An Act of War?
 

If the state of a foriegn power carries out the killing of a British citizen, a 20 year old woman; if this woman is raped in prison with state sponsorship, this is an act of war against the British people.

What is our government doing in relation to this abuse, this criminal attack on Britian?

This must not be tolerated.

We may not be a great power, but we are not a laughing stock on the world stage yet either. I am literally seething reading this article, and I call on a very heavy toll to be levied against the state of Laos (ie military intervention) if a full release, with at least £10 million in compensation for this woman, is not forthcoming in the next 24 hours. Any deviance from this course should be considered as an act of war against the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland in my opinion. We are fghting in Afghanistan for far less in terms of our national dignity.

i was watching this show "Locked up Abroad."

i was half paying attention, but the story was of a british woman that tried to smuggle heroin i believe from some country in asia.

she was caught, and the sentence was death. when she got caught the airport security guy actually looked at her, made a gun shape with his fingers and thumb, put it to his head, and made the "bang" motion, telling her this was her fate.

she didnt get it, she got out some years later and finally went to college.

I mean, maybe a declaration of war is a bit over the top - but the UK is a G20 nation and we should be able to prevent our citizens being treated in this way by a country like Laos

The execution of foreigners isn't an act of war. If you are convicted of a crime in a foreign nation--and if your government does nothing to extradite you and punish you locally--then you are subject to those laws.

The United States has executed over 20 foreigners since 1988; and Saudi Arabia has executed over 200.
Death Row Foreigners Worldwide

There are over 124 active death sentences of foreigners in the United States.
Foreign Nationals and the Death Penalty in the US | Death Penalty Information Center

just because the UK is in the G20, doesnt make their claim for differential treatment any more plausable.

you do the crime...

i dont believe its an act of war. was she wrongly charged and convicted? and even so, it doesnt make it an act of war.

if anyone could explain what constitutes an act of war anyways?

Well we probably cant stop the United States executing a British citizen, since they are more powerful and richer than us. But we can stop Laos from doing so. If I was in power I would be making very clear to them behind the scenes that I would have some gunboats on the way if this woman is killed by their state. The killing of a 20 girl by a foriegn state is an act of aggression of the most deplorable nature. We invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taleban because of their human rights record against their own citizens, surely we ought to be able to defend one of our own with force if necessary?

Punishing someone for a criminal act not an act of aggression of a nation, it's state law there. Grated it's a terrible law, but it's still their law.

If this was a man there might even be an argument to say that we have to respect the laws of another nation state - but the basic laws of human decency surely forbid the gunning down of a 20 year old girl by the law?

When you visit a foreign country, you're bound by the law of the land. Different cultures have different standards that underlie their law, and it's really on the traveler to be sensitive to that.

Has a miscarriage of justice been done in this case? Probably. Act of war that warrants a military response? No.

you what? you invaded afghanistan because of their terrible human rights record against their own people? please show me how?

here i was thinking that we invaded them because of 911 and because they harboured terrorists and in simple terms were with 'them' and not with 'us'.

you seem to have the mentality that if someone is weaker, then you ought to have th right to push your weight around, regardless of whether they have their own laws. a bit self righteous dont you think?

it also comes off as a bit high schoolish where the bullies would pick on the meagre and weak little kids, just because they could.

Quite simply, yes I believe if you are strong there are cases when it is justified to use that strength to protect your citizens. I believe that the fact we are more powerful than Laos means that we should bully and threaten them - to save the life of a 20 year old girl who is going to be shot down like a dog.

And obviously the UK didnt lead the attack on Afghanistan, but we are fighting there. If it was about routing out the terrorists we'd be fighting in Pakistan...

I believe this is the wrong reason to bully or threaten a nation. The British already have a long history of imperialism to live down. Why do this to Laos simply because a British foreign national is up on drug charges?

I could see diplomatic attempts to extradite and charge her in Britain--but an act of aggression on a non-political matter? That itself is more an act of war than what Laos is doing, which is merely enforcing its own laws upon a civilian.

This is not a gender issue.

Of course gender is a part of the issue. This is not a hardened drug trafficker we are talking about, its a 20 year old girl. doesnt that mean anything to you?

Yes, we should ask Laos nicely by all means, and even consider bribing them - but any discussion should take place clearly with a big club in our fist that is very visible to them.

What is the point of being a (relatively) powerful nation if you are to stand by and watch a young girl from Britain be gunned down like an animal? ALL the means of the British state should be employed to protect the lives of British citizens.

So, young girls can't traffic drugs?

I cant think of any 20 year old female drug barons Ive ever heard of.

If she committed a crime, fair enough she should face jail time if found guilty - but there are allegations she has been raped in jail, she has mental health issues which the state are ignoring and even exploiting, she has not had fair access to the legal system to defend herself, and is facing a firing squad. Does anyone think that this is acceptable?

Perhaps citizens of Laos have to accept these conditions, I feel sorry for them if they live under such a barbaric government: but I will not accept these conditions being imposed on a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If this was your relation would you not want the state to take action?

..

Logically, that she's a female implies it's easier for her to get away with crime because of the perceived innocence of female youth. Emotionally, I don't want harm to come to a young woman with child. Realistically, she's up on drug charges, and it doesn't matter whether she is lacking a Y chromosome. If she were male, I wouldn't want her to face this fate.

This isn't a gender issue unless you want to make it a human rights issue concerning the allegations of abuse and her being with child. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. Males aren't any more expendable than females, nor are females incapable of committing serious drug crimes. They are actually prime candidates for trafficking.

Do we even know enough details on her case?

So sabre-rattling?

Then she should be extradited and charged to the full extent of British law.

I'd like to know whether there is credible evidence.

About "survival of the fittest": most people misuse and/or misunderstand the term. She's pregnant, which means she's fertile. This is a strong case for her being "fit." There are, of course, other factors. Did you mean this in an evolutionary sense or a philosophical one?

It does happen.

Your attitude is the exact reason that women are preferred as drug mules, because they may be overlooked due to some idealistic notion that a young woman would/could not be a drug mule.
You're right. It is entirely unacceptable. It's downright cruel and I'm not going to argue against you on that point. Good luck convincing a nation to go to war over it though.

Of course I would, as would anyone, but that doesn't mean the nation should. No offense, but saying "if it was your relation" is always a weak argument because whenever it comes to family, people will almost always put logic aside for emotional reactions.


This thread reminds me of a bit by Eddie Izzard:
“Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house
arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged
seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it
is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that. Hitler
killed people next door. Oh, stupid man. After a couple of years we won't
stand for that, will we?”

My point being, all of this outrage and emotion over this one girl, but who gives a shit about all of the others who have died, right?

Something should be done, but it will be done diplomatically and will only affect her. Nothing will change there though.

I think Baraka hit this one on the head.

I am more than happy for to extradited to the UK and face our justice system.

I understand legally that a woman's life is not worth more than a man's life... and that the unborn child you will be shot too is not worth more or less than any other innocent life taken - but as a human being surely you must feel as I do that to execute a pregnant woman is barbaric beyond rational comprehension?

SF, I don't think anyone would easily disagree with you on the issue of whether this is a fair punishment for a drug crime, especially considering she's pregnant.

But many of us know the cost of war--the majority of the tab is usually picked up by the completely innocent.

I'm sorry, but if she smuggled drugs in a country where the penalty for doing so is death, then what's the problem?

If some Englishman went to Texas and committed serial homicide, he would likely face the death penalty as well. And it is entirely the right of the state to enforce it's laws...If you are not willing to abide by them, don't travel to that country and commit crimes.

I think the problems isn't so much that a different country is imposing a different penalty for a crime; it's that it's doing so without anything resembling due process. I mean, how would you like it if you were visiting Laos, and then were all of a sudden thrown into jail, and a few months later were told a court had found you guilty? Even minus the rape and abuse, it sucks. If there was something resembling due process, I wouldn't complain, but since it doesn't look like she got anything resembling a fair trial, I agree that Britain ought to apply the diplomatic thumbscrews.

so wait. from what i gather, the trial hasn't happened yet--it's scheduled to happen in the next day or two. there are appearances of procedural problems, but its hard to say from what i am reading on this whether that amounts to saying that the laotian system isnt like the british. there's another question concerning capital punlshment given the uk's rejection of this barbaric action--this leads to human rights problems in principle---but what forum is there that this sort of question can be heard in?

at this level, then, we have yet another example of the stupidity of nation-states of the equation of sovereignty with nation-states.

there's a terrible reputation associated with the prison she's been held in but it isn't obvious that she's been treated badly simply because there's apparently been no contact from her until quite recently.

so it isn't yet obvious what's going to happen--at least that's the impression i have gathered from reading around on this situation.

SF your reasonngs give way for anarchy within the laos system.

imagine the laos nationals thinking that had they commited the same crime, they'd be dead, but because she was a young uk national, she'd get away with it. it wouldnt go down well.

we had a similar case a few years ago in bali - indonesia for smuggling marijuana - schapelle corby. a young good looking aussie surfer girl who the media supported for only 1 reason. because she was good looking. it didnt matter that she was guilty. no. fuck the rule of the land in other countries, she should be set free.

she got what she deserved - 20 years. she was lucky she didnt get death. do i have any remorse? not really. she knew what she was doing. do i have any remorse for this one? only if she doesnt get a fair trail.

im still thinking that this is the stupidist idea to go to war since ...well ..since we went to war for oil. at least with oil its helping the economy... in this case your putting a potential drug dealer back on your streets. if i had kids id be very afraid if you decided to take gordon browns job

No really, if she smuggled drugs, into a VERY VERY VERY unstable area like south east Asia, a country such as Indonesia, Thailand ... Laos even.

What did she expect?

Huh, I take that back, she wasn't counting on getting caught.

Rule number two of life ... The Law is the Law, and the law is always right.

basically what dlish said - the corby case was heavily played out in the media here. Anyone willing to scratch the surface came to a fairly quick 'the media is full of crap' conclusion. Just because a story appears in a newspaper does not make it the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I can't get past the concept that it's somehow proper to declare war and put soldiers into harm's way because of a single citizen who might have done wrong. Regardless of whether she did or didn't or how corrupt or not the Laotian government is, how is all-out war (since war by half-measure is a recipe for failure) even an option?

I said that a declaration of war was over the top. Strategic bombing of a few selected government buildings should be sufficient.

And if Laos has any intelligence it needn't come to that at all - but I say again a nation should not stand by feebly while a vulnerable, helpless young girl is facing the possibility of a firing squad.

In the real world, full out war is not going to happen. Diplomatic channels should be tried first, and if they dont work then the presence of a couple of gunboats should pursuade Laos that the rights of British citizens cannot be abused by their tinpot govt in this way.

there's really no redress for this kind of situation so long as nation-states hold sovereignty--that is so long as there are no trans or extra-national legal institutions. even then, there's be problems.

what's strange about this really is the extent to which it devolves onto a dick thing--it is somehow "wrong" that a citizen of a former colonial power should be treated badly by one of these "lesser" countries--you know, with the "tinpot" legal systems and all that.

sorry but this is laughable...

i think your scenario for selected bombardment is more of an act of war than the implementation of Loas's laws by the sovereign government.

Or a ruthless drug runner who cares only for her own personal profit and not the lives she takes or ruins with her product.

I don't think the UK government is going to "stand by feebly" if they've got proof that she's innocent. Which I'm sure they don't. The UK could bomb Laos, but that wouldn't be much different than the US invasion of Iraq except, you know, with a prettier face.

SF - this better be Helen of Troy that you're talking about here. I still think it's horrid that you'd sacrifice hundreds of Laotians who have nothing to do with the situation for a single British woman who might not be worth the trouble. Think about the price you're putting on her life - one Samantha Orobator = 50 Laotians? 100? 500?

You cannot put a price on our soverignty. I am not proposing to kill any citizens of Laos: if the government of Laos does push the situation to a confrontation that is a decision they made. If I was in power I would not be asking for regime change, or their oil, or their territory...I would be demanding that internationally recognised standards of human rights are observed in regard to a citizen of the UK. I am not saying she shouldnt be punished because she is pretty (if you look up pictures of her she isnt especially) - I am saying that if I was in power I would not stand by and watch a British citizen, who is a 20 year pregnant woman with a history of mental illness, be shot like a animal on the basis of an allegation in regards to a minor offense which does not involve violence in any way.

If she is a drug smuggler she should face consequences for her actions: but Laos is a member of the community of nations and they must fulfill their obligation to not violate basic human rights of foriegn citizens.

Of course a peaceful resolution is preferable, and whatever is being said in public we should in private be working towards this. But (again if I was in power) I would be making it very clear that the judicial murder of a British citizen would not be tolerated under any conditions and that there would be consequences to this which would be disasterous for Laos.

i spent a few minutes again cruising around the hall of mirrors that is net-infotainment on this---you know how it is, the same wire-service articles appear in a million places, each time announced as if there's something particular about this iteration of the same wire-service article...

anyway: it appears that the trial has been pushed back for a few days at least; laotian information ministry people are due in london on the 7th to see if there's a way out of this. information is obviously sketchy at this point from non-wire service sources, which is an interesting little window onto the lack of transparency about information on the net. but i digress.


at the same time, 650g of heroin is a pound and a half. while not an epic number, it isn't exactly trivial. in the states, she'd be facing 5-10 years manditory minimum for that amount.

and it appears that rules regarding searches in border areas are a little funny---alot of the rules that one would expect to hold inside a national boundary don't quite at border checkpoints. strange.

id hate to dig up buried bones, but...

SF,

a minor offence?? you think drug trafficking is a minor offence?

no no no no...chris brown did a 'minor offence' compared to this! and you wanted to send him in for a quarter of his life.

She was carrying enough for many doses of heroin.

Regardless, considering the situation, I'd like to see her extradited to Britain, where she should face criminal charges under British law. If she's guilty, it's really unfortunate because I'm assuming it'll mean her child will become a ward of the state.

Unless I'm mistaken, under British law, the maximum penalty for trafficking heroin is life imprisonment and a hefty fine.

C'mon guys, haven't you seen Chained Heat 2? You know the only way these nubile, troubled young women get into trouble is because some ne'er do well places drugs in their purse after they fall alseep on on the Nurrgegaardem train system, then a statuesque blonde prison warden gets them involved in prostitution and on screen shower scenes.

They are all innocent.

For clarity...

I believe that smuggling a small amount of a Class A drug is less serious than a physically powerful and fit man smashing the head of a 110 lbs women into a car window, punching her, and choking her to the point that she loses consciousness... yes. I think that this is a rational and humane perspective.

For clarity: 1.5 lbs. isn't "a small amount." She could face life imprisonment for that in Britain.

EDIT: this is a value of up to $130,000.

EDIT: My previous post on number of doses was way off (sorry for that). She was carrying enough to make up to 20,000 doses of heroin, based on a typical dose of 0.033 grams pure heroin cut with other materials.

Half a kilo? She'd probably only get "possession" for that, it isnt enough to justify "possession with intent to supply"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ation_Card.png

So even when the person disregards something like this? I'm not sure that Laos has the same print on their embarkation cards, but Singapore has had it as their card for at least 20 years now. Thailand, Malaysia also have it on their embarkation cards. I believe Laos would have it as well being in the Golden Triangle.

I believe that countries should be able to do what they want to protect their borders and their people.

I beg to differ, SF. 1.5 pounds is certainly enough for possession with intent to distribute. From an unpublished appellate court decision "the jury could rationally infer that anyone possessing 250 grams of heroin of 65 to 72% purity possessed it with the intent to distribute." In the United States, at least, amount alone is sufficient to establish intent to distribute. I don't know what the requirement for trafficking are.

I would believe you if you'd said "a couple of grams." Did you read my previous post about dosage? I guess the question remains whether it was pure heroin or if it was already mixed. With that amount, I might assume she got it from the source to be mixed back home.

I doubt 20,000 doses (or even half that) was for personal use.

* * * * *

Nice post, Cyn.

So Iran should be allowed execute women for the crime of being rape victims?

You disagree with the current prosecution of Charles Taylor?

We should not have interfered with Serbs and Croats murdering each other? Or mass slaughter in Rwanda?

Surely if a national law is in breach of international human rights conventions then it is invalid?

And Alderon should not have been punished by Lord Vader for the rebel Princess Leia's insolence!

Slow down, this isn't the genocide in Rwanda.

I think many would agree there is a human rights issue concerning the abuse and pregnancy. But outside of that, the use of capital punishment happens right here in North America. I don't agree with it, but this is hardly like the dark days in Rwanda.

Just so that you can read again what I wrote... protect BORDERS and PEOPLE.

civil war is a different matter all together.

Taking imperialism a little far are we? While I don't agree with the human rights violations in prison, subjecting a foreign national to local laws is fully within the ambit of a sovereign nation.

I am not saying that this is as bad as Rwanda, but I am establishing the principle that the international community does have the right to interfere in the business of a soveriegn state in some circumstances.

I think we all accept that this is true (in some circumstances)

The treatment of this girl for a (if people are hung up on the term "minor" let me say) non violent crime is a clear violation of international human rights law, and we do not have to hide behind the fact we do not want to be seen as imperialist when we say that we will not stand for it.

The British nation used to have the most powerful empire in the world, and I say that we still stand for something and we are not in a position yet where we are to be pushed around by Laos and tremble before them. We should defend our rights and the rights of our people if Laos aggressively interferes with them. I am not saying that I seek to prevent them executing their own citizens for ridiculous reasons, but I do say that I seel to prevent them executing British female citizens.

pushed around????? really? pushed around?

If the person is a DRUG TRAFFICKER you mean you can flout rules and laws of other nations that you go visit or get expatriated? Really?

So then why should I drive on the left side of the road when I visit the UK?

Again, I am not saying she shouldnt face legal sanction.

I am saying she shouldnt be shot.

Okay...so don't stand for it. I'll say it again: extradite her (only on the basis of abuse and the pregnancy) and lock her up for life in Britain.

If the laws are stated on the entry to the country like DEATH TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS, I'm sorry, she should be SHOT.

She likely knew the risk. If she were only carrying even two-thirds of what she had (which is still a heck of a lot...enough for trafficking), she wouldn't be facing death right now. Assuming it's pure heroin (why wouldn't it be?), she was carrying a shitload of it.

As much as I dislike the "war on drugs" and all that, this is FAR from being a violation of international human rights law.

And I fail to see where the gender of the person is relevant.

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------

By the way, if she is guilty, in all likelihood she knew the penalty in Laos. So many Westerners try to traffic to that region precisely because the heavy penalties mean extra high profits.

You believe that shooting a pregnant 20 year old woman who has mental health issues is not a violation of human rights standards?

We'll see how this goes down. Now that this is broken in the UK media the Laos government know what they are up against and I doubt they will run the risk of our likely response.

Remember the case of the British nanny Louise Woodward? Even a super power like America has to take into account the heightened feelings in a case involving a foriegn national.

You're also saying that if she had a cock you wouldn't care about this.

This is bullshit. Look, I hate the death penalty. I don't think it should ever be applied and I hope that someday the US (and the rest of the world) can eliminate it. However, this is 2009 and the reality is that in Laos you face execution for drug smuggling. It sucks to be her.

"standards," whatever they mean =/= law

And again, it is not a violation of international human rights law. If she is denied consultation with British consular representatives, that would be a violation of international treaty, but still not a violation of international human rights law.

since there's no legal institutions to enforce human rights law or agreements that operate at a transnational level, this is a political question not an ethical or procedural one. it sucks, but that's reality. and it appears in this case that there's some movement happening that at least in principle may open onto an outcome that is not the one which appears inevitable. but if that works out, it'll happen because the laotian government gets embarrassed into it, and the centre of that embarrassment is the impression--if not the fact--that she was raped in prison. but the information is spotty-to-fucked up, and if you've tried to piece much together that goes past the wire service articles, you'd know this.


the problem with the thread is that it's premise is basically colonialist---it's not that the situation is happening to this woman really--it's that its happening where it's happening, and in that there's some strange sense of violation of a hierarchy (who the hell are the laotians to do this to a uk citizen)...

i oppose capital punishment and think that its usage in a drug case is absurd...


at the same time, 1.5 pounds is A LOT of heroin.

This. As much as I oppose the death penalty, it is hard to say that someone smuggling that much heroin doesn't deserve it. I'd be willing to bet that more than one life will be ruined by the heroin that POS chick got caught with.

Do you really think they would shoot her before she had the child?

You are making poor arguments here.


You stated in this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...earms-use.html That a person who was robbed at gun point (and shot) should not have defended himself by killing his attacker. Yet, when Laos catches someone who was breaking the law and may potentially execute her for drug trafficking, you suggest the British government bomb Laotian Government buildings.


In this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...execution.html

So you feel the death penalty should exist--for the crimes which society finds most horrible, as defined by the general will of the population. Why do you object now to Laos doing exactly what you supported...executing a person who is heavily involved in the international drug trade... The amount of Heroin she had could kill a lot of people and ruin a lot of lives.

Why do your standards not apply when there is an emotional factor (pregnant woman)?



Should the United States 'strategically bomb' the UK next time some American gets locked up for being a jackass?


What about the dozens of foreigners who are executed around the world every year for lesser offenses? Why does 'traveler beware' apply to them but not this drug trafficker?

a DRUG TRAFFICKING pregnant 20 year old woman...

seems like a great candidate for whythefuckdoyouhaveakid.com Why not, right?

ScienceDirect - Drug and Alcohol Dependence : Fluctuations in heroin purity and the incidence of fatal heroin overdose

i dont have time at the moment to read the paper, but i decided to go on the abstract to provide a sense of what we're talking about in terms of what 1.5 pounds of pure heroin is. the study tracked a population of 332 people in the context of which there were 61 overdoses over a 3 week period. the purity level for the overdose cases averaged about 40%.

if you think about it, there's something a bit strange about this whole trial, but leaving that aside because i'm doing this quick-like before i have to leave...let's say the doses were standard and what accounts for the overdosing is fluctuation in quality. 40% seems problematic--so let's assume that the average street-level dose of heroin is about 33% pure. so multiply 1.5 lb by 3.

here

Drugs and Human Performance FACT SHEETS - Morphine (and Heroin)

the doses reported range from 5-1500 mg but maintenance is apparently in the 3-500 mg/day range.
so let's assume that a third of that is actually heroin.

1.5 pounds is A LOT of heroin.

You're fucking kidding, right? That's not even remotely close. She's being executed for being drug trafficker not for being a rape victim. She committed a crime to get where she is, she didn't get where she is unwillingly.

I'm at a loss on this one. This is more weak arguing. You're trying to equate what's been said above to supporting war criminals and the slaughter of innocents. These aren't even remotely close to what's going on here.

Yes, their prison system is atrocious and execution is overly harsh, but she is by no means an innocent victim.

This works on an intellectual level, but again, good luck getting this to work in the international community.

Certainly I do support the death penalty. But I have very clearly stated even in the thread that you quote that I do not support the execution of women; and nor does any civilised human being in my opinion. Executing a woman is a very different thing to executing a violent murderer.

Also I stated that this was in regard to the worst crimes as defined by the general will of the people, not the mad idea's of a dictatorship. In no sane society is any non violent crime considered a capital crime.

ummm...helloooooooooo.... Singapore was a British colony and supports capital punishment for nonviolent crimes, even a young american lad was caned for vandalizing a car.

Women can and are murderers. I don't know why you believe otherwise, when there are jails full of women who have murdered and maimed people.

Ok, in terms of American law... you have first and second degree murder. I basically would only support capital punishment in the worst cases of 1st degree murder. I expect someone might find an example from 1840 of a "woman" committing such a crime, but in general women do not ever commit first degree murder - all cases of women committing murder are basically either involving very strong aggrivating factors, or diminished responsibility by reason of insanity.

When we talk about the worst criminals, wicked murderers who society cannot bare to allow free - these are ALWAYS male. These are the people that I support capital punishment in regard to. And I would hardly hold Singapore up as an example of a free society.

Women happen to be abusive child molesters as well.

I don't support capital punishment, and I can't understand why one would support it just for males. That's a bit misandrous, no? Is it this very same line of thinking that believes men are disposable and are therefore perfect as pawns of war? You know, the war being suggested here in this thread. Just as long as you save the auto-innocent pregnant lady.

Ugh, this makes me a bit sick to my stomach. Are you implying that violence is only "natural" in males? Do you not read the news?

Male murderers are also subject to strong aggravating factors or diminished responsibly by reason of insanity.

Yes there are some female criminals. But the judicial murder of someone is a very very serious thing.

Although I dont want to change the direction of this thread, as my thoughts on capital punishment is being discussed:

1 - I would only support capital punishment by the method of hanging by the neck. Something like a firing squad is the same treatment that might be meted out to a sick dog. The perverted and inverted medical execution of the inection or gas chamber is revolting to human dignity, the electric chair a hideous instrument of torture. If the state is to kill people - it must do so with gravitas and seriousness, and I believe hanging in the only appropriate method

2 - I do not support the execution of women. Capital punishment does not exist as a deterrent (all evidence show that it doesnt work), nor do I believe in any kind of eye for an eye frontier justice. Capital punishment to me is a cleansing ritual, by which the criminals who commit the worst crimes must be sacrificed to cleanse society of the evil of their crimes It is simply not appropriate to execute women. Society becomes warped and blood thirsty when it stoops to this level. Men and woman DO have different roles in the relationships that they have, and in society. The male role is to protect the female from physical harm, when the state (male) violates this to assault society (female) we are in a state of open madness and the state has failed.

__

Now, to get back to this case

1 -The law in Laos in this case is invalid (it is against international human rights standards acknowledged by the civilised world to execute people who have committed non violent crimes

2 - The woman has not even be given the legal rights which should be afforded in Laos (she has not been allowed access to a lawyer)

3 - The woman has been abused in prison

4 - She is 20 years old and pregnant Even in the the most barbaric of medieval societies a female criminal could "plead her belly" and be allowed to be free if pregnant. It is abhorent to human decency to educate a pregnan women

5 - Whether people like it or not, Laos is a weak country and the UK is a relatively strong one. The Laos govt must be informed that they are running a very havy risk here. The British people will demand retlation if one of our citizens is shot down like a stray dog in this way.. the govt may well not be able to contain the people's feelings. Certainly all aid will be cut to Laos, and a trade embargo placed on them. The Govt of Laos will be defined as a criminal body and any assets held in the UK will be siezed immediately. Going to war probably isnt an option, but there are many other penalties which are possible.

well you better hop to it because the once British Colony isn't following your trends, and I believe that Hong Kong will follow the same suit.

Samantha Orobator Won't Face Death, Due To Pregnancy: Laos

according to this report, it may well be that the death penalty is off the table already--this because of a law that bans execution of expectant women who are convicted of a capital crime.
there's apparently been some contact, including consular contact.
according to this same piece, she's to be presented with a list of lawyers--the problem i suppose is that the lawyer she chooses must be lao---but it's in keeping with the law there.

so the ground appears to be shifting out from under that which informed the thread up to this point.

and remember there's to be some sort of meeting in london on the 7th concerning this case.

Im not surprised the "ground is shifting" Laos realise the strength of feeling of the British people and they realise what they are up against!

i don't think it works like that, sf--not even an unreconstructed hegelian would argue that point. fact is that there's been considerable pressure diplomatically and from human rights groups with actually existing contacts in the area. were it not for these groups--and the uk working through australia's consulate, folk could have huffed and puffed all day, waxing as colonial as they let themselves, and it wouldn't have meant anything.

its the diplomatic pressure we have been applying behind closed doors which I believe will pay off I am more than happy that Laos save face in anyway hey want, but this girl must be returned to the UK. The strength of feeling alone and the "huffing and puffing" might not mean much - but economic sanctions, all foriegn aid being withdrawn, seizure of all foriegn assets... these sort of things make them sit up and take notice. And the UK govt has been driven to do this because of the strength of feeling of the British people... so indirectly perhaps "huffing and puffing" is what does the job after all.

AFP: Pregnancy may help Briton avoid firing squad: Laos

Apparently, Laos hasn't executed anyone since 1989. It looks like the practice isn't implemented as advertised.

I'm guessing this means she still faces life imprisonment in Laos.

SF, what about the hundreds of other Britons jailed overseas?

SF, to flat-out deny that women can even commit murder... To say that there's criminals, and then there's women... Where I come from, that'd be called "a world-view that is inconsistent with reality". This thread has nothing to do with the facts of the case and everything to do with your White Knight syndrome.

so if she gets off lightly by not getting the death sentence, what makes you think that she MUST get returned to the UK?

your concern was that she not get 'shot like a dog' wasnt it?

so if she gets off lightly, i think she still deserves to bear the brunt of he actions. repatriating her back to the uK gives others the wrong idea....

"drug smuggle to laos and get and extended holiday and the flight home for free - all expenses paid for..as long as you're pregnant"

dlish, if she is charged in the U.K., she faces a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

If Laos has exceptions for women with child, it likely means imprisonment instead of the firing squad. As I mentioned above, there are people now in Laos prisons sentenced to death, but they haven't shot anyone since '89.

Looks like she'll do her time in the UK
The messages coming out of Laos are very different now to a week ago.

OK, my turn to throw in my 2 cents worth...hang on while I put on my fire-retardant suit....Now I will be playing Devil's Advocate here for this post, trying to look at things from an outside perspective.

Why should she be extradited to GB and tried? Does GB have the market cornered for the laws regarding drug trafficking in Laos? By what you stated above, you indicate that you believe that a person traveling into another country should be held only to the laws of their home country, and not the laws of where they travel to. While I agree that their punishment is extreme, it IS their law, and we do not have the right to go in and tell them that we don't have to follow them, because we disagree with them.

I would honestly like to see evidence proving it is not a deterrent. While I agree that even in places where capital punishment is used, and crimes are still committed, there is no way to tell for sure it does not deter it. For example, Country "A" has a capital punishment law, but 500 capital offenses are still committed each year. How can we know that if you took capital punishment away, that that number wouldn't increase to 5000 offenses a day? There is no way to prove it, without actually doing it, and you are going to be hard pressed to find a country that would take such a big risk.

So just because the rest of the world says it is wrong means that every country cant make their own laws? they just have to follow what "civilized" people do? Sorry, but I feel that is a weak argument.

Have you checked the laws in Laos? It may be that in their country, those accused of a crime are not given the opportunity to have a lawyer. While I disagree with Laotian law if that is the case, again, this is in Laos, NOT G.B.

Agreed, this IS a horrible situation at best.

And in a case such as this, one could argue that there could e a stay of execution, until after the baby is born. (remember, I said I am playind Devil's Advocate here.

I got the biggest laugh here on this one. GB is one of the biggest countries out there that chastize the US when we get involved in other countries affairs, yet you say it is OK for GB to do this to a smaller country because they are bigger than them? Kinda a pot calling the kettle black I think.

All strong countries exert pressure on those weaker than them to further their own national interest. This is the reality of how nations have all interacted, it works the same for America or the UK or France or Ethiopia, or anybody else.

Furthermore, there are international human rights laws, and if some court in Laos passes a local ruling that disobeys international human rights laws then it is illegal and invalid. It is not legal to lock up an 20 year woman, allow her to be raped in prison, not give her any legal counsel, and then shoot her. Whether Laos claims it is legal or not, it is not.

Now, a week ago the talk coming out of Laos is that the death penalty was mandatory if she was found guilty.

Now the talk coming out is that the death penalty wouldnt be applied and that she could serve her time in the UK

_

Now, whatever obtuse points people want to make, the realpolitik situation is playing out as I said it should... I well believe the UK govt might have left this woman to die... but once the media got hold of it and the strength of the the British people's feelings was helf, the govt (which is under siege over their disgraceful treatment of the Gurkha's and the current crisis with regards to expenses claims (ie trough guzzling MPs)) has gone to Laos and told them basically in laymens terms "your running a risk here boys, our people will not allow a disgusting execution like this to be carried out on a young British girl without demanding very heavy retaliation... we will have no choice but to address these concerns, very rough like..." and the Laos govt have seen common sense.

Just because everyone does it, doesn't make it okay.

The international human rights laws are intended as courts to prosecute war crimes and human rights abuses, not an excuse to go war to save people from punishment for their crimes.

Looks like the American woman who got 8 years in Iran for spying is being released.

So just like I said, whether it is Britain or America - it always works the same way.

again...just because its done, its doesnt make it right. i dont know much about the iranian case, but i doubt the americans would have sabre rattled over a journalist that may well be a spy. we do know that there ARE spies in iran.

Yeah, the U.S. isn't exactly the poster child of the rule of (international) law.

well my point is really that the journalist may or may not have been a spy. there's some controversy over that. she may or may not be a threat to the iranian rule of law.

but on the other hand we have a known drug smuggler who is using her passport as a ticket to freedom, even though she poses as a threat to tens of thousands of Laos nationals...i find it puzzling that she garners any type of support from home.

she made her bed as far as im concerned.

i heard today that the Laos government is saying that she must admit that she wasnt raped in prison, otherwise they cannot guarantee that she wont face the firing squad. now THIS i have a problem with.