Death penelaty for foreign terrorists in the U.S.

[Lunk1]

Contrary. They consider themselves Martyrs when death occurs during "Battle", not when terminated as a POW. Either way they believe they go to heaven, but you don't go to heaven as a "Martyr" (which according to some has it's own perks). Not to mention, not all of them want to die, some want to live so that they can repeat the offense. Of course, this assuming Muslim Extremist. Not Jewish, Christian, etc... terrorists.

Death by switchblade I say!

True there are all sorts of terrorists, not just Islamic. Perhaps forced democracy would be a better punishment lol.

[--->>405<<---]

Any penalty is only a penalty if those being penalized see it as a penalty. If you are into bdsnm then a spanking might not be punishment

LOL..

exactly how long do u think the normal guy who perceives death as a penalty continues to suffer (afterlife beliefs aside) once the penalty is carried out?? implied answer: he ceases to suffer. therefore the only value a death sentence has is the duration of time the prisoner is alive anticipating his execution.

how about this: we figure out what is the worst perceivable punishment for a given terrorist, and then we inflict said punishment on the prisoner daily until it is time to carry out the execution. this way the prisoner suffers the same as someone who views a death sentence in a normal fashion (without debating what is or is not normal) and we as normal (again) people who like the idea of killing terrorists are also satisfied??

[Matt]

It depends on how we decide to define a terrorist.....

[skaz915]

Yes, Once you enter a foreign land you are subject to their laws, whether its as minor as speeding or as serious as terrorism. As a general statement I believe the U.S. should use the death penalty more often. Almost like an eye for an eye. You kill someone and your found guilty, death penalty, none of this life in prison where the tax payers support you.

[austinite]

Yes, Once you enter a foreign land you are subject to their laws, whether its as minor as speeding or as serious as terrorism. As a general statement I believe the U.S. should use the death penalty more often. Almost like an eye for an eye. You kill someone and your found guilty, death penalty, none of this life in prison where the tax payers support you.

Country has nothing to do with it. This is about innocent lives. If that's the case, everyone should just kill each other now. Oh.. but you mean "Current Laws", because we're forced to abide. Got it!

[--->>405<<---]

It depends on how we decide to define a terrorist.....

TERRORIST:

[austinite]

[Cody95]

Yes.

[wmaousley]

I'm back over here again mate...

...if you didn't already know!

Yeah I seen that, how is it going. I see pictures of snow everywhere from friends who are there.

[wmaousley]

You don't find that just mildly hypocritical when it is Saudi Arabia which is the principle backer of arms shipments via Turkey into Syria for the express purpose of supporting a rebel insurgency & jihad against a sovereign nation? As well as the arms shipments from Croatia&Serbia via Qatar.

What example did they set? That the government can sponsor terror against a sovereign nation by shipping millions of dollars of arms and aid to those anti-government factions, at least 50% of them radicalized jihadists, but that their citizens will be executed for supporting the same effort as the government?

I'm asking questions here, the fact that people seriously think so duplicitous is disturbing to me.


Onto the OP's original point, and to add to TimesRoman...Yes, legitimate terrorists who's sole aim is to kill American citizens at home and abroad should face the death penalty if it can be proved that their actions facilitated the deaths of those citizens. However, where I think the American public needs an education, is in understanding that the current Taliban fighters we're facing in Afghanistan are not terrorists, but rather anti-government forces who oppose foreign occupiers in their country. The same forces who fought the United States in Iraq, who also opposed the occupation of their country, but was more so facilitated by the reckless and absolute blundering of de-baathification which put 300,000 down on their luck ordinary soldiers out of work with no hope of a future or inclusion in their own country, as well as about 60,000 civil servants who were what we'd call public works and municipal workers. So, are we including those people in the realm of 'terrorists,' or are we only including the people who actually belong to the organizations who's actual goal it is to kill American citizens at home and abroad, as the targeting of soldiers in a combat zone is quite a different issue completely.

No I don't see it as hypoctitical at all. The law clearly states any citizen who takes up arms with a known terrorist organization in their home country or abroad will be imprisoned. Saudi arms shipments at the behest of the US Government are being sent to Syria via Jordan to the FSA (Free Syrian Army) not the damn Al Qaeda militants in Syria.

[Honkey_Kong]

I don't believe in the death penalty for anybody. We're trying to pretend that we're better than these "terrorists," yet we sink down to their level? Besides like 405 said, once you kill them you can't punish them anymore.

There are better ways to handle these beings anyways. You can start by having them do forced labour. Or you could have them sit in jail for the rest of their lives to reflect on what they've done. You could also use these people for medical testing. I don't think too many people would object to using these bad guys for something good.

[Euroholic]

I don't believe in the death penalty for anybody. We're trying to pretend that we're better than these "terrorists," yet we sink down to their level? Besides like 405 said, once you kill them you can't punish them anymore.

There are better ways to handle these beings anyways. You can start by having them do forced labour. Or you could have them sit in jail for the rest of their lives to reflect on what they've done. You could also use these people for medical testing. I don't think too many people would object to using these bad guys for something good.

You dont believe in the death penalty? What about war? Thats state sponsored killing?

[Honkey_Kong]

You dont believe in the death penalty? What about war? Thats state sponsored killing?

I don't support war. I'm actually very much opposed to it. There is always another answer. That being said, the only thing military should be used for is defensive actions. And that does not mean retaliation.

You want to see how bad war is? Go talk to the families of the guys who get killed in those conflicts. Their sons are not ever coming back. And for what? So Dick Cheyney's construction company can get a big contract? So that we can tell some Iraqi how they will live their life?

There is nothing glorious to combat. The people who do it are not heroes (contrary to how we romanticize it). We have no right to kill somebody for any reason.

[Euroholic]

I don't support war. I'm actually very much opposed to it. There is always another answer. That being said, the only thing military should be used for is defensive actions. And that does not mean retaliation.

You want to see how bad war is? Go talk to the families of the guys who get killed in those conflicts. Their sons are not ever coming back. And for what? So Dick Cheyney's construction company can get a big contract? So that we can tell some Iraqi how they will live their life?

There is nothing glorious to combat. The people who do it are not heroes (contrary to how we romanticize it). We have no right to kill somebody for any reason.

I see what your saying the cost of war is brutal thats undisputed but thats why people sign up for it. I do agree people throw the word hero around too much. I don't see how someone can be called a hero for doing something thats expected of him anyway. That being said i was in the army and i felt pretty cool when we were out on patrol/contact. Its like a sik pump




"War is the continuation of politics by other means"

carl von clausewitz

[AlphaMike]

I don't support war. I'm actually very much opposed to it. There is always another answer. That being said, the only thing military should be used for is defensive actions. And that does not mean retaliation.

You want to see how bad war is? Go talk to the families of the guys who get killed in those conflicts. Their sons are not ever coming back. And for what? So Dick Cheyney's construction company can get a big contract? So that we can tell some Iraqi how they will live their life?

There is nothing glorious to combat. The people who do it are not heroes (contrary to how we romanticize it). We have no right to kill somebody for any reason.

You've missed something here man. They aren't heroes because of how many enemy they killed, it's because of how many of their comrades lives they saved while under unimaginable pressure.
I am a combat vet BTW. In a reasonable world there is always another answer, but If you walk outside today you'll probably notice that ours is not.

[Honkey_Kong]

You've missed something here man. They aren't heroes because of how many enemy they killed, it's because of how many of their comrades lives they saved while under unimaginable pressure.
I am a combat vet BTW. In a reasonable world there is always another answer, but If you walk outside today you'll probably notice that ours is not.

It'd be one thing if there were invaders coming on to American soil and the forces were fending them off. But that isn't what's happening. And in war there isn't heroes. Saving your buddies there doesn't make you a hero since none of you should've been there in the first place.

I've served my enlistment as well and I just don't come to the same conclusion as you. I'm tired of people in the prime of their lives coming home in body bags. Or worse, having to come home maimed and living their life as a shell of their former self. There is always another option. But we're drifting away from the topic here.

If a terrorist kills somebody, killing the terrorist doesn't bring back the person the terrorist kills. It doesn't bring the terrorist to justice. Nothing you ever do to the terrorist will fix what he's done. The only thing that happens from that is you become a killer just like the terrorist is a killer. You've lowered yourself, the terrorist won.

The thing we should be doing is trying to objectively look at why the terrorist committed his action and work towards finding the peace all sides can live with. It sounds easier than it is, because it's next to impossible to separate ourselves from the incident and discover why. Often, we have to stomach the fact that we might not be as righteous as we thought we were.

[Euroholic]

Theres no draft in usa,uk,aus,nz people join up wanting to go to war.

[--->>405<<---]

honkey kong you are entitled to ur opinion but im gonna have to disagree with you man. while your sentiments are nice to think about, not everyone is as reasonable or willing as you are to seek a solution everyone can live with.

sometimes the best defense is offense. did u forget about what happened on september 11, 2001?

being willing to put your life on the line to defend your country makes you a hero in my book. what if no one was willing to make that sacrifice?? people can sit around and argue politics all day long, thats what politicians do.

soldiers fight, kill, and die so that we dont have to.. dont try to take away from the sacrifices they make..

[Matt]

Im still not sure who we decide is a terrorist and how we decide???

[austinite]

Im still not sure who we decide is a terrorist and how we decide???

Easy. Any human with premeditated intentions to physically harm another human and goes through with it, is a terrorist. We seem to refer to terrorists as a group with a sole political or religious purpose. This is untrue and has been unfortunately embedded into us for years. The fact is, anyone can be labelled a terrorist. Terrorists are arrested every single day in the US, mostly Americans. One could commit terrorism against an ex wife out of revenge. Or fly an airplane into the IRS building like what happened in Austin a few years ago. That guy was just mad because he owed $30,000 and felt it was unjust. But he is/was a terrorist because his actions labeled him as such.

It is the uneducated individual that assumes or correlates terrorism with Muslims or any other "group". unfortunately, the majority are uneducated on this topic.

[--->>405<<---]

the primary danger i can see with labeling anyone guilty of premeditated violence a terrorist is it gives the govt a lot of room to violate our rights as citizens.

[austinite]

the primary danger i can see with labeling anyone guilty of premeditated violence a terrorist is it gives the govt a lot of room to violate our rights as citizens.

I disagree. Like the Biker gang that attacked the family in the SUV in NY. Anyone calling them other than terrorists is a joke in my book.

[thegodfather]

honkey kong you are entitled to ur opinion but im gonna have to disagree with you man. while your sentiments are nice to think about, not everyone is as reasonable or willing as you are to seek a solution everyone can live with.

sometimes the best defense is offense. did u forget about what happened on september 11, 2001?

being willing to put your life on the line to defend your country makes you a hero in my book. what if no one was willing to make that sacrifice?? people can sit around and argue politics all day long, thats what politicians do.

soldiers fight, kill, and die so that we dont have to.. dont try to take away from the sacrifices they make..

You're using the blunderings of the intelligence apparatus in our country to justify the complete invasion, domination, and subsequent multi-year occupation of TWO sovereign nations?

Letters of Marque & Reprisals are the tool with which the Congress has to effectively eliminate non-state actors who threaten harm against the United States or its citizens. They are precisely the tool which were used to use the army to fight and kill pirates during the 1700s, those were non-state actors who did not bear arms in uniform or with a flag, they are analogous situations with the motivations and ideology being the ONLY difference. The estimates of actual Al-Qaeda fighters being sheltered in Afghanistan was around 3,000 people. You believe that the most effective way to dispatch 3,000 individuals is to occupy a country for 13 years? We've been fighting people who simply want foreigners of a different religion to leave their country, stop killing their family members (collateral damage), and telling them who they ought to elect and what sort of government they ought to live under. The doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is immoral and not authorized in the constitution.

Furthermore, if we examined the REASONS behind why destitute young Muslim men are MOTIVATED to blow themselves up, it would be a far better and more effective strategy than the aforementioned. But I digress, examining the policies which motivate such actions would seem to be counter to American geo-political interests with regard to increasingly scarce natural resources. The actions we see today are the price that we are paying for meddling in the affairs of other sovereign countries in a region of the world we have no business being in. You will never solve the problem unless you understand your enemies motivations for what they do.

[Matt]

You're using the blunderings of the intelligence apparatus in our country to justify the complete invasion, domination, and subsequent multi-year occupation of TWO sovereign nations?

Letters of Marque & Reprisals are the tool with which the Congress has to effectively eliminate non-state actors who threaten harm against the United States or its citizens. They are precisely the tool which were used to use the army to fight and kill pirates during the 1700s, those were non-state actors who did not bear arms in uniform or with a flag, they are analogous situations with the motivations and ideology being the ONLY difference. The estimates of actual Al-Qaeda fighters being sheltered in Afghanistan was around 3,000 people. You believe that the most effective way to dispatch 3,000 individuals is to occupy a country for 13 years? We've been fighting people who simply want foreigners of a different religion to leave their country, stop killing their family members (collateral damage), and telling them who they ought to elect and what sort of government they ought to live under. The doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is immoral and not authorized in the constitution.

Furthermore, if we examined the REASONS behind why destitute young Muslim men are MOTIVATED to blow themselves up, it would be a far better and more effective strategy than the aforementioned. But I digress, examining the policies which motivate such actions would seem to be counter to American geo-political interests with regard to increasingly scarce natural resources. The actions we see today are the price that we are paying for meddling in the affairs of other sovereign countries in a region of the world we have no business being in. You will never solve the problem unless you understand your enemies motivations for what they do.

I really do enjoy reading thegodfather's posts and agree with most of what he writes...

[--->>405<<---]

I disagree. Like the Biker gang that attacked the family in the SUV in NY. Anyone calling them other than terrorists is a joke in my book.

thats an isolated incident. u gave what i thought was an across the board definition of anyone inflicting violence with premeditation. of course we would have to determine at what point the label of terrorist would be applied. would it be immediately before trial or after a conviction??

[austinite]

thats an isolated incident. u gave what i thought was an across the board definition of anyone inflicting violence with premeditation. of course we would have to determine at what point the label of terrorist would be applied. would it be immediately before trial or after a conviction??

They're all isolated incidents really. When you label is not relevant, what I said was if someone does this, then they are a terrorist. If it takes trial and conviction to do so, fine, if not... also fine. Either way, if it happened and proven, he/she is a terrorist.

[--->>405<<---]

You're using the blunderings of the intelligence apparatus in our country to justify the complete invasion, domination, and subsequent multi-year occupation of TWO sovereign nations?

Letters of Marque & Reprisals are the tool with which the Congress has to effectively eliminate non-state actors who threaten harm against the United States or its citizens. They are precisely the tool which were used to use the army to fight and kill pirates during the 1700s, those were non-state actors who did not bear arms in uniform or with a flag, they are analogous situations with the motivations and ideology being the ONLY difference. The estimates of actual Al-Qaeda fighters being sheltered in Afghanistan was around 3,000 people. You believe that the most effective way to dispatch 3,000 individuals is to occupy a country for 13 years? We've been fighting people who simply want foreigners of a different religion to leave their country, stop killing their family members (collateral damage), and telling them who they ought to elect and what sort of government they ought to live under. The doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is immoral and not authorized in the constitution.

Furthermore, if we examined the REASONS behind why destitute young Muslim men are MOTIVATED to blow themselves up, it would be a far better and more effective strategy than the aforementioned. But I digress, examining the policies which motivate such actions would seem to be counter to American geo-political interests with regard to increasingly scarce natural resources. The actions we see today are the price that we are paying for meddling in the affairs of other sovereign countries in a region of the world we have no business being in. You will never solve the problem unless you understand your enemies motivations for what they do.

im not trying to argue politics, nor do i think ive tried to justify our invasion of any country. thats a political position of which i know little about. i know enuff to know i dont trust politicians. personally i think they exploit our country and political system for personal gain. our country's best interest is more than likely a distant second.

i also agree with what u say about understanding our enemies' motives, but a soldier's job is to follow orders. when they joined whatever branch of military they chose, they didnt go in saying "i will fight and defend our country as long as i agree completely with the politics of the situation, otherwise you're on ur own."

is that what u expect our troops to do? when given orders to do something should they first analyze whether or not they agree with the politics behind the order?

[austinite]

I dont think anyone is blaming soldiers. I don't like soccer, but if the US played, I'd root for them. Doesn't mean I agree with the motives/decision makers.

[--->>405<<---]

I dont think anyone is blaming soldiers. I don't like soccer, but if the US played, I'd root for them. Doesn't mean I agree with the motives/decision makers.

yea, motives and decision makers are a totally different story and im not here to defend them. i am here because i saw some people saying our soldiers are not heroes and that the term hero is used too loosely. i find that to be disrespectful and, IMO, incorrect.

thats all im saying.

[Lunk1]

“Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die.”
― Herbert Hoover


“We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

[austinite]

"yo quiero taco bell"
― Tiny Chihuahua

[Lunk1]

"yo quiero taco bell"
― Tiny Chihuahua

Thanks asshole, now I'm hungry for a dozen Mexi melts!

[austinite]

[Rwy]

Of course, and they should start giving the death penalty to more people (citizens) who have ruined other peoples lives instead of draining the tax payers

[Euroholic]

yea, motives and decision makers are a totally different story and im not here to defend them. i am here because i saw some people saying our soldiers are not heroes and that the term hero is used too loosely. i find that to be disrespectful and, IMO, incorrect.

thats all im saying.

Hey mate I think you might have misunderstood the context. I think they were referring that yes indeed soldiers can be heroes and do acts of valour but you don't automatically become a hero just by joining up. Do you honestly think that someone should become a hero by default just by working in the public sector? I was in the army i went walking for days with a heavy load on my back and every now and then i got to shoot a rifle. Nothing really heroic about that its just a job. Its not disrespecting anyone i suppose its just difference of opinion How people look at things.

[--->>405<<---]

Hey mate I think you might have misunderstood the context. I think they were referring that yes indeed soldiers can be heroes and do acts of valour but you don't automatically become a hero just by joining up. Do you honestly think that someone should become a hero by default just by working in the public sector? I was in the army i went walking for days with a heavy load on my back and every now and then i got to shoot a rifle. Nothing really heroic about that its just a job. Its not disrespecting anyone i suppose its just difference of opinion How people look at things.

i dont think i misunderstood the context of the bold below:

It'd be one thing if there were invaders coming on to American soil and the forces were fending them off. But that isn't what's happening. And in war there isn't heroes. Saving your buddies there doesn't make you a hero since none of you should've been there in the first place.

I've served my enlistment as well and I just don't come to the same conclusion as you. I'm tired of people in the prime of their lives coming home in body bags. Or worse, having to come home maimed and living their life as a shell of their former self. There is always another option. But we're drifting away from the topic here.

If a terrorist kills somebody, killing the terrorist doesn't bring back the person the terrorist kills. It doesn't bring the terrorist to justice. Nothing you ever do to the terrorist will fix what he's done. The only thing that happens from that is you become a killer just like the terrorist is a killer. You've lowered yourself, the terrorist won.

The thing we should be doing is trying to objectively look at why the terrorist committed his action and work towards finding the peace all sides can live with. It sounds easier than it is, because it's next to impossible to separate ourselves from the incident and discover why. Often, we have to stomach the fact that we might not be as righteous as we thought we were.

HK is trying to impose a political position on a soldier, and u cant do that. the bottom line is they ARE DOING WHAT THEYRE TOLD and theyre dying as a result. you may not agree with the politics behind why these guys are there (and im not saying i agree with the politics) but that should not, and IMO, does not negate their bravery or their sacrifices.

[Black]

"Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die."
- Herbert Hoover

"We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Peace is unattainable and as far as the world is concerned, should be replaced by tolerance.

[Black]

War is purely financial gain/advancement. There is no "defending our country" or "protecting the innocent", or any other heroic phrase.

Its pumping soldiers full of false beliefs and situations. And they're naive and ignorant enough to buy into it.

Our country has NEVER been in danger of a serious invasion or attack that wasn't already information of our government, our protectors. This is all common knowledge and only requires basic logic.

[Igifuno]

Peace is unattainable and as far as the world is concerned, should be replaced by tolerance.

That's an interesting comment, Dante. The fact that peace is unattainable I believe is true, sadly. The second part of the comment where you said peace should be replaced by tolerance I also believe is unattainable unfortunately.

So where does that leave us? The future, realistically, is not looking great. We are an incredibly fvcked up world, and we may be far too gone to recover based on the wide variety of belief systems and based on the damage that we've done from lies, murder, wars and religion. Not to mention the environmental damage humans have inflicted.

I hate to be the pessimist here, and I say this half jokingly, but I think it's time the world starts from scratch again... Bring on the meteor shower!

[--->>405<<---]

i agree peace is unattainable. i also think tolerance is unattainable. there is too much greed and evil in the world.

there will always be those who want to take and are willing to kill to try..