You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Central Asia
Uzbek executions 'lack justice'
2003-11-18
Uzbekistan must stop executing dozens of people annually without giving them access to a proper justice system, a leading human rights group has said.
"Stop that this instant!"
Amnesty International on Tuesday called on the former Soviet state to end its use of the death penalty. It said executing people was irresponsible “where torture is systematic, corruption is unchecked at every stage ... and where courts apply the death penalty without the guidance of objective and publicly accessible sentencing criteria". Amnesty said that in many cases "family members do not know for months, sometimes even years whether their relative is alive or has been executed". Once informed that an execution has taken place, relatives "many search for years in the hope of finding the grave" as the authorities often refuse to release information about where the dead have been buried, Amnesty said. Amnesty also criticised countries it said had been involved in extraditing individuals to Uzbekistan who had then been sentenced to death and possibly tortured — namely Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. In July the United Nations Human Rights Committee strongly criticised Uzbekistan's execution of six people whose cases were awaiting the committee's consideration. On Tuesday Amnesty said it knew of at least nine young men who had been executed despite interventions by the committee. Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov has been a key supporter of US-led anti-terrorism efforts centred on neighbouring Afghanistan and some have argued that US support has given added legitimacy to his regime.
Somehow it's always our fault, isn't it?
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#19  yes, Karimov is trying to be independent, like Yugoslav's Tito, of the Khazak/Khyrgyz axis with Russia- but I believe he has also executed some by boiling them alive. That is a bit hard to stomach.
Central Asia is set to become the new Middle East in the 80 year old resource war.
Let Murat speak- or this will become an echo room.
I know what "we" think, I want to know what the other side thinks!
Posted by: alzaebo   2003-11-18 11:18:53 PM  

#18  Sorry JFM.

Are we rewarding by approximation?
If so.

Murat yes! Good to execute Taliban after full (Western) review. Sorry to snap at ya!


Posted by: Shipman   2003-11-18 5:42:38 PM  

#17  As I said yesterday, could Murat some slack. Of course as anyone who has had too much leftist indoctrination he couldn't help himself in making a snide anti-US remark but notice that he also told that is was a good thing to execute Taliban.
Posted by: JFM   2003-11-18 3:29:17 PM  

#16  MuRat - Do you really think you should comment on this one? Especially with your countries history on capital punishment? If your a Kurd there is no due process.
Posted by: Dan   2003-11-18 2:37:00 PM  

#15  Two things need clarifying, and I doubt if AI would answer either point truthfully:

1. What is the definition of "Justice"?
2. How is that definition NOT being implemented in Uzbekistan?

It's not up to AI to impose a system of Justice on any nation, nor to demand that any SOVEREIGN STATE obey the laws or accept the definition of justice of other nations. My personal definition of JUSTICE is the evaluation of a clash between two or more free men to determine:
a) if any personal rights were violated;
b) if so, by what degree;
c) by whom;
and d) what should be done to rectify the situation?

Killing someone is the ultimate violation of their personal rights. Executing a killer is not retribution, but an insurance against anyone else losing their life because of this uncontrolled $$#%#@$#@. "Law" is the imposition of punishment based on the violation of the rights of individuals, and is an attempt to impose controls on those who either refuse to or cannot control themselves.

Anything else is tyranny. The gravest tyranny against free men is the tyranny of uncontrolled law.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-11-18 2:23:40 PM  

#14  In February 1903, the United States agreed to lease 45 square miles of land and water at Guantanamo Bay for use as a coaling station. The treaty was finalized and the document was ratified by both governments and signed in Havana in December of that year. A 1934 treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, modified the lease payment from $2,000 in gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 U.S. Treasury Dollars, and added a requirement that termination of the lease requires the consent of both the U.S. and Cuba governments, or the abandonment of the base property by the U.S.

I'm told that the U.S. Treasury mails a check every year to Cuba, which has never cashed them (since Castro took over).
Posted by: Seafarious   2003-11-18 11:42:51 AM  

#13  does somebody know what the legal status of Gitmo really is?

Nevermind. It was a 1903 lease agreement, extended in 1934 in perpetuity (for a yearly fee of $2000 worth of gold, lol).
Posted by: Rafael   2003-11-18 11:07:56 AM  

#12  what gives the US the right to use Gitmo as a place free of law?

Because Gitmo is not American soil. It is on lease from Cuba. The Supreme Court is considering the case of the detainees at Gitmo, with a decision expected in July, although interestingly they will not consider the fate or status of the detainees, but rather the status of the base itself. If it rules that Gitmo is indeed American soil, then the courts also have jurisdiction over Gitmo, and you can argue that each detainee is entitled to a lawyer. However don't hold your breath for the Supreme Court to decide whether the detainees are POWs or illegal combatants; that's for the executive branch to decide and they're not going to interfere with the president.
(BTW, does somebody know what the legal status of Gitmo really is?)
Posted by: Rafael   2003-11-18 10:46:18 AM  

#11  Though agreeing that execution is not very humane it is not essentially much different from the American executions.

Who says it has to be humane? It is usually the most vilest of criminals that are put to death in the U.S., and as such, they generally deserve it. The only thing inhumane about it is that it tends to take so long to carry out (esp. here in CA).
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2003-11-18 10:39:34 AM  

#10  Murat was only trying to emulate AI

I couldn't tell (until I cut & pasted it) whether the last letter was an "L(ell)" or an "I(eye)". The sentence actually makes more sense if it's the latter...
Posted by: snellenr   2003-11-18 10:05:29 AM  

#9  "agreeing that execution is not very humane it is not essentially much different from the American executions."

-Yeah, right. Except for the fact that our criminals get lawyers, trials that can last for months, and about a dozen appeals (& that's being conservative) of the conviction. You want to see some good death penalty cases - check out China. I believe its the first Tuesday of the next month after your convicted you get shot in the public square & your family is billed the 27 cents it took to make the bullet they used to kill you with. Sounds good to me.
Posted by: Jarhead   2003-11-18 9:33:54 AM  

#8  that's fine LH - Murat was only trying to emulate AI - it's all our fault. When AI goes after the honor killings in Muslim society I'll start listening, until then they should STFU
Posted by: Frank G   2003-11-18 9:13:38 AM  

#7  to get back on topic, and surprise, to go to the left of Murat (unless he was just setting up his gitmo attack)

from what ive read Karimov has NOT only killed terrorists, but also political opponents. He runs an authoritarian state, at least as much so as Egypt and in some ways as bad as Saudi. While we may need him for now, cause of Afghanistan, if the WOT is truely going to be a war for freedom, as Bush said recently, we need to keep our distance from Karimov, and prepare for the day we break with him.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-18 9:10:33 AM  

#6  So that's your defence no executions in Gitmo? What's your prove? Besides what gives the US the right to use Gitmo as a place free of law?
Posted by: Murat   2003-11-18 9:09:45 AM  

#5  Re: Gitmo, we should have just followed the Geneva Conventions with respect to illegal combatants. That is we should have executed them on the spot. Oh that's right, lefty's conveniently forget that aspect of the GC. Oh well, and Murat, how many of the Gitmo prisoner's have been executed? Yeah, that's what I thought. So, how about you just keep your stinkhole shut until you have a f&cking clue what you are talking about. Some friends of yours being held in Gitmo?
Posted by: Swiggles   2003-11-18 8:39:17 AM  

#4  Gitmo detainees are not in the criminal system, at least not yet. Nor are they being executed unless by their own hand. [sarcasm] Perfect parallel otherwise, though [/sarcasm]
Posted by: VAMark   2003-11-18 8:20:26 AM  

#3  What court do you have on Guantanomo, do the captives even if they are Taliban have a personal lawyer.
Posted by: Murat   2003-11-18 8:06:44 AM  

#2  Ã¢Â€Âœwhere torture is systematic, corruption is unchecked at every stage ... and where courts apply the death penalty without the guidance of objective and publicly accessible sentencing criteria".

That's the US system all right.
Thanks Murat.
Posted by: Shipman   2003-11-18 7:40:49 AM  

#1  The Amnesty international report does not mention who those people are who were executed. Though agreeing that execution is not very humane it is not essentially much different from the American executions. From Uzbekistan I know that they have a lot of trouble with radical Taliban like extremists from neighbouring Tajikistan, if the executed are terrorists it is not bad at all.
Posted by: Murat   2003-11-18 4:46:29 AM  

00:00