Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo, talks about his mission to close the facility.
Check showtimes to see when the program airs on CNN where you are. Or watch online.
As France proceeded forward toward its partial ban on the burqa and a European lawmaker declared that the Muslim veil was a symbol of political Islam, Amanpour viewers’ emotions ran high. While many avidly defended their posture based on religion, some thought this was a positive change.
What are your thoughts? Please share your thoughts with us! In addition, if you missed the show go to http://www.amanpour.com for more information.
Below, you will see some opinions from viewers like yourself. We would love to hear what you think.
EMAIL COMMENTS
Hi Ms Amanpour,
About the discussion that proposed banning of the Muslim veil in France, when I met my wife in Kuwait, she wore the traditional scarf (hijab) and the traditional women's robe. She was a practicioner of Islam and I didn't allow that to prevent me from getting to know her. One of the reasons I went to Kuwait was in response to 911. Being an American, I wanted to contribute towards the pursuit of those responsible. So, I served as an armed security officer at a military base there. However, despite my wife being a Muslim and the events of 911, I was able to remain open minded and respectful of Muslims as individuals which is how I judged my wife. However, what makes this much more interesting is the fact I am an Atheist. Nonetheless, because I judged my wife as an individual and not based on her religion, I proceeded with my intention to marry her which is what I did, less than a year later after my arrival in Kuwait. And, I have no regrets til this day, almost 7 years later. I share this with you to illustrate the fact people of different beliefs can function successfully in relationships as well as marriage. My wife and I love each other for the things we do for each other and not our opposing faith or my lack thereof. However, insofar as the burqua issue itself, having a security background, I do understand some of the concerns law enforcement may have. Therefore, I believe through education, perhaps law enforcement, government, and religious leaders can come together to discuss those concerns and derive at ways of dealing with the issues short of banning or prohibiting a practitioner of Islam from wearing the traditional clothing or headdress. In turn, the person who chooses to wear these articles should be understanding and willing to comply out of respect for the concern of their fellow citizens or host nation. Of course, to accomplish this, they must be also willing to open their minds as well and listen objectively.
Sincerely,
S. Mitchell
Christianne: Isn't an Israeli-Palestinian peace ageement completely and utterly hopeless unless President Obama stands firmly against the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank? How much power do the Israeli nationalist extremists have regarding settlement expansion? How much power does AIPAC hold over the president? Would AIPAC threaten to block Obama's agenda if he's tough on the settlements issue?
sj
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| 
If Europe is willing to take precedence of denying its own citizens from their basic right of freedom of worship, religion, dress-code or dietary preference; this will only work against its own interest & ultimately to its own demise.
This european decision calls for all muslim countries to impose a dietary ban on pork, even a dress code banning shorts & bikinis or sun bathing in public places&total ban on alcohol for all europeans & christians visiting or living in the middle east. Supported by severe prison sentences for any offender.
lts time for France to remember that it was these very sons of hijab wearing minorities that liberated europe from its Nazi enemies. Now these same very minorities will soon act & rise as bitter enemies of their own country.
While agreeing with Mitchell that muslims living in non muslim countries should abide by the laws of that country, just as non muslims going to Saudia are constrained to observe the dress code of Saudia, I view this recent law in Europe with a considerable amount of missgiving. This has a very strong stench of racial profiling, anti muslim sentiment and mischief. A country that takes pride in the freedoms that their citizens enjoy, why then this descrimination against a particular group. I don't believe security is a reason because there are other socio-religious groups living there who also have typical dresses and head gears that can pose security concerns. For example, a sari can as easily hide incriminating material as a burka. All these missgivings notwithstanding, I would support the premise that if the govt makes a law it should be abiding for all.
I am a Danish citizen. I live in Copenhagen, one of the most ethnically mixed areas of Denmark. I live within a kilometre range from the mosque and one of the so called “ghettos” in Copenhagen. I have NEVER seen a woman in a burqa.
This is in not just a coincidence, in fact, researchers in Denmark say that there might only be as little as 20, not 200 as Nasa Khader claims, women in Denmark wearing the burqa. Evidently that is a 0.00036% of the population.
Our politicians have spent hours, day, weeks, months even to discuss a possible ban. They should, as Danish politicians and members of parliament, be very aware of our constitution and be aware that a ban would not be possible.
So why spend so much time discussing this?
Here is an other fact; 59% of the Danish population are against Moslem head scarf for women employed within the public sector.
My quick assumption is that all this debating and discussion is NOT about freedom for women and good old democratic Danish values. No to me it looks like a fight for keeping or getting more votes.
I think it is very important to discuss democracy, cultural differences and values, and religion. But we do not further these discussions by banning religious symbols or cultural scarfs or clothing. We do not move towards solutions when politicians start discussions that splits populations in two, those for and those against.