qolon

There are several reasons, but the main one concerns the complacency by the
Australian general population to themselves take responsibility for the
reality that this country is at war, and not just any war, but a war against
religious zealotry. The laxness by which Iraq disposed of its Anthrax
stockpiles and the capacity for individuals to engage in contamination of
the illicit drug supply, is the most rational and largest single risk which
is faced within this military conflict.

"In attacking the legality of the death sentence, the appellant submitted
that the sentence prescribed under s 7 of the MDA was a maximum and not a
mandatory sentence. Secondly, if the death sentence was nevertheless
mandatory, it was illegal and should not be administered because it violated
Arts 9, 12 and/or 93 of the Constitution of Singapore." [cf:
http://www.geocities.com/law4u2003/nguyentuongyanappeal.htm ]

During this time, we have seen no end to human depravation and destruction,
both as acts of inhumanity and nature. One could understandably have a
concern for the sufferance which is consequentially induced and therefore
have and increased intolerance as opposition to the continuing engagement of
such conflict.

Against this backdrop, is the reality that Australians have not had to
moderate, reduce or unnecessarily inconvenience their lifestyles.

But the fact remains, that the individual was convicted of the capital
charge of importing into Singapore on 12 December 2002, a decadance at a
time when we were at war. It is this mitigating cir***stance, as an
immutable issue of STATE, being the failure to engage in harm minimisation
as essential behaviour during a time of war by seeking to further expose
others to addictive behavior that has the greatest potential to cause a
public health problem.

As a social value held by Australians, it is the mitigated risk of a very
serious disease state such as Anthrax which under our legislation as Section
19A (1-2) Crimes Act 1958 carries a term of imprisonment of 25 years
maximum.

Under normal cir***stances, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to make a
specific request as antagonism to the judicial wisdom as Singaporean
Sovereignty. However in this instance, there is the mitigating
cir***stance, as an immutable issue of STATE. I think in the cir***stance,
execution ought to expeditious.

It was about October 2001, when I first conceived of the 'Bugs in Drugs'
notion concerning the illicit global drug supply problem and its potential
to be exploited by religious based terrorist organisations. I'm not sure of
the exact date except to say that the day following my raising such Internet
dialog with an American friend, there was a chemical decontamination
security operation and evacuation involving one of the Hotels within Collins
Street, Melbourne.
I didn't believe at the time, that we should complacently imagine that there
isn't a potential for such contaminantion within this country. And my
correspondent reassuringly suggested that they were going to escalate the
information onto an American intelligence agency. According to media reports
from New York, "Osama bin Laden tried to buy a huge amount of cocaine, spike
it with poison and sell it in the US, hoping to kill thousands of Americans
a year after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001.

The plot failed when the Colombian drug lords that bin Laden approached
decided it would he bad for their business--and, possibly, for their own
health, according to sources familiar with the Drug Enforcement
Adminstration's investigation of the aborted transaction.

Federal authorities were told of the scheme earlier this year, but its
existence had never been made public.

The New York Post has reviewed a do***ent detailing the DEA's findings in
the matter, in addition to interviewing sources familiar with the case.
Sources said the authorities were told bin Laden personally met leaders of a
Colombian drug cartel in 2002 to negotiate the purchase of tonnes of
cocaine, saying he was willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to
finance the deal.

It was not clear where the meeting took place. Bin Laden hoped that large
numbers of Americans dying from poisoned cocaine would lead to widespread
terror.

'They wanted to kill thousands of people--more than the World Trade Centre,'
a source said.

Although the drug laws would have reaped millions of dollars in profits by
selling the cocaine to bin Laden, they knew that if his plan succeeded, it
might effectively destroy the market for their cocaine in the US for years,
sources said.

But that was only one reason they declined bin Laden's offer. The other was
their fear of retaliation from the US Government once its citizens began
dying from the drugs.

Despite bin Laden's plan being twarted, the DEA reportedly believes that al
Qa'ida continues to traffic in drugs to fund a variety of its operations,
including training, travelling and terror attacks.

In 2002 the DEA director Asa Hutchinson said, 'The DEA (has) received
multi-sourced information that Osama bin Laden himself has been involved in
the financing and facilitation of heroin trafficking activities.

'It is important we recognise that when money goes from the pocket of an
American to buy drugs, it may contribute to the financing of unspeakable
crimes of violence around the world,' Mr Hutchinson told Congress that year
when he detailed the narcotics trade connection to al-Qa'ida and other
terror groups.

In April this year, Afghan tribal leader Hajji Bashir Noorzai, who was one
of the world's most-wanted drug dealers and previously had been identified
as bin Laden's major heroin supplier, was arrested in New York City on
federal criminal charges." [Copyright 2005 and Courtesy: The New York Post,
News Limited, 'Osama Tried to Sell Poison Coke in US', 28 July 2005, cf:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16073904-38198,00.html ]

- dolf

lygon

Execution is based on payback justice and 'eye for eye' and tooth for tooth'
justice systems.
It is not the way of the kingdom of god as expressed by Jesus in the Sermon
on the Mount.

(Mat 5:38) You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth."

(Mat 5:39) But I say to you, Do not resist evil. But whoever shall strike
you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

(Mat 5:43) You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbour
and hate your enemy."

(Mat 5:44) But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you,
do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you
and persecute you,

Christianity is based on "Love your enemies" It encompasses the related
concepts of f****veness, inclusion and generosity toward the offending
other. Love your enemies is also commonly associated with the injunction to
not retaliate against those who hurt or offend (see Matthew 5:38-48, "Do not
resist an evil person"). But even more than refusing to retaliate, love your
enemies argues that we must treat them as we would treat our own family.

Execution of offenders does is not the best framework to express "Love your
Enemy"

We need methods of Law to protect the General Public from Crime and acts of
harm, but if viewed in light of the Love your Enemy our methods of justice
should be aimed at rehabilitation, inclusion of the offender. In some cases
offenders may need to be separated in incarceration from society for safety
of others.
But . surely our justice systems should not be based on retaliatory eye for
eye payback justice and exclusion.
Unconditional f****veness for those who offend is the principle of the
Gospel. It is how God treats us and it is how we are to treat our fellow
humans.

Execution of offenders reflects the ultimate rejection and exclusion of the
offender. It is based on retaliation and payback, therefore I do not support
the execution of this young lad Nyguyen Tuong Van.
Apart from religious reasons, this lad was an amatuer and not a main player.
He was not the trafficker here, he was a drug mule who made a serious
mistake due to lure of quick money.
Execution by such an inhumane painful method as hanging is a punishment that
is way in excess of the crime.


<SNIP>

qolon

You have no posting history under the name "Lygon" <dograter@geocities.com>
when you said, "Unconditional f****veness for those who offend is the
principle of the Gospel. It is how God treats us and it is how we are to
treat our fellow humans."

It would seem to me from your post, that you readily agree that ethical
behaviour ought to be in accordance with the principles of pure reason (homo
noumenon), that: "A state (civitus) is a union of a multitude of human
beings under laws of right." [Kant]

However the Roman Catholic Church within Australia does not concede to the
State an inherent Justice and Morality--a concession which in the Protestant
principle is fundamental, and are by their insistance to conduct funerals
and feign piety for those who clearly engage within a 'life of criminality
and reprobation' it is the anti-thesis of the claim: "You shall love the
Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it - You
shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all
the law and the Prophets."

Accordingly, I have repeated my comment of Tues, Mar 23 2004 8:31 pm

I'm wondering, in the continued denial of our human and Constitutional
Rights by Christian Churches within Australia and particularly the Roman
Catholic Church, because of an exception provided in section 75(2)(b) of the
Equal Opportunity Act 1995 which allows the Church to discriminate against a
person where it is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities
of the people of the religion.

Whether given such a clear life of criminality and reprobation of the
Bible's Moral Code as is evidenced by today's retaliation to such a life as
the lastest gangland slaying within Carlton, that such avoidance of "injury
to the religious sensitivities of the people of the religion" will extend to
the Christian Churches in Melbourne ceasing their hypocrisy, by refusing to
conduct a funeral for such a person

According to reports within The Age Newspaper of the last lavish funeral for
a long time friend and individual who lived a life of crime, Roman Catholic
Father Norden made the impassioned plea, 'for an end to the murderous
bloodshed.'

The one-time chaplain at Pentridge Prison, said: "Real strength doesn't come
from the barrel of a gun, but where men confront their difficulties and
differences, when they deal with them at a personal level and when they find
a way to resolve those differences and get on with one another, even if it
means living with those differences. He told the congregation of many
hundreds on 19 December, 2003 at the Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Cotham
Road, Kew - a short walk from where Kinniburgh was gunned down outside his
Belmont Avenue home - that his friend had the capacity to live with those
'differences'.

The last time he saw Kinniburgh alive was a few weeks ago when he was at St
Mary's Star of the Sea in West Melbourne to farewell 'an old friend from the
docks'." [Journalist: Jamie Berry, Courtesy: The Age Newspaper 20 December,
2003 -- <http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/19/1071337160770.html>]

Or are they entitled to a presumption of innocence by the Catholic Church
and we are not?.

I should also point out, with regards to Pastor Rowland Croucher's comment
"Not many of us understand his esoteric brand of kabbalism" as my claim to
religious belief.

It is singulary an act of cruelty {ie. a disposition to inflict suffering;
indifferent to, or taking pleasure in, the pain of distress of another}and
presumption as exampled by their psychological impugnity as untruthful
epithet, that in exercising my autonomous and Constitutional right, and in
being capable to rationally articulate my 'belief, thought and conscience'
as religious value expression which is inclusive of myself, that I still
require his permission to enjoy my religious liberty as human and
Constitutional rights.

It is particularly grievous and without justification before God (ie. there
is no f****veness for such a sin), that in the cir***stances where he makes
a fictional claim to Christianity as Sunday sacredness, he believes he has a
greater prerogative as belief that it may void our Australian Constitutional
Rights.

- dolf

Execution is based on payback justice and 'eye for eye' and tooth for tooth'
justice systems.
It is not the way of the kingdom of god as expressed by Jesus in the Sermon
on the Mount.

(Mat 5:38) You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth."

(Mat 5:39) But I say to you, Do not resist evil. But whoever shall strike
you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

(Mat 5:43) You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbour
and hate your enemy."

(Mat 5:44) But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you,
do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you
and persecute you,

Christianity is based on "Love your enemies" It encompasses the related
concepts of f****veness, inclusion and generosity toward the offending
other. Love your enemies is also commonly associated with the injunction to
not retaliate against those who hurt or offend (see Matthew 5:38-48, "Do not
resist an evil person"). But even more than refusing to retaliate, love your
enemies argues that we must treat them as we would treat our own family.

Execution of offenders does is not the best framework to express "Love your
Enemy"

We need methods of Law to protect the General Public from Crime and acts of
harm, but if viewed in light of the Love your Enemy our methods of justice
should be aimed at rehabilitation, inclusion of the offender. In some cases
offenders may need to be separated in incarceration from society for safety
of others.

But . surely our justice systems should not be based on retaliatory eye for

eye payback justice and exclusion.

Unconditional f****veness for those who offend is the principle of the
Gospel. It is how God treats us and it is how we are to treat our fellow
humans.

Execution of offenders reflects the ultimate rejection and exclusion of the
offender. It is based on retaliation and payback, therefore I do not support
the execution of this young lad Nyguyen Tuong Van.
Apart from religious reasons, this lad was an amatuer and not a main player.
He was not the trafficker here, he was a drug mule who made a serious
mistake due to lure of quick money.
Execution by such an inhumane painful method as hanging is a punishment that
is way in excess of the crime.
"Qolon" <telos@iprimus.net> wrote in message news:4365c60f_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
<SNIP>

qolon

The 'go to hell' events of 15 April 2003, 2 December 2004 [cf:
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/browse_frm/thread/c398
02d73e560ad4/f30dc3aca2b1b1b1>
] against the backdrop of Saddam Hussein's trial [cf:
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.religion.judaism/browse_frm/thread/e46ddd
eeda7c1aea/7b2064ebc6378c6b#7b2064ebc6378c6b ] and the execution of a mental
health impaired plane traveller in Miami on 7 December 2005] tends to
indicate that Divine Providence as the Lord of Hosts was antagonistic to the
folly as Roman Catholic Requiem Mass held at Saint Patrick's Melbourne
cathedral for a convicted drug smuggler executed by a foreign State. [cf: 2
Timothy 3:1-9]


- dolf
- <http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/sybilline.html>

On 1/11/05 8:17 AM, in message
sRv9f.5535$Hj2.739@news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Lygon"