Australians say terrorists should die

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

I like Australians

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6999582%255E2,00.html

Australians say terrorists should die
By Steve Lewis
August 19, 2003

MOST Australians want the death sentence handed down for barbaric acts of terrorism in this country, despite capital punishment being outlawed by the Commonwealth 30 years ago.

A majority also supports the death sentence handed down against Amrozi earlier this month for his role in the Bali bombings, which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.

More than 35 years after Ronald Ryan became the last person to be executed in Australia, a special Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian last weekend, found 56 per cent want the death penalty introduced when major acts of terrorism are committed in Australia.

Almost 40 per cent said they were strongly in favour of the death penalty.

Thirty-six per cent embraced a more tolerant view, saying they opposed capital punishment.

Australian males, in particular, supported capital punishment, with 60 per cent backing the death sentence, compared with 53 per cent of women.

The strong backing for the death penalty was evenly spread across the various age groups. But a greater proportion of Coalition voters (64 per cent) than of Labor supporters (57 per cent) backed the death penalty.

Support was considerably stronger among blue-collar voters, with 66 per cent backing the death penalty, compared with just under half of professional workers.

The decision by an Indonesian court to sentence Amrozi to death for his part in the Bali bombing has provoked a fierce public debate.

John Howard said the Australian Government would not intervene in the matter, insisting he was adopting a pragmatic position. Simon Crean offered immediate bipartisan support for the Prime Minister’s position on the Amrozi verdict. But the Opposition Leader said he was resolutely opposed to the death penalty being introduced in Australia.

Other political figures – including several Labor MPs - were more outspoken, claiming the Amrozi death penalty should be opposed in principle.

Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett labelled the Amrozi decision a “barbaric act”.

Labor backbencher Duncan Kerr suggested the decision would merely incite others to follow the Amrozi lead.

But a strong majority of Australians believe the death penalty would be acceptable as a punishment for heinous crimes such as the Bali bombings.

Newspoll found that only 23 per cent of those surveyed were strongly against the death penalty. Just 8 per cent said they did not have a view.

Support for the death penalty for those found guilty of the Bali bombing was similar to the support for its introduction in Australia.

Fifty seven per cent were in favour of the death penalty for those found guilty of the Bali bombings.

Thirty three per cent were opposed to the death penalty handed down against Amrozi.

A special service will be held in Denpasar on October 12 to mark the anniversary of the Bali blasts.

The Australian

2

who cares about australians and wht they think? i don't :~)

3

Re: Australians say terrorists should die

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *
I like Australians

Australians say terrorists should die

[/QUOTE]

The problem is the definition of a "terrorist". There were some time in South Africa's history that the ANC and it's members were considered to be "terrorists". Many of the people that did terroristic acts then, are presently accepted to have been guerilla/freedom fighters - no matter if they did plant landmines with the sole purpose to blow up a schoolbus full of kids. Some even received medals for doing these acts.

I recall Mr. Nkomo of Zimbabwe laughing when confronted with the fact that his "soldiers" bashed babies' heads in against a downed aircraft during the Zimbabwean "struggle".

What would your definition of "terrorist" be?

4

Most Afghans think Americans should die,,,, should we all like Afghans?

5

most iraqis think americans should die, infact they are doing a marvellous job in killing soldiers. i like iraqis :~)

6

This isn't an argument saying "Arabs should die" or even simply that anyone that might be a terrorist should be shot in the streets.

It is more an argument about reviving capital punishment in the legal system. Like most other comparitive countries, Australia abolished the death penalty. This current debate is simply an argument about possible cases where it may be applied justly in court. More than anything though it seems like the conservative factions are using terrorism to get capital punishment's foot back in the door in hopes of expanded revival. There's not anything really evil in that, the best parallel would be Japan's ongoing debate about remilitarization.

In this, of course, the concerns that Old Man outlined will probably play a very high role.

7

It befuddles me how arrogance and bloodlust prevents some people from understanding the plain and simple definition of a terrorist act... the deliberate targetting of civilians. This is a horrific crime any way you slice it.

The continual attempts to compare this crime to the "collateral damage" caused by american bombings simply don't fly. America may be guilty of willfull disregard for civilian lives, or even perhaps negligent homicide. What war doesn't suffer from this effect? And, these acts are far removed from terrorism on a scale of horrific crimes, in a way that's similar to murder one (premeditaded) vs. murder two etc...

It's pretty obvious that the Australians understand this common sense definition old man, and they are the descendants of criminals so they should know. Move over shrimp, time to throw another terrorist on the barby. Who has the Foster's mate?

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *

It befuddles me how arrogance and bloodlust prevents some people from understanding the plain and simple definition of a terrorist act... the deliberate targetting of civilians. This is a horrific crime any way you slice it.

**
american troops have done a gr8 job in targetting civilians in the past and currently are raising their ranks in killing civilians in iraq. This is a horrific crime any way you slice it.

**

The continual attempts to compare this crime to the "collateral damage" caused by american bombings simply don't fly. America may be guilty of willfull disregard for civilian lives, or even perhaps negligent homicide. What war doesn't suffer from this effect? And, these acts are far removed from terrorism on a scale of horrific crimes, in a way that's similar to murder one (premeditaded) vs. murder two etc...

**
americans MAYBE guilty? well then its a war in iraq aswell and if american troops are dying then What war doesn't suffer from this effect? well murder one, two three and free is in america only and i don't think whole world is america. :~)

scenario : i come to your house to rob you. you attack me to prevent me from borring you. i kill you in self-defence and wallah, i'll be set free bcoz my actions were provoked by ur attack :~)
**

It's pretty obvious that the Australians understand this common sense definition old man, and they are the descendants of criminals so they should know. Move over shrimp, time to throw another terrorist on the barby. Who has the Foster's mate?

[/QUOTE]

9

**

Balanced reply, Spoon :k:

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *

America may be guilty of willfull disregard for civilian lives, or even perhaps negligent homicide.
[/QUOTE]

Nice of you to admit this fact, but killing 6000 plus Iraqi civilians including gunning down babies and children is terrorism, whatever your sanitised explanations.

11

^ please tell me why? provide your definition of terrorism

12

i agree with spoon, its a capital punishment case. Now I am not ther one to advocate for death penalty on any basis. I do however believe that anyone who has willfully killed any person should be sentenced to life as a scientific test specimen.

but the definition of terrorism is an issue, so why even bother with defining it. Murder is murder..

13

negligent homicide is not murder, Iraqi rebel attacks on American forces is not murder, commiting a violent act knowing that civilians will likely die is borderline (but I don't see how it's avoidable in war), BUT blowing up a bus full of families is MURDER. IMHO, anyone who can't tell the difference is blinded by bloodlust.

14

Most australians also did not want their army to go to iraq. Most australians are also sick of usa dominating their foreign policy!
And as for terrorist no body likes them. Its just depends on your idea of dealing with them. Some people think its justified to ruin a whole country to prevent terrorist attack. Its your approach which matters, australians as far as i know certainly do no agree with this approach.