In the light of recent displays of violence in the country’s western and southern parts by guerilla and militia elements, some observers say "No." For one, rebels in Fallujah and in Sunni Triangle continue to fight and terrorize the rest of the country as they fail to come to terms with the fact that they have lost the battle against US forces. Supporters of Saddam remain loyal; while attacks in other cities are incited by an extremist named Muqtada-al-Sadr.
The Iraqi nation is in pandemonium. Destruction, remnants of the war can be seen everywhere. The streets are covered with trash. Power failure is not infrequent. Prices of commodities continue to soar. And the people are giving themselves away to bribery and corruption. Imagine letting loose someone who has been locked up, enslaved and oppressed for decades.
"It’s hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny," even US President George Bush acknowledged. But he himself is under fire for all this.
Opponents of the June 30 handover contend that the president has not committed enough troops to stabilize Iraq in time for the transfer. They predict that the proposed interim government will just crumble. They warn that it will not be easy looking for a formula that would divide power equally among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. There is going to be a power struggle.
From the other side, proponents of the June 30 handover believe that the violence consuming Iraq right now is a manifestation of resistance to foreign presence and not of an imminent sectarian civil war. The transfer of sovereignty will be the cure for anti-foreign uprisings. They also raise another point: How would the United States look to the rest of the world if we were to renege on a promise?
In his April 10 radio address, the president said: "Some have suggested that we should respond to the recent attacks by delaying Iraqi sovereignty. This is precisely what our enemies want. They want America and our coalition to falter in our commitments before the watching world."
Frankly, this statement is quite pompous and self-serving. So is the "move to grant a nation its sovereignty." Has it all boiled down to keeping a promise? Bottom-line is: Iraq is not ready to walk solo. Then why force the issue? How do you teach a wounded child to stand up and walk again? You offer guidance.
"United Nations Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is conducting intensive consultations with a wide range of Iraqis on the structure of the interim government that will assume control on July the 1st," the president said in the same radio address.
The UN is engaged. More than 100,000 coalition troops will remain on Iraqi grounds for an undetermined period after the handover. The CPA will open its doors on July 1 as the largest US Embassy in the world, with 3,000 employees. The $18.4 billion worth of US assistance will still be managed by Americans who have embarked on a mission to rebuild the country’s ruined infrastructure. The interim government will not have the authority to legislate and enact laws and will only have partial command over its armed forces.
Where is Iraqi sovereignty in that? At best it’s crippled autonomy. This is a joke. It’s like dangling a lollipop in front of a howling child so s/he would stop crying — using the word sovereignty to pacify the restless Iraqis who harbor volatile emotions of weariness, frustration, anger, anguish and hunger for freedom.
Sovereignty, independence, autonomy is self-governance, self-rule, self-sufficiency. Give it to the Iraqis when they are truly ready. For as long as American influences, rules, command and troops remain entrenched in Iraq, what will be handed down on June 30 is nothing more than strings to set in motion a puppet show.
The good that may come out of it are sections that seem appropriate, like providing for victims of the 9/11 attacks, increasing translation facilities, and improvement in forensic cybercrime capabilities. Beyond these points, there is common public perception that the Patriot Act gives new powers to both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies, thus eliminating the checks and balances that used to give courts the window to ensure that powers were not abused. There are allegations that the Patriot Act threatens the civil liberties of ordinary Americans, especially the right to privacy in online communications and activities.
The first basis of these allegations is the Patriot Act-mandated expansion of the four traditional tools of surveillance – wire taps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas, which translates to many things for ordinary citizens and even foreign nationals residing in the United States.
For one, the government may now spy on Web surfing, including terms entered into search engines. The only requirement to get such authority is to tell a judge anywhere in the States that such spying act could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. This means, we all have to be careful even with the mundane searches we click on Google.
Aside from the Internet, the law also authorizes the FBI and CIA to tap computers and/or phones even without proof that such are being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government will not be required to show a court that the particular information to be acquired from tapping is relevant to a criminal investigation.
Moreover, while the supposed onus of the Patriot Act was to limit, if not totally eliminate the threat of terrorism, several of its provisions have no apparent connection to preventing such acts – government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order; adding to database DNA samples of those convicted of "any crime of violence"; and allowed wiretaps for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
There is also sharing of grand jury information, and provision to allow domestic surveillance, among others. Civil liberties and legal defense groups argue that these new powers are too much. In effect, this is giving federal authorities license to abuse and misuse the act.
In July, 2003, the Associated Press reported that there were more than 1,000 civil rights and civil liberties complaints filed stemming from the Patriot Act. These include complaints from Muslims or people of Arab descent who claimed they were intimidated, victimized by false arrest, or that they were beaten or verbally abused while being detained. Americans are also victims. In November, 2003, the Las Vegas Review Journal reported that federal authorities used the Patriot Act to investigate Las Vegas strip club owner Michael Galardi and other politicians suspected of corruption, a case that has nothing to do with terrorism.