0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 08:02 am
Quote:
Sunni area 'rejects Iraq charter'

[...]

Partial results of the vote on a new Iraqi constitution suggest at least one Sunni province has rejected it.
The 20% sample said 81.5% had rejected the draft in Salahuddin, but in Diyala - which has a slight Sunni majority - it was approved by just over 50%.

No figures were given for the other two Sunni provinces of Anbar and Ninevah. A two-thirds rejection of the charter in both would torpedo the project.

As expected, the results suggested a very high approval by Shias and Kurds.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 06:44 am
Walter, who can now trust the results after the reports of irregularities? I imagine it is going to be approved come what may along with continued violence.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 08:33 am
Quote:
Fate of Iraqi charter in balance

Two Sunni-dominated provinces in Iraq have rejected the country's draft constitution, according to partial results given by election officials.

Electoral rules mean the document will fail if three out of the 18 provinces vote "No" by two-thirds or more.

Salahuddin and Anbar both heavily voted against, but Diyala, also Sunni, has backed the charter.

Now all eyes are on the mixed province of Nineveh where the result is due to be announced within two days.
In Anbar, 97% of voters cast "No" ballots while it was 82% against in Salahuddin, electoral commission chief Abdel Hussein al-Hindawi told reporters, quoting preliminary figures.

In Diyala, the constitution was approved by more than 50% of voters.

Mr Hindawi added that the commission had so far received 135 minor complaints over violations which did not affect the results.

Conflicting reports

Nineveh has a religiously and ethnically mixed population, dominated by Sunni Muslims.

In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, election officials in the provincial capital, Mosul, were quoted by an international news agency as saying the "Yes" vote had won by a huge majority.

Most impartial observers were perplexed and perturbed, the BBC's Richard Galpin reports, as the word on the street seemed to be that the majority had in fact voted "No".

But it was not clear, our correspondent adds, if the "No" voters mustered two-thirds.

Nineveh is one of the provinces under investigation by election officials. They are looking at voting procedures, the ballot boxes and the ballot papers to ensure there were no mistakes or fraud.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40922000/gif/_40922084_iraq_provinces2_map416.gif
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 04:47 am
I remember we talked about the good deal of McCain and 90% of senate passing the bill which would have prohibited torture for detainees. Here is an update. (don't know where else to put it)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402051.html?nav=hcmodule

Quote:
The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.

The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by "an element of the United States government" other than the Defense Department.


Quote:
McCain, the principal sponsor of the legislation, rejected the proposed exemption at the meeting with Cheney, according to a government source who spoke without authorization and on the condition of anonymity. McCain spokeswoman Eileen McMenamin declined to comment. But the exemption has been assailed by human rights experts critical of the administration's handling of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.


[I just pulled two paragraph out of the article; there are other paragraphs between the two at the link]
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 08:11 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102500357.html

Draft Constitution Approved by Iraqi Voters

By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 9:03 AM



BAGHDAD, Oct. 25 -- Iraqi election officials announced Tuesday that voters approved a new constitution in a nationwide referendum 10 days ago, based on a final tally of votes that had been delayed for more than a week while officials recounted ballots and checked for possible irregularities.

In the end, more than 78 percent of the voters nationwide approved the constitution. Opponents -- mostly minority Sunni Arabs -- were unable to defeat it by getting at least two thirds of the voters in three provinces to vote against it, according to final preliminary results released by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq. The results confirmed widely reported preliminary estimates shortly after the balloting .

According to the tallies released Tuesday, a majority of voters in three of Iraq's 18 provinces voted against the constitution, but one of them failed to reach the two-thirds threshold -- a veto provision designed to protect Iraq's minority communities. In Anbar province, 96 percent of those casting ballots voted against the referendum, and 81 percent rejected it in Salahaddin. But in the key swing province of Nineveh, 56 percent voted against the constitution -- about 10 percentage points short of what was necessary to kill the charter.

About 63 percent of Iraq's 15.5 million register voters cast ballots, the commission reported.

"This constitution aims at building a modern constitutional state based on the rule of law and free choice for citizens. Whatever the results might be, it was a civilized step whose aim is to put Iraq among the free democratic nations. It was a great achievement for all Iraqis regardless of the results," said Fareed Ayar and Hamdiya Husseini, members of the electoral commission, who announced the final tally.

The results underscore how deeply divided Iraqi society has become along ethnic and sectarian lines -- a problem that has fueled a Sunni-led insurgency against the government and U.S. troops stationed here that independent political and military say has pushed Iraq to the brink of civil war.

Shiite Arabs, who account for about 60 percent of Iraq's population, overwhelmingly favored passage of the constitution, which endorses a loose federal system with a weak, religiously influenced federal government. Kurds, who make up about 20 percent of the population, also strongly embraced the charter, which grants great autonomy to their region in northern Iraq.

But top leaders of the Sunnis, who comprise the final 20 percent of the population, were split over the constitution. Many said they feared it could herald the partition of the country, with Kurds and Shiites building states in the oil-rich north and south, and Sunnis relegated to the resource-poor center. Others Sunni leaders were won over by a last-minute change that will allow the charter to be amended, subject to another referendum, by the next parliament, which is scheduled to be elected in December.

Together, in 12 provinces that are predominantly Shiite, Kurdish or a mixture of the two, more than 94 percent of voters cast ballots in favor of the constitution. The charter scored more than a 98 percent acceptance rate in four of the provinces.

Those overwhelming margins of victory initially raised suspicions that the results were fixed, and that fraud may have been used to ensure the constitution's passage. That prompted the electoral commission to delay the release of final preliminary results until they had been re-checked.

But while there is still anecdotal evidence of vote tampering, no credible evidence of widespread fraud has yet emerged. Western diplomats say they hope that the Sunnis' strong voter turnout -- 88 percent of the voters cast ballots in the Sunni-majority province of Salahaddin, for instance -- indicates their rejection of violence and support for political means to bring change. And some Sunnis said Tuesday they were looking forward to improving their membership in parliament in December's elections.

"We have urged our people to vote in favor of the constitution because we think it is the best way to achieve what we call for," said Naseer Ani, head of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party's political office. "Now we have the elections nearing, and we call for all to participate with us in the new political process if they want to change any of the mistakes and disputes included in the referendum."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 11:15 am
revel, I read the same article in this mornings San Jose Merc. Why can't republicans see the contradiction in this administration's rhetoric and what they actually do to our prisoners?

Bushco keeps saying "we don't torture prisoners," but they don't want laws established by congress to disallow it? This christian president's actions surely can't be that confusing to the people of average intelligence, and continue to support him.

What gives?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 11:43 am
From the BBC:

Iraq voters back new constitution

The Iraqis' handling of the poll was endorsed by UN officials
Iraqis have passed their country's new constitution, according to official results from a referendum dismissed by the opposition but commended by the UN.
Sunni "No" campaigners had hoped to block it by taking two-thirds of the vote in at least three provinces, in line with electoral rules.

But they won in only two, with the swing province of Nineveh returning 44% "Yes" votes, the official count shows.

Hours before the result was announced a bomb killed 12 in the Kurdish north.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 06:16 am
I think most knew it was going to pass and the violence was going to continue. It's sad with no end in sight that I can see.

Regarding what CI and I was discussing yesterday regarding Cheney and his championing of the use of torture; here is an editorial which I found noteworthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102501388.html

Vice President for Torture

Wednesday, October 26, 2005; A18



Quote:
VICE PRESIDENT Cheney is aggressively pursuing an initiative that may be unprecedented for an elected official of the executive branch: He is proposing that Congress legally authorize human rights abuses by Americans. "Cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of prisoners is banned by an international treaty negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the United States. The State Department annually issues a report criticizing other governments for violating it. Now Mr. Cheney is asking Congress to approve legal language that would allow the CIA to commit such abuses against foreign prisoners it is holding abroad. In other words, this vice president has become an open advocate of torture.

His position is not just some abstract defense of presidential power. The CIA is holding an unknown number of prisoners in secret detention centers abroad. In violation of the Geneva Conventions, it has refused to register those detainees with the International Red Cross or to allow visits by its inspectors. Its prisoners have "disappeared," like the victims of some dictatorships. The Justice Department and the White House are known to have approved harsh interrogation techniques for some of these people, including "waterboarding," or simulated drowning; mock execution; and the deliberate withholding of pain medication. CIA personnel have been implicated in the deaths during interrogation of at least four Afghan and Iraqi detainees. Official investigations have indicated that some aberrant practices by Army personnel in Iraq originated with the CIA. Yet no CIA personnel have been held accountable for this record, and there has never been a public report on the agency's performance.

It's not surprising that Mr. Cheney would be at the forefront of an attempt to ratify and legalize this shameful record. The vice president has been a prime mover behind the Bush administration's decision to violate the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and to break with decades of past practice by the U.S. military. These decisions at the top have led to hundreds of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington, was reportedly one of the principal authors of a legal memo justifying the torture of suspects. This summer Mr. Cheney told several Republican senators that President Bush would veto the annual defense spending bill if it contained language prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by any U.S. personnel.

The senators ignored Mr. Cheney's threats, and the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), passed this month by a vote of 90 to 9. So now Mr. Cheney is trying to persuade members of a House-Senate conference committee to adopt language that would not just nullify the McCain amendment but would formally adopt cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as a legal instrument of U.S. policy. The Senate's earlier vote suggests that it will not allow such a betrayal of American values. As for Mr. Cheney: He will be remembered as the vice president who campaigned for torture.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 12:42 pm
revel wrote:
...

Quote:
Vice President for Torture

Wednesday, October 26, 2005; A18

VICE PRESIDENT Cheney is ... proposing that Congress legally authorize human rights abuses by Americans.
...
Mr. Cheney is asking Congress to approve legal language that would allow the CIA to commit ["Cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment]against foreign prisoners it is holding abroad.
...
Mr. Cheney is trying to persuade members of a House-Senate conference committee to
...
formally adopt cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as a legal instrument of U.S. policy.


The "foreign prisoners [the USA] is holding abroad" are terrorists: that is, are mass murderers of both civilians and prisoners they have held, and/or are accomplices of mass murderers of both civilians and prisoners they have held.

As such they are morally reprehensible and depraved, and are unrelenting violaters of human rights and the Geneva Conventions.

Intentional failure to "adopt cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment " in interrogating such prisoners aids the continuing murder of civilians by the yet uncaptured cohorts of these prisoners. I think such intentional failure would itself be even more morally reprehensible and depraved.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 12:50 pm
Ican, you haven't improved since last we met.

I vote we torture and kill all the prisoners in US jails since it is plain (to people like Ican) that they have been associating with criminals.

Much cheaper than the present system.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 01:05 pm
I think icon calls them "malignancies."
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 01:09 pm
I am just wondering how far away from basic ethical morally humane behavior the US will go before Bush's reign of terror is finally over. We still have until 2008.

["reign of terror" might be over the top, but I thought it sounded good Smile But then again, maybe it's not. ]
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 01:40 pm
Quote:
Calling Galloway's Bluff
The Senate uncovers a smoking gun.
made on a public stage in New York. Maher's producers had been asked, obviously by a nervous Galloway, to find out whether I had brought such an affidavit along with me. I replied that this was not necessary, since his public denial to me was on the record and had been broadcast, and since it further confirmed the apparent perjury that he had committed in front of the U.S. Senateon May 17, 2005. I added that I wanted no further contact with Galloway until I could have the opportunity of reviewing his prison diaries.

That day has now been brought measurably closer by the publication of the report of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. This report, which comes with a vast archive of supporting material, was embargoed until 10 p.m. Monday and contains the "smoking gun" evidence that Galloway, along with his wife and his chief business associate, were consistent profiteers from Saddam Hussein's regime and its criminal exploitation of the "Oil for Food" program. In particular:
    1) Between 1999 and 2003, Galloway personally solicited and received eight oil "allocations" totaling 23 million barrels, which went either to him or to a politicized "charity" of his named the Mariam Appeal. 2) In connection with just one of these allocations, Galloway's wife, Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received about $150,000 directly. 3) A minimum of $446,000 was directed to the Mariam Appeal, which campaigned against the very sanctions from which it was secretly benefiting. 4) Through the connections established by the Galloway and "Mariam" allocations, the Saddam Hussein regime was enabled to reap $1,642,000 in kickbacks or "surcharge" payments.

(For a highly readable explanation of how the Oil-for-Food racket actually worked, see the Adobe Acrobat file
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 01:46 pm
I don't agree alot (if) with Galloway.

But I agree with the his quote in The Telegraph:

Quote:
"On the one hand the US government accuses these men of being homicidal maniacs, on the other they assert that their coerced testimony is utterly trustworthy.''
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 02:00 pm
Galloway is a very shady character, and evidently did not "sup with a long spoon" in his ME dealings. He might (heaven forfend) have profited thereby- like many others in higher positions.

But that does not make him an uncreditable opponent of Bushco. It may even give him more insight.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 02:00 pm
Has the US accused Tariq Aziz of being a "homicidal maniac"? I hadn't heard.

And let's not forget there appears to be documentary evidence. It shall be an interesting trial to say the least.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 02:05 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Has the US accused Tariq Aziz of being a "homicidal maniac"? I hadn't heard.


So you have now by the above quote :wink:

Nevertheless, Tariq Aziz really seems to be a good man:

Quote:
Saddam Hussein is my friend and my leader. But I have to be honest in my description of this man. Saddam Hussein is really a special leader.
[...]
He cares about everything concerning the life of the people, and the development of the country. He gets interested in any minute detail when it concerns the fate of the country. For instance, he's not a military man.


Quoted from an interview with him.

With this testimony, Saddam should be released immidiately.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 02:10 pm
You're right of course .... Aziz could not know whether Galloway received kickbacks through the Oil For Food program, because he's obviously a fan of Saddam's.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 02:14 pm
Well, and since Rumsfeld knows him since December 26, 1983, Aziz certainly tells nothing but the truth.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 02:31 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, and since Rumsfeld knows him since December 26, 1983, Aziz certainly tells nothing but the truth.


Good point ... How odd that I would have thought that fact alone would cause you to challenge Aziz' veracity. You are indeed a hard man to read, Mr. Hinteler.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/16/2025 at 08:46:08