Many Muslim women in Europe say they don’t buy it. Make no mistake, no matter how Muslim women feel about the burka most of them would say politicians have no business banning or defending it.

As one woman wrote to us after we asked her opinion, “It seems that in a hundred years, little has changed in Mr Sarkozy's mind about imposing his version of liberal values. In the shadow of the sumptuous Versailles Palace, his comments seem little other than cheap shots at winning political points, without really addressing the heart of the issue. How can a politician determine what a woman should wear?”

Many women point out that the burka or niqab is seen by some as a sacred expression of religious freedom and by others as a hideous example of female oppression. But as with free speech, some may not like what you’re wearing but they will defend your right to wear it.

While the French culture and character is central to this story, its separation between church and state and the secularism of the republic, some say this cannot possibly justify telling women what they can and can’t wear in public.

This is a raging debate throughout Europe and one that makes many quite uncomfortable. Even Muslim groups in France were muted in their response.

In the Netherlands and France there are bans on wearing any outwardly religious symbols including face veils.  For justification, many point out that in Turkey, a Muslim country, secularism is taken seriously and head coverings are forbidden in government offices and schools.

But banning face coverings anywhere in public would go a step too far according to many including U.S. President Barack Obama.

In an historic speech to the Muslim world from Cairo in June, Obama said he did not believe the state should dictate how people – and Muslim women in particular – should dress.

And it’s true that a ban in places like Britain or the United States would never be proposed or accepted. Many are sceptical that Sarkozy’s proposals will amount to anything but in the meantime it is serving to further widen the cultural divide between Europe and its Muslim communities.

Let us know what you think, we want to hear from you.

What do the photos of alleged abuse of detainees actually show and who took them?

There are apparently more than two thousand photos that allegedly show prisoner and detainee abuse. These photos come from two different sources: Personal snapshots taken by military personnel whose conduct contravened military laws and secondly, photos that were taken as part of military criminal investigations that sought to document allegations of abuse, including autopsy photos of prisoners who died in custody. The photos deal exclusively with alleged incidents in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama reverses course on release of photos

Who is the ACLU and why do they want the photos released?

The ACLU stands for the American Civil Liberties Union and they have lobbied for years both in court and in political circles to have these photos released. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act request in October 2003 for all photographs pertaining to U.S. military detentions to be released. That request was denied and in 2004 the ACLU filed a lawsuit. In September 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordered the photographs released. The Bush administration challenged the ruling, but the court denied that petition in March.

The Obama administration then told a federal judge that it would release a "substantial number" of photos in response to the court ruling in the American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act lawsuit but then reversed itself.  The ACLU has always maintained that only through full transparency and disclosure can the United States come to terms with the alleged atrocities and ensure that they are not repeated.

Why did U.S. President Barack Obama decide initially to publish the photos and why did he subsequently change his mind?

President Obama originally indicated last month that instead of continuing to legally fight the ACLU, it would abide by the most current legal ruling that the photos could be released. Now, he has reversed himself and indicated that the U.S. government would continue to fight the ACLU in court to keep the photos out of the public domain.  According to White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs, “The President, as you all know, met with his legal team last week because he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos."  That discomfort apparently arose after military commanders warned it was not in the national security interest to release the photos. President Obama explained his action by saying “The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

What has been the political reaction to the decision to block the photos?

The Obama administration is now fielding both criticism and praise for its reversal. Some Republicans applauded the move saying they were gratified Obama was listening to military commanders as the Bush administration had. “I agree with the President that the release of these photos would serve no purpose other than to put our troops in greater danger,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican. But human rights advocates now accuse Obama of contributing to a cover-up of alleged abuses committed under the Bush Administration.

Is there any evidence that the photos affect the safety of U.S. troops and "inflame anti-American opinion?"

In the past, the Abu-Ghraib photos that documented detainee abuse at the hands of American soldiers have been used on jihadist websites to backup claims that American troops mistreat Muslims. These photos can serve as radicalizing elements and extremist preachers have in the past used these incidents of alleged and proven abuse to motivate attacks against American soldiers and targets. There has been much talk in recent years about ‘blowback’, the concept that there will be retribution all over the world against Americans for their actions if both Afghanistan and Iraq. But the ACLU argues that as repugnant as the photos are, the only redeeming act that would infer a measure of justice would be to release them.