Iraqis Seek Elections & a Local Trial for Hussein

[Donutboy 0]

Iraqis Again Seek Elections and a Local Trial for Hussein

By NEELA BANERJEE

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 20 — Thousands of Iraqis demonstrated again on Tuesday in four major cities, demanding that the United States turn over Saddam Hussein to stand trial here and renewing calls for direct elections as the first step toward self-rule.

The protesters, mainly Shiite Muslims, gathered in central Baghdad, at a square where a towering statue of Saddam Hussein was torn down by jubilant Iraqis in April; in Basra, in the south; and in Najaf and Kerbala, two Shiite holy cities.

On Monday as many as 100,000 Shiites flowed through the main arteries of the capital echoing the call of their most respected leader, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for direct elections of the Iraqi government, which is to take over from the American-led civil administration by July 1.

The spate of demonstrations and a suicide-bomb attack in central Baghdad on Sunday that killed 25 people have heightened the sense of combustibility. On Tuesday night, a mortar shell landed inside the civil administration's compound, exploding in the parking lot of a building that houses many offices and some soldiers.

As many as 5,000 people in Baghdad called Tuesday for Mr. Hussein to be handed over quickly to Iraq to stand trial as a war criminal. The United States is now holding him as a prisoner of war, and L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the civil administration here, reiterated in an interview on Tuesday with CNN in Washington that Mr. Hussein would be transferred to Iraqi authorities in the future.

That standing pledge failed to convince the marchers in Baghdad, many of them followers of Moktada al-Sadr, a young cleric and harsh critic of American policies in Iraq. Some protesters called for Mr. Hussein's execution.

The broader issue, however, remained the mechanism by which the Americans plan to turn over authority. The civil administration now plans to relinquish power to a government chosen by caucuses in Iraq's 18 provinces. The Americans argue that the timetable is too short for valid elections.

Long denied power under successive imperial and native governments, Iraq's Shiites, about 60 percent of the population, want direct elections, which they believe would tilt authority to them.

Against the backdrop of such political tensions, Iraq's external debt was reduced on Tuesday when the United Arab Emirates said it would forgive most of the $3.8 billion debt owed by Iraq, The Associated Press reported. The announcement, made by Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed, crown prince of Abu Dhabi, the capital of the Emirates, followed a recent visit by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, who has been appointed by the Bush administration to persuade countries to forgive Iraq's prodigious debts.

Iraq owes a total of about $120 billion. Arab countries hold about $80 billion of the debt, and the so-called Paris Club of industrial nations the remaining $40 billion.

Did we not learn from the mess we helped create with the overthrow of the Iranian government and the atrocities of our appointed leader, the Shah? The Iraqi citizenry will not respect a puppet government set up in OUR best interests. Are we looking for a true representative government in Iraq or a government that will be Washington-friendly? It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same!!

In 1953, despite a series of gaffes, the CIA succeeded in installing the Shah of Iran, a more or less fascist dictator whose oppressive looting of the nation benefited the U.S. for a couple decades, but ultimately bred the Islamic revolution that brought the Ayatollah Khomeni to power in the 1970s (a revolution which caught the CIA completely by surprise).

Iran was representative of the CIA's seeming inability to comprehend the Islamic and Middle Eastern mindsets, resulting in countless examples of "blowback," the agency's term for covert operations in which U.S.-supported operatives subsequently turn against their sponsors.

CIA involvement in overthrow of Iranian government

[TitanTiger 21,238]

And once again, you seem to forget that in helping them put together a democratic republic, we have more than just the interests of the majority Shiites to consider. The minority Sunnis and Kurds are scared to death of a rush to direct elections, fearing the Shiites would use their overwhelming majority status to oppress and persecute them...thereby trading the tyranny of one (Saddam) for the tyranny of many (the Shiites). Until we can craft something that makes sure everyone's rights are protected, it would be irresponsible to rush to direct elections.

This isn't about a puppet government. It's about a direct democracy versus a representative republic, as well as ensuring the rights and protection of all of Iraq's ethnic factions.

[Donutboy 0]

And once again, you seem to forget that in helping them put together a democratic republic, we have more than just the interests of the majority Shiites to consider. The minority Sunnis and Kurds are scared to death of a rush to direct elections, fearing the Shiites would use their overwhelming majority status to oppress and persecute them...thereby trading the tyranny of one (Saddam) for the tyranny of many (the Shiites). Until we can craft something that makes sure everyone's rights are protected, it would be irresponsible to rush to direct elections.

This isn't about a puppet government. It's about a direct democracy versus a representative republic, as well as ensuring the rights and protection of all of Iraq's ethnic factions.

So, majority rule is a good thing in THIS country, but a rule by factions is best in Iraq? :huh: How do you think that would go over if this country? Do you think this administration would have a problem with free elections if it was a Christian majority in Iraq instead of a Shiite majority?

[channonc 466]

I was going to say that Donut. You beat me to the punch.

Think about it... not one country around Iraq is a Democratic Republic. Not one!! How long do you think this is going to work? How long before someone else storms in and takes control? The whole region has rejected Democracies for centuries, what makes you think you can force one now?

I am not anti-Democracy, but I also think that this region is one of the most unstable in the world. I am just curious as to whether or not the Bush administration has thought about what if their experiment didn't work. What then?

[Donutboy 0]

I was going to say that Donut. You beat me to the punch.

Think about it... not one country around Iraq is a Democratic Republic. Not one!! How long do you think this is going to work? How long before someone else storms in and takes control? The whole region has rejected Democracies for centuries, what makes you think you can force one now?

I am not anti-Democracy, but I also think that this region is one of the most unstable in the world. I am just curious as to whether or not the Bush administration has thought about what if their experiment didn't work. What then?

Channonc, this administration doesn't care if it works, as long as it looks good before the 2004 elections!! Our idea to bring stability to Iraq is to put the power in the hands of the minority. That's good sound principles!!

[TitanTiger 21,238]

So, majority rule is a good thing in THIS country, but a rule by factions is best in Iraq? :huh: How do you think that would go over if this country? Do you think this administration would have a problem with free elections if it was a Christian majority in Iraq instead of a Shiite majority?

First of all, we don't have simple "majority rule" in this country. We have a democratic republic. We have a bi-cameral legislature that divides responsibilities between a group that has representation based on population (the House) and one that is simply based on equal seats given to each state (the Senate). With regard to elections of the president, we have an electoral college that ensures that candidates cannot simply rely on the popular support of a few concentrated urban areas or just the rurul ones, or one or two regions of the country vs all the others. You have to have a broader appeal than that to win.

We also have safeguards in our system of laws that guarantee the rights of the minority. And we have a longer history of the rule of law over the rule of whim. They have none. Going from dictatorship to direct elections is taking things too fast in a place that has no history of such a government. And by "persecuting", I'm not talking about a lack of affirmative action programs or using polictically incorrect language. The Sunnis and Kurds are (rightfully) concerned about things like subjugation, torture, and death...something this region (and these ethnic factions in particular) have a LONG history of.

Even Benjamin Franklin said that a pure democracy was the worst form of government. It trades the tyranny of one for the tyranny of the many. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

[TitanTiger 21,238]

Channonc, this administration doesn't care if it works, as long as it looks good before the 2004 elections!! Our idea to bring stability to Iraq is to put the power in the hands of the minority. That's good sound principles!!

And this is a total crock of bulls***. It's not about giving the minority all the power. It's about ensuring they have enough power to guarantee that they are protected.

[War Eagle 96 10]

Titan,

donut and channon's heads are spinning. Please slow down with your massive doses of reality.

[Donutboy 0]

Channonc, this administration doesn't care if it works, as long as it looks good before the 2004 elections!! Our idea to bring stability to Iraq is to put the power in the hands of the minority. That's good sound principles!! 

And this is a total crock of bulls***. It's not about giving the minority all the power. It's about ensuring they have enough power to guarantee that they are protected.

Yeah, we tried this very same crap in South Africa. It worked REALLY well there!!

In response to U.S. plans to avoid democracy in Iraq while claiming to establish it, some leaders with a stronger sense of democracy have proposed genuine elections. Now the Bush administration is in the embarrassing position of opposing democratic elections, much as the Reagan administration opposed democratic elections in South Africa.

Al-Sistani's Call for Democratic Elections

[TitanTiger 21,238]

If you are so simplistic as to think that the S. Africa situation and Iraq are truly similar, then there is no use wasting my time trying to get you to understand common sense. Good day, donut.

Perhaps if you were a Sunni or Kurd living in Iraq you'd feel differently.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Man, cannot believe I am hearing all the libs who advocate a very strict separation of church and state now saying that a MAJORITY RELIGIOUS PARTY should hold power in Iraq!

Rule by faction is the norm in many modern governments - including much of Europe and even Israel. But TT has it totally right - when the factions are SO badly divided along a polarizing issue such as religion, you cannot rely on the theory of majority rules to ensure the protection of the minority. This isn't a difference of opinion on tax cuts, or welfare programs or the environment. These people have no experience with equality. The US form of democracy - a REPUBLIC - works because we had a history of representative government that came over from England with us - we had seen it, experienced it, and only rebelled when it was taken away from us.

[channonc 466]

Man, cannot believe I am hearing all the libs who advocate a very strict separation of church and state now saying that a MAJORITY RELIGIOUS PARTY should hold power in Iraq!

I don't think anybody on this board said that.

Also, my comment was that I don't think Bush or his administration is thinking clearly. If the majority continues to reject this entire process then he needs to have a back up. We can't make them become a republic. Plain and simple. All I am saying is that if this doesn't work, then what? The country will now be open for another dictatorship and/or like you suggested a powerful religious majority ruling over the minority. The problem is, from what I am seeing, Bush just assumes this will work. Again, look at the region. How do you know that Iraq will be a productive republic in this atmosphere. Who's to say in 10 years we won't be right back where we started? Also, Iraq was never a religious dictatorship, it was a militaristic one.

[TitanTiger 21,238]

From what I've read, this is simply a provisional government designed to help craft a working constitution that will guarantee the same kinds of rights and protections that we enjoy for ALL the factions in Iraq...leading up to direct elections sometime in 2005.

Personally, I prefer a more deliberate approach to make sure we do this right.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

So, majority rule is a good thing in THIS country, but a rule by factions is best in Iraq? :huh: How do you think that would go over if this country? Do you think this administration would have a problem with free elections if it was a Christian majority in Iraq instead of a Shiite majority?

channon, donut said that very thing - he was implying that we don't support majority rule because it is a Shiite majority, and that we would if it were a Christian majority. I read that to mean that he feels the the majority, even a religious majority, should be in control.

TT is right again - there has to be some form of provisional - most likely factional - government in place to help craft a consitution and a stable nation that can eventually have some form of representative government. But until everyone signs off on the idea that the minority parties have rights too, and are willing to protect those rights instead of whacking off the heads of the opposition, government by faction is the only way.

[TitanTiger 21,238]

Well, if this is true, it looks like the screamers will get their way:

US set to bow to Shi'ites over elections in Iraq                                                                         

LONDON - The US-led coalition in Iraq is said to be on the verge of bowing to Shi'ite Muslim pressure for direct elections before a handover of power in June.

British officials had been swayed by Shi'ite arguments and the US was also shifting ground, the Guardian newspaper reported yesterday.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

The American administrator for Iraq, Mr Paul Bremer, is said to have been persuaded of the need for direct elections, provided it can be shown that they would be practicable...

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/sto...,231333,00.html

All I know is I don't want to hear one peep of bitching or complaining from Donut if this turns into what I (and the Sunnis and Kurds) fear. None of this "Bush has made a mess of things by not taking the time to do it right" stuff. You asked for it, and it looks like you'll get what you've asked for. Good luck.

[TitanTiger 21,238]

One can only hope Sistani is a man of his word...and that he actually has the power to back up his stated intentions:

Olivier Roy, an Islamic expert sharing a platform with Straw, said Sistani favoured a separation of religion and politics and had no desire for Iranian-style clerical rule.

http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle...storyID=4177845