What Should Be Done with the Remorseless, Failed Jordanian Bomber Widow?

Pretty straightforward, really.

xpost: exactly

Sending the cops after them and handling it as a criminal matter, with enforcement of laws both local & international

vs

Militarizing that shit, and dumping troops into a buncha countries that may not want us there

Hi-ho, and up she rises,
Hi-ho, and up she rises,
Hi-ho, and up she rises,
Earli in the morning.

i don't really know what to do with this kind of humour when a "vigorous pistol-whipping" or something quite like it or worse is pretty fucking likely

Ditto.

i don't really know what to do with this kind of humour when a "vigorous pistol-whipping" or something quite like it or worse is pretty fucking likely

This wasn't an attempt at humor.

"Yeah!"

"I say we hang her, THEN we kill her!"

"Yeah!"

"I say we stomp her..."

"Yeah!"

"...then we tattoo her..."

"Yeah!"

"...then we hang her..."

"Yeah!"

"...THEN we kill her!"

"Yeah!"

"I say you let ME have her FIRST."

"Yeah!!!"

"I say we let her go!"

"Noooooo!!!!!!!"

http://louvre.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/983/5db/9835db60-91d7-49c5-b87d-4bd2bb8f9b13.medium

*hi-fives alex*

You have to differentiate between torturing people who have been *accused of sympathising with a cause - vs- roughing up people who have confessed to terrorism/attempted murder. I mean, whichever side you're on here, you can't equate the two.

xposts

i don't think people who are in custody should be roughed up either way!!

"Failed" was a word taken out of her own description of events.

You're right. They're both equally indefensible.

D.I.Y. what the fuck: that post implies you're in favor of beating people who confess to attempted murder?

Im lost.

xxxxpost

I'm not advocating the beatings or the pistol whiping - I'm pointing out that the argument against it on this thread was incongruous.

US pilots?

And to the people giving those orders, I don't believe they are purposely targeting innocent civilians. If they are, then they are evil.

I laughed for a good ten minutes at this. Well, maybe it was only ten seconds, but they were solidly satisfying belly laughs.

Seriously though - Intentionally killing people who have nothing to do with the war you're fighting IS evil.

But I'm getting confused. Are we arguing whether or not this woman is evil or whether or not the US is evil? Because I'm saying "yes" and "sometimes".

I'm normally not in the business of defending the U.S. military, but once again -- U.S. Pilots (or any air force's pilots, for that matter) aren't the decision makers. They may very well consider the moral implications of their actions, but they are ultimately powerless to question them. Don't blame the pilots, blame the policy-makers. It may ring hollow, but once again, U.S. Pilots (and infantrymen and marines etc. etc.) are simply following orders. Some probably do so with more zeal than others, but that's a whole `nother thread.

So that makes it alright to you, I guess?

That's the first I've heard of there being a specific, strategic target in mind.

Nuremberg Defence

(xpost: FUCK)

what the fuck? you sign up the the AF, that absolves you of all moral responsibility? why?

Gents, I'm not saying it's right. But, that's the way it is.

maybe she was following orders.

Fair point, but in much the same way U.S. forces get taken to task (or should be taken to task) for targetting civilians, so should she (and her since-departed co-horts).

Were you always Calum as well as Aja?

Well, if you're still sticking with the parallel of her services with the military, I'd say targetting civilians is diametrically opposed to standard rules of engagement, so she's still in the wrong.

why do you think this, re 'following orders'?

no-one on this thread has said they think she was doing the right thing, btw. but if there's an abstract sense in which wrongdoing should not go unpunished, the US are the last people who have the moral authority to do the punishing here.

xxpost

Law of Armed Conflict? Geneva Conventions?

I'm not disagreeing with you. Once again, however, I'd just like to point out in my defense that just because I find her particular crime so reprehensible, that does not mean by any stretch that I am in favor of the war in Iraq or the Bush Administration's handling of the "War on Terror" at all. I don't think we should be in Iraq any more than she probably does. Still, there are no justifications for her actions, as far as I'm concerned.

It is impossible for diplomatic or non-violent means to succeed 100% of the time.

If you do not disagree with this statement, are you opposed to the concept of a military?

If you do disagree with this statement, where is this fantasy world where human beings can always be talked into doing what you want them to do and can I please move there and become lord and master?

but wasn't she from iraq? or you mean she does in jordan?

If you do disagree with this statement, where is this fantasy world where human beings can always be talked into doing what you want them to do and can I please move there and become lord and master?

if you have enough money you can move to the USA.

in this case the righteousness of the overall project is dubious, imo, and while bomber lady did wrong, it's weird to a) single her out and b) propose she be pistol-whipped. even the nazis put us/uk airmen in prison camps (without beating them) when their task was *specifically and unequivocally* to kill civilians.

She's Iraqi, I believe, and her actions were pointed at Jordan who -- I gather -- are perceived as chief collaborators with the U.S. in terms of Iraq.

Also, Alex et al stating his opinion about what should be done with her is not the US, exerting its moral authority.

xxxxposts, you poxy fule.

And I've already stated up thread that my feeling that she needed to be pistol-whipped stem from my own emotional reactions and do not reflect any serious legal considerations regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.

Also, Alex et al stating his opinion about what should be done with her is not the US, exerting its moral authority.

Precisely.

Just as a passing note, I think the bomber-pilot moral-responsibility issue here is a little off: they get their targets handed to them, and are presumably acting on trust that their work's being used in a morally responsible way. The only time their personal responsibility would enter into it would be if they managed to confirm, somehow, that their targets were really things they'd be opposed to bombing -- and barring pilots with their own intelligence staffs, I can't imagine that's likely to happen.

I'm not really sure how that moral-responsibility argument is even working here, though, so I'm just tossing that in. Terrorism is bad, mmkay?

And I'm in no way an expert on bomber piloting either, but I do know that they don't just arbitrarily fly around bombing (or not bombing) the snots out of whatever they see fit. They may indeed be deeply conflicted about their actions, but they are ultimately merely vehicles for the military strategists. In other words, they are the messengers. That the message happens to be a megaton of death isn't the point.

In WWII, where the consensus opinion is that we were the good guys, we firebombed Tokyo and Dresden and nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima, thereby killing people (children, the infirm, etc...) who had nothing whatsoever to do with the Japanese Imperial war effort.

I think the bomber-pilot moral-responsibility issue here is a little off: they get their targets handed to them, and are presumably acting on trust that their work's being used in a morally responsible way.

I'm sure this lady could make a similar argument. To her lights, the Koran and the defense of her native land from foreign aggression may necessitate or excuse hitherto repugnant acts. Let's not forget that 'patriots' committed atrocities against 'tory' loyalists during the American Revolution, including tarring and feathering people - a brutal form of abuse that leads to body-wide burns, and more often than not, death.

I agree that sometimes violence is required to solve problems. I prefer it not be used as a first resort and that its ramifications be well considered. Cheney justifying torture is pig-headed and ignorant of a good many cases in history, one recent one being that of a certain Ayman Al-Zawahiri, whose torture at the hands of the Egyptians seems to be one of the sources of his venemous hatred of the U.S. and the states that we support. This lady and her husband targetting mostly Jordanians for associating themselves with the West by going to one of our hotel chains is not only homicidal (even murderous) but small-minded and strategically stupid. This will not change Jordan's position. It will not swing it in their direction but against it. It will not demoralize them but antagonize them. They have not only killed in cold blood and not just in vain, but counter-productively. (Was it Talleyrand or Fouché who said of the assassination of Enghien that it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder?)

The urge to kill and harm those who have harmed us and ours is understandable. Going forward with such acts of retribution when we have struggled centuries to stamp out cycles of violence and enunciate principles and create equitable institutions is just to return to barbarism in a petulant act of moral devolution. It's just stupid. Considering the stakes of this 'war on terror' why doesn't someone try to learn some lessons from history and try to WIN instead of just justifying every stupid ass thing they continue to do out of animal hatred.