For the first time in recent memory, the two major Kurdish parties (which are in a sense clans and clan allies) are facing significant opposition, as from the Goran or Change Party.
Critics of the joint government of Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party and (Iraqi President) Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which are in coalition with one another as the Kurdistan Alliance, charge that the Alliance is corrupt, authoritarian and inefficient. They say that Barzani has jailed journalists for ‘libel’ and encourages a cult of personality (his picture is everywhere). Those who are on the outside of the ruling clans are often disadvantaged and sometimes they have rioted, as even at Halabja, a shrine to the genocide against the Kurds launched by Saddam Hussein in 1988.
The likely winner, incumbent Massoud Barzani, seems on a collision course with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki over Barzani’s determination to incorporate into the Kurdistan confederacy the disputed oil province of Kirkuk, a plan to which Arabs and Turkmen, as well as Iraqi nationalists, object.
This issue of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s appointment of Esfandiyar Rahim-Masha’i as his first vice president came to a head on Friday. Rahim-Masha’i, the father of Ahmadinejad’s daughter-in-law, had offended the hard liners last year by saying Iranians are friends of the Israeli people (as opposed to the ‘Zionist regime.’)
Ahmadinejad was presumably, by his appointment of Rahim-Masha’i, trying to signal three things.
1. He is not just a puppet of the hard liners, or even of Khamenei (Ahmadinejad portrays himself as a populist standing up to the fat cats and elites on behalf of the little person, a message he could hardly keep on point if he is just a hired gun of . . . the elite).
2. Ahmadinejad is tolerant of Iranian liberals. Rahim-Masha’i has been accused of favoring religious pluralism (saying that all the great religions are true) and of declaring that “Islamism” is outmoded and its era over with (thus he is accused of being a ‘post-Islamist’ in Asaf Bayat’s terminology). The appointment may have aimed at mollifying some of the reformists?
3. Ahmadinejad is not the crackpot on the question of Israel that his opponents in the presidential race, such as Mir Hossein Mousavi, had painted him.
Of course, if those were his goals, they were unlikely to be achieved in this way, and now the whole thing has in any case come undone.
The Friday prayers sermon this week was led by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a consummate hard liner. He delivered a no-holds barred attack on the reform movement as undermining both the clerical ideology of the iranian state and the success in cutting Iran off from foreign interference. The USG Open Source Center translated these passages from Iranian radio:
‘The main issue is that Velayat-e Faqih (guardianship of a religious jurisconsult [demand for rule of the top cleric]) is a principle for our people, and the other basic principle for our people is to safeguard the revolution. But there are some individuals who do not want to accept that the vali-e faqih (supreme jurisconsult [cleric]) has the final say. They do not obey the guidelines of the supreme leader. They regard the supreme leader as supportive of a particular faction. They even sometimes make childish remarks. They are nothing, however, compared to the wave of the loyal ummah [Muslim community] who are ready to sacrifice their lives for the leader.
However, the duty of the Friday prayer leader is to give warning. I would like to explicitly say from this podium that our people love vali-e faqih [clerical ruler], and they will hold fast to this banner up to their last breath and the last drop of their blood. (People chanting: “God is great, Khamene’i is the leader, death to those against the vali-e faqih) [clerical ruler] . . .
This is an explicit message to those bat-natured individuals who do not hear this call. This is not just the call of the Friday prayers. We are aware of some private insulting meetings. We are aware of the plots against Velayat (guardianship of a religious jurisconsult). You should know that you do not have the power to stand up to this wave (of people).
. . . You are supporters of Velayat and you will remain supporters of Velayat. . .’
Jannati went on then to another key value of the hard liners, which is xenophobia or keeping Iran isolated from close connections with the Western Powers, on the grounds that when they could, these Powers put the dictatorial Shah on the throne and used him to keep control of Iranian resources such as petroleum. Jannati says,
‘ The second position that the enemy has targeted is the culture of fighting against arrogance [Western hegemonic powers]. This culture has brought us dignity. It has its foundations in the Koran and Islamic traditions. We (God) appointed prophets in every society to worship God and dispel arrogant powers . . .
. . . The imam was the individual who said that America is the great Satan. He taught this to the people.
The 30-year slogan of “down with America” comes from the same teachings. (People chanting: “Down with America”)
Unfortunately, in the past one or two months, some individuals have assaulted this culture. They have broken the taboo of being in touch with foreigners. Some individuals say that for victory they need a social shock, along with a foreign shock — foreign shock means foreigners’ media support for rioters.
One does not know who to share the sadness with when our country’s esteemed intelligence minister provides us with a piece of news. In the past couple of months some headquarters (within the country) have contacted foreign embassies, including the British embassy, more than 100 times. England is the old musty colonialist, the same England that our people have seen nothing from rather than acts of treachery, deceit, and craftiness. What is the objective behind your contacts with foreigners?
(Chants of indistinct slogans in support of the cleric’s remarks)
Some people affiliated with certain political groups have said themselves that they contacted American officials before the (12-June presidential) election to ask them to wait for a government that would come to power after Mr Ahmadinezhad’s to establish relations (with Iran). You wretched people! Is having relations with America a gift that you so anxiously await? America is only and merely seeking its own interests. You wretched people, think of the people (of this country).’
Beyond those two points, Jannati denounced the opposition for plotting to keep society riled because they did not like the outcome of the election. He rejected the reformists’ call for a referendum on the election, insisting that the election was itself the referendum. (The opposition maintains that there was widespread fraud in reporting the election results):
‘ The fifth point is about the power of the Islamic state. Thank God, our Islamic state is powerful and of course it uses this power in the service of the people and promotion of the status of Islam. Unfortunately, some people questioned the power of the Islamic state following the elections. They were disappointed of course, but the harm they caused is still considerable. The blow they dealt to the authority of the state was worse than anything else. And some of them do not let go. Apparently, some people intend to keep the quarrels going for the next four years. They want to play a different tune every day. One day they demand the annulment of elections. When they were disappointed they proposed a referendum to decide the legitimacy of the government. Wake up! The referendum was held, 40 million people came to the scene and elected a president with 24.5 million votes of support. Pay attention! Do not pretend that you are sleeping. The referendum was held. The people’s decision is clear, there is no room for discussion. They want to repeat that this government is illegitimate for the next four years. No, this government is an elected government and, with the grace of God and the endorsement of the leader, will be legitimate and our nation will support this government.
The final point I’ll deal with in Jannati’s sermon is his demand that Ahmadinejad dismiss Rahim-Masha’i. Jannati said that in light of the letter that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s wrote to Ahmadinejad insisting on Rahim-Masha’i's dismissal, Ahmadinejad had an obligation to obey:
‘However, the meaning of legitimacy, or support for an individual, does not mean that the individual is flawless. We have never said that the most qualified candidate (Ahmadinezhad) was flawless. We believe that criticism is a God-given gift. My best brother is the one who presents to me my shortcomings
We still say that with the grace of God and after endorsement by the supreme leader, we regard the government legitimate. We even support the government. But out of love for the president, we asked him to revise his decision on appointing his first vice-president. (People chanting: “God is great, Khamene’i is the leader”)
I wish the president had accepted the friendly criticism by his friends. There is no discussion of getting any concessions or shares (in the government). We want what is good for you (the president). We want you to remain powerful and popular. I wish the honourable president had accepted the friendly criticisms, so that the leader would not have been obliged to make comments in this respect.
Now that the supreme leader has expressed his viewpoint, there is no reason to make any delays. The president should observe the viewpoint of the supreme leader. The legitimacy of everyone in an Islamic society depends on the viewpoint of the vali-e faqih (supreme leader). In view of his good will, I hope that the president would enforce the view of the supreme leader at the earliest.
I think Jannati is hinting around that Ahmadinejad, by defying Khamenei’s order, was himself undermining the clerical ruler, the vali-i faqih or Guardian Jurisprudent. Given the structure of Jannati’s sermon, which began by reaffirming the centrality to the regime of the principle of the supremacy of the clerical ruler. It is that principle that underpinned everything else– the isolation from the West and Iran’s fierce independence, and the affirmation of the legitimacy of the June 12 presidential elections (if the Supreme Leader says the outcome was legitimate, it was legitimate). Since Ahmadinejad owes his legitimacy to the affirmation of the Supreme Leader, it was unwise of him, Jannati implies, to undermine the latter’s authority.
On Friday, Khamenei’s letter was read out on official media, which put Ahmadinejad in much more of a bind than when it was a private affair between the Leader and himself. This is the USG Open Source Center translation from Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran radio.
‘In the name of God, Dear Dr Ahmadine[j]ad, The honorable president of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Greetings,
The appointment of Mr. Esfandiar Rahim-Masha’i as the vice president is to your disadvantage and the government, and it will cause discord and frustration among your supporters. It is necessary to annul the appointment and to announce it as null and void.
(Signed) Seyyed Ali Khamene’i 27/4/88 (as heard, 18 July 2009)’
There were then street demonstrations by hard line supporters of Khamenei denouncing Ahmadinejad.
When this controversy broke, I pointed out that Khamenei has the authority to dismiss Ahmadinejad himself, and to overrule him on virtually any issue, so if he really wanted Rahim-Masha’i gone, he would be gone.
The ever perceptive Kevin Drum at Mother Jones pointed out in response that the situation in Iran is new and unsettled:
‘ Perhaps. But this has gone so far beyond merely a conflict between Khamenei and Mir Hossein Mousavi that it’s hard to say what’s really happening behind the scenes. Khamenei is obviously not the unquestioned authority he was before all this started, and the fact that he’s now being challenged by Ahmadinejad, the very guy he attached his fortunes to in the first place, says something about his position. Or about Ahmadinejad. Or about something else none of us can even guess at. Stay tuned.’
Kevin was correctly pointing out that my statement assumed that Khamenei’s authority remains intact. While that authority has obviously been widely and deeply questioned in the reform camp, as Jannati admitted, in the aftermath of the presidential elections, it clearly remains enough intact with the hard liners that Ahmadinejad had to bow before it.
The up side for Khamenei is that even in his weakened state he won on this point. The down side is that some the people have been chanting ‘down with the dictator,’ and Khamenei has played into their hands by demonstrating himself to be high-handed and to be to the right of Ahmadinejad. The regime’s kabuki-like attention to stylistic details and hierarchies may in the end be making it too brittle to hope to survive in the medium to long term.
I have been saying for some time that the US military presence in Iraq is highly unlikely to completely end at the close of 2011. I think the important thing is that the combat troops will be out and that the tiny number who remain will mainly be trainers of Iraqi troops; there will likely continue to be some Air Force personnel, since the US will be Iraq’s Air Force until about 2018 at least.
The headlines this admission generated in US news sources about ‘US troops may stay’ are a little puzzling to me, and seem actually sensational. What al-Maliki explicitly said was that Iraq may ask for a handful of trainers to stay. He is not saying that the US military will be rolling tanks in Iraqi cities in 2012.
Of course, it is possible that the Sadrists and the Sunni Arabs will ally to force all US troops out on the short timetable. Both could strengthen their positions in parliament in the January 2010 elections, and they may be able to appeal to Iraqi nationalism to get a resolution through forbidding the sort of thing of which al-Maliki spoke.
It is also possible that the Obama administration just won’t be interested in a further US military presence in Iraq, what with having Afghanistan on its plate, which is quite enough.
In case the nationalist Iraqi forces did forestall al-Maliki or his successor from such a step, the training would just shift offshore, maybe to Jordan (where a lot of Iraqi officers and police have been trained anyway in recent years). And the US Air Force support for Iraqi troops who get into trouble with local militias can be provided from air bases outside Iraq.
Al-Maliki would not have needed any orders from Tehran. He has steadfastly resisted American requests that he reach out to the Sunni Arab guerrillas himself. He dismisses them as Baathists and murderers. The Iraqi government is asking the US sharp questions about why they were having these meetings without informing Baghdad!
This sort of thing is the reason I suspect that al-Maliki won’t actually be likely to ask, or be in a domestic position to ask, for US troops to remain in any numbers. In fact, he surely was sorry he was so accommodating to Washington during the visit, despite his desperate desire for US corporate investment in Iraq.
The USG Open Source Center translated a discussion of al-Maliki’s visit on al-Alam TV (an Iranian channel broadcasting in Arabic) among a pro-Maliki Iraqi analyst, an anti-Maliki observer, and US Rep. Dennis Kucinich, which gives a sense of how furious Baghdad really is over the secret US talks with the guerrillas:
FYI — Iranian Al-Alam TV Program Discusses Iraq, US Relations, Pacts Al-Alam Television Thursday, July 23, 2009 Document Type: OSC Summary . . .
Tehran Al-Alam TV in Arabic, in its “With the Event” program at 1735 GMT on 23 July . . . interviewed in the studio Jawad Talib, a political analyst; Hazim al-Shammari, an Iraqi academic, live from Baghdad; US Senator Dennis Kucinich, a congressman, live from Washington and Munir al-Ma’wi, a political analyst, live from Washington. . .
Central to the discussion was what was referred to in the program as a “bombshell” caused by news of a pact allegedly signed between the CIA and armed groups in Iraq. The program debated the significance of the such news and the implications on Iraqi-US relations, particularly the impact this has on the security pact between the two countries.
Talib defended Al-Maliki’s government and said the CIA wanted to put pressure on Al-Maliki whilst on a visit to Washington. “They are twisting Maliki’s arm,” he said. It was completely inappropriate the way the news was made public, especially given Maliki’s presence in Washington.
Al-Shammari agreed and said the alleged deal between the CIA and the armed groups was outside the security pact between the US and Iraq and that this was a “blow” to the new ties between the two countries. He said contacts between the armed groups and the US were known for a long time, but this was a new development. Shammari anticipated huge confusion to ensue as a result. Shammari also spoke of various “wings” within the US Administration, each pushing towards certain goals and each working in “secrecy”. Concluding, he said this US Administration was not so different from the previous one.
Senator Kucinich said he was unaware of the alleged deal between the CIA and the armed groups. He said the US was sincere in its plans to pull out of Iraq.
Al-Ma’wi urged everyone to focus on the success of Maliki’s visit, insisting that the news of the alleged deal was a side issue. He said he was confident that the US sought stability in Iraq and that whatever happens would fall within this context.
About removing Iraq from under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Kucinich said the US was trying to talk with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to resolve this matter. He said Iran too wanted reparations from Iraq. The programme moderator, in response to this last comment, said Iran was not against taking Iraq out of Chapter VII.
Talib said such news would surely undermine Maliki’s visit. “If I were him (Maliki) I would have cut the visit short,” said Talib. There is a security pact signed with a superpower, the ink of which is not yet dry, only for the CIA to come and make another pact with the armed groups. Talib asked: How is this possible?
Munir again said this was a side issue and the focus must be on the achievements of the visit. He disagreed with Talib about cutting the visit short and thought the suggestion to be irrational.
Al-Shammari said Maliki went to Washington to seek strength, but he would now return weakened. This would be a “triumph” for some Kurdish leaderships in Kurdistan. The US can actually order the removal of Chapter VII. They are not honest about this issue, Shammari said.
Talib disagreed and said Maliki did not go to Washington to seek strength. On the contrary, he said. Maliki gave the US clear signs that Iraq was becoming stronger and was capable of running its affairs. As for Chapter VII, the US wants to twist Maliki’s arm. They want to tell Maliki that he has to achieve reconciliation in Iraq, including the Ba’thists. There are other regional powers who are seeking the return of the Ba’thists, said Talib. The other issue is the issue of Kirkuk. The US is playing a game, Talib said.
Munir said the US was seeking national reconciliation in Iraq. But that would entail the participation of the Ba’thists, said Munir. I agree, regional powers want the Ba’thists to return.
The “US Administration is not an angel. It is the biggest Satan,” said Shammari, who anticipated an Iraqi-US conflict in the time to come.
The security pact between the US and Iraq was a cover-up for more serious issues, said Talib. Chapter VII is used as a card against Al-Maliki’s government, he said. The US wants to keep the situation tense. They want to weaken Al-Maliki and they want to “abort” the next elections, said Talib.
(Description of Source: Tehran Al-Alam Television in Arabic — IRIB’s 24-hour Arabic news channel, targetting a pan-Arab audience)’
Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports in Arabic that al-Maliki said that he would resume negotiations with the Kurdish leadership after this weekend’s elections in the Kurdistan Regional Government.
It is likely that incumbent Massoud Barzani will be returned as president, and he says he is not interested in negotations. He insists that there will be no compromise, and demands that the referendum in Kirkuk agreed-to in the Iraqi constitution be held. The United Nations has warned against holding the referendum on the grounds that it likely would kick off a civil war among Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen over Kirkuk.
First, he wants the United Nations Security Council to remove Iraq altogether from Chapter 7 status under the UN Charter. After the Gulf War, the UNSC put Iraq into a kind of receivership, with sanctions, demands for disarmament with regard to unconventional weapons, and restrictions, in which the UNSC had a say on Iraqi policies. Also, 5% of Iraq’s oil income went to pay reparations for the destruction it caused during the war. One of the reasons Iraq did bilateral status of forces agreements with the US and with the UK was that they wanted to avoid having any more UNSC resolutions authorizing foreign troops in Iraq. Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh, according to Reuters, said that Chapter 7 status “handcuffed Iraq, restricted its sovereignty and burdened it with the crimes of the former regime.” On a visit to the UN HQ, al-Maliki said that “Iraq no longer poses a threat to the international community,” and so the sanctions “are no longer necessary.” (For a formerly colonized country, being under Chapter 7 is way too much like being recolonized, and ending that status is paramount for an Iraqi nationalist like al-Maliki).
In Washington, al-Zaman says, al-Maliki also wants
1. help in developing the Iraqi economy, and
2. he wants a normalization of relations with the US.
Other potential goals are controversial. Reuters reports, ‘”Maliki will ask the U.S. to increase pressure on the Kurdish government. Finding a solution for this [Kirkuk] issue is vital and cannot be postponed any longer,” said Saad al-Hadithi, a political analyst at Baghdad University. ‘
Al-Maliki seems to have a blind spot in this regard, apparently feeling that the Sunnis and the Kurds can be faced down by his new military without offering any concessions.
But I fear that the argument that the public humiliation of prisoners is against international law won’t take the US very far after 8 years of Bush-Cheney.
After the evidence surfaced that the US military took all those humiliating pictures of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to blackmail them by threatening to make them public, the US assertion of support for this principle of the Geneva Conventions will be met with, well, let us say substantial skepticism.
In fact, as I was reminded by a former ambassador, the Bush-Cheney-Yoo-Addison gutting of US conformance with the Geneva Conventions really makes it difficult for Washington credibly to complain about the treatment of any of our captured soldiers. The Taliban could hold the soldier hostage forever if they follow the principle put forward by Sen. Lindsey Graham. They could (God forbid) put him in stress positions naked and threaten to release the pictures to his family, and they would have done nothing that Rumsfeld’s Pentagon had not done routinely and on a vast scale.
The US refusal to so much as investigate American officials implicated in torture and breaking international law also does not help us gain credibility on seeing to it that those who mistreat our troops are tried on those charges. We even have Dick Cheney defending waterboarding, for which Japanese generals were tried and executed after WW II. It is disgusting.
And huffing and puffing that the Taliban are not a government won’t get us very far either. They control 10 percent of the country.
You obey the Geneva Conventions and the rest of international law on the treatment of captives because it gives you the moral high ground with regard to the treatment of our troops. Not doing so endangers every single one of our men and women in uniform. The chickenhawks who called such international agreements ‘quaint’ and outmoded should be drafted and sent to the front.
What is really scary is that the shadowy set of secret military and intelligence teams charged by Cheney to break international law continuing to do so despite President Obama’s orders to cease torture. Obama had better get a handle on this issue, because it could well blow up in his face, in fact, Cheney may intend it to do so. I think there are still people in the US government who take their cues from the latter rather than the former.
Still, Mousavi remains defiant. WaPo quotes him saying, “”You are facing something new: an awakened nation, a nation that has been born again and is here to defend its achievements.” He made fun of the hard liners’ assertions that the demonstrations were planned out by foreign powers.
In a sign of division even within the hard line camp that engineered the recent reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the official Iranian news site PressTV is reporting that a parliamentarian claims he was told by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that Ahmadinejad must immediately un-appoint his first vice president, Esfandiyar Rahim-Masha’i. Rahim-Masha’i is viewed as soft on the Israel issue. He is the father-in-law of Ahmadinejad’s son. The first vice president is the only one of the twelve who can chair cabinet meetings when the president is out of town.
Mehr News agency reporting in Persian said Tuesday that another parliamentarian, Dr. Ahmad Tavakkoli, is also saying that he has seen a letter from Khamenei to Ahmadinejad instructing him to dismiss the recently-appointed VP.
There is something fishy about this story, since if Khamenei wanted Ahmadinejad to do something, why would he do it in a secret letter that only two MPs have seen?
PressTV and LAT differ on the chronology here, with the former saying that Ahmadinejad reaffirmed his faith in Rahim-Masha’i before he knew of the report of Khamenei’s opposition.
One possibility is that Khamenei is displeased but does not want to weaken Ahmadinejad by publicly overruling him, at this juncture when things are already unstable. That would make sense of his sending a private letter. Maybe it was circulated to other hard liners only when Ahmadinejad declined to heed it?
In the Iranian constitution, Supreme Leader Khamenei can overrule Ahmadinejad on virtually anything, and can dismiss him at will. So if Khamenei really wants Rahim-Masha’i gone, he’ll be history.
By the way, why does AFP repeat the canards that Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe Israel of the face of the map and that he called the Holocaust a myth?
The problems facing the Obama administration in closing Guantanamo Bay appear mainly to center on finding a place for the prisoners to go. Very few of them are ever going to be tried. There is a handful of the truly murderous among them– the big al-Qaeda leaders caught mainly by Pakistan security forces, and those none of us would like to see free. While Andy Worthington has shown that very large numbers of the prisoners had never been terrorists in any rational use of the term– and many had been sold to the US by the Taliban and were innocent– the problem is that the ones remaining are more likely actually to have been militants in some cause. What could the the US have done with Uighurs who fled Urumqi to Afghanistan and got picked up there because they were hanging around with Taliban? The Uighurs have nothing against the US and are not a danger to it. If they had been sent to China they might have been executed or (further) tortured. The solution, of getting small islands to take them, wasn’t very satisfactory. It caused a diplomatic incident with the UK, and the Uighurs have been permanently severed from their friends and family. This is a kind of “social death,” which is a key feature also of slavery.
The problem ultimately derives from Bush-Cheney’s attempt to create a realm of extra-judiciality, a place where no law operates, no habeas corpus is granted, where the individuals concerned are at the complete mercy of the king (oops, I mean president). Many Bush-Cheney policies resembled the Bill of Attainder and other 18th-century royal abuses, for the end of which the US Founding Fathers labored.
‘ Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware has now called for Guantanamo to be closed down. Absolutely right.
The main reason is not that it is a continued scandal and creates a very poor image among Muslims worldwide of the United States. This allegation is true, and the US press has done a poor job of covering the continued fall-out of the Quran desecration story among Muslims world-wide. But it isn’t the main reason the prison should be closed.
The main reason is that the Bush Administration established the prison at Guantanamo in hopes of gutting the Bill of Rights. They wanted the prisoners there to be beyond the law, outside the framework of judiciality. They would have no lawyers. They would be tried only if the administration wanted to try them. They would be held indefinitely. They would be outside the framework of US law and also of the Geneval Conventions– though Rumsfeld keeps slipping and calling them prisoners of war.
Terrorists are dirty criminals who should be tried, and if found guilty, put away for life. Terrorists are criminals. They are not non-human, and any attempt to create a category of human beings to whom the protections of the law do not apply is an attempt to undermine the Republic. It is a return of the Bill of Attainder, a feature of absolute monarchy that the Founding Fathers stood against. It is something to which even Rehnquist is opposed.
Once it was established that these Muslims could be treated in this way, Bush would be a sort of absolute monarch over all such detainees (remember that some of them might be innocent for all we know) And then gradually others could be added to the category of the “rights-less.” The Patriot Act II envisages stripping Americans of their citizenship for supporting terrorist organizations. Without citizenship, they would not be afforded the protections of the Constitution. And gradually, in this way, the American nationalist Right would be able to circumscribe that pesky Bill of Rights, which so interferes with Executive (i.e. Royal) Privilege. The legal minds on the American Right have clearly been annoyed with the Bill of Rights for some time and the speed with which they foisted the so-called PATRIOT Act (makes it kinda hard to oppose, calling it that, huh?) on an unwary Congress, which had no time to read it, suggests that they had a lot of these ideas on the shelf ready to go.
Guantanamo Prison should be closed because it was conceived as the beginning of the end of the American Republic.’
Some of the difficulties now facing Obama in closing the place remind me of the problems abolitionists in the 19th century had in giving manumitted slaves a new place in life. Lindsey Graham’s desire to lock up the prisoners forever without a trial makes me wonder if there just has to be somebody somewhere enslaved to make certain regional elites in the US happy.
Welcome to Informed Comment, where I do my best to provide an independent and informed perspective on Middle Eastern and American politics.
Informed Comment is made possible by your support. If you value the information and essays, I make available and write here, please take a moment to contribute what you can.
