Villainous Company

We don't allow the EU to tell us what to do? In light of this we should surrender in Phrance.

The judge is a Taliban supporter and the prosecutor most definatly is.

We also didn't go in there to exchange one Taliban leadership with another, albeit in sheeps clothing and more agreeable to us.

We went there to get rid of OB and the Taliban. Not one or the other, but both.
Those guys and those laws by any other name is Taliban.

If their laws are their own then please answer this.

Why is it that for a time everybody was so concerned about the plight of women in Afghanistan?
So much so that almost every country and political orginization in the world made it their personal buisness to change Afghanistani culture,
Isn't that also up to Afghanistan and it's people?

What makes one better than the other?
Why is a womans right to vote in Afghanistan an issue of world concern but the issue of a person faith not?

They were both against the Islamiic law were they not?
So what makes one so much more worthy than the other?

The answer is simple and familiar.

A. He's a man.
B. He's a Christian.

2 things that even the right can't seem to find any sympathy for in this day and age.

On the whole I agree with you.
Their laws should be their own.

BUT... you can't have it both ways.

The law says what it says. The words have nothing to do with the identity of the judge. It is not being enforced by the identity of the the judge or the prosecutor. And in any case, the outcome hardly supports your conclusion.

You are confusing two unrelated issues, joat:

1. What the outside world thinks of Afghani law, which is entirely irrelevant.

2. What the Afghani people think of Afghani law, which also happens to be irrevant unless and until they vote to overturn it in accordance with their Constitution. This is known as the rule of law. You don't grandfather in changes in advance of the vote. No society works that way.

In a democracy, if the Afghani people want to change the law, they should be able to change it. If they want to marry goats, they should be able to marry goats. It is not for an American to tell them this is improper. They do not live in America. They live in Afghanistan.

I suffer from a lack of patience sometimes, but honestly kids-----why do we expect Iraqis' and Afghanis' to get Democracy right in only 2 years?It took the USA how many years to ratify the Constitution?I'm guessing there were some major debates along the way, some arm-twisting,some rancor, and outright hostility to opposing viewpoints.As well as some cosmic screw-ups.

Take the long view.Or not.But be honest.

Isn't this post about Afghanistans soverien right to make its own laws?
And wasn't your point that we should butt out and let them?

If that is the case then my question is valid.
What makes the women issue any different than this and why was it OK for everybody to butt in on that one but not this one?

I'm pretty sure I'm not confusing anything.
Their laws should be their own but that didn't seem to stop anybody on the womens rights in Afghanistan issue.

Are certain aspects of their law, the ones in which a majority agree are wrong, to be the subject of world outrage and calls for change.

While at the same time the ones the world is too uncomfortable in dealing with, are they to be thrown to the lions?

Trying to make a comparison between Afghan law and islamic law is simply splitting hairs.
Islamic law is Afghan law.

There is a huge double standard here.

Let's go hypothetical.

What if they weren't Islamist? What if they worshipped Baal or Marduk?

A human newborn baby was required to be sacraficed every month for Baal. Usually burned alive.

In the temple of Marduk, every woman (even the Queen) was required to prostitute herself (once a year I believe).

Now.. if that were the situation in Afghanistan right now would you be so concerned about their laws? Would anybody?
Or would it be OK to stop the baby killings but not the prostitution?

You see? You can't champion one as an injustice just because you have a passion for it, and brush off another equally unjust cause because you don't.(I'm not saying you don't but you did write more passionately for the women of Afghanistan)

It doesn't matter what guise it's hidden under both causes were equally unjust under the exact same law.

So.. why that but not this?

When did I say it was all right for us to butt in then? Did I? I'm not sure I did. Someone else may have.

I agree that if you frame it that way you have a point - it's the same point I made about slavery and the same one I made about going in the for the reasons we said we went in. Consistency.

Don't get me wrong Joat. I find this whole thing repugnant. But as I pointed out, you think abortion is murder. Does that give you the right to haul off and violate the rule of law in this country because you don't agree? No.

Same, same.

At some point you either go to war or you bow to the rule of law. Make a choice.

Are we going to go to war with every nation, with which we disagree? Darfur? What about all the nations which practice white slavery? Child prostitution? Thailand anyone? Hellloooooooooo. Lot of sexual slavery there. Women. Babies, put up for slimy tourists to enjoy. I'll back that puppy in a heartbeat Joat. That offends the hell out of me.

Give me a shotgun and I'll put the people who finance that bullshit out of their misery, and I'm not kidding. International law and sovereignty be damned. Not one more child needs to go through that living hell for some pig with a ten dollar bill.

Yeah. I didn't think so. We're just upset about Abdul Rahman because he's a Christian. Let the babies suffer a while longer... we'll get to them like... ummm... never.

As far as allies and long term friends, Afghanistan isn't the only U.S.-allied government where Muslim converts to Christianity are threatened with execution.

Saudi Arabia neither permits conversion from Islam nor allows other religions in the kingdom. There are no churches and missionaries are barred. Saudi Arabia considers Sharia the law of the land, which considers conversion to any religion apostasy and the punishment is death.

In Kuwait, a court convicted a Shiite Muslim man who publicly proclaimed his conversion to Christianity, but didn't sentence him since the criminal code did not set a punishment.

Egypt does not have laws criminalizing apostasy, but those who do convert can still face prosecution.

There are exceptions. In strongly secular Turkey, a convert can walk into a Demographic Records office, sign a declaration saying they have converted from Islam to Christianity and leave an hour later with a new identity card reflecting the change. While Islam is the religion of 99 percent of Turkey's 71 million people, it has no official religion.

In Israel, the state has laws against missionary activities among Jews, but it does not punish converts.

In Tunisia and Algeria, the Islamic authorities take a dim view of conversion but the secular governments do not prohibit it and it does occur.

Ironically, IRAQ was the most tolerant country is the region as far as allowing Christians and other faiths to operate according to their beliefs. But unfortunately that has all changed now.

That is just what is so silly about this - we are focusing with a microscope on this when similar things go on all the time and we could care less.

Which moral outrage du jour will we choose to go to war over? Come on. There are so many in the world. Which is the straw that breaks the camel's back?

Why this one?

Hmmm...Perhaps I phrased it wrong.

You say "why this one" and I say "why not" when I think we are both making the same point but from different perspectives.

My point is this; We can't cherry pick.

Either change all of their laws to reflect our beliefs or none of them.

I think we are too, Joat.

Styen's point was that we are putting Christian lives up to save their President's life. It's like putting up a black man as a shield to protect a Klan leader (remember South Park the movie?).

The more you talk about this, the more it sounds like you just want us to shut up. "This is likely to result in tragedy no matter how it falls out, and all the shouting from the West is not helping. And frankly it sickens me."

It sickens you that we care about this crazy unjust law and the life that was to be snuffed out? How slowly should we let it happen? Should they get to kill 10 Christians before we 'ahem!' our throats and suggest they look at this law again?

Let them work it out? We are. That does not require silence. The only thing that sickens me about this whole affair is the silence of human rights groups on the Left and those that know better.

In its own time, the Christian will quit being killed under this whole messy "law" thing? Bull. We Americans earned the right to speak on this subject and offer our opinion to Afghanistan.

We can handle "differences." Of course, this is really different. We had slavery and white male land owners voting rolls in 1776. We had quit burning witches for about 250 years though at that time.

The excuse about the rule of law is unpersuasive. The prosecuter, even in Afghanistan from what I have read, has this thing called discretion. He doesn't have to prosecute all crimes. Many states (prior to Lawrence v. Texas) had anti-sodomy laws, but most presecutors NEVER prosecuted unless is was accompanied by a rape or assault charge. In other words, a crime was ignored b/c it was a law prosecutors didn't want to waste time on and knew was unjust. That could be done in Afganistan (and apparently has been done -- the guy confessed and they "don't have enough evidence.") Why did this happen? Because the world spoke up, but our country at least publically was the last to join that party.

We have a stake and provide security for these jerks. We protect them with the people they would execute, not to mention our money and lives. We have every right to put pressure on them to join the 19th Century much less the 21st.

We don't have to shut up to "respect" their wrong headedness. Foreign countries used to put pressure on the US all the time over slavery. They do it today over the death penalty. We ignore them? Yeah. But sometimes they are right (see slavery) and sometimes not. But we get the pressure. We lose cooperation with extradition with our allies all the time b/c we have the death penalty.

Slavery is also an obvious example that slowly doesn't always work. We had foreign pressure and local pressure within our own country. We took it real damn slow -- 100 years, and all that got us was a really awful war. Frankly, we were too polite about it, and we paid dearly for it. In addition to thousands of lives, we lost the federalism nature of our constitution b/c half the country couldn't be trusted with simple human rights. We pay for it today with the race issues you so wonderfully discussed earlier. Slowly does not always work.

Crimes like slavery and religious killing have consequences for a long time. We frankly could teach Afghanistan a thing or two, and we have a duty to do so. We should also be listening to those that have something to teach us, few and far between though they may be.

What KJ said.

KJ, I am going to say one thing and then shut up on this issue.

Your beef on this issue appears to be that whatever we did worked. If I had to guess, the most persuasive voice on this was that of the US, and furthermore there have been (so far) no riots.

That tells me we were able to carry the day without overplaying our hand. But you are all wacked off b/c Bush didn't play his hand the way you would have. Whoop -de - do. Get over it.

As I pointed out several days ago, diplomacy is a delicate business and there are many ways to skin a cat. I've watched you several times now and you can't wait to ascribe the worst motives to the President. You and I will just have to differ on this one.

Your accusation that I want people to shut up is unfair and not really backed up by anything on the record. Continuing to post with comments open is hardly an invitation to shut up - it seems more an invitation to continue the conversation. I engaged tee bee, who disagrees with me, and furthermore responded to her posts, as I responded to yours. I don't really think I said "shut up" either time.

But when Steyn writes a hyperbolic essay and uses an example from the Raj where the British erected a scaffold to hang the Indians for carrying out their own cultural practices, IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, well I suppose that seems just a tad bit inflammatory.

Just a thought here: the Afghans are not a conquered people and we are not a colonial power. Now if you want to grab a fricking gun and go fight some religious war so you can tell them what to do in their own country and hang government officials for carrying out their official duties, well then you go right ahead, KJ.

Forgive me if I'm not ready to lose my husband, or my friends, in Mr. Steyn's little jihad.

Well, you seem ready to ascribe the worst motives to me. In every single post, I have said that our outrage should be with words and not guns, but if that is a jihad, so be it. I never ascribed a "bad" motive to the President. I don't know what his motive was to let Italy appear to care and us not appear to care until the last few days. But so be it.

The good thing is the right thing was done, sort of. I guess it might be b/c of some secret diplomacy and we'll all just have to trust the President that he really did do something even though he didn't want to say so publically.

As for my "shut up" comment, it seems to flow from the comment of yours that I quoted: "This is likely to result in tragedy no matter how it falls out, and all the shouting from the West is not helping. And frankly it sickens me."

I know you have this forum here for us to talk about these things. It, you and your other readers is what makes your blog the best out there.

You said he used to be a leader and now he is a follower, but he has been working on this since early last week, KJ. And as I stated earlier, when we have 23,000 troops in Afghanistan, anything we say is going to have more impact than anything any other nation, like Italy, is going to say. So we can afford (in probably should, to avoid violence) speak more softly.

It is only common sense to, as TR said, speak softly and carry a big stick. The big stick is pretty damned obvious: it's already on the ground.

But everyone faults Bush for speaking softly and letting our allies, who have no stick, speak more loudly. This used to be called statecraft.

Now it is called hypocrisy.

Yes, I object to that. I think it's unfair.

Anyway, peace :)

I don't want to fight with anyone over this.

I am perplexed. What I remember from the formation of the current national government in Afghanistan is that there are parallel judicial hierarchies. In the same way Canada defers to the Jewish community to resolve civil issues such as divorce, or the way Cananda and the U.S. defer to Indian tribal courts, Afghanistan defers to Sharia'a courts in matters involving Muslims.

The press coverage and blog commentary I have read in recent days takes no notice of a difference between secular and religious courts.

Mr. Rahman went to Iraq to take custody of his kids. It was the objection of the family that led to the current judicial matter. Where is the information that tells us how the Muslim Sharia court system got jurisdiction instead of the national secular court system? Is it a matter of family law? Or a threat to any Christian who naively wanders into the country?

I think denial of custody would be sufficient, but beheading has its appeal.

> 1. What the outside world thinks of Afghani law, which is entirely irrelevant.

[snip]

In a democracy, if the Afghani people want to change the law, they should be able to change it. If they want to marry goats, they should be able to marry goats. It is not for an American to tell them this is improper.

No, what other people think is and should be relevant to The Law of the Land is always important. It's a reflection, a test.

It's up to YOU how much WEIGHT you place on the result.

OBH,
The fly in the ointment of your statement would be such leaders as Saddam, Hitler, Dada, Pol Pot, Mao and a host of others.

Ocassionally there comes a point where someone elses soveriegn law doesn't mean diddly squat.

Well then, with that reasoning, conservatives shouldn't bash O'Connor and Breyer for looking at international laws when deciding Supreme Court cases.

Japan and the U.S. are the only industrialized countries to retain the death penalty. The U.S. is one of less then 10 countries that executes child offenders.

Clearly we do not follow "international norms" when it comes to the death penalty, which, as pointed out earlier, is considered by much of the world to be a barbaric human rights violation. Are you going to tell me that conservatives would not be screaming, if (theoretically,) we had international PMs from Canada and Australia calling upon the president to free Mumia-Abu Jamal?

Twisted logic.

Can the world tell us how to run our courts?
No.
Can they make us obey or ignore certain laws?
No.

It's funny that you should drag that old dead horse "Death Penalty" out while trying to make such a case.

I live, work and breath in America.
American Law is the only law of consequence to me.
As I went back and forth with Cass over "can't have it both ways" neither can Afghanistan.

Either they follow Islamic law or Afghan law.
One or the other, not either or as it suits the situation.

P.S.
Apparently you failed to recognize another country that has a death penalty.
About 20 more actually but I'm talking about Afghanistan.

That the justices acted so irresponsibly might have something to do with (hopefully) stacking the court in this term.

"Apparently you failed to recognize another country that has a death penalty."

I would be thankful then, if you informed me which industrialized country had the death penalty. Yes I know places like China and Cambodia retain it, but they are not industrialized countries known particularly for rule of law and human rights.

"Can the world tell us how to run our courts?
No.
Can they make us obey or ignore certain laws?
No."

This concept should apply equally then, when we say something to other countries about things that we find disagreeable. It's a variant of the golden rule; you can't expect others to budge on issues of sovereignty where you won't.

As irritating as it may be to you, Joatmoaf, I think we're on the same page, but just coming from different angles.