Killing him won't undo what has been done. Declaring someone deserving of death is just as arbitrary as declaring someone deserving of jail time. What objective justification can we really use to measure what a perpetrator deserves.If I thought someone deserved to die, I'd rather get it over with swiftly ASAP. Making them 'pay' some arbitrary penance of suffering for their 'crimes' seems stupid, pointless, and inhumane. Better to just cut to the point, dispense with the problem, and move on. Pointlessly lingering and dragging it out is lame.
The difference is we can take a perpetrator out of jail, should we, retrospectively, find the charges unjustified or we feel this person has "paid" sufficiently for their crime. It's not as if Bradley Manning can do any more damage, so I feel permanently and infinitely damaging his existence as "just payment" for only transient damage done to the US and it's allies (damage mind you, which still has not been shown) is nothing more than vindictive. A justice system which is only concerned with retribution is not in my opinion, civilised.
Black and white thinking. If your not with us, then your a terrorist.If I were, however, I would basically consider his actions equivalent to those of the enemies trying to kill me—actually worse than that, since he was supposed to be on my side. Which makes him traitorous scum, and as such, any 'right' to his own life would be forfeit as far as I'd be concerned.
You still haven't even shown how is has actually helped the enemy, if it's so quantifiable, why have they still failed to actually charge him. It seems to me they are holding him as long as they can untill they can convincingly shoehorn a charge upon him.
At the end of the day, if our supposedly civilized militaries are commiting war crimes, then they should be held accountable. This is not the thirteeth century, war is not a hall pass for militaries to do with abandon, as they please, in the name of "protecting" our national interests.
Reply With Quote
