“What exactly is Muqtada al Sadr's crime?

[Disturbed]

“What exactly is Muqtada al Sadr's crime?

Is he a former Ba'athist who seeks to reinstate the Saddam regime?
No.

Is he a terrorist who is encouraging the random bombings and kidnappings around Baghdad?
No.

Is he a "foreign fighter" who has entered Iraq to destabilize the country and undermine its prospects for democracy?
No.

Al Sadr's crime is that he is an Iraqi nationalist and a popular leader who categorically rejects the colonial aspirations of the Bush administration.
Period.”
By MIKE WHITNEY

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08142004.html

[jrthin]

1. Don't you know,

anyone who gets in the bushies way is committing a crime.

[Disturbed]

2. Uh...right...

I forgot that.

I believe that if al Sadr survives for a few more months that the US Iraqi colonization could end. Al Sadr is becoming the person that Iraqis are beginning to view as their leader. If the US along with their puppets keep offending the entire Muslim world most of Iraq will erupt in outright rebellion against the already hated Occupation.

[German-Lefty]

3. He is accused of assassinating a rival cleric

The warrant, which has yet to be finalised, cites Mr Sadr for instigating a deadly attack on Abdel Majid al-Khoei, who was stabbed to death by a mob in the Shia holy city of Najaf on April 10.
http://discuss.agonist.org/yabbse/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=12574

Maybe it's trumped up. Maybe not. Al Sadr is made of the same stuff as the religious right in the US. People interested in democracy aren't quite sure they can trust him.

[sushi]

6. If al- Sadr is responsible

for the stabbing of one man, who is responsible for the bombings that caused the deaths of a large number of people this past 16 months in Iraq? Why is only al-Sadr the target? Isn't it because he is anti-coalition, who threatens the position of the puppet (ex-CIA?) who was appointed by a council, which was appointed by the coalition?

[German-Lefty]

7. Maybe, but your enemy's enemy isn't always your friend

There are going to be lots of factions fighting for control of this new country. The religious thugs with guns make me nervous. Sure maybe Al Sadr will turn out to be the George Washington of Iraq, but don't hold your breath.

The reason these thugs with guns have such power and political support is because the coalition screwed off policing and protecting the population from itself leaving a power vacuum.

I don't agree with a lot of the things the US does, but not everyone who is against the US is therefor my friend.

[sushi]

4. By going after Moqtada al-Sadr

the coalition is showing the Iraqis that if you fight outsiders who invaded your country and refuse to leave when you want them to, you, yes, you are the criminal and should be brought to justice!

[Disturbed]

5. Liberation

The Iraqis should be able to chose whatever style of Govt. they wish. The US Puppet Govt. has no legal authority in Iraq. It was appointed by the US.

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat. Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

"The notion that Iraq today is a sovereign state governed by Iraqis is a grotesque fiction. Every Iraqi citizen, regardless of political views or religious affiliation, is aware of the actual status of the country. And if the BBC carries on in this fashion, its credibility, already at an all-time low, could disappear altogether. Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser, declared some months back: "We want to change the Iraqi mind." But the US-funded Arab TV channel called Truth has proved a dismal failure. And now, to prevent any alternative images from reaching Iraqis and the rest of the world, a plucky puppet at the "ministry of information" has banned al-Jazeera TV from reporting out of Iraq - a traditional recipe from an oppressive cookbook.

The "handover", designed largely to convince US citizens that they could now relax and re-elect Bush, was also an invitation to the western media to downgrade coverage of Iraq, which it dutifully did. As Paul Krugman noted in the New York
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1859845835/counterpunchmaga newspapers, and largely off TV screens. Many people got the impression that things had improved. Even journalists were taken in: newspaper stories asserted that the rate of US losses there fell after the hand-off. (Actual figures: 42 American soldiers died in June, and 54 in July)." Tariq Ali

http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq08122004.html

[radwriter0555]

8. Defending his country from the invasion of a rogue regime owned by

HALLIBURTON and slaughtered by US taxpayer funded nazi americans....

[G_j]

9. food for thought

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081304A.shtml

Lawful Resistance to Occupation in Najaf
By Marjorie Cohn

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 13 August 2004

Anyone who tunes in to the cable news channels these days would hardly realize our Commander-in-Chief is presiding over a new campaign of aerial terror against the Iraqi people in the holy city of Najaf. In his nightly prayers, George W. Bush should remember those prosecuting Scott Peterson's murder trial, which is wall-to-wall fare on television this week.

<snip>

Journalist and writer Paul-Marie de La Gorce said in an interview in Le Nouvel Observateur this week that the al-Qaeda forces, which have come to Iraq just to confront the United States, do not enjoy popular support among the Iraqi people.

But much of the opposition to the occupation appears to be legal under international law. People have a right to resist illegal occupation. In her report, "Terrorism and Human Rights," United Nations Rapporteur Kalliopi Koufa cited with approval the 1999 Convention of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference on Combating International Terrorism:

"People's struggles including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of international law shall not be considered a terrorist crime."
..more..

[theboss]

10. Once there was a time....

When a theological zealot who believes in oppression of women and Jews would not be defended by a Left-winger.

As someone else said, just because he is opposed to Bush doesn't mean we have to like him.

[G_j]

12. I don't see it as a question of defending or liking

this man. I see it as a question of international law.
There are scores of theological zealots who believes in oppression of women and Jews. Is it legal for the US Marines to try to kill them?

[H2O Man]

11. The United States doesn't understand al Sadr today

because they never could understand Malcolm X in the 1950s & '60s. While there is no chance of him becoming a friend of our country, it is possible that he does not have to be an enemy. What is he actually demanding? Community control? Self rule? An Islamic state?

If this administration is in favor of Israel being a Jewish state, and they believe the USA is a Christian nation, then why is it so dangerous for Iraq (or the section of Iraq that Sadr represents) to form an Islamic state?

I am not saying that we should support al Sadr, or kill him in an attempt to deny his message. But we might want to take an objective look at what he represents, both good and bad. I think we can afford to do that. I'm not sure we can afford not to.

[Cocoa]

13. he's a "thug"

that's what the TV pundits tell me.

None of them have been to Iraq, but they are very confident that Sadr doesn't have real support. They tell me that the REAL leader of the Shiites is the highly respected Sistani, who is now in London with a convenient heart ailment.