# Journalist Sentenced to Death



## Kilo_302 (18 Feb 2008)

Not really a new story, so my apologies if its already been posted here (did a search and found nothing). 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080122.wafghhack0122/BNStory/International/home


It is ridiculous and unfortunate that some people have chosen to attack the practice of dog fighting as a reason that Canadian soldiers shouldn't be in Afghanistan. However, this perversion of justice presents more of a problem. While it is unrealistic to think that Afghanistan will flower into a liberal democracy (that's not why we are there anyways), a man being handed down a death sentence for possessing a document that supports women's rights is a step in the wrong direction to say the least. No one wants to dictate to the Afghans how they should live, but Canadian soldiers are dying to support the Karzai government, while this very same government is allowing such things to happen. Apparently the Canadian government has "strongly objected" to this man's imprisonment and death sentence, but is that enough? I know there are definite risks in linking a military policy too directly with a political policy (if Vietnam was a lesson), but perhaps the Canadian government should make it clear that there will be consequences if this is not resolved soon. Anyways, this development is disturbing to say the least.


----------



## Flip (18 Feb 2008)

> Canadian soldiers are dying to support the Karzai government,


Because the Karzai government is the least of the bad options.
No government would be worse.
A Taliban Government would be unacceptable.

Reading the comments I was struck by how many people thought withdrawl
from Afghanistan represented some kind of solution.
Only one tried to make a case of Oil out of it.  >

The logic appears to go like this,
If Canada quits Afghanistan, Afghanistan won't be in the news.
If it's not in the news, We won't be upset.
If we're not upset, then we're at piece.

All of that is fine except that it would be false.  ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Feb 2008)

The Karzai government did not condemn him to death, a religious court did. The government still has the opportunity to commute the sentence. Justified outrage and moral indignation aside, you cannot use "in your face" tactics with the Afghans. Slow and steady, low key pressure is what's required. "Forcing" the Afghan government to address this issue will only result in the opposite of what we desire. The appearance that we are not doing enough, does not mean this is the case.


----------



## teltech (18 Feb 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> If Canada quits Afghanistan, Afghanistan won't be in the news.
> If it's not in the news, We won't be upset.
> If we're not upset, then we're at peace.



Flip, I think you've discovered every peacenik's deepest held belief. 

Unfortunately it's so much easier to stick one's head in the sand than to face unpleasant truths. Wasn't there someone a year or two ago that was upset with viewing images of troops in A'stan during Cristmas because it made her Christmas dinner less enjoyable? The one who Rick Mercer then proceeded to tear a perverbial strip off? I dare say she should invest in Q-tips to get all that sand out of her ears.


----------



## Greymatters (19 Feb 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It is ridiculous and unfortunate that some people have chosen to attack the practice of dog fighting as a reason that Canadian soldiers shouldn't be in Afghanistan. However, this perversion of justice presents more of a problem. While it is unrealistic to think that Afghanistan will flower into a liberal democracy (that's not why we are there anyways), a man being handed down a death sentence for possessing a document that supports women's rights is a step in the wrong direction to say the least. No one wants to dictate to the Afghans how they should live, but Canadian soldiers are dying to support the Karzai government, while this very same government is allowing such things to happen. Apparently the Canadian government has "strongly objected" to this man's imprisonment and death sentence, but is that enough? I know there are definite risks in linking a military policy too directly with a political policy (if Vietnam was a lesson), but perhaps the Canadian government should make it clear that there will be consequences if this is not resolved soon. Anyways, this development is disturbing to say the least.



Their country isnt our country.  Over there, it is still a crime in some courts to criticize the government, religion, or religious leaders.  In their minds, they are doing whats right to protect their religion (and likely their own self-interests but thats another line of thought), and they arent going to change their minds just because some foreigner doesnt agree with them.  Its like this worldwide, not just Afghanistan... according to your reasoning we should be making threatening noises and insinuations of repurcussions to at least half the countries in the world...


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Feb 2008)

> Their country isnt our country.  Over there, it is still a crime in some courts to criticize the government, religion, or religious leaders.  In their minds, they are doing whats right to protect their religion (and likely their own self-interests but thats another line of thought), and they arent going to change their minds just because some foreigner doesnt agree with them.  Its like this worldwide, not just Afghanistan... according to your reasoning we should be making threatening noises and insinuations of repurcussions to at least half the countries in the world...



I fail how too see how I am suggesting that Canada make "threatening noises" to at least half the countries in the world. Canadian soldiers aren't fighting an insurgency in half the countries in the world, are they? The focus on Afghanistan in my mind IS justified, because Canadian soldiers ARE fighting an insurgency there. Early in my post I made the allowance that Afghanistan is NOT a democracy, nor should we expect that that is what will happen. It is simply unrealistic, and I am more than comfortable with that reality. But handing down the death sentence for possessing documents about women's rights is more than a minor blemish for the Karzai government. Though it was a religious court that is responsible, the government has done next to nothing about this, and nor has the Canadian government. I think its ludicrous that this is excused away as "it being their country." How many times has the Taliban treatment of women (or everyone) been used to explain why we are there in the first place?  I think we are all aware of the horrific atrocities committed against anyone the Taliban viewed as being "unIslamic."  People were summarily executed for these crimes, and that alone is enough to justify eradicating the Taliban (though I realize that terrorism was the more pressing concern at the time). When a religious court finds someone guilty of a crime against Islam for having a document that supports freedom for women, and he is sentenced to death, is this not a problem? Does this not remind us of something that might have just as easily occurred in 2000 as 2008? I am not suggesting that we pull out, I am suggesting that as a nation that has combat soldiers in Afghanistan, we apply pressure to the Karzai regime in the hopes that he does more than make the ambiguous statements that he has made thus far. 

Greymatter, according to your reasoning, the human rights record of the Taliban should not factor in as a reason that Canada should be in Afghanistan. As such, I am sure you have never mentioned this record in support of the mission.


----------



## Greymatters (21 Feb 2008)

"I know there are definite risks in linking a military policy too directly with a political policy (if Vietnam was a lesson), but perhaps the Canadian government should make it clear that there will be consequences if this is not resolved soon." 

Instead of blowing this out of proportion and accusing me of beliefs I dont have, why dont you just explain this statement.  What do you mean by 'consequences'?


----------



## Kilo_302 (23 Feb 2008)

> Instead of blowing this out of proportion and accusing me of beliefs I dont have, why dont you just explain this statement.  What do you mean by 'consequences'?



When you say I am accusing you of beliefs you don't have, I assume you are referring to where I state "by your reasoning etc" which I might add, is the same brush you tarred me with in your first post. No matter. What I refer to here is the fact that you just made an argument often used by the anti-war movement, in both the case of Iraq and Afghanistan. The reasoning that if these wars are justified in the name of human rights, there are plenty of other examples of nations in the world that deserve the same attention, therefore there must be another motivation for the US (and others) to get involved, which was usually cited as oil.  Alas now that the war in Afghanistan has been going on for some time now, you say we should ignore any current abuses, as there are still other nations in the world where such things take place. Under this logic, you cannot use human rights as a justification for going into, or staying in Afghanistan, as you have essentially just said "we can't tell them what to do, and this happens everywhere." Would you have said the same thing in 2001 before the invasion? Of course not. Anyone who supported the mission then (myself included) pointed to the Taliban record of human rights abuses, as they were so flagrantly obvious it would have been crazy not to. Now that Canada is involved, especially now that Canada is involved, you can't have it both ways.

As for consequences, we have combat troops in Afghanistan. Having boots on the ground gives us SOME say I would think. I think that if our gov't made some "noise" about this, Karzai would take care of the situation. If that takes the threat of pulling soldiers out so be it.  It is a complicated situation, and I'm the last person who thinks Canada should pull out, but I think its also hard to "blow this out of proportion." If Karzai truly had no control over this religious court, he shouldn't have made statements to the effect of "Justice will be carried out etc etc". The point is, it shouldn't be carried out. This guy should be released today. All I know is that this situation SHOULD be an embarrassment for Canada, as still the mission is often justified in terms of improving conditions for women. That is the fault of politicians, but they sold the war (and are still selling it in that light) , so they had better back their words up with action.


----------



## Rodahn (23 Feb 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Having boots on the ground gives us SOME say I would think.



Why would you think that just because we have "boots on the ground" that gives us as Canadians, the right to interfer with another sovereign country's judicial system? Whether we agree with it or not.......


----------



## Kilo_302 (23 Feb 2008)

Well if the purpose of our "boots on the ground" is to prevent extremists from taking power, then yes, I think we have some say. Again, this development is similar to something we might see under the Taliban. I agree this is a sticky situation, but doing nothing is wrong. Also, Afghanistan is not a sovereign nation. To be a sovereign nation, you must have control over your territory, and not be reliant on foreign forces for security. Here again is another often cited anti-war argument, from someone who presumably thinks we should be in Afghanistan. Before the war in Iraq, many argued that the US should not invade, as it was a "sovereign nation." Well, Iraq was not a sovereign nation, the United States and the UK essentially controlled the north and the south, and Iraq was under UN sanctions. This is not the definition of sovereignty. Of course, we are in Afghanistan by invitation (now), so the situation is different, but I still think its a stretch to call Afghanistan completely sovereign at this point. You could compare it to the US presence in South Vietnam. In return for propping up the Southern government, the US had all sorts of demands. There were concerns of human rights abuses (one reason that the US supported the coup), and government corruption was rampant. No can expect a free ride in this regard, and I don't think any nation that is receiving as much military and foreign aid as Afghanistan is, should either.


----------



## Greymatters (3 Mar 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well if the purpose of our "boots on the ground" is to prevent extremists from taking power, then yes, I think we have some say...



I think youre doing it again.  Just because someone disagrees wth one of the statements you make doesnt mean they are taking a position in direct opposition to yours.  The only point we are differing on is that being present in the country does not entitle us to enforce judeo-christian legal interpretations on another culture just because we disagree with how they operate.  I dont think that what they are doing to this journalist is right either, but its their current system of law.  They will likely change (eventually), as more contact with the west forces social and cultural acceptance of previously unaccepted behaviors, but it wont happen tommorow, or next week, or next year, more like a decade or so.


----------



## Kilo_302 (3 Mar 2008)

Agreed.


----------

