I've been arguing against capital punishment for half a century, with little to show for it. I'll leave it at this: if one has a choice, one should not kill. I don't see it as a leap of logic at all to differentiate ourselves from murderers, and societies condoning murder, by making a choice not to kill when we can make that choice. Nor do I see it as a leap of logic, or flawed logic, to differentiate a society casually and brutally employing show trials, if even those, and executions, from one under the rule of law, restraining a state's power, requiring documentation of a crime and exacting punishment from those found guilty. Quite the contrary: I find the logic inescapable. That Al Qaeda and Bin Laden pose current threats that a defeated Germany did not only adds to my argument: recourse to the rule of law is a mark of courage rather than weakness, of confidence in one's values, and would resound throughout the world as an alternative to non-state actors', or state-sponsored, terror, brutality and murder. I believe such a course to be profoundly in America's national interests, even narrowly construed. Again, half a century's experience with the topic allows the safe prediction that many will disagree. But there it is.
We had a choice at Nuremburg, and tried the Nazis, affording them defense counsel. Israel had a choice with Eichmann, tried him, affording him defense counsel, and executed him. We might, or might not, have had a choice with Bin Laden. His capture was necessary, and if there was no other way to capture him than dead, it was worth doing. If we had a choice, which I don't know and have a hard time opining half a world and a week and a half away, we should have captured him and put him on trial for his crimes. And it is always, always unseemly to celebrate death, even if necessary. I predict disagreement on this point, over a gap that will not be closed by further argument.
3 comments:
I quite agree. Rather than shooting a bullet into him, given the admission he was unarmed, indeed that only one person in the building returned any fire once the SEALs entered, why couldn't they have shot him with a tranquillizer gun---wildlife ecologists do this with big game. If the concern was he was boobytrapped, shooting him with live ammo was just as likely to set him off as a tranquillizer dart.
And then he could have been brought to justice, the kind I recognize, at least.
"Choice" is problematic -- we always have a choice -- the father who mistakenly shot his own teenaged son as a midnight intruder didn't have any more choice than he would if it were a real intruder. There's always some rough weighing of probabilities, and there's always a small chance that the deadly threat is just an illusion. Whether the choice was wise or not can only be known in hindsight, if at all.
I always liked both Douglas' and Brennan's arguments in the Furman v. Georgia case: we never relinquish the right to have rights. Even those on death row still have a right to free exercise of religion, a right to be free of cruel and unusual punishments, rights to due process, equal protection, access to the courts, and of course the right to life, up until the moment of barbarity....
bin Laden should have been brought to trial in a criminal court in NYC. Would have been a great teaching moment for the US, for those still capable. Of course only in the wildest dreams of stoned hippies would that happen....
Been wildly flamed in some quarters for even suggesting that, if we'd had a choice, we shouldn't have killed him.
There are rights you can waive, e.g. as part of a contract. There are rights you lose if you don't assert them, e.g. copyright/patent. And there are rights you can't waive.
Post a Comment