No opposition to death penalty from UK ....

[Drummond]

This may be a 'one off' ... or, it may herald a new policy on behalf of the UK Government. Either way .. I say it's a step in the right direction !!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44921910


The UK would not oppose the use of the death penalty if two alleged Islamic state members were extradited to the US, the home secretary says.

In a letter leaked to the Telegraph, Sajid Javid said he would seek no assurances about the sentences.

Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, from west London, were captured in Syria in January.

Labour said the UK had "unilaterally abandoned" its opposition to the death penalty.

Number 10 said the PM was aware of the letter and discussions with the US on this issue were continuing.

Shami Chakrabarti, Labour's shadow attorney general, said Mr Javid had "secretly and unilaterally abandoned Britain's opposition to the death penalty" and appeared to be encouraging "this grave human rights abuse".

It's normal procedure for us to insist that the US never applies the death penalty to anyone we extradite to the US. For once, we've considered the crimes involved to be so disgusting as to think that such a sentence in your courts is acceptable.

This'll doubtless turn into a Left v Right issue for us, with the Left absolutely insisting that we consider the 'human rights' of terrorists.

My view ... a terrorist is NOT human, exhibits nothing of humanity in committing terrorism, therefore, deserves no human consideration at all. I'd apply so-called 'human rights' to a cockroach before I'd do so for any terrorist.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Wow... no comment from your moslem mayor?

[Drummond]

Wow... no comment from your moslem mayor?

'Amazingly' ... no ! None that I'm aware of. Not yet, anyway.

My guess ... as so-called 'human rights' organisations seem to be limbering up to offer staunch opposition, he may ride on the back of all of that, and lend 'support' to their efforts.

We'll see.

[Drummond]

An example of Sadiq Khan (current London Mayor; Muslim) and his record, previously, on terrorism ... [actually viewing the link is a useful exercise ...]

https://order-order.com/2015/07/03/sadiq-khans-hollow-words-on-internet-jihad/


Sadiq Khan has spoken about extremism and terrorism:

“I want action to be taken against those on the other side of the net and with the ISP [internet service provider] maybe. We need to make sure communities have the confidence to come forward. It is a challenge for the police to be approachable and are seen to treat people well.”

According the Guardian the Labour Mayoral wannabe said ‘his biggest concern was grooming taking place in the “ungoverned spaces – the bedroom, internet, front room” rather than in mosques and schools, where more could be done to address it openly.’ Noble words…

So how is Sadiq’s track-record when it comes to those looking to recruit converts in the “ungoverned spaces – the bedroom, internet, front room”?

As the BBC reported in 2013:

“A British man who spent eight years fighting extradition to the US has pleaded guilty to terrorism charges. Babar Ahmad, 39, from south London, admitted conspiracy and providing material to support to terrorism and faces up to 25 years in jail. He admitted the offences in a plea agreement hearing in a federal court hearing in New Haven, Connecticut.”

And who was it that was a prominent and vocal cheerleader for the Free Babar Ahmad campaign?

Khan has never given a straight answer on his exact relationship to Ahmad, telling three different versions of how they know each other – ranging from a constituent to a childhood friend. He told the House one version of events, No. 10 another and Ahmad supporters something completely different.

The BBC describe Ahmad as “the godfather of internet jihad”:

“He was a pioneer when it came to using the web as a tool of jihadist propaganda. If you wanted to find the face – and voice – of Generation Jihad, it would be Babar Ahmad.”

Yet Khan calls him a friend.

[Elessar]

This may be a 'one off' ... or, it may herald a new policy on behalf of the UK Government. Either way .. I say it's a step in the right direction !!

It's normal procedure for us to insist that the US never applies the death penalty to anyone we extradite to the US. For once, we've considered the crimes involved to be so disgusting as to think that such a sentence in your courts is acceptable.

This'll doubtless turn into a Left v Right issue for us, with the Left absolutely insisting that we consider the 'human rights' of terrorists.

My view ... a terrorist is NOT human, exhibits nothing of humanity in committing terrorism, therefore, deserves no human consideration at all. I'd apply so-called 'human rights' to a cockroach before I'd do so for any terrorist.

My problem, personally, is why does the LEFT defend the criminal?

Their 'civil rights'? What of the rights of the victims?

In the USA, the LEFT opposes corporeal punishment (spanking) and capital punishment....YET
they applaud abortion.

[aboutime]

Wow... no comment from your moslem mayor?

No comment from the Mayor because (deep down inside his hate-filled brain), he might suspect...SOMEDAY, he could end up being sent to the U.S. on a Special Flight, compliments of the U.S. Justice Department. :clap::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Gunny]

This may be a 'one off' ... or, it may herald a new policy on behalf of the UK Government. Either way .. I say it's a step in the right direction !!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44921910



It's normal procedure for us to insist that the US never applies the death penalty to anyone we extradite to the US. For once, we've considered the crimes involved to be so disgusting as to think that such a sentence in your courts is acceptable.

This'll doubtless turn into a Left v Right issue for us, with the Left absolutely insisting that we consider the 'human rights' of terrorists.

My view ... a terrorist is NOT human, exhibits nothing of humanity in committing terrorism, therefore, deserves no human consideration at all. I'd apply so-called 'human rights' to a cockroach before I'd do so for any terrorist.

I agree with the UK's handling of the matter. Not just because it's the US. I think it should be the same for all countries instead of superimposing one's political beliefs on others. I believe that on more topics than just the death penalty.

Might make the world run a little smoother if everyone stopped insisting everyone else think exactly as they do on any given subject. Happens a LOT in THIS country.

[Drummond]

My problem, personally, is why does the LEFT defend the criminal?

Their 'civil rights'? What of the rights of the victims?

In the USA, the LEFT opposes corporeal punishment (spanking) and capital punishment....YET
they applaud abortion.

Exactly. This is just the way our Left is, too (including on abortion). I totally agree. What of victims' rights ? The Left is happy to trample on them.

Our Left has been attacking our decision not to insist on avoidance of the death penalty, in Parliament ... of course. It's their 'principled, enlightened stand' ....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-44932842/security-minister-ben-wallace-challenged-on-is-case


Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott has questioned the UK's decision to abandon its "principled opposition" to the death penalty in the case of two Islamic State suspects.

Speaking in the House of Commons, she said it was not possible to be a "little bit in favour" of the death penalty.

Security Minister Ben Wallace defended the government's approach, saying it took a "rare decision" in this case to ensure the suspects face a trial.

[Drummond]

I agree with the UK's handling of the matter. Not just because it's the US. I think it should be the same for all countries instead of superimposing one's political beliefs on others. I believe that on more topics than just the death penalty.

Might make the world run a little smoother if everyone stopped insisting everyone else think exactly as they do on any given subject. Happens a LOT in THIS country.

Gunny, if you mean that you agree with the decision that's now been taken, on this specific case ... we're being told it's the exception rather than the rule. Normally, the UK says that no extraditions are allowed where there's any possibility of a death sentence being passed. The UK hasn't reversed that stance for ALL extraditions; just for this case.

We're in the position, as a matter of 'normal principle', where we tell countries that because we don't subscribe to the idea of the death penalty being a legitimate sentence, we'll refuse to cooperate with any country not seeing this our way .. on a case-by-case basis.

Our Left will have been the architect of that approach.

Of course.

[Gunny]

Gunny, if you mean that you agree with the decision that's now been taken, on this specific case ... we're being told it's the exception rather than the rule. Normally, the UK says that no extraditions are allowed where there's any possibility of a death sentence being passed. The UK hasn't reversed that stance for ALL extraditions; just for this case.

We're in the position, as a matter of 'normal principle', where we tell countries that because we don't subscribe to the idea of the death penalty being a legitimate sentence, we'll refuse to cooperate with any country not seeing this our way .. on a case-by-case basis.

Our Left will have been the architect of that approach.

Of course.Okay. I agree in this case then. :)

Recall a decade or so ago the DC Shooter -- John Muhammed and Henry Lee Malvo? They were tooling around using the trunk of the car as a sniper's nest and murdered people in both Virginia and Maryland. Virginia has the death penalty, Maryland does not. They decided to try them in Virginia first :) Naturally they both got the death penalty. I think because of his age Malvo got out of it though. I'd have to look that up.

Anyway, we go through the same deal with Mexico. Mexico won't extradite without the death penalty being taken off the table. They even made an exception. This one guy was riding the rails (railroad) back and forth in the Southwest, mostly Texas, and would get off at stops and murder people that lived there and steal their property. Mexico sent him back to Texas to stand trial. That too is an exception rather than the rule.

Flip the coin again ... US military personnel who violate the law while in foreign countries are tried in those countries by their courts. If the Judge Advocate can't buy their way out. I guess it's fair. Being tried by the people you committed the crime against.

[Elessar]

Okay. I agree in this case then. :)

Recall a decade or so ago the DC Shooter -- John Muhammed and Henry Lee Malvo? They were tooling around using the trunk of the car as a sniper's nest and murdered people in both Virginia and Maryland. Virginia has the death penalty, Maryland does not. They decided to try them in Virginia first :) Naturally they both got the death penalty. I think because of his age Malvo got out of it though. I'd have to look that up.

Anyway, we go through the same deal with Mexico. Mexico won't extradite without the death penalty being taken off the table. They even made an exception. This one guy was riding the rails (railroad) back and forth in the Southwest, mostly Texas, and would get off at stops and murder people that lived there and steal their property. Mexico sent him back to Texas to stand trial. That too is an exception rather than the rule.

Flip the coin again ... US military personnel who violate the law while in foreign countries are tried in those countries by their courts. If the Judge Advocate can't buy their way out. I guess it's fair. Being tried by the people you committed the crime against.

Malvo: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/05/26/judge-tosses-out-dc-sniper-ife-sentences/102207898/

Sorry.....I do not care much for death, having dealt with it so often.

But sometimes a rabid human animal has to be put DOWN.

Nobody, and that is Nobody can tell me a 17-18 year old does not know right from wrong.

[Gunny]

Malvo: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/05/26/judge-tosses-out-dc-sniper-ife-sentences/102207898/

Sorry.....I do not care much for death, having dealt with it so often.

But sometimes a rabid human animal has to be put DOWN.

Nobody, and that is Nobody can tell me a 17-18 year old does not know right from wrong.Here's my take: Completely agree on the not liking death. It's as ugly as it smells.

Having said that, on occasion I watch these prison shows on NatGeo. I've seen them enough to get a REAL good idea what life is like. Add to that I've been "imprisoned" -- confined to an area with the same people day in and day out indefinitely where every day is the same -- enough on deployments/exercises, and got a few trips to jail on my ribbon bar as well, that I'm not sure why we consider "life without parole" having a life. This may make the guilty people who don't want to pull the trigger feel better, but what exactly kind of "life" are you consigning someone too?

In My opinion, for ME, not anyone else, I think I would prefer the quick death to a slow one, rotting away with a bunch of other people with no hope. Either way, it ends the same. Why drag it out? Someone else can feel better about saving the condemned? Not logical to me.

And of course I am aware of the usual exceptions to the rule, but I am addressing the rule.

I also completely agree that some people just need killing.

[Drummond]

Malvo: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/05/26/judge-tosses-out-dc-sniper-ife-sentences/102207898/

Sorry.....I do not care much for death, having dealt with it so often.

But sometimes a rabid human animal has to be put DOWN.

Nobody, and that is Nobody can tell me a 17-18 year old does not know right from wrong.

I understand how you feel about death.

I also agree -- someone around 18 years old will, by that age, know right from wrong. Certainly a human being would.

I suggest, however, what I've long since posted on this forum ... that if a 'person' is so lacking in humanity as to commit acts of terrorism, leading to death and destruction, and / or horrific maimings, and if that 'person' has no conscience about it, and is even willing to mete it out repeatedly ... then, that individual cannot be said to possess the qualities necessary to be called 'human' in the first place.

Moral standards are understood, and are held to, by human beings. Terrorists don't understand these things, therefore, are NOT definable as human.

My own Leftie-infested society insists that terrorists have human rights. It is a backward, as well as highly illogical, stance.

A death penalty enacted against a terrorist is comparable to pest eradication. The same 'angsts' felt about a terrorist being subject to such punishment, are the preserve of the delusionist Left ... I suggest.

[Gunny]

I understand how you feel about death.

I also agree -- someone around 18 years old will, by that age, know right from wrong. Certainly a human being would.

I suggest, however, what I've long since posted on this forum ... that if a 'person' is so lacking in humanity as to commit acts of terrorism, leading to death and destruction, and / or horrific maimings, and if that 'person' has no conscience about it, and is even willing to mete it out repeatedly ... then, that individual cannot be said to possess the qualities necessary to be called 'human' in the first place.

Moral standards are understood, and are held to, by human beings. Terrorists don't understand these things, therefore, are NOT definable as human.

My own Leftie-infested society insists that terrorists have human rights. It is a backward, as well as highly illogical, stance.

A death penalty enacted against a terrorist is comparable to pest eradication. The same 'angsts' felt about a terrorist being subject to such punishment, are the preserve of the delusionist Left ... I suggest.Unfortunately, there are those that DO define such vermin as "human beings". That is a discussion in and of itself. Being "human" is defined by one's society.

The Malvo guy is below average IQ as I recall, and was neglected/abandoned/abuse? as a child. As I recall, he had several of the personality issues that would lead him to follow someone who paid him attention.

The John Muhammed guy (and I don't believe he was actually any kind of practicing raghead) was just plain, out of the bag evil and manipulative. He (they) killed all these people as a cover for the fact he intended to murder his ex-wife. The lengths some people will go :rolleyes: Still, they were caught by accident. If they'd called it a day and knocked off the ex, they conceivably COULD HAVE gotten away with it because the police didn't have a clue.

[Gunny]

BY REUTERS
JULY 23, 2018 13:51


LONDON - Prime Minister (https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/UK-wants-two-Islamic-State-fighters-to-face-trial-in-most-appropriate-country-563197#) Theresa May wants two British Islamic (https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/UK-wants-two-Islamic-State-fighters-to-face-trial-in-most-appropriate-country-563197#) State militants to be tried in the most appropriate jurisdiction, her spokeswoman (https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/UK-wants-two-Islamic-State-fighters-to-face-trial-in-most-appropriate-country-563197#) said, after a newspaper reported that the government will send (https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/UK-wants-two-Islamic-State-fighters-to-face-trial-in-most-appropriate-country-563197#)them for trial in the United States.

Britain's interior minister Sajid Javid has dropped the government's blanket opposition to the death penalty (https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/UK-wants-two-Islamic-State-fighters-to-face-trial-in-most-appropriate-country-563197#) in order to allow two men to be sent to the United States, the Daily Telegraph newspaper reported.

Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh are alleged to have been members of a unit responsible for killing a series of high-profile western captives.

"It's a long-standing position of the government to oppose the death penalty ... as a matter of principle," the spokeswoman told reporters.

"We are continuing to engage with the US government on this issue and our priority is to make sure that the these men face criminal prosecution. We want to make sure they face justice in the most appropriate jurisdiction which maximizes the chances of a successful prosecution.
https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/UK-wants-two-Islamic-State-fighters-to-face-trial-in-most-appropriate-country-563197

Another take. From Reuters (The article and link are to the Jerusalem Post)

[Drummond]

Unfortunately, there are those that DO define such vermin as "human beings". That is a discussion in and of itself. Being "human" is defined by one's society.

You're right. It is a discussion 'in and of itself'.

However, the issue itself is of vital importance.

You say it yourself ... they're vermin. Vermin isn't human.

Here's the thing. Society consists of a spectrum of ideas. Some are just 'floated out there'. Some are adopted as mainstream talking points. Some form the basis for an entire ideology.

.. AND ... some become, for better or worse, benchmark standards by which others are then judged.

My own society is riddled by nonsensical Left-wing incursions in the way people think. 'Human rights' are deemed to be all-important by many. What constitutes a human being is so superficially perceived as to skew much else.

To a Leftie ... a terrorist is bipedal, has language, has intelligence (of a sort), and if physical specimens were taken from one, they'd come back, after analysis, as belonging to the human race. Ergo ... they must be human beings.

Never mind the total absence of certain qualities, such as mercy, empathy, regard for law and order, the very ability to care about others. Qualities that in themselves define humanity. Qualities that the Left has no interest in considering, in its zeal to promote an ideology fundamentally flawed.

My society is infected by that thinking, and that interference. Consequently, to conceive of the stark reality of what a terrorist is, is beyond many people here. For example:


The Malvo guy is below average IQ as I recall, and was neglected/abandoned/abuse? as a child. As I recall, he had several of the personality issues that would lead him to follow someone who paid him attention.

The John Muhammed guy (and I don't believe he was actually any kind of practicing raghead) was just plain, out of the bag evil and manipulative. He (they) killed all these people as a cover for the fact he intended to murder his ex-wife. The lengths some people will go :rolleyes: Still, they were caught by accident. If they'd called it a day and knocked off the ex, they conceivably COULD HAVE gotten away with it because the police didn't have a clue.

I see no evidence of humanity in any of what you describe. Granted, 'The Malvo Guy' might've just been mentally ill. 'John Muhammed' seems more the type, killing for the sake of it, for an agenda. If he IS, then he falls outside of any classification of 'human'.

Ah, but the Left will want to fight for THEIR rights. Never mind what their victims suffered. They are 'human beings', just because the Left says so.

By the way, a later item of news. Our news media tell us that our Government will withhold important intelligence information on Kotey and Elsheikh, if your people decide they're destined for Gitmo. The UK Government's stance is to oppose the existence of the Guantanamo Bay facility, on - you guessed it - 'humanitarian grounds'.

[Gunny]

You're right. It is a discussion 'in and of itself'.

However, the issue itself is of vital importance.

You say it yourself ... they're vermin. Vermin isn't human.

Here's the thing. Society consists of a spectrum of ideas. Some are just 'floated out there'. Some are adopted as mainstream talking points. Some form the basis for an entire ideology.

.. AND ... some become, for better or worse, benchmark standards by which others are then judged.

My own society is riddled by nonsensical Left-wing incursions in the way people think. 'Human rights' are deemed to be all-important by many. What constitutes a human being is so superficially perceived as to skew much else.

To a Leftie ... a terrorist is bipedal, has language, has intelligence (of a sort), and if physical specimens were taken from one, they'd come back, after analysis, as belonging to the human race. Ergo ... they must be human beings.

Never mind the total absence of certain qualities, such as mercy, empathy, regard for law and order, the very ability to care about others. Qualities that in themselves define humanity. Qualities that the Left has no interest in considering, in its zeal to promote an ideology fundamentally flawed.

My society is infected by that thinking, and that interference. Consequently, to conceive of the stark reality of what a terrorist is, is beyond many people here. For example:



I see no evidence of humanity in any of what you describe. Granted, 'The Malvo Guy' might've just been mentally ill. 'John Muhammed' seems more the type, killing for the sake of it, for an agenda. If he IS, then he falls outside of any classification of 'human'.

Ah, but the Left will want to fight for THEIR rights. Never mind what their victims suffered. They are 'human beings', just because the Left says so.

By the way, a later item of news. Our news media tell us that our Government will withhold important intelligence information on Kotey and Elsheikh, if your people decide they're destined for Gitmo. The UK Government's stance is to oppose the existence of the Guantanamo Bay facility, on - you guessed it - 'humanitarian grounds'.Someone or some group IS fighting away for Malvo's rights based on the aforementioned emotional/intellectual challenge(s). I think if he's not been executed already, Muhammed's pretty-much on his own.

My point on the societies takes into account all you stated; however, all you stated does not take into account that societal beliefs of "what is human" to one society can and is foreign to other societies. Southwest and Southeast Asia and the Middle East are perfect examples. As you have stated previously, Russian society is different. South American society is different. Within each society their are also divides by class.

We in the West hold human life in MUCH higher regard than any other society I have ever encountered, or read about. In Thailand, a daughter is worth what you can get for her. Same in the Philippines. Burma (Myanmar) is something else altogether. They enslave villagers and rape and murder them at whim. Women are chattel in the Middle East. I could go on and in-depth, but the idea is that all of these societies believe they are as right as we believe we are. And I'm NOT defending their beliefs at all :).

The fact that we as a nation, both formally and as a society, refuse to accept that simple fact and deal with it for what it is instead of what we think it should be is why radical Islam is spreading all over the World at whim. Political correctness alone won't allow us to state that they are out to kill us and take our stuff, no matter what they say otherwise to put us at ease while they plot against us. Instead, you got the straight-up haters and the idealists who think everything is sunshine and roses and we can all just skip arm in arm down the Yellow Brick Road to Shangri La.

By our (Western)standard, yes, they are inhuman. Killing people sucks. Africa is probably the worst place I have been for inhuman behavior. But they think they are right, or I suspect most have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. They're just told to participate or die.

[Drummond]

Someone or some group IS fighting away for Malvo's rights based on the aforementioned emotional/intellectual challenge(s). I think if he's not been executed already, Muhammed's pretty-much on his own.

My point on the societies takes into account all you stated; however, all you stated does not take into account that societal beliefs of "what is human" to one society can and is foreign to other societies. Southwest and Southeast Asia and the Middle East are perfect examples. As you have stated previously, Russian society is different. South American society is different. Within each society their are also divides by class.

We in the West hold human life in MUCH higher regard than any other society I have ever encountered, or read about. In Thailand, a daughter is worth what you can get for her. Same in the Philippines. Burma (Myanmar) is something else altogether. They enslave villagers and rape and murder them at whim. Women are chattel in the Middle East. I could go on and in-depth, but the idea is that all of these societies believe they are as right as we believe we are. And I'm NOT defending their beliefs at all :).

The fact that we as a nation, both formally and as a society, refuse to accept that simple fact and deal with it for what it is instead of what we think it should be is why radical Islam is spreading all over the World at whim. Political correctness alone won't allow us to state that they are out to kill us and take our stuff, no matter what they say otherwise to put us at ease while they plot against us. Instead, you got the straight-up haters and the idealists who think everything is sunshine and roses and we can all just skip arm in arm down the Yellow Brick Road to Shangri La.

By our (Western)standard, yes, they are inhuman. Killing people sucks. Africa is probably the worst place I have been for inhuman behavior. But they think they are right, or I suspect most have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. They're just told to participate or die.

All that you say in your post is justified ... points well made.

I'd still stick with Western standards, though. Not everyone can be using 'correct standards', and we in the West have done the most to civilize ourselves, and our expectations. Ours is the way forward. Ours represents the greatest progress.

I think you concede the correctness of my conclusion just by rejecting the savagery that Islam spawns.

[Elessar]

I Hate It!

I started pulling children out of the water that were in peril since I was 14.

Those were accidents.

These killers produce mayhem because they are bullet-proof..

[SassyLady]

What state will they end up in? Some states don't have death penalty.

[SassyLady]

I am for death penalty and this is why.

One of my brothers killed two teenagers and friends of my little sister and then raped and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the murders and rape. She was 14; he was 24.

When he finally got picked up as a person of interest 3 years later and was being held in jail, she finally felt safe enough and came forward and told the family and police. They never found the bodies but he recieved has 3 life sentences baded in her testimony. He's been in prison for almost 40 years. Can you imagine how much he has cost the state?

He should have been executed but Rose Bird, California Chief Justice, presided over death penalty being overturned.

So, yes, I believe in death penalty and it's from my own experience.

[Kathianne]

What state will they end up in? Some states don't have death penalty.

I think it would be federal and it does have the death penalty.

[Drummond]

I am for death penalty and this is why.

One of my brothers killed two teenagers and friends of my little sister and then raped and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the murders and rape. She was 14; he was 24.

When he finally got picked up as a person of interest 3 years later and was being held in jail, she finally felt safe enough and came forward and told the family and police. They never found the bodies but he recieved has 3 life sentences baded in her testimony. He's been in prison for almost 40 years. Can you imagine how much he has cost the state?

He should have been executed but Rose Bird, California Chief Justice, presided over death penalty being overturned.

So, yes, I believe in death penalty and it's from my own experience.

The only argument I'd personally offer against the death penalty would be based on the possibility of error. Of sentencing someone to death, but from a false judgement, where despite being found guilty, in truth, s/he would be innocent of the crime.

Certainly from what you describe, I agree with you. Only the death penalty would serve.

I think a lot of people in my country secretly want the death penalty brought back, but are actually afraid of saying so. Many, especially on the 'trendy Left', would argue that death sentences are the State acting with barbarism, out of revenge rather than justice.

But they're idiots, who haven't evolved to meet the truth of the times we live in. I for one have no problem whatever with meting out death sentences, especially to terrorists. How can they possibly deserve anything less ??

[Noir]

What is the motive behind sending them to the America have a trail, rather than conducting our own?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What is the motive behind sending them to the America have a trail, rather than conducting our own?

Welcome back Noir... :beer:
Good to see you back and posting your thoughts, etc. .. even tho' I most often disagree with your views..-- Tyr

[Gunny]

What is the motive behind sending them to the America have a trail, rather than conducting our own?The justification is in May's comments. Their crimes were against Americans, and May states she believes they should be tried by the country most affected that will impose a proper judgement.

[Gunny]

I am for death penalty and this is why.

One of my brothers killed two teenagers and friends of my little sister and then raped and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the murders and rape. She was 14; he was 24.

When he finally got picked up as a person of interest 3 years later and was being held in jail, she finally felt safe enough and came forward and told the family and police. They never found the bodies but he recieved has 3 life sentences baded in her testimony. He's been in prison for almost 40 years. Can you imagine how much he has cost the state?

He should have been executed but Rose Bird, California Chief Justice, presided over death penalty being overturned.

So, yes, I believe in death penalty and it's from my own experience.I'm not against the death penalty. I just hold to the same notion (in a backward sort of way because life SAVER wasn't exactly in my line) as elassar in that dead people suck. Somebody has to pull the trigger. I'm sure it's a volunteer job but I'd have a LOT of questions for any volunteer for THAT job.

My stance has always been if there is ANY doubt whatsoever, then life without parole should be the sentence because we DO make mistakes. At the same time, I think anyone consigned to the black hole of life without parole should be allowed to choose death. Not so much out of compassion but practically and logistics. What's the point to keeping them alive unless they think they have a chance at appeal, or are actually innocent and can't prove it but want to live?

Two issues with the situation that are glaring to me: Cowards that deserve to die for the crimes they committed wanting allow themselves something they didn't give their victims -- life. And having to prove one's innocence. Not what the Constitution says, but by and large the way it is.

[Drummond]

I'm not against the death penalty. I just hold to the same notion (in a backward sort of way because life SAVER wasn't exactly in my line) as elassar in that dead people suck. Somebody has to pull the trigger. I'm sure it's a volunteer job but I'd have a LOT of questions for any volunteer for THAT job.

My stance has always been if there is ANY doubt whatsoever, then life without parole should be the sentence because we DO make mistakes. At the same time, I think anyone consigned to the black hole of life without parole should be allowed to choose death. Not so much out of compassion but practically and logistics. What's the point to keeping them alive unless they think they have a chance at appeal, or are actually innocent and can't prove it but want to live?

Two issues with the situation that are glaring to me: Cowards that deserve to die for the crimes they committed wanting allow themselves something they didn't give their victims -- life. And having to prove one's innocence. Not what the Constitution says, but by and large the way it is.

Very good post. The part of it I've 'bolded' is a suggestion I'd not thought of, but to me it seems an excellent idea.

I'd suggest it should also exist as a means someone under sentence will have to try and atone if it happens to be that they belatedly feel a need to equal out matters. The convict might understand that a family of someone s/he's killed considers that only a death penalty was proper, and after enough time passes, with remorse surfacing, the convict might actually agree.

Some would want the closure that only a death penalty would give. The convict should have the power to choose to give it.

[Elessar]

What state will they end up in? Some states don't have death penalty.

If it crosses State Lines it is Federal.

[Elessar]

What is the motive behind sending them to the America have a trail, rather than conducting our own?

Welcome back.

Let's get to brass tacks.

Kill my family....kill my neighbor...kill my countryman/woman...You are dead in my eyes.

I don't give a rat's ass who did it. I SAVED LIVES, but am very skilled at taking out
a monster, murder, or predator. 3 seconds....want to see your windpipe? (Not Yours Noir.....just a point).

[Drummond]

Welcome back.

Let's get to brass tacks.

Kill my family....kill my neighbor...kill my countryman/woman...You are dead in my eyes.

I don't give a rat's ass who did it. I SAVED LIVES, but am very skilled at taking out
a monster, murder, or predator. 3 seconds....want to see your windpipe? (Not Yours Noir.....just a point).:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Good post.

Well, Noir .... how would Elessar fare in UK society ? What do you think ?

Elessar --- I understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, the UK is so PC-oriented that a fairly typical reaction would be a negative one. Here ... a criminal, terrorist (whatever) does his worst ... and several minutes later, after he's had ample chance to escape, the police turn up.

Citizens here can defend themselves ... to a point. We can't, for the most part, carry guns (few are able to get a license for one). Even carrying knives is strongly frowned upon by the police, to put it mildly. Nope ... 'PC' thinking favours the aggressor, here.

The Left will tell you that THIS is the civilised way to run a society .....

[Drummond]

There's been a development in the story which prompted this thread.

Seems, now, that the UK has withdrawn cooperation with US authorities ... thanks to one of the accused's mothers intervening. This may be temporary only ... or, if the court case that will be launched is successful, quite possibly not ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5997489/Mother-jihadi-Beatle-halts-evidence-handover.html


The mother of a jihadi who could face the death penalty in the US launched a legal bid yesterday to stop Britain handing over evidence that could be used to convict him.

Alexanda Kotey, 34, and Shafee Elsheikh, 30, members of IS gang the 'Beatles', face extradition from Syria to the US for trial.

Britain has agreed to help the US authorities without the usual assurance that they would not face the death penalty.

The Home Office said last night it had paused its assistance following legal action by Elsheikh's mother.

A spokesman said: 'We received a request from the legal representative of the family of one of the suspects to pause the MLA [mutual legal assistance] response. We have agreed to a short-term pause.

'The Government remains committed to bringing these people to justice and we are confident we have acted in full accordance of the law and within the Government's longstanding MLA policy.'

In a statement, she said: 'The application raises questions of enormous constitutional importance, including the ability of a minister without reference to Parliament to agree to so complete a departure from a prohibition understood by all to have the status of constitutional certainty and without any public debate.'

Acts carried out by the jihadi Beatles gang include the murders of US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, British aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning and American aid worker Peter Kassig. In 2014 and 2015, they held and tortured 20 hostages.

[Noir]

The justification is in May's comments. Their crimes were against Americans, and May states she believes they should be tried by the country most affected that will impose a proper judgement.

It is my understanding that these men are also alleged to of murdered British Citizens. For which saying ‘but they murdered more Americans so they can deal with it’ is peculiar.

[Drummond]

It is my understanding that these men are also alleged to of murdered British Citizens. For which saying ‘but they murdered more Americans so they can deal with it’ is peculiar.

People better qualified than ourselves to judge this issue have made their determination as to what's best, Noir. On what basis, therefore, do you challenge this ?

Perhaps (for example) the quality of evidence it's possible to amass for the American side of this, is better than it would be in a British court ?

Also, on what basis do you believe America should be denied its chance at justice ?

[Noir]

People better qualified than ourselves to judge this issue have made their determination as to what's best, Noir. On what basis, therefore, do you challenge this ?

Perhaps (for example) the quality of evidence it's possible to amass for the American side of this, is better than it would be in a British court ?

in what way would the evidence be different?


Also, on what basis do you believe America should be denied its chance at justice ?

Presumably on the same basis that you believe the U.K. should be denied it’s change at justice.

[Drummond]

in what way would the evidence be different?

A better quality ... more of it ? Do the Americans have superior means of getting it ?

Perhaps adding what WE have, to what the Americans have, in their court, would lead to a more decisive result ?


Presumably on the same basis that you believe the U.K. should be denied it’s chance at justice.

Eh ? You're telling me - in advance ! - that American justice will fail UK interests ?? You really need to explain that one ....

[Noir]

A better quality ... more of it ? Do the Americans have superior means of getting it ?

Perhaps adding what WE have, to what the Americans have, in their court, would lead to a more decisive result ?

So the Americans could add their intel to our case for a more decisive result also?




Eh ? You're telling me - in advance ! - that American justice will fail UK interests ?? You really need to explain that one ....

In exactly the same sense that you are telling me that the U.K. justice system will fail American interests.

[Drummond]

So the Americans could add their intel to our case for a more decisive result also?

You're arguing for equivalence ... which must get you nowhere. If there's no advantage either way, why not stick with the status quo, and accept the extradition ?

I doubt it's anything like as simple as that. What if US citizens need to give evidence ? You insist that they come to Blighty to give it ?

Then again ... in the UK, it can take years of legal wrangling to stave off even the fact of a court case. Thanks to our weak laws ... and overly-generous EU 'human rights' interventions ... appeal after appeal could be lodged, delaying justice for years. Don't you think Americans deserve better than that ??


In exactly the same sense that you are telling me that the U.K. justice system will fail American interests.

I'm fascinated by that claim. If you mean 'exactly' literally .. are you saying that we'll apply the death penalty, over the objections of the Americans ??

Do tell ....

No. We may well fail them, by NOT having any ability to pass a death sentence !!

I don't believe in supporting travesties of justice, Noir. If even our own Home Secretary can be persuaded that our penalties aren't up to the task of delivering proper justice .. then it's obvious that extradition must take place, to a country better equipped to mete out the justice their crimes warrant.