Pit me, baby; this is one Yank who refuses to be lectured by them damn monarchist, paternalist, “hey drug lords and terrorists, come here and launder your money” bastard Liechtensteiners. I had enough of that in college, thank you very much.
Sua
Your argument seems to take for granted the idea that we all believe that executing criminals is immoral and barbaric. While there is general consensus among people here that discrimination and murdering of the innocent is wrong, the death penalty, even when it applies to youth, is not such a clear cut issue.
As for young criminals: IMHO, I don’t think age should be a paramount concern when the judicial system doles out punishment. I think mental maturity and social awareness should be what the juries look at. This means that if my 15 year old self goes on a murdering spree, I deserve to go to the gallows, because I knew full well what I was doing.
If a sovereign nation such as the U.S decides to execute its criminals, even its young criminals, so what? That’s domestic business, and as long as we make sure the people in question are guilty and sane, and we are not brutal or inhumane in our methods, it shouldn’t be of international concern. Unless, of course, you can prove to me why it is so awful to excecute felons who have commited capital crimes.
Ok I try to think of myself as a nice cosmopolitan lover of eveyone and everything. I am also Latin American and when I hear americans praising ing the great things their country has done for the world… I get angry.
I don’t know what your record has been in every other continent but in this one, in our continent I am not sure that even the Canadians do not hate your guts sometimes :).
Excepting Monroe’s valiant act of stepping up for his neighbourghs years ago (even that was corrupted by Polk, Grant and peace champion Roosevelt) America’s policy in America has been a shame.
U.S.A invaded mexico, made up a war in the caribbean, toppled goverments all over the continent, made up a country (Panama), etc, etc. Thank god people from nicaragua are not muslims 
The worst part is that is happening all over again. We had hopes with Bush father and Clinton but the son of the… bush is relapsing in “cold war attitudes”. Cuban Embargo, Venezuela’s coup, etc, are all signs that no matter how radically the world changes we are going to be your backyard until you are replaced by the chinese.
For myself I can’t wait for the Chinese to become the next superpower. They are far away.
Estilicon: It is, of course, your privilege to hate whatever countries you please, but what makes you think the Chinese will be better for the world?
“Excepting Monroe’s valiant act of stepping up for his neighbourghs years ago (even that was corrupted by Polk, Grant and peace champion Roosevelt) America’s policy in America has been a shame.”
You’re ignorant of history. You think Monroe gave a damn about you? That policy benefited us and the British. You see, Monroe’s doctrine was kinda built on a wink and a nudge with ole’ John Bull. By keeping Continental powers out of the area, we got a freer hand and more security. The British kept their enemies in France and Spain out of the Americas.
In any event, whether you think the Canucks like us or no does not concern me.We are strategic allies and have a great deal of shared history.
Back on topic, the US has and will continue to intervene against SouthAm nations that actively work against our interests. It is no more a moral consideration than any others.
“made up a war in the Caribbean”
After the Maine. Mistaken perceptions still dictated that Americans thought it was a terrorist act (though they didn’t have those words) by the Spanish.
“toppled goverments all over the continent”
You have asworn enemy devoted to killing you start a fight next door with machine guns.
“made up a country (Panama)”
So? Most countries are made from warmongering brutes. Other Latin American Nations were carved by various foreign powers, and emerged from still more distant conquering powers like the Aztecs et. al.
What frustrates the rest of the world is that the United States acts in the best interest of the United States. JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD ACTS IN THEIR OWN BEST INTEREST.
No one cares if we have the death penalty or not. Besides, if a minor commits a horiffic enough crime, I think a case can be made for using the dealth penalty.
No one gives a rats ass about Afghans womens rights. The ONLY reason we invaded Afghanistan is because some Afghan cavemen decided that it would be funny to crash some airplanes into NY and DC. Thats it. If the Taliban/Al Quaida didn’t do this, they would still be running around the desert killing each other with surplus Soviet rifles.
What are these so-called “vile” acts? Executing murderers and rapists instead of locking them away in a box forever?
Yeah. Afghanistan is the model of civic virtue.
Please try to explain to me the side that justifies blowing up innocent people in cafes and shopping malls.
WW2 Did not have a “beneficial result”. The result was prevent MORE distruction and suffering and the hands of a lunatic. Taken as a whole, the 50 million or more people would have been better off if the whole thing (including the Nazis) never happened in the first place.
You are also sadly mistaken if you do not believe that fighting violence with overwhealming and unstoppable laser guided violence does not solve anything. A dead terrorist is not much of a threat to anyone.
Estilicon - Stop blaming the US for the state of your South American nations. You have so much land and resources, there should be no reason for you should not have world-class economies like the US and Europe.
Yeah, you guys will love it when the Chinese make you work your asses off for nickles a day.
Let me see -
The UN tells us to eliminate the death penalty. We refuse.
This constitutes us moralizing to them?
I’m so confused…
Regards,
Shodan
That’ what I thought at first, too, Shodan. However, while farcical and worthy of THE PIT!, the OP is saying that for the USA to intervene in Afganistan after 9/11 constitutes hypocritical moralizing over women’s rights since the USA executes brutal 17 year old murderers.
This might be an arguable case if in fact the US had given Afghan policies on women’s rights as the reason for its invasion. But it did not. It makes no secret of the fact that the sole reason for its military intervention in Afghanistan was the fact that the then Afghan government was sheltering and supporting the organisation which launched the 11 September attacks.
To my mind - and I think to the mind of the US government - that was a sufficient justification for US military intervention in Afghanistan. The rights of women had nothing to do with it, and the US government never pretended it had.
Can the US be criticised for its attitude to the death penalty? Of course. Many within the US are critical of it. The US has yet to arrive at a position on this matter which many of its own citizens, and many observers outside the US (including myself), would consider acceptable. Does this make the US into a “moralizing hypocrite”? Not to my mind.
You might want to read some history before leading off your list of supposed atrocities with the U.S.-Mexican War.
Both countries were agitating for war.
Both nations engaged in months of provocative cross-border incursions before the outbreak of full-scale war.
Both forces were fairly even in military strength–Mexico in particular had a large, professional, European-style army.
The war was fought over a very legitimate dispute about the location of the U.S. Mexico border–Mexico stood on tradition to claim the land all many miles to the north, while the U.S. stood on the Texas-Mexico peace treaty establishing the Rio Grande as the border.
The Mexican War is a piss-poor example of the U.S. supposedly taking advantage of a weaker neighbor. It is an excellent example of Santa Anna’s utter incompetence as a military and political leader.
I find the thread very interesting. A few thoughts come to mind:
-
There seems to be a great hostility towards the U.N. Many posters here say that since the U.S. is a sovereign nation, the U.N. should mind its own business. Yet, the U.S. as a permanent memeber on the security council gladly uses the U.N. to gain international support for its military actions in other sovereign countries. The feeling of “hipocrasy” that is being mentioned here, is that, to an outsider, the U.S. tends to obey the policies, rules, charters, when it suits its own needs.
This is of course smart, but don’t be surprised if people from other countries think you’re hipocrites (which many other countries are too). -
Why is the U.S. so often involved in the Mid- East? There are lots of outher places, that might “deserve” the U.S. attention: Africa (yes, yes Somalia), Myanmar, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Kashmir. Do you really think there would have been a Gulf War if Kuwait had broccoli, instead of oil?
I find it obviuos (in my own opinion) thet the U.S. gets involved only to protect its own interests - mainly energy. The U.S. consumes a whopping 40% of all the worlds energy resources and has no strategic interest in Rwanda, Myanmar, Tibet, Kashmir.
Bombing the shit out of Afghanistan as a revenge for 9/11 is totally understandable and the U.S. would have done it in Rwanda, had Al-Qaida been based there. But why did Afghanistan become such a mess in the first place? -
The cause and effect of the death penalty is not very clear cut. Should any penalty be considered as revenge or rehabilitation? If it’s the latter, then most countries, the U.S. included, has failed. In practise, what we do to criminals is a revenge and supposedely a deterrant: “Don’t do this or this will happen.”
Yet, The U.S. is arguably the most violent society in ‘western’ civilization, with about 8-10 murders / 100.000 inhabitants / year. Canada, by comparison, has a little under 2 murders / 100.000/year. That is not to say that the death penalty causes this, but clearly that it does not deter.
Let me see if I get this correctly: Are you saying that using the death penalty is a more civilized way of conducting business?
Someone said “Fighting violence with violence does NOT work”
Oh, I don’t know. Bombing the bejeebers out of Libya and nearly getting Ghadaffi has kept that pack of ratbags off the world scene for a decade. Lesson learned, even by a lunatic despot.
Eh?
Is that so now? It couldn’t have been the embargos and economic sanctions, could it?
Well instead of asking simple minded rhetorical questions I’ll just tell you.
It’s absolute rotten uninformed idiocy to believe it was the bombs. It seems that bombing Libya did nothing except further strengthen the dictatorships position and resolve. Economic sanctions on the other hand seem to have worked. If nothing else as proof; it made them offer up 2.7 billion dollars to the Lockerby victim’s families this last week, with the condition that same sanctions be lifted.
BTW When did anyone bomb Libya to smithereens? Surgical bomb raids against strategically significant targets is hardly ‘bombing the bejeebers’ out of a country.
The Gaspode; den här snubben med dödsstraff kommentarerna är helstekt. Han har minst två om inte tre Pit trådar på sig redan… men på han bara! 
Sparc
**
Because so many people seem to think the UN is something it is not. The UN is not a world government it is simply a forum for dimplomatic exchange. I have no objections to the concept of a UN and I have no objection to UN making statements, however, I don’t really give them much weight. I do have objections to people who think we should jump just because the UN says “boo.”
**
Many other nations do the exact same thing. Are they excused simply for not being on the Security Council?
**
Of course it is because of the oil. We tried to help out in Somalia and we got our hand bit for our efforts. Why should we put American lives at risk for every trouble spot in the world?
**
Yeah, oddly enough we the people of the United States insist that our government work for the interest of the American people. Though many people will disagree that the actions of the government help the interest of America but then that’s what we have elections for.
**
Well they don’t call it the penal system for nothing. We penalize our criminals for their behavior. I do think we should set up more programs designed to rehabilitate people but I do think there are many who will never be rehabilitated and others who do not deserve the opportunity.
Marc
MGibson
It doesn’t seem that we disagree on much. I did state that other countries use the UN to their own means, I do not think it’s strange that the US is conducting business to the benefit of its own citizens.
But to veil this, with ‘higher morals’ and demagoguery, might seem hypocritical to some. If ‘morals’ were the only issue, the US would intervene in Myanmar.
If it looks like a duck…
Would that be the opportunity for social inclusion through more equitable distribution of resources ?
I’m just wondering because 87% of the people of Death Row come from an ethnic group comprising 15% of the population. See, some folks might think it’s easy to say others don’t deserve something when the speakers are often well educated, nicely housed, white, middle-class people who can can afford non-Sate appointed lawyers if, if they feel so hopelessly disenfranchised as to find no way out. Which they don’t.
Since you choose to quote me out of context I choose not to address your point.
Marc
It’s got a question mark at the end of it, ** MGibson** but, as you say, It’s your choice. Nice thing to have isn’t it ?
A few facts are in order here about the background of the “child” (Napoleon Beazley), victimized by the state of Texas in a “brutal injustice” (Amnesty International):
*
"At the time of the slaying, Beazley was a popular student and athlete in Grapeland, where he had also been dealing drugs for several years. Prosecutors said he and two companions ambushed Luttig and his wife.
Beazley shot Luttig once, turned the gun on his wife but missed, then returned to the wounded man and fired again point-blank into Luttig’s head. He stepped through a pool of blood to go through the man’s pockets to get the car keys. He hit a wall while driving away and was forced to abandon the damaged vehicle.
The two companions received life in prison* (source: CourtTV web site).
From prodeathpenalty.org: “He was not some misguided kid from an abusive background with irresponsible parents growing up in poverty. Rhea (in an article in Savoy magazine) quotes one woman who said Beazley came from “a fine family with a good background.” He starred in four sports in his Grapeland, Texas, high school. He was runner-up for Mr. Grapeland High, was voted Most Athletic in his senior year, served as president of his senior class and tutored some of his classmates. This guy, if he wanted to, could have been in college from the years 1995 to 1999.”
So, London_Calling, I suggest you spare us the breast-beating rhetoric suggesting that Beazley felt “so hopelessly disenfranchised as to find no way out”, as the claim is not borne out by the facts in the case.
Oh, okay. If ProDeathPenalty imply that he must have been an evil child (in the seeming absence of any other explaination), who am I to disagree ? Makes me wonder how the rest of the world gets by without killing evil kids.
So Jack, you think the answer is to kill the kid, satisfy the grieving relatives and…the problem goes away ?