Million person march in Baghdad planned for Friday! Baghdad official hasn't issued a protest permit

[Better Believe It]

Conflicting Assessments Of Demonstrations in Iraq
Source: Elaph.com, February 20, 2011; al-Zaman, Iraq, February 21, 2011

Iraqis' views regarding the daily demonstrations in their cities differ with regard to their purpose, although the majority believes that they are triggered by the need for political reform and for changing the quality of services.

While two months ago the demonstrations were "timid and rare," these days they have become "daring and daily." It is rare not to witness multiple demonstrations in various locations simultaneously. While there is a broad consensus about the legitimacy of demonstrations opinions differ whether their primary purpose is to bring the fall of the regime or to reform it.

In the meantime, in an attempt to curtail demonstrations, the governor of the province of Baghdad has issued an order the organizers of demonstrations requiring a permit to demonstrate obtained seven days before a demonstration can be scheduled. This order is seen as pre-empting the one million-strong demonstrations set for February 25 in Baghdad, with only five days remaining for the permit to be issued. This will be a test of wills between the governor of Baghdad and the organizers of the mass demonstration.

Since both the army and the police are federal security forces, it remains to be seen whether Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki will authorize their deployment to prevent the planned huge demonstration from taking place or will let the demonstration proceed peacefully.

http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/34721.htm

[Better Believe It]

1. Baghdad cops raid headquarters of Iraq Freedom Congress satellite TV and destroy all its equipment

You can check out this recent development at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x489398

[AKDavy]

2. The right of people to assemble isn't subject to "permit"

Laws, constitutions, and judicial interpretations of laws and constitutions are irrelevant, here and abroad.

Rights exist. They are not granted. They are not legislated. They cannot be taken away or limited. They simply exist. The legitimacy of laws, constitutions and judicial decisions rests entirely on whether those natural rights are acknowledged or not.

It's up to people to decide how much to risk in exercising those rights, and how much they risk will be in large part a function of how much they believe they have to gain or lose in the process.

The people in the Middle East just don't have that much to lose by challenging their own tyrants and the U.S. Empire.

[Better Believe It]

3. But people should always fight for those rights to become the "law of the land" and if they are

to not be violated by the government.

That's a lot better than not having those democratic rights included in a Constitution.

Would we have an even less democratic government in the United States without the first 10 amendments and other progressive amendments included in the constitution?

The answer is obvious.

Yes.

[AKDavy]

4. Codification is nice, but not necessary

The forgotten 9th Amendment clearly says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 9th Amendment is generally ignored, I think, because it made it clear that the other nine amendments were not a comprehensive list. It restricts the power of the three branches to enforce their interpretations of the rights that were listed in the other nine amendments. For example, if I claim the right of self defense under the 9th Amendment (which I do), the intepretation of the 2nd Amendment becomes less significant in a debate about keeping and bearing arms.

Only by demanding and defending inherent natural rights will the political whims of the three branches of government be neutralized.

[Better Believe It]

5. Codification in a Constitution is much more than just nice. What if the U.S. Constitution did not

prohibit slavery? It's just "nice" that it does?

And in what nations do the people have broad freedoms and democratic rights without Constitutional guarantees and how does one enforce specific rights that haven't even been legally won in those nations?

When you "demand and defend natural rights" who are you making those demands on and what do you expect them to do in response to your demands .... pass laws specifying those rights or shall we just live it up to the interpretation and good intentions of individual government bureaucrats and law enforcement personnel?

[AKDavy]

6. The 9th Amendment says what it says

Patrick Henry was a driving force in demanding recognition that the Constitution would not limit rights only to those listed.

Natural rights require no codification, they simply exist, and sometimes in conflict with code.

For example, on my property in Alaska, two of the four species of naturally occurring "magic mushrooms" grow where and how they have for thousands of years. I can pick any mushroom I want, but if I pick one of these and put it in my pocket I have committed a felony (possession of a controlled substance). If I ingest a piece of one I've committed a second felony (Abuse of a controlled substance). How could I respect that kind of law? How can the state enforce it? Where to they get a right to control a naturally occurring plant on my property and whether or how I use it? So, I exercise my natural right to do with my body as I please. If the state does find a way to enforce the code against me, I may be unjustly imprisoned, but that will be a violation of my natural rights.

Regardless of what the Constitution and federal law said, the enslaved had a natural right to be free. The challenge was making the Constitution and the law conform to their natural rights, not making them grant human rights they already had but were denied.

[Better Believe It]

7. Without the Bill of Rights amendments do you think any free speech or press claims you might make

would be held up by federal courts?

You can yell about your free press "natural rights" all you want while the feds imprison you for publishing seditious materials.

Good luck with that.

[AKDavy]

9. No, you are correct

The paradigm is that we have the rights listed in nine of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, some later amendments, and in pieces of legislation codifying rights. As I said, the struggle is over the gap between the natural rights we have and those on paper. The rights don't exist because of the paper, the paper exists because of the rights. It's the practical results of those gaps that I'm talking about.

A real example:

Several years ago, I was sitting in a coffee shop here in Eagle River, and a couple of people at the next table were clearly making plans to move a lot of marijuana by riverboat. (In Alaska, a "riverboat" is a flat-bottomed boat, 20-foot give or take a little) with a jet attachment for handling shallow rivers). Based on "several trips," I guessed they had to be moving more than a ton. If they had been planning a murder, arson, rape or theft I would have gotten as much information as I could and notified the authorities. Instead, I did nothing. If they hadn't already paid for their coffee I would have. It was because I believe people have a natural right to do with their minds/bodies/lives as they please if they are causing no unnecessary suffering to others. The practical matter is that the authorities will find no assistance from many citizens for enforcing things like vice.

One of the reasons I live in Alaska, and why I live where I live in Alaska, is that I routinely practice my natural rights without regard to what is written down. That is, I live my life with the natural rights I have and don't worry about the rights others grant me. That may eventually put me in conflict with the authorities or the more sheep-like among us, but that is the history of people exercising and fighting for natural rights.

For 54 years, my luck exercising my natural rights has been quite good.

[Imagevision]

8. Count the suicide bombings Friday...

[DFW]

10. If you really have a million people ready to march

You don't need a permit. There aren't a lot of things a government can do to stop a million people marching.

You'd have as much luck as you would passing an ordinance forbidding birds from flying south for the winter.

[Better Believe It]

11. A permit can make it easier for some more reluctant or worried people to march.

It's always better to have a parade permit than to not have one.

But, as you pointed out if you have enough people willing to demonstrate permits really don't matter.