quick question

[xearlynovemberx]

i've never posted in here beofre but im wondering what everyones opinon is on this?

assume osama was caught would you want to see him killed on public tv

if so why or why not?

[FondestMemory]

it's still a person.

showing one person, no matter who it is, executed on television opens a whole pandora's box that doesn't need to be opened.

and an entire country wanting to watch his life come to an end on live tv? yeah, that wouldn't fuel his predecessor's or anybody else's hate for this country.

[A picasso blue]

No. what a disgusting display of American ignorance


and it wont even matter. Stop pretending that capturing Osama is going to end the "War On Terror". we captured Saddam--often described in such a way that he may be thought as Tagret #2 on our list--3 yrs ago and look how the war has escalated still.

[Broken Parachute]

Absolutely not. We shouldn't have to sink to their level.

[cal1082]

No. what a disgusting display of American ignorance


and it wont even matter. Stop pretending that capturing Osama is going to end the "War On Terror". we captured Saddam--often described in such a way that he may be thought as Tagret #2 on our list--3 yrs ago and look how the war has escalated still.

I voted no, but i have no clue why you are saing what you are saying.......

[bass ampss]

I misinterpreted what this question was asking. But no, he doesn't deserve to be killed on television.

[x togepi x]

I think what picasso is trying to say is that if we were to kill osama on TV, we'd be no better than the insurgents who kill soliders on TV that we complain about. His point is that often many Americans seem to criticize a country for doing one thing, and often times advocate the same type of policy. Of course, this doesn't just apply to America but to pretty much any nation. The point is that killing Osama in that way isn't going to do anything, it'd just be a meaningless nationalist gesture, when we could take the money spent on such an action and put it to much better use like body armor for soldiers or feeding the poor. and by an ation, I'm talking about the TV show and how it'd take a lot cash, not the war on terror itself.

[Justin_stacy]

I misinterpreted what this question was asking. But no, he doesn't deserve to be killed on television.

He deserves to be slowly tortured over an extended period of time, braveheart style........but as said above, it would be counter productive to act out in a manner more inline with Al Jezzara. Though our enemy has forfited its humanity, we must not stoop to their level, bin laden should be put in a 2 by 2 windowless box, with no religious articles, and forgotten about. Of course the aclu would probably have issues with that.....

[FScott]

execution on tv would make him a martyr (for the islamic extremist cause). I say let him rot in prison with some awfully lonely men

[justinevans]

no, plus I don't think he can get the death sentence anyway.

[x togepi x]

He deserves to be slowly tortured over an extended period of time, braveheart style........but as said above, it would be counter productive to act out in a manner more inline with Al Jezzara. Though our enemy has forfited its humanity, we must not stoop to their level, bin laden should be put in a 2 by 2 windowless box, with no religious articles, and forgotten about. Of course the aclu would probably have issues with that.....
of course they would. it violates that little thing called the geneva conventions.

put him in a normal maximum security prison for life, let him have all the rights of any other prisoner. it's the right thing to do.

besides, if we somehow got him into an American prison, i'm sure the other prisoners would make his life pretty horrible.

[Justin_stacy]

of course they would. it violates that little thing called the geneva conventions.

put him in a normal maximum security prison for life, let him have all the rights of any other prisoner. it's the right thing to do.

besides, if we somehow got him into an American prison, i'm sure the other prisoners would make his life pretty horrible.

geneva convention wouldn't apply to him.

[histrionics22]

Make him listen to Eminem and Hanson in prison for the rest of his life. The Islam love rap and pop.

[x togepi x]

geneva convention wouldn't apply to him.

yes it would. i don't buy that "enemy combatant" argument.

[Justin_stacy]

Make him listen to Eminem and Hanson in prison for the rest of his life. The Islam love rap and pop.

Christina agularia (spelling ?) is already used as noise pollution by the military durring interigation.

yes it would.

no it wouldn't. and no "compotent" tribunal is going to find a terrorist as fitting into article 4.

[histrionics22]

Christina agularia (spelling ?) is already used as noise pollution by the military durring interigation.

Oh. I thought it was more along the lines of hip hop/rap.

If we catch Osama, I say we put him at the top of a 100 story building, set it on fire, and give him the option of jumping or burning to death.

[ClapClapSnap]

Definitely no, that's disgusting. Like someone said earlier, why stoop to their level? I wouldn't ever want to see someone executed, even if it was him.

[x togepi x]

the convention is really vague, a competant tribunal could easily find that they fit under article 4. it's all about one's definition of being armed openly, being recognizable and acting with the customs of war.

[Blake Solomon]

im surprised nobody has voted yes, but im happy nobody chose it. He might be an inhumane animal, but that doesnt mean we have to be. I trust that it will get done, I dont need to see it.

[Ralph Wiggum]

No because that would be sick and disgusting, even if it is a terrorist.

[YourMusicSucks]

Of course not. That's a ridiculous question.

[blankster07]

"That some do evil gives none the right to do evil in return." maia

[x togepi x]

actually, i think all executions should be televised...it'd probably get rid of the death penalty.

[iTookBackSunday]

no that is so low to do that. just put him in prison for the rest of his life and let him rot away.

[djUbilla]

Good hypothetical.

[justinevans]

no that is so low to do that. just put him in prison for the rest of his life and let him rot away.

so we can pay for him to live?

[justinevans]

actually, i think all executions should be televised...it'd probably get rid of the death penalty.

what's wrong with the Death Penalty?

[Justin_stacy]

what's wrong with the Death Penalty?
It’s barbaric. Proven ineffective. Flawed in its usage. Immoral in how it has to be preformed. Financially irresponsible.

I’ll ask, what is so positive about it?

[YourMusicSucks]

It’s barbaric. Proven ineffective. Flawed in its usage. Immoral in how it has to be preformed. Financially irresponsible.

I’ll ask, what is so positive about it?

It's funny to watch. Especially when it happens to innocent people.

[justinevans]

It’s barbaric. Proven ineffective. Flawed in its usage. Immoral in how it has to be preformed. Financially irresponsible.

I’ll ask, what is so positive about it?

Oh so paying for murderers and rapists to sit and prison and to be released is better is financially responsible?

I agree eye for an eye is shitty, and I don't overly improve the death penalty, but in a country with such a high murder rate, there must be something instilled in the minds of people. If they murder someone, don't give them the same respect as other prisoners. Put them in the darkest cells, don't give them tv. Feed them, but don't give them overly delicious meals. Make them wish death upon themselves.

It is a touchy subject. The problem with our system of it is that it is often given to the wrong people. There has to be stricter penalties across the country.

[Justin_stacy]

Oh so paying for murderers and rapists to sit and prison and to be released is better is financially responsible?.

Its much much cheaper to the tax pay in every sense. So yes it is more financially responsible. Emotionally it might not have the punish, but that can easily be taken care of with more strict prison terms and less benefits. You don't have to resort to killing to punish someone.

I agree eye for an eye is shitty, and I don't overly improve the death penalty, but in a country with such a high murder rate, there must be something instilled in the minds of people. If they murder someone, don't give them the same respect as other prisoners. Put them in the darkest cells, don't give them tv. Feed them, but don't give them overly delicious meals. Make them wish death upon themselves.
It is a touchy subject. The problem with our system of it is that it is often given to the wrong people. There has to be stricter penalties across the country.

I don't disagree with that at all......like I said murdering someone is not the only way to severely punish them. Someone like bin laden distained for hell anyways why not make him suffer here on earth first?

[justinevans]

Its much much cheaper to the tax pay in every sense. So yes it is more financially responsible. Emotionally it might not have the punish, but that can easily be taken care of with more strict prison terms and less benefits. You don't have to resort to killing to punish someone.



I don't disagree with that at all......like I said murdering someone is not the only way to severely punish them. Someone like bin laden distained for hell anyways why not make him suffer here on earth first?

I do agree.

[unwritten]

I figure I'd be the one person who said yes. lol

[boysdontcry17]

lol.

there are americans who have done worse things than osama? do you them killed on tv? no. i say no.

[Rebs]

No, most definitely not. It puts us on the same level as them. It would only add fuel to the fire.

[cantnokdahustle]

Folks who don't know how to spell the word "competent" should not be arguing about the Geneva Convention!

[x togepi x]

having to sit into prison for the rest of my life would prevent me from murdering someone way more than getting the death penalty.