Gibbs: "The administration believes solutions involving security in Pakistan don't include less democracy and less human rights. The signing of that denoting strict Islamic law in the Swat Valley ... goes against both of those principles."
Why is this a surprise? Because Harold Koh doesn't seem to have any problem with Sharia, and because the Obama Administration, in its many overtures to Iran and the Islamic world in general, has never before raised the slightest objection to Sharia on human rights grounds or any other grounds.
Will the Obama Administration now come out against the Sharia provisions in the Iraqi and Afghan constitutions? Will it begin to oppose, on human rights grounds, stealth jihad initiatives to bring elements of Sharia into the U.S.?
"US critical of Pakistan Islamic law deal in Swat," by Nahal Toosi for AP, April 15 (thanks to James):
ISLAMABAD (AP) — The Obama administration says Pakistan's imposition of Islamic law in a northwest valley to quell a Taliban insurgency goes against human rights and democracy, the most pointed American criticism of the deal to date.White House spokesman Robert Gibbs' comments Tuesday came hours after a hard-line cleric who mediated the deal in the Swat Valley indicated it will protect militants accused of brutal killings in the one-time tourist haven from prosecution.
"The administration believes solutions involving security in Pakistan don't include less democracy and less human rights," Gibbs said. "The signing of that denoting strict Islamic law in the Swat Valley ... goes against both of those principles."...
7 comments:
And THEN what are they prepared to do?
Get a resolution from the UN?
Sense of the Senate?
Parachute in rabbis?
What?
Yeah - they talked like they didn't want Iran to have a nuke; now, not so much. They talked like the Nork launch would be a big problem; now, not so much.
So, just words?
Look, the cop is off the beat. We are just one of 200-odd countries in the world, and, like any of them, we have opinions. We just don't have the right to "enforce" our opinion on what another country is doing on those countries (Israel, of course, excepted, apparently).
So they can say "we disapprove" of what another country is doing and they may well do so (in this case Pakistan ceding sovereignty to the monsters). But they are not so "arrogant" as to "disrespect" what they disapprove of by any sort of punitive measure.
Meh.
Ro
Pastorius,
Well in this instance Obama is actually doing the right thing. I hope he takes the next logical step and comes out and opposes Sharia in the Iraq and Afghanistan constitutions. But I really hope he comes out against Sharia in the US and Europe. I also really hope he denounces the Muslim Brotherhood openly.
Words. That's all it is.
He has spent too much time kissing ass in the ME, to actually, really, truly and sternly come out against Sharia.
Parachute in rabbis?LOL
Damien,
I'll bet you a cool music post by MR (with MR's agreement, of course - hee!) he does not "come out" against sharia. Remember how he said "we must respect even if we disagree"?
I bet that is what he does w/r/t sharia in Europe and US - "if people want to settle domestic disputes their way, who are we to judge, even if we disagree?" type of response.
IMO, the scariest thing that happened while he was on his "2009 Grovel Tour" was when the Turkish leader said (paraphrasing) "you cannot hide behind your freedom of speech to insult Islam." YIKES! "Hiding" behind freedom to tell the truth?? And there is no record that our Pres. disagreed.
So, no, he will not "judge" sharia as "wrong" - just "different."
And then we gear up the Texas secession movement in earnest. . .
Ro
Ro,
Regardless of what he's said in the past, in this instance, he did come out against Sharia. It maybe logically inconsistent with his previous position, but maybe he will abandon his previous position. I don't know, maybe he will. If that's what he said in the past that we can't judge them, I hope abandons his previous position. He may not, but I hope he will.
Post a Comment