Here's a quick graphic novel I made from screen grabs of an interview on Saudi Television with their Lord High Executioner[lgf: Saudi Head-Chopper Discusses His Craft]. I like to think it is something that MAD TV or the original Saturday Night Live would have been proud to do as a sketch. The difference here is that it is real. All too real. Yes, this is the culture that we are supposed to negotiate with and find "common ground." It is all too true that our politicians of both stripes are now made only of sodden cardboard.
What was that quote? "The banality of evil"?
"It's all very normal..."
Posted by: B. Durbin at December 4, 2006 5:40 PMcelebrate diversity. I blame George Bush.
Posted by: m at December 4, 2006 6:42 PMMedieval savage.
Posted by: M. in Boston at December 4, 2006 7:21 PMI don't mind beheadings nearly as much as I mind this guy's pride in his work.
Posted by: Ursus at December 4, 2006 7:26 PMJust checking here...
Is the problem capital punishment, the method of execution, or the fact that the executioner is proud of his work?
Posted by: John Burgess at December 4, 2006 8:03 PMAnother public service by MEMRI. The more we learn about the way the Arabs live and think--particularly the House of Saud--the less there is to like.
Posted by: Dick Stanley at December 4, 2006 8:06 PMI simply cannot watch anymore of this.
It is too chilling. However, because I think appeasement is unconsciously based on deep fear, seeing this horrifying interview may only trigger more tendencies to appease, rather than rally the troops, so to speak. In other words, extreme terrorism which this video is, evokes extreme pacifism and appeasement...kind of like a yin/yang thing.
Webutante
Posted by: Webutante at December 4, 2006 8:28 PMJohn Burgess - Since you asked, I have major problems with dismemberment (whether lethal or not) as a punishment in the 21st century, particularly when practiced by a society that hasn't the excuse of primitive isolation.
That goes double for a society that performs said dismemberment as a public spectacle.
Posted by: M. in Boston at December 4, 2006 8:32 PMMr Burgess, are you suggesting a moral equivalency there? Capital punishment is capital punishment? I'd initially be much more concerned with certainty of guilt, than in punishment methodology, and we know who wins there, in both cases, hands down!
Posted by: REN at December 4, 2006 8:34 PMer, hmmm, like, er, in the us of a you don't execute people? in what way is execution by the sword a morally nmore repugnant scenario than execution by the electric chair? so the guy is proud of his work? do you think the guy who pulls the switch on the electric chair should be ashamed of his work? if he should be ashamed of it, shouldn't all america be ashamed of it? if all america's ashamed of it, shouldn't america stop doing it?
Posted by: matt in london at December 4, 2006 9:51 PMA further answer to Mr. Burgess is that the issue is not so much methodology of punishment, or whether or not there is to be capital punishment at all. It's not about whether the executioner enjoys the work. It's not even certainty of guilt, as proposed by REN, although any society benefits if the people believe guilt or innocence is fairly established. Show trials are one of the last signs of a failed system.
No, the real problem is in the definition of the underlying offenses. Death or severe mutilation for minor theft? For sexual transgressions that are not even violent, not an evolutionary threat? For criticizing one's government? For printing cartoons? For changing one's religion? For refusing to live with a spouse who is abusive or simply repugnant?
The human soul cries for justice; of which one component is proportionality. That is the root cause of our disgust here. And well it should be. The sight of a matter-of-fact beheading would be far less barbarous and in fact almost fitting, if the victims were all proven torture killers, serial rapists of children or calculating traitors to our country.
Perhaps it would be best in some idealized world, if humans could get beyond the need to close off brutal events with the deaths of the perpetrators. However, with Jihad at our throats, this nicety must be postponed. Let's just hope we survive to consider it again in some kinder, gentler decade.
Don't we execute people in this country?
Posted by: bbqwings at December 4, 2006 10:49 PMThanks Matt, I knew someone else would chime-in with more moral equivalency! I hate that phrase the days, but it keeps being invoked.
Where is this coming from? It's as though what's being done in the West REALLY equates with what is done in there, in the Middle East and Eastern Africa.
Do you really believe this? If so, I DARE you to shoplift in Mogadishu, Somalia or in the Sudan, to defame Islam or openly insult a political or religious leader just about anywhere in the Middle East!
You KNOW there's a difference and yet some of you act as though there's not, or worse, that the West is somehow more vile and amoral.
The question, as AskMom suggested, is proportionality in punishment largely different between tribal and civil societies? And as I asked earlier, are the requirements for establishment of guilt for a crime higher in the West or in the Middle East?
Posted by: REN at December 4, 2006 11:02 PMIsn't it a sin for her hair to be showing? Why hasn't she been scheduled for execution? Do celebrities get special treatment from the wahabbies? Inshallah they will remember their commitment to purity. /sarc.
Posted by: Mike H. at December 5, 2006 12:19 AMSome countries are less developed than other countries, and it is more naturual to kill each-other as a punishment in these countries.
The more a country is lagging behind, it is also more common with circumcision. In some parts of Africa, both men and women receive death-punishment, and both sexes are circumsised. In the USA, currently only males receive death punishment and circumcision. In Scandinavia, no sexes receive death penalty or circumsision. This will hopefully also be the case in the USA in 100 years, and in Africa in 500 years.
Regards.
Posted by: Johan at December 5, 2006 1:15 AMI'm sitting in Saudi while writing this so my perspective is perhaps a bit different than other posters on this site. I'm Canadian as well so my views on executions are also influenced by my nationality, we are, after all, all products of our environment, just as this executioner is.
There are degrees of violence that are tolerable to all societies. The level that is acceptable to the population is often set by the government, and visa versa. It's a feedback loop that establishes a level of comfort for all involved. A government that utilizes a high level of violence on an international level, as well as uses death as a deterent at home, can only expect to enjoy a high level of violence in it's domestic culture. The opposite is also true. It is not a coincidence that Saudi Arabia recently rounded up over a hundred revolutionaries determined to kill members of the royal family and innocent civilians. Conversely, American presidents run a high risk of job related murder. Do Saudis and Americans kill their own and others for the same reasons and on the same moral high ground? Not at all. The majority of executions in Saudi Arabia are for three offenses; rape, murder and smuggeling hash over the border from Yemen and the UAE. Is the level of justice equivalent? Not even close. Sharia law is not based on a written system of offence=punishment. Sentences are often wildly different for similar offences. Often this depends on race. Sudanese and Pakastanis are exectuted while Saudis are imprisoned or 're-educated'. But then that's not all that different from the US either is it. hmmmm. seems there's some room for moral confusion in all of this.
Executing people is a bad idea. Period. That I think I can be sure of. Whether it is an effective deterrent or not is irrelevant. It increases the level of tolerance of violence for all citizens and therefore contributes to the victimization of innocents.
Re: Sheldon's quote: "A government that utilizes a high level of violence on an international level, as well as uses death as a deterent at home, can only expect to enjoy a high level of violence in it's domestic culture."
I take this comment as being directed at the U.S. Nice theory, but Americans were violent even *before* we had the capacity to exert ourselves across our borders.
So watch yer back, Canuck.
But seriously, I support the death penalty in cases of genocidal mass murderers and soldiers who refuse lawful orders in combat situations.
Posted by: Dan at December 5, 2006 7:27 AMNow you have to realize that these punishments are not done very often. Why you ask? Because Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest crime rates. Which means there are fewer criminals to deal with. I lived in Riyadh for a year and shop-owners used to leave their shops wide open while they went away to go run errands because they had complete trust in the public because of the low crime rate. In such a situation people were expected to take whatever they need and leave the money on the counter.
Posted by: baadshah at December 5, 2006 8:00 AMYou be a jugde:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_death_penalty_worldwide
Saudi Arabia, last execution 2005, number of executed in 2004 -- 33,
USA, last execution Oct 24 2006, number of executed in 2004 -- 59
Thank god we don't execute people in the good old USA.
Posted by: johnboy at December 5, 2006 8:55 AMIf the punishments are "not done very often"...then it must one hell of an amazing coincidence that the executioner knew some of his "clients".
Posted by: Mumblix Grumph at December 5, 2006 10:49 PMBoth countries execute people, yes, but I think what most westerners are finding so discomforting about this is that the man is being interviewed on TV (imagine CNN interviewing the Texas State Official Lethal Injector) and he seems to find the act of killing people so 'normal'. The frequent references to Allah don't help either. North Americans will NEVER be able to fully understand a country such as Saudi Arabia. For just one minute imagine getting up in the morning and putting on exactly the same clothes as everyone else in your country. Imagine KNOWING that God sent his FINAL and absolute last prophet to be a citizen of your culture (I don't use the word country because Saudi is marginally a country). While Americans are deeply religous they worship a member of a distant semitic tribe (yes, Jesus was an Arab, the jews were simply one more tribal group). Imagine how different your mental image of yourself and the righteousness of your culture and its actions would be if you KNEW God's final prophet was born and raised in 18th century Boston while the traditions of Boston were sanctified by God's words which you KNEW to be God's actual thoughts and beliefs. It's an interesting thought experiment. Would Americans still be burning witches?
Posted by: sheldon at December 5, 2006 10:54 PMK,
You wrote:
"Saudi Arabia, last execution 2005, number of executed in 2004 -- 33,
USA, last execution Oct 24 2006, number of executed in 2004 -- 59"
Had you really studied your own link, you would have found that the wikipedia citations on Saudi Arabia's executions were sadly outdated! The last execution in Saudi Arabia was NOT in 2005.
Look at the cites more closely, specifically number 133, and you'll see something much more interesting as well:
http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/world.html
Read the link, it clearly says Saudi Arabia verifiably executed at least 17 people in the month of November 2006 alone, to America's 3. While you're there, look at Iran, they have Saudi Arabia beat twofold!!
As a final check, Amnesty International, hardly an apologist for the USA, reports international figures for capital punishment for the year 2005:
"Iran executed at least 94 people, and Saudi Arabia at least 86. There were 60 executions in the USA."
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-sentences-eng
Not to forget, America has over 300 million people to Iran's 68 million and Saudi Arabia's 30 million. We have more people but less executions in raw numbers, even less per capita.
Posted by: REN at December 6, 2006 2:29 AMExecutions per capita
Saudi: 33/20 million = 0.00000122
US: 59/300 million = 0.000000197
Saudi executions are 6 times the rate of the US per capita. And with baadshah's claim that the crime rate is SO LOW in Saudi, what does that tell you about their barbarity?
But what's so revolting to me about this guy is that he actually seems to enjoy his work. If I were an executioner in the US, and had to throw the switch on a friend, I'd find another line of work. This guy just sees it as a job to do.
Posted by: Hack Ptui at December 6, 2006 5:32 AMIs that Jeannie's evil twin sister?
Posted by: StephenB at December 9, 2006 9:51 PMJohan, if males in Africa are "receiving" circumcision so much, why is there a study (http://www.aegis.org/news/ads/2006/AD061221.html) which suggests that Southern African men should get circumcised?
And maybe if Scandinavian countries still used capital punishment, their massive immigrant rape problem (http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/08/rape-nothing-to-do-with-islam.html) would not exist.
As my Finnish ancestors would say: "Hakkaa päälle!"
Posted by: Eric Sivula Jr. at December 16, 2006 9:32 PMI don't understand Johan's whole 'circumcision of males' and modern progress point anyway. Yes, the point makes sense with female circumcision, it's completely inhumane and an act of abuse and control. Female circumcision typically has NO real relevance to male circumcision, they're completely different things done for different reasons in different ways. Perhaps Johan is talking about male castration (which I doubt Johan is) because that's about the only possible thing you could relate to a female circumcision. Even then it's NOT the same.
Posted by: REN at December 17, 2006 1:34 PMI think the "Head chopper" was in that movie "I'm gonna get you sucka"
Could be wrong but I doubt it.
Eric: Johan, if males in Africa are "receiving" circumcision so much, why is there a study (http://www.aegis.org/news/ads/2006/AD061221.html) which suggests that Southern African men should get circumcised?
Africa is a big place, and South Africa is less barbaric.
REN: Female and male circumcision is not the same.
Agree. Both are done in different ways, from only removing the clitoral hood to skinning the penis. The first example is also done in the west for curing orgasmic problems.
However, any removal of tissue from the sexual organs is a symbolic act. The molested child must endure terrible pains. It is not uncommon for boys to puke when genitals parts are cut of. I think the symbolism is that "we decide over your body" which also is included in the symbolism for death penalty.
Johan,
Unless you MAKE THE DISTINCTION between the 'circumcision' which really amounts to an improper mutilation of the genitalia AND a 'western' type circumcision which is done generally for health and wellness (such as the removal of male foreskin or perhaps portions of the female clitoral hood in select cases of sexual dysfunction, as you mentioned), your symbolism is almost completely lost. In any case, if you're going to talk about imprisonment, torture and death, then ~ talk about imprisonment, torture and death. Western circumcision simply does not fit your comparison.
Beheading is considered much much better than years
of mental and physical torture in Guantanamo Bay...
Or the death-by-chemical injection..also by the U.S
Beheading = Scary,
Fear of crime = Justice,
thats how they do it I guess.
Posted by: John at September 23, 2007 2:46 PM"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.