November 26, 2003

Hard Cash & Kalashnikovs

lockerbie.jpg
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi lives in four rooms – a kitchen, study, TV room & bedroom. He will live in this manner, probably until 2031 at an estimated cost to the British taxpayer of between £5.5 – 7m. How did he come to live off this largess? Simple really, he blew a Pan Am 747 out of the sky over Lockerbie, killing 270 people. Using this formula, if I can bomb say three wide bodied jets, do I get to live in a charming Cotswold farm house on the public purse?

Whichever way you look at it, the cost of the recent court case is horrific
Trial costs £75m
Welfare package for families of
victims attending trial £12m
Incarceration costs £5.5m
Total £92.5m

Now I completely agree that you can put no price on justice & that the UK / US authorities were completely correct in remorselessly pursuing the suspects for years. It was the only course of action open to any decent government. Shouldn’t however, our justice be more pragmatic? Lets just shoot the swine & use the money saved to increase the compensation to the bereaved.

I already hear the gnashing of the legal fraternity whingeing on about “due legal process” – i.e. fee frenzy. Even if we accept that these pondlife have to be found guilty in court before we shoot them, can’t we just shoot them after the trial & save £5.5m – oh OK, can we just shoot them a little bit then?

This the where the Russians have got it right. Nothing like a Gilmore-esq firing squad, one policemen shoots the scumbag in the back of the head – quick & simple plus it saves a fortune to Appeal Court expenses – oh no, how will all those barristers afford their holiday homes in Tuscany?

Better still, lets use the Chinese model – shoot the scumbag & then bill the family for the bullet. (And they call themselves Communist? I can’t think of a more capitalist method of execution, other than getting say Remington to sponsor the ammunition!)

On a more serious note, if this is how we treat terrorists once they have been found guilty, what sort of deterrent is this? Kill as many people as you can & then your reward is to live in better circumstances than you almost certainly did before you committed the atrocities. Nice one – that will have them quaking in their boots at Terrorist School.

Then what, Law Lord Johan Steyn one of Britain's most senior judges has condemned the United States for its "monstrous failure of justice" in holding prisoners at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Why, are the hot tubs not up to standard? No widescreen TV? “The purpose of holding the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was and is to put them beyond the rule of law, beyond the protection of any courts, and at the mercy of victors,” Sounds reasonable to me.

When are these people going to realise that until you deter these people, by all means possible, airliners will continue to fall out of the sky & be flown into buildings. I revel in the liberal traditions of Western democracy but these traditions have to be protected & sometimes that protection takes unpleasant messy forms……but necessary nonetheless.

Posted by Mr Free Market at November 26, 2003 1:45 PM | TrackBack
Comments

The West needs to minimize the use of it's own ideals against itself. Our benevolent ideals are weaknesses in the eyes of the terrorists. We need to quit trying to apply those ideals to the treatment of the captured terrorists. The terrorists will not respond positively to overly humane treatment, but will instead proclaim it as proof of Western decadence.

The Gitmo prisoners are murderers, not jaywalkers. Housing should be spartan. Medical treatment should be minimal. Food should be adequate, but not necessarily generous. Removal of religious practice should be allowed for punishment, if necessary. After all, how would any of us fare as prisoners in their hands.

I don’t understand the Brit’s thinking that a Pan Am bomber needs a Condo, not a cell.

Posted by: Steve at November 26, 2003 4:48 PM

I like the bullet idea better. To meet the "fair trial" requirement, convene a full civilian court, just as we do today, and try the bastards in absentia and under heavy secrecy. If the defendant is found innocent, then release the court and the results immediately. If the court finds the defendant guilty then hold the court sequestered and the name of the defendant secret until the convict has been assassinated.

We could pay the full salaries of everyone in the court, with a nice family separation bonus thrown in, for the duration of the penalty phase for a lot less than we'd spend "incarcerating" the hairball in comparative splendor.

In addition to the new level of deterrence, just think of all the bookmaking opportunities!

Posted by: Grognard at November 26, 2003 8:32 PM

Makes sense to me.

Posted by: Ben at November 26, 2003 11:42 PM

Do what Blackjack Pershing did to crush the rebellions in the Philippines: Round up 49 Muslim rebels, tie them up and slaughter pigs in front of them. Dip the bullets in pig fat, and shoot 48 perps. Bury the unlamented perps in the ground wrapped in pigskins and entrails.

Let the 49th one go to tell the story. End of rebellion.

Let a herd of javelinas loose in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: one who knows at November 27, 2003 1:14 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?