You seem not completely sure of your charitable interpretations, just as I am not completely sure of my violence and revolution-inciting interpretations. So it woud seem we both agree to some ambiguity in how Mr. Jarrar allowed himself to being read.

But he is in a war zone. So is it illegitimate for the Iraqi national security apparatus to anticipate his words and blog to be a possibile source of recruiting more partricipants in their extremely lethal enemy’s efforts? I don’t think so.

Bruno:

Since the topic is Khalid’s predicament, how do you interpret his written sentiments? Support for the new Iraqi regime and its security lifeline, the US, or support for the old guard and/or the insurgency?

On illegality: Self defense from impending harm is always legal. Saddam made himself to look as if he still had the WMD’s he never accounted for. One was VX nerve agent that Clinton had recently proved he was preparing with Al Qaeda. VX would be a very formiddable threat to the US if Al Qaeda deployed it in its subways.

UN Resolution 1441 certainly implied a US attack when it cited all Saddam’s continuing crimes and ended by threatening “serious consequences”. Unless you think they were talking about leagues of blue helmets showing up to disarm his huge armies and arsenals.

But when you have a now apparently corrupt Security Council and UN hierarchy, taking bribes from Saddam, the very party they were supposed to impartially administer justice to, it takes a perverse twist of logic to call it “illegal” for the US to read the UN’s previoulsy suggestive resolution for enforcement authority to its self defense interests, while also standing on a nation’s inalienable right to defend itself, as the UN Charter allows even without a more clearly stated resolution.

No doubt, US haters (like the Left) and Saddam apologists will seize on the corrupted ambiguity of the UN statement and ignore the democracy the US has since gifted to the Iraqi people, the costly rescue from Saddam who killed over 50 times more innocent people than the US-led overthrow brought about to innocent and guilty people alike, and the stop which was put to the Al Qaeda and other terrorist-feeding WMD activities of Saddam the UN could or chose never to get a handle on.

Whether all the missing WMD’s are ever accounted for or not, it still stands that when an outlaw, as Saddam indisputedly was, escapes his captive bonds, refuses further legal authority, refuses lawful compliance with unanimous world resolutions and is believed with very good cause to be armed, and refuses to show himself to be safe, he is to be shot down, under any civilized code of law in the world. But he now resides in a comfortable prison awaiting a fair trial. Meanwhile, his victims smolder in mass graves.

I agree with everything you said. I do feel that there is alot of free speech territory a person can take on far short of criminal complicity for crime or terror, which nonetheless, might also support some ideas appealing to terrorists and criminals.

Unfortunately, in a place and time where lives are being lost at horrific rates and the state hangs in the balance, anyone who goes out on a limb with their statements and is subject to be read as an enemy collaborator is going to have to accept the risk that goes with that perception of being dangerous to those powers bound to treat danger very aggressively.

The safe road, albeit one sometimes compromising to the ultimate in expressive license, would be, when in a war or high threat zone, to take great pains to articulate the differences between a stand one takes and the actions of crime or terror. I don’t know that Mr. Jarrar did that very effectively, though I admit his statements are ambiguous.

From his Brother’s Blog http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/
Raed Jarrar writes:
“On another note, it seems that the new Iraqi courts don’t guarantee the right to lawyers: prisoners are neither offered the help of a public defender nor can they bring their own lawyers.”

This seems to contradict the transitional adminstrative law set up by Paul Bremer which can be read here:
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/democracy/PSAs/Rule_Law.html

• Accusation is not guilt. Every person is innocent until proven guilty through due process of law.
• Torture and cruel punishments are absolutely forbidden.
• Every person accused of a crime has the right to remain silent.
• Anyone accused of a crime has the right to an attorney and to a speedy and public trial.
• No one can be arrested or tried for his political or religious beliefs.
• And, civilians may not be tried before military tribunals.

According to Article 15 of Coalition Provisional Authority
LAW OF ADMINISTRATION FOR THE STATE OF IRAQ
FOR THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD http://www.cdi.org/news/law/Iraq-Constitution.htm , which as I understand it is the law until such a time as the Constitution is written states:

“(E) The accused is innocent until proven guilty pursuant to law, and he likewise has the right to engage independent and competent counsel, to remain silent in response to questions addressed to him with no compulsion to testify for any reason, to participate in preparing his defense, and to summon and examine witnesses or to ask the judge to do so. At the time a person is arrested, he must be notified of these rights.”

The fact that, according to his brother, Khalid Jarrar has not been given access to an attorney should be an issue of primary concern irregardless of all other factors.

So as a concerned citizen I would encourage you to sign this petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/820522461?ltl=1121603411

which I will personally deliver to the Iraqi Embassy in D.C. when it hits 1,000 signatures.