Defining the Death Penalty.
The Death Penalty or Capital punishment is a legal process when a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. Death Penalties must occur after the accused face a just court. The accused person is punished after concluded that he is the perpetrator of the alleged crime.
The Death Penalty must then be applied in a predefined and installed “just” system. A set of laws that indiscriminately judge people in Justice and Fairness. In Justice, all men must face legal courts and a judgment before being punished. All men have the right to claim they are falsely accused and prove the accuser is wrong.
I really stress on the All men, yes, even Ben Laden or Hitler. Personally, I wish they faced Justice before being punished, even when it is a fact than Ben Laden conducted 9/11, even when it is a fact that Hitler led to awful massacres in WW2. That is justice. All men are equal before the law all man must face just and legal action based on a fair set of laws.
Death Penalty and War.
But what about war ? Is it legal or fair to kill a person before he is judged ? Let’s imagine a small scene.
A group of armed man enter your neighborhood with a clear goal to destroy it and kill. They begin to fire, you and your neighbors take weapons and kill them all.
In this previous scenario is killing a person “death penalty” ? Not really, it is a direct act of self-defense. The Armed men were going to kill you, so you decided that you are going to kill them first. So in a state of war, when faced to a direct lethal threat or attack, you respond and kill without really facing prison.
That’s the whole debate here. The difference between threat and factual attack. The difference between a very well defined threat or a probable threat.
Are drones strikes considered to be conducted in a state of war ?
I said previously that in a state of war you could act in self-defense and kill without facing prison. But is killing alleged terrorists considered as an act of war, in a state of war ? Pro “war on terrorism” will come and say : “yes, it is a war against terrorists that pose a direct threat to the Security of USA and the world so it is legitimate to kill those terrorists”. But what if they aren’t direct ? (Here again define direct threat), Will they be able to conduct terrorists acts in USA ? When ? How?
Those are questions that should be answered.
Personally, I think that drones strikes aren’t considered to be acts of a state of war. Those that are preparing an act of terror in USA or anywhere else in the world, didn’t act yet. Of course we must not wait until they act to judge them or stop them. Those terrorists will try to find ways to destroy USA and their enemies. But destroying them before judging them is dangerous. It is better to stop them and judge them and put them in jail [or face death penalty]. Today it is highly possible with Interpol and the international police force. In fact, it is way more instructive to understand why they want to attack America and their allies. This only could end the endless conflict against terrorists.
So what is the difference between death penalty and drones strikes to my opinion ?
Drones strikes are unjust because they happen 1) before the crime of the alleged terrorist and 2) before he is judged.| Death penalty is an act of justice whereas drones strikes are unjust death penalties.
PS : What I have said in this article doesn’t make me pro-terrorist or pro-death penalty. But it does make me anti-drones strikes.