A particularly nasty rape-and-murder case in Texas had nothing to do with the war on terror, until the International Court of Justice (IC) got involved.
Back in 1993, two teenage girls took a shortcut through a park, interrupted a gang initiation, and were then raped and killed: a process that took about an hour. Ernesto Medellin, the gang member who first grabbed one of the girls, and snapped a nylon belt while strangling one of them, is a Mexican national.
He informed police of his status, but was not informed that he could ask the Mexican consulate for help. Medellin didn't find out that he could appeal to the Mexican consulate until after he was sentenced to death.
Now, the International Court of Justice says that the rights of Medellin and 50 others were violated this way. As I understand it, the IC says their convictions should be overturned, and they should be given new trials.
The White House agrees.
What we have we have here is state law, federal law, and international law getting in each other's way. The IC and the White House point to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, or "1963 Vienna Convention" for short. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on the mess today.
I'm inclined to side with states' rights. On the other hand, I can't support the death penalty (It's a Catholic thing: If there's no other way to protect the innocent, the Church accepts executions - but given what can be done these days, it's rare that killing the criminal is the only solution (heavy paraphrase of the Catechism, 2267).)
And, although I think that eventually there will very likely be a global authority that's competent to rule, I don't think we're there yet.
Here's where the war on terror comes in.
A reasonable goal for Al Qaeda and all the other jihadists, from their point of view, is to establish a global caliphate. Then, we'd have their version of the Islamic dream: the entire world run along the lines of Afghanistan under the Taliban.
I suspect that many people would be more passionate about America winning, if they realized that, although the St. Louis Gateway Arch might be sufficiently abstract to survive, the Statue of Liberty would almost certainly join the Twin Towers as a former feature of the New York City skyline.
I'm not just being emotional here: an over-size, unislamic statue - of a woman - symbolizing freedom, of all things? If I had a Talabanoid mindset, that, and the Lincoln Memorial, would be among the first landmarks to go.
The, there are the dress codes that would be imposed. Women wouldn't be allowed to vote. Or drive. And certainly not go outside the home, unless accompanied by a male relative.
International law, under a Wahhabi Islamic caliphate, would enforce standards that I think many Americans would find more offensive than insisting on the re-trail of a convicted rapist.
Showing posts with label caliphate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label caliphate. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Friday, October 5, 2007
It's What You're Biased About That Counts
Time for an admission. I'm biased.
I'm not a Muslim. Given my beliefs, I can't become a Muslim. Although I've learned to enjoy breathing in my half-century-plus of life, If I were forced to choose between an outward acceptance of Islam and death, I would have to choose death. I'm not being brave, just consistent. I've been Christian all my life, and, God willing, that's not going to change.
I won't kill my children because they "bring shame" on my family. My understanding is that honor killing may not be an integral part of Islam. It seems to be part of the flavor of Islam that outfits like the Taliban and Al Qaeda want to impose on the rest of us.
Then there's my wife. I won't beat her, I even let her drive around town without a male relative. In fact, she and my daughter are out, driving, shopping, and visiting my father-in-law, without a male escort: except for my father-in-law, of course. In Riyadh, that would at best cause remark. Here in Minnesota, it's just the way we live.
"Let her drive around town?" Americans will understand how bizarre that statement is. Or, maybe not.
Given my stubborn refusal to embrace the beliefs of some crazed imam, my insistence on viewing rape victims as victims, and my libertine attitude toward letting my wife get the groceries on her own, my next expression of bias may be understandable.
I don't want Al Qaeda to win. I don't want the Taliban to take over management of Minnesota. I don't want any of these jihadist crazies to make America a caliphate.
I don't care how anti-multicultural or intolerant it sounds: I want America to win the war on terror. Losing this conflict would be a disaster: take a look at what the Taliban's Afghanistan was like, for a preview of a sufficiently Islamic America and Europe.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred
I'm not a Muslim. Given my beliefs, I can't become a Muslim. Although I've learned to enjoy breathing in my half-century-plus of life, If I were forced to choose between an outward acceptance of Islam and death, I would have to choose death. I'm not being brave, just consistent. I've been Christian all my life, and, God willing, that's not going to change.
I won't kill my children because they "bring shame" on my family. My understanding is that honor killing may not be an integral part of Islam. It seems to be part of the flavor of Islam that outfits like the Taliban and Al Qaeda want to impose on the rest of us.
Then there's my wife. I won't beat her, I even let her drive around town without a male relative. In fact, she and my daughter are out, driving, shopping, and visiting my father-in-law, without a male escort: except for my father-in-law, of course. In Riyadh, that would at best cause remark. Here in Minnesota, it's just the way we live.
"Let her drive around town?" Americans will understand how bizarre that statement is. Or, maybe not.
Given my stubborn refusal to embrace the beliefs of some crazed imam, my insistence on viewing rape victims as victims, and my libertine attitude toward letting my wife get the groceries on her own, my next expression of bias may be understandable.
I don't want Al Qaeda to win. I don't want the Taliban to take over management of Minnesota. I don't want any of these jihadist crazies to make America a caliphate.
I don't care how anti-multicultural or intolerant it sounds: I want America to win the war on terror. Losing this conflict would be a disaster: take a look at what the Taliban's Afghanistan was like, for a preview of a sufficiently Islamic America and Europe.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Islam and the 21st Century: Not the Best Fit?
My wife and I had a chat today with someone whose sister's husband lived in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The two of them had been living there for some time: he'd grown up there, so it sounds like a nice arrangement.
He died recently, and quite abruptly. His widow has quite a few decisions to make. She likes it in Riyadh, but things are a little different, now that her husband is dead.
For example, when she tried to visit his grave recently she was chased away. This is perfectly understandable, of course. She was a woman, and not escorted by a male relative. I suppose she should have known better.
Saudi Arabia, of course, is a very up-to-date country, well aware of the social and political changes of the last few centuries. For example, the Kingdom Center in Riyadh has a shopping center, occupying an entire floor of the thousand-foot-tall structure, that is available exclusively to women. It has a separate entrance, and I understand that within this shopping center, women are allowed to not wear a veil.
I'm impressed.
I think this raises an issue that's involved in the war on terror. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and related groups, seem to have the goal of replacing western civilization with caliphates in which their vision of sharia law rules.
We've got a preview of how this Islamic state would work, from the way they ran Afghanistan a few years ago. Blowing up irreplaceable historic statues was bad enough. Killing quite a few people they didn't approve of indicates this particular brand of Islam isn't quite as tolerant as western civilization.
People in America, at least, would find it awkward to adjust.
People who follow Islam have a lot to think about these days. The religion seems to be inextricably enmeshed in the culture of the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia. Someone following that culture's assumptions about the status and treatment of women in an American business, for example, would be in serious legal trouble.
This isn't an attack on Islam. I still hope that it is "a peaceful religion" that can be brought into the 18th century, and perhaps into the Information Age.
My concern is that many people in America, and elsewhere, don't realize what's at stake. The Euro-American culture, although not perfect, gave the world constitutional democracy in the 18th century, rejected slavery in the 19th, and established the right of women to vote and work in the 20th.
I doubt very much that sharia law would permit many of these new ideas.
I sincerely hope that America's leadership, in government, media, and education, understand clearly how much we all have to lose.
Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
He died recently, and quite abruptly. His widow has quite a few decisions to make. She likes it in Riyadh, but things are a little different, now that her husband is dead.
For example, when she tried to visit his grave recently she was chased away. This is perfectly understandable, of course. She was a woman, and not escorted by a male relative. I suppose she should have known better.
Saudi Arabia, of course, is a very up-to-date country, well aware of the social and political changes of the last few centuries. For example, the Kingdom Center in Riyadh has a shopping center, occupying an entire floor of the thousand-foot-tall structure, that is available exclusively to women. It has a separate entrance, and I understand that within this shopping center, women are allowed to not wear a veil.
I'm impressed.
I think this raises an issue that's involved in the war on terror. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and related groups, seem to have the goal of replacing western civilization with caliphates in which their vision of sharia law rules.
We've got a preview of how this Islamic state would work, from the way they ran Afghanistan a few years ago. Blowing up irreplaceable historic statues was bad enough. Killing quite a few people they didn't approve of indicates this particular brand of Islam isn't quite as tolerant as western civilization.
People in America, at least, would find it awkward to adjust.
People who follow Islam have a lot to think about these days. The religion seems to be inextricably enmeshed in the culture of the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia. Someone following that culture's assumptions about the status and treatment of women in an American business, for example, would be in serious legal trouble.
This isn't an attack on Islam. I still hope that it is "a peaceful religion" that can be brought into the 18th century, and perhaps into the Information Age.
My concern is that many people in America, and elsewhere, don't realize what's at stake. The Euro-American culture, although not perfect, gave the world constitutional democracy in the 18th century, rejected slavery in the 19th, and established the right of women to vote and work in the 20th.
I doubt very much that sharia law would permit many of these new ideas.
I sincerely hope that America's leadership, in government, media, and education, understand clearly how much we all have to lose.
Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Starvation, Poverty, and Perceptions
Norman Borlaug received a Congressional Gold Medal yesterday.
If you can't remember reading that name before, don't feel bad. Norman Borlaug hasn't been in the press as much as great thinkers like the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Cindy Sheehan.
All Norman Borlaug did was help start the Green Revolution, and devote his life to making sustainable agriculture available to people who didn't live on Catalina Island or in Kennebunkport.
I debated whether to post this in a 'War on Terror' blog, but decided that there is a connection.
I've posted before (Doctors, Terrorists, and the Proletariat: What's a Person to Think?) on how many people find the jihad against the west hard to understand. In my opinion, that's because we're involved in a conflict that is based on neither the colonial disputes nor the class struggles that plagued the 19th and 20th centuries.
Another blog, Greatest Living American Ignored, discusses Norman Borlaug in a very positive way. Even so, the blog itself and to a greater extent some of the comments show a world view that Guevara and Marx would have found fairly familiar.
I'd like you to read the blog yourself. Here are excerpts from two of the comments. Emphasis is mine.
Both seem to me to be moderately good examples of a world view that insists on forcing issues and events into one of two categories: the oppression of indigenous populations by intolerant, expansionistic, imperialistic, racist European powers; or the oppression of the working class by the plutocratic, capitalistic, property-owning class.
My view is that jihad conducted by some (certainly not all) devout Muslims is exactly what they say it is: an armed effort to wipe from the face of the earth something which they believe is offensive to their god.
I doubt that the conflict between the open, free society that people enjoy here in the States and the nascent world caliphate represented by one part of the Islamic world can be understood without assuming that the motives of the jihadists are religious.
Finally: something in the news about the father of the Green Revolution: Scientist Norman Borlaug Receives Congressional Gold Medal for Food Research.
If you can't remember reading that name before, don't feel bad. Norman Borlaug hasn't been in the press as much as great thinkers like the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Cindy Sheehan.
All Norman Borlaug did was help start the Green Revolution, and devote his life to making sustainable agriculture available to people who didn't live on Catalina Island or in Kennebunkport.
I debated whether to post this in a 'War on Terror' blog, but decided that there is a connection.
I've posted before (Doctors, Terrorists, and the Proletariat: What's a Person to Think?) on how many people find the jihad against the west hard to understand. In my opinion, that's because we're involved in a conflict that is based on neither the colonial disputes nor the class struggles that plagued the 19th and 20th centuries.
Another blog, Greatest Living American Ignored, discusses Norman Borlaug in a very positive way. Even so, the blog itself and to a greater extent some of the comments show a world view that Guevara and Marx would have found fairly familiar.
I'd like you to read the blog yourself. Here are excerpts from two of the comments. Emphasis is mine.
"No American wants to see fewer people in the world. That would be bad for business. You can't have that. The Pope< just criticized Europeans for not having enough babies. So I guess God wants more and more people even if they die of hunger or disease or heat protration [sic] or malaria. Whatever. Anyway that is why Borlaug didn't get any press coverage."The first comment has the virtue of recognizing that religious beliefs are important, although maintaining the traditional view that religion in general, and Catholicism in particular, is a malignant force.
"Greatest living American? For fighting world hunger with biotech foods that don't re-seed so that poor populations around the world are dependent on Monsanto, the venerable corporation that brought us Agent Orange?"
Both seem to me to be moderately good examples of a world view that insists on forcing issues and events into one of two categories: the oppression of indigenous populations by intolerant, expansionistic, imperialistic, racist European powers; or the oppression of the working class by the plutocratic, capitalistic, property-owning class.
My view is that jihad conducted by some (certainly not all) devout Muslims is exactly what they say it is: an armed effort to wipe from the face of the earth something which they believe is offensive to their god.
I doubt that the conflict between the open, free society that people enjoy here in the States and the nascent world caliphate represented by one part of the Islamic world can be understood without assuming that the motives of the jihadists are religious.
Finally: something in the news about the father of the Green Revolution: Scientist Norman Borlaug Receives Congressional Gold Medal for Food Research.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Opinions, Freedom, and Sharia Law
Today's news has been full of a debate in Congress. At issue is whether or not to announce right now when U.S. troops will be pulled out of Iraq.
In a way, this display of Congressional valor may serve as an example for all. It is inspiring to watch dedicated men and women, caught up in the heat of surrender, strive to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
That's my opinion. Others have different opinions.
I've discovered quite a variety of opinions in blogs, about the conflict that some call the War on Terror.
It didn't take very long, using a small variety of search strings on Google, to come up with a small sampling of blogs on both the conservative and "moderate" side of the issue. I put "moderate" in quotes, since I'm using the term here in the contemporary, mainstream-media sense of the word. All of these blogs have their own opinion about the War on Terror (or the W** ** T*****) and related issues.
This may need to be said: I don't necessarily agree with these blogs, or the articles I cite. The citations and links are here to help you do your own research or reading.
Conservative:
Moderate:
I've wondered how many of the folks who want to end the war in Iraq, and any armed confrontation with Middle Eastern activists, have thought about what would happen if the likes of al-Zarqawi and al-Zawahiri get their way.
A world caliphate under Al Qaeda's or the Taliban's version of Sharia law would be less tolerant of diverse opinions that today's United States.
The places that have embraced Sharia law don't show a promising picture, as shown in this article: Sudan suspends publication of daily over blasphemy claim. Remember Salmon Rushdie? If not, this article might be helpful: Salmon Rushdie knighted
There's another interesting look at Sharia law at Prevent Genocide International - although I think that the organization is biased. They seem to be opposed to the violent removal of blasphemers and adulterers from a society.
In a way, this display of Congressional valor may serve as an example for all. It is inspiring to watch dedicated men and women, caught up in the heat of surrender, strive to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
That's my opinion. Others have different opinions.
I've discovered quite a variety of opinions in blogs, about the conflict that some call the War on Terror.
It didn't take very long, using a small variety of search strings on Google, to come up with a small sampling of blogs on both the conservative and "moderate" side of the issue. I put "moderate" in quotes, since I'm using the term here in the contemporary, mainstream-media sense of the word. All of these blogs have their own opinion about the War on Terror (or the W** ** T*****) and related issues.
This may need to be said: I don't necessarily agree with these blogs, or the articles I cite. The citations and links are here to help you do your own research or reading.
Conservative:
- British Prime Minister drops the Phrase "War on Terror"
- Skirting Truth About Virulent Islam Courts Danger
- Mamma Mia! It’s "Tony Blair: The Musical!" (& Syria blocks hotmail)
- The Un-Named War
Moderate:
- Bush and the Jews by JB Campbell
- Lessons Bush Learned from Hitler
- The numbers on how we’re losing fight against terror
- Where is Our War on AIDS?
I've wondered how many of the folks who want to end the war in Iraq, and any armed confrontation with Middle Eastern activists, have thought about what would happen if the likes of al-Zarqawi and al-Zawahiri get their way.
A world caliphate under Al Qaeda's or the Taliban's version of Sharia law would be less tolerant of diverse opinions that today's United States.
The places that have embraced Sharia law don't show a promising picture, as shown in this article: Sudan suspends publication of daily over blasphemy claim. Remember Salmon Rushdie? If not, this article might be helpful: Salmon Rushdie knighted
There's another interesting look at Sharia law at Prevent Genocide International - although I think that the organization is biased. They seem to be opposed to the violent removal of blasphemers and adulterers from a society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)