|
On December 31 2009 20:46 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:39 T.O.P. wrote:On December 31 2009 20:25 Robinsa wrote:
I dont care much for the guy or if they kill him, but whats in teresting here is the "Chinese" reaction with people defending the decision iin blind fate. If there is ANYTHING china shou ld have learned in the past 70 years its to not trust the state. Im amazed at how well propaganda can work if you start it when people are young enough. Come on now, nationalism happens in every country. True, but when you use it as a defence to kill people it's WRONG. Todays China is similar to how, for example, Japan was during the world war. When many of us saw the economical development in China starting we thought you would adapt "modern" values aswell. Somehow youve ended up with modern economics and values from 30's.
stupidest and more inconsiderate comment yet
you shouldn't even be in here, let alone running that mouth
TBH I'm getting tired of these news reports. Yeah, they executed 1 guy. For smuggling heroin. A lot of heroin. To a country with a bad history for that crap. Hence the law, written from that history, is harsh. He does it all.
It's like looking at a series of precipitating causes of a plane crash. Yes, the end result is death.
|
On December 31 2009 20:54 Magic84 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:46 Robinsa wrote:On December 31 2009 20:39 T.O.P. wrote:On December 31 2009 20:25 Robinsa wrote:
I dont care much for the guy or if they kill him, but whats in teresting here is the "Chinese" reaction with people defending the decision iin blind fate. If there is ANYTHING china shou ld have learned in the past 70 years its to not trust the state. Im amazed at how well propaganda can work if you start it when people are young enough. Come on now, nationalism happens in every country. True, but when you use it as a defence to kill people it's WRONG. Todays China is similar to how, for example, Japan was during the world war. When many of us saw the economical development in China starting we thought you would adapt "modern" values aswell. Somehow youve ended up with modern economics and values from 30's. Nothing wrong with old values, don't tell people how to live. No, you aren't the smartest person on the planet.
I wouldn't be suprised to see China evolve into something like Singapore in the future rather than become a liberal democracy.
|
On December 31 2009 20:49 Spinfusor wrote:
What China's actions now are similar to Japan's during WWII? Perhaps you didn't think through that all that well.
Occupation of neightouring countries, political prisoners and ruled through a totalitarian system. Don't think I've said anything over the edge here.
|
On December 31 2009 20:59 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:49 Spinfusor wrote:
What China's actions now are similar to Japan's during WWII? Perhaps you didn't think through that all that well. Occupation of neightouring countries, political prisoners and ruled through a totalitarian system. Don't think I've said anything over the edge here.
I disagree with occupation of countries (but I am hardly interested in arguing over it) and Japan's wartime actions obviously far exceed what you've just listed.
|
On December 31 2009 21:03 Spinfusor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:59 Robinsa wrote:On December 31 2009 20:49 Spinfusor wrote:
What China's actions now are similar to Japan's during WWII? Perhaps you didn't think through that all that well. Occupation of neightouring countries, political prisoners and ruled through a totalitarian system. Don't think I've said anything over the edge here. I disagree with occupation of countries (but I am hardly interested in arguing over it) and Japan's wartime actions obviously far exceed what you've just listed.
True. Japan was way worse. I didnt mean to say it was the same. What I meant was that it kinda reminded me of. Guess I'm just expressing myself badlly again. Sorry for that.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On December 31 2009 21:07 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 21:03 Spinfusor wrote:On December 31 2009 20:59 Robinsa wrote:On December 31 2009 20:49 Spinfusor wrote:
What China's actions now are similar to Japan's during WWII? Perhaps you didn't think through that all that well. Occupation of neightouring countries, political prisoners and ruled through a totalitarian system. Don't think I've said anything over the edge here. I disagree with occupation of countries (but I am hardly interested in arguing over it) and Japan's wartime actions obviously far exceed what you've just listed. True. Japan was way worse. I didnt mean to say it was the same. What I meant was that it kinda reminded me of. Guess I'm just expressing myself badlly again. Sorry for that.
How cute, it seems your media teaches your people to self hate as well.
|
Good job China.
Love how naive most of you posters are. Drug trade not a big deal?
The entire country of Mexico is destabilized because of it. Hundreds of people die everyday because of it.
Mexico is basically a failed state, and the direct cause is drug trafficking. And here we are complaining about some drug smuggler's punishment.
|
A person who smuggled potentially deadly drugs into a country with the intent to distribute them was caught and executed. What exactly is the big issue at hand here? The first rule of drug dealing is KNOW THE LAW. A large part of the industry is assessing and assuming risk. In this case, this man assumed the risk (whether he knew it or not) and went ahead with it. It's not the responsibility of the Chinese government to sit there and try to determine whether this guy understood the law, their job is to apply the law. Understanding the law and the risk was HIS responsibility...
Drug trafficking is a very big and very serious industry. I don't think you can fault some countries for taking a harsher stance on it than others. Punishments are not only meted to deal with the crime at hand, but also to deter future potential offenders. Nations all over the world have "zero tolerance" policies against one thing or another, but this isn't even a case of a zero tolerance policy. The guy had a good amount of heroine on him. We're not talking personal use, here. Quite frankly, if most of you have seen what heroine even in small amounts can do to people and families, I think you wouldn't be so sensitive about the punishment of a merchant of it. Even from a liberal standpoint, heroine is a very serious drug.
While the argument for insanity could be made, being insane doesn't mean you're not responsible for your actions in the end.
I'm surprised by the amount of argument regarding this. We're not talking about some sort of arbitrary law and punishment such as a death penalty for wearing blue pants. Drug laws are a standard thing across the globe. The only difference comes down to the level of punishment and quite frankly, China isn't even close to the worst when it comes to that either. The message here is simple, don't smuggle and distribute drugs...
There's plenty of arguments to be made about China in regard to human rights and such, but of all of them, this one is pretty weak...
|
I know that he did something wrong and all and I wasn't at all surprised that China executed this guy but I still think it's a bit harsh to kill him for it.
|
On December 31 2009 13:34 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Not everyone can claim an illness and wave off all responsibility for their actions.
The only thing that disturbs me is that you get the death penalty for heroine. Imagine in the US if we executed someone for this? The international community would be in hysteria. But China does what China wants, I guess.
Yes, lets cry because of what Chine can do and the US can't... If China invaded A country let alone TWO now and the US wasn't for it guess what would happen. Of all countries in the world the US is the one that has the most freedom to do what it wants.
|
I don't want to derail this thread, but I'm completely baffled how many people seem to completely neglect basic human rights, even endorse their violation. It doesn't matter one single bit if that guy violated China's law, death penalty should never, ever even be considered as an acceptable punishment.
|
On December 31 2009 12:25 asleepingpig wrote:
Unfortunate guy. Chinese government might cancel execution finally, but Akmal should learn the local law first.
Btw, if you hope any citizens in China would show mercy on Akmal, it's quite ridiculous. More than one hundred years ago, British deliver tens of thousands of tons illegal drugs to China, along with their naval force. We almost forget the history, but he reminds us.
Wasn't opium used in Chine originaly? Around 1480's if i' not mistaken
|
On December 31 2009 20:59 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:49 Spinfusor wrote:
What China's actions now are similar to Japan's during WWII? Perhaps you didn't think through that all that well. Occupation of neightouring countries, political prisoners and ruled through a totalitarian system. Don't think I've said anything over the edge here.
Sounds like the USA to me. Don't think I've said anything over the edge here.
Except the USA's occupation is around da world!! And we build prisons in OTHER countries for our political prisoners lololol. As long as we torture em in Cuba it's humane baby!
|
On December 31 2009 22:25 HeartOfTofu wrote:
A person who smuggled potentially deadly drugs into a country with the intent to distribute them was caught and executed. What exactly is the big issue at hand here?
Would you feel the same way if someone smuggled cigarettes or alcohol (other potentially deadly drugs) into a country with the intent to distribute them? Is execution warranted? The issue here is Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
It's not the responsibility of the Chinese government to sit there and try to determine whether this guy understood the law, their job is to apply the law. Understanding the law and the risk was HIS responsibility...
It's the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure that nobody is subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Insanity can and should mitigate the punishment, which in any case is cruel and inhuman to begin with and does not compare to the crime committed.
Drug trafficking is a very big and very serious industry. I don't think you can fault some countries for taking a harsher stance on it than others.
Drug trafficking is only a very big and serious industry because of the war on drugs. Legalizing drugs would solve many of drug-related problems. Among other things, the Mafia would lose most of their funding. The benefits of waging the very costly war on drugs seem virtually negligible in comparison to all the trouble it is causing. There is little evidence that the war on drugs is even decreasing the number of drug addicts (and some against)!
Regardless of what you personally think about drugs (maybe you lost your sister to heroin), I don't think you can uphold the war on drugs as some high and noble ideal that we should be willing to make sacrifices for, like conceding our liberties or accepting blatant disregard for universal human rights.
While the argument for insanity could be made, being insane doesn't mean you're not responsible for your actions in the end.
Which is why it can only be an argument for mitigating the punishment, not for getting off with nothing.
I'm surprised by the amount of argument regarding this. (...) There's plenty of arguments to be made about China in regard to human rights and such, but of all of them, this one is pretty weak...
So you honestly cannot understand some people would consider execution for drug trafficking a cruel and inhuman punishment? Let alone the fact that this man cannot fully be held accountable for his actions due to a mental illness?
|
|
|
On December 31 2009 22:58 Phrujbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 22:25 HeartOfTofu wrote:
A person who smuggled potentially deadly drugs into a country with the intent to distribute them was caught and executed. What exactly is the big issue at hand here? Would you feel the same way if someone smuggled cigarettes or alcohol (other potentially deadly drugs) into a country with the intent to distribute them? Is execution warranted? The issue here is Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Show nested quote +It's not the responsibility of the Chinese government to sit there and try to determine whether this guy understood the law, their job is to apply the law. Understanding the law and the risk was HIS responsibility... It's the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure that nobody is subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Insanity can and should mitigate the punishment, which in any case is cruel and inhuman to begin with and does not compare to the crime committed. Show nested quote +Drug trafficking is a very big and very serious industry. I don't think you can fault some countries for taking a harsher stance on it than others. Drug trafficking is only a very big and serious industry because of the war on drugs. Legalizing drugs would solve many of drug-related problems. Among other things, the Mafia would lose most of their funding. The benefits of waging the very costly war on drugs seem virtually negligible in comparison to all the trouble it is causing. There is little evidence that the war on drugs is even decreasing the number of drug addicts (and some against)! Regardless of what you personally think about drugs (maybe you lost your sister to heroin), I don't think you can uphold the war on drugs as some high and noble ideal that we should be willing to make sacrifices for, like conceding our liberties or accepting blatant disregard for universal human rights. Show nested quote +While the argument for insanity could be made, being insane doesn't mean you're not responsible for your actions in the end. Which is why it can only be an argument for mitigating the punishment, not for getting off with nothing. Show nested quote +I'm surprised by the amount of argument regarding this. (...) There's plenty of arguments to be made about China in regard to human rights and such, but of all of them, this one is pretty weak... So you honestly cannot understand some people would consider execution for drug trafficking a cruel and inhuman punishment? Let alone the fact that this man cannot fully be held accountable for his actions due to a mental illness?
Here are some of the countries that signed on to the UDHR:
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Iraq
Iran
Liberia
Turkey
United States
China
Thailand
El Salvador
Yep. None of these countries have tortured people... I'm sure the UDHR is more than just a piece of paper... I'm not saying your sentiments are wrong or that they don't have a good moral foundation but morals are for people engaging with each other on an individual basis. When you try applying morals to systems as large as nation-states, much less international coalitions, you are going to be greatly disappointed. It's just not something the human species can relate to well enough yet.
|
On December 31 2009 22:58 Phrujbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 22:25 HeartOfTofu wrote:
A person who smuggled potentially deadly drugs into a country with the intent to distribute them was caught and executed. What exactly is the big issue at hand here? Would you feel the same way if someone smuggled cigarettes or alcohol (other potentially deadly drugs) into a country with the intent to distribute them? Is execution warranted? The issue here is Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Show nested quote +It's not the responsibility of the Chinese government to sit there and try to determine whether this guy understood the law, their job is to apply the law. Understanding the law and the risk was HIS responsibility... It's the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure that nobody is subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Insanity can and should mitigate the punishment, which in any case is cruel and inhuman to begin with and does not compare to the crime committed.
Sorry, but I understand the academic consensus is that there is only a peremptory norm forbidding the execution of juvenile offenders. You can't just apply your interpretation to the Universal Declaration (and, of course, the document itself is also criticized and unilateral) and say China has to do such and such.
|
Fuck the document. Use your basic moral sense.
|
Do you disagree with "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ?
|
On December 31 2009 23:19 Phrujbaz wrote:
Do you disagree with "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ?
Since when was the judicial process based on moral opinions? :-S
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
