Shoot to kill

[Augustus]

In the developing world, the anti-terrorist special operations arms of the police are regularly involved in operations against terrorists/potential terrorists. These units are often trained and funded by Western countries, and operate on the principle that it is much better to kill the suspects than to apprehend them.

In such countries, the justice system is corrupt and open to manipulation. Imprisoned terrorists often have great freedom to propagate their beliefs to a captive audience. Terrorists are often given shorter sentences than their actions deserve. Imprisonment is thus not effective.

Do you think that shoot to kill policies in such countries are the most rational response to the terrorist problem?

Are they the most moral response?

If your tax money was being used to fund these units, should your government be open and transparent about what they are doing regarding shoot to kill?

Would you object to your taxes paying to support such units?

(I say, yes, yes, yes, no)

 

[LuisDantas]

No. No. Yes. Yes.

 

[Augustus]

No. No. Yes. Yes.

How do you justify that imprisoning terrorists gives them 5, 10, 15 years to radicalise others though?

I understand the normative desire to protect the rights of the accused, but this ultimately relates to giving them the opportunity to spread their beliefs to the most susceptible people in the country.

In any country, look at how many people are radicalised in prisons. Imprisoning these people simply creates the perfect situation to spread their ideology, which ultimately results in dead innocent people further down the line.

Now maybe you can argue that Western countries can isolate these people or control them better, developing countries just don't have the capabilities to do this.

Protecting the rights of violent extremists often leads to the deaths of innocent people.

 

[Wirey]

How do you justify that imprisoning terrorists gives them 5, 10, 15 years to radicalise others though?

I understand the normative desire to protect the rights of the accused, but this ultimately relates to giving them the opportunity to spread their beliefs to the most susceptible people in the country.

In any country, look at how many people are radicalised in prisons. Imprisoning these people simply creates the perfect situation to spread their ideology, which ultimately results in dead innocent people further down the line.

Now maybe you can argue that Western countries can isolate these people or control them better, developing countries just don't have the capabilities to do this.

Protecting the rights of violent extremists often leads to the deaths of innocent people.

You're right. Better to kill them all and let God sort them out. Hmmmm, where have I heard that before.......

 

[Politesse]

In any country, look at how many people are radicalised in prisons. Imprisoning these people simply creates the perfect situation to spread their ideology, which ultimately results in dead innocent people further down the line.

Do you normally respond to messages you don't like by killing the person who says them? That's no way for a human to behave. I'd rather be killed by a terrorist than become a fascist.

 

[Nietzsche]

Do you normally respond to messages you don't like by killing the person who says them? That's no way for a human to behave. I'd rather be killed by a terrorist than become a fascist.

I agree with this sentiment. Though I would add a caveat that while we will not kill you for believing something terrible, we will penalize you if you make a scene. Holocaust denial, homophobia, racism..

Those are not the hallmarks of a good society, not if they're allowed to be practiced. Think it all you damn well please. Talk about it in private(including the internet) all you like. But the moment you start trying to go on a "recruitment drive" or stage a protest, or any other number of things like that, the hammer is coming down.

 

[Augustus]

You're right. Better to kill them all and let God sort them out. Hmmmm, where have I heard that before.......

It isn't simply killing people left right and centre though. Maybe they carry out 5-10 operations per year, based on significant amounts of intelligence, which invariably find the targets in possession of weapons and explosives. Terrorists in this part of the world aren't that hard to identify, they are hard to locate.

We aren't talking America or Britain, but countries which have active terrorist training camps, and have seen maybe 10,000+ deaths from religious conflicts in the past couple of decades

Do you normally respond to messages you don't like by killing the person who says them? That's no way for a human to behave. I'd rather be killed by a terrorist than become a fascist.

Not messages or idle talk, schoolgirls being beheaded, churches bombed, markets bombed, nightclubs bombed. Real people being violently killed. Not FBI entrapment, actual violent terrorists.

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you justify that imprisoning terrorists gives them 5, 10, 15 years to radicalise others though?

No, wait. You're right. Radicals must be terminated with cruel and unusual vigor. To make an example of them and everything.

You go first.

 

[Augustus]

No, wait. You're right. Radicals must be terminated with cruel and unusual vigor. To make an example of them and everything.

You go first.

Not cruel, just a bullet or 2 (and almost always in a shootout).

And it is not to 'make an example' it is to stop them causing further harm. I'm not sure some people appreciate how delicate the religious balance is in many developing countries, and how visible many self identified terrorist actually are. I will use the proverb 'a stitch in time saves nine'.

They also revel in their notoriety if captured and leverage this to radicalise not only fellow prisoners, but also guards who will provide them with phones, laptops, etc. in jail to further spread their hateful ideology. This is a fact that you have to deal with.

My other posts on this forum will (hopefully) show I'm not a bigot, or someone who applies blanket criticisms to any group of people. But people being killed by fanatics are not a hypothetical to me, they are a reality that involves actual people that I know.

Did anyone actually care that they shot OBL rather than bring him to trial? Can anyone think it would be better to have tried him and imprisoned him for life (especially if he had access to the media)? Why is it better to protect the mini OBLs rather than normal people?

(As a reminder, I'm applying this logic to very limited scenarios, rather than every potential radical. Actually, on 2nd look, my OP is very vague on this point and is very poorly expressed. What I didn't communicate well is that I was referring to the elite anti-terrorism forces that carry out very few operations in a year, rather than normal police that carry out hundreds. Perhaps that makes a difference, perhaps it doesn't)

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, I have no time for such talk.

 

[Augustus]

Sorry, I have no time for such talk.

an undoubted advantage of being able to treat such things as interesting moral discussions rather than mutilated corpses.

 

[LuisDantas]

And of not having corpses as a goal.

 

[BSM1]

Do you normally respond to messages you don't like by killing the person who says them? That's no way for a human to behave. I'd rather be killed by a terrorist than become a fascist.

Maybe I am not totally understanding your comment. Governments are not (and should not) kill anyone for what they say, they should be killed when they are attacking innocent civilians with AK-47's and bomb vests. If they are left alive they will kill other innocents if able.The terrorists we are seeing would kill you no matter what your political bent. I'd rather kill a terrorist than bury a friend or family member.

 

[Politesse]

Maybe I am not totally understanding your comment. Governments are not (and should not) kill anyone for what they say, they should be killed when they are attacking innocent civilians with AK-47's and bomb vests. If they are left alive they will kill other innocents if able.The terrorists we are seeing would kill you no matter what your political bent. I'd rather kill a terrorist than bury a friend or family member.

Well, I'm not suggesting that an unrepentant murderer should go unpunished, but I was referring to the proposal to kill prisoners so they couldn't "recruit". I think there is quite a lot of distance between execution for political crimes and amnesty from lethal ones. Were someone killing folks in the street, I would not stay the hand of a police officer who dared to shoot back. Most people arrested for "potential terrorism" are not, in fact, in this position. Agreeing to let the gendarmes to murder them outright on "suspicion" is just giving a blank check to authoritarianism. Criminal justice might seem simpler when you assume that the accused are always in the wrong, or that planning to commit a crime is the same thing as committing it, but it is not more just. Or even effective.

 

[Wirey]

Well, I'm not suggesting that an unrepentant murderer should go unpunished, but I was referring to the proposal to kill prisoners so they couldn't "recruit". I think there is quite a lot of distance between execution for political crimes and amnesty from lethal ones. Were someone killing folks in the street, I would not stay the hand of a police officer who dared to shoot back. Most people arrested for "potential terrorism" are not, in fact, in this position. Agreeing to let the gendarmes to murder them outright on "suspicion" is just giving a blank check to authoritarianism. Criminal justice might seem simpler when you assume that the accused are always in the wrong, or that planning to commit a crime is the same thing as committing it, but it is not more just. Or even effective.

Exactly this. Executing a prisoner is a criminal offense, and if you have to destroy the law to have society fit your beliefs, you're a facist.

 

[BSM1]

Well, I'm not suggesting that an unrepentant murderer should go unpunished, but I was referring to the proposal to kill prisoners so they couldn't "recruit". I think there is quite a lot of distance between execution for political crimes and amnesty from lethal ones. Were someone killing folks in the street, I would not stay the hand of a police officer who dared to shoot back. Most people arrested for "potential terrorism" are not, in fact, in this position. Agreeing to let the gendarmes to murder them outright on "suspicion" is just giving a blank check to authoritarianism. Criminal justice might seem simpler when you assume that the accused are always in the wrong, or that planning to commit a crime is the same thing as committing it, but it is not more just. Or even effective.

I think we can agree on this.

 

[Augustus]

Exactly this. Executing a prisoner is a criminal offense, and if you have to destroy the law to have society fit your beliefs, you're a facist.

What about in countries where the 'law' is corrupt and can't be destroyed because it doesn't really exist in the first place, where a number of powerful people sympathise with the terrorists, where terrorists will be able to give religious sermons inn the prison mosque to hundreds of the most susceptible people in society, where prison guards can be bought and prisoners can easily communicate with the outside world, where prisoners can pretty much conduct press conferences to pledge allegiance to ISIS and call for others to do likewise, where prisoners have access to mobiles an laptops, and they can also, and actually have, organised terrorist attacks from prison? (these are true conditions, not hypotheticals)

You basically have a choice between protecting the rights of terrorists, which will definitely lead to more innocent people being killed (and perhaps hundreds or even thousands if it restarts sectarian conflict in areas that have previously experienced this).

Or deciding to take an option that you would otherwise find morally wrong.

Is it really morally superior to arrest rather than kill people, if you know that this action is akin to facilitating the spread of terrorism?

Is it fascist to stop the spreading of violent fascism?

 

[Wirey]

What about in countries where the 'law' is corrupt and can't be destroyed because it doesn't really exist in the first place, where a number of powerful people sympathise with the terrorists, where terrorists will be able to give religious sermons inn the prison mosque to hundreds of the most susceptible people in society, where prison guards can be bought and prisoners can easily communicate with the outside world, where prisoners can pretty much conduct press conferences to pledge allegiance to ISIS and call for others to do likewise, where prisoners have access to mobiles an laptops, and they can also, and actually have, organised terrorist attacks from prison? (these are true conditions, not hypotheticals)

The OP was whether or not we should execute prisoners, not whether some hypothetical other place should. We don't live in a country where the law can be ignored and powerful people sympathize with the terrorists. We live in a collection of liberal democracies, and our society isn't built for a government that has the right to execute every single person it supposes may be a threat in the future.

And as far as moral superiority goes, what do you think of any country that executes people based on what they might do?

 

[Augustus]

The OP was whether or not we should execute prisoners, not whether some hypothetical other place should. We don't live in a country where the law can be ignored and powerful people sympathize with the terrorists. We live in a collection of liberal democracies, and our society isn't built for a government that has the right to execute every single person it supposes may be a threat in the future.

And as far as moral superiority goes, what do you think of any country that executes people based on what they might do?

The OP was me, you might want to re-read it.

It relates to the West because certain Western countries pay for these units and train them. If you are American (or from certain other countries), your taxes pay for this. It is not about the West though. I don't live in the West.

And it is not about what people might do. It is about what people do do and have done.

From my experience, it is the lesser of 2 evils. It is a sad state of affairs, but if your personal morality is more important than keeping innocent people alive, I think you have it the wrong way round. If you exist within a rotten system, you can't deal with normative ideals, simply the positive actuality.

 

[CMike]

In the developing world, the anti-terrorist special operations arms of the police are regularly involved in operations against terrorists/potential terrorists. These units are often trained and funded by Western countries, and operate on the principle that it is much better to kill the suspects than to apprehend them.

In such countries, the justice system is corrupt and open to manipulation. Imprisoned terrorists often have great freedom to propagate their beliefs to a captive audience. Terrorists are often given shorter sentences than their actions deserve. Imprisonment is thus not effective.

Do you think that shoot to kill policies in such countries are the most rational response to the terrorist problem?

Are they the most moral response?

If your tax money was being used to fund these units, should your government be open and transparent about what they are doing regarding shoot to kill?

Would you object to your taxes paying to support such units?

(I say, yes, yes, yes, no)

If they are part of Al Qaida or ISIS they are unlawful combatants. They have no legal rights.