GERMAN SHAME...
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 07:58AM I note that one of the leaders of the German Baader-Meinhof terrorist gang is to be freed early next year after spending more than a quarter of a century in jail for a series of murders during the Seventies and Eighties. Christian Klar, 56, has shown no remorse for the nine murders and 11 attempted murders for which he was convicted. A court decided, nonetheless, yesterday that he will be released in early January from a prison in the German town of Bruchsal.
Klar was a member of the so-called second generation Red Army Faction, the terrorist organisation founded by the militant leftists Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof at the end of the 1960s. It was commonly known as the the Baader-Meinhof gang, and murdered 30 people during its campaign, which formally ended in early 1990s when the RAF disbanded. This is a sickening betrayal of the victims of Baader-Meinhof terrorism and the court concerned should be thoroughly ashamed of itself.
It is also a great example of why the DEATH SENTENCE is the best penalty for convicted terrorists since it ensures that future courts do not go soft and wobbly and let the killers out.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (27)
I sincerely hope there's someone out there, a relative of one of the murdered maybe, who intends to have their own justice.
Klar is typical of that generation of terrorists: conceited, arrogant, snobbish - and totally neurotic. Now, at 56, he is to start an apprenticeship as a stage designer in the theatre. Don't ask me who would give a waster like that a job!
Still, 26 years in jail, 7 years spent in solitary confinement, confined to your cell for 23 hours every day - I wonder who wouldn't prefer the lethal injection when faced with that?
"It is also a great example of why the DEATH SENTENCE is the best penalty for convicted terrorists since it ensures that future courts do not go soft and wobbly and let the killers out."
Like the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven and the Birmingham Six? 17 people you would have seen hang and every one of them was innocent.
Seamus -
Many if, buts and maybes exist with different penal outcomes.
With the possibly of a death sentence they may not have been convicted at all. The possibility of hanging means that some terrorists may be put off in the first place.
The certainty of appeals means that juries are more likely to convict in such cases and, in my opinion, doesn't quite encourage investigators and prosecutors to be as robust and diligent as they might otherwise have been.
Still, 26 years in jail, 7 years spent in solitary confinement, confined to your cell for 23 hours every day
Not a single one of our home-grown terrorist murderers served anything approaching a sentence like that. By comparison with the so-soft prison regime here, the Germans are positively brutal.
--Don't ask me who would give a waster like that a job!--
Someone who didn't have all that strong a disagreement with what the Baader-Meinhof gang did?
"With the possibly of a death sentence they may not have been convicted at all. The possibility of hanging means that some terrorists may be put off in the first place."
I find that hard to believe when the trial judge stood up and said to them that it was a pity they were not charged with treason, which is punishable by hanging. He would have hanged them if he had the opportunity. The Police at the time were not looking for justice but for any person they could put on trial.
Also, giving that the biggest threat from Terrorism currently come from people who actually want to die, killing them seems to be counter productive. Why make martyrs out of people? Hanging Terorrists will only cause more people to become Terrorists.
In reality, in my opinion, the State do not have the right to kill people. If the Germans had killed Christian Klar then the German State would have been brought down to the level of Christian Klar.
If the Germans had killed Christian Klar then the German State would have been brought down to the level of Christian Klar.
Eh, no.
Phantom, what gives the State the moral authority to kill anyone?
Well, to put it simply (and hypothetically), Seamus, if a political party campaigned for election with the reintroduction of the death penalty in its manifesto, and that party was voted into office, then that would give them the authority to carry out the public's wish. That's the way democracy is supposed to work in theory. A party stands for election on certain grounds, the public says "yeah, that sounds OK, we'll have a bit of that cake, please" and so they get elected.
Tom
Too simplistic. The public do not have the moral right to demand whatever they want on the purist grounds of majority popularity.
Oh right, suddenly we're fans of limited government.
Pete
Well obviously you are not.
"Well, to put it simply (and hypothetically), Seamus, if a political party campaigned for election with the reintroduction of the death penalty in its manifesto, and that party was voted into office, then that would give them the authority to carry out the public's wish. That's the way democracy is supposed to work in theory. A party stands for election on certain grounds, the public says "yeah, that sounds OK, we'll have a bit of that cake, please" and so they get elected."
If the Nazis had campaigned on the basis of the Final Solution, which they ultimately did not do, and had been elected, would that have given any form of legitimacy to the Holocaust? It clearly wouldn't have. Democracy does not give the Government a right to do anything it wants.
Seamus
The infallible argument against the death penalty- the ( always real ) possibility that an innocent person will be executed
The infallible argument in favor of the death penalty- it makes it physically impossible for the murderer/rapist/whatever to commit the crime again
Someone who murders to me has no right to me other than to stop breathing. The state has an absolute right and duty to protect its population.
Your only argument - and its a strong one - is the first one above. But there are no other arguments to be made against it. Fix the doubt issue, and its the moral duty of the state to execute every one of the sons of bitches as soon as humanly possible.
"Someone who murders to me has no right to me other than to stop breathing. The state has an absolute right and duty to protect its population."
I disagree. The state has no moral authority to kill people. No one has a right to end life. In my opinion, even if that person has been convicted by a jury in a fair trial, if the State kills a person they are commiting the same crime as the person they are killing.
If its being done to protect a population, in accordance with laws, its hard to say its the same thing. We disagree.
"If its being done to protect a population, in accordance with laws, its hard to say its the same thing."
Even if it is done within the law, to protect the population, it is still killing someone. I do firmly believe that the British Government's wish to lock people up for 42 days without charge or trial is to protect the population and if the law is passed it will be within the law. That doesn't mean that it is right. The American's Government's decision to lock people up in Guantanomo Bay for 5 years without charge or trial is probably also to protect their population, and if it was passed through congress, would be inside the law. It doesn't make it right.
Not comparing the two but in a similar vein of though, in Hitler's opinion the existence of Jews in Germany was a threat to the Aryan population. In order to protect the population, well within the laws of the German State, he killed 6,000,000 Jews to protect the Aryan population's "racial purity".
Even if it is done to protect people, within the law, does not mean that it is right.
Even if it is done to protect people, within the law, does not mean that it is right.
That's a personal opinion, and you are entitled to it.
I do firmly believe that the British Government's wish to lock people up for 42 days without charge or trial is to protect the population and if the law is passed it will be within the law.
Actually, no. Magna Carta established the writ of Habeus Corpus. Parliament would act outside of its authority in restricting it since Magna Carta is a direct compact between the Crown and the people and is untouchable by Parliament.
Parliament can say what it likes, but it cannot decide which of its actions are within the law.
"Actually, no. Magna Carta established the writ of Habeus Corpus. Parliament would act outside of its authority in restricting it since Magna Carta is a direct compact between the Crown and the people and is untouchable by Parliament."
Actually, no. The right of Habeas Corpus is the right to challenge your imprisonment. It does not say in the Magna Carta that the Government can't lift you off the street and lock you up. It does say that you are allowed to question the legality of such a move. If it is in accordance with an act of Parliament, all the detainee would be allowed to do is question whether or not his detention is legal. He would be allowed a Judicial Review, not a trail.
Seamus -
The common law right not to be detained at the Crown's whim without charge or trial for any excessive period was established in Magna Carta, but it's a right which goes back to our Anglo Saxon traditions. Since Parliament may not shrink any of our common law liberties and since Magna Carta sits above Parliament, Parliament may not legislate lawfully in this area.
Bloody awkward for politicians I know, but English Liberty is really quite wonderful if we allow it to defend us.
But it does not explicitly state anywhere in the Magna Carta that detaining someone without trial is illegal. It does state that they can question that detention, hence the fact that the Government cna currently get a way with detaining people for 28 days. Also, Common Law was passed by the Monarch, not as a right, but as a privilege. In English Law, and by extension British Law, all people are not citizens but subjects. What the Crown gives, the Crown can take away again, including Common Law. Every single Law passed in the Commons is done so with the authority of the Monarch as she signs it.
Life without parole would have been closer to justice, releasing him and letting him return to society is a mistake.
Seamus -
The common law began as the affirmation of our liberties in the Saxon shire courts, based on our habits, mores and culture. It had nothing to do with Kings. Insofar as Kings codified common law rulings in later times, they took nothing away and cannot take anything away. The Crown can only add to our liberties.
I know Parliament has abolished and curtailed our liberties, but Parliament always acts outside its authority to do so and is yet another reason why HM Queen Elizabeth II (the Head of State and Governor of the Nation) is the worst monarch in our history.
What the Crown gives, the Crown can take away again, including Common Law.
No. The relationship is the other way around. We have a constitutional monarchy governed by law and not (alas) divine rule. Monarch embody the sovereignty of the people when they asced the throne. It is given, not taken. In return the monarch swears (read the Coronation Oath) to govern us in accordance with our customs and traditions. When they do not do so they shatter the compact between us.
Since 1215 the Crown has recognised the right of the people to drag the monarch from the Throne when they cease to act in accordance with our wishes.
Every single Law passed in the Commons is done so with the authority of the Monarch as she signs it.
Well, not quite. Parliament is only an advisory chamber and Royal Assent is usually done by way of Latter of Patent of the Speakers of each House - acting under Crown authority of course - giving assent. But still, the front page of each Act of Parliament makes it very clear who is teh sovereign lawmaker and who merely advises:
Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
However, as I said, even the Crown is constricted by the common law and the Constitution and may not enact any law restricting our long-held liberties.
--Life without parole would have been closer to justice--
I don't disagree with that, but this leaves open the possibility that some future politician or idiot judge will change his mind and spring the perp someday.
Sorry Pete
I know we've been through all this before and much as I admire your sentiments legally you are wrong.