http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/20/ret.cleric.statement/
Lysander Spooner once noted that a people cannot bestow unto its government any right or power which they, the people, do not possess; in other words, you cannot give away what you do not have. Is such an idea even relevant for contrast? One is entitled to demand justice, whether one is willing to give it or not. However, is one entitled to demand conditions of justice? How can one make demands of what they do not accept anyway?
To wit: I do not believe in the Christian god; I take many rhetorical stabs after the idea, but at no time will I demand anything directly of that God: how can I demand anything of something I don't think is real?
Likewise, how can one demand anything of a form of justice one believes to be illegitimate? The standards of Justice are very different in Afghanistan than they are here; we are a nation by, of, and for the people. Afghanistan is a nation of its people, by its leaders, and for its version of God. If their way is superior, what do they accomplish by demanding conditions of what they view as an inappropriate and inferior justice?
How can the Taliban demand a higher standard of justice than its people are entitled to?
I think it would be best if they just coughed up bin Laden. Even to a Muslim nation. But the only way to prevent the coming warfare will be to fight fire with fire; it keeps occurring to me that there aren't as many "innocent" people left in Afghanistan. They're all dead or rotting in prisons. Or something sarcastic like that.
thanx,
Tiassa
I am not surprised that the US has rejected the terms of bin Laden's extradition; nor am I surprised by the content of the ulema's release. However, given that this is Afghanistan, I'm curious what right the ulema has to demand of the US that which the nation of Afghanistan will not grant to its own citizens. It's not that I disagree with this particular term; I tend to hold such a condition for anyone wanted for a crime. So whether or not it's a fair question in general is not the issue, as far as I'm concerned. I'm curious about what makes the Afghani ulema think it has they can demand for their guest what they do not provide within their borders.The ulema of Afghanistan demand of America that the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Conference investigate independently and precisely the recent events to clarify the reality and prevent harassment of innocent people.
Lysander Spooner once noted that a people cannot bestow unto its government any right or power which they, the people, do not possess; in other words, you cannot give away what you do not have. Is such an idea even relevant for contrast? One is entitled to demand justice, whether one is willing to give it or not. However, is one entitled to demand conditions of justice? How can one make demands of what they do not accept anyway?
To wit: I do not believe in the Christian god; I take many rhetorical stabs after the idea, but at no time will I demand anything directly of that God: how can I demand anything of something I don't think is real?
Likewise, how can one demand anything of a form of justice one believes to be illegitimate? The standards of Justice are very different in Afghanistan than they are here; we are a nation by, of, and for the people. Afghanistan is a nation of its people, by its leaders, and for its version of God. If their way is superior, what do they accomplish by demanding conditions of what they view as an inappropriate and inferior justice?
How can the Taliban demand a higher standard of justice than its people are entitled to?
I think it would be best if they just coughed up bin Laden. Even to a Muslim nation. But the only way to prevent the coming warfare will be to fight fire with fire; it keeps occurring to me that there aren't as many "innocent" people left in Afghanistan. They're all dead or rotting in prisons. Or something sarcastic like that.
thanx,
Tiassa