human rights for the al-queda terrorists

[Satchel 0]

ObiJuan,

are you denying that the execution of McVeigh and hundreds other death sentenced suspects went unnoticed and unmentioned by the media, or that it was made up more like a sensation circus. Dozends of satellite trucks lurking like hungry vultures in front of the Penitentiary, plus bringing specials about how an execution is done in detail?

For the numbers, go here:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

[DVII 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Jan. 16 2002,00:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes i realise that, but by your logic the criminal should get what his victim got. But how does that solve anything?

If for example someone tortures and the kills another person, should the criminal then be tortured and killed?

How is creating more evil and suffering ever going to sovle anything.

And no im not excusing rapists or murderers or anything like that, and anyone to accuse me of such a thing is narrow minded indeed.

All im saying is, as i keep saying. TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE A RIGHT

"Do unto others as you would have them do to yourself"

okay now look at this quote. Criminals/sickos dont abide by this. Good "normal" people usually do.

So, when we start making up rules and treating people bad (ie this is relating not only to our current discussion but also to the thread topic) we are crossing that line.<span id='postcolor'>

There is one difference.

Criminals have the choice of committing the crime, or not. If they commit the crime, they should be very aware of the consequences.

But when these bastards DO commit their crimes, they give the victims no choice at all.

I agree that summary execution is unnacceptable; even one mistake is one too many. but when the case is cut and dried, why prolong a life that doesn't give a shit about taking others?<span id='postcolor'>

This is what i mean.

Couldn't say it better.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ Jan. 15 2002,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ObiJuan,

are you denying that the execution of McVeigh and hundreds other death sentenced suspects went unnoticed and unmentioned by the media, or that it was made up more like a sensation circus. Dozends of satellite trucks lurking like hungry vultures in front of the Penitentiary, plus bringing specials about how an execution is done in detail?

For the numbers, go here:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm<span id='postcolor'>

Satchel, that's not even close to broadcasting the execution.

[DVII 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 16 2002,00:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well the Death Penalty isnt right because its "inhumane"

And its a lack of freedom, the Government decide who gets killed and who doesnt. Not the family or friends of the berived.

No one has any right whatsoever to dish out death like it was a tasty dish.

What does it achieve, other than killnig someone? Absolutely bugger all. And people on death row arent even encessarily evil people that deserve death. Im sure many of them are but not all of them.

You always give the situation of "If your son got murdered would you want the perpetrator to fry etc"

But what if your dad killed some people. Or your mum. Not because they were evil, but because they felt it needed to be done, or for whatever reason. And take into fact these people arent psycho and dont have a case that can get them off of death row

Would you sit back, hands behind your head and say

"Cya mum, cya dad. The death penalty is right, you guys deserve to fry"

Not likely guvnor...<span id='postcolor'>

Why would my mam or dad kill anyone? They would probably have a good reason? not?

I didn't say we should get rid of courts and law.

And if they do commit the crime they should be punished for that, it might seem harsh but thats the way it is.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 15 2002,14:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well the Death Penalty isnt right because its "inhumane"

And its a lack of freedom, the Government decide who gets killed and who doesnt. Not the family or friends of the berived.

No one has any right whatsoever to dish out death like it was a tasty dish.

What does it achieve, other than killnig someone? Absolutely bugger all. And people on death row arent even encessarily evil people that deserve death. Im sure many of them are but not all of them.

You always give the situation of "If your son got murdered would you want the perpetrator to fry etc"

But what if your dad killed some people. Or your mum. Not because they were evil, but because they felt it needed to be done, or for whatever reason. And take into fact these people arent psycho and dont have a case that can get them off of death row

Would you sit back, hands behind your head and say

"Cya mum, cya dad. The death penalty is right, you guys deserve to fry"

Not likely guvnor...<span id='postcolor'>

Right, now you've got it.

Now, these are concepts that can be debated, not a vauge notion of "it's not right."

Yes, I agree it's awful if your relative (mum or dad) is murderer, but that's why we have courts to decide whether the murder was justified or not. If my dad went around raping babies to death, then yes, I would advocate for his death. No question.

Yes, some people in prison are innocent. I'd rather fix that to minimize it than let guilty people go free.

[Satchel 0]

So how do you call it when in realtime reporters are standing on the doorway to the Penitentiary waiting for details on how the execution went, did the executed breathe in once or twice after the injection, how long did he struggle, did he say something, what was his facial expression......

Can do you call it Report? Coverage?

You could get exact info on how McVeigh died on the net in detail as soon as he died, i call this broadcast for sheer sensation lust nothing else and it disgusts me.

[KingBeast 0]

Well im no expert on law but what if there was some person or people that were giving yourparents a very hard time, but doing so in a way that it was legal yet making the parents and families life miserable.

Now say your dad goes out and does something he probably shouldnt have done ie shot the buggers.

Now you know your dad is still a good and great man (perhaps your dad is or isnt, this is jsut an example)

But hes going to get the death penalty. If you were in that situation you would feel a lot differently.

This perhaps doesnt apply so much to someone that walks out of their home, shoots a couple of people he doesnt know and then goes on a mad spree of death and carnage.

But ive put across my point.

We dont have the death penalty over here, (only for treason) and it hasnt effected out country in a big bad way.

There really is no need to take antoher life. If anything, imprisonment for life or perhaps labour. I dont know

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ Jan. 15 2002,14:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So how do you call it when in realtime reporters are standing on the doorway to the Penitentiary waiting for details on how the execution went, did the executed breathe in once or twice after the injection, how long did he struggle, did he say something, what was his facial expression......

Can do you call it Report? Coverage?

You could get exact info on how McVeigh died on the net in detail as soon as he died, i call this broadcast for sheer sensation lust nothing else and it disgusts me.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, that is reporting and covering. Broadcasting is like when something is covered live, i.e. they show you what is happening. WHy am I even explaining this? Go look up the difference between broadcasting and reporting.

Think of the difference between watching porno and reading the letters to editor in magazines.

You are too easily disgusted. You make me sick! <---that was an attempt an a joke, btw.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 15 2002,14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well im no expert on law but what if there was some person or people that were giving yourparents a very hard time, but doing so in a way that it was legal yet making the parents and families life miserable.

Now say your dad goes out and does something he probably shouldnt have done ie shot the buggers.

Now you know your dad is still a good and great man (perhaps your dad is or isnt, this is jsut an example)

But hes going to get the death penalty. If you were in that situation you would feel a lot differently.

This perhaps doesnt apply so much to someone that walks out of their home, shoots a couple of people he doesnt know and then goes on a mad spree of death and carnage.

But ive put across my point.

We dont have the death penalty over here, (only for treason) and it hasnt effected out country in a big bad way.

There really is no need to take antoher life. If anything, imprisonment for life or perhaps labour. I dont know<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, but it's totally different. Your dad going out and shooting someone out of rage or because they were doing something to him is defendable. CHild raping to death is not. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone who did that to live the rest of their life in an air-conditioned room, getting three meals a day, access to internet/libraries and me footing the bill.

[KingBeast 0]

On the subject of timothy McVeigh, please take the 5 minutes to read this article.

Now im getting mixed up in between which thread im posting in (this is hard work

But i remember somewhere I was talking about how the people likely to go on a killing spree arent likely goign to be petty criminals that own a gun.

Read that article on McVeigh and tell me afterwards that he was some kind of a loony.Timmy Profile

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 16 2002,01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well im no expert on law but what if there was some person or people that were giving yourparents a very hard time, but doing so in a way that it was legal yet making the parents and families life miserable.<span id='postcolor'>

Harrassment of any kind is an offence. It's possible that the crime could not be proven which may provoke daddy to picking up the chainsaw, but in this day and age, I doubt it. Webcams, Walkmans, evedence could soon be found if given time, so how about coming up with a specific case where a person could be executed for reacting to harrassment?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 15 2002,14:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the subject of timothy McVeigh, please take the 5 minutes to read this article.

Now im getting mixed up in between which thread im posting in (this is hard work

But i remember somewhere I was talking about how the people likely to go on a killing spree arent likely goign to be petty criminals that own a gun.

Read that article on McVeigh and tell me afterwards that he was some kind of a loony.Timmy Profile<span id='postcolor'>

He's no loony. Just evil. If he was loony, he would have gotten off. But he's not. And he's dead. Good riddance.

[KingBeast 0]

Im not making a point about harassment, that was just the easiest example to come to mind in where someone you care for would get put on death row for murder, yet wouldnt be considered a loony

[KingBeast 0]

I dont think he was necessarily evil. I agree what he did was very nasty, but its hard to judge what is evil and what is not.

If you read the person who evaluated him said:

"After examining him in prison, psychiatrist Dr John Smith concluded that prisoner 12076-064 was a decent person who had allowed rage to build up inside him to the point that he had lashed out in one terrible, violent act."

Now evil would be someone like Myra Hindley or Fred and Rosemarie West. At least in my opinion.

Tim McVeigh didnt do what he did for pleasure or amusement, he was just bitter and angry and thought he had some kind of a cause or war to fight. Misguided or dissilusioned is probably a better word.

[Satchel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So how do you call it when in realtime reporters are standing on the doorway to the Penitentiary waiting for details on how the execution went, did the executed breathe in once or twice after the injection, how long did he struggle, did he say something, what was his facial expression......

Can do you call it Report? Coverage?

You could get exact info on how McVeigh died on the net in detail as soon as he died, i call this broadcast for sheer sensation lust nothing else and it disgusts me.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, that is reporting and covering.  Broadcasting is like when something is covered live, i.e. they show you what is happening.  WHy am I even explaining this?  Go look up the difference between broadcasting and reporting.

Think of the difference between watching porno and reading the letters to editor in magazines.

You are too easily disgusted.  You make me sick!    <---that was an attempt an a joke, btw.<span id='postcolor'>

"Broadcasting is like when something is covered live"

So all Reports and Coverages are non-live, hmm interesting point of yours, but terminologically incorrect.

I can do a broadcast via radio of a message i got 30min earlier, therefore all your comparisons are invalid.

English is not my native tongue, but nevertheless broadcast means that something is broad-casted, and in case of executions it has always been brought to the broad masses via media.

A report and coverages can be live as well, in case noone told you." This is Mr. xy reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan we see flak fire going up and hear detonations....."

"WHy am I even explaining this"

because you are obviously trying to justify yourself, such as i do while answering your post .

Nevertheless, this neglatable point doesn´t change the meaning of my original message.

[Guest]

Satchel - the problem is that you said the executions were broadcasted, which they were not. I may have been mistaken at the semantics of reporting and coverage and broadcast, I'll admit. English is not my first language either.

If you broadcast an execution, it sounds like you are showing the person lying on the table (or sitting the chair) getting their just desserts and WATCHING THEM DIE.

That is very different from someone reporting from outside of the building, don't you think?

[Frizbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 15 2002,03:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well not all taliban soldiers were necessarily evil terrorists.

Thats like saying the entire german army of WW2 were Nazis.

Sometimes people do stuff because they want to, and sometimes they do stuff because they were forced to, or sometimes they do stuff because it is required in order for them and/or their family to survive.

I dont know where im going with this, just dont assume all taliban are baby killing, women raping building exploding bad guys.<span id='postcolor'>

The Taliban aren't the problem in my eyes. Its Al Queda. They were the ones that attacked innocent civilians in the World Trade Center. And soldiers just doing their jobs in the Pentagon..

They don't deserve anythign more than a brutal and public hanging for their crimes.

The Taliban should just be disbanded for allowing such people to operate inside the border of their country.

[KingBeast 0]

Friz maybe the Taliban arent the problem but they are stil lbeing imprisoned. Might even face the death penalty, who knows what will happen to them now.

[Frizbee 0]

Not all Taliban are being imprisoned. Many were allowed to lay down their weapons and return to their homes unhindered.

Its only the high ranking Taliban members, those from countries like Australia, Britain etc. and those with strong links to Al Queda members that are being imprisoned.

oh, and those who refused to surrender immediately.

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OBiJuan @ Jan. 16 2002,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is sickening. It makes me miserable to see that kind of comment.

What kind of pricetag are you setting on somebodys' life?

Where do you draw the line?

50.000$ 1 Million $?

How much is your life worth?

Do you truly believe that it helps, if you act in the same way as the guy, whose actions you condemn?

Oh God, the logic is so simple.

<span id='postcolor'>

Someone walks into your house and rapes your 3 month old son to death.  Does that person deserve to die?<span id='postcolor'>

as usual..someone comes with that "logic".

yes, he deserves to die..id kill him with my bare hands, id strangle him to death...

when im done...i see that he was not the one who killed the child, he was someone who was passing by, saw the killer and chased him away.....he tried to save my child and i killed him when blinded by my rage.

now im the one who gets eletricuted......

morale: you cant be 100% sure, innocents have been sent to death by courts, we both know it.

also, a goverment should not act with rage, its obligation is to protect its citizens...even murderers.

a goverment is to keep the dangerous ones from the others, thats why we have prisons, and simply cos we pretty much never can be 100% sure death penalty should not exist.

[Longinius 1]

Bottom line, death penalty is wrong because it can never be reversed nor compensated. If you execute the wrong person, an innocent person, does not the state then committ murder? Feels like it to me.

As for the LOTR quote I think the spirit of it was just that. You cannot reverse a death.

If we could be sure that innocent people never ever were sentenced, then yes, death penalty would be an option. But we can't. Besides, which crimes warrants execution? A rape crime would, I should think. But many men have been falsly accused of rape AND convicted for it. Same with murder. And murder is a tricky crime because you can commit murder in a form of self defence. What is it then? Not a murder anymore?

To me death penalty is not an option and neither are jails. Criminals don't learn anything creative in jails, they are not reformed, they do not learn to follow the laws. If anything, they become even worse criminals than before. Jails need to change and become more productive because as it is now, they just make the problems worse.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Jan. 16 2002,12:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Same with murder. And murder is a tricky crime because you can commit murder in a form of self defence. What is it then? Not a murder anymore?

To me death penalty is not an option and neither are jails. Criminals don't learn anything creative in jails, they are not reformed, they do not learn to follow the laws. If anything, they become even worse criminals than before. Jails need to change and become more productive because as it is now, they just make the problems worse.<span id='postcolor'>

Come up with a viable alternative, fine. Until then save your compassion for the victims, or don't they count?

As for killing in self defence; don't be so bloody niave; there is all the difference in the world between some bastard attacking you with intent to take your life and you using any means to prevent him.

And what would you do with those people that don't want to reform; the ones who are paroled and go on to to kill and rape again?

You want them around your house, family and children, great, but I don't want them anywhere near mine.

[Pete 1]

in a perfect world......you go to a institute, they say some magic words and you come out as a monk who is not able to hurt a fly.

now jails are the only option we have...but the time the convicted are in custody should be used to change them, only only to hold them and let them become more hatefilled or to get more information of how to commit crimes is not effective.

perhaps there are better solutions, who knows...if we are to keep a man in prison for 5-6 years we can as well try to make a better man of him, instead of letting him rot in there all that time and then let out a potentially dangerous man.

you guys who are pro-death seem to assume that only quilty people get fried, but in reality many innocents have died...in some cases new evidence comes out later, after the conviced is dead...evidence that prooves his innocence.

but its a bit late, as the poor fella is now buried and forgotten.

the thing is, you cant be 100% sure, and 99% sure leaves a 1% chance that he might be innocent....and if he is, its a great tragedy that he was killed, far greater than if 1000 quilty ones sit in prison for life instead of been dug down in a grave to save money.

maybe someday you, or someone you love is sentenced to death while innocent...it happens, you know it, i know it...you support it, i dont.

[WhoCares 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And what would you do with those people that don't want to reform; the ones who are paroled and go on to to kill and rape again?<span id='postcolor'>

And who tells you, that people can't change after 20 years???

And maybe there will be reliable psychological test in 20 years with which it would be possible to proof that he will never rape/murder again...

[Stag 0]

Let me put to you a hypothetical situation, one far more plausable than "Mammy and daddy have somehow been legally hassled and killed someone;"

A man draws a gun in a bank, grabs money and starts shooting, and kills. When he is captured he threatens to kill any witnesses who testify. It comes out later that he has a previous record of violence, including against people who testified against him at a previous trial, what do you do with him?

For clarification; I do not believe in an automatic death penalty; as you say, death is not something that can be undone.

Now as I said before, if you can come up with a viable realistic alternative to the present system of incarceration, then good for you, you deserve the Noble Peace Prize.

Until then remember there's nothing theoretical about the pain inlflicted on the victims, so stop talking bollocks.