Comments on: Free Speech, But Only If Its Bilateral

By: honestpartisan

honestpartisan — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:25:12 +0000

This isn’t necessarily relevant to the free speech point being made here, but in regard to the commenters, Khatami was a reformer who was trying to move Iran away from being a theocracy. It seems to me that it’s in the U.S.’s national security interests to give him a platform.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 10:39:21 +0000

Who were the first terrorists, to use bombs, well find it out here, it were French ROYALISTS,

By: markm

markm — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:33:37 +0000

My one concern is whether this guy has such a previous record that we ought to be seeking his arrest and trial. If he’s personally responsible for terrorism, or if he was involved in taking diplomats hostage[1], I’d still be happy to see him getting a chance to speak here – after the prosecution rests.

[1] They violated the only true principle of international law – don’t mess with diplomats. That principle has stood since the Roman Republic, because violating it is in no one’s interests except barbarians with no interest in ever making peace.

By: JoshK

JoshK — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:40:31 +0000

This guy is a former representative of an evil regime that has supported terror groups which have killed large numbers of US Soldiers and citizens. They have slaughtered internal disenters and non-conforming religions. Allowing him to enter into our country and then spending USD $ to pay for his protection while here is a Carteresque spineless way to make a point of highlighting our inaction. Let’s wait until they allow Dick Cheney to do a speaking tour of their universities.

By: Tom Van Horn

Tom Van Horn — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:21:33 +0000

Well, Coyote. I think it's a problem for two reasons.

1) There are a bunch of folks in the State Dept. and the CIA who are at odds with the White House (see Armitage, Richard and Powell, Colin and Plame, Valerie for previous examples). It has been suggested that this visa was approved specifically to embarass the White House. Now, why Condi doesn't cancel it, I don't know, but if that is the reason for the approval, it's not a good one.

2) More important than that is the signal it sends to enemies. Let's assume for a moment that we all agree--even Dick Cheney--that free speech is a good thing. It is there in the Constitution, and we like the Founders, so let's stick with it. Well, that says this guy ought to be able to talk if he's here. But he's not. I'm not familiar with guidelines for issuing visas, but I suspect the decision to grant them is based on criteria including supporting/not supporting terrorism, etc. The issue is not free speech. The issue is why or why not grant the guy the visa. Who made that decision, based on what criteria, and why? And, if bringing him here hurts the US in its relations with the Middle East and Iran or hurts its stature, negotiating position, etc., then why is it so important to bring him here?

He could simply start a blog just like you...