Bush Administration issues "subdued appeal" to Afghanistan on behalf of Christian convert

And pointed out that instead of being summarily executed as he would have been under the Taliban, Abdul Rahman faces a trial. Why, I feel better already. "U.S. Backs Afghan Man Who Converted to Christianity," from AP, with thanks to Quietwatcher:

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration issued a subdued appeal Tuesday to Afghanistan to permit a Christian convert on trial for his life to practice his faith in the predominantly Muslim country.
The State Department, however, did not urge the U.S. ally in the war against terrorism to terminate the trial. Officials said the Bush administration did not want to interfere with Afghanistan's sovereignty.

The case involves an Afghan man who converted from Islam and was arrested last month after his family accused him of becoming a Christian. The conversion is a crime under Afghanistan's Islamic laws.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and department spokesman Sean McCormack asked Afghanistan to conduct the trial "in a transparent way." Burns said he told Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, with whom he held talks at the department, that "we would follow the case closely."...

This is outrageous. The man is on trial for exercising his freedom of conscience. Burns and McCormack should be demanding that the trial be immediately stopped and Abdul Rahman freed. Instead, they just hope for a "transparent" proceeding. What transparent dhimmis they are. They weren't so worried about Afghan sovereignty when the Taliban controlled Kabul.

State Department spokesman McCormack contrasted the government in Kabul with its fundamentalist predecessor.
"Under the Taliban, anybody considered an apostate was subject to torture and death," he said. "Right now, you have a legal proceeding that is under way in Afghanistan."

McCormack said the administration underscored to Abdullah "that we believe tolerance and freedom of worship are important elements of any democracy.

I'm glad they're finally getting around to crossing the t's and dotting the i's about what democracy really means. Better late than never.

« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

48 Comments

weaver4321 | March 21, 2006 8:17 PM

are we going to have to invade them again? maybe the third government will be the charm.

quietwatcher | March 21, 2006 8:24 PM

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns says in this article that:

As the Afghan constitution affords freedom of religion to all Afghan citizens, we hope very much that those rights, the right of freedom of religion, will be upheld in an Afghan court.

Its' more than alarming that so many, our government included, cannot see the contradiction in that statement and the fact that this man is being tried for exercising the right of freedom of religion. If it's constitutionally allowed to him to be a Christian -- or whatever he chooses to be -- call off this circus of a trial. There should not be a choice of imprisonment or death. The only choice should be to set him free.

How, how, how can our administration not be jumping up and down, screaming, foaming at the mouth... anything to put pressure on the very government we helped set up in Afghanistan?

It's just sickening. And sad. And maddening. So damn maddening.

Catherine | March 21, 2006 8:29 PM

Write the embassy of Afghanistan:
Ambassador Said T. Jawad
Embassy of Afghanistan
2341 Wyoming Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
info@embassyofafghanistan.org

Contact the State Department:

U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Main Switchboard:
202-647-4000

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN

PS
If the afghanis kill this man there will be a curse on them that can not be lifted...

AND ALL AMERICAN MONEY HELPPING THEM SHOULD STOP WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND THE MONSTERS WHO WERE KILLING THEIR CHILDREN??

Caroline | March 21, 2006 8:30 PM

Actually, I think it should be up to the presumably large number of so-called "moderate" Muslims to protest this, and loudly. Why should it be only up to infidels? And if they don't do it, then "Islamophobes" will be increasingly justified in writing the whole damn lot of em off.

Lisa | March 21, 2006 8:41 PM

Here is CAIR's statement on the matter...

... what you really thought they were going to condemn this action as being against Islam?

Ronin | March 21, 2006 8:49 PM

Looks like President Bush is using the crawl, walk, run approach to help teach them governance. Easy to do but then again his life is not the one on the chopping block. We owe it to this man to protest, loud and often.

3812Michelle | March 21, 2006 8:53 PM

Frankly, I do hope there is a "transparent trial." I hope there are a bunch of cameras from news organization from around the world surrounding the third world hell hole courthouse where this "trial" is going to be held.

I want to see the Afghan legal system in action.

I want the evidence to be presented against this man. Show his Bible. Get this man's testimonial.

And then I want the judge -- with the whole world watching -- to sentence this man to death because he had the strength of character and wisdom to reject the idiocy of islam and choose a different belief system to live under.

Hey, this is better than the Calcutta Quran Petition. It's not the infidels putting islam on trial. It's the muslims exposing themselves for what they are.

And when it's all over, send in Special Forces to rescue this man.

Lepanto | March 21, 2006 8:56 PM

"Under the Taliban, anybody considered an apostate was subject to torture and death," he said. "Right now, you have a legal proceeding that is under way in Afghanistan."

Well there you go. These Muslims aren't the savages we've been led to believe. He'll get a trial before they whack his head off. How humane of them. And thank you Mr. McCormack for clarifying the issue.

Catherine | March 21, 2006 9:05 PM

WONDER IF THE State Department saw this??

Better hurry up stopping these monsters!!

http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060319-072838-8361r
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Christian convert faces execution in Afghanistan
March 19, 2006
KABUL -- An Afghan man faces the death penalty for converting to Christianity, an Afghan supreme court judge said on Sunday.

Supreme Court Judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada said that Abdul Rahman, who converted from Islam to Christianity, is in police custody and that he could face the death penalty if he refused to become a Muslim again.

Abdul Rahman was detained two weeks ago after his relatives reported to the police about his conversion which is forbidden under Islamic Sharia law.

"Yes that's true, a man has converted to Christianity. He's being tried in one of our courts," Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada said, adding that his trial began early last week.

He said the man could face the death penalty if he refused to revert to Islam as Sharia law proposes capital punishment for any Muslim who converts to another religion. Afghanistan's constitution states: "No law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam."

If sentenced, the man will be the first to be punished for conversion since the ouster of the Taliban who introduced and implemented tough Sharia law.

The hardline Taliban regime was toppled by a US-led invasion in late 2001 for not handing over Al Qaeda chief, Osama Bin Laden, wanted for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States

Posted by: Caroline at March 21, 2006 08:30 PM

Gold Star for you today!!

Seams that the king of jordan understands this look at his statement today??

StillBreathing | March 21, 2006 9:09 PM

This is a bit off topic, but according to the marvelous book Charly's War (about a Congressman's support for the CIA's covert operations that helped to free Afghanistan from the Soviets), some Afghan men really do have sexual relations with donkeys. (However, there's probably no emotional content to these relationships.)

I thought you'd want to know.

amana39 | March 21, 2006 9:19 PM

"Officials said the Bush administration did not want to interfere with Afghanistan's sovereignty."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I can only hope that they sincerely don't believe half of their mealy-mouthed talking points. This needs to be followed very closely and kept in focus. If need be the normal folks might need to holler and scream again.

Thanks for the update.

Ronin | March 21, 2006 9:24 PM

From Fox:
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and department spokesman Sean McCormack asked Afghanistan to conduct the trial "in a transparent way." Burns said he told Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, with whom he held talks at the department, that "we would follow the case closely."

At a joint news conference, pressed by reporters, Abdullah said he hoped "through our constitutional process there will be a satisfactory result." He did not say whether the defendant, Abdul Rahman, 41, would be found innocent.

Abdullah said officials of his government "know that it is a very sensitive issue and we know the concerns of the American people." He said the Afghan Embassy in Washington had received hundreds of messages of concern.

So this is how you help the man, letters, lots of letters, write your leaders, the UN and the press. If this goes bad and he dies, remember to hold your party officials to task.

Havoc | March 21, 2006 9:27 PM

StillBreathing -

Maybe this practice explains the surfeit of coarse, dark hair among the Afghans. As far as emotional content is concerned, how can you tell?

Remember, still water runs deep.

Catherine | March 21, 2006 9:32 PM

Posted by: amana39 at March 21, 2006 09:19 PM

WELL I would say there is no time to sit back and watch but start "normal folks might need to holler and scream again"

Because?

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004808.htm
WE WILL CUT HIM INTO LITTLE PIECES"
BY MICHELLE MALKIN • MARCH 21, 2006 08:41 AM
***scroll for updates***
The Chicago Tribune is paying attention to Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man facing the death penalty for being a Christian convert. The paper provides background on Rahman's troubled relations with his family, which has spurned him and accused him of mental illness. Jail officials and prosecutors are bloodthirsty:

Abdul Rahman told his family he was a Christian. He told the neighbors, bringing shame upon his home. But then he told the police, and he could no longer be ignored.
Now, in a major test of Afghanistan's fledgling court system, Rahman, 42, faces the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity. Prosecutors say he should die. So do his family, his jailers, even the judge. Rahman has no lawyer. Jail officials refused to let anyone see Rahman on Monday, despite permission granted by the country's justice minister.
"We will cut him into little pieces," said Hosnia Wafayosofi, who works at the jail, as she made a cutting motion with her hands. "There's no need to see him..."
...Prosecutor Abdul Wasi said Rahman had been told repeatedly to repent and come back to Islam, but Rahman refused. Wasi called Rahman a traitor.
"He is known as a microbe in society, and he should be cut off and removed from the rest of Muslim society and should be killed," Wasi told the court.
Rahman said he had surrendered himself to God. "I believe in the holy spirit," he said. "I believe in Christ. And I am a Christian."
Judge Ansarullah Mawlawizada, who is handling the case, said he normally takes two months to decide on cases. But because this case is so serious, he expected to hold another hearing within the next week and make a decision.
Mawlawizada, who kept Rahman's green Bible on his desk, said he respected all religions. He emphasized that he did not favor the aggressiveness of the Taliban, who cut the hands and feet off criminals in a soccer stadium. But he said Rahman had to repent.
"If he doesn't regret his conversion, the punishment will be enforced on him," the judge said. "And the punishment is death."

The Globe and Mail also reports more new details:

"It is a crime to convert to Christianity from Islam. He is teasing and insulting his family by converting," Judge [Alhaj Ansarullah Mawawy] Zada said. "The Attorney-General is emphasizing he should be hung."
Prison officials refused requests to interview Mr. Rahman, but one of his cellmates said he was resolute.
"He is standing by his words," said Sayad Miakel, 30. "He will not become a Muslim again."
Another cellmate said Mr. Rahman seemed depressed.
"He keeps looking up to the sky, to God," said Khalylullah Safi, 31.

SO THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW!!!!!!

Ambassador Said T. Jawad
Embassy of Afghanistan
2341 Wyoming Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
info@embassyofafghanistan.org

Contact the State Department:
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Main Switchboard:
202-647-4000

SOME HOW I DON'T THINK THIS HAS MADE IT TO THE PRSIDENTS DESK MIGHT WANT TO CALL THERE TOO!!!

PS
The one who helped put together Afghans laws is now in Iraq as the Ambasator HE SHOULD BE RECALLED NOW!!!

Havoc | March 21, 2006 9:33 PM

I stand by my oft-repeated position that Pres Bush doesn't comprehend the words he speaks. There's no other way to explain the dissonance between his words and actions.

He is the personification of an uncertain trumpet.

Ronin | March 21, 2006 9:41 PM

Havoc I would hope there will be some behind the scene pressure to resolve this without a death penalty. Now the press has started to pick up on this I am sure the Bush haters will keep a watchful eye and keep the story in the news. I just hope he doesn’t get tortured into a re conversion.

SirSeth | March 21, 2006 9:56 PM

I believe every religion, and the 7 century war and terror tribes of Islam, all need a modern 21st century tune-up and stop featuring Mohammed as the absolute idol.
Old head chopping Habits are difficult to break especially when all Muslims have Mohammed's Islamic power, the duty to hate, to kill, to slaughter all kaffirs. This Arab hate institution should be beaten back under the black rock of their Allah Moon god.

profitsbeard | March 21, 2006 10:17 PM

We "don't want to interfere with their sovereignty"?

Didn't we just fight a war there to create their sovereignty?

And wasn't that engagement to stop this kind of insanity?

Don't our leaders have a hotline to Karzai that they can call to say:

"Trial over. Law voided. Release the Christian gentleman. Or we find another government to replace your neo-Taliban administration. After we dump you onto the ash heap of history. Any questions, just yell them to the predator drone circling overhead."

That they even have the nerve to try such a case shows they realize the fatal naivete about Islam from our side.

disciple | March 21, 2006 10:35 PM

I would hope that the not so public discourse with Afghanistan takes a harsher tone.
Do this and there will be serious repercussions.

Christians remember when the followers of Christ prayed for Peter to be released. Start now!

Johnathan | March 21, 2006 10:47 PM

Re: " Officials said the Bush administration did not want to interfere with Afghanistan's sovereignty."

The Bush Administration has decided to not get involved with "sovereignty issues" in other countries such as Afghanistan but to no one's surprise the U.S. has a long history of getting involved in other nations sovereignity issues (E.G. Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, etc.)

Protecting Christians and Christian places of worship are not high on the Bush Administation's agenda list.

The Kosovo Tragedy is one good example. Since the U.S caused the Serbs to surrender during Clinton's presidency in the 90's, Alabanian Muslims have gone on a rampage in Kosovo and have destroyed Christian churches.

Read here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/GrantSwank60309.htm

What is the United States and the U.N. doing about this tragedy?

Believe it or not the U.S. is using its influence in an attempt to make Kosovo into an independent Muslim state on European soil. Read here: http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL31053.pdf

planck's constant | March 21, 2006 10:49 PM

StillBreathing commented that some Afghan men really do have sexual relations with donkeys. (However, there's probably no emotional content to these relationships.)

There's actual law on how those relationships are structured, see Islam and sex with animals

Foehammer | March 21, 2006 10:56 PM

I agree with you, Robert. This situation is outrageous. It has, however, solidified my biggest concern: that the current Administration either does not understand the nature of our enemy, or if it does know the truth, then it is a corrupt government. Either way, we need to see the exit of the Bush Administration ASAP and our troops need to come home even sooner.

How absolutely cowardly on the part of our leadership to not demand this Christian's immediate release!! It is absolutely without excuse.

The West had better start confronting Islam or we are going to lose this war. I am deadly serious.

biorabbi | March 21, 2006 11:04 PM

How about this for an suggestion. 1. Let him out of jail. 2. He goes to the top person in the line of desirables to enter the US 3. Free baseball tickets at the big show till he dies. 4. If our 'leader' W doesn't handle this quietlly with Karzi et al, then he should instruct our special force boys to roll into the Kabul Jail and extract this saint. 5. This should be followed by round 2 on shock and awe on the nascent democracy.

Yes, Democracy is on the march, right into your stinking Muslim Jail to release this man. I'm not a Christian but this guy is a hero of the very highest order. One could have kept mum on this issue of conversion--to protect oneself. He chose the hard path, but the true one. I care more about this single man than democracy in Iraq or Kabul. I care more about this one man than I do about every single Muslim bigot in Iraq.

biorabbi | March 21, 2006 11:12 PM

The more sarcastic among the Jihadi Watch community(me) might argue that his conversion from Islam to Christianity needs to be respected for a number of reasons. To support courage, but also to deter the next case. Send a straight message from W. Why so silent on this issue? Perhaps W's Christian Bonafides are not to be questioned. But I might=). It would seem to be a harder road to how to be an apostate in hell and convert to Christianity than be a rich preppie in Texas who likes the sauce and 'finds' god. Sorry to be harsh, but I find his(W's) silence on this issue(like supporting the Danes)to be, shall we say, less than Churchillian. Orwellian might be a better term for this state department mumbo jumbo. After all, one wouldn't want to question the "success" of Kabul! Nothing to see here, just a Christian about to be tried and quartered . . . move right along, folks.

Hugh | March 21, 2006 11:35 PM

"subdued appeal..."
-- from the article above

"subdolus, a, um : rusé, astucieux, fourbe, artificieux, perfide, trompeur."

Infidels are "subdued."

Muslims, on the other hand, who follow the Model of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, for whom Jihad is Holy War, and "war is deception," are to the manner born, not to the "subdued" manner of many Infidels and certainly of the Bush Adminstration as described above, but to the "subdolens" manner, the subtle and subdolent manner, the manner of those who are "rusé, astucieux, fourbe, artificieux, perfide, trompeur."

That's all one needs to know about Infidels and Believers in the present world. Tout le reste est litterature.

learnmore | March 21, 2006 11:38 PM

He! who is in charge there? it is us, send troops, tanks APC's to the court/jail and pull the guy out, then get rid of the prosecutor and judge (and the one who wants to cut him up). Show this scum we don't tolerate this behavior, enough of the mealy mouthed response.

Bohemond_1069 | March 21, 2006 11:44 PM

Islam means "submission". Submission is as incompatible with democracy as slavery is incompatible with freedom. Free men do not submit. Muohammedan countries do not have freedom of religion. They do not have freedom of speech. They do not have freedom of the press. They are not free.

ivehadenuff | March 21, 2006 11:49 PM

guess their iman's wouldn't allow them to reply while beating/raping their sisters/mothers...

Pity.....

They could have offered a comical point of view

I am going to drop my composure down to Bayou-BOY's level for a moment and I apologize to all for doing so, even to the ignorant little BOY I am addressing. Bayou-BOY from the Chocolate City, you belong on a left wing, liberal site with your incessant nonsense that is replete with ignorance, stupidity and downright childishness. You are a fool, junior, and a complete one at that. Go back to the "wham-bam I'm gonna call you a bigger name than you called me" site that you came from and have your fun. Your stupid, nonsensical drivel is not welcome by anyone other than yourself.

JaimeZepeda | March 21, 2006 11:53 PM

I'm to blame for Pres. Bush's subdued response. After I read MM this morning I sent e-mails to the gov of Cailifornia, our two senators, and the White House. In each I asked for their efforts in saving this man's life; and I said I didn't care if it wasn't made an international issue, that I just wanted them to make quiet diplomatic moves to get his life spared. I told them I was praying for Mr. Rahman's soul and for the souls of those who would murder him. Of course, I'm not praying to Mohammed's god.

JaimeZepeda | March 22, 2006 12:15 AM

The Bayoucoyote vs others OT thread probably shouldn't be continued. I can't see what good will come of it.

Alert | March 22, 2006 12:18 AM

US has sunk to a new low by turning around on one of it's glorious traditions. Thanksgiving Day, one of the celebrated holidays in USA is celebrated in the honor of the pilgrims, who came to USA for religious freedom. Freedom of religion being at the heart of USA's glorious history.

By turning it's back on Abdul Rehman (no... a whimpy appeal is no 'action'), USA has turned around on it's own history and heritage, thanks to sheikh Al-Gorge and Condi!

Is it just me who sees dark clouds on the horizon?

JaimeZepeda | March 22, 2006 12:29 AM

BC, Point taken. I do believe the higher good is by securing Mr. Rahman's life if not his freedom.

Catherine | March 22, 2006 12:48 AM

OT
But not sure if you saw this??

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2093921,00.html
March 20, 2006
The Times
Vatican change of heart over 'barbaric' Crusades
FROM RICHARD OWEN IN ROME
THE Vatican has begun moves to rehabilitate the Crusaders by sponsoring a conference at the weekend that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the “noble aim” of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity.
The Crusades are seen by many Muslims as acts of violence that have underpinned Western aggression towards the Arab world ever since. Followers of Osama bin Laden claim to be taking part in a latter-day “jihad against the Jews and Crusaders”.
The late Pope John Paul II sought to achieve Muslim- Christian reconciliation by asking “pardon” for the Crusades during the 2000 Millennium celebrations. But John Paul’s apologies for the past “errors of the Church” — including the Inquisition and anti-Semitism — irritated some Vatican conservatives. According to Vatican insiders, the dissenters included Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
Pope Benedict reached out to Muslims and Jews after his election and called for dialogue. However, the Pope, who is due to visit Turkey in November, has in the past suggested that Turkey’s Muslim culture is at variance with Europe’s Christian roots.
At the conference, held at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, Roberto De Mattei, an Italian historian, recalled that the Crusades were “a response to the Muslim invasion of Christian lands and the Muslim devastation of the Holy Places”.
“The debate has been reopened,” La Stampa said. Professor De Mattei noted that the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by Muslim forces in 1009 had helped to provoke the First Crusade at the end of the 11th century, called by Pope Urban II.
He said that the Crusaders were “martyrs” who had “sacrificed their lives for the faith”. He was backed by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, who said that those who sought forgiveness for the Crusades “do not know their history”. Professor Riley-Smith has attacked Sir Ridley Scott’s recent film Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, as “utter nonsense”.
Professor Riley-Smith said that the script, like much writing on the Crusades, was “historically inaccurate. It depicts the Muslims as civilised and the Crusaders as barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.” It fuels Islamic fundamentalism by propagating “Osama bin Laden’s version of history”.
He said that the Crusaders were sometimes undisciplined and capable of acts of great cruelty. But the same was true of Muslims and of troops in “all ideological wars”. Some of the Crusaders’ worst excesses were against Orthodox Christians or heretics — as in the sack of Constantinople in 1204.
The American writer Robert Spencer, author of A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, told the conference that the mistaken view had taken hold in the West as well as the Arab world that the Crusades were “an unprovoked attack by Europe on the Islamic world”. In reality, however, Christians had been persecuted after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.
CONFLICT OVER THE HOLY LAND
• Historians count eight Crusades, although dates are disputed: 1095-1101, called by Pope Urban II; 1145-47, led by Louis VII; 1188-92, led by Richard I; 1204, which included the sack of Constantinople; 1217, which included the conquest of Damietta; 1228-29 led by Frederick II; 1249-52, led by King Louis IX of France; and 1270, also under Louis IX
• Until the early 11th century, Christians, Jews and Muslims coexisted under Muslim rule in the Holy Land. After growing friction, the first Crusade was sparked by ambushes of Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem. The Byzantine Emperor Alexius appealed to Pope Urban II, who in 1095 called on Christendom to take up arms to free the Holy Land from the “Muslim infidel”

TIMES BE A CHANGEN

Johnathan | March 22, 2006 12:50 AM

Wherever Islam takes root there is sharia.

When there is sharia there is oppression and tyranny.

When you have religious texts like these:

The Victory
[48.13] And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.

The Victory
[48.28] He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness.

.....it provides the inspiration to install sharia and oppress the infidel ( Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Hindu).

SFOD | March 22, 2006 12:53 AM

Are Muslim women speaking out in significant numbers?

How does Islam compare itself with the
Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/21.htm

How does Islam compare itself with the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women:
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

Any hope for the separation of Islam from government?
The Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society (ISIS)
http://www.secularislam.org/Default.htm

mistyhymen | March 22, 2006 12:57 AM

"We will cut him into little pieces," said Hosnia Wafayosofi, who works at the jail, as she made a cutting motion with her hands. "There's no need to see him..."

Best argument I ever heard for a ban on muslim immigration.

JaimeZepeda | March 22, 2006 12:59 AM

In regards to C's posting; I was thinking of sending an e-mail to my local Bishop. I do put enough in the collection plate to warrant a thank you note once a year. I'll do it tomorrow. He should send a missive to the pope on our behalf.

kamala | March 22, 2006 1:26 AM

Anyone know enough about how the state dept. works to know whether Ms. Rice herself would had to approve this statement from Burns & McCormack? If it got as high as Ms. Rice, any chance that Bush himself might have been consulted?

csa bill | March 22, 2006 1:36 AM

I just hope at least this gives a wakeup call to those who idiotically believe that quran & democracy and for that matter human rights go hand in hand. I would like to see the day when the washington people stop using the phrase "Religion of peace", sooner than later.

JaimeZepeda | March 22, 2006 1:40 AM

I guess what I was asking in my first comment was whether it is better to use Mr. Rahman as a poster child for the disease of islamofacism or to try to save his life.

I do believe that many Afghanies don't want his death, they do appreciate the sacrificies of non-muslims (Americans) on their behalf, and that the rest of Afghanistan should come into the modern age. Maybe quiet diplomacy serves all our needs best.

OT I do keep sheep and coyotes are a problem. I never see them - just their scat. I don't want to kill them - they keep the deer population down. In fact: I've never had experience with an animal that embodies the negatives humans paint them with. But humans...

raven_ | March 22, 2006 1:44 AM

there is something very daft about the Bush administration.

They place preeminent importance on due process above the nature of the charge. Surely the law is the problem when a charge of converting from Islam can be considered a crime.

And yet, ironically, a fair trial, even a formal charge, does not seem to be issue for the Bush administration for the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay.

All in all, a demonstration of a logical disconnect that Islam would be proud of.

The Pig Loving Maldivian | March 22, 2006 2:05 AM

Now they have come for Abdul Rahman.

I agree that we should have the trial. With international media and observers and organizations present, the world should view this trial.

There are other places where this same thing is happening.
It is time we put Islam, Mohammed and Koran on trial to help release millions of souls from the grip of this senseless and cruel cult.

JaimeZepeda | March 22, 2006 2:06 AM

Raven,
The prisoners of Gitmo were probably found on a battlefield out of uniform and foaming at the mouth with hatred with for all non-muslims.

Anyway, what have you done to save Mr. Rahman's life?

raven_ | March 22, 2006 2:48 AM

JaimeZapada,

The prisoners of Gitmo were probably found on a battlefield out of uniform and foaming at the mouth with hatred with for all non-muslims.

"Probably" might be good enough for you but that is not justice.

In regards to Rahman, I have probably done more than you have.

JaimeZepeda | March 22, 2006 2:56 AM

In that case I give you thanks that you are most likely due.

kentim | March 22, 2006 5:13 AM

I really don't get all this obsession with "democracy". When did "democracy" become the Holy Grail? (I know the answer, do you?)

I think it's a word-game, America is not a "democracy" so why in the hell are we promoting it? As if I don't know why. It's called "changing perceptions". "psychological suggestion". Changing the frame of reference. "Public Relations".
AKA the "Big Lie".
Bush is just Wilson reincarnated( or is it Colonel House?). What a joke. Not that the "opposition" is any better.
They want a world-wide "democracy". That they can manipulate/dictate. "Gobalization". The leftists need to figure out they're being duped by the mega-rich monopolists. They are the ones who really benefit from "socialism". The mega-rich bankers and finance firms are the ones pushing for "democracy" and "socialism", then they get the force of the government as a tool, and a captive market.

Somehow, all this "Clash of Civilations"(Huntington-CFR) crap will be exploited towards that end. "Nationalism"=bad/"citizen of the world"=good."Imagine".

Bush is an out and out socialistic puppet. Figure it out. He's an idiot too.

Eisenhund | March 22, 2006 6:48 AM

Hey raven_,

This may come as a shocker for you, but the Mohammedan thugs in Gitmo are not there for writing bad checks, shoplifting, or stealing bicycles. They are not US citizens and they are not up on criminal charges. In previous wars they would all have been shot by now as 'spies'. Save your sympathy for people who wouldn't cut your head off for their beliefs.

Islofob IS-1 | March 22, 2006 1:45 PM

This issue is not about the person involved, it is about a law of Islam.

This will continue, over and over again until islam rejects the pratice, or the world rejects islam.

FrontPageMag.com

Books by Robert Spencer

The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert Spencer

Islamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian Future

Muslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer

The Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks

“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
— Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
— Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
— Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
— Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
— Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
— Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
— Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
— Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
— Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
— Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
— Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
— Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
— Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
— Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
— Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
— Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
— New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
— Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
— New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
— Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
— Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
— Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
— Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
— Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
— Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
— Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
— Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”