Friday, March 17, 2006
By Jørgen Ullerup, Correspondent to Jyllands-Posten
Warning against Islamic totalitarianism brings death threats. On a website an Islamic group has made death threats against the 12 intellectuals, including Salman Rushdie, who recently signed a Manifesto against Islamic Totalitarianism.
According to one of the signers, the French writer Caroline Fourest, the threat was made this Saturday on the website ummah.net. It mentions a who’s who guide and a list of targets scheduled for termination.
The group urges its adherents to take their time but says it should happen soon. It adds that it isn’t necessary to first have a Fatwa from a religious leader, such as the one Ayatollah Khomeini issued in 1989 against Salman Rushdie’s life for having offended the religion.
“The threat is simply not acceptable. Our Manifesto urges to resistance by means of ideas. But the Islamists have answered with threats of violence. A proof - if such was necessary - of their rejection of democratic debate and of their totalitarianism,” Caroline Fourest says.
She adds that the Manifesto isn’t against Islam but against Islamism and the Islamists’ using the religion politically to oppress, for example, Freedom of Speech. She emphasises that the signers will not be subdued by threats.
To read the Manifesto: MANIFESTO
To show your support: Petition Spot - MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism There are over 1,300 signatures so far. The goal is 100,000.
Now, I'm joining the Sammenhold blogroll. In support of free expression.
You might think that I should say that Justice Ginsburg can freely speak her mind.
But she choose to surrender some of her free speech, when she took the seat on the bench. Judges should not discuss matters which may come before their court. A Federal court judge, especially a Supreme Court Justice should not openly attack the policies of the United States, except when writing a court decision. IMHO, Justice Ginsburg has violated judicial ethics and her oath, and she should be impeached.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
The Pentagon has just released to the public documents captured in Operation Iraqi Freedom. They can be accessed here in Adobe Acrobat format.
This one's interesting; the synopsis describes it this way:
2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names.
Constitutional Court of South Africa
Those words were penned in 1857. They appear in Chief Justice Roger Taney's opinion for a divided Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, an infamous opinion that invoked the majestic Due Process Clause to uphold one human's right to hold another in bondage. The Dred Scott decision declared that no "descendants of Africans [imported into the United States], and sold as slaves" could ever become citizens of the United States.While the Civil War and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution reversed the Dred Scott judgment, U.S. jurists and political actors today divide sharply on the propriety of looking beyond our nation's borders, particularly on matters touching fundamental human rights. Some have expressed spirited opposition. Justice Scalia counsels: The Court "should cease putting forth foreigners' views as part of the reasoned basis of its decisions. To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry."Another trenchant critic, Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, commented not long ago: "To cite foreign law as authority is to flirt with the discredited . . . idea of a universal natural law; or to suppose fantastically that the world's judges constitute a single, elite community of wisdom and conscience." Judge Posner's view rests, in part, on the concern that U.S. judges do not comprehend the social, historical, political, and institutional background from which foreign opinions emerge. Nor do we even understand the language in which laws and judgments, outside the common law realm, are written.
And one not-so-small concern - they fuel the irrational fringe. A personal example. The U.S. Supreme Court's Marshal alerted Justice O'Connor and me to a February 28, 2005, web posting on a "chat" site. It opened:
Okay commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment . . . an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use [foreign] laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases.
This is a huge threat to our Republic and Constitutional freedom. . . . If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week.
Nearly a year has passed since that posting. Justice O'Connor, though to my great sorrow retired just last week from the Court's bench, remains alive and well. As for me, you can judge for yourself.
Then she argues with Justice Scalia:
The U.S. Constitution, Justice Scalia has remarked, contains no instruction resembling South Africa's Section 39 prescription. So U.S. courts, he thinks, have no warrant from our fundamental instrument of government to consider foreign law. I would demur to that observation. Judges in the United States are free to consult all manner of commentary - Restatements, Treatises, what law professors or even law students write copiously in law reviews, for example. If we can consult those writings, why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?
Then she implies that the US has tortured detainees:
Later in December, recognizing the nation's obligations under the Convention against Torture, the U.S. Congress banned cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The legislation, however, stops short of explicitly banning evidence elicited by torture from consideration by a military tribunal charged with determining whether a detainee is an enemy combatant.
Then she states that a treaty overrides the US Constitution:
I looked to two United Nations Conventions: the 1965 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, which the United States has ratified; and the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which, sadly, the United States has not yet ratified. Both Conventions distinguish between impermissible policies of oppression or exclusion, and permissible policies of inclusion, "temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality." The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Michigan Law School case, I observed, "accords with the international understanding of the [purpose and propriety] of affirmative action." (South Africa's Constitution is clear on that matter; Section 9(2) provides: "To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.")
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
You take a warm shower to help you wake up.
He goes days or weeks without running water.
You put on your anti war/don't support the troops shirt, and go meet up with your friends.
He still fights for your right to wear that shirt.
You walk down the beach, staring at all the pretty girls.
He walks the streets, searching for insurgents and terrorists.
You complain about how hot it is.
He wears his heavy gear, not daring to take off his helmet to wipe his brow.
You are angry because your class ran 5 minutes over.
He is told he will be held an extra 2 months. He does as he is told.
You call your girlfriend and set a date for that night.
He waits for the mail to see if there is a letter from home.
You hug and kiss your girlfriend, like you do everyday.
He holds his letter close and smells his love's perfume.
You criticize your government, and say that war never solves anything.
He sees the innocent tortured and killed by their own government and remembers why he is fighting.
You see only what the media wants you to see.
He sees the bodies lying around him.
You sit there and judge him, saying the world is a worse place because of men like him.
If only there were more men like him.
Monday, March 13, 2006
"Senator Feingold should be ashamed of this political ploy. This is another example of the Democrats' failure to establish an agenda that meets the needs of the American people. Senator Feingold's time would be better spent putting forth constructive ideas rather than using cheap political tricks that compromise America's national security by sending a dangerous signal of disunity around the globe."The American people are squarely behind the president in fighting the War on Terror. This stunt sends a dangerously wrongheaded message, and the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, ought to reject the Feingold resolution."
The Authorization of Military Force in 2001 and again 2003 - has Congress authorizing the President to use all force.
The NSA program of monitoring possible terrorist communication between a person in the US and a person outside the US.
Is legal. (Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.)
And has been closely monitored by the FISA Court and the 'Gang of 8' on Capital Hill.
Plus, most Americans support the program.
Senator Feingold's action will only serve to 'get out the Republican vote in November'.
This action serves notice that elections matter.
This action shows that Democrats only want to play politics.
This action highlights that President Bush is willing to go the distance to defend America.
John Fund wrote about the former Taliban official now enrolled at Yale, Sayed Ramatullah Hashemi, last week in an article critical of Yale's admission of the Islamist. After Fund wrote about the subject, others openly criticized Yale for its acceptance of a man who participated in one of the most brutally oppressive governments in recent history, and some of those critics are alumni of Yale. In response, Yale Law School's assistant director of giving (which means, in the Orwellian lingo of academia, receiving) sent an e-mail to two alumni asking them if they had suffered brain damage:
Purported "Al-Qaeda Undercover Soldier, U.S.A": Last Warning to American People - Two Operations Will Occur; Your Homeland Security Agency Must Surrender; States Far Away From Washington, D.C. Such as Arizona Will Be Hit; We Await Orders From Our Commander Osama Bin Laden; America Will Be Brought to its Knees
On March 10, 2006, the Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF) posted, on the Islamic websites, a final warning to the American people, on behalf of "Rakan Ben Williams" who defines himself as "Al-Qaeda under cover soldier, USA [sic]."
It is not clear exactly who is behind this name. Moreover, according to a previous statement by GIMF public relations bureau director Saif Al-Din Al-Kinani on the GIMF Internet newscast Sout Al-Khilafa, GIMF is not affiliated with Al-Qaeda. 
But on November 8, 2005, the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported: "The Global Islamic Media Front has threatened [the West] on the Internet by means of its new soldier, whom it calls Rakan Ben Williams, and whom it claims is a white Englishman who converted to Islam." 
Also, on November 24, 2005, the GIMF posted on the Islamic websites a similar warning, under the same name, that included an explicit threat to assassinate Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi , British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and U.S. President George W. Bush, when the time comes, with a clear mention of the possibility of doing so after they complete their current terms of office. Although this communiqué was directed to these leaders, it noted that it referred to all Western leaders, and included special mention of Berlusconi. At its conclusion, the communiqué said that it had been written by "the one who thirsts for the blood of the Crusaders, the secret soldier of Al-Qaeda, Rakan Ben Williams, Italy (the Vatican)." 
In the following warning, Rakan Ben Williams warns that, unlike after the 9/11, Madrid, and London attacks, which are still being investigated, "[after] the coming attack there will be no one to analyze and investigate, because the mind and the heart will be unable to comprehend it… This will not be a single operation", the report added, "but two; one bigger than the other, but we will begin with the big one and postpone the bigger one, in order to see [how] diligent the American people is [in preserving] its life. If it chooses life, [it must] carry out the demands of the Muslims, and if it chooses death, then we are its best perpetrators." The warning appeared in Arabic and in English.
The following are excerpts from the original English version: 
The Last Warning to the American People (Rakan Ben Williams)
"I discern your wonder about this warning in which you do not quite recognize what to make of it. You are probably asking: Why would Al-Qaeda Organization announce its upcoming operations inside the mainland? Why the repeated warnings? Originally by the commander in Chief of Al-Qaeda (the victorious, by the grace of Allah), followed by the same warning through his trusted deputy, and now by Rakan Williams (Al-Qaeda's under cover soldier in the west).
Sunday, March 12, 2006
To me, this is a conflict between modernity and anti-modernism. While some strive to go forward, others strive to go backward. It is a conflict between the future and the past, between innovation and tradition, between those who value freedom and those who do not."
Please go read the whole (short) essay.
Go read the whole thing. but the truist paragraph:
The left has always been more concerned about how they can limit or, better still, eliminate what offends them rather than persuading you why you should agree with them. Slogans replace rational discourse, physical intimidation (or worse) is the preferred means of establishing moral superiority. Volume bespeaks righteousness and you cannot be trusted to reach your own conclusions. They must be obeyed.