How much should you intervene in others' affairs??

[honeybee]

This is a question about the hanging of an Australian in Singapore over drug trafficking. While the Australian government has pleaded for clemency, the Singapore government has replied that the law will take its own course. The question I want to ask is: Why should a country interfere in another country's affairs? Specially some of the reactions of some Australians I read on the website are hilarious and at the same time completely stupid ("nobody has the right to take anybody's life").

.

[yrwyddfa]

Pushing aside the morality (or otherwise) of human beings going around killing each other . . .

If you break the law in another country you should expect to be held accountable for your actions under the local law.

[Valleysboy1978]

Agreed. Any crime you commit in that country should be tried in that country. Simple as.

[Urza]

If you break the law in another country you should expect to be held accountable for your actions under the local law.

Though I do agree with that, sometimes these are the kind of things that sometimes spark terrorist attacks (Not 9/11 scale, more like a car bombing or arsen).

[honeybee]

Though I do agree with that, sometimes these are the kind of things that sometimes spark terrorist attacks (Not 9/11 scale, more like a car bombing or arsen).

Please explain that to me. I can't seem to find any link between a crime committed in a foreign country and a terrorist attack.

.

[yrwyddfa]

Please explain that to me. I can't seem to find any link between a crime committed in a foreign country and a terrorist attack. In the UK when the four bombers exploded devices in the underground system we considered this a criminal offence. It just so happens that such an offence is also an act of terrorism.

[Valleysboy1978]

I suppose an act of terrorism is when a killer is trying to inflict maximum casualties and maximum fatalaties. We've certainly had enough of those with the IRA and now al-qeada. :(

[yrwyddfa]

I suppose an act of terrorism is when a killer is trying to inflict maximum casualties and maximum fatalaties. We've certainly had enough of those with the IRA and now al-qeada. :(Terrorism is still a criminal offence and should be treated as such. Paedophilia is just as abhorrent (in my eyes) but there's no crack-down or 'war-on-the-molesters' yet I would bet that the amount of abused kids exceeds the amount of people killed by terrorism on an annual global basis.

[FunkyDexter]

In answer to the original question, it's part of a governments job to protect it's citizensand represent thir best interests, at home or abroad, guilty of a crime or not. The Australian government therefore has a duty to at least try to intervene and get clemency for their citizen if they can.

Of course, it's also part of a governments job to ensure that it's laws are adhered to within it's borders. The singapore government therefore has a duty to see that the suspected criminal, be they a Sigapore citizen or a foreign national, is tried and, if found guilty, according to their own legal process.

It seems to me that both governments are actually behaving pretty much exactly as they should - albeit in contradiction to each other.

A thought on the terrorism/crime being punished in a foreign country thing : Maggies removal of political status from prisoners in the maze prison seems to me to be an attempt to ensure that criminals were prosecuted and punished according to standard British law and it definitely caused sparked terrorist acts.

[grilkip]

In answer to the original question, it's part of a governments job to protect it's citizensand represent thir best interests, at home or abroad, guilty of a crime or not. The Australian government therefore has a duty to at least try to intervene and get clemency for their citizen if they can.

Of course, it's also part of a governments job to ensure that it's laws are adhered to within it's borders. The singapore government therefore has a duty to see that the suspected criminal, be they a Sigapore citizen or a foreign national, is tried and, if found guilty, according to their own legal process.

It seems to me that both governments are actually behaving pretty much exactly as they should - albeit in contradiction to each other.

A thought on the terrorism/crime being punished in a foreign country thing : Maggies removal of political status from prisoners in the maze prison seems to me to be an attempt to ensure that criminals were prosecuted and punished according to standard British law and it definitely caused sparked terrorist acts.

I agree with this post and would like to add that there is nothing wrong with letting Singapore know that 'we' don't like capital punishment.

And consider the fact that no legal system is flawless and drugplanting does happen.

[Xanith]

Terrorism is still a criminal offence and should be treated as such. Paedophilia is just as abhorrent (in my eyes) but there's no crack-down or 'war-on-the-molesters' yet I would bet that the amount of abused kids exceeds the amount of people killed by terrorism on an annual global basis.

The problem with this analogy is there is no global organization of pedophiles out there plotting to molest as many children as possible. Pedophilia is indeed a criminal offense but I do not think you can say the same about terrorism, at least the way it exists today with Islamic Fundamentalism. And I ask you why wait until say a nuke or some other form of chemical and bio weapon explodes in the middle of a city before taking the problem of terrorism seriously?

It’s hard to treat terrorism as a simple criminal offense when it exists on a global scale. If it were just a local problem you might be able to prosecute it as such, but when people thousands of miles away are in training to come to your country just to kill you for living there in my mind it does become a war.

X

[yrwyddfa]

The problem with this analogy is there is no global organization of pedophiles out there plotting to molest as many children as possible. Pedophilia is indeed a criminal offense but I do not think you can say the same about terrorism, at least the way it exists today with Islamic Fundamentalism. And I ask you why wait until say a nuke or some other form of chemical and bio weapon explodes in the middle of a city before taking the problem of terrorism seriously?

It’s hard to treat terrorism as a simple criminal offense when it exists on a global scale. If it were just a local problem you might be able to prosecute it as such, but when people thousands of miles away are in training to come to your country just to kill you for living there in my mind it does become a war.

XYeah, perhaps you have a point; a poor analogy. But still it invokes the same reaction in people, but when all is said and done, it is still only a criminal offence.

I think that where we disagree is the pre-emptive nature of preventing criminal offences.

[Valleysboy1978]

Perhaps it is also the fact that it is totally premeditated, indiscriminate and shocking with the injuries, deaths and mutiliations caused. The worst one I remember was the Omah bombing. Using a nail bomb was just sadistic and was obviously intended to kill but also maim those at a distance outside of the bomb blast. 9/11 was intended as a shock attack. Omah was all about maximum deaths/injuries possible in such a small place.

[Xanith]

Yeah, perhaps you have a point; a poor analogy. But still it invokes the same reaction in people, but when all is said and done, it is still only a criminal offence.

I think that where we disagree is the pre-emptive nature of preventing criminal offences.

You seem to be judging criminality based on scale. That is to say that because not a great many people fall victim to terrorism each year (much less than say other crimes) you can deal with this problem the same way you would individual crime such as murder and rape.

Would a terrorist attack detonating a nuclear bomb in the middle of London killing around 1 million people still be in your mind be considered a criminal offense? Or would the scale of such attack suddenly put terrorism above simple criminality?

My point is why would you wait until such a thing would happen before taking action? Islamic terrorism is a global threat not just a local law enforcement problem.

As far as pre-emptive action to prevent crime, does not your local law enforcement use things such as camera’s, extra patrol officers on the streets, and neighborhood watch programs to prevent crime? Is this not pre-emption? Since when is pre-emptive action to lesson the occurrence of crime been a bad thing?

X

[capsulecorpjx]

Well, the Aussies now know not to mess with Singapore.

[yrwyddfa]

You seem to be judging criminality based on scale. That is to say that because not a great many people fall victim to terrorism each year (much less than say other crimes) you can deal with this problem the same way you would individual crime such as murder and rape.

Would a terrorist attack detonating a nuclear bomb in the middle of London killing around 1 million people still be in your mind be considered a criminal offense? Or would the scale of such attack suddenly put terrorism above simple criminality?

My point is why would you wait until such a thing would happen before taking action? Islamic terrorism is a global threat not just a local law enforcement problem.

As far as pre-emptive action to prevent crime, does not your local law enforcement use things such as camera’s, extra patrol officers on the streets, and neighborhood watch programs to prevent crime? Is this not pre-emption? Since when is pre-emptive action to lesson the occurrence of crime been a bad thing?

XIt was just a point. Terrorism is a criminal offence. No more no less.

[honeybee]

And consider the fact that no legal system is flawless and drugplanting does happen.

To the best of my knowledge this guy had admitted he was carrying them himself. Nobody planted them on him. Of course when you are caught carrying such a big quantity on your person, there's no way it could be planted. He knew fully well what he was doing and what he faced if caught. He was caught and received the punishment.

If no legal system is flawless, why not abolish all punishments? You can't prove the guilt 100% anyways, if you believe your legal system is flawless.

.

[yrwyddfa]

If no legal system is flawless, why not abolish all punishments? You can't prove the guilt 100% anyways, if you believe your legal system is flawless.. . . . or choose a 'punishment' which has at least some form of recourse. The death penalty, of course, has none.

[grilkip]

To the best of my knowledge this guy had admitted he was carrying them himself. Nobody planted them on him. Of course when you are caught carrying such a big quantity on your person, there's no way it could be planted. He knew fully well what he was doing and what he faced if caught. He was caught and received the punishment.

If no legal system is flawless, why not abolish all punishments? You can't prove the guilt 100% anyways, if you believe your legal system is flawless.

.
What yrwyddfa said, and to be fully honest I don't know much about this case so I spoke in general.

[honeybee]

As far as pre-emptive action to prevent crime, does not your local law enforcement use things such as camera’s, extra patrol officers on the streets, and neighborhood watch programs to prevent crime? Is this not pre-emption? Since when is pre-emptive action to lesson the occurrence of crime been a bad thing?

X

Since the times it has been used discriminately against only select states and not used in a fair and transparent manner against all those who seem to be spreading terrorism. Now that you mention it, why has the US not done anything about the Pakistani nuclear scientist A Q Khan who was the chief orchestrator of the Irani and North Korean nuclear activities? Why has he not been tried by an international court? Why has the Pakistani government been allowed to handle him on their own, without the US intervening in the matter and taking his custody? Pakistan government has refused to allow IAEA officials to interview the nuclear scientists. Why is this nation getting away without being punished (indeed they are being showered with military aid ;)) while Iran and North Korea are the only axis of evil?

The only answer is helping Pakistan and keeping them by the side is what the US is after. The US government is not interested in justice, it's just a convenient tool to further their own selfish agenda in the world. If preemptive action is not bad, why are the past US governments not in court answering charges on why they helped Saddam and Taleban?

.

[honeybee]

What yrwyddfa said, and to be fully honest I don't know much about this case so I spoke in general.

Well, to enlighten you, if there was any drug planting in this case, it would have been out in the media immediately. Even the Australian government would have raised this issue when requesting clemency for him. I am sure that at least when the Australian government got involved in this case, they must have gone through the entire case to see if such a thing could have hapened.

.

[honeybee]

. . . or choose a 'punishment' which has at least some form of recourse. The death penalty, of course, has none.

When you accept that the system which will prove the guilt and choose a punishment for the guilty is flawed, the system loses the right to try or sentence anyone.

If you wrote an accounting software that had a bug which affected the accounting transactions being entered into it, I doubt if anyone in his/her right mind would accept the reports churned out by that software. So if you believe your system is flawed and cannot establish guilt of a person beyond doubt, the system cannot try anyone for any "crimes".

.

[yrwyddfa]

When you accept that the system which will prove the guilt and choose a punishment for the guilty is flawed, the system loses the right to try or sentence anyone.

If you wrote an accounting software that had a bug which affected the accounting transactions being entered into it, I doubt if anyone in his/her right mind would accept the reports churned out by that software. So if you believe your system is flawed and cannot establish guilt of a person beyond doubt, the system cannot try anyone for any "crimes"..Every experienced programmer is fully aware that every piece of software (apart from the simplest 'hello world' example) has bugs in them. Every one of them.

It is a mathematically provable that this is the case (Z notation, formal methods, etc etc)

Yet software control systems do continue to fly people around the planet, control nuclear power plants, and take robots to far away planets.

I think your analagy doesn't stand, nor does your argument.

[honeybee]

. . . or choose a 'punishment' which has at least some form of recourse. The death penalty, of course, has none.

Wonderful, only not the reality.

Check this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051209/ap_on_re_us/airplane_shooting

If you care also please check out the London tube shooting carried out by the Police after the tube bombings.

Both the cases underline just one thing: The officers shot dead two innocent people.


I am sure you think your legal/judicial system is flawed. These two deaths did not follow a judicial enquiry. In fact in both cases if the suspects were captured and tried in a court, they would walk free the same day. But they are dead. And these deaths will not be condemned by anyone, they are perfectly justified. I guess even to you these deaths which occurred outside any judicial process, will be justified. I find it hard to understand why then would you oppose a death penalty awarded after a thorough investigation.

Both these cases explain exactly the point you are trying to make: No system is flawless. Then why have this shoot-to-kill policy in place? Or would you prefer an innocent plumber or a mentally unstable person being shot dead by the police instead of a convicted criminal being hanged to death by a panel of judges after scrutinizing the circumstances of the crime, the motives behind it and its effects?

Or perhaps this is just another anti-American sentiment, eh?

.

[yrwyddfa]

Wonderful, only not the reality.

Check this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051209/ap_on_re_us/airplane_shooting

If you care also please check out the London tube shooting carried out by the Police after the tube bombings.

Both the cases underline just one thing: The officers shot dead two innocent people.


I am sure you think your legal/judicial system is flawed. These two deaths did not follow a judicial enquiry. In fact in both cases if the suspects were captured and tried in a court, they would walk free the same day. But they are dead. And these deaths will not be condemned by anyone, they are perfectly justified. I guess even to you these deaths which occurred outside any judicial process, will be justified. I find it hard to understand why then would you oppose a death penalty awarded after a thorough investigation.

Both these cases explain exactly the point you are trying to make: No system is flawless. Then why have this shoot-to-kill policy in place? Or would you prefer an innocent plumber or a mentally unstable person being shot dead by the police instead of a convicted criminal being hanged to death by a panel of judges after scrutinizing the circumstances of the crime, the motives behind it and its effects?

Or perhaps this is just another anti-American sentiment, eh?

.
I know that ALL legal systems are not flawless. I know it is a fact; this is in fact a problem with constitutional law as oppose to common law systems - arming bears and all that.

I agree that there should never have been a shoot to kill mandate, and your associated points.

British police killing innocent bystanders have nothing at all to do with the American penal system, either.

Finally, in case you've missed it, the killing of anyone is never to be taken lightly, and should never be sanctioned in a state environment and levelled against civilians. Ever.

[Xanith]

It was just a point. Terrorism is a criminal offence. No more no less.
I know. My point was you cannot treat terrorism as a simple criminal offence. We just don't agree, but that is nothing new :)

X

[yrwyddfa]

I know. My point was you cannot treat terrorism as a simple criminal offence. We just don't agree, but that is nothing new :)
XYou and I need to go out for a pint, one day. :)

[penagate]

Back to the original point: Remember how Australians wanted our government to get more involved in the trial of Schapelle Corby in Indonesia? Now, after she has been convicted (wrongly we thought), more public evidence is stacking up, and we're starting to look stupid.

No, I don't think you should interfere with other countries' affairs. They have their laws, you break them you face their consequences. Simple as that.

I'm all relaxed and didn't feel like dissecting the discussions above right now so please pardon me if I've missed the point :)

[FunkyDexter]

And these deaths will not be condemned by anyone, they are perfectly justified. :mad: !! :mad: I cannot believe you think that the Menezes killing was justified. And FYI, it's just been announced that the officers involved will be liable to face charges of murder. 'Not condemmed by anyone', my ass!! There was a huge uproar over here when it came to light that the government had put a shoot to kill policy in place, without any parliamentary discussion I might add. I haven't seen any polls on it so I can't say what 'the country' would have said on the subject but opinion amongst the people I know is almost universally against a shoot to kill policy because we want to avoid exactly this kind of outcome (namely that this guy got killed because of the colour of his skin).

[yrwyddfa]

:mad: !! :mad: I cannot believe you think that the Menezes killing was justified. And FYI, it's just been announced that the officers involved will be liable to face charges of murder. 'Not condemmed by anyone', my ass!! There was a huge uproar over here when it came to light that the government had put a shoot to kill policy in place, without any parliamentary discussion I might add. I haven't seen any polls on it so I can't say what 'the country' would have said on the subject but opinion amongst the people I know is almost universally against a shoot to kill policy because we want to avoid exactly this kind of outcome (namely that this guy got killed because of the colour of his skin).I thoroughly agree with you :thumb:

[Shaggy Hiker]

I know. My point was you cannot treat terrorism as a simple criminal offence. We just don't agree, but that is nothing new :)

X

Terrorism could be treated like any other criminal offence. The fact that it is international is no bid deal, the fact that it kills people is no big deal, and the fact that it is ideologically driven is no big deal.

The basic problem with treating terrorism as a criminal offence is that the perpetrators have a disturbing tendency to die in the act. This is like suicide, the act is illegal, but if it is successful, you can't do much of anything to the perpetrator.

The US has seen several types of terrorism. As long as the terrorists lived through the attacks (WTC bombing, Oklahoma City, Atlanta Olympics), the perpetrators were dealt with as criminals much as any other criminal would be dealt with. However, the punishment model falls pretty flat in the case of 9/11, where all the major perps died in the act. In that case, you can ONLY go after the organization.

Oddly, this can't be entirely effective. Had McVeigh died in Oklahoma City, we would have had a terrible crime for which there would be no real repercussion, much like Columbine. The perp is dead, and there is no organization to go after.