Rule of law
Sep. 19th, 2006 09:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumGlenn Greenwald has a post up about the furor in places like M. Malkin's blog about the conviction of a group of terrorists in Indonesia.
Seems they were convicted of killing some 200 hundred people, sentenced to death and the date of the execution has been set. Malkin finds such an outcome outrageous.
Why? The only reason I can see, in her blog, is this one, "Julia Duin has background on the long history of Christian persecution in Indonesia," since she's an vehement advocate of holding people without so much as a charge, since silence = assent, and this shows no demurrer, much less any sense of outrage that the principles of normal jurisprudence aren't being followed.
She does, however, note; with approbation, that lawyers for the condemned are appealing the verdict to the International Criminal Court, to which Jakarta is a signatory. You may rest assured however, she makes no argument the U.S. joining that convention is a good idea.
In a nutshell, she seems to think these guys can't have done it, because Christians just don't do that. That's the most charitable spin I can put on it, because the least charitable is that it's justrified for Christians to kill Muslims. Somewhere in the middle is the hypocrisy that the rule of law only applies when other countries arrest people on charges of terrorism.
Seems they were convicted of killing some 200 hundred people, sentenced to death and the date of the execution has been set. Malkin finds such an outcome outrageous.
Why? The only reason I can see, in her blog, is this one, "Julia Duin has background on the long history of Christian persecution in Indonesia," since she's an vehement advocate of holding people without so much as a charge, since silence = assent, and this shows no demurrer, much less any sense of outrage that the principles of normal jurisprudence aren't being followed.
She does, however, note; with approbation, that lawyers for the condemned are appealing the verdict to the International Criminal Court, to which Jakarta is a signatory. You may rest assured however, she makes no argument the U.S. joining that convention is a good idea.
In a nutshell, she seems to think these guys can't have done it, because Christians just don't do that. That's the most charitable spin I can put on it, because the least charitable is that it's justrified for Christians to kill Muslims. Somewhere in the middle is the hypocrisy that the rule of law only applies when other countries arrest people on charges of terrorism.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: A couple of questions...
Date: 2006-09-21 01:46 am (UTC)Does that make it right when Indonesia does it?
Or turn it around...
Is the fact that lots of other countries and groups do things at least as bad as what we're doing make it OK?
That's what you seem to be arguing.
Re: A couple of questions...
Date: 2006-09-21 02:06 am (UTC)As you say let's turn it around, do you think Michele Malkin would listen to a lecture from Indonesia on how wrong it is for America to outsource its torturing?