August 08, 2003

RULE 303

Amrozi participated in the murder of 202 people, yet a whole bunch of saps are upset at his death sentence. Youíd think he was this guy:

A judge in Pakistan has sentenced a 60-year-old man to death after finding him guilty of making derogatory remarks about Islam and its prophet, Muhammad, a police official said today.

By the way, in the case of the Amrozi sentence and the various Australians who are urging our government to tell the Indonesians how to run their legal system, where are the complaints about paternalistic Westerners imposing their values on a foreign culture? An Indonesian has been sentenced by an Indonesian court after a crime committed in Indonesia against many Indonesians. Butt out, whitey!

UPDATE. Not everybody is opposed to the death sentence. Hereís Mikey Fís contribution at The Ageís Your Say page:

Let's shoot Sharon, Bush, Blair, and Howard instead. We would all be so much better off believe me.

That's at a moderated board, incidentally.

Posted by Tim Blair at August 8, 2003 04:14 PM
Comments

What surprised me even more was Simon Crean not disagreeing with the death penalty for Amrozi! Shit, he might even be catching up with the rest of us . . . .

Thenhe went and blew it by calling for David Hicks to be tried in Australia - for committing crimes in Afghanistan against the Afghan people. Hicks should count his blessings that he's being tried by the Americans in Gitmo instead of the Afghans in Kabul.

Posted by: steve at August 8, 2003 at 04:23 PM

Let's see how many of the USUAL sources now talk about how opinion being "divided" (read: 90% in favour of death; 9% against; 1% = Michael Leunig calling for more hugs for terrorists) over whether Amrozi should have been given life imprisonment or face execution...

Whether it's popular government policies such re: immigration or pursuing a Free Trade agreement with the US, opinion is always "divided". The people who claim that Howard always "divides" the nation must be somewhat like the (crazy) sea captain in the Blackadder episode where he plans to pretend to sail around the world to impress the Queen:


BLACKADDER: I was under the impression that it was common maratime practice for a ship to have a crew...

SEA CAPTAIN: opinion is DIVIDED on the subject

BLACKADDER: really...

SEA CAPTAIN: yes. All the other captains say it is; I say it isn't.

Posted by: Richard at August 8, 2003 at 04:33 PM

It's not a question of being upset by a death sentence. The real issue is that you Tim, and others, appear hellbent on giving this bastard exactly what he and his terrorist masters want. A glorious martyrdom for the fundamentalist propagandists to trumpet to new recruits.

Why on earth would you do that?

He should not be executed. It is too good for him, and it's critically important he is denied this self proclaimed martyrdom.

He should be made to rot for the next 40 or 50 years, or whatever the term of his natural life is, in Indonesia's worst prison. I gather this is not a nice place.

Let the bastard die a thousand tiny deaths in that prison. No glorious end for him.

Posted by: Nemesis at August 8, 2003 at 05:28 PM

I think Steve may be mistaken about Hicks trial.

I am unsure, and the media isn't helping, but I think Hicks is in trouble for crimes against America. As far as i am aware he did not commit a crime in Afganistan and there are no grounds for charging him for crimes against Australia.

Whatever, he is being treated a lot more fairly by the US than I'd treat him so let that be his happy thought for the day.

Posted by: James Hamilton at August 8, 2003 at 05:31 PM

Publicly bury the bastard wrapped in pigskin- bit hard to be a martyr if your rotten soul has been consigned to purgatory for being in contact with an unclean animal (a bit late- he's shaken hands with Bakir Bashir anyway). The Spetznaz use this tactic in Chechnia with pretty good results.

Posted by: Habib Bickford at August 8, 2003 at 05:36 PM

Nemesis,

"The real issue is that you Tim, and others, appear hellbent on giving this bastard exactly what he and his terrorist masters want. A glorious martyrdom for the fundamentalist propagandists to trumpet to new recruits."

Not if you stick him headfirst into a steaming pile of pigshit until he assumes room tempature he won't.

BTW..

"Let's shoot Sharon, Bush, Blair, and Howard instead. We would all be so much better off believe me."

You make a statement like that in the states you will be getting a 'let's you and I get acquainted visit' from "the man."

Posted by: D2D at August 8, 2003 at 05:38 PM

'exactly what he and his terrorist masters want'

This is a common sentiment. It is incorrect.

Engineering any kind of outcome based on what 'we' think 'they' want is wrong and dangerous.

Giving an inch to terrorism is fatal.

The deadly campaign being waged yesterday, today and tomorrow by the top guys in terrorism's backrooms won't stop just because we've spared their stooge.

Posted by: ilibcc at August 8, 2003 at 05:45 PM

ilibcc, you state, with absolutely no support that "It is incorrect".

Wrong. It's entirely correct.

What, pray, do "you" think "they" want? And who do you think is "giving an inch"?

Your post is so coloured by your own preconceptions that its almost meaningless. And the deadly campaign being waged won't stop just because you top their stooge either. That is quite simply not the issue here at all.

And D2D. I like the pigshit idea. I'm even creating the possibility that it could be a daily event, as opposed to a one off. And it's his masters that will do the trumpeting, not him. Obviously. (And I said nothing about Sharon, Bush, etc. I assume that point is addressed to Tim's original column?)

Posted by: Nemesis at August 8, 2003 at 05:59 PM

Nemesis, the problem with jail instead of execution is what happened in Manila - somebody will take a bribe to let him escape.

Posted by: Rob (No 1) at August 8, 2003 at 06:53 PM

Rob # 1.

Now, unlike the other stuff, this is a fair point & I confess it's got me stumped.

When are they going to shoot the little bastard? (You've got me worried now with the escape thing).

Posted by: Nemesis at August 8, 2003 at 07:00 PM

Nemesis

Hesitating to execute someone because we fear the consequences of his martyrdom - i.e., that terrorists will rain down further mayhem in revenge - is a sign of weakness, and weakness is not a characteristic that can ever be displayed to terrorists.

Posted by: ilibcc at August 8, 2003 at 07:01 PM

Nemesis

Your post is always coloured by your own preconceptions that its always meaningless. Start providing a base for you thinking or continue being laughed at.
Didn't you spit the dummy and skulk away?
If you aren't going to be rood or lecture stay.

Posted by: Gary at August 8, 2003 at 07:05 PM

Saying that executing him will lead to further retribution from terrorists assumes that they aren't already trying their damndest to kill us at every opportunity.

Nemesis: I heard on the trial coverage that they are planning on shooting him somewhere remote, like a beach or a forest.

Posted by: Yobbo at August 8, 2003 at 07:08 PM

"a base for my thinking"

I simply raise the quite obvious risk that killing him will aid him in his goal of martyrdom. What further base does this require?If you don't get it, it ain't my fault.

All that said, I am swayed by Rob #1. If there's a risk he might escape, shoot him. Soon.

Posted by: Nemesis at August 8, 2003 at 07:14 PM

Or you could just give him a sex change and dump him out really shitfaced on a Jakarta street corner.

And yes, Nemisis, I was speaking of Tim's original post.

As far as it goes this is an Indonesian affair and this a-hole's execution is more diplomatic than anything else. Someone has to have their tits put in the ringer and Amrozi is the patsy. Now what Australia and the US need to do is begin to covertly dismantling JI by decapitating its leadership and undermining that organization. BTW fuck international law while doing this. I like the idea of those assholes losing sleep at night worrying if the SAS or the SEALS are under their beds. Look at it this way, as rich as Saddam Hussein still is it has got to suck to be him.

Posted by: D2D at August 8, 2003 at 07:16 PM

NEMESIS:

Take away the media coverage and there'll be no martydom anyway . . . in fact, take away the media coverage, and you'll cut Christ out of terrorist acts worldwide.

Posted by: John Wey at August 8, 2003 at 08:12 PM

Apparently Amrozi is appealing his death sentence. Seems like the martyrdom thing isn't so appealing to him after all.

Posted by: Robin Wade at August 8, 2003 at 08:18 PM

The troop who escaped in the Phillipnes was croaked at a military checkpoint.
When Amrozi cops a belt from an M60, he will look like a Ter-Martyr, and the relief that brings to victim's families tops any other consideration.

Posted by: Habib Bickford at August 8, 2003 at 08:56 PM

Nemesis (to whom?):

Kill him. It is what we want and that's all that matters in this case. It's not about what "he wants." We are playing by our rules -- you know, those of the civilized world -- not his. The fact that there may be some overlap between what we regard as appropriate and what "he wants" is irrelevant.

Gee, what if Al Qaeda suddenly announced that it would be a glorious contribution to the cause for any of their members to be captured and held at Guantanamo incommunicado indefinitely? Ah never mind, you are probably already against that as well.

Posted by: charles austin at August 8, 2003 at 10:24 PM

WHy not shoot Sharon, Blair, Bush and Howard?

They are all jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos.

/sarcasm

Posted by: AG in Houston at August 8, 2003 at 10:49 PM

As it turns out, it seems more likely that the whole "hellbent on dying" thing was just an act.

First his mates threaten to kill more civilians if he is sentenced to death (why would they do that if his death would result in martyrdom...or an upsurge in support like some are saying),
and now, as soon as the death sentence is actually pronounced he suddenly 'changes' his mind about not appealing....to the world he might be pretending to be the "smiling bomber" now it looks like, on the inside at least, he's the "scared shitless bomber"
Good stuff to, now maybe he's experiencing what some of his victims felt when they realized their burns where going to kill them.

Posted by: Richard at August 8, 2003 at 11:45 PM

A long life suffering, really suffering, behind bars would be a just punishment but I worry that the rotten little bastard would be a jailhouse celebrity. Kill him.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at August 9, 2003 at 12:16 AM

He would hardly be a jailhouse celebrity for fifty years. The posters on this site remind me of all the lefties during the Hollingworth saga - falling over themselves to say how much they deplore child abuse. Saying that it is terrible that more than two hundred people died does not make you wonderful people - you are just stating the fucking obvious. And trying to top each other with ways of killing Amrozi makes you look like savages. Australia canned state-sanctioned murder thirty years ago, 180 years too late. The fact that Indonesia is still backward in this respect is not cause for celebration.

OK go ahead. Call me a terrorist-lover you poofters.

Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 12:49 AM

Gabor:

OK, you're a terrorist-lover.

Posted by: Poofter at August 9, 2003 at 12:57 AM

"OK go ahead. Call me a terrorist-lover you poofters."

nah, name calling is for morons.

Posted by: Richard at August 9, 2003 at 01:02 AM

Gabor,

He might not be a jailhouse celebrity for 50 years but he certainly might live the high life for quite some time. He could also be sprung.

If you don't want to see him killed, I have no problem with that. Me, I would like to be able to look him in the eye while I splattered him with a .45. (Can you tell I'm a Texan born and raised?)

Posted by: ZsaZsa at August 9, 2003 at 01:03 AM

Gabor, what possible positive result can you envision from holding that man for life? Not only did he top a number of people for no valid reason, every time some thug kidnapped someone, his release would be one of the conditions for release of the victum, The potential for bribery and jail escape is high and that would not only mean that one more guardian of the public was compromized but also a cold blooded killer is now out and able to swank around as a hero to those whose left brains are atrophied.

But if you really, REALLY want the bastard to live, then I agree with D2D - force him intop a sex change operation. That would lessen the incentive for this bastard to try to escape.

Posted by: rabidfox at August 9, 2003 at 01:05 AM

ZsaZsa, if an Indonesian prison is your idea of the high life then I'm staying well the fuck away from your travel agent.

Rabidfox, it's very simple. Whenever I turn on the news and I hear someone has been murdered, I get angry. Why? Because it is not up to us to decide who lives and dies. No one on this planet should have the right to kill another. That's why I get angry. And that's why I am angry at this sentence. This whole idea of revenge and closure is bullshit. Once this blokes been killed, all the victims' family members (one of whom is a work colleague) will still wake up the next morning without their husband, daughter etc... This is a useless, medieval exercise.

I'm going to ignore comments about sex changes. You want to be a sicko? Send Poofter an email.

Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 01:16 AM

Gabor,

I'm reasonably sure that with a bit of money and a few sympathetic connections Amrozi's life-style wouldn't change much. Kill him.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at August 9, 2003 at 01:35 AM

No, I won't. I don't believe in killing people. Oh what a bastard I am! And I'm sure his lifestyle wouldn't change much. He'd be in the same sort of cell he's in now minus the cameras.

It's almost 1am. I'm going to bed.

Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 01:41 AM

Tim's clock is fast.

Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 01:42 AM

Gabor writes:

Whenever I turn on the news and I hear someone has been murdered, I get angry. Why? Because it is not up to us to decide who lives and dies. No one on this planet should have the right to kill another.

This argument has more holes in it than will Mr. Amrozi after being executed.

For one thing, the man is not being "murdered." He is being killed as part of a death sentence, handed down with due process, for a crime he prides himself on. Murder is what he did -- to 200 people who'd never done him any harm. I love moral equivocators: sure, he killed 200 innocent people, and we are killing the murderer of 200 innocent people, but both involve killing, and are therefore equally wrong. Situations, motivations, victim, perpetrator, none of that matters -- only the verb is important.

Second, and this may offend your overdeveloped sense of righteousness, but we do, in fact, have the right to decide who lives or dies. Societies make such decisions every day, in warfare if nothing else. Your right to life is predicated, at the very least, on your respect of this right in others; Mr. Amrozi doesn't respect ours, which removes our obligation to respect his. Frankly, his continued existence is too much of a threat to the rest of us, and we are under no obligation to tolerate it for the dubious privilege of having him suck our air.

Third, I find it interesting that you insist that the man has a right to live in the very same paragraph where you also insist that we have no right to decide who lives or dies. If you're going to be consistent here, you'll have to go all the way, and say that you have no opinion.

Finally, let's just go with your premise: we have no right to decide that someone should die. I'm pretty sure we can still decide to withdraw the support and protection of our society from someone who clearly won't obey its laws, right? Well, easy solution, then: Indonesia has plenty of uninhabited jungle. Put the man on a helicopter, take him thousands of miles away from the nearest population center, strip him bare, and drop him into the rainforest. We won't have to decide whether he lives or dies then -- it will be up to the tigers, the snakes, the venomous insects, and how good he is at hunting with his bare hands. Sure, it's cruel, slow, and horrific, but our hands remain clean, and our sanctimoniously constructed universe remains undisturbed. Win/win all around.

Posted by: E. Nough at August 9, 2003 at 05:22 AM

I'd like to see the guy executed. However, there is no one way of dealing with him that guarantees anything. Execute him and he *could* become a martyr, unless steps are taken to defile him.
Imprison him and there are any number of things that could happen to make this a very bad idea.
Kill him and be done with it. Don't drive yourself crazy thinking of all the stuff that *could* happen.

D2D:

"Now what Australia and the US need to do is begin to covertly dismantling JI by decapitating its leadership and undermining that organization. BTW fuck international law while doing this. I like the idea of those assholes losing sleep at night worrying if the SAS or the SEALS are under their beds."

I'd support this 100%!! Too bad there's no way this will ever happen, but I can imagine it. What I also imagine is taking the leaders out and figuring out a way to blame another nutty Islamonazi group.

I'd like them to fight each other and blow themselves up. From past history, it shouldn't be too hard to cause that to happen.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at August 9, 2003 at 05:24 AM

Problem with putting him in prison is that he isn't going to stay there. The minute JI pulls off another big terror attack and says, "Free Amrozi, or else," the Indonesian government is going to cave in.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at August 9, 2003 at 05:32 AM

So what if the grinning little cocksucker becomes a martyr? All martyrs share one very salient characteristic: they are dead. And if it inspires more of his cockroach co-religionists to start kickin' it Jihad-style, then we'll kill them, too. Keeping him alive is just storing up trouble.

Terrorists should never be imprisoned for any longer than it takes to rigorously debrief them. I'd cheerfully see Guantanamo Bay (or the Maze Prison, for that matter) turned into a processing facility where you go in alive, and come out well-fed, thoroughly interrogated, and dead.

Posted by: David Gillies at August 9, 2003 at 05:45 AM

Amrozi's defence team said it would appeal the sentence, even though Amrozi did not want to do so.

Amrozi has said that he wants to die a martyr.

Defence lawyers get more billable hours (I'm on thin ground here, not knowing how the Indonesian legal system works), Amrozi will eventually get his wish anyway, as will most of the general public in Australia. As a certain wascally wabbit used to say, "So what's all the hubbub, bub?"

Posted by: Tongue Boy at August 9, 2003 at 06:38 AM

This was also posted in the link:

"I am a muslim, and proud to be Australian. I think the bullet to the head is too easy a escape from the pain this pond slime has inflicted on people everywhere.
I wonder what he would think if his family were killed in the same way he killed. I am sure that would take the smile off the face.
I wish the law allowed the familys and friends of the victims to take care of the punishment. Now that would be justice! " ---- zac garciyya

Posted by: Jonny at August 9, 2003 at 08:52 AM

"I'd support this 100%!! Too bad there's no way this will ever happen, but I can imagine it. What I also imagine is taking the leaders out and figuring out a way to blame another nutty Islamonazi group."

True, it's unlikely - but remember that some soldiers of God got their behinds hellfired all the way to paradise in Yemen last year when a CIA Predator drone "happened" to pass by their general area.

Posted by: DŲbeln at August 9, 2003 at 08:53 AM

I'm afraid he wouldn't "rot" in jail.
He'd have it easy, due to corruption, his gang's intimidation of prison officials, etc.
And, most probably, there would be an escape organised.
So, shoot the fucker, let him have the 72 pigs or whatever the tenet says.

Posted by: Skinny Hippo at August 9, 2003 at 08:59 AM

It turns out that little 'Rozzipoos' isn't so keen to be a martyr after all.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s920651.htm

Lawyers for convicted Bali bomber Amrozi are expected to file an appeal against their client's death sentence on Monday.

Amrozi has signed a document allowing the appeal, despite earlier saying he was willing to face a firing squad.

So much for the 'if we kill him, we give him what he wants' argument.

We can now apply rule 303 without any qualms.

Personally I think the Indon govt should raffle off the right to pull the trigger.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at August 9, 2003 at 10:05 AM

Seems I was the only voice of dissent in today's SMH letters. jeez. http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/08/08/1060145872722.htm

Posted by: EvilDan at August 9, 2003 at 10:19 AM

Although the majority of Indonesians do not support JI, the system is corrupt enough to ensure that Amrozi and co. could live comfortably, if not luxuriously, once the fuss dies down. No doubt an 'escape' could be engineered also - this is not intended as an insult to Indonesia, plenty of prisoners have escaped from Australian jails where the security is far tighter.

Perhaps he will be regarded as a martyr by some misguided Muslims, but one of the judges is a Muslim, and he condemned Amrozis actions in no uncertain terms, and stated that he would not have slept nights if he neglected his duty to give the death penalty. He stated also that Amrozis actions were not those of a true Muslim and could not be remotely justified by his religion. Amrozi was condemned to death by his own countrymen for a crime committed in Indonesia. There were Indonesian victims also. Australia (or any other country) has no right to interfere.

But the execution may not happen as scheduled, because the cowardly litle rat has decided that he doesn't want to die after all and has instructed his lawyers to appeal.

What was that old saying about how the prospect of being hung in the morning concentrates the mind wonderously?

Posted by: dee at August 9, 2003 at 12:01 PM

What kind of hypocrite would I be if I suddenly took an interest in Indonesian law, or Malaysian law or any other countries law because there were Australian victims. I guess I'd be a hypocrite like Andrew BARTLETT.

I don't support the death penalty in Australia, but different countries, with different cultures and different outlooks have different rules. As long as rules, and the consequences for breaking the rules are clear then its end of argument. John Howard has said and done exactly the correct thing in this debate.

And this martyr garbage. Only in his own mind. He is terrorist swill cloaked in religious dogma, just like the IRA. To suggest he is a rallying point for muslims is as specious as suggesting David Koresh or Jim Jones are a rallying point for Christians. Like those two he is a wanker - nothing more. We can never let their threats or actions influence our decisions - that after all is their objective. After every Muslim leader has condemned his action then hang him high.

Posted by: Gilly at August 9, 2003 at 01:26 PM

E.Nough:

“For one thing, the man is not being "murdered." He is being killed as part of a death sentence, handed down with due process, for a crime he prides himself on.”

Murder is the intentional taking of someone else’s life. He is being murdered, whether you want to refer to it euphemistically or not.

“Mr. Amrozi doesn't respect ours, which removes our obligation to respect his.”

Oh, I see. Little Johnny hit me, so I hit him. My wife swore at me, so I swore at her. Your lowest common denominator logic is repulsive. Let’s just rethink why we got upset at the bombings. Because killing people is BAD! OK? Got that? Repeat it a hundred times.

“I find it interesting that you insist that the man has a right to live in the very same paragraph where you also insist that we have no right to decide who lives or dies.”

There is no inconsistency in stating that we do not have the right to decide who lives and dies and insisting the man has a right to live, which incidentally I have never done. If we imprison him we are not making a decision to let him live, we are leaving his state of existence as it is. In killing him we are changing that state of existence, thereby assuming a right to decide who lives and dies. Have a think about it, son, it ain’t hard.

“Sure, it's cruel, slow, and horrific, but our hands remain clean”

I’m sorry but who was just talking about consistency? You cause something cruel, slow and horrific to occur and yet you are without guilt, your hands are clean. The mental gymnastics you display are stupendous.


Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 01:53 PM

Quit imposing your colonialist, imperialist values on Indonesia.

It's not Rule 303 there. It's Rule 223 (or 556 for you metric types.)

Show some cultural sensitivity.

Posted by: Dave S. at August 9, 2003 at 01:56 PM

Gabor

Have a read of Michael DUFFY's piece in the Tele today.

Among other things he says,

"Yesterday, the media was trotting out the usual collection of arguments against capital punishment. Several journalists presented the most common claim of anti-executioners through the ages, which is that you cannot demonstrate a respect for one human life by taking another. By killing a murderer (so the argument runs) we become as bad as them.

This is illogical, as the great political thinker John Stuart Mill pointed out in the British Parliament in 1868. "Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom?" he said."

Its not a pro-death penalty article, but he makes some interesting points.

Posted by: Gilly at August 9, 2003 at 02:26 PM

Gabor wrote:

"Murder is the intentional taking of someone elseís life. He is being murdered, whether you want to refer to it euphemistically or not."

This is simply incorrect. Some examples: Killing a home invader in self defense. Shooting an enemy combatant during a war. The "Dutch Cure." Abortion, depending on what "someone else" means.

You've obviously made up your mind about the death penalty. Fine, people disagree about that. Please stop pretending that it's morally equivalent to murder; that's a stupid argument.

Posted by: Dave Himrich at August 9, 2003 at 03:33 PM

"Murder is the intentional taking of someone elseís life. He is being murdered, whether you want to refer to it euphemistically or not."

Rubbish.

Main Entry: 1mur∑der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date: before 12th century
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Perhaps if you understood the english language you would not make such embarassing mistakes?

"Oh, I see. Little Johnny hit me, so I hit him. My wife swore at me, so I swore at her. Your lowest common denominator logic is repulsive. Letís just rethink why we got upset at the bombings. Because killing people is BAD! OK? Got that? Repeat it a hundred times. "

More rubbish.

Killing innocent people is BAD. Killing people who have been found guilty of murder is the law in Indonesia. OK? got that? Repeat it a hundred times.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at August 9, 2003 at 03:36 PM

Gilly,

Thanks for the link – it was a good article. However, as with most pro-murder arguments, Mill’s analysis is flawed. The problem with it is that he does not separate actions from motives. For example, a kidnapper holds someone for ransom, depriving them of their liberty. He is caught and imprisoned - deprived of his liberty. According to Mill’s argument, there is no difference between the two. He is only able to come to this conclusion by ignoring motive. The motive of the kidnapper was greed for the ransom, the motive of society by imprisoning him was to protect society from more behaviour of the same kind. The second motive is noble. The first is not. They are not equivalent actions.

Apply this to Amrozi. In both cases there is murder. The motives for the first are immoral, the motives for the second (revenge masquerading as “justice”, bloodthirstiness, too, if the attitudes of posters on this site are anything to go by) are also immoral. Protecting society is not at issue here, as there is the other option of imprisonment (watch the pro-murder types fall back on Indonesian corruption at this point). In this case society is at the same level as Amrozi – bad actions, bad motives. Just like hitting someone who hits you.

Dave and Harry,

I’m thrilled the only flaw you can find with my arguments to date is that I didn’t add “without lawful justification” to my definition of murder to distinguish it from manslaughter, war etc. Mea culpa. You are quite right. As I have shown, Dave, they are morally (or immorally) equivalent actions because they are the same thing. And Harry, I do not need to write that out a hundred times as I have never disputed it. I know what the Indonesion law on this is. That is not what is at issue here – we are talking about its moral worth. Write it out a hundred times.

Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 04:23 PM

The conversation got round to a fitting punishment for Amrosi at lunch on the building site. Some have been mentioned here, with others like injecting him with pig's blood, or turning him into pig manure.

However for those of you who feel that 'turning the other cheek' is more appropriate then perhaps the solution of one dry old Chippy would fit the bill.(it certainly produced outstanding agreement among the group) I assume he didn't exactly have fond memories of school when he interrupted with- "Dress him up in my old school uniform and make him take life-long religious instruction lessons in jail with all them paedophile priests."

Posted by: Observa at August 9, 2003 at 04:26 PM

I can't see how it's murder to assist someone who looks upon his death as a ticket to paradise. Help the guy out. Don't stand in the way of his right to die.

It's nice to know there are rational Muslims in Indonesia who don't think blowing people up is a good thing to do. I wish all the Muslims like that judge would speak up loud and long on this subject.

After all, if the Muslim fanatics had their way the rational Muslims would die if they refused to become Muslim fanatics. Look at what they did to the Muslims in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at August 9, 2003 at 04:33 PM

Observa, I assume you are referring to me. If I agreed with turning the other cheek I would let him go free to blow 202 people up again. I would not be proposing he be imprisoned. If you want to go beyond that into school uniforms that's your prerogative.

Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 04:34 PM

...and he added- "That'd wipe the smirk off the cheeky bastard's puss!"

Posted by: Observa at August 9, 2003 at 04:34 PM

As would life in prison.

Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 04:40 PM

Gabor,

No I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, I was just pointing out there wasn't too much Christian charity or mercy floating about at my work-place for Amrosi, etc

Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 04:42 PM

Not much floating around here, either.

Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 04:48 PM

Gabor,
For murdering scum such as him? No, none. The death penalty _is_ appropriate. The only thing they should be concerned with is making certain they get all the names of his accomplices before the execution.

Posted by: Bryce at August 9, 2003 at 05:19 PM

Habib,

Russian methods in chechnya are worthy are they?

So you endorse rape as a weapon??

And you wonder why you might attract some derision? Scummy piece of shit.. read on:

Russia: Investigate Sexual Violence by Troops in Chechnya

(New York, April 10, 2002) -- Russian forces have raped and sexually assaulted women during winter operations in Chechnya, Human Rights Watch charged today.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Material

Spain: Don't Ignore Russian Abuses in Chechnya
HRW Press Release, April 2, 2002

New Killings and "Disappearances" in Chechnya HRW Press Release, March 23, 2002

U.N. Commission Urged to Act on Chechnya
HRW Press Release, March 14, 2002

Principal Concerns of Human Rights Watch for the 58th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
March 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Russian government is telling the world that life is returning to normal in Chechnya. But it hasn't brought anyone to justice for these terrible crimes of sexual violence."
Elizabeth Andersen
Executive Director
Europe and Central Asia division

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five women have told Human Rights Watch researchers about incidents of sexual violence they endured earlier this year. Three of the women tried to report the assaults to local authorities who refused to investigate the allegations.
During so-called "sweep" operations, when Russian forces conduct house-to-house searches for those believed to be involved in Chechen rebel activity, male relatives often leave their villages for safer locations to reduce the risk of arbitrary arrest, torture, and "disappearances." However, without men in the house, women become more vulnerable to soldiers intent on sexual assault.

The social and cultural barriers to reporting sexual violence are high in Chechnya.

"The Russian government is telling the world that life is returning to normal in Chechnya," said Elizabeth Andersen, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Europe and Central Asia division. "But it hasn't brought anyone to justice for these terrible crimes of sexual violence."

Andersen urged the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, now meeting in Geneva, to adopt a resolution condemning Russian abuses in Chechnya. In the past two years, the Commission has adopted strongly worded resolutions on the Chechnya conflict, condemning violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and calling on Russia to establish a national commission of inquiry and bring abusers to justice. The Russian government has rejected both resolutions.

"Aset Asimova" (not the woman's real name), a 43-year-old widow, told Human Rights Watch that she was at home with her eight-year-old son when drunken soldiers came in early February. Three of them took her into a separate room while others looted the house. "They tore my dress. They asked me where the men were, they asked me how long I had been without a husband." The soldiers then told her to undress, and when she fought them off they beat her with the butts of their rifles, and raped her. "I don't know how many of them raped me. I lost consciousness, when it was happening. When I came to, they were pouring water on me ?then they left."

"Asimova" did not report the rape to authorities. Human Rights Watch researchers have found that many women are reluctant to report crimes of sexual assault, fearing stigma and retaliation. "Asimova's" first action after the soldiers left was to hide what had happened, so her grown son would not learn of the rape. "I smeared the blood on my nose and mouth, as if I had been beaten there and that was the reason for it. I cleaned everything, and hid my dress and put on a clean one."

Other women tried to report sexual assaults and found their efforts thwarted by local authorities. During a January 29 sweep operation, soldiers sexually assaulted "Madina Magomedova" (not her real name) and her sisters in their parents' home. Soldiers had come to "Magomedova's" house earlier in the day, and she suspected they returned because they knew that there were no men there.

"They wanted to touch me, they said I had pretty lips and that they would kiss me," she told Human Rights Watch. "I knew what they wanted to do and started to resist. One of the soldiers said 'Wait bitch until I fuck you.'" "Magomedova" told Human Rights Watch that she had not been raped, but that the soldiers beat her badly while she struggled against them; she needed three days of bedrest to recover.

Soldiers threatened "Magomedova's" sisters in her presence, and also tried to coerce one of them to perform oral sex. "They wanted to arrest my older sister, because she only has a temporary registration certificate, not an internal passport. One asked if she was married and when she said she was divorced, they asked her if she 'had ever given a blow job before.' They said 'his dick would only have to be in her mouth five minutes,' and 'that it would be good for both of them.'" "Magomedova" filed a criminal case with the prosecutor's office for sexual assault despite warnings from the soldiers against it and a local prosecutor who discouraged her from going forward with the case. Fearing retribution, she eventually fled to a different town.

In another case, two sisters detained in early March suffered sexual assault while in custody. Relatives convinced the two women to come forward to report their ill-treatment to state authorities. "Luiza Larsanova" (not the woman's real name), a 27-year-old woman, was detained on March 4, 2002 and held in two locations before being released the same evening. Soldiers threatened "Larsanova" with rape to coerce information from her about Chechen fighters.

She told Human Rights Watch, "In the first place they beat me, and that was bad. But in the second place, they said they would rape me. That was worse. I was sitting on a chair, and one of them grabbed me from behind, and started to caress me, as if to calm me but really it was terrifying, saying 'oh you're so sweet, so tiny.' I was wearing woolen long underwear under my skirt, and he told me to take them and my skirt off. I was crying, and said I had nothing to tell them and to leave me alone, I was practically on my knees, begging him not to touch me."

"Larsanova" told Human Rights Watch that although the soldiers groped her breasts and fondled her, they did not rape her.

"Larsanova's" 21-year-old sister "Tsatsita Timurova" (not her real name), detained the previous day, also told Human Rights Watch that while detained she was beaten, groped, and threatened, but not raped. The soldiers who released the sisters warned them not to file any complaints about their treatment. "Larsanova" did approach local police officers she knew personally who discouraged her from proceeding. "When I tried to tell them what happened, they said I should name where I was held and who detained me," she told Human Rights Watch. "Larsanova" had been hooded when she was detained and transported, as are many detainees in Chechnya, and could not provide such identifying details. Separately, "Timurova" was rebuffed when she went to her local police station to complain.

These are not the first allegations of rape and sexual violence by Russian forces to emerge from Chechnya. In January 2002, Human Rights Watch provided a memorandum documenting other cases of rape and sexual assault in Chechnya to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). In a public statement, the Committee raised serious concerns about the Russian Federation's failure to conduct proper investigations or hold perpetrators accountable in the vast majority of cases in the face of strong evidence that members of the Russian forces committed acts of rape and other sexual violence against women during the armed conflict in Chechnya. Human Rights Watch also sent letters supporting the U.N. Committee's call for accountability for these crimes to the members of the Russian Duma-Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Working Group on Chechnya on March 28, 2002.


Posted by: habibsdad at August 9, 2003 at 05:21 PM

Bryce, refer to the tutorials I have given above.

Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 05:32 PM

Looks like he's back- I did not say I endorsed the actions of Russian troops in Chechnia- I said the method of burying dead islamic terrorists in pigskin had proved somewhat effective- fact.
try reading what's posted before going off half cocked.
(And I don't know why the Ruskies even bother with the dump).

Posted by: Habib Bickford at August 9, 2003 at 05:32 PM

Gabor,

The picture of Amrosi doing a Christian purgatory by 'turning the other cheek' again and again,was one conjured up in my mind by my learned colleague's comments. Whether that image occurred to the others I doubt it, but it brought the house down nevertheless.

In a more serious vein, I would personally support the death penalty for Amrosi on the following logical grounds.

If Amrosi's view of life is, that it is inconsequential or of no importance, then his execution can be viewed as such. On the other hand if he holds that a human life is of the highest worth, then he will understand his penalty likewise. Likewise for any spectrum of importance he attaches to human life in between. To execute him is simply the negation of his negation which is logically a positive.

Now while this logic appeals to me, the only problem I have with the death penalty, is one of executing the innocent.(I think the classic case was the hanging of a mental retard in London for what turned out to be the act of Christie, his landlord) This would lead me to reject the death penalty generally. However in Amrosi's case he has admitted his act and seems to be proud of it. He will no doubt take great pride in his execution. A very positive outcome I would suggest

Posted by: Observa at August 9, 2003 at 05:32 PM

"If Amrosi's view of life is, that it is inconsequential or of no importance, then his execution can be viewed as such."

So if my friend is suicidal and sees her life as inconsequential and of no importance, it's OK to kill her?

And that negation stuff is unintelligible. He holds his life in no regard, neither do you, therefore that's positive? Bloody awful if you ask me.

Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 05:41 PM

Habs, just keeping an eye on you little fella.

"I did not say I endorsed the actions of Russian troops in Chechnia- I said the method of burying dead islamic terrorists in pigskin had proved somewhat effective"

No, you didn't SAY you endorsed it, weren't quite honest enough, but its hard to see that you were far off.

The nazi method of killing scores of innocent townsfolk in retaliation when one of their own was killed by guerillas also proved effective. I'd be pretty reluctant to use it in a discussion of what do and don't constitute reasonable responses to terrorism though....

Posted by: habibsdad at August 9, 2003 at 06:37 PM

>However, as with most pro-murder arguments, Millís analysis is flawed. The problem with it is that he does not separate actions from motives. For example, a kidnapper holds someone for ransom, depriving them of their liberty. He is caught and imprisoned - deprived of his liberty. According to Millís argument, there is no difference between the two. He is only able to come to this conclusion by ignoring motive.

If you understand this, why are you claiming that a legal execution is murder?

Posted by: John Nowak at August 9, 2003 at 06:39 PM

"So if my friend is suicidal and sees her life as inconsequential and of no importance, it's OK to kill her?"

Gabor, I believe what Observa means is that Amrozi attached no value to the lives of his victims, then we should see his execution as the retribution for wilful mass extinguishment of life...

If your friend is suicidal (I won't ask why), they merely don't attach worth to their own life - not the lives of others, and as such no one would have the right to kill her (whether deliberately or accidently).

Posted by: Moderate Jew at August 9, 2003 at 06:42 PM


I am in favour of imprisonment subject to psychological operations.

These PsyOps should focus on destroying Amrozi's self-esteem, with a view to him:

* apologising for the murders;
* denouncing terrorism;
* commiting suicide/agreeing to euthanasia in the depaths of remorse.

Same effect - death. But not a martyr - just a sad and sorry advertisement as to what kind of pathetic individual commits murder in the name of religion.

Posted by: wv at August 9, 2003 at 07:40 PM

If this guy had wanted to be a martyr so badly he would have carried the bomb himself.

And two other things, the argument that it is barbaric for the government to kill a killer is not an advancement in the moral development of man (and the Australian guy paraphrasing Nietzsche should know this) but rather a retardation.

And this guy is more dangerous alive and in prison. How many planes have been hijacked, hostages taken and executed, unacceptable demands made to free imprisoned islamic murderers? I say kill him quickly and get it over with.

Posted by: S.A. Smith at August 9, 2003 at 07:41 PM

"However, as with most pro-murder arguments, Millís analysis is flawed."

You know if you're going to accuse one of the greatest philosophers and voices for freedom of using flawed reasoning, it might be a good idea to avoid using it yourself; and in the very first sentence no less.

So, while you're tutoring us barbarians, could you, Gabor, include a lecture on petitio principii?

Posted by: S.A. Smith at August 9, 2003 at 08:24 PM

John Nowak,

Read the second paragraph and please refrain in future from asking me questions I have already answered.

Moderate Jew,

What Observa is saying is “If Amrosi's view of life is, that it is inconsequential or of no importance, then his execution can be viewed as such.” To which I offered an analogy, using his view of his life. My suicidal friend is hypothetical, I hope. And again it gets back to revenge, or retribution, as you put it. Utterly ridiculous. Honest, I’ll grant you, but ridiculous.

S.A. Smith,

You have made no attempt to criticise my argument, other than to warn me away from criticising a great philospher. I am a fan of Mill’s, the problem is that on this occasion (as a politician when hanging was still popular in Britain, it cannot be overlooked) he had to argue the unwinnable side of this particular argument. Who could blame him for screwing up? I’m sure if I had to argue that the world was flat I’d have a lot of difficulty.

Posted by: Gabor at August 9, 2003 at 11:39 PM

People shouldn't kill other people. Yep. People shouldn't pee in the pool either, but they do. This is what is called living in the real universe not the lefty paralell universe where there is no unesscessary death, no racism, no sexism, no poverty, free medical care for everyone forever, no guns, no mental illness, no spousal abuse, no war, no torture, no homelessness, no joblessness, no evil people; they are just victims of their upbringing and environment, no death penalty, free abortion on demand, no pollution, no religious fundamentalists, and no conservatives.

Prison? Hell, Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf" while in prison. Amrozi is not going to sit in prison and contemplate what a terrible person he is or how sorry he is for committing such an evil act. No, he's going to do what most "political prisoners"(sarcasm) stew in his anger of the west, organize, and look for an opportunity. It has already been shown it can be done by a insane corporal during the 1920's.

Posted by: D2D at August 10, 2003 at 12:01 AM

Read SMH letters-to-the-editor for Saturday, to have a look at the left mentality. They fail to see the difference between killing 200 innocent people and frying Amrozi for mass-murder.

Did the left protest about Saddam Hussein's use of the death penalty- against innocent people? They probably just mumbled something about "sovereignty and oil" and then cobble a couple of uninspired paragraphs to the Sydney Morning Herald.

I'm against the death penalty (in Australia at least), but I couldn't give two fucks (or two cents, whatevers cheaper.) what happens to Amrozi.

Posted by: Random_Prose at August 10, 2003 at 12:02 AM

Random_Prose,

I do not wish to be identified with the Left or with letter writers to the Herald, so I will skip to your third paragraph.

I would like to ask you, out of pure interest, why you oppose the death penalty in Australia but outside Australia you equivocate? Feel free to send me an email if you would prefer. I don't don't give two cents either way.

D2D,

Please don't fall back on Adolf Hitler to make a point. Do a Google search for "Godwin's law", then go to the third choice.

Posted by: Gabor at August 10, 2003 at 12:18 AM

Gabor

Are you saying Hitler does not matter; that there are no lessons to be learned there? Besides you didn't refute the point, just Hitler.

Posted by: D2D at August 10, 2003 at 12:47 AM

Hitler matters greatly, however I believe that when Hitler is brought up in an argument it is usually the last resort of those striving for the moral high ground, and your use of it does nothing to change my mind.

Hitler, if my memory serves me correctly, was sentenced to five years in prison and served a year. He had every incentive to organise and look for an opportunity to achieve his goals. Jailing someone for life for killing 202 people removes any of these incentives which may exist if he was of the mind that he would soon be released.

Posted by: Gabor at August 10, 2003 at 01:15 AM

I work in the prison system in the States. While I cannot comment on the condition of prison systems in other countries, I can tell you that the idea of even a life sentence in prison for the type of crime committed here is laughably easy. I certainly would not ever want to "do time" myself, but compared with the alternative (death), please get my cell ready for me. There is no type of permanent incarceration available in the States that comes close to being an appropriate punishment for mass murder (and please do not bring up "Supermax" facilities; they are temporary housing assignments for individuals who are acting out whilr incarcerated -- a behavioral diversion program). In fact, most murderers/rapists in the Colorado system end up serving most of their time in Medium security facilities.

Posted by: Jerry at August 10, 2003 at 01:21 AM

Sigh, OK

Gabor, here's the nitty gritty. The Indonesian government, if anything, are pragmatists when it comes to the JI in their country. The JI is a threat not only to westerners but also to the Indonesian people and the Indonesian government. They are economically joined at the hip as it were to Australia and the US and will not risk those relationships for the sake of Amrozi or the JI, they have to do something.

As long as Amrozi is alive and in prison he'll be a cause celebre for Islamofacsists. The Indonesians know this. The last thing they want is for some Islamic fundamentalist nutjobs to take over the Australian or American embassy in some other country, say France, and demand the release of Amrozi or they will martyr themselves and/or kill as many hostages as then can until he is released. This is the reality. This is the real issue. They way the Indonesians see it, and I quite agree, it is better to have him gone from memory and relegated to history than have him as a rallying cry for jihadists worldwide for years to come. In other words, everyone is better off with Amorzi dead, except Amorzi. As a martyr he may inspire some terrorist actions here and there, but he would soon be forgotten, alive he is much more dangerous, even in prison. Dangerous not so much for what he can do but what others will do in his name.

No it is not a nice solution, but it is a very logical and pragmatic solution. The point is no one else should have to die just so Amorzi can live.

And the former point was not actually about Hitler it was more precisely about prison.

Posted by: D2D at August 10, 2003 at 01:54 AM

What I find interesting in this debate on Amrozi and whether the death penalty is appropriate or not is the absence of the prospect of release.

Yet, there are many, many cases where governments come to power, through any variety of means, and wind up issuing amnesties and the like for criminals.

Now, while this may be relatively unlikely in places like France or Canada, the government in Djakarta, from this American's perspective, would seem to be far less stable. So that, should an Islamic government come to power, are we really confident that the likes of Amrozi will stay in prison?

Of course, such an action would be perfectly legal, in a hypothetical JI government's view, but the sense of justice, methinks, would be somewhat tattered by it.

This leaves aside the prospect of actual escape, of course, or the prospect that others will die or be held hostage or what-have-you in order to gain Amrozi's release.

Posted by: Dean at August 10, 2003 at 01:55 AM

The Islamofascists will not be satisfied until they have eliminated the dar al harb. They cannot be reasoned with or persuaded. We must be prepared to kill them, all of them.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at August 10, 2003 at 02:15 AM

Gabor insists:

Murder is the intentional taking of someone elseís life. He is being murdered, whether you want to refer to it euphemistically or not.

This is simply wrong, as has been demonstrated by others. You are once again concentrating strictly on the action, and disregarding the intent, motivation, perpetrator, victim, and consequence. Your definition is baloney, and if we were to accept it, we'd have to come to the agreement that murder is not necessarily wrong -- since, for example, assisted suicides or police shootings would be considered "murder." Obviously they are not, since like I said, your definition is sheer nonsense.

The taking of lives, even intentionally, is not always wrong. Circumstances and actors matter more than the act.

Oh, I see. Little Johnny hit me, so I hit him. My wife swore at me, so I swore at her. Your lowest common denominator logic is repulsive.

I always like imbecilic reductionist "arguments" such as the above. It's hard to answer something like that. Actually, it's impossible to answer: there is no substance to this argument, just lots of baseless indignant sanctimony. And note once again the condemnation of context-free verbs "hit", "swore." I can't argue with this "position" -- all I can do is laugh at it and pity whoever mistakes it for a convincing argument.

Letís just rethink why we got upset at the bombings. Because killing people is BAD!

Nope, that's not why we are upset about the bombings -- or rather, it is, but your sentence is incomplete. Killing innocent people who never meant you any harm, is bad; when done deliberately, it's murder. Killing someone who did this, is not bad -- I'd argue it's good, actually. Had Amrozi blown up a bar full of al-Qaeda operatives, I sure as hell wouldn't consider that "BAD." By saying that killing Amrozi is equivalent to killing even one innocent Aussie or Indonesian, you draw a moral equivalence between him and his victims -- and that, Gabor, is truly sickening. Context matters more than the verb, and your inability to understand this makes you dumb, not righteous. Repeat that as many times as you like.

There is no inconsistency in stating that we do not have the right to decide who lives and dies and insisting the man has a right to live, which incidentally I have never done. If we imprison him we are not making a decision to let him live, we are leaving his state of existence as it is. In killing him we are changing that state of existence, thereby assuming a right to decide who lives and dies. Have a think about it, son, it ainít hard.

I presume we would continue to feed, clothe, house, and protect him from other inmates? Then I'm afraid we'd be interfering with his "natural state of being" quite a bit, keeping him alive at taxpayer expense. (And that's Indonesian taxpayer expense, so the families of his victims would actually be taxed to keep his precious metabolic processes working.) If you want no interference in his "natural state of being" from other people, then your only choice is the jungle idea I proposed earlier.

By the way, I am not your son, though your attempt at condescension was hilarious.

ďSure, it's cruel, slow, and horrific, but our hands remain cleanĒ

Iím sorry but who was just talking about consistency? You cause something cruel, slow and horrific to occur and yet you are without guilt, your hands are clean. The mental gymnastics you display are stupendous.

Thanks, Gabor! But, umm... irony is another one of those things lost on you, isn't it.

Posted by: E. Nough at August 10, 2003 at 06:14 AM

>Read the second paragraph and please refrain in future from asking me questions I have already answered.

Read it yourself and tell me you're not contradicting yourself.

Posted by: John Nowak at August 10, 2003 at 06:54 AM

It is not murder. It isn't even "murder." This is pointless. Gabor knows what she knows and no one will convince her otherwise.

Posted by: S.A. Smith at August 10, 2003 at 09:24 AM

All one needs to know about the death's penalty's righteousness is the fact that the French are opposed to it. That's enough for me!

Posted by: Jerry at August 10, 2003 at 10:57 AM

To plagiarise Roy & HG: Too much E. Nough is barely enough!

The French: it's Heads Off or nothing!

Posted by: The at August 10, 2003 at 11:05 AM

Message board: 1

Gabor: 0

Gabor, you ignorant slut!

Posted by: Eichra Oren at August 10, 2003 at 04:39 PM

Fantastic, a real debate on this site! Some consciences come out of the woodwork... I'm adding none of the usual lefty abuse to this, there is actually a modicum of balance for a change.

ZsaZsa you really are a psychopath though. Not meaning to be abusive, just a genuine observation. You should be under 24 hour observation and shackled with and e-bracelet...

Posted by: sphincterX at August 10, 2003 at 06:53 PM

Insofar as Amrozi is concerned, maybe the death penalty is too good for him. Letting him rot in a stinking, cess-filled hell-hole (as most Indonesian Prisons are), seems more appropriate. Considering the nasty tropical diseases floating around, he would be likely to die a long and lingering death - just like he and his fellow conspirators dealt out to some of those at the Sari club.

Posted by: Darth Seditious at August 10, 2003 at 10:30 PM

How sure could we be, Darth, that he wouldn't escape from such a hellhole? Isn't Indonesia one of those countries where there's, like, corruption?

Posted by: McGehee at August 10, 2003 at 10:41 PM