throttle baby-hitler in his cradle

in the comments to this post, damien and i were discussing the death penalty with regards to the cabal. i'm an absolutist regarding the murder-penalty. everything about it disgusts me to the core, and more than that, i cant see a single reason why america does it - it's 'ineffective' by any measure. it has no deterrence value, it's exorbitantly expensive (it costs something like 10 (?) times to kill someone as it costs to keep them in prison forever), it doesn't satisfy any long-term revenge need (i'm not particularly familiar with the details - but i think in many european countries the maximum sentence is something like 30 years - and i suspect that 'society' is generally comfortable with that. we certainly dont generally hear mass-media calls for the death penalty to be re-installed).

one of the many problems with the murder penalty is that its a very slippery slope - once that penalty is on the table then people start to scream for child murderers to be shot-at-dawn and what not - and then you have to ask whether a 16 year old is a child, or whether killing two 18 year-olds deserves the same punishment etc. so i'm an absolutist on that front.

don weighs in with:

"One of the oldest "what if" questions around is the question of if you could travel back in time to when Hitler was a child, and kill him, would you?

Granted it's a gross over-simplification of history, ignoring the tensions that had simmered across Europe in the 19th century to be touched off by Gavrilo Princip one fateful Sarajevo night in 1914. Someone else would probably have found a way to capitalize on the German situation, and Tojo and Mussolini would still have had to be reckoned with, not to mention Uncle Joe in the USSR.

In Germany itself, Hitler didn't act alone, nor was he alone in promoting his hateful agenda. Goebbels and Goering and the whole lot were more than happy to play along.

And if I could, I'd go back and strangle every one of the bastards in their cribs. I'd make a trip for that fucker Stalin, too.

With a handful of exceptions, 6 years ago, the world as a whole seemed to be making progress towards establishing peace and understanding. The cold war over, peace growing in the Middle East, wars really were fought to defend life and freedom. Nuclear disarmament, world wide. We were getting somewhere.

Now, thanks to the bastards running Washington, half a century's progress is being undone: new tensions with Russia and China; old hatreds being inflamed (i.e.: Arab/Israeli, Indian/Pakistani); the arms race on again; dissension sewn worldwide and the groundwork laid worldwide for a new century of fear and oppression.

All in the name of September 11, 2001.

It didn't have to be this way. On September 12th, the world stood united. We could have been led down a different path. We weren't.

Now, I'm not generally for capital punishment either. In a kinder, gentler world, the direction I thought we were headed 6 years ago, it wouldn't be necessary. Thanks to a handful of corrupt, greedy bastards, the world is again becoming a more dangerous place.

Worse, we keep seeing the same names over and over. Some have been convicted and pardoned in that time, others discredited and 'rehabilitated', but the bastards keep coming back. Law and punishment mean nothing to them. Life means nothing to them, unless it's their own miserable, stinking, parasitic existence.

How it's to happen I honestly don't know, but there has to be an accounting before they take this world with them into the hell for which they are surely bound.

And when that bill comes due, any found to be complicit in 9/11, or profitting from it in such a way as cost more lives should pay the price in the only coin they truly value.

And they should pay in full."

(emphasis his)

before i weigh in, let me first say that the crimes of 911 were indescribably evil - but they barely touch the edges of the iraq invasion. by my count, the iraq invasion has killed about 60 times more people. so far. so let's put that in perspective.

now: having said that i'm an absolutist about state murder, we need to separate the state's need to murder someone that they have already neutralized, and the process an individual might take of neutralizing tomorrow's mass murderer/war criminal. once a mass murderer has been apprehended, there's no reason that person should be killed - this is separate to:

"if you could travel back in time to when Hitler was a child, and kill him, would you?"

i think if most people were given this black-and-white choice, retrospectively, they'd say 'yes' - and save 60 million odd lives. as don notes, it's not quite that simple - but the general premise of the question is would you kill hitler-child and prevent the war. most people would wear that burden - if that was their only choice. i'm sure most people would rather change history by putting the little feller in some institution than wring his gorgeous baby-crinkly neck.

and yes, the bastards keep coming back - and yes, they all deserve to spend eternity in hell, but as long as 'we' elect people who will absolve them then they will be pardoned, pre-emptively if necessary. the pardons will happen regardless. and if not them, then someone in their place.

Law and punishment mean nothing to them.

that's because they have been neither been law'd nor punished - they should be taken out of circulation - but it doesn't require the death penalty to get them outta the way.

having said all that, i previously drew the distinction between those who have otherwise been neutralized by the state, and those who havent. today, george galloway indicated that it would be justifiable to assassinate tony blair - i havent read the context - but given that we are having this conversation, and at risk of raising the interest of the NSA - I can say that there's a point where it would make sense to throttle baby-hitler in his cradle. I'd volunteer myself in a heartbeat if i thought it would make an iota of difference.

(and somehow in my head i can separate that from state-sanctioned murder. so there.)