Iraqi Federal Constitution: Interesting

G

Gary H

New member
Here is the link:

Click Here and use NYT Bandwidth..Iraqi Constitution

A few observations:

1. No right to own firearms. If true, this place has more illegal firearms than Los Angeles and D.C. combined.

2. Major media has presented this as an anti-woman document. I've heard commentators suggest that women were better off under Sadam. At least the constitution states that men and women are equal.

3. Freedom of religion..but Islam is the state religion.

4. The constitution has anti-terrorism language. Also forbids using religion to promote terrorism.

5. Right to trial..form of government..all strong U.S. influence.

6. Formation of a weak federal government... I think that we once gave that one a try.

Anyway.. much more positive than I was led to believe...
 
Article (2): First, Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
Click to expand...


So when they pass a law that says a woman who is an adulterer should be buried in the sand up to her neck and then stoned to death, "it's Constitutional." :barf:

-blackmind
 
Islamic Law

Sorry, the page has changed and you now need to register (free) to read the summary.

Evidently, the actual text states that the Islamic beliefs that are the basis and can and should be used as the basis of Iraqi law are only the ones that the various sects will agree upon. This means that radical interpretations will not be supported.
 
The wording I heard today was that no law could be enacted that is contrary to Islam.
I think that there is a difference than saying that all laws are based on Islam

And why wouldn't a Islamic country full of Islamic people create a constitution with the rule of law being based on Islam.

Isn't that what we did with our Judeo Christian based rule of law
 
The page seems to be back up
a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.

So far whats wrong.
Laws have to match up with Islam, democracy, and basic rights and freedoms.

Sounds like a good start to me
 
Not only must they "match up", but the "undisputed laws of Islam" must be UNDISPUTED. This is very encouraging. I've taken this to mean that all sects must agree. If the principle involved is disputed, it is not a considered law of Islam.
 
I had trouble with the original link. Here's the one I found that worked for me:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/BillofRights.pdf.

Our founders respected christian principles, but gave us freedom of religion. Laws were based mostly on English common law. Not a theocracy. Sounds like the new Iraqi constitution isn't a theocracy either. That's good.

Some of this stuff isn't though:
It is forbidden to try someone more than one time for the same accusation after his acquittal unless new evidence has appeared.
Click to expand...
Okay... Wait... Ouch.
4. An Iraqi may have more than one nationality as long as the nationality is not Israeli.
Click to expand...
That's not very nice.
The state shall guarantee the realization of social and health insurance for the child from his birth until he completes his university studies
Click to expand...
Socialism, anyone? We have a system like that here, but at least it's not recognized as a constitutional right here. Yet.
Iraqi citizens have the right to enjoy security and free health care. The Iraqi federal government and regional governments must provide it and expand the fields of prevention, treatment, and medication by the construction of various hospitals and health institutions.
Click to expand...
Wow. Even worse. But I guess it's a big step from the way it was over there.
Citizens may not own, bear, buy, or sell weapons, except by a permit issued in accordance with law
Click to expand...
Not only is there no enumerated right to bear arms, but it is expressly nulled in the Iraqi constitution.
 
Last edited:
It is forbidden to try someone more than one time for the same accusation after his acquittal unless new evidence has appeared.
Click to expand...
But under our rules you can be acquitted of murder immediately stand up and Did it I did it and you still cannot be tried again.

The same way DNA evidence has proven people wrongfully convicted it can also prove wrongful acquittal

Our system has it's own set of flaws.

If the rules for introducing new evidence are fair I see no problem with the Iraqis using it
 
There's a reason for the "flaw" in our constitution that keeps us out of double jeopardy.

How many times can you be charged with the same crime in Iraq? Twice? Three times? 10? Every six months until the day you die? All the prosecution has to do is come up with another witness or a cigarette butt on the ground and you're back in court, according to the letter of their proposed constitution. It doesn't say anything about reasonable. That's scary. I see plenty of potential there for abuse.

Maybe the law will not allow those abuses, but wait a couple of generations and see how they interpret this.
 
Maybe the law will not allow those abuses, but wait a couple of generations and see how they interpret this.
Click to expand...
Just as I don't think our founders envisioned the law letting baby rapers and murderers off in the face of new technology ,that they could not have imagined, that is discovered and utillized after the trial is over
All the prosecution has to do is come up with another witness or a cigarette butt on the ground and you're back in court, according to the letter of their proposed constitution.
Click to expand...
We have strict rules in place for introducing new evidence to warrent a new trial perhaps they will to
We don't know yet, it's just a draft that the people have not voted on
 
but wait a couple of generations and see how they interpret this.
Click to expand...
Tell you what you wait, if you're right dig me up and take a dollar out of my pocket :D
 
Last edited:
So far whats wrong.
Laws have to match up with Islam, democracy, and basic rights and freedoms.
Click to expand...


Um, much of islam, from what I read in the papers, is at odds with democracy.

Can women vote? Can they show their faces in public? Can they hang out with guy friends? Can they accuse someone of raping them without having to have four witnesses to the act who will corroborate their accusation?

Will the holy books of other religions be tolerated? Will the practice of other religions be tolerated? Democracy would say, "Of course!" But doesn't islam say, "No freakin' way! Kill the infidels!"?

-blackmind
 
Enlighten me. :rolleyes:


Is it not true that islam preaches subjugation of women? Is it not true that in islam, women do not have the full rights equal to men?

I didn't say I read the damned koran. This kind of stuff -- about lack of equal rights in islamic countries who set book by the koran -- is pretty much common knowledge.

Are you going to tell me now that it's all incorrect?

How would that explain newspaper stories I have read about a woman who was sentenced under sharia law to be stoned to death while buried up to her head? (The sentence was commuted due to international outcry at its barbarity.) How about the way the leaders of one islamic tribe sentenced a woman to be gang-raped because of some crime her brother was said to have committed? Did I imagine this? Did I misread the stories, and this really took place in Akron, Ohio?

You're a staunch defender of all things islamic these days, shootinstudent. Why don't you set us all straight.

Because all I see these days is evidence that islamic states are fascist dictatorships.

-blackmind
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top