Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Iraqi court disqualifies prominent Sunni candidates

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News

sabra

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-23-05 11:58 PM
Original message

Iraqi court disqualifies prominent Sunni candidates

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/world/13476408.htm

Iraqi court disqualifies prominent Sunni candidates
Knight Ridder Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An Iraqi court has ruled that some of the most prominent Sunni Muslims who were elected to parliament last week won't be allowed to serve because officials suspect that they were high-ranking members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

Knight Ridder has obtained a copy of the court ruling, which has yet to be circulated to the public.

The ruling is likely to dampen Bush administration hopes that the election would bring more of the disaffected Sunni minority into Iraq's political process and undermine Sunni support for the insurgency. Instead, the decision is likely to stoke fears of widening sectarian divisions in a nation already in danger of descending into civil war.

...

Saleh Mutlaq, a prominent Sunni politician, said that the ruling would agitate already frustrated Sunnis who are questioning the validity of the elections.
"The streets will tell you their reaction," Mutlaq said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

thebigidea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:07 AM
Response to Original message

1. as if the Bush administration isn't behind this "ruling"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Wordie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #1

3. Actually, the Bush admin wants the Sunnis to participate; the alternative

is civil war, and that would make Bush look even more incompetent than he does now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

thebigidea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #3

7. they want the "right" Sunnis to participate.

Edited on Sat Dec-24-05 01:18 AM by thebigidea

or are you really trying to tell me that these so-called "Iraqi courts" are independent and operate without an iota of influence from the Bushies?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Wordie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #7

10. In this case, it appears the courts operated independently, without Bush's

Edited on Sat Dec-24-05 12:06 PM by Wordie

meddling. Although the courts were initially set up under Bremer, the Bush administration has apparently lost control of them. The Bushies simply didn't understand the religious divisions in Iraq before they went in there, imho. Now they may be beginning to understand, but now it's too late.

Here's some more from the article:
The Bush administration hoped that the election would bring Sunnis back into the political process, and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has recently spoken about bringing lower-level Baathists into the government.

After initially supporting it, U.S. officials have lately criticized the de-Baathification committee's work, saying it didn't present evidence against accused Baathists or allow them to defend themselves.

...Even before Thursday's ruling, the prospects of creating a nationally accepted government were in danger. Many Sunni leaders have been calling for new elections in Baghdad province, alleging rampant fraud. Others have been calling for Sunnis to boycott the new government.

Both U.S. and Iraqi politicians had been celebrating Sunni participation in the December election, particularly after Sunnis boycotted last January's election for an interim Assembly. In the restive Sunni-dominated Anbar province, for example, only 2 percent of those registered voted last January; this month 55 percent participated.

They've finally realized that without the Sunnis in the governement, it's going to be a bloody civil war. Good JOB, GWB! (sarcasm)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #10

15. Oh shit

Looks like Chimpy's world is falling apart.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bluerum

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #3

18. I can't think of much that would make him look any worse than he

does now.

Unless he got caught having sex in the white house,,,, with his poodle,,,,, in drag,,,,, while watching Laura milk that horse she was talking about.

No. I still think thats a step up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Wordie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:12 AM
Response to Original message

2. Oh no! Well, I guess that's the end of the hopes for democracy. So sad.

Edited on Sat Dec-24-05 12:13 AM by Wordie

This really does seem likely to lead to civil war. It's disappointing, but not unexpected, sadly. You would think that the Shi'ites and Kurds would want to avoid civil war, especially as the Sunnis are in the minority, and so could be easily overruled in any decisions in the Iraqi Parliament, anyway.

Although, there is this:
One of the electoral commission rules states that "someone who had reached a certain membership level in the hierarchy of the dissolved Baath Party" cannot be a candidate unless he or she renounces that membership.

After the commission approached them, some slates voluntarily removed candidates, but the commission didn't force everyone to withdraw, al-Lami said. Instead, they allowed the candidates to run, saying that the committee did not present any evidence against the suspected Baathists.

The de-Baathification committee filed a complaint, and in a ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Judicial Court agreed with it, saying that the electoral commission should have respected the committee's findings. The court called the commission's refusal to remove all the accused Baathists "mysterious, baseless and arbitrary."

I wonder if there is still the option of allowing the former Baathists to renounce their membership, thus allowing them to keep the seats they have won. Probably a long shot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

IndianaGreen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:45 AM
Response to Original message

4. Civil war is the only option left to those that don't want a theocracy!

Since most Muslims are Sunnis, the Iraqi Sunnis and the secular Shias will get a lot of support from Arab countries in opposing Iranian control of Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

handsignals4theblind

(90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 01:05 AM
Response to Original message

5. But it's OK to have EX- BAATHISTS in the Security Forces?!!!

The ethnic based militias are having a destabalising effect on Iraqi society.

It is a very effective tool- used in El Salvador and Colombia
THE EX Baathist/ CIA puppet ALLAWI- a candidate in the elections allowed certain members of the former BAATh regime to form one of those militias. CHALABI has his- etc- He also allowed the attacks on Najaf and Fallujah when he was intern prime minister.

fomer members of SAddam's Mukhabarat---what Hypocricy!- that's OK Bush hired ex KGB guys to do work for him

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

IndianaGreen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #5

13. The death and torture squads run by the Interior Ministry

are all Shias, their victims are mostly Sunnis.

The Baathists are the ones we needed it in Iraq, yet we threw our lot with the ayatollahs of Iran. The result of this strategic fiasco is that Iraq will become a province of Iran and will be a bigger threat to Israel than Saddam ever was.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Erika

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 01:15 AM
Response to Original message

6. The Iraqis had a secular government under Saddam

Now they will have a theocracy and civil war. Merry Christmas Iraqis, from the Bushbots & W.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

creeksneakers2

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 11:47 AM
Response to Original message

8. So much for "democracy in Iraq" n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Spazito

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 11:56 AM
Response to Original message

9. Wow!

Edited on Sat Dec-24-05 11:56 AM by Spazito

Congrats to Iran which won Iraq through a "democratic" election, how very, very IRONIC.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

PurityOfEssence

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 01:00 PM
Response to Original message

11. The Shiites done bin waitin' a LONG time for this day

We've given them the legitimacy they couldn't get on their own, and they will do everything possible to solidify their choke hold on the country. The blockheaded conquerers believed their own propaganda, instead of what anyone with any knowledge of the culture would have told them.

When the demonstrations and complaints die down, the Shiites are going to establish a theocracy and shut out all opposition; they're well down the pike already.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Wordie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #11

12. ...but...but...you're being a "defeatist"!

(That's apparently what Rove programmed Bush - both of whom appear to have zero understanding of the region - to say.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

PurityOfEssence

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #12

17. I are so bad.

We must never break out from Stalingrad; season's greetings from the front on the Volga.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

HuffleClaw

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 04:01 PM
Response to Original message

14. oh suuuuuuure

under the 'rules' set up by the occupiers. what a complete sham.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

enigma000

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #14

16. but why discriminate against the Sunni?

And why for the Shia? I've read posts read than practically accuse the Bush administration of being followers of the Shiite branch of Islam - but I find it difficult to believe these clowns know the difference between Sunni and Shia.

Why run a sham election and rig it for the Shia? The same branch of Islam than the Iranians follow? Where is the conspiracy in this?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Wordie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-25-05 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #16

19. It's not conspiracy; it's stupidity. eom

Edited on Sun Dec-25-05 06:02 AM by Wordie

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Vidar

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-25-05 07:04 AM
Response to Original message

20. The fis is in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 05th 2024, 03:07 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC