It’s a power-challenge of the normal type in the Arab world. ElBaradei indicates his ‘willingness to serve’ if conscripted. He’s just the most obvious challenger in the media. Some other strong man may merge as the winner. But one will.
So then you think it’s hypocritical for the US to condemn Adolph Hitler?
I heard an analysis of some interest on the radio in to work this morning. Several notable points:
-
There is no historic value placed on democracy in Arab lands; democracy is a Western tradition. Calls for democracy may be better interpreted in terms of throw this autocrat out but given the choice, another autocrat may very well be chosen. Expecting a Western style democracy because the same words are mouthed may be a bit naive.
-
Freedom comes in three sorts -
-The freedom of a nation to be free from another nation’s rule, which most want.
-The freedom to elect your leaders and to have a say, even indirectly, in deciding on the laws, which actually is not so universally desired, but which is seeping into parts of the world without that tradition, albeit in very modified forms.
-Personal freedoms, of speech, association, religion, etc. A freedom not widely available across the world and not one well appreciated in most of it. -
We of the West, especially in America, conflate all those freedoms together, and we get all three to some degree at least. But much of the world does not want all three.
It seems to me that Egyptians have the first freedom. They desire some modified form of the second. And they have little interest in the third if that means the freedom for others in their society to believe something other than what they believe.
It could be, given those poll results, that full realization of the second sort of freedom for Egyptians would greatly restrict the third sort for minority belief systems there.
It could be that what we consider democracy and what we consider human rights may not overlap much and may even be in conflict to no small degree in Egypt and perhaps in some other Arab countries.
If we have to choose between supporting one or the other (as if we could), which one would be more important to support?
Honestly I feel that the balance should be on human rights trumping pure democracy when the two conflict. And the odd thing is that the military there, which will put limits on how far democracy can go, is what reassures so many that democracy will not go so far so fast as to trump human rights and/or to cause international instability.
No, I don’t have any problem condemning someone who starts wars and promotes genocide. I view that as distinct from using capital punishment for criminal offenses.
This thing is so far up in the air. There are as many opinions about what will end up, as there are experts to voice them.
We may be witnessing history as it unfolds on one of the oldest countries on the globe. But part of the draw is not knowing what will arise from the ashes.
The practical side is being stressed now. A lot of people interviewed on the streets, just want to go back to work . They want a nicer more comfortable existence. It may be gone.
So then, by this logic, Germany’s policy of executing people for being Jewish was less reprehensible than Germany’s decision to invade other countries.
Uh… no - go back and read what I said. Killing people for any other reason than self defense is not acceptable. I don’t know where you get this idea that because I oppose capital punishment I somehow approve of the nazis. What a stupid line of reasoning.
You said that it’s hypocritical of the to condemn countries that execute people for changing their religion.
By that logic it’s equally hypocritical for the US to condemn countries that execute people for being Jews.
Have the courage of your convictions.
Oh, please - it’s hypocritical to condemn someone for doing something you do yourself. It is NOT hypocritical to condemn them for something you don’t do.
I guess you just can’t comprehend the difference between executing someone for breaking the law (whether you agree with the law or not) or executing them for being of a particular ethnic group. They’re both wrong.
Umm your statement is grossly illogical. You fail to note that in some countries it’s against the law to belong to certain religions or ethnic groups.
Now, since you’ve made itclear that executing people for being gay is no worse than executing people for committing murder have the courage to argue that executing people for being Jewish(so long as this is a country where being a Jew is a crime) is no worse than executing people for murder.
No, that’s you stubbornly trying to start an argument.
One more time:
It would be hypocritical for the US to condemn Nazis for executing people who break the law, as the US is also guilty of that crime.
It is NOT hypocritical for the US to condemn Nazis for doing something the US does not do, such as attempting to wipe out an entire ethnic group right down to infants.
As I do not hear anyone in the US who supports capital punishment saying the Nazis were evil for executing criminals that’s not really an issue. What is an issue is that there are US citizens here who are apparently OK with the US executing people who break the law but not OK with Egyptians doing so because those US people don’t agree with the Egyptian law, or the desired law of the people in Eqypt. As it happens there are countries where changing your religion is against the law. I would say that attempting to do so in those countries is effing stupid, given the level of penalty involved. Religion, however, is not like ethnicity. No one is born Chriistian or Muslim and religions can be changed. Ethnicity can not.
Recognizing that the US is hypocritical in regards to capital punishment in no way signals approval of ANYTHING discussed in this thread. Dislike of hypocrites, or capital punishment, does not suddenly make OK other atrocities, nor does it assign some bizarre relative measure of evil.
So, let’s try this one last time:
It is hypocritical of the US to condemn Egypt for executing people who break Egyptian law so long as the US still uses the death penalty on people who break the law in the US.
Frankly, the US needs to get out of the barbaric practice of killing its own citizens.
So then you think it’s wrong for the US to criticize the Nazis for executing German Jews since German Jews were violating German Law, but it’s ok for Americans to condemn the killing of Polish and Russian Jews?
Furthermore why do you make a big deal about it being wrong for the US to criticize Egyptians for executing people breaking Egyptian Law?
Egypt doesn’t have laws punishing people for adultery?
In fact the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries don’t.
This argument about the U.S. imposing the death penalty is a complete red herring. Suppose we agree for the sake of argument that the death penalty is always wrong, regardless of circumstances. Presumably that doesn’t mean that punishment itself is wrong. Maybe the U.S. is wrong to kill murderers; but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to do something to murderers, by locking them up for the rest of their lives, or (if you also think life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is also always unacceptable) locking them up for many years.
It’s not “Some people think the penalty for apostasy should be death?!?” It’s "Some people think changing one’s religion should be a crime?!?"The objectionable thing is not that the penalty for apostasy is death, the objectionable thing is that there is any penalty for apostasy at all. It would not be somehow OK if a country made the penalty for changing one’s religion imprisonment for life without parole, or “only” twenty years in prison. (Or a small fine and a few weekends of community service, for that matter.)
As Thomas Jefferson said
It doesn’t harm me if my neighbor changes his mind about which god or gods he believes in, either.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says
I have to go with the UDHR over what some (or many) Muslims want on this one.
We seem to be having a rash of Islam-bashing on the boards the month; certainly, some of it (a lot of it) is wrong-headed or outright bigoted, but that doesn’t mean we should swing to the opposite extreme and reflexively defend or excuse anything done in the name of Islam. That is, of course, exactly what the Islamophobes accuse anyone who disagrees with them of doing.
Could you perhaps list the host of reasons the U.S. executes people for? Are we also hypocrites for condemning China or North Korea for imprisoning individuals for political reasons? After all, we imprison people for a whole host of reasons and can’t condemn others when they imprison people.
I’m gonna point two things out here.
Firstly, this week? The Egyptian People have gotten their taste of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, and Freedom of Assembly. And they seem to like it.
Secondly? The Muslim Brotherhood actually got off wrong-footed on this. They’re late-comers. You know who started this whole thing? What the backbone is?
The football(soccer) clubs of Cairo. The youth.
You know, they have a statement, too.
http://www.shabab-masr.com/Statement_of_Egyptian_youth_-_English.pdf
And here’s the Statement of Businessmen.
http://www.mediafire.com/?aop1b1epik8it1p
How about y’all take a look at it, and see what the people on the ground actually want?
Check out Sandmonkey’s words for something relevant as well.
http://www.sandmonkey.org/
murder
treason
sabotage of an aircraft that leads to death
aircraft hijacking
espionage
terrorism
“aggravated” rape (Louisiana and Florida)
drug trafficking resulting in death (Connecticut and Florida)
train wrecking that leads to death
perjury that leads to death (California)
kidnapping
Those are the ones still currently on the books in at least one state of the union. Note that in some cases a dead victim is not even required to impose the death penalty (rape and kidnapping), so some states can and have executed people who never killed anyone. I’ll also point out that the death penalty is inconsistently applied even where it is legal - states still allowing capital punishment do not, for example, execute ALL murderers so even where legal it’s very hit or miss, so why have it at all?
The difference is that I believe capital punishment to be morally wrong, whereas imprisonment for breaking the law is not. As to whether or not a particular law is just or unjust that is a different question.
Broom,
If you’re going to insist that Iran executing of people for being gay or Bahai is no worse than the US executing people for murder please read up on US Law.
The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that people can’t be executed for rape.
You’re also correct that “treason” is theoretically still punishable by the death penalty, but the US hasn’t executed anyone for treason or even tried to in over fifty years. When the US last did so, or even attempted to do so, black people were still being prosecuted for sleeping with white women.
Also, while SCOTUS has not specifically ruled that people can’t be executed for treason and kidnapping, since it has ruled that you can’t be executed for either rape or “felony murder” declaring you can only be executed if you’re directly responsible for killing someone, people who’ve committed treason and kidnapping, like rapists are safe from the death penalty.
Can you give me a cite that “terrorism” is a crime punishable by death? Same with rape. Also, what state in specific? Because I don’t think your information is entirely factual for 2011.
Broom is wrong. In Coker v. Georgia, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that imposing the death penalty for rape is unconstitutional because rape doesn’t involve someone being killed so he’s completely wrong that “some states can execute people who never killed anyone.”
Louisiana recently passed a law authorizing the death penalty for people repeatedly convicted of child-rape, but that will almost certainly get struck down by the courts.
Similarly, I can’t imagine anyone being executed for “terrorism” unless the terrorist acts included killing people.