This Morning’s Dilemma

by Scott H. Payne on November 17, 2009

For those of us who are opposed to the death penalty, do we stand by that opposition in regards to the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Tagged as: death penalty, khalid sheikh mohammed

Scott is a sometimes blogger and social media consultant/principal at East Side Media. In addition to writing at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, Scott is also a founding member of Beams and Struts and a fellow at the Canadian Council for Democracy's blog the Commons. You can reach Scott via email and follow him on Twiter.

{ 16 comments }

1 Scott November 17, 2009 at 8:48 am

Yes, you must if you want to be logically consistent.

2 Freddie November 17, 2009 at 8:49 am

Yes.

3 E.D. Kain November 17, 2009 at 8:58 am

Certainly.

4 Mike at The Big Stick November 17, 2009 at 9:07 am

I guess it depends on why you oppose it. I oppose it because it’s not used enough nor is it sufficently gruesome to function as a good deterrent. I also think there is too much potential for false convictions.

In this case, the liklihood of a false conviction is zero. The ability for it to function as a deterrent is also zero, because Islamic terrorists don’t see death as a obstacle to their cause. So…it becomes only an act of revenge and I have moral problems with that when the government carries out the act (if someone wants to leave him in a room with 5 randomly drawn family members of 9/11 victims and some baseball bats, I’m okay with that).

The question is: will a fair trial and a fair conviction result in more good or more bad for the US? Conservatives say it makes us look weak. Liberals say it makes us look benevelant. I tend to side with the Left here, however when it comes to the eventual punishment then I think he has to die if for no other reason that consistency. If we put Timothy McVeigh to death but not this guy, a lot of Americans will be justifiably outraged.

5 Scott November 18, 2009 at 9:54 am

Do you really think those people really care if we are benevolent? Do you really think they are going to say, “gee look how benevolent the Americans are, maybe we shouldn’t attack them”? Sorry, as my father once told me , “the only way to reason with some people is with a 2×4.”

6 Mike at The Big Stick November 18, 2009 at 10:06 am

Let me ask you this: Do you think that if you brought a few fresh Al Qaeda recruits to America and were given six months to show them that America is a good place and not the enemy, could you change their minds?

The point is, you have to start somewhere.

7 Scott November 18, 2009 at 10:35 am

So you want to start with a guy who is partially responsible for the murder of almost 3k people? Would his culpability in the murders and number of murders enhance the appearance of benevolence?

8 Chris Dierkes November 18, 2009 at 11:56 am

The “they” this would aim is those not already radicalized. There will always be the Abu G photos, so those could always be used to foster animosity and radicalization. But potentially a civil trial helps defuse whereas executing him furthers the line that America has two sets of rules for the world: 1–what it tells everybody else to do and 2–what it actually does (i.e. the opposite of #1).

I think I would have preferred the International Criminal Court or some other Nuremberg like construction. But I guess if the choice was either US courts or military courts (as currently constructed), I go with the former.

9 Scott November 18, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Why on earth would you give him to the ICC? The site of the crime was US territory, clearly that should give us jurisdiction over him. Not to mention that a civil trial can still result in a death sentence.

10 Scott November 18, 2009 at 3:19 pm

After looking for more info on the ICC, I’m not sure that even if the US was willing that the ICC would has jurisdiction over KSM.

11 Mike at The Big Stick November 18, 2009 at 11:57 am

I’m saying that from a PR standpoint the only possible upside comes from letting him live….or dipping him in pork fat and burning him alive on national TV. I just want to do the thing that will have the greatest liklihood of keeping our enemies at bay.

12 Jaybird November 17, 2009 at 9:08 am

It depends on what your opposition is based on, I would think.

If one’s opposition is based on the limits of knowledge, I could see a case being made for having exceptions for high-level state actors.

If one’s opposition is based on Jainism, I don’t see how or why one would make an exception for KSM.

13 Kevin Lawrence November 17, 2009 at 10:29 am

Yes.

Executing him serves no purpose except to satisfy our vengeance. It does not even deliver on any of the promises (deterrence, protect society) that supporters of the death penalty claim (except vengeance).

There is certainly not enough value to override my two guiding principles on this matter:
- I don’t trust governments with the power to kill people
- it’s wrong to kill

14 Dave November 17, 2009 at 10:54 am

Yes

15 Mike Schilling November 18, 2009 at 1:04 am

Does KSM alive cause a credible danger of terrorist attacks on the prison he’s being held in? If so, I’m willing to see him executed to save further innocent lives. If not, lock him up and throw away the key. He’s no Eichmann.

16 Kyle November 18, 2009 at 11:42 am

Yes, without a doubt

Comments on this entry are closed.