Thursday, 14 January 2010

Swimming with the right-wing fishies

It seems that if you're concerned about Islamic issues, as I am, you have to share your cyberspace with people who -- for the most part -- also think the following:
They love Sarah Palin, listen to Rush Limbaugh, support(ed) the Iraq war, voted for W, are pro-gun anti-abortion global warming deniers.  At least it seems so, and it makes me a touch uncomfortable, as I don't buy into any of those other than the issue of Islam.  They're not all like that in cyberspace, of course, but most.  I wonder why?  There is a book I've just received, which I have yet to read, which covers the interesting/frightening phenomenom of the alliance between the Left and Islamic radicalism: in brief, they share anti-Americanism, and all that flows from that; they share an "underdog" mentality, they share a .... what, I dont' know, I'll have to read it and report, but save to say that if Sharia were to be instituted in the UK or Europe, it's the lefties who would be the first for the chop, literally.  But t'were ever so, weren't it?
Mark Steyn ticks virtually all the boxes above, and even guest hosts Limbaugh from time to time.  But I love him, first cause he's very sound on Islam.  He writes well, amusingly and trenchantly.  He fought valiantly in a case of free speech vs. the Canadian Human Rights Commission and won.  His testimony to the Canadian parliament is online and is worth an hour of so, if you're of that bent...
Considering the issue of whether the pantiebomber Abdulmutallab should have been brought before a civilian or military court he says :
... Last November, the electorate voted, in effect, to repudiate the previous eight years and seemed genuinely under the delusion that wars end when one side decides it's all a bit of a bore, and they'd rather the government spend the next eight years doing to health care and the economy what they were previously doing to jihadist camps in Waziristan.

On the other hand, if we are now at war, as Obama belatedly concedes, against whom are we warring? "We are at war against al-Qaida," says the president.
Really? But what does that mean? Was the previous month's "isolated extremist," the Fort Hood killer, part of al-Qaida? When it came to spiritual advice, he turned to the same Yemeni-based American-born imam as the Pantybomber, but he didn't have a fully paid-up membership card.
Nor did young Umar Farouk, come to that. Granted the general overcredentialization of American life, the notion that it doesn't count as terrorism unless you're a member of Local 437 of the Amalgamated Union of Isolated Extremists seems perverse and reductive.... (full article here).

Now, it turns out that I was wrong in thinking that if the pantybomber were in a military court they could have continued to question him, whereas he has "lawyered up" in the civilian court and has stopped talking about the other 20 who are apparently in training for a similar attack. Turns out that's not the case; he could have "lawyered up" in a military court as well.  What's needed is apparently new legislation on the length of time a would-be terrorist could be held without charge.  It's during this time that there could be questioning without the presumption of silence.  Apparently Obama wanted to do this last year, but backed off when challenged by the human rights lobby.