Islamists have threatened a Christian Bishop in the Philippines… (H/T: UP Pompeii)

Philippine bishop reports receiving threat to convert to Islam

MANILA, Philippines (CNS) — A bishop in the southern Philippines reported receiving a letter threatening him with harm if he does not convert to Islam or pay “Islamic taxes.”

Such brazenness in a country where over 86% of the population is Christian, 9% is Muslim and the remaining 5% is divided among various groups such as: Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, animists and non-believers.

Even if those who sent these letters are no more than common criminals who use religion as a mere tool, the fact that they chose to represent themselves as Muslims is in itself significant. But Muslim brazenness does not stop there, unfortunately, this one is far from an isolated case! Remember the kidnapped and murdered Chaldean archbishop of Mosul, Mgr Faraj Rahho? What about the plight of Assyrian Christians in Iraq? What about the Sabian Mandaeans? Or the plight of Christians girls kidnapped in Nigeria by practitioners of the Religion of Peace? What about the treatment of Christian Copts in Egypt? Ot the threats against Western politicians like Geert Wilders or Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi? The list, gentle reader, goes on and on ad nauseum…

You may read the rest at: Freedom’s Cost

If you want to know just how well the left’s strategy of using criminal laws and international institutions to fight Islamism, look no farther than the world’s shameful inaction in the Sudan.
(more…)

In a move that is reminiscent of Darfur and the Congo the just “reelected” President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, has come up with a new tactic to assert the power he so blatantly stole:

Mugabe thugs raping teens: aid staff

DOZENS of teenage girls have been made pregnant after being taken into the bush and raped in torture camps by President Robert Mugabe’s youth militia operating near Mudzi, a town 160km northeast of Harare, human rights workers allege.

Read the rest on: Freedom’s Cost

The animals that currently see fit to call themselves Burma’s “leaders” are finding new and better ways to show the world what evil brutes they are. After having seized UN food supplies that were destined for survivors of the deadly cyclone, they are now found to be exporting massive quantities of rice to Bangladesh, to great profit of course, while their people die of starvation, thirst and sickness. Forget eating! says the military Junta, voting on a referendum that will cement their rule permanently is much more important (advocating a “no” can get you three years in jail).

In the meantime China continues to drag it’s feet about asking it’s little brother dictatorship to stop it’s obscene human rights abuses. But then, considering their own record, maybe they don’t think it’s all that bad. Personally, invasion is looking better and better.

“Canada has withdrawn its support for a UN anti-racism conference slated to take place in South Africa next year,” the Globe and Mail reports. The reason: ‘The so-called Durban II conference “has gone completely off the rails” and Canada wants no part of it, said Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity.’ (more…)

Scott Johnson quotes Alexis De Tocqueville with regards to what Ezra Levent is up against in Canada. Scott is right to point out that what we see happening in Canada was, indeed, predicted by De Tocqueville and I think it’s important to publish the quote here as well.

Above these [citizens] an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. (more…)

Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.”

Those aren’t rights, they’re privileges.

This year’s exercise in hypocrisy by the UNHRC is over. Anne Bayefsky has provided an excellent summary of its decisions and indecisions.

Thankfully, the UNHRC’s actions and inactions haven’t gone without notice in the halls of Congress:

Alongside what passes at the U.N. for “human rights” protection, stands the eminently reasonable legislation that has come from both the House and the Senate calling for an end to American funding for the Human Rights Council. The House passed their version of the Department of State Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act on June 22 and included by unanimous agreement an amendment introduced by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to refuse any funding for the Council. In the Senate version, proposed by Senator Norm Coleman and adopted unanimously on September 6, an exemption law was inserted by Senators Richard Lugar and Joe Biden. It would refuse funding for the fiscal year 2008 unless the President certifies either that providing the funds to the Council is in the national interest of the United States, or the U.S. is a member of the Council. Conference negotiations are underway, but some form of the restriction is expected to survive.

“As well it should” says Bayefsky. Ditto for me.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., has ordered the US military to release Ali al-Marri, who is accused by the US government of being a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda. Al-Marri studied computer science at Bradley University until he was arrested on December 12, 2001.

Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote:

To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country. We refuse to recognize a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.

As Shaun Mullen points out, this is the third time this month that the Bush administration’s “extralegal efforts to circumvent the American legal system in order to try so-called enemy combatants,” have been rebuked.

As someone who strongly opposes Bush’s vision on how to deal with terrorism suspects (by labeling them enemy combatants), I applaud this decision by the Court of Appeals in Richmond. It is about time that these suspects get the treatment suspects of other crimes get.

There should be no exceptions to the Rule of Law. It’s about time that Bush et al. understand this as well.

Terrorists should be punished - we should fight aggressively against terrorism - but the West cannot allow itself to break with the Rule of Law.

Holding people captive for years (without them being able to do something about it / without charging them with anything) has got to stop. If there is one thing the government should not be able to do in modern democracies, it is that.

Kevin Drum asks the following question:

Will the Bush administration allow al-Marri a trial, or will they appeal this to the Supreme Court and risk an adverse ruling?

As usual, we will have to wait and see.

The New York Times reports that “a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.”

The psychologists and other specialists, commissioned by the Intelligence Science Board, make the case that more than five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has yet to create an elite corps of interrogators trained to glean secrets from terrorism suspects.

While billions are spent each year to upgrade satellites and other high-tech spy machinery, the experts say, interrogation methods — possibly the most important source of information on groups like Al Qaeda — are a hodgepodge that date from the 1950s, or are modeled on old Soviet practices.

Molded on old Soviet practices? Well, I am sure it will make many people proud to know that the US used the same interrogation ‘techniques’ as the Soviets did.

And guess what, torture does not work:

In a blistering lecture delivered last month, a former adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called “immoral” some interrogation tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon.

But in meetings with intelligence officials and in a 325-page initial report completed in December, the researchers have pressed a more practical critique: there is little evidence, they say, that harsh methods produce the best intelligence.

“There’s an assumption that often passes for common sense that the more pain imposed on someone, the more likely they are to comply,” said Randy Borum, a psychologist at the University of South Florida who, like several of the study’s contributors, is a consultant for the Defense Department.

Good Lord, have we learned nothing from history? There were thousands of women who admitted to be witches back in the dark ages, after being tortured for hours, even days. The average person would admit to just about everything after being tortured, just to make the pain go away. At a certain moment a person would rather be killed, than endure torture for one minute longer.

It is simple: torture is immoral and “there is little evidence that harsh methods produce the best intelligence.” 1+1=2: no modern government should use torture (or use ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ which means exactly the same thing) against anyone. Whether the one being interrogated is suspected of being a murderer, a thief, or a terrorist: torture is never acceptable.

I find it amazing that this is actually subject of debate: even worse, Republican candidates proudly proclaim that the CIA should use “enhanced interrogation techniques” (read: torture) on terrorism suspects. When they do not (McCain), they are depicted as being weak (on terrorism/ national security).

Do Americans understand how badly this hurts their image abroad? I often wonder about that. This makes America look like the bad guy, even those who tend to support the US, will turn against the US on this subject.

More at Balloon Juice and Obsidian Wings.

The New York Times reports that Iran’s Supreme Court has exonorated six members of a “prestigious state militia” who killed five people because those five individuals were, according to the six murderers, “morally corrupt.”

The six members of the Basiji Force - “volunteer vigilantes favored by the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” (who was also a member of this ‘militia’ - were convicted for murder by a lower court.

Luckily, this is does not have to be the end of it: the “lower court in Kerman can appeal the decision to the full membership of the Supreme Court.” Full membership means that 50 judges will take part of the, then, final decision.

Lets see, these murderers are members of a militia favored by Khamenei and… Ahmadinejad was a member of it… It seems to me that chances are slim that the full membership of the court, will decide differently: these, excuse me, thugs will - most likely - get away with.

Hopefully, the Western media will pay quite some attention to the case, as to make more people aware of the evil and ruthless nature of the Iranian regime. Perhaps international pressure will change something (although I am quite sure it won’t). The best chance of changing the verdict, is by domestic pressure: the Iranian people responded with outrage to the decision by the Iranian Supreme Court.

As Ed Morrissey points out, the court in essence ruled that “the fair-haired boys of the mullahcracy (so to speak) need not bother with courts or judges at all. They can freely operate outside the law.”

Israel Insider reports:

Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, delivered a scorching speech before the UN Human Rights Council 4th Session, accusing the body of blatant hypocrisy in ignoring gross rights violations worldwide except when committed by Israel. The speech was then repudiated by the Council Chairman, who refused to thank Neuer as is customary and then threatened to strike from the record similar statements in the future.

Here is the video:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU]

You can read the transcript of both Neuer’s speech and Luis Alfonso de Alba’s reply at Israel Insider.

Neuer is completely right of course. The hypocrisy is, quite simply, appalling.