Germany refuses to hand over evidence

[Jack the Bodiless]

There is a rather obvious double standard at work here.

For simply following their constitution, Germany is being accused by some hotheads of "helping the terrorists". But the issue is the death penalty. If the US gives a pledge not to apply the DP, they can have all the evidence they want from Germany, should they need it (unless I'm missing something?)

If the US courts need the evidence, they can have it. So who, exactly, is "helping the terrorists" by sticking to a point of principle? Isn't the US at least as guilty of that as Gemany?

Especially as the US doesn't have to violate US law to give such a pledge (unless I'm missing something else?) - such pledges have been given in extradition cases in the past.

[Ecthy]

some of you guys are hilarious in your monochrome views

[Rogan Josh]

In my view, a government sanctioned death penalty is almost as barbaric as the terrorist attacks themselves. We should be doing everything in our power to persuade these countries which sanction it to stop. If that means that one suspected terrorist walks free for now (and lets face it, its not like he isn't going to be watched) then that is a price worth paying.

I think we should be very careful not to let these barbaric attacks reduce us to barbarism too.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
In my view, a government sanctioned death penalty is almost as barbaric as the terrorist attacks themselves. We should be doing everything in our power to persuade these countries which sanction it to stop. If that means that one suspected terrorist walks free for now (and lets face it, its not like he isn't going to be watched) then that is a price worth paying.

I think we should be very careful not to let these barbaric attacks reduce us to barbarism too.

For someone who thinks they are so smart, you are pretty stupid. How can you "almost" equate the indiscriminate murder of more than 3000 innocent people with the execution of a single individual, assuming that he is convicted and sentenced to death through the judicial process? Are you willing to be one of the 5-10 people that follows this guy around day and night until he dies, making sure that he doesn't get into any mischief? Oh that's right, you are too valuable to be utilized for such a mean function. Unfortunately you are not nearly valuable enough to pay others to do it for you.

[Roland]

"How can you "almost" equate the indiscriminate murder of more than 3000 innocent people with the execution of a single individual, assuming that he is convicted and sentenced to death through the judicial process?"

If you take China's death penalty practice you're getting close to it. Equating the US death penaly practice to terrorism could only hold up in the breakdown of the judicial system - I think Illinois qualified before the moratorium...

[BeBMan]

Funny discussion. As already said by other posters this is due to a rule in our constitution. Should we simply abandon our constitution (and EU law)? Would another country (let´s say, the US ) do the same?

Or does someone prefer a Germany that has no problem with breaking his own laws? Last time we did that on a large scale was between 33 - 45, the results weren´t really great, so I think our constitution is nothing to play around with easily...

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Sikander
For someone who thinks they are so smart, you are pretty stupid.

Lets try and leave slimey personal insults aside shall we? Think you can manage that?

How can you "almost" equate the indiscriminate murder of more than 3000 innocent people with the execution of a single individual, assuming that he is convicted and sentenced to death through the judicial process?

I don't equate them at all. I was 'almost' equating the state-sanctioned killing, in general, of prisoners with the killings comitted by terrorists. I am sick of Americans suggesting that Europeans who critisize the US in any way are somehow supporting terrorism. This is nonsense. The events of 11/9 were horrible and tragic, and I certainly do not want to see them repeated. But I think it would be an even more tragic state of affairs if 11/9 were to cause the US to fall off the edge into barbarism. 3000 have alredy died because of 11/9 - why do you want to make it 3001?

I am sure if you had your way, it wouldn't stop there either - you would slide your way merrily down the slippery slope. You would no doubt want to kill a lot more than one. How many deaths would satisfy you?

And what do they need to do to be killed by you? This guy in question most certainly didn't kill anyone himself - he 'just' helped plan it (presumably). Would you also want to kill the people who helped them in more minor ways, such as organising their trips to the US? Would you make a distinction on whether they knew about the plan or helped without realising it? Maybe you would also like to kill the instructors at the flying school?

Who are you going to kill to lessen the pain of the thousands who die on the roads each year?

Are you willing to be one of the 5-10 people that follows this guy around day and night until he dies, making sure that he doesn't get into any mischief?

You could just lock him up you know. You don't have to kill him. Why would he need any more expense than your average drug dealer? And I think the reason that you want to kill him perfectly illustrates my point. You don't want to kill him to prevent it happening again, or even to discourage others from opposing you - you want to kill him for revenge. That is barbarous and immoral, and I think Germany is right not to help you do it.

[Ecthy]

Some people seem to think they know what's better for us than we do...

[DanS]

After some consideration, I guess I agree with Dinodoc. Since we know what the evidence is and what it says, we could probably generate it ourselves. It wouldn't be hard, considering now we know where to look. Germany can wax eloquent about defending its constitution (for domestic consumption), while giving us what we want.

A better question would be why Germany even let the U.S. know about this evidence? Isn't it breaking the spirit of the law to even inform the U.S. of this evidence?

[Lincoln]

Quote:

"Outlawing the death penalty is a requirement for membership in the 15-member European Union ( news - web sites). The Council of Europe, which comprises 40 countries, also forbids the death penalty, even in wartime."

How exactly do you people fight a war -- by locking up the enemy in huge prisons and sentencing them to life imprisonment? What hypocrites. You kill people in wartime without a trial yet you do not execute convicted murderers after a trial.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
After some consideration, I guess I agree with Dinodoc. Since we know what the evidence is and what it says, we could probably generate it ourselves.

You know more about the financial system than I do, perhaps you can tell me how hard it would be to generate evidence of monetary transfers we already know exist from alternate sources? I wouldn't think that it would be too hard.

[DanS]

"You know more about the financial system than I do"

Kind, but probably not very accurate.

They would just need to get a court order to look for it at Western Union or wherever. Maybe they are clearing this through the press. It is easy to "inform" the press of the particulars, knowing that the US investigators are taking notes.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Quote:

"Outlawing the death penalty is a requirement for membership in the 15-member European Union ( news - web sites). The Council of Europe, which comprises 40 countries, also forbids the death penalty, even in wartime."

How exactly do you people fight a war -- by locking up the enemy in huge prisons and sentencing them to life imprisonment?

We are not forced to kill everyone in a war...
There is this POW thingy, you know,

What hypocrites. You kill people in wartime without a trial yet you do not execute convicted murderers after a trial.

Oh yeah, we hypocrites, we simply separate "killing during combat action in a war" from "death penalty" for a person that is in jail...

Do you saying the US troops in Afghanistan execute death penalty law when they fight their enemies? So what has "fighting in a war" to do with death penalty?

[Ecthy]

How long has it been since we killed people in a war anyway? 60 years?

[Lincoln]

"we simply separate "killing during combat action in a war" from "death penalty" for a person that is in jail...

Do you saying the US troops in Afghanistan execute death penalty law when they fight their enemies? So what has "fighting in a war" to do with death penalty?"

If you are opposed to killing then you ought to be consistant. Why is it right to kill soldiers who have not had the opportunity of trial and not an obvious murderer who has been tried and found guilty?