Terrorist Teamwork

Recently I blogged about convicted terrorist Terry Nichols’s lawsuit to get more nutritious food in prison. To remind you, Nichols conspired with Timothy McVeigh to blow up 168 Americans.

Now Nichols’s lawsuit has the support Eric Rudolph, a Christianist terrorist responsible for a series of bombings that killed two and injured 150.

“Medical studies clearly show that eating several servings of insoluble fibers daily is essential in maintaining good health,” Rudolph wrote in a “declaration” filed this week in U.S. District Court in Denver.

And nightclubs catering to lesbians should be blown up, apparently.

Rudolph said “practically all” of the prison’s food “contains almost no insoluble fiber. . . The longterm effects . . . is severe hemorrhoids.”

Luckily for these two, as United States citizens, they have access to legal recourse, just like all other US citizens *cough* Jose Padilla /*cough*

Law-Talking Guy* Makes Good Case

Today’s LA Times had more information on Iraqi icon Muntazar al-Zaidi’s case in court. His lawyers have good arguments.

Zaidi’s legal team, more than 20 lawyers who jostled for space around the pen, cited two principal reasons why their client should not have been charged.

Bush was a drop-in guest, they said, not an official visitor to Iraq, hence he should not face charges of assaulting a visiting dignitary. Second, they maintained that because the act occurred in the U.S.-controlled Green Zone, Bush was not technically visiting Iraq at the time.

To back up that first assertion, here’s an AP article from last year:

On a whirlwind trip shrouded in secrecy and marred by dissent, President George W. Bush on Sunday hailed progress in the wars that define his presidency and got a size-10 reminder of his unpopularity when a man hurled two shoes at him during a news conference in Iraq.

Back to the LA Times article:

It was the hottest ticket in town. It drew spectators from as far off as Sweden and sparked a scramble for choice seats. Police formed human chains to block crowds that surged forward to glimpse the star attraction: a defiant-looking man in black loafers.

As the defendant entered the courtroom, applause erupted and most spectators stood up, either to get a better look or to express support. Zaidi glanced at the crowd but remained poker-faced.

Pandemonium erupted when the session adjourned. Friends and relatives rushed to the pen, hoping to touch or kiss Zaidi. Courtroom guards yelled at the crowd to behave and leave the room.

In the corridor outside, police linked arms and formed human chains to prevent hundreds of onlookers from closing in on Zaidi. He waved at the mostly cheering crowd and raised his fist in the air before disappearing down the staircase, surrounded by guards.

I am staying tuned for future developments.
—
*Simpsons reference.
Hutz: I move for a bad court thingy.
Judge Snyder [modeled on Robert Bork]: You mean a mistrial.
Hutz: Right!! That’s why you’re the judge and I’m the law-talking guy.
Judge: You mean the lawyer?
Hutz: Right.

"Er, your honor..."

Saudi Arabia Off the Hook for 9/11

It’s good to be king.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080814/us_nm/saudi_lawsuit_dc_1

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, four princes and other Saudi entities are immune from a lawsuit filed by victims of the September 11 attacks and their families alleging they gave material support to al Qaeda, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.

The ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a 2006 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey dismissing a claim against Saudi Arabia, a Saudi charity, four princes and a Saudi banker of providing material support to al Qaeda before the September 11 attacks.

The victims and their families argued that because the defendants gave money to Muslim charities that in turn gave money to al Qaeda, they should be held responsible for helping to finance the attacks.

The appeals court found that the defendants are protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The court also noted that exceptions to the immunity rule do not apply because Saudi Arabia has not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department.

That’s the whole text of the article.

Actually, I would have thought they could come up with a better rationale than “they gave money to charities.” Most everyone donates to charities. And you have no control over what the charity does with it afterwards. Not everyone has the foresight to investigate thoroughly when they think they’re donating to a worthwhile charity. A better reason would be, for example, the Saudi school system and textbooks.

From a 2006 WaPo article:

A 2004 Saudi royal study group recognized the need for reform after finding that the kingdom’s religious studies curriculum “encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the ‘other.’ “

Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it has revised its educational texts.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, has worked aggressively to spread this message.

“Not only have we eliminated what might be perceived as intolerance from old textbooks that were in our system, we have implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan.”

A year ago, an embassy spokesman declared: “We have reviewed our educational curriculums. We have removed materials that are inciteful or intolerant towards people of other faiths.”

The problem is: These claims are not true.

A review of a sample of official Saudi textbooks for Islamic studies used during the current academic year reveals that, despite the Saudi government’s statements to the contrary, an ideology of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system.

It’s a long article, so I’m just posting some highlights.

In November 2005, a Saudi teacher who made positive statements about Jews and the New Testament was fired and sentenced to 750 lashes and a prison term. (He was eventually pardoned after public and international protests.)

I kind of suspect there’s more to this story. I’ll try and do some research on this, but there’s not much to go on.

From a tenth grade Saudi textbook (revised):

The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a “free Muslim male.” Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim’s heirs for murder or injury:

“Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is ‘of the book’ or not ‘of the book’ (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).

“Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel.”

But I suppose taking that up in court would be rough.