You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
if he went to Mexico to defend those innocent drug lords? That's the client he likes!
Don't use the health issue to downplay the overall arrogance of Erlinder of going somewhere that he was not wanted. This is the typical "ugly American" that we so oftern hear about; going to another country and expecting everything to be the same as it is at home.
Erlinder need not have expected arrest and prison for traveling to Rwanda to defend a client. The charges are bogus; he has not "denied" the genocide.
The whole "he should have known better--especially with his heart condition!" is a pointless and overly critical observation. Erlinder was courageous, not stupid; arrest and imprisonment was not certain to result from this trip. It never should have happened.
Burcum should stick to topics she's more familiar with, like grandparents teaching their grandkids to parallel park. Obviously she doesn't know much about the legal profession.
He irked them, they threw him in the joint, he crumbled like a two year old girl and ran home.
"You with the sad eyes
don't be discouraged
oh I realize
it's hard to take courage
in a world full of people
you can lose sight of it all
and the darkness inside you
can make you fell so small
But I see your true colors
I see your true colors"...and its black.
Well, yes he is unstable and should listen to his psychiatrist's advice. He is very unstable in his judgement, not sure how he can teach if he is that severely ill. Yes, he dines the genocide by calling it a war between two ethnic groups. You won't call slavery a business between slaves and masters, would you? This is the same thing. By calling it a war, he is suggesting that the victims were armed and were fighting for power struggle. This is very misleading because the tutsi victims in this genocide never had an army nor were ever armed or organized in any way. They were killed simply because they were Tutsis. Kagame and his army were fighting to return to Rwanda after over 40 years into exile. When the genocide started they fought to stop it and they did. Yes there was a war before the genocide but he can't deny that the genocide happened by deliberately throwing all events into one big basket.
A Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. This definition is very different from a war. Essentially, he is suggesting that people were killed by accident, there was no intention to kill them, and that the killings were not systematic. How does he explain how 1,000,000 people can be killed in just 100 days? To not realize the trauma he is reigniting among survivors who lived through this hell, he is not only mentally ill, he has no humanity in him all. In a strange way, he is able to sympathize with the evil doers but unable to emphasize with their victims to the point that he is willing to lead their fight to flip the story and conveniently turn them into victims.
Just reading his comments about the US embassy in Rwanda, a few days ago, he is playing the victim card again this time for his own case and although they fed him and were there for him, his arrogance make them look like villains who did nothing for him. Like many have said it before, IT'S ALL ABOUT ERLINDER. He is bigger than anyone else.
As a Rwandan whose friends and family members have been exterminated by the extremist Tutsi in power in Rwanda, I am very thankful to Professor Erlinder. Erlinder knew that we Rwandans have been killed into submission by the current extremist government in Rwanda. Those of us who have survived, we are so scared and even when we speak out and General Kagame's forces jail us or kill us, nobody hears us.
The fact that Erlinder put his life on the line for human rights in Rwanda means that our voices will be amplified now.
We thank him so much and one day when Rwanda becomes a democratic nation, we will have a monument built in his honor!
So, when they call him back to court will he go, or will his cause suddenly become less important?
Once this professor was faced with the consequences of his actions; his lack of conviction was shown.
He did everything he could do to lie his way out of his predicament. He set himself up to be hero, then turned coward.
He appears to be some weird amalgamation of Professor Charles Kingsfield,Mr.Hart,Don Quixote and Batman.
It is one thing to run around the U.S. filing briefs in favor of our local little cookie baking terrorist Sarah Jane and the Anishinabe, it is quite another to play "Mr. Erlinder goes to Rwanda". Once removed from the parochial aging hippies and the white "whine" and mj party's our dear professor was faced with reality. That must have bit. Hard. Now, he is safe at home. Among his own kind. They can plot their strategy at a huge party/presser over the weekend of July 3 thru 5. At which they will praise the bill of rights(except, the second of course) and then weep about the white mans burden. The video provided by the Strib is a punctuation mark to his folly.
I know him very well. Before leaving, he told me that he himself was expendable, that the evidence collected in his Rwanda Documents Project was what mattered: http://www.rwandadocumentsproject.net/gsdl/cgi-bin/library
He knew what he was getting into, knew what risks he was taking and why. I'm sure he was quite familiar with his own health problems and he went anyway. He is an extraordinary man of immense courage, both physically and intellectually.
He also knew that his getting back here to report on what he saw and experienced there, from the inside, was important.
What are you critics trying to claim? That he was supposed to sit there and tough it out in a Rwanda prison? Don't be ridiculous. For what? I've researched and written about Rwandan prisons, which have the second highest per capita prison population in the world, and I knew as I watched this unfold that Peter Erlinder was doing whatever he could to get out, as I or anyone would, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18599.
Why aren't you criticizing the U.S. State Dept., which seems to have been involved in the plan to report that he had departed for Nairobi the day before his arrest? Or Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and the NY Times's Nicholas Kristof, who rave about Kagame's global citizenship and Rwanda as the beacon of hope for Africa, even after six million dead consequent to Rwanda and Uganda's invasions of D.R. Congo, after the 1994 Rwanda Genocide?
You are foolish. A soft headed dupe. You "Feel" you do not think. You read yet you do not comprehend. Erlinder will have a place for you serving at his shrine of courage and intellectual strength.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
Poll: How are your seasonal allergies this year?
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks