I’d like to clear this up, as several posters seem to be laboring under false impressions.
Airports are not in any way “neutral territory” or somehow privileged spaces. If you are standing in a Singaporean airport you are standing on Singapore territory, you are in Singapore and you are most certainly subject to their laws.
Yes, he was.
As soon as you cross an international border - whether by land, sea, or air - you are IN that country. It doesn’t matter if you’re “in transit” or not, whether you’ve been processed through customs or not.
Since this is page three already I thought I’d quote some of the OP:
Then Mr. Nguyen was really fucking stupid, wasn’t he?
I’m sitting here literally on the other side of the planet and I’ve know for about 30 years now that transporting drugs to Singapore can result in death.
Mind you, I am morally opposed to the death penalty. I don’t feel it can be justified as a state penalty in this day and age (although obviously my Federal and State governments have a different opinion). However, I am also aware that other countries do have the death penalty, and may impose it for actions that in other places are minor crimes or even perfectly legal. I am also aware that when I travel to a different country I am subject to THEIR laws, not my own, and it is my responsibility to behave properly. Should I get into legal trouble abroad it would be very nice if my home country could bail me out, however, I also know that I should not except such a rescue as a matter of course.
He sounds like a selfless young man - offering to help his brother out, offering to help prosecutors… even so, he committed a capital crime in Singapore. Singapore is not shy about stating the government position on illegal drugs. What part of “IF YOU DO THIS AND GET CAUGHT YOU WILL DIE” did this young man have trouble comprehending?
If it really was his first time - I’m sorry, what part of “IF YOU DO THIS AND GET CAUGHT YOU WILL DIE” did this young man have trouble comprehending?
No convinctions? That in no way proves he is innocent of criminal action in the past - he may have been running drugs for some time without getting caught.
He was in transit - so fucking what? Again, Singapore is very clear - so clear that they have a world wide reputation on the matter - that There Will Be No Drug Trafficking In Singapore, On Pain of Death.
If someone is kidnapping young women and selling them into sexual slavery is it OK to run them through an international airport as long as they don’t stop and sell any in your neighborhood? Is it OK for folks to carry explosives for use in terrorist attacks through an airport as long as they’re just “in transit” and not intending to stop and use them in the country of transfer? What if they’re just driving through the country? Would it be OK for a gang of terrorists from Mexico to drive through the US on their way to blow up something in Canada, as long as they’re just 'in transit" and no threat to the US as they pass through? Would it be OK to drive a semi full of whiskey and pornography through Mecca as long as you didn’t stop to unload any for the locals and pilgrims?
Illegal in Singapore is illegal in Singapore. YOU may not view drugs as such a henious thing (or maybe you do) but the Singapore government does and they set the rules in Singapore. Don’t carry drugs in Singapore, it’s that simple.
That’s fairly standard in executions. Here in the States the condemned’s family is notified of execution date, visitation is arranged, and since custody of the body reverts to the family, well, the authorities want to know if there will be a pick up or if cremation or something else is desired. Would it be kinder not to notify the family and just dump the body in the garbage? I think not. Truth is, there is no 'nice" way to handle such circumstances.
I am repulsed by the notion of executing a human being, too. I do not, however, feel much sympahty for someone so fucking stupid as to carry nearly a half kilo of heroin into a Singpore airport. I feel worse for his family, to be honest.
I do feel sympathy for him Being sentenced to death can’t be nice, but I agree, it was a totally fucking stupid thing to do and he must have gone into it with his eyes open. Sounds like both brothers actually have a gambling problem.
Yes, he was. He was illegally transporting heroin through Singaporean territory, which in Singapore is a capital crime. How much more illegal can an activity be?
He was arrested because he was caught performing an illegal act. Therefore, he was acting illegally prior to his arrest.
You can say that about a lot of criminals.
No, I don’t think so. However, in the real world stupidity can be fatal and this is a case in point.
Was he convincted of purchasing drugs in Singapore? No? Was he convincted of selling drugs in Singapore? No? OK - was he convincted of transporting illegal drugs through Singapore territory? Yes? Is that a death penalty offense in Singapore? Yes? Then it seems he was convincted and will be punished in accordance with Singporean law.
If he was holding the drugs while standing in a Singaporean airport then the drugs were INDEED in Singapore! He broke the law. He confessed. He will punished in accordance with the laws he broke.
It would be nice if his home country’s government could interfere and ask for leniency, an exception, etc. – but if you want other governments to respect the laws of Australian then Australian must respect the laws of other sovereign nations. Even when they clash with Australian laws.
Er… doesn’t the comparison between Al Capone, your friendly neighborhood bartender, and ‘these guys who are dealing death’ in fact support the contention that “It’s all prohibition’s fault”? These guys are dealing death BECAUSE the substance they deal in is prohibited (hint: compare the safety of a bottle of Bud vs a bottle of bathtub-produced moonshine… hmm in fact you already have!) (“but heroin’s far worse”. Nope! google some stats on opiate overdoses prior to prohibition).
Oh and they ARE accountable by legal means… their drugs are illegal! But of course the current laws on drugs are a ridiculously blunt tool, so it’s hardly surprising neighbourhoods are so smashed up. Now OTOH if we drew a careful distinction between selling a safe product to non-minors whilst in possession of an appropriate licence, and selling any old shit to anyone who’ll buy it (like we do with alcohol!) then it’s pretty likely those neighbourhoods would clean up.
(And where is my evidence that civilisation doesn’t collapse when drugs are legal and licensed? It’s the near-entirety of human existence, except buried under the rubble of the past century)
No shit, really?? Gosh, you mean that legalizing drugs and regulating them instead of slapping ineffectual prohibition laws might be a good idea? Damn, I sure wish I thought of that!!
Oh, wait, I did think of that. Right here in the fucking thread!!
Drug prohibition is wrong. Alcohol prohibition is wrong. So why don’t we go around calling Al Capone a good man? Because Al Capone was a criminal who killed other people with bombs and bullets in order to make a profit, much like drug dealers do today. Newsflash, Nancarrow: The law isn’t always fair, and sometimes it fucks up. That does not give citizens the right to fuck up. Now maybe you’re lucky enough to live in one of those utopias like Harrisburg where all the drug dealers are just “providing a service” and would never ever hurt a fly, even if it meant more drug profits or protecting their turf, but I’m willing to be that this is the exception rather than the rule.
Does your neighborhood smack dealer have a system of quality control set up so that nothing gets cut with strychnine? Is the FDA involved in the crack trade so that addicts don’t wind up buying pieces of soap? These are the legal means I’m thinking of.
In short, nancarrow, we agree on quite a bit. We disagree on the fact that just because the law is wrong, it’s OK to break it. We also disagree on who to blame when that schoolyard playground gets shot up. I’m blaming the ones behind the trigger. The government might have screwed the pooch on the drug question, but that doesn’t mean you can lay every death at its door.
[QUOTE=Nancarrow]
Oh and they ARE accountable by legal means… their drugs are illegal! But of course the current laws on drugs are a ridiculously blunt tool, so it’s hardly surprising neighbourhoods are so smashed up. Now OTOH if we drew a careful distinction between selling a safe product to non-minors whilst in possession of an appropriate licence, and selling any old shit to anyone who’ll buy it (like we do with alcohol!) then it’s pretty likely those neighbourhoods would clean up.
[QUOTE]
I am speaking as a recovering alcoholic that gets to hear first-hand accounts of what opiate addiction can and will do to people quite frequently. Opiates aren’t like alcohol in many ways. Alcohol can by used be the majority of the population on a regular basis. Opiates are dangerous and expensive even legally and it tends to escalate until some people overodose. Granted, alcohol can do that but it tends to happen much more slowly and doesn’t happen to most people.
I want hear your potential legalization plan for opiates including heroin and oxycontin. Please include where you would buy it, how it would be supplied, how minors would be prevented fom getting it, and how we would deal with the increased rate of addition. The expense would never be low enough to supply people with a huge adddiction especially when those very drug problems cause lose of jobs, ambition, and family and friends. If you say that doctors could prescribe it after addiction, then that presents other problems ethical problems on the doctor’s.
Put up or shut up now. How would legalization of a deadly, highly addictive, substance work.?Outline a workable plan. You didn’t think this through now did you? You really have no good idea now do you?
This guy engaged in an act analogous to treason. Singapore thinks they can win a drug war tha endangers the lives of all citizens. The cat is out of the bag it the U.S. but I would applaud any country that can win some victories.
He knew the risk going in. People die every day from unncessary risk that doesn’t work out. That isn’t a problem. The real essence of life is to take risks while balancing the rewards against those risks. Singapore shifted the risk-reward balance and he decided to take it. Maximum security inmates can be shot for trying to escape because it establishes order and an escaped inmate must be recaptured so it creates a danger to others. It is the responsibilty of the prison to make the risks and downside very high to protect everyone. If an inmate senses an opportunity, he can try to escape however, no one should feel bad if he gets shot dead. Singapore did the same thing.
This guy decided his risk tolerance and lost. Like a black-jack player that loses all his money, we should never fell bad about that. He was perfectly willing to walk to walk away with the benefits of his risk.
“It is not good to punish somebody for what they ARE, only for what they DO” is the entire fucking point! The whole fallacy of your argument here is that it’s based upon the premise that drug dealing isn’t wrong. Well, most people in the world disagree with you. The people of Singapore have determined, through their elected representatives, That drug dealing should be outlawed and when someone is, after due process of law, found guilty of this CRIME, they shall be hanged by the neck until dead. You may think this penalty too harsh. I think it’s too harsh. That doesn’t meant that Singapore is wrong for enacting it. Singapore has the right to punish crime any way they see fit. And to answer a previous question, yes I would extend this principle to an American woman sentenced to be stoned in a Mideastern country for breaking their laws. Your argument here makes no logical sense, and that’s because it’s not based on a logical premise but an emotional one:You think drug dealers are just fine and dandy people, and are horrified that one is going to be killed for his crime.
And dissidents in Soviet Russia protested knowing full well that the penalties for their actions could be prison, torture, exile or death. That doesn’t mean that such punishments are “right”, but the Soviet Union did have the right to enact them, because-drum roll please-THEY WERE ENACTED AS THE RESPONSE OF THE STATE TO THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. In other words, dissidents made a choice. It’s still a totally different situation from genocide.
Whoa, Dave, let’s back up a little. I want to address what you said just now, because this works into my original point that executing this kid is wrong no matter how you slice it.
It all depends on what you mean by “the right to enact a law.” See, this goes right back into what a nation can rightfully do to its citizens without becoming an outlaw state. Your example, unfortunately, reveals a few misconceptions, not only about philosophy but history.
Let’s deal with the history first. Quite a few of those dissidents were wiped out in the GULAG, especially under Stalin. Once Stalin died, things calmed down a little, but those camps were still worse than any maximum security prison you’d find in the free world, and your chances of walking out in one piece were pretty low. The truth is, dave, that those camps were in fact a means of genocide.
Now the philosophy. Did the USSR have the right to do that. Were we right to protest it? I say no to the first and absolutely to the second. I believe that a free nation is honor bound to protest atrocities in other parts of the world. Even situations that are less than atrocities can and should be taken up by these nations. I’m thinking here of apartheid and the Ayatollah Khomeni’s issuing a fatwah against Salman Rushdie. Today, it’s all about North Korea and what is happening in those camps. Sure, from NK’s standpoint, it’s perfectly legal, but is it right?
I’ll finish this up by saying that even though it tastes like a shit popsicle in my mouth, I have to defend one thing about nancarrow’s argument. It actually is an argument based on logic, not emotion. It’s just that the logic is totally screwed up.
To sum up, my problem with the hanging of this kid is the same problem with the drug laws. Just because it is law, does not make it right.
–Linty, who’s starting to feel just a tad like Sybil in this thread arguing two totally different, seemingly opposite things.
Yes. I know you did. I know you favour drug legalisation. That’s why I was perplexed as to what point I thought you were making. My apologies, I think I have misunderstood your perspective on this. I think we agree on more than we disagree. With a couple of bones still left to pick though:
OK first bone: I do not as a rule believe blame must always be apportioned to one party and ONLY one party. You and I do NOT disagree that the ones behind the trigger are to blame for suffering in urban areas. It’s just that I apportion blame to the world’s governments IN ADDITION to this. And I’m sure you do too. Get over the idea that one must blame either party A or party B and cannot blame both, and I reckon we’ll agree completely on that. If a party behaves in a manner that demonstrably causes suffering, and it could choose to behave differently, it bears blame for that suffering. Nasty drug dealers fit that description. So too do the enablers and enforcers of prohibition laws.
Second bone: this thread is about a guy who is going to be executed for drug dealing. Whilst I certainly agree that one cannot lay EVERY death related to drugs (however indirectly) at a government’s door, I’d like to know who exactly is responsible for this guy’s impending death, if not the Singaporean government?
(of course, he also bears responsibility himself for being dumbass to go into Singapore, but again, responsibility need not be assigned uniquely) Are nasty drug dealers the world over, also to blame for this guy’s execution?
Third bone: “Just because the law is wrong, it’s OK to break it”.
Yep, you absolutely have me pegged right there. I do indeed disagree with you, although “Just” is a bit inaccurate.
If a law is wrong, and if it is cruel and vindictive, and if it causes more harm than it was supposed to prevent, and if it is more a product of superstitious fear than calm reason, and if it has been in place for nearly a century and has been demonstrably ineffective, and if it is cruel and vindictive (and let’s not forget vindictive) (and cruel)…
then YES. I think it’s FINE to break it. I think, that under certain circumstances, IT’S OK TO BREAK THE LAW. I’d even suggest that someone who breaks such a law is a fine, morally upstanding person.
So, what do I think about drug dealers? Drug dealer A sells shit, cut with ground glass and strychnine, for massively inflated prices. If anyone gets in his way he beats them up or kills them. Drug dealer A is a piece of shit.
Drug dealer B sells quality product at a price hardly above cost value, to over 21s only, gives his clients friendly advice on correct use of such product, and doesn’t kill anyone to continue his trade.
To me, drug dealer B is ok. No scratch that, drug dealer B is NOT ‘ok’, drug dealer B is ‘fantastic’, drug dealer B is ‘a fine, morally upstanding person’. The MORE SO because of the personal risk he is taking in breaking the law, to show the government of his country that he will not tolerate this law.
And so we come to the final bone of contention between you and me, and what my entire posting has really been about:
And I am willing to bet the exact opposite. I am willing to bet that the ratio of drug dealer As to drug dealer Bs in this world, is the reciprocal of what you think it is. I cannot offer direct evidence (as I suspect you can’t either), instead I propose that the burden of proof lies with you, for reasons I outlined earlier.
OK, let’s try and be crystal about this. When I made my first response to Weirddave, the only argument I was making, was to pick apart the logic of Weirddave’s post. I didn’t have any other point to make. I believe I have done so adequately. My argument WAS based on logic, but I don’t see that the logic is screwed up at all.
Now just excuse me for a moment while I get back to Weirddave…
Sigh . . . It’s like arguing with the talking heads on the TV set. OK, let’s try again:
and
Do you see where maybe I’m getting just a little bit bored with you reiterating what I just posted and making it sound like it never occured to me before?
The government might be wrong, nancarrow, but it is not to blame for the actual deaths. At all. Using this logic, you can blame the government for pretty much anything, from the OKC bombings (“If only the government had acted differently during Waco and Ruby Ridge, McVeigh never would have snapped.”) to high speed chases (“If only the government would be more tolerant in its drunk driving laws, Billy Ray never would have felt the need to flee the cops and crash into the children’s hospital”). No one forces drug dealers to deal drugs, and they’re not dealing drugs in protest of the system. They deal drugs to make money.
Which brings me to bone 3 (Well, bone 2, since we happened to agree on your second argument.)
Uh-huh. Sure. Drug Dealer B is one swell guy, all right! Everybody likes Drug Dealer B. That’s why he never carries a piece, because no one tries to break in on Drug Dealer B’s turf and shoot him. That’s why Drug Dealer B never has to worry about taking care of possible narcs or nosy neighbors.
What’s more, because Drug Dealer B obviously lives on a plantation, he is his own supplier, which is a good thing, because otherwise he’d have to import the product from Drug Supplier C. And Drug Supplier C isn’t quite as nice as Drug Dealer B. See, Drug Supplier C as likely as not comes from someplace like Pakistan or Colombia. Drug Supplier C’s neighbors don’t try to home in on his turf either, not because they think he’s a swell guy, but because they’re kind of afraid of ticking Drug Supplier C off. Neighbors who get Drug Supplier C upset tend to get really accident prone. They drive off cliffs after shooting themselves five or six times in the head. Their children start getting misplaced. But that’s OK, 'cause Drug Dealer B doesn’t have to deal with stuff like that. He would never do business with that kind of ill-tempered miscreant. You know, he kind of reminds me of Michael Keaton in Johnny Dangerously, because although Johnny’s a criminal, he’s really happy go lucky and an all around nice guy. He also reminds me of Santa Claus, because Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
Do I have to say it? Drug Dealer B either doesn’t exist, or he exists in a very well-placed vacuum. If he represents the majority, than the tiny minority of Drug Dealer A’s are awfully busy, both here and abroad.
Come on, nan. Who should really come up with the proof here.
:smack: :smack: :smack:
The argument I made TO YOU, when I replied TO YOUR POST, was that your post was logically faulty. This point still stands, whether or not drug dealing is wrong.
Now maybe in your second sentence, you’ve moved on from my original reply to you, to deal with my subsequent posts defending drug dealing (the act per se, not the other illegal acts that can come with it AS AN ENTIRELY OPTIONAL EXTRA). If so, that’s great. By all means, let’s move on to that. My argument is indeed based on the premise that drug dealing isn’t wrong. That does not mean that my argument is fallacious. It is simply built upon a proposition you disagree with. Since you disagree with the premise, why don’t we debate the premise? (probably in another thread!)
True, and irrelevant.
OK here’s where I stick my neck out again and say something I believe to be true but might find it difficult to produce cites for. Read me out though:
BULLSHIT!
Please find me a single instance in human history, where the citizens of a democracy were presented with two or more MAINSTREAM candidates, during a time when drugs were legal, and one or more made it a major part of their platform to criminalise drugs, and others made it a major part of their platform not to do so. And said citizens voted overwhelmingly for the former candidate(s).
Go on, I’ll hang around.
Just because a law exists in a democratic country, it cannot be assumed that it was passed because citizens overwhelmingly demanded it. In fact the global prohibition laws are perhaps the best example of ‘snow-jobs’, laws passed quietly in the secure knowledge that the people who would be destroyed by them, were a politically unimportant minority. And of course, once you’ve (= ‘one has’ ) passed those laws, you’ve then got decades to demonise those targetted by the laws (thus falsely justifying said laws) before anyone dares to think that you’re full of shit.
Nope. If that were the case, ‘human rights’ would be a meaningless phrase, suitable only for waving in front of people to justify jingoistic military escapades… er, wait…
What I mean is, when we talk of human rights, we implicitly affirm that there are certain ‘rights’ that governments MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE. Being able to ‘punish crime any way they see fit’ is one of those ‘anti-rights’.
Well you win today’s SDMB prize for warm-hearted feeling to one’s fellow man! (or woman)
It makes perfect logical sense.
This is just bananas. The logic of an argument is determined by the logical correctness of the steps in it, not the provenance of its premises. Indeed no premises are logical, only deductions are. “Murder is wrong”. Is that logical? “I ate tomato soup for lunch today”. Is that logical?
Well statistically rather than totally. But yeah, more or less. Not logical. But not illogical either. Just a premise.
Finally an unqualified YES!!!
And rather than nodding my head approvingly at Soviet Russia’s “right” to its response, I admire the courage of such dissidents, and wish that I had the balls to stand up for my human rights like they did. Which I freely admit, I don’t.
I’ve gotta head home now, will follow you up in a couple of hours. (yes I was at work all this time. yes I’m baaad)
Just one quick thing: Linty, there is NO need to be so confrontational about this. Yes, I have posted many things which agree with and expand upon things you yourself mentioned. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I THINK YOU DIDN’T SAY THESE THINGS.
I’m not arguing ‘against you’. I’m arguing ‘for me’, which is only occasionally ‘against you’. I understand this. Will you?
LOL, yes, I was being confrontational. I really do want to apologize for the “shit popsicle” remark. I kind of got carried away and took the low road when I shouldn’t have. Nothing you have posted deserved that response and I was out of line for posting that.
It does seem that we agree more than we disagree. I guess that having lived in a few less than nice locations, I have developed very strong very conflicting views of drugs and legality. On one hand I believe in legalization and I think that Singapore should spare Nguyen’s life. On the other, I’ve run into too many Drug Dealer A’s over the years to really believe in Drug Dealer B, and I’ve seen first hand what they can do to a good town.
Also, just for my own interest: I was going to say something like "Post away, you’re working on Thanksgiving, but I’m looking at your location. Are you in the states or the UK? Aw, hell, who cares! Post away, but don’t get caught!
If we cut off both arms for every robbery conviction, I’ll bet we would have fewer robberies, too.
How about the loss of both legs for running a stop sign? Fewer traffic accidents would happen.
Or the death penalty for littering? Streets sure would be cleaner.
It’s all about fitting the punishment to the crime. Of course, if you feel that drug couriers are lower than baby molesters and sit at the right hand of the Devil, I suppose the death penalty is too lenient. Myself, I think they should be left alone. It’s all in how you feel about the crime, and it looks like Singapore is to the left of paranoid.
Well, all the more opportunity to make a plea for the kid’s life.
Perhaps you should share your legal expertise on exactly how such programs MUST operate with Victoria’s Attorney-General? He appears to be grossly mistaken.
Singapore’s not part of Indonesia. It was part of a confederacy with Malaysia at one time.
And an ICJ appeal certainly would face certain problems, but there are a bunch of people, including the Federal Opposition and lawyers’ groups, who think it might be a worthwhile option.
We wouldn’t be meddling with the judiciary. It’s a prerogative of the executive in many countries to grant clemency.
Seriously? The US government says it’ll exert pressure for clemency on the government of Sudan, or wherever, to not brutally kill an American woman for fornication outside of marriage, and you’d be against that? If you were the POTUS, and your State Department came to you saying “hey, if we protest enough, they might grant clemency”, you’d answer, “Nah, do nothing”?
You wouldn’t be in favour of any diplomatic protest against the apartheid-era government of South Africa because it’s their right to set laws that say black people are dirty and inferior? You wouldn’t be in favour of any kind of diplomatic or military action against Iraq, no matter how many of their people they imprison and slaughter?
What the fuck does it matter how loudly they advertise their brutal policies? In what way does that mean we should roll over and let it happen? When terrorists slaughter an American they catch in Iraq, what the fuck does it matter that they say “Hey, he should have known that Americans caught by us get their heads cut off”? If the punishment’s wrong, it’s wrong, that’s the end of it.
If he has no convictions, yes, that does mean he’s innocent of criminal action in the past. That’s what a conviction is.
OK no worries! I’m in the UK (London), and I’m home now, so no getting caught. Happy Thanksgiving! (Why do you have turkey, and why so close to Christmas?)
I must say I have probably run into too many ‘Drug Dealer Bs’ to have a completely balanced perspective on this myself. Since the only sticking point for us seems to be the A:B ratio, and since I can’t honestly justify any figure for that at this stage, I shall refrain from harping on that issue, at least 'til I can come back with some statistics (88% of which are made up on the spot).
Now before anyone accuses us of needing to ‘get a room’, a couple of points from your last post. You mentioned how DDB must be such a ‘swell guy’ when he has to deal with narcs and turf wars. I’d suggest that defending oneself against people who seek to destroy you, and perhaps even causing injury to such people in the process, does not necessarily detract from your ‘niceness’. I’m a nice guy. If someone attacks me in the street and I couldn’t flee, I’d have to defend myself, possibly breaking their arm. But I’d still be a nice guy. Now what complicates the issue is, even if I’m harming no-one just munching mushrooms in a park, the ‘moral majority’ might strongly disapprove, and my attacker might be a cop. I suggest that this doesn’t affect the legitimacy of my right to defend myself. (I think we’re on the same wavelength there) (whether it would be smart to beat up the cop is another matter entirely! I must stop playing GTA vice city)
Regarding your remarks about DDB living in a vacuum, unless being part of an ecology including nasty supplier C, I’ll have to concede that for heroin and cocaine the bad guys are probably the majority. It does seem the cultivation of the plants and processing of the compounds requires more infrastructure than Joe Bong in Illinois can reasonably muster. But there’s plenty of opportunity for, er, ‘fair-trade’ cannabis, shrooms, and most synthetics.
And you’re right to call bs on my appeal to DDB’s idealism. I brought it up because I do indeed know a couple of such DDBs, however I concede most must be in it for the money. Not that there’s anything wrong with earning a living!
