Electing Trouble
Emblazoned on the CNN website was the word "Exclusive" on the next story, which is just a fancy way of saying that FoxNews wouldn't touch this story with a ten foot poll. One Iraq's newly elected representatives is, by a couple different accounts a terrorist. How much of this the Iraqi people knew when they were electing people is up for grabs. Asking people to believe US intelligence didn't know anything about this man even after we were the ones who charged him is ludicrous. Even though our intelligence was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. This is a man who blew up two embassies, tried to kill a Kuwaiti prince and attempted to hijack an airliner in Kuwait. He fled Kuwait before they could full try and sentence him and wound up getting elected to an Iraqi representative seat. US officials now say he's working closely with Iran and is acting as a "political conduit" for Iran to control their neighbor. And now the US is truly torn between doing what they needto in terms of the War on Terror and respecting the civil government of Iraq that we have fought and bled for.
Iraqi Prime Minister has actually done the smartest thing he's done: he's asked for the proof from the Americans to do something about this guy on his own. This is smart since it forces the Americans to put up or shut up since the American word is not quite as good as it was 5 years ago. He's also doing this to assert any kind of political power he can hope for. Most political power in the world ultimately evolves and derives from how one deals with the Americans. And in the Middle East, standing up to the Americans is a sign of power. Also, the more Iraq stands up to Iran, for example by doing something terrible to one of their political operatives, the more they gain the respect of their neighbors, especailly Saudi Arabia and Jordan who are not fond of Iran. On top of ALL this, they need to prove on some way that they are not the country that, under Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait for their oil and access to ports.
The legislator, a man named Jamal Jafaar Mohammed, is immune from prosecution under the law. It is presumed he is a decent legislator, and therefore special measures need to be taken in order to prosecute him. This is what Iraq intends to do. Similar protections exist for American legislators, although we have streamlined how to get a sitting legislator in trouble, just ask Dan Rostenkowski how well it works. Mohammed will the first test of the Iraq government, to see if it can survive losing people in one of the most scandalous ways possible. There was going to be a test at some point to see if it would survive a change of power in the next elections, but this test is more serious and is going to have serious consequences.
The consequences will not just be local. While his district, or whatever they call it, will have to elect a new person, the other countries involved in Iraq will need to take a long, hard look at what is going on terms of the government. The most dangerous long term problem is what is stopping the Iraqis from electing ANOTHER man who is a terrorist to fill this guy's seat? After all, Iran elected Ahmadinejad, and he practically ran on having helped take Americans hostage in 1979. Could killing Americans be the latest, greatest craze in getting elected in the next parliamentary elections? Actually, doubtful. This guy is likely to have few friends in Iraq himself. After all, working with Iran and against Kuwait will not be terribly popular. A lot of people still have bitter memories about what was done to them and people they know during each of those conflicts.
That assumes all of this is true. While it does seem pretty sure that he was a terrorist, there is nothing to say that he's still doing this kind of thing. America's first president was a terrorist to the British. As was Bolivia's, Israel's and Poland's. There are many other countries who also had to fight wars of independence and in that time had to do things that were violent in nature against other governments. And, since war is between two recognized states, it was terrorism. But that's not what this guy is accused of. This guy is not accused of fighting a guerilla war against an occupational government that tried to take down the rights of him and his people. He's accused of blowing up embassies and killing, or attempting to, officials of other countries. He's accused of actually doing bad things, not just morally and politically questionable things.
What do the Iraqis do now? Well, they could turn this guy over to the Americans and be done with. They could attempt to try this guy themselves and call that done. They could hand him over to the French, since he blew up one of their embassies, and let Napoleonic Code handle it. They could hand him over the to Kuwaitis and let Sharia handle it. Honestly, their best bet for regional stability would be to hand him over to the Kuwaitis. Yes, it would suck as an American for this to happen, but the Kuwaitis have the death penalty, and would no doubt use it on a man who tried to kill a Kuwaiti prince. After the debacle that was the Hussein execution, Iraq needs to show they can actually handle law and order with some degree of respect and dignity.
After all, we don't want them to be like Iran, now do we?
So it is written, so do I see it.
Iraqi Prime Minister has actually done the smartest thing he's done: he's asked for the proof from the Americans to do something about this guy on his own. This is smart since it forces the Americans to put up or shut up since the American word is not quite as good as it was 5 years ago. He's also doing this to assert any kind of political power he can hope for. Most political power in the world ultimately evolves and derives from how one deals with the Americans. And in the Middle East, standing up to the Americans is a sign of power. Also, the more Iraq stands up to Iran, for example by doing something terrible to one of their political operatives, the more they gain the respect of their neighbors, especailly Saudi Arabia and Jordan who are not fond of Iran. On top of ALL this, they need to prove on some way that they are not the country that, under Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait for their oil and access to ports.
The legislator, a man named Jamal Jafaar Mohammed, is immune from prosecution under the law. It is presumed he is a decent legislator, and therefore special measures need to be taken in order to prosecute him. This is what Iraq intends to do. Similar protections exist for American legislators, although we have streamlined how to get a sitting legislator in trouble, just ask Dan Rostenkowski how well it works. Mohammed will the first test of the Iraq government, to see if it can survive losing people in one of the most scandalous ways possible. There was going to be a test at some point to see if it would survive a change of power in the next elections, but this test is more serious and is going to have serious consequences.
The consequences will not just be local. While his district, or whatever they call it, will have to elect a new person, the other countries involved in Iraq will need to take a long, hard look at what is going on terms of the government. The most dangerous long term problem is what is stopping the Iraqis from electing ANOTHER man who is a terrorist to fill this guy's seat? After all, Iran elected Ahmadinejad, and he practically ran on having helped take Americans hostage in 1979. Could killing Americans be the latest, greatest craze in getting elected in the next parliamentary elections? Actually, doubtful. This guy is likely to have few friends in Iraq himself. After all, working with Iran and against Kuwait will not be terribly popular. A lot of people still have bitter memories about what was done to them and people they know during each of those conflicts.
That assumes all of this is true. While it does seem pretty sure that he was a terrorist, there is nothing to say that he's still doing this kind of thing. America's first president was a terrorist to the British. As was Bolivia's, Israel's and Poland's. There are many other countries who also had to fight wars of independence and in that time had to do things that were violent in nature against other governments. And, since war is between two recognized states, it was terrorism. But that's not what this guy is accused of. This guy is not accused of fighting a guerilla war against an occupational government that tried to take down the rights of him and his people. He's accused of blowing up embassies and killing, or attempting to, officials of other countries. He's accused of actually doing bad things, not just morally and politically questionable things.
What do the Iraqis do now? Well, they could turn this guy over to the Americans and be done with. They could attempt to try this guy themselves and call that done. They could hand him over to the French, since he blew up one of their embassies, and let Napoleonic Code handle it. They could hand him over the to Kuwaitis and let Sharia handle it. Honestly, their best bet for regional stability would be to hand him over to the Kuwaitis. Yes, it would suck as an American for this to happen, but the Kuwaitis have the death penalty, and would no doubt use it on a man who tried to kill a Kuwaiti prince. After the debacle that was the Hussein execution, Iraq needs to show they can actually handle law and order with some degree of respect and dignity.
After all, we don't want them to be like Iran, now do we?
So it is written, so do I see it.