Iraq's new anti terror laws - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

losthellhound · 07-07-2004, 10:41 PM

Linky

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- With new violence flaring, Iraqi officials announced a national security law Wednesday that gives the interim government the power to declare martial law and detain suspects during anti-terror sweeps.

...and...

Human Rights Minister Bakhtiar Amin likened the law to the U.S. Patriot Act -- passed in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- and said it was prepared "to protect the lives of the Iraqi people."

I know that in a war zone, and in an area with unsure security, you need to have a firm control over the overall security of your country.. But is this healthy for a country that is just now experiencing freedoms that it was denied for so long? Will this push more people against the new government? Especially modelling the laws against the patriot act, a law that will forever be debated by civil libertarians, privacy activists and human rights advocates?

Im not trolling.. I would love for this thread to stay non political.. Id love to not hear a single bush bashing comment, or anything of the like.. I havent been in Tilted politics for awhile because of those types of responses.. I'd just love to hear a good debate

*edit = fixed the link*

Dragonlich · 07-08-2004, 03:46 AM

Comparing Iraq to the US is nonsense. There's a state of virtual anarchy in some (small) parts of the Iraq, where local strongmen are pretty much trying to topple the current government. In such a situation, you need a strong response in order to quell the unrest. Civil rights are a nice concept, but it's much more important to get a stable, safe society; more attention to civil rights will come later.

I know some civil rights activists will call such an attitude inhumane or evil, but what's the point of having civil rights if your society isn't even safe? What's the point of having freedom of speech if a local criminal will kill you for speaking out? What good will freedom of religion do, if local clerics call for the murder of anyone not believing what they say? Only if people feel safe enough to practice those rights will Iraq be able to move forward.

apeman · 07-08-2004, 03:51 AM

sounds ok to me ... from Saddam to occupation to the handover to Iraqi's ... it's been progress all the way so far... as long as they keep making progress, good luck to 'em

yeah, i agree, civil rights are relative ... start with the right to not get killed, and work your way up from there

powerclown · 07-08-2004, 07:01 AM

The Iraqis know the Iraqis best...Interim Prime Minister Allawi has stated publicly that the insurgents will be dealt with "Iraqi-style", which I take to mean as opposed to the US's guilt-ridden, politically correct and ineffective style. These laws don't concern the average, honest, law-abiding Iraqi, whose only agenda is security and the ability to go to work (and return alive) everyday to try and support themselves and their families.

rsl12 · 07-08-2004, 09:42 AM

perhaps the better comparison would be between iraq and post-USSR russia. russia went very quickly from a tightly-controlling central government to nearly complete lack of restraint in any sector of government. i think most people would agree that russia could have used a slower approach towards democracy.

kutulu · 07-08-2004, 11:21 AM

Even before the Patriot Act martial law could be enforces here in the US. As long as it is done properly I don't have a problem with it.

KMA-628 · 07-09-2004, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by apeman
civil rights are relative ... start with the right to not get killed, and work your way up from there

I don't think it could've been better said.

07-07-2004, 10:41 PM	#1 (permalink)
losthellhound Thats MR. Muffin Face now Location: Everywhere work sends me	Iraq's new anti terror laws Linky BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- With new violence flaring, Iraqi officials announced a national security law Wednesday that gives the interim government the power to declare martial law and detain suspects during anti-terror sweeps. ...and... Human Rights Minister Bakhtiar Amin likened the law to the U.S. Patriot Act -- passed in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- and said it was prepared "to protect the lives of the Iraqi people." I know that in a war zone, and in an area with unsure security, you need to have a firm control over the overall security of your country.. But is this healthy for a country that is just now experiencing freedoms that it was denied for so long? Will this push more people against the new government? Especially modelling the laws against the patriot act, a law that will forever be debated by civil libertarians, privacy activists and human rights advocates? Im not trolling.. I would love for this thread to stay non political.. Id love to not hear a single bush bashing comment, or anything of the like.. I havent been in Tilted politics for awhile because of those types of responses.. I'd just love to hear a good debate edit = fixed the link __________________ "Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

07-08-2004, 03:51 AM	#3 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	sounds ok to me ... from Saddam to occupation to the handover to Iraqi's ... it's been progress all the way so far... as long as they keep making progress, good luck to 'em yeah, i agree, civil rights are relative ... start with the right to not get killed, and work your way up from there __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

07-08-2004, 09:42 AM	#5 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	perhaps the better comparison would be between iraq and post-USSR russia. russia went very quickly from a tightly-controlling central government to nearly complete lack of restraint in any sector of government. i think most people would agree that russia could have used a slower approach towards democracy. __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

07-08-2004, 03:46 AM	#2 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Comparing Iraq to the US is nonsense. There's a state of virtual anarchy in some (small) parts of the Iraq, where local strongmen are pretty much trying to topple the current government. In such a situation, you need a strong response in order to quell the unrest. Civil rights are a nice concept, but it's much more important to get a stable, safe society; more attention to civil rights will come later. I know some civil rights activists will call such an attitude inhumane or evil, but what's the point of having civil rights if your society isn't even safe? What's the point of having freedom of speech if a local criminal will kill you for speaking out? What good will freedom of religion do, if local clerics call for the murder of anyone not believing what they say? Only if people feel safe enough to practice those rights will Iraq be able to move forward.

07-08-2004, 07:01 AM	#4 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	The Iraqis know the Iraqis best...Interim Prime Minister Allawi has stated publicly that the insurgents will be dealt with "Iraqi-style", which I take to mean as opposed to the US's guilt-ridden, politically correct and ineffective style. These laws don't concern the average, honest, law-abiding Iraqi, whose only agenda is security and the ability to go to work (and return alive) everyday to try and support themselves and their families.

07-08-2004, 11:21 AM	#6 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Even before the Patriot Act martial law could be enforces here in the US. As long as it is done properly I don't have a problem with it.