The Bali 9 and...

[onebigmonkey]

Notwithstanding my opposition to the death penalty, every flight you get on in that part of the world (and I have been on several, both international and internal) advertises in no uncertain terms that the penalty for drug smuggling is death.

Yes, I've seen that on landing cards for Singapore.

What worries me is not drug dealing, it's carrying prescribed pharmaceuticals. Would they be recognized as legitimate? I wouldn't bet on it.

We've seen it on on-screen displays and passenger announcements aboard flights!

The prescription drugs thing has also been a concern for us. Our flight back from Thailand was delayed thanks to the uprising there a few years ago, forcing an unscheduled stopover in Dubai. My wife's HRT medication is on their list of proscribed items, and we really didn't know where we would stand had they found them!

[gillianren]

My best friend was on a prescription medication that shows up on drug tests.  She was attempting to become a substitute teacher, and no one could tell her how to do that if she tested positive for a drug she was legally permitted to be on.  The district told her the state would have to permit it, and the state said it was a district issue.  So my friend never became a substitute teacher.

[Luke Pemberton]

It does make you wonder what these people must be thinking when so many obvious warnings are in place and as remarked, there are so many high profile cases of executions in that part of the world. We have our own case, Lindsay Sandiford:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31080056

Equally, I do not believe the Bali bombers should have been hung, but it does offer an interesting question about the killing of OBL. Was that an execution or a legitimate act of war? Where is the line with in the War on Terror?

[ka9q]

It was clearly an extra-judicial execution. I suspected that from the first news reports and the kill-and-tell books confirmed it. Despite some lip service to that effect, there was never any serious intention to capture him.

I thought it was a shame, too, because we would have been much better off putting OBL and his mooks on trial with all the rights guaranteed to any criminal defendant under Anglo-American law. With all the evidence against them laid out in public, when given their right to speak they would have been unable to justify their actions. And then the world would have seen them as the criminals they were, not as martyrs to their cause.

We did just that with the major Nazi war criminals after WW2 even though they killed orders of magnitude more people than al Qaeda. I always thought that the Nuremberg trials were one of the very few good things to come out of that period. This time around we took the low road, and look where it's gotten us.

[Echnaton]

it does offer an interesting question about the killing of OBL. Was that an execution or a legitimate act of war? Where is the line with in the War on Terror?

An assassination?

An act to get rid of someone who was an embarrassment to the government and whose capture, public trial and imprisonment, would only spark more controversy and embarrassment?  Or at least that is a charge that can be made but not refuted once the killing has occurred.   Which is why capture and trial is the preferred option. 

[Echnaton]

It was clearly an extra-judicial execution.

Something our executive branch now claims to have the unrestricted power to do, without even the need for a warrant.  Even for U. S. citizens.

[gillianren]

Which is why capture and trial is the preferred option. 

Well, a reason.  It's also true that our judicial system has traditionally held that everyone, no matter how "obviously guilty," no matter how often they've confessed, gets their day in court.

I will say that they clearly thought they could justify their actions.  That's what all those videos were.  They can't justify them to our standards, but that's different.

[Echnaton]

Well, a reason.

Quite correct.

[ka9q]

I will say that they clearly thought they could justify their actions.  That's what all those videos were.  They can't justify them to our standards, but that's different.

You probably could say the same thing about the major Nazi war criminals in their prime. But most of them looked and acted very different in the dock at Nuremberg, and that was the whole point.

[Luke Pemberton]

We did just that with the major Nazi war criminals after WW2 even though they killed orders of magnitude more people than al Qaeda. I always thought that the Nuremberg trials were one of the very few good things to come out of that period. This time around we took the low road, and look where it's gotten us.

The major Nuremberg trial was interesting in that one could almost certainly conclude with the backdrop of Nazi atrocities that each defendant was guilty, yet a proportion were acquitted of the charges. Entering the conspiracy mindset for a second, it could be argued that this was deliberate so it did not look like a victor's kangaroo court.

However, when setting up the terms of the trial, Justice Jackson argued strongly that the accused should be tried. Roman Rudenko argued emotively, and understandably given what the Nazis meted out in the Soviet Union, that the defendants should not be granted the same rights that they denied so many. Jackson prevailed, and I believe that the defendants being acquitted, despite clear involvement with the Nazi regime, showed that the trial was just, and Jackson won the moral argument.

[ka9q]

The major Nuremberg trial was interesting in that one could almost certainly conclude with the backdrop of Nazi atrocities that each defendant was guilty, yet a proportion were acquitted of the charges.

Yes. As I recall, three (Hans Fritzsche, Franz von Papen, Hjalmar Schacht) were acquitted on all charges though it was a puzzle why they were indicted in the first place.

The Nuremberg trials did more than dispense justice and show the world that we believed in our principles even for those who obviously lacked them. It created a huge and meticulously detailed history of that period all the more authoritative because the defendants were given a fair chance to rebut it and failed. How many of us would believe a recent history of Iraq and Afghanistan written by Bush and Cheney?

[Luke Pemberton]

The Nuremberg trials did more than dispense justice and show the world that we believed in our principles even for those who obviously lacked them. It created a huge and meticulously detailed history of that period all the more authoritative because the defendants were given a fair chance to rebut it and failed. How many of us would believe a recent history of Iraq and Afghanistan written by Bush and Cheney?

They also presented an opportunity to set international legal precedents and resurrect the failed League of Nations, which we now call the UN. There are many critics of the trials, and I can see why. Afterall, could Churchill have stood trial for ordering the bombing of Dresden? Where does Truman stand on the A-bombs? Stalin and his cronies hardly had their hands clean of blood?

As I understand there was no obvious legal precedent on which to base the trials given that acts during war had never been prosecuted before. The main framework of the prosecution was to use violation of international treaties to set the legal precedent for the future - at least that is how Jackson was briefed before heading to Nuremberg.

[Chief]

I think everyone is on the same page.

From a very cold point of view I may not be opposed to the death penalty for certain cases if I had faith in the legal system and there was complete proof of guilt.
Child abuse and murder I find utterly despicable and the father in me would want death for the guilty party if for no other reason than to rid the world of such vermin.
I don't think that is possible though and I think a lifetime in prison with hard labour would be more of a punishment than death.

In the Bali 9 duo's case however I feel for the families more than the pair and regardless of anything else they knew what the outcome could be if caught. Do the crime do the time as they say. They were willing to risk a death sentence for profit and they got caught. It's the ultimate life lesson.

My compassion for them makes me shudder when I think of the journey they will take knowing it will be the last thing they do.

[ka9q]

They also presented an opportunity to set international legal precedents

Which we have completely squandered over the past decade.

and resurrect the failed League of Nations, which we now call the UN. There are many critics of the trials, and I can see why. Afterall, could Churchill have stood trial for ordering the bombing of Dresden? Where does Truman stand on the A-bombs? Stalin and his cronies hardly had their hands clean of blood?

The Nuremberg trials were by no means perfect. The questions about ex post facto laws and tu quoque defenses still linger today. But they were probably the best that we could do at the time in a completely unprecedented situation, and as you say they did set some important precedents. For a while, anyway.

In fact I'm still amazed we were able to talk the Soviets into even one international military tribunal.

[Luke Pemberton]

Which we have completely squandered over the past decade.

Absolutely, giving other countries carte blanche to act in a similar manner.

The Nuremberg trials were by no means perfect. The questions about ex post facto laws and tu quoque defenses still linger today. But they were probably the best that we could do at the time in a completely unprecedented situation, and as you say they did set some important precedents. For a while, anyway.

Agree, but given their crimes I have yet to see a better alternative proposed by the critics. Could we really let them free?

In fact I'm still amazed we were able to talk the Soviets into even one international military tribunal.

The Western allies held the ace there and if I am to believe correctly, they threatened that they would take the Nazis they held and hold separate trials to the Soviets.  Since the West held the key figures, the Soviets felt they had to play ball.