This man once stridently defended the deeds and views of the TALIBAN. The Taliban was the foundation and vehicle to recruit Al-Qaeda operatives, some of whom were on the planes that crashed into the WTC. How can this man now, in the space of 4 years have a complete change of heart? How can someone in their right mind, tolerate him to attend their school, let alone befriend him.

It was an act of treason to allow this person to attend Yale, and to receive funds for his student program.

This may seem crude to you people, but I hope someone gets a moment of sense and either kicks this guy out, or arrests him and sends him to Guantanamo.

If this guy came to my school I would shoot him, no hesitation.

But if you think that is extreme, and yet you defend this man, who was a member of a group that did what they did, you’re not thinking clearly. He is our ENEMY, killing him might not be necessary, but neither is murdering innocent women for forgetting to put on their burqas. Think about it

Debate within the Yale Law School:
http://opinion-work-product.blogspot.com/2006/02/internal-debate-over-rahmatullah-rages.html

A reaction:
http://opinion-work-product.blogspot.com/2006/02/response-to-yales-reaction-to.html

http://opinion-work-product.blogspot.com/2006/02/former-taliban-yalie-and-harold-koh.html

On whether Hashemi is a “terrorist”:
http://opinion-work-product.blogspot.com/2006/02/is-rahmatullah-hashemi-terrorist-was.html

Background on Hashemi:
http://opinion-work-product.blogspot.com/2006/03/hashemi-and-more-informed-debate-some.html

But I’m afraid I agree with anonymous above – I don’t see much change in this guy, and he seems to be an inveterate enemy of the United States.

I would strongly recommend that you read the article in the WSJ:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/

He was a high ranking propogandist for one of the nastiest regimes in my lifetime. While I certainly believe in second changes I think that before any second chances are offered to anyone they ought to
1) Acknowledge that what they did was wrong.
2) Make some sort of effort to make amends.
I don’t see much of either.

He doesn’t regret statements he made about the rights (and lack therof) in Afghanistan.
‘Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” captured one testy exchange he had with an exiled Afghan woman who told him, “You have imprisoned the women. It’s a horror, let me tell you.” The Afghan diplomat responded with a sneer: “I’m really sorry for your husband. He must have a very difficult time with you.” Asked by the Times of London last week if he regretted that statement now, he replied: “That woman, for your information, did divorce her husband.” He told the New York Times that if he had it to do over again he would have been “a little bit” softer in his 2001 speeches.’

He doesn’t believe that the Taliban bear any responsibility for harbouring Bin Laden. As such he must view the US war against the Taliban as illegitimate, and to some extent believe that the Taliban should still be in power.

‘late last year, Mr. Rahmatullah wrote an essay titled “Ignorance! Not an Option,” … In the essay, Mr. Rahmatullah takes Americans to task for both their “xenophobic” attitudes and ignorance of the Taliban. He claims the Taliban “were too ignorant to know that their guest”–Osama bin Laden–“was harming other people.” He concludes that the Taliban “honestly practiced what they had learned in their religious schools. They did what they had been taught to do. Whether what they had been taught was good or bad is another subject.”‘

His public statements basically support the Jihadi world view:
‘Mr. Rahmatullah called Israel a “franchise state” serving “as an American al Qaeda against the Arab World.”‘

The guys was a slick PR man, a Goebells in the making. He cleverly defended practices that everyone at Yale ought to be able to identify as abhorrant (pulling womens finger nails out for wearing nail polish, burying homosexuals in wet cement, and so on). He shows little remorse for any of his activities. I think he basically pulled a fast one on the NYT – his clearly a salesman by nature.

Anonymous, I fear, is right. He’s at Yale to learn better techniques to defeat us all.

The WSJ thoughts on him –

‘After a meeting in which he defended the Taliban’s treatment of women and said he hadn’t seen any evidence that their “guest” Osama bin Laden was a terrorist, I felt I had looked into the face of evil.

I walked Mr. Rahmatullah out. I will never forget how he stopped at a picture window and stared up at the World Trade Center, which terrorists had failed to destroy in 1993. When I finally pried him away, I couldn’t help but think, He must have been thinking about the one that got away.”

Now the WSJ is clearly a hostile witness. But I suspect the NYT is just as sympathetic. Would everyone be happy if one of the chief PR people for South Africa were in this position?

If they don’t have the capacity to reason, then does that mean they don’t understand that when I shoot them with a .50 cal, that they are going to die?

Because it seems to me, that there is reason and then there is being reasonable. The ability to think, the former. And the ability to tolerate differences of opinion, the later.

Fundamentalists do have the ability to reason, as in think, otherwise they wouldn’t be dangerous and would get blown up by their own IEDs more than the IEDs would harm us.

While it is true that they do not have the moral position of being able to disagree with others without resorting to violence, that meaning is not contained in reason alone.

Even the most hardheaded fanatics can think, on some level. Therefore they can be reasoned with. It just so happens that reasoning with terroists requires nuclear demonstration bombings, executions, demonstrations of will, interrogation tactics, and many other manifestly obvious things not appropriate to use with a reasonable person.

For example. Take Saddam’s trial. If you get a US officer and have him put a pistol to the head of Saddam’s brother and shoot him on national tv, spraying brains everywhere, and then reason with the defendents, it would go something like this.

“See, Saddam killed his brother. Keep acting as you do, and Saddam will kill all of you. I don’t want to see anyone else be killed, please be careful what you say.”

They do reason and think, but based upon different ideas and axioms.

A reasonable person might say, “you ordered the brother killed, not Saddam”. But nobody said Saddam’s crew were reasonable. But they can reason, since logic and thinking is very accessible to those sorts.

Most likely back to Afgan and into politics. Good or bad thing..who knows.

What I wanted really to comment on is this:

…”–but for humans beings, whose innate capacity for reason doesn’t seem to vary very much throughout the world…”

I not only disagree, but believe this [believing the above statement] is a common failing of Americans.

I have met and interacted with “extremeists” “fundmentalists” and they do not have the ability to reason. Their beliefs have destroyed that ability.

This is not just talking about Islam, but also other religions and other “groups”. I am sure you also know a few rabid lefties that can not, not only not reason, but can not even converse with you anymore.

Never, never believe that “others” think like you do, reason like you do or will act in some projected manner in the future.

It will not only disappoint you, make you fail in many endeavors nowadays, it can get you killed.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

I didn’t read the article either until I had to know certain things you quoted in the article, so I logged on.

Yes, I logged on, I didn’t register because I already had registered.

You see the point, don’t you. People like me, and perhaps people like Charles, won’t read the New York TImes anymore because it is enemy propaganda. Only if we need something specific will we even take the time to type in our pass and log on, let alone register.

As one commentator here said, you read the NYtimes so we don’t have to.

Intellectual laziness? Perhaps. I tend to look at it as setting up barriers to enemy propaganda.

The NYTime’s reputation is what they made it out to be. I cannot change that.

Trust is a two way street, and the NYTimes blew it up a long time ago.

Nobody that supports this war and is pro-American, with limited time on their hands, will take the time to read the Times for their information anymore, paper or online.