TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [96]
1
 2  3 4

What should be done to former dictators?:

Pro-Freedom Fanatic
I'm splitting this from the Middle Eastern protests thread.

There was disagreement on what to do when you get your hands on a tyrant. Given my generally dim view of authorities and tyrants, it should surprise no-one that I advocate "unceremonious shooting upon capture" as a guideline.

Some approve of trial and subsequent incarceration/execution, and others push for leaving the tyrants at the mercy of their former victims and letting them settle the matter as they see fit.

Your thoughts on the issue?

edited 18th May '11 12:57:26 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
a proper trial here. if you just out and shoot them, then you've effectively just yielded the moral high ground.
Going Forth!
Also going with a proper trial. If you just out and out shoot them, it leaves too much room for doubt. With a trial, there's less room for sympathetic supporters to come out of nowhere and cause trouble.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Is that cake frosting?
Proper trial, of course. By an international tribunal, preferably, so to prevent the matter being framed as yet another coup.

And then humane imprisonment for life, if at all possible — but if there is a serious danger that previous supporters could free the dictator and rebuild his or her reign of terror, death may be sadly necessary.

It really depends on the details of the situation.

edited 18th May '11 1:01:47 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

 5 Hungry Joe, Wed, 18th May '11 1:03:15 PM from Under the Tree
Gristknife
I think a trial would be good.

And if they don't get the dealth penalty, they should go to the most unpleasant prision possible. No super-max. Only dropped soap. Unless they're into that. In which case: WOMEN'S PRISON.
Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
Those folks have violated the freedom of an entire people, often for decades.

The possibility of an acquittal is an insult to both Liberty and Justice.

If they're tried at all, it should be summary: "Mr. <Insert Name Here> was a tyrant from <date of coup> to <date of overthrowal>. He stands accused of violations of human, civil and political rights. The facts are well know: He is found guilty and sentenced to death. Tomorrow at dawn, the tyrant will be dragged to the courtyard and shot to death. Thus always to Tyrants." kinda deal.

edited 18th May '11 1:12:42 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
A fair trial. It should be made clear that no human is above the law. Simply killing him would allow people to become inspired by him, which simply perpetuates the problem.
 
 8 Hungry Joe, Wed, 18th May '11 1:16:19 PM from Under the Tree
Gristknife
The Law applies to everybody, that includes positive aspects. This also means that ALL of their crimes can be brought to light, and they often find the prospect of a trial worse than death.

Why do you think Hitler commited suicide?

edited 18th May '11 1:16:38 PM by HungryJoe

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
 9 Morven, Wed, 18th May '11 1:17:00 PM from Seattle, WA, USA
Nemesis
On the other hand, I think it's worthwhile to offer tyrants an easier way out if they're prepared to leave power voluntarily rather than incur the bloody violence and loss of life involved in unseating them by force.

Yes, the tyrant deserves worse. But the people of the country he ruled don't.
A brighter future for a darker age.
victorinox243
Fair trial. Being the better man also involves not stooping down to the tyrant's level and simply killing him/her like they would for anybody else.

Give them a palace. It's cheap, and you can sell souvenirs.

 
 12 del diablo, Wed, 18th May '11 1:28:02 PM from Somewher in mid Norway
Den harde nordmann
The moment we have someone who has indiscriminatley violated human rights, has no respect for the law, and fought his hardest to keep it his throne instead of surrendering, then frankly he should by definition has lost the right of having a human end to his/her life.
A trial should still be conducted, if only to get a list over deeds done, and to properly place guilt.
But the trial does not need to last any longer than it should. The moment the guy is convicted of enough to just face a horrible death sentence, it should end, instead of just going on for months and months.
A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.
The possibility of an acquittal is an insult to both Liberty and Justice.
If there is a possibility that he did no wrong, it is truly unjust to kill him.
 
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
Tyrants do wrong by definition. Unless a dictator's reign was truly bloodless and he stepped down at the first signs of unrest... On which case, odds are he'd go into a peaceful exile without being bothered by anybody.

Such a dictator wouldn't probably deserve death. Perhaps a summary trial is better than no trial. Killing the bloodless dictators who leave voluntarily would neither encourage bloodlessness nor stepping down.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
 15 Hungry Joe, Wed, 18th May '11 1:45:47 PM from Under the Tree
Gristknife
I'm guessing you meant inhumane end, because if you meant they deserve an inhuman end, I'd have to disagree. Turning Gahdafi into an Eldritch Abomination sounds like a bad idea to me.

:V

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
Lolicon Black National
Lynch the motherfuckers?

EDIT:

And then humane imprisonment for life, if at all possible — but if there is a serious danger that previous supporters could free the dictator and rebuild his or her reign of terror, death may be sadly necessary.

I am a fan of that too. Lynching them applies when the angry mob does it. When a government does it, that comes into place. Hence me considering the death penalty only in cases like that, legally/state sanctioned-esque

edited 18th May '11 2:11:23 PM by fourtwenty

Table Flipppin Mad (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

 17 Usht, Wed, 18th May '11 1:52:20 PM from an arbitrary view point.
Lv. 3 Genasi Wizard
Former tyrants? I'd like to say fair trial but if you've pissed off a sufficient number of people, you don't get a fair trial, you just get a trial because there's no one with a neutral disposition to you.

Former dictators? Assuming they did nothing wrong, let them take a chunk of change and go live life out or something.
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.
 18 Caissas Death Angel, Wed, 18th May '11 2:04:36 PM from Dumfries, SW Scotland Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
Fair trial.

Two wrongs don't make a right, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc.

What gives you the fucking right to arbitrarily kill someone? No matter what they've done, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Trial has to be done in a neutral, international court for obvious reasons (the victims should have no part whatsoever to play in the judicial procedure unless it's providing evidence).
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
 19 De Marquis, Wed, 18th May '11 2:07:52 PM from Hell, USA Relationship Status: Buried in snow, waiting for spring
Who Am I?
Here's the deal- while it feels right to off horrible people, there are some serious problems with that. Let me try to list some of them:

1) If you use summary execution as your standard method of dealing with dictators, you remove any incentive they may have to negotiate and end to their regime. Basically you force them to fight to the death, which will result in more casualties on both sides.

2) It's a slippery slope- who is a "tyrant"? Who gets to decide? Is Putin a tyrant? Bush Jr.? And under what circumstances can you kill them? Is a battlefield victory necessary? Can an assassin take matters into their own hands? You know, Obama is a tyrant in some people's eyes.

3) Let's face it, it's not our decision to make. The people whom they oppressed get the final say in this. If they catch him, and string him up, who can blame them? But history seems to show that the more violent the revolution, the more likely the old authoritarian regime will be replaced by a new authoritarian regime. It would probably be better for the development of democracy if the rebels use some sort of formal legal procedure to decide what to do with the former tyrant.

edited 18th May '11 2:08:44 PM by DeMarquis

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
 20 Aondeug, Wed, 18th May '11 2:10:31 PM from  Our Dreams
Oh My
Read Carcio's post. Those are my thoughts.
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
 21 Nick The Swing, Wed, 18th May '11 3:24:19 PM from Ya really wanna know? Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
BFS Enthusiast
When they are so insane, just put em in an insane asylum.

No reason to kill anyone more than necessary. Killing a dictator would let his followers use his image as a martyr, making him even more dangerous after death.
[up]Are you sure it's a good idea to put them in Congress?

edited 18th May '11 3:37:15 PM by blueharp

 
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
[up]Congresscritters are fascistic enough on their own. Wouldn't be a good idea.

Still, hell is too soft for some people: You've gotta put'em on the Bible Belt.

edited 18th May '11 3:38:47 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
 24 Best Of, Wed, 18th May '11 3:49:52 PM from Finland Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
Proper trial, of course. By an international tribunal, preferably, so to prevent the matter being framed as yet another coup.

And then humane imprisonment for life, if at all possible

I'd like to add that I've never heard of a person that deserved death or torture.

Well, except that people who need euthanasia deserve death in a way, but they don't deserve to be in a situation that necessitates euthanasia...

Well, you get the point: no-one deserves death or torture as a punishment.
I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day. - Douglas Adams
 25 Major Tom, Wed, 18th May '11 3:50:41 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
Depends purely on the severity.

  • Absolute dictators who are otherwise fairly harmless like recent-history!Mubarak would be given a trial. No guarantees it would be fair though.
  • Middle of the road dictators who are more bloodthirsty but haven't resorted to shit like invading other nations, sponsoring terrorism or practicing genocide are to be given a Kangaroo Court trial purely for the entertainment value and then he'll be publicly executed on short order. (Preferably right after the trial)
  • Bloodthirsty, savage utterly Complete Monster territory like Qaddafi, Assad, Saddam Hussein, and more are to be shot and/or tortured severely on capture. If capture is not possible or unlikely, shoot to kill in the most painful death possible. No trials, no mercy.

edited 18th May '11 3:51:17 PM by MajorTom

Endless Conflict: Every war ends in time, even supposedly this one.
Total posts: 96
1
 2  3 4


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy