The farce plays itself out over and over. Israel captures terrorists, some of whom are guilty of horrific mass murders. Capturing the terrorists often requires the sacrifice of great human, financial, and intelligence resources. The terrorists' allies respond by planning various operations to obtain human "bargaining chips," dead or alive, to use in exchange for their captured allies. Israel then agrees to release anywhere from a handful to hundreds of terrorists in exchange for dead bodies or one or a handful of live captives. The released terrorists become heroes, and some go on to commit new murders.
The prisoner exchange taking place today is hardly the worst of them, but it illustrates the point. Israel is releasing Samir Kuntar, guilty of the horrific, cold-blooded murder of a child (and who is shamefully apparently a national hero in Lebanon) and two adults, in exchange for the bodies of two dead soldiers. The soldiers themselves were abducted in an attempt to gain Kuntar's release, an incident that provoked the 2006 Lebanon Hezbollah war, and led to the death of dozens of more Israelis.
I simply don't understand why Israel doesn't put an end to this madness and institute the death penalty for murder caused by terrorism. I have mixed emotions about the death penalty in general, but this is one circumstance in which I think the arguments in favor are overwhelming. The special absurdity is that Israel will institute the death penalty for "genocide", but applies this concept only to perpetrators of Nazi crimes (it was, for example, imposed, then overturned, on John Demjanjuk) who deserve it but are currently harmless, but not to, say, murderous members of Hamas or Hezbollah, organizations which would be all too happy to massacre the Jewish inhabitants of Israel if given the opportunity, and are presently deadly.
(Of course, the wisdom of the prisoner swaps is itself highly questionable, but if, for example, Kuntar had been executed in the late 1970s as he should have been, the issue wouldn't arise to begin with.)
UPDATE: I think it's worth recounting the actions of Lebanon's "national hero," via Wikipedia:
After drowning Danny [the father] in the sea in front of Einat (as Ahmed Al-Brass, Mhanna Salim Al-Muayed, and Abdel Majeed Asslan served as look outs and backup cover for Kuntar), Kuntar turned his attention towards the 4 year-old. He took his rifle and then swung it across the toddler's head, knocking her to the ground. Kuntar then dragged the toddler a couple of feet to the closest rock he could find and laid her head down on a rock, with the intention of crushing it with the butt of his rifle. Einat, instinctively covered her head with her arms, Kuntar struggled with the toddler until he finally managed to clear her arms out of the way. Once her arms were out of the way, Kuntar repeatedly beat her on the head with the butt of his rifle and stomping on her body, until blood rushed out of her ears and mouth. Then, to ensure she was dead, Kuntar continued beating her over the head until her skull was crushed and she was dead.
And Wikipedia also states that the hijacking of the Achillee Lauro cruise ship, which led to the murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, was part of an attempt to win the release of Kuntar and other prisoners.
And to compound the ironies, I've also read that Kuntar's original mission was to take hostages to exchange for other terrorists.
Related Posts (on one page):
- What Is the Exchange Rate for Terrorist/Innocent Exchanges?
- Why Doesn't Israel Have the Death Penalty for Murder by Terrorists?:
(2) Trials and appeals would delay execution for a long time (even if not as long as in the US), during which time the same negotiating would be going on. The threat of execution might move the time frame up, but it wouldn't stop the hostage-taking and hostage-bartering.
(3) Executing terrorists would likely cause the terrorists to execute (even more) civilian and military hostages.
If I remember the polling data correctly, even in Europe, it's the elites, not the public, that is opposed to the death penalty, and I suspect that's even more true in Israel.
(2) Why would trials and appeals for the death penalty inherently take any longer than trials and appeals for four consecutive life sentences, which is Kuntar's sentence?
(3) I don't see why you believe that Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Asqa need any additional incentive to kill anyone.
Everyone knows kiling always takes more courage than not killing.
Frikken spineless rest of the world!
So confident.
Perhaps you could jump-start the execution movement by volunteering to pull the trigger, throw the switch, or plunge the needle.
First crimes like the one described are so inhuman in nature that they seem to make a mockery of the Kantian Categorical imperative that we should treat human beings as an end as well as a means (of course Kant himself was all for the death penalty, but that's a whole different issue). Is someone who beats a child to death with the butt of a rifle in cold blood really deserve to be treated as a moral entity?
I’m legitimately not sure where I’d come out on this independent of practical implications, but considering how the practice does appear to encourage additional violence and brutality, and create impossible dilemmas when later negotiating with the terrorists, the scales do seem to tip in favor of imposing the death penalty.
It does?
But the justification here is not vengeance, it's to prevent further violence later.
And I join the swelling ranks of those who would cheerfully volunteer to join the firing squad.
Few would argue we should execute US criminals simply to prevent our government from freeing them on a regular basis. The government's actions are the problem, not the terrorist's continued life.
I would definately be confused if the Israelis might have a different point of view! Well, it could be the view of the elites I guess.
Because the Real Israelis are just like Texans.
Thats bs, the party to act first would keep one eye.
I have no problem with imposing the death penalty in theory, but the question always needs to be asked is what will it accomplish?
Are you executing terrorists just for the sake of executing them? Do you expect Israel "growing a spine" and actually executing people after they're captured to actually help the problem when people are already willing to blow themselves up just to kill Israelis?
I'm not saying someone who kills a child shoouldn't be executed, but it does seem to me that the reaction of "Grow a spine and start killing people" is merely an emotional reaction and may not actually help anything.
Also Israelis may conclude that the prevalence of suicide bombers indicates the death penalty wouldn't deter terrorists. And that after thirty yers in prison, this particular guy probably isn't much of a threat any more.
The irony is noted, but I only invoked Kant for the general idea that we should consider the individual to be killed as a moral entity, and not just as a pawn in public policy. I'll readily admit that in the end I'm much more of a utilitarian than a Kantian, despite my belief that Kantian moral reasoning does deserve contemplation.
For example, California recently refused to grant a "humanitarian release" to Susan Atkins, who, as a member of the Manson family, participated in the murder of Sharon Tate.
As repulsive of a human being as Atkins might be, Samir Kuntar is arguably ten times worse.
Also, I'm not the first person to note that Israel's policy of shooting missiles at suspected terrorists is a sort of de facto death penalty.
He should also read the comment policy, especially the things one is asked to avoid. Value added of his comments remains zero. Troll, thy name is Sarcastro.
The problem with this argument is that it isn't supported by the facts. Israel will is exchanging 5 live terrorists and the bodies of 200 terrorists killed in Israel for the bodies of 2 Israeli soldiers who were captured, alive, 2 years ago, by Hezbollah. The Isreali soldiers were either executed or died after capture. US CID agent William Buckley was kidnapped by Hezbollah in Lebanon, and tortured over months, eventually dying. There's no reason to believe that Hezbollah will change its tactics and treatment of prisoners/hostages because Israel has or does not have the death penalty.
The counter-argument, which appears to have some factual support, is that by keeping terrorists imprisoned, Hezbollah is motivated to take more prisoners/hostages, so that they can trade bodies for Isreali held prisoners. Accordingly, the lack of a death penalty increases the risk of future terrorist attacks and kidnappings.
I always laugh when Americans seem to know what is better for Israel than Israel. The exchange (which I am not sure I support) was approved by the Knesset - as we know the democraticaly elected assembly. There is certainly opposition in Israel, but given that Israel has been fighting terrorists quite effectively for over 50 years - my gut is they know what they are doing.
For example, many Americans have this "we don't talk/negotiate with bad guys attitude." Many senior Israeli intelligence and military officials are coming around on this issue and believe that direct engagement with Hezbollah and Hamas can be extremely beneficial to Israel.
Aside from moral issues, there are practical reasons why Israel might not adopt the death penalty for terrorists.
1) It could be seen as one more example of the disparate system of justice Israel has towards it's non-Jewish residents. While Jewish-Israeli murderers can commit crimes as heinous as terrorists (in the history of Israel there must be a brutal non-terorist murder somewhere), they won't get the death sentence. The world community would see Israel's death penalty for terrorists as a penalty applied only to Muslims.
2) Occasionally, exchanging terrorists for hostages might be necessary for the foreign policy efforts of the Israeli government. If that bargaining chip is taken away from Israel's prime minister by the criminal justice system, he has less power to negotiate peace or prosecute wars as he sees fit.
3) The death penalty is just unpopular in most of the world. Israel may not need to alienate it's few supporters by adopting an unpopular penalty.
Is it really accurate to say the Constitution *provides for* the death penalty? I agree that it mentions it in the Fifth Amendment, but "provides" in legalese usually means authorizes or commands. One could argue with a straight face (though I would disagree for a number of reasons) that the Eighth Amendment, coming later or at the same point in time and providing that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted swallows the mere mention of capital crimes elsewhere, in other words that given the Eighth Amendment's provision, capital crimes is (or could become in the future) an empty set if infliction of the death penalty would be cruel and unusual.
You bring up an excellent point. That is, would the Jewish Settlers who have been harassing, jumping, and shooting at nearby Palestinians be considered terrorists.
Had Baruch Goldstein (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein) been executed for terroism had he not been beaten to death open firing on a crowd of Muslim worshipers? Note that his gravesite is a point of pilgrimage for some far-right wing Jews (Kach). To be fair, his grave site was bulldozed and most of Israel does not support what he did (indeed most of the terrorist group Kach's funds come from Americans).
Probably because it has decided it wants to be able to trade for the return of its citizens. Perhaps not important to you, but it does appear to be the choice the country has made.
At the risk of being labeled an elitist, maybe The Powers That Be believe that killing the defenseless is ... unethical?
No, they do not know what they are doing. Israel used to have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages. See: The Entebbe Raid. This exchange accomplishes absolutely nothing except to encourage Hamas and Hezballah to try to capture Israeli soldiers (doesn't even matter if they take them alive apparently) in the future and exchange them for terrorists. Given that Hezballah tried to secure the release of Kuntar when they initially kidnapped Goldwasser and Regez at the start of the 2006 war, there was no point in Israel fighting Hezballah to a stalemate, agreeing to a completely ineffectual UN resolution that has allowed Hezballah to complete rearm, and then release Kuntar anyway. And FYI, Olmert is currently being investigated for corruption and has lower public approval ratings that Bush. I just hope he doesn't give away the rest of the country before he gets kicked out of office.
I'm pretty sure the Israeli military establishment was against this deal. Given that Olmert just gave Hezballah a MAJOR victory, I would not be surprised if they are emboldened enough to attack Israel again because of this. Even the supposed Western leaning Lebanese PM Siniora is giving that child murderer Kuntar a hero's welcome when he gets back to Lebanon. Disgusting.
So the combined wisdom of the Israeli Cabinet, Military, and Knesset is bunk, and instead, Israel should do what you say?
Maybe Israel should follow the US lead for airplane security too, so they would really be safe.
Read the reactions coming out of Israel today. The only people in favor this exchange was Olmert, his cabinet (except for three of them), and the Regev and Goldwasser families. The Military was definitely not in favor of this "deal." Please tell me what benefit Israel receives from this exchange. Right now Hamas is salivating at the possibility of getting hundreds of prisoners released to free Gilad Schalit, who is alive right now, but after seeing Israel's willingness to release terrorists with blood on their hands in exchange for dead soldiers, what reason do they have for keeping him alive? Hezballah is not just going melt back into the background. If Israel is not attacked again by the end of the year by Hezballah, I will be surprised.
The International Court of Justice has ordered a moratorium on the execution of five Mexican nationals scheduled for the death penalty in Texas, who were denied their right to contact their Embassy. This is the same case as the one ruled earlier this year by the Supreme Court in Medellin v Texas.
[/OT]
U.Va. 3L, do you mean that some who are legally uninformed may not appreciate that "murder" only pertains to unlawful killing, which execution after due judicial process would not be? I think you must mean that, because it is unimaginable that a third-year University of Virginia law student wouldn't know that.
So what? The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to tell it or its sovereign states what to do. If I were the Governor of Texas, my response would be, "Ignore it and strap them down."
Homicide by the jailer is a different issue from capital punishment, and no serious person would conflate the two.
@Dave N: Actually, the argument of the US in this case is that it agrees completely with Mexico, and that that means that the court has no jurisdiction. Beautiful argument, especially since they might be right. FYI, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (as opposed to the one on Consular Relations), a state cannot claim a rule of domestic law as an excuse why it is not meeting its obligations under international law.
My last post because I do not want to be accused of hijacking the thread, but the United States withdrew from the compulsary jurisdiction of the ICJ in 1986.
ERH, you echo Mahatma Gandhi, who said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." That is the person who urged Jews to submit to the massacre by Hitler that he fully anticipated. Is it all that surprising that Jews were not appreciative of Gandhi's advice 70 years ago, and still are not appreciative of it today? But if you wish to elect Satyagraha for yourself, you are free to do.
I find that frightening. It implies that if the President signs a treaty agreeing to abridge freedom of speech in this country, and the Senate ratifies, then the First Amendment is out the window.
I don't think this is an outrageous hypothetical.
The best ending to this story would be if the Israelis had implanted a small GIS chip in the mutt, and sent a Very Large Cruise Missile to his location in, oh, about three days.
I'd bet that just about every terrorist prisoner is guilty of murder under some conspiracy or accessory liability theory. The ones who aren't guilty probably aren't high profile enough to mean much to the average Palestinian. Even if the prisoner was only a treasurer for the PLO, he knew those funds were going to buy bombs or bullets and implicitly agreed to the murders committed.
To restore the incentive, Kuntar should be returned in the same condition in which Regev and Goldwasser are received.
Because military service is compulsory in Israel, the please of family members regarding POW's get much public sympathy, given that everyone can imagine themselves in the same situation. But everyone should also be able to imagine themselves being the future victims of the terrorists released in deals like this one, or their children being kidnapped in the future to facilitate a deal like this. It's often forgotten, but before the Entebbe raid the Israeli government almost caved to the terrorists' demands due to pressure from the hostages' families.
And of course, with the dead bodies, one can have a "proper" funeral.
Also, the wife/mother accidentally smothered the 2-year old while hiding and attempting to keep the child quiet. That is about the saddest thing I have ever heard.
Kuntar should have been dispatched to hell decades ago.
Perhaps you mean that Kuntar's jailer(s) are morally culpable for Leon Klinghoffer's murder because they failed to carry out the death penalty against Kuntar before the Achille Lauro hijacking? Of course it makes the jailers culpable for every killing carried out in the course of trying to spring Kuntar from jail. Not just Regev and Goldwasser, but every soldier (Israeli or Lebanese), every terrorist, every civilian bystander (Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese) dead from the cascade of death that has flowed from the multiple actions (finally successful) which were aimed at freeing Kuntar.
An interesting theory, which I must say that I can't reject out of hand. But it does rather miss the point in that it absolves the terrorists from their responsibility in mounting the killing and hostage-taking operations that caused all of those homicides.
There; fixed that for you.
But I agree that Kuntar richly needs killing. In fact, the exact problem that Prof. Bernstein identified is one that first occurred to me in the early 1970s, when Palestinian terrorists started grabbing hostages to secure release of their imprisoned buddies.
The only problem I see is coming up with a good legal definition of "terrorism." As I see it, that's probably even more difficult than defining "hate crime." What we really want is a way of permanently removing from the scene those perps who have friends and allies who are likely to commit further crimes (especially hostage taking) to secure the release of the perp. The category of people meeting that description isn't co-extensive with the category of what we might call "terrorists." (The Beltway Sniper was tried for capital murder in Virgnia on the ground that his actions were terroristic, but he was a loner with no buddies who are likely to seize hostages to try to get him sprung. On the other hand, I can imagine the possibility of a non-political organized crime gang becoming powerful enough to seize hostages with that end in mind.) On the other hand, if we want to hold that Kuntar's crimes are heinous enough on their own to justify the death penalty, independent of whether he did them to further some political cause, I really have no problem with that.
By the same token, and just as accurately, "Kidnapping and imprisonment are not opposites that cancel one another, but similars that breed their kind."
A nice answer to DB's question here: http://www.slate.com/id/2195376/
The law has an important expressive aspect. If the penalty for a heinous crime is too light then the life of the victim has been deprecated. Is life in prison too light? Yes. First a life sentence hardly ever really applies as discussed in a previous thread. Second some crimes are so despicable (Adolf Eichmann) they beg for the ultimate penalty. Third the failure to employ capital punishment communicates weakness. Of course the liberals think that communicates strength, but terrorists don't see it that way. Finally the punishment should fit the crime. Kuntar should have been executed in a particularly painful manner. These highly clinical executions are almost self nullifying. Again it expresses weakness in the face of evil.
They can if the prisoner has already been executed.
This assertion is wrong. In order to be true, the population would have to be shiftly in favor of death penalty. About all available data on the issue are showing it is not the case. In France, only 42% of the population wishes to reestablish the death penalty, an all-time low. In UK, the population also has never has never had capital punishment in so lower esteem. 76% of the Italians are against death penalty. The trend is even stronger in Germany and, a bit surprisingly, in Russia... Shall I continue?
The elites show a much stronger opposition to death penalty then the population at large. True, I'm confident it can easily be demonstrated. But I don't believe, would your assertion be true, the "dictatorship of the majority" stands on higher moral grounds than the most educated portion of the society's wisdom. Call me elitist if you like...
According to a report on the exchange on NPR, this morning, until recently Israel thought that the 2 soldiers were still alive. So, until this was found to be not true, the swap would have been 5 prisoners from Israeli jails + 200 corpuses for 2 Israeli soldiers.
The closure for the families and proper burial justifications sound somewhat like post hoc rationalizations. It is possible that the negotiation process had gathered enough bureaucratic inertia to carry itself on, even after the soldiers' deaths were revealed, so that those involved felt that they had some sort of stake in concluding a deal despite the impossibility of its original goal of obtaining the safe return of the 2 soldiers. Then other "reasons" were then offered as justifications for the swap eventually made.
They weren't specially informed of their right to do so -- a right which might be crucial in many countries, but not particularly in the U.S., given Miranda and Gideon.
Thank you for the attempt to fix my prior post but I stand by the original language. I know not what Atkins may have done to redeem her self in almost 40 years, but I still consider her to be a repulsive human being.
Abandon,
Assuming a strong argument can be made to let the 'most educated portion' of society control all sorts of things (economics, military, etc), such an argument cannot be made for issues of morality.
How does receipt of a college degree make someone a more moral person? How does it provide someone with a better grasp of morality?
For all my philosophy and religion training, I certainly have a much better understanding than most people on issues of ancient textual interpretation, cosmology, and logic theory. But that does not make me any better a judge of what is morally right and wrong. Morality is a thing of common sense. Morality is the one thing that the common man is better suited at interpreting than the detached navel gazing intellectual.
So the liberal elites are leading us down the path to national suicide in this as in so many other issues. Yaay!
That's a difference? In what way is the death penalty not a proportionate punishment for a heinous murder? (I suppose that simply letting Kuntar dance at the end of a rope is probably too lenient to be proportionate to his offenses, but I suspect that isn't what you meant.)
I trust you have, as you put it, a much better understanding than most people on issues of ancient textual interpretation, cosmology, and logic theory. In that case, wouldn't you find natural for me to value your opinion more than that of ten intellectually lacking citizens when such issues are at stake? Would I be a ruler, I would also poll a great deal of specialists from different areas to make sure my ruling sees not only the trees in the front row, but the forest as a whole.
Besides, not all intellectuals are "detached navel gazing" ones, as you certainly know. And degrees don't make one's education, they merely are the recognizance of specialized knowledge and/or mastery.
By the accepted standard of Nuremberg, Kuntar was harshly punished at around a decade per death. Had he gone before a German court, he'd have been out in a week.
Best,
Ben
I'd argue that a human shield is a type of draftee. You're permitted to kill innocent people who the enemy has drafted into his army.
As far as I can tell, there is not a single Lebanese person whom Hezballah would not "personally kill". Pretty simple, yes?
Presto!
Wonder if that one's on the LSAT these days, it's been quite a while...
Maybe, maybe not. The perpetrators of the sham would be (or should be) liable to charges of felony murder in that case, though, which ought to keep things fairly honest.
An even more stunning example, from the Wikipedia entry on Kuntar: How... European.
And somehow or another, for almost 200 years after ratification of the Constitution, Congress passed laws that provided for capital punishment, and no one noticed that they were exceeding their authority on this! Wow! What are the odds of this?
I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, but this attempt to imagine that the Constitution doesn't authorize capital punishment is delusional. Consensual oral or anal sex were capital crimes in most states when the Constitution was adopted. (Now they are constitutionally protected behavior.) And you think that the Framers did not assume the authority of the federal government to execute criminals?
Israel's biggest threat to its existence does not come from Iran or any other country. It comes from within their political classes and their joke of a Supreme Court.
If I were a member of Hezbollah, I would be laughing my ass of this morning at Israel's weakness.
I am sickened by this capitulation, and I am not even a Jew.
Because, Ben, as both McCain and Obama have promised to close Gitmo, meaning that people held there will be moved to the US and held, and at least some of them are terrorists with supporters still at large, it is likely that the US will face the same issues in the near future. Maybe your mind is made up already and your opinion won't be swayed by facts, but maybe not. In my opinion, I'd rather consider the issues and various potential consequences in advance, rather than making a knee-jerk (liberal, conservative or other) response in reaction.
Israel has one approach. Other governments have used other approaches. It is wise to evaluate those different approaches.
GBS' words that you quote are a blow against the very core of civilization. Not that I'm surprised the Shaw would take such a posture...
And to hattio1 and others who worry about making martyrs, let's try this as a thought experiment: what about just disappearing them? No news, no trace of what happened to them, not even really necessary to kill them as long as the outside world can't answer the question, "Whatever happened to...?" The question is, would this be more or less ethical than the death penalty? Than trivializing their offense by trading them for something? I'm not advocating this, mind you, just curious.
Hmmmm, if we're not allowed to second guess Israel when they do something as obviously stupid, morally repulsive, and counterproductive as to trade a vicious terrorist for two corpses, just when is criticism of Israel permissible? If they launch an airstrike on Iran, are we not allowed to second guess them on that, since we can be sure the Israelis and their government would think long and hard before doing such a thing?
Israel's biggest threat to its existence does not come from Iran or any other country. It comes from within their political classes and their joke of a Supreme Court.
If I were a member of Hezbollah, I would be laughing my ass of this morning at Israel's weakness.
I am sickened by this capitulation, and I am not even a Jew.
Exactly right!
So hey, if other countries are mad because we drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times, we can tell them to get bent, right, because this is the American public's call, not theirs?
How gratifying to see such strong support for unilateralism and national sovereignty!
Bernstein understands as well as anyone that it is "Israel's call". Is there some reason he shouldn't say that Israel is making a stupid call in this case?
Sarcastro:It appears that you only work part time. A significant part of the time you seem to be cheating your employer by constantly reading and inanely commenting here. Using Word to spell check will certainly waste even more of your employer's time and money.
What a stand up guy. /s
It is always a little helpful to understand where I am coming from. Many American supporters of Israel are far to the right of the average Israeli for social, political, and national defense measures. That is a fact, and it always is a source of humor when armchair hawks in the US think they know what is best over there - as if this government gives a flying damn about finding and stopping Bin Laden - you know, the guy NOT in Iraq.
As for the specific case regarding the swap. That is another matter entirely - one I do not have an informed opinion on yet.
And given that their unwillingness to execute Kuntar got at least one American (Leon Klinghoffer) killed, yeah, that gives us, his countrymen, rights to be in the peanut gallery with or without the First Amendment.
That scenario is different from the broader principle stated in the post to which I was responding.
IANAJ, but the anti-Semitism displayed by some folks is so thick you could cut it with a knife. And it's ugly.
Best,
Ben
This posits that the people agree with the government's policy, which reports state is emphatically false. This was the decision of Olmert and his cabinet. When Bush and his cabinet make a policy decision, does that logically mean that the American people agree with it?
And the plot thickens.
I have some advice.
1) Learn to read.
I never said anything remotely similar to what you attributed my comment. I shall repeat, at least 2 posters stated that no Israeli has done something similiar to what Kuntar did. I gave an example stating otherwise. That is all. You are free to say and believe what you want, and you are also free to intentionally twist my posts but I don't appreciate you essentially lying and falsely attributing something to me. It is dishonest at best.
In the past on this board, I have been guilty of jumping to conclusions and for that I apologize. I am referring to a comment where I referred to Dangermouse as a troll. I do not believe he is a troll - only someone a strongly disagree with.
Will you apologize to me?
As for Mr. Goldstein's death - a mob descended on him and beat him to death, I believe, after he ran out of ammunition.
Is he worse than Kuntar - I do not think a comparison can be made as they are/were both horribly evil people. The question posed early on was the effect this would have on Israel if only Islamic terrorists were executed, but Jewish terrorists were not, and whether if Mr. Goldstein survived would he have been branded a terrorist.
The legal system has no written Constitution and uses Jewish law as gap fillers where statutes and the common law are not sufficient.
If it was "judicially imposed" would that be good and/or bad? I do believe that judicial activism is enshrined in Israeli law, but I could be wrong.
1. The Israeli government condemned Mr. Goldstein's actions in the strongest possible way, including bulldozing his grave site (although personally speaking, if there were more Goldsteins around the area wouldn't be such a mess).
2. This is a complete aberration from Israeli behavior and I challenge you to find even a handful of incidents by an Israeli resembling this kind of action. Mind you, Israel's pedophile-worshiping neighbors have committed innumerable acts far more heinous than Goldstein ever imagined.
3. The governments of Israel's neighbors publicly support the murder and dismemberment of Israeli citizens and anyone who defends its right to exist. Israel has never, publicly or privately, supported the murder of innocent civilians.
Good to see that Lebanon can unite over their worship of child murderers. What a despicable place.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7509992.stm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1002659.html
We may need a separate thread to critique the sarcastro oeuvre, but I think he made a mistake passing over the more obvious and I think funnier choice of "Mahatma Hitler."
Well, because that kind of lawlessness leads to the end of civilization. Those of us who live in the DC area experiences something exactly like you are suggesting a couple of weeks ago. A Prince George's County (Maryland) cop was dragged to death by a perp driving a truck. A suspect was arrested a little while later and held in jail. A couple of days later, he was discovered murdered in his cell. Since all indications are that the suspect was indeed the killer, I yield to no one in my belief that he richly needed killing, but that doesn't lessen my horror that it appears to have been done illegally, with the connivance if not through the agency of those who had him in custody.
The death penalty is quite obviously an extremely serious matter. But I am alive today BECAUSE properly applied it works. So to lock-step oppose it simply because it is "troublesome" or sometimes improperly used is, imo, a coward's path. Real people will honestly deal with it. Those wishing to escape a citizen's responsibility merely call it "barbaric" and run pell-mell away from the topic.
DB's response to your despicable smear may have been appropriate to the forum, but it was a lot more polite than your comment deserved.
No. At least as far as I'm concerned. A 16 year old is fully capable of making moral choices. Moreover do you think he's changed or has any regrets?
It's a fair consideration, but in this case I think the heinousness of the crime mitigates more powerfully the opposite way. But the age is also relevant in another regard. After 30 years in prison, at 46 he's still plenty young enough to do more damage, one of the many reasons I can't fathom the thinking behind this deal.
How exactly do we know the rich minute-by-minute details of the father and child's deaths? Are we trusting the terrorist's accounts of what exactly happened, as they appear to be the only witnesses present?
How exactly did the 100 dead (presumably) Palestinian corpses that Israel traded their 2 dead for, get that way? Did Israel kill them, or just found them dead and collected their bodies where they lay? I know I had read about the 100 dead corpses on the other side, and was surprised that the original post and earlier comments seemed to play this as "1 of this alive" for "2 of this side dead" when the accounts I read was "1 alive/100 dead" traded for "2 dead".
To me as a Christian, (please no insults, and indeed, my questions are honest), it's all lunacy this trading in human life and counting as if it will somehow yield a victory. Still, I am curious about that 100 dead figure, even if they were fighters/soldiers as opposed to an innocent child in her home being taken in the night and killed alongside her father.
OT: Remember the last episode of MASH in the 80s with the mother accidently smothering her baby on the bus, hoping to quiet/protect them? If this occurred in 1979, I'm wondering if that's where the storyline originated. (like I said: OT)
Somehow, I don't think the solution to this tragic situation on all sides (to me, any dead child is a tragedy) is in counting and killing human lives. I count my blessing tonight that this is not my country, and my own ancestral homeland has moved past such reactionary violence. Good luck to all struggling to raise their families/protect their lives in the region.
Ditto my horror a few years back when the pedophilic old priest had his head bashed in by another inmate while in jail/protective custody of the State. Of course, I didn't think he "richly needed killing" so long as he was out of the way where he could no longer harm human lives.
Anecdotally, apparently not, but you can't use that to decide whether it would have been proper to execute him 30 years ago. The only question is whether a 16 year old murderer would have been more likely to eventually regret what he did than an older adult would have been. As I said, I don't find the age question persuasive, but it does have to be asked contemporaneously, not with the benefit of hindsight.
There were eye and ear witnesses for what transpired inside the apartment house (the wife and neighbors), but I'm also curious about who witnessed what happened outside, including both killings. But I'm willing to speculate it wasn't the terrorists, since Kuntar denies having beaten the little girl to death. There must have been some other source(s) at trial for how she died.
Let me try it again. Goldstein is a single example, repudiated in strong words and actions by both the Israeli government and the vast majority of Israeli citizens. He was not protected from mob action -- that is why he is dead. Kuntar is but one of a vast mob of terrorists. He was not repudiated by Hezbollah, but rather Hezbollah has murdered hundreds of Israeli and Lebanese soldiers, Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists, and Israeli, Lebanese, American and Palestinian civilians during three decades of violence and war focused on gaining his release. And he has been greeted as a hero by Hezbollah, and with multiple large celebrations in Palestinian territory.
Israeli society rejects the notion that Goldstein represents them. Palestinians embrace Kuntar as their representative. When you claim that Goldstein is a representative of Israelis in the same way that Kuntar is a representative of Palestinians, you lie.
To turn this around, does anyone really believe Nelson Mandela's status as the national hero of South Africa is in anyway diminished by the fact that he was released from prison alive rather than executed? Yes, by executing terrorists we may create martyrs, but better to have dead martyrs than live terrorists.
Some people are missing the point by saying the problem is the government's willingness to negotiate in prisoner exchanges rather than the refusal to impose the death penalty. When the government sentences a terrorist to death, it has no way of knowing whether future governments would negotiate a release of that terrorist. Imposing the death penalty both ties the hands of future governments and also reduces the incentive for Hamas and Hezbollah to capture Israelis to use as bargaining chips.
Finally, to the person who said Kuntar is probably not a threat after 30 years, who knows? 30 years isn't as long as you think. Just a little less than 30 years ago, a young twenty-something Saudi citizen by the name of Usama bin Laden joined the mujahideen to fight the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. He hasn't exactly mellowed now that he is middle aged.
"As I said, I don't find the age question persuasive, but it does have to be asked contemporaneously, not with the benefit of hindsight."
We don't need hindsight. If a 16 year old commits that kind heinous act today, we should execute him. We do it to express our outrage, to make sure he can't ever do it again, and to serve as a deterrent. Being 16 is not a license to kill. Perhaps I'm missing something, but that's the way I see it.
<blockquote>
<i>We don't need hindsight.</i>
</blockquote>
I agree, so long as you don't ask,
<blockquote>
<i>Moreover do you think he's changed or has any regrets?</i>
</blockquote>
... which can <i><b>only</b></i> be asked in hindsight.
Since he currently has no regrets, we have one more piece of evidence to indicate that not executing him was a mistake. I see nothing wrong with looking back on the quality of decisions made in the past.
Aren't the purposes of punishment for crimes supposed to be one or more of the following: incapacitation (incarceration of those who might offend again if free to do so); deterence (of others who would commit crimes, or the individual who would do it all over again if there were no prospect of punishment); rehabilitation (of those who might be rehabitable); and retribution (just deserts).
"Retribution" is OK because it implies that the punishment has been decided upon dispassionately and is proportional to the crime committed? "Vengeance" is bad because it implies that the punishment was not decided upon dispassionately and is somehow excessive or otherwise improper? "Vengeance" is the Furies untamed, and that is an expression of primitive rather than enlightened justice? "Retribution" and "vengeance" are clearly separable?
I suspect this disconnect is due to the fact that the criminal justice and judicial systems are influenced heavily by liberals while the military and intelligence services are more likely under the sway of conservatives. My impression is that Israel's military is tough as nails but its criminal justice system is softer than the U.S.'s. I think this is the reason for Israel's contradictory policies rather than the fact that it reflects some national consensus or expertise in dealing with terrorism.
I am wondering if these 100 dead terrorists/fighters were killed in Israeli captivity, or if they simply died there in the prison system?
I am also wondering why there is no mention of the 1 alive/100 dead v. 2 dead soldiers tradeoff on this thread or in the original post, if indeed it was all part and parcel of the same negotiated deal. If you didn't read the outside news coverage and only went on what you read here, it's being presented as a 1 alive vs. 2 dead trade. Why?
If Israel didn't execute those 100, then how exactly did they die? Were they killed in combat, and their bodies collected by the Israeli side? Or did they just expire naturally in Israeli prisons? The details of what exactly they did to get there doesn't titillate me so much; I am assuming they were "bad guys" (and women apparently). The 100 dead is part of the same trade deal though, correct?
http://members.aol.com/cwiklinski/199.html
B. Would this be the death penalty for "Murder by Terrorist" or murder of a soldier? I would hope it be the earlier.
C. Bad precedent or as Law Professors like to put it, perverse incentive. If Israel kills those it catches, what makes you think others won't start killing even more Israelis? Shall we make an example of the maryter or of one's peacefulness and forgiveness?
D. What effect will these deaths make? Will it inflame the fires of radical Islam even more and, as an effect, kill many more israels and soldiers? The white flag would turn into a target reference point for mortars.
They didn't beat him to death - they hacked him to death with hatchets, of which they "just so happened" to have had a large supply in the room. Hatchets are not a normal item in Moslem worship. The previous night an Arab mob had been loudly calling for Jewish blood, and promising a repeat of the 1929 pogrom. There were reports, I don't know how true, that Dr Goldstein had been told by the army to prepare for an expected massacre. He had just a few days earlier seen first-hand the work of the Arab murderers, when one of his neighbours died in his arms after having been shot.
Given all this, I think it far more likely that he heroically prevented a massacre than that he perpetrated one. At the very least he's entitled to the presumption of innocence. And regardless of what actually happened, the people who hacked him to death after he was disarmed and no longer a threat should have been tried for murder, just as was the Israeli guard (Yoram someone, I think) who shot that bound terrorist on the bus, about 25 years ago.
Now, personally I think that killings and kidnappings will happen regardless of whether Specific Terrorist X is captured or killed. As long as the conflict persists we can expect similar acts; the terrorists will just pick a different rationale arising from the conflict.
But that's just me. Don't any of you let it get in the way of your posturing.
Too bad they were asleep at the switch the other day - they could have smoked Kuntar and the head of Hezbollah while they were on the same stage dancing with glee at their victory. Why, oh why, was the Israeli Air Force not standing by with laser-guided munitions at the ready?
Oh, too late.
Seems like you follow the Kach line of thinking, which is fine. I tend not to follow the line of terror groups, but that is just me.
If you want to through the whole "some reports say" stuff, there are "some reports" that Goldstein refused to practice emergency medicine on non-Jews. He allegedly stated this when threatened with a court martial.
It is not verified, but it exists. I could not find any reports that talk about hatchets, while I am not contesting what you say - I could not even find Israeli sources for that only that he was subdued with a fire extinguisher then beaten to death. Not exactly surprising given he killed 29 men, women and children and wounded 150 others. He illegally wore his military uniform as if he was on active duty and did this act. My source is the Shamgar report.
If X leads to the end of civilization and you give an example of X occurring, perhaps you should run and quit your job right now and enjoy the few days you have left on this planet before civilization ends.
Or perhaps you should just stop using these over-dramatic rhetorical devices.
I suspect Seamus meant "civil society" rather than civilization.
OT, I don't see any reason to ban sarcastro from the site. He isn't posting bad facts or attacking other posters. And if the admins ban people for poor spelling or overused rhetorical devices, this will be a very quiet place. I'll support one exception: Anyone who types the word "hypocracy" should be banned for life.
Uh-oh.
Meh. It's equally baseless. I don't suppose you're redoubling your efforts to stockpile food because of the impending collapse of civil society.
The Dalal Mughrabi story is a very telling one, that is if it would be fully reported. Here is the type of person that the Palestinians, speaking through their highest leadership, celebrate as a hero(ine), and would memorialize in such an extraordinary way. Try to read about the contest between Hezbollah and the PA over who will get her body, though. The Jerusalem Post reported on it, but that story is no longer available free online, and I don't know what other news media reported on it - not the NYT, Washington Post, Haaretz, our news networks, wire services, etc. Plenty newsworthy to Hezbollah and the Palestinians, but not it seems to Western media. Calling out one person, Kuntar, as a loathsome terrorist, seems to have been more than enough for them. Maybe it's because the unreported stuff doesn't comport with the general story line.
He is a classic troll! He is not here for substantive discussion but to provoke people. I enjoy that as much as anyone, if not more, but trollishness is certainly a valid reason to ban people.
At least in this topic, his posts are directly on point. He had a gratuitous swipe at Texas, but many lawyers put Texas into a different category given the homicidal tendencies of its last few governors.
Everyone knows kiling always takes more courage than not killing.
Frikken spineless rest of the world!
This was "on point" and not intended as a provocation? Uh huh.
Well then, Israel is certainly going to regret not executing these scum when it had the chance. As usual, the elites will not pay the price for their bad decisions, only Joe Citizen.
That helps me, at least with concepts, if not always the practical application. And as for the subject of this thread, the death penalty for the likes of Kuntar - vengeance or retribution?