Today's New York Daily News posted an article by their editorial staff on the subject of whether or not terrorists should be eligible for the death penalty. The discussion is centered around the case against Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a former Guantanamo detainee being tried in New York in a civilian court.
According to the article:
What is the argument for not subjecting terrorists to the dealth penalty? I firmly believe that terrorists deserve to be executed, but my husband pointed out a small fact that I have overlooked. Martrydom is a positive thing for most terrorists--not a negative. If we execute terrorists, do we make them heroes in the terrorists movement? Is that what we really want to do?
I pose the question. I do not claim to have the answer. It is an interesting problem though.
According to the article:
"Now, Attorney General Eric Holder has broken further ground in Ghailani's case by barring the Manhattan U.S. attorney from seeking the death penalty - never mind that Ghailani allegedly helped buy a truck and load it with the TNT that leveled the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania in 1998."There are some problems in trying him in a civilian court. Much of the evidence would be classified--does the jury need security clearances?
What is the argument for not subjecting terrorists to the dealth penalty? I firmly believe that terrorists deserve to be executed, but my husband pointed out a small fact that I have overlooked. Martrydom is a positive thing for most terrorists--not a negative. If we execute terrorists, do we make them heroes in the terrorists movement? Is that what we really want to do?
I pose the question. I do not claim to have the answer. It is an interesting problem though.
Leave a comment