"If they bring leaders of the mujahedeen to court it will tarnish the name of jihad," one legislator argued. An update on this story. "Afghanistan weighs amnesty in war crimes," by Matthew Pennington for AP:
KABUL, Afghanistan - The upper house of parliament passed a resolution Tuesday that calls for an amnesty for Afghans — including some lawmakers and members of the government — who are suspected of war crimes during a quarter-century of fighting, an official said. President Hamid Karzai will now decide whether it should become law, said Kadamali Nekpai, chief of the upper house's press department.
The resolution, which has been condemned by the United Nations and international human rights groups, was passed by the lower house Jan. 31 and covers the mujahedeen leaders who led the anti-Soviet resistance in the 1980s and plunged Afghanistan into civil war in the early 1990s. Many of them sit in parliament.
Senators on Tuesday approved the same resolution by a 50-16 majority, Nekpai said.
Although lawmakers describe it as a resolution rather than a bill, they also say it would be made law if Karzai approves it.
Sen. Abdullah Haqahaqi said if Karzai rejected the resolution, it would be voted on again by the lower house and if two-thirds of lawmakers were in favor, it would still become law.
And that law would set a precedent for upholding a double standard where crimes were committed under the banner of "jihad."
Karzai has not made any public comment on the resolution, but his chief spokesman has said the president will not sign anything that goes against Afghanistan's constitution and has asked his lawyers to assess its legality.
The resolution only applies to those who accept Afghanistan's constitution and government authority, so an amnesty would apply to a minority of former Taliban who have reconciled with the government, but not for current insurgent leaders such as Mullah Omar.
Tens of thousands of Afghans died during the years of civil conflict that followed the Soviet occupation.
"One thing must be very clear, and it should be clear worldwide: amnesty for gross violations of human rights and for war crimes shouldn't exist," Tom Koenigs, the U.N.'s special representative to Afghanistan, told reporters Monday.
A U.S.-backed invasion in late 2001 toppled the hard-line Taliban regime and ushered in an era of democracy, but it also has seen a number of powerful warlords elevated to high office or seats in parliament.
"Unfortunately, the majority of the lower and upper houses of parliament are warlords and people with blood on their hands," said Nafas Gul, a female senator for Farah province who voted against the resolution. "It's a betrayal of the rights of Afghans."
But another senator who voted in favor said it would promote national unity.
"It's a good step because we want the unity in Afghanistan. If they bring leaders of the mujahedeen to court it will tarnish the name of jihad (holy war)."
So, flaying a Muslim alive in the name of Jihad is OK in Sharia law.
Well that judgement just shows what a substandard judicial system Sharia is. Contradictory at best.
Why aren't some of those warlords subject to trials at the World Court?? In the meantime, how many American men and US taxpayer money has been spent on that 7th century hell hole for corrupt warlords and 10 year old brides?
Right here in the U.S.A., our colleges and universities are filled with Sunni Arab students who are seething with rage over the ignominious end of Saddam Hussein.
Remember: Being Muslim means never having to say you're sorry.
OT Cavuto of foxNews actual;ly confronted the issue of the MSM ignoring the sudden juhad of the cabbie.
I don't know if they will have it on video, I will check tomorrow.
Here is a Judeo-Christian value that is forever completely lost on our Moslem brothers, “You reap what you sow”.
I hope Afghanistan is ready for the whirlwind.
The other day, J. B. Kelly described the "Afghan Campaign" to me as madness. "No one has ever held Afghanistan. Not the British. Not the Russians."
Instead, he agreed with me that the Western powers should realize that Afghanistan is no more the "center" (there is no "center") of violent Jihad as any other place, for example as Pakistan next door. In Afghanistan, J. B. Kelly advised, stop wasting money and men. Let the natural warlike propensities of the varying tribes keep them at one another's throats. Do not waste money equipping with modern weaponry any side. Do not build roads that make transporation within Afghanistan easier. Do nothing to improve their lot. It will have no effect.
Do in Afghanistan, more or less, Kelly suggested, as should be done (and he explained this back in 2003 to someone high in the Pentagon, someone in thrall to the views of Bernard Lewis) in Iraq: get out. Then fighting from afar, or telemachy: everything can be done from afar. Money can be sent, equipment dropped, or delivered from the north. Planes from afar, and missiles from even farther, can do whatever needs to be done. There is no need for all these aid workers, all this money, all these unnecessary boots on the ground. There are other, much more effective ways to keep that part of the Camp of Islam that does not possess oil wealth scrambling for subsistence survival, and to prevent it from being a threat to the West, to the Camp of Infidels. Making life better, easier, for Muslims, building them an infrastructure which will make it easier for them to move around, make it easier for them to have greater contact with the outside Muslim world and to learn the full texts, and take in the attitudes, of Islam and of full-time propagandists (what's next? supplying all Afghanis with cheap computers so they can get all the most up-to-date propaganda from Muslim websites?).
The Bush Administration cannot quite grasp, with its primitive and obvious and stolid boots-on-the-ground ideas of what constitutes "warfare," to all the ways that some kinds of intervention help rather than hinder the enemy, and hinder, rather than help, the Camp of Islam. What is now being done in both Iraq and Afghanistan shows a dullness, a failure of imagination, a failure of knowledge, a failure of intelligence, in every sense.
Pardon my cynicism, but if the everyday crimes of Islam are so casually overlooked by Afghans, could we expect anything else?
J. B. Kelly was correct. A wise course of action would be to encourage more infighting. Like throwing a bloody steak in between two starving pitbull terriers.
"If they bring leaders of the mujahedeen to court it will tarnish the name of jihad (holy war)."
As if there some semblance of goodness in jihad that could be tarnished! Another instance of the disconnect between the West and the islamic world.
Ummmm..... yeah.
Dumocracy in action.
Let's make sure they vote. That'll take care of the sharia problem.
And I've got this really nice bridge to sell if anyone is interested.
======================
On a more serious note, does anyone out there have any idea WHY we think that it's harder for a thousand people to be wrong than for one person to be wrong?
BTW - If the various moslem riots and "demonstrations" of recent years have shown nothing else, it is that moslems like doing things in crowds.
What part of democracy is incompatible with that?
I guess that as long as you follow 9.111 and "kill and be killed for Allah", it's ok, so if you bump somebody off it better be for Allah.
Articles like this remind us that fighting one group of Muslims to empower another is just the diplomatic equivalent of chasing your tail.
Only a smart dog doesn't chase its tail.
I guess it was legal for Saddam to gas Kurds, Christians in the Sudan and send bombers to assist in OKC, so Afghanistan has just allowed the same amnesty.
Governments get all kinds of amnesty....Bush gives it to illegals....New York City lets them vote for Democrats.......the rule of law is wonderful in Serbs are criminals, but Muslims in Kosovo are freedom fighters or is it international KLA criminals.
All in the laws passed.
"Mahmoud Al-Sayyed Al-Dugheim: "We consider the Zionist plan to be dangerous to the Arab nation, but even more dangerous is the Safavid Sassanian Iranian plan to restore the Empire of Cyrus, which would range from Greece to Egypt, and the Arabian Peninsula, in addition to other regions. "
Right there! Right there, it's seen that there's no unity - AND THEY'RE BOTH ISLAMICS!
They hate each other. There will ALWAYS be strife
never peace - islamics against islamics.
The holy institution of jihad must be protected at any cost so by all means, absolve these primitive butchers. They were only doing their islamic duty and obeying allah, and should be rewarded, not punished.
Is it asking too much for somebody in Washington to study the history of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc.? How many have tried to conquer these nations and failed? What do the war colleges teach these days? They've had over five years to study the new enemy and learn what makes him tick and yet nobody understands what we are dealing with. How can that be?!
mujahadeen, war crimes? No way! They are simply following allahs' will as commanded in the koran.
Remin me - pls - why we went into Afghanistan, in the first place?
There's no change - after all the trouble and fighting - dying, the changes of governemnts, the changes in the leadership - THEY'RE STILL SAVAGES!
Afgan courts remind me of the US Senate....
Blame the beltway whores.
Why did the West allow the Afgans or the Iraqis sharia law ?
Was it the Grover Norquists distributing petro dollars through their islamic advisors ?
Sharia law is an abomination at the best of times in all the s-holes of the umma countries, but for us to enable this crap is unconscionable.
"Sharia law is an abomination at the best of times in all the s-holes of the umma countries, but for us to enable this crap is unconscionable."
....makes about as much sense as giving them money, weapons,land, prisoner releases, and agreements not to shoot them...