Death Penalty?

[Leonhard]

The person in question just kidnapped 200+ girls and says he will sell them into slavery. His group just killed 300 villagers. Why would it be wrong to stop them, even if we had to take their lives to do it?

I never said that it would be wrong to stop him. I objected to you implying that we're justified in doing so for the same reason that God is justified in allowing Christ to suffer and die at our hands.

[seer]

I never said that it would be wrong to stop him. I objected to you implying that we're justified in doing so for the same reason that God is justified in allowing Christ to suffer and die at our hands.

Oh, OK - got it.

[Cow Poke]

It may be so, especially after I have pointed it out in such stark terms, but I highly doubt it, given that most of the discourse after the announcement of the kill was cheering, and a great deal of any ethical discussion was merely about whether it is right to rejoice at the death of an enemy.

You obviously are talking about Osama. That was, whether you appreciate it or not, a special situation. You said, however, "any time you like". That is the part with which I disagree.

[Paprika]

You obviously are talking about Osama. That was, whether you appreciate it or not, a special situation. You said, however, "any time you like". That is the part with which I disagree.

Very well. Special in what sense?

[Cow Poke]

Very well. Special in what sense?

He (through his followers) "reached out and touched" us with the 911 attacks. There has never been an incident paralleling that, and I hope there never is. I have no problem justifying that act of war. Would I agree that needs to be the standard for dealing with our enemies?

[Paprika]

He (through his followers) "reached out and touched" us with the 911 attacks. There has never been an incident paralleling that, and I hope there never is. I have no problem justifying that act of war. Would I agree that needs to be the standard for dealing with our enemies?

Right, so you see no issue with breaking international law, that is, to violate Pakistan's sovereignty just to achieve that end? If some other country had done the same to the USA, it would probably be tantamount to an act of war.

[Cow Poke]

Right, so you see no issue with breaking international law, that is, to violate Pakistan's sovereignty just to achieve that end?

Sure, there are problems with it. It was quite complicated. Pakistan was our ally, but it wasn't - they were working WITH us, but hiding Osama.... It wasn't as neat and clean as you might like to portray it.

If some other country had done the same to the USA, it would probably be tantamount to an act of war.

Yes. 9/11.

[Paprika]

Yes. 9/11.

If China had sent a helicopter full of troops to take out someone they regarded as a terrorist leader on American soil, it would be regarded as a declaration of war.

Sure, there are problems with it. It was quite complicated. Pakistan was our ally, but it wasn't - they were working WITH us, but hiding Osama.... It wasn't as neat and clean as you might like to portray it.

Right, so all that is sufficient basis to break that part of international law? Is that what you're saying?

[Cow Poke]

If China had sent a helicopter full of troops to take out someone they regarded as a terrorist leader on American soil, it would be regarded as a declaration of war.

Absolutely.

Right, so all that is sufficient basis to break that part of international law? Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying we were already AT war with Osama -- we were not sending "a helicopter full of troops to take out someone we regarded as a terrorist leader" on Pakistani soil - there was worldwide consensus that Osama WAS a terrorist leader -- not just somebody we regarded as one.

Nor was the decision made lightly.

How would you suggest it had been handled? Call the Pakistani military and ask them to go arrest the man they HAD to have known was hiding in their country?

[Paprika]

Absolutely.



I'm saying we were already AT war with Osama -- we were not sending "a helicopter full of troops to take out someone we regarded as a terrorist leader" on Pakistani soil - there was worldwide consensus that Osama WAS a terrorist leader -- not just somebody we regarded as one.

Nor was the decision made lightly.

Right, so all that excuses an act that were the situation reversed, be tantamount to a declaration of war on your country? You do realise what the USA sending troops into Pakistani borders without permissions means, right?

How would you suggest it had been handled? Call the Pakistani military and ask them to go arrest the man they HAD to have known was hiding in their country?

I reserve judgment, not having all the intelligence necessary, but I would be interested if you could defend the implicit claim that that was the best option.

[Cow Poke]

Right, so all that excuses an act that were the situation reversed, be tantamount to a declaration of war on your country?

Wanna try that again? I'm saying it was a special circumstance, we weighed the pros and cons, and a decision was made. I support that decision.

You do realise what the USA sending troops into Pakistani borders without permissions means, right?

I would not be the LEAST bit surprised if SOME in the Pakistani government were glad we did it "without seeking permission". That give them the right to protest and pitch a fit, trying to walk their fine line of being our friend, but supporting our enemies.

I reserve judgment, not having all the intelligence necessary, but I would be interested if you could defend the implicit claim that that was the best option.

Sure -- offer a better one.

[KingsGambit]

You are talking about “assassination” NOT the “death penalty"; the latter implies due process of law. And while it’s tempting to assassinate yet another religious fundamentalist running amok in the name of God, the preferred course of action would be capture and trial by the International Court of Justice for gross abuse of Human Rights. The lunch-mob mentality of summary justice, whilst understandable in this instance, has its own dangers.

I would prefer this course of action as well (for one, it prevents him from being turned into a martyr), but practically speaking, how realistic would it be to hope to capture him alive given the likely intense security detail present?

[Darth Executor]

it prevents him from being turned into a martyr

I have become thoroughly convinced that this doesn't mean anything.

[Paprika]

Sure -- offer a better one.

Off the top of my head? Push the Pakistanis to do something, and expose them if they let Osama escape. Right, you may not view this option as the "best" option", but unlike some, I don't see vengeance as the necessary goal which reached, justifies everything. Neither do I believe that complete justice will be achieved here and now.

[Cow Poke]

I have become thoroughly convinced that this doesn't mean anything.

Yeah, haters gonna hate. When was the last time the world was shocked by a headline "Muslim World OUTRAGED". They have convulsions over cartoons.