Quote:
|
i also dont see specific punishement for a specific crime as "open approval of brutality." when you commit a certain level of crime, e.g. rape, murder, irrevocable bodily harm caused by acid thrown to the face, you pretty much have decided you are no longer part of society, and so you dont get the benefits of belonging to the society.
|
wow. so you don't see it as open approval of brutality because you see the people who commit a crime as less than human. you also presuppose guilt, in that kind of mideval "the law is drawn to the guilty" kinda way. if you understand that someone accused of a crime is still a human being, then what you propose is brutality and you approve of it. if you are not worried--seemingly--about questions of actual guilt, then procedure doesn't really matter either--and besides, if the accused is more or less guilty anyway because otherwise the law wouldn't be drawn in that direction, and if guilt (without proof, with proof, what difference does it make?) means less than human...wow. just wow. it's a good thing you have no power.
but there's more. you use experience in military occupier status as your point of departure for a conception of what this kind of barbaric non-justice does and you rely on anecdote only. one of the things that this kind of "thinking results in is a continued spiral of opposition--you replace one form of brutality with another one. way to fucking go. because from a policy viewpoint, none of these situations you allude to--somalia, iraq, afghanistan---have exactly worked out, despite the "efficiency" of this mideval viewpoint translated into action.
sometimes simple is just simple.
edit: if you want to see what the perception created by this kind of attitude translated into policy can result in during peace time, you might take a look at what's been happening in greece this past week and why it got started.