January 10, 2007

Another 'Terror' Red Herring

This from the Washington Post:
Conservatives Decry Terror Laws' Impact on Refugees-- By Darryl Fears

Conservatives who supported President Bush's reelection have joined liberal groups in expressing outrage over his administration's broad use of anti-terrorism laws to reject asylum for thousands of people seeking refuge from religious, ethnic and political persecution.

The critics say the administration's interpretation of provisions mandating denial of asylum to individuals who give "material support" to terrorist groups is so broad that foreigners who fought alongside U.S. forces in wars . . . can be denied asylum on the grounds that they provided aid to terrorists.

Advocates for refugees add that people who were forced to aid terrorist fighters at gunpoint could be labeled as supporters . . . such cases include a nurse who was abducted . . . and a woman in Liberia who said her father was killed and she was raped and forced to stand by as rebels occupied her home for several days.
See here for the complete text.
*_*_*
Another case of the government either displaying it's paranoia or manipulating the law for its own ends.
I'll be damned if I can figure out which. . . .

8 comments:

TomCat said...

That's absurd. Using Bush's logic, anyone having had anything to do with the CIA would be outlawed, since the CIA gave Osama $300 million to help found Al Qaeda.

two crows said...

what logic?
he's simply outlawing those he wants to outlaw and absolving those he wants to absolve.

if logic was involved, he would've placed himself under arrest ages ago.

TomCat said...

What a wonderful idea!

BushSpeak Dictionrary:
logic = delusion

two crows said...

and when people live in that framework, they get locked up.
so let's get to it.

TomCat said...

Do you know a qualified pshrink that will certify him as loony?

two crows said...

actually, I know a number of em.
and they already have.

TomCat said...

Have they sent the certifications to Congress?

two crows said...

well, if they did, that'd be something else for Congress to debate about--