NationStates Jolt Archive

Should there be the death penalty for terrorists?

I am proposing a resulotion to inact the death penalty for terrorists.

Your poll is leading, which is a lame thing to do. Usually people whom are insecure in their opinion(s) create leading polls, because they aren't interested in finding the truth.

Your poll is leading, which is a lame thing to do. Usually people whom are insecure in their opinion(s) create leading polls, because they aren't interested in finding the truth.

Very well put.

The Carsonese Government is strictly against any form of capital punishment. We believe it is immoral and inhumane.

That also begs the question, where do you draw the line between legitimate rebellion and terrorism? Don't forget that at one time Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist in his fight against the apartheid. More recently the USAPATRIOT Act introduced a very broad definition of terrorism to cover any act that intimidates in order to affect government policy. That could be stretched to include Greenpeace or a mass protest. Even a political rally could be terrorism under that definition. There's the problem.

"Terrorism" can be very easily used on any group or opinion you don't like. Add this to my opposition to the death penalty, and you see why I would never support any such resolution.

That also begs the question, where do you draw the line between legitimate rebellion and terrorism? Don't forget that at one time Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist in his fight against the apartheid. More recently the USAPATRIOT Act introduced a very broad definition of terrorism to cover any act that intimidates in order to affect government policy. That could be stretched to include Greenpeace or a mass protest. Even a political rally could be terrorism under that definition. There's the problem.

"Terrorism" can be very easily used on any group or opinion you don't like. Add this to my opposition to the death penalty, and you see why I would never support any such resolution.

The Peoples Republic of Antor totally agrees to this statement, and is therefore against this proposition. Not only we think that Terrorists should get a fair trial, but they should also receive "equal" punishments. This does not mean that Antor opposes to capital punishment. Capital punishment may still be applied, but only with extreme crimes, such as the 11 september bombings.

That also begs the question, where do you draw the line between legitimate rebellion and terrorism? Don't forget that at one time Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist in his fight against the apartheid. More recently the USAPATRIOT Act introduced a very broad definition of terrorism to cover any act that intimidates in order to affect government policy. That could be stretched to include Greenpeace or a mass protest. Even a political rally could be terrorism under that definition. There's the problem.

"Terrorism" can be very easily used on any group or opinion you don't like. Add this to my opposition to the death penalty, and you see why I would never support any such resolution.

(OOC: Your USAPATRIOT Act definition and inuendo is wayyy too narrow and vague. There's much more to it than that. Greenpeace, civil disobedience within the law, and political rallys are not subject to this conspiracy theorists wet dream :rolleyes: )

"Legitimate Rebellion" attacks the sitting Government, the Military, the Police, the governmental infrastructure of a Nation, in order to unseat that sitting Government and replace it with one of their own choosing.

"Terrorism" attacks the general populace. Instilling bone chilling fear by murdering, maiming, torturing, and commiting ghastly unspeakable attacks on innocent men, women, and children, in order to fill the populace with such terror and dread that they, the populace, rise up against the sitting Government. In response, the terrorized innocent citizens force governments to capitulate to the terrorists demands, which is the terrorists ultimate goal. The populace does the work of the terrorists, who see themselves as conducting a "legitimate rebellion", without actually looking down the barrel of a gun themselves. That's what makes terrorists the evil scum sucking cowards that they, without question, are.

Now I shall retire to my library and sip a cognac while trying to calm down. The subject of terrorists and terrorism is a sure fire way to get my ire up!

Your poll is highly misleading, "Should there be death for terrorists?" After all, who would want to see a terrorist be immortal? Death should come for terrorists just as it comes for us all. The only question is when, where and how. :sniper:

A death penalty for terrorists is not needed, because terrorists tend to do things (like kill people) that warrent the death penalty. If in a nation killing someone in cold blood for financial purposes doesn't warent the death penalty, then neither should it warrent the death penalty for purposes of terror.

What about eco-terrorism?

I'm not sure there is a clear-cut answer, because as you read more from both sides on this particular issue, there really is a slippery slope.

Here is one accounting:

http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/ecoterr.htm


"On October 16, 1997, my Eureka, California District Office was rocked by what sounded like a thunderous explosion," Riggs told the committee. "In fact, the sound was that of a 500-pound tree stump being dumped off a truck onto the office foyer floor. Upon responding to the horrific sound, my two female staff members were greeted by the visage of several Earth First! terrorists, one wearing a black ski mask, and another wearing dark goggles and a hood. The masked marauders — wearing combat boots and dressed in black from head to toe — and their cohorts, after the initial "stump drop," then dumped four large garbage bags of sawdust, pine needles and leaves all over the congressional office, over computers, desks and the floor. All the while, one of them videotaped the attack with a handheld video camera, making a point to get right into the faces of each of the two staff members for 'close-up' shots."

In this example (more at the link), I'd say that the protesters *are* threatening violence.

But there is admitedly another side:

http://www.humboldt.edu/~osprey/fall01/story_html/eco.html

These activists frustrate investigators by hitting remote targets, often at night, and leaving little evidence, but charred ruins. Earth First! is by no means the only group considered to be "Eco-terrorists" by law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. One recent attack that received wide-ranging media attention took place in 1998 in Vail, Col. After the building of a ski-lift operation was complete, members of Earth First! said that the development was encroaching on a habitat for lynx. To make a direct point, a series of fires were lit around the perimeter of the ski lifts. More than $12 million in damage was done.

This example, the group was targeting resources, not people.

Another example:

http://earthliberationfront.com/about/

Read, it. It is clearly underground.

But the question shouldn't just focus on the nature and actions of these organizations, but perhaps the motive. This again reinforces my nation's belief that when governments fail to meet their social contracts, that they create dissent. They give rise to environments that breed this type of behavior. And the response can either be to find out the cause of these problems or to respond by becoming a police state.

This is just something to bear in mind.

Due to the leading poll of Iupiter, the Slashdot region will no longer be listening to his propositions.

Slashdot recommends other UN Nations encourage their delegates to do the same.

Due to the leading poll of Iupiter, the Slashdot region will no longer be listening to his propositions.

Slashdot recommends other UN Nations encourage their delegates to do the same.

hmmm... harsh

If you were to visit his Nation sir or ma'am, The Oppressed Peoples of Iupiter in The East Pacific region, you will see that he is a new Nation of 5 million people (or was as of this morning). To me, he seems highly motivated to be a part of this NSUN in a proactive and provocative way, albeit, he's as green as a Bull Frogs butt. Just as you and everyone else was once. I am still green, and will be for some time to come. Would you ignore my proposals if I were to not recognize a nuance that I had not been made aware of? He has learned his first hard lesson about setting a poll, or he will when he visits his thread again.

The Slashdot region may well do what they please, but I look forward with great interest and expectation at what this new nation may have to offer in the future, after Iupiter learns the lay of the land.

I will not attempt to implore or encourage my region to ignore all future proposals from this or any other Nation that feels they want to contribute something here, based on one faux paux. I hope none others will either.

Good day.

That also begs the question, where do you draw the line between legitimate rebellion and terrorism? Don't forget that at one time Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist in his fight against the apartheid. More recently the USAPATRIOT Act introduced a very broad definition of terrorism to cover any act that intimidates in order to affect government policy. That could be stretched to include Greenpeace or a mass protest. Even a political rally could be terrorism under that definition. There's the problem.

"Terrorism" can be very easily used on any group or opinion you don't like. Add this to my opposition to the death penalty, and you see why I would never support any such resolution.

I think nelson mandela is a terrorist

The CIA still, technically speaking, considers him one. He was largely supported by Cuba (he was personally trained to be an expert in explosives) at a point when no Western power would offer anything more severe than a wagged finger against the brutal, racist RSA government.

He also led one of the noblest struggles this century has seen, and is one of the greatest politicians alive today.

George Washington could have been called a terrorist with just as much rationale. (I'm tempted to add, largely irrelevant though it is, that should you put any stock in Biblical legend Moses was the worst terrorist in history).

There's much more to it than that. Greenpeace, civil disobedience within the law, and political rallys are not subject to this conspiracy theorists wet dream :rolleyes:

No, there would be hell to pay if they used the definition to do that, not to mention constitutional rights problems. I doubt that the USAPATRIOT Act could actually stand up in court in those circumstances. But that wasn't my point, my point was that there are too many problems in the definition of terrorism.

"Legitimate Rebellion" attacks the sitting Government, the Military, the Police, the governmental infrastructure of a Nation, in order to unseat that sitting Government and replace it with one of their own choosing.

Definition problem again. I can think of several terrorist groups that satisfy that criteria, such as the IRA and Al-Qaeda.

"Terrorism" attacks the general populace.

You could then make the argument that since (real) UN sanctions targeted the Iraqi population, the UN should be declared a terrorist organisation and wiped off the face of the earth.

Your definition also could have meant that Ronald Reagan should have been jailed for his administration's actions in Nicaragua, after all the intent was to destroy the government by provoking civil unrest and refusing to help after the nation was hit by a hurricane. Isn't that victimising the general populace?

The potential for abuse is also something to be worried about. Any political dissidence could be branded terrorism by the government they are trying to overthrow. This is a very delicate shades of grey issue and we don't want to be doing brain surgery with a machete.

Definition problem again. I can think of several terrorist groups that satisfy that criteria, such as the IRA and Al-Qaeda.

Well, in all fairness, Al-Qaeda members really are terrorists.

That aside, the nation of Sophista still opposes capital punishment, for reasons that we've expounded upon dozens of times. Under no circumstance is it legitimate to take life, even of a person who has taken life himself or herself. It contradicts the sanctity of human life, and, when administered by an imperfect justice system (as they all are), puts innocent lives at risk.

Yes, but under the definition they'd be legitimate rebels. Of course, that's easily dealt with by admitting terrorism and rebellion to not be mutually exclusive (since they clearly are not) and defining legitimate rebellion as being rebellion that doesn't use terrorism.

And to be perfectly frank, I'd be more than happy if Ronnie (or key CIA members, etc etc) had been jailed for terrorism. To make any terrorism definition ethically legitimate it must be applicable to (and enforcable upon) those in powerful, established governments no less than those cradling a third-hand AK47 in a dirty Third-World cave and wishing they'd brought more shaving cream.

Well, I think that about wraps it up.... :)

Yes, but under the definition they'd be legitimate rebels. Of course, that's easily dealt with by admitting terrorism and rebellion to not be mutually exclusive (since they clearly are not) and defining legitimate rebellion as being rebellion that doesn't use terrorism.

All rebellion, no matter how precisely executed, will involve some degree of terrorism. Those fighting for independence in Chechnya are no doubt considered terrorists by the Russians, but their fighting is not out of sheer malice for the Russian government. They simply feel they have a right to be free. To assume that a rebellion can be such without using any of the tactics reffered to as "terrorism" would only lead to the classification of every rebel as a terrorist.

That's not what we want out of this.

These are excellent views however we will be specific about terrorists. These Al Quida extremists need to be put to the sword. All they want is our downfall. And all I want is thier quick demise.

Honestly, I think a worse punishment would be to lock them up for life. It would probably be difficult to do this because they are ready and willing to die for their cause anyways. And probably will fight to the death, which means they wouldn't live to see any punishment.

Because there is already a NATIONAL ISSUE DEALING WITH THIS TOPIC :

Time for another :

*** RANDOM MOCKERY ***

And to a lesser degree, occasional serious stuff, but kept to a minimum I assure you.

yes, the terrorist should go
Terrorist ? Singular ? There is only one ? Go ? Go where ?

...

:mp5: ... <- <- <- Oh, its okay now, he is already leaving.

Problem solved. :D

But really, watch out in future, as you can probably tell by now, " leading polls leave in your character large holes. ", so try to remain un-biased.There is a fine line between witty and a half-wit.

I think nelson mandela is a terrorist
Yes ! I agree ! Whose deplorable actions against white people were later aided by the sale of his slippers ! Where will it all end people, where will it all end ?

;)

George Washington could have been called a terrorist with just as much rationale.
Well, I'm a little devoid of American history, see, Australia was the " good colony " after all, heh, but I digress more often then usual. Now who was involved in the Boston Tea Party Incident ? See, I know if my mother, being an avid tea lover, had been around back then, and not resting after being last re-incarnated as Queen Elizabeth The First, she would have had them shot on the spot for such a despicable action. People need their tanin dose else they get cranky, just deplorable stuff that was, how on earth could the let politics get in the way of a tasty hot beverage I'll never understand ...

(I'm tempted to add, largely irrelevant though it is, that should you put any stock in Biblical legend Moses was the worst terrorist in history).
What about Noah and the Christian God ?

" This is the story of a Lord, cried a river and drowned the whole world ... "

* If you'll just excuse me for a moment, I need to go burn in Christian hell for a few minutes.

:D + ;)

Definition problem again. I can think of several terrorist groups that satisfy that criteria, such as the IRA and Al-Qaeda.
True, the problem with the so called or self proclaimed legitimate rebellion movements is that they seem fine with collateral damage in the form of property and more importantly innocent bystanders, then go on to insult the victums families with crocodile tears and claims "Oh, but you see, you should thank us, now your dearly departed is a matyr for our cause and is in paradise".

Its all load of wank. :( , Blow up a member of my family and I'll come after you.

You could then make the argument that since (real) UN sanctions targeted the Iraqi population, the UN should be declared a terrorist organisation and wiped off the face of the earth.
Actually, the sanctions were meant to target the Saddam regime, the problem was the regime was powerful and corrupt enough to with-stand this and add feathers to its own nest while leaving the people it ruled out in the cold. And because of politics and saving face, once the sanctions where in place, that was it, no going back with-out looking like your actions were a failure. Something the U.N. and friends could not afford to allow. Sadly, common sense is not an obligatory component of international actions and politics.

But all that aside, will the last nation to leave please turn out the lights ? I'll be cleaning out the bar.

:D

Well, in all fairness, Al-Qaeda members really are terrorists.
No, no, no, don't you remember ? They are " matyrs of god ", etc, etc, etc.

Remember, one mans terrorist is another man-with-an-agenda-'s means to an end.

" There should be no glory in dying for god if you ruin some-ones wall-paper. "

( That and they are fashion terrorists too, don't they know facial hair and robes are out this season ? Tsk tsk tsk. Terrible, they make no effort. No wonder they expect to only get women in paradise. )

no less than those cradling a third-hand AK47 in a dirty Third-World cave and wishing they'd brought more shaving cream.
On the plus side for them, if they get out of it alive, they could form a corporation and have lucrative jobs in the hair transplant industry.

Osama : " Hair as great as God ? Yeah Yeah ! "

;)

All rebellion, no matter how precisely executed, will involve some degree of terrorism. Those fighting for independence in Chechnya are no doubt considered terrorists by the Russians, but their fighting is not out of sheer malice for the Russian government. They simply feel they have a right to be free. To assume that a rebellion can be such without using any of the tactics reffered to as "terrorism" would only lead to the classification of every rebel as a terrorist.
Although I am tempet to disagree with this example, only as I remember the possibility it was Chechnyan rebels who were involved in the Moscow theatre attack. While many injured were as of a result of the gas used to eliminate the terrorist threat, one must remember all those women involved with explosives strapped to them, sitting around clusters of horriified civilian hostages. Some how, I don't think its the government they always target.

These are excellent views however we will be specific about terrorists. These Al Quida extremists need to be put to the sword. All they want is our downfall. And all I want is thier quick demise.
And I am sure myself and your fellow Umbrella-stands wish you the best sir, with your re-election. God Bless MC Hammer. :D

I agree with most of the problems laid down here about this proposal. Terrorism is a difficult concept to pin down, if we were to make any resolution pertaining to terrorists, I would insist that, instead of offering a definition in the resolution for nations to apply themselves, a UN committee of experts be set up to identify which organisations can legitimately be labelled terrorists, whose decisions could be overruled by a supermajority vote by the general assembly (of course, none of this would actually happen in NS, but it satisfies my perfectionism to a greater extent).

_Myopia_ does not apply the death penalty for any crime, including murder. We therefore feel it would be grossly inappropriate to apply it to terrorists, for the simple fact that we generally prefer not to legislate on what our citizens think, merely what they do. Of course, exceptions are made where sensible, e.g. punishments are more lenient where the offender is deemed to have acted out of insanity, and self-defence is obviously allowed, but a murderer should be punished the same whether they kill for their religion, their political belief, or their financial gain. To punish a terrorist worse than someone who kills for financial gain would imply that it's somehow not as evil to kill someone if you can make money out of it.

I Should Tell You That Your Poll Is Just A Tinnyyy Bit Biased Against Terrorists, Seeing As How You Say 'I Do Not Wish To Harm Those Who Wish To Harm Me' Or 'I Am A Twit'... What The Crap Is A Twit?! English People...


Joseph Priest, Izrathia

Eye for an eye, ear for an ear, do something bad, and karma will get back to you. This is the way of RoffleCakes.

If you kill someone, then you have given up your right to live.

At least that is how I see it. If you don't like it, I don't think you should live in my country.

And I Am Glad I Don't! What If You Were To Kill In Self-Defense? Or Didn't Mean To? These Are Questions You Must Ask Yourself

For me, the core question is this:

Why should you differentiate 'terrorism' from 'murder'? Isn't it essentially the same thing? If a nation decided to eliminate the death penalty for murder, why should it then be applied to people the nation decides to brand a 'terrorist'?