[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 23



ENGLAND:

Muslim woman 'backs death penalty for homosexuality' on live radio


This was the moment a Muslim woman branded homosexuality an "abomination" and 
appeared to back use of the death penalty to punish it.

In a shocking tirade on live radio, a caller named Zainab also equated gay 
people with paedophiles and claimed it was against her religion.

Her comments, strongly contradicted by another Muslim caller named Sohail 
Ahmed, enraged LBC presenter Iain Dale, who described her views as 
"disgusting".

During a fractious exchange, the openly gay radio host asked the 22-year-old 
caller, from Upney in east London, how society should treat gay people.

"My religion is very clear about gay people and you know what it says about gay 
people," she replied.

"I don't know what the exact punishment is in the Quran for gay people but it 
is death penalty."

Asked if she thought the Quran was right, she added: "I believe the Quran is 
the word of God."

At one point she appeared to accept that people should be allowed to be gay but 
said it was a "choice" that was incompatible with Islam.

Referring to another caller, she said: "If he wants to be that way, he can be 
that way.

"All I'm saying is don't get my religion into it. Don't twist my religion to 
say that it accepts gay people.

"No it does not accept gay people and it's against my religion."

Her comments came hours after the other caller, Mr Ahmed, had set up a stall 
outside Whitechapel station as part of a campaign to change attitudes towards 
homosexuality in the Islamic community.

He told the radio show he had struggled to reconcile being gay with his 
religion but branded the female caller "uneducated".

He said: "In a sense - and it might sound strange and it might sound disgusting 
- but I understand where she's coming from.

"But unfortunately, even though I understand where she's coming from, I believe 
she's wrong.

"And I vehemently believe she is wrong.

"That young woman, rather than being kind of bigoted individual or something, 
she's just rather what I would refer to as uneducated, perhaps, or naive."

(source: Evening Standard)






ZIMBABWE:

Alternative to Death Sentence Way to Go


The docket of the Constitutional Court is growing fast as more and more 
questions, which were once decided in Parliament or in society at large, are 
now going to the highest court of the land. The latest is the difficult 
question of the death penalty. Until the passage of the new Constitution this 
was mandatory in murder cases where the trial court could not find, as a 
question of fact, that there were extenuating circumstances.

The judge, in passing sentence, had no discretion; once the court established 
certain facts it had to pass the sentence set by Parliament. The new 
Constitution took a different course. Only adult men can be sentenced to death 
and the judge has the discretion over sentence, with the death penalty just an 
option for aggravated murder, not a compulsory sentence.

A number of questions now come to the fore. First there are people in prison 
under sentence of death whose sentence was passed under the old law, because 
the crime took place before the new Constitution came into effect.

Should these people have the right to at least a new hearing over sentence? 
Generally, the law forbids changes to apply to the past, both in the sense that 
people cannot be convicted of a crime that was not defined when they committed 
it and cannot appeal if the crime was later abolished. But when there is a 
potential life or death issue that could perhaps be different.

The court will further have to consider if the death penalty, although 
permitted under certain circumstances, can ever be applied constitutionally. 
This will be an interesting decision.

The Constitutional Court will also be asked to address the sentence of life 
imprisonment without any possibility of parole. This decision is possibly even 
more critical.

There are many in Zimbabwe who would welcome the abolition of the death penalty 
and more who would at least acquiesce in its abolition. But we suspect a 
majority of those enthusiastic or grudging abolitionists would also want to see 
a full life sentence as at least an option in the worst murder cases.

We will no longer kill killers, but they will have forfeited their right to 
return to society. But it can be argued that removing any reward for reform is 
also cruel. The precise balance of rights of individuals and the rights of 
society are probably best set by a group of senior judges.

But this must not mean society and its Parliament have to abdicate their own 
responsibilities. The Constitutional Court can only set the boundaries. How we 
operate within those boundaries is a legislative decision, not a judicial 
decision and Parliament should have the courage to debate difficult issues and 
be a leader as well as a follower of public opinion.

Before anyone is hanged in Zimbabwe the Cabinet has to approve the execution. 
It has been clear for many years that a majority of the Cabinet are simply not 
prepared to vote in favour of a hanging.

We suspect this extends to the majority of Parliament and on this issue the 
rejection of the death penalty is one of those non-party issues. So Parliament 
needs to abolish the death penalty as an option, but in light of conviction and 
public opinion allow judges in certain cases to impose a full-life sentence.

That will be tested before the Constitutional Court, of course, but if the 
court decides that there must be some possibility of parole under people's 
constitutional rights then it must be willing to give precise guidelines over 
the criteria that could be applied in granting parole, and in that case 
Parliament would be able to go to the constitutional limit when amending the 
law to effect the judgment.

What we are arguing is that while our Constitutional Court has a critical role 
to play, it should not be the only source of change. It would be far better if 
it, in its developing docket, carefully set boundaries and explained in some 
detail why the boundaries were set. Then the real source of change must be the 
people, through their elected representatives who, respecting the boundaries, 
decide how they want their laws to work.

(source: Editorial, The Herald)






INDONESIA----female faces death penalty

Possible Death Sentence Looms for Woman Accused of Killing Foster Daughter


A woman accused of killing her foster daughter and burying the child's body in 
her back yard went on trial in Bali on Thursday, where she faces charges that 
carry a maximum penalty of death.

Margriet Megawe is charged with murder under the Criminal Code and with child 
abuse under the 2014 Child Protection Law, or the murder in May of 8-year-old 
Engeline, in a case that has gripped the nation.

The child's body was discovered buried in the back yard of Margriet's Denpasar 
home in June, a month after the family reported Engeline missing and launched 
online pleas for her return.

The prosecution's indictment against Margriet revolves largely around 
confessions from her former housekeeper, Agustinus Tay, who claims Margriet 
killed Engeline by slamming her head against a wall and paid him to help her 
dispose of the body.

The indictment also details a history of abuse by the defendant against the 
victim, including stubbing out lit cigarettes on the child's body.

Agustinus, who initially confessed to the murder but later recanted, saying his 
statement was made under duress from the police, alleges that Margriet ordered 
him to rape Engeline after she killed the child, to make it look like she was 
the victim of a sex crime, but that he refused to do so.

He did, however, agree to help dig a hole in the back yard and bury the body 
there, claiming that Margriet promised to pay him Rp 200 million ($14,700) to 
keep silent and to take the fall if the body was discovered.

The start of Thursday's hearing at the Denpasar District Court was delayed when 
Engeline's biological mother, Hamidah, burst out crying in the courtroom and 
demanding that Margriet be found guilty and sentenced to death.

Judge Edward Haris Sinaga, presiding, adjourned the reading of the indictment 
to ask that Hamidah be moved to another room in the courthouse from where she 
could follow the proceedings on a video link.

As of press time, prosecutors were still reading out the indictment.

Agustinus faces lesser charges of accessory to murder.

(source: Jakarta Globe)

*****************

Indonesia puts executions on hold due to weak economy


Indonesia Attorney General M. Prasetyo said on Thursday that the Attorney 
General's Office (AGO) would not carry out a 3rd round of executions of inmates 
until the country gets out of the current economic slowdown.

Prasetyo said that another round of executions could trigger an international 
outcry that could derail President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo's campaign to fix the 
economy.

"The Attorney General's Office is currently helping the government in 
prioritizing the economy," Prasetyo told The Jakarta Post on Thursday.

This year, the AGO conducted 2 rounds of executions, the 1st involving 6 
convicts in January and the 2nd another 8 in April. The executions sparked 
condemnations from domestic and international human rights campaigners, as well 
as risked Indonesia's diplomatic relationships with the respective countries of 
origin of the foreign inmates.

Earlier in September, the AGO had sent a budget proposal for the execution of 
14 foreign and domestic drug convicts to the House of Representatives 
Commission III overseeing legal affairs, but the plan was put on hold after the 
country entered a period of economic slowdown.

Prasetyo said that the 3rd round of executions would likely be conducted next 
year, but he did not give details regarding the plan.

The Attorney General said that the AGO was working to help the economic 
recovery, including by setting up a team that would help local government 
officials make budget decisions.

"Some of them are reluctant to make decisions [on budgets] because they are 
afraid of being prosecuted by law enforcers," he said.

Separately, human rights watchdog Setara Institute chairman Hendardi called 
Prasetyo's argument for the delay "insensitive."

"The decision to delay the executions is not something to brag about, 
especially because it was not made based on humanitarian reasons. From his 
argument we can see that he does not know what law enforcement is," Hendardi 
told the Post on Thursday.

Hendardi called on Jokowi to meet international demands by abolishing capital 
punishment in the country.

"Any delay in the executions is not a solution. The government must issue a 
moratorium on the death penalty. After the moratorium, it should move further 
to completely abolish the inhumane practice," Hendardi said.

In addition to the executions in April, 8 drug convicts were executed on the 
Nusakambangan prison island near Cilacap in Central Java. They were Indonesian 
Zainal Abidin, Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, Brazilian Rodrigo 
Gularte, Ghanaian Martin Anderson and Nigerians Sylvester Obiekwe Nwolise, 
Raheem Agbaje Salami and Okwudili Oyatanze.

Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso of the Philippines was spared after a woman who 
allegedly recruited her to act as a drug courier gave herself up to police in 
the Philippines. The AGO said that it would include Veloso in the next round of 
executions after the legal process in her own country finished.

The AGO has yet to release the names of the 14 drug convicts that it wants to 
put to death in the next round of executions.

(source: kathmandupost)



MALAYSIA:

3 men charged with trafficking drugs


3 men were charged separately in the High Court here Thursday with trafficking 
drugs.

A 26-year-old air-conditioning technician Kho Kang Yau pleaded not guilty 
before Judge Datuk Nurchaya Arshad to trafficking 1,402gm of syabu.

Kho of Kuala Lumpur allegedly committed the offence at the International 
Arrival Hall, Terminal 2 of the Kota Kinabalu International Airport, here, at 
11.15am on March 6 this year.

Customs Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Khuzaima Dolfatah applied for a case 
management date and the fixed Dec 4. Kho is represented by counsel Ram Singh.

Meanwhile, another 2 men, Mohd Zaim Muzhaffar Mohd Danny, 22, and Muhd Sirhan 
Abdul Rashid, 28, claimed trial to trafficking 354gm of cannabis at 4.45pm on 
March 5 this year at a car park at the Condo University Apartment in Menggatal.

DPP Wan Farrah Farriza Wan Ghazali also requested for a case management date.

Nurchaya set Dec 4 for mention of the case. Mohd Zaim was represented by 
counsel Erveanna Ansari and Amirul Amin while counsel PJ Perira appeared for 
Muhd Sirhan.

Kho, Mohd Zaim and Muhd Sirhan were charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the 
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 which carries the death penalty on conviction.

(source: Daily Express)






SINGAPORE:

Drugs worth more than S$109,000 seized, 4 arrested----A total of about 3.2kg of 
cannabis, 20g of 'Ice' and 98 Erimin-5 tablets, worth more than S$109,000, were 
seized in an operation, according to the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). The 
suspects may face the death penalty.


4 people were arrested on Thursday afternoon (Oct 22) in connection with drug 
activities, the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) said in a media release on 
Friday. A total of about 3.2kg of cannabis, 20g of 'Ice' and 98 Erimin-5 
tablets were also seized during the operation.

The CNB said the drugs were estimated to be worth more than S$109,000.

The suspects were arrested on Thursday by CNB officers deployed to conduct an 
observation on a suspected local drug syndicate in the Clementi area. The 
syndicate was believed to have received a fresh consignment of drugs, said the 
CNB.

A 44-year-old male Singaporean was seen meeting with a 41-year-old male 
Singaporean outside his unit in Clementi. After they parted, the 41-year-old 
was swiftly arrested. CNB officers escorted him to his unit in the vicinity of 
Clementi Ave 1, and a search recovered a total of about 2.2kg of cannabis and 
some drug paraphernalia, including a digital weighing scale.

Officers continued to monitor the other suspect, who was spotted with a 
29-year-old Singaporean male and 33-year-old female suspected drug abuser, 
outside a parked white car in a multi-storey carpark. All 3 were arrested.

A search of the 44-year-old suspect's house in Clementi Road led to the seizure 
of about 1kg of cannabis. CNB officers also recovered a small amount of 
cannabis, 'Ice', Erimin-5 tablets and drug paraphernalia after a search of the 
29-year-old suspect's hideout in River Valley Road. A small amount of Erimin-5 
tablets were also found on the 33-year-old female suspected drug abuser.

Investigations into the drug activities of all arrested suspects are ongoing, 
said the CNB. If the amount of cannabis trafficked exceeds 500g, the suspects 
may face the death penalty.

(source: Channel News Asia)

******************

see: 
http://www.amnestyusa.org/get-involved/take-action-now/singapore-halt-kho-jabing-s-execution-ua-10315

(source: Amnesty International USA)






PAKISTAN:

Conviction: Man Sentenced to Death:


Additional Sessions Judge Muhammad Yaqoob awarded death penalty to a man 
convicted of murder and sentenced his accomplice to life imprisonment on 
Thursday. Prosecution said Naimatullah and his accomplice Kamran had shot dead 
Zeenat 3 years ago. After examining evidence and hearing witnesses, the court 
sentenced Naimatullah to death and awarded life imprisonment to Kamran. Each 
convict was ordered to pay Rs50,000 compensation to heirs of the deceased.

(source: Express Tribune)






GLOBAL:

Prosecuting Death Penalty Executioners?


Should those imposing the death penalty be prosecuted for grave violations of 
international humanitarian law? Too many states, from Iran, Saudi Arabia, China 
to the US, still execute persons, and frequently for crimes that under 
international law are not considered "most serious crimes."

Can the governments of such states be themselves accused of systematic criminal 
norms under international law codified in treaty and norms adopted by 
representatives of such countries? While there has been sharp drop in the 
number of states that still execute persons, unfortunately most of the globe's 
population lives within jurisdictions that still practice the death penalty, 
and too frequently with arbitrary application.

Perhaps it is time to press the end of the death penalty but not only pleading 
for the lives of the convicted but also bringing into question the legality and 
criminality of those responsible for the practice, the jurisdiction but perhaps 
also the politician, judge, prosecutor and executioner?

"War on Drugs" & Complicity in Death Penalty

The death penalty has been evidenced to be neither effective deterrent nor, 
rather obviously, as a form of rehabilitation. On the other hand, execution is 
employed as punishment too frequently for crimes that do not involve the 
minimum standard of violence, particularly narcotics/drug offenses.

According to the UN, around 1,000 executions a year are related to alleged drug 
crimes: "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits the 
imposition of the death penalty for any but the 'most serious' crimes. Drug 
offences, according to the Covenant, cannot meet this threshold, comparing to 
the crimes involving international killing, which is the 'most serious.'... 
Concerned that some global efforts to combat drug crime would inadvertently be 
contributing to unlawful executions, Mr. Heyns, (UN's Special Rapporteur on 
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions), urged abolitionist states to 
ensure that they are not complicit in the use of the death penalty in other 
states under any circumstances. Meanwhile, he stressed to international 
agencies and States providing bilateral technical assistance to combat drug 
crime that, they "must ensure that the programmes to which they contribute do 
not ultimately result in violations of the right to life."

Death Penalty as Torture?

The death penalty is also frequently applied in an arbitrary manner, that 
targets minority and/or disadvantaged members of society. The death penalty may 
also be applied as means of imposing political agendas or authority rather than 
as as an exercise in the rule of law or justice.

Regardless of underlying motive, the death penalty under international law has 
a higher standard requiring the most serious violation now increasingly defined 
as "intentional killing." According to Juan E. Mendez, the UN Special 
Rapporteur on Torture: "Certain States that persistently and openly flout this 
international standard are also acting contrary to an emerging customary norm 
that the imposition and enforcement of the death penalty, in breach of those 
standards, is a violation per se of the prohibition of torture or cruel, 
inhuman or degrading treatment."

If the death penalty serves no real purpose beyond retribution, can it be 
logically as well as morally seen as anything other than torture? It is evident 
in the rhetoric of politicians, prosecutors and judges advocating and imposing 
the death penalty that punishment of the accused is the primary motive, and 
this is not merely limited to states with a historically flawed judicial 
system.

There was an effective moratorium on executions in the US for a couple of 
decades of the last century. However, now the US is among those states that 
impose the death penalty most frequently, including executions of mentally 
deficient persons and minors, (or at least those charged of committing the 
crime as a minor.) The US has also ignored the rulings of international courts 
and appeals of human rights institutions in carrying out executions. The 
evident and acknowledged remorse, rehabilitation and/or positive contributions 
to society by the condemned person post conviction have not been enough to stop 
execution. Again, we must ask the question then what is the purpose, beyond the 
obvious of vengeance?

Some of the presumed moral foundation for the death penalty may be associated 
with the theology of "an eye for an eye" linked to the major monotheistic 
traditions. However, religion has been employed as camouflage for politics, 
authoritarianism and the perpetuation of the ruling elite. In the US, the 
history of lynchings as well as exploitation of Native Americans, African 
Americans and Asians was promoted in part on basis of selective readings of 
theology. (See: "Legacy of Police on Black Violence Pre & Post 'Selma Bloody 
Sunday'?") Perhaps instead of retribution, organized religion can emphasize not 
only mercy but redemption, which apparently has not as yet pierced the national 
moral consciousness in some Islamic, Christian, Buddhist majority societies.

No Death Penalty for Genocide

Perhaps the worst crime that we can envision deserving the death penalty is 
genocide, as it goes beyond "intentional killing" to indiscriminate murder 
including the youngest in the targeted group. Faced with the recent evidence of 
such gravest violations of international humanitarian law, international 
tribunals mandated to deliver justice for the crimes committed against the 
citizens of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Cambodia and Rwanda rejected the option of 
the death penalty for the perpetrators. For the victims, while clearly some saw 
the death penalty as warranted, it was the certainty of judgment of the 
perpetrators that delivered what they seek.

As one of those involved in the drafting of the Rome Statute in 1998 
establishing the International Criminal Court, we rejected the notion of death 
penalty as serving justice. Rather, seeking more tangible remedies for victims 
as well as certainty of judgment we understood such as most relevant. The death 
penalty did not add to either satisfaction or dignity but could be seen as 
detracting from it even while recalling that some Nazi and Imperial Japanese 
offenders had been executed for their crimes at the conclusion of WW II. The 
evolution of the law as well as humanity that stands behind such needs to be 
responsive and respectful of life, if the major stated purpose is to protect 
life.

Is Death Penalty an International Crime?

Stripped of its previously presumed preventive rationale, ritualism, moralizing 
and mythology, the death penalty stands out as torture, (or, employing 
terminology applied by a significant segment of US Courts, as "cruel and 
unusual punishment.") From direct contact and relationship with those that have 
been condemned to be executed, I have no doubt that redemption is possible and 
has been achieved even if they remain incarcerated for the remainder of their 
lives. Having represented the targets of genocide, it is the certainty of 
judgment and with consequences in remedying/reversing the consequences of such 
crime(s) that is the most critical, at least as a form of empowering the 
victims. Then we must ask again, why the death penalty?

As some previous practices that at one time in the history of humanity appeared 
to be legitimized by some tradition or even divine inspiration, including 
slavery, subjugation of women and even genocide, the death penalty not only 
should be discouraged but perhaps criminalized. For those of us who are 
offended by the practice particularly when done in the name of our society, we 
must take responsibility to help the change. As global citizens as well as 
Americans or other nationalities, the death penalty obfuscates our shared 
values and efforts to promote a political/diplomatic culture of respect for 
life. Is it time no longer to plead for life but turn the table on those who 
would confiscate it from another, absence of urgency and justification of 
self-defense? Will the death penalty itself become recognized as a grave 
violation of international humanitarian law?

"The Gallows Pole" performed originally by American Blues singer Leadbelly 
almost a century earlier reflects the moral decadence as well as economic 
injustice behind the death penalty. Since, it has been covered by many music 
artists including Bob Dylan and Led Zeppelin.

(source: Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey; Former Bosnian foreign minister and 
ambassador to the United Nations----Huffington Post)


SAUDI ARABIA----execution

Saudi man put to death for murder of fellow citizen


Saudi Arabia on Thursday carried out its 137th execution this year, putting to 
death another of its citizens for murder.

Mohammed al-Qahtani had been convicted of gunning down a fellow Saudi with an 
automatic weapon in an argument, the interior ministry said in a statement.

Most executions in the kingdom are carried out by beheading with a sword, in 
what the ministry says is a deterrent.

According to AFP tallies, Qahtani was the 137th Saudi or foreigner put to death 
by the kingdom this year, compared with 87 in 2014.

He was executed in Riyadh.

Under the kingdom's strict Islamic legal code, murder, drug trafficking, armed 
robbery, rape and apostasy are all punishable by death.

The case of a Saudi youth facing execution for taking part in pro-reform 
protests has triggered particular international concern.

During a visit to Riyadh last week, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls told 
reporters he "called for clemency" for Ali al-Nimr, a member of the minority 
Shia community on death row.

Nimr was just 17 when arrested in February 2012.

(source: Gulf Times)

***************

U.S. Ally Saudi Arabia Prepares to Behead, Crucify Pro-Democracy Protester Ali 
Mohammed al-Nimr


A young Saudi protester is set to be beheaded and crucified for his role in 
2012 pro-democracy protests. Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was arrested at the age of 17 
and convicted of encouraging protests during the Arab Spring. He faces 
execution any day. Earlier this month, in response to mounting international 
pressure to release al-Nimr, the Saudi Embassy in London said, "the Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia rejects any form of interference in its internal affairs and any 
impingement on its sovereignty or the independence and impartiality of its 
judiciary." We are joined by Clive Stafford Smith of the international legal 
charity Reprieve, which has just released a report on executions in Saudi 
Arabia.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We'd like to turn now to Saudi Arabia. Reprieve has just 
released a report on executions in Saudi Arabia. I want to ask about the mother 
of a Saudi protester sentenced to be beheaded and crucified for his role in the 
2012 pro-democracy uprising, who has begged President Obama to intervene to 
save her son's life. Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was arrested at the age of 17 and 
convicted of encouraging protests during the Arab Spring. He faces execution 
any day now. Al-Nimr is the nephew of a prominent cleric who also received a 
death sentence following pro-democracy protests. Speaking to The Guardian last 
week, his mother, Nusra al-Ahmed, condemned her son's sentence.

NUSRA AL-AHMED: [translated] No sane human being would rule against a child of 
17 years old using such a sentence. And why? He didn't shed any blood. He 
didn't steal any property. No one could accept a ruling that is so savage. It's 
savage, disgusting. A judge should be in the position of a father. He should be 
more merciful than the attorney general.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Earlier this month, in response to mounting international 
pressure to release al-Nimr, the Saudi Embassy in London issued a statement 
saying, quote, "the judiciary is an independent body and the Kingdom of Saudi 
Arabia rejects any form of interference in its internal affairs and any 
impingement on its sovereignty or the independence and impartiality of its 
judiciary." So, Clive Stafford Smith, can you talk about the report that 
Reprieve released and what you found on executions? Who is sentenced to death 
in Saudi Arabia?

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Well, the reason we at Reprieve got involved in this in 
the first place, we've wanted to do something about executions in Saudi for 
years, but it's very, very difficult to there. And it's partly because of the 
executions, but also partly because of the bedfellows we have in the West, that 
we make friends with these regimes, like Saudi. Saudi Arabia is doomed to 
collapse, isn't it? I mean, you've got these incredibly regressive and 
repressive people running a country that's absolutely bound to fall. And you've 
got 65 % of Saudis, in the most recent poll, saying they support ISIS and they 
support what ISIS is doing. So, you know, the big principle here, in one way, 
is that we need to choose our friends far more wisely, otherwise we're going to 
end up on the wrong end, as we have so often.

But in the individual human picture, when we learned about Ali al-Nimr, I wrote 
the 1st piece about him, actually, on this whole crucifixion business. You 
know, we've come 2,000 years, and the big improvement the Saudis have made on 
crucifixion is they chop your head off first and then hang you upside down on 
your cross for 3 days pour encourager les autres, you know, to encourage other 
people not to do things. And so, we're trying to tell the world more about it, 
because it's such a closed society. 171 people are set to be executed, almost 
3/4 of those for nonviolent offenses. 16 of them are Shia people, who, as with 
Sheikh al-Nimr, are protesting a lack of democracy. You know, these are not 
extremist people, they're people who are merely protesting for more democracy. 
16 of them are set to die, including several children. Ali is one.

AMY GOODMAN: So tell us who Ali is.

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Ali is - so, Sheikh al-Nimr is the sheikh who's 
encouraging people to demand a more democratic - AMY GOODMAN: His uncle.

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: That's his uncle. And Ali was 17 at the time, and his 
uncle said, "Come to the protest."

AMY GOODMAN: And he's Shia, too?

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: He's Shia, mm-hmm. And so, his uncle tells him to come to 
the protest. Ali comes to the protest, and he's then charged with the heinous 
offense of failing to show respect for the guardian, the guardian being the 
king, who's apparently the guardian of all his good people. And this is what 
you get executed for - but not just executed, you get beheaded and then 
crucified. I mean, we just should not be doing business with these people. And 
I know we love oil, I know we love money, but we really need to have our morals 
above some of these things that are going on there.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, what about the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia, whether 
we're talking about what's happening inside Saudi Arabia or the Saudi bombing, 
the U.S.-supported Saudi bombing of Yemen right now? What about President Obama 
and Saudi Arabia?

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Well, I mean, there are certain little things, like 
presidents should clearly be stopping this sort of barbarism. But there???s a 
much bigger picture. When you look at the extremism today we're so worried 
about in the war of terror, you're looking at something that the Saudis 
promoted for years. And you look around the Middle East and all the people 
we've supported over the years, we supported Saddam Hussein, we supported 
Gaddafi, we supported Assad, we supported all of these people. And we keep 
getting in bed with these dreadful regimes that are doomed to collapse, and by 
doing that, we alienate the opposition to those regimes and inevitably 
precipitate something worse in the end. If we could just stand up for our 
principles, instead of standing up only for our oil, I think we'd be far better 
off.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But have the U.S. or the U.K. made any gestures to save Ali?

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Well, I'll say the U.K. had made a gesture to have a 
contract with the Saudis about how to run their prison system. And we went 
after them on that, because we said, "Look, how are you helping them? Are you 
helping them torture Ali al-Nimr? Are you teaching them how to crucify people 
better?" And so, we did embarrass them into getting out of that contract. And 
believe you me, that's only the 1st step. We're going to do them on a number of 
other things they're doing next. The same is true in the U.S. I'm afraid the 
U.S. has a whole range of things where we're giving the Saudis the weapons 
they're using to destroy Yemen and turn Yemen into a far worse place. And, you 
know, again, those aspects of foreign policy are just idiotic and so contrary 
to America's true interests.

(source: Democracy Now!)