor acting against the common weal, and, like any other criminal, may be put to death by legitimate authority. If possible, the legitimate authority must use the ordinary forms of law in condemning the tyrant to death, but if this is not possible, it can proceed informally and grant individuals a mandate to inflict the capital punishment. St. Thomas (In II Sent., d. XLIV, Q. ii, a. 2), Suarez (Def. fidei, VI, iv, 7), and the majority of authorized theologians say that private individuals have a tacit mandate from legitimate authority to kill the usurper when no other means of ridding the community of the tyrant are available. Some, however, e.g. Crolly (De justitia, III, 207), hold that an express mandate is needed before a private person can take on himself the office of executioner of the usurping tyrant. All authorities hold that a private individual as such, without an express or tacit mandate from authority, may not lawfully kill an usurper unless he is actually his unjust aggressor. Moreover, it sometimes happens that an usurper is accorded the rights of a belligerent, and then a private individual, who is a non-combatant, is excluded by international law from the category of those to whom authority is given to kill the tyrant (Crolly, loc. cit.).

If an usurper has already established his rule and peacefully reigns, until the prescriptive period has run its course the legitimate ruler can lawfully expel him by force if he is able to do so, and can punish him with death for his offence. If, however, it is out of the legitimate ruler's power to re-establish his own authority, there is nothing for it but to acquiesce in the actual state of affairs and to refrain from merging the community in the miseries of useless warfare. In these circumstances, subjects are bound to obey the just laws of the realm, and can lawfully take an oath of obedience to the de facto ruler, if the oath is not of such a nature as to acknowledge the legitimacy of the usurper's authority (cf. Brief of Pius VIII, 29 Sept., 1830). This teaching is altogether different from the view of those who put forward the doctrine of accomplished facts, as it has come to be called, and who maintain that the actual peaceful possessor of the ruling authority is also legitimate ruler. This is nothing more or less than the glorification of successful robbery.


Looking on a tyrant by oppression as a public enemy, many authorities claimed for his subjects the right of putting him to death in defence of the common good. Amongst these were John of Salisbury in the twelfth century (Polycraticus III, 15; IV, 1; VIII, 17), and John Parvus (Jehan Petit) in the fifteenth century. The Council of Constance (1415) condemned as contrary to faith and morals the following proposition:


"Any vassal or subject can lawfully and meritoriously kill, and ought to kill, any tyrant. He may even, for this purpose, avail himself of ambushes, and wily expressions of affection or of adulation, notwithstanding any oath or pact imposed upon him by the tyrant, and without waiting for the sentence or order of any judge." (Session XV)
Subsequently a few Catholics defended, with many limitations and safeguards, the right of subjects to kill a tyrannical ruler. Foremost amongst these was the Spanish Jesuit Mariana. In his book, "De rege et regis institutione" (Toledo, 1599), he held that people ought to bear with a tyrant as long as possible, and to take action only when his oppression surpassed all bounds. They ought to come together and give him a warning; this being of no avail they ought to declare him a public enemy and put him to death. If no public judgment could be given, and if the people were unanimous, any subject might, if possible, kill him by open, but not by secret means. The book was dedicated to Philip III of Spain and was written at the request of his tutor Garcias de Loaysa, who afterwards became Bishop of Toledo. It was published at Toledo in the printing-office of Pedro Rodrigo, printer to the king, with the approbation of Pedro de Oñ, Provincial of the Mercedarians of Madrid, and with the permission of Stephen Hojeda, visitor of the Society of Jesus in the Province of Toledo (see JUAN MARIANA). Most unfairly the Jesuit Order has been blamed for the teaching of Mariana. As a matter of fact, Mariana stated that his teaching on tyrannicide was his personal opinion, and immediately on the publication of the book the Jesuit General Aquaviva ordered that it be corrected. He also on 6 July, 1610, forbade any member of the order to teach publicly or privately that it is lawful to attempt the life of a tyrant.

Though Catholic doctrine condemns tyrannicide as opposed to the natural law, formerly great theologians of the Church like St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xlii, a.2), Suarez (Def. fidei, VI, iv, 15), and Bañez, O.P. (De justitia et jure, Q. lxiv, a. 3), permitted rebellion against oppressive rulers when the tyranny had become extreme and when no other means of safety were available. This merely carried to its logical conclusion the doctrine of the Middle Ages that the supreme ruling authority comes from God through the people for the public good. As the people immediately give sovereignty to the ruler, so the people can deprive him of his sovereignty when he has used his power oppressively. Many authorities, e.g. Suarez (Def. fiedei, VI, iv, 18), held that the State, but not private persons, could, if necessary, condemn the tyrant to death. In recent times Catholic authors, for the most part, deny that subjects have the right to rebel against and depose an unjust ruler, except in the case when the ruler was appointed under the condition that he would lose his power if he abused it. In proof of this teaching they appeal to the Syllabus of Pius IX, in which this proposition is condemned: "It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel" (prop. 63). While denying the right of rebellion in the strict sense whose direct object is the deposition of the tyrannical ruler, many Catholic writers, such as Crolly, Cathrein, de Bie, Zigliara, admit the right of subjects not only to adopt an attitude of passive resistance against unjust laws, but also in extreme cases to assume a state of active defensive resistance against the actual aggression of a legitimate, but oppressive ruler.

Many of the Reformers were more or less in favour of tyrannicide. Luther held that the whole community could condemn the tyrant to death (Sämmtliche Werke", LXII, Frankfort-on-the-Main and Erlangen, 1854, 201, 206). Melanchthon said that the killing of a tyrant is the most agreeable offering that man can make to God (Corp. Ref., III, Halle, 1836, 1076). The Calvinist writer styled Junius Brutus held that individual subjects have no right to kill a legitimate tyrant, but that resistance must be authorized by a representative council of the people (Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, p. 45). John Knox affirmed that it was the duty of the nobility, judges, rulers, and people of England to condemn Queen Mary to death (Appellation).


In short, "As the image of the deity, the prince is to be loved, venerated, and respected; the tyrant, as the image of depravity, is for the most part even to be killed." Thus, tyrannicide was "honourable" when tyrants "could not be otherwise restrained."

There were two important limits: First, poison could not be used. Second, a person could not rebel against a person to whom he legally owed fealty.

The political theory of the Dark Ages had insisted that obedience to God required obedience to any ruler, no matter how awful. John of Salisbury turned this theory on its head: "it is just for public tyrants to be killed and the people to be liberated for obedience to God."

At great length, Policraticus denounced tyranny and justified tyrannicide. A few passages did counsel patient reliance on deliverance by God, warned against taking drastic actions based on small or isolated offenses, and urged prayer as the method of ending tyrannical oppression. These cautionary lines, however, did not undermine the revolutionary impact of the book.

Going beyond political tyranny, John of Salisbury explained that tyranny could occur in many forms; "many private men are tyrants." "[E]everyone is tyrant who abuses any power over those subject to him which has been conceded from above." A father, a land-owner, or a merchant could be a private tyrant, to those over whom they abused their power.

An ecclesiastical tyrant was a priest, bishop, or other church official who abused his power, harming rather than protecting the people in his spiritual care.

One of the problems of the tyranny of petty officials was that it was illegal to resist their depredations, even though, according to Justinian’s code of Roman law, "it is otherwise lawful to repel force with force without blame if one has safeguarded moderation." However, tyrannicide was appropriate for only actual rulers of governments, not for private tyrants.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 03:56 AM   #113
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


That's just so trite.
Sorry, but that is one of the maxims of our legal system.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 04:02 AM   #114
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I guess that helps with the hypocrisy of an anti-death penalty statement coupled with a desire for the death of the governor.
Go read the Forum FAQ/ Rules.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 04:16 AM   #115
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:53 PM
I hardly see how that could qualify as a personal attack.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 04:31 AM   #116
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:53 PM
The world moved to the side of good by 1/6000000000+

This post is just indicating how insignificant his life really is in the scheme of things regardless of the justness of his execution.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 04:54 AM   #117
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 08:53 AM
I am not philosophically against the death penalty. But apparently we fuck up too many times for me to be comfortable with the practice of it. I'm not sure I am wholly confident in our justice system's ability to get it right.

I won't tell you I have no vengeance in my soul. You kill someone I love and if it is in my ability, I'm going to come at you with everything I have, including using the justice system if I can get that to kill. I will not forgive. That being said, I am aware that I would be (as is the state) committing coldblooded, premeditated murder and there would be blood on my hands and there is no justification that would change that. There is a coldness in the procedure of the death penalty that chills me. I feel a vague disturbing any time an execution is carried out. And I should.
Sometimes I think it would be better to let the family or loved ones of the victim (who actually suffered the loss) perform the execution. At least it would not be done in the dispassion with which it is carried out now.

There is blood on the hands of everyone who condones capital punishment. Are you willing to accept that personal blood on your hands? Sometimes I am. Sometimes I am not. But I accept it as personal blood and I can't distance myself from it, even when I think it is just to kill sometimes. The state kills. I am part of that state. I kill. It is with my will a person dies.

I waver between pro and con. I'm not comfortable with either.
I know it is not deterrence. I know it is not justice. It is vengeance and it is murder. And God help me, if it was someone I loved murdered, I would want vengeance. I would murder and drench my body and my soul with the blood of the person who killed my loved one. But I would know the moral cost.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 05:02 AM   #118
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I hardly see how that could qualify as a personal attack.
Sure it does. It is a flagrant allegation that I have "desire for the death of a governor".
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 05:04 AM   #119
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:53 PM
I think that talking about the crips taking out the man could be interperated as such sentiment.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-13-2005, 05:05 AM   #120
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The world moved to the side of good by 1/6000000000+

This post is just indicating how insignificant his life really is in the scheme of things regardless of the justness of his execution.
I've always believed it is this thinking which is precisely why the death penalty is fucking ridiculous.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com