Death penalty opponents- - Osama?

[CnoteChris]

I’ve always debated against the death penalty. If there’s anything dumber in this world, it’s the idea that you spend more money and time trying to kill a person- who in reality may or may not actually be guilty of something- rather than throw them in the cell and forget about 'em.

Come on, killing them accomplishes nothing. Sure, talking to grieving widows and whatnot will make you want revenge, but executing them takes you down to their level… absolutely nothing is accomplished by doing it. It won't or couldn't deter others from doing the same thing. And that, when it all boils down to it, is the point- deterrence, right?

I feel I’ve been arguing that point since I was a kid. I firmly believe that stance and will so until I drop dead myself.

On the other hand, I don’t have a big problem with the things going on in Afghanistan lately. Truth is, I think we should hunt down Osama and his ilk and blow them the fuck up. I mean, enough is enough. We’ve been dealing with him and his buddies shit for way too long now... time to kill the prick and get him the hell off this planet.

The problem is, obviously, that it doesn’t fit into this- or my- idea of real justice, or educated justice.

Why not? What’s going on with me here? Why am I breaking with my earlier- and to me- sound argument?

I didn't know anyone killed in the WTC act. I don't know anyone involved in the follow up. Why this obvious dissonance within myself?

Anyone else, who disagrees with capitol punishment, having a problem justifying their actions or thoughts? How do you explain it?

[Gary Kumquat]

Actually, I have the exact opposite problem. I've no real problem with the death penalty normally, as I honestly do believe that some people are best removed from society permanently.

But in this case, I want to see the guilty party brought before a court of law, tried openly before the eyes of the world, and then sentenced to life imprisonment. I would argue that the sort of fanatic who'd plan something like the WTC would welcome the chance of maryrdom. Rather than give that to them, let them rot in a cell for the next forty years.

[yojimbo]

Think about Hess looking at his wall for all those years and eventually killing himself at the age of 92. When I think of Hess I think of a old sad mad man in a cell not a important member of the 3rd Reich.


Let the fucker rot, not be made a hero for all extremists to model themselves on.

Remember he probably has the same mindset as the people who sat in the pilot seat of those planes and pointed them towards the WTC and the Pentagon. Death was meaningless to them, they had bigger things on their mind.

[Gary Kumquat]

Yojimbo, that's pretty much my feelings to the very letter, especially the point about Hess.

Let him rot, and may he live a long time.

[Embra]

I didn't know anyone killed in the WTC act. I don't know anyone involved in the follow up. Why this obvious dissonance within myself?

Anyone else, who disagrees with capitol punishment, having a problem justifying their actions or thoughts? How do you explain it?

I think maybe because the attack was perceived as an attack on the whole of the USA as well as on those killed directly in New York, the Pentagon and PA.

So in a way you are a victim of the crime, and in the position of the relative of a murder victim who is not allowed to have a say in the murderer's punishment because he's "too close". I do not believe in capital punishment, for the reason that if I am put in the position where someone harms someone I love or puts me through hell in some other way, I still want to know that he will be dealt with according to the rule of the society I believe in, rather than my own direct desire to pull his bollocks off with pliers and feed him to the dogs.

The above may be a load of wishy washy blether - it's just something that came to mind to explain the apparent contradiction...

Embra

[CnoteChris]

Originally posted by yojimbo
Let the fucker rot, not be made a hero for all extremists to model themselves on.

But wouldn't tossing him in a cell and giving him the limelight of a trial eventually lead to him having more followers?

In a sense- and as much as I disagree with it- that's the argument behind having tribunals rather than 'normal' courts.

I'm not in disagreement with your argument, not at all, I'm just wondering why I'm feeling that killing the prick and getting it over with isn't better than giving him even more spolight.

(And even as I typed that, I realized how much I disagree with even that train of thought. But dammit it all, I think enough is enough with this guy.)

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by yojimbo
Think about Hess looking at his wall for all those years and eventually killing himself at the age of 92. When I think of Hess I think of a old sad mad man in a cell not a important member of the 3rd Reich.


Let the fucker rot, not be made a hero for all extremists to model themselves on.

But it is still possible to control an organization from behind bars. Especially if you still hold the purse strings. I don't think Ashcroft's policy of listening in on lawyers/clients conversations will last long. IMO, it's better to consider him an enemy we are at war with rather than try him as criminal. If in prison, he's still a focal point of his 'movement'. And it's possible someone could bust him out.

[Pyrrhonist]

I don’t have a problem with the death penalty, though the process of appeals needs to be streamlined and costs cut if it is to remain a viable option, but in the case of Osma and other terrorists I agree that life imprisonment is the best choice. These are people who aren’t afraid to die for their cause and belief they’ll go straight to Paradise. A padded cell with no windows and no contact to the outside word is would be just retribution.

There is a good curse for this occasion: If your life is happy, may it be short; if your life is miserable, may it be long.

The major problem with leaving him alive to rot in a cell would be the option for al Qaeda members to take hostages and demand Osma’s release. If he is alive, his followers will want him back, and they’d do anything.

The best America could hope for is that some Taliban leaders turn against him, try to sell him out, then he dies or commits suicide in a most humiliating way in the fracas.

[yojimbo]

spooje and CnoteChris

If the guy happens to walk in front of a bullet when he's coming out of his cave to get some water I'll not shed one tear.

However if OBL is caught and brought to trial and a death sentence was looked for could he not tie the case up for a long time? I'm not very familiar with the American Legal system but I know these things can take years. He certainly has the money or at least supporters who have the money to pay for the best defense.

FTR I'm against the death penalty on principal.

One way or the other it would be a long drawn out thing and his people will be able to focus on some aspect of the situation i.e. the martyrdom or OBL or their leader sitting in the cell.

I feel that locking somebody up for the rest of their life with just the basic amenities available to them and the minimum of human contact is a far harsher punishment that a painless execution followed by Martyrdom. So from a punishment POV IMO imprisonment is the way to go. As for the ramifications, it's pretty much a case of screwed if you do screwed if you don't.

Hopefully he'll walk in front of that bullet and take the option out of the equation

[Guinastasia]

I agree with throwing him into a cell for the rest of his life.

He probably WANTS the death penalty, if caught, because it would make him a martyr, and he probably believes he will be rewarded in the afterlife.

[yojimbo]

Originally posted by yojimbo
FTR I'm against the death penalty on principal.

Actually I don't think "principal" is the right word.

I just think that the death penalty doesn't work. I don't think it's a very good deterrent.

Killers IMO nearly all fall into the following groups.

• Those that don't care about what happens to them afterwards.
• Those that did it in the heat of the moment and don't think of the consequences.
• Those that think they can get away with it.

The death penalty does not deter these type of people (either does prison)


There are people who have been executed and have been cleared after the fact. There are people who are alive and free today that would have been executed if the option were available to the court e.g. The Birmingham Six

Life sentences should mean LIFE without pleasure. If a miscarriage of justice has been made at least the person can be released and live out the rest of their days free. You can't resurrect somebody and say sorry.

Anyway back to how we should deal with OBL.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by yojimbo
However if OBL is caught and brought to trial and a death sentence was looked for could he not tie the case up for a long time? I'm not very familiar with the American Legal system but I know these things can take years. He certainly has the money or at least supporters who have the money to pay for the best defense.

It would surley be the longest, and most expensive, trial in the history of long trials. And a conviction in a DP case is automatically appealed. It could be ten years before he saw the executioner. I think a long and messy trial would be a victory of sorts for him.

He'll die in Afganistan.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by spooje
But it is still possible to control an organization from behind bars. Especially if you still hold the purse strings. I don't think Ashcroft's policy of listening in on lawyers/clients conversations will last long. IMO, it's better to consider him an enemy we are at war with rather than try him as criminal. If in prison, he's still a focal point of his 'movement'. And it's possible someone could bust him out. [/b]

Somehow, I rather imagine that should OBL be imprisoned, his visitors, letters and conversations will be inspected very closely, for the rest of his life.

And that's if you allow visitors, letters and conversations. Me, I'd say that anyone found guilty of organising the WTC attack should be given a crack at Rudolph Hess'"loneliest man in the world" title.

[elucidator]

Alive, he's a bargaining chip, dead, he's a martyr. Pretty clear to me, on political grounds. I agree with those who suggest that most likely he'll die right where he is. For that matter, how will we know? Have we got fingerprints or DNA ID for OBL?

However, there is a complication: if he is alive and in prison, hostages will be taken in order to force his release.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by elucidator
Alive, he's a bargaining chip, dead, he's a martyr. Pretty clear to me, on political grounds. I agree with those who suggest that most likely he'll die right where he is. For that matter, how will we know? Have we got fingerprints or DNA ID for OBL?

However, there is a complication: if he is alive and in prison, hostages will be taken in order to force his release.

Or worse. While I don't think that its possible that they could succeed, I can imagine another group of nuts trying to hijack a plane that they could slam into some portion of the prison and thus allowing him to escape in the confusion. Hell, they could go get pilot lessons and try to do the same thing with a rented or stolen plane.

We're better off with him dead, no matter how it comes about. Keeping him locked up will be a logistical and financial nightmare. The amount of security necessary to keep him incarcerated would be enourmous. I can imagine air patrols, armed guards, and other things all for one man. Keeping Hess locked up worked because the US and her Allies effectively destroyed the Nazi powerbase at the end of WW II. Ridding the world of Bin Laden's powerbase will be a lot harder and more difficult to do and will put America at greater risk of appearing to be "anti-Islamic" to a portion of the Arab world.

Also, Bin Laden wouldn't receive a civilian style trial. He'd get a military tribunal which is a lot more cut and dried, so there'd be limited opportunities for appeal, but it'd still be expensive to put on. Probably everyone entering and exiting the courthouse would have to be strip searched to make sure that no one was smuggling anything in or out.

Not that I see that happening. He'll either be killed by one of his comrades or we'll whack him.

[Jodi]

My feelings on it echo those of the special forces Army officer who said "He says he'll never be taken alive, and we will try to accommodate him."

Jodi, who has procedural (but not moral) problems with the death penalty usually, but has none in this case.

[Genseric]

Kinda damned if you do, damned if you don't, as I see it. If we kill him in military action, he's a martyr, if we capture him and execute him, he's a martyr. Life in prison, those who want blood aren't satisfied. I don't know, maybe a strongly worded warning, and a stiff fine?

I'm not opposed to the death penalty in principle, but I do think the current implementation sucks. In any case it's clear that if the death penalty is ever justified OBL is the guy.

It seems to me the best solution is Super Maximum Solitary Confinement for the rest of his natural life. Realistically, he will be killed either in combat or by those around him, or by himself before he is captured. Even if he were taken alive by the Coalition forces, he would undoubtedly be tried by a military tribunal and executed.

Or maybe he'll slip in the tub and bite it tomorrow. If he even bathes that is.

[donotprodme]

My outlook is a little different. This is one of these things where cruel and unusual punishment is ok. I agree lets let him rot but let us also teach him everything about those people who died. Let him spend all his time looking at there faces surrounding his cell. Tell him about there families but for christ sake dont kill him.


I send this message to all of you. May he have a long and sick life.

[Essured]

I'm with you, CnoteChris. My beliefs have been challenged by this, too.

I'm completely against the death penalty.

For that reason, I hope he is killed in a military action.

My beliefs are, that if he was brought back to the USA for trial, I couldn't condone the death penalty. But, I don't think that keeping him in jail for the rest of his life is a good idea... I think his followers will keep trying to get him freed, and while my beliefs tell me that those followers who break the law will suffer jail time too, I don't think that will actually work in practice, or be the intelligent way to go. I can't believe that a jail sentence is a good idea, as I'm convinced that other innocents will lose their lives as Osama's followers try to free him.

I don't think him being killed (probably with a large number of his followers) will create much martyrdom, and I think it probably is the best option, even though it sits a little funny on my beliefs...

This actually makes me wonder about my stance against the death penalty. I need a good think about this. Especially as I don't believe this is a war. (please don't jump on me, it's IMO)

To answer your OP, CnoteChris, I'm going to have to have a good think about this, as I too am having problems reconciling this. Let me know if you come up with an opinion, or a thought.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
I would argue that the sort of fanatic who'd plan something like the WTC would welcome the chance of maryrdom.

I would argue that if Osama bin Laden was interested in martyrdom, he wouldn't be getting other people to sacrifice themselves.

I don't believe bin Laden is the martyr type. I think he likes being the guy in charge who gets others to die on his behalf.

My guess is that if left to rot in jail, he'll rot in jail. Nobody's going to try to rescue him; the scum who make up his organization will drift away into obscurity or will join other terrorist groups. They'll latch onto the next madman. Bin Laden will die alone in a prison cell.

[capacitor]

Folks, people from 60 nations died in the attack. They may want to have a piece of Osama's hide as well.

[ITR champion]

I basically agree with those who want him to die in combat or commit suicide before being captured. If he's taken alive though, it should be life imprisonment. Let's not give him the martyrdom that he wants.

It's true that other members of Al Queda may try to get him released by using hostages as bargaining chips, but that shouldn't influence our decision. These people will try to plot further terrorist attacks against the U.S. regardless of whether or not we have OBL alive. We can't make our policy on such issues based on the threat of more terrorism.

Originally posted by yojimbo

However if OBL is caught and brought to trial and a death sentence was looked for could he not tie the case up for a long time? I'm not very familiar with the American Legal system but I know these things can take years. He certainly has the money or at least supporters who have the money to pay for the best defense.

Interesting point, but there's a problem. He would need a lawyer who is legally allowed to practice in America, and the sane and respectable law firms would never agree to defend the guy. Most likely, he would only be able to get a total nutbar lawyer, just like Timothy McVeigh did.

[ITR champion]

Originally posted by capacitor
Folks, people from 60 nations died in the attack. They may want to have a piece of Osama's hide as well.

People from all over the world have died in attacks planned or organized by Osame bin Laden. But the country that gets him first gets to decide his punishment; that just how it works. It's at least possible that some country other than the U.S. will capture him.

[DPWhite]

I've been a lifelong opponent of the death penalty. First of all, I don't want any chance of anyone innocent being executed. (Jesus was innocent and executed.) Second reason is that I don't want to share the responsibility for putting someone to death, that makes me culpable too, even if they are guilty as this is something we do collectively. I have no problem with long term incarceration for violent offenders. Incarceration for non-violent offenses (stealing pizza) should be kept to a minimum.

Does that mean that people like Timothy McVeigh, Osama Bin Laden, Charles Manson, Richard Allen Davis, etc. don't deserve it and I'd want to do it myself? Well, to quote Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven (underrated film in my opinion), "deserve has nothing to do with it" and "we've all got it coming". But I recognize that part of what civilization is about is prohibiting things we might like to do for a greater good. And no matter how much the perpetrator has it coming, execution is not an act of good, and it does not undo the evil.

But let's move on to war, rather than criminal justice. If our enemies will not make peace with us in such a way that we are confident we have a good peace, then we have a choice: submit to their tyranny, or be prepared to defend our nation with deadly force. Sun Tzu, Clauswitz and Machiavelli have amply discussed what you must be prepard to do to win war, and have the moral authority to wage it.

What does moral authority and massive deaths in war have to do with each other. Example. In the Gulf War (a war I supported) we fought a war for oil and against aggression, in that order. We were prepared to and did kill about 100,000 sons, brothers, fathers of Iraqis. Yet we stopped killing them (Bush I team, same as Bush II team) before the aggressor was dead. We left the enemy intact when what would have removed him was keeping the war on until his staff turned on him. This would have resulted in more deaths of Iraqis and some allied forces. But in 10 years of sanctions and atrocities against Kurds (whom Bush asked to rise up and then let them get slaughtered) so many more have died and suffered who should not have had the leaders, Bush I, Cheney, and Powell had the moral authority to realize these consequences. That is what they signed up for when they took the jobs, being responsible for waging war and all the awfulness that entails.

As for life imprisonment for Bin Laden, I can't think of anything more pitiful than Rudolph Hess, murdered with and electrical cord when was 92, having served half a century of his life sentence. (He was strangled by someone else because the cord marks went straight back, not in a V shape). I think that people imprisoned this long should not be allowed to communicate with anyone, including family, on the outside. Hess choose not to ever talk about his Nazi cause, and visited with family, but didn't talk ideology even with them.

[HubZilla]

Originally posted by capacitor
Folks, people from 60 nations died in the attack. They may want to have a piece of Osama's hide as well.

Don't kill him or put him in solitary. How about general population, where everyone would want a piece of his hide?

He'll be begging for solitary or a bullet.

[Tuckerfan]

Where's the incintive for a US soldier not to kill Osama? I mean, think about it for a moment. You shoot Osama and you're going to be on the cover of every newspaper and magazine in the world! Oh sure, it might make things a little "unhealthy" for you outside of the US, but inside of the US, look at all the benefits you'll get: People will offer you jobs, sexual favors, money, discounts, and anything else you could want, all because you killed Osama! Hmmmm...

[Oreo]

I think Jay Leno's wife summed up the problem well and offered the perfect solution:

1. If we kill him, he's a martyr.

2. If we keep him in jail, we're a target for terrorism from people trying to free him.

So...here's what we do. Send him to some of those doctors in Europe, and give him a complete sex change operation.

Then send him back to Afghanistan. See how he likes being a woman in "his" world.


Seriously, though, I just don't know what we should do. I'm against the death penalty as a rule, so I hope he dies in battle, and we have his body to prove that he's dead.

[Muffin]

Extreme facts make for bad law. Finding one person who truly deserves to be executed does not necessarily mean that the death penalty should be applied to all cases, particularly to those cases where there was judicial error, an especially to those cases where an truly innocent person was wrongfully convicted.

There is a very high rate for judicial error in American capital cases. Check out the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Liebman Study. Yes, some nasty folks get off on technicalities, but such a high rate of judicial error also means that there are truly innocent people being wrongfully convicted.

In my country, Canada, a number of truly innocent people have recently been released from jail after years of incarceration for what at one time would have been capital crimes. If we still had the death penalty here, they would be dead. Instead, they are alive and kicking and free. Our Supreme Court noted in Burns that Marshall, Milgaard, Morin, Sophonow and Parsons all should remind us of wrongful convictions.

These innocent people are my reason for opposing a death penalty. I don't want an innocent person to be executed, and if that means that some guilty people get off Scott free, and other guilty people are jailed for lengthy periods but not executed, then so be it. That is a trade I am willing to make, for I do not wish my country to execute innocents as an unavoidable by-product of execution of the guilty.

On a less personal note, one might also think about Osama and the global perspective. Upon capture, he cold be handed over to the International Criminal Court, which follows internationally accepted general principals of criminal law, and accordingly does not permit the death penalty. It was established specifically to handle evil such as Bin Laden. I expect that this would not satisfy America, but it would go a long way to show the world that America is part of the international community, rather than a muscle-man on a tear. This might be worth considering in as much as America may need international cooperation in hunting down the bastard.

Here's to hoping he does not survive long enough to be captured.

[Dale The Bold]

CnoteChris, think of what it'll be like thirty years from now when you are trying to explain this statement to a new batch of college grads who never lived through the horror of the attack: "Truth is, I think we should hunt down Osama and his ilk and blow them the fuck up."

Now you see both sides of the death penalty debate. In other words, Osama Bin Laden is the answer to the question "Would it be possible for someone to be so deviant that we should resort to the death penalty?"

I don't think it's immoral for you to think this. In fact, it's healthy to debate yourself sometimes. I have been back and forth on the death penalty issue and tend to feel more enlightened for seeing (and experiencing) all sides of the issue. I'd ultimately like to see Bin Laden humiliated by this, even if it takes dying to get it done. the important thing is that we can't tolerate others following his actions. He has to be the last.

[CnoteChris]

I've been following this along and not commenting on it simply because I still didn't know what the problem is on my end.

There should be a problem, but there isn't.

But this thread has given me a clue to what it may be.

Every time I read through this thread, for instance, I trip up when I run into the post made by Goo above.

What trips me up is the war part. That is, he/she believes this isn't a war, so the problem is even more profound for him/her.

I can see how that’s a problem. If it wasn’t an act of war, than it must be treated as a criminal act. And if you’re against the death penalty in principal when dealing with criminals, this situation is no different.

But for me-- and what may explain my non-problem with this generally-- is that the crime thing versus war thing isn’t even an issue. I think the actions of the eleventh were clearly an act of war and should be dealt with in kind—go after them harder than they come after you. Someone pokes you with a stick, jab them with a knife.

So, in that sense, I’m fine with it. We kill him? No problem there. In fact, I think it's necessary and even preferable to the other options.

So maybe that there explains my dual stance and feelings on this matter lately.

At least I think it’s a start.

[jane_says]

I posted something to the Pit almost immediately after the terrorist attacks, basically a silly soliloquy to the terrorists, blaming them for making me uncomfortable about my anti-death penalty stance. Only one person responded (rather nastily, even - I believe the word "hypocrite" or the like was batted about). I can't remember who it was and I'm too lazy to look it up.

Anyhoo, I'm with you. I find it hard to reconcile in my own mind, but it seems to me that in the extremest of cases, such as Osama bin Laden's, forfeiture of life is appropriate, even to a hardnose like me.

[Dave Stewart]

Personally, I hope he gets captured on the lame in a European country, and goes to trial in the International Criminal Court. I am firmly against the death penalty, and especially in this matter.

Two reasons for that:

1. civilised people are better than him. Osama bin Laden murders people. Civilised people and nations do not.

2. in attacking the WTC and the Pentagon, he symbolically attacked the West and its freedoms and liberties. Let him stand trial and have his hope of freedom rest upon Western standards of justice. If he is found guilty, then let him die in prison an old man (Hesse is a good example). The vast majority of Western countries (with the notable exception of the US) does not have the death penalty. Rotting in gaol is the Western solution to the problem of bin Laden. Death brings martyrdom, not spending your days in solitary.

[One Cell]

Wow... Such a unanimous consent about the fate of Osama.
No one seems to want to hear his argument, lest it may wake us up to some of our own shortcomings and misdeeds.
Am I the only one who smells fascism around here?

[DeadlyAccurate]

While I wouldn't shed a tear if he was killed in Afghanistan, if we capture him, we have an obligation to treat him as innocent until proven guilty. That means a trial, decent treatment, everything. He tried to undermine our democracy, and if we don't give him the same rights as other accused criminals, he will have done so.

Then if he's found guilty, we kill him, if for no other reason than to keep his followers from trying to free him by taking more hostages.

[Dave Stewart]

Originally posted by One Cell
Wow... Such a unanimous consent about the fate of Osama.
No one seems to want to hear his argument, lest it may wake us up to some of our own shortcomings and misdeeds.
Am I the only one who smells fascism around here?

>sniff<

yup, I smell it.

Another thing that bothers me...I understand that the evidence against bin Laden is kept under wraps so that intellgence sources abroad aren't harmed.

But what if there is not enough to secure a conviction, even in the farce of the military court?

Our friend bin Laden would walk.

Something tells me he won't get to trial.

[llamasex]

You know it bugs me that everyone is sure with out a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty, yet worried we can't prove it. What do the majority of the people know that wouldn't be admissable in court.

[Essured]

Originally posted by CnoteChris
That is, he/she believes this isn't a war, so the problem is even more profound for him/her.

_{Psst, CnoteChris I'm a she... just thought I'd save you the problem of having to type he/she each time !}

I've come to my own decision. I hope he is given an international trial, or at worst, an American trial and sentenced to life imprisonment, if guilty.

I said before that it would be nice if he was killed in action, so I didn't have to test my beliefs. I have thought long and hard about this since then and I don't want him killed. I want a fair trial, without a media circus (even though I know I'm pushing shit uphill wanting that last point! )

Two wrongs have never made a right.

[Essured]

Originally posted by Dale The Bold
Now you see both sides of the death penalty debate. In other words, Osama Bin Laden is the answer to the question "Would it be possible for someone to be so deviant that we should resort to the death penalty?"

I have a problem with this, Dale.

It is too subjective for my liking. I think the law should try and remain as objective as possible. It is your opinion that this behaviour is deviant enough for the death penalty, but who chooses where the cut-off is for deviant behaviour ?

I have heard of crimes which are far more deviant than 9/11, but that is also my opinion, and I'm sure thousands would disagree.

To be honest (and IMHO only) I don't think you have shown me the other side of the death penalty debate. Feel free to keep trying

[jane_says]

Goo, I'd sure like to see evidence of something more "deviant" than the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Unless you mean the Holocaust, I sure can't think of anything.

[CnoteChris]

You bring up an interesting point, Jane, and it's one I've been wondering myself- had the allied forces been given the chance to take Hitler alive, would they have?

Would it have been better to kill him straight away, or spare him and put him on trial?

[Dave Stewart]

Putting these people on trial has an educational effect upon the populace. Evidence of their activities comes to light, and people can actually see how horrible they were. This is part of the problem of Stalin's on-going popularity in Russia - many Russians were never educated as to his evil. In respect of Germany, the German people realised in the trials of Nazi war criminals just how bad their leadership was.

This entire discussion may be moot - the newspapers report this morning that Osama bin Laden has requested his followers execute him rather than allow him be taken alive.

[jane_says]

Chris, he'd have never made it ten seconds, I think. But with Hitler, there was NO QUESTION what that demon was up to. With bin Laden, although there seems to be little question, we don't know 100% that someone else isn't at least partially responsible. (Almost certainly LOTS of others have had a hand in this mess).

Your take?

[Essured]

Originally posted by jane_says
Goo, I'd sure like to see evidence of something more "deviant" than the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Unless you mean the Holocaust, I sure can't think of anything.

jane_says, I was just trying to illustrate the point that stating that one behaviour is more deviant than another is subjective. It would depend upon each persons point of view. I for one feel that there are lots of behaviour more deviant than 9/11, and I wasn't even thinking on the scale of the Holocaust.

I'm not sure exactly what evidence you are asking for. Could you please elaborate, and I will try to answer you.