Soccer Mommy Senator Goes Ape Supporting Bin Laden

[HDPM]

Well, she doesn't completely say to send him arms, but she is way too supportive here. Taliban Day Care (http://www.columbian.com/12192002/clark_co/345147.html)

This idiot is praising Bin Laden for building day care centers. Would that be day care centers for the kids orphaned in the 9/11 attack or day care centers that the Taliban built so the soccer mommies in Kabul could drive their Explorers to the health club on their lunch break from their jobs as doctors, lawyers and executives. Oh wait, the soccer moms in Kabul were the ones hanging from the goal posts in the stadium or taking a 7.62X39 in the skull. I almost forgot.

[MMMMMM]

Praising him is ridiculous. However I think she does have a point that some of these activities have helped his image and acceptance especially among the poor of the Islamic world. The same goes for the religious madrassas which house and feed impoverished Muslims while they teach them fire-brand-type Islam.

Regarding Afghanistan: It appears that the Taliban might have been only marginally more hard-line than what the new Afghanistan government will probably be.

(excerpt) Shortly after Afghanistan’s cabinet was announced in June, new chief justice Fazul Hadi Shinwari denounced the newly appointed women’s affairs minister, Sima Samar, for speaking “against the Islamic nation of Afghanistan.” Samar was formally charged with “blasphemy,” which can carry the death penalty. Her crime? Dr. Samar had allegedly told a magazine in Canada that she did not believe in sharia, or Islamic law. Fearing for her life, Samar ultimately declined her office, even though, under intense U.S. pressure, the charges were dropped.

President Bush has robustly affirmed the importance of human rights and democracy in America’s foreign policy. In his New York Times op-ed on September 11, the president declared that America would work “to extend the benefits of freedom and progress to nations that lack them.” One might think, then, that the political reconstruction of Afghanistan—entailing considerable American involvement and hundreds of millions of dollars in financial support—would present a clear opportunity for protecting the human rights the president championed.

Think again. Notwithstanding the endless news stories about girls being allowed to go to school, Afghanistan is in imminent danger of being reconstructed as an Islamic state under hard-line sharia law.

This hard-line rule differs from more common applications of sharia, which regulate mostly family and inheritance issues. Under the Islamist version of sharia, courts pronounce and enforce strict, all-encompassing codes of behavior supposedly based on a literal reading of the Koran and accounts of Mohammed’s life. Commanding their own police forces, the courts apply archaic rules of evidence and administer harsh corporal punishments. The final rulings of sharia criminal courts are considered to be pronouncements of divine law, and as such cannot be criticized or altered. The broad range of human rights—freedoms of expression, press, and religion; equality under the law; non-discrimination; the right not to be tortured—are typically denied.

In June, President Karzai appointed a politically diverse cabinet, including a number of moderates, to lead Afghanistan’s government in the current transition period. To head the supreme court, however, he appointed Shinwari, a man with a well-publicized commitment to implementing hard-line sharia. On January 24, for instance, Shinwari had told the international press that under the new government, adulterers would be stoned to death, the hands of thieves amputated, and consumers of alcohol given 80 lashes.

He is also opposed to the practice of Christianity. Reuters quoted him as stating: “The Islamic government, according to sharia, is bound to punish those who get involved in anti-Islamic activities. We can punish them for propagating other religions—such as threaten them, expel them and, as a last resort, execute them.” Shinwari told a National Public Radio correspondent that Islam has three essential rules. First, a man should be politely invited to accept Islam; second, if he does not convert, he should obey Islam. The third option, if he refuses, is to “behead him.”

Two weeks before his appointment as chief justice, Shinwari reiterated that the nation would continue as an Islamic state under all-encompassing sharia law. According to Agence France Presse, Shinwari insisted there would be no “Western-style government” in Afghanistan: “No one will accept it. Only an Islamic government is acceptable to the Afghan people.” The 70-year-old justice had lived in exile for nearly 40 years, mostly in Pakistan, where he taught Islamic law at a madrassa. Decorating the wall above his desk, according to the Associated Press, are a sword and a leather lash for flogging. They were left by the Taliban, but Shinwari keeps them up as symbols of the harsh sharia justice which he also endorses.

Not that Shinwari isn’t critical of the Taliban. Indeed, he never misses an opportunity to denounce them as “barbaric” for having carried out stonings and amputations as public spectacles in Kabul’s sports stadium, rather than in private. He has faulted them for pressing private doctors, and not special prison doctors, to implement sentences of amputation. He has deplored their rushing hastily to judgment, instead of methodically using appropriate procedures. But Shinwari has never backed away from the extreme sharia punishments, and has repeatedly and publicly asserted that he intends to apply them in the supreme court he now heads. “We are not eager to execute criminals or chop off heads,” he recently told the Washington Post, “but if all the conditions are fulfilled, [it] is required.” (end excerpt)

http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/country/afghanistan/Sharia%20in%20Kabul.htm

[HDPM]

I think Sharia is awful. I think we should ban that type of thing when we overthrow a country. But how does that get idiot off the hook for saying Bin Laden builds daycare centers. Bin Laden wants a world where backwards Islamic law and culture rules. Soccer mommies are flogged, tortured killed, etc.... So why is the far left winger from Washington giving him props, and nearly aid and comfort?

[MMMMMM]

I'm not so sure she was actually praising him, as opposed to merely offering an explanation for his popularity and questioning our own methods and priorities.

bin-Laden might actually be doing a fair bit to help the Islamic poor--I don't know--as well as waging a moronic war of death and destruction against the West. The day-care center idea is probably inaccurate since most women over there aren't likely to be away from the home working a separate job and thus wouldn't need day care centers. Certainly some of the hard-line, even terrorist groups, do contribute to impoverished Muslims and this of course makes it easier for them to recruit ideologically willing warriors and martyrs from amongst them.

I just included the link about the new government in Afghanistan because you mentioned the Taliban. I too think Sharia is awful and don't see how any of this gets bin-Laden off the hook for what he's been doing. If Murray was actually praising him I think that's bad, but from what I read in the article I'm not completely convinced she was doing that as opposed to merely making related points and raising some legitimate questions about our policies methods.

On another related but somewhat tangential note: while we hope democracy will catch on in the Middle East, it very well may not. Basically what is happening in Afghanistan is that we enabled them to start a democracy and they voted for Islamic law instead. Go figure. Centuries-old traditions and ideas aren't quickly changed. It is possible that we may never see the majority of the Middle Eastern governments become democratic-style governments in our lifetimes. Who knows. It might take another century or so.

[HDPM]

"Basically what is happening in Afghanistan is that we enabled them to start a
democracy and they voted for Islamic law instead. Go figure."

That is why democracy is a lousy system. Constitutional republics utilizing democratic voting principles, like the USA, should be encouraged. Sharia should be unconstitutional in places where we overthrow the prior government.

[ripdog]

I've got to agree with MMMMMM here. I read and re-read this article looking for her alleged praise of bin Laden. It ain't there. Since Patty Murray is a Senator from my state, I've had many chances to see and hear her speak on T.V. I cringe every time. She certainly comes off as a bumbling idiot, but your criticism of her here is unwarranted. Her campaign theme was "Mom in tennis shoes" and is another part of her persona that makes me ill. But I'll give you credit for sniffing out the fact that she's a moron, though.

[MMMMMM]

Technically I don't really know whether we enabled them to start a democracy or a constitutional republic utilizing democratic voting principle. Whatever the case may be, it's apparent that the ingrained ideological foundations in much of the Middle East are not easily going to change to favor our ideas of how a government or judicial system should be run.

I pretty much agree with you but I don't see any way to implement your proposal regarding outlawing Sharia unless we are going to govern Afghanistan ourselves.

[IrishHand]

Umm...aren't we supposed to be in favor of self-determination?

That's a far cry from imposing our views on another nation. (Not that that's ever stopped this country - just a point for discussion.)

Irish

[MMMMMM]

It is somewhat paradoxical. To further the confusing scenario, "self-determination" for whom? Apparently not the women, who, under Sharia, are oppressed most thoroughly? Women's rights under Sharia is almost an oxymoron.

[bernie]

she isnt supporting him. she's stating why he's popular. and she has a good point about that...

even the biggest A-Holes have some positives...and she pointed out why he is supported by his followers, not by her...

i dont agree with the anti war stance...thats a bunch of BS..sorry folks, but peace HAD it's chance...it doesnt work. or do you want yet another treaty that lasts 2 days...

b

[HDPM]

I am not for self determination in the absence of basic rights. No person has the right under "self determination" to vote in oppressive governments. No person has the right to tell another to live under Sharia. Sharia is flat out wrong and my tax dollars should not go to prop up any regime that allows it. So if we take over countries we ought not then allow them to have oppressive governments. If we don't want to meddle in the first place, well that is a different question. But there is no right of existence for oppressive regimes. Communist China has no right to self determination. They have the power unlike regimes we have toppled, but they have no moral right to exist. Other countries do have the right to self determination. We have no right to topple even pretty stupid governmnets like France. I guess I'm not a relativist, huh? /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

P.S. I want to stress that I don't think we should go around overthrowing every tinpot oppressive regime or that we have an obligation to help everyone. We shouldn't, can't and won't. But some governments or countries do not have the right of "self determination" because what they mean by that is the power to determine other's choices in a fundamentally immoral way.

[IrishHand]

So self-determination is fine so long as they determine to think like we do and choose a government accordingly? Right...

[MMMMMM]

I think there's more to it than that, Irish, and I pretty much agree with HDPM here.

Take the women's rights issue under Sharia, for instance. The list of egregious violations of women's rights in many Arab/Muslim lands is a mile long, and Amnesty International condemns it most strongly. A few examples of laws in some countries or regions under Sharia today: A woman raped must have four male witnesses who were present at the incident in order to successfully prosecute rape charges. Failing that, if she chooeses to prosecute anyway she risks being convicted of adultery and receiving a sentence of being whipped, imprisoned or even stoned to death. Women's testimony in court on other matters equals half a man's testimony. Women can be beaten, whipped or imprisoned for not wearing burqas, etc. Women are not allowed to drive. Girls cannot attend school. It just goes on and on. Now not all of those countries or regions are like that, but a lot are. Not to mention the regions where clitorectomies are popular. This barbaric operation, sometimes performed with broken bottles or tin can lids, ensures that the girl after reaching womanhood will never in her life be able to attain orgasm.

Under Sharia, religious authorities have their own police forces and their judgments and sentences cannot be questioned. It's a horrible system which violates all sorts of basic human rights. Now I can't say for sure, without looking it up, exactly which of the above are due exclusively to Sharia and which may be merely tribal customs (perhaps clitorectomies are tribal customs). But most of what is listed above is directly due to imposition of Sharia.

Let's say we liberated Afghanistan and they voted for major slavery--say of all of a certain race comprising 50% of the population were to be enslaved. We wouldn't support that and it shouldn't be allowed. Well, the human rights of women in many of these lands under Sharia is not much different than if they were slaves. And women's vote equals half (or 1/4) that of a man's vote under the legal guidelines.

By the way, I agree with HDPM that governments such as China's have no moral right to exist either, but we can't do a whole lot about it at this time, and hopefully it will change in time.

[IrishHand]

Hey...I'm certainly not advocating in favor of the governments and/or policies they appear to want to pursue. I'm a big believer that in the long run, nations will sort themselves out in a relatively positve manner, or at least in a manner consistent with human nature. I certainly agree that wholesale violent and repressive discrimination against women is wrong as a moral matter, but I don't know that we (or anyone) necessarily has the right to force it on them if they're stupid enough to want it. As their country rebuilds, becomes more 'civilized', is exposed to more education and information from around the world, I tend to think that the tendecy would be towards a less repressive approach - but that's just me, I suppose. I just think that if you're going to be a nation that champions 'self-determination', your championing shouldn't be so hypocritical. (As it turns out, I'm not a big fan of self-determination to the extreme that the US claims to support - I have no personal problem with imposing a government on them which I consider in their best interests.)

However, you have answered my question...self-determination is fine so long as they determine to think like we do and choose a government accordingly.

Irish

[MMMMMM]

But there's an insidious aspect to all this which you aren't really addressing. The women under Sharia don't have equal votes, so they can't effectively vote for their own rights (not to mention they'd probably be beaten or worse for bringing the matter up). So it's primarily the men who are choosing Sharia, which oppresses women most horribly, and the women just have to go along with it.

You seem to be assuming the women "want" this kind of opression. I think they simply have no choice. An example of this is Afghanistan--today, particularly under the rule of warlord Ismail Khan.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/herat1217.htm

There's another problem too with Sharia. Even if women had equal votes, Sharia enforces its laws on all people under its domain. So religious "crimes" such as blasphemy carry dire sentences. Now, if everyone under Sharia had voted for this it might be a different scenario. However there are minority religious groups too in these countries, and they are simply squashed under Sharia. They might not have "voted for it" but if they speak out against Sharia, or the prophet, or Islam, their heads will roll (figuratively or even literally).

[IrishHand]

When I refer to 'self-determination', I'm assuming that basically everyone has an opportunity to vote. I'm fairly certain our government wouldn't throw in one of it's puppet governments unless they could at least reasonably say that we were forcing some sort of democracy on them. Of course, if the only people voting are the men, and the consequences of the voting negatively affects the other 1/2 of the country's citizen's, then that's wrong. No objection there.

[MMMMMM]

from Le Monde Diplomatique:

(excerpt) "Kuwaiti women cannot vote - and this summer they are now to be segregated at university....

...The Islamists, Shia and Sunni, became, at the last elections of 3 July 1999, the biggest single force in parliament, in which they hold 18 of the 50 elected seats. Six of these seats are held by Shia and the remaining 12 by Sunnis: five from the Islamic Constitutional Movement (ICM, al-haraka al-dustouriya al-islamiyya), the political front of the Muslim Brotherhood, three by Salafis (1) and four by independent Islamists...

...The Islamists want to widen the role of Islamic law (sharia), the basis of personal law in Kuwait. They have long called for an amendment to Article 2 of the constitution which states that sharia is "a main source of legislation" to have the article rephrased to read that sharia is "the source of legislation." Now, according to Dr Ahmad al-Baghdadi, an expert on Islamic thought and professor at Kuwait university, they have switched their attention to Article 79: "No law may be promulgated unless it has been passed by the National Assembly and sanctioned by the Emir." To this they seek to add "and according to the sharia". (end excerpt)

http://mondediplo.com/2002/06/04kuwait

and from Aman News:

(excerpt) KUWAIT -- Massoumah al-Mubarak knows the power of democracy in Kuwait. She has felt its sting all too sharply.

When Kuwait's emir decreed women should have the vote, the freewheeling Parliament -- a rare symbol of democratic ideals in the Persian Gulf -- used its constitutional powers to overrule him. A week later legislators rejected women's suffrage again in a separate bill.

"This is what they are so proud of here," said al-Mubarak, a professor of international relations and prominent women's activist. "They use the tools of democracy to undermine democracy."

Nearly 12 years ago, U.S.-led forces drove Iraqi occupiers from Kuwait amid promises of political equality in Kuwait, promises that made it easier to sell Americans on a distant war to protect a tiny, wealthy autocracy. As U.S. troops mass here for a possible second war against Iraq, Kuwaiti democracy remains an ideal that is usually discussed using comparisons.

"Compared to the other countries around us, Kuwait is very democratic," said Waleed al-Tabtabai, a conservative Muslim lawmaker. "Saudi Arabia or Qatar, their councils are just veneer.

"In Kuwait, anybody can run and elections are free," he said.

That, however, depends on the definition of "anybody."

Of the 2.3 million people who live in Kuwait, only about 115,000 are registered voters. Nearly two-thirds of the population are foreigners, many of whom perform low-status jobs in the oil-rich nation.

Of Kuwait's 860,000 citizens, the excluded include people under 21 and naturalized citizens of less than 20 years' standing. Members of the military and the police also are barred, to keep the forces from being politicized.

Most conspicuously absent, from polling booths and candidate lists, are women.

"It's only a democracy of the few," al-Mubarak said.

Comparisons again: Just across the border in Saudi Arabia, women face employment and social restrictions and aren't even allowed to drive. Kuwaiti women are legally protected in the workplace and in education. They hold key business jobs and a few occupy top diplomatic and government posts. They can drive too.

http://www.amanjordan.org/english/daily_news/wmview.php?ArtID=527