Personally, I like many others, feel that the harshest possible sentence under the laws of the land should have been delivered against Mollah.
But from a judicial point of view, I don't understand how people who don't think the tribunal is either independent or impartial and susceptible to government machinations, can still call for sentences to be handed out (never mind death sentences). If you don't think the procedure is correct or legitimate, how can you think that the sentences are?
If we are to campaign for maximum sentences for these killers and perpetrators of crimes against humanity, then we have to accept the legitimacy of the tribunal, warts and all.
|