What if? One of the key things I’ve been pointing out is that the murderer has murdered people, and is not innocent. I don’t oppose the death penalty because I think murderers ought to get a chance to live their natural lifespan. Folks who have murdered someone are off my Christmas card list forever; if I advocate keeping them alive, it’s for the sake of other people, not for their sake.
The category you go into for murder, and the category you go into for burning a Koran, are very different.
It’s rather amusing to see people talking about how the Afghans are “barbarians” and “extremists” who “can’t be placated”. As if you need to be a barbarian or extremist to want to kill occupying troops or want revenge on a foreign murderer that you think is being shielded by an occupying army. Oh, there’s plenty of extremists and barbarians in Afghanistan; but they don’t need to be either of those things to want to kill Americans, under the circumstances. Wanting to kill members of an occupying army is normal human behavior.
You are giving every indication in this thread that your view of what is right is malleable according to how you think others will react to it. Yes, I do suspect it.
Enjoy your wildly foolish suspicions, then.
Works for me.
But the result you’re trying to avoid is the same.
Look, I don’t know why you want to have this category of “opposed to the death penalty except for X”. Everyone who favors the death penalty is opposed to it under certain circumstances.
Maybe you should change the debate to: Any one who formerly was against the death penalty change their position because of X?
That’s true, but in one case I’d avoid that result by killing a murderer, and in the other case I’d avoid that result by killing a jerk who burns Korans. Can you see how I might distinguish between the two cases?
Again, under virtually all circumstances under US jurisdiction, I oppose the death penalty. That’s enough for me, a US citizen, to call myself opposed to the death penalty.
This is the first case I can think of since the Civil War in which I’m cautiously favoring the death penalty in the US.
I don’t think we need foundation level prediction to see that it is likely that the degree of antipathy within the Arab world by giving Robert Bales a limited sentence is likely to cause us more than a single life (US or Arab) worth of difficulty in a Realkplotik sense.
We aren’t doing this to placate terrorists, they will attack us whether we do this or not. We are doing this to demonstrate to the Arab world that we take the killings of 17 innocent Afghanis seriously, and are willing to punish those responsible even if they are American, and in so doing advance our interests more than would combat missions that would put American military and Arab civilian lives at risk.
To those who are accusing LHD and by extension me of not being anti-death penalty, I would say that I am anti-death penalty to the extent that I would support laws that would make the death penalty illegal in the United states and would also would most likely* support other countries making laws to eliminate the death penalty.
To say that I am pro-death penalty would be the same as saying a person who wanted to make abortion illegal except in cases where it is required to save the mother’s life is pro-chioice.
*subject to the ability of the government to uphold the rule of law. I could see, for example, the death penalty being possibly necessary to maintain order in Somalia.
For many people, though, the strongest argument against what you are suggesting is their opposition to the death penalty and the inapplicability of the idea of exceptions in the first place, which is a basal part of their opposition to the death penalty, and which you are for some reason taking offense to. I think you have to consider what narrow boundaries you’ve drawn as to who has standing to argue effectively with you about this.
If I’m opposed to the death penalty on the general moral grounds that I’m not going to put my metaphorical stamp on the purposeful killing of anybody, I have nothing to add because I’m an extremist.
If I’m opposed to the death penalty and I argue that because you’re coming from the position of having already been amenable to the death penalty, you’ve mischaracterized my own position as a starting point to the debate, I’m quibbling with you about “teams” and you can’t imagine why I think you want to hear what I have to say.
If I’m in favor of the death penalty in general, I by definition have nothing to add because you aren’t talking to me.
The only people who have anything to add, as far as I can tell, are people who inaccurately label themselves.
[QUOTE=Buck Godot]
To those who are accusing LHD and by extension me of not being anti-death penalty, I would say that I am anti-death penalty to the extent that I would support laws that would make the death penalty illegal in the United states and would also would most likely* support other countries making laws to eliminate the death penalty.
[/QUOTE]
Do you believe that this is the first time dangerous people have ever called for the head of a person under United States custody generally believed to be guilty of a capital offense, or that this is the first time there was ever a credible threat of violence if such a person were allowed to live? Would you have supported the death penalty in those cases too, if they existed?
Once again, your reasonability is getting in the way of a perfectly good pointless internet fight. Stop that.
There would be next time because that’s what this system would encourage.
This isn’t perfectly understandable, though: the justice that’s being called for isn’t reasonable. Angry mobs usually don’t have reasonable demands. And again, from whence comes this certainty that there will be reprisals if Bales is not executed? The last time I saw this discussion, people were saying Afghans don’t take that kind of nationalistic view (as opposed to a tribal one) and that they may agree Bales is not responsible for his actions if he’s mentally ill.
Afghanistan is not an Arab country, which may or may not have implications on this argument.
When do you think that terrorism will end? Reagan initiated the war on terrorism, so its been roughly three decades. What percentage of the budget must be expended on the military in order to break the will of the enemy to resist foreign occupation?
Perhaps you meant “Moslem world”, and by conflating Afghanistan with “the Arab world”, you’re not giving me a lot of confidence in your ability to make sociological predictions. However, I stand by my statement that even learned folk are not able to make such predictions.
If they will attack us not matter what, then why are you so worried about what they think? Besides, you act as if the only punishment worthy of the name is death. No, I am adamantly against the death penalty. And millions of people clamoring for blood does not change my position.
There are no hairs being split. You’re in favor of the death penalty. You’re deluding yourself if you think you aren’t, which is probably why you are irritated by it.
Not really. Because you’re not willing to kill other murderers. You are only killing the murderer in order to save some hypothetical revenge killings in the future. Our experience tells us that such revenge killings are more likely and more extensive when a burned Koran is involved.
In both cases you are sacrificing one life to potentially save others. I don’t think a murderer’s life has any less worth than anyone else. That is why I’m against the death penalty without caveats.
I’m not a bigot. I’m tolerant of all ethnicities. Well, except Tongans. So, under virtually all circumstances, I oppose bigotry and that’s enough to say I’m not a bigot.
I don’t think it will end. I wasn’t talking about terrorists in general; I was talking about Afghanistan in particular.
The short answer is “as much as it takes, for as long as it is worthwhile”.
I wasn’t suggesting, and I don’t believe, that executing this soldier would placate the terrorists in Afghanistan - I said pretty much the opposite. But if, for the time being, it is worthwhile to prosecute the war in Afghanistan, then we ought to do it. And we ought to do it with whatever means are available, moral, and proportionate.
As I mentioned, I would support executing this guy (assuming he is guilty) no matter what the terrorists say or don’t say. I think LHoD is exploring whether or not executing this guy would reduce the violence and thereby bring an end to the war faster. I don’t think it would, but that makes (to me) no difference in whether or not we should do it.
If the general question is “should we do something we don’t believe it because, if we do it, terrorists will attack us”, No, we shouldn’t. We (the US) should do what we think is right, and then if that pisses off terrorists and they attack us, kill them.
Osama bin Laden attacked us in part because we are not an Islamofascist nation like he wants us to be - we have a stock exchange, which he thinks is lending at interest, which is wrong according to Islam, and we allow alcohol and we don’t kill gay people and we don’t force our women to wear burhkas and shit like that. The Taliban did those things. That sucks and they’re assholes.
But when ObL sent his people over here and attacked us and killed thousands of our people, the Taliban gave him aid and refuge. The answer to that is not to worry about how we should become more Islamofascist so he doesn’t attack us - the answer is to kill him and his type.
Same here. If the terrorists are pissed off because we don’t execute this guy, tough noogies. If they like it that we execute this guy, also a matter of indifference, at least to me.
We should do what’s right. If they don’t like it, too bad. If they try to stop us from doing what’s right by attacking us, we still do what’s right - we just kill the attackers instead of changing to fit what they want.
The correct response to terrorists who express an opinion on what we should do with this soldier is “nobody asked you”.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m not a bigot. I’m tolerant of all ethnicities. Well, except Tongans. So, under virtually all circumstances, I oppose bigotry and that’s enough to say I’m not a bigot.
[/QUOTE]
There’s only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures…and the Dutch!
-XT
Do you think this has worked historically?
Right–but not because I care about not killing murderers that much, but rather because in general, killing murderers does bad things to us non-murderers. The murderer isn’t particularly entitled to life after murder, I think.
I’m not asking you to make that distinction at this point in the argument–I’m asking if you can see the distinction that I’m making. If you genuinely can’t see it, then I’m not sure how to continue the discussion.
The distinction I am having trouble with is how you can be anti-death penalty and yet still support it in some circumstances. Whether anyone “deserves” to live is not really the issue, but rather whether the state should be in the business of killing someone when it is not necessary.
But just to be clear, what if the soldier had tortured, raped and maimed a dozen young girls and boys. Would we be justified in executing him? Is murder the only crime, in your book, that rises to that level? If so, why?