U.S. ally Saudi Arabia may stop beheadings over shortage of swordsmen

[green73]

Saudi Arabia is considering halting beheadings in favor of firing squads, as officials report the government is running out of swordsmen to carry out executions.

A joint Saudi committee made up of representatives from the interior, justice and health departments is deliberating the idea, according to Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, citing Saudi newspaper Al-Youm.

"This solution seems practical, especially in light of shortages in official swordsmen or their belated arrival to execution yards in some incidents; the aim is to avoid interruption of the regularly-taken security arrangements," the committee said in a statement.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03...#ixzz2NGaJLjzS

cont
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03...#ixzz2NGJ27C6K

[kathy88]

It was the SEQUESTER! It's even affecting Saudi gubbmint jobs.

[green73]

It was the SEQUESTER! It's even affecting Saudi gubbmint jobs.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kathy88 again.

..

[Occam's Banana]

"This solution seems practical, especially in light of shortages in official swordsmen or their belated arrival to execution yards in some incidents; the aim is to avoid interruption of the regularly-taken security arrangements," the committee said in a statement.

Nominated for 2013 Orwellian Newspeak Award (category: Doubleplusgood Euphemism).

[mad cow]

These Luddites should have seen this coming back when they rejected the guillotine.

Unions!

[jkr]

FLAWLESS
VICTORY


thanks for the distraction

[TheTexan]

The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.

[Occam's Banana]

The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.

[awake]

Saudia Arabia: one family runs the country at all times. Kind of like Bushland USA.

[Christian Liberty]

The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.

Are you entirely against the death penalty?

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Kingdom’s Leading Executioner Says: ‘I Lead a Normal Life’

Saudi Arabia’s leading executioner Muhammad Saad Al-Beshi will behead up to seven people in a day.

“It doesn’t matter to me: Two, four, 10 — As long as I’m doing God’s will, it doesn’t matter how many people I execute,” he told Okaz newspaper in an interview.

He started at a prison in Taif, where his job was to handcuff and blindfold the prisoners before their execution. “Because of this background, I developed a desire to be an executioner,” he says.

He applied for the job and was accepted.

Continue reading: http://mefacts.com/cache/html/arab-countries/10049.htm

Saudi executioner tells all

In a rare interview, Muhammad Saad al-Beshi, 42, told the Saudi daily Arab News that he had executed numerous women, as well as men.

"Despite the fact that I hate violence against women, when it comes to God's will, I have to carry it out."

He expressed indifference about the number of beheadings he was required to carry out.

"I sleep very well... I live a normal life like everyone else"

"It doesn't matter to me: two, four, 10 - as long as I'm doing God's will, it doesn't matter how many people I execute".

Continue reading: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2966790.stm

Personally, I have no problem with the death penalty, even by beheading. I actually agree with Saudi Arabia making executions public.

[TheTexan]

Are you entirely against the death penalty?

No, but I've got a bit of a nuanced position on that. I'd prefer allowing the victims choose to either take the man's life, or seize his assets (but not both).

In case of asset seizure, the man would be exiled and if he were to return, the victim would have the right to kill him if he so chooses.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

No, but I've got a bit of a nuanced position on that. I'd prefer allowing the victims choose to either take the man's life, or seize his assets (but not both).

That's how it's done in Saudi Arabia. The victim's family can decide not to have the murderer executed if he pays 'blood money.'

[P3ter_Griffin]

"This solution seems practical, especially in light of shortages in official swordsmen or their belated arrival to execution yards in some incidents; the aim is to avoid interruption of the regularly-taken security arrangements," the committee said in a statement.

Nominated for 2013 Orwellian Newspeak Award (category: Doubleplusgood Euphemism).

lol. You may be right. Could it be though that these regularly-taken security arrangements are actual arrangements with a foreign government? I can think of one in specific that has an island full of people that probably have some pretty terrifying stories to tell.

[Smart3]

I agree that as long as a country has the death penalty, it should be public. Preferably filmed and distributed throughout all jails.

[Bruno]

Are you entirely against the death penalty?

Ron is

[Christian Liberty]

No, but I've got a bit of a nuanced position on that. I'd prefer allowing the victims choose to either take the man's life, or seize his assets (but not both).

In case of asset seizure, the man would be exiled and if he were to return, the victim would have the right to kill him if he so chooses.

Hmm... I've always been for both of these things for capital murder. I'm not as fanatically pro-DP as I used to be, however. I'm still pro but when I was young it was among my biggest issues. Its relatively minor to me now.

Ron is

Yeah, I think Walter Block makes a heck of a lot more sense on this particular issue than Ron Paul. Although I think Ron Paul makes more sense than Block on abortion. The death penalty is one of the relatively small number of things that I disagree with Ron on. Punishment theory is up for debate as far as libertarian theorists go anyway so its not really a big deal. I'm pretty sure he used to be for it, however, and changed his mind. One of the rare times Paul has.

[Bruno]

Hmm... I've always been for both of these things for capital murder. I'm not as fanatically pro-DP as I used to be, however. I'm still pro but when I was young it was among my biggest issues. Its relatively minor to me now.



Yeah, I think Walter Block makes a heck of a lot more sense on this particular issue than Ron Paul. Although I think Ron Paul makes more sense than Block on abortion. The death penalty is one of the relatively small number of things that I disagree with Ron on. Punishment theory is up for debate as far as libertarian theorists go anyway so its not really a big deal. I'm pretty sure he used to be for it, however, and changed his mind. One of the rare times Paul has.

He did change his mind on it, mostly due to the many times the state has been wrong on it, as I recall. Would have to review his position, though. He did state it is one of the few issues he has changed his position on over the years.

I believe personally many should die for what they have done if there is no shadow of a doubt, but the death penalty is served so subjectively it had lost its purpose.

[Occam's Banana]

Are you entirely against the death penalty?

I am. It is better for ten guilty murderers to go scot-free than for a single innocent to be executed.

In case of errors of judgement, other punishments can be reversed (or at least mitigated against). Death cannot.

The death penalty is bull$#@!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAUv2OTVm9M

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Ron is

He's not. He's against it's use in a flawed judicial system but he's not against it morally or philosophically.

[Christian Liberty]

He did change his mind on it, mostly due to the many times the state has been wrong on it, as I recall. Would have to review his position, though. He did state it is one of the few issues he has changed his position on over the years.

I believe personally many should die for what they have done if there is no shadow of a doubt, but the death penalty is served so subjectively it had lost its purpose.

Yeah, there's no point to that. In a clear cut case, such as a Ted Bundy, or Brevik, where there's no doubt whatsoever, it should be done nearly immediately. If its not absolutely clear cut, then it shouldn't happen. But we should never go through 10 years of appeals on questionable cases, rack up a huge bill for the taxpayers, and THEN do it. If pragmatically you're afraid (I am to some extent) that it can't be done "Correctly" than I'm OK with it being abolished for this reason. But morally, philosophically, its completely justified.

I am. It is better for ten guilty murderers to go scot-free than for a single innocent to be executed.

IIRC it was "For a single man to be proven guilty." 90% doesn't really seem like "Beyond reasonable doubt" either, although I don't know what is. I think you've got to be near 100% to justify the irreversible penalty. There is some "Doubt" (ie. Holocaust deniers) that really isn't worth the time to consider, but if you seriously think that the guys guilt is in question than I would err on the side of caution. It is philosophically justifiable, however. If you steal a car, you have to make restitution (Through the restitution system of justice, which I think is most reasonable) with a car, or the equivalent monetary value. A nice laptop computer is not adequete compensation, unless the victim chooses to accept it. Now, what repays a life? Technically, nothing. But the closest equivalent is a life...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html

I think this is the best pro-death penalty argument I've ever read. Although admittedly, it only addressed philosophy and not pragmatism.

Truth be told, our society has a ridiculously hard time telling the difference between innocence and guilt. I recently heard someone pray that God would "Protect America from aggression" (Really?) and that we would not pursue any foreign policy that lets aggressors get away with aggression. "How can America possibly do this? Declare war on itself?" Considering how much of our population thinks this way, maybe the death penalty isn't a good idea. That said, a libertarian society would get these things right, at least a heck of a lot often.



The death penalty is bull$#@!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAUv2OTVm9M

[/QUOTE]

[SewrRatt]

There is some "Doubt" (ie. Holocaust deniers) that really isn't worth the time to consider,

Everything's worth the time to consider. It's just that some things take a lot less time to consider than others.

[Christian Liberty]

Everything's worth the time to consider. It's just that some things take a lot less time to consider than others.

Well, sort of, but say you were supposed to sentence Adolf Hitler after a trial and obvious jury conviction. Would you really say "Well, I'm not really SURE he did this. I mean, he's probably guilty, but you shouldn't assume. So I'll keep him alive" Or would you sentence him to death? (If you have a philosophical, rather than pragmatic, opposition to the death penalty, this question understdandably doesn't work.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...76#post4918376

Do people who do these things with the backing of Leviathan not deserve to die?
@Occam's Banana-