You say you do not believe in capital punishment :
So i am a soldier working on your behalf under cover, I am confronted with a known terrorist that I have been following for weeks he is about to explode a device which WILL kill 1000's of people,I am armed I can stop the slaughter.
What am I supposed to do (ON YOUR BEHALF)
All you soft weak sh-theads please get real !!
Decisions needed by the Soldier are not made in a cool living room comfy armchair they are made in seconds, under severe pressure, knowing before you pull the trigger and after you pull the trigger you will be bullied by the lefty press and lefty MP's for years to come AND face an inquest AND a possible trial!!
THAT IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT made by a brave soldier on our behalf!!!
And in my opinion a good decision.
I have been there and know people that have had to make that decision THANK YOU
All the pr-ts that cannot make those decisions GET REAL!!!!
ALL THIS HAS HAPPENED TO OUR FORCES!
2006-12-29 20:29:13 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The response is typical of armchair critics
Police Officers do do work under rules of engagement they work under rules of 'protection of life'
Most situations are not in War situations and as for the murdering IRA it's a pity more didn't die instead of being allowed by Blair to write books and profit from death.
2006-12-29 21:07:12 · update #1
I Do believe in capital punishment but I had to answer anyway.
I am from a country that is hated around the world and I thank God everyday for men and women like you. You protect me and my family and loved ones as well as countrymen. God Bless YOU!
2006-12-29 20:48:17 · answer #1 · answered by LucySD 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
In the circumstances you describe (because, after all, you have been there and you know people who have had to make that decision - wow!), the only option is to kill the terrorist.
This is not capital punishment, as many people have pointed out, this is rules of engagement. If you cannot see the difference, you should be allowed nowhere near a gun.
Do you think that soldiers, police etc should be allowed to kill in these circumstances without being accountable for their actions? Of course they should have to face an inquest, which in most cases find that the forces acted reasonably. Just look at the case of Jean Charles de Menezes!
Now the challenge - name ONE case, where a soldier / policeman has REASONABLY shot and killed a suspect (like the case you described - since you have been there and know people that have had to make that decision ) and has been bullied by the lefty press and lefty MPs for years. I won't hold my breath, because I think it's a figment of your imagination.
2006-12-30 04:49:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not a bad question, from a soft, weak kid sitting in his mother's cool living room comfy armchair or basement who presumes to have a clue or an ounce of the maturity or courage to be or know what it's like to actually be a soldier who would give ANYTHING to not have to be faced with having to kill for self-preservation or to live out Bush/Cheney's morbid, convoluted lie of a war and who wishes he or she could be at home right this minute sitting in a cool living room comfy armchair in the U.S. being a kid again. The only hint of an actual question in your soapbox speech above appears to be "What am I supposed to do (ON YOUR BEHALF) (no question mark)." Answer: Follow orders, be the good guys as best as the situation allows, stay alive and come home someday to live out the rest of my life being treated like a second class citizen by people like you who will call me scum for not having a job or for wanting my veteran benefits that were promised to me but that you took away from me as "pandering to the poor" bleeding heart liberal money giveaways. That's what. Been there. Seen that.
2006-12-30 04:53:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Soldiers do not eke out Capital punishment.
They perform their duty.
If you were not in a War you would have no authority to "follow" someone for weeks.
A better decision would be know who is living in your Country with terroristic values and remove them before they have time to act.
Taking it to them in their homeland has been disastrous for Americas' well-being.
Soldiers dying from IEDs are equal to what the British learned during the Revolutionary War.
Do you think our fore-fathers followed the prescribed "rules of engagement"? We would have a monarchy instead of a Democracy if they had.
We should have tried harder to deal with Iraqs goverment.
My two cents!!
2006-12-30 05:41:58 · answer #4 · answered by Alex Freaking Trebek 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Instead of asking us whether we believe in capital punishment, why don't you learn what capital punishment is?
Capital punishment is handed out after a persons guilt is declared through a states legal process. Not by a soldier acting under authorisation to engage a suspected threat. The soldier would be following rules of engagement in order to prevent civilian deaths.
A soldier would know that. You are living in a fantasy.
2006-12-30 05:30:04 · answer #5 · answered by Cracker 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not the armed forces but your situation sounds a bit like the scenario which happened just after the London bombings when the POLICE shot that guy can't remember his name and it all turned out to be a big mistake (but he was in UK illegally) and the family want lots of compo. Trouble with UK is there are too many lawyers waiting in line to defend the criminals and give the police a bad name, so the police can't seem to win whatever they do.
2006-12-30 04:43:42 · answer #6 · answered by georgeygirl 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
all this happened in My country (Ireland) and when the soldier made that Brave decision and was wrong (time and time again) the Brave soldier and his comrades just planted a bomb on the supposed terrorist. Where is the Justice in that. So you ain't making that decision on My Behalf!!!!! And What trial look at Bloody Sunday!!!what a joke!!
2006-12-30 04:50:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Thats whilst at war, or during a ( so called ) armed conflict, it is not part of the legal system and therefore your question is rendered partially meaningless.
Killing another person while at war with them is totally acceptable, war is not nice for anyone, and I for one an pretty damn happy there's men and women out there who willingly put thier lives on the line for us, and for freedom.
However... It sickens me that capital punishment can exist within and decent society, With the exception of warfare of self defence no one, and more importantly no state should have the right to end a life.... Ohterwise where is the freedom you fought for
?
It's a funny old life.
2006-12-30 04:48:20 · answer #8 · answered by mittobridges@btinternet.com 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You are quoting the rules of engagement not the same as capitol punishment is it? I am real this was the wrong thing to do in my opinion and nothing you can say will change my opinion.
2006-12-30 07:49:50 · answer #9 · answered by mrhoppy22 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So you are soldier and you THINK someone is about to explode a bomb and you shoot him dead only to find out later that the guy wasn't about to explode a bomb at all. Just remember Mendez in the London underground... innocent Brazilian fellow shot 7 times in the head from close range because some experts thought they had the right guy who was going to explode a suicide bomb on the subway!
I come from N. ireland where british Soldiers have shot dead many people including children who they thought were about to throw a nail bomb only to find out later that they had no such weapon.
Your argument is a straw man argument and proves nothing.
2006-12-30 05:05:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
That scenario is not capital punishment. From a moral point of view it is clear that you must kill the terrorist to prevent the death of many more. No-one would argue against that.
People who are against capital punishment are not 'for' criminals being allowed to run free and continue to commit crime.
2006-12-30 04:40:45 · answer #11 · answered by SteveNaive 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋