The Test
Keep your eye on this:
U.S. Backs Afghan Man Who Converted to Christianity
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
(Foxnews)
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration issued a subdued appeal Tuesday to Afghanistan to permit a Christian convert on trial for his life to practice his faith in the predominantly Muslim country.
The State Department, however, did not urge the U.S. ally in the war against terrorism to terminate the trial. Officials said the Bush administration did not want to interfere with Afghanistan's sovereignty.
The case involves an Afghan man who converted from Islam and was arrested last month after his family accused him of becoming a Christian. The conversion is a crime under Afghanistan's Islamic laws.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and department spokesman Sean McCormack asked Afghanistan to conduct the trial "in a transparent way." Burns said he told Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, with whom he held talks at the department, that "we would follow the case closely."
At a joint news conference, pressed by reporters, Abdullah said he hoped "through our constitutional process there will be a satisfactory result." He did not say whether the defendant, Abdul Rahman, 41, would be found innocent.
Abdullah said officials of his government "know that it is a very sensitive issue and we know the concerns of the American people." He said the Afghan Embassy in Washington had received hundreds of messages of concern.The Bush administration went to war four years ago, ousting the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan, and then joined with other countries to help steer the nation to constitutional rule. About 18,000 U.S. troops are on duty there, and more than 200 have died.
"Our government is a great supporter of freedom of religion," Burns said. "As the Afghan constitution affords freedom of religion to all Afghan citizens, we hope very much that those rights, the right of freedom of religion, will be upheld in an Afghan court."
Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., released a letter he said he had sent to Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressing dismay over the case.
"In a country where soldiers from all faiths, including Christianity, are dying in defense of your government, I find it outrageous that Mr. Rahman is being prosecuted and facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity, which he did 16 years ago before your government even existed," Lantos wrote.
German and Italian officials have voiced concern, too.
State Department spokesman McCormack contrasted the government in Kabul with its fundamentalist predecessor.
"Under the Taliban, anybody considered an apostate was subject to torture and death," he said. "Right now, you have a legal proceeding that is under way in Afghanistan."
McCormack said the administration underscored to Abdullah "that we believe tolerance and freedom of worship are important elements of any democracy."
U.S. Backs Afghan Man Who Converted to Christianity
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
(Foxnews)
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration issued a subdued appeal Tuesday to Afghanistan to permit a Christian convert on trial for his life to practice his faith in the predominantly Muslim country.
The State Department, however, did not urge the U.S. ally in the war against terrorism to terminate the trial. Officials said the Bush administration did not want to interfere with Afghanistan's sovereignty.
The case involves an Afghan man who converted from Islam and was arrested last month after his family accused him of becoming a Christian. The conversion is a crime under Afghanistan's Islamic laws.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and department spokesman Sean McCormack asked Afghanistan to conduct the trial "in a transparent way." Burns said he told Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, with whom he held talks at the department, that "we would follow the case closely."
At a joint news conference, pressed by reporters, Abdullah said he hoped "through our constitutional process there will be a satisfactory result." He did not say whether the defendant, Abdul Rahman, 41, would be found innocent.
Abdullah said officials of his government "know that it is a very sensitive issue and we know the concerns of the American people." He said the Afghan Embassy in Washington had received hundreds of messages of concern.The Bush administration went to war four years ago, ousting the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan, and then joined with other countries to help steer the nation to constitutional rule. About 18,000 U.S. troops are on duty there, and more than 200 have died.
"Our government is a great supporter of freedom of religion," Burns said. "As the Afghan constitution affords freedom of religion to all Afghan citizens, we hope very much that those rights, the right of freedom of religion, will be upheld in an Afghan court."
Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., released a letter he said he had sent to Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressing dismay over the case.
"In a country where soldiers from all faiths, including Christianity, are dying in defense of your government, I find it outrageous that Mr. Rahman is being prosecuted and facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity, which he did 16 years ago before your government even existed," Lantos wrote.
German and Italian officials have voiced concern, too.
State Department spokesman McCormack contrasted the government in Kabul with its fundamentalist predecessor.
"Under the Taliban, anybody considered an apostate was subject to torture and death," he said. "Right now, you have a legal proceeding that is under way in Afghanistan."
McCormack said the administration underscored to Abdullah "that we believe tolerance and freedom of worship are important elements of any democracy."
posted by John | 12:40 AM
7 Comments:
Of course Fox would print "America backs Afghani" while actually they aren't doing squat. Here's a better angle from the liberals
Who's Insane?
The latest development in the case of Christian convert Abdul Rahman is the Afghan government's trial balloon that he may be spared the death penalty if he is ruled insane. A top religious advisor to President Hamid Kharzai has said Rahman will undergo a psychological examination. "If he is mentally unfit," said Moayuddin Baluch, "he must be forgiven. The case must be dropped." Recall that Afghanistan was occupied by the Soviets for a decade (1979-1989). This is exactly what the Soviets did to dissidents, declaring them insane and placing them in "asylums". Many of the dissidents were Christians and Jews. Declaring Mr. Rahman insane may be a convenient way to dispel international criticism, but it does not resolve the greater damage done to democracy in the Islamic world if religious freedom remains only a dream. Meanwhile, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier expressed "deep concern" over Rahman's fate and pledged to intervene if necessary. The Italian Foreign Ministry said, "Italy will move at the highest level to prevent something [happening to Rahman] which is incompatible with...human rights and fundamental freedoms." German and Italian troops have joined the United States in Operation Enduring Freedom there. And what is our own State Department saying? "This is a question of the Afghan constitution and its laws," says spokesman Sean McCormack. Another tepid response. This is serious. If we do not resolve this case satisfactorily for freedom, the core purpose of the Global War on Terror will be at risk. What is terror but the willingness to murder innocent people who happen to disagree with you so that others like them will cower in fear?
Yes, well put. This is a test for Afghanistan and their new Constitution.
As for the "tepidness" of the U.S., today Rice called Karzai and said in no uncertain terms:
"...the fact that the United States stands forthrightly for principles of freedom of worship, freedom of expression, and that these are bedrock principles of democracy around the world, these are principles that are enshrined in the Afghan constitution and they're principles that are enshrined in the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights."
You'll often note a delay when the administration comes out and states its position on this or that issue (as Bush's delay in condemning--though prudently, if not tepidly, heh!--the cartoon riots) but that's because they have to gather as much information as possible (on the issue itself and the political ramifications) before releasing statements and taking actions.
"Of course Fox would print 'America backs Afghani' while actually they aren't doing squat."
They're reporting the news.
Actually, the title of the article is "U.S. Backs Afghan Man Who Converted to Christianity", when in my opinion the US did very, very, very little backing.
Secondly, Rice's words are worse than inaction. They are useless rhetoric. Read what the German's and Italian's have threatened. Why doesn't Rice come out say that retribution will be taken if unconstitutional acts are carried forth by the judiciary? (that's closer to what the German's are saying) What's the point of "freedom" if freedom of religion (and therefore, speech and expression) are not included? What freedom do they have? Freedom to wear green sandals?
Oh, and before I forget, if you think Bush stepped up address the cartoon issue, you really are drinking the kool-aid. He started incredibly weak (btw, look at what the German's and French said about it) and then upgraded to incredbily mushy.
Republicus, do you consider yourself a conservative or a Republican?
Hello Anonymous.
You said:
"Actually, the title of the article is "U.S. Backs Afghan Man Who Converted to Christianity", when in my opinion the US did very, very, very little backing."
This qualifies as "backing":
"Our government is a great supporter of freedom of religion," (Undersecretary of State) Nicholas Burns said. "As the Afghan constitution affords freedom of religion to all Afghan citizens, we hope very much that those rights, the right of freedom of religion, will be upheld in an Afghan court."
Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., released a letter he said he had sent to Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressing dismay over the case.
"In a country where soldiers from all faiths, including Christianity, are dying in defense of your government, I find it outrageous that Mr. Rahman is being prosecuted and facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity, which he did 16 years ago before your government even existed," Lantos wrote.
But I see what you mean:
"The State Department, however, did not urge the U.S. ally in the war against terrorism to terminate the trial. Officials said the Bush administration did not want to interfere with Afghanistan's sovereignty."
But note this: "the Bush administration did not want to interfere with Afghanistan's sovereignty."
We have to be very careful in nurturing the new system. If we start making demands and giving orders, the Afghan government will not appear to be sovereign, but a puppet.
"Secondly, Rice's words are worse than inaction. They are useless rhetoric."
Not at all. It was a very strong affirmation of principle--if not a hint.
Again, we don't want puppet governments or even the appearance that they are client states of Imperial America.
But agreed. Republicus wants the administration to not be cowed by the "antiwar" accusations about "Imperialism" and "unilateralism" and "Crusade Against Islam" and to just go ahead and feel free to use exclamation points.
"Read what the German's and Italian's have threatened. Why doesn't Rice come out say that retribution will be taken if unconstitutional acts are carried forth by the judiciary?"
We don't have to. They're doing it for us. And as for our ability--and willingness-- to be *more* forceful, that's been demonstrated in spades.
But yes, agreed.
"(that's closer to what the German's are saying)."
Good for them. Agreed.
"What's the point of "freedom" if freedom of religion (and therefore, speech and expression) are not included? What freedom do they have? Freedom to wear green sandals?"
Agreed. But this war is complex and at this stage of Afghanistani "democracy" you have to let them figure it out (with lots of hinting--if not outright guidance--from the West).
That, too, is Freedom.
"Oh, and before I forget, if you think Bush stepped up address the cartoon issue, you really are drinking the kool-aid. He started incredibly weak (btw, look at what the German's and French said about it) and then upgraded to incredbily mushy."
Republicus expressed that very disappointment in the February 07, 2006 post "The Evil Cartoons":
"Well-- aside from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- it appears there was some sort of media blackout on publicizing what all the fuss is about.
[...]
Even toughguy President Bush chided the 'insensitivity' of the cartoonists (who now have fatwahs on their heads).
Okay, Republicus understands that the President has to do his "Uniter Not Divider" and "Compassionate Conservative" and "We Are Not At War Against Islam" shtick between military operations against the very same type of hypersensitive, fanatical, psychopathic Islamicists who are now holding up signs saying "Damn Democracy!" and "Bush Bites!" (or somesuch), but come on, Dubya, at least throw in a plug for FREE SPEECH and express a little disapproval for the OVER-THE-TOP SPECTACLE OF WHAT LOOKS TO REPUBLICUS LIKE A TROOP OF SCREECHING MONKEYS INFECTED WITH MAD-COW DISEASE AND PLAYING WITH MATCHES."
Then, the very next day (no kidding), it seems the president read Republicus for he did come out stronger against the rioting and plugged free speech, as logged in the February 08, 2006 post "Tell It, Dubya":
BUSH REBUKES MUSLIM VIOLENCE, CHIDES PRESS
By TERENCE HUNT
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush condemned the deadly rioting sparked by cartoons of the prophet Muhammad on Wednesday, and his secretary of state accused Iran and Syria of trying "to inflame sentiments" across the Muslim world.
Bush urged foreign leaders to halt the spreading violence and to protect diplomats in besieged embassies.
The president spoke out about the controversy for the first time, signaling deepening White House concern about violent protests stemming from the publication of caricatures in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten and reprinted in European media and elsewhere in the past week.
"We reject violence as a way to express discontent with what may be printed in a free press," the president said.
At the same time, Bush admonished the press that its freedom comes with "the responsibility to be thoughtful about others."
Bush commented alongside King Abdullah II of Jordan at the White House. Abdullah, too, called for protests to be peaceful, but he also spoke against ridicule of Islam's holiest figure.
"With all respect to press freedoms, obviously anything that vilifies the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, or attacks Muslim sensibilities, I believe, needs to be condemned," the king said.
[...]
On Tuesday, Bush had called Denmark's prime minister to express "our support and solidarity" in the wake of the violence.
[...]
Republicus then commented:
1 Comments:
John said...
Wellll...I'm glad he came out for Free Speech and stuff, but he was still too wishy-washy.
He should have had a stronger rebuke against the maniacs."
But understand, Anonymous, that the United States and its allies PUMMELED Afghanistan and are still on search and destroy missions.
They're there. There's no need for Bush to remind them of that. They can just look out the window.
But the war cannot be won by military means alone. The strategy depends upon winning hearts and minds, as well (made much more difficult by the "antiwar" propaganda here which tells the world that we have imperialist motives, that we are "Christo-fascists" waging a war against Islam, that we want to steal resources, and so forth).
"Republicus, do you consider yourself a conservative or a Republican?"
Republicus is registered Independent, is a conservative/libertarian hybrid (which simply means that staunch conservatives would consider him Libertarian, and Libertarian purists would consider him Conservative), and votes Republican.
I would consider myself a libertarian if I had to use a label. That being said, I find alot of apologizing for an administration that in my opinion has been a waste of a great conservative opportunity.
Two points: 1. We indeed do want puppet governments and you know it. Why again did we invade Iraq in the early 90's to defend a repressive dictatorship in Kuwait? Was it because of our love of freedom?? How about overthrows of Haiti, Chile and talk in Venezuala? How do we support Saudi Arabia? You saw what happened in the Palestinian territories. Imagine what would happen if there were "free" elections in Egypt. Do you think maybe that's why we support Egypt as well? (possibly the second worst country in terms of human rights to Saudi Arabia) How about Pakistan which is run by a military dictatorship which overthrew an elected government.
I'm sorry Republicus, but any of us can sit around and throw out the party line. Backing it up and sticking to the principles are far tougher.
In the end, we will have spent trillions of dollars (although during the first election, W. swore he would not enter into deficit spending) and thousands of American lives for very little. In my mind, true conservatives knew this at the onslaught of the invasion and it has all been proven correct. (see Pat Buchanan, George Will)
Anonymous said...
"I would consider myself a libertarian if I had to use a label."
Great. The American Spirit appears-- to Republicus-- to be, at heart, Libertarian.
Although--to Republicus-- pure, unbrideled Libertarianism approaches Chaos and must be tempered by some regulating, some anchoring of principle aside from "Anything goes," a regulating which is-- by definition-- anti-Libertarian.
Libertarians acknowledge that, and hence attempt to transform the body politic towards the philosophy incrementally and find the conservative philosophy to be the closest in spirit (although they're not too keen about the neoconservative Intervensionist foreign policy or the security measures embodied in the Patriot Act).
Their natural, ideological enemy is the liberal socialist.
"That being said, I find alot of apologizing for an administration that in my opinion has been a waste of a great conservative opportunity."
No apologies. Justifications.
However, yes indeed, this ain't our parent's GOP...
A scrambling of traditional characteristics have occurred on both sides of the aisle. You had Clinton's "New Democrat" triangulating approach which appropriated conservativism as politically opportune (betraying his staunchest, liberal constituencies in the process) and Bush's Neoconservatism which likewise strays from the reservation (and has angered the "authentic" paleocons).
"Two points: 1. We indeed do want puppet governments and you know it."
No. We want allies. Partners. Cooperative--if not compatible--sovereign systems with indigenous leadership.
To say that a Western-minded, moderate modernist like Karzai or Allawi are "puppets" simply because they are Western-minded moderate modernists is assuming that the idea deemed universally-beneficial to humans--e.g. Western-minded moderate modernism--is merely the imperialistic imposition of an idea incompatible to alien cultures and at the expense of their native one, which is, presumably, "just as good" as Western-minded moderate modernism and should be left alone.
It was left alone, and the Taliban government saw fit to sponsor Al Qaeda training camps-- as well as overseeing the destruction of centuries-old monumental Buddhist sculpture and public execution by firing squad of "sinful" women.
Can you imagine what they would do to the adulteress Lafave?
They'd kill her for playing "pinky promises."
In Iraq we had an iron-fisted despot who had been a de-stabilizing influence for well over a decade (and even seeing fit to put a hit out on a POTUS) and who could only be valued by his dubious ability to keep the lid on Jihad by his easy willingness to torture and massacre thousands on practically a regular basis--if not by his willingness to appease them by spewing venom at the West and bribing Palestinian terrorists.
His connections to terrorists--including Al Qaeda--and even his sponsoring of terrorist training camps is a nexus now confirmed (though still hotly denied by the "antiwar" Left).
Then there's the issue of his WMD.
It turns out even his military officers believed he had them.
Bush didn't lie about the WMD.
Saddam did.
In a post 9/11 world and the enacting of an Intervensionist strategy aiming to re-wire the Middle Eastern zeitgeist, the Taliban and Saddam had to be the first to go.
Now it's only a matter of what will fill the vacuum: either more of the same, or moderate modernism.
Which would you prefer?
"Why again did we invade Iraq in the early 90's to defend a repressive dictatorship in Kuwait?"
To save them from a much more repressive dictatorship from Baghdad which sought to sieze a good-sized gas-pump of the civilized world's Number One energy resource, petroleum.
"Was it because of our love of freedom??"
No, not directly. It was in the interests of our (classically) liberal system and way of life.
Which loves Freedom.
"How about overthrows of Haiti, Chile and talk in Venezuala?"
They haven't crossed the line.
"How do we support Saudi Arabia?"
Saudi Arabia is taking the hint and has already--post-Iraqi invasion--enacted political reforms.
And we expect more.
"You saw what happened in the Palestinian territories."
Yes. Disheartening.
"Imagine what would happen if there were 'free' elections in Egypt. Do you think maybe that's why we support Egypt as well? (possibly the second worst country in terms of human rights to Saudi Arabia)."
Exactly. It's tricky, but ask yourself this: You are nobly concerned with the human rights records of "allies" like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and point out the "hypocrisy" of effecting change in other nations on (one of) the grounds of human rights abuses.
The other grounds you should consider is the diplomatic status of those countries--versus Taliban Afghanistan's or Baathist Iraq's--and their respective, *official* stances vis-a-vis terrorism and the War on Terror, and their own political situation and necessities.
They do not warrant military intervension--diplomatic pressure has to do for now.
Also, by implying that we are not demonstrating moral consistency by targeting one but exempting the other on the grounds of human rights, you are suggesting that it should be all or nothing.
Isn't something done to address human suffering better than nothing?
And it would be unrealistic to say, "Okay, Afghanistan, Iraq, and, er, what the hell, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We want you to change and we want it now. We're comin' in..."
Don't you think?
The alternative, as you suggest, would be to have done nothing, and just deal with the pre-war status quo.
To remind you of what that was like, cut and paste this to your address bar and go (or simply click on the bottom blog-entry and keep clicking all the way back to "Saddam Had To Go"):
http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2005/06/saddam-had-to-go.html
"How about Pakistan which is run by a military dictatorship which overthrew an elected government."
Musharaff is a western-minded moderate modernist who is an ally in the War on Terror.
"I'm sorry Republicus, but any of us can sit around and throw out the party line. Backing it up and sticking to the principles are far tougher."
It is tricky.
War always is.
"In the end, we will have spent trillions of dollars (although during the first election, W. swore he would not enter into deficit spending)."
That was pre-9/11.
Unless, of course, you subscribe to what Charlie Sheen and such are saying (that 9/11 was a pre-meditated and carefully planned "neocon" plot to invade the Middle East).
"...and thousands of American lives for very little."
Not at all. Victory would mean a changed--and far better--world.
"In my mind, true conservatives knew this at the onslaught of the invasion and it has all been proven correct. (see Pat Buchanan, George Will)."
Buchanan is an Isolationist, and is biased against intervensionism--and globalization-- itself. Haven't read up on Will (but will do some homework on him).
Those guys foresaw the post-war difficulties--moreso than the administration strategists and their generals did--but that doesn't say much for the necessity.
Again, should we have just left "well enough" alone?
There is a "Clash of Civilizations," but the "Crusade" is theirs.
So is the intolerance. And the racism. And the violence. And the hate.
You fight back against that, or you don't.
Post a Comment
<< Home