Scores killed in explosions and shootout in Paris. Hostages being held

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Broomstick

I’m not sure you’d get much interrogating such a person. There’s no magic way to get someone to talk, and there’s no way to make sure they tell you the truth if they do. On the other hand, if you kill them they can no longer act to threaten others.

You’d be surprised. On the one hand, Abaaod is not going to tell you what other operations are planned and what not. On the other, he’d probably have been happy to tell them how much support he received from ISIS or whoever. Criminals like to brag.

I’m not normally in favor of execution without a trial, but if there is an exception to be made it would be in this sort of situation.

Yeah, no.

Let’s say you are the glorious French Republic, a flag bearer for democracy and the rule of law. You have a substantial Muslim population, some of whom are becoming radicalized by outside (or inside) agitators. Needless to say, others have heard the same radical message but are unsure of its merits.

What better way do you think you could confirm everything the terrorist recruiters say than by suspending your civil liberties just for one Muslim?

ETA: That is not to say that I think they did execute this guy, just that I’m glad they didn’t.

[Broomstick]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You’d be surprised. On the one hand, Abaaod is not going to tell you what other operations are planned and what not. On the other, he’d probably have been happy to tell them how much support he received from ISIS or whoever. Criminals like to brag.

There is a difference between a criminal and a fanatic.

Also, he may very well have NO information on other operations. One way to limit information leaks is to give your guys only what they need to know to do a particular job.

Let’s say you are the glorious French Republic, a flag bearer for democracy and the rule of law. You have a substantial Muslim population, some of whom are becoming radicalized by outside (or inside) agitators. Needless to say, others have heard the same radical message but are unsure of its merits.

What better way do you think you could confirm everything the terrorist recruiters say than by suspending your civil liberties just for one Muslim?

You misunderstand.

Normally, I prefer to police to capture people whenever possible so they can stand trial, but in the case of such terrorists I can live with a shoot-to-kill policy. That does not mean RAH! Kill the Muslims! It means that when people are killing hundreds in your city and you have a chance to stop one of the perpetrators by shooting him in the head do that rather than exerting extra efforts to capture him alive. I’m talking about a situation where attempt to capture is an option and you choose to kill instead. I don’t normally think that is right but under rare circumstances it might be. You identify these people not based on their ethnicity or religion but rather by the fact they are shooting people and/or wearing suicide vests and other such very blatant and obvious clues that they are, in fact, perpetrators of the attack.

Sometimes the guys survives anyway (see Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) at which point sure, arrest him, given him proper medical treatment, and try him in court.

Admittedly, I did not flesh out my intended meaning quite so thoroughly in my prior post.

ETA: That is not to say that I think they did execute this guy, just that I’m glad they didn’t.

No, they didn’t execute him, the woman with his group detonated her suicide vest and took a bunch of them out by rendering them into bits and pieces.