From his friends and allies at Reuters:

Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman of the Iraqi government, talks to reporters during a news conference with the spokesman for Baghdad’s security plan Brigadier General Qasim Ata in Baghdad on November 28, 2007.

Crackdown on Iraq Sunni leader after bombs found

By Waleed Ibrahim and Alaa Shahine

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi security forces arrested dozens of people, including the son of a leading Sunni Arab politician, in a pre-dawn raid on Friday after a car rigged with explosives was found near the lawmaker’s office.

The incident threatened to increase political tension across Iraq’s sectarian divide at a time when violence has been falling dramatically.

The Shi’ite-led government said Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of the Accordance Front, the main Sunni Arab bloc, could be stripped of the immunity from prosecution he holds as a member of parliament if he was found to have links to car bombs.

“No one is above the law. Dr Adnan al-Dulaimi has immunity, but this does not exempt him from questioning and accountability,” government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

“The case is very serious and the accusations against him are very serious. He has to prove his innocence. He will be called for questioning. If the charges against him are proven, his immunity will definitely be lifted.”

Dulaimi rejected the accusations.

“This is all not true. These are false accusations,” Dulaimi told Reuters. “We are the ones who are subject to terrorism.”

Seven people were arrested on Thursday at Dulaimi’s office and 29, including Dulaimi’s son Mekki, were seized in a raid early on Friday at Dulaimi’s house, said Brigadier General Qassim Moussawi, security spokesman for Baghdad.

“We have also found quantities of weapons and uniforms of the army and police at the home of Dr. al-Dulaimi,” he told Reuters. “Dulaimi’s bodyguards are suspected of having links to car bombs and killings. There are confessions against them.”

Dulaimi’s party put the number of detainees at 53, while the U.S. military said the total was more than 40.

The wreckage of a four-wheel drive vehicle could be seen on the road outside a charity run by Dulaimi next door to his main offices in Baghdad, where security forces detonated the car after discovering it was rigged with explosives on Thursday.

Windows had been blown out of the charity building, which was covered with black smoke, and its main gate was destroyed.

Some Iraqi officials have said a second car was also detonated in the area but Iraqi Army Lieutenant Hussam Abdullah, at the scene, said there was only one.

Moussawi said the car bomb was found when security forces chased a suspected fugitive involved in a shooting into Dulaimi’s compound.

The U.S. military said one of Dulaimi’s guards had a key to the car that was rigged as a bomb. Two bystanders were hurt when one of the guards escaped, and five American soldiers and one bystander were hurt in the controlled blast when the car was destroyed, the U.S. military said in a statement.

Dulaimi had been asked to stay in his house “for his own personal safety,” it said.

Dulaimi’s bloc quit Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government in August and has so far rejected efforts to lure it back. It says it wants a greater say in security policy…

There is a silver lining in all this, of course.

It shows that the Maliki government now feels strong enough that it can finally crack down on these terrorists in business suits.

By the way, if Mr. Ali al-Dabbagh’s name sounds vaguely familiar, it came up a lot in the efforts to strip Blackwater contractors of their immunity and throw them out of Iraq, back in October.

From the Associated Press:

Iraq bill would lift contractor immunity

By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government on Tuesday approved draft legislation lifting immunity for foreign private security companies, sending the measure to parliament, a spokesman said.

The question of immunity has been one of the most serious dispute between the U.S. and the Iraqi government since a Sept. 16 shooting involving Blackwater USA guards that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.

The government’s decision followed reports that the State Department has promised Blackwater bodyguards immunity from prosecution in its investigation of last month’s shooting…

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the draft law approved Tuesday would overturn an immunity order known as Decree 17 that was issued by L. Paul Bremer, who ran the American occupation government until June 2004…

And from just ten days ago via BBC News:

Foreigners held for Iraq shooting

Tuesday, 20 November 2007

A group of at least 32 foreigners have been detained in Baghdad after an Iraqi woman was shot and injured, say Iraqi government officials.

Among those held are private security guards, with early reports saying two Americans were among those held. The US military later said none were arrested.

The incident occurred as guards tried to clear the way for their convoy in a traffic jam, an Iraqi official said.

The Iraqi government has vowed to crack down on the conduct of security firms…

After the arrests, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Reuters news agency that those held would appear before an investigating judge in Baghdad on Tuesday.

“This is a message to security companies that no one is above the law,” Mr Dabbagh said. “Those involved will be put on trial and the innocent will be released.” …

Granted, Mr. Dabbagh is (or was) the official Iraq government spokesman. But I’m not sure being an Iraq Government spokesmen is quite the same as US government spokesmen. That is, merely the conduit for the head of the administration.

After all, Mr. Dabbah is described everywhere — including today’s reports — as being a powerful politician. So one might suspect that he is more than just a spokesmen in the way we use the term.

In any case he has been front and center in the criticisms of Blackwater.

Indeed, a search of Mr. Dabbah via Google reveals that more than 1/4 of his online mentions involve Blackwater.

Perhaps now we will see if anyone is above the law in Iraq, after all.

From those champions of women’s rights at the New York Times:

A New Debate on Female Circumcision

By John Tierney

Should African women be allowed to engage in the practice sometimes called female circumcision? Are critics of this practice, who call it female genital mutilation, justified in trying to outlaw it, or are they guilty of ignorance and cultural imperialism?

Those questions will be debated Saturday morning in Washington at the American Anthropological Association’s annual meeting. Representatives of international groups opposed to this procedure will be debating anthropologists with somewhat different views, including African anthropologists who have undergone the procedure themselves. As the organizers of the AAA panel note:

The panel includes for the first time, the critical “third wave” or multicultural feminist perspectives of circumcised African women scholars Wairimu Njambi, a Kenyan, and Fuambai Ahmadu, a Sierra Leonean. Both women hail from cultures where female and male initiation rituals are the norm and have written about their largely positive and contextualized experiences, creating an emergent discursive space for a hitherto “muted group” in global debates about FGC [female genital cutting].

Dr. Ahmadu, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Chicago, was raised in America and then went back to Sierra Leone as an adult to undergo the procedure along with fellow members of the Kono ethnic group. She has argued that the critics of the procedure exaggerate the medical dangers, misunderstand the effect on sexual pleasure, and mistakenly view the removal of parts of the clitoris as a practice that oppresses women. She has lamented that her Westernized “feminist sisters insist on denying us this critical aspect of becoming a woman in accordance with our unique and powerful cultural heritage.” In another essay, she writes:

It is difficult for me — considering the number of ceremonies I have observed, including my own — to accept that what appears to be expressions of joy and ecstatic celebrations of womanhood in actuality disguise hidden experiences of coercion and subjugation. Indeed, I offer that the bulk of Kono women who uphold these rituals do so because they want to — they relish the supernatural powers of their ritual leaders over against men in society, and they embrace the legitimacy of female authority and particularly the authority of their mothers and grandmothers.

You can read more about this in Dr. Ahmadu’s essays or in this critique of the global campaign against female genital mutilation, written by another participant in Saturday’s discussion, Richard Shweder of the University of Chicago.

Dr. Shweder says that many Westerners trying to impose a “zero tolerance” policy don’t realize that these initiation rites are generally controlled not by men but by women who believe it is a cosmetic procedure with aesthetic benefits. He criticizes Americans and Europeans for outlawing it at the same they endorse their own forms of genital modification, like the circumcision of boys or the cosmetic surgery for women called “vaginal rejuvenation.” After surveying studies of female circumcision and comparing the data with the rhetoric about its harmfulness, Dr. Shweder concludes that “‘First World’ feminist issues and political correctness and activism have triumphed over the critical assessment of evidence.”

If I were asked to make a decision about my own daughter, I wouldn’t choose circumcision for her. But what about the question raised by these anthropologists: Should outsiders be telling African women what initiation practices are acceptable?

What preposterous nonsense.

Both women hail from cultures where female and male initiation rituals are the norm and have written about their largely positive and contextualized experiences, creating an emergent discursive space for a hitherto “muted group” in global debates about FGC [female genital cutting].

Only Westernized pretend “academics” write gibberish like this. Thankfully.

Dr. Shweder concludes that “‘First World’ feminist issues and political correctness and activism have triumphed over the critical assessment of evidence.”

If only. The only objections I ever see raised are from those on the right. “Feminists” and NOW types seem to be conspicuously silent in their criticism of this horrid practice.

Should outsiders be telling African women what initiation practices are acceptable?

Why not? It’s okay for outsiders to teach all kinds of things.

It’s okay to send Africa billions of dollars a year in aid.

Why are only inhumane Islamic cult practices deemed sacred and untouchable?

From those nattering nabobs of negativity at the New York Times:

Iraqi refugees who returned from Damascus, Syria, gathered at a hotel in Baghdad Thursday to receive money for resettlement.

Iraq Lacks Plan on the Return of Refugees, Military Says

November 30, 2007

BAGHDAD, Nov. 29 — As Iraqi refugees begin to stream back to Baghdad, American military officials say the Iraqi government has yet to develop a plan to absorb the influx and prevent it from setting off a new round of sectarian violence.

The Iraqi government lacks a mechanism to settle property disputes if former residents return to Baghdad only to find their homes occupied, the officials said. Nor has the Iraqi government come forward with a detailed plan to provide aid, shelter and other essential services to the thousands of Iraqis who might return. American commanders caution that if the return is not carefully managed, there is a risk of undermining the recent security gains.

“All these guys coming back are probably going to find somebody else living in their house,” said Col. William Rapp, a senior aide to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, speaking at a two-day military briefing on measuring military trends for a small group of American reporters in Baghdad.

“We have been asking, pleading with the government of Iraq, to come up with a policy so that it is not put upon our battalion commanders and the I.S.F. battalion commanders to figure it out on the ground,” he added, referring to the American and Iraqi security force commanders.

When sectarian violence soared in 2006, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fled to Syria and Jordan, or moved to safer areas in Iraq. But now that the American troop reinforcement plan and a new counterinsurgency strategy have helped reverse a rising tide of car bombings and sectarian killings, there are signs that Iraqis are starting to return.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has hailed the development as an indication that security is beginning to improve. As if to underscore Mr. Maliki’s point, 375 Iraqi refugees arrived Thursday in a convoy of buses from Damascus, Syria, escorted by heavily armed policemen. After the lengthy journey, the tired Iraqis were ushered into the white marble affluence of the Mansour Melia Hotel in Baghdad to receive a promised government payout to people returning to the capital.

Many neighborhoods in Baghdad have become largely Shiite or Sunni, as one group drove the other out in calculated sectarian cleansing. Sunnis have moved into Shiite homes, and Shiites into Sunni ones. This segregation has contributed to the decline in violence. But what would happen if the original residents insisted on moving back into their homes?

Ahmad Chalabi, a Shiite politician and former Iraqi exile who made common cause with the Americans against Saddam Hussein, has been charged with developing a plan to provide services.

American officers discussed estimates of the displaced Iraqis at a seminar here on the military’s metrics of assessing violence in Iraq held at Camp Victory…

A senior Sunni official said that the government was not doing nearly enough. “There are many missing links,” said an Iraqi vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni. “We don’t have a comprehensive plan. We have a ministry of migration, but the problem is the bureaucracy.” …

Most of the Iraqis who returned to the Mansour Melia Hotel on Thursday said they were returning voluntarily after hearing reports that the security situation had improved, but some said they had been forced to return because they had no jobs or money in Syria.

Some said their houses were long ago destroyed by Shiite militias or Sunni insurgents, or still occupied by people on the other side of the sectarian divide. Others said that it was still too unsafe to go back to areas like Dora, Jihad and Mansour, and that they would have to stay with relatives.

Abdul Kadim Mohammed, 58, a Shiite from Abu Ghraib, said he would be staying with relatives for now. “I feel more comfortable in Baghdad but still can’t go to Abu Ghraib, which is not completely good,” he said. “The next step that the government needs to work on is how to get back to our homes.” …

Obviously the Iraqi government believed the Solons at the New York Times and thereby assumed that there would never be a time when anyone would want to return to the civil war riven country.

But leave it to The Times to find bad news about the turn around of events in Iraq.

There is no pleasing some people.

From the defenders of the faith at the Associated Press:

Calls in Sudan for Execution of Briton

November 30, 2007

KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) — Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear ”Muhammad.”

The protesters streamed out of mosques after Friday sermons, as pickup trucks with loudspeakers blared messages against Gillian Gibbons, the teacher who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation. She avoided the more serious punishment of 40 lashes.

They massed in central Martyrs Square outside the presidential palace, where hundreds of riot police were deployed. They did not try to stop the rally, which lasted about an hour.

”Shame, shame on the U.K.,” protesters chanted.

They called for Gibbons’ execution, saying, ”No tolerance: Execution,” and ”Kill her, kill her by firing squad.”

The women’s prison where Gibbons is being held is far from the square.

Several hundred protesters, not openly carrying weapons, marched about a mile away to Unity High School, where Gibbons worked. They chanted slogans outside the school, which is closed and under heavy security, then marched toward the nearby British Embassy. They were stopped by security forces two blocks away from the embassy.

The protest arose despite vows by Sudanese security officials the day before, during Gibbons’ trial, that threatened demonstrations after Friday prayers would not take place. Some of the protesters carried green banners with the name of the Society for Support of the Prophet Muhammad, a previously unknown group.

Many protesters carried clubs, knives and axes — but not automatic weapons, which some have brandished at past government-condoned demonstrations. That suggested Friday’s rally was not organized by the government.

A Muslim cleric at Khartoum’s main Martyrs Mosque denounced Gibbons during one sermon, saying she intentionally insulted Islam. He did not call for protests, however.

”Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion,” the cleric, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri, a well-known hard-liner, told worshippers.

”This an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Muhammad,” he said…

  

The religion of peace never fails to impress.

From AOL News:

Top 11 Scandals of 2007

Posted: 2007-11-29

Sex, drugs, vulgarity, criminality and even diapers. Public figures have served up a smorgasbord of bad behavior this year. Click through the photos to count down the best scandals of 2007, from mildest to wildest.

Sen. David Vitter had the dubious distinction of being the biggest name on a Washington escort service’s phone list. In July, the Louisiana Republican said God and his wife had forgiven him for “a very serious sin.” He remains in office. (Ranked 3rd out of 11. 11 being the “wildest.”)

The rape case against Duke lacrosse players blew up in his face, and Mike Nifong went from prosecutor to prosecuted. He was disbarred, resigned as Durham County’s district attorney and served one day in jail for contempt of court. (Ranked 5th out of 11.)

“Scooter” Libby was convicted in March of lying in the CIA leak case. Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff was sentenced to 30 months in prison. President Bush commuted the sentence, calling it “excessive.” (Ranked 6th out of 11th.)

“I am not gay.” So said Sen. Larry Craig after he was caught in an airport men’s room sex sting. The Idaho Republican pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. At first, he said he intended to quit. Now he says he’ll finish his term. (Ranked 11th — the top scandal.)

I’ve left out the other seven scandals, since they were about celebrities. (Though they also included the Walter Reed Hospital non-scandal.)

But why does AOL neglect to mention any party affiliation for Mike Nifong? They had no problem identifying that of Messers Vitter and Craig, and explaining Mr. Libby’s role in the Bush White House.

Moreover, Mr. Nifong’s overweening desire to gain re-election was probably the primary reason for the bogus prosecution in the first place.

Also, Mr. Craig was given pride of place as the “wildest” scandal of the year. Why is that, exactly? Were his (alleged) actions more than twice as scandalous as Mr. Nifong’s — who only came in at number 5 of 11?

Note too that Mr. Libby was ranked at 6 of 11. So having a different recollection from reporters is worse than knowingly trying to prosecute someone falsely to advance your political career?

And where oh where is Mr. Hsu — or any other Democrat (besides the unidentified Nifong)? Or Move.org’s “Betray Us” ad?

Or any of a dozen other possible (but Democrat) embarrassments?

These are all rhetorical questions, of course.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Host Indicted, Clinton Fund-Raiser Canceled

Mary Jacoby reports on the presidential race.

A Dec. 15 fund-raising event for Hillary Clinton at the home of prominent Mississippi trial lawyer Richard “Dickie” Scruggs is off, now that Scruggs has been indicted for bribery.

Bill Clinton was set to be the star attraction at the event at Scruggs’s Oxford, Miss., home. Hillary Clinton wasn’t scheduled to attend. It was the first event that Scruggs, who made a fortune suing the tobacco industry in the 1990s, had offered to host for Clinton, a campaign spokesman said.

It was canceled on Wednesday, after the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided his home and the federal indictment was announced…

Over the years, Scruggs has been a generous donor to Democrats, but he’s also given money to Republican candidates. He gave $4,200 to Clinton’s Senate campaign in 2005 but hadn’t made a donation yet to her presidential bid. Scruggs’s brother-in-law is Sen. Trent Lott (R., Miss.), who just announced his intention to leave the Senate before the end of the year.

Federal prosecutors in Mississippi have alleged that Scruggs tried to pass a $40,000 bribe to a state-court judge who was hearing a dispute between Scruggs and another lawyer over fees related to Hurricane Katrina litigation. Four others were indicted as well, including Scruggs’s son, Zachary, and another lawyer in the Scruggs law firm…

Will there be anyone connected to the Clintons who isn’t in jail by election day?

(Of course, as the article suggests, this may have also had some bearing on Mr. Lott’s recent announcement about resigning by the end of this year.)

Over the years, Scruggs has been a generous donor to Democrats, but he’s also given money to Republican candidates.

This is a bit overgenerous. Mr. Scruggs has given far and away more money to Democrats than to Republicans.

From the FEC records:

Contributions to Political Committees

SCRUGGS, RICHARD
MIAMI, FL 33136
STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE

CAMPAIGN FOR FLORIDA’S FUTURE

08/09/2004
500.00
24020672408

SCRUGGS, RICHARD
OXFORD, MS 38655
SCRUGGS LAW FIRM/ATTORNEY

CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM
VIA FRIENDS OF HILLARY

12/08/2005
2100.00
26020092178

12/08/2005
2100.00
26020092178
More »

From those lovers of communist dictatorships at the Associated Press:

Tens of thousands of Venezuelans protest Chavez’s referendum

Nov. 29, 2007

CARACAS, Venezuela - Tens of thousands of people flooded the streets of the capital Thursday to oppose a referendum that would eliminate term limits for President Hugo Chavez and help him establish a socialist state in Venezuela.

Blowing whistles, waving placards and shouting “Not like this!” the marchers carried Venezuelan flags and dressed in blue - the chosen color of the opposition - as they streamed along Bolivar Avenue.

“This is a movement by those of us who oppose a change to this country’s way of life, because what (the referendum) aims to do is impose totalitarianism,” said former lawmaker Elias Matta. “There can’t be a communist Venezuela, and that’s why our society is reacting this way.”

The rally marked the close of the opposition’s campaign against the proposed constitutional changes, which will be submitted to a vote Sunday. Chavez plans to lead rallies in favor of the reforms Friday.

Venezuelans will vote on 69 proposed changes to nation’s 1999 constitution that would, among other things, eliminate presidential term limits, create forms of communal property and give greater power to the presidency.

Chavez denies that the proposals are a bid to seize unchecked power, saying the constitutional overhaul is necessary to give more of a voice to the people through community-based councils.

Rallies for and against the amendments have surged across this South American country in the run-up to the vote, occasionally leading to clashes. There were no immediate reports of violence Thursday.

On Wednesday, hundreds of stone-throwing students clashed with police and the Venezuelan national guard in a protest against the constitutional overhaul. Security forces responded with water cannons and tear gas.

Opposition leaders appeared confident Thursday that they have enough votes to defeat the referendum…

“Tens of thousands”?

If this were an anti-war rally or an illegal alien amnesty rally the Associated Press would have said the turnout was in the millions — at least.

But who should we believe? The AP or our lying eyes?

From Fox News:

A sign with the name of a 54-year-old teacher, Gillian Gibbons, is seen on the door of her closed classroom at Unity High School in Khartoum November 26, 2007.

Teddy Bear Teacher Sentenced to 15 Days in Jail, Deportation

Thursday, November 29, 2007

KHARTOUM, Sudan — A defense lawyer says a British teacher has been found guilty of inciting religious hatred and was sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation from Sudan for letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammad.

The crime was punishable by up to 40 lashes.

Gillian Gibbons walked in without handcuffs, wearing a dark jacket and blue skirt, according to reporters in the courtroom before media were ordered out of the chamber. Riot police surrounded the courthouse.

Muhammad is a common name among Muslim men, but giving the name of Islam’s founder to an animal would be seen as insulting by many Muslims.

In a statement read to the court, Gibbons explained the incident and emphasized that her 7-year-old students picked the teddy bear’s name, British Embassy spokesman Omar Daair told The Associated Press. Gibbons’ lawyer said she would likely take the stand later.

The case set up an escalating diplomatic dispute with Britain, Sudan’s former colonial ruler.

Prosecutor-General Salah Eddin Abu Zaid told the AP the British teacher could expect a “swift and fair trial.” If convicted, she faces up to 40 lashes, six months in jail and a fine, with the verdict and any sentence up to the judge’s discretion, official have said.

The judge ordered the prosecution to bring forward the person who originally raised the complaint against Gibbons — an office assistant at the Unity High School, said Isam Abu Hasabu, the head of the school’s parent-teacher association, who was in the courtroom.

Gibbons’ chief lawyer, Kamal Djizouri, scuffled with a tight police cordon before he was allowed in. British diplomats who were initially barred were also eventually allowed to enter.

Djizouri said he would argue her case based on Islamic Sharia law and show there was “absolutely no intention to insult religion, and for blasphemy to take place there must be an insult.” …

Initial reports said a parent had complained about Gibbons, but Boulos said he was later told it was a staffer. He said parents of the students supported Gibbons…

Officials in Sudan’s Foreign Ministry have tried to play down the case, calling it an isolated incident and initially predicting Gibbons could be released without charge.

But hard-liners have considerable weight in the government of President Omar al-Bashir, which came to power in a 1989 military coup saying it wanted to create an Islamic state.

The country’s top Muslim clerics have pressed the government to ensure Gibbons is punished, comparing her action to author Salman Rushdie’s “blasphemies” against the Prophet Muhammad…

The north of Sudan bases its legal code on Islamic Sharia law, and al-Bashir often seeks to burnish his religious credentials.

Last year, he vowed to lead a jihad, or holy war, against U.N. peacekeepers if they deployed in the Darfur region of western Sudan. He relented this year to allow a U.N.-African Union force there, but this month said he would bar Scandinavian peacekeepers from participating because newspapers in their countries ran caricatures of Prophet Muhammad last year.

Allah is merciful. Especially since deportation from Sudan is an unalloyed blessing.

Despite the certain fact that since it became an Islamic state in 1989 the Sudan has surely been a paradise.

With the teddy bear blasphemy trial underway in the Sudan, perhaps it is a good time to view this six part programme from those defenders of the faith at BBC NEWS:

Inside a Sharia Court

This World’s Ruhi Hamid gains a rare glimpse inside a Sharia court in the state of Zamfara in northern Nigeria…

Sharia law - which is an Islamic system of law based on the ancient verses of the Koran - was introduced to the mainly Muslim state of Zamfara by Governor Ahmed Sani, after the defeat of the military dictatorship in 1999.

It was the first state in Nigeria to introduce Sharia. Ferocious fighting broke out and previously integrated communities were split along religious lines, leaving many dead and thousands displaced…

The occasional prison van brings prisoners to court on criminal offences such as mobile phone theft, burglaries or violence. But 90% of cases the Sharia court deals with are land, matrimonial or inheritance disputes. They are often argued with great intensity.

In one case, Sa’adiyya Ibrahim claimed that since her separation from her husband, he had refused to perform his Islamic duty of providing for her. He insisted he had.

In the end, the judge decided in her favour because she swore it was true on a copy of the Koran. Judge Isah - which literally means Jesus - was convinced the plaintiff would not risk divine condemnation by making a false oath. He ordered the husband to pay up, which he did without protest…

Sharia is often perceived as oppressive and brutal by Westerners, because of punishments like stoning to death for adultery and amputations for theft.

One hot, dusty afternoon, I followed three young men being taken from the courtroom to the market square. They were convicted of alcoholism - strictly frowned upon in Muslim society - and received 80 lashes in front of a gathered crowd.

Judge Isah explained that public humiliation was part of the punishment. It also served to deter others who were tempted to indulge in vice.

“By stopping people from drinking alcohol, society will be in harmony and sanity,” he said. “More over the sentence of 80 lashes is in the Koran so no one can question it”. …

It is Sharia’s treatment of sexual offences that has caused the greatest international controversy. In Islamic law, both adultery and rape require four witnesses to be present at the “act”. A woman’s evidence is still only worth half of a man’s, and in adultery cases she cannot be a witness at all.

Soon after the introduction of Sharia to the northern states of Nigeria, two women were condemned to death by stoning for adultery. But, with the help of human rights activists their convictions were overturned on appeal to the federal Nigerian courts.

Most of the people that I met in Zamfara said they welcomed Sharia. It has cut down drinking and violence, and the court is no longer an intimidating place of wigs and gowns, doing business in a language that they do not understand.

After six weeks in Zamfara, I can see how Judge Isah’s court functions well as a small claims court for this rural Islamic society. But my reservations about Sharia remain the same. For me, the sticking points are still the floggings and the amputations, and the undeniably unfair treatment of women in rape and adultery cases.

It should also be noted that Ms. Ruhi Hamid is a practicing Muslim, and appears to bend over backwards to be non-critical.

Even so, it is an eye-opener.

From the former news magazine Time:

Enlarge

U.S. Senator Barack Obama in his candidacy for President listens to his introduction at a rally outside the courthouse in Manning, South Carolina.

Obama Finds His Moment

Thursday, Nov. 29, 2007

By KAREN TUMULTY

Barack Obama’s Iowa head-quarters near the State Capitol in downtown Des Moines has the unmistakable décor of an insurgent operation: thinning, mildewed carpet; litter from sign-painting parties; recycling boxes full of canvassing tally sheets and empty Miller Lite cartons…

The article itself a typically meandering and pointless puff piece about the candidate.

It goes on to talk about how Mr. Obama has “taken the gloves off” and has been getting tough on Mrs. Bill Clinton. Though the reporter doesn’t seem to be able to offer any actual examples.

But what the heck is up with that photograph? What is Time trying to say, if anything?

And, yes, I realize it is probably a quirk of the light in the hallway there. (As opposed to any darkroom effects.)

But why run with that photograph? It must be some kind of editorializing, surely.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the self-same issue we have this question raised:

Q&A: Obama Talks with Rick Stengel

Thursday, Nov. 29, 2007

TIME managing editor Richard Stengel met with Senator Obama in Portsmouth, N.H., for a talk on their flight to New York City. Here are highlights of their conversation:

…How do you deal with the idea that some people might not vote for you because of your race?

Racism is a function of our society. There are some people who aren’t going to vote for me because I’ve got big ears. Part of my optimism about Americans is that I don’t think they expect me to be deracialized in order to represent them…

Is Time trying to de-racialize Mr. Obama? Or just the opposite?

From the Houston Chronicle:

Decisions to name storms draw concern

By ERIC BERGER
Nov. 29, 2007

With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate several borderline systems as tropical storms.

Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil Frank, say as many as six of this year’s 14 named tropical systems might have failed in earlier decades to earn “named storm” status.

“They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to,” said Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. “This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six.”

Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure — another measure of intensity — suggested they actually remained depressions or were non-tropical systems.

Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have significance far beyond semantics.

The number of a season’s named storms forms the foundation of historical records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance companies use these trends to set homeowners’ rates. And such information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity.

Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there’s any inconsistency in the practice of naming tropical storms…

Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three tropical storms that developed far from land or were short-lived…

But this season’s large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate debate: whether even more modern technology and a change in philosophy has artificially inflated the number of storms in recent years.

A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that formed in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the northeast, out to sea.

Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn’t have been named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, which measures surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal’s organization.

“Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named,” said Jeff Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web site, a popular resource for tracking hurricanes…

The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled some longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of Houston’s Weather Research Center, said comparing the number of tropical storms and hurricanes today with the historical record is almost impossible…

Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to determine whether global warming has increased the number or intensity of hurricanes.

In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have been overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference between tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some non-tropical storms probably were named.

“The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone counts,” said Curry. “But it is not clear whether this adds a net negative or positive bias to any trend.”

Gee, why would these meteorologists be trying to pretend there have been more tropical storms than there have really been?

That is a tough one.

Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three tropical storms that developed far from land or were short-lived.

Meaning there is no true historical record.

Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to determine whether global warming has increased the number or intensity of hurricanes.

We have seen scant evidence of these “scientists” being plagued. They don’t seem to have a doubt in their minds when they hold forth.

And yet how many times have we heard that the number of tropical storms and hurricanes has gone up due to global warming?

Lies. All lies.

And lies told with the worst of intentions.

Apparently, CNN’s latest efforts for their Democrat masters involved stacking the Republican debate with questions from full-time Democrat activists.

According to internet research as compiled by Michelle Malkin and others, they so far include:

“Concerned Undecided Mom” LeeAnn Anderson, who is an activist for the John Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers union.

“Concerned Undecided Log Cabin Republican” David Cercone, who is an avowed Barack Obama supporter.

“Concerned Undecided Young Person” “Journey,” who is an avowed John Edwards supporter.

“Concerned Undecided Young Farmer” (from Manhattan Beach, CA) Ted Faturos, who is a former intern for Democrat Congresswoman Jane Harman.

“Concerned Undecided Young Black Man” David McMillan, who is an avowed Republican hater and John Edwards supporter.

And lastly but not leastly, this mother of all ringers, “Concerned Undecided Retired General” Keith H. Kerr:

Mr. Kerr is in fact a top Hillary Clinton supporter who is even on her Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered “steering committee.” (Which, as we noted previously, is headed by Hillary’s Wellesley roommate, Eldie Acheson.)

Mr. Kerr is also a member of the Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary Committee.

Of course CNN knew all of this. Indeed, Mr. Kerr has appeared on the network before.

Moreover, it’s clear that the General got very special treatment from CNN. He not only asked his question via YouTube (how many generals use YouTube?), but he was flown in from California so as to be in the audience.

In fact, Mr. Kerr was conveniently seated up front so near the stage that Mr. Cooper could hand him a microphone to continue his political diatribe.

Obviously CNN knew what they were doing. They just hoped the audience wouldn’t catch on.

But thanks to the internet and Bill Bennett, Anderson Cooper (don’t ask, don’t tell) was forced to come clean:

Though one suspects that if Mr. Bennett had not raised the issue on live television it would have never been mentioned by any Mr. Cooper at anyone at CNN.

But of course by the time the admission was made most of the viewers had tuned out and Mr. Kerr’s objectives had been accomplished.

As so far there is still no acknowledgement from Mr. Cooper or anyone at CNN about the other “Concerned Undecided” questioners.

Mind you, this is the self-same Mr. Cooper who likes to go on about “Keeping Them Honest.”

It is to laugh.

From a despondent Associated Press:

Sunni tribal leaders sign a security pact in Hawija, 240 kilometers (150 miles) north of Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2007.

6,000 Sunnis Join Pact With US in Iraq

By LAUREN FRAYER

HAWIJA, Iraq (AP) — Nearly 6,000 Sunni Arab residents joined a security pact with American forces Wednesday in what U.S. officers described as a critical step in plugging the remaining escape routes for extremists flushed from former strongholds.

The new alliance — called the single largest single volunteer mobilization since the war began — covers the “last gateway” for groups such as al-Qaida in Iraq seeking new havens in northern Iraq, U.S. military officials said.

U.S. commanders have tried to build a ring around insurgents who fled military offensives launched earlier this year in the western Anbar province and later into Baghdad and surrounding areas. In many places, the U.S.-led battles were given key help from tribal militias — mainly Sunnis — that had turned again al-Qaida and other groups.

Extremists have sought new footholds in northern areas once loyal to Saddam Hussein’s Baath party as the U.S.-led gains have mounted across central regions…

The ceremony to pledge the 6,000 new fighters was presided over by dozen sheiks — each draped in black robes trimmed with gold braiding — who signed the contract on behalf of tribesmen at a small U.S. outpost in north-central Iraq.

For about $275 a month — nearly the salary for the typical Iraqi policeman — the tribesmen will man about 200 security checkpoints beginning Dec. 7, supplementing hundreds of Iraqi forces already in the area.

About 77,000 Iraqis nationwide, mostly Sunnis, have broken with the insurgents and joined U.S.-backed self-defense groups…

Village mayors and others who signed Wednesday’s agreement say about 200 militants have sought refuge in the area, about 30 miles southwest of Kirkuk on the edge of northern Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region. Hawija is a predominantly Sunni Arab cluster of villages which has long been an insurgent flashpoint.

The recently arrived militants have waged a campaign of killing and intimidation to try to establish a new base, said Sheikh Khalaf Ali Issa, mayor of Zaab village.

“They killed 476 of my citizens, and I will not let them continue their killing,” Issa said…

The Iraqi government has begun resettling some of those Arabs to their home regions, making room for thousands of Kurds who have gradually returned to Kirkuk since Saddam’s ouster.

Tension has been rising over the city’s status — whether it will join the semi-autonomous Kurdish region or continue being governed by Baghdad.

“Hawija is the gateway through which all our communities — Kurdish, Turkomen and Arab alike — can become unsafe,” said Abu Saif al-Jabouri, mayor of al-Multaqa village north of Kirkuk. “Do I love my neighbor in Hawija? That question no longer matters. I must work to help him, because his safety helps me.” …

More good news from Iraq for our media to ignore.

For about $275 a month — nearly the salary for the typical Iraqi policeman — the tribesmen will man about 200 security checkpoints beginning Dec. 7, supplementing hundreds of Iraqi forces already in the area.

Of course the Associated Press had to point out the venality of it all.

From the archives of the New York Times:

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Democrats; Clinton Defends Position on Iraqi War

By MICHAEL KELLY,
Published: July 31, 1992

For the second time this week, the festering matter of Saddam Hussein intruded into the 1992 Presidential race, as Bill Clinton found himself unexpectedly on the defensive today in attempting to answer Republican accusations that he had misrepresented himself as an early supporter of the use of force against the Iraqi dictator.

Mr. Clinton had called a news conference on the lawn of the Governor’s mansion here in hopes of scoring a few quick points against President Bush in light of economic figures released today that show the nation’s recovery weaker than Mr. Bush has been inclined to admit.

But the questioning quickly turned to accusations raised by the second of the Bush-Quayle campaign’s new daily anti-Clinton press releases. In the statement issued by the Republican campaign’s Washington headquarters, Mary Matalin, the deputy campaign manager, accused Mr. Clinton of “riding tall in the straddle” in suggesting in public comments that he had been “an early and unambiguous supporter of the President’s use of force against the Iraqi army.”

At issue is whether Mr. Clinton was among those political leaders who unequivocally supported military action against Iraq or whether he favored delaying the onset of war in hopes that the economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations might force the Iraqis to withdraw from Kuwait.

In explaining his position today, Mr. Clinton seemed to suggest the he had been for both courses of action.

“What I said was that I had a great deal of sympathy with those who were arguing that sanctions had not been given adequate time,” he said. “But that the Congress could not afford to go on record, in my judgment, undermining the U.N. position that the war was legal on January 15, and that I thought the Congress should vote to support the U.N. resolution to make the war legal on January 15, and that they could argue tactically if they wished whether hostilities should commence on the 15th or on some later date.”

A review of Mr. Clinton’s public statements on the war supports his recollection of his position, but also appears to support the idea that he was, at bottom, a very late and very ambiguous supporter of the war, and that he later sought to suggest otherwise, in political appearances and interviews. ‘I Supported the Gulf War’

On a number of occasions, and as recently as Tuesday, Mr. Clinton has made remarks that indicated, in clear language, that he was a firm supporter of the war.

“I supported the gulf war, and supported being firm with Saddam Hussein,” Mr. Clinton told reporters in Illinois on Tuesday, in one of several such remarks he made during the course of statements harshly criticizing Mr. Bush for his handling of Mr. Hussein and the war.

He made a similar statement during a March 1992 breakfast with Washington reporters, saying, “I supported the President’s policy in the Persian Gulf,” and he used this stance during a televised debate last December to differentiate himself from his Democratic opponents in the Presidential primary process.

His reported statements in the weeks and months leading to the war were, in keeping with his statement today, much more ambivalent, and suggested a position neither precisely in support of nor precisely opposed to the use of force.

He does not appear to have taken a publicly reported position at all before Jan. 14, 1991, two days after Congress voted to give the President authority to go to war.

He was first quoted on the subject in the Jan. 15 issue of The Pine Bluff Commercial, in an article by The Associated Press and in an article the same day in The Arkansas Gazette.

In the Associated Press article, Mr. Clinton is quoted as saying that, if he had been a member of Congress, he probably — not certainly — would have voted with the majority to grant the President war-making authority, but that he personally agreed with the arguments voiced by the minority, that the United Nations sanctions ought to be given more time to work. “I guess I would have voted for the majority if it was a close vote,” Mr. Clinton was quoted as saying. “But I agree with the arguments the minority made.”

He suggested that a vote to give the President authority to go to war was not necessarily a vote for immediate military action, saying that many members had cast their votes even though they believed that the economic sanctions should have been given more time to succeed.

The Associated Press article, which ran under the headline “Clinton Waffles on War Decision,” quoted the Arkansas Governor as saying, “I agree with the arguments of the people in the minority on the resolution — that we should give sanctions more time and maybe even explore a full-scale embargo.”

Asked about that quote in today’s news conference, Mr. Clinton said: “I don’t know what the quote was, but let me tell you what I said. What I said was that even if I agreed with the arguments about sanctions, I still would have voted with the majority because Congress, in my judgment, shouldn’t take a stand undermining the impact of the U.N. resolution, and I still believe that.”

In retrospect, Mr. Clinton added, “It was clear the sanctions would not have worked.”

Mr. Clinton has never been able to be straight and direct about anything. No matter what.

Ever.

“I guess I would have voted for the majority if it was a close vote,” Mr. Clinton was quoted as saying. “But I agree with the arguments the minority made.”

And:

He suggested that a vote to give the President authority to go to war was not necessarily a vote for immediate military action…

Gee, where have we heard this line before?

Do we really want another eight years of such cowardly bullshit “leadership”?

By now you have surely heard the momentous news that Barbra [sic] Streisand has endorsed Mrs. Bill Clinton and will probably stump for her.

If not, here is one report from the (NYT owned) Boston Globe:

Streisand adds her big-star power to Clinton campaign

November 28, 2007

Barack Obama has Oprah Winfrey. Mike Huckabee has Chuck Norris. And now Hillary Clinton has Babs.

In the presidential hopefuls’ competition for celebrity endorsements, Clinton showed off award-winning actress and singer Barbra Streisand yesterday. Streisand, who has campaigned for Democratic candidates for years and who sang at Bill Clinton’s 1993 inaugural gala, was effusive in her praise of the senator from New York.

“Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success,” Streisand said in a statement issued by Clinton’s campaign. “Smart, capable, and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.”

But earlier this year, Streisand appeared to be hedging her bets. Within a month of giving Clinton the maximum $2,300 contribution on Feb. 14, she also gave the same amount to Obama and John Edwards, according to Federal Election Commission records.

The statement does not say how actively Streisand will campaign for Clinton. She would have to go a long way to match the star power of Winfrey, who plans to hit the campaign trail for Obama in Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire next weekend.

Of course it’s great to see Ms. Streisand offering to give Hillary some much needed support. But things have not always been so “transcendent” between these two historical titans.

From State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton, by Jerry Oppenheimer, pp 241-243:

Political Gaffes, Personal Trauma

At the same time, Bill and Hillary experienced a series of difficult personal losses. Hugh Rodham, Hillary’s father, was the first.

He had not been well, and by the time the Rodhams moved from Park Ridge to Little Rock in 1987, his health was failing badly…

[O]n March 19, 1993, as Hillary’s first public hearing on health care loomed, her father suffered a massive stroke. Hugh had been in high spirits, having just made a cameo appearance on the TV sitcom Hearts Afire, one of several high-rated shows produced by Bill and Hillary’s pals and advisors, Harry Thomason and Linda Blood­worth-Thomason, key players in the Clintons’ Hollywood crowd.

Her father comatose and on life support, Hillary, along with Chelsea, flew immediately to Little Rock, while Hughie and Tony jet­ted in from Florida, beginning a long emotional vigil at St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center. At night the family stayed in the Rodhams’ small red brick condo. Hillary kept in close telephone contact with her White House health task force, and spent time briefing Vice President Al Gore, who was chairing the hearing in her absence. Bill arrived in Little Rock a week later, to join the family.

With doctors offering little hope for Rodham’s survival, the family began to plan for the funeral…

After a couple of days, Bill flew back to Washington; he needed to make final preparations for his upcoming first summit with Russian president Boris Yeltsin, the White House announced. There was another reason for his return, however—he was expecting a special overnight guest.

“I was going over to see Hugh at the hospital, and thought I might see Hillary just to speak to her, see how she’s doing, and boom—she’s gone,” said Paul Fray [an early friend and political operative who served as campaign manager for Clinton's 1974 congressional campaign]. “When I got there, I said, ‘What happened, where is she?’ And this guy said, ‘You don’t want to know.’ I said, ‘What the hell are you talking about?’ He said, ‘This is off the record—but it looks like Bill’s got tied up with Barbra Streisand up at the White House.’ I said, ‘Man, you’re talking a bunch of crap.’ And he said, `Well, why else did Hillary go home while her daddy’s laying here get­ting ready to die?’ ”

Hillary had, in fact, rushed back to the White House after getting the news that Streisand—who performed at the inauguration—had spent a night in the plush and historic Lincoln bedroom while Hillary was grieving over her comatose father in a depressing and sterile hospital room. (The White House spin was that Hillary had returned to handle urgent business regarding her health care program.)

She had also heard that during her absence Bill, spiffy in a black-sequined tuxedo, had escorted Streisand and his mother, who had become very friendly with the singer, to the Gridiron Dinner, an annual media-politico event. There, in a party-hardy mood, the president wailed on his sax to the Coasters’ golden oldie, “Yakety Yak.”

Hillary was livid. Soon after her return, reporters noticed a vicious-looking scratch on the president’s face. Queried, White House spokes­woman Dee Dee Myers dismissed it as a shaving cut. Later, after leaving the White House, she hedged. “I’m the idiot who said he cut himself shaving before I’d seen him. Then I saw him—it was a big scratch, clearly not a shaving cut. Barbra Streisand was clearly around at the time,” she said.

Tales of a bloody confrontation between the Clintons prompted by Streisand’s visit circulated wildly. Paul Fray put it succinctly: “Hillary left Little Rock like a rocket, went back, and caught the son of a bitch. You know who got hit in the chops, who got smacked around.”

There were tabloid reports at the time, denied of course, that Bill and Barbra had had an affair, and that the First Lady had banned the singer from the White House permanently. “She, more than any other film figure,” commented London’s Daily Mail, which took a sharp interest in such matters, “has swift and easy access to Bill Clinton’s White House. She has stayed overnight at the mansion. The President drops everything to take her calls. Around the dinner tables of Wash­ington, there is light gossip about a romantic liaison between the Presi­dent and the formidable Streisand.”

As it turned out, Barbra Streisand was one subject about whom both Hillary and Monica Lewinsky seemed to see eye to eye, according to one of Linda Tripp’s secret tapes. Like Hillary, Lewinsky reportedly suspected Streisand had been one of the president’s women.

“Ugh. I hate her,” whined Monica. “She’s soooo annoying.” Tripp responded: “She gets prettier as she gets older.” But a catty Monica replied: “Where do you think that’s from? Plastic surgery probably. She’s probably had everything done but her nose.”

(If there had been a falling out between Hillary and Streisand, the diva attempted to smooth things over with money—she was listed as an early contributor to Hillary’s senate campaign.)

Hillary was still in Washington on the evening of April 7, when her father died, at age eighty-two. The Clintons immediately returned to Little Rock to be with the grieving widow.

It’s nice to see that everyone can forgive and forget, isn’t it?