sourmìlk wrote: sje46 wrote: thorgold wrote:
Joeldi wrote:So you're all celebrating that someone was killed. Not brought to trial, not given a chance to answer for his crimes, just off handedly killed in a bomb attack. Whatever happened to being better than the enemy?
Once your kill count passes the triple digits, you pretty much forfeit your rights. Quick death is
us being the better person - I'd have prefered to see him rot a few decades in solitary.
No, nothing should forfeit your rights. I don't care if you killed 60 million people. Rights are rights.
Not true. Does a serial murderer have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property if you like the original Locke)"? If somebody is violently attacking me, at least while this is going on, does he have the right to bodily safety?
A serial murder has the right to a fair trial. I mean, yeah I get that Osama wasn't an American citizen, but these rights are supposed to be universal. *All* suspected criminals deserve a fair trial. The reasoning for this is in case they are actually not guilty. Most of their rights are taken after they're in prison.
Izawwlgood wrote:Sure, except Osama is a wanted known terrorist. His rights do not include 'live peacefully at a beach side villa sans US military knocking on his door'.
Can you explain to me how this isn't a false dichotomy?
My point is that saying "Yeah, criminals should have the right to a fair trial, but not if they killed over 99 people." is arbitrary and disastrous for all human rights. You can't make exceptions, no matter how heinous the crime is.
Not that I think that's particularly relevant in this case...Osama was (presumably) killed in combat...it's not like he was outright assassinated after he was captured. But still..I'm only addressing the abhorrent sentiment that he doesn't deserve rights because he's an especially bad criminal.