For months, critics have observed that the rebels in Libya contains worrisome elements of religious extremists and that the rebel forces have been accused of war crimes (as have the government forces). The concern is that, like our work in Afghanistan (ultimately helping Al Qaeda and the Taliban), we have little understanding of who we are bringing to power in Libya in our intervention into that civil war. That concern is magnified this week by the release of the draft constitution, which (unless changed) would make Sharia law the governing law of Libya.
Of course, much appears in flux in Tripoli and this is just a draft. Yet, we have reason to be concerned. We have a long line of cases exploring the abuses and atrocities committed in various governments in the name of Sharia law.
Here is Part 1, Article 1: “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).”
If this clause remains in any final version, Libya will join countries like Iran in imposing religious law on a population. Not only is it a rejection of the separation of church and state, it would make a mockery of other guarantees of due process.
It is interesting that this issue was raised by the conservative Heritage Foundation, which seems supportive of faith-based programs and legislation in the United States. Heritage (before which I have spoken in past years) is not viewed by civil libertarians as particularly strong on separation issues. Some of us disagree with faith-based politics and legislation regardless of whether it is Judeo-Christian or Muslim.
There is of course great disagreement over the proper enforcement or even meaning of Sharia precepts. However, the treatment of women, religious freedom, free speech, and the methods of punishment have been a constant source of abuses in Sharia-based systems.
It is not clear how much support this draft has within the transitional government, but the story highlights how little we know of the intentions of leaders or factions in this new government.
“If people want Sharia Law, that becomes the “due process”. We may think it is a bad choice, but other than that, what’s the problem? Are you saying that this is not truly the choice of the people, or are you saying that even if it is, they should not be allowed to make it.”
*****************
Were I asked, I would be saying precisely that. Come on Martin, “the people” do lots of stupid things. That’s why ours is a republic where we can have some control over the ebbs and flows of often-times passion-inspired public sentiment. William F. Buckley may have wanted to be govened by the first 100 names in the Boston telephone directory as opposed to the faculty of Harvard but not me, and certainly not the Founders. The basic premise is that the majority may be trusted with many decisions in society but not all decisions. Protection of minority interests (as is the essence of the doctrine of the separation of church and state) seems one decision best left to persons with the experience and intellect to consider it. You might recall our Founders held no illusions about teh desirability of mob rule. It was Jefferson who said, ““A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” So at the risk of making you agahst, there are some things that the majority of people should be protected from (and even deprived of) even if a great majority really, really, really, want it. That’s the role of leaders in a republic.
That’s a good point. You must be upset then by the arrest of demonstrators in front of the White House for assembling to present grievances to the government, only to be arrested for blocking the view of the fountain, in violation of 36 CFR 7.96 g.5.viii, a time-place-manner restriction justified by the injury to the feelings of a conjectured passerby. http://bit.ly/36CFR796
martingugino:
The problem arises when one believes that certain rights are unalienable.
Franklin Roosevelt supposedly said of Anastasio Somoza that “He may be a son of a bitch but he’s our son of a bitch. That was in the 30’s. That might also not be true but that sensibility seems to capture the driving force behind much if not most of America’s dealings with it’s allies, puppets, and collaborators for all of my life. We have installed or propped up or paid off or made alliances of convenience and profit with too many sons of bitches over the years to just chalk it up to ignorance IMO.
As long as the little people are suppressed/oppressed long enough for us to get what we want or need I don’t think we really care if they’re abused by the whims of a vicious dictator or a primitive system of law. The only real failing is to misread the signs of the coming backlash against our SOB and be left on the sidelines, frozen out of the new government once the next change actually takes place, a generation or three or five down the road. That sure seems to be the pattern I’ve seen over the last 40+ years anyway.
One would have hoped that this new government- whatever it might be, would not have continued Sharia law simply because it was imposed by Gaddifi. The new constitution isn’t a change in that regard, just a continuation of a bad idea to begin with. Maybe it’s a “here comes the new boss, same as the old boss” situation. We’ll see.
U.S. support for revolutionaries backfiring? Who could have seen THAT coming?
you are right AY. Just how did our oil get under there sand?
It has been reported that France and Italy have the most to gain as they gave the most support to the rebels.
raff,
We are backing the interests that backs BP….someone said here that that is our (Britains) oil under there soil…..
Mr Turley:
If people want Sharia Law, that becomes the “due process”. We may think it is a bad choice, but other than that, what’s the problem? Are you saying that this is not truly the choice of the people, or are you saying that even if it is, they should not be allowed to make it.
Separation of church and state, I think, means that the state will decide the laws, and enforce them, not the church. The church can do its own thing. But if the people and the state want the same laws as the church, what prevents the state from making that so? We in the USA have laws, some of which are moral, and some of which are immoral, and that is the officially accepted design.
But I think it is only on the basis of practicality that you can argue that that is the way it should be. Maybe they are just not that practical.
The mistake the US has made since embarking on its imperialist course of many, many years has been to use the pretense of backing “Democracy” against “Totalitarianism” in our misadventures. None of our imperialist ventures have been altruistic, rather they all represent naked national self interest, at least as defined by the then current administration.
When our ill founded interventions don’t turn out as planned their backers, dismayed at their misjudgments, either try cover-ups or endless attempts to make their mistakes have better endings. At present Iraq and Afghanistan are excellent examples and I fear Libya will follow. Off the top of my head the Spanish-American War, the Phillipine takeover, the removal of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran, The Bay of Pigs and Viet Nam are examples of misguided and bloody interventions reaping unintended consequences.
I believe that there are two main factors causing these mistaken ventures. The first is “American Exceptionalism”, the belief that
the US represents the only valid cultural perspective. There is a subtle subtext of racialism present in this idea mingling with the lack of respect for cultures far older than ours. This leads to a belief that we should impose our values upon other societies, rather than allowing them to resolve their own issues.
The second factor is the conflation of what are wrongly conceived as our economic interests, with our national interests. This conflation mixes up the desires of Corporate America for greater resources, with the exigencies of our foreign policy. As Dredd mentioned, oil is certainly a driving force, but other factors like even the interests of The United Fruit Company have prevailed.
The solution of almost all of this country’s economic and social problems lies in our rejecting these false foreign policy premises of the Beltway Establishment and concentrating on putting our own house in order. Unfortunately, the prospects for this are bleak.
When the Mullahs take charge, I wonder how war cheerleaders McCain and Graham will spin it.
There are many forms and interpretations of sharia law. Hope it ends well for the Libyan people.
When we back something, those in charge need to keep the Law of Unintended Consequences firmly in mind. Unfortunately, hardly anyone ever does. Unbridled optimism worked really well for the Soviets in Afghanistan and for the US in Vietnam. Not.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/08/22/lessons-of-the-libyan-endgame/libya-and-democracy-now-be-patient It takes years to build a democracy. This is a transitional period.
religious law is great – as long as it is my religion, when it is yours it is evil. The problem with any revolution is there is no good way to predict the eventual replacement government. The US has proven this time and time again over the last 150 years as we have interfered, invaded and toppled in every corner of the globe.
Yet it will be surprising if Libya, Egypt and Iraq all don’t end up as religious dictatorships. Religion is a strong unifying force so other interest groups will quarrel with themselves while they remain unified. The invisible sky wizard grants permission to commit the most foul deeds and to lie and cheat with the sure knowledge the work is being done for His glory. Other groups may hesitate and doubt at critical moments but not the religiously insane. So they are in a much stronger position to take advantage of the vacuum after the collapse of a strongman.
If it happened in the US it would be “Biblical Law” and many of those screaming the loudest about Sharia would be thrilled at the prospect.
Gemma:
“… but as a first draft concept system of laws its a huge improvement on the law of Gadaffi, and something to build on.”
*****************
I am not sure how you “build on” the “unerring word of the Creator of the Universe.” Religion is inherently totalitarian and this provision merely propogates religion as the basis for law. Imagine the blasphemy if they had merely said “
Islam is the Religion of the StateReason is the principal source of legislationis Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” Not sure how trading one earthbound dictator for a celestial one is a “huge improvement.”“we have little understanding of who we are bringing to power in Libya in our intervention into that civil war”
That is because it is not a war of liberation to instill western legal structures, it was a war about who controls oil in the future until it runs out.
Months ago “the rebels” began shipping oil to the U.S. before there was even a certainty of “victory” or a “constitution”.
All there was then, in the public eye, were these rusted out Toyota pickup trucks carrying guys with beards and guns around to and fro as they yelled slogans.
If you believe those guys did all that on their own for western democratic ideals, I know of a bridge sale coming up soon.
You are right to criticize our government for not really knowing who we are backing in this revolution. That seems to be the American way.
I’m not a huge fan of Sharia in fact I find it hugely distasteful, but as a first draft concept system of laws its a huge improvement on the law of Gadaffi, and something to build on.