![[Signifying Nothing]](/local/memlogo-1.png "Welcome to Signifying Nothing")
As expected, Paul Johnson just became the latest victim in the “terrorism by beheading” campaign operated by al-Qaeda.
Reaction: Moe Lane said it best. As far as I’m concerned, the Saudi government’s response should be to immediately execute every single person whose release was demanded by the terrorists. My moral qualms about such a policy in general (I would actively oppose the U.S. engaging in such a policy, for example) don’t extend to actions by the Saudi regime, who routinely show less mercy to Saudis, guest workers, and western ex-pats accused of dubious crimes under their rule. We already know the Saudis have zero respect for human rights; such a policy seems like an excellent complement to a-Qaeda’s policy of zero respect for human life.
![[Permalink]](/images/permalink.png "Permanent link to this entry"){kind=small}
Recent posts
![[The GIMP]](/buttons/gimp.png "The GIMP"){kind=small}
![[Steal These Buttons!]](/buttons/steal.png "Steal These Buttons!"){kind=small}
2 comments:
Amen.
One could even argue that preemptive executions should occur.
If al-Qaeda demands prisoner A, B, and C be released by July 1, or beheadings will commence, perhaps prisoner A should be executed immediately, with the warning that B and C will be getting it if al-Qaeda’s hostage isn’t released immediately.
If this sounds harsh, keep in mind that we’re down, body-count-wise, by about 3000.
I think preemptive executions pretty much guarantee the hostage “buys it.” That’s why I’d suggest waiting until the terrorists kill the hostage.
In nuclear warfare, the equivalent situation is second-strike capability. Being able to nuke someone else only makes you safe® if you have the capability to do it after you’ve already been nuked. Not a perfect analogy, but close enough for blog use…