« Words I didn't expect to speak: Dick Durbin is right | Main | Terrorfare -- One More Story and It's a Trend »

May 01, 2010


It has not been very satisfactorily explained why being in a country legally and acting in the interests of its government (not a very appetizing one but not one whose legal right to govern was disputed at the time)in resisting an armed invasion by NATO consituted terrorism. Why was it not self-defence, or defence of the country in which Khadr was resident?

Not all reports agree that the evidence that Khadr did throw a grenade that killed a US soldier - but if he did, why should he not have done it in the circumstances?

If an international military alliance was invading the United States, would it be terrorism to fight back? Even for a non-citizen of the US who was living there?

The comments to this entry are closed.