U.S. Administrator Threatens Veto of Iraqi Islamic Law Measure

[NNN0LHI]

Wouldn't this be like someone coming to the US to "liberate" us and then tell us that they would veto our Judeo/Christian based laws?

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA3WU2IQQD.html

KARBALA, Iraq (AP) - The top U.S. administrator in Iraq suggested on Monday that he would block any interim constitution that would make Islam the chief source of law, as some members of the Iraqi Governing Council have sought.

L. Paul Bremer said the current draft of the constitution would make Islam the state religion of Iraq and "a source of inspiration for the law" - as opposed to the main source.

Many Iraqi women have expressed fears that the rights they hold under Iraq's longtime secular system would be rolled back in the interim constitution being written by U.S.-picked Iraqi leaders and their advisers, many of them Americans. U.S. lawmakers have urged the White House to prevent Islamic restrictions on Iraqi women.

Asked what would happen if Iraqi leaders wanted to write into the constitution that Islamic sharia law is the principal basis of the law, Bremer suggested he would wield his veto. "Our position is clear. It can't be law until I sign it."

more

[PsychoDad]

1. So much for democracy.

Once again any illusions are torn aside as Bremer once more shows who is really in charge.

Edited for spelling :(
Too early, not enough coffee

[tom_paine]

40. Was anyone dumb enough to be fooled by the Busheviks?

Imperial/Totalitarian Scum like the Imperial Family cannot ABIDE by democracy. They hate it like Stalin and Hitler hated it, they just can;t be as free with their true feeling on this topic.

All I had to ask myself before the Iraq invasion was \

What would (Ferdinand) Marcos do?

WWMD?

From their the question was easy. If Ferd Marcos had invaded a nation on false pretexts, so that he and his Stooges could loot BOTH the invading country and the invaded AT THE SAME TIME...

...would he be so quick to strive for actual democracy in the nation who's neck he just put his boot on>

Of course not.

Question answered.

WWMD?

Works every time.

[bowens43]

2. They are free to form any type of government

we tell them to form.

Meet the new boss.....

[pinniped]

3. These whackos really think they run the planet huh?

"Our position is clear. It can't be law until I sign it."

Oh pardon me your highness.

[Gman]

4. Bremer is obviously NOT reading DU

or else he would have seen this thread that Iraq may be slipping into civil war. In the long run his veto may not matter.

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. So one American man's veto

will nullify what the majority of Iraqis want for their country? So much for democracy. That didn't last long now did it?

[DRoseDARs]

6. I don't get it...

...Judging by each of your comments (those of you crying "Foul" over Bremer's threatened veto), do you also support moves by rightwing Christians to turn the US into a "Christian" Democracy? They continue to claim that our secular laws are based on Biblical writings, willfully ignorant of the fact that the Founding Fathers wanted to keep Religion out of the Government. Traditionally, it is viewed that many of the earliest colonists were fleeing religious persecution, so the Framers wanted to codify the openness found in the New World. They realized that religions and democracy (or any secular government, for that matter) don't mix well.

I fully agree with Bremer on this one: To allow the Iraqis to establish a state religion is a really bad idea. Rather, they ought to look at the UN charter (Human Rights section) for "a source of inspiration for the law." Whine all you want about them not getting Sharia Law. Would you applaud the establishment of Biblical Law here in the States? Old Testament or New?

[Spentastic]

8. Oh dear

Well it is a tricky dilemma isn't it?

Perhaps the idiots should have thought about that BEFORE promising democracy.

If the Iraqis have a right to self determination surely they have a right to a state religion. If they do not, then it's not a democracy is it?

[mobuto]

13. No they don't

because democracy - at least how its practiced in the west - isn't simply rule of the majority, its rule of the majority where the rights of minorities are protected. If Islamic law were ever imposed on Iraq, it would necessarily oppress religious minorities. Nobody has the "right" to deny rights to others.

[Spentastic]

15. O.K

I wondered when this would kick off.

I too have concerns about what will happen should an effective theocracy be imposed in Iraq. I fear that such a regime would be unlikely to be a liberal progressive state.

However does the U.S have the right to impose a secular democracy on a country? Even if it does, will it succeed?

I remember your support for this invasion in the face of people who suggested that these problems would be encountered. What do you suggest?

[mobuto]

17. Not the right, the duty

We removed the last government of Iraq - we're responsible for the mess that's there now. So its not just our right, its our duty to leave the country at least as good as we found it.

This is both a moral and a pragmatic issue. Any government other than a secular democracy would, in the long-term, work against the interests of the United States and would, in addition, cause the Iraqi people much suffering.

It may or may not succeed, but we have to try.

[Spentastic]

19. If people believe

That the God determines what is right how are you going to inform them they are mistaken?

I doubt that bombing the shit out of them will work.

[mobuto]

20. I don't know - you tell me

How do you deal with the Roy Moores and Mullah Omars of the world?

[Spentastic]

23. I really don't know

Unless you are willing to become a liberal imperialist.

I'm not.

[mobuto]

24. But what does that mean?

Adolf Hitler has the support of a majority of, say, the Iraqi people. You give him power and he immediatly kills everybody who opposes him. That's not very different from handing power to a Shia theocracy. If we hand over power to a repressive theocratic regime, we will be responsible for its actions. We will have been its enablers.

[PsychoDad]

43. leave the country at least as good as we found it

Before or after the point that we distroyed the infrastructure during 10 years of sanctions?

We are not going to leave it better than it is now - Unless we allow the Iraqi's a real role in creating a society and government of their choice.

The iraqi majority want a society based upon Islamic values, no one said "Theocracy", and in all truth, counter to many of the Islam is baaaad bleetings I have heard here, IMO, there is nothing incompatable between Islamic values and representitive democracy. For your information, Women were first given the right to vote as equals in medina 1400 years before their enlightened american counterparts, when the first constitution was written, a constitution based upon Islamic values, that guranteed equal rights for all, Muslims, Christians and Jews alike.

Maybe the key here would be trying to stress the right Islamic Values in the creation of a state... instead of giving more power to the radicals who have hijacked the faith by denying the people of all chance of Democracy.

[mobuto]

46. Islamic values - as determined by whom?

A majority of the population seems to subscribe to Islamist radicals' conception of "Islamic values" - values that include the subjugation of women and the execution of homosexuals.

there is nothing incompatable between Islamic values and representitive democracy

No there isn't. But there is a direct incompatibility between Islamist fundamentalism and the righst of women and minorities to live freely. Who determines what these values are? The Shia majority? Can the determine than Sunni values are not Islamic? Can they oppress, massacre and disenfranchise 30% of the population?

For your information, Women were first given the right to vote as equals in medina 1400 years before their enlightened american counterparts

And yet today, women in Medina are not allowed to be in the presence of a man who is not a family member and nobody is allowed to vote. This is progress? You should know well what Islamist reality is like. And its far closer to life under the Taliban than it would be to Susan B. Anthony.

[PsychoDad]

50. A majority of the population

I guess what you draw is a distinction between Islamic and Islamist. The same differnce as exists between Christian and Fundimentalism. Looking around the US, an outsider would think that all Christians must be like this very vocal minority. We know this is not true, and most Christians are sane and moderate people, with strong values and a good sense of humaniterianism and social right... even if they are not the ones always displayed in the media.
The same is true of Islam.

Do you know any Muslims? Do they advocate the exicution of anyone?

Let me ask of DUer's that live in mid east countires like the UAE or Kuwait what their own encounters and experiances are. Are the streets swarming with blood crazed jihadists burning homosexuals willy nilly in the streets, drinking the blood of missionaries for lunch? Or are these stereotypes created by the west, for consumption in the west, based upon a very small segment of radicals?

I think you will find most Muslims are sane and caring human beings, like yourself.... willing to lisyen to reason, but not willing to have someone's ideology shoved down their throats.

[GreyV]

56. Islam is the new bogeyman

Islam is the new bogeyman. What's the term...? Islamo-Fascism as Daniel Pipes calls it. Plain and simple. Although, it is extremely surprising that even after 9/11, many self-proclaimed liberals and democrats (or should I say neo-liberals) know very little about Islam. Aside of course from female circumcision, public beheadings, and matters that supposedly define Islam.

[mobuto]

61. Am I Daniel Pipes?

I have not once attacked Islam, neither here on this forum nor anywhere else.

Please respond to my arguments, not to shallow carictatures of what you might imagine them to be, were I Daniel Pipes (which I'm not).

[mobuto]

58. Do I know Muslims?

Who do you take me for? I know dozens and dozens of Muslims.

Are you aware of that Islam is divided into two main sects? Did you know that those two sects have been in constant conflict in Iraq for a thousand years? Did you know that if a majority were given absolute power it would disenfranchise and oppress the minority?

Do they advocate the exicution of anyone?

Do you understand what the Islamist movement is? I'm not talking about Muslisms as a whole. I'm talking about the radical fundamnetalists who would be running Iraq. And yes, I have known a few Islamists, and yes they do believe in strictly interpreting Sharia law, and yes their interpretation of Sharia law does mean that gays and lesbians would be exeucted, as would many other people.

Let me ask of DUer's that live in mid east countires like the UAE or Kuwait what their own encounters and experiances are. Are the streets swarming with blood crazed jihadists burning homosexuals willy nilly in the streets, drinking the blood of missionaries for lunch?

The UAE and Kuwait are one thing, Saudi Arabia is another. In Saudi Arabia, gays are regularly beheaded. Did you know that on January 1, 2002, for instance, three gay men were beheaded in Abha? In 2000, six men were executed for homosexuality. You presume to lecture me as if this were some Kipling-edque colonialist fantasy? You have no idea. This is as real as anything can possibly be.

I think you will find most Muslims are sane and caring human beings,

I wasn't aware that this was in dispute.

[PsychoDad]

66. I was just wondering.

If you knew any of us personaly, because for a while it sounded as if the only opinion you had about Islam was the echo of anti-islamic sentiment found in the western media. If I formed a wrong opinion of you, I apologize. Please forgive me.

Yes, I know Sunni and Shia have been at odds with each other on matters of theology since the death of Ali (mAbpwh), and at times it has been bloody, just as with catholics and protistants. But there has also been a history of co-operation and mutual assistance at times because both sects do share some very basic values...Sunnis and Shias agree on the core fundamentals of Islam and recognize each others as Muslims



At present both Iraqi Sunni and Shia have common concerns. And I agree that both should work together to create a state where the rights of all are protected. We, as Americans, can try to encourage that, but we cannot force it. What is the point, as soon as we leave and remove the gun from their heads, the social order will fall apart, as it did in the balkians. The Socal fabric must be woven by the Iraqis. We cannot do it for them.

[mobuto]

82. Great - Sunni and Shia cooperation is essential

although it hasn't happened all that recently in Iraq. But religion is religion and government is government. And whenever religion enters government, repression results. That's happened everywhere in the world, every time its been tried. And its all the more likely in a place like Iraq where religious conflicts are going on right now and have been going on, almost without stop, for centuries.

We, as Americans, can try to encourage that, but we cannot force it. What is the point, as soon as we leave and remove the gun from their heads, the social order will fall apart, as it did in the balkians. The Socal fabric must be woven by the Iraqis. We cannot do it for them.

I agree completely. What we can do, however, is to help create a fabric in which Iraqis can learn to live together. In an Islamic state, one group (almost certainly the Arab Shias) will dominate the other (almost certainly the Arab Sunnis). The way to avoid that, and the way to protect other minorities like Kurds, Christians and Turkomen, is to insitute a secular, federal repubic, and keep the religious and ethnic differences as far away as possible from the business of running a government,

[GreyV]

51. Islamist?

What is an Islamist? Last time I checked it meant a follower of Islam, or a Muslim dedicated to faith. What is an "Islamist reality"? Please clarify. Last time I heard somebody say "Islamist" was by Daniel pipes.

[mobuto]

59. Islamism, noun

1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life. 2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

[tedzbear]

68. Excellent post, Psychodad!

:wow: Thanks for the history lesson. Most of us posting here do not know enough about Islamic political history to be insisting that Islam is incompatible with democracy.


I've said it twice and I'll say it again: The USA should advocate for a secular democracy in Iraq, not impose it by force. Otherwise we will have to admit that our soldiers are dying in order to protect our control over an occupied nation, not the birth of a democracy.

Mobuto sez:
"If we hand over power to a repressive theocratic regime, we will be responsible for its actions. We will have been its enablers."

This comment is nothing more than psycho-babble and an important plank of the * propaganda. If you want to spout psychology, how about: if we impose our political agenda on Iraq by force, then we are being co-dependent and controlling, two very unhealthy actions.

:kick:

[PsychoDad]

69. Exactaly

"The USA should advocate for a secular democracy in Iraq" Exactally, and failing that we should still advocate and try to instill the values of equality, fairness and individual rights into any future government and society.

It would be nice if we as a country could do that by example...

[NeoConsSuck]

48. Work against the interests of the United States?

Mobuto,
What are the corporate names behind these "interests"?

[mobuto]

49. Does it matter?

You're really looking for reasons to allow for the repression of women and minorities?

[NeoConsSuck]

55. Yes, it does matter..

Are these interests the interests of the American population, or the interests of corporate America? Or are you implying that what is good for corporate America is good for it's citizens?

And it is a huge leap on your part to state that I support repression because I asked you to define "interests". Which you haven't done.

[mobuto]

60. What I'm implying is that secular democracy

is good for everybody.

If you really want to know what's best for ExxonMobil, its probably an absolutist dictatorship.

But I call your motives into question - why are you supporting theocracy?

[KurtNilsen]

31. It is difficult.

But, it is only difficult because many people have such a shallow view of democracy.

Do you think that the Iraqis in their excerize of selft determination should be allowed to hang gay people from lampposts, supress women etc etc.

I think not.

[htuttle]

35. Should they be allowed to have Capital Punishment?

It's become the exception rather than the rule in the world -- should it be prohibited in Iraq in the name of 'Western Enlightenment'?

What about their education system? Will we control what they teach? (hint: we are alreadying do so).

Gun Control? Display of religious items in government buildings? Progressive taxation? Nationalization of certain industries? A minimum wage? The right to collective bargaining? (currently prohibited in Iraq, btw).

Where is the line for where we stop telling them what is best, and let them decide for themselves?

Must they decide that our way is the best way on every issue, or just the 'hot button' issues of the moment?

I just want to know where the 'line' is for where Iraqis will have a free hand, and where they won't. I bet the Iraqis (and the rest of the planet) would like to know as well. Right now, the decisions are just sort of arbitrary and capricious, based as it is on the latest polling data from the US.

[KurtNilsen]

36. You bring up some really good points

I hope that the UN can play a vital role in the future by establishing at least a minimum level of human rights that all nations have to follow.

I hope you agree with me that people who happen to be homosexual should not be killed, tortured or thrown into jail because of their sexual orientation. Gay marriage...perhaps more difficult.

One have to agree with you that it is very difficult to know where to draw the line, but that doesn't mean that the line should not be drawn.

I think a good place to start is with protecting the sanctity of life, so I capital punishment should not be legal.

[Liberal Veteran]

9. You can agree with Bremer, but it shouldnt be our choice to make for them.

You cannot say you are for Iraqi self-governance only on our terms and wield the power to veto their attempts to forge their own form of government. To do so would not only be hypocritical, it's imperialism it's purest form. How can imposing our ideals on another country whether they want them or not be defended?

And the reason we fight against it in the US is because our founding fathers created a secular government. If the Christian right wishes to impose a Christian theocracy on this country, then they have the power to act for constitutional change, which is the only way it could happen. At the same time, we could fight any attempts to do so. That IS self-governance.

If you agree with Bremer imposing self-governance on the Iraqi people only our terms, then you need to drop the pretense and admit that you support American imperialism which is defined as: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

[mobuto]

33. Question for you

You have the rainbow-flag avatar next to your name, which implies that you're either a member of a sexual minority or that the rights of sexual minorities are something you consider to be important.

If Iraq had an Islamist theocracy, then according to Sharia law, all gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons would be killed. Is that something you'd be happy with? Even if a majority of the population were in favor of it?

How much do you really value national self-determination above all other rights?

[Liberal Veteran]

41. I would like to see Iraq form a secular government, but...

...it is not our job to impose our government on them. That is for them to sort out.

I fully understand and appreciate the problems that will face gay and lesbian people under Islamic law. Hell, even among so-called secular law of the United States gays and lesbians don't enjoy full equality.

However, it is not my job to IMPOSE our country's value system on another country. Half the reason we keep getting into these messes is our so-called leaders not understanding that cultures are different and that to impose our values on another county is wrong. We can only do that through diplomacy, not force.

I want it made perfectly clear that no matter which side of the issue you fall on, for our country to use veto power over another county particularly in the infancy of reforming it's government is pure imperialism. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend it is anything other than that.

[PsychoDad]

42. Iraq form a secular government

It used to have one, A dictatorship, true, but it was very secular.
We distroyed it and the society.

[mobuto]

44. Forget full equality

I'm talking about executions.

If America does not ensure a secular democracy, gays and lesbians will be beheaded en masse in Iraq.

I'm not talking about employment discrimination or probate problems, I'm talking about mass murder.

However, it is not my job to IMPOSE our country's value system on another country.

Then thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands will die. Their blood will be on our hands since we will have created the situation that allowed that injustice. The right to live is not unique to our value system - it is universal.

I want it made perfectly clear that no matter which side of the issue you fall on, for our country to use veto power over another county particularly in the infancy of reforming it's government is pure imperialism.

Fine. Its pure imperialism. Call it whatever you like. What I'm saying is that there are things far worse than "imperialism." Iraq's right to national self-determination does not give a majority of its population the right to massacre hundreds of thousands of ethnic, cultural, sexual and religious minorities or to treat women like dogs. Since we've created the mess, we have the moral obligation to make sure that our legacy isn't another holocaust.

[tedzbear]

71. I agree with you yet I don't.

I am queer so I definitely agree with your concern about gay/lesbian be-headings.

BUT, I also believe in self determination and the painful struggles that accompany it. All the USA can do is advocate for a form of government that would not include the beheading of gays/lesbians/trans-genders. But once we start imposing this by force, we will be creating World War III, a war between Christianity and Islam. Diplomacy is the answer, not imperialism. The foreign policy of * is following the dictates of Exxon Mobil and our radical Christian minority. It is extremely dangerous for our entire world and most citizens of planet Earth know that.

The debate over Islamic law and Christian law as they should be applied in Iraq's future constitution is extremely important and should be discussed via diplomatic means. That's where the UN will come in I hope. * should stay out of it and bring our soldiers home.

:kick:

[mobuto]

81. Well I'm not queer

but I still think sexual minorities, as well as ethnic, religious, and cultural minorities, should be entitled to a few basic rights. Like the right to live.

And I'm sorry, but standing back on the sidelines and pleasantly "requesting" that Mulllah No. 1 not execute every queer person in the country just doesn't cut it. That's what we've been doing in Saudi Arabia, and guess what? Beheadings continue as always. If we hand over power to a bunch of religious extremists who feel they can murder those who do not conform to their own narrow vision of Islam, then we'll be responsible for the result.

But once we start imposing this by force, we will be creating World War III, a war between Christianity and Islam.

Nonsense. We can support the formation of a secular federal republic where rights are guaranteed to Iraqis without regard to race, color, creed, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. That doesn't violate any tenet of Islam, and yet it also protects the rights of Iraq's many minorities. To do otherwise would be an injustice for the Iraqi people.

The foreign policy of * is following the dictates of Exxon Mobil and our radical Christian minority.

That may be true. And its just one of many reasons why we must unite behind the Democratic nominee and turn out to vote in November. But that doesn't address the fundamental question of what is to be done with Iraq. And that answer is the same: we need to build the basic institutions of a secular civil society in order to prepare for a peaceful and rapid transition to local, democratic, rule.

The debate over Islamic law and Christian law as they should be applied in Iraq's future constitution is extremely important

Oh, in that case my answer is simple: Islamic law should be kept to the Madrassah and the Mosque and Christian law to the seminary and the church. Religion should have no part in government, even in a state where 97% of the population is at least nominally Muslim.

[PsychoDad]

52. Well said.

"for our country to use veto power over another county particularly in the infancy of reforming it's government is pure imperialism."

That is what it boils down to..

[Just Me]

79. I agree with the concept but NOT with it's application,...

,...because "force" is simply NOT the best way to lead. Bremer is acting like a damned totalitarian himself,...which really pisses me off. I am certain it is pissing off the Iraqi people as well.

No one can argue that separating religion and state truly is tantamount to democracy. That freedom is actually tantamount to forming democracy.

But, instead of pulling all those people whom the administration promised the delivery of a democracy into being a part of actually creating it via secularism,...Bremer appears to be shoving it down their throats. That is just plain dumb. WTF is the matter with these people that they violate the principles of democracy while saying they are there to help create a democracy.

They simply have their screws way to TIGHT,...and several missing!!!!

[PsychoDad]

45. You may be interested in this site.

Very informitave.
http://www.ilga.org/Information/legal_survey/middle%20east/supporting%20files/sharia_law.htm

"In practice there are considerable differences in the application of Shari'a Law:" Shari is not monolithic, it's aplication differs with the society.

Under Sharia, Homosexuality is considered the same as adultery. A law that requires 3 witnesses to see the auctual act, and to testify to same.

The Hanafite school (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted.

"Jim Wafer in "Muhammad and Male Homosexuality" (Chapter 4 of Islamic Homosexualities) brings out the fact that the treatment of homosexuality was not uniform: " there must, in fact, have been a diversity of opinion about the Prophet's views on the matter, since the sex between males was treated differently by the various legal schools, on the basis of differing interpretations of the traditional literature. All the legal schools regard sex between males as unlawful, but they differ over the severity of the punishment."

[mobuto]

83. Again, I'm not attacking Islam

I understand that there are moderate interpretations of Shari'a, although I fail to see why religious law of any sort would be desirable in a modern democracy. The fact is, the clerics you see in Iraq today are not the moderate cleric of east and south asia that the link talks about. Their version of Islam is a lot closer to the most radical forms practiced in Iran - one that doesn't teach that homosexual behavior can be excused without physical punishment.

[ima_sinnic]

10. our "Founding Fathers" are not Iraq's FFs

what the Iraqis "ought" to do is nobody's goddam business except the Iraqis. We in the U.S. may disagree about a state religion (and by the way under Hussein this question had been put to rest) but that's too bad--unless we want to make it official that Iraq is nothing but our 51st state and subject to the laws and rights of the U.S. Constitution. "Self determination" needs to be more than an empty catch-phrase.

[mobuto]

18. The Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.



Democracy and equality are universal values. Where they do not exist, they are being denied.

[zbird]

22. Ah, therein lies the rub.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

If the governed consent to an Islamic state, why do the Bushistas have the right to deny it?

[mobuto]

25. Depends on how you define consent

The Shias may love a Shiite theocracy, but I doubt the Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmen, Christians, secular Shiites, etc. will.

It all comes down to minority rights, and there's just no way a theocracy will respect those.

[zbird]

26. From post #13...

because democracy - at least how its practiced in the west - isn't simply rule of the majority, its rule of the majority where the rights of minorities are protected.

(my emphasis)

That's just it... Iraq isn't in the west. Additionally, our democracy is evolving. The rights of minorities weren't much of a consideration when this nation was formed. We still have much work to do in that respect.

[mobuto]

29. Then you're not calling for democracy

You're calling for a tyrrany of the majority. There's a difference.

The rights of minorities weren't much of a consideration when this nation was formed. We still have much work to do in that respect.

On the contrary, they were enshrined in our founding documents. Now women, the poor and ethnic minorities were indeed shafted in our early laws, but if you take the time to read the Constitution you see that at every step, there are safeguards to protect dissenting minorities. The Senate, for example, is specifically designed to protect minorities. The Bill of Rights, passed by Congress in 1789, is the ultimate defense of minority rights. The Federal Judiciary, with the power of judicial review, again protects the rights of minorities by limiting the ability of Congress to pass oppressive laws. The slow Constitutional Amendment process and the enumerated responsibilities contained therein again limit the power of a majority to disenfranchise a minority.

You cannot have a just democracy if you do not protect minorities. There just is no way.

[KurtNilsen]

32. Few ideas have been responsible for so much

murder and mayhem as national self determination.

[lefty_mcduff]

11. I think this part of you post sez it all...

"To allow the Iraqis to establish a state religion is a really bad idea." How fucking dare Bremer, of Bush, or anyone else presuppose that they can 'allow' one form of government in another country. *That* is what causes most anti-US sentiment in the first place.

[mike1963]

28. You are exactly right. Also, U.S. law is not "Judeo-christian" based, it

principally comes from English Common Law.

[KurtNilsen]

30. good and important point.

Many people have an incredible shallow view of the concept of democracy. Don't confuse democracy with the ballot box. Unfortuntaly, many do.

However, it is going to be a disaster if Bremer has use the veto. Hopefully the Iraqis have the good sense to not go down that route.

[tedzbear]

62. I disagree with you...

"...Judging by each of your comments (those of you crying "Foul" over Bremer's threatened veto), do you also support moves by rightwing Christians to turn the US into a "Christian" Democracy?"

Of course not. But thank goddess the rightwing Christians are not the majority here. Otherwise I'm sure by now they would have democratically imposed their will on us. Yikes! I don't even like to think about it.

Still, Iraq must be allowed to have true, democratic elections. Otherwise, we will have a load of trouble on our hands and many more of our soldiers will die. I am not willing to do that to impose a particular form of government on a populace who doesn't want it. The war on terrorism should not be about imposing our system of government on occupied nations. That is imperialism, not a campaign against Osama bin Laden.

:kick:

[Liberal Veteran]

7. That's not democracy, that's imperialism.

Pure and simple.

If you invade and conquer a country under the pretense of freeing them and then hold veto power over their ability to rule themselves, you have not brought self-governance, you have brought empire. It's a fact.

[kskiska]

12. Tim Russert asked * this question during Meet the Press

He said what if the Iraqis wanted an Islamic-based government. * answered that they did not want that.

[rocktivity]

14. What choice does Bremer have?

He can't sanction a government with an official religion--that would truly make a mockery of Bush's liberation efforts (not to mention expose his true motives). At the same time, of course, Bremer doesn't seem to mind an official religion being force-fed upon his OWN government!


rocknation

[htuttle]

16. LOL!

"Well, I think we're fucked."
-- Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson

[reprobate]

21. Exactly the paradox we warned about at the start of the invasion.

If the iraqis have the right to decide their own future, don't they have the right to have that future be a theocracy?

And if they decide by democratic means that they want a theocracy, do we have the right to deny them that?

So our lying regime is stuck between a rock and the proverbial hard place. They claim to champion democracy, but if that democracy decides on something that they oppose, they can't let it happen.

It's called the "Law of Unintended Consequences". It's what happens when your actions are determined by desires, not by facts.

George W. Bush: The Texas Souffle. Looks good on the outside, but just hot air inside.

[Kitsune]

27. Hoooo boy.

You know what DU is missing?

A "shit hitting the fan" emoticon. :evilgrin:

[ixion]

34. there should be no Judeo/Christian based laws

in a country where there is allegedly freedom of religion.

That said, I think you're right, that it's ridiculous of Bremer to try Veto such things.

[indie_voter]

37. Somebody should have told Abizaid

During talks this week with American commanders in Baghdad, Fallujah and Balad, Abizaid stressed the importance of weaning the Iraqis from American assistance.

"It's their country, it's their future," he said in the interview at his headquarters in Qatar. "Our job is to help them help themselves."

....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040213/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_abizaid_interview_3

[tedzbear]

38. So, I guess it's official: Iraq is our 51st state...

...or if not that, our most valuable territory. American propaganda may spread the lie that we want to establish democracy, but since it's to be our own secular democracy, in actuality we are forcing Iraq to become a member of our Imperialist empire.

I am a queer, and I definitely would not want to live in Iraq now, or in any Islamic theocratic state. Thank goddess I was born in California, where being queer isn't "officially" denigrated. But I do see the validity in both sides to this secular democracy argument. Yes, the majority's will should be heard, but not when it tramples the rights of minorities. Otherwise you have a cruel theocracy that persecutes those who worship differently. Personally, I think separation of church and state is the main reason the USA has succeeded so well. But for us to impose this on Iraq is asking for trouble. Am I willing to sacrifice more of our soldiers to do this? Absolutely not. Bring them home and turn this mess over to the UN.

On another tangent:
Right now, our nation's protection of the minority (Supreme Court, Senate) only protects one minority: Fortune 500 corporations.
I don't think this was the intention of our founding fathers, do you?
That's why I'm voting for Kucinich in the Calif. primary.

:kick:

[mobuto]

39. You've got a problem with secular democracy?

I had no idea supposed liberals were so enamored of theocracy.

Understand this: Islamist theocracy is by its very nature undemocratic. Especially in a nation as religiously diverse as Iraq is. You allow theocracy and women will be persecuted, minorities will be killed and life will be hell.

Right now, our nation's protection of the minority (Supreme Court, Senate) only protects one minority: Fortune 500 corporations.

Oh really? You should follow C-Span more closely. Every day our Democratic Senators are on the floor busting their asses to save the nation from environmental destruction, racist judicial nominees, and tax cuts for millionaires. Considering that they're in the minority, they've done a damn good job. Cut the crap. Either you're for democracy or you're not.

[tedzbear]

53. Read my post again, thank u.

I have no problem with secular democracy and if you read my entire post you will see that.

I just feel we cannot call Iraq a democratic republic until they have a fair, one man-one vote election. We can advise them on the virtues of a secular democracy, but we cannot enforce it. Otherwise, Iraq will be a US territory, not an independent democracy.

Regarding your: "Oh really? You should follow C-Span more closely."

I do follow C-Span and I also read the papers, so I don't agree with you. The Democrats (including Kerry) are just as beholden to corporate lobbying/campaign contributions as the Republicans. Try reading Public Citizen by Ralph Nader.

http://www.citizen.org/

[dai]

64. "Either you're for democracy or you're not."

Sounds like "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists".

In the midst of your sanctimony, you've missed the complexity of this issue.

If we, as foreign occupiers, deny Iraqis the right to choose their own laws - then we are against democracy.

On the other hand, if we grant Iraqis self-determination and they choose some repressive form of theocracy, once again we are against democracy.

Everyone else here has noticed this catch-22, please try to keep up.

[mobuto]

70. But which Iraqis?

If 51% of Iraqis approve of repressing 49% of Iraqis, is that really democracy? I'm not saying we should deny self-determination to Iraqis, I'm saying we should ensure it for all of them, not just a narrow fundamentalist Shia majority.

Everyone else here has noticed this catch-22, please try to keep up.

Please do not condescend to me. I do not take it well.

[dai]

73. Once again you miss the point.

If 51% of Iraqis approve of repressing 49% of Iraqis, is that really democracy?

Obviously not, and no rational person would make such a claim. But one American making decisions for 100% of Iraqis is not a democracy either.

Catch-22, get it?

If it's the literary reference you do not understand, I'll be happy to PM a quick primer.


Please do not condescend to me. I do not take it well.

Perhaps you should take your own advice, and not tell others to "follow C-SPAN more closely".

[mobuto]

80. Thanks bucko

But I think I've got my Heller references under control.

Obviously not, and no rational person would make such a claim. But one American making decisions for 100% of Iraqis is not a democracy either.


Rational person? Don't put words in my mouth - I never accused anybody here of being that.

The only decision that one American would make would be to guarantee 100% of Iraqis the right to live as they wish, not 51%. If that's ruthless, savage imperialistic bombast, so be it. But I think that's a fair trade for human rights. And its a lot more democratic than any - repeat - any of the alternatives.

[tedzbear]

72. Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think this conundrum is much more complex than how * is portraying it.

I hope the UN takes over this mess so we can start bringing our soldiers home. Let the security council, or better yet the entire UN membership, debate this "catch-22."
The USA has enough trouble dealing with its own problems, let alone Iraq's.

:kick:

[GreyV]

75. UN ..sure, but....

US of A should pay for everything including reconstruction costs and generous payments for families of 10,000s of dead Iraqi civilians and young soldiers as well. I mean real payments, not "Here's what I got in my pocket lady. Sorry for killing your husband", type of thing. What's the current rate of payout anyways... several hundred bucks per dead Iraqi?

[Solly Mack]

47. Just say NO to theocracy..no matter where it is

I can't support a religion based govt....no matter how big of a hypocrite the person who is also speaking out against it happens to be

Theocracy is a danger...and I'd side with the devil himself on that one. <G>

[tedzbear]

57. Right on! Me too.

Maybe I'm just arguing a question of semantics.

I don't feel we can call Iraq an independent democracy if we are enforcing a particular system of government on them. If we impose a secular republic on them that mirrors our own, then we are controlling Iraq and therefore must call it our 51st state or our territory, not an independent nation. Iraq must have true, democratic elections or else we have to admit we are still militarily occupying a foreign country.

:kick:

[Solly Mack]

63. I agree. The only way to self-rule is self-governing-pitfalls and mistakes

along the way.

However, I don't support theocracy, period. And can't support it even if it's voted in...

So while this does present me with a bit of a dilemma..I still gotta come out against theocracy.

[dai]

67. Actually, I agree too.

No to theocracy!

However, this requires us to admit we are acting in a very anti-democratic nature.

Pure nasty imperialism (*gag*), but it's the lesser of the two evils.

[tedzbear]

74. Is this where the UN can help?

Let the entire planet figure this out, not *. After all, the survival of our planet will be determined by this.

This Iraq catch-22 is a humdinger. I wish the debate we are having here could be covered by our national media, instead of what they present: limited fascist propaganda.

:kick:

[dai]

76. I would also be inclined...

...to grant the UN authority to make such a decision.

Still, it is not democratic from the Iraqi perspective. However, the UN does not have the same selfish interests as individual nations, and as such I would suspect a decision derived from UN discussion would be more palatable to the Iraqis than an uncontested "fatwa" from viceroy Bremer.

One does not hear the term "UN hegemony" as often as "US hegemony".

[tedzbear]

77. Shouldn't the rest of the world share the pain of Iraq's transformation?

Not just us. Even though we created this mess, for Iraq to really have a secular democracy that embraces all religions, I would think the UN is the only practical mechanism to make this fragile environment appear. Like you said, US hegemony will not go down as well as UN hegemony.

If it's necessary to force this on Iraq in the beginning, I would want the whole world behind it, not just *. I don't trust * for reasons that are obvious.

P.S. I just heard this incredible lecture on Indy Radio by Stephan Kinzer. He links the 1953 CIA instigated coup in Iran to the mess * has gotten us into today. It's a tragic chain of events that originated in Great Britain's anger at the nationalization of its Iranian oil company. This is his book:


All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
by Stephen Kinzer

:kick:

[bushisanidiot]

54. Way To Unite All Of Islam Against The U.S., DIPSHITS!!!!!!

the repukes are so fucking clueless!!

they have no fucking idea what kind of risk they are putting us all in by pushing more than "regime change".. they are pushing "religious change". NEWSFLASH: YOU CAN'T FUCKING DO THAT AND EXPECT PEACE!!!

[heidler]

65. Is Iraq going to take a giant step back-wards?

What seems true to me is that yes the Talaban was a sad case of Government by religious leaders. This made women second class citizens. Iraq on the other hand was a secular governed state and women were comparably, by Muslim standards, quite free to do pretty much as they needed to do. Saddam had to use force to maintain this more minimal religious type of government.

What we have done is unleash these religious leaders and they are pushing hard for a return to Muslin power. To me it seems similar to what happened in Iran when Khomeini took over. So we've let the Genie out of the bottle, how are we going to get it back in the bottle.

[Darranar]

78. Yes, of course...

the colonial authority has veto power over the constitution.

How democratic!

Proceed with the glorious liberation, Mr. Bush! Such worthless concepts as "democracy" and "self-determination" can be discarded.