March 10, 2004

On The Iraq Constitution


I will examine and comment upon this so-called Constitution or "Law" section by section, to as much as possible avoid convolution.

Lil Joe

U.S. "legal scholars" instructed the Quisling Iraq Governing Authority to write a Constitution, that would ostensibly give authority to its lackey government, and to justify the U.S. aggression and occupation. The Iraqi Lackeys Wrote:


PREAMBLE: The people of Iraq, striving to reclaim their freedom, which was usurped by the previous tyrannical regime, rejecting violence and coercion in all their forms, and particularly when used as instruments of governance, have determined that they shall hereafter remain a free people governed under the rule of law.

Lil Joe: The Imperialist from the United State has by this document ordained a Quisling Authority in Iraq, whose duty is to provide a native face in front while behind the scenes the U.S. military continue their terror campaign of violence and repression. The duty of these Iraqi Sambos is to follow orders including the Co-Signing of this Law.

The Quisling Governing Council is striving to justify the loss of Iraqis independence and freedom, which is usurped by the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of their country. These lackeys by accepting the brutality, violence and coercion in all their forms, and particularly when used as instruments of governance, have agreed that the Iraqi people hereafter remain a colonized people, governed by the rule of laws written by ideological representatives of the interests of the Iraqi bourgeoisie, in collaboration with Anglo-American imperialism.

To say nothing about the genocidal sanctions and repeated bombing campaigns that Britain and the U.S. have conducted against the Iraqi people, the Constitution reeks with hypocritical platitudes and demagogic rhetoric about a "free people governed under the rule of law". By focusing on denouncing the previous Iraqi governments this document serves to justify the Anglo-American bestial aggression against the Iraqi people and the brutal occupation of Iraq. The laws that are dictated by U.S. imperialism are in the interest of U.S. imperialism: the "rule of law" is foreign troops forcing Iraqis to obey orders at the threat of prison or death.

There are no laws that workers are duty bound to respect: neither in Iraq, nor, for that matter, in the United States. The most powerful and economically dominant class is the dominant political power. The political and legal representatives of Capital, represented in bourgeois dominated democracies, write Constitutions and legislate laws in their interests, against labor. In nations-states dominated by Capital flowery rhetoric about "free people governed under the rule of law" is nothing but bullshit platitudes that hide the ugly essence of the situation: the state (special bodies of armed men, with prisons at their disposal) is an apparatus of violence, separate from the people, used to subordinate the people to the economic and political powers of Capital.

The Quisling IGC: "These people, affirming today their respect for international law, especially having been amongst the founders of the United Nations, working to reclaim their legitimate place among nations, have endeavored at the same time to preserve the unity of their homeland in a spirit of fraternity and solidarity in order to draw the features of the future new Iraq, and to establish the mechanisms aiming, amongst other aims, to erase the effects of racist and sectarian policies and practices."

Lil Joe: The Iraq Governing Council is today only "affirming" the submission of Iraqi collaborators to U.S. political domination of Iraq by military occupation.

The only role that the United Nations has played in the Iraqi affair was one of posing as an "international community" co-signing U.S. and British 12 years of genocidal sanctions on the Iraqi people and repeated bombing of the country.

U.S. political domination by military occupation of all of Iraq as a unit is in the spirit of white supremacy. It is complete arrogance, not to mention the hypocrisy of the United States as historically one of the most racist and sectarian countries on Earth -- along with Zionist Israel whose genocidal war on Palestinians is armed and funded by the U.S. The United States need to mote the beams of racism and sectarian policies and practices in our own country.

The Quisling IGC: "This Law is now established to govern the affairs of Iraq during the transitional period until a duly elected government, operating under a permanent and legitimate constitution achieving full democracy, shall come into being."

Lil Joe: Decoded: This Law is now established to govern the affairs of Iraq during the period required for brutal suppression and the consolidation of its Quisling government.

Operating under platitudes and the guise of a constitution, bourgeois democratic domination is being forced on the Iraqi workers at gunpoint. That's the so-called end game.

It is only where the working-classes and toiling masses has displaced the capitalist class as owners of the productive assets of a nation, the means of social production and distribution, that it will be possible to talk about real democracy. Democracy now days is communism.



Article 1.

(A) This Law shall be called the "Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period," and the phrase "this Law" wherever it appears in this legislation shall mean the "Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period."

(B) Gender-specific language shall apply equally to male and female.

(C) The Preamble to this Law is an integral part of this Law.

Lil Joe, Comment: Laws that govern a society are commands imposed on members of society and enforced by the military power of the State. The State is an autonomous, self-perpetuating, bureaucratic-military apparatus of subordination and coercion. Laws are issued by decree, and/or legislation, and/or executive orders and/or court decisions.

The making of laws is the exclusive privledge of the political representatives of the most powerful, economically dominant class: such politicians are authorized to manage the State by making laws designed to perpetrate the existing economy and relations of production. -- Kings, autocrats, legislators, prime ministers, presidents are considered Persons having legitimate power of State when they assume power on the basis of recognized Authority.

The Iraq Governing Council is not constituted of "persons" who are in any way "authorized" by the Iraqi people to govern. This so-called "Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period" is in fact an attempt to provide the Governing Council a semblance of authority. This, at the same time, presents the illusion that Iraq has its own government managing the Iraqi State. In fact, the bureaucratic-military power in Iraq is the United States civil-military representatives who are politically dominant by military occupation.

The 'Persons' that comprise the Iraq Governing Council are not legitimate even by bourgeois standards.

Unlike the rise to exclusive political power of the Parliament in the English Revolution by the abolition of the House of Lords and the monarchy by English peasant/worker in England and the French Revolution by French men and women, the Iraqi Governing Council is imposed from without. In that sense, the Iraq Governing Council has much in common, historically and/or functionally with the lackey governments established by Germany in Norway, headed by Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonsson Quisling and the Vichy Government in France headed by Henri-Philippe Pétain.

The "Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period," written by, or for, the Iraq Governing Council in the economic and political interests of U.S. imperialism in Asia, is, in principle, every bit as counterfeit as the one, written in Vichy by, or for, Pétain, was in the economic and political interests of German imperialism in Europe. The Iraq Governing Council does not 'govern by consent of the governed', but was created by a hostile foreign power: the Iraq Governing Council thus has more in common with the Quisling Government in Norway than with Petain who at least was made vice prime minister in 1940 Paul Reynaud, who was then prime minister.

Like the Quisling government in Norway, the Iraq Governing Council in Iraq was put in place by a foreign power, militarily backed by that foreign power. But, like the Vichy Government, the Iraq Governing Council is seeking legitimacy by writing a Constitution justifying its government and the policy of being the political lackey of that foreign power. Unlike the Vichy government, that selected its own members of government, the lackeys in the Iraq Governing Council are selected, hand picked, by the foreign power it serves.

The Iraq Governing Council, in that its members were hand picked by an occupation army, do not even have the historical pretense of being a so-called "government by the consent of the governed"! Here, there is no "social contract" between the governed and governors. Even by bourgeois philosophical tradition and political history, the Governing Council lacks philosophical justification and has no political authority to exist, let alone to author "Law", or "Constitution"!

What this "Law", or "transitional constitution" is doing, it's purpose, is in constructing the authority of the Iraq Governing Council and the ideological legitimacy of its laws, and U.S. military enforcement of these "laws".

The concept of legitimacy of laws issued by decree, legislation, and executive orders or by court decisions, is based in the acceptance of the authority of the autocrat to issue decrees, the legislators to legislate, the president to issue executive orders, and the judges or justices to render decisions that subsequently become law by precedence.

In a Constitutional Monarchy, or Republic, the Constitution provides authority to monarchs, autocrats, legislatures, presidents, and courts to issue laws. However, in a mode of production in which the productive forces are possessed by an exploiting class, for instance by slave owners, feudal lords, or capitalists, the actual power of the state - the bureaucratic-military machines are a permanent hierarchy - is structured in the image of the most powerful, economically dominate class. Constitutions are written in the economic interests of this powerful, dominant class. Classes rule through political and military operatives be they monarchs, autocrats, republican legislatures, prime ministers or presidents. The court system, in conjunction with the military component of the state -- police, soldiers -- enforce the laws, and thereby represent the dominate class interests in the economy.

The philosophers and political scientists focus on government formations, e.g. monarchy, republic, democracy, &C., and thus posit the inessential as essential: but, so long as the bureaucratic-military structure reinforces the economic dominance of the ruling class, it is not essential whether the government, which only manages the State, is a monarchy, republic, timocracy or democracy. The ancient Egyptian, Persian, Aztec and Inca monarchies were based on slavery: so were the democratic republics of Athens and Rome, and the United States, prior to the Civil War.

Early modern and Enlightenment philosopher's idea of democracy, based on male, and subsequent universal suffrage, were naïve in that they didn't recognize that what they were helping emancipate was not "humanity" from despotism, but the rising bourgeoisie from the vestiges of feudalism. Yet, the framers of Constitutions, cynically and hypocritically, selectively selected language and arguments from those philosophers to provide the legal basis for capitalism and bourgeois dominated democracy. This was true of the American Constitution -- written by a motley crew of slave-owners, merchants, capitalists, and so on, in secret, making their class interests dominant in politics. Originally, the Constitution of the United States, by starting off "We the People" referred only to the wealthy classes. That is obvious by its property qualification for voting and holding office and the outright exclusion from political participation of women, slaves, Indians and Blacks.

The bourgeois concept of "liberty" is understood as, "according to the proper signification of the word, the absence of external impediments; which impediments may oft take away part of a man's power to do what he would, but cannot hinder him from using the power left him according as his judgment and reason shall dictate to him" (Hobbes The Leviathan

The bourgeois philosophers posit the myth that in some remote past men lived as competitive individuals in a state of nature, in a war of all against all. The individual is at liberty in the state of nature but to form a community the individual in civil society becomes a "person" with rights and duties: "A person is he whose words or actions are considered, either as his own, or as representing the words or actions of another man, or of any other thing to whom they are attributed, whether truly or by fiction" (Hobbes The Leviathan:

"Whether truly or by fiction"!

"When they are considered as his own, then is he called a natural person: and when they are considered as representing the words and actions of another, then is he a feigned or artificial person" (Hobbes, ibid).

In English, and subsequently American political theory, as stated by Hobbes: "Of persons artificial, some have their words and actions owned by those whom they represent. And then the person is the actor, and he that owneth his words and actions is the author, in which case the actor acteth by authority" (Hobbes, ibid.)

From these premises arose the myth of political covenant or social contract, which is "civil society" as "government by the consent of the governed".

"The Social Contract and Government. The fundamental basis for government and law in this system is the concept of the social contract, according to which human beings begin as individuals in a state of nature, and create a society by establishing a contract whereby they agree to live together in harmony for their mutual benefit, after which they are said to live in a state of society. This contract involves the retaining of certain natural rights, an acceptance of restrictions of certain liberties, the assumption of certain duties, and the pooling of certain powers to be exercised collectively."

Asserted by Thomas Hobbes, the concept of bourgeois democracy as such, was consciously advocated by John Locke, in particular in his Second Treatise On Civil Government. Locke articulated a labor theory of property:

"Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labors of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labor something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

These proprietors come together forming a civil society in which property rights are protected: "the Second Treatise of Government offers a systematic account of the foundations of political obligation. On Locke's view, all rights begin in the individual property interest created by an investment of labor. The social structure or commonwealth, then, depends for its formation and maintenance on the express consent of those who are governed by its political powers. Majority rule thus becomes the cornerstone of all political order, and dissatisfied citizens reserve a lasting right to revolution." (Garth Kemerling: John Locke)

Although Locke's argument was used to justify the British colonists expropriations of the lands inhabited by "wild Indians", (hunter-gatherers in particular who didn't engage in agricultural labor), it also was used in Europe to justify the bourgeois-democratic revolutions including the expropriation by peasants and serfs of the lands they worked from the idle class of aristocratic landowners.

Jean-Jacque Rousseau wrote in The Social Contract:

"Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains. This man believes that he is the master of others, and still he is more of a slave than they are. How did that transformation take place? I don't know. How may the restraints on man become legitimate? I do believe I can answer that question....

"At a point in the state of nature when the obstacles to human preservation have become greater than each individual with his own strength can cope with . . . an adequate combination of forces must be the result of men coming together. Still, each man's power and freedom are his main means of self-preservation. How is he to put them under the control of others without damaging himself?

"This question might be rephrased: "How is a method of associating to be found which will defend and protect-using the power of all-the person and property of each member and still enable each member of the group to obey only himself and to remain as free as before?" This is the fundamental problem; the social contract offers a solution to it.


"The social contract's terms, when they are well understood, can be reduced to a single stipulation: the individual member alienates himself totally to the whole community together with all his rights. This is first because conditions will be the same for everyone when each individual gives himself totally, and secondly, because no one will be tempted to make that condition of shared equality worse for other men....

"Once this multitude is united this way into a body, an offense against one of its members is an offense against the body politic. It would be even less possible to injure the body without its members feeling it. Duty and interest thus equally require the two contracting parties to aid each other mutually. The individual people should be motivated from their double roles as individuals and members of the body, to combine all the advantages which mutual aid offers them....

I am writing a critical exegesis of the Iraq Constitution. This exegesis is therefore restricted to an analysis of the actual economic political conflicts that has engendered both bourgeois-democratic Constitutions, and philosophical political theories as relates to Iraq and the "Law"/"Constitution" forced on the Iraqi people.

Suffice it to say that I am in complete agreement with Marx's materialist conception of history:

In the Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy Marx wrote:

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

In opposition to kings and landed aristocracies the political ideology, or rather the myth of Social Contract Theory has been useful. The assumptions upon which social contract theory is based, however, is purely speculative and has no factual basis in either anthropology or human political history.

The Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson and others is in the language [concepts] of the day: the spirit of bourgeois-democratic philosophy and politics of revolution.

The logic in the Declaration of Independence of the 13 British colonies from Britain is squarely based in the currency of ideologies of the time: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The ideological myth of "government by consent of the governed", here, presents the premise for the American Declaration of Independence. The argument of a human right to separate because the mercantile colonial "government becomes destructive of these ends", is to be understood (from Hobbes and Locke's arguments) as a government that restricts self-actualization of capital personified in colonial capitalists.

When (my man) Rousseau wrote about "men" being "born free", he wrote of humanity without regard to class, color, nationality or creed. This was even present in Hobbes and Locke's concept of human equality in the state of nature. But, when Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote of all Men being created equal, it excluded from civil society ("citizenship") women, slaves and proletarians, yeoman farmers and others without wealth in properties. Only property owning men were included in civil society.

The concept of Man=property-owners was inherited from Greco-Roman cultures based on the dehumanization of Slaves. Although not civil society proper, which is based on capital wealth, humanity in feudal society was in like manner restricted to the property class, in particular the landed aristocracy (nobles: counts, dukes, kings). These class prejudices were assumed in the American Constitution, and made explicit Law by the Constitutional Convention in the U.S. Constitution.

In, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, Charles Beard demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, that the United States Constitution was written in a secluded location soas to consolidate the political power of the slave owners and capitalists, against encroachments of the "mob".


I have already dismissed the Preamble, and First article of this so called Constitution. To continue on:

Iraq Governing Council: Article 2. (A) The term "transitional period" shall refer to the period beginning on 30 June 2004 and lasting until the formation of an elected Iraqi government pursuant to a permanent constitution as set forth in this Law, which in any case shall be no later than 31 December 2005, unless the provisions of Article 61 are applied.

Lil Joe: The issue, hidden in rhetorical references to dates and time-lines, has been presented both by supporters of the occupation and its opponents in terms of a "hand-over of power to Iraqis". The bourgeois governments, representing their respective capitalist class interests in the United Nations -- by diverting the issue from quality of government to quantitative dates in time and from political content (members of the government) to morphological characteristics and geo-political location, aim to hide the fact that those who are to be handed power of government, like those handing power, are nothing but quislings.

The Constitution, as a legal document, will determine who is and who is not the electorate and who can and cannot run for office. The United States political operatives in Iraq are there to make sure that the Constitution excludes Iraqis whose politics are opposed to U.S. imperialist economic domination and to its quisling government.

The "transitional period" is predicated upon assumptions as to how long will be required to militarily suppress the opposition and break the will of the resistance. This is the military work and political objective of the "transitional period". Regardless to the time taken, all that will be acquired is a transition from a temporary quisling regime to a permanent one.

The only differences between the bourgeois governments of the United States, Britain and Israel on one side of the debate, and of the bourgeois governments of Germany, France and Russia on the other is that Germany, France and Russia want the U.S. to suppress the resistance sooner rather than later.

Iraq Governing Council: (B) The transitional period shall consist of two phases. (1) The first phase shall begin with the formation of a fully sovereign Iraqi Interim Government that takes power on 30 June 2004.

Lil Joe: Lying Rhetoric is a Monster! The truth is that the first phase shall begin with the fully obedient quisling in opposition to Iraq's sovereignty. The so-called Iraqi Interim Government will be a group of quislings taking the place of the current quisling Iraq Governing Council.

Iraq Governing Council: This [Iraqi Interim] Government shall be constituted in accordance with a process of extensive deliberations and consultations with cross-sections of the Iraqi people conducted by the Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority and possibly in consultation with the United Nations.

Lil Joe: This says it all! The "Iraqi Interim Government" will undergo "extensive" lectures on how to be a good and consistent Lackey! U.S. imperialism learned its lessons from placing erratic lackey in position to advance its interests as in the cases of the Saddam regime vis-à-vis the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the reactionary theocrats in power in Afghanistan vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.

Lackey regimes that come to power on their own but subsequently retain that power by foreign monetary aid and/or arms -- as in the cases of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Ariel Sharon in Israel -- nevertheless have a domestic power base which enables them to be more independent minded than quisling regimes. Quislings are lackey regimes that owe their very existence to foreign powers: quisling regimes are forced on the native population from without. The formation of an Iraqi Interim Government forced on the native population from without cannot be understood as anything but a Quisling regime and will not, cannot, be "sovereign".

As far as U.N. participation is concerned, it must be borne in mind that the Iraqis rightly see the U.N. as the Organization that authorized the 12 years of genocidal sanctions and bombings in its name. The fact that the United Nations is an Assembly of bourgeois governments, each representing its own national bourgeois, only means that the international interests of foreign capital will be presented in consulting the future of Iraq, and the region.

Iraq Governing Council: This government shall exercise authority in accordance with this Law, including the fundamental principles and rights specified herein, and with an annex that shall be agreed upon and issued before the beginning of the transitional period and that shall be an integral part of this Law.

Lil Joe: As I stated in the first section, authority in a democracy can come only from the consent of the governed. The overwhelming majority of the Iraqis -- its working classes and toiling masses and their organizations - had nothing to do with the selection of members of the Iraq Governing Council. They were hand picked by the U.S. occupation. The United States is a hostile occupation army that has power but not authority in Iraq. Since in the eyes of the Iraqis the U.S. has no authority to select an Iraqi Government, the government that it established has no authority to determine authority in their country.

What would be the reactions of Americans if the People's Republic of China waged a war of aggression against America, and after defeating America, destroying its government and army, set-up a quisling regime stating it "shall exercise authority in accordance with [Chinese] Law, including the fundamental principles and rights specified herein, and with an annex that shall be agreed upon and issued before the beginning of the transitional period and that shall be an integral part of [Chinese established] Law?

Iraq Governing Council: (2) The second phase shall begin after the formation of the Iraqi Transitional Government, which will take place after elections for the National Assembly have been held as stipulated in this Law, provided that, if possible, these elections are not delayed beyond 31 December 2004, and, in any event, beyond 31 January 2005. This second phase shall end upon the formation of an Iraqi government pursuant to a permanent constitution.

Lil Joe: Again, the issues are not dates and timelines but political quality. The National Assembly is counterfeit because their criterion for attendance, and selection of attendees is established by a hostile occupying power.

The revolutionary legitimacy of a National Constituent Assembly, historically, has been established by the revolutionary masses in opposition to Estates and/or foreign domination.

In the French Revolution, the Estates General was dominated by the 1st and 2nd Estates, of Church and Nobility respectively, having the same authority as the 3rd Estate. In the assembling of the Estates General each Estate had a single vote. Thus in combination, the 1st and 2nd Estates always outvoted the 3rd Estate.

The economic interests of the Church and Nobility were based on land, and feudal mode of appropriation with its corresponding feudal relations of production. The high clergy and nobility constituted but 10% of the population of France. The 3rd Estate represented the rest of the society, which were numerically 90% of the population of France. The bourgeois mode of appropriation, the result of the rising capitalist mode of production, produced bourgeois wealth and power.

Yet, given the political structure and function of the Estates General, the 1st and 2nd Estates were politically dominate. The nobility constituted the officer corps in the military but the Absolutist monarchal state was staffed by professional bureaucrats. The state bureaucratic hierarchy was however primarily from the educated representatives of the bourgeoisie.

The first act of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, on behalf of the membership of the 3rd Estate, was to displace the Estates General by a National Assembly based on one-man one vote. The material interests of the bourgeoisie brought Rousseau's ideas into the forefront of revolutionary thought. On June 17, 3rd Estate's representatives declared themselves the National Assembly, and on a tennis court, signed Oath of the Tennis Court 3 days later, affirming that wherever they assembled, the National Assembly would exist, and that the National Assembly would not disband until it wrote a Constitution.

A National assembly has legitimacy in authority only if and when it is a product of an indigenous mass revolution and is by definition opposed to a quisling gang of rascals set up by an occupying power and forced on the Nation. The evolution of the National Constituent Assembly in the Russian Revolution was similar. The goings on in Iraq today is comparatively a fake and a fraud!


Iraq Governing Council: "Article 3. (A) This Law is the Supreme Law of the land and shall be binding in all parts of Iraq without exception."

Lil Joe: That the imperialist's written "Law is the Supreme Law of the land and shall be binding in all parts of Iraq without exception" is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of the Anglo-American occupation.

The Iraqi people do not recognize the authority of the British and American occupation politicians to hand pick an Iraqi government. Only the submissive, obedient, quisling members in the Iraq Governing Council recognize and submit to Imperialist decrees as their "Supreme Law".

Iraq Governing Council: "No amendment to this Law may be made except by a three-fourths majority of the members of the National Assembly and the unanimous approval of the Presidency Council."

Lil Joe: As I showed previously a "National Assembly" has authority, in the eyes of the people, only if/when it is established as an expression of the masses themselves.

This is not the case in Iraq. The Iraqis recognize the so-called Iraq Governing Council as a quisling operation without legitimacy. The so-called National Assembly will have no recognized authority in that it is set up by this quisling puppet, with the U.S. puppet master pulling all the strings, being the final power that either writes or dictates what is and isn't to be in the Constitution, who can and who cannot vote in elections or run for office, and once in office, what laws can and cannot be legislated.

The Iraqi people regard the Iraq Governing Council as illegitimate. The only thing "Supreme" about this quisling "Law" is its illegality. This "Law" is not binding on anyone in Iraq except the U.S. Lackeys who wrote it! Requiring three/fourth majority and unanimous approval of the Presidency Council only safeguards the laws representing Anglo-American imperialist and Iraqi capitalist interests.

Iraq Governing Council: Likewise, no amendment may be made that could abridge in any way the rights of the Iraqi people cited in Chapter Two; extend the transitional period beyond the timeframe cited in this Law; delay the holding of elections to a new assembly; reduce the powers of the regions or governorate laws,; or affect Islam, or any other religions or sects and their rites.

Lil Joe: As we shall see further on the "rights" that this bourgeois Constitution are advocating, as in every other bourgeois democracy, is the property rights of domestic and foreign capitalist to own Iraqi productive assets and exploit Iraqi proletarians.

Iraqis regard phrase mongering about bourgeois rights = "human rights" as nothing but flowery rhetoric, no more than a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. The real significance in this section is not abstractions about "rights" but the restrictions in this Constitution:

"no amendment may be made that could… reduce the powers of the regions or governorate laws". These regional powers or "governorate laws" are put in place by Anglo-American occupation forces which will remain in occupation to back them by bayonets.

Iraq Governing Council: (B) Any legal provision that conflicts with this Law is null and void.

Lil Joe: This is nothing but the culmination of all the restrictions above: Were it possible that the Iraqi organize and manipulate this National Assembly by electing Iraqi socialist workers and petty-bourgeois patriots to the Majority, and even the Presidency, any legislation in the interests of the Iraqi proletariat such as legislating public ownership of the productive forces including energy, oil, industry, rail and communication, managed by Iraqi workers, such provisions would "conflict with this Law" and thus be declared "null and void".

Iraq Governing Council: (C) This Law shall cease to have effect upon the formation of an elected government pursuant to a permanent constitution.

Lil Joe: Anglo-American political operatives and legal scholars must think that the Iraqi workers are as unsophisticated and ignorant as American workers are! All the restrictions already meted out hems in legislation to agree to bourgeois and imperialist interests in determining who will participate in the National Assembly and what can and can't be legal so that the "elected government pursuant to a permanent constitution" will be able to be nothing but a quisling regime.

Iraq Governing Council: Article 4:The system of government in Iraq shall be republican, federal, democratic, and pluralistic, and powers shall be shared between the federal government and the regional governments, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations. The federal system shall be based upon geographic and historical realities and the separation of powers, and not upon origin, race, ethnicity, nationality, or confession.

Lil Joe: The thing to watch here is "separation of powers".

In the United States, the separation of powers is that the ordinary people, the workers and farmers, have the capacity to win seats in the House of Representatives. If, or rather when, they become the majority, the inevitable tendency will be to legislate their class interests. The Constitution has set the Senate up in such a way that only the wealthy and capitalist have the money and resources to win -- ditto the Presidency and Supreme Court. The senate will strike down a working-class majority in the House of Representatives legislating the transfer of the productive forces from private capitalist ownership to public property. If the workers outside the Congress -- trade unions, associations, community groups, and sections of the rank and file in the armed forces -- support the Proletarian dominated House of Representatives, the Senate might be too frightened to strike down the House legislation. In this case the "separation of powers" will go to a Presidential veto. However, if again forced through, over-riding the veto, the "separation of powers" will be that it will be left up to the Courts, backed by Law enforcement, (the military), the "independent judiciary" to strike it down as "unconstitutional".

Iraq Governing Council: Article 5. The Iraqi Armed Forces shall be subject to the civilian control of the Iraqi Transitional Government, in accordance with the contents of Chapters Three and Five of this Law.

Lil Joe: Now, this is really an insult to Iraqi intelligence. The "Iraqi Transitional Government" is itself subject to the decrees, to the beck and call of the U.S. occupation forces! Under occupation and working for a quisling government the "Iraqi Armed Forces" are nothing but flunkeys of the Anglo-American chains of command! There is nothing "Iraqi" about it, any more than there was any thing French about the Vichy government or Norwegian about the Quisling government.

I have dealt with the main political legal and military matters.

Article 6.

The Iraqi Transitional Government shall take effective steps to end the vestiges of the oppressive acts of the previous regime arising from forced displacement, deprivation of citizenship, expropriation of financial assets and property, and dismissal from government employment for political, racial, or sectarian reasons.

Article 7.

A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period. This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice.

(B) Iraq is a country of many nationalities, and the Arab people in Iraq are an inseparable part of the Arab nation.

Article 8.

The flag, anthem, and emblem of the State shall be fixed by law.

Article 9.

The Arabic language and the Kurdish language are the two official languages of Iraq. The right of Iraqis to educate their children in their mother tongue, such as Turcoman, Syriac, or Armenian, in government educational institutions in accordance with educational guidelines, or in any other language in private educational institutions, shall be guaranteed. The scope of the term "official language" and the means of applying the provisions of this Article shall be defined by law and shall include:

(1) Publication of the official gazette, in the two languages;

(2) Speech and expression in official settings, such as the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers, courts, and official conferences, in either of the two languages;

(3) Recognition and publication of official documents and correspondence in the two languages;

(4) Opening schools that teach in the two languages, in accordance with educational guidelines;

(5) Use of both languages in any other settings enjoined by the principle of equality (such as bank notes, passports, and stamps);

(6) Use of both languages in the federal institutions and agencies in the Kurdistan region.

LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe