I oppose the death penalty too, but for domestic criminal cases, not acts of war by foreign nationals against the US. There’s a very large difference between the two, and if Murphy doesn’t understand that, then voters in that district should know about it.

There is no difference, Ed, once they have been caught and are under the power of our Government. The same possibilities of innocence are there, and the same “shooting fish in a barrel” argument still holds:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’

So, interestingly, Murphy’s position is very Catholic — something unexpected among the baby-slayers.

Johan Klaus on March 28, 2009 at 12:47 AM
No one. he is not old enough.

Wade on March 28, 2009

Isn’t drywall a Canadian? I thought they didn’t allow the mentally infirm to vote up there.

Who are you going to vote for?

Johan Klaus on March 28, 2009 at 12:47 AM

No one. he is not old enough.

This is a great ad. The part that stood out to me was Murphy’s qualification of being uncertain about the guilt of the perpetrators. Only the nutty 9/11 truthers have any doubt that those fanatics on those planes were guilty as hell.

I oppose the death penalty too, but for domestic criminal cases, not acts of war by foreign nationals against the US.

With all due respect, Ed — and you are indeed due the highest respect from all HA participants for your many thoughtful contributions — I believe that in this instance you are sadly wrong.

A murderer is a murderer is a murderer, irrespective of nationality. That said, I can readily understand those who might oppose the death penalty based on strict pro-life considerations, but it seems to me that such a belief should apply across the board, again irrespective of the nationality (or motivation) of the perpetrator.

Likewise, for those of us who are constrained to the other view — that all who murder with intent or commit other heinous acts on the innocent — should themselves be put to an early death, we should apply that view without regard to birthplace or national origin of the villain.

Hence, I am puzzled by your distinction. Then again, I’m from Texas, where 911 is a number you call only when your gun is jammed or you’re out of bullets.

So one killer is more equal than another killer? Animal house.

No, just typical partisan hackery.

Dave Rywall on March 27, 2009 at 8:31 PM

Who are you going to vote for?

I oppose the death penalty too, but for domestic criminal cases, not acts of war by foreign nationals against the US.

So one killer is more equal than another killer? Animal house.

I oppose the death penalty too, but for domestic criminal cases, not acts of war by foreign nationals against the US. There’s a very large difference between the two, and if Murphy doesn’t understand that, then voters in that district should know about it.

I don’t either. I hope the POS who issued this ad loses the election.

I oppose the death penalty too, but for domestic criminal cases, not acts of war by foreign nationals against the US. There’s a very large difference between the two, and if Murphy doesn’t understand that, then voters in that district should know about it.

Hmm, isn’t that rather backward? After all the Geneva Convention protects PoWs from execution. I would make a distinction between actual soldiers and terrorists though. Anyway, this entire debate is polluted by the ridiculousness that we have seen over the last eight years. It is hard to tell what is a enemy that is protected by the Geneva convention vs one that is not any more.

How about waterboarding them and then executing them?

I oppose the death penalty too, but for domestic criminal cases, not acts of war by foreign nationals against the US. There’s a very large difference between the two, and if Murphy doesn’t understand that, then voters in that district should know about it.

I can respect your view on the death penalty, but I don’t understand your logic. It doesn’t depend on the action, but where the perpetrator is from?

With all due respect, that sounds more like a “feel good” reason than a well thought out one.

artist on Mar 27,2009 at 9:04PM.

artist:

And those that were murdered under socialism,never got the
chance to regret it!

In Liberal-speak,translation,he doesn`t want to piss off
the muslim moderate vote,or the hard line muslim terrorist
vote,or the lefty Moonbat truther(controlled demolition)vote!

Or,the Anti-War Moonbat vote,Against the Death Penalty vote,
or piss off any other Lefty America who view everything thro
ugh the lenses of any law!