O:9:"magpierss":24:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:10:{i:0;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:37:"Comment on Thank You America by Jawed";s:4:"link";s:89:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/11/08/thank-you-america/comment-page-2/#comment-38286";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:5:"Jawed";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:12:19 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:51:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=109#comment-38286";s:11:"description";s:258:"This is one of the strongest speeches with word that i have came across in the web; i personally dont know you but you must be a good speaker and i want to see you giving a speech live with the same type of passionate words; i live in Australia thats why lol";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:266:"<p>This is one of the strongest speeches with word that i have came across in the web; i personally dont know you but you must be a good speaker and i want to see you giving a speech live with the same type of passionate words; i live in Australia thats why lol</p>
";}s:7:"summary";s:258:"This is one of the strongest speeches with word that i have came across in the web; i personally dont know you but you must be a good speaker and i want to see you giving a speech live with the same type of passionate words; i live in Australia thats why lol";s:12:"atom_content";s:266:"<p>This is one of the strongest speeches with word that i have came across in the web; i personally dont know you but you must be a good speaker and i want to see you giving a speech live with the same type of passionate words; i live in Australia thats why lol</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1194520339;}i:1;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:40:"Comment on Buhler?  Buhler? by Anonymous";s:4:"link";s:85:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/05/24/buhler-buhler/comment-page-1/#comment-38011";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:9:"Anonymous";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:59:06 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:50:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=69#comment-38011";s:11:"description";s:114:"nobody cares about you or your opinions, Ashdown.  You're a hack.  Don't waste your time running for office again.";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:134:"<p>nobody cares about you or your opinions, Ashdown.  You&#8217;re a hack.  Don&#8217;t waste your time running for office again.</p>
";}s:7:"summary";s:114:"nobody cares about you or your opinions, Ashdown.  You're a hack.  Don't waste your time running for office again.";s:12:"atom_content";s:134:"<p>nobody cares about you or your opinions, Ashdown.  You&#8217;re a hack.  Don&#8217;t waste your time running for office again.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1193093946;}i:2;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:30:"Comment on Mathematics by Pato";s:4:"link";s:83:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/2005/12/09/mathematics/comment-page-1/#comment-37354";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:4:"Pato";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:38:39 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:50:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=41#comment-37354";s:11:"description";s:127:"YESSSS! thanks you so much for posting this... had a task at school to find out the answer of this... thank GOD for internet :D";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:257:"<p>YESSSS! thanks you so much for posting this&#8230; had a task at school to find out the answer of this&#8230; thank GOD for internet <img src='http://peteashdown.org/journal/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
";}s:7:"summary";s:127:"YESSSS! thanks you so much for posting this... had a task at school to find out the answer of this... thank GOD for internet :D";s:12:"atom_content";s:257:"<p>YESSSS! thanks you so much for posting this&#8230; had a task at school to find out the answer of this&#8230; thank GOD for internet <img src='http://peteashdown.org/journal/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1188488319;}i:3;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:33:"Comment on Life and Death by ling";s:4:"link";s:86:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/06/14/life-and-death/comment-page-1/#comment-37103";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:4:"ling";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:37:14 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:50:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=74#comment-37103";s:11:"description";s:1266:"It really doesn't take this much back-and-forth to make the point: the couple's application for political asylum in the U.S., not for any other type of immigration, was denied because the courts did not believe that they, being member of the ruling ethnic group of the country, couldn't ust move to another part of the country to be safe. Since that was the only basis of their application, whether the husband participated in a terrorist organization is really secondary. So I don't understand why there is such an outrage about their deportation if their visas ran out and their application for asylum had been denied. The couple's claim is as absurd as a muslim claiming fear of persecution by Christians or Jews in Saudi Arabia or a Communist Party member in China or North Korea afraid of persecution by non-communist party members. I have read many discussions about their case elsewhere. Most of them are sympathetic and sounded like the posters were unaware of the reason that their application was denied. They were not denied for a regular immigration (and thus the theory of discrimination due to 9/11). They were denied because their reasoning has no bases. That said, it IS appalling for the immigration authority to take that long to process this case.";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:1304:"<p>It really doesn&#8217;t take this much back-and-forth to make the point: the couple&#8217;s application for political asylum in the U.S., not for any other type of immigration, was denied because the courts did not believe that they, being member of the ruling ethnic group of the country, couldn&#8217;t ust move to another part of the country to be safe. Since that was the only basis of their application, whether the husband participated in a terrorist organization is really secondary. So I don&#8217;t understand why there is such an outrage about their deportation if their visas ran out and their application for asylum had been denied. The couple&#8217;s claim is as absurd as a muslim claiming fear of persecution by Christians or Jews in Saudi Arabia or a Communist Party member in China or North Korea afraid of persecution by non-communist party members. I have read many discussions about their case elsewhere. Most of them are sympathetic and sounded like the posters were unaware of the reason that their application was denied. They were not denied for a regular immigration (and thus the theory of discrimination due to 9/11). They were denied because their reasoning has no bases. That said, it IS appalling for the immigration authority to take that long to process this case.</p>
";}s:7:"summary";s:1266:"It really doesn't take this much back-and-forth to make the point: the couple's application for political asylum in the U.S., not for any other type of immigration, was denied because the courts did not believe that they, being member of the ruling ethnic group of the country, couldn't ust move to another part of the country to be safe. Since that was the only basis of their application, whether the husband participated in a terrorist organization is really secondary. So I don't understand why there is such an outrage about their deportation if their visas ran out and their application for asylum had been denied. The couple's claim is as absurd as a muslim claiming fear of persecution by Christians or Jews in Saudi Arabia or a Communist Party member in China or North Korea afraid of persecution by non-communist party members. I have read many discussions about their case elsewhere. Most of them are sympathetic and sounded like the posters were unaware of the reason that their application was denied. They were not denied for a regular immigration (and thus the theory of discrimination due to 9/11). They were denied because their reasoning has no bases. That said, it IS appalling for the immigration authority to take that long to process this case.";s:12:"atom_content";s:1304:"<p>It really doesn&#8217;t take this much back-and-forth to make the point: the couple&#8217;s application for political asylum in the U.S., not for any other type of immigration, was denied because the courts did not believe that they, being member of the ruling ethnic group of the country, couldn&#8217;t ust move to another part of the country to be safe. Since that was the only basis of their application, whether the husband participated in a terrorist organization is really secondary. So I don&#8217;t understand why there is such an outrage about their deportation if their visas ran out and their application for asylum had been denied. The couple&#8217;s claim is as absurd as a muslim claiming fear of persecution by Christians or Jews in Saudi Arabia or a Communist Party member in China or North Korea afraid of persecution by non-communist party members. I have read many discussions about their case elsewhere. Most of them are sympathetic and sounded like the posters were unaware of the reason that their application was denied. They were not denied for a regular immigration (and thus the theory of discrimination due to 9/11). They were denied because their reasoning has no bases. That said, it IS appalling for the immigration authority to take that long to process this case.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1187041034;}i:4;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:39:"Comment on Life and Death by Streetjust";s:4:"link";s:86:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/06/14/life-and-death/comment-page-1/#comment-35102";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:10:"Streetjust";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:35:43 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:50:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=74#comment-35102";s:11:"description";s:3618:"Your journal entry didnâ€™t include the Carrilles case and itâ€™s the journal entry that Iâ€™m responding to. From a legal standpoint the Carrilles case isnâ€™t comparable to the Sah case. As for case law, Carrilles has absolutely nothing to do with the Sah case. To compare one to the other is comparing apples to oranges.

There may not be mosques in Green River presently, but what about in the future? How would he react if a mosque were to be built in Green River? Would he be willing to let others exercise their freedom of religion or would he react the same way he did in India? Sah has a history of infringing on the religious freedoms of others. The courts also recognized that Sahâ€™s group was affiliated with a group that persecuted Christians as well as Muslims. Are we supposed to grant him citizenship only to find out he wants to destroy Christian churches as well? Maybe he would like to destroy some LDS temples while heâ€™s at it. We just donâ€™t know what he would do and to err on the side of caution is the roper course of action. His family wouldnâ€™t have been broken apart had he not elected to have a child in our country while his case for political asylum was pending review. His claim for political asylum was nothing more than a con and it might not be too far of a stretch to think that he wanted an â€œanchor babyâ€ to bolster his case. As far as we know, he didnâ€™t break the law here. Neither did many criminals that are presently imprisoned in foreign lands. That doesnâ€™t mean that weâ€™re granting them political asylum.

Hatch doesnâ€™t need to get involved in this case. Sah has admitted to inciting violence in his own country and we have no reason to believe that he wouldnâ€™t do the same thing here if he were to be granted citizenship. I didnâ€™t know about your journal a year ago and I only ran across it while researching Sahâ€™s case. The problem with discussing a case with an attorney is that theyâ€™re paid to represent one side of the case. Theyâ€™ll tell you the version thatâ€™s most favorable to their client. If courts made their decisions based on what was presented in the media then we would have a very lopsided legal system. A court listens to both sides of the argument and considers all of the facts before rendering a judgment. Thatâ€™s why Iâ€™ve relied on the findings of 3 different courts to form my opinion. Those courts found that the arguments presented by Sah and his attorney were not credible. Now, youâ€™re asking Hatch to overrule 3 courts that listened to all of the arguments and reviewed all of the facts. Of course, heâ€™s not going to do that.

I agree that the immigration system needs to be overhauled. Itâ€™s seriously deficient. It needs to be streamlined and we need better border security. Those really arenâ€™t huge factors in Sahâ€™s case though. He came here with a student visa and only applied for political asylum when his student visa was about to expire. He was permitted to remain in our country for the next 15 years and he did very well for himself during that time. Given the findings of the various courts itâ€™s very likely that had our system been fixed prior to â€™91 he would have been deported shortly after he submitted his application for political asylum. He might not have experienced the successes he experienced while living in Green River. He still owns his businesses in Green River and on the east coast. His experience in America was far from a total loss.";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:3644:"<p>Your journal entry didnâ€™t include the Carrilles case and itâ€™s the journal entry that Iâ€™m responding to. From a legal standpoint the Carrilles case isnâ€™t comparable to the Sah case. As for case law, Carrilles has absolutely nothing to do with the Sah case. To compare one to the other is comparing apples to oranges.</p>
<p>There may not be mosques in Green River presently, but what about in the future? How would he react if a mosque were to be built in Green River? Would he be willing to let others exercise their freedom of religion or would he react the same way he did in India? Sah has a history of infringing on the religious freedoms of others. The courts also recognized that Sahâ€™s group was affiliated with a group that persecuted Christians as well as Muslims. Are we supposed to grant him citizenship only to find out he wants to destroy Christian churches as well? Maybe he would like to destroy some LDS temples while heâ€™s at it. We just donâ€™t know what he would do and to err on the side of caution is the roper course of action. His family wouldnâ€™t have been broken apart had he not elected to have a child in our country while his case for political asylum was pending review. His claim for political asylum was nothing more than a con and it might not be too far of a stretch to think that he wanted an â€œanchor babyâ€ to bolster his case. As far as we know, he didnâ€™t break the law here. Neither did many criminals that are presently imprisoned in foreign lands. That doesnâ€™t mean that weâ€™re granting them political asylum.</p>
<p>Hatch doesnâ€™t need to get involved in this case. Sah has admitted to inciting violence in his own country and we have no reason to believe that he wouldnâ€™t do the same thing here if he were to be granted citizenship. I didnâ€™t know about your journal a year ago and I only ran across it while researching Sahâ€™s case. The problem with discussing a case with an attorney is that theyâ€™re paid to represent one side of the case. Theyâ€™ll tell you the version thatâ€™s most favorable to their client. If courts made their decisions based on what was presented in the media then we would have a very lopsided legal system. A court listens to both sides of the argument and considers all of the facts before rendering a judgment. Thatâ€™s why Iâ€™ve relied on the findings of 3 different courts to form my opinion. Those courts found that the arguments presented by Sah and his attorney were not credible. Now, youâ€™re asking Hatch to overrule 3 courts that listened to all of the arguments and reviewed all of the facts. Of course, heâ€™s not going to do that.</p>
<p>I agree that the immigration system needs to be overhauled. Itâ€™s seriously deficient. It needs to be streamlined and we need better border security. Those really arenâ€™t huge factors in Sahâ€™s case though. He came here with a student visa and only applied for political asylum when his student visa was about to expire. He was permitted to remain in our country for the next 15 years and he did very well for himself during that time. Given the findings of the various courts itâ€™s very likely that had our system been fixed prior to â€™91 he would have been deported shortly after he submitted his application for political asylum. He might not have experienced the successes he experienced while living in Green River. He still owns his businesses in Green River and on the east coast. His experience in America was far from a total loss.</p>
";}s:7:"summary";s:3618:"Your journal entry didnâ€™t include the Carrilles case and itâ€™s the journal entry that Iâ€™m responding to. From a legal standpoint the Carrilles case isnâ€™t comparable to the Sah case. As for case law, Carrilles has absolutely nothing to do with the Sah case. To compare one to the other is comparing apples to oranges.

There may not be mosques in Green River presently, but what about in the future? How would he react if a mosque were to be built in Green River? Would he be willing to let others exercise their freedom of religion or would he react the same way he did in India? Sah has a history of infringing on the religious freedoms of others. The courts also recognized that Sahâ€™s group was affiliated with a group that persecuted Christians as well as Muslims. Are we supposed to grant him citizenship only to find out he wants to destroy Christian churches as well? Maybe he would like to destroy some LDS temples while heâ€™s at it. We just donâ€™t know what he would do and to err on the side of caution is the roper course of action. His family wouldnâ€™t have been broken apart had he not elected to have a child in our country while his case for political asylum was pending review. His claim for political asylum was nothing more than a con and it might not be too far of a stretch to think that he wanted an â€œanchor babyâ€ to bolster his case. As far as we know, he didnâ€™t break the law here. Neither did many criminals that are presently imprisoned in foreign lands. That doesnâ€™t mean that weâ€™re granting them political asylum.

Hatch doesnâ€™t need to get involved in this case. Sah has admitted to inciting violence in his own country and we have no reason to believe that he wouldnâ€™t do the same thing here if he were to be granted citizenship. I didnâ€™t know about your journal a year ago and I only ran across it while researching Sahâ€™s case. The problem with discussing a case with an attorney is that theyâ€™re paid to represent one side of the case. Theyâ€™ll tell you the version thatâ€™s most favorable to their client. If courts made their decisions based on what was presented in the media then we would have a very lopsided legal system. A court listens to both sides of the argument and considers all of the facts before rendering a judgment. Thatâ€™s why Iâ€™ve relied on the findings of 3 different courts to form my opinion. Those courts found that the arguments presented by Sah and his attorney were not credible. Now, youâ€™re asking Hatch to overrule 3 courts that listened to all of the arguments and reviewed all of the facts. Of course, heâ€™s not going to do that.

I agree that the immigration system needs to be overhauled. Itâ€™s seriously deficient. It needs to be streamlined and we need better border security. Those really arenâ€™t huge factors in Sahâ€™s case though. He came here with a student visa and only applied for political asylum when his student visa was about to expire. He was permitted to remain in our country for the next 15 years and he did very well for himself during that time. Given the findings of the various courts itâ€™s very likely that had our system been fixed prior to â€™91 he would have been deported shortly after he submitted his application for political asylum. He might not have experienced the successes he experienced while living in Green River. He still owns his businesses in Green River and on the east coast. His experience in America was far from a total loss.";s:12:"atom_content";s:3644:"<p>Your journal entry didnâ€™t include the Carrilles case and itâ€™s the journal entry that Iâ€™m responding to. From a legal standpoint the Carrilles case isnâ€™t comparable to the Sah case. As for case law, Carrilles has absolutely nothing to do with the Sah case. To compare one to the other is comparing apples to oranges.</p>
<p>There may not be mosques in Green River presently, but what about in the future? How would he react if a mosque were to be built in Green River? Would he be willing to let others exercise their freedom of religion or would he react the same way he did in India? Sah has a history of infringing on the religious freedoms of others. The courts also recognized that Sahâ€™s group was affiliated with a group that persecuted Christians as well as Muslims. Are we supposed to grant him citizenship only to find out he wants to destroy Christian churches as well? Maybe he would like to destroy some LDS temples while heâ€™s at it. We just donâ€™t know what he would do and to err on the side of caution is the roper course of action. His family wouldnâ€™t have been broken apart had he not elected to have a child in our country while his case for political asylum was pending review. His claim for political asylum was nothing more than a con and it might not be too far of a stretch to think that he wanted an â€œanchor babyâ€ to bolster his case. As far as we know, he didnâ€™t break the law here. Neither did many criminals that are presently imprisoned in foreign lands. That doesnâ€™t mean that weâ€™re granting them political asylum.</p>
<p>Hatch doesnâ€™t need to get involved in this case. Sah has admitted to inciting violence in his own country and we have no reason to believe that he wouldnâ€™t do the same thing here if he were to be granted citizenship. I didnâ€™t know about your journal a year ago and I only ran across it while researching Sahâ€™s case. The problem with discussing a case with an attorney is that theyâ€™re paid to represent one side of the case. Theyâ€™ll tell you the version thatâ€™s most favorable to their client. If courts made their decisions based on what was presented in the media then we would have a very lopsided legal system. A court listens to both sides of the argument and considers all of the facts before rendering a judgment. Thatâ€™s why Iâ€™ve relied on the findings of 3 different courts to form my opinion. Those courts found that the arguments presented by Sah and his attorney were not credible. Now, youâ€™re asking Hatch to overrule 3 courts that listened to all of the arguments and reviewed all of the facts. Of course, heâ€™s not going to do that.</p>
<p>I agree that the immigration system needs to be overhauled. Itâ€™s seriously deficient. It needs to be streamlined and we need better border security. Those really arenâ€™t huge factors in Sahâ€™s case though. He came here with a student visa and only applied for political asylum when his student visa was about to expire. He was permitted to remain in our country for the next 15 years and he did very well for himself during that time. Given the findings of the various courts itâ€™s very likely that had our system been fixed prior to â€™91 he would have been deported shortly after he submitted his application for political asylum. He might not have experienced the successes he experienced while living in Green River. He still owns his businesses in Green River and on the east coast. His experience in America was far from a total loss.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1180704943;}i:5;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:41:"Comment on Life and Death by Pete Ashdown";s:4:"link";s:86:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/06/14/life-and-death/comment-page-1/#comment-35095";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:12:"Pete Ashdown";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:14:40 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:50:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=74#comment-35095";s:11:"description";s:1691:"You label a man a terrorist for being part of a group that destroys a mosque <strong>yet you ignore the Carriles case</strong>.  Many innocents died as a result of the latter's actions.  Why does one get deported and the other does not?  Why do we allow Bosnian, Sudanese and Mid-East refugees who carried the same actions and sentiments of Sah in their country?  The scales are tipped.

<strong>The confession contained no admission of violence against other humans.</strong>  This is important because there are no mosques on Hindu land in Green River, or anywhere else in America.  It is a <em>weak excuse</em> to send someone home, especially when it breaks a family apart.  What is it exactly, did Sah do that <strong>broke the law here?</strong>

The use of labels like "terrorist" and "pro-illegal supporter" makes me realize this discussion is futile.  My journal entry was about the priorities of our representation in Washington.  Something I'd imagine you're content with if you voted for the incumbent.  Hatch's office could have saved a lot of P.R. trouble if they followed your definition of the case, but they didn't because it isn't about terrorism.  In spite of Heather Barney's assertion, they've done a whole lot of nothing on this case.  The immigration system needs reform and a 700 mile border-fence is a waste of time and money.  I've clearly outlined what my remedies for immigration are and streamlining the system is an enormous part of that.  How much time and effort did you put into promoting your view when I wrote this blog entry <em>one year ago?</em>  I sat down with the Sahs' attorney and discussed the case with him before spreading my opinion.  Have you?";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:1795:"<p>You label a man a terrorist for being part of a group that destroys a mosque <strong>yet you ignore the Carriles case</strong>.  Many innocents died as a result of the latter&#8217;s actions.  Why does one get deported and the other does not?  Why do we allow Bosnian, Sudanese and Mid-East refugees who carried the same actions and sentiments of Sah in their country?  The scales are tipped.</p>
<p><strong>The confession contained no admission of violence against other humans.</strong>  This is important because there are no mosques on Hindu land in Green River, or anywhere else in America.  It is a <em>weak excuse</em> to send someone home, especially when it breaks a family apart.  What is it exactly, did Sah do that <strong>broke the law here?</strong></p>
<p>The use of labels like &#8220;terrorist&#8221; and &#8220;pro-illegal supporter&#8221; makes me realize this discussion is futile.  My journal entry was about the priorities of our representation in Washington.  Something I&#8217;d imagine you&#8217;re content with if you voted for the incumbent.  Hatch&#8217;s office could have saved a lot of P.R. trouble if they followed your definition of the case, but they didn&#8217;t because it isn&#8217;t about terrorism.  In spite of Heather Barney&#8217;s assertion, they&#8217;ve done a whole lot of nothing on this case.  The immigration system needs reform and a 700 mile border-fence is a waste of time and money.  I&#8217;ve clearly outlined what my remedies for immigration are and streamlining the system is an enormous part of that.  How much time and effort did you put into promoting your view when I wrote this blog entry <em>one year ago?</em>  I sat down with the Sahs&#8217; attorney and discussed the case with him before spreading my opinion.  Have you?</p>
";}s:7:"summary";s:1691:"You label a man a terrorist for being part of a group that destroys a mosque <strong>yet you ignore the Carriles case</strong>.  Many innocents died as a result of the latter's actions.  Why does one get deported and the other does not?  Why do we allow Bosnian, Sudanese and Mid-East refugees who carried the same actions and sentiments of Sah in their country?  The scales are tipped.

<strong>The confession contained no admission of violence against other humans.</strong>  This is important because there are no mosques on Hindu land in Green River, or anywhere else in America.  It is a <em>weak excuse</em> to send someone home, especially when it breaks a family apart.  What is it exactly, did Sah do that <strong>broke the law here?</strong>

The use of labels like "terrorist" and "pro-illegal supporter" makes me realize this discussion is futile.  My journal entry was about the priorities of our representation in Washington.  Something I'd imagine you're content with if you voted for the incumbent.  Hatch's office could have saved a lot of P.R. trouble if they followed your definition of the case, but they didn't because it isn't about terrorism.  In spite of Heather Barney's assertion, they've done a whole lot of nothing on this case.  The immigration system needs reform and a 700 mile border-fence is a waste of time and money.  I've clearly outlined what my remedies for immigration are and streamlining the system is an enormous part of that.  How much time and effort did you put into promoting your view when I wrote this blog entry <em>one year ago?</em>  I sat down with the Sahs' attorney and discussed the case with him before spreading my opinion.  Have you?";s:12:"atom_content";s:1795:"<p>You label a man a terrorist for being part of a group that destroys a mosque <strong>yet you ignore the Carriles case</strong>.  Many innocents died as a result of the latter&#8217;s actions.  Why does one get deported and the other does not?  Why do we allow Bosnian, Sudanese and Mid-East refugees who carried the same actions and sentiments of Sah in their country?  The scales are tipped.</p>
<p><strong>The confession contained no admission of violence against other humans.</strong>  This is important because there are no mosques on Hindu land in Green River, or anywhere else in America.  It is a <em>weak excuse</em> to send someone home, especially when it breaks a family apart.  What is it exactly, did Sah do that <strong>broke the law here?</strong></p>
<p>The use of labels like &#8220;terrorist&#8221; and &#8220;pro-illegal supporter&#8221; makes me realize this discussion is futile.  My journal entry was about the priorities of our representation in Washington.  Something I&#8217;d imagine you&#8217;re content with if you voted for the incumbent.  Hatch&#8217;s office could have saved a lot of P.R. trouble if they followed your definition of the case, but they didn&#8217;t because it isn&#8217;t about terrorism.  In spite of Heather Barney&#8217;s assertion, they&#8217;ve done a whole lot of nothing on this case.  The immigration system needs reform and a 700 mile border-fence is a waste of time and money.  I&#8217;ve clearly outlined what my remedies for immigration are and streamlining the system is an enormous part of that.  How much time and effort did you put into promoting your view when I wrote this blog entry <em>one year ago?</em>  I sat down with the Sahs&#8217; attorney and discussed the case with him before spreading my opinion.  Have you?</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1180667680;}i:6;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:39:"Comment on Life and Death by Streetjust";s:4:"link";s:86:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/06/14/life-and-death/comment-page-1/#comment-35089";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:10:"Streetjust";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:03:28 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:50:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=74#comment-35089";s:11:"description";s:2687:"Sah had no claim to political asylum. Thatâ€™s what the law says and that's how 3 different courts decided. He had several opportunities to prove his case and he was unable to convince at least one court that he would be in danger if he returned to India. Thatâ€™s when he was deported.

Sah admits that he held a leadership role within the organization and that he organized some of the riots. He admits that the organization persecuted non-Hindus and sought to destroy their mosques. He admits participating in one of these riots in an effort to destroy a mosque. The man confessed and you still stick up for him as if heâ€™s a victim of some great injustice. I didnâ€™t claim that immigration judges heard criminal cases. You keep relying on a criminal conviction as the only acceptable form of proof despite the manâ€™s own confession. He didnâ€™t claim that the confession was beaten out of him or that he was coerced to make those statements. He made them of his own volition.

Iâ€™ll call him a terrorist because his actions justify it and it matches the definition given by our government long before the war on terror began. Terrorism isnâ€™t reliant upon ethnicity, but ethnicity is what motivated Sah. Protestors do not normally qualify as terrorists, but Sah was much more than a protestor simply marching in the streets to have his voice heard. Rarely are the facts of his deportation being reported by the media. Your journal didnâ€™t even report his history or the reason given by our own government for his deportation. He is far from innocent and certainly not a victim. The efforts to withhold the truth about his past and the real reason for his deportation are an example of just how desperate the pro-illegal supporters are to put a sympathetic face on their side of the debate.

Again, I agree with you that immigration was too slow. This manâ€™s past justified a speedier response. He should have been deported back in â€™91 when he first filed his false asylum application. Our asylum protections arenâ€™t restricted to just an area of a personâ€™s native country. Those protections must consider the conditions in the entire country. The court found that the 800 million Hindus in India were the majority and that Sah could return to his country without fear of the same persecution he inflicted on non-Hindus. This information is in the decision too. From the media attention heâ€™s still getting itâ€™s apparent that the court was right about him being able to live his life in India, which further justifies the courtâ€™s conclusion that his claim for political asylum was bogus.";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:2719:"<p>Sah had no claim to political asylum. Thatâ€™s what the law says and that&#8217;s how 3 different courts decided. He had several opportunities to prove his case and he was unable to convince at least one court that he would be in danger if he returned to India. Thatâ€™s when he was deported.</p>
<p>Sah admits that he held a leadership role within the organization and that he organized some of the riots. He admits that the organization persecuted non-Hindus and sought to destroy their mosques. He admits participating in one of these riots in an effort to destroy a mosque. The man confessed and you still stick up for him as if heâ€™s a victim of some great injustice. I didnâ€™t claim that immigration judges heard criminal cases. You keep relying on a criminal conviction as the only acceptable form of proof despite the manâ€™s own confession. He didnâ€™t claim that the confession was beaten out of him or that he was coerced to make those statements. He made them of his own volition.</p>
<p>Iâ€™ll call him a terrorist because his actions justify it and it matches the definition given by our government long before the war on terror began. Terrorism isnâ€™t reliant upon ethnicity, but ethnicity is what motivated Sah. Protestors do not normally qualify as terrorists, but Sah was much more than a protestor simply marching in the streets to have his voice heard. Rarely are the facts of his deportation being reported by the media. Your journal didnâ€™t even report his history or the reason given by our own government for his deportation. He is far from innocent and certainly not a victim. The efforts to withhold the truth about his past and the real reason for his deportation are an example of just how desperate the pro-illegal supporters are to put a sympathetic face on their side of the debate.</p>
<p>Again, I agree with you that immigration was too slow. This manâ€™s past justified a speedier response. He should have been deported back in â€™91 when he first filed his false asylum application. Our asylum protections arenâ€™t restricted to just an area of a personâ€™s native country. Those protections must consider the conditions in the entire country. The court found that the 800 million Hindus in India were the majority and that Sah could return to his country without fear of the same persecution he inflicted on non-Hindus. This information is in the decision too. From the media attention heâ€™s still getting itâ€™s apparent that the court was right about him being able to live his life in India, which further justifies the courtâ€™s conclusion that his claim for political asylum was bogus.</p>
";}s:7:"summary";s:2687:"Sah had no claim to political asylum. Thatâ€™s what the law says and that's how 3 different courts decided. He had several opportunities to prove his case and he was unable to convince at least one court that he would be in danger if he returned to India. Thatâ€™s when he was deported.

Sah admits that he held a leadership role within the organization and that he organized some of the riots. He admits that the organization persecuted non-Hindus and sought to destroy their mosques. He admits participating in one of these riots in an effort to destroy a mosque. The man confessed and you still stick up for him as if heâ€™s a victim of some great injustice. I didnâ€™t claim that immigration judges heard criminal cases. You keep relying on a criminal conviction as the only acceptable form of proof despite the manâ€™s own confession. He didnâ€™t claim that the confession was beaten out of him or that he was coerced to make those statements. He made them of his own volition.

Iâ€™ll call him a terrorist because his actions justify it and it matches the definition given by our government long before the war on terror began. Terrorism isnâ€™t reliant upon ethnicity, but ethnicity is what motivated Sah. Protestors do not normally qualify as terrorists, but Sah was much more than a protestor simply marching in the streets to have his voice heard. Rarely are the facts of his deportation being reported by the media. Your journal didnâ€™t even report his history or the reason given by our own government for his deportation. He is far from innocent and certainly not a victim. The efforts to withhold the truth about his past and the real reason for his deportation are an example of just how desperate the pro-illegal supporters are to put a sympathetic face on their side of the debate.

Again, I agree with you that immigration was too slow. This manâ€™s past justified a speedier response. He should have been deported back in â€™91 when he first filed his false asylum application. Our asylum protections arenâ€™t restricted to just an area of a personâ€™s native country. Those protections must consider the conditions in the entire country. The court found that the 800 million Hindus in India were the majority and that Sah could return to his country without fear of the same persecution he inflicted on non-Hindus. This information is in the decision too. From the media attention heâ€™s still getting itâ€™s apparent that the court was right about him being able to live his life in India, which further justifies the courtâ€™s conclusion that his claim for political asylum was bogus.";s:12:"atom_content";s:2719:"<p>Sah had no claim to political asylum. Thatâ€™s what the law says and that&#8217;s how 3 different courts decided. He had several opportunities to prove his case and he was unable to convince at least one court that he would be in danger if he returned to India. Thatâ€™s when he was deported.</p>
<p>Sah admits that he held a leadership role within the organization and that he organized some of the riots. He admits that the organization persecuted non-Hindus and sought to destroy their mosques. He admits participating in one of these riots in an effort to destroy a mosque. The man confessed and you still stick up for him as if heâ€™s a victim of some great injustice. I didnâ€™t claim that immigration judges heard criminal cases. You keep relying on a criminal conviction as the only acceptable form of proof despite the manâ€™s own confession. He didnâ€™t claim that the confession was beaten out of him or that he was coerced to make those statements. He made them of his own volition.</p>
<p>Iâ€™ll call him a terrorist because his actions justify it and it matches the definition given by our government long before the war on terror began. Terrorism isnâ€™t reliant upon ethnicity, but ethnicity is what motivated Sah. Protestors do not normally qualify as terrorists, but Sah was much more than a protestor simply marching in the streets to have his voice heard. Rarely are the facts of his deportation being reported by the media. Your journal didnâ€™t even report his history or the reason given by our own government for his deportation. He is far from innocent and certainly not a victim. The efforts to withhold the truth about his past and the real reason for his deportation are an example of just how desperate the pro-illegal supporters are to put a sympathetic face on their side of the debate.</p>
<p>Again, I agree with you that immigration was too slow. This manâ€™s past justified a speedier response. He should have been deported back in â€™91 when he first filed his false asylum application. Our asylum protections arenâ€™t restricted to just an area of a personâ€™s native country. Those protections must consider the conditions in the entire country. The court found that the 800 million Hindus in India were the majority and that Sah could return to his country without fear of the same persecution he inflicted on non-Hindus. This information is in the decision too. From the media attention heâ€™s still getting itâ€™s apparent that the court was right about him being able to live his life in India, which further justifies the courtâ€™s conclusion that his claim for political asylum was bogus.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1180656208;}i:7;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:41:"Comment on Life and Death by Pete Ashdown";s:4:"link";s:86:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/06/14/life-and-death/comment-page-1/#comment-35086";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:12:"Pete Ashdown";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 31 May 2007 22:22:46 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:50:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=74#comment-35086";s:11:"description";s:1940:"When the law is convoluted and bureaucratic it encourages the path of least resistance, that is breaking the law.  Perhaps you see the same vision of the law as Javert, considering no background in lighting the crime.

Sah's admissions are organizing meetings and attending a riot.  Please point me to the confession of violence against people, because I don't see it.  Your concern for Mosques built on sacred Hindu land is admirable, but I really don't think we need to be concerned about that here.

I don't believe people who hold meetings and participate in demonstrations are terrorists.  You don't know if Sahs' actions in the "riot" were bystander, chief-demolisher, rock thrower, or defender.  You merely pass judgment of "terrorism" like it is a given fact and pretend immigration judges decide criminal cases. If he was a violent criminal, he would still be tried in India, regardless of the majority rule.  Do you judge the largest democracy in the world as harshly as you judge its citizens?  You seem to know so much about the ethnic makeup and dominant political powers of India, can you tell me what ethnic background their President is from?

Are rioters protesting the WTO around the world all "terrorists" or are they justified because there is no ethnic group on the other side?  Is Eric Rudolph not a "terrorist" because he is part of the dominant religion in the USA?  Your definition of "terrorist" is overbroad and it still stands that it never came up in this case.  You can call Ken Sah a "terrorist" all you want, but the <strong>fact</strong> remains that <em>nobody</em> else is.

His claim that he would be persecuted as a Hindu in the region of India that he was from was valid for 1997 where they were a MINORITY.    Segregation and separation and an entire decade have changed that situation.  It nevertheless does not justify 10 years of inaction by immigration.  Carrilles' "proceedings" lasted two years.";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:2098:"<p>When the law is convoluted and bureaucratic it encourages the path of least resistance, that is breaking the law.  Perhaps you see the same vision of the law as Javert, considering no background in lighting the crime.</p>
<p>Sah&#8217;s admissions are organizing meetings and attending a riot.  Please point me to the confession of violence against people, because I don&#8217;t see it.  Your concern for Mosques built on sacred Hindu land is admirable, but I really don&#8217;t think we need to be concerned about that here.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t believe people who hold meetings and participate in demonstrations are terrorists.  You don&#8217;t know if Sahs&#8217; actions in the &#8220;riot&#8221; were bystander, chief-demolisher, rock thrower, or defender.  You merely pass judgment of &#8220;terrorism&#8221; like it is a given fact and pretend immigration judges decide criminal cases. If he was a violent criminal, he would still be tried in India, regardless of the majority rule.  Do you judge the largest democracy in the world as harshly as you judge its citizens?  You seem to know so much about the ethnic makeup and dominant political powers of India, can you tell me what ethnic background their President is from?</p>
<p>Are rioters protesting the WTO around the world all &#8220;terrorists&#8221; or are they justified because there is no ethnic group on the other side?  Is Eric Rudolph not a &#8220;terrorist&#8221; because he is part of the dominant religion in the USA?  Your definition of &#8220;terrorist&#8221; is overbroad and it still stands that it never came up in this case.  You can call Ken Sah a &#8220;terrorist&#8221; all you want, but the <strong>fact</strong> remains that <em>nobody</em> else is.</p>
<p>His claim that he would be persecuted as a Hindu in the region of India that he was from was valid for 1997 where they were a MINORITY.    Segregation and separation and an entire decade have changed that situation.  It nevertheless does not justify 10 years of inaction by immigration.  Carrilles&#8217; &#8220;proceedings&#8221; lasted two years.</p>
";}s:7:"summary";s:1940:"When the law is convoluted and bureaucratic it encourages the path of least resistance, that is breaking the law.  Perhaps you see the same vision of the law as Javert, considering no background in lighting the crime.

Sah's admissions are organizing meetings and attending a riot.  Please point me to the confession of violence against people, because I don't see it.  Your concern for Mosques built on sacred Hindu land is admirable, but I really don't think we need to be concerned about that here.

I don't believe people who hold meetings and participate in demonstrations are terrorists.  You don't know if Sahs' actions in the "riot" were bystander, chief-demolisher, rock thrower, or defender.  You merely pass judgment of "terrorism" like it is a given fact and pretend immigration judges decide criminal cases. If he was a violent criminal, he would still be tried in India, regardless of the majority rule.  Do you judge the largest democracy in the world as harshly as you judge its citizens?  You seem to know so much about the ethnic makeup and dominant political powers of India, can you tell me what ethnic background their President is from?

Are rioters protesting the WTO around the world all "terrorists" or are they justified because there is no ethnic group on the other side?  Is Eric Rudolph not a "terrorist" because he is part of the dominant religion in the USA?  Your definition of "terrorist" is overbroad and it still stands that it never came up in this case.  You can call Ken Sah a "terrorist" all you want, but the <strong>fact</strong> remains that <em>nobody</em> else is.

His claim that he would be persecuted as a Hindu in the region of India that he was from was valid for 1997 where they were a MINORITY.    Segregation and separation and an entire decade have changed that situation.  It nevertheless does not justify 10 years of inaction by immigration.  Carrilles' "proceedings" lasted two years.";s:12:"atom_content";s:2098:"<p>When the law is convoluted and bureaucratic it encourages the path of least resistance, that is breaking the law.  Perhaps you see the same vision of the law as Javert, considering no background in lighting the crime.</p>
<p>Sah&#8217;s admissions are organizing meetings and attending a riot.  Please point me to the confession of violence against people, because I don&#8217;t see it.  Your concern for Mosques built on sacred Hindu land is admirable, but I really don&#8217;t think we need to be concerned about that here.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t believe people who hold meetings and participate in demonstrations are terrorists.  You don&#8217;t know if Sahs&#8217; actions in the &#8220;riot&#8221; were bystander, chief-demolisher, rock thrower, or defender.  You merely pass judgment of &#8220;terrorism&#8221; like it is a given fact and pretend immigration judges decide criminal cases. If he was a violent criminal, he would still be tried in India, regardless of the majority rule.  Do you judge the largest democracy in the world as harshly as you judge its citizens?  You seem to know so much about the ethnic makeup and dominant political powers of India, can you tell me what ethnic background their President is from?</p>
<p>Are rioters protesting the WTO around the world all &#8220;terrorists&#8221; or are they justified because there is no ethnic group on the other side?  Is Eric Rudolph not a &#8220;terrorist&#8221; because he is part of the dominant religion in the USA?  Your definition of &#8220;terrorist&#8221; is overbroad and it still stands that it never came up in this case.  You can call Ken Sah a &#8220;terrorist&#8221; all you want, but the <strong>fact</strong> remains that <em>nobody</em> else is.</p>
<p>His claim that he would be persecuted as a Hindu in the region of India that he was from was valid for 1997 where they were a MINORITY.    Segregation and separation and an entire decade have changed that situation.  It nevertheless does not justify 10 years of inaction by immigration.  Carrilles&#8217; &#8220;proceedings&#8221; lasted two years.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1180650166;}i:8;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:39:"Comment on Life and Death by Streetjust";s:4:"link";s:86:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/06/14/life-and-death/comment-page-1/#comment-35084";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:10:"Streetjust";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 31 May 2007 21:26:26 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:50:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=74#comment-35084";s:11:"description";s:1577:"Blaming our immigration policy for illegal aliens is like blaming the sales tax for shoplifters. Both groups of people choose to violate our laws.

Sah admitted to his actions. That is part of the court decision and the various courts found those claims to be credible. He confessed! How much more proof do you need? I am simply repeating his admission. His actions make him a terrorist. He deliberately acted to persecute non-Hindus. Who were the beer rioters trying to persecute?

The courts didnâ€™t stop at just calling his statements contradictory. What the courts said was that his oral statements were not credible when compared to the written statements he submitted with his application. The court even described his written statements as â€œmilitantâ€ and recognized his oral statements as an effort to downplay his â€œmilitantâ€ writings. 

You hide behind the absence of criminal proceedings in his homeland while ignoring another fact recognized by the immigration judge. His religion is in the majority and governs India. Itâ€™s unlikely that India would try him for his actions against a minority. In this country we recognize equal rights among different groups despite their percentage of the population.

I see somebody who knew he was at the mercy of our government at a time when all foreign nationals are scrutinized. With his violent history he had to behave or he would have had no chance of convincing anybody that he was a victim so he could attain U.S. citizenship. His whole case rested on his claims that he was a victim.";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:1609:"<p>Blaming our immigration policy for illegal aliens is like blaming the sales tax for shoplifters. Both groups of people choose to violate our laws.</p>
<p>Sah admitted to his actions. That is part of the court decision and the various courts found those claims to be credible. He confessed! How much more proof do you need? I am simply repeating his admission. His actions make him a terrorist. He deliberately acted to persecute non-Hindus. Who were the beer rioters trying to persecute?</p>
<p>The courts didnâ€™t stop at just calling his statements contradictory. What the courts said was that his oral statements were not credible when compared to the written statements he submitted with his application. The court even described his written statements as â€œmilitantâ€ and recognized his oral statements as an effort to downplay his â€œmilitantâ€ writings. </p>
<p>You hide behind the absence of criminal proceedings in his homeland while ignoring another fact recognized by the immigration judge. His religion is in the majority and governs India. Itâ€™s unlikely that India would try him for his actions against a minority. In this country we recognize equal rights among different groups despite their percentage of the population.</p>
<p>I see somebody who knew he was at the mercy of our government at a time when all foreign nationals are scrutinized. With his violent history he had to behave or he would have had no chance of convincing anybody that he was a victim so he could attain U.S. citizenship. His whole case rested on his claims that he was a victim.</p>
";}s:7:"summary";s:1577:"Blaming our immigration policy for illegal aliens is like blaming the sales tax for shoplifters. Both groups of people choose to violate our laws.

Sah admitted to his actions. That is part of the court decision and the various courts found those claims to be credible. He confessed! How much more proof do you need? I am simply repeating his admission. His actions make him a terrorist. He deliberately acted to persecute non-Hindus. Who were the beer rioters trying to persecute?

The courts didnâ€™t stop at just calling his statements contradictory. What the courts said was that his oral statements were not credible when compared to the written statements he submitted with his application. The court even described his written statements as â€œmilitantâ€ and recognized his oral statements as an effort to downplay his â€œmilitantâ€ writings. 

You hide behind the absence of criminal proceedings in his homeland while ignoring another fact recognized by the immigration judge. His religion is in the majority and governs India. Itâ€™s unlikely that India would try him for his actions against a minority. In this country we recognize equal rights among different groups despite their percentage of the population.

I see somebody who knew he was at the mercy of our government at a time when all foreign nationals are scrutinized. With his violent history he had to behave or he would have had no chance of convincing anybody that he was a victim so he could attain U.S. citizenship. His whole case rested on his claims that he was a victim.";s:12:"atom_content";s:1609:"<p>Blaming our immigration policy for illegal aliens is like blaming the sales tax for shoplifters. Both groups of people choose to violate our laws.</p>
<p>Sah admitted to his actions. That is part of the court decision and the various courts found those claims to be credible. He confessed! How much more proof do you need? I am simply repeating his admission. His actions make him a terrorist. He deliberately acted to persecute non-Hindus. Who were the beer rioters trying to persecute?</p>
<p>The courts didnâ€™t stop at just calling his statements contradictory. What the courts said was that his oral statements were not credible when compared to the written statements he submitted with his application. The court even described his written statements as â€œmilitantâ€ and recognized his oral statements as an effort to downplay his â€œmilitantâ€ writings. </p>
<p>You hide behind the absence of criminal proceedings in his homeland while ignoring another fact recognized by the immigration judge. His religion is in the majority and governs India. Itâ€™s unlikely that India would try him for his actions against a minority. In this country we recognize equal rights among different groups despite their percentage of the population.</p>
<p>I see somebody who knew he was at the mercy of our government at a time when all foreign nationals are scrutinized. With his violent history he had to behave or he would have had no chance of convincing anybody that he was a victim so he could attain U.S. citizenship. His whole case rested on his claims that he was a victim.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1180646786;}i:9;a:10:{s:5:"title";s:41:"Comment on Life and Death by Pete Ashdown";s:4:"link";s:86:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/06/14/life-and-death/comment-page-1/#comment-35083";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:12:"Pete Ashdown";}s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 31 May 2007 20:56:06 +0000";s:4:"guid";s:50:"http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=74#comment-35083";s:11:"description";s:1564:"My position is that people are innocent until proven guilty and the current immigration system encourages people to break the law rather than follow it.  If the U.S. is to be a court for all international crimes, then we've got a lot of deporting to do.

Neither the court nor you have been able to justify Ken Sah as a "terrorist".  My entry didn't need to talk about Carriles because nobody has described Sah as a terrorist until you have in your comments.  Carriles is a self-admitted bomber who enjoys American citizenship and is being protected against extradition.  You characterize Sah as a ringleader in a riot and an attack, but he hasn't been charged with anything in the country where it happened.  Unless you were a witness or there are court proceedings convicting Ken Sah of such offenses then you have no authority to accuse the man.  There was a beer "riot" at the Salt Lake Olympics, were the participants "terrorists" or just drunk?

Even the IJ does not make this claim.  What is said is that his statements are contradictory and I think that is a pretty weak reason to throw someone out of the country who has followed the law and made a contribution to our economy, even if it is upheld three times.  Even more so when a U.S. Senator makes exceptions for all kinds of other immigration offenses except one that is near election time.

As for the contradictory statements, what I see is someone who came out of an ethnically charged environment and lost his hate and prejudice over a decade.  What a horrible offense and danger to this country.";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:1644:"<p>My position is that people are innocent until proven guilty and the current immigration system encourages people to break the law rather than follow it.  If the U.S. is to be a court for all international crimes, then we&#8217;ve got a lot of deporting to do.</p>
<p>Neither the court nor you have been able to justify Ken Sah as a &#8220;terrorist&#8221;.  My entry didn&#8217;t need to talk about Carriles because nobody has described Sah as a terrorist until you have in your comments.  Carriles is a self-admitted bomber who enjoys American citizenship and is being protected against extradition.  You characterize Sah as a ringleader in a riot and an attack, but he hasn&#8217;t been charged with anything in the country where it happened.  Unless you were a witness or there are court proceedings convicting Ken Sah of such offenses then you have no authority to accuse the man.  There was a beer &#8220;riot&#8221; at the Salt Lake Olympics, were the participants &#8220;terrorists&#8221; or just drunk?</p>
<p>Even the IJ does not make this claim.  What is said is that his statements are contradictory and I think that is a pretty weak reason to throw someone out of the country who has followed the law and made a contribution to our economy, even if it is upheld three times.  Even more so when a U.S. Senator makes exceptions for all kinds of other immigration offenses except one that is near election time.</p>
<p>As for the contradictory statements, what I see is someone who came out of an ethnically charged environment and lost his hate and prejudice over a decade.  What a horrible offense and danger to this country.</p>
";}s:7:"summary";s:1564:"My position is that people are innocent until proven guilty and the current immigration system encourages people to break the law rather than follow it.  If the U.S. is to be a court for all international crimes, then we've got a lot of deporting to do.

Neither the court nor you have been able to justify Ken Sah as a "terrorist".  My entry didn't need to talk about Carriles because nobody has described Sah as a terrorist until you have in your comments.  Carriles is a self-admitted bomber who enjoys American citizenship and is being protected against extradition.  You characterize Sah as a ringleader in a riot and an attack, but he hasn't been charged with anything in the country where it happened.  Unless you were a witness or there are court proceedings convicting Ken Sah of such offenses then you have no authority to accuse the man.  There was a beer "riot" at the Salt Lake Olympics, were the participants "terrorists" or just drunk?

Even the IJ does not make this claim.  What is said is that his statements are contradictory and I think that is a pretty weak reason to throw someone out of the country who has followed the law and made a contribution to our economy, even if it is upheld three times.  Even more so when a U.S. Senator makes exceptions for all kinds of other immigration offenses except one that is near election time.

As for the contradictory statements, what I see is someone who came out of an ethnically charged environment and lost his hate and prejudice over a decade.  What a horrible offense and danger to this country.";s:12:"atom_content";s:1644:"<p>My position is that people are innocent until proven guilty and the current immigration system encourages people to break the law rather than follow it.  If the U.S. is to be a court for all international crimes, then we&#8217;ve got a lot of deporting to do.</p>
<p>Neither the court nor you have been able to justify Ken Sah as a &#8220;terrorist&#8221;.  My entry didn&#8217;t need to talk about Carriles because nobody has described Sah as a terrorist until you have in your comments.  Carriles is a self-admitted bomber who enjoys American citizenship and is being protected against extradition.  You characterize Sah as a ringleader in a riot and an attack, but he hasn&#8217;t been charged with anything in the country where it happened.  Unless you were a witness or there are court proceedings convicting Ken Sah of such offenses then you have no authority to accuse the man.  There was a beer &#8220;riot&#8221; at the Salt Lake Olympics, were the participants &#8220;terrorists&#8221; or just drunk?</p>
<p>Even the IJ does not make this claim.  What is said is that his statements are contradictory and I think that is a pretty weak reason to throw someone out of the country who has followed the law and made a contribution to our economy, even if it is upheld three times.  Even more so when a U.S. Senator makes exceptions for all kinds of other immigration offenses except one that is near election time.</p>
<p>As for the contradictory statements, what I see is someone who came out of an ethnically charged environment and lost his hate and prejudice over a decade.  What a horrible offense and danger to this country.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1180644966;}}s:7:"channel";a:7:{s:5:"title";s:35:"Comments for Pete Ashdown's Journal";s:4:"link";s:30:"http://peteashdown.org/journal";s:11:"description";s:23:"Fast Forward the Future";s:13:"lastbuilddate";s:31:"Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:12:19 +0000";s:2:"sy";a:2:{s:12:"updateperiod";s:6:"hourly";s:15:"updatefrequency";s:1:"1";}s:9:"generator";s:29:"http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2";s:7:"tagline";s:23:"Fast Forward the Future";}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:3:"RSS";s:12:"feed_version";s:3:"2.0";s:8:"encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:16:"_source_encoding";s:0:"";s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:7:"WARNING";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:16:"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS";a:3:{i:0;s:5:"UTF-8";i:1;s:8:"US-ASCII";i:2;s:10:"ISO-8859-1";}s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:15:"source_encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:13:"last_modified";s:31:"Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:12:19 GMT
";s:4:"etag";s:36:""2588f704ec92ea8df028a6941c5e28ff"
";}