I would rather that I and everyone I know, love or care about were killed in horrible ways by horrible people than have to live in a society that restricted the right to due process and free speech. If you disagree, you disgust me and you have no right to talk to me about morality.
This is a response to this kind of logic: "I believe also that the American left still does not understand the gravity of the situation we face with terrorism: they are more concerned about the "rights" of detained hostiles (as Lynne Stewart was) than about the safety of innocents". Yes, we are, at least as long as the ‘detained hostiles’ are guilty only of seeking to ensure that other ‘detained hostiles’ get a fair hearing. That’s because we’re civilised. You are not.
If it is true that she was sending messages to fellow terrorists, would you defend that?
Yes, in the context of the case. The US government placed disgraceful restrictions on Rahman’s freedom of speech (barring him from communicating with anyone other than his lawyers and his wife); in that context, the only moral action available to his lawyers would be to allow his words to reach the outside world.
I hope I’d have the courage to follow Stewart’s example if I were in the same position; I also hope that should I ever be held as a political prisoner, I have access to a lawyer similarly willing to let my words out.
Didn’t the left used to support people held in prison for their political views, Eric?
So you now define this as a "political" view you wish to support?
Are you usually pissed this early on a Saturday?
Do you actually use your brain before you type, or do you just type whatever you might think is the right-on view?
Loon.
Sunday of course.