 And so, despite the all the naysayers and second-guessers, the lawyers in the Rifqa Bary case have negotiated a reasonable and potentially life-saving settlement which will allow Rifqa to remain in state custody until she becomes 18 (which will happen in August), at which time she herself will decide whether or not she wishes to be reunited with her family. According to the Columbus-Dispatch, Rifqa has admitted that she’d been “unruly” when she’d fled her home, and the “family will try to resolve their issues with counseling.” In a statement read by Rifqa’s attorneys, ‘both she and her parents said they loved each other and believe counseling is the best route.” Ahem. The family’s honor has now been slightly salvaged by Rifqa’s open admission (clearly, an admission that had been required) that she’d been…”unruly.” Is it “unruly” to choose one’s own God, or to try and save one’s own life? I’m just asking. In any event, in grand American tradition, “counseling” is seen as an all-purpose, face-saving panacea, a way of avoiding a more superficial or harsher rule of law—a way of dealing with problems that are far beyond (or beneath) a judge’s purview. Thus, “The case plan for Rifqa and her parents says they should talk about their respective religions and visit and communicate regularly.” Had there been no settlement, I would have testified as an expert witness in this case. Luckily, thanks to the good lawyering involved, my testimony was not required. And so, the Bary family (the teenager and her parents) will now enter counseling—always a dicey proposition in my opinion; girls and women are especially vulnerable to false promises of happy endings and true love. Many grown, battered women, report how well their sociopathic batterers bond with their counselors, and how their own anxieties and justified paranoia is minimized, scorned. Ultimately, these women may not only be diagnosed as “crazy,” they may also lose their children, their homes, even their lives—right under their counselor’s nose. One can only hope that the counselor in the Bary case will know a great deal about the nature of honor killings and the fate of apostates in Islam. For example, in the tragic case of Toronto’s Aqsa Parvez, the counselors at the shelter for battered women to which she fled did not understand the dynamics involved in an honor killing family and, when Aqsa’s mother called to say she missed her, they simply allowed Aqsa to go; Aqsa went home and was promptly killed by her father and brother. Aqsa’s crime? She did not want to wear hijab. Speaking of honor killings and what counselors do and don’t understand: I am about to publish a new study about honor killings (due out in the next issue of Middle East Quarterly) in which I studied 230 honor killing victims on five continents. Therefore, I am not at all surprised by the “surprising” news coming out of Finland concerning a potentially “new” kind of victim. Native Finnish women who marry “immigrant” men (the article simply will not use the word “Muslim”) have begun to flee for their lives to avoid being honor-killed—but not only by their husbands, but by their husbands’ family, even by his entire clan. One Finnish woman who married into an “immigrant” family says: “They’ve threatened to kidnap my children, and my husband has repeatedly threatened to kill me. He says nobody can stop them, that horrible things happen, and he doesn’t even have to do them himself, that revenge will come from the clan….
The Multicultural Women’s Association Monika, which runs a safe house for immigrant women and their children, says that more and more Finnish women are turning to them when Finnish authorities fail to understand the threat of honour violence.” According to Nasima Razmyar, Monika’s Project Manager: “You can have 200 people involved in honour-related violence, that is, the entire extended family. And not just the family in Finland, but relatives abroad and back in the home country. In general, our laws need to understand much better this type of group threat…One problem is that Finnish authorities in social services and on the police force treat honour violence just like any other case of domestic violence. They don’t take into account the fact that instead of a dispute between two individuals, honour violence pits a single woman against the wrath of a large group of people.” One hopes and prays that the counselor assigned to the Bary family understands the nature of honor killings. They can certainly read my first study, which appeared in Middle East Quarterly. And, I will gladly send him or her my new study as soon as it is published. P.S. Tundra Tabloids reports that Finnish state news had pulled the article about honor-related violence in Finland but restored it recently in a more sanitized form. Here’s what was deleted from the original article: “Among immigrants honor violence has occurred in Finland for many years.” “She said that her marriage was hell, but no one believed her.” “The woman is the man’s property and thus can assault the woman however he pleases, if the woman refuses to obey the rules.” “Honor violence has been increasing in recent years in Finland, when unmarried young women immigrants from a foreign culture struggle under the pressure. They may be forced to marry and be prohibited from socializing with Finns.” “We’re currently unable to secure and protect the lives of people in the way that the authorities should do, Hukkanen says.” Once again, I wish to acknowledge Esther’s fine work at IslaminEurope.blogspot.com Phyllis Chesler 
 The American people overwhelmingly think that the Christmas Day airplane bomber, not to mention 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, should be treated as enemy combatants, not common criminals or Prisoners of War afforded protections under the Geneva Conventions.
Interestingly enough, Attorney General Eric Holder agrees -- at least, he did back in 2002.
Here’s what he said when discussing the 9/11 terrorists: “One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located.…It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves,…that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not.”
Holder also acknowledged back then that giving terrorists access to lawyers and telling them they have the “right to remain silent” -- as the Obama administration did with the Christmas day bomber -- means you can no longer effectively interrogate them.
In a 2002 interview on CNN, Holder was asked about John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban captured in Afghanistan and brought to America for trial. “How much pressure should they put on this man to get information out of him as they interrogate him?” CNN asked. Holder replied, “Well, I mean, it’s hard to interrogate him at this point now that he has a lawyer and now that he is here in the United States.” How times have changed. In his shocking new book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA has Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack, author Marc Thiessen reveals a stunning reversal of opinion when Holder said years later in a speech to the American Constitution Society “I never thought I would see the day when…the Supreme Court would have to order the President of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention.” Like so many others in this administration, Holder puts political convenience above common sense, military tradition and any concern for the safety of American citizens. As Thiessen points out in Courting Disaster, this is just one more instance of the Obama administration endangering our safety and inviting the next terrorist attack.
 For six years the burning cause of the American left was the fate of the captured terrorists being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Civil rights lawyers, pundits and Democratic congressmen joined voices to denounce military tribunals, detention of captured terrorists without access to their ACLU lawyers and of course that unholy terror of MSNBC commentators, waterboarding. And they got their way. The Bush Administration, that for all its faults that had at least cared about protecting Americans against Islamic terrorism, under pressure from the courts gave in, and when the official candidate of Islamic terrorists, MSNBC commentators and ACLU lawyers took office, it was all over but the suicide bombings. Barry Hussein signed the order closing Guantánamo Bay, released many of its residents, and gave civilian trials to others. And thus far of the terrorists who have been released, one in seven has returned to terrorist activity. And that number likely underestimates the true picture by quite a lot. In 2006 Thomas Wilner, the lawyer for a number of the terrorists, penned an emotional article for the Los Angeles Times calling Gitmo, an American Gulag and a living nightmare. Naturally of course all his Kuwaiti clients were innocent little lambs who just happened to be hanging around Afghanistan before being snatched up into the cruel and unfeeling maw of the US military industrial complex, inhumanly tortured and deprived of their humanity. Two years later after his release, one of Wilner's innocent lambs, Abdallah al-Ajmi, hailed as the "Lion of Guantanamo" murdered 13 Iraqi policemen in a suicide bombing. Naturally instead of admitting that he had worked tirelessly to release a Jihadi terrorist from Gitmo, leaving him free to kill, Wilner instead blamed the US government for turning his formerly lamb-like client who had been picking flowers in the valley of Kandahar into a violent terrorist by imprisoning him in Guantánamo Bay. This of course is the usual sort of thing that defense attorneys claim when their completely innocent clients who had previously torched an orphanage and bombed a bus full of nuns, are released and unsurprisingly go back to doing exactly what they were doing before. "It's the prison life that did it, your honor," the lawyers argue. "If only my client hadn't been caught and sent to the hole, he'd still be a lamb." In 1980 many of the same liberals who fell in love with the Gitmo killers embraced a murderer and bank robber named Jack Abbott. They praised his literary skills and fought for his release. Norman Mailer helped publish his book. Susan Sarandon named her son after him. Less than two months after his release Abbott demanded to use a restaurant restroom. He was refused by the night manager. In turn Abbott stabbed the man to death. His defense was that his dehumanizing treatment in prison had made him incapable of acting in any other way. But what had become a laughable defense to most Americans, was brushed off not just for Abdallah al-Ajmi or the other innocent lamb/terrorists of Guantanamo Bay who went back to their old profession once they were shipped back to Yemen, Kuwait or Russia-- but for Islamic terrorism in general. It is the most common defense used on behalf of Palestinian Arab terrorism, when every charge is met with, "But what choice do they have. Israel built a wall and imprisoned them. They're only responding to the dehumanization inflicted on them." The presumption behind this defense is that the terrorists are always innocent victims and their terrorism is the consequence of oppression by their targets. An argument often accompanied by the W.H. Auden citation from his poem September 1, 1939; "I and the public know, What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done, Do evil in return." Often those quoting the stanza remain unaware of the poem they are quoting from, and its awful relevance. September 1, 1939 was the date of Hitler's invasion of Poland. The previous line that is generally left out by the bleeding hearts who cite Auden, "What huge imago made, A psychopathic god" is of course a reference to Hitler. Even with German troops marching into Poland, Auden still hid Nazi Germany behind the rhetoric of victimology, painting the Nazi forces as much victims as oppressors. But it might be just as well to draw from W.H. Auden's poem, Spain, written in support of the Soviet Union's work in the Spanish Civil War. "To-day the deliberate increase in the chances of death, The conscious acceptance of guilt in the necessary murder." The necessary murder of course is that murder which must be committed in the name of a cause, as differentiated from imperialist murders which are committed to stop the people who are committing murders in the name of a cause.
The suicide bombings of Muslim terrorists today, like the Red Terror, are one of those necessary murders being committed by the Jack Abbotts with beards and keffiyahs running around the world today. After 13 dead in Mosul whose families he has never visited, his lawyer of course has no regrets. "Guantanamo took a kid -- a kid who wasn't all that bad -- and it turned him into a hostile, hardened individual," Wilner said. The kid in question being Abdallah al-Ajmi, a Jihadist who had tried to fight in Chechnya and then Afghanistan, threatened his own lawyer and on release, went to fight in Iraq and murdered 13 Iraqi police officers. The real story of course as always is behind the scenes. Thomas Wilner and his prestigious law firm, Shearman & Sterling, are not some gang of bearded radicals huddling in an East Village basement office. They're a prestigious law firm whose bill was footed by the Kuwaiti government. Shearman & Sterling did not simply have managing partners like Wilner represent captured terrorists, they launched a massive lobbying campaign on their behalf.
 An attorney for the man charged in the deadly shootings at Fort Hood says the Army has prohibited his client from praying in Arabic with his family. Attorney John P. Galligan said police stopped a phone conversation between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and his brother on Friday because it was not in English.
Galligan told the San Antonio Express-News that police at Brooke Army Medical Center refused to let Hasan pray in Arabic. Galligan says he thinks that's illegal and violation of Hasan's religious rights. Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the Nov. 5 attack. The military has imposed restrictions requiring Hasan to speak only in English on the phone or with visitors unless an interpreter is present. SFGate
 A new and insidious form of the courtroom jihad. Why is a group that is considered a terrorist organization in Britain able to operate so freely in that country? "Hamas helping British lawyers target Israel," by Con Coughlin in the Telegraph, December 21
Activists from Hamas, the Palestinian group, have been helping British lawyers bring war crimes prosecutions against Israeli officials in London. The group, considered a terrorist organisation in Britain, is believed to have provided information which helped sympathisers secure an arrest warrant against Tzipi Livni, Israel's former Foreign Minister at Westminster Magistrates Court earlier this month. Mrs Livni, who was a cabinet minister during last year's Israeli military offensive in Gaza, was forced to cancel a trip to London last week. A major diplomatic incident was averted only after Mrs Livni, who is now Israel's opposition leader, was alerted to the warrant and pulled out of a speaking engagement at the last minute. It has now emerged that a committee set up by the Hamas government was providing information to help pro-Palestinian lawyers investigating alleged war crimes. Diya al-Madhun, the judge who heads the committee, said: "We provide documents, reports and evidence of crimes to all international bodies aiding the Palestinian people in bringing Israeli civilian and military leaders to trial and issuing warrants for their arrest. "We have provided a group of independent lawyers in Britain with documents, information and evidence concerning war crimes committed by Israeli political and military leaders, including Livni." He added however that the foreign lawyers acted independently and were not hired by the Islamist Palestinian group. Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by Britain, Israel, the US and the EU, but it is seen by its supporters as a legitimate resistance movement.... With thanks to JihadWatch
 Texas (AP) - An Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people during an attack on his Texas post will likely plead not guilty to the charges against him and may use an insanity defense at his military trial, his attorney said Monday. John Galligan, the civilian attorney for Maj. Nidal Hasan, said he is considering an insanity defense among other options, but that it's too early to determine his defense strategy. "Based on the evidence thus far, his mental status must be raised," Galligan told The Associated Press by phone from his office near Fort Hood, about 130 miles southwest of Dallas. "Anybody who allegedly engages in conduct that is completely contradictory to his lifestyle and military career—an insanity defense has to be considered." Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder in the Nov. 5 shooting at Fort Hood, and military officials have said they may file more charges. More than two dozen others were wounded in the shooting spree, which happened at a building where soldiers finalize their wills and are medically screened before they are deployed. Galligan said military law requires his client to plead not guilty if prosecutors seek the death penalty, but he said that decision has not been made. Hasan remains in intensive care at a San Antonio military hospital, where he was taken after being shot during the attack. At a hearing in his hospital room Saturday, Hasan was ordered to remain in custody until trial. Galligan said he is frustrated because prosecutors are taking too long to respond to his questions and requests. He said he has asked why no witnesses were allowed to testify during Saturday's hearing, and why it was closed to the news media. He said he had planned to question Hasan's commander, who in documents indicated Hasan would be moved to an unspecified hospital but did not say when. Fort Hood officials did not immediately return calls seeking comment. Breitbart
 MADRID — A Muslim lawyer in Spain said Wednesday she was ejected from a courtroom for wearing a head scarf and has filed a discrimination complaint with the body that oversees Spain's judiciary system. Spanish law stipulates that trial lawyers must wear black robes but says nothing about head scarves. The General Council of the Judiciary, which supervises the Spanish court system, said it has opened a preliminary probe of the judge named in the complaint. An official with the council said he could not recall a similar incident. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in line with council rules. The attorney, Zoubida Barik Edidi, a Moroccan-born Spaniard, said she was attending an Islamic terror trial Oct. 29 at the National Court when Judge Javier Gomez Bermudez kicked her out of the room because of the purple scarf. Barik Edidi, 39, was sitting next to a colleague acting as defense attorney, but was not formally part of the defense team. The judge said defense attorneys or prosecutors at a trial cannot wear such a garment, she told The Associated Press. "Madam, you cannot remain in this courtroom," she quoted the judge as saying. Barik Edidi noted that she was not a defense attorney per se, and had attended the previous day's session without the judge complaining about her scarf. Gomez Bermudez said he had erred and should have thrown her out the first time. "This is my courtroom and here I give the orders," Barik Edidi quoted the judge as saying. Barik Edidi said her complaint accuses the judge of discrimination and abuse of authority, and that she is concerned about his action possibly being copied by other judges. "The fear I have is that I will not know what courtrooms I am allowed into and which ones I am not," she said. During that same trial — involving nine men accused of recruiting suicide bombers to go to Iraq — Gomez Bermudez expelled a witness who wore a burka-style outfit and refused his request that she show her face. The judge said Spanish court rules bar people from testifying with their face concealed. Read more here,,,, Source: FoxNews
 The lawyer for the Army psychiatrist accused in the mass shooting at Fort Hood says the suspected gunman was "coherent" when he spoke to him and he is "aware that he's a suspect," The Associated Press reported. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's attorney is retired Col. John P. Galligan, who has a long history practicing Army law and last served as Chief Circuit Judge at Fort Hood in Texas. Galligan said on CBS' "The Early Show" that he assured Hasan he'll be fairly treated in the military courts system and his rights will be respected, according to the AP. Galligan said Hasan, 39, was lucid and knew he was a suspect in the mass killings, "but there were no formal charges that I could discuss with him." The two met on Monday. Galligan said Tuesday he thought it would be difficult for Hasan to get a fair trial at Fort Hood in Texas "given the national media attention that has been focused" on the massacre, which left 13 dead and more than two dozen wounded. Hasan is suspected of opening fire the afternoon of Nov. 5 at a military processing center for soldiers coming back from and heading to war in Afghanistan or Iraq. At the time of Galligan's 2001 retirement, he was serving as the Chief Circuit Judge, 3rd Judicial Circuit, at Fort Hood. Born in 1949 at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Galligan grew up in a military family and accompanied his parents on assignments to Fort Churchill, Nevada; Canada; Taipei, Taiwan; and Istanbul, Turkey. After graduating from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service in 1971, Galligan became a second lieutenant in the military's intelligence division. He also served at various times as a combat arms officer in the infantry branch, a platoon leader and the Brigade Courts and Boards Officer with the 41st Infantry Combat unit at Fort Ord in California. He has his law degree from the University of Puerto Rico. Read more here,,,, Source: FoxNews
 The far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders intends to travel to London next week after an immigration tribunal ruling overturned a ban on visiting Britain.
Judge CMG Ockelton, who chaired the tribunal, said that Wilders's opinions were expressed strongly and in a way that was bound to cause offence but that the right of freedom of expression was important in a democratic society.
"Substantial evidence of actual harm would be needed before it would be proper for a government to prevent the expression and discussion of matters that might form the opinions of legislators, policy makers and voters," he said.
(more)
In a press release by the Party for Freedom, Wilders thanks three people:
“I would like to thank my brilliant barrister Mr Arfan Khan for his great work. Also, I would like to thank the chairman of the Birkenhead Society, Mr A. Pandiya for generously funding my appeal and also my solicitor Mr T. Emezie for his generous support.”
It's interesting to note that Tiki Emezie, Wilders' solicitor, is Black. Abhijit Pandya, the chairman of the Birkenhead Society, which supports British values, is of Indian-Ugandan origins. And Arfan Khan, Wilders' barrister, who is also a member of the Birkenhead Society, is Muslim.
Source: Islam in Europe
 By Supna Zaidi
"Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state."
If we polled Pakistanis today, what are the odds that anyone polled would be able to recognize that the above quote came from their nation's founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Secularism in the Muslim world has evolved into a dirty word, indicative not of "individual conscious", but selfish dictatorship. Religious parties across the region realize that the people are taken care of by their governments and so, selfishly make a grab for power by offering what civil society fails to. Take Egypt for example, the Muslim Brotherhood has sought to indoctrinate Egyptians into its militant anti-colonial Islamist rhetoric by operating hospitals, schools and other charities.
In Pakistan, the greatest void is in the area of education. In a country where the majority of its budget is reserved for the military, countless children (and now adults) remain illiterate and uneducated for decades. Foreign money, mostly Saudi filled the gap with Islamist madrassas that indoctrinated the youth with the same militant anti-colonial rhetoric that the Muslim Brotherhood prescribe in the Arab world.
Today, democratic institutions are not overthrown by Islamists, but undermined through the system. Arguing falsely that secularism is anti-religion, and anti-Muslim, Islamists are pushing for a paradigm shift in the Muslim world toward Islamism that never found success in Pakistan.
Minus the period of Islamic history ending with four "rightly guided caliphs", Muslims always gave lip service to their adherence to Sharia, but never lived under governmental and societal systems that were founded on it. Rather, institutions varied from Byzantine, Mongol to latter European adaptations. The severity of a life under complete Sharia was romanticized, but never realized. Even in post British India, the Khilafate movement stirred emotions, but never a majority following. Jinnah was a secular constitutionalist who married a Parsi, and whose daughter later married a Parsi.
The most critical mistake Jinnah made was concede "Islamic" in the name of Pakistan to quiet the religious clerics. Thus, the "Islamic nation of Pakistan" was born, and the subsequent identity politics it fostered continues today. But, without any quality education for the masses, the majority of Pakistanis do not even know the history of the subcontinent up till partition and the goals of its founder. Yet, they know Islam. Or think they do. Pakistani human rights activist, Asma Jahangir quipped that she found it amazing (in a negative way) that her children, upon a visit to India, realized that she had Hindu friends. But, unfortunately, they feel very confident in enforcing their Wahhabi inspired fanaticism.
Last month, I heard about a poor girl in Lahore who went to a tailor shop to get some clothes mended. She was wearing a sleeveless top and wore no headscarf. As of today, the hijab is still not the norm in Pakistan. A fourteen year old boy with a hot iron burned her on one of her bare arms for "not dressing modestly" and ran off. The tailor watched silently as the girl wailed for someone to do something. The tailor's sad response went a little like this, "If I retaliated against the boy, he and all his friend's would burn down my shop at night."
This is the law and order situation in Pakistan today. Pakistanis are either confident Islamists, or stuttering cowards who are too afraid to get involved. As of the "2008 elections, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of religious parties that ruled the NWFP from 2002-07,won 10 of 100 seats in the NWFP Legislature. In Sindh province, religious parties failed to get even one of 130 seats, while in Baluchistan, the alliance took seven of 51 seats, and in Punjab, one seat out of 297."
But with Islamists gaining influence within the Obama administration, and Secretary Gates inviting Saudi Arabia to "help" Pakistan negotiate with the Taliban, religious parties just might seem reasonable to Pakistanis who never would have thought so before.
A history lesson would do Pakistanis good. The original lawyer's movement did not begin post-Musharaff, but with its own founder. Source: Muslim World Today
 A man accused of misrepresenting himself as an attorney to clients seeking legal help from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has a history of brushes with the law, court records show. Morris J. Days, who is being sued in federal court for fraudulently representing himself as an attorney, was found guilty of several misdemeanor alcohol-related charges in Virginia in the early 2000s and served time in Philadelphia jails in the 1990s, court records obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism show. Days is a defendant in a lawsuit filed Nov. 18 in federal district court in the District of Columbia alleging he defrauded Muslims who had contacted CAIR's Virginia branch office for assistance with their legal problems. Also named as defendants in the suit are the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc., eight senior CAIR officials and two businesses described as holding companies for CAIR-owned real estate. The lawsuit alleges that beginning around June 2006, CAIR-Virginia employed Days as its "resident attorney" and "manager" of its civil rights department. Four plaintiffs – Rene Arturo Lopez, Aquilla A.D. Turner, Mohammed Barakatullah Abdussalaam and Bayenah Nur – claim they paid money to Days for legal assistance that they never received. Read more ...Source: IPT News
By JOSEPH MAYTON CAIRO – Lawyers across the region have taken to filing 'hisba' lawsuits against bloggers, journalists and intellectuals in an effort to stem the flow of what they deem heretical Islamic ideas. In Saudi Arabia on Nov. 4 blogger Roshdi Algadir was arrested for a poem he posted on his blog roshdi.maktoobblog.com. According to the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI), Algadir was beaten and forced to sign an agreement to never again publish work on the Internet. Hisba was established in early Islamic jurisprudence to enable individuals to publically discuss matters of religion. Leading Islamic scholar, Gamal al-Banna said that in the past it was "a construct used to promote the good and criticize the bad. Every individual in an Islamic society is responsible for the actions of the society." Read more ...Source: Middle East Times
By Rana Tanveer LAHORE: Protesting lawyers on Thursday were seen holding placards bearing pro-Al Qaeda slogans for the first time since their protests for an independent judiciary began. The lawyers’ National Co-ordination Council called the weekly protest rally, demanding the reinstatement of the sacked judges. Lawyers from the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) and the Lahore Bar Association (LBA) held their general house meetings and emerged from the High Court building and Aiwan-e-Adl to merge at GPO Chowk, where they were joined by activists from various political parties. Members from the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, who claim to be staunch supporters of the lawyers’ movement, were however, absent from the rally. Read more ...Source: Daily Times
 Debra Burlingame's brother, Charles "Chic" Burlingame, was the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 on September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked that aircraft and crashed it into the Pentagon in Washington. Since shortly after 9-11, Debra Burlingame has made it her mission to preserve her brother’s memory and to make sure that America’s resolve in the fight against al Qaeda neither falters nor wavers. She will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security today about the treatment of captured enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Here are some excerpts of what she will say. Read more ...Source: Hot AirH/T: Lake Minnetonka Liberty
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
And so, despite the all the naysayers and second-guessers, the lawyers in the Rifqa Bary case have negotiated a reasonable and potentially life-saving settlement which will allow Rifqa to remain in state custody until she becomes 18 (which will happen in August), at which time she herself will decide whether or not she wishes to be reunited with her family.
Posts
