Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Brutal Law Strips Afghan Women of Rights -- Where's the Outrage?

By Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group. Posted April 2, 2009.


Afghan President Hamid Karzai just signed a law consigning the women of Afghanistan to lives of terrible repression.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Afghanistan's women are no longer in vogue.

It was only a few years ago that Laura Bush, who normally shied from causes that could be considered controversial, took up their banner. "The brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists," the first lady said in a radio address shortly after President Bush launched the U.S-led invasion to overthrow the Taliban following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control."

That was then. This is now: Afghan President Hamid Karzai has just signed a law that forces women to obey their husbands' sexual demands, keeps women from leaving the house -- even for work or school -- without a husband's permission, automatically grants child custody rights to fathers and grandfathers before mothers, and favors men in inheritance disputes and other legal matters. In short, the law again consigns Afghan women to lives of brutal repression.

"This is really, really dangerous for everybody in Afghanistan," Soraya Sobhrang of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission said in a telephone interview from Kabul. Noting that violence against women already is rampant, Sobhrang said the new law effectively "legalizes all violence against women in Afghanistan."

The legislation zoomed through Afghanistan's parliament. Karzai, who faces elections in August, signed it in an apparent effort to placate conservative religious forces that are said to hold the balance of power in his re-election bid. The United Nations Development Fund for Women is still analyzing a final version of the legislation but says it is "seriously concerned." The law appears to contradict both the Afghan constitution, which guarantees equal rights for men and women, and international conventions on human rights.

The U.S. State Department has had no comment.

Afghanistan's women are, apparently, the latest casualty of the Obama administration's tilt toward realpolitik: ignore human rights violations -- whether they're in China or Russia or in the quiet misery of an Afghan villager's home -- in pursuit of larger foreign policy goals.

This contradiction between political rhetoric and policy reality has often been the American way. But now we have Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. When she was first lady, she championed the rights of women oppressed by the Taliban long before most Americans had ever heard of that radical regime. Clinton took the helm of the State Department vowing to elevate the cause of human and economic rights for women and girls -- a pledge she made again in The Hague this week at the end of a major conference on Afghanistan that was aimed at securing greater international cooperation on the desperate and disparate crises there.

"My message is very clear. Women's rights are a central part of American foreign policy in the Obama administration; they are not marginal, they are not an add-on or an afterthought," Clinton said in response to a general question about the situation confronting women in Afghan society. "You cannot expect a country to develop if half its population [is] underfed, undereducated, under-cared-for, oppressed, and left on the sidelines."

The secretary was not asked specifically about the new law. Among its other provisions, it guarantees that married men can have sex once every four nights and wives must submit. In effect, it legalizes marital rape. Sobhrang worries there may be worse to come. "They are talking about child marriage," she says.

Without pressure from the foreign powers that hold so much sway in Afghanistan, there was little that even the women in the country's parliament could do. Sobhrang faults those who were quiet in the face of the clear effort by a religious faction to reimpose medieval mores on a country that is in many ways a ward of the contemporary international community.

The ugly truth is that Afghanistan has long been sliding back into the violent chaos that is friendly political ground for the Taliban and other extremist groups. Women have, as usual, been among the chief victims.

There is indeed a lengthy and urgent to-do list for the Obama administration, which says it is determined to abandon a failing course. But that does not mean the United States should again fail Afghanistan's women.

To consign them to what Laura Bush correctly called "deliberate human cruelty" is cruelty itself.

 


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: war, women, afghanistan, karzai

Marie Cocco is a prize-winning syndicated columnist on political and cultural topics for The Washington Post Writers Group. She is a frequent commentator on national TV and radio shows.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Where's the Outrage?
Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on Apr 4, 2009 12:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US has become a nation of trained monkeys and whipped dogs.


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It’s not PC to denigrate Islam.
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist... on Apr 4, 2009 1:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember yesterday’s lesson boys and girls?

Muslims do not like:
Secular, Assimilation, Reformation, Jihadi, Moderate, Interfaith, Freedom, Religious Freedom or Tolerance.

And don’t even think about mentioning the fact that Mohammad, damnation be upon him, raped his 9 year old niece Fatama.

Thank Allah for little girls

Please do not waste your time replying to this comment with some filibuster like "Oh Yea, Well Jews… Well Christians…”

I have no use for any sky daddy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Is the Quran the word of god for mudslums or not? Posted by: Honky the Nihilist...
» Welcome to the PC-Free Zone Posted by: 2dogarage
As I sit here at my desk in Kabul,
Posted by: profmarcus on Apr 4, 2009 1:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to point out that 1) I have seen more outrage expressed on European media (BBC, France 24) and al Jazeera English than I've seen on CNN International or in any other U.S. media (alternative outlets and blogs notwithstanding); and 2) there has been little outrage expressed or even attention paid by Afghan media or by my Afghan friends and colleagues.

Why #2 you may ask? The sad reality is that laws in Afghanistan are merely window dressing to either appease or to look good for a particular constituency, be it the U.S. (or anyone else with deep pockets) or a domestic political or religious group (as is the case with the law cited in this post). The fact is that, even with a law on the books, the likelihood - or even the possibility - of enforcement is next to nil. The prevailing customs among villages, tribal and religious groups hold sway and laws or executive decrees that come out of Kabul are essentially meaningless.

My point is, don't make any assumptions whatsoever about the existence of the rule of law in Afghanistan.

And, yes, I DO take it personally

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are sending out finest to the last breath for the marketing of Democracy?
Posted by: godsbreath64 on Apr 4, 2009 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ENOUGH?

Just hankering for a hunk a change, alright.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

remember where the brutal law originates from
Posted by: masthead on Apr 4, 2009 3:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“…Afghan President Hamid Karzai has just signed a law that forces women to obey their husbands' sexual demands, keeps women from leaving the house -- even for work or school…etc”

a connection should be made, or at least mentioned in the article, to Islamic religion, to muslim sharia law. is it because we must not mention those ten words not to use with muslims? (see alternet's article "10 terms not to use with muslim" -- alternet is enforcing its silly protocol about a link being too long.)

i can see another stupid argument from the same corner of screamers starting all over again: shouts of racism, you're hateful,etc. boo hoo

why is the US still supporting a head of state who enforces a medieval system of religion to control women?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Check Ingredients of Tainted Cookies Posted by: americansheep
» RE: remember where the brutal law originates from Posted by: Robert G. Mac Donald.M.D.
The Politically Incorrect Truth
Posted by: DrBrian on Apr 4, 2009 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the risk of political incorrectness, I'll point out that the Qur'an and Islamic tradition do support this odious law, and to be even more politically incorrect I'll point out that a number of passages in the Bible convey similar messages. Most American fundamentalist Christians assert that a wife should "graciously submit to her husband."

Fundamentalists of all stripes--Hindu, Jewish, Christian and Muslim--are misogynistic. The true conflict isn't between one faith and another, but between the progressives and moderates of all faiths and the fundamentalists of all faiths.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Politically Incorrect Truth Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin
What some Afghan women say
Posted by: BJH on Apr 4, 2009 5:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please!!!!!!!!!! Stop pretending that the occupation of Afghanistan has anything to do with helping the women of that nation (read Katharine Viner's essay "Feminism as Imperialism").

The USA set up the puppet government with ex-Unocal oil salesman Karzai at the top surrounded by war/drug lords notorious for their human rights abuses. What would anyone reasonably expect to be the results for the women of Afghanistan?

You can find out what some Afghan women say about the effect of NATO for women there by checking rawa.org or googling Malalai Joya.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What some Afghan women say Posted by: dcande01
Outrage--here and moving forth
Posted by: littlepitcher on Apr 4, 2009 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ALL Middle-eastern religions are bigoted against women. Folks, that means Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Farsi, Ahrimanism, and Satanism. That's the one and only reason they are not wiped off the face of the earth or laughed off the planet.: Men protect them.

Where did I recently read that 30% of Afghanistan is addicted to heroin? The men process it and smoke it in the house. Women and children breathe the fumes, become addicted, suffer withdrawals. Americans and Russians (20-% addicted, per The Daily Beast) purchase the stuff and keep Talibastards and AlQuaeda in business.

DO not call Americans bigoted or prejudiced when we treat Middle Eastern religions as social pathologies. We should be taking in these women and children as political refugees of illegal imprisonment, and to Levantine Hell with their disgusting cultural values.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has anyone started a petition yet?
Posted by: missingpiece on Apr 4, 2009 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We really need a website dedicated to all progressive petitions, so that when stuff like this happens we can immediatly send out a unified petition to our representives. Move on is good but why don't they incorporate union of concerned scientists or other progressive websites. Maybe a twitter page that collects all progressive petitions and tweets them to the followers. Theres got to be hundreds of good progressive sites that just need a good way to bring all there petitions to one site, so that all progressives can start a organized and united drive to change america for the better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Do they do any good? Posted by: Beck
» RE: Do they do any good? Posted by: fork
» RE: Do they do any good? Posted by: VZEQICVA
and in the USA????
Posted by: lokicat on Apr 4, 2009 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the US, Southern Baptist women are to 'submit graciously' to their husbands demands for sex anytime, anywhere. How is that different from this brand of Islam calling on women to be 'ever-ready'to male impulses? And the Southern Baptists are just the most obvious example.

in both instances it's sexual slavery and oppression. "Women and children first" when it comes to disempowering most of humankind.
Religions EXIST solely to keep the female half of the population pregnant, poor, dependent, demoralized, self-hating, and obedient. That way males can keep up the lie that they are superior and entitled, by some godling's mandate, to rule evermore. Sick.

no sky god for me, either nor any imaginary friend, no mystical holy spirit

gentlewoman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: and in the USA???? Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: and in the USA???? Posted by: dcande01
» RE: and in the USA???? Posted by: chomsky
» RE: and in the USA???? Posted by: dimityrose
» RE: and in the USA???? Posted by: missingpiece
We just heard it from Obama
Posted by: aonghus36 on Apr 4, 2009 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
His side of the story is that we're there to fight al-Qaeda to protect us from another attack. He sent his objections to the Karzai government. So, that is Obama's story, and he is sticking to it. My interpretation is that we will be in Afghanistan even if the Karzai government starts building concentration camps and starts slaughtering their ethnic minorities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God On Their Side
Posted by: QQOblivion on Apr 4, 2009 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, Karzai and the Afghan parliament pushed through the law to appease conservative religious nuts.

SOUND FAMILIAR ???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In The News
Posted by: QQOblivion on Apr 4, 2009 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good news, maybe. Karzai will review the law. Obama has said the law is "abhorrent". Criticism of the law has been coming in from more enlightened nations.

FYI: The law only applied to Shia Afghans. A separate law is being drawn up for Sunnis. (What that will entail, I do not know.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is what happens when religion rules
Posted by: bbq on Apr 4, 2009 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans should take this as a lesson in our future if we continue to allow Xtianity and it's far right wingers to run our gov't. Separation of church and state is being run down here in the US, and this is only a premonition of what we have to look forward to if we don't get god out of our gov't. But frankly, I feel for those Afghan women, but I feel more strongly about the women here in the US who are poor, opressed and abused. Let's work in our own damn country for a change, there's plenty to be done. When we fix this, then we can go and fix the rest of the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Afghanistan- a hopeless malthusian mess?
Posted by: leemiller38 on Apr 4, 2009 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With completed fertiliy rates of 7 per woman and aided and abetted by such laws as this one, is there much hope for this sad nation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It'd be nice
Posted by: willymack on Apr 4, 2009 10:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If OUR OWN HOUSE WAS IN APPLE PIE ORDER,and we would be correct and proper in criticising other nations' policies and laws. But it's most certainly NOT, and we should mind our own business. In case you've forgotten:
1. In November of 2000, the rethugs and their stooges STOLE the election from winner, Al Gore, in broad daylight and as blatently illegal and unconstitutional as anything in our history. We, the people stood meekly by and let this travesty take place.
2. We embarked on two ruinous and unwinnable "wars" based on the LIES of the bush crime family.
3. We stood by as the bushies laid waste to the enviornment, the Contsitution, and our national dignity and standing in the world community.
4.We watched in horror as it became apparent that people who had our respect turned out to be nothing more than crooks and thieves, threatening the very existence of our society and freedoms.
Shouldn't we be focusing more on righting things here and spending less time condemning other nations?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SHHhhhhhhhhh............
Posted by: cindyn on Apr 4, 2009 12:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's got Afghanistan now. No criticism allowed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh KISS MY ASS ! He can't have Afghanistan ! Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: SHHhhhhhhhhh............ Posted by: willymack
EQUALITY TAKES TIME
Posted by: peteralter on Apr 4, 2009 1:03 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What many people don't seem to realize is that changes in the Western world did not occur overnight and we did not have other people from other countries occupying our country telling us what to do! THE TRUTH IS THAT these Afghan men have been brainwashed by other men (who themselves were brainwashed by others who were,...). Change might occur, but I doubt it will be facilitated by occupying another country! I doubt that men there will give up the great marketing, imaginary, and totally unprovable idea of virgin women in heaven for equality! I doubt the force of religion (and extremism) will disappear, especially now! I dare say the imposition of our values and occupation and killings will exacerbate the issue, not make change occur! How long did it take for Europe to get rid of the grip of Catholicism/Protestantism to the degree that it is now? So long as men are alive and believing the nonsense of religious and/or extremism, there will be inequalities.

Religion was and is used by the rich to protect themselves and to have the poor accept their condition so that they won't revolt.

Consumerism (a palace or two and 3 cars and a boat) and indebtedness are the new religion! How would it feel to have a few Talibans occupy our country and tell us that cave-dwelling is fantastic?

While equality is nice, I could name many men who feel they have been duped by some nasty woman/wife who took his children away and his money to boot! With 90% of custody cases going to women (which may or may not be related to the type of men that was chosen by the woman and a legal/police system that favour women), I am sure that there are a few men that would love to go back to their cave (with a computer and a satellite TV, of course)!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: QUALITY TAKES TIME Posted by: richholland
All Religions Who are God based are Cults
Posted by: Blacktiger1 on Apr 4, 2009 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been studying the works of Zecharia Sitchin, and it has become obvious that all laws concerning the "evilness of women" and the control of all such "evilness" is nothing more than a patriarchical will. The Religions of Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Judea, are all nothing but myths put forth by men for their own benifit.
It is time to take the power away from religious cults. The end of days as we know will soon be upon us and instead of killing each other over myths and men's obsessions, we find a way to save the"seeds" of humanity.
YES, The Destroyer is soon to be seen with the naked eye, but by then it will be too late to save the present populations of Earth. The Anunnaki and the Nefilim are returning upon Nibiru to collect the gold we have accumilated.With the return of this giant planet and its satillites we will be battered with all manner of asteroids and gravity caused catastrofies. These are the "real" gods of mankind. Returning after 3600 years, after the myths perpetrated after previous visits,we will see the "true face of god" and it's not smiling!!!
Please just look for yourself,search Google, Zecharia Sitchin,Nibiru,Planet X, read "Earth Chronicles" check out book #4 in the series, "The End of Days". Your Governments will do nothing to help mankind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am Outraged!
Posted by: change on Apr 4, 2009 1:43 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am outraged for these women for these men and for the children!we must not forget the central tenants of contemporary gender theory(feminism)is for equality between all men, women,transgenders, children despite, race, class, RELIGION... Therefore we should ask why this is happening in the contexts of history and contemporary foreign affairs? making men out to be the bad guy does little to solve the bigger problem,the question is why is there this turn to fundamentalism globally? The answer is because of foreign intervention and oppression as a result of colonialism and post-colonialism...So we need to solve the bigger problem why people are so desperate they seek to use religion to pervert and control when religion is about liberation,love and equality!possibly because they themselves are powerless, oppressed, in a sense the men have been raped by the world for decades as well.... So we must insist for self-representation by the Afghan people....men and women alike and recognize our dirty hands in the west in creating these situations which creates these cess pools of hate !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MEANWHILE, BACK HERE IN THE U.S.
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Apr 4, 2009 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have states that do not have laws forbidding a man from raping his wife. We have several religions that allow 50 year old geezers to rape 15-16- year old girls and force them to have their babies. It's some kind of marriage. This is done in the name of God and is protected under the Constitution. I fail to see the difference. I feel sorry for any woman aywhere who has to live this way, but it is not limited to Afganistan. It's wrong no matter where it happens. But it is legitimized by Law in the U.S. and by the Quran in other countries. The men who engage in this lifestyle are not about to allow anything to change. And the women's hands are tied, sometimes literally. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The dog-eat-dog against women is similar here in the US.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 4, 2009 4:07 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Out here in the rural heartland, both men and women fight against women's rights all too often. The men, I can understand their evil intents but the women? They're just plain nuts. Usually though, of the women who fight against women's rights, it's the older women more than the younger ones. On a good note though, I have seen that decline some. Maybe the older ones are starting to have a heart once again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Islam Versus Heroin Warlords
Posted by: PaulK on Apr 4, 2009 6:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Islam started as an Abrahamic faith. The Koran discusses Jesus, Mary, Moses, Cain, the usual Bible heroes. Mainstream Muslims say that killing people is evil.

This idea of committing suicide against relatively innocent people and thereby bringing the survivors' wrath down upon your community is a relatively brand new variant of Islam. I'll call it Deathlam.

Heroin manufacture is a corporatist faith. It tolerates both Islam and Christianity as long as they don't oppose profits. If people get in the way of profits they get shot, unless a cheaper solution can be found.

The warlords are Muslims, except for the part about being heroin warlords. They have no real faith. They can be bought off for a while.

Some entrepreneurs have realized that Deathlam and being a heroin warlord are completely compatible, the worst of both worlds.

The U.S. chooses sides. They can't stand any of the powers, really, and they wander streets full of hungry people looking for "democracy".

Lately the U.S. has been coming down on the side of the corporatist heroin warlords. This is death for democracy, not that democracy was never alive in Afghanistan. It's also not good for the U.S. streets or for the U.S. economy.

Sub-Genius ideologues in the U.S. decide that it's all the fault of Islam. Ideologues in Afghanistan decide that it's all the fault of non-Muslims, especially U.S. citizens. Ideologues in the Weimar Republic in 1930 decided everything on earth was the fault of the international Jewish bankers. I think that blaming everything on large groups and categories of people is a game for real dorks, preferably played when plastered. It's not a substitute for careful analysis.

As for a bunch of ideologues in Afghanistan suppressing women because they feel like it, well, what do you expect?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No. 11
Posted by: YogiBear on Apr 4, 2009 6:51 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Publishing this entire article seems to be inviolation of Chris Seiple's 10 things not to say to a muslim piece.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What the hell did you expect?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Apr 4, 2009 7:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Nation building" would be successful? That Muslims would suddenly find value in human life--especially the 'dirty women-folk'? That "heart and mind" winning was actually working?

What? You BELIEVED that shit your buddy Bush was peddling? Good gosh folks, a cab driver was on trial for his life for converting so-called Christianity in the early days of new-found Afghani "liberation". They like that sort of stuff, and pile sentencing rape victims to murder, while you're at it. Are you folks newly literate, or have you merely had your heads up Bush's butt too long?

I cite this article as just another reason that the U.S. should not be involved in these countries that prefer administration by cave-dweller analogues, save for eradicating the occasional primate who amasses enough of our training to find a way to hurt us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE HIDDEN LEECHES IN TRANSNATIONAL TREATY
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Apr 5, 2009 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ONCE AGAIN DEMS are attempting to re-vive the mislabled fairness doctrine which disguises SHARIA LAW how??? only this time you got it!!! they want to call it a new name ---the TRANSNATIONAL TREATY and by seeking GLOBALISM.

THIS treaty means that anything that happens in USA courts that GOV DOESN'T LIKE they simply have it kicked out of courts at all levels and then give it to the UN/SHARIA LAW international court (icc) whom will IMPOSE their SHARIA LAW WILL ON THE PEOPLE.

WHAAT IS SHARIA LAW--it states

1. it is illegal to be a christian or any religion different from Muslim
2. it is punishible by death to claim any of the muslim/islam/sharia law murder rapes and terrorist activity are 'bad'
3. it would mean female mutilation would become common place.
4. it would mean that all non-muslims land monies possessions would be confiscatable at whim by the GLOBAL/UN GOVERNMENT.

THIS would for example entail that any USA CITIZEN could be apprehended by local Muslim authorities for an offense, real or imagined slammed into the ICC and flown to the Hage, netherlands where they would rot for months waiting for trial and done ENTIRELY without due process. they would get not trial and no confronting of accusers, No protection from double jeopardy and no unanimous verdict for a conviction.



Take a second to THINK about this all of the globalists within and without the USA think the murderous Al Qaida terriorists should have these rights HOWEVER NOT OUR US SOLDIERS and NOT OUR US CITIZENS.


24 hours after the UN accepted the SHARIA LAW 30 christians were kicked out of their home and their lands and possesions and everything why??? because the country was SHARIA LAW and the GOV FELT LIKE IT.

however, in the media they said that since they aren't be-heading people that it terrorists are 'somehow' not that bad anymore.

You can bet that if the USA is allowed themselves to be bamboozled by this that it won't be 24 hours before they kick everyone else and resume all their other behaviors because the USA WILL HAVE NO RIGHTS PEOPLE.

CLINTON IN 2000 gave his blessing to the whole globalist thing on the UN "INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC). The DEMOCRATS all along want to make US citizens SERVANTS TO THE UN AS OUR GOVERNMENT instead of a country governed by WE THE PEOPLE.

Thankfully a handful of protestors in SEATTLE WASH REMEMBA?? SECURED our freedom and

Thankfully Bush saw the serious threat this Socialist star chamber posed to our military and he told them to stuff a sock in it. Apparantly at that time the UN was insulted by it. Although the REPUBLICANS tried twice to negotiate immunity for US peacekeepers thru the Sec Council

SEE --CIVI COUNCIL THOMAS CROMWELL also Amer Ctr for Law and Justice and The National Center for public policy research AND familysecuritymatters.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DEMS HIDING COSTS OF SOC HEALTHCARE THAT MAKES IT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OUR PRESENT SYSTEM
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Apr 5, 2009 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EVERYWHERE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE HAS BEEN TRIED IT HAS FAILED.

The DEMS BRAND of getting around using the term SOCIALIZED MEDICINE is to dress up their BIG GOVERNMENT schemes to bamboozle public by calling it UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE OR HEALTH CARE FOR ALL to 'diguise' the fact it should be labeled as ----HEALTHCARE FOR NONE so the BIG GOV can pocket the funds.

NO matter how these DEMS CALL soc med it always has the same RESULTS---RATIONED HEALTHCARE, DENIAL OF ESSENTIAL MEDICAL SERVICE, WAITING LISTS, MEDIOCRE MEDICINE, AND UNNECESSARY SUFFERING AND DEATH. and for whaaat?? so gov can pocket the funds. always the bottom line.

DO you want to know what the ACLU thinks about how 'STUPID' they view Americans. QUOTE Americans will never "knowingly" accept Socialism, but DISGUISED under "liberalism" Americans will accept every fragment; and one day wake up in a Socialist Nation and "wonder" how it all happened to them.

don't believe it??? here's what NORMAN THOMAS one of co-founder's of ACLU says about USA quote-- Americans will never "knowingly" accept Socialism, but under "liberalism" Americans will accept every fragment; and one day wake up in a Socialist Nation and "wonder" how it all happened.

Here we have the DEMS always needing a bigger shovel for the level of UTOPIAN propaganda they want to throw at the UNSUSPECTING PUBLIC

the latest??? FILMAKER MICHALE MOORE even made a propaganda 'feature film' claiming that Cuba's socialized healthcare is better than America's and that USA should imitate Cuba.

CUBA---they are FORCED to BEG tourists for common medicines like allergy and asthma inhalers and even aspirin.


go see-- National Center for Public Policy Research and familysecuritymatters.org and American Center for law and justice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DEMS HIDING SOC HEALTHCARE COSTS THAT MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OUR PRESENT SYSTEM-part B
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Apr 5, 2009 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IN SCOTLAND-462,000 PEOPLE DIED AS A RESULT OF HEALTHCARE FAILINGS

ENGLAND---the NATIONAL HEALTHCARE JUST UP AND DECIDED TO HALT KNEE AND HIP REPLACEMENTS FOR OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE.

in SOUTH AFRICA- PATIENTS DIED after his life saving surgery was RE-CLASSIFIED as 'elective' and CANCELED seven YES THAT'S RIGHT SEVEN times until it was simply to late.

in AUSTRALIA man has been on a 90 day waiting PERIOD---for over 2 years.

in Canada -cancer patients have been DENIED life saving medicines that are standard treatment in USA and covered by USA INSURANCE.

ENGLAND AGAIN---- Alheimer's patients denied $5 a day drug that provides crucial relief because it's considered TOO EXPENSIVE

PEOPLE OUR MARKET BASED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS ONE OF THE BEST IN THE WORLD. Why, sure it's not perfect. BUT THE SHORTCOMINGS it faces such as high cost of drugs and insurance---are in part THE results of the inroads the SOCIALISTS AND LIBERALS have already made into our market based health care system.

THE REAL SOLUTION TO fixing HEALTHCARE ISN'T to make UNCLE SAME/DEMS your doctor ....BUT to GIVE YOU THE PUBLIC MORE CHOICE.

HOWEVER the DEMS NOT only want to deprive you of meds they want TO stick it to the PUBLIC by wanting to make it mandatory that the GOV HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR MEDICAL records WITHOUT your permission or KNOWLEDGE. just because they GOV wants rights they are NOT entitled to have simply because they think the PUBLIC is too UNSUSPECTING OF THEIR motives.

SOC MEDICINE MEANS GOV dictates to YOU want it WANTS to do which is BENEFICIAL FOR GOV

1. NOT what will make you well
2. NOT what is beneficial for you.

So, if you need ANTIBIOTICS and GOV only wants to give you and your child ASPIRIN --well that's tough you will get only ASPIRIN.

BIG-GOV never has the best interest of PUBLIC IN MIND AND NEITHER DO THE DEMS WAKE UP AMERICA THE LIVES YOU SAVE WILL BE YOUR OWN AND YOUR FAMILIES. it's important to seek legilative and LEGAL AVENUES to protect our Freedom and Constitution

GO SEE --THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY, ALSO CIVIC COUNCIL and familysecuritymatters.org and American Center for Law and Justice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "single-payer system" Posted by: gellero1
» RE: "single-payer system" Posted by: cplot
Not much different than U.S.
Posted by: messedup on Apr 5, 2009 12:41 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where the women tell the men when they get to have the sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not much different than U.S. Posted by: helenahanbasquet
American assholes
Posted by: 876 on Apr 6, 2009 12:45 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How righteous of you Americans savages to be so concerned over the plight of Afghan women. It is only unfortunate that the only thing that motivates you to concern yourselves with Muslim women is typical racist seething hatred of Muslim men. You never seem so concerned for the welfare of Afghan women when your own masses of psychotic misogynists drop their bombs on the heads of Afghan women and children but someone tries to enact some worthless law on paper and the mighty American masses are in a tizzy with “outrage” and concern. How self satisfied you bastards are with your self-righteous wrath. Incidentally your “outrage” is worth less than utter crap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mind your own buisness
Posted by: sopomike on Apr 6, 2009 7:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
its a good law and i like it.we need it here in the us .as im sick of these big mouth whores

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHERE'S THE WESTERN MEDIA "OUTRAGE" OVER W-ON-W KILLINGS?
Posted by: Malcus Garvey on Apr 12, 2009 6:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll bet if the Arab women had a choice, be killed or have their laws revoked, they would rather have their rights revoked. White women and girls are abducted, stalked, maimed, killed and harassed daily by white men; and look at their rights!
The Western media does a good balancing at of showing so many he loves me white-on-white stories, the majority of the pubic is duped. In reality, daily white girls and babies are being massacred.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement