Daniel Pipes
Mobile Edition
Regular Site

A double-edged sword?
Reader comment on item: The University of Chicago vs. Victims of Terror

Submitted by Andrew Bartlett (United Kingdom), Jul 20, 2006 at 09:00

Now that this precedent has been set, will we see the US Government defending itself, and its cultural heritage, in the courts of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, etc., countries who suffered terribly at the hands of US-funded murderers and torturers?

Or is this simply a legalistic dressing on what would otherwise be seen as the exercise of brute power?


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Submit a comment on this item

Search by Enter name or date
Search Forum Comments:

Reader comments (8) on this item

Title By Date
Good Muslim and Good American ? [350 words]Nathan RosenblattAug 17, 2006 21:13
Good Muslim? [92 words]Linda HaslamNov 8, 2007 08:47
⇒ A double-edged sword? [59 words]Andrew BartlettJul 20, 2006 09:00
Are U.S. Courts Biased against Iran? [22 words]steven LJul 16, 2006 20:29
Silly !
[w/response] [86 words]
Bob B.Jul 16, 2006 10:14
i am cyrus [40 words]cyrusJul 8, 2006 08:29
Interesting, a new American Way of War [261 words]John ProvidenceJul 7, 2006 23:00
immaturity [29 words]HARRAKJul 5, 2006 21:36

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

See the 25 most recent outstanding comments.

Back to top of page