Quote:
Originally Posted by jinnzaman
Hizbullah isn't the only dangerous destabilizing militia with weapons and an agenda for control.
|
Virtually all of the militias disarmed at the end of the civil war, or incorporated into the armed forces. There are a few armed elements left, notably hizbullah and some Palestinian factions in the refugee camps. Other groups may have their guns stocked away somewhere, but they are not an armed presence in public life, they dont mount military attacks on anybody else, they dont have military fiefdoms as they did during the civil war, etc. Of course this will all change and things will go back to the way they were
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinnzaman
And in terms of the law and the Constitution . . . the problem is that its outdated. How does one change the law of the land when it itself isn't open to change?
|
Talks have been underway for over a year in Lebanon to resolve ongoing conflicts there. One of the issues on the table has been the electoral system which is what I assume you're referring to. Hizbullah has always been expert at seizing on minor things to push forward other agendas. This issue of the telephone network and airport guy (who was allowing Hizbullah to videotape incoming and outgoing flights from Lebanon's national airport, btw) was used by Hizbullah as an excuse to get violent and throw their weight and their guns around by killing lebanese people in order to push their agenda in those talks. The concessions that the government gave them go far beyond the phone network and so on.
In any case hizbullah is a minority party and would be a minority party under a basic system of parliamentary democracy, so they dont have the right to change the constitution either way. It isnt like the will of Lebanon's people is being suppressed and these guys are fighting to enact it. Quite the opposite actually. I think Lebanon would be well served by a more democratic system of government, but I dont see how that would change the level of threat that Hizbullah poses
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinnzaman
And in terms of the shutting down of the network by the government, its debateable that the government had such authority . . . government is one with limited powers and under a democratic framework theory of government . . . the state must generally have a compelling interest in taking away certain freedoms . . .
|
It has nothing to do with freedoms, its about an illegal phone network. If you connect a phone line illegally between your house and some friends' houses the government will shut it down. I dont think there are any countries in the world where the government doesnt have the authority to regulate telecom networks.
The problem in Lebanon with Hizbullah is that this organization basically doesnt recognize the authority of the national government. They give their "Secretary General" the right to declare war, to fight wars, to make peace, to make diplomatic and trade decisions, to create communications and media networks, to shut down communications and media networks, to arrest, try, imprison, and execute people, and so on. We need to remember that Elmer Fudd and the Ayatollahs who run him are not the rulers of a nation, but simply party leaders. By whatever measure you want to use, they have grossly overstepped their bounds. Turning their guns on lebanese people is just another step in this progression, which will probably end with their rockets falling on Beirut (again) the same way they bombarded Haifa. Some of the worst devastation and the highest death tolls that Lebanon sustained during the civil war occurred when Hizbullah battled Amal in Beirut and turned the city into a bloodbath, and theres no reason to think that they are any less ruthless now considering the last few days
ws