[Shawn 507]

On the civi side. If a death sentence doesn't scare these crooks, why do they hold out admitting to the crime until they know that it wont be used on them? We currently have a murder suspect her ein GA who has admitted to the crime and given the location of the body, but only after knowing he wasn't going to face a death sentence. Same goes for that sicko in Florida who killed the little girl after raping her. He held out until he knew he wouldn't face that sentence.
Two examples where it looks like the thought does scare these guys. I can't think of many who would say its ok, death doesn't scare me. These sickos dont want to be killed, yet they don't mind doing the killing. That long walk down the hall to the electric chair / firing squad is not bringing more violence into the world. Its terminating it at the source.

[Shawn 507]

One other thought. Since we all see how those of us who have been in or are currently serving feel about it. And those who are more forgiving feel. Wouldn't it be great to hear from someone who has actually gone over the hill or betrayed thier country. I doubt the deserter would openly admit it, and well most traitors are still in jail. So I guess we'll never know.

[Folgore]

Originally Posted by TopHat

Well, I think your example called for the response, as there are many wartime examples where death is dealt to the enemy when the dealer is not in direct danger. Say...a B-29 strike on Nagasaki, for instance. Was Bocks Car under direct attack when it dropped Fat Man? No, it was not...so your point of direct self-defense is rendered moot by your own example of wartime justification. In the case of the Fat Man, a death sentence was imposed on "malfeasants", really.

Ah, I understand your confusion. I did not spell out that the concept of self-defense is applicable at the state, as well as individual, level. A state conducting operations during wartime against an agressor state is acting in self-defense. I am not considering acts between individuals during wartime -- e.g., your example of Bocks Car or, at the other end of the spectrum, an infantryman engaged in hand-to-hand combat -- only state actors. Regarding your point that Germany did not directly attack America, there is a slippery slope question: At what point is war justified? People have been debating that since... well, since way before St. Augustine, although he's the gold standard. That's a very different question than the one under discussion in this thread. It might be interesting to start a separate thread with just that question, but please, don't answer here. My apologies for bringing up the concept of self-defense, as clearly that was confusing, and not really applicable to the question under discussion in this thread. (Just for the record: I absolutely believe America was justified in declaring war on Nazi Germany, and that dropping atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justifiable.)

Originally Posted by TopHat

Please re-read your post and be reminded that you did seem to indicate there are only two scenarios where killing is "justified", war and self defense. I'm not sure how you can differentiate between the killing of an enemy during war and the killing of a traitor. Both are a threat.

Well, see, we are talking about killing a traitor specifically after he has been neutralized as a threat -- after he has been caught, tried and convicted. We don't kill POWS, even though they are enemies during war, because they have been neutralized as a threat, too. Or are you implying that POWs should be executed, too? Working on the assumption that this is not your argument, you must have a logical reason for arguing that (a) convicted traitors should be executed while (b) POWs should not. If I may presume to continue to assume, the reason is that betraying your own country is worse than acting as a lawful combatant under the rules of war. *shrug* I agree -- just not that the worse act should be punished with execution. In any case, though, I agree with you on this point: like enemy combatants, it is justifiable to kill traitors while they are still a threat.

Originally Posted by TopHat

The killing of someone who is behind bars is not gratuitous. It's called justice...and if you can't see the difference, I don't think I can explain it to you in 100 words or less.

Well, that's a belief, and you and I happen to differ in our beliefs. I do not believe execution is justice, just revenge.

[Shawn 507]

How EPWs got into this I'll never know. But there are several reasons you don't kill them. One is the Convention that the non signers / terrorists like to hide behind. Also, its the do unto others as you'd like done to yours mindset. I may not like the guy, I may even want him dead. But if he surrenders, I have to respect that. Especially when its a soldier "IN" uniform.

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Folgore

There may be times when killing a human being is justified and the only solution -- as in war or self-defense --

Originally Posted by Folgore

Ah, I understand your confusion. I did not spell out that the concept of self-defense is applicable at the state, as well as individual, level. A state conducting operations during wartime against an agressor state is acting in self-defense. I am not considering acts between individuals during wartime -- only state actors.

Please don't pretend to explain anything to me. Treason is a crime against the state, not a crime against an individual.

Sentencing a traitor to death is a state acting in self-defense against an individual or against another state if the traitor is being supported or sponsored by an enemy state or organization (such as al Qaeda), or if the traitor is giving support to an enemy state or organization (such as al Qaeda).

And there is little doubt that many (if not most) of the Founding Fathers would also disagree with your position. In the Act of April 30, 1790, the First United States Congress substantially restated the language of the constitutional provision (the treason clause) and, exercising its power to fix the penalty, decreed death. 1 Stat 112 (1790).

Originally Posted by Folgore

Regarding your point that Germany did not directly attack America, there is a slippery slope question: At what point is war justified?

...and Adam Gadahn did not directly attack America (at least not that I know of). But he is an agent of al Qaeda, an enemy aggressor. Unless you feel that 9/11 was not an act of aggression by agents of al Qaeda.

At what point is putting a traitor to death justified?

[MoMo]

Dear " Death Guys ",

lighten up!

[TopHat]

Dear MoMo:

Send us all your whiskey or Skunky's gonna peek under your skirt, er, kilt......

[tank nut]

Don't worry momo, skunky wants top hat to wear one and look under it not you, they are in love with each other

[Cavtanker]

Originally Posted by TopHat

Dear MoMo:

Send us all your whiskey or Skunky's gonna peek under your skirt, er, kilt......

If Skunky does happen to take a look, let us know what he sees!

[MoMo]

Now, you guys know that Skunky ( being part Scots....his grannie ) is entitled to wear a kilt anytime he wants to ! I just don't know if a Skunk tartan exists !