If you need another argument of why the US should be in the Middle East, here it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/6065720.stm
The nutshell is that an 18 year old was aquitted of murder due to self-defense circumstances (he was being sexually assaulted.) The "legal" court found him not-guilty, the Federal Sharia Court, who administers Islamic law overturned the innocence verdict and sentenced him to hang.
Islamic fundamentalists' chief desire is to institute the "Sharia" (Islamic law) as the system of government throughout the world. This is a great example as to the danger of such implementation.
The U.S. is no angel, but I can think of no instance where a court overturned an innocence verdict on religious grounds.
UPDATE (22OCT2006): Islamic kidnappers in Afghanistan kidnapped Italian photojournalist Gabriele Torsello and are offering her release in exchange for the return of a Christian convert who had successfuly sought asylum in Italy. According to Islamic law (as interpreted by fundamentalists) the penalty for a Muslim's conversion to another religion is death. Read the BBC story for details on this example of religious extremism and it's threat to security and freedom.
19 October 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Nope. Now we don't even bother with trials or rule of law.
We are so much more enlightened than those barbarians.
The difference between enemy combatants and non-combatants is a critical distinction. There are people in the U.S. being held as as enemy combatants, however dealings with terrorists are covered under a different area of the legal system than domestic criminals. There have been no terror suspects that have been found innocent, then subsequently retried under religious law. We are more enlightened. Not perfect, but certainly more advanced in our legal system.
Post a Comment