On The Third Hand

Monday, 14 Jan 2002

• Andersengate by William Safire (link requires free registration). The big scandal in Enron is in the field of accountancy. Don't let anyone tell you anything different. I was once a CPA, and I tell you three times... Arthur Andersen messed up big time. The Bush administration did the proper thing. Ok? Now let's go blog something interesting. I hate accounting.
• Teen Pilot May HaveTargeted Fla. Military Base. Good example of headline hysteria. He asked where the command center was, but never went near it. It's also a good example of editor's bias. The teen pilot's name is known, there is no reason to keep mentioning 'teen' unless you disapprove of teenagers flying.
• Al-Qaeda plans death on a golf course. Another interesting headline. The videotape mentioned shows them planning death damned near everywhere. The Times is upset about the golf course idea. More interesting stuff: ABC in the US doesn't mention the golf course at all. Let's not frighten the golf tourism industry!
• Glenn Reynolds says about airport security: "The more I think about it, the more I think this is a clever Bush Administration plan to make the airline screeners emblematic of Big Government, thus discrediting the notion for all time." I wish he were right, but I think the Bush Administration likes big government.
• I missed mentioning the Pundit Watch yesterday. In fact, I missed blogging anything yesterday (sorry!). If you haven't read Pundit Watch yet, go and do so.

Iain Murray has reappeared in Blogistan after being missing and presumed deathly ill for several days. He has just written an article about the death penalty in the The American Enterprise Online. (Imagine him neglecting blogging to write a magazine article for mere money.) From talks I've had with Brits and Europeans in the past, I'd say he's got it 'spot on' why the European and British governments are against the death penalty, and refuse to extradite to the US unless we agree not to use it. He also makes some very interesting points about the European governments.

If anyone has been having trouble understanding why they go a bit gaga on the subject, his article gives a very good overview. I have my own question; though. Just why is the US government so set on refusing to say "ok, we won't kill them"? Surely it would be better to have these terrorists in our hands, where we can at least give them life without parole. Leaving them in European hands may mean they will get a few years in prison and be set free. On a purely pragmatic (and probably evil) note, there is a good chance that incarceration in a US prison would be a death sentence anyway. Even our prisoners don't like certain crimes -- that is why Manson has been in solitary confinement for most of his life.

I'm not personally in favor of the death penalty, though not for reasons given by most. (I'm very much in favor of it when it is administered on the spot by the intended victim or victims.) I've got several problems with it. The biggest problem is the number of people who have been found innocent after many years in jail. There is also the fact that it costs more, between appeals and long incarcerations on death row, to kill someone than to imprison them for life. The third, and probably nastiest, reason I don't like the death penalty is that I consider it much less kind to lock someone up for life than to kill them.

If I were the US government, I would quit trying to fight the European 'morality', and just promise that they will not be sentenced to death (with no comment about what fellow prisoners might do). If we chose to get those prisoners extradited; though, we better make damned sure we try them in a state that allows life without parole.