Allies and Enemies: How America's Saudi Arabian Double Standard Mocks the Fight Against ISIS

by Nomad

There's no question that ISIS is an embodiment of barbarity and a perversion of Islam. However, some critics of Western foreign policy in the Middle East might ask: Is Saudi Arabia- an ally- really all that much better?

One of the most perplexing and exasperating problems for anybody trying to create a sensible approach to the Middle East has been determining who your foe and who your friend actually is.. at any given moment.  

For Western policy makers, absolute impartiality is not an option. Attempting to please implacable enemies, like Israel and Iran, is an exercise in futility. And this, in turn, forces countries to choose based on criteria that seems as unstable as the shifting desert sand.

Concessions have to be made to keep everybody happy but with the rise of the brutality of the ISIS caliphate, the US and the West, in general, are forced to confront its irreconcible double standard. Does being a Western ally entail nothing more than shared self-interests?  What happened to shared core values and principles that defines "us" from "them"? 

GOP Congressman's Defense of the First Amendment and Religious Liberty Outrages Conservatives

by Nomad

One Republican Congressman was given a stern dressing down for a letter he sent to a constituent regarding fears of a Muslim takeover. Apparently, upholding the First Amendment and the Constitution's defense of religious liberty makes some conservatives livid.

Earlier this month, a widely-read conservative website, RedState, posted an article expressing outrage about a letter sent to a constituent by Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger from Illinois. As per the Tea Party echo chamber, this article was re-posted ad nauseam.
The original letter sent to Kinzinger's office was related to the fears of the supposed spread of Muslim Sharia Law in his district.
To this, Kinzinger gave a polite and well-considered reply. That did not sit well with the conservatives. At all. 

According to the site:

Kinzinger’s email response begins by acknowledging that many people inside and outside of the expansive 16th congressional district have concerns about Sharia Law, but then took things a bridge too far by stating that Sharia Law was protected under the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment and that it was his sworn duty as an elected member of Congress to defend the Constitution and by extension Islamic Sharia Law.

First elected to Congress in 2010, Kinzinger was re-elected to Congress in both 2012 and 2014 to represent Illinois's 16th congressional district. He is also a United States Air Force vet and flew missions in South America, Guam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. With a military record like that, Kinzinger's loyalty to his nation and all that it stands for is something few would dare to question.

The writer of the RedState piece, Ulysses Arn, said that the reply made Kinzinger, the spokesperson for the House GOP establishment on all things related to the military and foreign policy "look like a fool."
Even for a conservative, that's a pretty disrespectful thing to say to a veteran who risked his life fighting Islamic extremists.

Why the US Won't be Speaking Out Against Brunei's Gay Stoning Laws

by Nomad

Does the silence from the Obama Administration about Brunei's decision to enact Sharia laws against homosexuality reveal a disturbing double-standard of the US government?
Or could this just another example of the kind of CIA miscalculation that has plagued the agency for decades?

When Existence Is Illegal

On April 22 2014, some of the most extreme anti-gay laws came into effect in the tiny Sultanate of Brunei. The Southeast Asia nation has enacted  punishments mandated by Sharia law for a number of offenses, including same-sex-activity. For crimes of a sexual nature, stoning to death- as well as slicing selected parts of criminal anatomy- will be a newly adopted method of punishment under the new laws. These laws will be gradually phased in over the next few years. 

"Rape, adultery, sodomy, extramarital sexual relations for Muslims, insulting any verses of the Quran and Hadith, blasphemy, declaring oneself a prophet or non-Muslim, and murder are the other offences for which the death penalty could be applied under the revised code."

Although tiny country is predominantly Muslim (67%) there are also Buddhists (13%), Christian (10%) who will from now on be obliged to live under Sharia laws.  

In point of fact, the Koran has this to say about the law when it comes to homosexuality.

If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful (Sura al-Nisa' 4:16)

So, it would seem laws that require punishment are, strictly speaking, interpretations of the Sharia law and not based on what the religion actually dictates anyway. (But that's a matter for Koranic scholars to argue about.)

In any case, the United Nations Human Rights strongly condemned the new laws as a violation of human rights. Rupert Colville, spokesperson for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Colville  said, 

“Application of the death penalty for such a broad range of offences contravenes international law.”

Colville pointed out other problems with the new laws. 

"Stoning to death, under international law, constitutes torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and is thus clearly prohibited,”

Additionally, he noted that  the "criminalization and application of the death penalty for consensual relations between adults in private also violates a whole host of rights, including the rights to privacy, to equality before the law, the right to health and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention."