Death Penalty

R. Richard

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 24, 2003
Posts
10,382
Some of you are against the death penalty. Mohammed Ali Hamadi was released from prison in exchange for the life of a German aid worker who was kidnapped in Iraq. The release is a problem with the idea of a "life sentence." For terrorists, a life sentence is just a target to use a kidnap and exchange tactic to free a murderer. Comment?

TWA Hijacker Released From German Prison
By ZEINA KARAM, Associated Press Writer

BEIRUT, Lebanon - A hijacker in a terrorist drama that riveted America — the 1985 seizure of a TWA jet in which a U.S. Navy diver was killed — has returned home to Lebanon, paroled by Germany after serving 19 years of a life sentence.

The United States said Tuesday it wants Lebanon to turn over Mohammed Ali Hamadi for trial in the killing of the diver, Robert Dean Stethem.

"We have demonstrated over the years that when we believe an individual is responsible for the murder of innocent American civilians, that we will track them down and that we will bring them to justice in the United States," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

He said the United States is talking with the Lebanese government about Hamadi, but the U.S. does not have an extradition treaty with Lebanon.

Hamadi was in temporary Lebanese custody, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations with the Lebanese are confidential. A senior Lebanese judicial official contacted by The Associated Press declined to comment.

Trans World Airlines Flight 847, with 145 passengers and nine crew members, was flying from Athens to Rome on June 14, 1985, when it was hijacked by Shiite Muslim militants demanding the release of hundreds of Lebanese from Israeli jails.

During a 17-day ordeal, the plane was forced to crisscross the Mediterranean from Lebanon to Algeria, landing in Beirut three times before it was finally allowed to remain there.

An urgent radio transmission from the unflappable TWA pilot, John Testrake, to the Beirut control tower was broadcast around the world: "We must, I repeat, we must land repeat, at Beirut. ... Ground, TWA 847, they are threatening to kill the passengers, they are threatening to kill the passengers. We must have fuel, we must get fuel. ... They are beating the passengers, they are beating the passengers."

The ordeal produced one of the most enduring images of terrorism: a picture of Testrake leaning out of the cockpit window as a hijacker clamped a hand over his mouth and waved a pistol.

On the second day of the seizure, the hijackers beat and shot to death Stethem, 23, of Waldorf, Md., and dumped his body onto the runway in Beirut.

Witnesses later identified Hamadi as having beaten the tied-up Stethem. According to testimony at Hamadi's trial, when Stethem complained about his bonds, Hamadi responded: "Let the pig suffer."

The plane's flight engineer testified at the 1989 trial that Hamadi bragged he had killed Stethem.

On Tuesday, the prosecutor's office in Frankfurt, Germany, announced Hamadi's release, saying he had been freed and left the country several days earlier after his case came up for a regular legally mandated review by a parole court.

Hamadi arrived Saturday in his homeland, Lebanon, on a commercial flight from Germany, a Lebanese security official said. An official with the Shiite Hezbollah guerrilla group confirmed his return. Neither would give details and both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

It was not known where Hamadi went after arriving in Lebanon and efforts to locate him Tuesday were unsuccessful.

The United States had sought Hamadi's extradition when he was caught in January 1987 as he went through customs at Frankfurt Airport with liquid explosives in his luggage. The Germans, who have no death penalty, insisted on prosecuting him. A German court convicted him of both the hijacking and of Stethem's death.

McCormack said the U.S. was disappointed with Germany's decision to release Hamadi before he served his full sentence. He said the United States sought jurisdiction over Hamadi after he was arrested and over the years has repeatedly sought to have him tried in the United States.

Hamadi was indicted in absentia in 1985 in federal court in Washington. He was charged with air piracy resulting in murder, among other crimes. It is not clear whether he would face the death penalty if tried under that indictment, since the federal death penalty was not reinstated until 1988.

German Justice Ministry spokeswoman Eva Schmierer said the matter was handled by the state prosecutor in Frankfurt. "The Justice Ministry does not have an extradition request" from the United States, she said.

The U.S. State Department said it didn't renew the earlier request because its extradition treaty doesn't permit Germany to extradite someone on the same charges for which he has already been convicted.

Stethem's brother called the release "absolutely disturbing," and blamed the U.S. government for not doing enough to prevent Hamadi from being set free.

"Rob gave his life. He gave his full measure and I haven't seen anybody give as much to securing his killer as he did in life defending his country," Kenneth Stethem said.

The family hopes the Bush administration will pressure Lebanon to turn Hamadi over for trial.

"We'll be after him," said Stethem's mother, Patricia. "We won't let it rest."

Still at large are Hamadi's three accomplices — Hassan Izz-Al-Din, Ali Atwa and Imad Mughniyeh, the former Hezbollah security chief who is also accused in the kidnappings of Americans in Beirut — who each were indicted in the United States and have a $5 million U.S. bounty on their heads.

Stethem was the only passenger aboard Flight 847 to die, although others were beaten. The other passengers were freed in stages, either in Beirut or Algiers.

A final group of 39 passengers were taken off the plane June 16 and held in locations in Beirut, where they would remain captive until June 30. The siege ended after Israel announced the release of 31 Lebanese prisoners — although Israel and the United States insisted the release was not connected to the hijacking.

Former hostages have recounted their terror during the hours trapped on the flight as the hijackers collected passports, trying to determine which passengers were Jewish.

Flight attendant Uli Derickson, who acted as a translator for the hijackers, reportedly hid the passports of some passengers with Jewish names and stepped in when hijackers began beating a second U.S. sailor. She died this year at age 60; Testrake died in 1996 at age 68.

The hijacking was a dramatic standoff in a tumultuous period for Lebanon, which was torn by a civil war that saw the Israeli and Syrian militaries and Shiite, Christian and Palestinian militias battling on its soil.

Militants had already repeatedly targeted the United States. Suicide bombers hit U.S. Embassy buildings and Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and 1984, killing 328 people, and militants kidnapped several Americans in Lebanon.

The ordeal did not end with the release of the hostages. Shortly after Hamadi was arrested, his brother, Abbas Ali Hamadi, and other kidnappers snatched a German engineer from his Beirut hotel room, threatening to kill him if Hamadi was extradited to the U.S.

Abbas Ali Hamadi was arrested in Frankfurt and was sentenced in 1988 to 13 years in prison for the kidnapping.

Hezbollah denies involvement in the hijacking. The group is on a State Department list of terrorist organizations.
 
I will simply voice my usual objections.

You cannot fix mistakes.

The death penalty will not be carried out fairly.

The death penalty is chiefly a political tool, not a judicial one.
 
rgraham666 said:
I will simply voice my usual objections.

You cannot fix mistakes.

The death penalty will not be carried out fairly.

The death penalty is chiefly a political tool, not a judicial one.

I must accuse you, and the German courts, of being religious bigots. Mohammed Ali Hamadi is a Muslim. He believes, rightly or wrongly, that a Muslim who dies in battle against the unbelievers will gain immediate entrance to Paradise , to be attended by 72 houris. By sentencing Mohammed Ali Hamadi to life imprisonment, the German courst [and their supporters] denied him immediate entrance to Paradise , to be attended by 72 houris. This last is the supreme reward for a Muslim. A death sentence would have prevented a terrorist kidnapping and granted Mohammed Ali Hamadi the supreme reward for a Muslim.

Shame!
 
R. Richard said:
For what? Saying that execution is irreversible? What are you on about? :confused:

R. Richard said:
A death sentence would have prevented a terrorist kidnapping and granted Mohammed Ali Hamadi the supreme reward for a Muslim.
Which makes it a pragmatic, political tool, and not a moral one. Death because it's convenient.
 
When you restore life to those that deserve to live, then you can take it from those that deserve to die.
Until then, you're just stepping on toes.
 
Liar said:
For what? Saying that execution is irreversible? What are you on about? :confused:

Which makes it a pragmatic, political tool, and not a moral one. Death because it's convenient.

Execution is NOT irreversible if Allah so wills it for a true believer. I do not believe it, you do not believe it, but a Muslim believes it.

Granting a true beliver his ultimate reward is NOT a pragmatic political tool. It is simply a way to resolve an issue in a way that safeguards the rest of the world, while not imposing what can be called a penalty by the Muslims.

You regard death in one way and should have the right to do so. Muslims regard death in another way and should have the right to do so. If you will pardon me, it appears that you are attempting to project your view of death upon Muslims.

JMHO.
 
R. Richard said:
Execution is NOT irreversible if Allah so wills it for a true believer. I do not believe it, you do not believe it, but a Muslim believes it.

Granting a true beliver his ultimate reward is NOT a pragmatic political tool. It is simply a way to resolve an issue in a way that safeguards the rest of the world, while not imposing what can be called a penalty by the Muslims.
I would reply, if I had the first clue what you are trying to say.

"It is simply a way to resolve an issue in a way that safeguards the rest of the world, while not imposing what can be called a penalty by the Muslims" is EXACTLY a pragmatic solution. It could be an example in a dictionary next to the word Pragmatism, for crying out loud.
You regard death in one way and should have the right to do so. Muslims regard death in another way and should have the right to do so. If you will pardon me, it appears that you are attempting to project your view of death upon Muslims.
What are you saying then? That different people should have different sentences based on their religion?
 
Interesting point, R Richard.

If no 'terrorists' are alive in prison, then hostage taking will be to no avail in that regard, but it might bring in money.

Have you considered the 'symmetry' issues. If the US kills all its POWS, then they cant escape, be liberated, etc. HOWEVER to do so would invite reply in kind. So not a good idea.

In this case, perhaps your argument has to consider the possibility that, since their bros. are NOT prisoners, but executed, that the friends will simply kill people (in retaliation)?
 
Whatever the case, I think that the constant risk of release and escape makes life a less than satisfactory sentence for terrorists and other murderers.
 
If, he returns to terrorism and if he manages a successful attack, then the people who die, are casualties of the german's stance against the death penalty.

The fact that he may kill again, is a fairly strong argument for the death penalty imho.
 
Now that is a very confusing piece of reportage, quite apart from including the sensational "facts" of the original crime.

He was sentenced in 1988 to 13 years in prison for the kidnapping.

He'd served 19 years of a life sentence for... what was that again?

If extradited he would have been tried for the same crime again (there's a film about that isn't there?)

The German courts acted according to their legalities, first for sentencing and then with regard to parole.

He did the crime, he served the time. What is the problem?

Aah. Terrorism. Different kind of murder altogether.

OK then. Don't give in to terrorism. Just change life long laws enshrined in the legislature to take care of them, then they can't make us change the way we do things, which is their aim and raison.

I still don't get it.
 
Pure said:
Interesting point, R Richard.

If no 'terrorists' are alive in prison, then hostage taking will be to no avail in that regard, but it might bring in money.
Quite true!

Have you considered the 'symmetry' issues. If the US kills all its POWS, then they cant escape, be liberated, etc. HOWEVER to do so would invite reply in kind. So not a good idea.
The people we are talking about here are NOT POWs. They do not begin to qualify for the status of POWs under international law. Read your Geneva Convention. I am NOT talking about killing people, I am talking about facilitating their entrance to their Paradise under their own freely and openly professed belief. Of course, their entrance to their Paradise, on their own terms, requires that they first die in battle against unbelievers. The people we are talking about can and do kill without any need to "reply in kind." Not only do they kill unbelievers, they kill heir own kind.

In this case, perhaps your argument has to consider the possibility that, since their bros. are NOT prisoners, but executed, that the friends will simply kill people (in retaliation)?
I have just aided your brother to achieve immediate entrance to Paradise. How then do you justify retaliation? Retaliation for what; aiding your brother to immediately enter Paradise?


"What are you saying then? That different people should have different sentences based on their religion?"
Your use of the word "sentence" here clearly indicates punishment. I am not punishing a Muslim terrorist by executing him/her, I am allowing that individual immediate entrance to Paradise by his/her own belief. Of course my solution is pragmatic, it is not however politcally pragmatic. I am rewarding my enemy at my own gain. I do well by doing good. Even my enemy should agree.

I am citing logic. You are citing emotion.

JMHO.
 
Last edited:
*Shrugs*

Beware when you battle monsters,
lest you become a monster.
And as you gaze into the abyss,
the abyss gazes also,
into you.

Frederich Nietzsche
 
"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil. 'Cause I'm the baddest motherfucker in the valley!" Anon.
 
gauchecritic said:
Now that is a very confusing piece of reportage, quite apart from including the sensational "facts" of the original crime.

He was sentenced in 1988 to 13 years in prison for the kidnapping.

He'd served 19 years of a life sentence for... what was that again?

Mohammed Ali Hamadi served 19 years of a life sentence for the hijacking. His brother, Abbas Ali Hamadi was arrested in Frankfurt and was sentenced in 1988 to 13 years in prison for the kidnapping.

Two different individuals.

The Death Penalty isn't about Punishment, Revenge, Justice, or any such silly ideals -- The Death Penalty is about Prevention.

Any use of the Death Penalty that isn't about removing a threat to society is inappropriate.

What concerns me more is that Germany released anyone at all in response to terrorist blackmail.

Whether Mohammed Ali Hamadi was serving a life sentence for hijacking and murder or 90 days for littering is totally irrelevant to the fact that Germany gave every terrorist in the world the message that every German citizen in the world is a ticket to freedom for another criminal held by Germany!

Executing Hamadi would have kept HIM from being the subject of a kidnapping and ransom demand and I personally think he should hve been executed. However, releasing him in response to a ransom demand is a far more serious and wide ranging error in policy. Hamadi can retire to a life of ease and piety and never even speak a harsh word to anyone, but his release is going to be responsible for more death and misery than he could ever accomplish by himself.

Appeasement has never worked to stop bullies or terrorists and this example of appeasement is no more or less wrong because Hamadi shouldn't have been alive to ransom.
 
The problem with killing religious fanatics is that it creates martyrs.

Which is just another goad to terrorist action.

I can't understand. We claim to be better people and nations than the rest of the world. Yet we seem to want to be numbered amongst such illustrious company as Iran and China.

Oh wait! Narf! When they kill people it is strictly for bad purposes. When we kill them it is the opposite.

Silly me.
 
rgraham666 said:
The problem with killing religious fanatics is that it creates martyrs.

Thisis true, but I've never heard of an attempt to free a martyr by kidnapping and threatening to kill an innocent bystander.

Locking a religious fanatic up for life also creates a martyr -- perhaps a worse sort of martyr than a dead body because the possibiity of getting them released is there.

Whether a martyr is dead or alive, doesn't keep "religious fantatics" from trying to "free" them. History is full of atrocities commited in order to recover the remains of some saint or martyr.

Since it doesn't really make any difference, ignoring the "religious fanatic" aspect of the situation and concnetrating on the secular crimes and appropriate punishments for the secular crimes is the only proper policy.

The reason someone hijacks a plane and kills a passenger is far less important than the simple fact that hajacking a plane is a crime and murder is a crime and every country in the world has a prescribed punishent for Murder and most of them have a prescribed punishment for hijacking. It doesn't matter if the prescribed punisment is death or fifty lashes with overcooked spaghetti noddles -- allowing anyone to coerce an exception to the prescribed punishment is simply abandoning any pretext that "prescribed punishements" have any meaning at all.

R. Richard cast this thread as a questionon the Death Penalty, but it isn't about the "death penalty," It's about appeasing terrorists by abandoning the idea that any sentence, for any crime, is subject to overturn by terrorist blackmail.
 
I'm opposed to the death penalty because it is an absolute and irreversible punishment and no justice system that I've seen so far is fairly enough applied or has a low enough margin of error to deal in absolutes and irreversibilites.

However, I have to agree with Harold on what's really at issue here: Never negotiate with terrorists.


-B
 
Pure said:
Interesting point, R Richard.

If no 'terrorists' are alive in prison, then hostage taking will be to no avail in that regard, but it might bring in money.

Have you considered the 'symmetry' issues. If the US kills all its POWS, then they cant escape, be liberated, etc. HOWEVER to do so would invite reply in kind. So not a good idea.

In this case, perhaps your argument has to consider the possibility that, since their bros. are NOT prisoners, but executed, that the friends will simply kill people (in retaliation)?

Pure, what US POW's are you talking about? Individuals who were captured while fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan can legitimately be considered POW's. Terrorists planting bombs in mosques or railroad depots or markets or other such places are criminals and should be treated as such.

As for "reply in kind", the terrorists, or insurgents, if you prefer, kill almost everybody they capture anyhow, so what would be the difference there?
 
Boxlicker101 said:
Pure, what US POW's are you talking about? Individuals who were captured while fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan can legitimately be considered POW's. Terrorists planting bombs in mosques or railroad depots or markets or other such places are criminals and should be treated as such.

As for "reply in kind", the terrorists, or insurgents, if you prefer, kill almost everybody they capture anyhow, so what would be the difference there?

Individuals who are captured while fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan can legitimately be considered POW's IF AND ONLY IF they are members of an army, fight while wearing recognizable insignia, keep themselves separate from civilian population and are citizens/residents of the area in which they fight. The last requirement is the weakest and is usually not a hard/fast rule. However, the importation of foreigners as mercenary fighters does not normally fall under the POW rules.
 
Weird Harold said:
The Death Penalty isn't about Punishment, Revenge, Justice, or any such silly ideals -- The Death Penalty is about Prevention.
Then just fucking say it, each and everyone:

"I want people to die not because it's right but because it's convenient."

There, case closed, let's go home.
 
Trying to get this straight.

Ok then. Hezzbollah say Hamadi's brother is not Hezbollah. So we have someone trying to save his brother from being tried for the same crime twice.

Hamadi was released on bail according to German law. His brother has apparently kidnaped a German national and demanded that his brother not be extradited when the US did not have either a current extradition request on file nor an internationally legal reason for his extradition in the first place. Smells like WMD intelligence to me.
 
R. Richard said:
Individuals who are captured while fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan can legitimately be considered POW's IF AND ONLY IF they are members of an army, fight while wearing recognizable insignia, keep themselves separate from civilian population and are citizens/residents of the area in which they fight. The last requirement is the weakest and is usually not a hard/fast rule. However, the importation of foreigners as mercenary fighters does not normally fall under the POW rules.

As I understand this, only sovereign nations can declare war. Only sovereign nations can have soldiers involved in any such war, whether they be mercenaries or nationals.

A group of individuals united under any banner other than a country with internationally recognised borders cannot be defined as a sovereign nation.
 
Weird Harold said:
R. Richard cast this thread as a question on the Death Penalty, but it isn't about the "death penalty," It's about appeasing terrorists by abandoning the idea that any sentence, for any crime, is subject to overturn by terrorist blackmail.

That is a main theme of what I hoped this thread would lead to. A dead "martyr" can be used by a terrorist organization to rally the troops. However, much worse than a dead "martyr" is a live "martyr" who has been blackmailed out of a spineless government. The live "martyr" is displayed to the troops with the idea, "Hang in there! We will eventually get you out." The live "martyr" is then allowed to live as a symbol of a hero of the terrorists. He/she is usually maintained in luxury as a symbol. The presence of a live "martyr" is a bonanza for a terrorist group.

Let me gently remind the readers. There is possible an overturn of a carried out death sentence. If Allah wills it, the dead can be returned to life. I don't believe it and you don't belive it. The terrorists claim to believe it. At least allow the terrorist their religious convictions.

JMHO.
 
Weird Harold said:
Thisis true, but I've never heard of an attempt to free a martyr by kidnapping and threatening to kill an innocent bystander.

Locking a religious fanatic up for life also creates a martyr -- perhaps a worse sort of martyr than a dead body because the possibiity of getting them released is there.

Whether a martyr is dead or alive, doesn't keep "religious fantatics" from trying to "free" them. History is full of atrocities commited in order to recover the remains of some saint or martyr.

Since it doesn't really make any difference, ignoring the "religious fanatic" aspect of the situation and concnetrating on the secular crimes and appropriate punishments for the secular crimes is the only proper policy.

The reason someone hijacks a plane and kills a passenger is far less important than the simple fact that hajacking a plane is a crime and murder is a crime and every country in the world has a prescribed punishent for Murder and most of them have a prescribed punishment for hijacking. It doesn't matter if the prescribed punisment is death or fifty lashes with overcooked spaghetti noddles -- allowing anyone to coerce an exception to the prescribed punishment is simply abandoning any pretext that "prescribed punishements" have any meaning at all.

R. Richard cast this thread as a questionon the Death Penalty, but it isn't about the "death penalty," It's about appeasing terrorists by abandoning the idea that any sentence, for any crime, is subject to overturn by terrorist blackmail.

And Reagan negotiated with terrorists, then traded arms for hostages, creating a whole new crime on top of the situation. Then Bush's father pardoned everyone involved before they could even get to trial. :rolleyes:

If you want to base legal policy on extreme exceptions to the rule, there's always some outrage or another that you can use to drum up anger. But it still leads to bad policy.

Will the old terrorist hijack another airliner? Maybe, but cockpit doors have gotten stronger and airport security has gotten tighter since the last time. Will he strap explosives around his chest and kill everyone on a bus somewhere? Maybe, but there seems to be no shortage of people willing to do that. If the hijacker hadn't been let out of jail, then the next in line would have done the deed. It doesn't matter if he's killed or if he's just locked up - either way, the Hezbollah can convince some schmuck to wrap themselves with explosives and blow up stuff.

Weird Harold, you first say that this is just about a crime - murder and hijacking - and that everyplace has laws to deal with that. This guy was tried, convicted, and served his sentence, then released under the laws of where he was tried. You may think he should have been tried in the US, but then you're saying our justice is better than Germany's. Actually, the death penalty may be completely relevant, in that many nations won't extradite criminals to countries wiht the death penalty. I don't know if that's an issue in this case, but it's come up in the past.

You can point to monsters and say "THEY JUSTIFY THE DEATH PENALTY", and maybe in those particular cases the monster truly has no redeeming value that anyone can see. But the death penalty isn't limited to monsters - innocent people are convicted quite regularly. I linked to a page in another thread that shows about 4 death-row inmates a year, for the last 30 years, being released because of wrongful convictions. The average time served was over nine years.

Drunk drivers get out of jail, and I would place a pretty large bet that more people every year are killed by drunk driver-repeat offenders than by paroled murderers. Should we execute drunk drivers?

Well, that would have prevented the Bush presidency at least. :cool:
 
Back
Top