A DEATHLY ARGUMENT

A former Australian soldier, working as a mercenary in Afghanistan, is under the sentence of death for shooting an Afghani colleague to death. Robert Langdon claimed self-defence but a witness said the victim was unarmed. He was convicted of murder and his death sentence upheld by an Appeals Court. Reportedly, after the shooting, Langdon, aged 38, threw a hand grenade into the truck to disguise his crime as a Taliban attack.
 
He then fled to Kabul, withdrew $10,000 from the bank and was arrested at the airport as he tried to board a flight for the Middle East.
 
Prime Minister Rudd says the Australian Government is now making representations to the Afghan Government on Langdon’s behalf. Why? And Langdon’s family has issued a statement through the Foreign Affairs Department asking the media ‘to refrain from publishing reports on Rob’s case’.
 
On what grounds? We report on other murders at home and abroad. But there are a lot of other aspects about this case and our government’s involvement that perturbs me.
 
We know this government is opposed to capital punishment. The Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, has told his state counterparts the government intends to ban the death penalty nationwide. Before the last election, McClelland said a Rudd Government would oppose the death penalty in all circumstances.  Even for killers like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
 
That savvy candidate Rudd rebuked him for his ‘highly insensitive’ comments because it was so close to the fifth anniversary of the Bali bombings.
 
And despite their total opposition to capital punishment it was hard to get a comment from a Rudd or a Brumby condemning the executions of the Bali bombers.
 
Do they think this week’s hanging of that butcher called Chemical Ali was wrong? A man who ordered the massacre of thousands of Kurds with nerve gas. Can anybody who saw the footage of mothers’ corpses lying in futile protection on top of their babies think his execution was wrong?
 
And if you argued that you didn’t oppose the execution of the Bali bombers out of respect for the victims’ families then what about the families of those slaughtered by Julian Knight and Martin Bryant?
 
You either oppose the death penalty or you don’t. How can the Prime Minister intervene when an Australian’s life is at stake and yet not protest every time there is an execution in Japan, or India, or China or even the United States. Surely you must have a universal stance.
 
How arrogant is this? It says an Australian life is more precious than a mere Indian or Chinese ?
 
Friday, January 29, 2010

© Copyright Derryn Hinch 2010