Savor every victory, no matter how small

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:50 am

Who says the Iraqi invasion was pointless?

Call it serendipity, but this is BIG!

Mohammed Bahr Al-Ulloum, the current president of the Iraqi Governing Council, signs the new interim constitution Monday.

This is what they signed today...

LAW OF ADMINISTRATION FOR THE STATE OF IRAQ FOR THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD

And here's a choice piece from the document...

Article 13.

(A) Public and private freedoms shall be protected.

(B) The right of free expression shall be protected.

(C) The right of free peaceable assembly and the right to join associations freely, as well as the right to form and join unions and political parties freely, in accordance with the law, shall be guaranteed.

(D) Each Iraqi has the right of free movement in all parts of Iraq and the right to travel abroad and return freely.

(E) Each Iraqi has the right to demonstrate and strike peaceably in accordance with the law.

(F) Each Iraqi has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief and practice. Coercion in such matters shall be prohibited.

(G) Slavery, the slave trade, forced labor, and involuntary servitude with or without pay, shall be forbidden.

(H) Each Iraqi has the right to privacy.

... and this ...

Article 15.

(A) No civil law shall have retroactive effect unless the law so stipulates. There shall be neither a crime, nor punishment, except by law in effect at the time the crime is committed.

(B) Police, investigators, or other governmental authorities may not violate the sanctity of private residences, whether these authorities belong to the federal or regional governments, governorates, municipalities, or local administrations, unless a judge or investigating magistrate has issued a search warrant in accordance with applicable law on the basis of information provided by a sworn individual who knew that bearing false witness would render him liable to punishment. Extreme exigent circumstances, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, may justify a warrantless search, but such exigencies shall be narrowly construed. In the event that a warrantless search is carried out in the absence of an extreme exigent circumstance, the evidence so seized, and any other evidence found derivatively from such search, shall be inadmissible in connection with a criminal charge, unless the court determines that the person who carried out the warrantless search believed reasonably and in good faith that the search was in accordance with the law.

(C) No one may be unlawfully arrested or detained, and no one may be detained by reason of political or religious beliefs.

(D) All persons shall be guaranteed the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, regardless of whether the proceeding is civil or criminal. Notice of the proceeding and its legal basis must be provided to the accused without delay.

(E) The accused is innocent until proven guilty pursuant to law, and he likewise has the right to engage independent and competent counsel, to remain silent in response to questions addressed to him with no compulsion to testify for any reason, to participate in preparing his defense, and to summon and examine witnesses or to ask the judge to do so. At the time a person is arrested, he must be notified of these rights.

(F) The right to a fair, speedy, and open trial shall be guaranteed.

(G) Every person deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall have the right of recourse to a court to determine the legality of his arrest or detention without delay and to order his release if this occurred in an illegal manner.

(H) After being found innocent of a charge, an accused may not be tried once again on the same charge.

(I) Civilians may not be tried before a military tribunal. Special or exceptional courts may not be established.

(J) Torture in all its forms, physical or mental, shall be prohibited under all circumstances, as shall be cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. No confession made under compulsion, torture, or threat thereof shall be relied upon or admitted into evidence for any reason in any proceeding, whether criminal or otherwise.

... but not quite the U.S. Constituton ...

Article 17.

It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law.

- Bill

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:29 am

I'm still worried about Islamic fundamentalists gaining a foothold in power, and establishing religious law. We must be careful on that front.

IT's interesting that in reading the excerps, that some of the language is clear and precise, leaving no question as to meanings.

But also, there's a few qualifiers in some of the provisions, Like"...in accordance with the law" and such. Possibly a back door to restrictions that make the Constitutional rights less guaranteed than they seem. But one must have some type of rstraint, in order to prevent anarchy.

Article 17? Looks like it mimics practices in most states as well as the Federal government.

And who did say the Iraqi invasion was pointless?

Gene

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:57 pm

Gene said: "Article 17? Looks like it mimics practices in most states as well as the Federal government."

Actually, most states do not require that individuals have a license to 'to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms'. Commercial dealers must be licensed though. A few states and localities do regulate the types of firearms allowed and closely control firearm ownership (New York city and State for instance) but for the most part, having a firearm in your home 'or curtilage thereof' is quite legal. BATFE stats that I have show 45% of the homes in the US have a firearm of some type.

Rich

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:37 pm

While I'll willing to give great deference to Rich in all matters firearms related, my own pooking around does not lend itself to support that most states do not require a license to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms. Amazing if true.

Gene

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:01 pm

Yes, it is true. There are rules regarding interstate commerce of weapons, so most states do not allow individuals selling firearms to someone from another state. But in most states, individuals can sell personal firearms.

Also, you can go into a WalMart just about everywhere and purchase a rifle or shotgun if you live in that state. Ammo as well.

Handguns are more closely regulated but can be purchased easily in most states.

Keep in mind that there are waiting periods or an instant check system in all states for all firearms purchases. This however is not a license or registration of either the firearm or the buyer, just a background check and in the case of waiting periods, a cooling off time just to eliminate those with a sudden urge to harm someone. Only the dealer is required to keep records of transactions. The Feds are by law supposed to destroy all records of approved purchases, but likely do not.

Concealed carry in the shall issue and may issue states requires a permit of some type. However, it is not a license to own or acquire a handgun. Many in VA have a permit and no handgun... some just wanted to get a permit. Many in VA have a handgun and no concealed carry permit. The handgun is allowed on personal property, concealed or otherwise.

Maybe Panther can weigh in.

If interested, click on this link for a state by state rundown of handgun laws. Visit each state and see for yourself what the laws are. Keep in mind long guns are less regulated than handguns so if you did a state search for long gun rules you'd see much more leeway in purchasing them.

http://www.packing.org/

Except for a few midwest and western states, anywhere outside of the northeast corrider south of MD firearms are treated like a sporting good except for the background check. Also, the laws regarding handguns are easing up in most states.

Shall isue is now the law in 37 states now that Ohio and Missouri have recognized the right of concealed carry. Kansas and Minnesota are also on track to become shall issue states.

Rich

jorvik · Post by **jorvik** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:35 pm

Bill
This really is a "small victory"

.....ever see Star trek
" It's life Jim.....but not as we know it

???"
That's what you are up against, different culture,different values....Take as an example if you invaded a country and decided to change their eating habits, instead of healthy locale fair, they had to eat BigMacs......and fries, dripping with grease,
and they had as examples grossly overweight people to aspire to

Only here we are not talking about something as simple as food ( and I love to cook ....and that aint easy, the only place you get authentic Indian food...is India)
We are talking about Religion and Government....and not your religion and Government.
Who gives a stuff about the right to carry and bear arms when the next guy getting on the Bus is a suicide bomber
determined to win his place to paradise......vigilance and a sense of perspective ........maybe a little Mushin

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:11 pm

jorvik said: "Who gives a stuff about the right to carry and bear arms"

I suspect that the tens of thousands of defenseless Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south who were slaughtered by SH during his rule would have have been very pleased to have a chance to defend themselves.

Rich

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:38 pm

jorvik

I generally don't mind your spirited disagreement with Bush/Blair Iraqi policy. It's nice to have your perspective.

However, for the life of me I cannot follow your analogy.

THE BEFORE... Authoritarian, secular rule. Torture/murder a common tool of law enforcement, criminal investigation, and power consolidation. Thousands taken away and quietly exterminated. The executive branch taking money meant to feed the starving population and building multiple palaces.

THE AFTER... "The system of government in Iraq shall be republican, federal, democratic, and pluralistic, and powers shall be shared" ... "Law is the Supreme Law of the land and shall be binding in all parts of Iraq without exception" ... "Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period. This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice."

So, Jorvik, what does this have to do with fries? What does this have to do with MY religion (do you know what it is???) and MY government? This is no McConstitution. Perhaps you didn't have a chance to read it...

And if this experiment works, what effect do you think it might have on the rest of the Middle East? (Mostly a rhetorical question; we can only guess.)

- Bill

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:28 pm

I fear it won't make one bit of difference in any other Mideast nation - free or not.

Gene

jorvik · Post by **jorvik** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:02 pm

Bill,
What I was trying to say...by analogy was that I don't think you can impose ( however fairly ) an alien system of government onto another nation. I thought the analogy of food was a good one

Anyway check this out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3500156.stm

wonder what the truth is ?

....Where they held illegally, do they deserve recompense by way of damages?
Or, are they guilty of treason...and under my country's laws, should they be executed....( though they never would be.Blair would be the first to condem it)

KZMiller · Post by **KZMiller** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:25 am

I'm too happy right now to accept any light of hope, no matter how small, in the mideast after what's just happened. Al Qaeda; they won't stop until they are stopped by others.

I thought this poem would be appropriate in light of what happened in Madrid:

Acquainted with the Night, by Robert Frost

I have been one acquainted with the night.
I have walked out in rain -- and back in rain.
I have outwalked the furthest city light.

I have looked down the saddest city lane.
I have passed by the watchman on his beat
And dropped my eyes, unwilling to explain.

I have stood still and stopped the sound of feet
When far away an interrupted cry
Came over houses from another street,

But not to call me back or say good-by;
And further still at an unearthly height,
One luminary clock against the sky

Proclaimed the time was neither wrong nor right.
I have been one acquainted with the night.

Kami

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:09 pm

jorvik

The US released the men from prison two years after their arrest in Afghanistan on suspicion of terrorism.

Given what was going on with the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, and 9/11 terrorism rooted in Afghanistan training camps, it's not surprising these gentlemen got mixed up in things. One would wonder why they were there in Afghanistan in the first place.

If they are innocent, it's a travesty. If not, well I have no sympathy. In any case, it would be difficult for us to judge without more information.

Afghanistan was war pure and simple, jorvik. Unlike Al Quaeda, the U.S. did not intentionally target innocents, nor did they start the battle.

Take a good look at what just happened in Spain. Two hundred innocent civilians INTENTIONALLY killed (and counting). And you want to criticize the U.S. for this? Heck, at least they admitted fault and let them go! At least the U.S. and Britain worked some semblance of a rule of law. What of the thousands of innocents (including many Brits) targeted and killed in the WTC by those trained in Afghanistan? Where's your outrage?

But frankly I'm flattered you expect more of us. Think about that...

I still don't get the food analogy. Maybe it's me, I don't know...

As for imposing a government, well this sure doesn't look like a U.S. democracy to me. A constitution based on Islam as the state religion? Excuse me???

Good for both Afghanistan and Iraq for retaining some of their own identity in the process of building new, just governments. And you can't tell me the majority of citizens in Iraq aren't happier with the new government to be vs. what was there before. Nobody likes an occupying army, but the alternative is much, much worse both before and especially now. Criticize the U.S. for end justifying the means, but there are quite possibly some big positives about to come of it all. Hate Bush and Blair all you want, but walk away from this and you'll see terrorism fester there that'll make pre 9/11 Afghanistan look like kindergarten. Like it or not, the world community is involved.

Nobody said it was going to be pretty. Democracy is a very messy process - by definition. Let's hope for the sake of the Iraqis that they get a representational and pluralistic (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds) government that they can be proud of. Rather than curse what happened, I'm putting hope in what can be. It's in the world community's interest for this to succeed.

- Bill

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:44 am

Well said.

Rich

jorvik · Post by **jorvik** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:05 pm

Quote
" Take a good look at what just happened in Spain. Two hundred innocent civilians INTENTIONALLY killed (and counting). And you want to criticize the U.S. for this? Heck, at least they admitted fault and let them go!

I think you misunderstood me. I want them to do jail time ....and if they had fought against the U.K.....as a U.K. citizen I want them to face a firing squad.