
The first battle pertains to getting into trouble in a country, like Laos, with a trailing rule of law. This means things like due process, right to counsel, right to control one's own defense, right to summon witnesses, right of cross-examination, right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, chain of custody, hearsay, right to appeal, etc. do not apply. The second battle is getting into trouble in a place where your home country carry’s little or no weight - diplomatic, military, foreign aid, or otherwise.
If she is guilty, then she will pay a heavy price and there is little to do. If she is innocent, but guilty of not knowing or paying attention to where she was and the threat that accompanied her, she deserves all the help in the world. For instance, you never check luggage through places like Laos or allow others to touch even your carry-on (at curbside). As an inadvertent mule, bad things would have awaited her on the back-end of her journey. For now, we should assume her innocence and hope that heightened media attention (including bloggers) kicks governmental pressure into high-gear. She deserves fairness and is clearly not getting it.
Stay Tuned.
James C. Collier
Update: Interesting BBC article explaining some of the cynicism.
READ MOST RECENT POSTS AT ACTING WHITE...
Technorati Tags: Acting White: Samantha Orobator Battles Weak Rule of Law, Britain, Death-Penalty, Heroin, Rape, Acting White
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar