Originally posted by Patient_LeechI'd still go for solitary confinement. I don't think you can punish and prevent killing with......killing.
I think truly committed jihadists who show no repentance and even voice the desire to do it again, if caught alive (which they usually aren't) should get the death penalty. In that case, yes, absolutely. They love death more than infidels love life, so sure, give them what they want. Send them to see Allah.
Originally posted by Foxsteak
I'd still go for solitary confinement. I don't think you can punish and prevent killing with......killing.
This depends entirely on the person. If tomorrow I murder someone and get arrested, I want the death penalty. Well wait, I guess with todays spa-like prisons it would be different, but if it was a choice of solitary confinement or death I'd choose death, being in solitary would be worse for me.
Some people would prefer solitary over death though, so not giving them solitary would be punishing them.
Though IMO you snuff out a life for no reason you forfeit your right to live. That doesn't change unless you have a phoenix down in your back pocket and bust that f*cker out.
Originally posted by Foxsteak
I would like to focus on the death vs confinement debate.Imo, if we keep them alive, we can use them for research into understanding the mentality of terrorists which would be useful in preventing more terrorists.
Don't we already have plenty of terrorists in jail? So we can do what you say with those folk. Lets snuff out the rest.
But how would you propose we would motivate the terrorists to help us with this?
Originally posted by SurturHow would you decide who to snuff out and who to not snuff out?
Don't we already have plenty of terrorists in jail? So we can do what you say with those folk. Lets snuff out the rest.But how would you propose we would motivate the terrorists to help us with this?
Research. Brain scans, behaviour monitoring, interviews. They do the same to serial killers, which, they are.
Originally posted by Foxsteak
How would you decide who to snuff out and who to not snuff out?Research. Brain scans, behaviour monitoring, interviews. They do the same to serial killers, which, they are.
Any further terrorists that come along.
But how do you motivate them to participate in the interviews? And can they just brain scan you without permission?
If they do the same to serial killers I can't see how it wouldn't have already also been done for terrorists.
Originally posted by SurturTerrorism changes. Al Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo don't know shit about ISIS.
Any further terrorists that come along.But how do you motivate them to participate in the interviews? And can they just brain scan you without permission?
If they do the same to serial killers I can't see how it wouldn't have already also been done for terrorists.
I'm not an expert, but I know they do this. It just makes more sense to keep them captive and find information from them instead of killing them for some vendetta. Their information is useful to us.
Why don't they do it to terrorists? I believe they already do. Trump's tweet is dumb, imo.
Originally posted by Foxsteak
Terrorism changes. Al Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo don't know shit about ISIS.I'm not an expert, but I know they do this. It just makes more sense to keep them captive and find information from them instead of killing them for some vendetta. Their information is useful to us.
Why don't they do it to terrorists? I believe they already do. Trump's tweet is dumb, imo.
Good point, so then maybe keep one terrorist a year alive to do research on. Execute the rest(because we're never only going to have just one act of terrori in a year). How do we choose which one? Maybe some diversity lottery? Those always help and never backfire.
Originally posted by SurturWell, I'm trying to find the practicality of killing terrorists. What purpose does it serve?
Good point, so then maybe keep one terrorist a year alive to do research on. Execute the rest(because we're never only going to have just one act of terrori in a year). How do we choose which one? Maybe some diversity lottery? Those always help and never backfire.
Originally posted by Foxsteak
Well, I'm trying to find the practicality of killing terrorists. What purpose does it serve?
I think you would agree it would be silly to do research on EVERY single terrorist we capture. What purpose does it serve to keep them in jail on the tax payers dime, potentially for decades?
I know some will come and shout about the costs of the death penalty , but that's only because we allow them to go through so many damn appeals, etc. before it happens. Even when the evidence is 100% clear.
Put that money towards people who deserve it. Like, say, the victims of terrorism and their families.
Originally posted by SurturIf we were to discuss money, don't prisons get private funding? Do they profit on putting people in jail?
I think you would agree it would be silly to do research on EVERY single terrorist we capture. What purpose does it serve to keep them in jail on the tax payers dime, potentially for decades?I know some will come and shout about the costs of the death penalty , but that's only because we allow them to go through so many damn appeals, etc. before it happens. Even when the evidence is 100% clear.
Put that money towards people who deserve it. Like, say, the victims of terrorism and their families.
NYC terror suspect Sayfullo Saipov brags about attack from hospital bed
Yeah, he needs to die.
Originally posted by Patient_LeechRisk? haermm I believe Guantanamo is pretty secure.
Not worth the risk of them escaping. Plus you're using resources to keep them alive. No way. They can either piss on a Koran or die.
I've already given a reason to keep them alive, and Surtur believes it's a good point.
I asked about money, not resources. Do you think killing terrorists is a good for the preservation of resources?
Originally posted by Surtur
Oh some do indeed. Inmates are also used for labor lol, Hilary used inmates.
Originally posted by SurturPut him to work!
NYC terror suspect Sayfullo Saipov brags about attack from hospital bedYeah, he needs to die.
Edit: Second thought, he may just be way too dangerous to be kept alive. God, I honestly don't know.
As for resources, it depends on if we change the process. IMO if the evidence is irrefutable a person should not be able to appeal their death sentence. It should not take a decade before they carry it out.
I want a more stringent process when it comes to handing out this penalty in order to make sure innocent people aren't executed. But I also want the process HIGHLY expedited for the people we are 100% sure are guilty.
If we took that approach, we would preserve more resources. The way we do it now really doesn't.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the term.
I'm still not convinced that the death penalty serves a purpose, but I'm open to your scenario in that if it is certain that the person in question does indeed 100% kill and is incurable, then, sure, why waste time on bad rubbish?
However, I believe keeping some alive for research, is still a valid point.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I think truly committed jihadists who show no repentance and even voice the desire to do it again, if caught alive (which they usually aren't) should get the death penalty. In that case, yes, absolutely. They love death more than infidels love life, so sure, give them what they want. Send them to see Allah.
I agree, well said.
For those that have use/utility, they should be put to work and paid a nominal compensation for the work they do. But I am not sure about indefinite detention. It is a waste of money and inhumane to do that.
Normally, enemy combatants will be freed once a war ends. But the wars most of these men are captured from are not legal wars to begin with. And these wars do not have clear objectives with definitive outcomes and goals. Since no end is in sight for these military campaigns, then they can be held as long as the people in power say "military interests are not complete, it would be dangerous to release them."