Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Moussaoui and the death penalty
My thinking on this has evolved over time. I never trusted the statiscal botcheries trotted out in defense of capital punishment. The ones I’ve read ignore complicating factors and fall into the “correlation as causality” fallacy. There’s too much of an opportunity for lazy scapegoating, even where it restricted to punishing war criminals. I also tend to doubt it would have any deterrent effect given the bloated egos of heads of state. The utility arguments don’t hold any water.
I waffle on whether it’s justice for heads of state to be killed in its name. But Mussolini’s execution didn’t put an end to fascism, nor did the hangings of prominent Nazis. So there’s not even a plausible utility argument for that. I still think it would be fair and legitimate for heads of state to run the risk, but I can’t come up with a serious defense.
All that’s left are emotional appeals.
Posted by Harry on from 04/26 at 11:22 AMHarry, I like your comment. I, too, have been struggling with this issue. In the past I have believed that any and all violence was wrong. I am now reconsidering my position and think that maybe sometimes you have to play by the other guy’s rules. I still believe that Capital Punishment is always wrong because life in prison is an option for a serial killer, but what about the Head of a Government that is in the process of fighting an illegal war where thousands of civilians are being slaughtered??? Maybe steps should be taken to save those innocent lives..."By any means necessary”. Let’s face it, the peace movement has failed because it has relied on the politics of comfort...I think that both, Ward Churchill and Malcolm X said something like that.
Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from USA 04/26 at 11:49 AMI tend to think that most decisions to seek the death penalty are political: Killing this or that person will enhance my career as a - junior or senior prosecutor or as the District Attorney. Prosecuting people, in general, I think, is more a career decision than anything else: Politics is about “ME.” First and always. What will this do for “ME?” My white constituents will feel safer if they know I’m protecting them from those really scary Black People. My white constituents are the people with the money and power to keep me in this office - or, maybe, to support me in my bid for mayor. As the gangsters say in the movies, as they’re about to kill a rival: “It’s nothing personal. It’s just business.” Politics is THE “ME” business…
As for dealing with murderous heads of state - I don’t know what to think. I assume we’re talking about assasinating someone, eh? If you’re close enough to kill - could you, instead, capture? Maybe.
Is there a ever a good reason to kill someone? Gandhi didn’t think so. I generally don’t think so, either - though, in some stressful moment in real-time, in the real world, I’m aware that all my well contrived intellectual positions might not hold any water: Fear or anger or odd combinations of emotions might well make my decisions for me. And, after the fact, whatever the fact might have been, I’ll invent the reason for my actions, and plug it in to my memory of the event… That’s how things seem to actually work, in real time…
Posted by joe carpenter on from grants pass, oregon 04/26 at 01:14 PMJoe...yes, I agree that most of those decisions are made to enhance a career. The question as to whether it is ever justifiable to kill someone, is a tough one. Most of my life I would have said that it is NEVER justifiable, but I now have second thoughts. My new question for myself is, “Is it ever moral to take less than effective action to protect an innocent who is under attack?”
Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from thebellyofthebeast 04/26 at 02:12 PMThis is about as slippery as a slope can get.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 04/26 at 02:58 PM... it IS a slippery slope, MickeyZ!
But, Rosemarie, I think I know exactly what you mean. This line of reasoning takes us to that place which I, personally, hope I never have to inhabit… But, this is an important distinction: are we theorizing or are we acting in “real” life? If I come home some evening and I find some psycho with a knife to my son’s throat -I theorize, now - in “not-real” time, that I’d kill him if I thought I could save my son by doing so. In “real” life, tho, I might cry and whine like a terrified child, or try to negotiate, somehow, out of cowardice about my own life, or I might be calm and find some way to cope - a way which might save my son without having to kill to do so. Or, I might be calm, AND, kill the guy.
I know, NOW - what I think I should do, but I have no idea what I would actually do. The same is true for a real life confrontation with some dictator or political madman. I just do not know how I would actually react: Steven Seagall or a MasterChief Navy Seal, I am not… And, could I “order” a killing? Well, right now, such things are pure fantasy. I’m a prole, as it were, pondering how I should respond if I suddently possess significant power. As an intellectual exercise, all this is fine - but the likelyhood if this ever transitioning to a real life situation is remote: Thank… well… thank something or other…
Posted by joe carpenter on from grants pass, oregon - left shoulder of beast 04/26 at 05:08 PMMickey, I am not sure about your “slippery slope” comment. In a way, I see the other slippery slope, abuse, exploitation, covert activities, and then Hiroshima. The way that I see it is that we all are our brothers keepers. To do nothing in the face of evil is, in a way, condoning it. Yes, the minimum amount of force should be used but I am very much in agreement with Churchill and his belief that politics in the comfort zone does not change anything. ....Joe, I also don’t know if I could ever harm anyone, but I now think that it would not only be morally acceptable but would be a moral imperative to do so if someone was coming with a knife after a loved one.
Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from stillinbellyofbeast 04/26 at 06:55 PMI think it’s clear what the slippery slope is. First, we’re against the death penalty. Then it’s okay for certain war criminals? Who decides who is to live and who is to die? Which of us is so enlightened? That’s the sad but classic path of many so-called revolutionaries throughout history...and it has nothing to do with “comfort zones” or doing “nothing” or rarified self-defense scenarios.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 04/26 at 07:01 PMhttp://www.resist.com.au/comments/c2133.asp This is what I call a slippery slope....all of the U.S. actions as listed by anon on the above site.
Posted by rosemarie on from 04/26 at 07:01 PMI disagree. The catalog of crime we call history is predictable and consistent. So-called radicals condoning state-sponsored murder is a whole different ballgame.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 04/26 at 07:05 PMMickey...it is about self defense but even more it is about defense of the defenseless. I would oppose capital punishment for anyone, even those who have planned this war, but I sure wish that someone had used whatever force was necessary to protect the children who were slaughtered over there. I would be happy to change my position as soon as someone comes up with an idea that would be effective in stopping the killing machine, otherwise known as the U.S. government. I see a big difference between Capital Punishment, which serves no purpose, and defensive intervention, when used to save lives. You ask, who should decide who lives and who dies… The child with no weapons should live, and the man with the gun should be rendered harmless.
Posted by rosemarie on from 04/26 at 07:14 PMYou have me confused, Rosemarie. Initially, you appeared to be floating the idea of executing war criminals but now it’s more about defending the defenseless. I was disagreeing solely with the first concept. I’m with you 100% on the second.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 04/26 at 07:17 PMI feel better to know that we are in agreement, maybe. The defense of others, that is the tricky issue for people who say that ALL violence is wrong. It took me a lifetime to get to where I am now on this issue. I still carry little bugs and flies outside rather than kill them, so it is hard for me to accept the fact that maybe sometimes you have to live by the other guy’s rules and if he is in the process of killing someone, he should be stopped by whatever means necessary.
Posted by rosemarie on from 04/26 at 07:50 PMWe’re all walking contradictions, Rosemarie. Like you, I don’t kill bugs. I’m a vegan for ten years...almost entirely for ethical reasons (I have no delusions of good health in a society such as ours). But I’m also a trained martial artist who grew up in a blue collar life that often meant defending oneself by any means necessary. I’m anti-death penalty...but I am not a pacifist.
Thanks for the exchange...it’s always great to have your input here.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 04/26 at 07:57 PMI can’t see how assassination is any more just than the legalisms of a death penalty trial and, like I said, the only defenses of the death penalty boil down to emotional appeals. Not any kind of sound basis for deciding who gets murdered and who gets to live.
My waffling, which I did characterize as such, is abstract and in light of the way power is arranged, not any basis for discussion. I regret posting it and don’t wish for it be construed as support for the death penalty.
Posted by Harry on from 04/26 at 10:42 PMPerhaps this is a bit late - it’s almost tomorrow in New York:
Rosemarie: I guess I’m now very much confused.
In the abstract - i.e. - in circumstances which none of the three of us might ever face in our lifetimes - we certainly all agree with you. However - in the real world, in which we three actually live - when do you think any one of us might be called upon to defend innocent children or civillians or...? When might any of us have the power to alter some of these relatively huge events which bring such horror to the world?It’s nice that we all agree that we’d like to save the poor and helpless from fates horrific and dreadful. It might, however, even be more important to recognize that, within the Left - perhaps more often than anywhere else in politics, people argue tooth and nail about matters which lie entirely beyond the scope of their actual lives. I’ve seen communists and anarchists almost come to blows over wheather or not Trotsky was a better theoretician than Lennin or Marx. As if their consensus would somehow have even a slight effect on actual world events. Every day, someone blasts Chomsky or Zinn for not including some theory or some perspective in their remarks on such and such a subject. As if, somehow, now that Chomsky or Zinn agrees with them, the world is a better place… justice is now somehow served.
I understand that you feel passionately about helping the poor and defenseless - and should the opportunity arise, and you must kill to do so, well then, by all means, kill. I would probably do the same. But - is this not all entirely abstract? Is someone with power going to check with you or me or MickeyZ sometime soon to see what they should do when defending the oppressed in Bolivia or El Salvador or Iraq or The West Bank?
Am I making any sense, here? Everywhere you look, on the web, Leftists are battering away at each other over mind matters. Thoughts. My philosophies are more cogent and profound than yours, consequently, #### you.
Once, some idiot journalist was interviewing Joan Baez. He says to her: “Since you’re against the killing of animals, and you don’t eat meat, I’ve got a question for you. You’re driving down a mountain road and suddenly you see someone out on the road in front of you. You look left to see if you can turn in that direction, but there is a deer there. What are you going to do? Which one will you kill?”
And Joan Baez, ever cool and sharp as a tack, says: “Well, since we’re fantasizing, here, I’d simply reach over to the dashboard and push the flight button. My car would instantly turn into a plane and I’d fly up over both person and deer.”Many, many people, would become half mad over discussions - arguments - over which creature should be killed, and why. When, the whole time, it’s fantasy…
Just a thought or two about “beliefs.”
-joePosted by joe carpenter on from grants pass, oregon 04/26 at 11:17 PMLet me also clarify that I was not suggesting assassination was an acceptable policy. What I was agreeing with in terms of Rosemarie’s post was the general concept that sometimes violence can be justified in the name of defending the defenseless. In the end, I repeat: very slippery slope.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 04/27 at 05:21 AMJoe, I apologize for not stating my case more clearly. For one thing, I believe that all of us are confronted with injustice on a daily basis. We also are a part of this life and death struggle because we all are, in one way or another, contributing to the War Economy, therefore we all have some degree of shared guilt. The point that I tried to make is that those actions that are commonly taken by those on the Left are ineffective. Peace vigils, war protests,voting, etc don’t save lives. Other types of actions are required. Are you suggesting that we do nothing? If you saw a child being attacked on Main Street, what would you do? We have all just seen 100,000+ slaughtered, so now what should we do about it in order to prevent the continued killing?
Posted by rosemarie on from 04/27 at 06:52 AMHi folks -
Man, it’s great to talk about things meaningful and ‘real’ - you guyz are allright…No, Rosemarie - I’m not suggesting that we do nothing. On the contrary. I’m just hoping that we’ll recall our actual situation as we interact with one another, and with the world in general.
joe - and, I think, folks in general - gets so caught up in ideas that it’s easy to forget that they ARE ideas. What you’re trying to do, here, is what we all try to do - you want to try to figure things out for yourself, to develop a world-view which seems to you to be accurate and effective, honest and ethical. Nothing negative can be said of such attempts. You want to know if others share your conclusions. We all share this desire - that’s what this board is all about.
It’s just that, somehow, ideas tend to take on a life of their own, as if, ofttimes, it’s the ideas that “have us” - not we who “have the ideas” Christians will kill Muslims because they seem to believe in a different IDEA of God. The idea becomes a living thing - the idea takes over. As if any of these folks has even the slightest experience with God. No one has seen or talked to such a Being, yet, if your idea differs from mine, I may have to kill you! I’ve had a few interesting acquaintances here, in Grants Pass, two of which disintegrated when they found out I smoked cigarettes. The idea is that I’m putting America’s children at risk, and acting as a role model / poster boy for death and disease. Actually I’m a 54 year old guy who reads and writes and works and wanders about whenever possible. I try to keep a low profile…
Their ideas tell them that I’m dangerous, and I scare them. I scare their IDEAS. Their ideas “have them,” when they should take care to keep an eye on their ideas. Know the difference.So, I’m not saying we should “do nothing.” Rather, I AM just try to recall that the situation you’ve contrived is theoretical: You / we will probably NOT be called upon to save the lives of 10,000 innocents. Not in real life. Ergo - I hope to develop a perspective toward such situations - (ideas about such situations ) but still keep in mind that they are ideas - about ideas. My ideas may or may not agree with your ideas, but I find YOU to be more than, and more important than, your ideas, so I don’t think I’ll have to kill you…
Not sure if I’m making sense, here - but I hope so. Thanks for putting yourself out there - out here. And thanks for letting me think out loud…
-joePosted by joe carpenter on from grants pass, oregon 04/27 at 09:37 AMJoe...My view differs a bit from yours. I don’t see it as “theoretical”. There is nothing theoretical about the 100,000+++ dead bodies in Iraq. Also, ideas are great but I have yet to see an idea that prevented someone from being killed by a soldier with a gun. Even a great idea is no match for a bullet or a cluster bomb. With all of the millions of intelligent ideas out there, no one can figure out a way to dis-arm those who are doing the killing. Maybe 100 years from now, when historians look back, they will be able to explain why Joe, Mickey, I, and the rest of us were such failures at protecting those who were being slaughtered.
Posted by rosemarie on from 04/27 at 05:07 PMIdeas, when implemented, can and have saved lives.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 04/27 at 06:05 PMMost people, an overhwelming majority, have no desire to harm others beyond the occasional fit of anger. It’s from groups where a narrow majority has discovered how to dominate and twist consensus—employing a succesful strategy of consistent treachery backed by force—that war springs.
Group dynamics, deescalation, ways of coping with bullies and countering demonization have all been studied. We know how to handle most perilous situations. What we haven’t learned is how to handle subcultures that are basically sociopathic and still retain what makes us human.
Posted by Harry on from 04/28 at 02:38 AMMickey, I agree with your last comment but the problem is that ideas are often NOT “implemented”. Harry, you say that “an overwhelming majority have no desire to harm others”. Recent polls might disagree. Most people in this country support the on-going wars that result from U.S. foreign policy. The Left wants to hang all of the blame on George Bush but Bush never killed anyone. We, all of us, have to accept some of the responsibility. If the overwhelming majority of citizens in this country did not support the wars, the killing would stop. We are a Nation in denial.
Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from 04/28 at 07:47 AMRosemarie, you said, “ideas are great but I have yet to see an idea that prevented someone from being killed by a soldier with a gun.” that’s a big difference from your new comment above: “ideas are often NOT ‘implemented’.” I agree with the second comment.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 04/28 at 08:27 AMSure, people who watch a lot of television support the war, Rosemarie. They don’t have to go fight in it or make any significant sacrifices. I’m talking about people who are willing to do more than just “support the troops” or mouth whatever cliche the talking heads offer. It takes a lot of conditioning to get people to actually, physically, fight once the immediate threat to their being is over. Sustained violent aggression doesn’t come naturally. Not unless humans are severely stressed and then brainwashed.
Posted by Harry on from 04/28 at 03:07 PMMickey...I’m sorry if it seems that I am trivializing the importance of ideas. I do not mean to do that. I think that we are just having a bit of a discussion about semantics. I would guess that you and I have very similar global views and really want the same thing. I, though see a big problem with the lack of action of all of us, me included, when it comes to bringing about a meaningful change. There are a lot of great ideas floating around but nothing will change until we all start acting on the ideas. I think that it should have been enough, once that authors like Bill Blum, Ward Churchill, you, and so many others put the information out there for all to see. In the 1930’s and 40’s people could claim ignorance as a defense for not stopping the holocaust. No one alive now should be able to escape moral or legal responsibility, with the possible exception of those who are unable to read or too poor to be on the Internet.
Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from 04/28 at 03:14 PMHarry...thanks for your comment. I don’t think that it really takes much conditioning to get people ready to kill. Military training is usually relatively brief and the brain washing is very effective. It has always amazed me, the the tabu against killing can be eliminated so easily by the training....I have some ideas about how and why that happens, violence in our culture, young ages of most enlistees, group peer pressure,dehumanization of those to be killed, etc. It is a topic that has fascinated me for a long time. The big question should be, “How can you create a culture in which the tabu against killing would be less fragile?”
Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from 04/28 at 03:28 PM
Next entry: Judi Bari says:
Previous entry: Rush to judgment on global warming?
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
