It was announced today that the military is pursuing the first capital punishment case against terror suspect. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is being charged with planning the bombing attack on the U.S. Navy vessel, which was in the Gulf of Aden near Yemen and with heading the aborted attack on the destroyer USS The Sullivans in 2000. This seems like a very timely topic considering that this year’s Mayday Conference is entitled “Executing Justice: Debating Capital Punishment.” Personally, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. After reading Sister Helen Prejean’s book Dead Man Walking, I became even stronger in my opinion that the death penalty does not offer a meaningful solution to the systematic problem of crime; it only results in the unnecessary death of an individual.
So what are the implications and questions in this case, when the death penalty may be used on a terrorist? Even in this case, and perhaps especially, I am opposed to the death penalty. I don’t think it is the government’s place or responsibility to end someone’s life, no matter what crime they have committed. The death penalty devalues human life and focuses on the individual and no the system that played a large role in creating that individual. In the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Hashiri the American Civil Liberties Union said “We are deeply disturbed that the Obama administration has chosen to use the military commissions to try a capital case in which much of the evidence is reportedly based on hearsay and therefore not reliable enough to be admissible in federal court, allowing hearsay is a backdoor way of allowing evidence that may have been obtained through torture.” Besides my clear opposition to the death penalty on principle, this case is particularly concerning. The American Civil Liberties Union is very right to be concerned with the potential for evidence gained through torture, and if this the death penalty is used in this case it will begin a frightening precedent for the use of capital punishment in military commissions. This case certainly raises a lot of questions, surrounding the principle of capital punishment, when it should be used and who is making these decisions. But as a Peace Studies student, my question is what impact does the death penalty have on peace studies? Not a good one. The death penalty only continues systematic violence and does not promote negative or positive peace. Especially in this case it seems the death penalty would only seek to foster Anti-American hatred. We need to look at bigger scale solutions that would eliminate the need for the death penalty.
This is a very interesting post. I am writing my research paper on Terrorism, and this question of “Death Penalty for Terrorists” elicits a few very interesting thoughts for me. It seems that the idea of using the death penalty against a foreign national raises to many potential problems to be considered a valid option from a practical standpoint, let alone a moral one. What would the government of the country that someone was a citizen of that we had killed say after the fact? Would that raise issues of legality over who has the right to try the person? Also, as you said, would this foster more anti-american sentiments across the globe? I think these are all valid questions that need to be answered before we do anything as final as ending someones life, and especially someone who is not an American citizen.