So, I see that the judiciary of the fledgling democracy has sent down a verdict on its former leader. Can we all agree that the next time we depose a dictator, that we completely destroy the enemy in his piss-ass country, and then shoot the bastard in a military operation, so that we can call it a combat death? Or, after we've muscled in, give them the choice of accepting a set of laws that we would want to live under or leaving them alone in a smoking rubble.
I'm opposed to the death penalty, and not because the process to get to it is flawed, but because it's wrong. The fact that we put our stamp of approval on the set of laws there makes me feel somewhat a part of putting that piece of shit at the end of a rope. The world will watch as a good old fashioned hanging goes down while thousands of our troops are present to protect the regime that's doin' the deed.
Yes, I know that we shot our way in there, and that we kill in war. I don't want to have that debate. I know that war is different than execution as a legal outcome. Yes, you can argue the legality of this war, but when you've put our military in that position, it's war for them. The guilt is placed elsewhere.
When you're watching the video, try to think about all that we have here in the good ol' USA, and try to imagine it without the stink of THAT being carried out within our own borders. While you're at it, think about China and their recent "reforms" regarding the death penalty and how much you don't want to be even anything like those crazy bastards.
If you want the prospect of death to be a deterrent to crime, then make it more likely that criminals will face it during the commision of their crime, when the victim really has something to gain from it, not many months or years later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm with you OD. I've changed my mind on this a few times (typical liberal flip-flopper) but I've settled on "against" for a couple of reasons.
1. The golden rule - do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. I wouldn't want someone to kill me, so I shouldn't kill someone else.
2. The bible - thou shalt not kill. Pretty straightforward. There are no amendments to the commandments as far as I can tell.
3. It just seems like the ultimate hypocrisy. He's on trial for killing, so the people opt to kill him? What's the difference? How is one murder justified more than another?
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
Well, the Bible thumpers will tell you that commandment means "thou shalt not commit murder," which is how the wars, genocides, and death penalties in the O.T. subsequent to Moses' laws are justified (but not abortion).
Oh, and good post Old Dog.
Post a Comment