Capital Punishment

[urroner]

I have a "relative" who was very active behind enemy lines during WWII. One day, he and a group of "friends," when they were busy destroying the enemy's ability to make war, were discovered by a couple of young German soldiers and a lady friend. Basically they had two choices, let them go and run the great risk of eventually being discovered or kill them and continue doing their jobs. They chose the latter.

That act still haunts him today, almost sixty years after the act. He wishes that it never had to happen. He wishes he never had to pull the trigger and kill the girl. He has never told his family that. He doesn't want them to think him as a murderer of innocent blood. Why he chose to tell me, I don't know. I asked him why and he said that he had to tell somebody before he died and he wanted that person to be a non-relative. This is the first time I said it

He also said that in spite of his anguish and pain, that if he had to do it all over again, he would do it. The work he and those with him had to do was so important that it had to be done. Because of their work, a lot of lives were saved and the war was possibly shortened by a couple of months. Nothing like blowing up an oil refinery or two.

War isn't pretty. It never was. Today, people are trying to wage civilized war, yet that, in my opinion, in most cases, just makes the war last longer.

People on the sidelines are judging those in the trenches without ever have been there and they are condemning all those uncivilized deeds from their white ivory towers, in the midst of their perfect plastic flowers.

[Questing Beast]

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

Oh please, that is taken out of context. You might as well deny the Nephite ethic of self defense. That's all this was. Take the mastermind out and the organism loses its capability to launch any further "9/11" attacks....

[Balzer]

You miss the economics of the situation: If you badly injure an enemy soldier, he requires something like 2-4 people to care for him during his convalescence. You thus take 3-5 people off of the front lines for every one you injure. Those 3-5 needs feeding, clothing, training, and supervision. And don't forget their paychecks and pensions and such. The point was made earlier in this thread about winning a war by destroying economically the ability of your enemy to wage war. Injuries do this.

Such was the theory behind the "jumping landmines" the Viet Cong employed. When stepped on they'd jump up crotch high and explode, badly injuring and often unmanning US troops, but rarely killing them. Killing's far too efficient when the point is to bog the enemy down.

I'm with you, and I get the philosophy and even the wisdom of this tactic, so long as nobody's shooting at me.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Bernard Gui]

Have you ever been in the military Bernard? (I'm guessing no) Ever fought for your country in a war? (I'm gonna guess no again)

During the Vietnam draft I was 4F with a shattered knee, but no, I've not been in a war. That has nothing to do with my question.

Even still, surely you realize that this country is at war? Killing the enemy in war is simply not the moral equivalent of the imposition of the death penalty as you suggest. Therefore, how a person feels about the death penalty is really irrelevant to how they might feel about Osama finally getting killed. The death penalty is a reasoned, moral response to "murder." The United States Government did not "murder" Osama.

You have missed the point completely.

By the way, Thursday night I spoke on the phone with my 19-year-old son. He called from the southernmost COP in the Arghandab River Valley.

They have taken 5 casualties in the last month. As of Thursday, he was OK.

Thank you for your service and sacrifice for our country.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

People on the sidelines are judging those in the trenches without ever have been there and they are condemning all those uncivilized deeds from their white ivory towers, in the midst of their perfect plastic flowers.

I hope you haven't interpreted my question as judging those in the trenches from my ivory tower.

Let's try another way.

My best friend's daughter has been missing for 18 months. We all know what happened to her, but so far there is not

enough evidence to put the perp away.

IMO, it would be appropriate for him to receive capital punishment, and I do support the death penalty.

I also believe OBL's death was capital punishment because the order to kill him came from a reasoned

position taken by a legitimate government.

However, I am absolutely certain that there are many who would protest and demonstrate at the execution of

the murderer, were it to happen.

While OBL may be responsible for the deaths of many more people and the waste of treasure and blood, I have a hard time

in my own mind separating his crime with that of the killer of my friend's daughter, in that innocent life has been taken and

justice should be meted out. I can't seem to draw a line before which one does not pay with one's life, but after which it

becomes mandatory. I have no problem with the demise of OBL; however, LeSellers' solution is

quite intriguing.

Hence my question, if one opposes the death penalty for the murderer of a beautiful young mother, how can one applaud

the death penalty imposed on a cowardly inciter of terrorism? Where is the anti-capital punishment crowd, or do they

blink at this?

Bernard

[elguanteloko]

You said: ". . . it seems inconsistent to be against the death penalty and rejoice and/or prefer Bin Laden dead than give him a fair trial IF we have the option. Clear?"

I said: "The issue presented was why was it ok to kill Bin Laden if you're against the death penalty. I suggested that the premise of the question was false. And it is."

...again, the issue presented is NOT whether it was OK to kill OBL or not; not in actuality, at least. We are talking about principles or hypotheticals (i.e. "assuming we could have gotten OBL and put him on trial instead of just kill him").

Never having been shot at in war, or watching your friends get shot, I suppose I shouldn't expect you to understand the difference between catching a criminal, putting him on trial, and giving him the death penalty, vs killing the enemy in war.

What part of "...IF we have the option" didn't you get? If the guy pulls a gun, shoot him; I'm fine with that. If we can take him and give him a trial then that's better and preferable. The principle in question is that you can give life in prison to a mass murderer or you couldn't. Some of those that choose to give murderers lives in prison (and are against capital punishment) choose, with bin Laden, to NOT give him life in prison but have him killed ASSUMING WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN THE GUY AND GIVE HIM A TRIAL. That is the problem here. Now, what part of that don't you get? We are NOT talking about whether we had the chance to get bin Laden alive or not or if it was wrong to kill him, even. Bernard Gui has set a very specific scene here and if you can't get it then too bad for you.

But, heck, can you at least try? I have had the unique opportunity to experience both first hand and I'm here to tell you, it ain't the same. There is simply no application of the moral principles at play in a courtroom on the battlefield. And, thank God, there is no application of the moral principles at play on the battlefield in the courtroom. Can someone be against the death penalty yet be happy when the enemy is killed in war? Absolutely. Is this an "inconsistent" view? Absolutely not. There is no comparison to be made between the two scenarios.

Anyway, I take it back. DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT join the marines. I'd feel much safer if you didn't.

Respectfully,

Balzer

Think whatever you want of me, I don't care. You are still not addressing the issue.

[elguanteloko]

BTW, Bernard Gui, I would like to know, if you don't mind, why you think capital punishment should be practiced.

[Bernard Gui]

BTW, Bernard Gui, I would like to know, if you don't mind, why you think capital punishment should be practiced.

It is not just that one who take's another's life (the seriousness of which should be defined by law) should continue

his/her life supported at the point of a gun by the family and friends of the victim.

For example, suppose that the murderer of my friend's daughter is convicted and receives

a life sentence in prison. Her family and friends are required by law, enforced at the point of

a gun, to support him for the rest of his life. That is not just.

Bernard

[elguanteloko]

It is not just that one who take's another's life (the seriousness of which should be defined by law)

To isolate the factors, thereby making this discussion easier, I think we have to distinguish between what the law says and what YOU think should be the case. Laws don't give or take away moral validity from actions because they are declared to be laws. I was asking about why YOU think, not what the law says, should be the action taken as punishment for murderers (for example).

should continue

his/her life supported at the point of a gun by the family and friends of the victim.

If you are referring to prisons and taxation then I think you are missing the point. This can't be the reason since taxing the relatives and friends of the victim(s) doesn't translate into killing the murderers. Let's say, again to isolate the factors, that prisons are costless and, therefore, the relatives and friends of the victim(s) aren't being forced to pay taxes. Now, why are you for capital punishment?

[elguanteloko]

For example, suppose that the murderer of my friend's daughter is convicted and receives

a life sentence in prison. Her family and friends are required by law, enforced at the point of

a gun, to support him for the rest of his life. That is not just.

(responded above)

[Balzer]

...again, the issue presented is NOT whether it was OK to kill OBL or not; not in actuality, at least. We are talking about principles or hypotheticals (i.e. "assuming we could have gotten OBL and put him on trial instead of just kill him").

What part of "...IF we have the option" didn't you get? If the guy pulls a gun, shoot him; I'm fine with that. If we can take him and give him a trial then that's better and preferable. The principle in question is that you can give life in prison to a mass murderer or you couldn't. Some of those that choose to give murderers lives in prison (and are against capital punishment) choose, with bin Laden, to NOT give him life in prison but have him killed ASSUMING WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN THE GUY AND GIVE HIM A TRIAL. That is the problem here. Now, what part of that don't you get? We are NOT talking about whether we had the chance to get bin Laden alive or not or if it was wrong to kill him, even. Bernard Gui has set a very specific scene here and if you can't get it then too bad for you.

Think whatever you want of me, I don't care. You are still not addressing the issue.

I honestly don't know how you came up with all that from the OP.

Bernard asked:

"Some of these who nod their heads in agreement are opposed to capital

punishment for heinous crimes in our country.

Is this consistent?

Not to speak up for OBL, may he not rest in peace, but he had no trial and no conviction by a jury,

yet was given the death sentence.

Can one oppose the death penalty in all other cases except this one?"

I understood the question perfectly. And I reject it's premise. Osama did not "receive the death penalty."

Respectfully,

Balzer

[elguanteloko]

I honestly don't know how you came up with all that from the OP.

All I've been saying when trying to explain the situation presented here to you are necessary things we need for the question even to be understood. You are not getting it so I have to explain those assumptions the question makes.

Bernard asked:

"Some of these who nod their heads in agreement are opposed to capital

punishment for heinous crimes in our country.

Is this consistent?

Not to speak up for OBL, may he not rest in peace, but he had no trial and no conviction by a jury,

yet was given the death sentence.

Can one oppose the death penalty in all other cases except this one?"

I understood the question perfectly. And I reject it's premise. Osama did not "receive the death penalty."

Once again, Bernard Gui is asking a very specific question and the things I've been explaining to you are EXTRA to the question itself but not extra in the sense that they are besides the question but are assumptions the question takes. The assumption is that we could have gotten OBL without killing him and given him a trial. Killing a gangster while he has a gun pointed at you isn't "capital punishment" but self defense. Having a prisoner of war (again, not saying OBL was one but assuming he could have easily been taken as one) and shooting him just because of his past crimes is worst than killing a murderer through CP since you don't even give him a trial. Assuming these things, however, some anti-CP people approve of OBL getting killed and prefer this, in principle, than to give him a fair trial and NOT give him CP but life in prison.

[Balzer]

During the Vietnam draft I was 4F with a shattered knee, but no, I've not been in a war. That has nothing to do with my question.

You have missed the point completely.

By the way, Thursday night I spoke on the phone with my 19-year-old son. He called from the southernmost COP in the Arghandab River Valley.

They have taken 5 casualties in the last month. As of Thursday, he was OK.

Thank you for your service and sacrifice for our country.

Bernard

I'll soon be turning blue in the face I'm sure, but here I go again:

You asked:

Some of these who nod their heads in agreement are opposed to capital

punishment for heinous crimes in our country.

Is this consistent?

Not to speak up for OBL, may he not rest in peace, but he had no trial and no conviction by a jury,

yet was given the death sentence.

Can one oppose the death penalty in all other cases except this one?

Again, I reject the premise of your question as Osama did not receive the death penalty.

And thanks to your son for defending myself and my family. No man or woman deserves greater respect. Please know you will both be in my nightly prayers from this day on. The ARV is no playground.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Balzer]

All I've been saying when trying to explain the situation presented here to you are necessary things we need for the question even to be understood. You are not getting it so I have to explain those assumptions the question makes.

Once again, Bernard Gui is asking a very specific question and the things I've been explaining to you are EXTRA to the question itself but not extra in the sense that they are besides the question but are assumptions the question takes. The assumption is that we could have gotten OBL without killing him and given him a trial. Killing a gangster while he has a gun pointed at you isn't "capital punishment" but self defense. Having a prisoner of war (again, not saying OBL was one but assuming he could have easily been taken as one) and shooting him just because of his past crimes is worst than killing a murderer through CP since you don't even give him a trial. Assuming these things, however, some anti-CP people approve of OBL getting killed and prefer this, in principle, than to give him a fair trial and NOT give him CP but life in prison.

I get it now! (I can be kinda slow sometimes. Especially in cold weather) You want to totally and completely change the question, and hence, the topic of discussion. Ok. Now, what was the question again?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[elguanteloko]

I get it now! (I can be kinda slow sometimes. Especially in cold weather) You want to totally and completely change the question, and hence, the topic of discussion. Ok. Now, what was the question again?

Respectfully,

Balzer

I wasn't changing the question. To understand a question you have to understand what the words and the concepts being used mean. You didn't get them so I had to explain them. To know what the question is read the OP keeping in mind what I've explained or just read the questions I've posed to you most recently.

[Bernard Gui]

Again, I reject the premise of your question as Osama did not receive the death penalty.

OK. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Otherwise, I think we see eye to eye, or eye for eye.

Murder and some other crimes in our country are punishable by death, but only after trial, conviction, and in most cases

years of appeals. Along the way there is a sizable portion of our population who will stand in the

way at every step to prevent the execution of the criminal on moral grounds

I don't believe OSB personally killed Americans, even in battle, but I am fully aware of his leadership

in that effort and the resultant slaughter. His admission to such qualifies him for the ultimate penalty.

Clearly, someone very highly placed in our government sanctioned his execution without trial or conviction.

While some may question whether that was appropriate (ie. Guante Loco), I have no issue with that. I

certainly can see his point. Many butchers have been captured, tried, and executed. I'm also ok with that.

What troubles me is the lack of public moral outrage from those who would chain themselves to a prison gate

to prevent the execution of a mass murderer, but have nothing but praise for the execution of OBL.

IMO, this kind of selective response is moral relativism at its worse. If it's laudable to do in OBL, then it is laudable to do in Charles Manson,

or the person who murdered my friend's daughter.

Bernard

[Balzer]

I wasn't changing the question. To understand a question you have to understand what the words and the concepts being used mean. You didn't get them so I had to explain them. To know what the question is read the OP keeping in mind what I've explained or just read the questions I've posed to you most recently.

You're a lot of fun at parties aren't you?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Balzer]

OK. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Otherwise, I think we see eye to eye, or eye for eye.

Murder and some other crimes in our country are punishable by death, but only after trial, conviction, and in most cases

years of appeals. Along the way there is a sizable portion of our population who will stand in the

way at every step to prevent the execution of the criminal on moral grounds

I don't believe OSB personally killed Americans, even in battle, but I am fully aware of his leadership

in that effort and the resultant slaughter. His admission to such qualifies him for the ultimate penalty.

Clearly, someone very highly placed in our government sanctioned his execution without trial or conviction.

While some may question whether that was appropriate (ie. Guante Loco), I have no issue with that. I

certainly can see his point. Many butchers have been captured, tried, and executed. I'm also ok with that.

What troubles me is the lack of public moral outrage from those who would chain themselves to a prison gate

to prevent the execution of a mass murderer, but have nothing but praise for the execution of OBL.

IMO, this kind of selective response is moral relativism at its worse. If it's laudable to do in OBL, then it is laudable to do in Charles Manson,

or the person who murdered my friend's daughter.

Bernard

We can agree to disagree as you suggest, but, you've actually identified the solution to your own problem. It is very definitely a selective response when it comes to Osama, but it is not moral relativism. It's something we may never have actually experienced before: moral unity. Recall Bin Laden's prayer in regards to the citizens of this country:

"Oh Lord, shatter their gathering, divide them among themselves, shake the earth under their feet and give us control over them."

I get your dilema, I really do. Its just that with Bin Laden, it's different. The polarizing that Bin Laden sought to achieve in us, and the polarizing that your question suggests, simply never happened.

Bin Laden did not receive the death penalty. He was a casualty of war. Thank God.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[thesometimesaint]

Bernard Gui:

It's not the most comfortable of positions to be in.

Most murders are crimes of passion. Someone got so mad they hit someone else in the head and accidentally killing that person(that type of thing). Not likely to ever happen again. Mind you I'm not excusing it in any way, but it is a far cry from premeditated murder.

OTOH torture murders(or those that direct such), the premeditated murder of a governmental official while in the performance of his office, or a mass/serial murderer, and the like, should face the full force of the law.

[scooby]

I support the death penalty. I do not support Osama's summary execution. And I do not support the summary execution order that was made against Anwar al-Awlaki, a United States citizen.

[Walden]

How can you have it both ways?

He was given the death penalty by the order of the chief law enforcement

officer of the USA. The order was carried out without trial or conviction.

Bernard

I am not having it both ways. You are trying to equate a wartime scenario with the normal procedures of the US legal system. IMO, they are vastly different.

I am against killing/murder as well, but I don't consider deaths that are inflicted on the battlefield as murder. If a US soldier kills an enemy combatant, it is not murder. To me, it is a similar situation with bin Laden. There are exceptions that are made in wartime (even the LDS church excuses deaths/killings that occur on the battlefield) that do not correspond to normal circumstances found in US courts.

IMO, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

[BCSpace]

I support the death penalty. I do not support Osama's summary execution. And I do not support the summary execution order that was made against Anwar al-Awlaki, a United States citizen.

I support the summary execution of high level noncitizen enemy combatants such as OBL. In the case of known US citizens, I would like to see the citizenship of enemy combatants revoked in abstentia and then they can be summarily executed in like fashion. Citizen or not, enemy combatants should be targeted, as is actually the case with al-Awlaki, wherever they might be found.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

Exactly WHO is it that you are proposing to give this extraordinary power to deny the Constitutionally protect rights of citizenship to?

[scooby]

I support the summary execution of high level noncitizen enemy combatants such as OBL. In the case of known US citizens, I would like to see the citizenship of enemy combatants revoked in abstentia and then they can be summarily executed in like fashion. Citizen or not, enemy combatants should be targeted, as is actually the case with al-Awlaki, wherever they might be found.

And who gets to determine who is a high level enemy combatant?

edit: thesometimesaint beat me to it.

[Jeff K.]

The constitution allows the president to make that decision. The president can issue an executive order to allow or disallow such action.