Howard Bloom really put jihad in perspective for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66qumQ1OtZc

It is a religious tenet, much like turn the other cheek is for Christians.

We should give him the Bradley Manning treatment: cut his parts off, give him hormone therapy, and turn him into her.

Personally, I'd just as soon take him out back and give him a fine hanging.

So, again: is it more "barbarianism" to keep a man in a cage for the rest of his life (at your and my expense) than it is to execute him?

Keep this in mind: in Islamic law, he'd be executed.

Probably with a sword.

There's a lot of howling from people who never have to make hard decisions that this or that case is "special", or that the life protected is worth something.

It IS special. This man swore an oath to serve the nation and to continuously qualify to lead men in battle. If he were acting in a theater of war - which official status Congress continues to ignore - he could be shot by his own CO, and the mission carries on.

He killed the very men he was sworn to conserve.

Now, if you just plain don't care how many liabilities you carry, feed this guy. You're not going to make him any more of a martyr than the 9/11 pilots, and the urge to kill infidels doesn't come from examples like this.

Keep in mind that in prison, he will still have influence. Others may also properly conclude that the Americans won't do anything at all if you kill them - from inside their own units. They may put you through a public trial, in which you may also shout, "Allahu Akbar!", and then give you your own jail cell. Whoopee!

Wanna see the decline of America? Measure it by how many we feed for killing us.

Wanna save a fortune? Hand me a .45, positively identify this guy for me and stand back. I'll say, "Sorry, dude, you don't get to break your oath and kill us," and I'll shoot him with a clear conscience. I'll even clean up.

Because he will kill again if released, he will not be repentent in the least, he will continue to be an inspiration to others while alive, and you will forget his name in moments when the media think he's old news anyway.

Many times, people have said ON THIS BLOG that we wouldn't treat a dog like we do our old and infirm, as they suffer. You won't bat an eye at offing a vicious dog, either - so. Do the humane thing. No agonizing over whether a needle works, no frying meat smell in the electric chair, no horrible anticipation waiting for the noose or the guillotine. Click, bang, thud, drag, dig. The bullet is faster than the nervous system. He won't feel a thing, and you'll be free of a truly awful parasite.

Save yourself a million bucks of taxpayer money.

The Goddess writes: We don't have a right to take a life, even of a horrible person.

Am I to understand that you're against capital punishment, then?

Sigh...and the Master of Disinformation continues. First, he doesn't seem to think that children have rights. Well, the Supreme Court disagrees, but obviously, 'Waste is just ever so much smarter than those stodgy old judges.

So, again: is it more "barbarianism" to keep a man in a cage for the rest of his life (at your and my expense) than it is to execute him?

1990 study at Duke University has determined that capital punishment costs more than life in prison.

And more recent studies show that this hasn't changed.

Look, I know your pomposity prevents you from questioning the things you think you know. But seriously, try to confine your stuff to very simple topics. You'll probably still spout disinformation, but at the very least, the most minimally informed person would know you're full of it.

Actually, I'm all for keeping him alive, shaving every hair off his body above his collar bones every three days, a bread and water diet, and solitary confinement for the rest of his life.

If he requests it, after five or ten years he can be given a short knife.

And he should be given the best of health care to keep him alive for as long as his body holds out.

I am all for capital punishment-I don't care if it does cost more. And in cases like this, where has was SEEN committing the act, admits the act, is proud of it....take him out back and shoot him. Damn skippy. I care no more for that piece of shit's life than I would a pitt bull that ripped apart a 10 year old.

Why wasn't he tried by the military? I'll admit to not following this case closely at all. I don't really care to fill my head and time with worthless pieces of dung. There was no question of his guilt, so I'm not really sure why there was even a trial. It would have been so easy to kill him right then.

And no, I do not believe all life is precious, or that the government should not be allowed to kill. There are acts a person can commit that negate their right to continue to exist. It's part of the humanity contract.

Well, there's the kid again, citing a study.

Patrick, please explain how the 30¢ .45 round and my volunteer digging is more expensive than a lifetime of feeding and clothing (and healthcare for!) a prisoner.

I'll wait. See, I didn't compare one existing scenario with another.

I expected someone would stamp feet and repeat noises about a study, which presupposes the existing system of appeals applies to all cases, in an environment where maximizing legal costs benefits trial lawyers and the for-profit prison industry. Where do you think that money comes from?

By the way - your attempt to bring other material to this topic is fallacious. I don't expect you to look that up, just as I do not expect any clarity from you, but it is.

To clarify the situation: explain how it is more expensive to kill a vicious dog than to feed and shelter it for the rest of its natural life.

Explain how you are better off as criminals now living in jail have killed more Americans than the Vietnam War.

We'll just have to disagree on this one, Amy. Somebody get me the rope.

As Patrick noted it is more expensive to kill a prisoner. But not necessarily to the tax payer. Some appeals are funded by anti death penalty advocacy groups.

The biggest cost difference however is death row inmates are segregated from the general population. Stopping that practice alone would make it cheaper.

Well, 'Waste, since there's really no chance that we're going to convict someone and let you fulfill your fantasy of shooting them right then and there, and every chance that we're going to continue with the mandatory appeals process, I kind of think it makes more sense to look at the actual expense of executing someone rather than the hypothetical expenses of your personal fantasy.

You know, purely from a pragmatic point of view, we should look at how much it actually costs to execute someone. Not to quash your sadistic fantasy too much, but there really is no chance that we're going to handle executions in the way you describe any time soon. And it looks like we're going to continue the mandatory appeals process. So, I kind of think we should look at the actual cost. No idea why you think your weirdo fantasy should even have the benefit of a cost analysis, since there's no chance of it happening.

But just for fun, suppose we do what you suggest. Let you fulfill your lifelong dream of personally executing those convicted in a court of law without the benefit of an appeal.

In addition to the expense of your bullet, we need to know how many people have been initially convicted of a capital crime, then acquitted on appeal. You know, found that they weren't actually guilty of the crime that placed them on death row.

Next, since your really rather stupid idea would deny them the appeal that finds them innocent and thereby saves their lives, we have to factor in the expense of wrongful death lawsuits. Because you just know that if the state wrongfully executes someone, their heirs and assigns are going to cash in...as they should. If the state kills someone wrongfully, then I have no problem whatsoever with the state paying out the wazoo for their mistake to his dependents and loved ones.

But hey, don't feel too bad that you didn't anticipate the expense of a wrongful death. I find your child-like simplicity to be absolutely charming. Makes me want to walk right up to you and pinch your chubby little cheeks. Isn't he just so precious ladies and gentlemen?

He's already cost us 13 dead and 31 injured, and the Islamists love him for it.

Let's not give them an excuse to call him 'martyr'.

Life in prison with the TV tuned to Fox News or Mayberry RFD re-runs.

By the way, 'Waste-product, I haven't heard much from you about the rights that children supposedly don't have.

You know, when you said this, on August 20th, 2013: "Children do NOT have rights as enumerated in the Constitution."

A statement which, by the way, you will never, ever, ever, ever, ever live down.

The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, by the way. In the decision of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court was deciding whether or not the school was correct in suspending three students, aged 16, 15 and 13, for wearing armbands to school to protest the Viet Nam War.

In fact, the petitioner John F. Tinker, was 15 years old! What is up with that stupid Supreme Court, letting 15-year-olds, who have no rights, actually petition the court system, even the highest Court in the country!

It gets worse, 'Waste. This is what they said:

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

Look at that! Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate!

Ugh! Imagine that! The Supreme Court itself saying that sixteen-, fifteen-, and thirteen-year olds (being children) actually have rights enumerated in the Constitution!

Well, obviously, they should have consulted you first! You would have told them what's what, that's for sure! Silly, stupid Supreme Court, thinking that children have Constitutional rights. Ugh! Well, I'm just so angry, I could spit! I really could. I could just spit!

Well, you know what you should do, 'Waste? This is what I would do if I were you (since you're a hands-on kind of guy who thinks that we should realistically consider your idea of you executing prisoners yourself, without even the benefit of an appeal).

I would fly right into Washington D.C. (don't worry about the cost, since you're going to sue for reimbursement), and you furiously march right into the Supreme Court's chambers, and you fasten your sternest look on those nine stodgy old justices, and you tell them right then and there that children don't have rights as enumerated in the Constitution.

Then you take a copy of Tinker v. Des Moines and you fling it right in Chief Justice Roberts' face! Let the papers fly everywhere! Make those nine justices pick them up, and put them in order. And then you tell the Supreme Court that none of them are going home until that ruling is rewritten, along with a profuse apology to the American people for this past SCOTUS ruling that actually had the unspeakable gall to suggest that children had a constitutional right to anything.

You just go right ahead and do that, 'Waste. I guarantee you, if you do just what I suggested, you'll get a response.

Hey, uh, Patrick:

Time to switch to decaf.

qdpsteve: Time to switch to decaf.

Nonsense. My Crystal Light Energy packets, emptied into a 16 oz. can of Red Bull is the nectar of the gods.

Amy, you report that you don't agree with capital punishment and that in your opinion it's barbaric. These facts about your feelings are inarguable.

I am sincerely interested in knowing the process by which these feelings, internal to you, get promoted to "we don't have a right", binding on us. Could you expand on this?

Well, I don't believe in capital punishment, either. But I'm just not interested in getting into an argument about it.

You're entitled to you views, and I'm not that invested in the cause to try and change your mind about this.

Of course, you might be glad that certain people are in prison for life, for instance, T. J. Lane, who inexplicably killed three classmates at school and injured three more. When asked if he wanted to say something to families, he said to them, "This hand that pulled the trigger that killed your sons now masturbates to their memory. Fuck all of you."

This young, skinny kid was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences with no chance for parole. He is now, most likely, someone's girlfriend and could probably now park an RV inside himself.

I don't feel we have a right to take another person's life, and to take it to say, "You took a life" is not just punishment; it's repetition.

Capital punishment has no place in a free and civilized society. As somebody pointed out, Islamic societies do it. Do we really want to be like them?

Also, many people are executed or almost executed who turn out to be innocent. It is better to never execute anyone than to execute the wrong person.

No one has a right to take your life and you have no right to take anyone else's, for any reason.

Tell me why you think you or anyone would have that right.

Violence is only acceptable in self-defense.

(1)I don't feel we have a right to take another person's life, and to take it to say, "You took a life" is not just punishment; it's repetition.
(2) ??? What went on in Amy's head ???
(3) Capital punishment has no place in a free and civilized society.

The irony is strong. Repetition, eh? You just repeated the magic transmutation of personal feelings to social prescription.

How did you discover that your feelings rather than David Duke's or Louis Farrakahn's should determine social policy?

It's time to re-read http://www.amazon.com/The-Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social/dp/046508995X

Amy, I like the argument, and I never could believe in capital punishment. I believe it's desensitizing to us.

I don't want to live in a society that is so flip about the value of human life.

The same convoluted logic is applied by parents who believe in corporeal punishment.

"You are never, ever, ever, ever to hit someone again!" as they backhand that child across the room.

Want an ideologically consistent position?

Stop opposing capital punishment, while favoring late term abortion.

I favor capital punishment, but not how it is done.

There are people who have no redeeming value for society and never will.

The murderers who admit to it, are caught on camera and have multiple witnesses should be convicted and then simply taken out back and put a .223 bullet through the heart. No appeals, no long waits, just do it.

There was a case of a couple of bank robbers, in the late 80's. They stormed into the branch, shooting everyone in sight and then taking the money. They were caught about three hours later with the money and guns. They pretty much confessed within hours. They were then tried and convicted. Appel asked for the death penalty. He was sentenced to death. The Pennsylvania Governor wouldn't sign the death warrant. Appel then played the system. Appel is now doing three consecutive life sentences. He played the system.

But what has all that money that was spent benefited anyone?

I, you, and everyone else that goes to work every day is paying for the confessed killer to sit in a cell for the next 30+ years.

But in Hassans case -- he shouldn't get the death penalty, just because he want's it. That would make him a martyr for the Islamist terrorists. But like I said, if he wants to commit suicide on camera at a future date, go for it.

Who favors late-term abortion?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 24, 2013 9:06 AM

Morally I can argue, anyone who endorses the laws as they currently stand in the US.

But a surprising number of liberal do gooders oppose Capital punishment while still enthusiastically endorsing a woman's right to an abortion at any time during their pregnancy

But Jim, as I pointed out earlier, it's more expensive to go through the mandatory appeals process and keep him on death row awaiting execution.

"Morally I can argue, anyone who endorses the laws as they currently stand in the US. "

How do you get in the car with that halo in the way?

I think until such time as we create an escape proof prison that is also 100% violence free that capital punishment isa viable potion

Though I do think it should only be used in cases with multiple eyewitnesses never circumstantial cases.

Quite frankly for certain crimes I think a permanent south Pacific Island retreat is called for

Debate is to argument as boxing is to combat. Debate has rules. The purpose of argument is to prevail, of debate to convince. Many useful tricks of argument are thus out of bounds in debate.

When you claim that no free or civilized society could disagree with you you are not, in fact, debating. You are stifling debate, "othering" any opposition. It's called the "No True Scotsman" and it's a great technique. For arguing. For agitprop. For pulling wool. But when I can spot cards coming off the bottom of the deck, I don't wanna play.

That said, I'd really rather dialog than debate.

There is empirical evidence[1] that we humans have an evolved sense of retributive justice. I'm sure you're much better informed about ev-psych in general than I am.

I claim that sense is what responds when the blood of the slain at Ft. Hood cries out "avenge me"[2].

If I understand you correctly,when giving advice you're all about ev-psych, "this is how it works, deal". So, what is different about this particular piece of ev-psych?

[1] http://www.ww.uni-magdeburg.de/bizecon/material/crime/Fehr.Fischbacher_ThirdPartyPunishmentSocialNorms.pdf.

[2] See? Works, don't it?

No halo here Gog. I can see the possible merits of a justice system with no death penalty. And I can admire sincere vegetarians who value all life.
What I don't admire is people with glaring double standards.

"What I don't admire is people with glaring double standards."

Sure, like military people who decry union members and welfare recipients as social leeches - and then retire after 20 years of work with lifelong medical care and pay.

That sort of thing.

Gog_Magog: Sure, like military people who decry union members and welfare recipients as social leeches - and then retire after 20 years of work with lifelong medical care and pay.

So because they were offered this contract (as is basically anyone in the United States who is in reasonable health and without a serious criminal record), and they decided to take up the government on this offer, and they give 20 years of their life in the military, they have no right to denounce welfare recipients as leeches. Is that what you're saying?

And I can admire sincere vegetarians who value all life. What I don't admire is people with glaring double standards.

I've yet to meet one of these elusive creatures.

Most seem to have no problem
A) Eating living creatures (plants)
B) Buying food that was grown by producers who use herbicides and pesticides to kill billions of individual lives of the plant, animal, and insect variety
C) Buying food grown in areas that were terra formed for farming which destroyed thousands of habitats and drove many creatures to near extinction

All the one I meat call me a monster and refuse to answer simple questions when I question their proselytizing

Patrick is right Gog; and most guys, and gals, who put in the whole twenty stay in as long as they can beoynd that. And usually by the time they are done they arent much good for for anything beyond riding a desk

Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?

What are your simple questions, Luj? I realize we're not actually -meeting- per se, but we can pretend.

Sure, like military people who decry union members and welfare recipients as social leeches - and then retire after 20 years of work with lifelong medical care and pay. -- Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 24, 2013 2:13 PM

Let alone that you are throwing about 10 arguments into one faulty comparison, let's break it out some.

The person joins military on a 2,4, or 6 year contract. When they join affects their retirement income. When I joined up in 85 it was to get 50% of your base pay at 20 years. If you stayed to 30 you could get up 75% of base pay. Those who came in a few years later were going to get 40% of base pay at 20, 50% at 25 and 75% at 30.

So the guy (or gal) that makes it to an E-7 rank (fairly hard to do) at 20 years is going to be getting $2164 a month. And that amount is subject to being taxed[1] and also depending by the state as well.

And while you are serving you are taxed for both FICA, SS and depending on your home state, taxed by them as well.

Anecdotal sidebar: I knew an officer from Ohio. Her state deducted income tax from her paycheck while she was serving in South Korea. She got 100% of it back, but the state had an interest free loan from her every year.

Then you throw in the comparison about complaining about the unions. I think unions were bad back the 80s and still do today. But the unions are a separate issue depending on whether you are a right to work state or not. But signing an individual contract with the Federal Government is not truly comparable to signing the socialist contract that the a union demands from a corporation. And if you think it is right, please find me a union member that worked for Hostess that refused to change and is glad that they were fired.

Now let's get to the welfare leeches. Every dollar the welfare recipient gets is taken out of the pocket of someone doing productive work at the point of the IRS gun.

When you say social contract that would mean I voluntarily entered into some sort of agreement. I didn't agree to anything to support anyone else that I know of.

In addition, every single dollar that is given to a welfare recipient is not taxed.

So when Amy posted the link the other day, a computer programmer would have to make about $5-10K extra to overcome the tax burden.

And another side note: Making E-8 or E-9 in or 0-7+ (general) is literally an act of congress. Congress approves the promotion list and E-8 can't be more than 2% of the active duty force and E-9 is 1% of the active duty force.

[1] -- www.dfas.mil/retiredmilitary/manage/taxes/isittaxable.html

I believe the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances. I also believe the current system isn't up to the task.

1. It must be a capitol crime of a non personal nature, that demonstrates a continuing danger to the people, including prison inmates.
2. There can be no doubt to guilt. None.
3. You can't execute someone who confesses.

There is a difference between killing a person and putting down a mad dog. The trouble is we can't discern the difference in most situations.

The Lynn Scarlett piece (with its preening assumption of moral superiority based on nothing much at all) continues to chap my hide.

Neither of these theories of justice is compatible with a free society.

A confident assertion. Published in Reason, it uses the local spelling of double-plus-good, "free", and doubtless evokes a suitable tribal response. The nexus between taxing me to keep Hasan alive and my freedom is left unexplored.

Were a supporting argument to be advanced, to convince me it would have to address how ridiculous this would have sounded to Americans 100 years ago and demonstrate that they were therefore our moral inferiors.

Here's what I think; this narrative is disastrously contaminated with utopianism. The New Soviet Man got lost on the way to the gulag. He's hanging with Godot. Human nature is a given. We are not more "evolved" than our predecessors.

Retaliating for murder by executing the murderer may satisfy the desire of some for vengeance, but it does not create a more just society.

Consigns the desire for vengeance to outer darkness, by mere assertion. The voice and tone is "speaking for all right-thinking people". I dispute the author's right to do that. I resent the attempt.

Some may argue that a desert hallucination once said "vengeance is mine", but I'm fairly confident Amy won't go there. :p

French sociologist Emile Durkheim rightly noted that "there is a real and irremediable contradiction in avenging the human dignity offended in the person of the victim by violating it in the person of the criminal."

Now we know that not one but two of our moral and intellectual betters are rightly on the case. Take your lame appeal to authority and stick it where the sun don't shine. You deny dignity to the vengeful bereaved without a quiver. Give me a fucking break.

3. You can't execute someone who confesses. -- Matt at August 24, 2013 7:24 PM

Why not?

Well NicoleK, if they arent preachy about it I dont bother, nor do I if their stated concern in the poor conditions many meat animals are kept in.

However if they claim humans are naturally vegetarian I ask them to explain why humans can not eat grass, leaves and bark, but generally the fertilized ovum of plants which are designed to rapidly decay

When If they claim its better for the environment I try to determine if they shop locally as buying food from the other side of the planet involve using petro chemicals to ship it to their stores

If their argument is all life is scared I point out that the only life they think is sacred is certain types of animal life as most produce in this country and the world kills trillions of insects a year, and millions of ground rodents and millions of plants that interfere in one way or another with the growth and harvest of the plants we eat.

Humans are scavengers, we eat dead things

If their argument is all life is scared I point out that the only life they think is sacred is certain types of animal life as most produce in this country and the world kills trillions of insects a year, and millions of ground rodents and millions of plants that interfere in one way or another with the growth and harvest of the plants we eat.

Humans are scavengers, we eat dead things

Posted by: lujlp at August 25, 2013 1:29 PM

Yes, and considering the number of high end gas guzzlers I see in the Whole Foods parking lot, that faux environmentalism is hooie too.

The right way to go about it is to punish islamic style - have riotous mobs going in muslim areas with rocket launchers and guns and grenades and damage all muslim households and kill a few of them. When things begin to bite back, automatically muslims stop waging jihad. That is why there have been no incidents of mass murder in Gujarat after the backlash following the train burning in 2002 while everywhere else, muslims celebrate their victories at mass murder by committing even more masss murder at periodic intervals. And that is why I support the myanmarese actions against the muslims so that they are kept in control.

I suppose life, with bacon for breakfast and hot dogs (not all-beef) for dinner is out of the question? You bet I'd use his own religion against him. No Koran or prayer rug for you, traitor, and a windowless cell with the lights on 24 by 7.

I simply don't trust the government to execute (excuse the pun) effective capital punishment any better than it does anything else. Governments and courts all over the country are refusing DNA tests which may exonerate convicted criminals, some of whom are on Death Row; they're more worried about their PR and their conviction rates than about the lives of the human beings they're dealing with. They can't be trusted with the power of life and death; hell, they can't even be trusted with the power to properly decide the locations of stop signs.

Add to that the fact that it's simply wrong for a society, collectively, to take vengeance for a murder. For the intended victim to kill in self-defense, I have no issue; it's his life at risk. But "revenge" is not an appropriate goal for an act of the collective. Painting a lynching with a film of legal process doesn't make it less of an angry act of vigilanteeism.

"In addition to the expense of your bullet, we need to know how many people have been initially convicted of a capital crime, then acquitted on appeal. You know, found that they weren't actually guilty of the crime that placed them on death row.

"Violence is only acceptable in self defense"

These two quotes illustrate nicely the shallow and/or inconsistent thinking that surrounds capital punishment.

In the cited case, as with hundreds of others around the nation, there is zero doubt about the perpetrator's identity and actions. Thus, the cited quote is a "straw man" fallacy.

The second quote illustrates just how far the State's actions have come from actually deterring crime. If the victim had properly defended herself from a murderer, we would have the murderer's body to dispose of, a grand jury to convene (which would return "no bill"), and some burial to do or some organs to harvest. Yet the State, after having captured the murderer, spares the murderer's life in a Byzantine process protecting the rights of a person who had no regard whatsoever for those of the victims.

It's so bad that some people actually push the idea that the victim has a duty to run away - and that courts should punish those who do NOT!

By the way - if you are going to say that "barbarianism" should not be followed by more of the same, let me see you deny the American government's use of force overseas. If you are going to be consistent - I see no indication of anyone starting on this issue - cruise missiles cannot be the answer to any action by a foreign government. Killing bin Laden was also wrong by this line of reasoning.

Everybody who is soft-hearted seems to get soft-headed when it's time to "shoot your own dog" - deal with the truly unpleasant things in life. The choice to put a man in a box until he dies isn't NOT "barbarian" - it's simple cowardice, hiding the unpleasant thing for other people to take care of it.

Perhaps you have the idea that capital punishment "cheapens life". Well, the life of a murderer should be cheaper than yours. If you think it's the same, then your life of work and love for family is exactly the same as that of the career thug, murderer and rapist. I suggest you lower yourself by such comparisons, even beyond the demotion indicated by the unwillingness to do unpleasant things - to see to it that others can live absent the awful truth that a killer will thrive for years, immune to recession, secure from budget cuts and unemployment, alive while loved ones are dead and gone.

There's your justice.