> > From a trans-Atlantic viewpoint, it seems
> > that the US has elected someone who would,
> > under other circumstances, be considered a
> > mass murderer.
>
> Leave out the other circumstances: he is one,
> at least indirectly. This discussion is about
> whether those murders were justified and right
> or not.

No he is not. I think it's irritating the way that both anti-executionists and the psycho portion of vegetarians refer to all killing as "murder". Murder is the illegal killing of a human being. Governor Bush has never killed anyone, legally or not. You may not agree with capital punishment, but that does not give you the right to mislabel it, distorting the issue for anyone who reads your post.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure the governor doesn't sign something in order for a criminal to be executed. I think he only gets involved if someone on death row is to be pardoned or has had his name cleared. I'm not completely certain on this point, though.

-eric "Either way, he didn't pull the switch or inject the needle, so you can't even call him a killer, let alone a murderer." sleator
Mon 11 Jun A.D. 2001