If we capture bin Laden alive, what will his punishment be?

[SentientMeat]

I think the message we send might be different from the message received.

In the long run, over the decades and centuries, I think the two will gradually converge.

[smiling bandit]

My hope was that, since Binladen's eventual fate will stand forever more in the history books of future generations, they would eventually get it, and would see that it was the US who showed such strength in the face of savages calling their bravery "weakness".

Much as I would enjoy agreeing with you in this particular case, I am just not willing to risk encouraging hostage-taking behavior in order to prove a point. Bin Laden killed enough people, and I wouldn't risk letting some more wackos in the MidEast kill more in his cause.

Do we really want to make a martyr of him?

I'm not too worried about this. Bin Laden's netowrk, while far from dead, had been dealt a severe blow, and he himself is still a fugitive. He's not really been very good headlines recently, and when we finally do catch him, it will the last nail in his bad PR coffin.

Martyrs are powerful symbols, but victory is a better one.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

In the long run, over the decades and centuries, I think the two will gradually converge.

I suppose that depends on who wins.

If we win, bin Laden's death will be considered as is Hitler's. If the terrorists win, he will be considered a martyr.

Although, since the victory over terrorism is not likely to be as clear-cut as the end of WWII, there will always be those who argue that bin Laden is like Tojo and thos who think of him as Sacco or Vanzetti.

I expect he will suicide if he is on the verge of being caught, probably by having someone else shoot him, so maybe he will be regarded mostly like Caligula.

God will forgive him, no doubt. But it is up to us to arrange the meeting.

Regards,
Shodan

[SentientMeat]

bandit:

I am just not willing to risk encouraging hostage-taking behavior in order to prove a point. Bin Laden killed enough people, and I wouldn't risk letting some more wackos in the MidEast kill more in his cause...
I'm not too worried about [martyring him]. Bin Laden's netowrk, while far from dead, had been dealt a severe blow, and he himself is still a fugitive.

We risk encouraging revenge-taking behaviour by martyring him. If the 'severe blow' to AQ means we should not worry about action taken in response to his martyrdom, why should we worry about actions taken in response to his imprisonment?

Shodan:

I suppose that depends on who wins.

Since one can no more declare war on a terrorist organisation than on a cartel of dodgy bookmakers, I don't think the history books will say when it was "won" at all.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

Let not “us” be solely “those with whom I agree”, my brother. Let us show that world that no matter how passionately we might disagree, we can settle our differences democratically. I will consent to your plan if you can convince more of us than I, and I hope that you can find it within your heart to do the same if I were found to be more convincing.

Otherwise, if one of us considers that the other’s plan engenders tyranny and coercion, how do we decide which plan to enact?

I can speak only for myself, my friend, and that's rather the point. I say let each man decide for himself what plan he believes is most likely to effect his safety and happiness, and refrain from denying any man the right to consent that God or nature has given him by virtue of his ownership of his own mind and consciousness — they and his body belonging to him and unlike any other. Let us not conspire among ourselves that, because of our greater number, we are mystically imbued with an ad populum authority and wisdom that reveals to us what he really needs and entitles us to force our will upon him. Let us not be more concerned about a man's material possessions than about his character, because there is no shame in poverty, nothing ignoble about struggle, and nothing superior about complicated plans and college-educated intellect over kind-heartedness and good common sense. Let us simply get off the man's back so he can breathe. If money were the answer, then our politicians — almost all of whom are wealthy — long ago would have led us into the age of Aquarius.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

bandit:We risk encouraging revenge-taking behaviour by martyring him. If the 'severe blow' to AQ means we should not worry about action taken in response to his martyrdom, why should we worry about actions taken in response to his imprisonment?

They hate us anyway. I doubt they are going to engage in revenge-taking more than they do now simply because they hate us.

What killing bin Laden is intended to do is raise the opportunity cost of terrorism. Those who are willing to die aren't going to be affected one way or the other. If we kil bin Laden, they attack us to get revenge. If we don't, they attack us because they hate us, as they do now.

But those who aren't willing to die, but might attack if they think we might go easy on them, might be affected. And, of course, killing bin Laden means one less terrorist leader in the world, and so whatever further atrocities he might plan from prison will also be prevented.

I grant you, it is difficult to predict the behavior of people like terrorists.

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

Shodan:Since one can no more declare war on a terrorist organisation than on a cartel of dodgy bookmakers, I don't think the history books will say when it was "won" at all.

When it was won, or who won it? I expect that by the time the convergence between message sent and message interpreted occurs, as you mentioned, a consensus will also have formed on who won.

And I don't see why you can't declare war on a terrorist organization. I am thinking about the Red Army Brigade, or even the Ku Klux Klan. Maybe the Klan still exists, but in numbers and influence they have been very much marginalized. They may not have been completely defeated, but I would certainly say enormous progress has been made against them. And it wasn't even a military approach.

The continued presence of neo-Nazi groups does not mean that WWII was not won. And I would say that bringing the axis of evil to heel would represent substantial progress in the WOT.

I understand your point, but there is a distinction to be drawn as well.

Regards,
Shodan

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by Liberal

I can speak only for myself, my friend, and that's rather the point. I say let each man decide for himself what plan he believes is most likely to effect his safety and happiness, and refrain from denying any man the right to consent that God or nature has given him by virtue of his ownership of his own mind and consciousness — they and his body belonging to him and unlike any other. Let us not conspire among ourselves that, because of our greater number, we are mystically imbued with an ad populum authority and wisdom that reveals to us what he really needs and entitles us to force our will upon him. Let us not be more concerned about a man's material possessions than about his character, because there is no shame in poverty, nothing ignoble about struggle, and nothing superior about complicated plans and college-educated intellect over kind-heartedness and good common sense. Let us simply get off the man's back so he can breathe. If money were the answer, then our politicians — almost all of whom are wealthy — long ago would have led us into the age of Aquarius.

I agree with all of this, friend. Let each man decide for himself what he needs and uses for his own safety and happiness, and let not others force their will upon him, and let us not be concerned with material possessions, but simply get off his back so as he can breathe.

Were we all to be of good character, this could all be done without any man owning so much that another was deprived of safety and happiness. If our hearts were such that we gave enough of what we owned that all were safe and happy, why, what need have we of a mechanism guaranteeing that one can hoard so much that another suffers?

I ask again, friend, if our ideas of what constitutes maximal freedom, liberty and absence of coercion differ, which do we enact? Do we merely dogmatically [i]decree[/]i that our own vision is "better"? Put simply: absent democracy, how to we decide whether property privilege is to be enforced?

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Sentient

I ask again, friend, if our ideas of what constitutes maximal freedom, liberty and absence of coercion differ, which do we enact?

How about this — let's give you the freedom to enact yours and me the freedom to enact mine. I will not impose mine upon you, and you will not impose yours upon me. If you should ever initiate an imposition, or should I, then let us grant the other the right to exposit, by meeting initial force with responsive force. This constitutes for both of us maximal freedom.

[owlstretchingtime]

How about this scenario (not completely impossible IMHO)

Bin Laden's representatives let it be known to Al-Jazeera that he intends to give himself up to the French Embassy (I've picked the French Embasy as it would cause maximum embarrassment allround). He is filmed, alive and well, going into the French embassy in Lahore (or Dar Es Salaam or Mombassa etc) and a statement is released saying he is willing to account for his actions. So there's no doubt he's alive and in the custody of a first world country.

The USA would then apply for extradition. France would HAVE to tell them where to stick it unless the death penalty was waived. They would have no discretion in this.

So what happens next? Does the USA drop the death penalty - do France end up with the worlds most unwelcome permanent guest?

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by Liberal

How about this — let's give you the freedom to enact yours and me the freedom to enact mine. I will not impose mine upon you, and you will not impose yours upon me. If you should ever initiate an imposition, or should I, then let us grant the other the right to exposit, by meeting initial force with responsive force. This constitutes for both of us maximal freedom.

OK, so I'm hungry, and there's an orchard over there. I could go over there and, hey presto, I'm not hungry.

The moment you declare the orchard "yours" you impose hunger upon me. The moment I pick an apple, I impose "theft" upon you. It seems we get no further. Which idea is enacted merely reduces to which definition of "imposition" we follow.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Sentient

The moment you declare the orchard "yours" you impose hunger upon me.

Well that depends. Life is not a photograph of a moment; it's a motion picture. Did I own the land before you lusted for the orchard, or did you own the orchard before I grabbed the land? That's why the NP distinguishes between initial F&D and responsive F&D. You work, save, and buy your own land, and I will do the same. You plant apple trees if you want, and I will do the same.

Suppose that I own a company and refuse to hire you. Am I imposing unemployment on you? On the other hand, suppose that you have a law and I must hire you. Are you not imposing a decision on me? By yet another permutation, let's say that I have a law that prevents you from working where you wish. Am I not imposing my will on both you and your prospective employer? If you owned the orchard, then you can call upon your government to defend it from me. If I own the land, then I can call upon my government to defend it from you.

Meanwhile, I don't know why this sort of contention need be the default. Frankly, I cannot think of a better circumstance than sitting with you in an apple orchard, whether yours or mine, and discussing things like this. I submit that when laws from big all-emcompassing plans are so complicated that only a select few have the means and education to unravel and interpret them, neighbors must be wary of one another lest they get swallowed up in the grand plan from far away. On the other hand, when neighbors must live or die by their willingness to cooperate voluntarily, I submit that they tend to do things like help each other build barns and chat together under apple trees.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by owlstretchingtime

How about this scenario (not completely impossible IMHO)

Bin Laden's representatives let it be known to Al-Jazeera that he intends to give himself up to the French Embassy (I've picked the French Embasy as it would cause maximum embarrassment allround). He is filmed, alive and well, going into the French embassy in Lahore (or Dar Es Salaam or Mombassa etc) and a statement is released saying he is willing to account for his actions. So there's no doubt he's alive and in the custody of a first world country.

The USA would then apply for extradition. France would HAVE to tell them where to stick it unless the death penalty was waived. They would have no discretion in this.

So what happens next? Does the USA drop the death penalty - do France end up with the worlds most unwelcome permanent guest?

Interesting.

Obviously, this is unrealistic, but the most entertaining scenario would be for the US ambassador to France to deliver a politely worded request for extradition without pre-conditions to the appropriate French officials.

Attached to the request would be a Xerox of the extradition request we sent to the Taliban. The return address would be Kabul.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - If the first request had no effect, the second request would be written in German. That oughta scare 'em into anything.

[SentientMeat]

You work, save, and buy your own land, and I will do the same.

So we are enforcing property privilege, then?

Frankly, I cannot think of a better circumstance than sitting with you in an apple orchard, whether yours or mine, and discussing things like this.

Agreed. I merely think the best circumstance would be if we considered it neither.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Sentient

So we are enforcing property privilege, then?

No. See, the problem is that you can't step out of the "we" thing. Quite frankly, what it is is that I am not allowing you to do is speak and decide for me. I am saying that stewardship of your own life is sufficient to occupy every one of your waking moments. You do not need, and in fact cannot bear, the burden of living my life for me as well as your own for you. So, what it is that I — I alone — am enforcing for myself — myself alone — is what you call "property privilege". And I am saying that I do not believe that I can decide for you to what ethical principles you should adhere. If you want to share your property with others, feel, um, free. If you want to hoard your apples and give me none, that is your business and not mine. Or if you want to invite me over to share them, that is up to you. "We" are not doing anything. You are doing for you, and I am doing for me. If you are constantly busy examining how I live my life, then I submit that your own affairs are starving for attention.

[SentientMeat]

If you want to hoard your apples and give me none, that is your business and not mine.

OK, but if one hoards so many apples that some go hungry, I would consider that to engender forceful coercion, and would cheer the hungry on when they met it with similar force.

Of course, good hearts all around would make the distinction moot. Perhaps our two worlds are one and the same after all - we merely disagree on how to get there.

[Liberal]

Oh, I routinely cheer on civil disobedience. Consider a much more sober example than the apples — that of a small child whom you witness being abused by an anarchist neighbor. I, for one, would swoop down upon the man, beat him senseless, and rescue the child. Then, I would accept my fate. You see, I differentiate between morality and ethics this way: morality concerns that which is between a man and his God (if he is a man of faith) or conscience (if he is otherwise); while ethics concerns only that which is between a man and his fellow man. I might have no ethical right to rescue the child or to steal your apple to feed a hungry child, but I do believe that, according to my own God and conscience, that I have not only a moral right, but a moral obligation to disobey the law. Put another way, an ethical right might or might not constitute a moral obligation, and conversely, it is a mistake to institute morality into the ethical compulsion of law. As you say, we probably merely disagree on how to get there. Therefore, I grant you the freedom to go your way, and I will go mine. If you try to stop me, I will resist you. Otherwise, I will be pursuing my own happiness in my own way, and celebrating the fact that you are doing the same.

[SentientMeat]

I do believe that, according to my own God and conscience, that I have not only a moral right, but a moral obligation to disobey the law.

Just to clarify, how do we decide what the law is?

[Liberal]

I'll decide what mine is, and you decide what yours is. That's what consent means. You might ask, "But what if there's a conflict?" Well, would that be anything new? Is the NP introducing conflict into politics? Of course not. It is merely reestablishing what the ethical basis of conflict is — in other words, there will be no conflict until someone somewhere intiates it. I often see people cite ancient scribbles to bolster their views and I often attack those scribbles and those views, but only because of the assertion that rights come magically from them.

There indeed are other ancient scribbles that I like, such as some of those from scripture and some of those from a source I'm about to give you. But before I do, I would ask as a personal favor that your read them deliberately and carefully, pretending that you have never seen them before. I like them because they rightly, in my view, identify the source of legitimacy for governments and law. I do realize that you are not bound by them, and neither am I. And I know that some of the phrases are rather dated, and that even the men who wrote them did not always abide by their spirit. But it summarizes for me what government is all about — an entity legitimized by my consent to secure my rights. I am highlighting certain portions so that you can look into my brain and see how I read them.

Consider:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I agree completely. And I do not believe that it means some men, or most men, or a group of men who comprise a ruling class — but all men (and women, of course). Each and every individual one. For why should one man have these rights and not another?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I don't care! I want revenge, not justice!

Specifically, I want Bin Ladin soaked in ketchup, & paradropped into Jurassic Park.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Hmmm...I say strap him down in a movie theater, and make him watch in succession:

Gigli
Freddy Got Fingered
Manos: the Hands of Fate (the original, not the MST3K version)

Then lock him away for the rest of his life in a glass cell, where everyone can see him. Soundproof it so no sound gets out, but pump nonstop crap-hmmm, Poison, Kenny G, Mariah Carey, William Hung.

And (just to establish that we accept the argument that the people who do this stuff are not true Moslems) a diet of beer and pork ribs.