Jihad, Anybody?

The Idiotic Face Of Terror, 1995 Style
Shoko Asahara Gets Death Penalty

Shoko Asahara finally got a judgement passed in the Aum Supreme Truth Sect trial.
He got the death penalty.

地下鉄サリンなど１３事件で殺人など６つの罪に問われ、１審で死刑を言い渡されたオウム真理教麻原彰晃被告（５１＝本名松本智津夫）について、最高裁第３小法廷（堀籠幸男裁判長）は１５日、控訴趣意書の提出遅延を理由に裁判を打ち切った東京高裁の決定を支持、弁護側の特別抗告を棄却する決定をした。２７人の命を奪う未曽有の事件を引き起こした責任を問う裁判は、初公判から１０年５カ月、控訴審が一度も開かれないまま終結。同被告の死刑が確定した。

　堀籠裁判長は決定理由で、これまでの医学鑑定や１審判決以降の拘置所内での動静などから麻原被告の訴訟能力を認めた同高裁決定について「正当」と認定。弁護側の「被告は心神喪失状態にある」との主張を否定し、被告は詐病と断定した。さらに麻原被告に対し「自ら弁護人と意思疎通を図ろうとせず、それがこのような事態に至った大きな原因になった。その責任は弁護人のみならず、被告にもある」と指摘した。決定は４裁判官全員一致の意見。

　麻原被告は今年３月末、高裁の控訴棄却を伝えられると、「おれはみんな無実だ。おれじゃない。おれははめられた。ねつ造だ」などと叫んだという。同被告は１審で死刑判決を受けた０４年２月２７日にも「なぜなんだ、ちくしょう」と拘置所内で叫んでいる。弁護側は、麻原被告とコミュニケーションがとれたことがなく「おれは無実だ」などと叫ぶはずがないと反論したが、最高裁は「控訴棄却の決定文の意味を理解している」と判断したもようだ。

　弁護側は「被告には訴訟能力がなく、意思疎通もできない」として東京高裁に公判停止を申し立て、最終期限の昨年８月末までに控訴趣意書を提出しなかった。今年３月２７日、高裁は被告の訴訟能力を認め、刑事訴訟規則で控訴趣意書提出の遅延が例外的に認められる「やむを得ない事情」はないとして、控訴を棄却した。弁護側は翌３月２８日に控訴趣意書を提出しており、いわば、弁護側の遅延行為に対し高裁の堪忍袋の緒が切れた形だった。

　この点についても最高裁は「昨年８月末の提出期限が延長された事実はなく、期限の当日、弁護側は控訴趣意書を作成したと明言しながら、裁判所の再三の提出勧告に対し『裁判所の精神鑑定方法に問題がある』などとして提出しなかった。やむを得ない事情があったとは到底認められない」とした。

　弁護団はこの日、最高裁の決定に「意思疎通さえできない精神状態であることを無視している。ずさんで真摯（しんし）さに欠け不当だ。強く抗議する」との声明を出したが、高裁の強い態度を読み切れなかった弁護団の見通しの甘さ、戦術ミスが今回の結果を招いたといえる。弁護団などは今後、再審請求を検討するとみられる。

　一方、麻原被告はこの日午後３時半ごろ、刑務官から死刑確定を知らされた。関係者によると、座ったまま腕を組んだり、体を揺すったりしながら黙って聞いていたという。

The creepy guy that he is, he never went into any discussions with his lawyers, and never really discussed his side of the story. He was probably aiming for the insanity plea, but the supreme court judges didn't buy it. After it was reported that he yelled out "I'm innocent. It wasn't me. I'm being framed. It's a set up", the judges decided that he knew the charges levelled agianst him exactly, and therefore was no insane. Once that was decided, it was a speedy verdict and they've even thrown out the appeal.

The damn shame of it all is that we'll never get to find ou the rest of the inner workings of the Aum Supreme Truth Set and they weird and wacky plots. On the other hand, there are plenty of crazy mullahs out there inciting a jihad, so the world isn't exactly short of 'religeous crazy'.

Meanwhile...

The Pope Mouths Off
'Pope Ratz', or more commonly 'Pope Benedict XVI' has eggs benedict on his face after making some nasty speeches about Islam.

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." These were not the Pope's words, but those of an obscure Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologos, back in the 14th century. And yes, the Pope did make it clear he was offering a quotation. Even so, these words fell from the lips of the spiritual leader of a billion Christians without anything like enough qualification. There was no phrase distancing himself from the claim that Muhammad was responsible for evil. It's little surprise, therefore, that the remarks have roused anger and demands for a personal apology.

So, he's quoting somebody, but that's a bit dodgy. It's caused a furore in 24hours, but of course, after all that, he goes making another churlish speech about the Islamists of the world, again.

The Pope on Tuesday repeated criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who said everything Mohammad brought was evil "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

The Pope, who used the terms "jihad" and "holy war" in his lecture, added "violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi defended the Pope's lecture and said he did not mean to offend Muslims.

"It was certainly not the intention of the Holy Father to undertake a comprehensive study of the jihad and of Muslim ideas on the subject, still less to offend the sensibilities of Muslim faithful," Lombardi told Vatican Radio.

A high-ranking Church source expressed fears for the Pope's safety, saying: "While I think the controversy will go away, it has done damage and if I were a security expert I'd be worried."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Bild newspaper the aim of the Pope's speech had been misunderstood.

"It was an invitation to dialogue between religions ... What Benedict XVI emphasised was a decisive and uncompromising renunciation of all forms of violence in the name of religion," she was quoted as saying in an article to appear on Saturday.

The Koran endorses the concept of jihad, often translated as holy war, but Muslims differ on conditions for it, with some saying it applies only for self-defence against external attack.

Yep, nice way to start a 'conversation' there Ratz-buddy. I always start my conversations with, "What you believe in, totally sucks," too. :)

Or dare we say, we smell the anti-semitic Nazi we suspected he was? However, having put our knee-jerk boot into Ratz, let's look at this obejctively. Did Manuel Paleologas II say this stuff? Probably? If you quote somebody, does it mean you support what they say? Probably not. So there's just enough grey-area ground to claim "hey, it wasn't me, I'm just repeating the message to kick off a discussion."
Benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven... what, sinful?
Maybe he's not being a Nazi. Bummer.

Either way, if one were a Catholic, one would/could/should find the fact that the Pope is mouthing fighting words is a rather dangerous development. Here's another Guardian piece.

The Pope perhaps did not imagine that an erudite lecture delivered to the university where he once taught that included a reference to a dialogue between a 600-year-old Byzantine emperor and a Persian Muslim would become the latest spark to reignite the tension between Islam and Christianity. But even if Benedict XVI, despite his reputation for meticulous preparation, had failed to appreciate the impact of his thoughts, his advisers should have. Urbane and intellectual as he is said to have been, Manuel II Palaeologus (1350-1425) was hardly an impartial observer of Islam. As a boy, he had been held prisoner by the Turks, and his dialogues took place as his inheritance lay in jeopardy to the Ottoman empire, and his capital under siege. No academic impartiality lay behind the assertion, repeated by the Pope in his lecture in Regensburg earlier this week, that all that was new in Muhammad's thought was "evil and inhuman", citing conversion under threat of the sword as an example. The Pope used this to kick off a discussion of God and reason rather as a parish priest might casually preface his Sunday homily with a reference to the storyline of EastEnders. It is unsurprising that it caused offence.

There might have been less protest had Benedict a clearer record in favour of dialogue with Islam. As a cardinal in the Holy See, he was known to be sceptical of John Paul II's pursuit of conversation. One of his earliest decisions as pope was to move archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, one of the Catholic Church's leading experts on Islam, and head of its council on interreligious dialogue, away from the centre of influence in Rome, and send him to Egypt as papal nuncio. Benedict has spoken publicly of Christianity as the cornerstone of Europe and against the admission of Turkey into the EU. But he has also accepted an invitation from Turkey's president to make the first-ever papal visit in November. That visit, which could have been a symbol of his commitment to the reconciliation and respect between religions of which he has also spoken, may now be at risk. The Pope has lived a cloistered life, rarely exposed to the unholy nuances of world politics. He needs advisers around him who are. However, the Vatican has apologised. That should be enough for what was almost certainly nothing more than an ill-judged remark. For there is a second strand to this argument. There cannot be dialogue without rigor and openness. The Muslim world should also take pains to be thoughtful in its response, and perhaps less quick to take offence.

Well, taking offense is easy. Bang your drum loudly in outrage, and drum up some more business. Outrage and wowser-ism are the twin fuels of zealotry.

UPDATE: Here's a REALLY interesting entry atthe Guardian.

There are two further motives for thinking Benedict is ready to upset the believers in other faiths rather than shrink from what he believes needs to be said (or not said).

First, he has done it before. At Auschwitz, in May, he appalled many Jews by passing up what they saw as a historic opportunity for a German pope to apologise for the Roman Catholic church's conduct in the second world war. The second factor is that Pope Benedict has signalled clearly that he favours a tougher line in his church's dealings with Islam.

The key word in the Vatican now is "reciprocity". The leadership of the Roman Catholic church is increasingly of the opinion that a meaningful dialogue with the Muslim world is not possible while Christians are denied religious freedom in Muslim states.

Yep. Another reason why separating Church and State is very, very important. Who wants their beliefs to be held hostage by these folks?