Is There Balm in Gilead?

Holden directs me to this, and it is this assertion that catches my legal eye:

Dr. Marinos Diamantides, senior lecturer of law at the University of London, said the entire drafting process could be illegal under international law.

"One could argue the entire process is against the law," Diamantides told IPS. "According to the 1907 Convention for the pacific settlement of disputes, the occupying power has a duty to maintain the legal system of the country it occupies. This is the first time ever that an occupying power has dismantled the internal law system of the country it occupies."

He also pointed out that, ironically, the Sunnis now have the power to derail the upcoming referendum by a two-thirds vote in three provinces. That power was originally intended to give the Kurds the power to veto the constitution.

In keeping with my critique of the American press earlier, is it coincidence that this kind of legal analysis is available in the European press, but is never mentioned in the American press? The American public is told only the Administration line: that a constitution will be the balm from Gilead that will finally heal our nation's self-inflicted wound.

It is, of course, nothing of the sort. And this simple statement of historical fact, tells me more than all the tiresome, and obfuscating, "analysis" that I have heard in American media, or read, for that matter, on blogs.

Is there still hope for the Iraqi constitution? Not really.

Justin Alexander ["legal affairs officer for the office of constitutional support with the United Nations Assistance Mission to Iraq" and the person "who oversaw the recent proceedings in Baghdad"]said Iraq might need a new constitution. "If Iraq creates a progressive and effective constitution and laws to implement the constitution, then this could benefit Iraqis. But in the absence of mutual reconciliation and an end to the occupation, this is all futile."