WEAPON OF THE FORTNIGHT [SUNDAY 5 AUGUST 2012 TO SATURDAY 18 AUGUST 2012]

I would like to wish Singapore a Happy National Day, Singapore is now 47 years old. When I saw the National Day Parade, I noticed that they are using Leopard 2 tanks. I got the information from Wikipedia. 

Leopard 2A5 of the German Army (Heer)

The Leopard 2 is a main battle tank developed by Krauss-Maffei in the early 1970s for the West German Army. The tank first entered service in 1979 and succeeded the earlier Leopard 1 as the main battle tank of the German Army. Various versions have served in the armed forces of Germany and twelve other European countries, as well as several non-European nations. More than 3,480 Leopard 2s have been manufactured. The Leopard 2 first saw combat in Kosovo with the German Army and has also seen action in Afghanistan with the Danish and Canadian contributions to the International Security Assistance Force.

There are two main development batches of the tank, the original models up to Leopard 2A4 which have vertically-faced turret armour, and the "improved" batch, namely the Leopard 2A5 and newer versions, which have angled arrow-shaped turret appliqué armour together with a number of other improvements. All models feature digital fire control systems with laser rangefinders, a fully stabilized main gun and coaxial machine gun, and advanced night vision and sighting equipment (first vehicles used a low-light level TV system or LLLTV; thermal imaging was introduced later on). The tank has the ability to engage moving targets while moving over rough terrain.

Type Main battle tank

Place of origin West Germany

Service history

In service 1979-present

Used by See Operators

Wars Kosovo War, War in Afghanistan

Production history

Designer Krauss-Maffei

Designed 1970s

Manufacturer Krauss-Maffei Wegmann
Maschinenbau Kiel

Unit cost 2A6: US$5.74 million (2007)

Produced 1979-present

Variants See Variants

Specifications

Weight 2A6: 62.3 tonnes (61.3 long tons; 68.7 short tons)

Length 2A6: 9.97 m (393 in) (gun forward)

Width 2A6: 3.75 m (148 in)

Height 2A6: 3.0 m (120 in)

Crew 4

---

Armour 2A6: 3rd generation composite; including high-hardness steel, tungsten and plastic filler with ceramic component.

Main armament 1 x 120 mm Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore gun^[
42 rounds

Secondary armament 2 x 7.62 mm MG3A1

4,750 rounds

Engine MTU MB 873 Ka-501 liquid-cooled V-12 Twin-turbo diesel engine
1,500 PS (1,479 hp, 1,103 kW) at 2,600 rpm

Power/weight 24.1 PS/t (17.7 kW/t)

Transmission Renk HSWL 354

Suspension Torsion-bar suspension

Fuel capacity 1,200 liters^[3](317 gallons)

Operational range 550 km (340 mi) (internal fuel)^[1] Speed 72 km/h (45 mph)

Development:

Even as the Leopard 1 was entering service in 1965, an up-gunned version with the new Rheinmetall L44 120 mm gun was being considered to keep pace with newer Soviet designs, but this was cancelled in favour of the MBT-70 "super-tank" project developed jointly with the United States. The MBT-70 was a revolutionary design, but after large cost overruns, Germany withdrew from the project in 1969.

Work on a national development was started in 1970 by Krauss-Maffei. A year later, a choice was made for it to be based on the earlier Experimentalentwicklung (later named Keiler) project of the late sixties (itself derived from the vergoldeter Leopard or "gilded Leopard"), instead of being a modified MBT-70 or Eber. The name of the design was determined in 1971 as "Leopard 2" with the original Leopard retroactively becoming the Leopard 1. Seventeen prototypes were ordered that year (only sixteen hulls were built). They had to have a maximum weight of fifty metric tons.

On 11 December 1974 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed with the USA for the possible joint production of a new MBT, after the Americans had bought and investigated prototype hull number seven in 1973. In view of the experiences in the Yom Kippur War a much higher level of protection was demanded than was implemented in the prototypes, that used heavily sloped spaced armour. The weight class was increased to sixty tons. Prototype turret number fourteen was changed to test a new armour configuration, and was turned into a blockier looking turret as a result of using vertical steel perforated armour; it already had been much more voluminous than the turret of a Leopard 1 because of a large internal ammunition storage locker in the rear bustle. The Leopard 2 thus initially used perforated armour, and not Chobham armour as is sometimes claimed. PT-14 used the 120 mm Rheinmetall gun (as eventually did the U.S. Abrams). After this, two new prototype hulls and three turrets were ordered, one (PT-20) mounting the original L7A3 105 mm gun and a Hughes fire control system, a second (PT-19) with the same fire control system but able to "swap out" the gun for the 120 mm Rheinmetall design (it was indeed so changed by the Americans), and one more (PT-21) mounting the Hughes-Krupp Atlas Elektronik EMES 13 fire control system, with the 120 mm gun.

Leopard 2 Prototype (pre-series) PT 19 (1978)

 

 

 

 

In mid-1976 prototype 19 was assembled and shipped to the USA, together with hull number twenty and a special target vehicle to test the armour. The prototype was called Leopard 2AV (Austere Version) because it had a simplified fire control system. It arrived in the US by the end of August 1976, and comparative tests between the Leopard 2 and the XM1 (the prototype name for the M1 Abrams) prototypes were held from 1 September at Aberdeen Proving Ground, lasting until December 1976. The US Army reported that the Leopard 2 and the XM1 were comparable in firepower and mobility, but the XM1 was superior in armour protection. Today we know this was true as regards a hit by a hollow charge; but against KE-attack the Leopard 2 was almost twice as well protected as the original M1 (650 mm to 350 mm). Its more traditional multi-fuel turbodiesel engine was also more reliable, and provided similar performance with less fuel consumption, with more noise but a smaller heat signature. This type of engine also allowed for quick engine startups and shutdowns to prevent the need for long idling periods on the battlefield. Hull twenty was fitted with simulation weights; later it was discovered that these equalled only the weight of a turret without armour modules fitted, invalidating all performance data. After the comparative test the Leopard 2 hulls were returned to Germany for further evaluation, but turret 19 remained and was fitted to the hull of prototype seven, whilst its gun was changed for the 120 mm Rheinmetall. In tests until March 1977 it was found to be far superior to the 105 mm L7 mounted on the Abrams, which was confirmed by subsequent NATO tank gunnery contests.

Before tests had begun the United States had selected the Chrysler XM1 prototype for full development. In January 1977 Germany ordered a small pre-series of three hulls and two turrets, delivered in 1978. These vehicles had increased armour protection on the front of the hull. In September 1977 1800 Leopard 2 were ordered, to be produced in five batches. The first was delivered on 25 October 1979. The Dutch army had already rejected the M1 because of its high operating costs and the refusal by the Americans to fit a Dutch version with the 120 mm gun and instead ordered 445 Leopard 2s on 2 March 1979. The Swiss ordered 35 tanks on 24 August 1983 and started license production of 345 additional vehicles in December 1987. Thus hardly being a major export success in the 1980s (no tank of the latest generation was), the type became very popular in the 1990s, when the shrinking German army offered many of its redundant Leopard 2s at a reduced price. It became successful enough in Europe that the manufacturer started calling it the Euro Leopard, despite France, Britain, and Italy all operating their own MBTs. But with further non-European orders, the name "Global-Leopard" is now used instead.

The Singapore Army acquired a total of 96 ex-German Leopard 2A4s, including 30 spare tanks. Upgraded with additional AMAP composite armour in 2010 by IBD & ST Kinetics and was renamed L2SG in October 2010.

Leopard 2SG of the Singapore Army upgraded with AMAP Composite Armour and towards the rear with slat armour by IBD & ST Kinetics

 

Technical data

Technical Data
Description	Leopard 2A4	Leopard 2A5	Leopard 2A6/A6M
Crew:	4
Engine:	MTU-12-cylinder-Diesel engine MB 873-Ka 501, with two exhaust turbochargers
Capacity:	47,600 cm3, RPM: 2,600/min
Power output:	1,500 PS (1,479 hp, 1,103 kW)
Transmission:	Hydro-mechanical control, reversing and steering gear HSWL 354 with combined hydrodynamic-mechanical service brake, 4 forward, 2 reverse
Suspension system:	Torsion bar spring mounted support roller drive with hydraulic dampers
Length Turret forward:	9,670 mm			10,970 mm
Width:	3,750 mm
Height:	2,990 mm			3,030 mm
Ground clearance:	540 mm
Wading depth without preparation:	1,200 mm
Wading depth with snorkel:	4,000 mm
Trench passability:	3,000 mm
Climbing ability:	1,100 mm
Empty weight:	52 t	57.3 t	57.6 t A6M 60.2 t
Combat weight:	55.15 t	59.5 t	A6 59.9 t (maximum mass; 61.7 t), A6M 62.5 t
Maximum speed:	68 km/h; backwards 31 km/h
Fuel capacity:	1,160 liters (limited to 900 liters when not in battle)
Fuel consumption and operating range:	Road: ca. 340 l/100 km, ca. 340 km Terrain: ca. 530 l/100 km, ca. 220 km Average: ca. 410 l/100 km, ca. 280 km Static test: 12,5 l/h, 72–93 hours (with 900–1,160 liters capacity)
Rotation time (360°):	10 seconds
Armament:	Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore gun L/44 and 2 machine guns			Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore gun L/55 and 2 machine guns
Turret weight:	16 t	21 t
Turret rotation time:		360° in 9 seconds (electric)

ROY JENKINS THE WORST OF THE WORST POLITICIAN IN THE WORLD

If you are British and you are wondering who is to be blame for starting all the chaos in the United Kingdom? If you are Pro Death Penalty and want it reinstated in your country, but you cannot? If you are Pro-Life and want the government to stop abortion now but you can’t? Who do you blame? Who? The answer is blame Roy Jenkins, someone whom I ranked one of the worst of the worst politicians in Europe.

I would like to give my comments at the end of Neil Clark’s article in The Telegraph:

Roy Jenkins

Roy Jenkins made Britain a far less civilised country

By Neil Clark

12:01AM GMT 09 Jan 2003

In his Guardian obituary of Lord Jenkins, David Marquand listed four "achievements" of his hero on which, to him, "the verdict of history seems plain". As Home Secretary, "Jenkins did more than any other person to make Britain a more civilised country to live in". As leader of the Labour Europeans, he played an "indispensable part" in taking Britain into what is now the European Union; and, as president of the European Commission, he played an "equally indispensable part' in paving the way for the single currency. Finally, by forming the SDP, and "breaking the mould" of British politics, Jenkins created New Labour.

As an Old Labour Euro-sceptic, I believe the last three "achievements" that Marquand lists were ones we could have well done without. But what of Marquand's first claim: that Jenkins made Britain a more civilised country to live in?

As an up-and-coming Labour backbencher, Jenkins had written, in the late 1950s, a tract entitled Is Britain Civilised?, in which he attacked Britain's "archaic" laws on censorship, homosexuality, divorce and abortion, as well as arguing for the abolition of capital punishment and changes to the country's "Victorian" criminal justice system.

At that time, Jenkins's "progressive" views on social reform were still in the minority in the Labour Party, dominated as it was by its socially conservative, working-class ethos. But by 1964, when Labour eventually regained power, much had changed. A group of middle-class, mainly Oxbridge-educated "intellectuals" had risen to prominence in the party and, for these "modernisers", led by Jenkins and his Oxford friend Tony Crosland, the main aim was the social, rather than the economic, transformation of Britain.

Although their views had little support among the British public at large, this group was able to push through its liberalising agenda when Jenkins became Home Secretary in 1965. Already, earlier that year, the death penalty had been suspended. Now it was full steam ahead to give support to private members' Bills to decriminalise abortion and homosexuality, relax censorship and make divorce easier.

Jenkins's impact at the Home Office did not end there. He also embarked on the most radical programme of penal reform since the Second World War. His Criminal Justice Act of 1967 said very little about the victims of crime, but plenty about the perpetrators. The Act introduced the parole system of early release of offenders serving sentences of three years or more, established the Parole Board and introduced the system of suspended sentences.

In two years, Jenkins had succeeded in transforming the criminal justice system from one whose raison d'etre had been to deter wrong-doing to one designed to be as "civilised" as possible to the criminal.

Jenkins was of course convinced that the "permissive society" was the "civilised society". In this, he - alas - got it all terribly wrong. What underpins civilised society is not permissiveness, but self-restraint, a phrase detested by libertines of both Left and Right. What Jenkins failed to see was how the freedoms he espoused would lead to the degeneration of British society and the selfish, me-first libertinism of today.

Jenkins was never a socialist, but in my view he was not much of a liberal either. Classical liberalism always understood that liberal freedom is dependent on moral self-restraint. Without it, freedom becomes licence - which itself is a threat to freedom, as it acknowledges no obligation to others. Before the Jenkins-sponsored social reforms made their impact, Britain was a country famous for the self-restraint of its people. "Letting it all out", extreme displays of emotion, and shouting and swearing in the street were all considered unacceptable. For Jenkins, the taboos that existed in 1950s Britain were intolerable. But the net result was a society remarkable for its civility.

More than 30 years on, the damaging impact of Jenkins's reforms on the society we live in is all too clear to see. One marriage in three now ends in divorce. Almost 40 per cent of children are now born out of wedlock, the highest figure in Europe. Since the 1967 Abortion Act, more than six million unborn children have been aborted.

The legalisation of homosexuality has not been the end of the chapter, but merely the beginning, with an aggressive "gay rights" lobby demanding more and more concessions. The policy of early release of prisoners has had a catastrophic effect on the safety of the general public: 14 per cent of violent criminals freed early are convicted of fresh violence within two years of their release.

As The Sunday Telegraph's Alasdair Palmer states: "Scores of men, women and children have been assaulted, raped and murdered as a result of the policy of releasing dangerous criminals before their sentences are completed" - a policy initiated and endorsed by Jenkins.

In addition to this tally, we must add the hundreds of innocent lives lost as a result of the abolition of capital punishment, which Jenkins zealously campaigned for and whose reintroduction he so resolutely opposed as Home Secretary in 1974.

Dividing his time between the palaces of Westminster, the delightful Oxfordshire village of East Hendred and the high table of the Oxford colleges, Jenkins did not, of course, see too much of the social debris that his "civilising" reforms had caused. Had he seen at first hand what the "permissive society" amounts to in practice on a "sink" council estate, he might have modified his views.

It is, though, unfair to blame one man for all of Britain's modern ills. Others, too, must take their share of responsibility for the nation we have become, not least the economic freedom junkies of the 1980s. Nevertheless, the Britain of 2003 is very much the Britain that Jenkins always wanted. The self-restraint and taboos of the 1950s have all gone. The "archaic" laws against which Jenkins railed have been abolished.

On the day of Jenkins's death, I looked at the other stories listed on the Teletext index. They were: "Man accused of bodies-in-bin probe", "Gun killers will be caught, pledge police", "Man faces charges over abbey axe attack", "Man charged with taxi driver murder" and "Freedom for hostage in 11-day siege".

If David Marquand believes the Britain of 2003 to be a "civilised country", it would be interesting to hear his definition of an uncivilised one.

Comments:

            Civilized Country? OH REALLY? Joining the European Union, abolition of the death penalty, Pro-choice (killing of the innocent unborn babies), suspension of the birch and early release of criminals from prison will make your country uncivilized. Even Edmund Burke will never agree and denounce Roy Jenkins’s ideas.

            Rather than make a fool of himself and try to write a biography of Sir Winston Churchill (when his ideas are different from the former Prime Minister), Roy Jenkins should apologize to all the murdered victims and innocent unborn babies who die every year because of his foolish ideas. Edmund Burke once said, “Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.”

            Before he died, he should have apologized to the British people for just blindly and foolishly sending Britain to be part of the European Union. Edmund Burke once wrote in his book, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790): “When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.”

            The current leaders of the European Union are also the new ‘Roy Jenkins’ of the 21^st century, please check John O’Sullivan’s article on European Dignity, American Rights: Outlining a debate on capital punishment.

ARTICLE ON PRO-LIFE OF THE FORTNIGHT [SUNDAY 5 AUGUST 2012 TO SATURDAY 18 AUGUST 2012]

NOTICE: The following article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to violate their copyright. I will give some information on them.

PAGE TITLE: The Mail on Sunday

ARTICLE TITLE: Summing up on Abortion

AUTHOR: Peter Hitchens  

AUTHOR INFORMATION: Peter Jonathan Hitchens (born 28 October 1951) is an award-winning British columnist and author, noted for his traditionalist conservative stance. He has published five books, including The Abolition of Britain, A Brief History of Crime, The Broken Compass: How British Politics Lost its Way and most recently The Rage Against God. Hitchens writes for Britain's The Mail on Sunday newspaper. A former resident correspondent in Moscow and Washington, Hitchens continues to work as an occasional foreign reporter, and appears frequently in the British broadcast media. He is the younger brother of the writer Christopher Hitchens.

URL: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/11/summing-up-on-a.html

DATE: Tuesday 6 November 2007

Peter Hitchens  

 

 

 

 

 

06 November 2007 9:34 AM

Summing up on Abortion

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

Two weeks ago I tried to do something which my many detractors would assume I was incapable of doing, given that I am, as is well known, an unhinged spittle-flecked extremist.  That is, I sought a compromise between my own position and that of those who disagree with me. I tried to interest defenders of abortion in a political armistice for a good purpose, aimed at helping to achieve a reform which would - in my view - reduce the instance of a major evil. I hoped to do this in a way which might be acceptable to those who, on principle, regard abortion as a procedure which ought to be available under some circumstances.  That is, rather than embarking on a restatement of the classic anti-abortion view, I assumed that my opponents were a) broadly familiar with it and b) unmoved by it in every sense of the word. I also aired the widely-unknown fact that abortion was in fact legal in Britain before 1967, and gave a broadly sympathetic view of the case of Dr Aleck Bourne, who in 1938 aborted a 14-year-old gang rape victim - even though my own moral position is (reluctantly) unable to accept abortion as right even under these terrible circumstances. 

What followed was yet another proof of Jonathan Swift's warning that reason plays a very small role in politics, because you cannot reason anyone out of a position he hasn't been reasoned into in the first place. Most correspondents didn't even notice what was going on, and chose to use the thread as a weary restatement of what we already know.  One, rather enjoyably, took the following passage "Does that mean that sex education increases unwanted pregnancy and STDs? I am not sure." as a dogmatic statement of certainty that sex education is the undoubted cause of this increase. I long for research to be done on this, but it hasn't been. For instance, almost identical sex-education programmes in Denmark and the Netherlands have had utterly different outcomes, probably because of the sharply different moral climates in those countries. Some did notice what I was up to, but alas they only chided me furiously for weakness in face of the enemy, in one case making fantastically sectarian remarks about the Church of England, of which I am a dissident member who has as yet not been hunted down and driven out by the authorities. On this blog, the harshest criticisms of the C of E are supposed to come from me, thanks very much.  

So I am going to try again.

At the heart of my argument was a tentative acceptance that part of the pro-abortion case was powerful. That is to say, it is all very well being against something,  but if the effect of your opposition is to make the thing you abhor more common, or more dangerous and equally common, or at least not to reduce it,  then your 'opposition' is ineffectual and may actually have the opposite effect of the one intended.  

It is much like intervening in, say, Iraq, to bring about democracy. It may make you feel good to do so, but if the actual result is not what you intended, but a violent, chaotic mixture of dictatorship and anarchy, the moral force of your position is , well, weakened and you should reconsider it.

Likewise, if an absolute ban on abortion results in a continuing high level of abortion, often conducted under dangerous and insanitary conditions, then this is an example of a moral position taken to make the holder of the opinion feel good, rather than actually to do good. This is exactly what liberals do - judge the person's moral standing by the purity of the opinions he holds, rather than by the effect of his actions. 

Let me repeat what I said:"Perhaps, if the NHS had been permitted and encouraged to offer the same limited service as private doctors then provided, more readily and universally, free of charge, but under close restrictions which could land the doctor in court if he took them too laxly, the inequality could have been removed without signalling to the world that abortion would henceforth be a backstop form of contraception. For this is, without doubt, what it has become."

If anyone actually took up this point, or discussed it, then I seem to have missed it. Some people made tart remarks about Hillary Clinton being unlovely. Well, so what? You think I don't know? I lived in the USA during her co-presidency. But you don't have to approve of someone to quote them, if they have said something important or interesting. (Or in this case, deeply but unconsciously contradictory).  One even complained that I mentioned her at all, apparently in the belief that it is wrong to mention American politicians in a British context. But no British politician, to my knowledge, has made this statement. The issue bubbles below the political surface here, above it in the USA.  I was simply quoting her because she typified a certain position, not because I approved of her or even necessarily believed her, but because that's what she said. 

William Russ made my blood run cold with his suggestion that our species is in some way 'advancing' (how can you tell the difference between forwards and backwards with any certainty, by the way?) and that abortion is an essential part of this.

I thought this sort of “higher good" tripe was discredited when the Edwardian eugenicists discovered that their arguments had been used in a terrifying way by the German National Socialists.  I also thought that the belief in human 'progress' had taken a general pasting during the 20th century. But perhaps as we lose knowledge of our history, we need to have all these arguments again. Mr Russ should Google "Pirna" and "Action T4” and "Schloss Sonnenstein" and see what he finds. I don't mean to be unkind, and I am sure Mr Russ is as appalled by this sort of thing, in its ugly practice, as any other decent person. People often don't see the implications of the phrases they use, until they hear them repeated in the mouths of ruffians. That's what happened to the Edwardian idealists. Those who look up this episode might also be interested to see exactly who stood up against evil in this case (For those who haven't time to look:  Roman Catholics and aristocrats, mainly,  with a more muted intervention by some Protestants and doctors, though any protests, public or private,  under that regime involved giant courage) . Some contributors were rightly disturbed by this and urged Mr Russ to do some other reading, and I very much hope he follows their suggestions.

There was a long and learned discussion about the moment at which life begins, which illustrates that, in all matters of faith, you believe that which you choose to believe, and do not find out if you are right this side of the grave. There was also some useful debate about the way in which those who seek to destroy people are careful to dehumanise their victims in advance. I'd like some pro-abortionists to acknowledge this and accept that rational people might view an abortion as the killing of a human person, and abandon their use of terms such as 'foetus' or 'clump of cells'. But it is easy to see why they don't. This is also standard stuff, which leaves both sides glowering at each other but with no lives saved.  

I have still not puzzled out what Susan Phanar is talking about. A concern for endangered species, or for the conservation of forests (both good conservative causes hijacked and perverted by green socialists) is quite compatible with a concern for endangered unborn babies. Whereas it strikes me that anyone prepared to sacrifice unborn babies for a higher good might take the same view of elephants or orang-utans. As for the 'feminist' argument for abortion which she appears to take for granted, it has always seemed to be that the people most liberated by easy abortion were and are irresponsible men. Having got a woman pregnant, they can brush off any pressure to marry the woman or support the child, by pointing out that abortion is readily available on demand. These days, they don't even have to pay for it. 

Steven Armstrong quoted from the Bible. Well, thank you.  I like to think that at least some parts of this great library have the power to unsettle and shake minds that were previously certain, because of a certain echo and thunder in the prose that suggests it comes from very far back, and a very long way away, and from genuine authority. But may I make a request to him and any others who wish to do this? On this weblog, we prefer the 1611 Authorised ( or, as Americans call it, The King James) Version,  not just because it is properly majestic, beautiful and memorable, as such a book ought to be, but also because  it is in general the most accurate translation of the original scriptures into English. If you haven't come across it, and don't own a copy, it is time you did. When quoting from the Book of Psalms, the Miles Coverdale version (reproduced in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer) is also acceptable. 

By the way, this is not to say that there were not a number of eloquent and enjoyable contributions, many of them instructive and thoughtful in their own right. I was glad that we touched on the fact that moral rules are primarily rules we must try to apply to our own selves, and spread by example and persuasion where possible, while acknowledging our own frequent failure to live by them, rather than things we must seek to force on others. Though of course this becomes more difficult when the wrong that is done affects a third party. I was always struck, when I lived in the USA, by a bumper sticker common on cars in liberal Maryland, which cackled "Against abortion? Don't have one". I would grind my teeth and think of having a satirical version made which said "Against murder? Don't commit one".This is of course an absolutely true parallel if you accept my position on when human life begins. But it has no effect on someone who has persuaded himself that it begins at birth.

I just felt that the substantial point was missed. Can we have another try?

PRO DEATH PENALTY QUOTE OF THE WEEK [SUNDAY 5 AUGUST 2012 TO SATURDAY 11 AUGUST 2012]

QUOTE: "When a state puts death row criminals to death quickly, it creates a chilling effect on violent criminals in our society," Sheriff Jack Parker said. "While working in the jail in the 1980s, I often heard inmates say the only thing that kept them from killing their victim was their fear of the (electric) chair. Unfortunately, waiting too many years for a death sentence to be carried out is bad for the victim's family, bad for justice and dilutes any deterrent value." [Sunday 17 July 2011]

AUTHOR: Sheriff Jack Parker (born 21 September 1962) was elected Brevard County Sheriff in Florida in 2008. http://www.flsheriffs.org/sheriffs/florida-sheriff-directory/brevard-county

PRO LIFE QUOTE OF THE WEEK [SUNDAY 5 AUGUST 2012 TO SATURDAY 11 AUGUST 2012]

QUOTE: One of the most controversial issues of our time and one in which we share a keen interest is the question of abortion. I have grave concern over the serious moral questions raised by this issue. Each new life is a miracle of creation. To interfere with that creative process is a most serious act. In my view, the Government has a very special role in this regard. Specifically, the Government has a responsibility to protect life--and indeed to provide legal guarantees for the weak and unprotected. It is within this context that I have consistently opposed the 1973 decision of the .Supreme Court. As President, I am sworn to uphold the laws of the land and I intend to carry out this responsibility. In my personal view, however, this court decision was unwise. I said then and I repeat today--abortion on demand is wrong. [Letter to the Archbishop of Cincinnati (September 10, 1976)]

AUTHOR: Gerald Ford A.K.A Gerald Rudolph "Jerry" Ford, Jr. (born Leslie Lynch King, Jr.; July 14, 1913 – December 26, 2006) was the 38th President of the United States, serving from 1974 to 1977, and the 40th Vice President of the United States serving from 1973 to 1974. As the first person appointed to the vice-presidency under the terms of the 25th Amendment (after Spiro Agnew had resigned), when he became President upon Richard Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974, he became the only President of the United States who was never elected President nor Vice-President by the Electoral College. Before ascending to the vice-presidency, Ford served nearly 25 years as the Representative from Michigan's 5th congressional district, eight of them as the Republican Minority Leader.

As President, Ford signed the Helsinki Accords, marking a move toward détente in the Cold War. With the conquest of South Vietnam by North Vietnam nine months into his presidency, U.S. involvement in Vietnam essentially ended. Domestically, Ford presided over arguably the weakest economy since the Great Depression, with growing inflation and a recession during his tenure. One of his more controversial acts was to grant a presidential pardon to President Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal. During Ford's incumbency, foreign policy was characterized in procedural terms by the increased role Congress began to play, and by the corresponding curb on the powers of the President. In 1976, Ford narrowly defeated Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination, but lost the presidential election to Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Following his years as president, Ford remained active in the Republican Party. After experiencing health problems, Ford died in his home on December 26, 2006. Ford lived longer than any other U.S. president, living 93 years and 165 days, while his 895 day presidency remains the shortest of all Presidents who did not die in office.

ARTICLE ON THE DEATH PENALTY OF THE WEEK [SUNDAY 5 AUGUST 2012 TO SATURDAY 11 AUGUST 2012]

NOTICE: The following article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to violate their copyright. I will give some information on them.

PAGE TITLE: Asharq Al-Awsat

ARTICLE TITLE: Living on Death Row

AUTHOR: Muhammad Sadiq Diab

AUTHOR INFORMATION: Muhammad Sadiq Diab (1942 to 8 April 2011) is a well-known Saudi writer and journalist. He was born in Jeddah and was editor in chief of a number of Saudi magazines, including Iqra, Al-Jadeedah (a publication of the Saudi Research and Publishing Company that also publishes Arab News) and the Haj and Umrah magazine of which he was chief editor until his death. He had a daily column in the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat Arabic newspaper, which is a sister publication of Arab News. Diab wrote a number of books and short stories, including “A Woman and a Cup of Coffee,” “History and Social Life,” "The Wall Clock Ticks Twice,” “16 Stories from the Hara” and “Common Proverbs.” He also wrote a book on the dialect of Jeddawis. He died in a London hospital on Friday 8 April 2011 after a long battle with cancer. He was 69.

URL: http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=22557 & http://www.alarabiya.net/save_pdf.php?cont_id=121245

DATE: Monday 4 October 2010

Muhammad Sadiq Diab

Opinion, Asharq Al-Awsat, October 5, 2010

Living on Death Row
By Muhammad Diyab

It is certain that Hisham Talaat Moustafa, and Mohsen al-Sukkari, will have slept long and well – for the first time in a while – after a court verdict released the noose from around their necks. Being sentenced to years of imprisonment, with all its deprivation, pain, and dark nights, is still a much more merciful outcome for an inmate than to remain on death row, with the possibility that a warden will knock on his cell door one morning to take him to his execution. One is unable to imagine the magnitude of anxiety that is faced by someone waiting to be executed. One inmate, sentenced to death, wrote in their diary prior to their execution, giving a candid and rare account of the agony of waiting, the fear of dying, and the cruel sense the imminent end. 

An Arabic prison officer also told me of his difficult task, being entrusted with bringing death row inmates from their cells to the execution room, and how many of them lose their ability to move or even express themselves. They pray on their way to the execution room, looking almost dead, in a state of mental breakdown. There are rare exceptions of course, such as the case of Saddam Hussein. When the American troops described Saddam Hussein’s final moments, in a letter to his wife, which has recently been published, they said that he was able to smile in front of the gallows, as if he was observing something pleasant. When he was told that he would be executed within hours, he was not distressed, but rather he requested a meal of rice with boiled chicken meat, and drank several glasses of hot water with honey, a drink he had enjoyed since his childhood. 

In my opinion, those such as Saddam Hussein are aware of the likely prospects of their fate. He was engulfed, for a long time, within the psychological ‘game’ of the killer and the victim. A former official from an authoritarian regime has analyzed this ‘game’, by saying that “you are [mentally] distressed only by your first victim. After that, you need to decide whether to get out of the game or continue. To continue means the risk, and ultimately the reality, that you are also a dead body”. 

Those who demand the abolition of the death penalty for murderers and criminals, in both the East and the West, forget the feelings of the victim’s family, and the magnitude of their loss. The role of the death penalty is to offer a form of just retribution, whilst it also serves as a deterrent, and supports the security of societies. Even states that adopt the principle of ‘blood money’ should not allow profiteering from the millions paid by good-hearted humanitarians, since this might lead to a dangerous increase of the rate of murders or a desensitisation towards the act of killing. Yet, it is necessary for the concerned authorities to distinguish between a killer and another in terms of the nature of the crime, its motives and its surrounding conditions. 

Muhammad Diyab is a well-known Saudi writer and journalist.

Comment: I love the last paragraph of this article. It shows that Diyab acknowledged that the government must have the moral duty of providing justice to the victims’ families and also protecting society. I agree that some crimes cannot be compensated by paying a huge sum of money, they can only be compensated by paying with their lives.

THE DEATH PENALTY & PRO-LIFE DEBATE: ABORTION & CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

NOTE: I will post a debate on the death penalty every fortnight on the blog.

            Can you be against abortion but support capital punishment? Let us hear from two Christian leaders.

Kristi McLaughlin is the pastor of Anew United Church of Christ in Mitchell. http://anewucc.areavoices.com/pastor/

Rev. Kristi McLaughlin

McLAUGHLIN: ‘Pro-life’ should mean anti-capital punishment 

Donald Moeller’s execution date has been set, but I do not see any of the pro-lifers taking notice and opposing this execution. 

By: The Rev. Kristi McLaughlin, Guest columnist 

“Thou shalt not murder.” It’s the foundation of the Christian pro-life movement, and yet many within the pro-life movement do not take the time to research the Hebrew understanding of when “life” begins.

According to Rabbi Raymond A. Zwerin and Rabbi Richard J. Shapiro, Jewish, i.e. Hebrew, law does not grant personhood status to a fetus. To quote, “Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus ‘lav nefesh hu’ — it is not a person. The Talmud contains the expression ‘ubar yerech imo’ — the fetus is as the thigh of its mother, i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman’s body.”

I find it interesting that claiming to be pro-life is really a pronouncement of being against abortion rather than a consistent ideology of being pro-life.

To me, being pro-life means supporting all policies, systems, legislation, budgets, etc., that support and honor life and opposing all of the above that take from life. Being prolife means one sees the life-taking effects of poverty and works to overcome systems that keep people poor, including acknowledging that tax breaks for the most wealthy do nothing to help the poor. Being pro-life includes health care for all regardless of ability to pay, previous medical conditions or ability to obtain insurance. It means quality education, access to nutritious food (has anyone tried to feed a family a healthy diet on food stamps only?). It means preservation of the earth, and it even means opposition to the death penalty, which brings me to the point of this column.

Donald Moeller’s execution date has been set, but I do not see any of the pro-lifers taking notice and opposing this execution. Is state execution not “murder”? Or is murder OK if state-mandated?

Where are the pro-lifers who quote the words of Scripture adamantly opposing two people of same sex who love one another and seek “life” together in a committed monogamous relationship?

It seems that once again, we have a selective pro-life movement that has a passion for “life” but only in its own very narrow definitions.

Donald Moeller took a life — a young beautiful life. What he did is tragic, violent and awful. I cannot imagine what breaks so terribly within a human that one would be able to do such terrible things. Donald Moeller broke the Hebrew instruction, “Thou shalt not murder,” but his is a life as well and for those of us who claim to be Christians (let alone pro-life) to stand silently by as he is executed does nothing for our case as Christians. It does nothing for our case that we believe in a God of forgiveness, mercy, grace and love. It does nothing for our case that we follow the way of Jesus who welcomed and sat with thieves, prostitutes, and sinners — a Jesus who opposed violence.

To quote Sister Helen Prejean, “Jesus Christ, whose way of life I try to follow, refused to meet hate with hate and violence with violence. I pray for the strength to be like him. I cannot believe in a God who metes out hurt for hurt, pain for pain, torture for torture. Nor do I believe that God invests human representatives with such power to torture and kill. The paths of history are stained with the blood of those who have fallen victim to ‘God’s Avengers.’ Kings, popes, military generals, and heads of state have killed, claiming God’s authority and God’s blessing. I do not believe in such a God.”

Sister Prejean, neither do I.

Kristi McLaughlin is the pastor of Anew United Church of Christ in Mitchell.

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/68370/group/homepage/

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

Dr. Richard D. Land (born 1946) is the president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), the moral and ethics concern entity of the Southern Baptist Convention in the United States, a post he has held since 1988. He is also currently serving as interim pastor at Red Bank Baptist Church in Chattanooga, TN.

http://www.drrichardland.com/about

Dr. Richard D. Land

 

 

 

 

 

The death penalty can be pro-life

On Faith- Can you be pro-life and pro-death penalty? How does one reconcile these positions?

 

It is often pointed out, contrary to what most people expect, that there is a positive correlation between being pro-life and supporting the death penalty. Conversely, there is also a positive correlation between being pro-choice and being against the death penalty.

Many people who are pro-choice point this out and talk about the Roman Catholic church’s attempt to have what they call a “seamless garment” approach, which means that if you are pro-life you must also be opposed to the death penalty. I support both the pro-life position and the death penalty and see consistency rather than contradiction in holding these positions. Yet that does not mean that I support, without reservation, the death penalty as it has been and is still often applied in the United States.

I am pro-life because the Bible clearly teaches us that life begins at conception (Psalm 51:5) This truth is supported with ever increasing detail as the science of embryology reveals more and more about the intricacies of human fetal development. The Bible also tells us God is involved when conception takes place (Jeremiah 1:4-5), and that God is involved intimately in the process of maturation and development of a child even prior to birth (Psalm 139:13-16).

In the most sustained passage in the New Testament concerning God’s plan and role for government (Romans 13), we learn that God ordained the civil magistrate to punish those who do evil and reward those who do right. 

We also are told, in Romans 13:4, that the civil magistrate bears not the sword in vain. In the original Greek language the word used there for “sword” is the same word used for the type of sword used to execute Roman citizens who were found guilty of capital crimes. Clearly, the Apostle Paul, inspired by God’s Holy Spirit, is granting to the civil magistrate the use of lethal force as one of the options available to punish those who do evil--in the case of domestic criminals, the police force, and in war, the military.

Just War theorists have cited this passage for centuries to give biblical justification for the use of government-authorized lethal force in warfare.

If one is going to support the death penalty, one also has to support its just and equitable application. Historically, in the United States we have not justly and fairly applied the death penalty. You have been much more likely to be executed if you were poor rather than wealthy, if you were a man rather than a woman, and if you were a person of color rather than white.

Those who support the continued option of the death penalty as a biblically authorized option in heinous crimes must also work for its just and equitable application. While the imbalance concerning race, ethnicity and sex have been significantly reduced, it still remains true that a wealthy person is much less likely to be executed than a poor person. 

O.J. Simpson is perhaps the classic example--a man who most people would accept as being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of having murdered his wife and another person but was let off because he could hire the best lawyers available. We need to find a way to address that unjust imbalance if we want to continue to support the death penalty.

However, on the other side of the coin, it must be said that people who are pro-life believe that life is sacred, and that when a person, wantonly and premeditatedly takes the life of another person, they have forfeited their right to continued life. And when they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, they should be executed.

I don’t believe that people have a right to support something that they’re not willing to participate in themselves. If I’m going to support the death penalty, I have to be willing to perform the execution myself. I think of the case of Jessica Lunsford, the 9-year-old Florida girl who was abducted from her home, raped and brutalized in every imaginable way for three days by John Couey, and then was buried alive with her doll. If the state had the chance to give John Couey his lethal injection, I would be comforted by the fact that justice was executed .

The man had forfeited his right to live. And if he had not died from the ravages of his drug abuse before he could have been executed, he should have been executed. The only just sentence for a man committing such a crime was execution.

I believe we should keep the death penalty to be used in heinous cases like this, and in cases of treason and other reprehensible crimes against humanity. I believe this is consistent with my pro-life position.

I believe that people who are pro-life are horrified by a person taking upon themselves the prerogatives of God and wantonly and premeditatedly taking another person’s life. They believe that when a person is found guilty of doing this with premeditation, they have forfeited their right to life in a civilized society.

Richard Land | Sep 15, 2011 10:54 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/the-death-penalty-can-be-pro-life/2011/09/15/gIQAiRudUK_blog.html

 

My response to Kristi McLaughlin: ‘Pro-life’ should mean anti-capital punishment’

            I respect Kristi McLaughlin as I am a Christian too but as a former opponent of the death penalty and a former supporter of abortion (I have changed to being pro death penalty and pro-life), I agree with her stance against abortion but not against capital punishment. I would like to explain why:

I find it interesting that claiming to be pro-life is really a pronouncement of being against abortion rather than a consistent ideology of being pro-life.

It means preservation of the earth, and it even means opposition to the death penalty.

Explanation: Please see what Richard Land wrote above. Also, here is another quote, “Nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life. And it is this same atrophy of moral fiber that appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty. It is the sanctity of life that validates the death penalty for the crime of murder. It is the sense of this sanctity that constrains the demand for the infliction of this penalty. The deeper our regard for life the firmer will be our hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merit.” (Page 122 of Principles of Conduct) - John Murray (14 October 1898 – 8 May 1975) was a Scottish-born Calvinist theologian who taught at Princeton Seminary and then left to help found Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for many years.

Donald Moeller’s execution date has been set, but I do not see any of the pro-lifers taking notice and opposing this execution. Is state execution not “murder”? Or is murder OK if state-mandated?

Explanation: The state is not being a murderer in response to murder; the state is being an executioner. To compare execution to murder is like comparing incarceration to kidnapping and slavery, fines to extortions, restitutions to thefts and a defensive war to an aggressive war. Donald Moeller is still a human being but he was found guilty and he has taken an innocent life, so he must forfeit his.

Donald Moeller took a life — a young beautiful life. What he did is tragic, violent and awful. I cannot imagine what breaks so terribly within a human that one would be able to do such terrible things. Donald Moeller broke the Hebrew instruction, “Thou shalt not murder,” but his is a life as well and for those of us who claim to be Christians (let alone pro-life) to stand silently by as he is executed does nothing for our case as Christians. It does nothing for our case that we believe in a God of forgiveness, mercy, grace and love. It does nothing for our case that we follow the way of Jesus who welcomed and sat with thieves, prostitutes, and sinners — a Jesus who opposed violence.

To quote Sister Helen Prejean, “Jesus Christ, whose way of life I try to follow, refused to meet hate with hate and violence with violence. I pray for the strength to be like him. I cannot believe in a God who metes out hurt for hurt, pain for pain, torture for torture. Nor do I believe that God invests human representatives with such power to torture and kill. The paths of history are stained with the blood of those who have fallen victim to ‘God’s Avengers.’ Kings, popes, military generals, and heads of state have killed, claiming God’s authority and God’s blessing. I do not believe in such a God.”

Sister Prejean, neither do I.

Explanation: Do not mix up the love and justice of God. Matthew Henry, John Calvin and St. Thomas Aquinas all acknowledge that the state has the right to protect its citizens from evildoers. You must understand that the 6^th commandment and the New Testament still support the death penalty. Professor Michael Pakaluk was quoted in The Death Penalty: An Opposing Viewpoints Series Book, Greenhaven Press, (hereafter TDP:OVS), 1991: "If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins and crucified among thieves. St. Thomas Aquinas quotes a gloss of St. Jerome on Matthew 27: ‘As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty.’ That Christ be put to death as a guilty person, presupposes that death is a fitting punishment for those who are guilty."