THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

You're maybe gonna need the 'green' pill, too LOL.

Did you read the entire document Walter? There are contradictions there along with evidence that non- Islamic and even some 'fringe' Islamic groups do not have complete religious freedom in Turkey despite the Turkish government's assertion of 'freedom of relgion'. This is how my friends who have lived in Turkey tell it too--they were free to practice their Christianity so long as they kept it quiet and out of sight.

Breaking News: Jaafari PM Candidate for UIA

Well, the United Iraqi Alliance held its internal vote among the 140 party members who got seated in parliament, and just announced that Ibrahim Jaafari has won against Ahmad Chalabi. Jaafari's victory is not a surprise, since he was backed by the two core parties in the UIA, the Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Nic Robertson at CNN is saying that Jaafari was seen as a more unifying figure. You could interpret that statement in a lot of ways, but it is certainly true that Jaafari has a rhetoric of inclusion that stretches even to the people of Fallujah, whereas Chalabi wanted to punish all the Sunni Arabs who had had anything to do with the Baath Party (a lot of them).

The Dawa Party was founded in 1958 or so, with the aim of establishing an Islamic state in Iraq (and as an alternative to Communism, with its atheist workers' paradise). That it is now supplying the prime minister of the country under American auspices is among the more startling developments of our time.
Tue, Feb 22, 2005 6:10

Soft-spoken Jaafari tipped as Iraq PM
Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:36 PM GMT
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

By Michael Georgy

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Vice President Ibrahim al-Jaafari, favoured to become prime minister, prefers diplomacy and dialogue to navigate around sectarian minefields the emerged after the January 30 elections.

The main Shi'ite alliance, winner of the election, favours Dawa Party leader Jaafari for prime minister, a senior Shi'ite political source said on Tuesday.

The soft-spoken Shi'ite politician believes Iraq will never plunge into civil war but, years of opposing Saddam Hussein, in Iraq and abroad, have made him cautious enough to conclude that American troops should not leave too soon.

Majority Shi'ites, long oppressed under Saddam, gained unprecedented power by capturing 48 percent of the votes in the election, while the Sunni minority Saddam once showered with privileges has been marginalised.

Jaafari, 58, watched Saddam's henchmen kill thousands of his comrades in the Shi'ite Islamist Dawa Party before he fled to Iran in the 1980s.

Having returning to Iraq in 2003 to serve as a member of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council that previously ran Iraq, he is optimistic Iraqis want to avoid bloodletting in a country plagued by suicide bombings and kidnappings.

Born in the southern holy city of Kerbala, where this week Shi'ites celebrate an important religious festival, he earned his medical degree from Mosul University before joining Dawa -- the oldest Islamic movement in Iraq -- in 1966.

In 1980, he escaped Saddam's crackdown on Dawa that culminated in the execution of the party's founder, Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Sadr.

As vice president in the current interim administration, Jaafari's role is ceremonial, but he is among the top names on a Shi'ite list formed under the auspices of Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, the most influential Shi'ite cleric.

While the list, called the United Iraqi Alliance, did not do as well as predicted, its leaders are expected to dominate the new parliament.

SECTARIAN CHALLENGES

If Jaafari becomes prime minister, he will need all his softly-softly diplomacy to overcome Iraq's sensitive sectarian divides and draw the Sunni minority into the new political fold.

It is a challenge, like others, that Jaafari plays down, insisting that politics is not black and white and must be handled with care. Sunnis have a part to play in the new Iraq like everyone else, he says.

"The background of those who are victimising Shi'ites might be Sunni, but there is wide understanding that they do not represent Sunni thinking," Jaafari told Reuters recently.

"Neither Sunnis nor Shi'ites are prepared to accept civil war," he said. "Iraqis have been through many tests but coexistence has held."

The marginalisation of the Sunnis in the election, with the likelihood that they will have next to no representation in the National Assembly, could exacerbate sectarian tensions.

But Jaafari insists full-blown sectarian conflict is unlikely because most Iraqis want to avoid such a nightmare.

That said, Sunnis are also not beyond blaming Shi'ites for fuelling mistrust, and say Shi'ite Islamist parties like Dawa have targeted former Sunni officials.

Some Iraqis view Jaafari and others like him as politicians who have no right to power because they spent years abroad escaping Saddam while others suffered under his regime.

But he said Iraqis were thankful the Americans had toppled Saddam. "Sometimes when I ride in an American helicopter people wave because they are thankful," he said.

Foxfyre wrote:

Not really. Islam is still the favored religion, protected by law, along with all the requisite holy days etc. All other religions are permitted in Turkey so long as they say out of sight, do not advertise in any form, and/or do not proselytize in any way.

Well, your government says about religious freedom in Turkey:

Quote:

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice; however, the Government imposes some restrictions on Muslim and other religious groups and on Muslim religious expression in government offices and state-run institutions, including universities.
There was some improvement in the status of respect for religious freedom during the period covered by this report. Nevertheless, some Muslims, Christians, and Baha'is faced some restrictions and occasional harassment, including detention for alleged proselytizing or unauthorized meetings. The Government continued to oppose "Islamic fundamentalism." Authorities continue their broad ban on wearing Muslim religious dress in government facilities: including universities, schools, and workplaces.

Source

The implication [of Enron corruptions] was of a continuous denial of wrongdoing in the face of available evidence. Which I would have to agree with; as I've stated earlier, it really seems that those who've experienced our more honorable wars are simply incapable of admitting how far we've fallen.

We've fallen so far as a country when we defend the same practices as 'neccessary for defense' that Saddam Hussein defended as 'neccessary for defense.' Cycloptichorn

We, unlike Saddam Hussein, will not defend our military if it were to intentionally physically torture civilians (or combatant prisoners).

We are fighting another honorable war and such disonorables are showing up again. The difference this time is easy to see. Unlike past honorable wars, the bulk of contemporary news media focused from the beginning of this honorable war on such dishonorables to a far greater degree than it does on honorables.

Quote:

We, unlike Saddam Hussein, will not defend our military if it were to intentionally physically torture civilians (or combatant prisoners).

Perhaps you should read the papers; because this is exactly what we are doing.
According to what newspapers? Certainly not the ones I read. The ones I read have never even suggested the possibility that WE (a majority of the American people) defend intentionally physically torturing civilians (or combatant prisoners).

What do you think it means when we say we are sending prisoners to countries where they can be tortured without 'constitutional impeidments?'
I think it means that the people alleging this are liars. One claim I've encountered several times is that we are sending combatant prisoners to Syria. Syria We can't even get Syria to voluntarily do what they agreed several times to do: leave Lebanon. We're asking Syria to interrogate our prisoners, or allow us into their country with our prisoners so we can interrogate them Bunkum Slop

Now, I know you refuse to believe it, but it seems to me there would be no reason to do this if there was nothing immoral or illegal going on... Cycloptichorn
I agree on both counts: I don't believe it; and there is no honorable reason to do this.

Shiites Choose Candidate for Iraqi PM

Tuesday February 22, 2005

By MAGGIE MICHAEL

Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the head of a religious party who fought Saddam Hussein and took refuge in Iran for more than a decade, was chosen Tuesday as the Shiite ticket's candidate for prime minister.

He must first build a ruling coalition and win agreement from the Kurds and others on candidates for Cabinet posts and the presidency before seeking the support of a majority of the new National Assembly elected on Jan. 30.

It will not be easy for the 58-year-old physician from the holy Shiite city of Karbala. He'll have to meet conflicting demands from Kurds, Sunnis and even Islamic hard-liners in his own United Iraqi Alliance.

Ayad Allawi, the secular Shiite interim prime minister whose party received a third of the election votes, could be tapped for a Cabinet post but has his owns demands for cooperation.

``If they met our demands, then we don't care about what ministerial post we get. Even if we were offered a post, we won't accept it unless the demands are met,'' Emad Shabeb, senior member of Allawi's party said.

Allawi has staunchly opposed de-Baathification - the effort to rid the government and administration of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party.

The Shiites have said they also intend to bring Sunni leaders into the administration to help smooth relations with the Sunni minority, alienated after the fall of Saddam and participating in the insurgency in Iraq.

Ahmad Chalabi could also prove a headache, despite dropping out of the running for the alliance nomination after three days of round-the clock bargaining. His surprise showing has restored Chalabi to Iraq's political elite after he fell from grace following accusations from Washington that he supplied Iran with classified information.

Wanted in Jordan for bank fraud, Chalabi was said to be angling for the post of deputy prime minister in charge of finance and security.

``Tomorrow morning we will start a move in other directions, to choose the cabinet after we reached a conclusion internally about the three presidency posts,'' said alliance spokesman Humam Hamoudi. ``As for the ministries, we are still talking and we have time.''

According to the interim constitution adopted last year under the U.S. occupation, the 275-member National Assembly must elect a new president and two vice presidents by a two-thirds majority, or 182 seats. The three then must then unanimously choose a prime minister subject to assembly approval.

There is no timetable for the assembly to convene and al-Jaafari and his alliance must agree with other disparate elected parties on who will fill the three largely ceremonial posts and the Cabinet. Even then, the prime minister has a full month to name his cabinet before the assembly vote.

``We respect the choice of the alliance for al-Jaafari, but we will not give a premature opinion about that choice unless we negotiate with him on our demands,'' Noshirwan Mustafa, the second ranking official in the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, told The Associated Press.

He said demands include a new constitution that will legalize Kurdish self-rule in the north. Kurds, which make up 15 percent of the population, also want an end to what they call ``Arabization'' of Kirkuk and other northern regions where former leader Saddam Hussein relocated Iraqi Arabs in a bid to secure control of the oil fields there.

``The Kurds will not ally with any nominee for the prime ministerial post unless he meets their demands,'' Mustafa said.

The Kurds have already said they want Jalal Talabani, a secular Sunni Kurd and leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, to be Iraq's next president.

``I'm not looking for any post and I nominate Jalal Talabani, and he is the nominee of the Kurdistan slate'' for president, the leader of Kurdish Democratic Party, Massoud Barzani, told Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television on Monday.

Talabani's PUK joined forces with the KDP and forged a coalition that received 26 percent of the vote- or 75 seats - and for the first time turned the Kurds into Iraq's new political kingmakers.

The alliance has not taken a firm stand on the demands, especially with regard to Kirkuk.

Interim Finance Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said a delegation would be sent north to discuss the Kurd's terms.

``We have negotiations with the brotherly Kurds and Turkomen, as we said before there will be a delegation from the alliance to negotiate ... to reach solutions that preserve the rights of the Iraqi people and its unity,'' he said.

Iraq's secular Kurds and many Sunnis, however, are uncertain about al-Jaafari's religious conservatism and if he will try to impose his Dawa party's brand of conservative Islam - on the country.

Last week al-Jaafari told The Associated Press that Islam should be the official religion of Iraq ``and one of the main sources for legislation, along with other sources that do not harm Muslim sensibilities.''

He skirted the official position of his Dawa party which explicitly urges for the ``Islamization'' of Iraqi society and the state, including the implementation of Sharia, or Islamic law.

``Theory is different from practice,'' al-Jaafari said.

Adnan Pachachi, a secular Sunni who fared badly in the elections, said he didn't think al-Jaafari was an extremist.

``I don't find him an extremist at all, rather a moderate man who is trying to reach out and communicate with all people of different affiliations,'' Pachachi said.

But the leader of a conservative Sunni group that boycotted the elections thought al-Jaafari's Islamic credentials would make him a good prime minister.

``We, as an Islamic party, we are not afraid of an Islamic government, but we are worried about a sectarian government,'' said Mohsen Abdel of the Iraqi Islamic Party.

Al-Jaafari is a top leader in the Islamic Dawa Party, one of the main Shiite parties in the clergy-backed alliance.

He fled Iraq in 1980 during a crackdown by Saddam's forces against a bloody Dawa Party uprising that began in the late 1970s and was crushed in 1982. The group said it lost 77,000 members in wars against the former dictator.

From Iran, where he remained until 1990, al-Jaafari is believed to have orchestrated a series of cross border attacks against Iraqi forces while studying Shiite theology in the holy city of Qom.

He was seen as the leader of a pro-Tehran faction of Dawa with close ties to Iran's clerical government, though he denies any such links.

``This is just a widespread, mistaken belief,'' al-Jaafari told The AP.

The decision to nominate al-Jaafari came after a meeting at a heavily fortified building in central Baghdad, a city still recovering from a slew of attacks and suicide bombings over the weekend that killed nearly 100 people.

There were a number of attacks around the capital Tuesday, including a car bomb that exploded as an Iraqi special forces convoy passed by, killing two of the soldiers and wounding 20 other people.

Interior Ministry Capt. Ahmed Ismael said police foiled another attack on Monday, arresting a Sudanese man who tried to detonate his explosive-laden belt inside the Adnan Khair Allah hospital in north Baghdad.

Also in the capital, a roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. military convoy in the southern neighborhood of Doura, police Lt. Haitham Abdul Razak said.

Elsewhere Tuesday, U.S. troops exchanged fire with gunmen in Samarra, 60 miles north of the capital. One Iraqi was killed in a mortar strike in Samarra, said Dr. Aala al-Deen Mohammed.

---

Associated Press Sourcereporter Qasim Abdul-Zahra contributed to this report.

Quote:

We are fighting another honorable war and such disonorables are showing up again. The difference this time is easy to see. Unlike past honorable wars, the bulk of contemporary news media focused from the beginning of this honorable war on such dishonorables to a far greater degree than it does on honorables.

It is the such dishonorables which are running the war, Ican. That should be apparent even to you. Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

We are fighting another honorable war and such disonorables are showing up again. The difference this time is easy to see. Unlike past honorable wars, the bulk of contemporary news media focused from the beginning of this honorable war on such dishonorables to a far greater degree than it does on honorables.

It is the such dishonorables which are running the war, Ican. That should be apparent even to you. Cycloptichorn

Bunkum Slop That of course is what the bulk of contemporary news media would have us believe. Based on the number of times the bulk of contemporary news media has been caught lying, I for one think they act like they have been infiltrated by Hollywood screen fiction writers. You choose to believe 'em when they try to convince us such dishono
rables are running the war. I choose not to believe 'em when they try to convince us of that. My disbelief is based on the number of times I personally have caught them lying. What's your belief based on?

Quote:

Editorial
Injustice, in Secret

Monday, February 21, 2005; Page A26

ATTORNEYS FOR the Justice Department appeared before a federal judge in Washington this month and asked him to dismiss a lawsuit over the detention of a U.S. citizen, basing their request not merely on secret evidence but also on secret legal arguments. The government contends that the legal theory by which it would defend its behavior should be immune from debate in court. This position is alien to the history and premise of Anglo-American jurisprudence, which assumes that opposing lawyers will challenge one another's arguments.

Ahmed Abu Ali was arrested in June 2003 in Saudi Arabia. He and his family claim the arrest took place at the behest of U.S. officials who,1 though unable to bring a case against him, have encouraged the Saudis to keep him locked up. The facts are murky, and Judge John D. Bates refused in December to dismiss the case, writing that he needed more information before he could decide whether a U.S. court has jurisdiction.
Since then, the U.S. government has acted to frustrate all reasonable searches for answers. It has moved to stay discovery based on secret evidence. It has proposed adding to the facts at Judge Bates's disposal by submitting secret evidence that Mr. Abu Ali's attorneys would have no opportunity to challenge. Most recently, it urged that the case be dismissed on the basis, yet again, of secret evidence -- this time supplemented with what a Justice Department lawyer termed "legal argument [that] itself cannot be made public without disclosing the classified information that underlies it."

Judge Bates is cautious and generally deferential to government concerns. Yet he was evidently disturbed by this argument, at one point asking whether the government could identify "any case in which . . . even the legal theory for dismissal is not known to the other side?" The government could not.

In this case, the liberty of a U.S. citizen is at stake. It is not clear what role the U.S. government played in his arrest, nor that he is innocent. What is clear is that Mr. Abu Ali has been held for 20 months without being charged and that, as Judge Bates wrote in December, his lawyers "have presented some unrebutted evidence that [his] detention is at the behest and ongoing direction of United States officials." It should be unthinkable that the courts would resolve this matter without hearing from both sides on key legal questions. It should have been unthinkable for the government to propose such a step.

At least they are not seeking the death penlaty ..... or are they?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

We are fighting another honorable war and such disonorables are showing up again. The difference this time is easy to see. Unlike past honorable wars, the bulk of contemporary news media focused from the beginning of this honorable war on such dishonorables to a far greater degree than it does on honorables.

It is the such dishonorables which are running the war, Ican. That should be apparent even to you. Cycloptichorn

Bunkum Slop That of course is what the bulk of contemporary news media would have us believe. Based on the number of times the bulk of contemporary news media has been caught lying, I for one think they act like they have been infiltrated by Hollywood screen fiction writers. You choose to believe 'em when they try to convince us such dishonorables are running the war. I choose not to believe 'em when they try to convince us of that. My disbelief is based on the number of times I personally have caught them lying. What's your belief based on?