SECOND UPDATE Aug. 31
The AP's translated the new, complete, text of Iraq's new Constitution, which has been posted by the NY Times. The provision about Islam, in Chapter 1, Article 2 ("Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation. . . No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."), remains. But, despite the nay sayers, that clause -- whatever it means -- is outweighed by the remainder of the text, such as:
- a commitment to democracy (Chpt. 1, Art. 1-2, Chpt. 1, Art. 5-7),
- a Federalist structure (Chpt. 4, Art. 112),
- freedom of thought (Chpt. 2, Art. 35(2), 40),
- religious freedom (Chpt. 1, Art. 2, Chpt. 1, Art. 12(2), Chpt. 2, Art. 35(2), Chpt. 2, Art. 39, Chpt. 2, Art. 41),
- freedom of speech and press (Chpt. 2, Art. 35-36),
- freedom of assembly "and peaceful protest" (Chpt. 2, Art. 36),
- equal protection and non-discrimination among or "because of sex, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status" (Chpt. 2, Art. 14-16),
- the right to vote, men and women (Chpt. 2, Art. 20),
- freedom to campaign and lobby (Chpt. 2, Art. 37),
- the right to privacy (Chpt. 2, Art. 17, Chpt. 2, Art. 35(1)),
- protections for the right to own and use property (Chpt. 2, Art. 33),
- no taxation without representation (Chpt. 2, Art. 28),
- state-backed "guarantees" of "social and health insurance," "motherhood, childhood and old age" and "housing" (Chpt. 2, Art. 29-30),
- state paid welfare and/or unemployment compensation (Chpt. 2, Art. 30),
- access to health care and free health care for the elderly (Chpt. 2, Art. 30-31), and for the handicapped (Chpt. 2, Art. 32),
- free public schooling, and the right to private, albeit regulated, alternative schooling (Chpt. 2, Art. 34),
- a parliament, called "the Council of Representatives," with four year terms (Chpt. 3, Art. 48-55),
- a President, elected by and from among, the parliament by 2/3rds vote (Chpt. 3, Art. 64-72),
- an independent and supreme judiciary (Chpt. 2, Art. 19, Chpt. 3, Art. 85-86, Chpt. 3, Art. 87-93), composed of "a number of judges and experts in (Islamic Jurisprudence) and law" (Chpt. 3, Art. 90(1)),
- Constitutional supremacy, in that future laws can not abridge Constitutional rights (Chpt. 1, Art. 2, Chpt. 1, Art. 13) nor can Constitutional freedoms be burdened except "by, or according to, law and as long as this restriction or limitation does not undermine the essence of the right or freedom" (Chpt. 2, Art. 45),
- rights of the accused (Chpt. 2, Art. 19, Chpt. 2, Art. 35(1), Chpt. 3, Art. 96), and
- a prohibition on wiretapping or eavesdropping "except for legal and security necessity in accordance with the law" (Chpt. 2, Art. 38).
With all these guarantees -- some beyond U.S. law (health care, health insurance, privacy) -- are the media and lefties whining solely because Iraq's Constitution is silent on gay marriage?
MORE:
Dingo reviewed the previous draft; the final version addresses most, if not all, of his concerns. Especially, as Pedro at The Quietist observes, because:
We should remember that the Sunni leaders who are being so vocal against the new constitution were not elected like their Shiite and Kurdish counterparts, but were instead brought into the process artificially as a concession to Bush. We really have no idea if they truly represent the views of most Sunnis. And their statements and actions give every indication of being craven to the extremism of the insurgency.
7 comments:
Perfect it looks so much like the US now! (irony on) All what we are missing now is stopping the bloodsheed... How long will it take?
By the way... can we bring one of these constitutions to Saudi Arabia? they have no idea of what voting is... but the US still support them without conditions. WHY?
caribe:
Why do you say the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia without conditions? You've got it exactly backwards. Bush himself reversed the long-standing accommodation of dictators, calling it "false stability" without benefit to America:
"Sixty years of western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, . . .stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."
Ironically, given the Moonbat accusations about Bush's supposed ties to the Saudis, the President has been disengaging from the Kingdom for some time, most noticeably by:
-- withdrawing essentially all troops from Saudi Arabia;
-- insisting on, and receiving, increased cooperation with the Saudi government on anti-terror measures; and
-- increasingly being at odds with the Saudis, given that many Iraqi terrorists aren't Iraqi, but instead Saudi. And we're killing them.
Of course, Americans retain relationships with the Saudis--as customers. And as much as we need their oil, they need our dollars.
Most of the bloodshed, and all of the intentional killing of unarmed innocents, is by terrorists, not our military. Iraq and Afghanistan are unquestionably better off now then under Saddam and the Taliban. Which is why Iraqis and Afghanis want the troops to stay--it's the best chance for peace and democracy.
Great, many info. Most of which are links that reflect nothing but your opinion and link to another opinion of yours and another one.
At least I can get some good things from your explanation.
- You need oil.
- You recognice killing some innocents, I guess you don't call it terrorism coming into somebody else's country and dropping bombs in the wrong places by mistake. that is called "collateral damage".
- You call them terrorist, yes they are using terror and hitting civilian targets, and that shouldn't be that way. I call them insurgents and I will do the same if another country get their nose into mine, I bet you would also if they come here and try to take your resources.
They are better off? Says who???? Why you didn't get into Afganistan before if you cared so much about them and didn't wait till they hit you? cuz they have no resources, you gave a sh*t about that people being terrorized by talibans.
Lefties know nothing about iraquis, who does? right wing people? Ha! It's easy to understand other cultures by being in our house with food, tv, work, a/c and all other stuff... and yeah... they are better of just because they look like us now. Everything that looks like us is better off, what a nice way of thinking.
They want the troops to stay? yeah... that's why they keep throwing rockets at you guys and doing protests claming Saddam to come back, it is their way to show how much they like you have invaded THEIR country.
The only reason for going there was OIL, no problem with that just stop playing the good guys in the movie.
If you wanted to stop a dictator you could have gone to Cuba, it's just 90 miles away.
If you wanted Nuclear weapons you could have gone to North Korea, they have proved having weapons you didn't need to make up the proffs. Or you could start by not sending any more money to Israel so they construct theirs or getting rid of yours before asking others to do so.
If you wanted to help people you could have gone to Africa.
But you choose the country that has the more reserves of oil in the world and your administration thinks that the rest of the world is stupid and eat boagies. They don't care about what the rest of the world thinks anyway, unless they have some sort of resource to consume like locusts.
Where was the part prohibiting Jews from Israel reclaiming property/returning to Iraq?
Quite different from what the Wall Street Journal was reporting a couple of days ago. No wonder the Sunni's don't like it!
SC&A:
It's much better. The most objectionable parts of prior drafts are largely gone, replaced by more benign words, possibly preserving some legislative wiggle-room. Relevant provisions include:
Article 2(2): now neither mentions nor explicitly prohibits the Jewish faith. It guarantees "full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices like (Christians, Yazidis, Sabaean Mandeans.)" Although Judaism is omitted from the provision, the word "like" can be read as "including, but not limited to."
Article 18: no longer prohibits Jews from being Iraqi citizens or from Israeli dual citizenship. At several points (see below), the Constitution includes clauses such as: "Iraqi citizenship may not be granted for the purposes of a policy of population settlement disrupting the demographic makeup in Iraq," which would appear to forbid any massive Jewish "right of return," not that anyone's interested.
Article 23(3): now limits ownership of real property to Iraqis (dropping the apparent exclusion of Jews), except for ownership "with the purpose of demographic changes," as noted above. So Jews who are Iraqis may own houses in Iraq.
Interesting changes. I suspect there will be claims made by Iraqi Jews to regain lost property.
Inasmuch as Qadaffi (who actually made an offer of restitution) and to a lesser extent, the Syrians, have made overatures to western jewish communities, the next few years ought to be interesting.
It is a shrewd move on their part. There will be a Sephardic Prime Minister at soem point in the near future- and woe unto the Arab leader who has to deal with an old neighbor. Arab leaders understand that Sephardic Jews know exactly who they are- and will deal with them as Arabs deal with each other.
As one friend told me, the Sephardi community has a long memory- and memories of the persecution, desecration of cemetaries, etc, go a long way.
Post a Comment