13-06-2002 13:06									#61
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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.

	13-06-2002 13:45									#62
	Full PM-box? Change here!

some of you guys are hilarious in your monochrome views

	13-06-2002 13:58									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	13-06-2002 16:49									#64
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: 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.

	13-06-2002 16:57									#65
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

"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...

	13-06-2002 17:33									#66
	Put an end to popups!

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...

	13-06-2002 17:46									#67
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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?

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

	13-06-2002 19:34									#68
	Support Apolyton

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

	13-06-2002 20:22									#69
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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?

	13-06-2002 20:44									#70
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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.

	13-06-2002 20:50									#71
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 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.

	13-06-2002 21:06									#72
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

"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.

	13-06-2002 21:12									#73
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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,

quote: 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?

	13-06-2002 21:32									#74
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

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

	13-06-2002 21:36									#75
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

"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?

	13-06-2002 23:24									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion How long has it been since we killed people in a war anyway? 60 years?

Kosovo. Probably also Afghanistan (SpecOps).

quote: 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?

Against "death penalty" isn´t the same as against "killing under any circumstances". I´m not a pacifist. A war where both sides try to kill eachother is a little bit different from a civil trial which ends with the death penalty...

	13-06-2002 23:39									#77
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion Our duty to human rights is a tad more important to us than our duty to your truth.

So, ally?, suppose you find evidence that al Qaida operatives are about to attack the Sears tower in Chicago. On the basis of protecting human rights, you f*cking a**holes refuse to turn over the evidence because we just might arrest the terrorists, place them on trial and execute them?

You have no concept of human rights!

We are in a war. This is not about a trial of a simple murderer.

	13-06-2002 23:47									#78
	Get a bigger avatar today!

"A war where both sides try to kill eachother is a little bit different from a civil trial which ends with the death penalty..."

Why is it moral to kill some poor soldier who may have just been drafted by some dictator and may have not yet killed anyone, yet it is not moral to kill someone who is a tried and convicted killer? The state is the one doing the killing in both cases, except in one there is individual guilt but in the other the man is killed because he belongs to a group.

	14-06-2002 00:39									#79
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Why is it moral to kill some poor soldier who may have just been drafted by some dictator and may have not yet killed anyone...

It isn't. Not unless absolutely necessary. Hence the Geneva Convention.

quote: ...yet it is not moral to kill someone who is a tried and convicted killer? The state is the one doing the killing in both cases, except in one there is individual guilt but in the other the man is killed because he belongs to a group.

And who, exactly, is this "tried and convicted killer"? We're talking conspiracy here, not murder.

However, the rights and wrongs of the death penalty are not relevant here. Germany has a constitution, they have laws, they have no legal or moral obligation to break those laws just to comply with an American desire that isn't even compelled under US law.

If the US needs the evidence to secure a conviction, they can have it.

	14-06-2002 00:48									#80
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned So, ally?, suppose you find evidence that al Qaida operatives are about to attack the Sears tower in Chicago. On the basis of protecting human rights, you f*cking a**holes refuse to turn over the evidence because we just might arrest the terrorists, place them on trial and execute them?

Ned, German intelligence gave strong warnings about what was going to happen before September 11th. Preventing an attack is not the issue.

Moussai (sp) is already arrested and on trial, and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. It's against German law, in this instance, to hand over the evidence.

All the U.S. has to do is not seek the death penalty, and they get it.

Your reference to people as "f*cking a**holes" for upholding their constitution is smarmy and ignorant.

quote: You have no concept of human rights!

You do seem to have a rather hysterical concept of hyperbole, though.

quote: We are in a war. This is not about a trial of a simple murderer.

War or not, the law is the law, for all nations. If your worldview wasn't as narrow as a shrew's rectum, you might comprehend this.

	14-06-2002 01:31									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless It isn't. Not unless absolutely necessary. Hence the Geneva Convention. And who, exactly, is this "tried and convicted killer"? We're talking conspiracy here, not murder. However, the rights and wrongs of the death penalty are not relevant here. Germany has a constitution, they have laws, they have no legal or moral obligation to break those laws just to comply with an American desire that isn't even compelled under US law. If the US needs the evidence to secure a conviction, they can have it.

Actually I was talking to BeFro here on a bit of a thread jack issue. Of course I was assuming that this guy was eventually convicted. If that turns out to be the case then the morality of the death penalty does enter the picture. As far as Germany's constitution I would expect them to honor it.

	14-06-2002 02:11									#82
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by El Awrence Siro, I wish the US wouldn't impose their morals on the rest of the world.

I don't recall the US forcing UK or France or Italy or Spain or Germany to use the Death Penalty against terrorists convicted using US support.

	14-06-2002 02:19									#83
	Suffering from ads?

[QUOTE] Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yes, that's why the geopolitical region is usually referred to as the EU.

quote: Siro, they aren't "forcing" their morals on anybody else; they have the right to decide to hand over evidence or not, and they have the right to ask that certain conditions be met before they do so.

Sure they are forcing their morals.

They know that their evidence are needed to achieve justice.

But they see greater value in making sure their morals are upheld than in achieving justice.

Justice should be uncoditional.

quote: I'm allowed to decide not to sell you a gun if I think you might not use it responsibly.

I don't think it's possible to equate this to such a silly example.


Imagine this: You are being trialed for murder. I have key evidence proving your innocene. You ask me to supply them. I say "ok, but only if you convert to Judaism". Or "Ok, but only if you will be judged according to ancient hebrew law".

Why is that comparable?

The legitimacy of DP is a moral belief with a moral and often religious background.

The condition Germany gives, is that in exchange for the evidence, the US accepts Germany's moral code and belief.

That means that they are committed to spreading their culture and morals, more than justice and truth.

	14-06-2002 02:24									#84
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: War or not, the law is the law, for all nations. If your worldview wasn't as narrow as a shrew's rectum, you might comprehend this.

There's a difference between crimes, and war making.

What we are supposed to do is try the terrorists as illegal combatans for terror and war crimes.

What we do instead, is try them as regular fellons for crimes of conspiracy against the state.

This is silly.

	14-06-2002 02:32									#85
	Get a bigger avatar today!

It is silly, and it's crap. They are terrorists who have commited war crimes, those ungrateful Germans; we should have stopped in Belgium and let the Russians take all of Germany.

	14-06-2002 02:54									#86
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Well Germany, will get a major diplomatic fracas then with the US... major mistake in my opinion. And really nice to see Germany is hindering the prosecution of a terrorist.

Its german law, besides the USA is in violation of several international treaties..

	14-06-2002 04:24									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: [SIZE=1] Originally posted by Sirotnikov They know that their evidence are needed to achieve justice. But they see greater value in making sure their morals are upheld than in achieving justice. Justice should be uncoditional

In their minds justice is not served by killing a prisoner, so why should they aid a miscarriage of justice?

quote: I don't think it's possible to equate this to such a silly example

It's perfectly reasonable.

quote: Imagine this: You are being trialed for murder. I have key evidence proving your innocene. You ask me to supply them. I say "ok, but only if you convert to Judaism". Or "Ok, but only if you will be judged according to ancient hebrew law". Why is that comparable? The legitimacy of DP is a moral belief with a moral and often religious background. The condition Germany gives, is that in exchange for the evidence, the US accepts Germany's moral code and belief. That means that they are committed to spreading their culture and morals, more than justice and truth.

You silly, silly boy.

Germany doesn't require that all dp cases in the US stop before they hand over evidence; they require that this specific evidence not be used to help put someone to death.

By facilitating the execution of a prisoner, they become complicit, both morally and legally in the death of that prisoner. Their moral stance is that the dp is wrong. Why should they help someone do something they believe is wrong?

	14-06-2002 04:28									#88
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov I don't recall the US forcing UK or France or Italy or Spain or Germany to use the Death Penalty against terrorists convicted using US support.

If you thought about it for half a minute you might see the difference that crops up when you attempt to reverse the situation in this straightforward a way.

	14-06-2002 04:30									#89
	Increase Your PM Length

My kitten's cuter AH...

	14-06-2002 04:39									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned So, ally?, suppose you find evidence that al Qaida operatives are about to attack the Sears tower in Chicago. On the basis of protecting human rights, you f*cking a**holes refuse to turn over the evidence because we just might arrest the terrorists, place them on trial and execute them?

Great post.

Sava

quote: It is silly, and it's crap. They are terrorists who have commited war crimes, those ungrateful Germans; we should have stopped in Belgium and let the Russians take all of Germany.

I´m from eastern Germany, the part taken by the Russians...

Siro

quote: But they see greater value in making sure their morals are upheld than in achieving justice.

This case is primarily about law, not about moral.

Lincoln

quote: Why is it moral to kill some poor soldier who may have just been drafted by some dictator and may have not yet killed anyone, yet it is not moral to kill someone who is a tried and convicted killer? The state is the one doing the killing in both cases, except in one there is individual guilt but in the other the man is killed because he belongs to a group.

And except that a war has nothing to do with normal law that is used during peace time. Or are you seriously saying that death penalty is the same as death in combat action during war time, when two sides use armed forces?

BTW, I don´t think it is really moral to kill anyone, even during a war, but there may be times when you have no other choice. But I don´t see that the state has no other choive when it comes to death penalty...