Iraq Transitional Constitution

[CoLawman]

Ok, so I'm a wannabe American, sue me),

If not for the Torstenssens, Sjodins, Olsons, and Olafssons bugging out for Minnesota I would be sharing your sentiments, rather than enjoying the rights of a second generation Yankee!

The more I think about it, I think what we're seeing is the beginning of a technical seperation of church and state in Iraq.

Some damn smart mofo is keeping an eye on this.

I still think there might be a little deadlocking, but that would happen in any system.

I like this. CoLawman, you're on your own.

Martin

And then there were three.................

[CoLawman]

It is not unreasonable, rather logical, to think that if you liberate someone, then they are completely free. They are free to bury themselves, chain themselves, create a huge capitalistic empire, sell cow dung. If we limit that, they are not free.

I would concur.....If our only purpose was to liberate them. Does not this fly in the face of your earlier arguments?

If our intended purpose was remove the current regime and allow them self determination and free will..........(at the risk of being redundant) then why are we still there, in force.

Our goal is to establish a functioning democracy in that part of the world and more specifically in a country we are attempting to liberate. There should be little doubt, that left to their "self determination" they would become a nation under Sharia. And as proposed earlier F**k things us and sell cow dung!

I agree completely that this might be a exercise in futility!

Read the signature line of TS's post. And this creep is an American! I also defer to the posts on "ARe we at war with Islam". Frightening stuff! Establishing a Democracy in Iraq seems like a better choice than having to employ a scorched earth policy in defeating this threat.

Somethings I have learned while participating in this thread:

1. There are some really really bright people I have unwittingly tried to debate here.

2. I see things as Black and White......must be a cultural thing.......May I see your driver's license and registration Sir!

3. I find myself preoccupied with this discussion.

4. I find myself wondering (and worryinig) how TS and TR would weigh in on this.
5. I wonder if Razor is attributing my untenable position as oxygen deprivation brought about by living at ALTITUDE.

It has been engaging............but I must get back to work.............Do you know why I am pulling you over sir?

So, if you believe that that clause in the constitution does not make Islam the only source of law, what's the problem?

One Last shot over the shoulder. I do not believe that this clause does not make Islam the only source of law. I believe just the opposite and thus my ranting and raving.

And that is the problem!

CoLawman....

I'll get there. It only takes time and effort.

Now, to the subject at hand: I did not contradict myself in what you first quoted, since I was playing the Devil's Advocate. I stand by everything I wrote previously, with the only change in thinking being noted in the end of my last post. I.e.: This particular part of the constitution may not be the inhibiting part of freedom, unless I'm mistaken.

Three things about the constitution:

1. That legislation can come from Islam. It does not say that everything in the Koran is to be considered law, and what is taken from it must allow for the articles of Chapter Two. Considering traditions and society of the region, this is not unreasonable. Now, if my English abilities are too weak to interpret this and it does in fact say that what's written in the Koran shall be law, please correct me.
2. That legislation, from others sources, cannot contradict universal tenets of Islam. Basically, you cannot outlaw Islam. I am not a lawyer, but since it only says that you can't legislate against Islam, that doesn't mean that it forces you legislate according to Islam.
3. Whether or not Islam is recognized as a source of law, while still not being law, does not appear to make a difference (correct me if wrong, please), since any legislation can be suggested and this part of the constitution only imposes checks on what law can be accepted as constitutional.

The noteworthy part should rather be Chapter Two.

I think that the "universal tenets of Islam" is going to be a source of friction, whether it actually carries any effect or not.

For months, I've kept leaning more and more towards what TS wrote...

Martin

[aricbcool]

Originally Posted by Martin

I don't agree with all that Aricbcool wrote, for the record.

Sorry. Wasn't trying to misrepresent you. Your post just brought up a point I wanted to make about keeping our eye out for the future of America first, Iraq second.

Originally Posted by Martin

Three things about the constitution:

1. That legislation, from others sources, cannot contradict universal tenets of Islam. Basically, you cannot outlaw Islam. I am not a lawyer, but since it only says that you can't legislate against Islam, that doesn't mean that it forces you legislate according to Islam.
2. Whether or not Islam is recognized as a source of law, while still not being law, does not appear to make a difference (correct me if wrong, please), since any legislation can be suggested and this part of the constitution only imposes checks on what law can be accepted as constitutional.

1. The way I interpret it is that you can't write any legislation that contradicts islam. That's not to avoid outlawing islam, it's to avoid things like legalizing women's voting rights, property rights, wearing anything less than burkas, drinking, gambling, free speech. And on and on... Being vague in the wording of universal tenets of islam makes it so anyone in power can interpret it how they like.

2. True, any source of legislation can be suggested, but if it contradicts islam (see above) it's automatically disqualified.

That's how I read it anyways.

For the record, I don't think that America should dictate what constitution to adopt. I do think that we should have veto power in light of the security we are providing that enables them to choose their own government.

Regards,
Aric

No problem, Aric.

I think legislation usually prohibits rather than permits. That makes a fundamental difference.

One might be curious about whether Chapter Two, which lays out the people's rights, is missing ingredients. I haven't thought it thoroughly through so I will not comment on that. But as article 7 of chapter one, posted by CoLawman in the beginning of the thread, says, neither chapter two nor universally agreed upon tenets of Islam nor democracy may be infringed. They play out against each other.

That means that even if Islam says no to, for instance, women voting, to outlaw it would be against chapter two of the constitution.

Yes, that means that the constitution likely contradicts itself at some points.

I hope that they have a definition of democracy in there, seems like that's happily reinvented every other decade...

Martin

[CoLawman]

After some thought I want to put a twist on this whole thread!

If our concern is the insurgency, does that mean that our concern is the Sunni?
Would it not seem practical to develop their secularist leanings? And I understand that we have gone to great lengths to include them into a process they boycotted, but should there be more?

The Kurds seem willing to afford the Sunni a reasonable voice in the final draft of the Constitution. Which I interpret as a good thing when it comes to Separation of Church and State.

Currently Al Sistani and The Badr Brigade (the elite) is trading blows with the Emperor with no clothes, Muqta Al Sadr and the Al Mahdi (The poor). Take advantage of the Shia fighting and develop relations with the former Baathists!

Just some random thoughts and not really developed or polished for presentation to such a well read and educated forum.............but I didn't want to forget my train of thought no matter how many cars jump the tracks!

This just in. Part of the populace reported the location of numerous AQ gathering at a house/building near the Syrian Border. We paid them a call. Reuters is reporting we might have wasted as many as 50 of these Bad Boys! The important point being the information (reportedly) coming from the populace.