Abdul Rahman, a converted christian in Afghanistan faces a possible execution for refusing to revoke his christian faith. This runs in opposition to the new Afghan constitution which is based upon fundamentalist islamic law.

The prosecuting attorney for the trial states that "Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed."

Link to story

Questions for Debate:

1) Do you think the war in Iraq, which is now considered a mistake by most American's and much of the world has prevented the US from helping pound out a truly progessive Afghan nation?

2) Do you think that today's Afghan society and culture mirrors the very culture that faciliated and enabled the 9/11 attacks? Did the US just replace one crazy Islamic government with another crazy Islamic government?

3) What has the US war in Afghanistan accomplished other then scattering Al Quada and disposing the Taliban?

4) Should the world stand quite and respect Afghanistan's right to self governance and implementation of Afghan laws?

1) Do you think the war in Iraq, which is now considered a mistake by most American's and much of the world has prevented the US from helping pound out a truly progessive Afghan nation?

I don't see how. Exactly what would you expect U.S. troops to do to "pound out" anything from them, short of a MacArthur-style imposition of a system on them? I do think, for the record, that Afghanistan today represents significant progress(iveness) over Afghanistan under the Taliban.

2) Do you think that today's Afghan society and culture mirrors the very culture that faciliated and enabled the 9/11 attacks? Did the US just replace one crazy Islamic government with another crazy Islamic government?

No, we replaced a dictatorial, tyrannical government with a government based largely on the rule of law, even if the law seems unduly harsh by our standards. Comparing them both to our American society may make them both seem equally barbarous, but believe me, what they have now is an improvement over the previous system in a very fundamental sense. There is now a sense of order, instead of just the whims of whoever has the most guns. That's extremely important for preventing more radicalism from taking root.

3) What has the US war in Afghanistan accomplished other then scattering Al Quada and disposing the Taliban?

In addition to what I mentioned above, "scattering" (or more like disrupting) al-Qaeda is certainly an important goal. As to whether that goal is being met, I can't say for absolute certain, but it appears that al-Qaeda's network could only have been at least critically hampered by constantly having to be on the run and operating in hideouts, instead of being able to have the resources of an actual government like the one the Taliban provided in Afghanistan. If anybody has information to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it.

4) Should the world stand quite and respect Afghanistan's right to self governance and implementation of Afghan laws?

I think so. Intervention in another country's internal affairs should only happen in the event of some major mass crime like genocide, or a total breakdown in law and order.

By the way, your thread title I think is a bit misleading. The man wouldn't be executed for "being" a Christian, but for having been a Muslim who converted away of his faith. Hence, someone who never was a Muslim would be free to be a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu, as I understand the law. It's just apostasy from Islam that's punishable. I agree that it's a barbaric law, but it should at least be accurately described.

How, exactly? Most of the more horrendous laws, for example those regarding the status of women under the Taliban, have been reimposed by the warlords.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/07/afghan072903.htm

They use the same morality and the same tactics as the Taliban, some of them ARE Taliban, and they pay no attention whatsoever to the central authority, the country has dissolved into warlord feifdoms. Some of them are targeting with violence and even death any women who try to take advantage of the supposedly liberal new system.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1324936,00.html
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1328

Worse still, Opium production, curtailed by the Taliban, has now reached record highs for the country, and there is evidence that some of the warlords are just as involved in international terrorism as the Taliban was.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...RJ8OVF&b=202861

There have been some sucesses, there is now a single woman in parliament, which would have been impossible under the Taliban, and everywhere she goes she has between 8 and 15 bodyguards, and there have been over 20 attempts on her life.

Don't get me wrong, I was entirely for the elimination of the Taliban, one of the worst cancers on the face of the planet even WITHOUT the links to Al qaida. But the abandonment of this country as Bush Jr moved on to Iraq, and its inexorable slige into Chaos is going to be one of the larger blights on Bush Jr's legacy...

Do you think the war in Iraq ... has prevented the US from helping pound out a truly progressive Afghan nation?
I think a bigger humanitarian focus after overthrowing the Taliban would’ve helped curve attitudes towards the U.S. military, but I’m not sure what good this would do concerning Afghan’s legal affairs. Once the U.S. told the elected government to have at it, there’s next to nothing the U.S. could do.

Do you think that today's Afghan society and culture mirrors the very culture that facilitated and enabled the 9/11 attacks?
Yes.

Did the US just replace one crazy Islamic government with another crazy Islamic government?
Yes. Stories like this one and girls being raped in Pakistan for their conversion are reasons why I roll my eyes at U.S. Christians alleging religious persecution. Sentencing a man to death because of his religious convictions is nowhere near the ballpark of “rule of law.” Punishing this man mocks the spirit in which rule of law is practiced. The judicial proceedings in this case are a sorry imitation of justice.

Should the world stand quite and respect Afghanistan's right to self governance and implementation of Afghan laws?
Hell no. Pat Robertson and the Christian Circus should get off their bums and ask members to petition Congress concerning something more worthwhile than The Gay Teletubby if they have it in them to denounce theocratic rule for a moment.

Just for the record, he isn't being persecuted for becoming Christian, but for leaving Islam. The religion he chose to convert to is moot.

It would never had made the news here in the US had he converted to say...Buhddism.

1) Do you think the war in Iraq, which is now considered a mistake by most American's and much of the world has prevented the US from helping pound out a truly progessive Afghan nation?

Yes, but I think its unfair to lay the blame solely on the USA. Responsibility for change comes from within and the Afghans themselves bear a large proportion of responsibility for what has happened.

And so does the international community. There has been much more support for the Afganistan campaign, but frankly, its been lacking. The British are moving more troops into Afghanistan, but I wonder if its not too few too late.


2) Do you think that today's Afghan society and culture mirrors the very culture that faciliated and enabled the 9/11 attacks? Did the US just replace one crazy Islamic government with another crazy Islamic government?

Without a doubt Afghanistans society is still in the grip of Islamic extremism, but I think the government is different. The current government is a lot weaker than the Taliban. I get the feeling it has less support amongst the population.


3) What has the US war in Afghanistan accomplished other then scattering Al Quada and disposing the Taliban?

It has lowered the price of heroin in Europe...?


4) Should the world stand quite and respect Afghanistan's right to self governance and implementation of Afghan laws?

I agree with most of the points Leslie raised, but I'm not sure who Pat Robertson actually is (other than he's some one I doubt I have much in common with)

I don't think the world should stand quiet, on any issue.

I explained how. Rule of law, however fledgling it may be in Afghanistan currently, was practically non-existent under the Taliban. And the particular case that was referenced in this thread has nothing to do with warlords.


Neither do I, but speaking out is not the same as forcibly intervening against the will of the sovereign government there. Other countries have a perfect right to say what they want about our internal policies, but that doesn't mean I want them trying to actively intervene in our affairs here.

Intervene as in come between this man and his executioner, or something less direct, like say, crimping President Karzai’s excellent taste in formalwear?

Your refrain and the silence of those who jump on the ACLU are bizarre. There was no shortage of people in Hamas and the new Palestine wanting to stop aid immediately following election results, but democratically passed laws, no matter how unjust, seem to pass the inalienable rights concept conservatives like to lean on—so far in this discussion, anyway.

Yeah, you're arguing it from a sovereignty angle, but I hope the U.N. or somebody would do something more than just throw words at us if we adopted a similarly intolerant "law" and lacked the will to make a one time exception for civilian-sanctioned murder.

QUOTE

3) What has the US war in Afghanistan accomplished other then scattering Al Quada and disposing the Taliban?

It killed a bunch of bad guys and destroyed their training camps.
But on a grander note, I think what you are getting is a glimpse of "Christmas' yet to come". This forbears the world that Islam intends for all of us.
-Women's Rights? - nope
-Gay rights? - Hah!
-Human Rights? - Nyet
-Freedom of Religion - Off with your head!

The unwitting accomplices who try to placate them are enabling it to happen. We are so afraid of offending Muslims that they can do whatever they want, wherever they want, and we're not supposed to criticize. The left is so preoccupied with Christians, they are ignoring their real threat. We allow Muslims to polygamize, but not Mormons; We can't publish cartoons about Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him or We Will Keel You) but we actually fund "art" about defecating on Mary and Jesus. Christians are evil for not wanting marriage legitimized for gays, Muslims are OK because they only want to kill them. Is there anything wrong with this picture?

Once we get done scouring Afghanistan of Taliban we pull out and withdraw funding unless and until they change their tune. And we hold the line on funding other terrorists like Hammas, even if they are elected. You want to be governed by terrorists? Fine, but you'll do it without our help.

I am fast becoming a an isolationist any more. The "Global Community" and the Eunuch Nations is nothing more than a dysfunctional family on the order of the Mansons.
Do whatever you want over there, but don't screw with us. Give fair warning in front of the UN that anyone who screws with us will be held accountable to the tune of, say, 1000:1. Period, end of story, no negotiating. You kill one American, you pay the price. No more milk factories.... We take out people. Maybe we hold onto NATO or some simile, in case the UK or Danes would like our assistance, other than that, have a nice life

If we try are we could be self-sufficient on energy by 2015, "Get er done!" Let the Euros, China, and Russia deal with it. If Muslims want to live in the US, Great! Provided they do it according to the Constitution and our Laws, and allow others the freedoms they want for themselves.

/rant off

Apart from how utterly off-topic this is, it is also atonishingly full of pointless vitriol, and very little connected to reality.

The left opposes almost every single thing you just ascribed to them, in fact as a general rule they oppose it MORE than the right does.

Polygamy is illegal for Mormons AND Muslims (and anyone else) in the US.

There is nothing at all preventing you from publishing cartoons of Mohammed, or for applying for art-council funding to do so.

Gay marriage is a matter of equality, and agree or not, I think you will find those who DO want gay marriage legalised are NOT pro-Muslim for their habit of persecuting and even killing Muslims. That also, it might surprise you to know, is illegal in the US.


The only thing wrong with your picture, is that every single bile-filled ranting fact in it is wrong.




Wow, way to miss the point. You did essentially pull out of Afghanistan, and THATS THE PROBLEM. You went in there, created a power vaccum and then let the warlords take over without a though. These same warlords are now ramping up opium production, imposing Taliban style laws, and in some cases are accused of aiding and funding international terrorism.


Really? Cause right now over 40% of your energy comes from foreign sources, and you can change that in 9 years?


Oh, and Muslims in the US DO live according to US laws. Are you trying to assert otherwise?

You seem to have been unable to make up your mind if you wantd to rant against Islam, the Left (at one point you seem to consider the two synonymous) or just against logic and reality itself...

I just think what we are seeing in this Afghani instance is indicative of what Muslims want to enforce everywhere.

Muhammed Abdullah Ahari

I congratulate Tony Blair on his speaking mission he began today, but a fear it is falling on deaf ears when it comes to Islamists. While I applaud his effort, I'm reminded that it takes two to tango. Negotiations only work in two circumstances:
1. When both parties want to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution, or
2) At the point of a gun (or more realistically an army).
The jury is still out on if #1 is going to work...




I understand that, that's why I think that denying that the Muslims would like nothing better than to turn us and everyone else into an Islamic Theocracy is a point being missed by many. I would think the left would be more vocal about increasing Islamic influence. If we allow them to tell the newspapers what we can print, what is next?



But it is being openly done by Muslims in the Detroit area, and who knows where else that it hasn't been publicized in, yet nothing is being done...



But they are not, and why?

from one who was honest enough to say so.
Others do it because of their "sensitivity", where are those sensitivities when it comes to Christians and Jews?




How come there haven't been more on the left to actively come out and condemn Islam for their treatment of women and homosexuals then? I don't recall seeing any on the Sunday morning news show...





We aren't really out, we're still there. We have just allowed the elected government to do thing thing... If we hadn't pulled back and allowed them to take over, like we're trying in Iraq also, we could rightfully be called occupiers. I just don't think we're going to get the result that the right is hoping for.


Drat, I gave away my copy of Discover to a friend to read, February issue. I think it was last months. There's a great article in it on how it could happen, and it's all plausible stuff.



Case in point the Muslims living in openly polygamist relations in the Detroit area.

.




The point I was trying to get at, is that there seems to be a dichotomy on the left. The right seems to know who the enemy is (but hasn't figured out what to do about it), whereas the left is so focused on the right and Christians that I think they're missing what is coming...

This is the one question that really draws out a response from me.

Afghanistan is a stand-alone nation. As such, Afghanistan is within its right to do whatever it pleases. If that nations law deems being one religion punishable by death, we must assume that its citizens know the law and are willing to face the consequences. If it is written as a nation-wide law, they are entitled and other governments have no right to say otherwise.

We execute our people for committing murder, while other countries do not. While it may not be within our government's moral compass to execute a person based on religion; it is not within some foreign governments for us to execute anyone period.

Law, in no matter what country, is law. We have no right to force ourselves on another country and tell them how they should be reacting. Laws are to be upheld regardless of their moral or ethical concerns on a government outside of their own. We do not have to answer to Afghanistan, they should not be expected to answer to us.

I must say I am incredulous at statements like:


To that I can state that is one of the most inane comments I have ever read. Sixty-one years ago the world banded together to defeat such a nation. Fifty-eight years ago the United Nations passed a treaty declaring such practises to be a war crime. Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

We (the international community) tried, convicted and hung people for this exact same crime. No nation on the face of the planet is 'within it's right to do whatever it pleases'.

Then there is this:


We have several thousand soldiers in Afghanistan and supply them with billions of taxpayers' dollars every year. They better darn well be answerable to us. Was the reason that we are have soldiers there, to support a fascist regime, I sure hope not.

What I find very interesting is that President Hamid Karzai has been presented as a 'moderate' Muslim. So the international community has committed billions or dollars and thousands of personnel to support him, and this is the view of a moderate Muslim. The scariest part is that he really is the face of a moderate Muslim, and the best we can hope for.

We not only have a 'right' to stop this, but an obligation under international law to prevent genocide. We certainly have the ability as well.

Nobody and I do mean nobody should ever be punished for their religious beliefs.

The world may have banded together at that time, but does the prevent nations from still existing and ruling how they will? I think not. The fact is, nations still exist, boundaries still are drawn. There are laws for right. There are laws for wrong. They vary from country to country, but the world has no right to be the moral police of a state that may not share their zeal for what they believe to be "right" or what they belive to be "wrong."




We should not have. It is not our concern nor our right to meddle in the private affairs of another nation. If we dislike our own government stepping in and telling us how to treat each other: why do we have no problem when it steps in to tell others?




I stand by what I said because I believe it whole-heartily. Our soldiers are there to protect against and search for terrorists, they are not there to police and/or force Afghanistan to do anything. We still have troops in Germany, would you presume to tell me they must answer to us, too?




This is what I do not get. You say no one should be punished for their religious beliefs. Yet here, you express distaste over the religion predominating and ruling the nation. Why would we punish Afghanistan for practicing their religion. Would you dare insult a religion and a nation for one person who, by their law, has committed a crime?




The international laws are hardly universal. There are nations and groups of people on this earth who do not acknowledge them. Lets say this is the United States. We are too powerful for the international community to stop us. Look at the War in Iraq. International law says that is illegal. Yet we are there. Do not tell me International law governs a nation more than their own.



And no one, I mean no one, has the right to interfere with this nations policy towards religion because it is their law and their Constitution that governs their actions. Not ours.

The fourth question for debate has evolved into a very important and profound one. Is it ever proper for one nation to involve itself in the internal policies of another?

I think we can agree that such involvement should be reserved for extreme circumstances. It is also clear that all possible alternative methods of persuasion -- diplomacy, economic sanctions, and so on -- should be used before any form of force. However, there are some outrages which demand direct intervention.

Does the impending execution of one apostate reach this level of outrage? Very nearly, I would say. At the very least, there should be international condemnation and severe sanctions. If Afghanistan continues to follow such an evil policy against its own people, stronger measures from the international community may be necessary.

Uh, while I applaud the general principle of your moral stance, don't you think in this case it is a bit misplaced? We are not talking about some country which has some laws we don't like, this is not Nigeria or Malasia.

This is a country the US just recently invaded and deposed the central government. It was in all the papers. The US with assorted allies invaded the country, bombed parts of it to ruin, destroyed the existing government, and replaced it with one of our choosing. This happenbed so recently that US and allied forces are still there, not as general observers, but trying to maintain the peace (or create one), defend the government and are suffering casualties doing so. Afghanistan is an ongoing concern, and has been largely abandoned and allowed to slip back into sectarian chaos because Biush got distracted by Iraq.


Given that the US and the World INVADED the country, is OCCUPYING the country, imposed a government WE wanted, then abandoned it, it is not.... a touch odd to say the least to now say we have no business meddling in their internal affairs?



Besides, while military options are not always required, I entirely disagree that the world has 'no place telling nations what to do'. If you truly believe that, I think Nelson Mandela would be interested in your apology for those 'sanctions' and your suggestion that we should never have disapproved of apartheid, which was after all an entirely internal matter...

I share somewhat in the incredulity expressed by Loreng regarding VDemo's comments. Let's try putting some (real life) meat on these theoretical bones:

"If that nations (Hitler's Germany) law deems being one religion (Judaism) punishable by death, we must assume that it's citizens (Jews) know the law and are willing to face the consequences (slave labor, torture, gas, ovens...)"

Oh really?

"If it (forced evacuation to concentration camps) is written as a nation-wide law, they are entitled and other governments have no right to say otherwise...

"Law (government sanctioned genocide), in no matter what country, is law."

Just doing my job Ma'am.

"Laws (requiring sterilization of Jews and other 'undesirables') are to be upheld regardless of their moral or ethical concerns on a government outside of their own."

Should the Nazis at Nuremberg have been celebrated as "law abiding (and enforcing)" citizens of the Fatherland?....

VDemo continues:


Because there is a difference between an abhorance of intrusive government regulation of peaceful and voluntary interactions between people, and support for intervention against thieves, rapists, and murderers... wherever they may be.

Don't get me wrong. I would agree that any "Nation" should "meddle" as little as possible (if at all) in the affairs of other "Nations. But at some point, lines on a map should not trump an individuals right (no matter what his latitude and longitude) to life, liberty, and property. I suppose the question is at what point we cross that line (if ever).

Simplistic statements like "the law is the law" (no matter what?) suggest a reverence for majority (mob) rule (51% +1) through the machinations of a "State" with little (if any) consideration of individual human rights.

Perhaps we should never have had our "revolution"? After all, the colonies were under direct control by rule of the "laws" of Great Britain. Heck, we even welcomed the "Sovereign Nation" of France when she intervened (meddled) on our behalf against the British. Go figure.

I do not advocate the intervention of countries without an extreme reason. Genocide is such a reason



You're darn tooting they better answer to us. As I said before they receive billions of our dollars and have our troops protecting them, we do have a say in the matter. And if Germany passed a similar set of laws the US troops would react for good reason, actually I can think of 6 million good reasons for that reaction. I would even volunteer again for the Army. The world would be demanding it. The only time that they don't is when it involve Muslim religious intolerance, since they have over 25% of the voting bloc in the United Nations.



I have a strong distaste for any religion that demands punishment for a person's religious beliefs or lack there of. It is wrong not only morally, but legally as well. But then again we are told repeatedly that Islam is a religion of 'peace and tolerance', isn't that what President Bush proclaimed?

Just because a government passes certain laws, there are consequences for such action. That is why there are international laws, to prevent this exact action. Would you support any country executing people because they are Muslim? I sure wouldn't.



That is why we have various methods of enforcement, from diplomatic to armed intervention. Your comment about the war in Iraq is not only off topic, but false as well. The Iraq military committed several hundred acts of war against the US and UK prior to the war.



They do when it is a war crime. Human rights supersede national laws.

Right, except it isn't a stand-alone country. Withdrawing all troops and economic aid, that would make it stand-alone. Throw Iraq in there too.

Stop doing business with any of these weird people. If they want to live in the sixth century, fine. If they want to kill each other, fine. If they want to slash each other, fine.

Only they can figure out how insane these practices are.

Meanwhile, we need to tighten up our defenses against insanity. The 9/11 attack was avoidable. Admit to that. What we have tried to do in the ME does not work. Admit to that. Now, do things that do work. Stop being insane.

Above all, pay attention. It's a screwed up world out there.

We invaded Afghanistan to remove the Talibian. Very well, goal attained! Now, our concern was establishing peace. Done that, too! Afghanistan is no longer a threat to the world in strictest sense. Regarding their policy post-invasion: I'm glad they simply have one and have the political might to have any.





We INVADED the country to establish stability. We OCCUPY the country to ensure stability. WE have no right to stick our nose further in DOMESTIC affairs of the OCCUPIED nation; we're simply babysitters in this case.




Would you mind telling me how disapproving and demanding are the same thing? I am worried about the world demanding Afghanistan go against its own law. Not the world disapproving of it. I may disapprove of it, but I will not stop them.




Genocide does not begin with one person and remain an isolated incident. This is not a widespread problem and if it becomes one, I promise to renounce my stance in the public form of your choosing.




In an Islamic nation, leaving Islam is just as bad as those things. You may not see things in Middle-Eastern black and white, but that does not mean it does not exist or is any less terrible as murder by their standards.




You must know the law to break it. This man knew when he left Islam it would be detrimental to his health.




Dear, oh dear. Afghanistan is not the United States! Our law to human rights is not the same in the Middle-East.




This is a stretch at best. The United States citizens at the time all felt it was wrong, and they as a people chose to rise up and revolt. Another country did not decide if that was right or wrong. France was asked to assist us by Ben Franklin... Not some foreigner.




How many people have died because of this? Is it systematic? Is a dictator in power exercising absolute authority? Genocide is not occurring. This is no different than a trial for man slaughter in the United States according to the Constitution of the nation of Afghanistan.


.

When last I looked, correct me if I'm wrong, it was us that invaded them. Why would a husband answer to the man sleeping with his wife? Your logic seems a bit... Well. We invaded in order to remove an international threat. We have no right to govern them. France did not for us. England no longer does for their former lands.




Well, I'm glad you have distaste. How does this effect their domestic policy though? Islam does practice tolerance. But one of their Pillars is to convert and keep people in the faith. According to their law, they are within right to be doing this.



There shouldn't be. International law is like "Do not swim here" signs. Dare me to do it and I shall. If it was the governing religion's principle, yes I would.




My point is still valid. Why would we insist Afghanistan do something for us when they have done nothing to hinder or harm us since the removal of the dangerous regime?


Author, I think everything is above.

Oh, it is going to get murky in constitutional law in Afghanistan because it looks like there is an apparent contradiction of constitutional law. It looks like the this could go either way.

Actually, the man is (ostensibly) scheduled to be released now. The charges against him were dropped.



I almost closed this thread earlier but thought I'd wait until the word is final.

After having "meddled" in their "sovereign" affairs (by offering our (western) opinion on a proper response to an Afghani citizens conversion to a faith other than Islam), now is a time time to reflect upon the concept of consistency of principles when it comes to left wing feminist groups who sickenigly abandon millions of Women on Earth (based solely upon invisable political boundaries) to the 13th century opression of Islam in order to to maintain a knee-jerk opposition to anything and everything with a Bush or Republican name asigned to it.

I myself am unsure if Jesus is the son of "God." Heck, I'm not even sure there is a "God". But I sure am glad that the Afghan government is not going to execute an Afghan man for converting to Christianity, which is a belief system I do not share but fully respect his right to believe in privately and publically.

4) Should the world stand quite and respect Afghanistan's right to self governance and implementation of Afghan laws?

It's a tricky issue, but I think we should keep one thing in mind: political culture and ideology cannot be forced onto a nation. We may have deposed the Taliban, but that didn't cause Afghanistan to instantly adopt democratic values -- these values usually come about gradually. While I don't support the government's decision in this case, I don't think it's practical to intervene. If we force Afghanistan to conform to our ideals and make decisions for them, how can we expect them to develop a democratic government?

However, I do think that other nations, including the U.S., should speak out against it if they feel it's necessary. Nobody's stopping them from doing this or retracting economic support. But directly intervening is going too far. How would you feel if there were, say, a militarily strong nation that vehemently opposed abortion to the point they tried to intervene in U.S. politics by forcing us to outlaw it?

It is a law that ALL who commit the crime of conversion be executed. So I would say that it is totally systematic. Theocracies are dictatorships exercising absolute authority so again yes. Is one person's murder genocide? Well the UN does not say how many murders are free before it becomes genocide, it does say "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
A: Killing members of the group;
B: Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
C: Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
D: Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
F: Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. "

So I think it is safe to say one is enough.


Yes and we invading Germany in 1945 too. We did govern them and tell them what to do for a number of years thereafter. So I will ask if the German government decided in say 1947 (while still under occupation) to say that they wanted to kill the remainder of the Jews in Germany, but would only do it one person at a time, how many do you think the US would have allowed until we but a stop to it? One, two, ten, a hundred? How many is too many?


Yup do exactly as they say and they will tolerate you. That is as long as you don't think that you have any real rights that is. Sorry but that is not tolerance in anybody's book.


Then you had better be prepared for the consequences of your actions.


Because the current regime is just as hostile to humanity and therefor dangerous to us. Their continued religious intolerance is the root of the problem with the Islamic world. They refuse to consider anybody else to have equal rights and insist that they have the right to kill people that might disagree with them. And that is a war crime.

We have thousands of troops within the country, and are spending billions of dollars to prop up this corrupt regime and what are we getting for it? And yes we are an occupying power and under international laws we have a responsibility to protect the minorities within the country.

I am glad that the man in question may be freed soon, but the laws of this country as still illegal, immoral and reminiscent of the worst of racism and religious intolerance.