Pak MPs: Rushdie knighthood 'justifies suicide attacks'

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Hmm. She's ugly, don't worry, no one takes an ugly broad seriously.

You do recall that the Queen is horse-faced, Gupt? :lol:

And you do remember that Thatcher was ugly to the bone (as erekose has shown)?

Hmm. She's ugly, don't worry, no one takes an ugly broad seriously.

Obviously you never listen to BBC Radio 4. Or watch BBC News.

What's really disturbing about this is her last name. I won't get into details, but people of that last name have a history of being targeted by Muslim extremists in the subcontinent.

Even in Britain, she'd be the first target of those she "represents".

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't hear you guys over the sound of the bottom of the barrel being scraped.

The one that irritates me is Shami Chakrabati....she practically invented selective outrage. She sucks.

Who is she?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6758217.stm

Stands up for terrorists' rights.

Why can't she do the world a favor and blow herself up?

Careful before you condemn her out of hand. I'm not overly familiar with her - but the few quotes that I found would seem to suggest that if she supports terrorists rights, then so does every human rights charity; or indeed anyone who questions Bush administration policy regarding Guantanamo Bay, Secret "black hole" prisons, and the use of torture.

I stand corrected. Thanks for making me take a closer look.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6758217.stm

Stands up for terrorists' rights.

I have no problem with that. Terrorists do have the same rights as you or me. In particular, they have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

The erosion of civil liberties is becoming increasingly worrying and should not be taken lightly.

I don't like the way that the debate continues to be mischaracterised - that if you care about human rights and civil liberties, you must support terrorists.

I think ET remembers that Pakistani man who was deported (after being mistakenly identified) to a foreign country for torture.

Khalid El-Masri is actually a German whose only crime was to have a name to close to that of one wanted Khalid Al-Masri.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Of course, it never occured to Ijaz ul-Haq (wait, isn't he the delusional son of "butcher of Commilla" Gen. Zia?) or Mohd Ali Hosseini that their countries have no legality of input on whom UK can give peerage.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6758217.stm

Stands up for terrorists' rights.

I have no problem with that. Terrorists do have the same rights as you or me. In particular, they have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

The erosion of civil liberties is becoming increasingly worrying and should not be taken lightly.

I don't like the way that the debate continues to be mischaracterised - that if you care about human rights and civil liberties, you must support terrorists.

I think ET remembers that Pakistani man who was deported (after being mistakenly identified) to a foreign country for torture.

Khalid El-Masri is actually a German whose only crime was to have a name to close to that of one wanted Khalid Al-Masri.

That's the guy. In today's debate - this kind of thing is exactly why we should be concerned with the erosion of civil liberties and personal freedoms. We can't make a case for justification on the basis that so-and-so is evil - ergo they "deserve" to be imprisoned without trial and/or tortured, because the implications of that treatment are wide-reaching.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From the link.

American authorities met with him and agreed to release him if he agreed never to tell the story of his ordeal to anyone.

and a brief timeline:

A November 9, 2005 Reuters story stated that a German prosecutor is investigating El-Masri's kidnapping "by persons unknown", and that another lawyer, Manfred Gnjidic, would be flying to the U.S. to file a civil compensation suit.[8] The Reuters story says American authorities have neither confirmed nor denied any element of El-Masri's story.

According to a December 4, 2005, article in the Washington Post, the CIA's Inspector General is investigating a series of "erroneous renditions", including El-Masri's.[3] The article was written by Dana Priest, the journalist who broke the story on the covert interrogation centres — the "black sites".

On December 5, 2005, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that the United States had acknowledged holding El-Masri in error.[9]

On December 6, 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union helped El-Masri file suit in the USA against former CIA director George Tenet and the owners of the private jets, leased to the US government, that the CIA used to transport him.[10] El-Masri had to participate via a video link because the American authorities again confused him with al-Qaeda terrorist Khalid al-Masri and denied him entry when his plane landed in the United States. Some press reports attributed the Americans barring him entry due to his name remaining on the watch list. But his lawyer, Manfred Gnjidic, was also barred entry.

On December 17, 2005, Front magazine published an article that said a member of a German Intelligence Agency had clandestinely passed a copy of El-Masri's dossier to the CIA in April 2004.[11]

El-Masri published a first-person account of his experience in the Los Angeles Times.[12]

A report on March 2, 2006, claimed that El-Masri may have been a leader of a radical Lebanese group "El-Tawhid" during the early 1980s - the time of the Lebanese Civil War.[13] The Arabic name for the Levantine Druze ethnic group is '"Ahl al-Tawhid". German reports assert that El-Masri reported his being a member of "El-Tawhid" or "Al-Tawhid" when he applied to Germany for refugee status, in 1985 - a reference either to the civil war group or his ethnic identity. The reference to "El-Tawhid" may have been confused with the group Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi lead, Al Qaeda in Iraq, used to be called "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad".[14][15] "Al-Tawhid" translates simply as "monotheism". "Ahl al-Tawhid", the Druze's name for themselves, translates as "people of monotheism". "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad", the former name for Zarqawi's group, translates as the "movement for monotheism and struggle".

On May 12, 2006, a U.S. federal court heard a government motion to dismiss the suit brought by El-Masri, claiming the trial could jeopardize national security.[16]

On Thursday, May 18, 2006, U.S. Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis, III dismissed a lawsuit El-Masri filed against the CIA and three private companies allegedly involved with his transport, explaining that a public trial would "present a grave risk of injury to national security."[17] Ellis also acknowledged that if Masri's allegations were true then he deserved compensation from the US government.

The BND (German intelligence agency) declared on June 1, 2006 that it had known of el-Masri's seizure 16 months before Germany was officially informed of his mistaken arrest. Germany had previously claimed that it did not know of el-Masri's abduction until his return to the country in May 2004.[18]

On Wednesday, July 26, 2006, The ACLU announced that "it will appeal the recent dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Khaled El-Masri against the US government."[19] According to ACLU attorney Ben Wizner, "If this decision stands, the government will have a blank check to shield even its most shameful conduct from accountability."

On Wednesday October 4, 2006 the Washington Post reported that Munich prosecutors were complaining that a lack of cooperation from US authorities was impeding their investigation into El-Masri's abduction.[20] The article reports that Munich prosecutors have a list of the names, or known aliases, of 20 CIA operatives who they believe played a role in the abduction.

On Wednesday January 31, 2007 Munich Prosecutor Christian Schmidt-Sommerfeld announced that warrants for 13 people were issued for suspected involvement in Mr El-Masri's rendition.[21].

On February 21, 2007, the German Government decided to pass the warrants to Interpol despite interventions by US officials and concerns about political fallout.[22]

On March 2, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.[23]. The ACLU said it is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[24]

On April 30, 2007, The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled as unconstitutional the tapping of the phones of El-Masri's lawyer by Munich's DA office. The DA had requested the tapping claiming they expected the kidnappers to contact the lawyer "to find a solution to the case". [25]

Unjust doesn't even begin to adequately describe this...

[rclouse 0]

Why are Muslim extremists so threatened by what one guy says? Is their faith so weak it can't handle someone criticizing it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why are Muslim extremists so threatened by what one guy says? Is their faith so weak it can't handle someone criticizing it?

Apparently.

[SteveLaura 0]

I've never read a Rushdie novel, so I can't judge whether the knighthood is justified for his literary efforts. The whole honours system is outdated anyway. It's meaningless and twice a year I'm surprised at a number of people I have previously respected who continue this farce by accepting these honours.

Is it a two-fingered gesture to the Muslim world? I doubt it. Not offering the gong could also be seen as capitulation. And Rushdie knows only too well that he is putting his head back above the parapet again. He could have refused it, and no one would be any the wiser. I get the impression he likes the notoriety.

[mawilson 2,133]

Why are Muslim extremists so threatened by what one guy says? Is their faith so weak it can't handle someone criticizing it?

Has anyone even read the Satanic Verses? It's a pretty ordinary book about Indian immigrants

in England, and it's not insulting to Islam by any stretch of the imagination.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why are Muslim extremists so threatened by what one guy says? Is their faith so weak it can't handle someone criticizing it?

On balance that would be true of all religious extremists, not just the Islamic ones.

[SteveLaura 0]

Why are Muslim extremists so threatened by what one guy says? Is their faith so weak it can't handle someone criticizing it?

On balance that would be true of all religious extremists, not just the Islamic ones.

True. Blasphemy laws still exist in the UK.

[rclouse 0]

Why are Muslim extremists so threatened by what one guy says? Is their faith so weak it can't handle someone criticizing it?

On balance that would be true of all religious extremists, not just the Islamic ones.

Acknowleded, I agree.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why are Muslim extremists so threatened by what one guy says? Is their faith so weak it can't handle someone criticizing it?

Has anyone even read the Satanic Verses? It's a pretty ordinary book about Indian immigrants

in England, and it's not insulting to Islam by any stretch of the imagination.

I had to read Midnight's Children for a literary class a few years ago, but didn't much care for it - at the time, perhaps unfairly it was because I didn't see the experiences he was relating in the book as being particularly authentic. I should probably give it another try.

Not read The Satanic Verses - my understanding is that there's an allegorical dream sequence in it that was considered blasphemous.

[homesick_american 1]

I can't hear you guys over the sound of the bottom of the barrel being scraped.

The one that irritates me is Shami Chakrabati....she practically invented selective outrage. She sucks.

Who is she?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6758217.stm

Stands up for terrorists' rights.

Why can't she do the world a favor and blow herself up?

Careful before you condemn her out of hand. I'm not overly familiar with her - but the few quotes that I found would seem to suggest that if she supports terrorists rights, then so does every human rights charity; or indeed anyone who questions Bush administration policy regarding Guantanamo Bay, Secret "black hole" prisons, and the use of torture.

I think it would help to have lived here and listened to her bleating on the radio about terrorists' human rights for the last several years to appreciate her own special brand of selective indignation.