Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Ashcroft wants more detention without trial

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztecfreenet.org
    ... Dear Eric, That s what passes for a speedy trial these days. So does al-Iryani mean the Aryan ? ... Pretty much the same grounds obtained for the
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 7, 2003
      >
      >Dear Kevin,
      >
      >This does sound serious. It sounds like Mr. Ashcroft
      >is not quite getting all that he wants. Still he'll
      >probably get part of it, and do his best to make do
      >with respect to the rest.
      >
      >One of the Arabic papers said that the Palestinian
      >professor in Florida, al-Iryani, who is suspected of
      >ties with Hamas or al-Jihad al-Islami today received a
      >trial date from some judge set for November 2005.
      >Meantime he's locked up without trial.

      Dear Eric,

      That's what passes for "a speedy trial" these days.
      So does "al-Iryani" mean "the Aryan"?

      >As I recall
      >al-Iryani was stupid enough to support the Bush
      >campaign in some capacity so he clearly was not a
      >consistent or clear headed Hamas supporter. It's not
      >like the nature of Bush was unknown to most folks on
      >the Palestinian street.
      >
      >I think the FBI or the Jews took some video tape where
      >he praised Hamas's guerrilla operations, and I suppose
      >publicly praising that amounts to "material support"
      >of terrorism.

      Pretty much the same grounds obtained for the convictions
      in the 1993 WTC bombing--thought crime.

      >Incidentally, when I was in Cincinnati last September
      >for David Irving's thing, I spoke to several
      >practicing lawyers who were there and asked them what
      >"material support" meant. None of them knew. It's
      >simply a vague term that can be applied arbitrarily,
      >depending on what a judge or jury will allow -- and
      >with Arabs, Muslims, and anti-Zionist radicals, that
      >would be anything.
      >
      >So if such a person as al-Iryani can be called a Hamas
      >(i.e., terrorism) supporter, anybody can. One would
      >think Ashcroft would be happy with that, but I suppose
      >you can't ever have enough security.
      >
      >Comradely,
      >
      >Eric

      Speaking of invitations for David Irving's annual
      conference in Cincinnatti, he invited Lenni Brenner,
      author of <Zionism in the Age of the Dictators>.
      Brenner answered with an e-mail that contained only
      an obscenity. Irving responded, "Is there a reason
      people dislike Jews?" or words to that effect.
      Ashcroft probably has people like Irving in his sights
      to be supporting even worse legislation. It's one
      thing to convince juries that any Arab or Muslim is
      dangerous. Convincing them that white Americans or
      white Europeans are dangerous sometimes requires
      presenting some evidence other than prosecutorial
      rhetoric, and Ashcroft apparently doesn't want that
      inconvenience.

      Comradely,

      Kevin
    • thekoba@aztecfreenet.org
      ... Dear Eric, That is comical! I suppose if one goes back far enough, we ve all had ancestors who were nudists :-) ... I seem to recall one passage in the
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 7, 2003
        >
        >Dear Kevin,
        >
        >
        >--- K J WALSH <thekoba@...> wrote:
        >> Dear Eric,
        >>
        >> That's what passes for "a speedy trial" these days.
        >> So does "al-Iryani" mean "the Aryan"?
        >
        >As a matter of fact, Sami al-Iryani's last name, oddly
        >enough, means "the Nudist" -- which I'm sure cannot
        >have anything to do with his or his ancestors' life
        >style.

        Dear Eric,

        That is comical! I suppose if one goes back far enough,
        we've all had ancestors who were nudists :-)

        >It's unfortunately much more likely that an
        >Islamist would embrace Bush and the aggression against
        >Iraq than become a nudist, which would be far less
        >socially damaging, in my view.
        >
        >I suspect there must be some tribe or clan that was
        >named al-Iryan, i.e., "naked", implying that they were
        >poor and didn't have much money with which to buy nice
        >new clothes -- not that they were literally naked.
        >Then a member of that family or tribe of al-Iryan
        >would be "al-Iryani" i.e., the Iryani person, like a
        >person from Iraq might be called "al-Iraqi" ("the
        >Iraqi").
        >
        >Anyhow, that's the only way I can figure out how he'd
        >get a surname like that. Nudism is definitely NOT a
        >tradition in the Islamic world -- though you might
        >argue that a greater degree of undress, including
        >public nudity, was socially acceptable in Pharaonic
        >Egypt, and possibly elsewhere in the region in ancient
        >times.
        >
        >The ancient Hebrews, to judge from the Bible, seem to
        >have had a definite fixation on wearing clothes.

        I seem to recall one passage in the Torah in which an
        Israelite ambassador had his robes cut short as an
        insult. Apparently it was considered unmanly to
        have short robes (though it can't have been convenient
        for running to have long ones).

        >It
        >has long seemed likely to me that this had something
        >to do with their being herdsmen, i.e., producers and
        >exporters of wool and yarn. I suppose in a hot, dry
        >climate a lack of clothing can be a serious problem
        >too -- skin cancer will get you if dehydration doesn't
        >first.
        >
        >But, as I say, the Egyptian wall paintings and
        >carvings indicate that for some 3000 years the
        >Egyptians had a rather non chalant attitude towards
        >the issue of dress or nakedness. Nudity tended to be
        >associated with the poor and working people, but not
        >with immorality or sin.

        That makes sense. When clothing was hand-woven, it
        was quite labour-intensive, so the poor could afford
        less of it. For much of ancient history leather was
        cheaper than cloth. Seems hard for us in the machine
        age to imagine.

        >In general, though, the ancient pagan world had a
        >somewhat healthier approach to morality than
        >subsequent societies -- they simply didn't bring God
        >into discussions of morality. That left morality in
        >the realm of rational argument and, at worst,
        >tradition -- both categories less subject to blind
        >prejudice than religion.
        >
        >>
        >> Speaking of invitations for David Irving's annual
        >> conference in Cincinnatti, he invited Lenni Brenner,
        >> author of <Zionism in the Age of the Dictators>.
        >> Brenner answered with an e-mail that contained only
        >> an obscenity. Irving responded, "Is there a reason
        >> people dislike Jews?" or words to that effect.
        >
        >When was this? Is it on his website now? I must
        >look. I checked last night and didn't see any
        >reference to this.

        It's buried in his latest edition of "A Radical's Diary".

        >Actually he's invited me back a few days ago, and I
        >plan to talk on the western news blackout on Iraq (by
        >citing what the Arabic press reports as opposed to
        >what the US press ignores.)

        I DO look forward to that videotape.

        >I would not have been eager to meet Brenner, with whom
        >I had a nasty e-mail exchange a year or so ago. I was
        >actually pretty reserved and he was all but shouting
        >"Nazi!" simply because I insisted that colonies,
        >including Jewish ones, need to go if you're going to
        >advocate decolonisation.

        That's rich! Decolonisation without getting rid of
        colonies! :-)

        >To him this is a "nationalist deviation" and
        >"internationalism" consists in allowing colonialists
        >to stay and in granting them equal status with the
        >natives because "the workingmen have no country."
        >
        >Yeah, well, on that basis socialism means I can become
        >a thief too since I don't believe in private property.
        >
        >I wouldn't have minded confronting him, but he would
        >clearly not have been prepared for a rational exchange
        >of views, not even about the role of the Zionists and
        >the Nazis, in which my perspective is more nuanced
        >than his.
        >
        >He says the Zionists and the Nazis worked together. I
        >say that's only half true, and it became less and less
        >true as the Nazis became aware of the role that the
        >Arabs could play in their policy, and after the
        >British voiced the idea of creating a Jewish state in
        >1937.
        >
        >Hitler never fully appreciated the importance of the
        >Arabs, and possibly in 1924-1945 the Arabs were indeed
        >not in a position to put much weight into the
        >international scale. But still the Nazis definitely
        >backed off from their backing of Zionists and Zionism
        >as the war drew closer, and it seems they supplied
        >arms to the Palestinians in the 1936-39 uprising. In
        >fact, almost at the same time, the Comintern began to
        >embrace the Zionists as "anti-fascists."
        >
        >The Nazis worked with the Zionists in their common
        >cause of getting the Jews out of Germany. But when
        >the possibility of a partition of Palestine and the
        >establishment of a Jewish state became real after the
        >1937 Peel Commission of Inquiry into the Palestinian
        >violence recommended that, Berlin came face-to-face
        >with what they had always thought was just a fantasy
        >and a pipe dream -- a Jewish state. Kicking the Jews
        >out of Germany was one thing; allowing them to
        >organize a state which the Germans said would be like
        >a Jewish vatican or Jewish Moscow for the Comintern --
        >that was very bad and "not in the interests of the
        >Reich."
        >
        >It has long been convenient for the left to link
        >Zionism with Nazism. I've done it too. Since both
        >insisted that Jews were an alien nationality in
        >Europe, their thinking had something in common. But
        >as a matter of fact it's now common for people to look
        >upon the Jews as some kind of nationality, so this
        >isn't unique to Nazis and Zionists.
        >
        >Anyhow, but even though the Germans did have that
        >ideological affinity with the Zionists, they must be
        >credited with understanding that the Arabs didn't want
        >thousands of alien Jews foisted on them either --
        >something that the rest of Europe and America never
        >seemed to grasp or care about. And in particular, the
        >Nazis opposed a Jewish state -- something that,
        >unfortunately, all the leading post-war powers,
        >including the USSR, accepted and even encouraged.
        >Opposition to a Jewish state marks the Nazi position
        >as quite different from the Zionist position.
        >
        >Therefore, linking Nazism to Zionism, as they do on
        >some signs at demos, is actually unfair to the Nazis.
        >
        >Being a traditional leftist, Brenner is happy to link
        >Nazism with Zionism. That way he can claim he's
        >anti-Zionist, insist that the Jews are not a race, and
        >then insist that the Jewish colony in Palestine is a
        >fait accompli, that those Jews aren't an "alien race"
        >in Palestine, but simply an arbitrarily designated
        >group of supranational working people, and that it
        >would be "racist" to try to evict them or even demand
        >that they apply for immigrant visas to Palestine.
        >
        >These Jews come up with a different answer depending
        >on the situation. And somehow each new answer allows
        >the Jews special consideration. They're a seperate
        >nationality when they want to build a colony or a
        >state; then when that becomes inconvenient, they
        >suddenly have no nationality and should be regarded as
        >indistinguishable from other working people (and
        >thereby be left to continue holding their stolen
        >goods).
        >
        >I believe Ibrahim Alloush had his own problems with
        >Lenni Brenner. They began on amicable terms years
        >ago, but then LB was one of the organizers of the
        >attack on the revisionist conference in Beirut and
        >Amman, and on the whole idea of an Arab open door to
        >revisionism. So I believe they are now totally
        >estranged too.

        Brenner was behind that ???!!! That piece of sh*t!
        I'm not sure why Irving would WANT to invite someone
        like that, or does he even know about it?

        Did you ever manage to find someone to translate Alfred
        Rosenberg's work on the Jewish question? I remember
        our friend in Indiana found the complexity of Rosenberg's
        German to be daunting.

        >> Ashcroft p robably has people like Irving in his
        >> sights
        >> to be supporting even worse legislation. It's one
        >> thing to convince juries that any Arab or Muslim is
        >> dangerous. Convincing them that white Americans or
        >> white Europeans are dangerous sometimes requires
        >> presenting some evidence other than prosecutorial
        >> rhetoric, and Ashcroft apparently doesn't want that
        >> inconvenience.
        >
        >
        >That is possible. I'm sure that David Irving would be
        >a worthy opponent in a courtroom, but we already know
        >that he dosen't win all his cases, and I fear that if
        >the US government wanted to prosecute him it could
        >pack the court with blubbering "Holocaust"
        >"never-let-this-happen-to-our-poor-defenseless-people-again"
        >witnesses. At least enough so that the "Joe
        >six-packs" and "Soccer moms," as William Pierce used
        >to call them, would convict on cue.
        >
        >The Canadians are doing a good job on Ernst Zuendel --
        >"no," they admit, "he didn't incite violence, but he
        >created a climate that was conducive to those who
        >incite violence." OK, well now that convicts the
        >whole population, one way or another, so they have all
        >they need for "security" if that line succeeds. But
        >Zuendel is still pending trial, or hearing or
        >whatever. Sitting in his cell and having to beg for
        >his soap or tooth brush on the floor in the corridor.
        >
        >
        >And of course, if they can quietly just whisk David
        >Irving from some airport arrival gate to a nameless
        >prison that would be easier for them than having to
        >give him a day in court.
        >
        >In other news, it seems the new security chief in the
        >Palestine Authority, Muhammad Dahlan (who has held
        >such posts on a lower level in Arafat's establishment
        >in the past) is now offering to pay fighters to hand
        >in their weapons. He's offering $6,000 for each "gun"
        >(I suppose that means each AK-47) turned in by
        >fighters in the Martyrs of al-Aqsa Brigades - the
        >military wing of Fateh -- the easiest nut to crack, I
        >suppose, or the biggest).
        >
        >$6,000, they say, is twice the black market price for
        >a weapon, and quite a lot of money where a teacher's
        >monthly salary runs $330 and where unemployment hovers
        >around 50 percent. Still, reportedly the West Bank
        >organization of the al-Aqsa Brigades has refused to
        >talk to Dahlan (though evidenly some in Gaza have been
        >willing to do so). Dahlan's plan has not actually
        >begun. It's supposed to start next week or soon
        >thereafter, and it is said that the money for this
        >outlay is coming from the US, UK, and European Union.
        >Britain has denied their part in it, though their
        >spokemsan said they would be glad to help to stop the
        >"violence." So it's pretty well understood that this
        >is some American approach. Well, so far it's not off
        >to a very smooth start.

        Reminds me of the "gun buyback" programmes the liberals
        have here. Only here they usually only offer $50.
        The only real result of them is that guns that no longer
        work anyway and guns that were used to commit crimes are
        disposed of to the profit of the owners. In this case
        only a mercenery would sell his AK-47 for $6000. Even
        on Palestinean wages, that can only take care of one for
        a couple years. Then what does one do to fight the
        Zionists and survive?

        Comradely,

        Kevin
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.