Comments on: Security Expert’s Misleading Article About the Rights of Foreign Prisoners

By: Rhod

Rhod — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 02:05:32 +0000

Abdul elsewhere on this blog observed that our policy toward Iran and Syria is characterized by “injustice”, and also noted that terrorism is a matter of “interpretation”.

This excuses the crazy Irania mullahs of their hatred for The Great Satan, ignores that little Syrian valley with all the murderous punks (not to mention the Syrian puppet state, Lebanon and its terrorists), and adds an Islamist interpretation to the calamity of September 11th. We deserved it.

EVERY Arab Middle Eastern state is an authoritarian nightmare. Of the 30 or so large and small wars underway today, all of them are in states dominated by radical Islamists, and many of them are waged as wars of elimination against Christians. Radical Islamism is coincident with poverty, despair and cruelty everywhere, and preaches a culture of death.

Abdul’s opinions are bullshit, and we need to call them that. If he has something to say, let him say it and get it over with. Edward (?) Said would be very pleased with his student Abdul, and the moral stupidity of his kind. Clean out your own house, Abdul, before you condemn ours.

By: Rhod

Rhod — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:47:16 +0000

We need to know something about Abdul so we can discuss with him the issues he raises. Recall that “arrogance” is the first term Bin Laden uses to describe The West, and the accusation of arrogance is closely connected with the Islamist need to humble America. I don’t like this loftiness one bit, and the accusation transcends Abdul’s specific quibbles.

This isn’t accidental on Abdul’s part, and I for one want to know where he stands on the current war and the broad complaints in the Arab world. Will he tell us? Probably not, because that isn’t the way it works.

Abdul is Nigerian, but we earlier encountered the expression Pan Muslim to describe extra-national attitudes. This guy should come out of the dark and tell us where HE stands rather than dropping vague criticisms of where WE stand.

By: John Moore (Useful Fools)

John Moore (Useful Fools) — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:09:08 +0000

That is not how things work in the United States. He has no choice but to go along with the court.

Furthermore, he is not arrogant. He has a difficult job protecting the United States against terrorists, and much of the world press lies about him.

By: rmc

rmc — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:59:30 +0000

“Whatever the US court ruling,my fear was that mr Bush will not respect the ruling because of his arrogancy.”

If you really believe this, you have no understanding of how the United States government works. President Bush is not a dictator.

By: Abdulkadir Musa Bauchi, Nigeria.

Abdulkadir Musa Bauchi, Nigeria. — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:09:24 +0000

Whatever the US court ruling,my fear was that mr Bush will not respect the ruling because of his arrogancy.

By: Rhod

Rhod — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:09:51 +0000

Walter is absolutely right. The more complex, risky or simply bothersome it is to take prisoners, the less likely they will be taken.

By: Walter Wallis

Walter Wallis — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:45:16 +0000

As one of the few of your readers who have actually taken prisoners, I concur that a very real consequence of this ruling will be a reluctance to take prisoners.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:07:05 +0000

I would have to agree with the point that two are American citizens and have a Right to a trial by Jury.
That said, where is the line, that as far as I am concerned has been crossed by these individuals when they attempt to further the agenda of destroying our country.
These activists are more concerned about the Rights of a few individuals who would blow up as many people as possible just to meet their ‘Virgins’, than the security of their own country.
Lincoln did suspend the right of Hebeas Corpus, and(But afterall there was a War going on and it threatened to shred the country apart) also threw in jail a few Senators who were associated with the ‘Copper-Heads’ who violently supported usurping the Emancipation Proclamation.
Also illegal was the intervention in the state of Maryland so that it would not go to the confederacy thereby putting the US capitol in enemy territory.
The President must be allowed to protect the country as he sees fit, and not to be second guessed by some ‘X-Pert’ or the kerrys or the Kennedys.(Just because these EXPERTS dont trust the President because of their hatred for him or for whatever reason, like it or not they are interferring with the government in time of war, and should be dealt with, Harshly)
Criticism is one thing but these poeple have crossed the same line that Padilla has crossed and should be dealt with accordingly.

Mark