It's not killing Mbro,

It's putting a bullet of freedom in the back-lower head of terrorisim.

Why do you hate America?

Bears are just out to steal our honey and souls.

Wag of the finger.

ShortyBP wrote: I actually agree. No President should have the power or right to kill an Al Qaeda member on U.S. soil. That is a power and right that should be given to ME.

Hyuck Hyuck.

DBibeau855 wrote: Is this a big deal? Of course the president can order a death.. Any person with power can order a the death of someone. Its my beliefe that lately, in the past 6 years, things have happened that would shock and appaul the average person. Bush being able to order the death of someone shouldnt shock you. We are at war right now, the battlefeild isnt only in Iraq and Afganistan, US soil is just as good a battleground to people wishing to do us harm. And he is our comander and cheif.

Tell us, what have they told you while working for the Pentagon?

The articles I have read about this are actually less ominous than the headline would indicate.  It appears that what was said is that Bush/the gubment could order a killing of a terrorist who was about to commit a terrorist act - essentially using lethal force to stop a deadly crime in action.  Quite analogous.  That's what I took from the article, anyway.  And while that is a tad aggressive, it is a long way from roaming death squads.

But it does raise an interesting question, generally - compare the recent bombing of the village in Pakistan.  That bombing was borderline iffy as it was, but now imagine that it was in Nebraska instead.  How would we feel if we bombed a small farmtown, killing a dozen American innocents, to take out Osama while he was hiding there?  Would that be within the powers of the Pres?

Nürburgring wrote: Rambino wrote: How would we feel if we bombed a small farmtown, killing a dozen American innocents, to take out Osama while he was hiding there?  Would that be within the powers of the Pres? I'm all for it.

My question was actually vaguely rhetorical - I presume you and your family will volunteer to be bombed along with the next terrorist suspect?

Rambino wrote: The articles I have read about this are actually less ominous than the headline would indicate.  It appears that what was said is that Bush/the gubment could order a killing of a terrorist who was about to commit a terrorist act - essentially using lethal force to stop a deadly crime in action.  Quite analogous.  That's what I took from the article, anyway.  And while that is a tad aggressive, it is a long way from roaming death squads. But it does raise an interesting question, generally - compare the recent bombing of the village in Pakistan.  That bombing was borderline iffy as it was, but now imagine that it was in Nebraska instead.  How would we feel if we bombed a small farmtown, killing a dozen American innocents, to take out Osama while he was hiding there?  Would that be within the powers of the Pres?

I also got similar information from the article, so the general topic is definitely off the wall. Anyways, your second point is very interesting. I would feel that bombing a town in order to kill terrorists that might be hiding there is definitely wrong. And regardless of where the town is located, it could be seen as a massacre of a number of civilians for the life of one man.

Nürburgring wrote: One movie that I think of in this scenario is The Rock with Sean Connery and Nick Cage. The president orders the dropping of napalm on seventy something civilians in order to save San Francisco. Of course in the movie, nobody died, but it's a scenario.

Not analogous.  That is similar to the theoretical shooting down of flight 93 - action required to stop an imminent attack.  The bombing in Pakistan was not to stop anything, but only in lieu of apprehending a suspect.

Because death is the ultimate siezure of rights and cannot be reversed; therefore, taking it away that penalty would be better in my mind than giving him the power to kill.

GI JOES SON wrote: if theyre not citizens they dont have rights in America...

Well that's just false, both as a matter of law and morality.

mbro wrote: What do you mean Ramb? We have the right to kill everyone we see here that's on vacation.

You're right, I forgot.  My bad.

*looks around for a FIB*

Looks like I'm just in time...   :)

Well, hard to tell exactly what this is about - facts appear to be in short supply.

But I am still stuck on the NSA/Gonzalez hearings - basically Congress is mad at Bush for circumventing Congress.  Separately, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (ultra-conservative Luttig) is mad at Bush for circumventing the courts.

Which is all consistent with the apparent ongoing master plan to strengthen the executive branch - and this latest issue of authority to kill within the borders is perfectly consistent with this as well, regardless of the exact parameters Bush's guy is creating.

I am less concerned with this article, or with the NSA spying, than I am with the overall threat to checks and balances presented by the Bush administration.  I believe in legislative and judicial oversight.  Apparently Bush does not, and that does not make me happy.

slacker guy wrote: wait, so what does the H in jesus's middle name stand for??

Howard... 

You know.  "Our Father who art in Heaven. Howard be thy name..."  There's been a few times I prayed to Howard.

Joe Cool wrote: Okay so where do the rights of the victims or of the intended victims come into play? If killing a maniac saves even one innocent it is the moral thing to do. How can you even consider the rights of someone who is plotting to kill another? Doesn't society and ultimately societies leaders have a responsibility to preserve the lives of its law-abiding citizens?

A very good argument to end capital punishment, protecting possible innocents.

Nürburgring wrote: Dune wrote: Joe Cool wrote: Okay so where do the rights of the victims or of the intended victims come into play? If killing a maniac saves even one innocent it is the moral thing to do. How can you even consider the rights of someone who is plotting to kill another? Doesn't society and ultimately societies leaders have a responsibility to preserve the lives of its law-abiding citizens? A very good argument to end capital punishment, protecting possible innocents. Nürburgring wrote: brihard wrote: I'm torn on capital punishment. I do not feel that the taking of one innocent life by the state for reasons of a supposed crime justifies a hundred just executions. Life in prison - without parole - is no cakewalk, and ensures that that prisoner will no longer prey on society just as well as execution. Except not really. Many inmates have escaped from prison and then murdered more people. Examples http://www.courttv.com/trials/texas7/background.html - http://www.courttv.com/trials/texas7/background.html Several men escape in Texas, one police officer killed. http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/murdock.htm - http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/murdock.htm John Fred Woolard shot and killed a park ranger What about those innocents? The difference is that the men you are defending are possibly innocent, where as these men were innocent.

The amount of individuals who have been released from death row after shown to be innocent compared to those who have been murdered by escapees of death row is vastly different. The incapacitation effect of prison of course protects society, but the death penalty protects no one.

Snake6 wrote: A large part of the death penalty is the intimidation factor. The idea behind public hangings and such in public was the fact that it discouraged people from commiting violent crimes because they knew that if they did, no ifs ands or buts they would be hung. THe death penalty today is close to worthless as far as I am concerned. They need to get rid of it all together or use it publicly for all violent crimes(ie: Rape, Murder) put it on TV for all to see, none of this "humane" crap. I am sorry but if you killed someone you dont need no "humane" punishment, if the person you killed suffered then you need to suffer also. End of story. I rather liked the Roman method of execution. If you commited a crime in Rome they put you in a burlap sack and sewed it shut, along with a Cat and a Dog, and then they threw the sack in the Tiber. You didn't die by drowning, but by the dog and cat scratching you to death to get out of the sack. If we would even reinstitute hanging or the firing squad, make the executions public, and use the death penalty as the method of choice for all violent crmes, I believe that we would see a large drop in violent crimes. /rant

My thoughts almost exactly The only additions I have to it is................If you kill someone you go out the same way they did, You rape someone and kill them a 600 pound **edited** man will rape you, then kill you, you stab somebody you get stabbed, ext. and yes, make it public.

There are some studies that support Snake's point of the public and certainty features - it is obviously hard to study death penalties, but the research I am familiar with points to punishment in general, and more so for physical punishment, and most of all for capital punishment, being effective mostly if it is certain and swift.  Our mandatory appeals, while necessary to minimize the execution of the innocent, clearly reduces the effect of our death penalty.

But, rather than debate the effectiveness of the death penalty (which is very difficult to do, since there is so little data), I point to the simple fact of international morality by association. 

Today, the overwhelming majority of countries that have capital punishment are countries with which we would not like to be associated.  As it is, it is difficult to get extradition from Europe because of our death penalty.  The countries that have public executions and/or creative executions are overwhelmingly countries that we are either currently invading or are planning to invade in the near future.

Are those the countries we want to be associated with?

I dont think that would work, first off its america so it would have to be human (putting them under) and second I know a few people that would kill somebody for their hands

Technically anybody has the power to have somone killed, we call the middle men in this... "Hitmen" everybody say this with me... "Hit-men" True most of the U.S.'s population cant afford one of these "Hitmen" which is where "Cults" come into play... say a charismatic man wants somone dead... he simply starts a religion and gets his followers to think he is God, then send them to kill people.

Last and not least, we have your average killer... Not charismatic enough to start a Cult, Not rich enough to hire one of these "Hitmen" so they pick up a gun, or a knife, or a heavy object or a circuler saw. and just go Midevil on they're sorry ass.

Bush however... just sucks (which Clinton can atest too, but thats a differant story.) and doesnt get introuble for it... Bush does have his own "Hitmen" we call these men, "Secret Service"

Snake6 wrote: I predict a rise in violent crime if we get rid of the death penalty all together, because some people think Jail is a better place than where they are now. Just my thoughts though.

Just your thoughts indeed, and you have no actual cause to believe that.

Virtually all of the low-crime countries in the entire world do not have the death penalty.  While it is dangerous and improper to extrapolate too much from correlative data like that, it is clearly possible to have low crime without the death penalty.  And, of course, many/most states in this country also do not have the death penalty, and they generally don't have particularly high crime rates either.  Like here in Wisconsin, for instance.

More to the point - a few posts ago you said that the current (US) death penalty was ineffective, due the various procedural issues.  If it is already ineffective, why would removing it have any significant impact at all?

mbro wrote: Rambino wrote: Like here in Wisconsin, for instance. Yeah, but that's because all you guys do is sit around, eat cheese and brats and drink beer. Then you ride snowmobiles.

Exactly.  If we wanted to reduce world-wide crime, we should worry less about the death penalty, and instead focus on increasing brat, cheese, and beer exports.  And the Packers.  Nobody can commit a crime while having beer, cheese, and a brat during a Packers game.

Except maybe this season.

__sneaky__ wrote: cant we just kill the asians? (sept japan) havnt you noticed, most of the big wars and problems in the world come from asia...

They do?

I thought they came from George W. Bush.

How did this turn into a death penalty thread?

And do people really say the whole "ZOMG Eye for an eye, if you rape you should get raped hyuck hyuck" seriously?

I mean, yeah, haha, funny joke.

The rest of us live in the real world.