Taliban in the USA

I wrote this a little over a month prior to 9/11. I only mention that as it makes what is written seem a little...well, spooky.


Today I thought that, as I’d written a little about Boris Yeltsin in the Russia Rant, and since I was speaking of dangerously unstable leaders whose actions are a threat to the international status quo (y'know, whenever I use that phrase I always get a brief image of Status Quo doing a gig at the United Nation to a large group of very bemused looking ambassadors...), I thought I'd bring you up to speed on the actions of lovable Dubya. If indeed his actions they are. To best illustrate what I mean, I think perhaps I shall begin by looking at the latest actions of those fun loving party animals, the Taliban (incidentally Maddy, what is the Russian take on the goings on in Afghanistan? Is it even mentioned after the disasters of the 80's concerning the Soviet occupation? Do let me know, as I'm rather curious).

There is currently a certain amount of unease in the international community concerning the Taliban's latest party trick. They have arrested 8 western aid workers (and 16 Afghans coincidentally, but they're neither European nor American so the media pretty much ignore them, except perhaps for a tagline stating that those 16 face imminent execution...) for Proselytising. Once I looked up what the hell that meant, I found that the 8 aid workers were facing jail for an unknown length of time for the crime of possessing Christian literature (Bible and biblical studies) with the intent to spread the Word of God (copyright J. Christ) to the Afghan people. Naturally the west is concerned, and all the more so as the Taliban won't allow any diplomats to see or talk with the 8.

Now, all of the reports that I have seen carry the underlying message that it is outrageous for a government to treat foreign nationals in this shabby manner. The Taliban are twisting Sharia law (Sharia is Islamic religious law and is used throughout the Islamic world) so that it can be used to fit their own purposes. Islam was originally a most tolerant religion; when the Catholics were nailing people to bits of wood and setting fire to them for not being catholic enough the Moslems were quite happy for their citizens to be whatever religion they pleased so long as they didn't rock the boat. It appears that the Taliban are subverting the law so that, instead of being a tool of justice, it is a tool of the state.

Okay, if you're still reading and wondering "What the shagging hell has this to do with Dubya?" then thank you for bearing with me for I shall get to that presently. I want you to bear the actions of the Taliban (winner of the "Worlds shittest, least humane, and least democratic Government" award for the last 3 years running) whilst we have a little look at the events in America over the last couple of days.

Three things caught my eye yesterday whilst reading through the American news and I found each one rather worrying in it's own special way. The first concerns a Greenpeace demonstration against Dubya's beloved Defence Shield, the second dealt with a writer being jailed, and the finale looked at the imminent execution of a man in (surprise, surprise) Texas.

So then; Greenpeace. 15 of their members and 2 journalists are currently awaiting trial in LA for the crime of disrupting an antimissile defence test in California by entering the test site area using inflatable crafts. Nothing unusual so far (par for the course in fact; I often wonder if the main qualification for joining Greenpeace is the ability to drive a rubber dinghy and use it to play chicken with a Whaling Ship/Warship/Oil Tanker). One would expect them to be duly found guilty of a misdemeanor charge such as trespass and be given a fine (unless you're in France in which case you could perhaps expect them to be put on a ship and dynamited...). However, this is not the case. They are being charged with Conspiracy to Violate a Safety Zone, a felony charge that carries a 6-year sentence. (By the way, the difference between Misdemeanor crime and Felony crime is rather like the difference between a dose of Thrush and a dose of Cancer. One is mildly irritating but causes no lasting problems whilst the other is life changing in every sense of the phrase). Such protests have never been met with such harsh charges before, and as they centre around Dubya's favourite project, it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that politics rather than any interest in justice motivate the charge. It is a bullying tactic and its purpose would seem to be to discourage any further protest against the Defence Shield.

Then we have the treatment of the 17 people; 11 are foreign nationals and they found themselves imprisoned in a high security correctional facility, needing $20,000 each to secure bail. After 6 days Greenpeace provided the money and so they now await trial which is due to start on September 25th. Let me just re-state this in case it hasn't sunk in; for taking part in a non-violent protest for 2 minutes these men and women are facing the very real possibility of spending the next 6 years in prison. Do I really need to point out the parallels between this and the actions of the Taliban? I didn't think so....

(Incidentally, the Defence shield tests thus far have been a magnificent and resounding failure; the first one cost $100 million and missed its target entirely. Neither wonder the US government want to stop people getting anywhere near the test sites. They may just notice that the whole thing doesn't actually work...)

Next we have a case that predominantly centres around the First Amendment to the American Constitution which provides for freedom of speech. An American writer named Vanessa Leggett has been held in a Texas prison for nearly a month now. She was in the process of writing a book about the murder of a woman by her husband and brother in law. That particular case is not really an issue any more as the husband confessed all and exonerated his brother entirely shortly before committing suicide. As part of the research for that book she interviewed pretty much everybody involved in the case, including the husband (obviously she did this before he topped himself otherwise it would be a rather dull interview).

The courts have ordered that she turn over all of the those notes to the FBI as it may help their investigation of the crime. Well...okay, fair enough to be honest. I happen to think that generally speaking the police should have access to as much information as possible that will assist them in solving a crime. Except that the crime *has* been solved. So why the big fuss over her notes? Well she says that she has to protect her sources, and that is an integral part of free speech because free speech requires a free press and a free press requires the writer to ensure the confidentiality of their source. However, the courts have changed tack somewhat and are trying to say that she cannot be protected by the First Amendment because "she's not a registered journalist". So the only people who are apparently allowed free speech in America are journalists. Once again, it is an example of the bullying from a federal organisation (the FBI rather than the government in this case) and the use of the legal process to achieve and end that is not motivated by justice. The message being sent by the FBI would seem to be "Do as we tell you at all times or we'll imprison you" (still thinking of those oppressive gentlemen in Afghanistan and their own particular brand of policing? Good...). Vanessa Leggett will stay in prison for the next 18 months if she continues to defend the rights that she is entitled to by the American Constitution. Not exactly something that'll be included in any new verses of "The Star Spangled Banner" I suspect.

We stay in Texas for the last item on the American shitlist. The improbably named Napoleon Beazley was due to die today for taking part in the murder of a man named John Luttig. He committed the murder when he was 17 years old. Now I certainly don't excuse him from murdering someone because he was a mere boy (although I do find it slightly puzzling that he was not old enough to drink or vote when he committed the crime yet he is old enough to die for it). The taking of a life is a dreadful thing and he deserved punishment. However, bearing in mind his age and circumstances (Napoleon is black and from a poor area where being in a gang was a social boon. He also had no previous criminal record and had been described as a model student. Also, just look at his name for God's sake! If my parents had named me so, I'm pretty sure that I would have a grudge against the world) I would argue that he also deserved some effort at rehabilitation. By all accounts his shows remorse and shame for his actions and all who are in contact with him agree that the 25 year old man sitting on death row is an entirely different person to the 17 year old who arrived there.

However the thing that really interests me in this case are the incidental details. Napoleon is black, the victim (and jury) was white. Not only that, but the victim's son is a federal judge whom advised the prosecution during trial. He is also a good friend of at least 3 judges in the Supreme Court where Napoleons last appeal was heard. The 3 in question withdrew from hearing the appeal, and the 6 remaining judges were evenly split as to whether to commute his sentence. As there was no majority, the state of Texas decided to execute him anyway.

Let me just go over that again because it's a little confusing at first; there are serious doubts over the validity of the death sentence imposed on this man and this is evidenced by the fact that 3 of the most senior judges in America think he shouldn't be executed. He is going to be killed anyway. (As I've been writing this the Texas Parole board have announced a stay of execution. I don't yet know how long it is for, but he is still under sentence of death). This is all happening in the same state where a man who has been on death row since 1984 had his execution stopped by the court on Monday because his lawyer had spent much of the original trial asleep. The state actually argued that the fact that the defence counsel had been asleep did not necessarily mean that the trial had been unfair. As you read this, you may like to have a think about the reports about the use of Sharia law in Afghanistan where people are condemned to death pretty much all of the time and any complaints about the unfairness of the trial are swept aside.

Okay, so maybe I'm belabouring the point here but doesn't it worry you that the most powerful nation in the world is behaving in this manner? Its not been too difficult to draw parallels with the Taliban and the aforementioned events in America, so what the hell is going on? Much though I hate Dubya, I'm reluctant to place all of the blame at his door. I despise the man because he is a bumbling buffoon whose elevation to President of the USA is right up there with Caligula appointing a horse as his Prime Minister. I have difficulty believing that he alone is behind the massive erosion of freedom and the rule of law that has taken place since his election. I'm inclined to think of him as more of a figurehead, but for whom I don't know. Whoever the people are pulling the strings, I would say that we have reason to be worried about them.