Saudi Arabia executes 81 in one day for terror offences

Source: Straits Times (12 March 2022)

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-executes-81-in-one-day-for-terror-offences

RIYADH (AFP) - Saudi Arabia said Saturday (March 12) it executed 81 people in one day on a variety of terrorism-related offences, exceeding the total number of executions in the kingdom in the whole of last year.

All had been "found guilty of committing multiple heinous crimes", the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported, saying they included convicts linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group, or to Al-Qaeda, Yemen's Huthi rebel forces or "other terrorist organisations".

They had been plotting attacks on vital economic sites, or had targeted or had killed members of the security forces, or had smuggled weapons into the country, the SPA added.

Of the 81 people, 73 were Saudi citizens, seven were Yemeni and one was a Syrian national.

SPA said all those executed were tried in Saudi courts, with trials overseen by 13 judges over three separate stages for each individual.

The wealthy Gulf country has one of the world's highest execution rates.

Saturday's announcement marks the kingdom's highest number of recorded executions in one day, and more than the total of 69 executions in all of 2021.

Malaysia to abolish death penalty for 11 offenses

Source: Anadolu Agency (14 March 2019)

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/malaysia-to-abolish-death-penalty-for-11-offenses/1418223

Malaysian government has decided to abolish death penalty for at least 11 offenses, including terror-related offenses, according to media reports.

The nine offenses fall under the Penal Code and two under the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971, Malaysian daily The Star said.

According to the daily, Malaysian Deputy Minister Mohamed Hanipa Maidin said that the government had also proposed to give discretionary powers to the courts in commuting sentences for the 11 offenses.

Of 11 offenses, five pertain to terrorism, including directing and committing terror acts. The rest cover murder, hostage-taking, organized crime, offenses against the constitutional monarch and the use of firearms, a report by Singapore-based Straits Times said.

Singapore to enforce death penalty for nuclear terrorism acts

Source: Channel News Asia (8 May 2017)

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/parliament/singapore-to-enforce-death-penalty-for-nuclear-terrorism-acts-8827782

SINGAPORE: A person who commits a fatal act of terrorism using radioactive material or nuclear explosive devices will face the mandatory death penalty under new laws passed in Parliament on Monday (May 8).

The legislation paves the way for Singapore’s ratification of the United Nations’ (UN) International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (ICSANT).

Second Minister for Home Affairs Desmond Lee said that while the likelihood of a nuclear terrorist attack in Southeast Asia was remote, the rise of terror group Islamic State means Singapore cannot discount such a scenario and must treat the threat seriously.

“Especially when many countries, including those in our region, use nuclear energy, or are actively exploring the use of nuclear energy,” he added. “In February this year, Malaysian authorities arrested eight people connected to the theft of Iridium-192, a radioactive material which can be used to make dirty bombs.”

It will now be a criminal offence to intentionally and unlawfully use any radioactive material or nuclear explosive device, or use or damage a nuclear facility leading to the release of radioactive material, to achieve the effects of terrorism.
Advertisement

The penalties will be pegged at the same level as a murder offence in the Penal Code and therefore, in the event of death caused, lead to the gallows, said Mr Lee, adding that in any other case, life imprisonment will be the punishment.

The new laws also provide for extra-territorial jurisdiction - meaning any person outside Singapore who commits an act which constitutes a nuclear terrorism offence if carried out in Singapore, is deemed to have committed the act here, said Mr Lee.

“If taken into custody, the person would be charged, tried and punished accordingly in Singapore. This provision allows us to prosecute the offender in Singapore, if it is not possible or desirable to extradite him,” he explained. “It ensures that perpetrators do not escape punishment, regardless of which country they are from, and where they committed the offences.”

But Singapore must also facilitate extradition requests by the 109 other countries who are parties to the Convention, and provide mutual legal assistance with its domestic framework.

“WE TAKE THE POSSIBILITY SERIOUSLY”

Mr Lee later told the House that Singapore has, over the years, been preparing and developing to deal with the risks of nuclear terrorism.

“Agencies such as NEA (National Environment Agency) and SCDF (Singapore Civil Defence Force) have developed the necessary operational capabilities to deal with illicit use of nuclear and radioactive material in Singapore,” he said. “MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) and NEA have also been working together to tighten security measures at premises storing high-risk radioactive material.”

To begin with, Singapore has a strict regulatory regime put in place by NEA to make it hard for radioactive material to end up in the wrong hands, said Mr Lee.

“On import, valid permits are required for all cargo entering our port checkpoints - if necessary they will be subject to X-ray screening and radioactivity checks,” he added.

“Thus far, we’ve not detected any breaches involving radioactive material in Singapore.”

An inter-agency committee continually assesses the threat of nuclear terrorism in Singapore, and in the event of an attack, there will be processes to deal with possible scenarios.

“Should such an incident occur, MHA will coordinate a whole-of-Government response,” Mr Lee outlined. “SCDF will render assistance to casualties and contain the radioactive material, assisted by our armed forces where necessary. NEA will provide technical advice to help mitigate harm. The police will investigate the act, find the perpetrators and take them to task.”

He added: “Beyond efforts from agencies, Singaporeans will need to be prepared for an attack.” Authorities may have to evacuate people from affected areas, and members of public may also need to be trained on how to reduce inhalation of harmful substances.

“There are no immediate threats, but we take the possibility seriously,” said Mr Lee. “It is timely we put in place the necessary legal framework now and join the international community to combat terrorism in all its forms - including nuclear terrorism.”

Source: CNA/jo

Four on death row in Saudi Arabia for terrorism

Source: Channel NewsAsia (12 March 2016)

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/four-on-death-row-in-saud/2596306.html

Death sentences against four Saudi men convicted of terrorism have been confirmed by 13 judges, a Saudi newspaper reported, raising the possibility of a new round of executions two months after 47 people including a prominent Shi'ite cleric were put to death.

International rights groups said the families of three young Shi'ite Muslim men feared their sons, arrested for involvement in anti-government protests while under the age of 18, were among those facing the death penalty. One is a nephew of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, the cleric whose execution in January led to a rupture of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Officials from the Saudi justice ministry and the interior ministry were not immediately available to comment.

Saudi newspaper Okaz said: "The four terrorists awaiting the implementation of the death sentences complement the first group of 47." It said a total of 13 judges had considered the cases in three levels of hearings, but did not identify the four men.

Rights group Reprieve, which campaigns against the death penalty, said: "While details of the four in line for execution remain unclear, the reports will raise fears for three juveniles who are awaiting execution after their sentences ... were upheld in the SCC (Specialised Criminal Court) last year."

The three are Dawoud al-Marhoon, arrested in 2012; Abdullah Hassan al-Zaher, who was 15 when he was arrested in 2011; and Ali al-Nimr, aged 17 when he was detained in 2012. France has called on Saudi Arabia not to execute Nimr, arguing he was a minor at the time.

Amnesty International said: "If these executions go ahead, Saudi Arabia will demonstrate its utter disdain for international law, which prohibits executions of people for crimes committed under the age of 18."

In November last year, two Saudi newspapers reported that Saudi Arabia was planning to execute more than 50 people for "terrorist crimes" that killed more than 100 civilians and 71 security personnel.

The 47 executed on Jan. 2 were mostly Sunnis convicted of al Qaeda attacks in the kingdom a decade ago. Four, including the older Nimr, were members of the Shi'ite minority who were accused of involvement in shooting policemen.

Nimr's execution sparked demonstrations in eastern Saudi Arabia and in Shi'ite Iran, where angry crowds ransacked the Saudi embassy in Tehran, prompting Riyadh to break off ties with Iran.

Opinion: Bangladesh must abolish the death penalty now

Source: DW (12 February 2016)

http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-bangladesh-must-abolish-the-death-penalty-now/a-19044275

The Bangladeshi Law Minister Anisul Huq’s remarks on the death penalty came after a meeting with a European Parliament delegation in Dhaka on Thursday. According to reporters present, Huq responded to calls from members of the delegation to abolish the death penalty in his country by categorically ruling out any changes to the law at the present time. This was a coolly calculated slap in the face for his visitors from Europe and a clear sign that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina intends to continue her quest to call Islamist leaders to account for the crimes they allegedly committed during Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971.

It reinforces the view that the Dhaka government has no intention of rethinking the political impact of the so-called International War Crimes Tribunal. The Tribunal has been underway in the country since 2010 and has imposed a series of death sentences on high profile Islamist leaders, several of whom have already been hanged.

The death penalty is irreversible and when used against political opponents it creates martyrs and triggers further political instability. While the death penalty remains popular with Hasina’s Awami League and its supporters, its continued use is without doubt creating a fertile breeding ground for Islamist terror. Just recently James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence in the US, warned that Hasina’s continuing efforts to undermine the political opposition would foster the rise of Islamist terrorists.International criticism of the Tribunal’s work has been consistently damning. Defense lawyers have been prevented from carrying out their work properly, some witnesses for the defense have not been allowed to testify and some of the testimony by prosecution witnesses has been farcical and based largely on hearsay. The latter is not surprising seeing how much time has elapsed by the alleged crime and the trial. The Tribunal clearly does not meet international judicial standards. Nonetheless, it continues to impose the death penalty against the Islamist opponents of the Dhaka government.

He is right. Moreover, Clapper pointed to the fact that Islamist terrorists had claimed responsibility for the slaying of at least 11 progressive writers and bloggers since 2013. However, Sheikh Hasina remains in denial of the obvious consequences of her policies and claims that the so-called Islamic State does not have a foothold in her country, despite evidence to the contrary. At the very least she is guilty of sticking her head in the sand, at worst of an extreme form of cynicism.

While the desire to finally close the 1971 chapter in the country’s past is both honorable and understandable, Bangladesh continues to move away from the path of reconciliation between those who support secularism in the majority Muslim country and those who wish to see Islam play a greater role. With more of those convicted by the War Crimes Tribunal now awaiting execution, the need for dialogue across the political spectrum is greater than ever, as it the need to abolish the death penalty now, rather than after the damage has been done.

End death penalty, keep it only for terror: Law panel tells government

Source: The Indian Express (1 September 2015)

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/law-commission-recommends-abolition-of-death-penalty/

Over 53 years after it favoured retention of the death penalty in statute books, the Law Commission of India recommended Monday that the death penalty be abolished for all crimes other than terrorism-related offences and waging war against the country. This was first reported by The Indian Express last Friday.

In its report, submitted to the government by commission chairman and former Delhi High Court Chief Justice A P Shah, the 10-member panel concluded that while death penalty does not serve the penological goal of deterrence any more than life imprisonment, concern is often raised that abolition of capital punishment for terror-related offences and waging war will affect national security.

However, three members of the commission including two representing the Ministry of Law and Justice — Law Secretary P K Malhotra and Legislative Secretary Sanjay Singh — submitted dissent notes against the recommendation to abolish death penalty. The third dissent note was given by Law Commission member and former Delhi High Court judge Usha Mehra who referred to the rights of “innocent victims”.

Questioning the “rarest of rare” doctraine, the panel said that administration of death penalty, even within the “restrictive environment of rarest of rare doctraine”, was constitutionally unsustainable.“After many lengthy and detailed deliberations, it is the view of the Law Commission that the administration of death penalty, even within the restrictive environment of ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, is constitutionally unsustainable. Continued administration of death penalty asks very difficult constitutional questions… these questions relate to the miscarriage of justice, errors, as well as the plight of the poor and disenfranchised in the criminal justice system,” the report stated.

Pointing out that in the last decade, the Supreme Court had on “numerous occasions expressed concern about arbitrary sentencing” in death penalty cases, the panel said, “There exists no principled method to remove such arbitrariness from capital sentencing. A rigid, standardisation or categorisation of offences which does not take into account the difference between cases is arbitrary in that it treats different cases on the same footing. Anything less categorical, like the Bachan Singh framework itself, has demonstrably and admittedly failed.”

The commission also questioned the mercy petition system, provided for under the Constitution, saying, “The exercise of mercy powers under Articles 72 and 161 have failed in acting as the final safeguard against miscarriage of justice in the imposition of the death sentence.”

The report stated that from January 26, 1950 till date, successive Presidents have accepted 306 mercy petitions and rejected 131.

Referring to victims of crimes, the panel said in focusing on death penalty “as the ultimate measure of justice to victims”, the restorative and rehabilitative aspects of justice are lost sight of.

It said reliance on the death penalty diverts attention from other problems ailing the criminal justice system such as poor investigation, crime prevention and rights of victims of crime. It is essential that the state establish effective compensation schemes to rehabilitate victims of crime.

At the same time, it is also essential, the panel said, that courts use the power granted to them under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant appropriate compensation to victims in suitable cases.

“The voices of victims and witnesses are often silenced by threats and other coercive techniques employed by powerful accused persons. Hence, it is essential that a witness protection scheme also be established. The need for police reforms for better and more effective investigation and prosecution has also been universally felt for some time now and measures regarding the same need to be taken on a priority basis,” the report stated.

Putting Saudi Arabia's execution of 47 people into historical context

Source: The Independent (1 January 2016)

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/putting-saudi-arabias-execution-of-47-people-into-historical-context--b1ePJGtzpix

Saudi Arabia has executed 47 people convicted of terrorist offences, including prominent Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr.

Al-Nimr was an outspoken supporter of the protests in the east of the kingdom in 2011, and was arrested alongside his nephew Ali al-Nimr (17 at the time) in 2012, for charges of (among other things) seeking “foreign meddling” in the state.

Ali al-Nimr has not been named among the 47 executed, most of whom were detained after a series of al-Qaeda attacks between 2003 and 2006 in which hundreds were killed.

All but two of those executed were Saudi nationals, one was an Egyptian and one was a Chadian.

Iran, a country with Shia leadership, said Saudi Arabia would pay a "high price" for the executions, claiming that Riyadh: "supports terrorists... while executing and suppressing critics inside the country."

Saudi Arabia executed at least 157 people in 2015, which was the highest figure recorded by human rights groups for 20 years.

In 2014, the total number of executions recorded was 90.

Pakistan: The year of most executions

Source: The Express Tribune (2 January 2016)

http://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/pakistan-year-of-most-executions.html

As many as 301 people were executed in the Punjab last year. Thousands of prisoners on death row continue to wait for verdicts on their appeals.

There are at least 5,145 people on death row. Of these, there are 42 women whose appeals are pending before the high court and the Supreme Court, sources in the office of the Punjab inspector general (prisons) told The Express Tribune.

Recently, 63 appeals against death penalty were dismissed by the president. Dates of execution are to be notified soon. There are 4,213 appeals pending in the Lahore High Court and its allied benches; 743 in the Supreme Court, 124 with the president and 3 with the Pakistan Army GHQ.

After the deadly attack on Army Public School in Peshawar on December 16, 2014, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had lifted the moratorium on death penalty. The first execution was then carried out on April 8 in Machh Jail in Balochistan.

These executions were stayed during a month's reprieve in Ramazan. However, they resumed at the end of July.

As many as 301 people were executed in 7 months. Most had been languishing in jails for more than 20 years.

Kanizan, a prisoner on death row, has exhausted her appeals and is waiting for her turn to be hanged.

She is currently being held at Lahore's Kot Lakhpat Jail. Prison authorities have moved her to a psychiatric ward, saying she is not mentally stable. She was sentenced to death for killing 6 children and their mother in connivance with their father in Toba Tek Singh.

Most of those executed had been convicted of murder over personal enmity, kidnapping for ransom, rape and robbery.

Less than 30 people were executed for terrorist activities. Among those executed for terrorist activities, 13 were tried under the Anti-Terrorism Act, while 12 were hanged after being punished by Field General Court Martial. 8 people were executed for assassination attempts on former president General (r) Pervez Musharraf and 1 person for the attack outside the US Consulate in Karachi. A man was hanged for attacking the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Pakistan Army in Rawalpindi.

Among those convicted by Field General Court Martial, three were former officials of the Pakistan Air Force, three of Pakistan Army, one was the son of a retired army official and one was a sepoy, who had killed a colleague in Peshawar Cantt while on duty.

Of the 13 people tried by Anti-Terrorism Courts, 8 belonged to the Lashkar-i-Jhangvi. They had been convicted for sectarian killings. 3 among them were those who had hijacked a PIA plane from Turbat to Karachi in 1998.

Supreme Court advocate Tipu Salman Makhdoom says the worst in terms of executions is yet to come.

"More executions are expected in 2016. This is going to bring a bad name to Pakistan," he says.

"People are being hanged over personal enmities, not because of their involvement in terrorism. The government should arrest real terrorists, establish cases against them and give them exemplary punishment."

Panel favours abolishing death sentence in India

Source: New Straits Times (1 September 2015)

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/panel-favours-abolishing-death-sentence-in-india

A law panel tasked by India's Supreme Court to look into the death penalty has recommended that it be abolished for all crimes except those related to terrorism as it no longer has a deterrent effect.

While its recommendation could lead the government to consider taking a look at a partial ban, the final decision rests with the government.

"The death penalty does not serve the… goal of deterrence any more than life imprisonment," the commission said in its report.

"Retribution has an important role to play in punishment. However, it cannot be reduced to vengeance,'' added the executive body that deals with legal reform.

The commission suggested that instead of relying on the death penalty - which is carried out by hanging - the government and courts should look at compensation schemes and rehabilitation for victims, witness protection programmes and police reforms to raise the quality of investigation.

"It is for the government to make a call. The report is to start a debate and at some point make a clean break from the past,'' the commission's chairman, Mr A.P. Shah, a retired justice, told a press conference yesterday.

India is one of about 58 countries that still have the death penalty.

Its lower courts routinely hand down the death sentence, but this is usually commuted to life by the time it reaches the Supreme Court, which upholds the death penalty only in "rarest of rare" cases.

According to National Crime Records Bureau statistics, 4,321 out of 5,776 death penalties were commuted to life sentences between 2001 and 2011.

No execution was carried out between 2005 and 2011.

In the past three years, there were three executions, all terrorism-related cases.

Mohammed Kasab, the lone surviving gunman in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, was hanged in 2012, followed in 2013 by Afzal Guru, who was convicted of the 2001 terror attack on the Indian Parliament. In July, Yakub Memon was executed for his role in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts.

Human rights activists, while welcoming the law commission's report, said the Indian government was not ready for a complete ban, given India's deep concerns about being a terrorism target.

"It is recommendatory in nature but it basically makes it clear that the government will have to take a position on this,'' said Mr Suhas Chakma, director of the Asian Centre for Human Rights. "I don't think India is ready to abolish the death penalty entirely. If it is restricted to terror cases then there is hope for a forward movement."

The report comes at a time when there has been an intense debate on the merits of the death penalty following Yakub's execution.

Media organisations such as The Times of India and The Hindu have spoken out strongly in favour of abolishing the death penalty.

Political parties such as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its rival Congress party remain deeply divided on the issue.

BJP MP Varun Gandhi noted in a magazine article last month that 94 per cent of death-row convicts are either Dalits, formerly considered "untouchables", or from minority communities. He said the death penalty is an "anomaly" that needs to be corrected.

While the report was approved by a majority of the commission's nine members, three of them favoured retaining the death penalty, reflecting the deep divide in the country.

Despite the divisive nature of the issue, the commission's report argued that it "is logical we move towards abolition".

Mumbai bomber Yakub Menon's mercy plea rejected

Source: BBC News (21 July 2015)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33605248

India's Supreme Court has rejected a final mercy plea of a man found guilty of financing the 1993 serial bombings in the western city of Mumbai.

Yakub Memon will be the first person to be executed in India since a Kashmiri man, Afzal Guru, was hanged in 2013 for the 2001 attack on India's parliament.

The blasts in India's financial capital killed 257 people and wounded 713.

The attacks were allegedly organised to avenge the killings of Muslims in riots a few months earlier.

Memon is scheduled to be executed later this month. Before the Supreme Court hearing, the Maharashtra state government announced plans to hang him on 30 July.

In 2007, a special court in Mumbai handed out the death penalty to Memon, a chartered accountant, for playing a key role in the bombing conspiracy.

He is now lodged in a prison in the western city of Nagpur.

A total of eight members of the Memon family were initially accused of masterminding the bombings and dispersing funds for the attacks.

The eldest brother fled the country, and three other family members were acquitted for lack of evidence.

The alleged masterminds of the blasts, Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon, have been on the run since 1993.

Executions are rarely carried out in India, but in the last four years there have been two hangings in the country.

Mohammed Ajmal Qasab, the sole surviving gunman from the 2008 Mumbai attacks, was executed in November 2012.

Bangladesh: Death penalty on army coup leaders

Bangladesh Upholds Death Penalty on 1975 Coup Leaders (Update1)
By Jay Shankar

From Bloomberg, 19 November 2009

Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Bangladesh’s Supreme Court upheld death sentences on five army officers for assassinating Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country’s first president, in 1975.

"We are very much happy," Qamrul Islam, the junior minister for law, justice and parliamentary affairs, said in a telephone interview from the capital, Dhaka. "We have been waiting for this moment and judgment for the last 34 years. It is our hope that the accused will be hanged soon."

Rahman, who led the country to independence from Pakistan, was killed in a coup that brought a military government to power. His wife and three sons were among 16 family members who died in the pre-dawn attack.

Bangladesh began the trial after Rahman’s daughter, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, who was abroad during the coup, became prime minister in 1996 and overturned an indemnity law passed by the military government 11 years earlier.

After Rahman’s death "the murderers were indemnified, which is unprecedented in history," Wali-ur Rahman, a former trial coordinator and now director of the Bangladesh Institute of Law and International Affairs research body, said by phone from Dhaka.

Bangladesh deployed security forces to prevent unrest over the court ruling. Police will "focus their attention on diplomatic areas, the Dhaka central jail, the Supreme Court and judges’ complex," Home Secretary Abdus Sobhan Sikder said from Dhaka. The increased security will continue after today’s verdict, he said.

Subversive Incidents
Hasina’s ruling Awami League told party leaders and supporters to be on the alert after "subversive incidents" occurred during the trial process, it said in a statement on its Web site.

Increased security is needed because Attorney-General Mahbubey Alam last month received a letter from an unidentified person threatening to kill him and family members if the army officers weren’t released, Sikder said.

Unidentified attackers last month threw a bomb at the car of legislator Fazle Noor Tapas, an Awami League member, Reuters reported at the time. At least a dozen people were injured in the attack. Tapas, who escaped unhurt, is one of the lawyers taking part in the trial process, according to the report.

Death sentences were handed down on 15 army officers by a court in 1998 and the group first appealed the ruling in 2000, Bangladesh’s New Nation newspaper said on its Web site. Three officers were later acquitted.

Fled the Country
Seven of the killers are living abroad, Sikder said. The five in jail will have 30 days to file an appeal against the Supreme Court judgment and their last option is a mercy petition to the president, Sikder said.

The killers were "sent abroad as diplomats," the Bangladesh Institute’s Rahman said. "Many countries, especially in the Middle East, accepted them."

Hasina’s government couldn’t complete the trial process while in power and the administration led by Prime Minister Khaleda Zia didn’t "pursue the matter at all" when it took over in 2001, Rahman said.

A military-backed government declared emergency rule in January 2007 and started an anti-corruption drive that resulted in the arrests of leading politicians, including Hasina and Zia, causing further delays.

Fair Trial
"The masses wanted a clear and fair trial," Retired Major General, A.N.M. Muniruzzaman, president of the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies, said by telephone from Dhaka. "It is a long awaited trial. It went through a very lengthy legal process" that was "very transparent."

"No one can complain on that count," he said.

The government is also taking precautions after the recent arrests in Bangladesh of Lashkar-e-Taiba militants from India and Pakistan, Muniruzzaman said.

More than 50 Islamic militants from both the countries are active in Bangladesh and police have arrested six Indians and three Pakistani militants since May 27, Bangladesh’s daily New Age newspaper reported on Nov. 15, citing Monirul Islam, deputy commissioner of the country’s detective branch.

Bangladesh, which has had at least five military coups since its creation in 1971, was hit by its first suicide bombings in 2005, attacks that were blamed on the Jamaatul Mujaheedin Bangladesh terrorist group.

Eighty-three percent of the country’s 156 million people are Muslim and almost 40 percent of the population lives on less than $1 a day.

Last Updated: November 19, 2009 01:23 EST

Pakistan: President Zardari should commute death sentences

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT
19 June 2009

Pakistan: President Zardari should commute death sentences on Benazir Bhutto’s birthday

On 21 June 2008, marking the birthday of slain former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani proposed to the National Assembly that all death sentences in Pakistan should be commuted to life imprisonment.

Amnesty International calls on the President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari —Benazir Bhutto’s widower—to mark his wife’s birthday and the one-year anniversary of Prime Minister Gilani’s proposal by immediately commuting all death sentences to terms of imprisonment. The President holds the Constitutional authority to commute death sentences without further delay.

Amnesty international is encouraged by the decreasing number of death sentences and executions in Pakistan in 2008. But Pakistan continues to apply the death penalty and some 7,500 prisoners remain on death row. In 2008, an estimated 236 people were sentenced to death, 36 of them were executed, including 16 after the Prime Minister's June statement.

These executions, along with the November 2008 Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance--which provides for the death sentence when “the offence of cyber terrorism” causes death--defy the spirit of Prime Minister Gilani’s commutation proposal.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases and without exception, believing it to be the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and a violation of the right to life, as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. The death penalty legitimises an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims, as has been persistently demonstrated.

Amnesty International’s research shows that lower courts in Pakistan frequently impose the death sentence for murder in the expectation that the sentence will not be carried out as families are likely to reach a compromise, and forgive the alleged perpetrator, leading to his or her release in accordance with the provisions for qisas in Pakistani law. Sometimes negotiations over compensation continue while the convict stands ready to be hanged.

The law on murder and physical injury based upon the principles of qisas and diyat (retribution and “blood money” in the form of financial compensation) are in practice discriminatory: the rich and powerful usually have the means to secure the pardon of the victim’s family and thereby obtain their release, whereas the poor and powerless are often executed.

The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has further developed this point by stating: “where the private diyah pardon stands alone and when it relates to the death penalty, it is almost certain to lead to significant violations of the right to due process in situations where a pardon is not granted. To the extent that the procedure does not provide for a final judgement by a court of law, or for the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence from the State authorities, the requirements of international law will be violated. Where the diyah pardon is available it must be supplemented by a separate, public system for seeking an official pardon or commutation.” (See report of the Special Rapporteur to the UN General Assembly, A/61/311, paragraph 61.)

Amnesty International’s concern about the large number of death sentences in Pakistan is heightened by the fact that many appear to be imposed in unfair trials characterised by lack of access to legal counsel and acceptance of evidence inadmissible under international law, including by special courts. Members of religious minorities seem disproportionately vulnerable to discrimination and unfair and erroneous convictions in capital cases.

On 18 December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 62/149 on “Moratorium on the use of the Death Penalty”. The resolution was adopted by 104 votes in favour, 54 against and 29 abstentions. Pakistan’s previous government under President Pervez Musharraf voted against the resolution. A second resolution 63/168 on the moratorium was adopted a year later in December with an even greater margin of support. Amnesty International was disappointed that Pakistan voted against the resolution despite Prime Minister Gilani’s promise regarding commutation of death penalties on 21 June 2008.

We urge the President of Pakistan to follow through on Prime Minister Gilani’s commutation proposal and the example set by former Prime Minister, the late Benazir Bhutto, who shortly after being elected Prime Minister in 1988 commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment.

Momentum is gathering across the world to end capital punishment. As of today, 139 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, including Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Nepal. Pakistan sent a positive signal by acceding to three human rights treaties in April last year.

Amnesty International now call upon Pakistan President to seize the occasion of Benazir Bhutto’s birthday, and one year on from the commutation proposal and to commute all death sentences to terms of imprisonment as a first step to abolition of the death penalty.

Australia tries to reclaim principle

The Australian government has attempted to restore its credibility on the death penalty after the prime minister last month appeared to support the execution of the Bali bombers.

Ten days before the executions were carried out, prime minister Kevin Rudd said Australia was "universally opposed to the death penalty".

And hours after the three convicted terrorists were shot by firing squad, foreign minister Stephen Smith said Australia would support an upcoming moratorium resolution in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.

However no senior member of the government has publicly said the men should not have been shot for the 2002 attacks which killed 88 Australians.

Lawyers acting for three Australians on death row in Indonesia criticised the government's silence on the executions, saying this selective approach would be detrimental to their clients' interests.

'Deserve the justice'
Rudd appeared to adopt his predecessor's double standards on the death penalty when he said on 2 October that they "deserve the justice that we delivered to them".

The following day he claimed the nature of that justice was a matter for the Indonesian justice system, but he would only say the government's policy was one of "general opposition" to the death penalty.

He was criticised for seeming to support the executions, and only speaking out against death sentences when Australian lives were at stake.

Media reports suggested government backbenchers later expressed concerns about the prime minister's equivocation on the issue.

With mounting speculation over the timing of the executions, Rudd was asked on Melbourne radio on 30 October a series of five questions about whether he approved the execution of terrorists, and the Bali bombers in particular.

His answers tried to tread a fine line by opposing the death penalty in the most general terms possible, while saying nothing that could be quoted as a direct criticism of the impending executions in Java.

He repeated that the government was "universally" opposed to the death penalty and twice said the government only intervened on behalf of Australian citizens.

He described the October 2002 attack as a "murderous, cowardly and callous act".

"But I’m not going to pretend to you ... that our policy on the death penalty has changed. It’s always been one of universal opposition."

Opposition -- but afterwards
Hours after the executions were carried out on 9 November, foreign minister Stephen Smith said the government would soon co-sponsor a UN General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium.

"In the near future at the UN General Assembly we will be co-sponsoring a resolution calling effectively on a moratorium on capital punishment and that's been Australia's position for some considerable time," he said.

Some commentators reported this as a new development in Australian human rights policy in the wake of the executions. But in fact Australia has for many years co-sponsored UN resolutions opposing the death penalty, a fact which has not often been the subject of public discussion.

Smith did not say if Australia would do anything different at the UN in the coming weeks than last year, when it was one of 75 countries that co-sponsored the 18 December moratorium resolution.

Cautious welcome
Lawyers for the three Australians on death row in Indonesia welcomed Smith's comments, but criticised the government's silence on the latest executions.

Julian McMahon, part of the legal team advising Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, said he thought it "would have been better for us to stand up more clearly and speak more firmly and loudly in the region prior to the execution".

"To be pro-active if you like but the response after the execution has been exactly what I would have hoped for," he said.

"I just think that we should have been doing it consistently rather than just after the execution."

John North, who represents Scott Rush, said the government should consistently oppose the death penalty.

"They shouldn't try and cherry pick those that should be executed and those that should not," he said.

In another interview he said: "When the death penalty is hanging over the heads of young Australians there is no room for ambivalence."

Indonesia executes Islamist terrorists

Indonesian firing squads killed three men for terrorism offences shortly after midnight this morning.

Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Ali Ghufron (also known as Mukhlas) and Imam Samudra were shot simultaneously by separate firing squads for organising the October 2002 Bali bombing.

"At 12.15am, the convicts ... were executed by shooting and followed up with an autopsy," said Jasman Pandjaitan, a spokesman for Indonesia's attorney general's office, according to a report in The Australian.

"They have been stated as dead. At this moment the bodies are being washed by the family."

They were executed on Nusakambangan Island in Central Java, near the high security prison where they had been held.

Their bodies were taken to the mainland and then flown by helicopter to their home villages in East and West Java. Police struggled to maintain order when the bodies were greeted by family and hundreds of supporters for Muslim burials.

Last night's events brought to a head weeks of feverish speculation, fuelled by rumours the executions were imminent, contradictory statements from government officials and intense coverage by foreign journalists.

At different times the delays were attributed to a lack of bureaucratic coordination, successive nights of rain or claims the government was unwilling to provoke Islamic extremists by carrying out the sentences.

The three men were reportedly frustrated at the delays and keen for their "martyrdom" to proceed.

The executions bring to ten the number of people known to have been put to death in Indonesia in the past five months. This represents a dramatic increase in the country's use of the death penalty when compared with the nine people executed in the four years to 2007.

Some victims oppose death
The 2002 bombings of two Bali nightclubs killed 202 people and injured 88, leaving many with severe burns.

While some victims welcomed news of the executions, others remained opposed the death penalty.

Australian Barbara Hackett, whose daughter Kathy Salvatori was killed in the bombings, said she did not believe in the death penalty, according to one report.

"It can't bring back Kathy or the other 201 victims," she said.

Georgia Lysaght, who lost her older brother Scott, said the executions would not bring him back.
"The fact that it has happened doesn't bring Scott back, it doesn't change what's happened, it doesn't bring any sense of closure," she said.

"It doesn't make me feel that justice has been served. The only just thing to do would to be able to see my brother again, and that is not going to happen."

According to a report in The Times, several UK families also spoke out against the death penalty for the convicted terrorists.

Susanna Miller, who lost her brother Dan, said: "The death penalty is an 18th-century punishment. My brother was a lawyer, he would have disapproved.

"Also, these men were low-level terrorists, the bigger ones are at large. They should have been given life sentences."

Maggie Stephens lost her 27 year-old son Neil Bowler in the bombings.

"By executing them we are doing to them what they did to us," she said.

Related stories:
Indonesia: Human rights appeals for bombers -- 02 November 2008
Execution wrong - even for terrorists -- 31 October 2008
Bali bombers: One week to live? -- 13 October 2008
Uncertain when Islamist bombers will die -- 25 August 2008
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007

Indonesia: Human rights appeals for bombers

Two international human rights organisations have called on the Indonesian government to grant clemency to the three Bali bombers, who may be killed by firing squad as early as tonight.

Indonesian human rights organisations have also protested against the country's use of the death penalty.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) this week wrote to Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono urging him "in the strongest terms" to halt the executions [27 Oct].

Amnesty International (AI) released a statement opposing the executions and calling on Indonesia to "draw a line under its policy of escalating executions" and establish a moratorium [31 Oct].

Seven people have been executed in Indonesia since June 2008, five for murder and two for drug offences.

Illegal, against the trend
Human Rights Watch argued in its letter that the three death sentences were a breach of international human rights standards, as well as running counter to an international trend away from the death penalty.

"Rather than allow the executions to go forward, you should commute the men’s sentences to life in prison," wrote Joanne Mariner Elaine Pearson, deputy director of the organisation's terrorism and counterterrorism Asia division.

The organisation was particularly critical that the three men were sentenced to death under special counter-terrorism legislation enacted after the bombing, when retroactive criminal laws are prohibited under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

It said Human Rights Watch "strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty and finality".

"We also note that there is no clear evidence that the application of the death penalty serves as a more effective deterrent against criminal activity than other forms of punishment."

Human Rights Watch said it deplored acts of terrorism and recognised "the government's duty to bring to justice persons responsible for such serious crimes".

"We condemn the 2002 Bali bombings as horrific and inexcusable attacks, and believe that the perpetrators should be held to account," the letter said.

"We strongly believe, however, that the death penalty is not an appropriate sanction, particularly in this instance."

The human rights organisation was also concerned that Indonesia retained and used the death penalty "contrary to the global trend toward the abolition of the death penalty", and had recently increased the rate of executions.

Simply more violations
The latest statement from Amnesty International said the executions would add further human rights violations to the violation of the original attacks.

"While the Bali attacks were a horrific atrocity, Amnesty International firmly believes that to continue the cycle of violence through state sanctioned killing will not bring redress for the victims, and furthermore answers the violation of human rights with further violations," it said.

While there was "no reliable evidence that the death penalty deters future criminal acts", Amnesty International said these executions "may only serve to perpetuate such atrocities".

"There is a serious risk that the executions will turn the bombers from murderers to martyrs, whose memories will be used to increase support and recruitment to their cause."

It said the death penalty was the ultimate denial of human rights, and it said unequivocally that it was opposed to it "in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner".

This was instead an opportunity for "Indonesia to draw a line under its policy of escalating executions and to establish an immediate moratorium with a view to abolition".

The organisation issued a revised action appeal on 16 October 2008, calling for its supporters to appeal to the Indonesian government for all death sentences to be commuted, including those imposed on the three bombers.

It also asked people to express concern that the law under which the three were convicted was applied retrospectively, "violating international law and the Indonesian Constitution".

Related stories:
Execution wrong - even for terrorists -- 31 October 2008
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007

Execution wrong - even for terrorists

Comment by Tim Goodwin
This story was first published on ABC Australia's Unleashed. Read the debate on the story here.

After more than two years of delays and legal brinkmanship, it seems it is finally going to happen. In the coming days Indonesian firing squads will shoot the three men sentenced to death for organising the October 2002 Bali bombing. The bureaucratic wheels are turning to provide the time, the place, the personnel, the training, the equipment and the legal authority to kill three people.

Many in Australia and Indonesia will applaud the executions, looking to the firing squads to deliver revenge and a measure of emotional release. Some journalists will reach for that dubious cliche and ask whether the victims now have 'closure'. And their deaths will bring an end to the stream of heartless and absurd statements from the men who gained an aura of macabre celebrity from the media attention.

Undeniably these three men are criminals, whose actions had a shattering impact on the hundreds of people killed or injured and the thousands who cared for them. Undeniably the bombers deserve harsh punishment, both to protect society from what they may do again, given the chance, and to signal a collective outrage at their crimes. None of that is at issue.

But there are unsettling questions in the countdown to the executions. Is it ever acceptable for a government to kill convicted criminals in the name of society as a whole? Or is it justified in this case?

Here's an answer: execution is never justified. The death penalty is never an appropriate response to serious crime. This includes the Bali bombers. It is possible to condemn their crimes while also believing they should not be killed by the state.

Even if their executions deliver a sense of revenge, they represent a step that no government has the right to take. No government should carry out the coldly planned and delivered act of putting a human being to death in the name of justice. The enormity and the horror of these people's crimes will never be wiped away by their deaths, and the promise they destroyed can never be returned.

Over the past 30 years, the death penalty has increasingly been seen as a human rights issue. Under the key international human rights charters, every individual has certain basic rights such as the right not to be tortured and the right to life. In the words of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person". They are not granted by our parents, our families, our race or the society around us. This is why murder is, among other things, a violation of human rights.

Because no government grants us these rights, no government has the power to take them away. Only where there is a direct or immediate threat to life are police, soldiers or individual citizens permitted to use lethal force. An overwhelming majority of countries have come to agree the death penalty is the ultimate violation of the right to life by a government.

The legitimacy of modern government rests on protecting their citizens, and ensuring the conditions for people to achieve their potential. It used to be argued that executions were necessary to protect communities from criminals and deter further crime. Both of these arguments are now threadbare, with modern prisons offering physical security and mounting evidence that the severest punishment does not deliver a greater level of deterrence against crime.

When it is applied to murder, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the death penalty which destroys it as a symbol of a society's values. It is not possible for a government to demonstrate the supreme worth of human life by killing. Some claim the very seriousness of killing proves the importance of the innocent life the state is acting to avenge. But far from cancelling out the original crime, it instead places the state in the position of mimicking the killer's original decision that a particular person should no longer live.

The ethical dimensions of execution also need to be tested against the reality of death penalty systems around the world. It is easy to imagine the unremorseful criminal, tried in a perfect justice system where execution sends an unmistakeable signal to would-be criminals that they will receive the same punishment if they similarly offend. This situation does not exist anywhere in the world.

The firing squad and the scaffold are symbols of absolute state power, but also of infallible state power, and there is no such thing as an infallible justice system. There are cases where the defendant is certainly guilty, including the Bali bombing conspirators. However many cases are far from certain, which introduces the very real risk of error -- even the best justice systems in the world make mistakes. To accept that some people will be killed as a result of mistaken convictions is to accept that innocent people will inevitably die.

For a penalty that is supposed to deliver justice using the ultimate and irreversible sanction, this reality is simply unacceptable.

Even in the case of the guilty, it is not possible to reserve execution for offenders who have expressed no remorse for their actions. Showing mercy or allowing a prisoner to live is not a reward for their remorse. It is a statement about who we are, and what we value as a society.

The death penalty is ultimately about politics more than criminal justice. For all the talk of it providing greater deterrence against crime (which can't be demonstrated) or satisfying public opinion (when few governments allow a free and informed debate), it is used to show a government's determination to stand against the threat of personal crime. It is retained by countries that no longer carry out executions, because it sends all the right political signals to keep it on the books. In countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia it is also a very useful means of maintaining control over the broader population. It is no accident these countries are among the few that still carry out public executions.

We will wake up one morning soon to hear the three Bali bombers have been shot during the night. The sentences will have been carried out. There will be some grim satisfaction. Two governments will have proclaimed their resistance to terrorism. Three more people will be dead. And nothing else will have changed.

Indonesia: 'Firing squad not torture'

A constitutional challenge to Indonesia's method of execution has failed, with a court ruling the pain of execution by firing squad did not amount to torture.

Lawyers for the three men sentenced to death for the October 2002 Bali bombing argued death by shooting violated the constitution's ban on torture.

But the Constitutional Court yesterday rejected the application to have the executions carried out by another method.

"There is no method of execution without pain," presiding judge Mohammad Mahfud said, according to newsagency AAP.

"The feeling of pain suffered by those convicted of the death penalty is the logical consequence attached to the process of death," The Age reported he said.

Other methods of execution such as beheading, electrocution or lethal injection carried "the risk of inaccuracy in the execution which, in the end, will create pain", but this did not amount to torture under the constitution.

Executions can proceed
The attorney general's office claimed in August that the constitutional challenge was no impediment to the executions being carried out.

But yesterday's decision means the government can have the men shot without claims the legal process had not run its course.

A spokesman for the attorney general said last week the government would announce plans for the executions on Friday (24 October).

Torture claim
Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Ali Ghufron (also known as Mukhlas) and Imam Samudra asked the court to rule the firing squad unconstitutional, instead requesting a method such as lethal injection or beheading, which they have claimed in the past was more "Islamic".

They argued a delay between the shots by a firing squad and their deaths would constitute torture.

Surgeon Jose Rizal told the constitutional court in September that aiming at the heart may not be accurate.

"An accurate shot causes instant death, but it if misses, it takes time to die," he said.

Catholic priest Charlie Burrows told the court he witnessed the execution of two Nigerian drug traffickers in June 2008, when the men took seven minutes to die after they were shot.

"They were moaning again and again for seven minutes," he told said in court. "I think it is cruel, the torture."

Defence lawyer Wirwan Adnan yesterday claimed the court's 76 page decision recommended the government consider other execution methods that could ensure a fast death.

Related stories:
Bali bombers: One week to live? - 13 October 2008
Uncertain when Islamist bombers will die -- 25 August 2008
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007
Bali: Execution closer for bombing leaders -- 09 October 2007
Bali bombers lodge appeals -- 08 December 2006
Execution delay for Bali bombers -- 21 August 2006
Bali bombers closer to execution -- 11 April 2006

Bali bombers: One week to live?

[Update below]

Media reports are speculating the three convicted Bali bombers may be shot next week after the Indonesian government today announced it would make a statement about the executions next Friday, 24 October (also here).

According to one report, a spokesman for Attorney General Hendarman Supandji said there were "no obstacles" to prevent the executions, clearly referring to the current constitutional challenge by the three arguing that execution by firing squad amounts to "torture".

"The date and day of the execution of the three bombers will be announced next Friday by the attorney-general," a spokesman for the attorney-general's office said, according to another report by the AFP newsagency.

"We will make some preparations and coordination with the firing squad and other related parties like prison officials," Jasman Simanjuntak said.

The spokesman said the attorney general's office would provide details on the execution date next week.

Prosecutors and local officials have repeatedly announced in recent months that they were ready to carry out the executions when ordered (example here).

A spokesman for the attorney-general's office said last Friday the three would be executed before the end of the year.

Veil of secrecy?
Early media reports of the announcement speculated that the timing meant the three could be executed next week because "Indonesia typically announces executions after they have been carried out".

Death row prisoners in Indonesia are usually given 72 hours notice when a date is set, but the Indonesian government may attempt to maintain greater secrecy around these executions in order to prevent Islamist protests.

Given the media circus that has developed around the three convicted terrorists, any notice given to the men or their lawyers would certainly be made public. It would also likely trigger further legal manoeuvres by the lawyers and public statements by the three.

The government has also suggested recently it would move towards secret executions, with indications it would only reveal upcoming drug executions after they were carried out.

Before two Nigerian men were shot in June 2008 for drug offences, a government minister was quoted by the Antara newsagency suggesting Indonesia was planning to carry out further executions in secret to prevent public protests.

"The date of the execution is not to be made public to prevent public controversy," said Monang Pardede, assistant deputy to the General Crimes chief of the Central Java higher prosecutor's office.

According to Antara, he said the executions would not be publicised until after they were carried out, in order to prevent what the newsagency described as "undue public reactions".

"We are afraid we will face difficulties if they are announced beforehand," he said.

Update -- 14 October
The attorney general's office today denied reports the three would be executed before 24 October.

Spokesman Jasman Pandjaitan told Australia's ABC network that the details would be revealed next Friday but they would not be shot before then.

"No, not yet", he said."We're explaining on the 24th because we've received so many questions from the foreign media.

"We still don't know the exact time of the executions."

Related stories:
Uncertain when Islamist bombers will die -- 25 August 2008
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007
Bali: Execution closer for bombing leaders -- 09 October 2007
Bali bombers lodge appeals -- 08 December 2006
Execution delay for Bali bombers -- 21 August 2006
Bali bombers closer to execution -- 11 April 2006

The wrong signal for Asia’s firing squads

Comment by Tim Goodwin

When he was opposition leader, Kevin Rudd was derided by the government for his 'me too' strategy in the 2007 election campaign, after he promised to implement several Coalition initiatives.

The strategy successfully neutralised areas of government advantage, clearing the air for Labor to focus on key areas of difference such as climate change.

While human rights barely figured in the campaign, it was expected a Labor government under Rudd would strike a more progressive path, albeit within the limits of his socially conservative outlook. And in the main it has done so, making changes from abolishing temporary protection visas to legislation removing commonwealth discrimination against same sex-couples.

As Attorney-General Robert McClelland said in his prepared speech for a conference at the Melbourne Law School last Friday: "I think it is fair to say that Australia is 'back in business' when it comes to human rights."

In one critical area of human rights policy, Kevin Rudd has been pursuing business of his own. His takeover of coalition policy on the death penalty was slower than the earlier acquisitions, but no less successful.

Last week he took full control of John Howard's position and committed to the double standards that will dog him as they dogged his predecessor. This hypocrisy will undermine the Rudd government’s efforts to save the lives of Australians facing cruel execution overseas.

"Deserving" to die
On Perth radio last Thursday, the prime minister reacted to the latest reprehensible claims of the three Bali bombers that they were "holy warriors" who had no regrets about the October 2002 bombing which killed 202 people.

He condemned the men, who currently await execution, and said they "deserve the justice that we delivered to them". The following day he said the nature of that justice was a matter for the Indonesians and their justice system.

He claimed the government's policy was still one of "general opposition" to the death penalty, but the damage was done. No amount of "general opposition" will be meaningful in the face of specific support for particular people to be shot dead.

The Prime Minister's comments on the issue over two days were vintage Howard. Signal your support for an execution, say you don't support the death penalty in Australia and will only intervene in the case of Australians under sentence of death, and claim in general terms to be opposed to the death penalty.

Me too, business as usual.

Rudd has even adopted his predecessor's tactic that the penalty is a matter for the Indonesians. Obviously that is true, but it clearly signals Australia has no objection if that penalty is death.

Howard used this line many times to support executions in Indonesia, the United States and Iraq. The idea we would agree with a penalty simply because it was part of another country's legal system showed a soft spot for post-modern cultural relativism that he never betrayed in his speeches on education and history.

A gradual retreat
In Howard's case, his comments on the death penalty were more a matter of clarifying his position, inconsistent as it was. In Rudd's case, it has been a slow retreat from his rhetoric in opposition.

In October 2005, in the wrenching lead-up to the hanging of Australian citizen Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore, as shadow minister for foreign affairs he addressed parliament in ringing tones. Rudd told members they were speaking to a clemency motion because they held "one fundamental human value to be true, and that is the intrinsic dignity of all human life".

"For our policy to be credible, we must apply it universally," he said. "We must be credible in our opposition to capital punishment as a matter of policy wherever it occurs, whether in the United States, China or Singapore."

The day after Van Nguyen's execution, Rudd again stressed it was important our policy on the death penalty was consistent. He said "whether we are talking about individuals in Iraq or Indonesia or elsewhere, our policy has to be consistent".

Rudd, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Minister for Foreign Affairs Stephen Smith have repeatedly said the Government would only intervene in cases involving Australian citizens.

This would be fine, if it was only a comment about when Australia makes diplomatic or political representations. But in practice it seemed to mean the Government would only declare a death sentence was inappropriate if an Australian was involved.

Now that Rudd has indicated his satisfaction the Bali bombers will get what's coming to them, he has effectively said there are times when the death penalty is justified. He is giving a nod and wink to Indonesia to execute the bombers, while arguing only Australian citizens should be spared that punishment.

Agreement and hypocrisy?
But he is taking us down one of two dead-ends. One is the argument that Australia and many Asian countries actually agree on the fundamental position that some people, and some crimes, deserve execution. All that is left is to politely disagree on where to draw the line.

The other is the more dangerous road of hypocrisy, where all representations from the Australian government are dismissed as double standards and special pleading.

Asian countries are sensitive to being lectured by western governments, but they are just as sensitive to the taint of hypocrisy in the positions taken by those same governments.

If Australia took a consistent position on the death penalty, it would not be committing itself to intervening in every case, including sending in diplomats to argue for the lives of terrorists who killed our people. And it is not megaphone diplomacy to state what Australia believes, as a matter of official policy.

Simply taking, and defending, a principled position would be a step forward, and would give Australia the moral credibility to argue for the lives of its own citizens.

Both Howard and Rudd have been trying to walk both sides of the issue, courting the part of the electorate that supports the death penalty, while arguing they haven't abandoned a long-standing and bipartisan human rights policy.

My message to the prime minister is this: it isn't possible. This sort of populism at home will backfire in the region.

If the government's highest priority is saving Australian citizens from the noose and firing squad in Asia, which it should be, its hypocrisy will only undermine these efforts. As it has in the past, this inconsistency will put Australian lives at risk.

Is it too much to expect the Australian government to have a view that no execution is acceptable, and to say it out loud when asked?

Related stories:
Australia: Rudd supports Bali executions -- 02 October 2008
Australian government reminded of death penalty opposition -- 23 September 2008
Australia defends selective appeals for life -- 16 August 2008
'Only Australians' should be spared execution -- 06 January 2008
No Australian government will oppose terrorist executions -- 10 October 2007
Australia: Rudd would oppose death penalty -- 24 June 2007
Australia 'should act against death penalty' -- 03 August 2006

Australia: Rudd supports Bali executions

Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd today confirmed his support for the execution of the three Bali bombers, saying they 'deserve' the 'justice' they will receive.

Rudd was responding to comments by the three yesterday that there would be revenge attacks if they were executed, and expressing no remorse for the October 2002 bombing.

"The Bali bombers describe themselves as holy warriors," Rudd said on Fairfax Radio in Perth (story also here).

"I say the Bali bombers are cowards and murderers pure and simple and frankly they can make whatever threats they like.

"They deserve the justice that we delivered to them."

The final step
Rudd’s remarks today complete his move in recent months to take over the policy -- and the double standards -- of his predecessor, John Howard.

Under the previous prime minister, the Australian government supported particular executions where the government's political self-interest was involved, while arguing that it was "universally" opposed to the death penalty.

Confirmation of Australia's position under Rudd will again draw accusations of hypocrisy from across the region, and undermine the country's diplomatic attempts to argue for clemency for its own citizens facing execution overseas.

A gradual shift
Rudd told a media conference on 18 July 2008 that the government was opposed to the death penalty, but would not intervene in the cases of foreign nationals facing execution.

At that stage he stopped short of endorsing the use of the death penalty, arguing only that Australia would limit intervention to cases involving its own citizens.

"I would say by way of general principle the following, that together with the Liberal Party, our policy has been one of stated universal opposition to the death penalty, but in the case of foreign terrorists, we are not in the business of intervening on any of their behalf’s," he said.

However, before he was elected prime minister, Rudd called for a consistent position on the death penalty and international action towards abolition.

On 3 December 2005, the day after Australian citizen Van Tuong Nguyen was hanged in Singapore, Rudd told a media conference: "It is important that our policy [on the death penalty] is consistent."

Rudd's biographer Robert Macklin said in June last year that "one of his important foreign policy objectives" if he became prime minister would be to campaign for worldwide abolition of the death penalty.

Bombers facing death
Amrozi, his brother Mukhlas and Imam Samudra yesterday appeared in public outside their prison in Central Java for the Islamic holiday Idul Fitri.

The three men were sentenced to death for the bombing, which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.

"If anybody kills us, God willing, there will be retaliation," Samudra said yesterday.

He also said the executions would not be carried out, and he had no regrets over what he had done.

Lawyers for the three men are currently mounting a constitutional challenge against Indonesia's death penalty, arguing execution by firing squad amounts to torture.

Related stories:
Australian government reminded of death penalty opposition -- 23 September 2008
Australia defends selective appeals for life -- 16 August 2008
'Only Australians' should be spared execution -- 06 January 2008
No Australian government will oppose terrorist executions -- 10 October 2007
Australia: Rudd would oppose death penalty -- 24 June 2007
Australia 'should act against death penalty' -- 03 August 2006