Hundreds of Shiites Protest US-Iraqi Security Deal
BAGHDAD - Hundreds of followers of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr took to the streets after Friday prayers in Shiite areas to protest plans for a longterm security pact between Iraq and the United States.
Iraqi officials and lawmakers have opposed the proposed security pact, which would provide a legal framework for the presence of U.S.-led forces after a U.N. mandate expires later this year. The opposition claims it infringes Iraq's independence and sovereignty.
Sadrist Sheik Assad al-Nassiri warned the agreement, which faces a July 31 target date for completion, will "humiliate Iraqis, rob the Iraqi government of its sovereignty and give the occupier the upper hand."
"We do believe that the presence of the occupation is the main reason behind all of our crises, and unfortunately we hear some of our government officials calling on the occupation forces to stay," he said during a sermon in Kufa.
Worshippers poured out onto the streets in Kufa as well as Baghdad's Sadr City after Friday prayers chanting "No, no to America! No, no to the agreement!" and carrying banners that said "we will not accept Iraq to be an American colony."
Al-Sadr has called for weekly protests against the deal, which also has drawn criticism from other powerful Shiite leaders, as well as Sunni politicians and Iran.
In Tehran, Friday prayer leader, Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, thanked the Iraqi government and clerics in the country for their opposition during the past week to the U.S.-Iraq security pact.
"The great clerics took a very commendable stance regarding the pact," said Khatami. "The Iraqi government also took a praiseworthy stance and said it would not sign the pact."
The comments came a week after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, said talks on an initial draft had stalled but were continuing.
The White House said late Thursday that President Bush had discussed the ongoing negotiations during a teleconference call with al-Maliki and the dialogue over the agreement was "proceeding well."
"President Bush confirmed the United States' commitment to forge an agreement that fully respects Iraqi sovereignty," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.
Critics have denounced the purported failure of the U.S. to offer a firm commitment to defend the country from any invasion and a demand for immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for all American personnel in Iraq.
Also in contention has been the number of bases the United States would maintain in the country and whether the U.S. military will retain the power to arrest Iraqi civilians and keep them in U.S. detention facilities.
Meanwhile, Sadrists criticized what they have called "random detentions" by U.S.-backed Iraqi security forces during a military operation in the southern city of Amarah. No fighting was reported as the crackdown entered its second day.
"The believers are being arrested everyday in Amarah and other cities without arrest warrants in contrary to what Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says," Sheik Jassim al-Muttairi said during his sermon in Baghdad's main Shiite district of Sadr City.
Tensions rose Thursday when Iraqi troops arrested the mayor, Rafia Abdul-Jabbar, and 16 others for alleged involvement with militias in Amarah, a Sadrist stronghold and hub of smuggler networks bringing in weapons from Iran to Shiite extremists.
The U.S. military, which has troops supporting the Iraqis in Amarah, said separately that 17 artillery rounds and a machine gun were turned into Iraqi security forces in Amarah during a four-day amnesty that expired Wednesday.
The troops also had seized hundreds of mines, mortar rounds, rocket-propelled grenades and four homemade rocket launchers in the vicinity of the city, 200 miles southeast of Baghdad, the military said.
In separate operations against Sunni insurgents, U.S. troops killed four suspected militants and detained 18 in raids Thursday and Friday north of Baghdad targeting al-Qaida in Iraq.
© 2008 Associated Press
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
11 Comments so far
Show AllI agree with all the above posts--they are asking us to leave, we need to leave, and too bad for the four major oil companies who are licking their chops to get their oil.
BTW, let's not be scared into approving off-shore drilling thinking it will "fix" the high prices of oil. Where is our leadership calling for alternative fuel research (we put a man on the moon . . .); and for decreasing consumption. Our country uses 25% of all the energy in the WORLD.
So what do we do?
OIL, OIL, OIL...NOTHING ELSE. This adminstration does not give a hoot about the Iraqies, or us for that matter, just Exxon, Schell and the other oil companies filling their coffers before they retire...
No, there needs to be hundreds of thousands of both Iraqis and Americans on the streets to praise this, which WILL go through.
We true chickenpluckin' God-fearin' Americans are just doing what's right and you know it.
Ragdoll - Yeah, but he didn't say WHICH Iraqis, now did he?
I would say that picture looks like more than 'hundreds'.
Japan went through the crisis of a security treaty with the US in 1960. Despite massive protests, the treaty was signed and has been regularly renewed ever since. American troops are still based in Japan and Okinawa. That was the Cold War and Japan had little choice but to follow the lead of the country that had defeated it in the Second World War. It is sad that more than 45 years later America is still pursuing the same type of foreign policy of supplementing economic hegemony with military occupation. They can always find an excuse to put the troops in and it is impossible to remove them thereafter. I hope Iraq can successfully resist this security treaty. there is no justification for it. Iraq should be free to make its own security arrangements in the region and the world through normal diplomatic channels.
There need to be hundreds of thousands of both Iraqis and Americans on the streets to protest this cynical theft of Iraq's resources.
Why would anyone believe for one minute that Bush will deal fairly with the Iraqis? Why did he build a new embassy whose original cost was estimated at $653 million? Just to use it as a "normal" embassy. Don't you believe it. There are probably 600 cells placed in the basement.
If the Iraqis fall for Bush's bull shit one more time, they have sold themselves into virtual slavery. I don't think they will do that.
Judging from the crowd in the picture, AP's headline Should read Thousands, and the real count is likely Tens of Thousands. Of coure, we should expect such from AP as it's a part of the propaganda system.
The hopes of Iraq rest with the Sadrists and Sistani.
"President Bush confirmed the United States' commitment to forge an agreement that fully respects Iraqi sovereignty,"
That will be a neat trick. First, you invade a country that poses no threat to your own, thus violating the first principles of international law. Then, as an occupier, having accomplished your desired "regime change", you kill, maim, displace, imprison and torture untold numbers of its citizens with impunity. And now you're going to "fully respect" its sovereignty in an "agreement" with a Vichy government that grants you a continuance of that cruel occupation along with unfettered rights to steal the country's natural resources?!?!
Wow! What is the currently official US dictionary anyhow? A lot of words like "sovereignty" and "freedom" and "democracy" seem to have been radically redifined.
How many times did the Bush Admnistration assure us that we would only stay in Iraq as long as the Iraqis wanted us there?
More lies!