Acidus wrote:

Take a good hard look at this document. This is the fruit of $200 Billion and 2000 dead Americans. You tell me if it was worth it. You tell me if you will ever trust this administration again.

Well said, Acidus. What about about the 38% of Americans who still approve of the president and his minions? If any of them are in the memestreams audience, I'd be curious to hear what you have to rebut. You're welcome to email me (foxyengineer@gmail.com).

-janelane, just trying to make sense of it all

Acidus wrote:
Of course! Who better to resolve the conflicts between Islamic law and statements like "Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom and cannot be deprived of these rights" then someone who is an Islamic iman?

Take a good hard look at this document. This is the fruit of $200 Billion and 2000 dead Americans. You tell me if it was worth it. You tell me if you will ever trust this administration again.

I think a good many people noted this when it was still in the draft stage. What we've maaged to build in the sand is Iran 2, maybe Algeria 2 or even Taliban 2. Yep, that's the "beacon of Democracy" in the middle east. If anything, we've accelerated the change of the region into a hardline Muslim theocracy, you know, the kind that DOES support terrorism.

Way to go W and dick.

Acidus wrote:
Everyone is making such a big deal about Iraqi as an "island of Democracy" in the Middle East. Conservatives are using it to justify a losing war. Liberals are using it to attack the president.

But how many people have actually read it? Well I have, and while it is not the doom and gloom some people are pushing Iraq most certainly will not be an "island of democracy."

The Constitution is full of nice American-like language and statutes:
-Iraqis are equal before the law
-Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom and cannot be deprived of these rights or have them restricted except in accordance to the law and based on a ruling by the appropriate judicial body
-Double Jeopardy
-Freedom to travel
-No exile
-Freedom of religion
-Freedom of thought
-No discrimination based on color, race, gender (but not sexual orienation)

Sounds pretty good right? So some laws define the limits of rights and freedoms just like in the US. Where does this law come from?

Well, after the preamble and a statement defining the government, the very first thing in the Iraqi Constitution is:

1st — Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

So for the freedoms defined in relation to the law are really subject to the law, specifically Islamic law.

Now some of these right are just absolutes like:

The state is committed to protecting the individual from coercion in thought, religion or politics, and no one may be imprisoned on these bases.

Some of them are entirely conditional to, again, Islamic law:

Article (36): The state guarantees, as long as it does not violate public order and morality:

1st — the freedom of expressing opinion by all means.

2nd — the freedom of press, publishing, media and distribution.

3rd — freedom of assembly and peaceful protest will be organized by law.

Morality is left underdined in the Constitution. Persumedly it is left to Islamic law to define morality.

What happens when someone doesn't respect the constitution? What happens when someone stones their daughter to death for allowing herself to get raped because that's in accordance with Islamic law? Well, then the case can be appealled to a Supreme Federal Court, much like our Supreme Court. So who is allowed on this court?

The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law

Of course! Who better to resolve the conflicts between Islamic law and statements like "Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom and cannot be deprived of these rights" then someone who is an Islamic iman?

Take a good hard look at this document. This is the fruit of $200 Billion and 2000 dead Americans. You tell me if it was worth it. You tell me if you will ever trust this administration again.

That sounds much how our government works (even though we don't put it in writing and claim to do otherwise).

Acidus wrote:

Article (36): The state guarantees, as long as it does not violate public order and morality:

Morality is left underdined in the Constitution. Persumedly it is left to Islamic law to define morality.

Technically, these two exceptions exist in U.S. law as well, despite the fact that they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. You can be charged inciting a riot (public order) or with obsenity (immoral speech). Of course, violating the public order could easily be defined as criticising official policy. The actual application of these things will be defined over time by the government and the courts. The liberal stance of the Supreme Court in the 60s and 70s is really what allows people in America to say things like "fuck the government" without going to prison. A different time and place would (and did) offer different results from the same law. The nature of Iraq will be defined by Iraqis.... with one huge gapping problem:

The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law

I don't think you can have a democracy with an establishment of religion. If the law is the law of god, then to question it is heresy. If you cannot question the law you cannot decide whether or not you agree with it, and you cannot express choices at a ballot box that you are not allowed to make. Maybe it will appear to work in the beginning, as some laws are questioned and others are not. However, over time, the religion will take hold, as in such a state religious justifications for actions are much easier to formulate then political and pragmatic ones, and once reached, nearly impossible to defeat. Theism is the path of least resistance, for both the courts and the government. Eventually the state will resemble nothing we could call democracy.

Of course, I used to think that totalitarianism was incompatible with capitalism. I was wrong. See Singapore...

In many ways Iraq represents exactly the sort of state Conservative Christians in America would like to build. If it is successful, even for a time, look for it to be held up not just as a model for the middle east, but as a model for us as well...

Decius wrote:

I don't think you can have a democracy with an establishment of religion. If the law is the law of god, then to question it is heresy. If you cannot question the law you cannot decide whether or not you agree with it, and you cannot express choices at a ballot box that you are not allowed to make.

Exactly my point Tom. Yes we have morality in the US. Yes we have limits on our freedoms in the US (see canonical shouting the a crowded theatre example). With a few minor changes, this constitution is almost identical to the US's constitution.

Ultimately the difference between the US and the new Iraq are where limits on freedoms are drawn. In the US these views change often (prohibition, segregation, privacy, decency, etc). For Iraq, these views can never conflict with Islam. Furthermore, the only people even allowed to make a judgement and possibly change the status quo are constitutionally required to be Islam scholars.

What it comes down to is Iraq is subservient to Islam. All these constitutional freedoms and recognition of rights are just lip service. How radical this Islam will be remains to be seen.

Decius wrote:
Technically, these two exceptions exist in U.S. law as well, despite the fact that they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. You can be charged inciting a riot (public order) or with obsenity (immoral speech).

...

In many ways Iraq represents exactly the sort of state Conservative Christians in America would like to build. If it is successful, even for a time, look for it to be held up not just as a model for the middle east, but as a model for us as well...

I thought obscenity laws were left to the states? Is there a federal law against obscenity? The riots, yes, but that arguably has a basis in the constitution because large scale disturbances often result in dead innocents, which tends to go against the "life, liberty and pursuit" thing.

As for that last, I agree completely, and I find it disturbing as hell.

k wrote:
I thought obscenity laws were left to the states?

There are state and federal obscenity laws. Thats why the FBI is cracking down on obsenity and not the GBI.

The riots, yes, but that arguably has a basis in the constitution because large scale disturbances often result in dead innocents, which tends to go against the "life, liberty and pursuit" thing.

The text "life, liberty and pursuit" doesn't appear in the Constitution. Thats from the Declaration of Independence. Technically this sort of thing falls into the "speech becomes action" category, like you can still get arrested for trafficing in stolen credit cards even though the activity is technically "speech." IMHO, properly applied, anything that "distrubs the public order" falls into this category. They might just be trying to explicitly state that instead of having to reach it through interpretation, but they might also be expanding it...

Decius wrote:

k wrote:
I thought obscenity laws were left to the states?

There are state and federal obscenity laws. Thats why the FBI is cracking down on obsenity and not the GBI.

The riots, yes, but that arguably has a basis in the constitution because large scale disturbances often result in dead innocents, which tends to go against the "life, liberty and pursuit" thing.

The text "life, liberty and pursuit" doesn't appear in the Constitution. Thats from the Declaration of Independence. Technically this sort of thing falls into the "speech becomes action" category, like you can still get arrested for trafficing in stolen credit cards even though the activity is technically "speech." IMHO, properly applied, anything that "distrubs the public order" falls into this category. They might just be trying to explicitly state that instead of having to reach it through interpretation, but they might also be expanding it...

Good points. I'm dumb. What I get for lack of sleep...

I don't get federal obscenity law, personally. Maybe I thought they didn't exist because I don't see the point. Just seems like something that should get decided at a much finer grained level. Stupid FBI wasting time.

Technically, these two exceptions exist in U.S. law as well, despite the fact that they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. You can be charged inciting a riot (public order) or with obsenity (immoral speech). Of course, violating the public order could easily be defined as criticising official policy. The actual application of these things will be defined over time by the government and the courts. The liberal stance of the Supreme Court in the 60s and 70s is really what allows people in America to say things like "fuck the government" without going to prison. A different time and place would (and did) offer different results from the same law. The nature of Iraq will be defined by Iraqis.... with one huge gapping problem:

One minor correction, which I do think is significant. US law does not see speech like obscenity as "immoral speech", it sees it as "worthless speech". There is a difference. None of the court decisions are based on the morality of the speech, at least not directly. It's based on things like "no social value" or "trivial social value". While it does attempt to define morality in that manor, I don't know of any Supreme Court case that actually does attempt to define morality. It tackles the argument from another direction. If its "worthless speech", it's not protected. All the definitions surround defining it based on that.

Rattle wrote:
One minor correction, which I do think is significant. US law does not see speech like obscenity as "immoral speech", it sees it as "worthless speech". There is a difference.

Thats a good point, but this is one area where I don't "buy" U.S. law. We get around the first amendment by saying that things which violate "contemporary community standards" (i.e. the Public Morality) are "worthless" and so they aren't protected. The value of something is in the eye of the beholder and not the "community standard." I think its a bad argument. If obsenities were really "worthless" our standards about them wouldn't change. The Iraqi Constitution allows directly what we allow by tortuous reasoning.

Acidus wrote:
Everyone is making such a big deal about Iraqi as an "island of Democracy" in the Middle East. Conservatives are using it to justify a losing war. Liberals are using it to attack the president.

But how many people have actually read it? Well I have, and while it is not the doom and gloom some people are pushing Iraq most certainly will not be an "island of democracy."

The Constitution is full of nice American-like language and statutes:
-Iraqis are equal before the law
-Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom and cannot be deprived of these rights or have them restricted except in accordance to the law and based on a ruling by the appropriate judicial body
-Double Jeopardy
-Freedom to travel
-No exile
-Freedom of religion
-Freedom of thought
-No discrimination based on color, race, gender (but not sexual orienation)

Sounds pretty good right? So some laws define the limits of rights and freedoms just like in the US. Where does this law come from?

Well, after the preamble and a statement defining the government, the very first thing in the Iraqi Constitution is:

1st — Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

So for the freedoms defined in relation to the law are really subject to the law, specifically Islamic law.

Now some of these right are just absolutes like:

The state is committed to protecting the individual from coercion in thought, religion or politics, and no one may be imprisoned on these bases.

Some of them are entirely conditional to, again, Islamic law:

Article (36): The state guarantees, as long as it does not violate public order and morality:

1st — the freedom of expressing opinion by all means.

2nd — the freedom of press, publishing, media and distribution.

3rd — freedom of assembly and peaceful protest will be organized by law.

Morality is left underdined in the Constitution. Persumedly it is left to Islamic law to define morality.

What happens when someone doesn't respect the constitution? What happens when someone stones their daughter to death for allowing herself to get raped because that's in accordance with Islamic law? Well, then the case can be appealled to a Supreme Federal Court, much like our Supreme Court. So who is allowed on this court?

The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law

Of course! Who better to resolve the conflicts between Islamic law and statements like "Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom and cannot be deprived of these rights" then someone who is an Islamic iman?

Take a good hard look at this document. This is the fruit of $200 Billion and 2000 dead Americans. You tell me if it was worth it. You tell me if you will ever trust this administration again.

hell no.