Secretary Clinton-is this morally ethically legally justified?-16 feb2010
16Feb 2010,
Secretary of State
US Government,
Washington DC
USA
Dear Madam Secretary of State Mrs Hillary Clinton,
I have to use the state department website "ask us" since I could not find your "secretary of state" email address.
I have been driven to seek this clarification from you as the head of all US diplomatic missions world wide, after watching a series of episodes of Jailed Abroad broadcast by National Geographic.
The latest episode of David Evans broadcast recently where he was repatriated to USA (Presumably under the promise of serving out the rest of his eight year term) but was released early (in compensation for the 2 years already spent?) has prompted this.
These are mostly cases of US citizens or residents who have been convicted of violating drug laws of other nations and have been convicted and jailed outside USA.
Obviously most end with the embassy/mission/ government(?) / senators or humanitarian(?) organizations intervening
on their behlaf with the foreign governments and have them pardoned and released early.
On one hand the world is led to believe that the success of US of A is because of the law obedience of US citizens.
It is also clear that much of the respect is due to the diligence with which law is enforced and hence upheld at all levels of life in the US of A.
At this point I have difficulty fathoming the purpose of this series- is it to evoke sympathy for those jailed abroad? then it fails miserably.
What is left behind is a sense of anger that they - not one episode appeared to suggest that these were unfairly convicted?-escaped the due punishment thanks to the lenient attitude exhibited by USA towards criminal acts of its citizens in other countries?
However what becomes obvious to the global viewers is the sustained official effort by USA to get its subjects released from jails abroad, for crimes-no doubt they are crimes of a very high order.
In view of the enormous ripple effects on the society drug smuggling and terrorism should rank death penalty.
Though USA appears to take a more lenient view of both these grave menaces.
These official/nonofficial interventional efforts no matter how nobly motivated leave behind a sense of injustice in the minds of the viewers.
That there is a differential leniency / attitude towards US citizens becomes obvious when the world sees the thirty eight years hounding of Roman Polanski a french citizen, or deported John Demjanjuk the 89 year old Nazi guard , as opposed to that of Michael Jackson or these cases.
How, why and when are these interventions and consequent leniency justifiable morally, ehtically or legally?
Secretary of State
US Government,
Washington DC
USA
Dear Madam Secretary of State Mrs Hillary Clinton,
I have to use the state department website "ask us" since I could not find your "secretary of state" email address.
I have been driven to seek this clarification from you as the head of all US diplomatic missions world wide, after watching a series of episodes of Jailed Abroad broadcast by National Geographic.
The latest episode of David Evans broadcast recently where he was repatriated to USA (Presumably under the promise of serving out the rest of his eight year term) but was released early (in compensation for the 2 years already spent?) has prompted this.
These are mostly cases of US citizens or residents who have been convicted of violating drug laws of other nations and have been convicted and jailed outside USA.
Obviously most end with the embassy/mission/ government(?) / senators or humanitarian(?) organizations intervening
on their behlaf with the foreign governments and have them pardoned and released early.
On one hand the world is led to believe that the success of US of A is because of the law obedience of US citizens.
It is also clear that much of the respect is due to the diligence with which law is enforced and hence upheld at all levels of life in the US of A.
At this point I have difficulty fathoming the purpose of this series- is it to evoke sympathy for those jailed abroad? then it fails miserably.
What is left behind is a sense of anger that they - not one episode appeared to suggest that these were unfairly convicted?-escaped the due punishment thanks to the lenient attitude exhibited by USA towards criminal acts of its citizens in other countries?
However what becomes obvious to the global viewers is the sustained official effort by USA to get its subjects released from jails abroad, for crimes-no doubt they are crimes of a very high order.
In view of the enormous ripple effects on the society drug smuggling and terrorism should rank death penalty.
Though USA appears to take a more lenient view of both these grave menaces.
These official/nonofficial interventional efforts no matter how nobly motivated leave behind a sense of injustice in the minds of the viewers.
That there is a differential leniency / attitude towards US citizens becomes obvious when the world sees the thirty eight years hounding of Roman Polanski a french citizen, or deported John Demjanjuk the 89 year old Nazi guard , as opposed to that of Michael Jackson or these cases.
How, why and when are these interventions and consequent leniency justifiable morally, ehtically or legally?
posted by m b nataraj | 4:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home