Some interesting discussion (and fodder for potential new “Routers” pieces) over at Winds of Change.

Some interesting discussion (and fodder for potential new “Routers” pieces) over at Winds of Change.

Some interesting discussion (and fodder for potential new “Routers” pieces) over at Winds of Change.

The Muslim extremists (and yes, I don’t need scare quotes around that word) that Britain is threatening to deport are taunting them with lawyers:

Al-Siri, who faces execution in Egypt for the murder of a six-year-old girl in a terror bomb blast, said: ‘I don’t think any British judge can accept any agreement between the UK and any Middle East country like Egypt.’

The 42-year-old, who denies involvement in terrorism, added: ‘Any judge here can take this agreement and throw it in the rubbish basket.

‘I still trust the UK with human rights and, while Tony Blair may want to change the laws, there is still the Magna Carta.’

Saudi dissident Dr Saad Al-Fagih, who has been described as ‘global terrorist’ by the U.S., also said he was not worried by Mr Clarke’s threat.

He said: ‘There is no reason why I should go, none whatsoever. I am doing nothing wrong. If any attempts are made I will contact my lawyer and go through the due process.’

These are people who have utter contempt for human rights (or for that matter, human life) as we understand them, and given the chance, would institute a regime in which they were non-existent. Yet they are sufficiently confident in our own belief in them that they will cheerfully use that against us. They may be misunderestimating the patience of the British people, though:

The Government has also signalled it is prepared to amend the Human Rights Act to achieve its aims.

We’ll see if July 7th had the same impact on Britain as September 11th did on us. Now, perhaps they, like we, now understand that when people say they want to kill us, we should take them seriously.

I do wonder, though, if Cherie Blair will be one of the lawyers fighting their extradition? That would make for some interesting bedroom conversation at 10 Downing Street.

The Muslim extremists (and yes, I don’t need scare quotes around that word) that Britain is threatening to deport are taunting them with lawyers:

Al-Siri, who faces execution in Egypt for the murder of a six-year-old girl in a terror bomb blast, said: ‘I don’t think any British judge can accept any agreement between the UK and any Middle East country like Egypt.’

The 42-year-old, who denies involvement in terrorism, added: ‘Any judge here can take this agreement and throw it in the rubbish basket.

‘I still trust the UK with human rights and, while Tony Blair may want to change the laws, there is still the Magna Carta.’

Saudi dissident Dr Saad Al-Fagih, who has been described as ‘global terrorist’ by the U.S., also said he was not worried by Mr Clarke’s threat.

He said: ‘There is no reason why I should go, none whatsoever. I am doing nothing wrong. If any attempts are made I will contact my lawyer and go through the due process.’

These are people who have utter contempt for human rights (or for that matter, human life) as we understand them, and given the chance, would institute a regime in which they were non-existent. Yet they are sufficiently confident in our own belief in them that they will cheerfully use that against us. They may be misunderestimating the patience of the British people, though:

The Government has also signalled it is prepared to amend the Human Rights Act to achieve its aims.

We’ll see if July 7th had the same impact on Britain as September 11th did on us. Now, perhaps they, like we, now understand that when people say they want to kill us, we should take them seriously.

I do wonder, though, if Cherie Blair will be one of the lawyers fighting their extradition? That would make for some interesting bedroom conversation at 10 Downing Street.

The Muslim extremists (and yes, I don’t need scare quotes around that word) that Britain is threatening to deport are taunting them with lawyers:

Al-Siri, who faces execution in Egypt for the murder of a six-year-old girl in a terror bomb blast, said: ‘I don’t think any British judge can accept any agreement between the UK and any Middle East country like Egypt.’

The 42-year-old, who denies involvement in terrorism, added: ‘Any judge here can take this agreement and throw it in the rubbish basket.

‘I still trust the UK with human rights and, while Tony Blair may want to change the laws, there is still the Magna Carta.’

Saudi dissident Dr Saad Al-Fagih, who has been described as ‘global terrorist’ by the U.S., also said he was not worried by Mr Clarke’s threat.

He said: ‘There is no reason why I should go, none whatsoever. I am doing nothing wrong. If any attempts are made I will contact my lawyer and go through the due process.’

These are people who have utter contempt for human rights (or for that matter, human life) as we understand them, and given the chance, would institute a regime in which they were non-existent. Yet they are sufficiently confident in our own belief in them that they will cheerfully use that against us. They may be misunderestimating the patience of the British people, though:

The Government has also signalled it is prepared to amend the Human Rights Act to achieve its aims.

We’ll see if July 7th had the same impact on Britain as September 11th did on us. Now, perhaps they, like we, now understand that when people say they want to kill us, we should take them seriously.

I do wonder, though, if Cherie Blair will be one of the lawyers fighting their extradition? That would make for some interesting bedroom conversation at 10 Downing Street.

Australia has told extremist Muslims to love it or leave it:

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament.

“If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you,” he said on national television.

“I’d be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false.

“If you can’t agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practises it, perhaps, then, that’s a better option,” Costello said.

Sounds reasonable to me. Let’s hope that Britain, and even the US, take a hint.

As a grieving widow, I wonder if Lisa Ramaci-Vincent has absolute moral authority? Maybe she should camp out in front of Tisch Hall in Ann Arbor until Professor Cole meets with her. I’m sure that the media would give it big coverage…

Apparently, many families with members serving in Iraq aren’t as impressed with Mother Sheehan as the MSM seems to be. And seems to want us to be.

[9 AM EDT Update]

Here’s a specific grieving father who says that Cindy Sheehan doesn’t speak for him. Does he (in defiance of the meaning of the word “absolute”) have less “absolute moral authority” than she does, Maureen? Or is it only grieving parents who are opposed to the war, and think that Bush did it for oil and imperialism, and is waging a nuclear war in Iraq, and should be impeached, who have that quality?

And he makes an excellent point. If, as she says, the moral authority of parents whose offspring (and no, they’re not children, despite your and others’ attempt to infantilize them for political purposes) are killed in Iraq is truly absolute, how does she reconcile these apparently conflicting views?

[Update at 11:40 AM EDT]

Mark Steyn has further related thoughts at The Spectator (registration required).

Apparently, Senator Feingold is going to call for a fixed date to remove troops from Iraq. This idea has been amply discussed in the blogosphere (short version of the criticism–it allows the “insurgents” to run out the clock, after which they can have their way with the Iraqis). But I need this explained to me: