Justice?

[AngryAnt]

Whoops - Liverpool gets it wrong again.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bali-bomber-comments-insensitive/2007/10/09/1191695867280.html

What did I get wrong?
Mr McClelland did say those comments as reported, and as a spokesman for Rudd, is therefore speaking on his behalf.

What I smell from your link you posted Antman, is a big backflip from Rudd, knowing that an issue like this would jeopardise his chance at winning the election.
He must keep following Howard on all issues, until he wins the election...hence his nickname "The Echo"...the question is, will he change his echoing once he gets voted in?

It was also quite funny to see "The Age" having no article quoting McClelland's opinion and that of the ALP on capital punishment in Asia......yet "The Age" were very quick to put this one up on their site showing Rudd backflipping better than Flipper at Seaworld.

Oooh yes The Age that Godless Communist rag. Well spotted Livers. FYI - the Libs are also anti-death penalty. Apparently Rudd copied this from them. Also - "The Echo" - I stand in awe of your incredibly witty nicknaming talent! Funny, funny stuff.

Of course you are right though. McLennan and Rudd colluded - Rudd said "get out there and sell the anti-death penalty message for the Bali Bombers". Unfortunately he was too stupid to see this would be on the nose and so had to backflip the very next day! Silly man.

 

[Liverpool]

Oooh yes The Age that Godless Communist rag. Well spotted Livers.

Thanks Antman.

 

[AngryAnt]

Thanks Antman.

No worries.

 

[Six Pack]

Just get off yr soapbox for a minute, livers. Here's the problem. In our country the death penalty is illegal. That is because as a nation we have decided that for various reasons it's not appropriate. These reasons include morality, the chance of error, whether or not it acts as a deterrent etc.

And as a nation we support this. It is part of our legal system.

Now, we also understand that some countries (not many) still have the death penalty in place for various crimes. This is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of fact.

And we understand that if we transgress certain laws in those countries then we will have to pay the price according to their law. Likewise, when people break the law in our country they recognise the sanctions and punishments that apply here.

But, and its a big but! We don't have to agree that the practice of sentencing people to death and then executing them is right, moral and proper.

As a country we reject that position. And it is our right as Australians, whether amongst ourselves, or formally from a Govt level, to protest that the killing of criminals is wrong. It's wrong in our country and its not part of our legal system, thus we have the right to protest.

And this not to say that we should interfere or take reprisals but if its wrong here, then we have every right to point that out.

 

[Liverpool]

FYI - the Libs are also anti-death penalty. Apparently Rudd copied this from them. Also - "The Echo" - I stand in awe of your incredibly witty nicknaming talent! Funny, funny stuff.
Of course you are right though. McLennan and Rudd colluded - Rudd said "get out there and sell the anti-death penalty message for the Bali Bombers". Unfortunately he was too stupid to see this would be on the nose and so had to backflip the very next day! Silly man.

You are 100% correct...Howard is also against the death-penalty, however he isn't pushing Asia (our neighbours ) to conform to OUR laws, unlike what McClelland said (and Rudd now denies) the ALP were going to do by pushing Asian countries to change.

Mr Howard said he did not support the death penalty for Australia and would argue for Australians overseas to be spared the death penalty.
But he said "what other countries do is a matter for those countries".

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-slams-distasteful-death-penalty-bid/2007/10/09/1191695867280.html

It is the responsibility of Aussie travelling to overseas countries to respect and obey their laws, just as I would expect people from overseas to respect and obey our laws....not drive countries to change to our way of life.

 

[Liverpool]

Agree with the top half of your post SixPack, but not this:

But, and its a big but! We don't have to agree that the practice of sentencing people to death and then executing them is right, moral and proper.
As a country we reject that position. And it is our right as Australians, whether amongst ourselves, or formally from a Govt level, to protest that the killing of criminals is wrong. It's wrong in our country and its not part of our legal system, thus we have the right to protest.
And this not to say that we should interfere or take reprisals but if its wrong here, then we have every right to point that out.

No one is saying we have to agree with these countries practicing the death senetence....but it is their prerogative to run their countries as they see fit, and we should respect that.
We are in no position to try and dictate our way of life, our morals, and our laws onto other countries....just like outsiders have no right to try and dictate how our Government elect run our country....do you agree with what McClelland said then?:

Mr McClelland last night pledged a Labor government would start a regional campaign against state executions in countries such as China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Singapore.
Mr McClelland said Labor believed capital punishment justified "fanatical lunatics" to take lives as part of their "warped ideologies". It would object to capital punishment in Asia with "shrewd diplomatic activism".

If elected, a Rudd Labor government would form a regional coalition with the Asian nations that have abolished the death penalty - Cambodia, Nepal, Bhutan, East Timor and The Philippines.
The coalition would seek to pressure the 14 Asian countries with the death penalty to cut the number of crimes attracting capital punishment, abolishing mandatory death sentences and releasing figures on the number of executions.

To me, these above statements are advocating an Australian government interfere with how nations apply their laws, and I don't think we have any right to protest at all.

If you think Indonesia (for example) is inhumane by using the death penalty, then you are free to protest against this by boycotting their products that we import and not going to Bali for a holiday.
That is your prerogative....but I certainyl don't want an Aussie government trying to dictate and coerce other nations to change their laws to suit us, as I would be very annoyed if another nation told us we had to change our laws to suit them.

I'm surpised that you are advocating the Australian government protest against something purely because us, as a nation, treat our convicted murderers, terrorists, and drug-traffickers differently to these other countries who have a different law and culture to us.
What happened to the person who posted this on the Racial Tolerance thread:

What we should always attempt to do is to understand people, their cultures, their beliefs. We shouldn't be so dismissive and easily offended ourselves. We should make an effort to understand, to have empathy.

 

[Six Pack]

I think you are confusing the two issues, Liverpool.

 

[Liverpool]

I think you are confusing the two issues, Liverpool.

Not at all SixPack...you're either a person who attempts to understand cultures and their beliefs and you don't dismiss them of get easily offended by their ways....or you're not.
You can't pick and choose when you want to be this type of person.

 

[AngryAnt]

I think you are confusing the two issues, Liverpool.

Not at all SixPack...you're either a person who attempts to understand cultures and their beliefs and you don't dismiss them of get easily offended by their ways....or you're not.
You can't pick and choose when you want to be this type of person.

Hmmm... Livers you make some good points but I think you are confusing two issues here as Sixpack suggests. One is taking personal responsibilty in foreign countries and respecting their laws which I completely agree with - even if I disagree with a law in another country I will abide by it because I don't want to end up in a foreign jail, for one thing, as well as being a responsible guest and respecting the culture of the host country.

What we do as a nation - diplomatically - is another issue.

 

[Liverpool]

Hmmm... Livers you make some good points but I think you are confusing two issues here as Sixpack suggests. One is taking personal responsibilty in foreign countries and respecting their laws which I completely agree with - even if I disagree with a law in another country I will abide by it because I don't want to end up in a foreign jail, for one thing, as well as being a responsible guest and respecting the culture of the host country.

What we do as a nation - diplomatically - is another issue.

Antman,
Nah...I'm not confusing the two issues at all...you're either an understanding of cultures type of guy, or you're not.

But why do we need to go down this "diplomatic path" to begin with?
What a government does in a foreign land regarding convicted criminals is nothing to do with us.

Another point:

Prime Minister John Howard, Treasurer Peter Costello and bomb victims today condemned Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman Robert McClelland after he signalled a Labor Government would actively campaign against executions in foreign countries.
Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd today quickly backpedalled from his colleague's comments, made in a speech last night, saying the timing of the remarks was ''insensitive.''

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22553775-661,00.html

Going by this, Kevin "the Echo" Rudd is more concerned about the timing of his minister who gave an insight into the true ALP policy we will deal with when/if they are elected as the Government....NOT the actual things McClelland said.
And "insensitive" timing for who?
Bad timing because of the Bali anniversary? or bad timing because we are getting close to an election and The Echo needs to keep agreeing to get in?

 

[AngryAnt]

Antman,
Nah...I'm not confusing the two issues at all...you're either an understanding of cultures type of guy, or you're not.

Well actually here you are confusing "culture" with "law" and "policy". I can respect a culture and disagree with some elements of law or policy.

Also, don't see culture as monolithic - many in Indonesia regard the death penalty as barbaric and oppose it on principle .

I respect American culture - jazz, literature, music and many other things - but I disagree with both American foreign policy and the death penalty - as do many Americans.

But why do we need to go down this "diplomatic path" to begin with?
What a government does in a foreign land regarding convicted criminals is nothing to do with us.

It is if it is our citizens who are convicted. Remember the guy in the Sudan who was clearly convicted of murder wrongly - the Australian Government quite rightly acted appropriately in doing everything possible legally and diplomatically to get him released. A clear miscarraige of justice but you would have left him there to rot?

Bad timing because of the Bali anniversary? or bad timing because we are getting close to an election?

I would say a little from column A, a little from column B.

 

[Liverpool]

But why do we need to go down this "diplomatic path" to begin with?
What a government does in a foreign land regarding convicted criminals is nothing to do with us.

It is if it is our citizens who are convicted. Remember the guy in the Sudan who was clearly convicted of murder wrongly - the Australian Government quite rightly acted appropriately in doing everything possible legally and diplomatically to get him released. A clear miscarraige of justice but you would have left him there to rot?

Trying to save your own citizen from their laws and begging for clemency is a lot different to interfering with how countries should be governed and what laws they should have by putting pressure on them to change to our ways.

Good article below from The Age....(don't know how this one slipped through the ALP-net... :hihi)

If the ALP policy is so great and it is what the Australian people want, then why doesn't Rudd have the balls to stick with it, and back up McClelland, who was stating the 'true' policy...not this deceitful "I agree with Mr.Howard" line that The Echo is constantly using on the big issues.?
I guess he is scared the voters will follow what Spike Stewart says he'll do (see article below).

And it's pretty hypocritical of The Echo to bag the execution of Hussein and now say that he is all for not persuading another country to halt a terrorist's execution.
I'll give him 9.5 out of 10 for the backflip. :hihi



ALP in 'me-too' policy mess over death penalty
October 10, 2007

FEDERAL Labor is in disarray over its opposition to the death penalty for terrorists, with Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd publicly humiliating his foreign affairs spokesman, Robert McClelland, for stating the party's official policy.
A day after Mr McClelland declared that a Labor government would campaign internationally to stop executions — even in extreme cases like the Bali bombers — a furious Mr Rudd described the comments as "insensitive in the extreme".
And after declaring he had "counselled" his frontbencher, Mr Rudd last night refused to guarantee that Mr McClelland would serve as foreign minister in a Labor government.
Mr Rudd said his attitude to terrorism had always been hardline and that he would never use diplomacy to try to persuade a foreign government to spare a terrorist's life.
The speech by Mr McClelland sparked widespread debate on talkback radio across Australia, and came three days before the anniversary of the 2002 terrorist bombings in Bali that killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.
Facing criticism from survivors and families of Bali bombing victims, Mr Rudd tried to control the damage by portraying his stance — as on a host of other contentious issues — as being in line with that of the Howard Government.
"On the wider question of the death penalty, the Liberal Party's policy, like Labor's policy, is identical, and that is our global opposition to the death penalty."
Mr Rudd said a Labor government would only use such diplomacy against the death penalty in support of Australian citizens facing execution abroad.
Mr McClelland was not returning calls yesterday. But sources said he felt "scorched and let down" by his leader because the policy he outlined in a speech to a human rights forum on Monday night was Labor policy and virtually identical to Mr Rudd's own views when he was opposition foreign affairs spokesman.
Two years ago, Mr Rudd spoke out against the execution of Saddam Hussein, saying that even mass murderers did not deserve the death penalty.
And in December 2002, he said: "Labor has a universal position of opposition to the death penalty both at home and abroad … It is not possible, in our view, to be selective in the application of this policy."
Mr McClelland clearly thought he had done the right thing. He told The Age soon after his speech that the timing was important because Australian members of the so-called Bali nine were facing execution.
Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Mr McClelland was simply articulating Labor policy and Mr Rudd was now backing away from it in the face of a hostile public reaction.
Mr Howard condemned as "extraordinary" Labor's view that the Bali bombers' lives should be spared. "The idea that we would plead for the deferral of executions of people who murdered 88 Australians is distasteful to the entire community," Mr Howard said.
"I find it impossible myself, as an Australian, as Prime Minister, as an individual, to argue that those executions should not take place when they have murdered my fellow countrymen and women," he said.
Spike Stewart, whose son Anthony was among those killed in the Bali attack, lashed out at Mr McClelland. "It's just disgusting," he said. "I think I'd punch him in the head. I really do. That hurt us so much. I'll never vote for them again."
In his speech, Mr McClelland said Labor fundamentally objected to the death penalty and "its abolition is a cause that justifies shrewd diplomatic activism". He said a Rudd government would take the lead in setting up a regional coalition against the death penalty.
Mr McClelland criticised Mr Howard for inconsistency and promised that Labor would always be consistent on capital punishment. "For example, Mr Howard was supportive of the executions of the perpetrators of the Bali bombings, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, while at the same time he continued to state that Australia opposed capital punishment," Mr McClelland said. "This contradiction came increasingly into focus when Indonesian terrorist Amrozi was condemned to capital punishment at the same time as (Australian drug trafficker) Van Nguyen in Singapore.
"Labor believes that supporting executions — even by a nation state — gives justification to all kinds of fanatical lunatics to take the lives of others in pursuit of their own warped ideologies."
Mr Rudd used radio interviews to declare that he had "counselled" Mr McClelland. He had also counselled a member of Mr McClelland's staff and one of his own staff who had failed to stop the speech being issued.
Mr Rudd also called a media conference to declare that his "hardline" view was that "every measure should be deployed to track down, to hunt down and to destroy terrorists and terrorist cells wherever they are in our part of the world".
"Secondly, I believe that if terrorists are incarcerated they should be allowed to rot in jail. I believe that terrorists should rot in jail for the term of their natural lives and then one day be removed in a pine box," he said.
"Beyond that, when it comes to the question of the death penalty, no diplomatic intervention will ever be made by any government that I lead in support of any individual terrorist's life.
"We have only indicated in the past, and will maintain a policy in the future, of intervening diplomatically in support of Australian nationals who face capital sentences abroad."
Last night, Mr Rudd said he could not guarantee that Mr McClelland would be foreign minister if Labor wins government, but confirmed that he would be in the ministry.
Mr Rudd repeated his statement from last month that Wayne Swan, Lindsay Tanner and Julia Gillard would serve as treasurer, finance minister and industrial relations minister respectively. "As for the rest of the team, I will select those on the basis of merit … if we're elected to form the next government of Australia," Mr Rudd told ABC television.
"But Mr McClelland will be part of that team."
Law Council of Australia president Ross Ray, QC, said he was disappointed at Mr Rudd's backflip. "Consistent, public opposition to the death penalty is desperately needed in this region," Mr Ray said.
"The hypocrisy of the current Government's silent consent to the impending execution of the Bali bombers is not lost on our Asian neighbours. The Australian Government can hardly expect that last-minute rallying to save the lives of Australians will succeed, when other executions are met with tacit approval."
Mr Ray said vocal opposition to the death penalty should not be regarded as offensive. "At the moment we have leaders who will sign treaties and make polite statements, but only if it doesn't upset or incite anyone," he said. "Lives are at stake — surely that should elevate this issue above the political ruck."
Lee Rush, the father of Bali nine drug mule Scott Rush, also came to the defence of Mr McClelland, describing his speech as "a fair statement".
Mr Rush, who helped establish the lobby group Australians Against Capital Punishment, said: "I thought it was good to hear one of our major parties, regardless of which party, actually make a statement that believes in what our campaign stands for.
"We are against the death penalty in all situations, and that's globally, not just in Asia."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudds-metoo-policy-mess/2007/10/09/1191695909938.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

 

[Six Pack]

Liverpool, it's not always as black and white as u suggest. There's a limit to understanding or acceptance. If a culture, for example, actively practiced cannibalism, then I might understand where this has come from and the history of it, but there's no way i could accept it.

Same with the death sentence. I understand why some countries still use it, but i don't personally accept it.

 

[1eyedtiger]

From my point of view, the issue here is consistency.

Mr Howard either supports the death penalty or he doesn't. At the moment, he seems to be simply doing whatever he feels the general public will accept.
I wonder what Mr Howard's reaction would be if a bombing of similar size and casualties occurred on Australian soil. Would he be saying that to spare their lives would be distasteful to the survivors and Australian public? Or would he then say that Australia doesn't support the death penalty?
But at the same time, if other countries wish to execute their citizens, it's OK as long as it's not an Australian citizen.
Which makes me wonder why Australia believes that it's citizens are somehow above others and should be treated leniently in other countries.
Mr Rudd on the hand, was completely consistent whether or not you agreed with him. That was, until his back flip.

Personally, I believe that the Bali bombers should be executed and should have been long ago.
I also think that there are some crimes for which the death penalty so be reinstated for in Australia. Some people just don't deserve to be alive as far as I'm concerned. The death penalty should be reserved only for the most extreme crimes though and should not be mandatory.

Not sure what others know about the death penalty, but I found the following an interesting read.

http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/pdf/bp3%202005%20dp%20paper.pdf

 

[AngryAnt]

Agreed 1eyed, both sides are being politically expedient. Alexander Downer for example is a staunch advocat for the abolition of the death penalty but you won't hear too much from him about this aspect of his political makeup for a while. I'm on the other side of the fence to you on the DP issue but agree with your plea for consistency.

In the article you link, on page 14 it makes the case against the argument that death penalty in overseas countries is OK because it is legal, but we can still ask for clemency for Australian citizens facing the death penalty - clearly a hypocritical stance.

(quoting Dr Simon Longstaff) "It’s difficult to believe that Australia’s political leadership has thought through the implications of what it was saying. Is it really to be part of Australian policy that we remain officially indifferent in the face of great evil visited upon people under the cloak of legality? If this is a serious proposition, then all that a vicious tyrant, in the mould of Saddam Hussein, would have to do is pass a few laws to cover his brutality – and Australia would remain silent."

It goes on:

The willingness of Australia's political leaders to abandon Australia's long-standing principled opposition to the death penalty diminishes Australia's moral authority when calling for clemency for Australian citizens overseas. The danger is that others will see one rule for Australians and another for non-Australians.

 

[Liverpool]

Same with the death sentence. I understand why some countries still use it, but i don't personally accept it.

But you're in Australia which doesn't have the death penalty, so who gives two-hoots what they do in Asia?
Whether you accept it or not, it is still those countries right to do as they please with convicted criminals, as it is our right to as we please.

If someone in Indonesia doesn't like our rules and won't accept them, then I couldn't give a stuff.....and I'm sure these countries think likewise towards people like yourself not accepting their laws.

Mr Howard either supports the death penalty or he doesn't. At the moment, he seems to be simply doing whatever he feels the general public will accept.
I wonder what Mr Howard's reaction would be if a bombing of similar size and casualties occurred on Australian soil. Would he be saying that to spare their lives would be distasteful to the survivors and Australian public? Or would he then say that Australia doesn't support the death penalty?
But at the same time, if other countries wish to execute their citizens, it's OK as long as it's not an Australian citizen.

1-eyed,

Read what Howard said mate:

Mr Howard said he did not support the death penalty for Australia and would argue for Australians overseas to be spared the death penalty.
But he said "what other countries do is a matter for those countries".

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-slams-distasteful-death-penalty-bid/2007/10/09/1191695867280.html

Because we are a country that doesn't support the death penalty then our Government try and gain clemency from the foreign government to spare the life of the Australian....as if, say an Indonesian man commited murder here, he would get jail-time, not the death penalty.
Sort of like, you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours.
Of course, in some instances, the foreign government are under pressure from their own citizens to punish foreigners (Aussies, in this case) the same way as they themselves would get treated if they had commited the same crime. And I understand that. I would be quite annoyed if criminals from another country got better treatment than an Aussie who had committed the same crime.

Howard doesn't have to support the death penalty, or not support it.
He has said he doesn't support it here (which I disagree with...I'm with you...I could think of a few scumbags who shouldn't be on this earth)...and will ask for clemency if an Australian is facing the death penalty.
BUT, i think what you are misunderstanding, is that he isn't saying he supports the death penalty overseas but not here....he is saying that he supports other countries having the right to use the death penalty.
That is the big difference.

Mr Rudd on the hand, was completely consistent whether or not you agreed with him. That was, until his back flip.

The only thing The Echo is consistent in is agreeing with Howard on everything until he wins the election, then we'll see the 'true Rudd' and the 'true ALP'.
No wonder Rudd is so dirty on McClelland letting the true ALP policy out of the bag early....we can't have that so close to an election, can we? :spin

Secondly, Rudd hasn't been consistent at all:

Mr McClelland was not returning calls yesterday. But sources said he felt "scorched and let down" by his leader because the policy he outlined in a speech to a human rights forum on Monday night was Labor policy and virtually identical to Mr Rudd's own views when he was opposition foreign affairs spokesman.
Two years ago, Mr Rudd spoke out against the execution of Saddam Hussein, saying that even mass murderers did not deserve the death penalty.
And in December 2002, he said: "Labor has a universal position of opposition to the death penalty both at home and abroad … It is not possible, in our view, to be selective in the application of this policy."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudds-metoo-policy-mess/2007/10/09/1191695909938.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Consistently hypocritical, I say.

 

[Six Pack]

Same with the death sentence. I understand why some countries still use it, but i don't personally accept it.

But you're in Australia which doesn't have the death penalty, so who gives two-hoots what they do in Asia?

Well, you might not care, Liverpool, but I do. I believe the death penalty to be profoundly wrong and then are many people who believe the same, on both sides of politics.

And in a broader sense we all should care what happens in other countries. Whether it impacts on us or not, we're all in this together.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Livers,

This was the comment I was responding too:

"The idea that we would plead for the deferral of executions of people who murdered 88 Australians is distasteful to the entire community," Mr Howard said.

This pretty much implies that Mr Howard either agrees with the death penalty that may be imposed on the Bali bombers or he doesn't and doesn't see fit to inform the rest of us.

As far as Mr Rudd and Mr Howard are concerned, I don't think either are fit to be leading this country and I don't really wish to get involved with taking sides politically.

But I do agree with you that Australians who get caught committing crimes overseas should accept the laws of that country and the punishments they impose. I don't mind if Australia expresses it displeasure at such practice, as long as we are consistent at it.

 

[Liverpool]

Well, you might not care, Liverpool, but I do. I believe the death penalty to be profoundly wrong and then are many people who believe the same, on both sides of politics.
And in a broader sense we all should care what happens in other countries. Whether it impacts on us or not, we're all in this together.

No, it is nothing to do with us what another country does regarding their laws and we're certainly not in this together.
In fact, many of the people in these countries would be disgusted by your judgement and arrogance towards them and their laws....what do you think of that?

Livers,
This was the comment I was responding too:

"The idea that we would plead for the deferral of executions of people who murdered 88 Australians is distasteful to the entire community," Mr Howard said.

This pretty much implies that Mr Howard either agrees with the death penalty that may be imposed on the Bali bombers or he doesn't and doesn't see fit to inform the rest of us.
As far as Mr Rudd and Mr Howard are concerned, I don't think either are fit to be leading this country and I don't really wish to get involved with taking sides politically.

I still don't understand what is wrong with these comments by Howard? ???

If the terrorists were Australians, then maybe he would plead for clemency, as he and the Government have many times for Aussies facing death sentences overseas.
But the terrorists are Indonesians committing a crime in Indonesia.....so why would he be expected to plead for a deferral?
And because he hasn't pleaded for a deferral of their execution, why is that inconsistent with his stance:

Mr Howard said he did not support the death penalty for Australia and would argue for Australians overseas to be spared the death penalty.
But he said "what other countries do is a matter for those countries".

 

[barty boy]

If we dont care what another country does ,then lets get the hell out of Iraq,timor,and the solomons.Lets not stick our nose into anybodys elses business.