Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It prevents him from ever being freed (either through direct action or executive action) and stirring up more trouble. Which, unlike the situation in the first world, is a very real possibility for those being held by Iraqi authorities. Which is why executions in Iraq are justified for serious crimes.
It prevents him from ever being freed (either through direct action or executive action) and stirring up more trouble. Which, unlike the situation in the first world, is a very real possibility for those being held by Iraqi authorities. Which is why executions in Iraq are justified for serious crimes.
When a society does not have the means to securely isolate criminals for the rest of their lives then execution becomes a justifiable course of action.
Execution is never justifiable. The common sense course of course would be not to have life in prison as a sentence if you can't actually enforce it. I know, far to rational an idea.
The only way around this would have been to have the US hold him indefinitely outside Iraq. And I see no particular reason he should receive preferential treatment in this regard when compared with common murderers, rapists, kidnappers and robbers (whose execution is also justifiable given Iraq's present condition). So to avoid executions by Iraq the US would have needed to commit to paying for the maintenance of thousands of foreign prisoners indefinitely, which is an excessive burden.
Not that I care. I in principle think the DP is wrong, but then states make policy mistakes all the time (our current administration being masters of that), and this is not one I will lose any sleep over.
Comment