It’s like one of those abortion debates in which you wish the OP belonged to the “other” side, isn’t it?
Nice to see so many people who disagree with a lot of US policy taking issue with the OPs statements here. It’s that kind of capacity to see beyond our own subjective viewpoints which makes this place so worthwhile.
from Jodi:
“if you don’t like how we’d fix your sink, fix your own damn sink”
a hearty amen!
I’m an American right-wing wacko, which means (among other things) I’m an isolationist. I’m not in favor of the Gulf war, the Bosnian war, the Vietnam war, and a few others. If Hitler had not declared war on the US, I would have stayed out of that war too.
Had Sept 11 not occurred, I would oppose any action in Afghanistan.
This began because the American government’s morality can be irritating. I find it irritating too. Especially the morality that got us into WWI to make the world safe for democracy.
Let’s stay here and fix our own sinks before we stick our nose in someone else’s plumbing.
Sorry, I just can’t resist. 
Exodus 21:23-25, “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Leviticus 24:17-21, “If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution-life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.”
Deuteronomy 19:21, “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
Logs and eyes–Matthew 7:1-5, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Ahhh, bmerton. It’s people just like you that make me believe in a more isolationist policy. Fortunately, it’s good fur’iners like London Calling who drag me back.
American Civics 101. The state is an arm of the people. “Of, by and for the People.” Saying “state sponsored killings” like it’s the KGB dragging disidents off to the Gulag to become unpersons is bad drama. Young Mr. Beazley was given a public trial in front of a jury of his peers, represneted by independent counsel, found guilty, sentenced by a judge steeped in legal procedure and precedent, and has had his case reviewed multiple times since his sentencing by impartial panels of judges.
Hardly the moral or legal equivalent of denouncing someone to the state to have them whisked away and cleansed by the firm but loving hand of Allah for the moral good of the people. Or of Iraq’s gassing of whole Kurdish villages, or of the Tutsi tribe killing off everyone, man woman and child, of the Hutu tribe, or of the Khmer Rouge, etc, etc.
If Beazley had been hung or shot on the street by the police, or had and mysterious fatal “accident” in his jail cell (occurances which, I am ashamed to admit, are not that far in our past; but they are, with the exception of the odd case which is swiftly punished when discovered, in our past)
So you see, we are moving up the ladder, not down. Maybe not as far up as you would like, but as far up as those of us who live here are comfortable with. And maybe not even all of that. There are plenty of Americans who oppose the Death Penalty, and with reasoned, valid and impassioned arguments. Maybe as high as 40% to 50%, depending upon whose poll you listen to.
So we’re not all “hang 'em high at dawn” murderers, not even most of those who support the Death Penalty.
No, bmerton. You just couldn’t be bothered to do any research beyond 1999. Hence you cite countries in your OP that no longer kill children.
It’s not “emphatic” it’s (a) inflammatory, (b) divisive and © largely negates the possibility of meaningful discussion on an important subject. You do that subject no service whatsoever by incitement and lack of clarity.
However, IMHO, this remains a valid pont:
If you do manage a little research you might find that three current US Supreme Court Judges have similar concerns, as do the increasing number of US States who don’t employ the Death Penalty.
I gotta laugh at these assertions:
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by december *
**The US represents such key values as[ul][li]equlity of women[]a willingness to sacrifice in order to overthrow evil, tyrannical governments.**[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
We’re talking about a country that refuses to ratify the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) and has rejected a Constitutional Amendment to ensure equal treatment of women. A country that has overthrown populist, democratically elected governments and installed violent military dictators, more times than I can count.
Ay, I’m going to have to come back to this thread. Hay mucha ignornancia que combatir.
[just being picky and hopefully not embarrassingly wrong]
If you throw ‘death penalty incarceration cost’ into google, a whole host of links are produced which argue that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. A Duke study (pdf) seems to agree as far as I’ve read.
I would hate any inaccuracies to sneak into the OP.
I was the person who pointed out that the US did not help Germany much during the war - but the comment was followed by a “;)”. (I’d say “winky”, but that means something else - and “winker” is even worse.)
I also mentioned that the US (and Allies) did help Germany after the war - Berlin Airlift anyone?
Glad to clear one thing up, anyway.
Que? Could you cite a couple for me please?
I’m certainly no big defender of the United States and its policies, but I’d have to say that I would consider being liberated from the likes of Hitler, Gobels, and Mengele to be a HUGE help.
**chula[/], whether or not you are correct about the importance of CEDAW and the ERA, your post supports my main point:
It’s just silly to focus on the death penalty, as if that were the be-all and end-all of morality.
I’m sure I’m not in the ideological line of our friend chula, so the cases that meet those standards, from my POV, are not “more than I can count” – but there are examples of the US at the very least abetting and sometimes pushing such actions: Mossadegh, Iran, 1952(?); Arbenz, Guatemala, 1954; Bosch, Dominican Republic, 1965; Allende, Chile, 1973.
december’s list does include a lot of the oversimplified, idealized version of the US political and legal system and societal ethos, including bits that can be refuted when presented so absolutely. HOWEVER (and I’m not saying chula is doing this, but that position can lead to this: ) picking it apart can be used to support the fallacy that if you’re wrong on something, you’re wrong on everything, and have no moral standing about anything. Well, this is not necessarily so.
We have the usual false dichotomy under which one side has to be the font of all enlightenment and the other side is “vile”. It doesn’t work that way and it can’t be boiled down to any single issue. The USA, as a nation, does “stand for” (aspire to) many great and good things. Do we then, however, often fail badly to meet our own standards? You bet! Do our standards differ from other nations’? Yes, a lot of the time! Does this mean we have to crawl into a cave and hide in shame? Does it mean the other nations have to shut up and not criticize us? Nope on both cases. Each side has the right to make its stand.
Without commenting on your apparent belief that the Palestinians and Israelis are equally guilty of violent acts, it should be obvious that U.S. aid to Israel is far more critical to that nation than is U.S. aid to the Palestinians. Therefore, a U.S. embargo on aid to all “belligerents” disproportionately punishes the Israelis. That is not an evenhanded approach. And I’m unaware of any call by the U.N. or E.U. for a comprehensive worldwide ban on aid to either party.
Oddly, you seem accepting of CNN’s coverage of the Beazley case, but condemnatory of its Mideast coverage. Care to analyze why one is acceptable and the other isn’t? With cites?
By the way, I fully support the right of western European nations to criticize U.S. policy, in spite of their increasingly right wing and xenophobic policies and outbreaks of anti-Semitism. 
Horrors!! The US is not a perfect society! The US doesn’t always practice what it preaches!! Ye gods!
bmerton, if only those nations with perfect respect for human rights and morality were allowed to speak out on those issues, there would be no nation able to speak. (Well, maybe Luxembourg)
Name a nation, bmerton - any nation - and I bet I can provide you with examples (with citations) of state-ordered or -sanctioned violations of human rights and morality. (Again excepting Luxembourg. ;))
Given that, bmerton, what is your preference? That the imperfect US (and Europe) speak out on these issues and try to prevent what they can, or that they all stand mute until that (purely imaginary) day that they have put their own houses in perfect order - during which time innumerable lives will be lost, that may have been saved had the US and Europe spoken out?
Your call.
Sua
“However, I am not aware of a situation where violence has worked between two groups living in the same area (eg Northern Ireland). It has always been negotiation that has prevailed.”
Really? I suggest you go to an encyclopedia or a good web site and look up something called The War Between the States. You might also want to examine the revolutions of 1848 and The Thirty Years War. Negotiation accomplished so much in those affairs.
As far as U.S. foreign policy goes, if this country follows the inclination of the majority of its citizens and does nothing (Rwanda and Burundi are examples of this), we Americans are roundly damned by the majority of Europeans and international leftists as empty-headed isolationists who are interested only in protecting our own pockets. If we do get involved, then those same kind folks criticize & nitpick to no end. People like you, bmerton, lack the guts to say that you want the United States to provide its vast resources to solve the world’s problems, but you want total control over our troops and other resources. It doesn’t work that way; if you call in the plumber or the electrician or the police to solve YOUR problems, they will use their own methods.
Since you sound like another goddamn European socialist, I would suggest you agiatate for your government to kick its bums off the dole, field an army and/or a police force, and pursue your country’s goals using whatever methods your country likes. You will find few in the United States who will criticize that.
Would you care to qualify that a bit more?
Sparc
Well, sparc, why were Europeans so insistent that the United States play a role in the mess caused by the collapse of Yugoslavia? Surely you don’t believe the Serbs could field a force superior to the combined arms of Great Britain, Italy, Germany, and France?
You’re confused. So much that you just contradicted yourself. Indeed; why did we ask the US for help if ‘we’ could have done it all on our own. Did ‘we’ ask for help at all? Please explain the dynamics of world politics that you base your arguments on. I’d be more than delighted to understand what exactly you understand as the cause, effect and modus UN, US, EU and Nato policy and action.
Sparc
We really can’t have it both ways. He was not considered adult enough to sign a contract or vote in an election at the time of the murder. No fair changing the rules to suit the circumstance.
Slight Liechtenstein one more time and I’ll see you in the pit ,**SuaSponte **
Sorry, jlzania- we do have it both ways on a lot of issues. At 17, he can legally be licensed to drive a car, though he can’t sign a contract to purchase a car. Once he turns 18, he can legally purchase a car and drive himself to vote, but buying liquor or pornography is out of the question. Y’see? It’s all a blurry line, and unless it is decided that there is an absolute line of responsibility- that is, you can drive, smoke, drink, vote, be drafted and be contracted at 18- the government is well within their rights to say that 17 is an adult for crimes, but not for voting.