Draft of Libyan Constitution: Our Worst Nightmare?

[grahamhgreen]

"Islam is the religion of the state and the principal source of legislation is... Sharia" - Libyan Draft Constitution

What this means:

- Libya will be a Theocracy, not a Democracy.
- Homosexuals may be stoned to death.
- Adultery may be considered to be for a woman to be in the presence of another man without her husband, and may be stoned to death.
- Males may be able to marry a 9 year old.
- Wives can be beaten.
- Slavery may be legalized.
- Hands can be chopped off for stealing.
- The punishment for leaving Islam may be death.
- Etc.....

Why would we be supporting this, much less celebrating?

DRAFT CONSTITUTION: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B--8vR_JuI9FNzg1OTNhOTktMGEzZC00YTBjLThkOTctODZiZTE0MGNiOWEz&hl=en_US&pli=1

Thanks to joshcryer for the link. If this is the final document, all was for naught, IMHO.

[Firebrand Gary]

1. Hmm, I'd question this. Sounds like the current policy they hope to abandon.

[rpannier]

2. The current policy in Libya is not theocratic

The government has kept the clerics in line for 40 years.

[Xithras]

27. Libya was a socialist dictatorship...or at least a dictatorship with socialist tendencies.

As an Algerian friend once put it "Libya is the Cuba of Africa, but their dictator is a bigger asshole."

[joshcryer]

65. The draft consitution is amazing, it keeps all of the good in Libya (socialized health care, etc)...

...and throws out the bad. It also makes women have equal standing with men, which throws out a good deal of Shaira law. Only part I don't like is that it probably will ban abortion like a lot of Latin American countries and will probably deny gay marriage (again like a lot of Latin American countries).

If it is upheld it'll actually be the most socially democratic country in the Middle East.

The real question is implementation, and we won't know about that in years.

[Threedifferentones]

67. Turkey is far and away the most socially democratic country in the ME.

They are also the only ME nation to throw off the yoke of colonialism within the first decade of WWI. Coincidence? Not IMO...

[joshcryer]

68. Eh, I don't think we need to go about it like Turkey though (1980 US supported coup).

For Turkey to transition to a "secular democracy" was extremely difficult and tortuous as the coup proved. What I find amazing is that this is being suggested by the OP, though, with the push for secularism.

There was an interesting study done about colonialist boundary lines and the stability of a country. Apparently whenever the colonialists just made straight lines and cut countries up, the cultural stability was lacking. In countries where boundary lines followed geographical and cultural leanings, the stability was fine.

In that vein I say let the people figure it out for themselves.

It's one thing to intervene in a husband beating his wife, it's another thing entirely to tell the wife how to behave after the husband is in handcuffs.

[The Magistrate]

3. It Does Not Really Mean that Much, Sir

Invoking Sharia as a basis for law has, in that part of the world, pretty much the same ring as invoking Common Law as a basis for law does here. There are a number of items following in the document that would indicate a liberal spirit, if you were to trouble to read through the whole thing. Of course, paper is paper, whether the words on it are pretty or not. There remains no evidence whatever that the rebellion in Libya is dominated by radical fundamentalists, though the charge it is is echoed, oddly enough, on the extremities of both the right and the left in this country.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. You don't know that

Truly, the ugly bullshit going on in our media now is horrendous. It's 3:30 am in Los Angeles as I'm working on a project under a deadline with the news on, and the CNN anchorwoman is merrily saying how Qaddafi had been "slaughtering his people" and that the "13,000 deaths" of this escapade were all his fault. That's deep, deep ugly propaganda; he hardly ran gulags.

You don't know what's coming next, and neither do I. Alarmists bringing up the specter of religion are potentially unwarranted in their statements, but the very specific stating of Islam and Sharia Law being the foundations of the new state is not good. Religion plays for keeps, and that religion is quite serious; there is NO concept of secularism embedded in Islam as there is in Christianity. Just to reiterate, too: I'm NO fan of Christianity.

The lies and distortions of this illegal war of economic conquest are ghastly, and the cheery enabling by the media and the left is thoroughly disgusting.

Now, EVERYTHING that happens is the fault of the interventionists. If it goes to a tyranny or theocratic mess, any of the interventionists who claim that they're not responsible will be met with reminders of reality. If the new government screws its own people to pay off the foreign enablers, the shame will be on the interventionists.

If anyone thinks this will make Obama some great god-king victorious hero, they've got some sobering up to do; the right will bellyache that he didn't do enough, and anything that goes wrong will be pinned on him.

I am deeply disgusted with this whole episode, and people should be ashamed for this naked imperialistic selfishness. Those who aren't have deep, deep moral failings.

Those who think they know what's coming right now are delusional.

[The Magistrate]

7. The Statement, Sir, That There is No Evidence The Rebellion is Dominated By Radical Fundamentalists

Is sound, as is the statement that the claim fundamentalists do dominated the rebellion is cried up on the extremes of both the right and the left in this country.

The statement cited, in a pre-amble, is pretty standard boiler-plate in the Islamic world; it is not on its own an indication something like Iran or Taliban Afghanistan is being established. You will not find much by way of serious argument against that statement, either.

[EFerrari]

10. Except at Free Republic, where they have the Taliban bombing Pearl Harbor.

[pinboy3niner]

11. A day that will live in infamy!1!!

:rofl:

[Owlet]

14. So THAT'S why we're in Afghanistan!

I've always wondered about that. :dunce:

[Hippo_Tron]

51. I thought it was the Germans

Nevermind, they're on a roll!

[PurityOfEssence]

40. How do you know?

By sheer percentages, the leadership doesn't seem to be filled with crazed Jihadists, but Lenin took over Petrograd with a company of machine-gunners and a handful of sailors from the Aurora.

Religion plays for keeps, and Islam is particularly serious in this way.

Jalil has just had a bit of a house-cleaning, so there's even more of a power vacuum there than before. We went into this arrogant little adventure all cocksure of our righteousness in the face of an extremely complex situation; anyone who claims to REALLY know what's going on should certainly step forward and cite sources.

To me, and to many, a popular bit of protesting was co-opted by foreign interests thirsting to get rid of a leader who was unreliable as a business partner and prone to threaten nationalization and radically change oil deals as it suited him. One bit of undeniable "proof" is that the rebellion was falling apart in a big way before we stepped in. People who then compare it to the French saving the American Revolution miss a huge point: we had been fighting for more than two years and had just won a resounding strategic victory before the French came in. Maybe we wouldn't have survived, but we'd made a reasonable showing by that time.

Such is not the case in Libya. This is not a case of "fairness", but of "validity". If the regime was so wholly unspeakable, there would have been much more popular support.

Who knows what's going to happen there in the near future? Surely, the western powers are going to be focused on securing oil fields, refineries, roadways, ports and pipelines, and they'll sweep in with their extra-national security forces to do so. They'll make deals with the current government, even though it has no legal standing in a democratic way, any more than Qaddafi did. Deals will be cut, and if some errant future government doesn't feel that the people got a good enough deal, massive money and influence will be wielded to make them stick.

As for the civilians, we shall see.

It's a mess, and it's our mess; we did this. Maybe it'll be fine, but there's so very little information upon which to base speculation that it's all basically emotional guesswork.

I wish people would be more candid about their ignorance and more willing to admit mistakes, but that's just not human nature. All I can say is that I hope the TNC is as pristine, secular and honorable as so many of the interventionists think.

[The Magistrate]

41. Whatever, Sir ---This Is Really Pretty Boring

It remains amusing, though, how the squeals of 'al Queda!' rise from the extremes of both the right and left, in unison.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. Well, that's the curse of the ultramoderate: fighting a two-front war

Hey, it was a very moderate war, wasn't it? There weren't so many killed and not so many starved or displaced that we know of yet. Maybe it'll be a moderate peace, too, with only acceptable levels of reprisals and assorted villainy. Who knows?

The problem with being a moderate is that one takes heat from both sides of the road.

One way of looking at similar outcries from both sides of the spectrum is that everybody's a big meanie out to hurt our ever-peaceful and forthright President. The other way is that even people of extreme differences can see a similar problem.

I'm sure that if he could find a way to sit down with the LIFG, Obama would try to convince them that he's on their side, too; it's his way.

[The Magistrate]

44. Nothing Particularly Moderate Involved, Sir

One group seeks reflexively to smear a particular individual; one group has a reflexive response to any employment of violence by Western powers. In this instance, the results converge, because one side harbors the delusion the individual they seek to smear actually is a Moslem conspiring with other Moslems against the United States, and because the other thinks that some debating points can be made by pretending any person of the left who does not denounce this employment of violence is actually supporting reactionary Islamic radical fundamentalism. The depths to which some will sink in this endeavor is displayed in the original post here, claiming the rebellion is stating it intends to introduce slavery, marriage of minors, execution of homosexuals and adulteresses and non-Moslems. because it has included the standard statements of cultural identity in the region, a statement that means approximately what stating the Common Law is the basis for legislation in our country would mean here. It was that nonesense which drew my ire, and defense of that propagandist clap-trap will continue to annoy me.

[PurityOfEssence]

50. The thread starter repeatedly uses "can" or "may" and you characterize this as definite

THAT'S a big problem. That poster did not state that these things would definitely happen, yet you repeatedly claim as fact that this is the case.

Islam has some very dark aspects to it, and stating them openly is fair and good in a forum of ideas.

Nowhere is that poster "stating it intends to introduce slavery", as you say; the claim is that this MAY be the outcome, and that Islam can very easily be used to justify such things.

Some of us are VERY wary about religion, and not all of us consider them all equal or "good". To expect such is a bit of peer pressure and either unduly polite deference to dangerous mindsets or an evocation of some kind of moral aristocracy where religion is "better" than non-religion.

This person shows the dangers, whereas you characterize this as definitively stating that these outcomes would be necessarily forthcoming; the person does nothing of the sort. Building on your misrepresentation, you use this as a justification for ratcheting up the tone of discourse.

As for the cultural identity of a region, that is NOT equivalent to theocratic domination. Christianity, for all its faults--and I'm no fan of it at all--has a built in concept of secularism, whereas Islam does not. The very name of the religion means to submit; it's hierarchical writ large.

Our Government is not founded on religion. Even English Common Law and traditional American evocations of it shy away studiously from evoking religion as the source of what is to be allowed or not; there is a HUGE difference there, so making that equivalent to outright theocratic control is a ridiculous argument.

Being polite to other religions is one's prerogative and certainly a badge of decency for coexistence, but considering it wicked to point out OBVIOUS dangers in other belief systems is not a form of bigotry; demanding that all mindsets be given some tolerant blank check, however, IS a form of bigotry.

Surely this poster makes some serious leaps of logic by going to the worst of the faith's precepts, but the language is very obviously there that these certain things MIGHT happen or COULD happen, and that is completely contrary to your depiction that these things MUST or WOULD happen.

Goody two-shoes equivalencies and the expectation that religions should be granted some kind of immunity and acceptance as moral goodness pisses me off to no end, but misrepresenting someone else's words due to some kind of moral superiority is a real corker.

[The Magistrate]

52. Give It a Rest, Sir: This What He opened the Round With

'"Islam is the religion of the state and the principal source of legislation is... Sharia" - Libyan Draft Constitution

'What this means:

'- Libya will be a Theocracy, not a Democracy.
'- Homosexuals may be stoned to death.
'- Adultery may be considered to be for a woman to be in the presence of another man without her husband, and may be stoned to death.
'- Males may be able to marry a 9 year old.
'- Wives can be beaten.
'- Slavery may be legalized.
'- Hands can be chopped off for stealing.
'- The punishment for leaving Islam may be death.
'- Etc.....

'Why would we be supporting this, much less celebrating?'

The weasel words disappear in the ugly display, as they are intended to. If you want to continue defending this sort of thing, feel free.

[pinboy3niner]

53. +100

The framing was deceptive and fallacious. Something that "may" happen also may not happen--yet the latter part was left unsaid, and obviously was not considered in the presentation of negative conclusions.

How is it possible to reach a negative conclusion about a result that "may"--or may not--be "bad"? Or to reach the judgment that "all was for naught" on the basis of a (draft) document that has both "may" ('bad') and "may not" ('good') possibilities.

At this point, there is only one way to make a judgment and reach any conclusion...

[PurityOfEssence]

54. Rhetorical flourishes are all fun and entertaining, but you misrepresent

You're literally wrong on every point and sanctimonious to the enth.

Let's analyze, since it seems to be your wont.

'- Libya will be a Theocracy, not a Democracy.
if the premise of the government is adherence to Islamic Law, then this would be a theocracy, whether a benevolent one or not. That's simply a dictionary definition.
'- Homosexuals may be stoned to death.
"MAY" be stoned to death. Yes, it's a possibility if Koranic Law is defined as the ultimate arbiter of good and bad, yet the poster still leaves this with a very obvious qualifier: that this might be an outcome.
'- Adultery may be considered to be for a woman to be in the presence of another man without her husband, and may be stoned to death.
"MAY" yet again
'- Males may be able to marry a 9 year old.
"MAY" again
'- Wives can be beaten.
"CAN" is the same use of a possibility from the belief system, not a definitive statement that such things would necessarily happen, but that the underlying religious doctrine could sustain it.
'- Slavery may be legalized.
sure, this is hyperbole, but what the hell; it's supported by the scripture, so why not?
'- Hands can be chopped off for stealing.
Ever heard of Saudi Arabia? Ever heard of surgically removing eyeballs?
'- The punishment for leaving Islam may be death.
This is not a stretch at all; it's a fine tenet of the religion
'- Etc....

[The Magistrate]

55. Please Remember the First Rule Of Holes, Sir: You Are Making a Spectacle Of Yourself

The member claimed that sentence in the pre-amble proved that a theocracy, an Islamic Republic, was being set up in Libya, and that this whole parade of horribles was necessarily entailed by the mere mention of Sharia as a basis for legislation. He did this as a cheap propaganda ploy, and in defending it, you are falling into the same trap. It is far from my purpose to engage in apologetics for a Whabbist regime, or to deny that Sharia enforced in a dedicated Islamic Republic does not provide shocking examples of cruelty and extremely retrograde behavior. What is at issue is the meaning of the statement in the pre-amble of the document, and it is pretty clear neither the member, nor yourself, has much understanding of the matter.

Several dozen European and Latin American countries declare a state religion, or accord a particular religion special national status under their constitutions. They are not theocracies; the declaration of a state religion, or granting special constitutional status to a religion, does not make a government a theocracy.

Sharia law is, for most Moslems, the equivalent of Common Law in our Anglo-American political culture: it is the way law is supposed to be done, and the root of most concepts of justice and political freedom. Sharia is the ground on which resistance to dictatorial and autocratic rule opened up in Moslem societies in the centuries following the early Caliphs. The idea that a ruler's decree which ran counter to what holy law required, in the view of learned men of the law, ought not to be obeyed by a faithful Muslim, has been in Moslem history a concept of great importance, somewhat parallel to our Constitutionalism, which is rooted in the idea that a King cannot make a law which runs counter to the precepts and practices of traditional Common Law.

[joshcryer]

63. Theorcratic Latin American countries if the OP is to be believed:

Argentina: "invocating the protection of God, source of all reason and justice, we order, decree, and establish this Constitution, for the Argentinean Nation."
Brazil: "under the protection of God"
Colombia: "... invocating the protection of God"
Costa rica: "... invocating the name of God"
Chile: "With the merit of these precedents and invocating the name of God Almighty"
Ecuador: "Invocates the protection of God"
Panama: "... invocating the protection of God"
Paraguay: "... invocating God"
Peru: "Invocating the protection of God."
Venezuela: "... invocates the protection of God Almighty."

:rofl:

[PurityOfEssence]

74. Declaring a state religion is not the same as stating that the religion will be the source of laws

Having a state religion is not the same as stating that the laws of the land will be drawn from the precepts of the particular religion; that's a flimsy argument at best. Declaration of one or granting it special status does not make a government a theocracy, but SAYING THAT THE LAWS OF THE LAND WILL BE DRAWN FROM THE RELIGION DOES make it a theocracy pretty much by definition. That is quite clear from the first quoted line in the thread-starter.

The title line of the thread starter ends with a question mark, querying whether this could be a big disaster in the offing, rather than stating that it definitely will, as you repeatedly state. The poster, although certainly being a bit strident, is NOT saying that this necessarily follows, merely that it's dangerous and COULD happen.

This person stated that, if this is true, then holy law would be the law of the land and these other unpleasant rules COULD follow. You state that this person is flatly pronouncing that this would all come to pass, which isn't the least bit true.

So maybe it would be "theocracy-lite", but to base the law on the religion is pretty much a definition of theocracy. A national religion, such as in the UK, does not say that it is drawing the precepts of its laws from that religion. Big difference.

Nice little attempt at embarrassing in your last title line; such barbs are intended to humiliate others from the public square.

[The Magistrate]

85. This Is Mere Squid's Ink, Sir

There is no point made sufficient to refute, nor have you supplied a rebuttal.

One of the problems of engaging people on this subject is the wide-spread ignorance of Islamic culture and history. There is no tradition of law, no body of legal and juridical precepts, except for Sharia in Islamic society; the only interruptions to it have been either despotic rule, which Sharia provided license to resist, or codes imposed by foreign conquerors. The last bout of the latter, the Moslems of the Near East and North Africa have been spending the last seventy-odd years casting aside, in the course of asserting, or attempting to assert, their independence culturally, socially, politically, and economically. This sort of thing generally has some 'back to our roots' element, and old symbols will certainly be invoked.

Again, what is particularly aggravating here is that the argument being pressed, and which you are restating in defending it, is that Sharia means only medieval excesses, that its invocation in a political document should be read as a warning sign, emblazoned "medieval cruelty, next turn', and that that is the sole reasonable way to read such a mention. It is not, and in most other contexts, say in a debate over the building of a mosque in Gatlinberg, or the hiring of a professor at a state university, presentation of a similar line regarding the significance of Sharia would be denounced roundly as arrant bigotry, and probably by you yourself.

[grahamhgreen]

104. There is no mention of Sharia in the constitution of Tukey, as is my understanding. There need not

be any in Libya.

Certainly there are a number of socialists and communists, and even libertarians and capitalists, not to mention Jeffersonian Democracy advocates in Islamic society. So I reject your notion "There is no tradition of law, no body of legal and juridical precepts, except for Sharia in Islamic society". The Baathists were essentially Socialist.

Are you really advocating that we spend the blood and treasure of Americans to set up Islamic republics?

Do you really have such a disregard for Muslims that you think they need to have the entire country in which they live be forced to submit to Sharia law, instead of having the followers of Islam submit to it willingly? Is not voluntary submission to Allah a tenet of their religion? I know plenty of Muslims and Christians who are happier living in our pluralistic society than they were in their theocratic one.


As far as Afghanistan is concerned, the women of Afghanistan have been fighting against fundie repression for a long time:

"RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, was established in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 1977 as an independent political/social organization of Afghan women fighting for human rights and for social justice in Afghanistan. The founders were a number of Afghan woman intellectuals under the sagacious leadership of Meena who in 1987 was assassinated in Quetta, Pakistan, by Afghan agents of the then KGB in connivance with fundamentalist band of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar . RAWA’s objective was to involve an increasing number of Afghan women in social and political activities aimed at acquiring women’s human rights and contributing to the struggle for the establishment of a government based on democratic and secular values in Afghanistan. Despite the suffocating political atmosphere, RAWA very soon became involved in widespread activities in different socio-political arenas including education, health and income generation as well as political agitation."

http://www.rawa.org/

I suggest we fight with them.

[The Magistrate]

106. You Are A Never Ending source Of Fun, Sir....

You may have heard at some point of a fellow known as Mustapha Kemal, who later took the name Attaturk?

He led the Turkish Nationalist reaction to occupation of Ottoman Anatolia by the Allied Powers after the Great War, in several years of fighting culminating in the Greco-Turkish War of 1921-1922, which ended with the signature massacre of Greek inhabitants of the old city of Smyrna. He was a rather dedicated modernizer and secular type, who felt that only by imitating European models could Turkey regain a place in the front rank of world powers. This was not a particularly popular policy, a deficit he made up for with extravagant use of state violence. People were, quirte literally, hanged for wearing the wrong sort of hat. Tempting as that course is whenever a backwards base-ball hat comes into view, it is hard to urge it as a great vindication of liberty versus obscurantism: he won, but at great cost in lives and freedom of conscience. Even if one feels it good that he won, which is my view of the matter, the cost must be born in mind. Nor is it certain the victory will be lasting, in the long view: Turkey has recently elected an Islamicist party to head its government, and elements of Gen. Attaturk's restructuring of Turkish society are being rolled back, by popular will.

The moral of this, Sir, is simple: you really need to inform yourself about the Moslem world, its history and culture, before you engage on the subject; there is a lot more to the matter than simply shrieking 'Look out Sharia Law! Sharia kaw! It's comin' ta get ya!'

[grahamhgreen]

57. I chose the word "may" and "will" purposefully. Let's look at Afghanistan,

From the constitution (http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/current_constitution.html#preamble):

"Article One
Ch. 1. Art. 1

Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two
Ch. 1, Art. 2

The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law."


Here is what resulted:

"Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has signed a law which "legalises" rape, women's groups and the United Nations warn. Critics claim the president helped rush the bill through parliament in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.

In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

"It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghan-leader-accused-of-bid-to-legalise-rape-1658049.html

The state department says:

"2009 Human Rights Report: Afghanistan

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010

Afghanistan is an Islamic republic; population estimates range from 24 to 33 million. In August citizens voted in their second presidential and first-ever contested election; after his challenger withdrew from a run-off election, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) declared Hamid Karzai president for a second term. Citizens who participated in the election faced threats of insurgent violence; at least 31 persons were killed on August 20, election day, including 11 IEC members. The elections were marked by serious allegations of widespread fraud; a Taliban offensive to disrupt the elections through public threats, fear-mongering, and violence; low turnout; and insufficient conditions for participation by women.

The country's human rights record remained poor. Human rights problems included extrajudicial killings, torture, poor prison conditions, official impunity, prolonged pretrial detention, restrictions on freedom of the press, restrictions on freedom of religion, violence and societal discrimination against women, restrictions on religious conversions, abuses against minorities, sexual abuse of children, trafficking in persons, abuse of worker rights, the use of child soldiers in armed conflict, and child labor." http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136084.htm


I'm glad we're having this discussion because I don't think any of us want these to be the result of the Libyan revolution.

I think supporting the secularists in Libya and helping them keep Islam out of the constitution is our next step if we don't want Libya to wind up like Afghanistan, or worse.

[The Magistrate]

84. Do You Have Any Ifdea What Afghan Norms Have Been, Sir?

We will leave aside that the flat statement 'theis state is an Islamic Republic' appears nowhere in the Libyan document.

What appears in the law cited is simply the actual practice, the social norm. One may approve of it or not, my own disapproval of it is violent, but unless you are willing to go through the countryside with fire and sword, in a reign of terror of a sort that even the Soviet Union blanched at pressing to the hilt, that is how the people there, the males, anyway, are going to behave, and law will either reflect this or be ignored. It is a myth that there was some modern paradise in Afghanistan under the King or the Communists before the mujahideen and the Taliban came. What there was what there had long been; a circumstance where the urban centers, the big towns, were relatively more 'enlightened' than the rural areas. What the Communists did was attempt to extend urban norms to the countryside; the countryside resisted, carried the day, and proceeded to impose rural norms on the big towns and the cities. No resistance movement against the Taliban, no armed one with any following, anyway, had the least opposition to Sharia law serving as a basis for government.


Your disclaimers are noted, and dismissed. Your intent was a propagandist smear, and you have been called on it. You will not be allowed to wriggle off the hook you have impaled yourself on.

[grahamhgreen]

58. Thank you, that is exactly what I was saying!

See #57

[joshcryer]

62. "al Queda" is the gift that keeps on giving, for both the left and right.

I'll never forget my comedic hero Castro calling out "al Queda" after having had the view that "al Queda" didn't exist.

[pinboy3niner]

8. Accusing people who disagree with you of "deep, deep moral failings" is over the top

Many, on both sides, are passionate about the issue. All are entitled to their opinions.

Sometimes it's best to take a "deep, deep" breath before imputing evil motives, moral failings or delusions to those with whom we don't see eye-to-eye.

We may disagree, but I don't believe it is because you're naive, delusional, morally deficient, or evil.

We may have different understandings of the facts, and we may see things differently. That's fine. I think I can live with your having a different opinion.

:hi:

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Yeah, it's a bit over-the-top, but I'll stick with it in this instance; it's war.

This is not some sporting event, it's the deliberate violation of national sovereignty with very dubious justifications. To many of us, the strife didn't get anywhere near a level that could justify intervention on humanitarian grounds, and the precedent set here is very dangerous. Worse, it's a very complex situation that has been dealt with with triumphal, self-congratulatory simplicity.

Granting oneself the right to intervene in a sovereign nation's troubles is a very presumptuous thing, and this kind of pomposity wreaks havoc.

The interventionists own this, now; anything bad that comes from this is truly their responsibility.

War is a terrible thing, and much of the true suffering is never seen.

The most galling thing of all is how many of the interventionists demanded the moral highground while cheerleading for war. We shall see what happens, but we'll only see what our compliant media wants us to see.

[mitchtv]

79. +1

thank you

[EFerrari]

9. Thank you. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

22. Thank you n/t

[pipi_k]

26. "Those who think they know what's coming right now are delusional."

So that means you don't know what's coming either, right?

Nobody really knows.


Oh, and I agree with the other person...accusing people who don't agree with you of having deep moral failings is just nasty.

[PurityOfEssence]

42. Quite correct, and I've been saying that all along: it's too complex and I don't know

On the other hand, the brazen certainty of many of the interventionists runs skew to reality: for many of them, oil has nothing to do with it.

Part of my early ire at our illegal and--to my mind--unwarranted intervention is that we simply don't know what's going on or what can come from this. Although hardly a shrinking violet or a saint, I'm pretty consistent with pointing out my own ignorance, and have done so throughout this deplorable misadventure.

I hope it's pleasant, and maybe with the tribes cooperating, it will be. To have a REAL civil war seems like quite a possibility, though, as does some ethnic cleansing and fundamentalist power-grabbing.

I simply don't buy the concept that we gave a damn about the civilians, and I don't think they were in any real jeopardy. Other towns had been re-taken without bloodbaths. No threat was made against civilians and the unaligned, hell, Qaddafi even offered amnesty to those who laid down their arms. Still, I don't know that he would have been a fine fellow and have said so repeatedly, what irks me to no end is the absolute certainty with which so many interventionists knew that he would have been a fiend. There have even been excuses made for the very real dead bodies generated by the continued war by piling those dead bodies against the hypothetical ones had the Loyalists taken Benghazi.

We owe it to the people to make this right, now that we've stuck our nose into it, but that does not seem to be our way; we're very quick to claim that others' strife justifies our war-making, but afterward we're rather prone to say that it's their problem to figure it all out.

[Mimosa]

108. Purity, IKWYM

"The lies and distortions of this illegal war of economic conquest are ghastly, and the cheery enabling by the media and the left is thoroughly disgusting."

Great analysis. I'm lucky to have friends who knew what Libya was like before 'we' decided to grab it. This is just another episodes in the "Oil Wars".

[MADem]

13. +1 nt

[grahamhgreen]

17. I think setting up Islamic republics in the ME is very costly, and will likely cause blowback in

short order, much as our support for bin Laden eventually led to 9-11.

[The Magistrate]

29. These Comments, Sir, Sound Like Something From Floor Debate In the Oklahoma Legislature

"The Sharia is comin'! The Sharia is comoin'!"

[white_wolf]

36. They don't sound anything at all like that.

It is very possibly that our interventionist polices in the ME will lead to more attacks or at least attempted attacks. No one here is actually saying Islam will over take over America, but it is very possibly we are encouraging more attacks.

[The Magistrate]

37. Read The Fellow's Comments Regarding Sharia Again, Sir

It is quite clear what is being expressed, or more precisely, spewed....

[joshcryer]

60. Please don't fall for this racist bullshit white_wolf, I've come to respect you too much.

[white_wolf]

82. I was wrong on this issue. I only skimmed over the post I was referring too.

After rereading it I retract my statement. It seems he was engaging in the old right-wing talking point of "those different than us can't govern themselves." If I could delete my post in support of it, I would, but I can't so I'll merely retract and say I feel like an idiot for commenting on something that I hadn't fully read.

[LadyLeigh]

76. Doesn't mean much. If you are a heterosexual male that is...

[mitchtv]

80. Heh, X's 10

Bingo! truth out

[pinboy3niner]

4. Analysis of NTC "Draft Constitutional Charter"

From The Guardian's blog:

Brian Whitaker, one of the Guardian's Middle East experts, has been looking at the "Draft Constitutional Charter" issued by the Libyan NTC. He writes:

As might be expected, it contains things that would appeal to a variety of different elements. Parts of it have been copied from Gaddafi's 1969 constitution, and it is interesting to compare the two documents to see what has been included and what has been omitted. For example, the Arab and pan-Arab nationalism has gone. Libya is no longer described as an Arab state, though Arabic will remain as the official language "while preserving the linguistic and cultural rights of all components of the Libyan society". This is a major step towards de-marginalising the Amazigh (Berbers).


Article 1 says "Islam is the religion of the state". Undesirable as this may be in terms of separating religion from the state, it leaves the Gaddafi constitution unchanged - and the same applies in most other Arab countries.


The new part is that it also says Islamic jurisprudence (sharia) will be "the principal source of legislation". This form of words is also used in the Egyptian constitution and it's something that Islamists are obviously keen on.


It adds that non-Muslims will be allowed to practise their religion and, as in Egypt and several other Arab countries, it talks of different personal status laws for different religions (which has proved very problematic in practice).


Other parts of the document talk about democracy, a multi-party system, equal rights, freedom of expression, independence of the judiciary, etc. Women will have the right to participate "entirely and actively in political, economic and social spheres".


Taken as a whole, the document has quite a lot of good points. But so too did Gaddafi's 1969 constitution. The real test comes later, in the application.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2011/aug/19/syria-libya-middle-east-unrest#block-11

[SidDithers]

19. Thanks for that link...nt

Sid

[War Horse]

5. Apart from the "Sharia" bit at the beginning

it looks pretty good to me.

Sharia means different things to different people. To some it's the chopping off hands part, to others it's prayer five times a day and Ramadan...

[grahamhgreen]

103. Right! We should help the ones that want to take that part out of the document. It's

not needed.

Turkey does not have it.

[aquart]

12. Try to understand. This is THEIR business.

And I have no idea who is putting this out there but the country is made up of a whole lot of tribes and I really doubt they've all had a say.

When they do, don't expect to love it. This isn't about YOU.

Or did you think it was our job to run around creating little Americas?

[grahamhgreen]

15. No, I was for not getting involved in the bloodshed. Setting up Islamic republics in the ME is not

America's job.

We should not be spending one dime on it.

[aquart]

18. Sigh.

The UN, of which we are a member, voted to support the rebels. That's what we did.

Now me, I know the domino theory is a crock of shit so I don't mind a bunch of Islamic republics trying to out vie each other for purity. Cheers me right up, in fact. They don't like each other. On any given day, some of them will be killing some of the rest of them. It ain't football but it keeps them busy.

And keeping them busy is exactly what foreign aid is for.

[stuckinarut]

21. How many abstains? n/t

[JVS]

24. The UN says a lot of stuff that we don't act on.

[MilesColtrane]

28. +1

They are the ones who bled and died to rid themselves of decades of autocracy. They decide how to constitute the new government.

Freedom is usually a messy affair.

[grahamhgreen]

35. Exactly, so why are we there?

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. If it isn't our business then why did we spend at least $896 Million on military intervention there?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/us-military-intervention-in-libya-cost-at-least-896-million-.html

[FormerDittoHead]

88. I'll take a wild guess: OIL.

I'm not SLIGHTLY surprised that this is the first subject in this thread that mentions oil.

[Freddie Stubbs]

96. Libya was already selling us oil before the uprising.

[grahamhgreen]

101. if we went in for human rights, then we want to help them usher in a constitution

that supports human rights.

[Romulox]

98. Except for the bombing part, you must surely mean! nt

[RegieRocker]

16. I'll tell you why....

because there are plenty of nut cases right here in the good ole US of A that would like to see the same thing here. Read the bible.
Added: one more thing don't expect many to understand middle east peoples desires in regards to religious law.

[pampango]

20. National Review: "virulently anti-American Islamists" taking over in Libya.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/08/very-good-news-from-libya.html

And National Review wishes Gaddafi was still in power:

"Qaddafi’s fall imminent - By Andrew C. McCarthy: The Libyan mujahideen (a/k/a the “rebels”) have reportedly entered Tripoli, captured at least one of Muammar Qaddafi’s sons, and are closing in on Qaddafi’s compound. It appears that those who wanted Qaddafi supplanted by an unknown that is known only to include virulently anti-American Islamists are about to get their wish. Here’s hoping that they are right and I am wrong about what happens next."

[JVS]

23. This was never our fight to get involved with in the first place

[MineralMan]

25. That's a terrible misrepresentation of the document.

Did you even read it? Aside from the statement that the law would be based on Sharia law, none of the statements you made are included in that draft. Not one.

What you posted is your interpretation of what the document says, with lots of invented stuff.

Shame on you!

[grahamhgreen]

34. Really, once you get an Islamic Republic, it's an uphill battle for human rights,

We set them up in Iraq AND AFGHANISTAN.

"2009 Human Rights Report: Afghanistan

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010

Afghanistan is an Islamic republic; population estimates range from 24 to 33 million. In August citizens voted in their second presidential and first-ever contested election; after his challenger withdrew from a run-off election, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) declared Hamid Karzai president for a second term. Citizens who participated in the election faced threats of insurgent violence; at least 31 persons were killed on August 20, election day, including 11 IEC members. The elections were marked by serious allegations of widespread fraud; a Taliban offensive to disrupt the elections through public threats, fear-mongering, and violence; low turnout; and insufficient conditions for participation by women.

The country's human rights record remained poor. Human rights problems included extrajudicial killings, torture, poor prison conditions, official impunity, prolonged pretrial detention, restrictions on freedom of the press, restrictions on freedom of religion, violence and societal discrimination against women, restrictions on religious conversions, abuses against minorities, sexual abuse of children, trafficking in persons, abuse of worker rights, the use of child soldiers in armed conflict, and child labor."


http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136084.htm

[MineralMan]

46. That's certainly true in many cases.

Our meddling, however, will not result in a different outcome. Not in Libya. Not in Iraq. Not in Afghanistan. We cannot impose our culture there. It simply will not work. As much as I deplore the human rights record of Islamic countries, I recognize that they will have to come to their own new order. The more we meddle, the worse things are.

[grahamhgreen]

47. Which is why I would have like to refrain from bombing, but I wish them luck

Hopefully, we can use our clout to get rid of the islamic clause in the constitution.

There are many in the mideast who are trying to get rid of it.

[amborin]

30. Al Queda hated Gaddafi and vice versa...

[Zax2me]

31. K&R

[LanternWaste]

32. unauthenticated rough-draft found on the internet...

Somewhat difficult for me to feel one way or the other about an unauthenticated rough-draft found on the internet.

Believe it or not, this same document is a much-discussed topic at Free Republic (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2767415/posts). Their sentiments appear to be the same also.

[grahamhgreen]

33. Fortunately, it will be easy to fix by simply removing the bit about

Islam being the official religion.

I am trying to find out more about this document, but we did, indeed set up Islamic republics in Iraq and Afghanistan which have wound up being fairly abusive of people rights.

From the state dept:

2009 Human Rights Report: Afghanistan

"Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010

Afghanistan is an Islamic republic; population estimates range from 24 to 33 million. In August citizens voted in their second presidential and first-ever contested election; after his challenger withdrew from a run-off election, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) declared Hamid Karzai president for a second term. Citizens who participated in the election faced threats of insurgent violence; at least 31 persons were killed on August 20, election day, including 11 IEC members. The elections were marked by serious allegations of widespread fraud; a Taliban offensive to disrupt the elections through public threats, fear-mongering, and violence; low turnout; and insufficient conditions for participation by women.

The country's human rights record remained poor. Human rights problems included extrajudicial killings, torture, poor prison conditions, official impunity, prolonged pretrial detention, restrictions on freedom of the press, restrictions on freedom of religion, violence and societal discrimination against women, restrictions on religious conversions, abuses against minorities, sexual abuse of children, trafficking in persons, abuse of worker rights, the use of child soldiers in armed conflict, and child labor."

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136084.htm

[The Magistrate]

38. Of Course Comments there Are the Same, Sir: The Unity Of Far Right And Far Left On This Is Uncanny

[AbortiononDemand]

45. It callls for equality before the law for women

In this very offending document you give us: "The State shall provide for woman all the opportunities which allow her to participate entirely and actively in political, economic and social spheres."

Also calls for a democratic multiparty system. One of us is missing something!

[grahamhgreen]

48. Islamic law generally supercedes the rest of the constitution, but it's not too late to support

The secular forces in Libya before a constitution is ratified.

The danger is that you could wind up with a system that allows one person, one vote, one time.

We should keep a close eye on what constitution is ratified and bear in mind there was more than one choice for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I dont like theocracy, and would not want to spend one dime to force it on another.

[AbortiononDemand]

49. Certainly don't like Theocracy either

It does seem though that in your orignal piece you take a bit of license by speaking of the right to marry 9 year old girls, etc. It seems like you inferred all this from the phrase "Sharia Law" which is probably pretty standard in the Mid East.

Are you suggesting that if reiligious law is above state law that the document-that you site-then the state constitution is meanginless for this seems to me too much to say and if so then the document you sent of the rebels is actually pretty encouraging.

[grahamhgreen]

56. From the Independent, 3/2009:

"Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has signed a law which "legalises" rape, women's groups and the United Nations warn. Critics claim the president helped rush the bill through parliament in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.

In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

"It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable."" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghan-leader-accused-of-bid-to-legalise-rape-1658049.html

What the Sharia clause opens up is this type of abuse. The only thing guaranteed is that religion, not the constitution, will have final say over the laws (like having a Supreme court made up of clerics). The Afghan constitution says you can not make a law that goes against the laws of Islam, for instance.

What I'd like to see is for our country to have a dialog on this (since we are already involved), and help the secular forces shape remove the religiosity out of the document entirely. I do not want to see another dime go to support the Islamic republics we've been setting up in the ME, I think it is not in our best interest to support these kinds of govt's.

Half the country thinks we are at a war with Islam, the other half thinks we are setting up Democracies. Neither one is true, we are setting up Islamic republics.

[joshcryer]

59. Well that's a pretty racist and igorant perspective.

[grahamhgreen]

61. Yet it happened in Afganistan

From the constitution (http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/current_constitution... ):

"Article One
Ch. 1. Art. 1

Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two
Ch. 1, Art. 2

The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law."


Here is what resulted:

"Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has signed a law which "legalises" rape, women's groups and the United Nations warn. Critics claim the president helped rush the bill through parliament in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.

In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

"It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghan-leader-accused-of-bid-to-legalise-rape-1658049.html

The state department says:

"2009 Human Rights Report: Afghanistan

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010

Afghanistan is an Islamic republic; population estimates range from 24 to 33 million. In August citizens voted in their second presidential and first-ever contested election; after his challenger withdrew from a run-off election, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) declared Hamid Karzai president for a second term. Citizens who participated in the election faced threats of insurgent violence; at least 31 persons were killed on August 20, election day, including 11 IEC members. The elections were marked by serious allegations of widespread fraud; a Taliban offensive to disrupt the elections through public threats, fear-mongering, and violence; low turnout; and insufficient conditions for participation by women.

The country's human rights record remained poor. Human rights problems included extrajudicial killings, torture, poor prison conditions, official impunity, prolonged pretrial detention, restrictions on freedom of the press, restrictions on freedom of religion, violence and societal discrimination against women, restrictions on religious conversions, abuses against minorities, sexual abuse of children, trafficking in persons, abuse of worker rights, the use of child soldiers in armed conflict, and child labor." http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136084.htm


I'm glad we're having this discussion because I don't think any of us want these to be the result of the Libyan revolution.

I think supporting the secularists in Libya and helping them keep Islam out of the constitution is our next step if we don't want Libya to wind up like Afghanistan, or worse.

[joshcryer]

64. Afghanistan did not undergo an internal civil war.

[joshcryer]

66. "I think supporting the secularists in Libya" = USAID style manipulation, and wrong, btw.

You do not force people to be the way you want. It's a recipe for disaster. There's nothing precluding Sharia jurisprudence from actually being liberalized, nothing at all, but you have to let a society work it out themselves, as opposed to trying to force your ideology down their throat.

I can't believe you're not championing all the other good stuff in that constitution and had to bash it based on one fucking line, it's just, incredible. I find the whole exercise racist at its core.

[grahamhgreen]

72. "You do not force people to be the way you want." Exactly the reason to GTFO of the mideast.

But if your gonna let daddy shoot off his popgun, why not try to institute real reform?

Were you opposed to the Libyan war or a supporter?

Let me get this straight - you want to use the US military to force Islamic republics on the ME?

[joshcryer]

94. No, I want the R2P to be respected and upheld so that tyrants will stop their crap.

If you saw a husband beating his wife, would you stop him, or would you let him go about his business? Assuming you'd stop him as any sane liberal of any stripe or orientation would do, would you then go on to lecture the wife about behavior that you consider acceptable for your helping her?

That's what this boils down to. R2P is the global anti-abuse code of conduct adopted by the UN. It needs to be implemented widely.

[Bragi]

69. Hey, please halt the ad hominem attacks here

This thread is an intelligent discussion of a serious matter. No-one in this discussion has shown themselves to be in any way a racist or bigot. I would urge participants to continue to focus on issues and arguments, and to eschew ad hominem attacks.

[joshcryer]

70. I did not call the OP racist, I said the perspective is.

And I maintain that the perspective is ignorant and racist.

Sharia jurisprudence can be implemented in a variety of ways. You have Iran which executes homosexuals, and you have Turkey which makes it legal to be homosexual in the privacy of your own home. Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq all make homosexual acts illegal, but have no penalties for it (as yet anyway). Meanwhile Iran, Nigeria, Somolia, and Saudi Arabia may impose the death penalty for homosexuality.

[Bragi]

71. Fair enough, but it's a thin line, joshcryer

My point is just that this thread is a passionate but good discussion. Too often I find that discussions here of this topic -- the political and social meaning of Sharia law-- end up with a lot of ad hominem attacks, usually followed by lots of deleted sub-threads and posts.

These are important issues that I think should be debated here. I'm just noting that extra care is needed to keep them civil, that's all.

[LadyLeigh]

77. All the examples you have qouted are examples of anti-gay oppression.

Just various degrees of it.

[Safetykitten]

73. Oh you silly! We live in teh moment. Their nightmare is our election talking point!

[Angry Dragon]

78. It is their country ............

[grahamhgreen]

83. So why did we go to war with them?

[Angry Dragon]

86. I heard the people did not want to live under a dictator any longer

he started to lose power so he started killing the people
the UN went in to stop it. It seems the people have won.
Now they have the right to form what ever type of country they wish.

I have always been of the opinion that if this country feels they
can go into a country and set up the kind of government that we want
then any country has the right to do it to us. Fair is fair...........

[grahamhgreen]

89. By bombing one side, we did not let the people decide. We decided for them. Bombs decided.

I don't think people want to live under a theocracy either.

I don't think we should be spending our blood and treasure to set up Islamic republics.

Repression is repression, and Sharia law opens a huge door for repression of human rights.

Why not help the secular forces eliminate or emasculate this one clause?

I don't want to see Libyan women have to live under the kind of laws they have in Afghanistan.

[The Magistrate]

93. Do You Imagine The Decision Would Have Been Made By 'The People' Otherwise, Sir?

All you line here argues for is that the decision by made by the side with the better weaponry in its hands at the start, which would be the government. All the actions of NATO did was more or less equalize matters....

"God made men --- Colonel Colt made 'em equal."

[MedleyMisty]

91. Err, we didn't.

There was a fruit vendor in Tunisia who felt upset about his treatment at the hands of the authorities. He set himself on fire. The footage and his story were passed around, and it inspired people. They started protesting. The protest grew and grew, and eventually Tunisia's dictator was toppled.

The Egyptians felt that they would like to try this toppling a dictator thing. So they protested, and their dictator stepped down.

Libya, if you will look at a map of Africa, is in between Egypt and Tunisia. They looked at what was going on in the neighboring countries and decided that they would like to try some of that protesting business. The Libyan youth got together on Facebook and set a date for the beginning of protests. February 17th.

Gaddafi is brutal and insane and was in power for nearly 42 years. He did not shoot a few hundred people and then step down like his colleagues. His forces fired anti-aircraft guns at people, which tore them in half. He brought in mercenaries from other countries to rape and kill Libyans. Thousands were killed.

Benghazi, a city in eastern Libya, was the first city to be liberated. A council sprung up to lead the revolution. This council asked the international community for help.

Gaddafi stated his intentions to go door to door and kill all the rats who opposed him, and to back this up he sent a huge military force to Benghazi, with the intentions of flattening the city. However, luckily for the Libyans, the international community got its shit together in time and voted to intervene and prevent genocide. The force on its way to Benghazi was decimated by the UN (at that time NATO had not yet taken over) and so the people of Benghazi lived to fight another day.

Which, by the way, it was France that pushed the most for the UN resolution, and then Britain. The US was just sort of along for the ride. The US (I refuse to use "we" to refer to it because I do not identify with the American government) has yet to spend on Libya what it spends in one week in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By the way, if "we" are at war with Libya so is much of the world. Qatar sent a lot of equipment and aid to the Libyans. Canada sent some jets. So did Norway. And even Sweden. And I suppose Egyptian civilians are also at war with Libya - in the early days I heard that some Egyptians were going to the Libyan border and giving guns and SIM cards to the Libyans.

The no fly zone and the NATO bombardment gave the Libyans time and breathing space and it helped to even the odds, but it's Libyans who are fighting and dying on the ground. In the many many pictures and videos that I've seen of the Libyan freedom fighters, they are generally in street clothes, firing guns mounted in the back of ancient pickup trucks. Much of their equipment was taken from Gaddafi's forces - I remember a tweet being passed around about how they had found some air to air missiles that had belonged to Gaddafi's forces, and did anyone know how to convert them for land use?

I expect it would be news to the Libyans that "we" are at war with them - I've seen American flags being waved in the crowds in Benghazi and now in Tripoli. Actually I saw a pic of a banner in Tripoli with the US flag, and it said in both English and Arabic that the United States had a new ally.

Gaddafi went to war against Libyans. The UN voted to act to prevent him from committing genocide. The US donated some hardware to that effort. So did many other countries. The Libyans took up arms to protect themselves from Gaddafi's evil, and accepted the help from the air but refused foreign ground troops. The ground war is entirely Libyans versus Gaddafi, and the Libyans are winning.

Here is an interview with a young Libyan who entered Gaddafi's compound today and found his way to Gaddafi's bedroom and liberated Gaddafi's hat. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhoGNlWsObg

Oooh, watch out, scary radical Islamist terrorist right there! ;)

[The Magistrate]

92. How Unfair Of You, Ma'am --- Employing Facts, When Someone Shrieks 'Sharia Boogie!'

[joshcryer]

95. So good to see you posting again MedleyMisty. You win DU for the night. :)

:hi: :hug:

[grahamhgreen]

100. Technically, we went to war against the Libyan government, who were by definition Libyans

So we went to war against a segment of the Libyan population.

But that's not the point, the "why" of it is.

If, as you say, we went to war (or whatever it is the President want to re-define it as) to end the rule of "Gaddafi is brutal and insane and was in power for nearly 42 years", we should not allow brutal insanity to be engendered in it's founding document.

Sharia opens the gateway to severe abuses of women's rights and human rights.

Removing it from the core governing document will create a society that all Libyans, Muslim and non-Muslim alike can live live in in peace without fear of the morality police.

The Mutaween in Saudi Arabia are tasked with enforcing Sharia as defined by the government, specifically by the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV). The Mutaween of the CPVPV consists of "more than 3,500 officers in addition to thousands of volunteers...often accompanied by a police escort." They have the power to arrest unrelated males and females caught socializing, anyone engaged in homosexual behavior or prostitution; to enforce Islamic dress-codes, and store closures during the prayer time. They enforce Muslim dietary laws, prohibit the consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages and pork, and seize banned consumer products and media regarded as un-Islamic (such as CDs/DVDs of various Western musical groups, television shows and film). Additionally, they actively prevent the practice or proselytizing of other religions within Saudi Arabia, where they are banned.<3><4>

Among the things the Mutaween have been criticized or ridiculed for include, use of flogging to punish violators,<5><6> banning Valentines Day gifts,<7><8> arresting priests for saying Mass,<9> and being staffed by "ex-convicts whose only job qualification was that they had memorized the Qur'an in order to reduce their sentences."<10>

Perhaps the most serious and widely criticized incident attributed to them occurred on March 11, 2002, when they prevented schoolgirls from escaping a burning school in Mecca, because the girls were not wearing headscarves and abayas (black robes), and not accompanied by a male guardian. Fifteen girls died and 50 were injured as a result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutaween

I hope we can agree that removing the mention of Sharia or a state religion is in the best interest of the Libyan people, especially non-Muslims and women.

I think this is an issue that bears further discussion and I would like to see it brought to the mainstream.

If we just spent a billion of our dollars bombing and killing people to overthrow brutality, we can certainly spend a few more thousands lobbying for a secular Democracy free from laws that brutalize and, quite frankly, are insane (death for apostasy, etc.).

Unless, of course, the goal is to control the people by any means necessary so we can steal their oil.

Remember, setting up an Islamic republic in Afghanistan has resulted in this:

"Article One
Ch. 1. Art. 1

Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two
Ch. 1, Art. 2

The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law."


Here is what resulted:

"Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has signed a law which "legalises" rape, women's groups and the United Nations warn. Critics claim the president helped rush the bill through parliament in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.

In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

"It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable."

The state department says:

"2009 Human Rights Report: Afghanistan

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010

Afghanistan is an Islamic republic; population estimates range from 24 to 33 million. In August citizens voted in their second presidential and first-ever contested election; after his challenger withdrew from a run-off election, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) declared Hamid Karzai president for a second term. Citizens who participated in the election faced threats of insurgent violence; at least 31 persons were killed on August 20, election day, including 11 IEC members. The elections were marked by serious allegations of widespread fraud; a Taliban offensive to disrupt the elections through public threats, fear-mongering, and violence; low turnout; and insufficient conditions for participation by women.

The country's human rights record remained poor. Human rights problems included extrajudicial killings, torture, poor prison conditions, official impunity, prolonged pretrial detention, restrictions on freedom of the press, restrictions on freedom of religion, violence and societal discrimination against women, restrictions on religious conversions, abuses against minorities, sexual abuse of children, trafficking in persons, abuse of worker rights, the use of child soldiers in armed conflict, and child labor."


I'm glad we're having this discussion because I don't think any of us want these to be the result of the Libyan revolution.

I think supporting the secularists in Libya and helping them keep Islam out of the constitution is our next step if we don't want Libya to wind up like Afghanistan, or worse.

There is no need for Libya to be an Islamic republic.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

90. My Money Would Be On The Latter, Sir

[laureloak]

87. I read the entire draft and none of what you say is in it.

[grahamhgreen]

97. But all of Sharia is encompassed by the one line. So there

is a slew of laws that are in the Quran and Hadiiths that become law, even though they are not enumerated in the document.

Depending on who interprets these texts, the laws can be severe and draconian.

Why should any non-Muslim be forced to live under Sharia law?

As Jefferson said, "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

For anyone to take my money and use it to force a religion on another in just not right.

All that needs be done is to remove one or two lines out for the document and it's a great start.

We entered this war to end repression, we should not allow it in it's founding document.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grahamhgreen]

105. Afghanistan is the perfect example where we instituted an Islamic republic which has led to

the severe repression of it's people.

The same will most likely happen here, unless we nip it in the bud, like responsible adults.

"Article One
Ch. 1. Art. 1

Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two
Ch. 1, Art. 2

The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law."


Here is what resulted:

"Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has signed a law which "legalises" rape, women's groups and the United Nations warn. Critics claim the president helped rush the bill through parliament in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.

In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

"It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghan-lea...

The state department says:

"2009 Human Rights Report: Afghanistan

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010

Afghanistan is an Islamic republic; population estimates range from 24 to 33 million. In August citizens voted in their second presidential and first-ever contested election; after his challenger withdrew from a run-off election, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) declared Hamid Karzai president for a second term. Citizens who participated in the election faced threats of insurgent violence; at least 31 persons were killed on August 20, election day, including 11 IEC members. The elections were marked by serious allegations of widespread fraud; a Taliban offensive to disrupt the elections through public threats, fear-mongering, and violence; low turnout; and insufficient conditions for participation by women.

The country's human rights record remained poor. Human rights problems included extrajudicial killings, torture, poor prison conditions, official impunity, prolonged pretrial detention, restrictions on freedom of the press, restrictions on freedom of religion, violence and societal discrimination against women, restrictions on religious conversions, abuses against minorities, sexual abuse of children, trafficking in persons, abuse of worker rights, the use of child soldiers in armed conflict, and child labor." http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136084.ht...

[The Magistrate]

107. What On Earth, Sir, Do you Think It Was Before?

Are you laboring under the illusion that there was some progressive, liberal paradise where feminist ideals were the ruling paradigm, before the evil United States established an Islamic order?

The present Afghan government, distasteful as it is to liberal values, and to modern eyes in general, is doing and has done no more than act in accordance with the ruling ethos of the place, as it has been for centuries. These are not things that can be changed by mere laws, words on paper. It would require tremendous exertion of state force to alter these cultural norms, and this exertion would meet violent popular resistance. The nearest approach to 'modern' mores inn Afghanistan has been a degree of divergence in the zealousness of orthodoxy between the big town and cities and the countryside, with things being a bit looser in the urban centers (a pretty general pattern in human affairs). Most Western observers in the mid-twentieth century having spent their time in Kabul, some distortion worked its way into travel literature in the time of the last King. What provoked wide-spread rebellion against the Communists was precisely the attempt to spread urban norms into the country-side by force: the country-side won, and in the final virulence of its victory the Taliban imposed country-side norms on the urban centers. No armed faction opposing the Taliban wanted anything but Sharia law and Islam to be the normative basis of the state. there si nothing in the present law or behavior of the Afghan state that differs appreciably from the behavior of Afghan governments and Afghan people for the last several decades, even the last several centuries.

In short, this thing you continually cite is meaningless, distasteful as it may be. It alters, and has altered, nothing in the normative practice of the place.

[Mimosa]

109. Iraq was relatively secular until the US 'liberated' them.

I've been told the Iraqis had breweries and legal beer UNTIL we toppled saddam and let the Islamists gain control.

[The Magistrate]

110. Quite True, Ma'am

Leading elements of Shia opposition to Hussein were rooted in religion, and rendered increasingly radical over time by both the intensity of Hussein's repressive measures, and the degree to which they received assistance from the Iranians.

One of the basic mistakes of Bush's policy in Iraq, pointed out by many at the time, was the absent a 'strong-man' at the center, Iraq would either fragment into separate entities embodying its radically different ethnic and religious communities, or be taken over by the most populous of these, the Shia, whose political leadership was essentially clerical, and would certainly establish a government that would function in many ways, at least, as a theocracy.

[Romulox]

99. The only thing in the world that is ANY of our business is blowing things up.

The Constitution of Libya? Let the people decide! Who is actually "El Presidente" of Libya? Let NATO/General Dynamics decide! :shrug: