US "Concedes" on Islam

[Thekla]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. concessions to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraqi law marked a turn in talks on a constitution, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline under intense U.S. pressure to clinch a deal.

U.S. diplomats, who have insisted the constitution must enshrine ideals of equal rights and democracy, declined comment.

Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.

But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam not “a” but “the” main source of law – a reversal of interim legal arrangements – and subjecting all legislation to a religious test.

“We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi’ites,” he said. “It’s shocking. It doesn’t fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state … I can’t believe that’s what the Americans really want or what the American people want.”

today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=top…

Although I consider this whole thing to be a giant blunder, this would be one more blow for Iraqi women. The open oppression of women is already going strong in parts of the South, but to codify it would be an outrage.

 

[gnjsdad]

Thekla:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. concessions to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraqi law marked a turn in talks on a constitution, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline under intense U.S. pressure to clinch a deal.

U.S. diplomats, who have insisted the constitution must enshrine ideals of equal rights and democracy, declined comment.

Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.

But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam not “a” but “the” main source of law – a reversal of interim legal arrangements – and subjecting all legislation to a religious test.

“We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi’ites,” he said. “It’s shocking. It doesn’t fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state … I can’t believe that’s what the Americans really want or what the American people want.”

today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=top…

Although I consider this whole thing to be a giant blunder, this would be one more blow for Iraqi women. The open oppression of women is already going strong in parts of the South, but to codify it would be an outrage.

Not exactly the way they told us it was going to be, eh?

 

[thestickman]

gnjsdad:

Not exactly the way they told us it was going to be, eh?

What was promised was a constitution written by Iraqis and approved by Iraqis. I notice this part of the article got left out in earlier posts:

Sunni Arab negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak also said a deal was struck which would mean parliament could pass no legislation that “contradicted Islamic principles.” A constitutional court would rule on any dispute on that, the Shi’ite official said.

*** “The Americans agreed, but on one condition – that the principles of democracy should be respected,***” Mutlak said.

So much for that puppet government suggested in an earlier thread, eh?

 

[Thekla]

thestickman:

What was promised was a constitution written by Iraqis and approved by Iraqis. I notice this part of the article got left out in earlier posts:

Sunni Arab negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak also said a deal was struck which would mean parliament could pass no legislation that “contradicted Islamic principles.” A constitutional court would rule on any dispute on that, the Shi’ite official said.

*** “The Americans agreed, but on one condition – that the principles of democracy should be respected,***” Mutlak said.

So much for that puppet government suggested in an earlier thread, eh?

Iraq already had a Constitution and my greatest concern with this “legitimate” constitution writing is that women are under-represented and it’s their rights that could be frittered away.

Can you imagine an American service-woman being killed in Iraq so that women no longer have the right to the custody of their children?

 

[thestickman]

Thekla:

Iraq already had a Constitution and my greatest concern with this “legitimate” constitution writing is that women are under-represented and it’s their rights that could be frittered away.

What constitution are you referring to that Iraq already had?

Can you imagine an American service-woman being killed in Iraq so that women no longer have the right to the custody of their children?

Thankfully, based on what was written in the news piece, that can’t happen because you can’t honor democratic prinicpals and women not have equal rights.

 

[Reepicheep]

thestickman:

What constitution are you referring to that Iraq already had?

Thankfully, based on what was written in the news piece, that can’t happen because you can’t honor democratic prinicpals and women not have equal rights.

But you can claim to “honor” democratic principles, and not give women equal rights.

 

[thestickman]

Reepicheep:

But you can claim to “honor” democratic principles, and not give women equal rights.

Then you aren’t honoring them, are ya?

 

[Thekla]

thestickman:

Then you aren’t honoring them, are ya?

That’s why it’s called a “claim” and not a fact.

 

[Thekla]

thestickman:

What constitution are you referring to that Iraq already had?

Thankfully, based on what was written in the news piece, that can’t happen because you can’t honor democratic prinicpals and women not have equal rights.

Iraq has a legally adopted constitution from 1925 that was “taken away” from them by military coups. This will not be Iraq’s first constitution, but its second.

“Honoring democratic principles” sounds nice and fuzzy and unhelpful. You certainly can “honor democratic principles” and not have equal rights for women. We did it in this country for over 100 years.

 

[thestickman]

Thekla:

Iraq has a legally adopted constitution from 1925 that was “taken away” from them by military coups. This will not be Iraq’s first constitution, but its second.

I did not know that. Sadly Saddam didn’t honor it either.

“Honoring democratic principles” sounds nice and fuzzy and unhelpful. You certainly can “honor democratic principles” and not have equal rights for women. We did it in this country for over 100 years.

Well I guess we should all assume the worst, eh?

 

[Thekla]

thestickman:

I did not know that. Sadly Saddam didn’t honor it either.

Well I guess we should all assume the worst, eh?

Exactly, no one has honored that constitution which was approved by their parliament. But I’d hope that it’s one thing for a military dictator to do so and another for the rest of us.

And the first rule for lawyers is don’t ask a question to which you don’t know the answer. Why? Because you may not like the answer and it could make things worse. It seems to me that the same applies for ELECTIVE wars; don’t do it unless you know the outcome. Why? Because you could make things worse.

Even I thought they had a plan. I never dreamed that we were just flipping a coin and hoping for the best.

 

[thestickman]

Thekla:

And the first rule for lawyers is don’t ask a question to which you don’t know the answer. Why? Because you may not like the answer and it could make things worse. It seems to me that the same applies for ELECTIVE wars; don’t do it unless you know the outcome. Why? Because you could make things worse.

Yeah we ended the filling of mass graves, people aren’t being dropped into shredders, women aren’t being raped in front of their husbands. There’s freedom of the press in Iraq now and folks there have been electing local and national leaders. Things also could be better than they were during the Saddamn days too

Even I thought they had a plan.

Your evidence they didn’t is?

I never dreamed that we were just flipping a coin and hoping for the best.

Your evidence that’s what actually has happened is?

Reads to me like things continue to improve in Iraq.

 

[gilliam]

THIS is Jihad

By Bill Roggio

As al Qaeda continues to fight in Iraq, it exposes its true nature to the Iraqi people, and to the rest of the world… if only the world would pay attention. Chester points us to an interrogation of Abed, a member of al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Islam. Abed’s band of murderers routinely practiced rape and political assassinations. A revolting taste:

Interrogator: “Is this Jihad – raping women? Is this Jihad?” Abed: “It is because they collaborated with the Americans.”

Interrogator: “That’s why they were raped?”

Abed: “Yes.”

Interrogator: “A student who is simply going to her university is kidnapped, raped, and then slaughtered?! This was an American collaborator?!”

Abed: “Mullah Al-Raikan would give the names to the squad commander.”

Interrogator: “My information says that they were kidnapped and brought to Mullah Al-Raikan’s headquarters. True or false?”

Abed: “He would interrogate them.”

Interrogator: “Were they raped after the interrogation?”

Abed: “Yes. He would give them to the squad, and they would kill them. Some would rape them.”

Interrogator: "You bastards. This is Jihad? You call this Jihad? "

Al Qaeda has nothing to offer but what we see in the interviews of Abed and Adan Elias, another member of Ansar al-Islam. Elias participated in torture, the dismemberment of corpses and booby trapping the dead so their families would be murdered when picking up their loved ones.

Freedom and Jihad cannot coexist, and therefore al Qaeda is forced to turn its weapons on the only ethnic group where it retains some measure sympathy, giving them a taste of Jihad. A sure sign of desperation, as the war is now in al Qaeda’s back yard. In Mosul, three Sunni election workers of the Islamic Party are assassinated attempting to register voters.

They were driven to another neighborhood, shoved against a wall near the Dhi al-Nourein mosque, and shot dead while more masked gunmen blocked a major street, witnesses said. The gunmen then fled in three cars, leaving the bodies.In Ramadi, Sunnis’ attempts to convince their neighbors to vote is met by violence.

Masked gunmen in the western city of Ramadi responded violently Thursday to recent calls for political participation among Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority, opening fire on local leaders who had gathered to discuss plans to register voters for a nationwide constitutional referendum. The midmorning attack wounded three people, including the branch heads of the Sunni Endowment, the government agency responsible for Sunni religious affairs, and the Association of Muslim Scholars, Iraq’s most influential Sunni religious group. The hail of machine-gun fire from slow-moving sedans came at the close of the meeting, as tribal leaders and Anbar province’s governor, Mamoun Sami Rashid, were answering reporters’ questions on the steps of the city’s Great Mosque…

Asked about the threats by insurgents, one attendee, Mahdi Salih, a former major general in Hussein’s army, said people would not be scared away from the polls. “We are going to risk our lives for the sake of our children if the Zarqawi group insists on its position,” he said.

Mahdi Salih isn’t exaggerating when he states his children’s future is at risk.

Intimidation. Torture. Rape. Assassination. Murder.

This is the future al Qaeda offers to the Iraqi people, and the rest of the world if given the chance.

Make no mistake, this is Jihad.

billroggio.com/archives/2005/08/this_is_jihad.php

 

[Thekla]

thestickman:

Yeah we ended the filling of mass graves, people aren’t being dropped into shredders, women aren’t being raped in front of their husbands. There’s freedom of the press in Iraq now and folks there have been electing local and national leaders. Things also could be better than they were during the Saddamn days too

Your evidence they didn’t is?

Your evidence that’s what actually has happened is?

Reads to me like things continue to improve in Iraq.

My evidence is that virtually nothing they said in the lead up to the war has come true.

And I have no problem with someone running for president on a platform of world liberation. I’d probably vote for him/her. However, I do have a problem with telling the American people that our military is being used for the defense of the nation and then, when most people figure out that there was no threat, switching to the “liberation” rationale. It makes both your own people and the people we are purporting to help think you are a liar and question your motives.

 

[thestickman]

Thekla:

And I have no problem with someone running for president on a platform of world liberation. I’d probably vote for him/her.

So would I.

However, I do have a problem with telling the American people that our military is being used for the defense of the nation and then, when most people figure out that there was no threat, switching to the “liberation” rationale. It makes both your own people and the people we are purporting to help think you are a liar and question your motives.

Only if you ignore the reality of the Congressional Resolution can such a statement be valid. The reality is, there was no switch. Liberation was a well defined reason for removing Saddam and was documented well in advance. One of many.

*Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; *

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

 

[Thekla]

Listening to Meet the Press this morninge I heard some guy say that a lcak of women’s rights in the Constitution was no problem and then make some reference to the year 1900.

Here’s what he said (Gerecht)

“In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we’d all be thrilled. I mean, women’s social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they’re there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective”

I think this guy needs to be put into perspective. Let’s write a constitution in which the men are discriminated against and tell him to suck it up. These neanderthals from the American Enterprise Institute and related “think” tanks need to sign up and fight for women’s rights in Iraq; not pontificate and casually dismiss them from their lazy-boys here at home.

I’ll say it again. Can you imagine the insult to American service-women who have died in Iraq to have their legacy be things like Iraqi women being unable to obtain custody of their children? They had it before and it had better not be frittered away. “Women’s social rights?” So easily dismissed?

 

[gilliam]

Thekla:

Listening to Meet the Press this morninge I heard some guy say that a lcak of women’s rights in the Constitution was no problem and then make some reference to the year 1900.

*Some guy said?
Some guy said??
*Some guy said??? *

 

[ShroudMan]

Ah…an ISLAMIC Constitution… is THIS what all the fighting was for??? a THEOCRACY??? THAT is considered spreading OUR western goals and democratic ideals to others???

Ironic thing is, now a very possible danger exists that women under this new Govt could have LESS rights than they did under Saddam.

and only a sick twisted mind will say… “well women didnt have equal rights when America was started”… THINGS TAKE TIME"…only a SICK Twisted mind would say that…and guess what? Thats exactly what I heard someone on a news show over the weekend say!

Recall my prophetic words…just ONE forced BURKA/VEIL and it was ALL FOR NAUGHT.

Oh…and Iran may just have a new neat cool ALLIE

I smell Civil War in the air if this happens… and if it does, how could ANY right and sane thinking Christian NOT SIDE with the one who is for defending EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL including land divisions and oil if this happens?

DOWN WITH A THEOCRACY IN IRAQ…Is Bush as crazy as Israel is in giving up land for a peace that will not come?..wait…he even supports THAT… never mind… seems him and Israel havent been reading the Bible and what God says about this issue.

I’m sure the troops who died in Iraq are rolling over in their graves…especially the female ones… an Islamic Consitution… oh brother…

 

[Franze]

If this is true, it would be a shame, dying western soldiers and christians in Iraq for a more islamic country

 

[MikeWM]

Franze:

If this is true, it would be a shame, dying western soldiers and christians in Iraq for a more islamic country

…and just what Osama Bin Laden would want. He didn’t like Saddam because Saddam wouldn’t make Iraq a fully Islamic state.

It would be wrong to accept this just because we are up against a deadline.

Mike