Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Morrigi]

Honestly I'd rather see life imprisonment. It's no less vindictive, even if it's less spectacular.

I hope this accomplishes something.

I'd rather we didn't feed him and protect him for the rest of his life while he still calls the shots from inside a cell.

It's pretty hard to call the shots from inside a federal Supermax prison.

It's been known to happen.

[Morrigi]

For the government to ignore its own boundaries in such a high-profile way is to make those boundaries meaningless, and to open up the possibility of the blunt application of legally questionable violence to solve other problems.

...So basically, unofficial U.S. government policy since World War 2?

[Sheb]

Source?

[WillowLuman]

You lose some credibility when you point out your enemy's torture and exhibition of its opponents' remains, then turn around and do it yourself.

We lost that credibility a long time ago when we decided murdering random Middle easterners with drones is applicable to anti-terror strategy. You say this as if there's some sort of moral high ground to strive for when dealing with narco-Lords.

Just because someone does something bad once, doesn't mean they should keep doing something bad. They should be ashamed and try to do better in the future. Same thing with the United States' mistakes, or any other nation's mistakes. It's by atoning for mistakes and actually improving behavior that one regains credibility. And do remember, it's the Mexican government that has this guy, and therefore the Mexican government that you suggested should draw-and-quarter him.

And a moral high-ground is exactly what one wants when dealing with insurgents. If the only difference between a warlord and the government is one claiming official capacity, then why should the people listen to either? You confuse fighting Narco-Lords with being Narco-Lords. No, there is not a moral high-ground to strive for in being one, but there is in FIGHTING one.

You can't make exceptions on human rights, or on rule of law, otherwise both collapse. A country cannot use a punishment that they've outlawed just because it's an extraordinarily high profile case. They'd need to make legal provision to use that punishment for that situation, rather than just ignoring their own laws. Otherwise the government begins to loose its legitimacy.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Well you can't hang someone as a private citizen. The government has powers and privileges that citizens don't individually. I still think it's all about trying to make the execution an unfeeling function of the state rather than a passionate murder ceremony.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Just because someone does something bad once, doesn't mean they should keep doing something bad. They should be ashamed and try to do better in the future. Same thing with the United States' mistakes, or any other nation's mistakes. It's by atoning for mistakes and actually improving behavior that one regains credibility. And do remember, it's the Mexican government that has this guy, and therefore the Mexican government that you suggested should draw-and-quarter him.

'You lose credibility when x' is what you said, I argue that it's hard to lose credibility/moral authority when you didn't have it anyway. I also find moral arguments to be highly irrelevant when one side regularly murders, rapes, kidnaps, castrates, etc and the other side is an elected government. Believe it or not, Mexico/US actually have some authority here to dictate terms to narco-terrorists in their borders, and if the population agrees and accepts the methods then.. Oh well. Unless you're sympathetic to drug cartels and their 'rights' I don't understand why this would ever be a moral issue. So, I'll admit that could just be me, but I still find it very, very confusing to think like this.

It's not really about what this guy deserves, it's about sending a message to other drug lords. So Mexico should draw and quarter him and display the quarters in the cities with worst cartel problems, and the whole procedure should be televised.

That wasn't me, too, no need to lump everyone together. I want him made into a blood eagle in public.

And a moral high-ground is exactly what one wants when dealing with insurgents. If the only difference between a warlord and the government is one claiming official capacity, then why should the people listen to either? You confuse fighting Narco-Lords with being Narco-Lords. No, there is not a moral high-ground to strive for in being one, but there is in FIGHTING one.

http://www.terrorism-research.com/insurgency/

They're not insurgents.......

You can't make exceptions on human rights, or on rule of law, otherwise both collapse. A country cannot use a punishment that they've outlawed just because it's an extraordinarily high profile case. They'd need to make legal provision to use that punishment for that situation, rather than just ignoring their own laws. Otherwise the government begins to loose its legitimacy.

I find this exception to be in the benefit of the US and Mexico. Sure, one Drug Lord's death will not take down every organization, but it can send a message to those who practice such extreme violence.

[WillowLuman]

Sorry that I confused you for DJ.

For Guzman's crimes, it's entirely possible for either government to legally kill him. But not in a cruel and unusual fashion. They can't make a blood eagle out of him under the law. If you're trying to reestablish law and order, you can't just flout it, or you defeat your own purpose. Sometimes exceptions have to be made, but going as far as public spectacle torture-execution is counter-productive.

The moral argument is entirely relevant. BECAUSE they are an elected government, it means they SHOULDNT torture/rape/castrate, EVEN IF the enemy does. The Cartels make people fall in line with shows of force like you suggest doing with Guzman. If the government adopts such methods, they make themselves (potentially) as much a threat to their own people as the Cartels. And that's the opposite of what a Government is for.

Besides, the Cartels are always doing such things to try to scare each other. What makes you think the Government doing it would have any different effect than it already does?

Unless you're sympathetic to drug cartels and their 'rights'

Believe it or not, Mexico/US actually have some authority here to dictate terms to narco-terrorists in their borders, and if the population agrees and accepts the methods then.. Oh well.

Before you go the ad hominem route, let me remind you that I am utterly against the Cartels and what they stand for. But I am utterly for the equality of all people under the law. If someone does something horrible, let them be punished as the law dictates, not in some extravagant method conceived in rage. If the punishment does not solve the problem, amend the law.

When it's OK for the government to use torture to send a message to one group at home, it's not a far leap before it can be used on other groups. Doing such things puts the possibility on the table that the law will kill them, not protect them.

[Morrigi]

I still don't see what's wrong with hanging. If it's done properly, the neck is broken and death is almost instant, and you don't have to screw around with chemicals or electricity.

[Bauglir]

... it can send a message to those who practice such extreme violence.

I absolutely agree that we need to send such a message. And that message is not, "We are so afraid of you that we're going to lash out in the most violent possible way." That is the message a blood eagle would send - it's not like these people aren't in a business where their rivals would do the same damn thing, given the opportunity. If capture by law enforcement means the same thing as capture by another cartel, then I don't think it's going to be an effective deterrent.

The message we should be sending is, "We are not afraid of you. We are better than you, and we don't need to make a bloody example of you to hold power, like you do. You do not merit special treatment - we have a way of dealing with people like you, because we have people who make a living catching people like you. For you, being captured is the last day of your free life, but for us, it's Tuesday."

EDIT: And I want to be clear, by "we", I don't mean the US, I mean society in general.

[WillowLuman]

Well said!

[DJ]

Government can do scarier things than cartels, though. Like executing all relatives of somebody up to thrice removed, which is something known to happen in Best Korea. Cartels don't really have the resources to pull off that kind of thing.

[Leafsnail]

I still don't see what's wrong with hanging. If it's done properly, the neck is broken and death is almost instant, and you don't have to screw around with chemicals or electricity.

Because it is very frequently not done properly, and when that happens you can get decapitations or slow death by strangulation.

Lethal injection seems the most horrifying to me, though.  Being paralysed while a terrible pain slowly moves through your body sounds awful, and it's becoming increasingly clear that this is what's happening.

Anyway, this is all kindof secondary to the Guzman case.  How strong is the case for US extradition?  If he performed his crimes in Mexico then the Mexican government would surely wsnt to keep him.

[DJ]

If you want humane, why not a heroin overdose?

[Zangi]

If you want humane, why not a heroin overdose?

Cuz drugs are baaaad... mmmkay?

[Neonivek]

'You lose credibility when x' is what you said, I argue that it's hard to lose credibility/moral authority when you didn't have it anyway. I also find moral arguments to be highly irrelevant when one side regularly murders, rapes, kidnaps, castrates, etc and the other side is an elected government. Believe it or not, Mexico/US actually have some authority here to dictate terms to narco-terrorists in their borders, and if the population agrees and accepts the methods then.. Oh well. Unless you're sympathetic to drug cartels and their 'rights' I don't understand why this would ever be a moral issue. So, I'll admit that could just be me, but I still find it very, very confusing to think like this.

Outside of ethics and morality the major problem is when you have an organization that says and preaches one thing... and does another. There is a problem.

It doesn't say good things about a government who will follow its own rules until it doesn't want to.

FEW Americans I know would ever support law changes that would make torture as punishment and fast tracked executions under suspicion legal. Since most Americans know that it is either wrong or just terrible precedent.