Here's a welcome mainstream media notice of how the coming of Sharia to Iraq will erode rights for non-Muslims and women. From the LA Times, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
BAGHDAD — As Iraq's transitional National Assembly prepares to approve a new draft constitution as early as today, legal experts and some political leaders warned Wednesday that the charter's explicit endorsement of Islam could give religious hard-liners a tight grasp on a country that was once one of the Middle East's most secular.In an effort to strike a compromise between the nation's religious and secular communities, Iraq's proposed constitution reserves a central place for Islamic law in the legal system while safeguarding personal freedoms and democracy.
But the text's ambiguous language and apparently conflicting provisions left neither side particularly happy, and if approved, the document probably will be the subject of heated debate in Iraqi courts for years to come.
For instance, the draft constitution makes Islam the "official religion" of Iraq and "a main source" of law rather than "the" source, as many Shiite conservatives sought. But secularists remain concerned about a clause that prohibits any law that "contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."
Critics fear the provision could be used by religious hard-liners to impose a strict version of Islamic law, such as banning alcohol, restricting women's rights and imposing harsh Koranic punishments such as stoning.
The Iraqi draft constitution also calls for gender equality and privacy rights and prohibits laws that contradict democracy or "basic freedoms" guaranteed by the charter.
"It's not a workable document," said Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, an Islamic scholar and law professor at Emory University. "They brushed their differences under the carpet and crafted language that they could vote for. It's a time bomb that will explode as soon as it's enacted," he said.
An-Naim said a similar move to make laws conform to Islam by Sudan's Arab-dominated government in the 1980s sparked a 20-year civil war when southern Christians rebelled. "It was a disaster."
In Iraq, Iyad Jamal Din, a Shiite Muslim cleric and political activist who opposes mixing religion and government, voiced similar concerns. "It tries to preserve human rights, but within a choking religious society that is a clone of the Iranian system," he said. "I fear this constitution will lead us into a dark society controlled by extremists."
Although Iraq's charter does not envision installing a "supreme leader" like Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, questions are already emerging about certain provisions. For example, what are the "undisputed rules" of Islam? What constitutes "contradicting?" Since alcohol is banned in the Koran, should Iraq become a dry nation? Are women required to cover their heads? Does a prison sentence for a thief contradict the Koran, which calls for amputation of the hand?
"The problem is that there are no agreements on these questions," said Peter W. Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia who advised Kurdish politicians on the constitution. "It allows any cleric to make his own interpretation of the law and opens the door to a whole range of abuses."
Galbraith said the draft fell well short of the sort of democratic government the Bush administration hoped to install in Iraq. "The U.S. now has to recognize that they overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state," he said....
In Iraq, non-Muslims said they were anxious about their rights under the proposed constitution. Standing in front of a row of amber scotch and whiskey bottles, Baghdad liquor store clerk Bassam Aboudi, a Christian, is bracing for further intimidation by religious zealots.Already hundreds of liquor store owners have closed shop or fled the country amid bombings and assassination attempts by Islamists. If the country officially embraces Islamic law, Aboudi said, he will join the exodus. "This is what is driving so many people out of the country," he said.
Thanks Bush, Condi, Cheney, Rumsfield and all those great advisors for creating another Islamic terrorist state. We couldn't have done it without you.
And what is so paradoxical in this is:
that if Sharia Law becomes the rule of Iraq, then you'll definitely NEED a drink.
Catch-23, Muslim style.
The Mo Says No rule.
Got Milk?
I still can't believe that's what all the sacrifice was far — having another Islamist state a la Iran. I don't think the Bush Administration is going to listen to either the LA Time or Iyad Jamal Din at this stage.
Cox and Forkum turned out to be prophetically right.
-----------------------------
dolphin, CAGE co-founder.
http://www.acage.org
On the other hand, in today's New Duranty Times, David Brooks cites Galbraith thusly:
"The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. ... I do believe it might save the country."
and further reports and quotes:
"Galbraith says he is frustrated with all the American critics who argue that the constitution divides the country. The country is already divided, he says, and drawing up a constitution that would artificially bind three divergent societies together would create only friction, violence and civil war. 'It's not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up violently,' Galbraith says. 'Iraq wasn't created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill.'"
Brooks goes on to introduce the opinions of former CIA man Reuel Marc Gerecht, who normally takes a rather different view from Galbraith, but in this instance, finds Gerecht is on the same page:
"Both of them begin their analysis by taking a hard look at the reality of Iraqi society. Neither tries to imagine what sort of constitution might be pretty to our eyes or might be good in some abstract sense. They try to envision which system comports with reality.
Gerecht is also upbeat about this constitution. It's crazy, he says, to think that you could have an Iraqi constitution in which clerical authorities are not assigned a significant role. Voters supported clerical parties because they are, right now, the natural leaders of society and serve important social functions."
In case anyone wants to read the whole piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/opinion/25brooks.html?th&emc=th
My oh my, how things have changed....
I remember a certain group of people at a blog operated by a certain someone who were beating the drums for war in Iraq like an octopus on speed... why the sudden about face, campers?
Are "we" finally going to face the facts: that we were duped by Bush and Co. into a war that would accomplish nothing except the formation of another Iran? That the "War on Terror" had nothing to do with Iraq? That Osama Bin Laden is still on the lam? That "bringing democracy to the Middle East" means nothing when religious nuts are in the majority? That "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" is a non sequitur?
"Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not and was not meant to "free" the people of Iraq, nor was it meant to make the world a safer place. It was meant to inspire gullible fools into thinking that they shouldn't "switch horses in midstream." After all, no sitting war-time president has ever lost an election.
Congratulations! You won!
I leave you with a brief exchange between Gilbert Gustave and Hermann Goering from Goering's prison cell in Nürmberg. See if it sounds familiar.
********************************************
Hermann Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
Gustave Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Hermann Goering: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
*******************************************
PS... Iraq won't "just" be another Iran. It'll be an Iran that's 400 miles closer to Israel and has trillions of dollars worth of oil.
PPS....Have you ever wondered why the soldier kidnappings have stopped in Iraq? Why the beheadings have stopped in Iraq? Who told Zarqawi to stop beheading people?
PPPS..... Golfer Paine Stweart's puny airplane was intercepted by fighter jets immediately after it went off course... and on 9-11, nothing even close happened. Ever wonder why?
so the great war to liberate the people of iraq will end up bring them into the dire bondage of sharia well well well.....
"The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. ... I do believe it might save the country."
-- from the article above, quoting Peter Galbraith (an advocate and possibly agent, for the Kurds)
It won't "save the country."Sooner or later, the Arabs will reassert themselves and the Kurds will have enough, simply won't take it any more. And in any case, the civil war between Sunni and Shi'a has begun. The only question is do the Americans wish to remain and try to stop or minimize it, or leave and let it take its course, recognizing its value to American, and Infidel, interests.
as if it wasn't enough to have KingTroll come back from vacation, we have KJ back with his "bush knew" conspiracy theories.
Waterdragon, I agree with KJ.
He's speaking the truth.
Please, Voltaire, if there was unimpeachable data available proving exactly what Bush & Co. knew in advance to establish his and your contention, don't you think the Democratic Party would have an impeachment motion well underway by now?
Please, Voltaire, if there was unimpeachable data available to prove what you and KJ hold to be absolutely true that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush & Co. knew enough to prevent 9/11, the Democrats would have an impeachment motion well underway through the appropriate legal/legislative channels by now.
Accuse the Bush administration of gross incompetence or negligence if you like, but that's still a far cry from the positive complicity in the carnage that claimed thousands of American lives you are trying to peg on them. What's the rationale -- that Bush stood and watched hoping 9/11 would galvanize public opinion to launch invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? That sort of conjecture bears a resemblence to the insistance that the perps were actually Israelis because a van load of of them were detained for questioning and released by New Jersey highway patrolmen.
Waterdragon, I have not said that Bush knew 9-11 was going to happen. But the questions that SHOULD be in the MSM aren't being asked.
When one compares the amount of time and money spent to investigate the JFK assassination, and later the Whitewater/Monica Lewinsky "crimes" with the amount spent investigating 9-11, it should give you pause.
When one considers that Bush WAS WARNED in August 2001 with a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In The US" and DID NOTHING, it should make you wonder.
When one considers that Bush claimed he "Hit the Trifecta" on 9-11, it should be considered questionable.
Just ask yourself: "WOULD evil men let thousands die in order to gain power?" I fear the answer is a resounding "YES." Now the question becomes:
1) Why were fighter jets not scrambled for fully-gassed jumbo jetliners between DC and Boston on 9-11 yet they were scrambled for Paine Stewart's tiny plane in the middle-of-nowhere regions between Texas and Wyoming?
2) Why was the wreckage of the WTCs scrapped and recycled with lightning speed?
3) Why were thousands of "PUT OPTIONS" or somesuch investment schemes put into place immediately prior to 9-11 that essentially stood to earn a lot of money in the event that the WTC lost a lot of money? Who made those investments?
4) Why was Bush unable and unwilling to testify to the 9-11 probe committee? Please recall that he DIDN'T want to let Condi testify, refused to testify under oath himself, and wouldn't testify AT ALL unless Dick Cheney accompanied him. (This by itself SHOULD make you think "WTF is up with THAT?" Imagine Bush Sr. refusing to testify without Dan Quayle holding his hand or Clinton refusing to testify without Al Gore there.... NOW doesn't it seem questionable?)
5) What about the Saudi prince that ABRUPTLY called his daughter home from private school in America on 9-10?
6) Why ARE we protecting the Saudi Embassy in DC with (taxpayer-funded) Secret Service protection (as seen in "Farhenheit 911")?
7) WHY are we vilifying Venezuela (an oil exporter) for NOTHING and turning a blind eye toward the terror committed in, by, and worldwide-in-the-name of, SAUDI ARABIA?
******************************************
I'm not saying that Bush knew what was going to happen. I'm not saying that the NeoCons, Zionists, and Mossad agents did it. But you CAN'T deny that the Bush administration has played the terror angle for all it's worth, and benefitted immensely.
WOULD evil men let thousands of innocent people die to steal hundreds of billions of dollars and seize absolute power? Would they?
Iraq has been pumping 100 Million gallons of oil a DAY for over a year...where is the money?
WE have handed the Iraqis 250 BILLION (taxpayer) dollars (and counting.) Remember, Bush said it COULDN'T be a loan. It HAD to be a "gift." (Remember? Kerry voted for it in committee before he voted against it on the floor... haha.) BUT prior to the invasion he also said that the war "would pay for itself with oil revenues."
I think that what the whole situation demands is a little more skepticism. And that is exactly what's lacking...the whole affair needs to be investigated THOROUGHLY.
The whole damn affair stinks to high heaven... we haven't been told the truth. And anyone that DARES to criticize Dubya, or question his motives, or question his necessity to start--and ability to lead--a war, is instantly accused of hating America, hating the troops, etc. etc. I have gotten it here myself many times, especially back when the draftdodger was running against the combat hero.
Even without accusing Bush of purposefully standing by while the Towers burned, he and his staff and his supporters have benefited from this tragedy. The bottom line for me is this:
BUSH IS TOO GODDAMMED COZY WITH THE SAUDIS.
Period.
Apologize for it, explain it away, dissemble, change the subject, lie about it, dredge up Hilary kissing Suha Arafat ten years ago; whatever you want. It doesn't float with me, and it shouldn't float with ANYONE that is skeptical and has an intention of actually doing SOMETHING about the Jihad that threatens the WHOLE WORLD.
Now you GOPers got what you wanted. Why aren't you happy? Saddam is behind bars and, (ahem!) "won't ever attack us again." You've got the Whitehouse, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, most of the Federal Courts, most of the statehouses and governorships, and--admit it or not--most of the MSM. There is NO CHANCE that Bush will ever be investigated, for ANYTHING.
) WHY are we vilifying Venezuela (an oil exporter) for NOTHING
You can't be serious kj. Chavez is a real danger to the US. He is dealing with the mullahs and Castro. He is going to cost us, mark my words.
"Critics fear the provision could be used by religious hard-liners to impose a strict version of Islamic law, such as banning alcohol, restricting women's rights and imposing harsh Koranic punishments such as stoning."
Gee....do you think?
"Critics fear the provision could be used by religious hard-liners to impose a strict version of Islamic law, such as banning alcohol, restricting women's rights and imposing harsh Koranic punishments such as stoning."
Gee....do you think?
KJ:
Effective utilization of inference-drawing as a way to establish culpability in the absence of "hard evidence" is an art, but your machine-gun approach ain't it. That's why some lawyers can make good journalists and writers, but not too many journalists could make it as lawyers.
Being aware of the potential for an attack is one thing. Mounting an effective defence against as an enemy as amorphous in nature as al-Qaeda without setting the entire nation into a state of panic is another.
I said you could accuse Bush and his advisors of gross negligence or incompetence, but then the same could fairly be said about Clinton and Carter, during their administrations as well, and neither of them are exactly unfriendly with the Saudis.
Yes, there is a huge, huge disconnect between wanting to defeat Islamic terror and maintaining "friendly relations" with the Saudis, but then there are those who say you hold your friends close and your enemies closer. Bush may have walked hand in hand with Prince Whateverhisnameis, but Bush looked anything but happy.