March 27, 2006

Abdul Rahman Released

CNN is flying a banner saying Abdul has been released from custody.

Developing...

FOXNEWS as well.

It was reported today that Rahman would seek safety outside Afghanistan. No word yet on what country, if any, he has been moved to.

UN via The TimesAdrian Edwards, a UN spokesman in Kabul, said that he expected that one of the countries interested in a peaceful solution to the case would give refuge to 41-year-old Mr Rahman.

Ok, found the AP original Story and it says that Mr. Rahman was released just outside of Kabul. Hopefully this is a somewhat of a ruse and he was met there and taken to safety.

AP via Yahoo News : Justice Minister Mohammed Sarwar Danish told The Associated Press that the 41-year-old was released from the high-security Policharki prison on the outskirts of Kabul late Monday.

"We released him last night because the prosecutors told us to," he said. "His family was there when he was freed, but I don't know where he was taken."

Does I don't know mean long gone? Does outskirts mean at the airport? It's possible the county that takes him may be a bit skittish about going public. I would hate to think of the other possibilities.


Posted by: Howie at 10:51 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

1 ALLLAHU AKBAR!!! THIS is the appropriate time to say that...not when you're chopping people heads off and lauching rockets at innocent people. :]

Posted by: billy faeth at March 27, 2006 11:24 PM (OlZhJ)

2 His family was there when he was freed Didn't a member of his family turn him in?

Posted by: davec at March 28, 2006 12:02 AM (CcXvt)

3 Dave: I know, it's confusing about his family. Family turns him then family tells the court he's "cuckoo" to spare him and then family picks him up on the outskirts of town. If I remember correctly, he was turned in by family because of a custody battle over the children. Well, if Afghanistan is so hell bent on exacting Sharia law, then why did they abandon it and allow a battle over custody of the children, yet, enforce it for apostasy? In Sharia law the children always go to the father. In other words, if Sharia is the law of the land, then why was there a custody battle at all? Over here we call that hypocrisy.

Posted by: Oyster at March 28, 2006 05:33 AM (YudAC)

4 Oh yeah, and it must have sucked for the judge to have a name like Mohammed Sarwar "Danish" in light of the recent Danish cartoon kerfluffle.

Posted by: Oyster at March 28, 2006 05:36 AM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
18kb generated in CPU 0.0201, elapsed 0.14 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1303 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy



Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Sample link

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 72071
  • Files: 330
  • Bytes: 862.3M
  • CPU Time: 45:34
  • Queries: 4607230

Content

  • Posts: 5690
  • Comments: 76633

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0