A Moral Dilema

[Greg Meyer]

I have a moral question for you. This is an imaginary situation, but I

think it is fun to decide what one would do.



The situation: You are in the Middle East, and there is a huge flood in

progress. (Remember, I said this is imaginary.) Many homes have been

lost, water supplies compromised and structures destroyed.



Let's say that you're a photographer and getting still photos for a news

service, traveling alone, looking for particularly poignant scenes.



You come across Osama Bin Laden who has been swept away by the

floodwaters. He is barely hanging on to a tree limb and is about to go

under. You can either put down your camera and save him, or take a

Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of him as he loses his grip on the

limb.



So, here's the question and think carefully before you answer the

question below...









Which lens and shutter speed would you use?

 

[Julio Santana]

Good one.

 

[Steve Rizza]

I would have to save him.......drowning would be too quick.Make him suffer.........

 

[Greg Duggan]

i would put down the camera so that i could through a rock at him and nock him of the log

 

[Staci Matheis]

WAIT!!!!!

You're forgetting the rewards!

BIG REWARDS!!

SAVE HIM!!!

(.....for the executioner.....)



I'll have the white 898 with the blue duce-and-a-quarter, please!

 

[Mark Gross]

The reward Is for Dead or Alive !

 

[Larry Harp]

I still say he should be set free......











Right in front of Fire Station #1 in Downtown Manhattan.



Harpo

 

[Staci Matheis]

Amen, Harpo.....

 

[Spanky P]

I would take stills of him clinging onto the branches, I would save him and made sure I would take plenty of stills of him appreciative of his rescue, then I would use the timer mode on the camera to catch fear and death an his face while I was either shooting, crushing his skull with a rock, or had him bound up and I was running him over with tank treads the length of his body to make him nothing more than a grease spot on the desert floor.

 

[Greg Meyer]

Spanky... If I didn't know better I would call you a pacifist... Such a mild treatment would be kindness personified...



As for a chosen end... I was more into honey... fire ants... and something a little slower...



One fireman I spoke with had an idea wityh some merit... He said something about inserting a hose and filling slowly

 

[Rich Stern]

"Hang on Osama, I'm coming! Just a moment longer..."



Click.



"OK, you can let go now."

 

[Carlos Hathcock III]

I edited out my comments as they may be a bit harsh.



Carlos

 

[Travis Smith]

Snap a few pics...pull up a lawn chair open a cold pop...Take some more pics and enjoy the scenery.







T.S.

 

[TrepMan]

First take a few good pics, then get out and secure the branch to the tree/shore and use large plastic cable ties to secure his hands to the branch. Then get a good long cattle prod and every few minutes at first give him a good electric shock, then after about an hour or so, shoot him a a leg with a 22 then, let him bleed a bit, then shock him a gain, and so on, till he's begging to die. then rescue him, hog tie him and bring him back to the US military hospital to be abused by the wounded GI's.



Oh, forgot that's all considered illegal based on the Geneva Convention and not moraly correct. OK, i'll take Travis and Rich's approach!

 

[Larry Harp]

Seriously, what happens when he is captured alive? For many years I had no problem with the death penalty but re-thought the whole idea when Tim McVie was executed. I thought how easy for him. To just lie down and go to sleep and all your troubles are gone forever. And what good does it really do? It certianly isn't a deterrant to more murders especially among the likes of Bin Laden or McVie. The threat of the death penalty does not slow them down a bit and only puts us as a society in the same mindset as the killers. I always thought is was kind of like spanking your son for hitting his sister. Then I thought what about a living death penalty? In other words the criminal would be more or less treated as dead person but kept alive in a cell dimly lit 24 hours a day with just enough food and medical care to sustain life. No newspaper, TV, radio, books, Bible, Koran, or human contact other than the minimal contact the guards would have. They would be under strict orders to offer no conversation or news of the outside world. They could not be viewed as martyrs by their followers as long as they were still alive. They would be left only their own thoughts and the guilt of what they had done which would soon drive them to insanity. I see this as a much harsher punishment than a quick and easy death and as much fun as it is to speculate about torturing him to death we all know we are a better people than that.

Just a thought.



Harpo

 

[Greg Meyer]

Harpo,



Trust me on this... If allowed to... I would very much like to decide his fate and administer it... I'm not the least bit squeamish or reluctant to cause him pain

 

[Mikel Stephens]

Take a few snapshots with any film/shutter combination. Then save him, then hang him from the neareast dry tree and open up some good ol' whoop-ass on him. Then take some more pictures and throw him back in to drown.

That would be the most humane way to deal with him.



Harpo,

I think death (death penalty) would at least deny him: free weight rooms, 3 square meals a day, a/c and heating, lounging and watching aljazeera on his prison television, playing a little b-ball in the courtyard with the boys, cigarettes, candy, and the ability to get an education and learn how he can spread his hatred throughout the ranks there.

There is a good reason murderers find islam in prison: To them the murders they commited on non-believers were a way of salvation.