Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 525 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Afghan Journalist for CTV labelled "unlawful enemy combatent"
[Read the article: Majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Afghan journalist for CTV labelled 'unlawful enemy combatant'
Last Updated: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 | 8:27 AM ET
The Associated Press
The U.S. military has designated a journalist employed by CTV* in Afghanistan as an unlawful enemy combatant.
A military spokesman told the Associated Press that a review board has determined Jawed Ahmad, an Afghan national, is a danger to foreign troops and the Afghan government.
Ahmad has been held for the last four months at the U.S. military compound in Bagram, 50 kilometres north of the capital, Kabul. U.S. officials alleged he had Taliban phone numbers and videos in his possession when he was picked up.
Maj. Chris Belcher, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, says Ahmad was given an opportunity to provide a statement to the military's enemy combatant review board.
Belcher did not say when the review took place or whether Ahmad was represented by counsel.
Belcher also refused to provide details about what he called "credible information" against Ahmad. Nor would he say whether the military believed Ahmad had any more contact with the Taliban than other journalists working in Afghanistan.
It is common for journalists in Afghanistan to have contact information on Taliban fighters so that they can seek comments for news stories.
(link in signature)
* - CTV is a Canadian network - S
-
Asher Steinberg:
[Read the article: Majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What is your point?
They're all irreconcilable nutcases because you have a clip of some propaganda?
I guess it's fair game to judge a whole people or culture by the actions of a minority now?
-
hmm
[Read the article: Majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Israel has tried to live up to all it's agreements, with limited success.
They could start with living up to the UN charter as they are a signatory and it makes annexing territory illegal as well as the geneva conventions which forbid collective punishments.
-
Glenn:
[Read the article: Majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I believe, without being certain, that Salon is going -- once again -- to ban anonymous commenters and require that a name be used. Spittle like this is why I have become convinced that this is a good idea.
I'm very pleased to hear it.
-
Ralph:
[Read the article: Majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I gather you think this incident demonstrates the futility of negotiating with Hamas.
When did Hamas win the election again? How long has Israel and the US been assiduously not negotiating with them? It's working real well isn't it! Who would want to change course under such an auspicious record of unmitigated success?
Just like not talking to North Korea and Cuba was so successful in bringing a speedy end to those undemocratic threats to peace and world stability.
This whole silent treatment shit never ever worked anywhere. I can see why this appeals so strongly to right wingers.
-
siempre
[Read the article: The "father of modern conservatism," dead at 82]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]George Bush41 is not extreme. He carried out a policy to eliminate one of the worst dictators in modern history with the approval of Congress and over sixty nations participation. It has been dificult as he said it would be.
I assume you mean Bush 43.
Was elminating one of the worst dicators why Bush invaded Iraq? I don't remember that being the reason at all.
I also know the US government has tortured people in its custody and there is no Executive branch investigation or prosecutions pending for that since it was sanctioned by the President.
Torture is pretty extreme and that alone justifies branding Bush extreme and one need go no further.
-
Yellow dog:
[Read the article: The "father of modern conservatism," dead at 82]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As an article in the December Washington Monthly argues, the real problem conservatives have with Smirky is not that he abandoned true conservative values; it's that he took vicious ideologues like Buckley at their word and actually put their theories into practice.
Good post. I'd also posit that the real reason conservatives can't really ever keep the theory and practice of their ideas lined up is that the real premise is to create and support an aristocracy. It's antithetical to democracy so it's kind of unpopular. So they draft up a bunch of specious nonsense to run on, and then govern like Louis XIV.
As a thought exercise to the reader, picture yourself as a plutocrat with an 8+ digit bank account and imagine how you feel about the Bush presidency. From their perspective, Bush has been outstanding. Hell, even the Katrina response showed his priorities: Rebuilding Trent Lott's house.
-
Also, the Wingnut Cruise
[Read the article: The "father of modern conservatism," dead at 82]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm so glad Glenn remembered to include that choice incident. I was thinking about the wingnut NRO cruise incident as I was reading this article even before I got to that part.
It is these rare glimpses into what they do when they think no one is looking that tells us what we really need to know about conservativism.
-
A Billion Angry Bees
[Read the article: The "father of modern conservatism," dead at 82]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're really a one-song juke box aren't you.
-
A Billion Angry Bees
[Read the article: The "father of modern conservatism," dead at 82]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, well when you come off with non-sequiturs about people being "antizionist" apropo of nothing in this article or thread, you just sound deluded and bizarre.
-
ABAB:
[Read the article: Some hateful, radical ministers -- white evangelicals -- are acceptable]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clearly, since you offer zero examples, you're squarely in the camp who believes or claims to believe for expediency's sake that Farrakhan is merely a great and noble man misunderstood as all great men are.
When you say "clearly" you should follow that with a logical conclusion that is clear and inescable to any other observer with possession of rational faculties.
That Glenn did not include objectionable quotes of Farrakhan is not a "clear" indication of what Glenn thinks about Farrakhan instead, but does make clear your persecution complex that assumes anyone who does not strenuously criticize the man must be a supporter of his.
For example in this comment I did not criticize Farrakhan either, which must mean I think he too is great. Is that how this works?