At an Iraqi army checkpoint, a newlywed couple was ordered out of their car at a Baghdad. The police and army members were shocked when they discovered that the blushing bride was really a man, CNN reported.
The couple were not newlyweds, they were wanted militants trying to sneak past security in disguise, the Iraqi defense ministry said in a statement. The video and the CNN news article say it all.
BAGHDAD (CNN) -- Soldiers manning a checkpoint near Baghdad stopped a wedding convoy to find that the purported bride and groom were wanted terror suspects, an Iraqi Defense Ministry official said Monday.
The Army set up the checkpoint last week in the Taji area, about 12 miles (20 kilometers) north of Baghdad.
The soldiers became suspicious of the convoy because its members -- save the "bride" -- were all male and because one of the cars in the convoy did not heed orders to stop, the official said.
Also, soldiers said, the people in the car seemed nervous and the groom refused to lift his bride's veil when soldiers asked him to, according to the official.
Soldiers ordered everyone out of the car, the official said.
Upon inspecting the convoy, soldiers found a stubbly-faced man, Haider al-Bahadli, decked out in a white bride's dress and veil.
Bahadli was wanted on terror-related charges, as was his groom, Abbas al-Dobbi, the official said.
Two other terror-related suspects were detained as well.
this is probably not the best time to make a crack about civil unions..
ReplyDeleteI think I might just dodge THAT wedding party, LOL ... ;)
ReplyDeleteBT, take a look at this article. It shows how the so-called democracy is nothing more than an inconvenience to be ignored if it gets in the way of the permanent occupation of Iraq:
ReplyDeleteAn excerpt:
"In 2006, Maliki's office requested the renewal of the U.N. mandate without consulting the legislature, a process that many lawmakers maintained was a violation of Iraqi law. The problem was that Maliki didn't have the authority to make the request under the Iraqi constitution. Article 58, Section 4 says that the Council of Representatives (the parliament) has to ratify "international treaties and agreements" negotiated by the Council of Ministers (the cabinet). Specifically, it reads: "A law shall regulate the ratification of international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Council of Representatives."
Prime Minister Maliki had claimed that the constitution didn't refer to the U.N. mandate. A senior Iraqi lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of the assertion: "If we are asked to approve a trade agreement concerning olive oil, should we not have the right to pass on an agreement concerning the stationing of foreign military forces in our national soil?"
In June, we reported that the parliament had passed a binding resolution that would force Maliki to go to the parliament and give Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the mandate. It was signed by the majority of the 275-seat legislature, then sent to the president. According to the Iraqi constitution, the president had 15 days to veto it by sending it back to the parliament; otherwise it automatically became a ratified law. The 15 days passed without a veto and the resolution became the law of the land in mid-June 2007.
Something happened, however, between the passage of that law and the latest report by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. According to Moon's latest report to the Security Council (PDF), dated Oct. 15, the law that had been passed by the duly elected legislature of Iraq became nothing more than a "nonbinding resolution":
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/67383/?page=entire
Perhaps this cowardly bastard should be hanged in his wedding dress?
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm glad that this group of terrorists have been caught. I hope all terrorists will be caught or killed. However, I hope even more that the process of political reconciliation in Iraq will begin and yield positive results. This is the only way to build a lasting peace.
I'm glad that this group of terrorists have been caught. I hope all terrorists will be caught or killed.
ReplyDeletei think it is fair to assume there was some serious hanky panky going on. however, until this person is tried on whatever charges they have against him, i will hold judgement. it isn't against the law for a man to wear a wedding dress. given the numerous check points i would imagine people dressing up and wearing disguises and altering ones name and identity would be fairly common simply for the sake of safety if one wanted to enter an area that he/she was not allowed to be in. for all we know he was attempting to tranport himself to go to his mothers funeral.
i did notice there was no mention of the previous charges that alledged he was a terrorist.
i am just not in a position to rush to conclusions becasue this person is in a very embarrassing outfit.
Upon inspecting the convoy, soldiers found a cache of weapons and numerous devices to construct bombs
oh wait, they didn't, i made that up. excuse me for not jumping to the conclusion that whatever this sectarian governments says, is true. just becasue they wear the mantel of authority doesn't give them clean hands. let's hear the charges.
Annie, how do you know what is or isn't against the law in Iraq? Regardless, once again you are reading what you want to read
ReplyDeleteRead the article again.
'...stopped a wedding convoy to find that the purported bride and groom were wanted terror suspects'
'Bahadli was wanted on terror-related charges, as was his groom, Abbas al-Dobbi, the official said.
Two other terror-related suspects were detained as well.'
WANTED TERROR SUSPECTS did you catch that? That means that before he ever put on that wedding dress he was a WANTED TERROR SUSPECT. It appears that he was wearing a wedding dress as cover to escape being caught.
q, you don't have to scream. while the term 'suspect' has clear meaning, the term 'terror' does not. especially coming from a government that is known for having death squads. everything is relative. have you noticed how all the males we kill are called either terrorists or suspected terrorists? the only civilians we kill are either women or children. so, basically any male iraqi is a suspect to somebody.
ReplyDeletei am not saying i think he should be set free, however, i am not in agreement w/david he should be hung by his wedding dress. you want to know why? because i come from a supposedly civilized nation and we have a little thing called habaeus corpus which means you need to charge someone w/a specific crime and provide them w/legal representation. generally you don't just lock them up and throw away the key or execute them. in other words there is such a thing as innocent until proven guilty and i for one, thinks it takes more than a charge of 'suspect' to kill someone or sentence them to prison.
It appears that he was wearing a wedding dress as cover to escape being caught.
once again you are reading what you want to read .
what it appears to me is he was wearing a wedding dress. most likely to gain entry into a place that may have otherwise been difficult. that can be for any number of reasons
sorry, i am just not a willing participant in the use of the word 'terror' for every enemy we have. i think there undoutably is terror in the world. lets take for example what happened at ishaqi. now, were not those soldiers suspected of acts any normal person would be terrified of? don't you think those little babies may have experienced terror before they were gunned down. and after an investigation it was determined they did not massacre the entire family, some of them women and children splattering w/ blood all over the place. well, they did it, it just wasn't a massacre. well, it was a massacre, it just wasn't terror, or something.
my great uncle was hung by a posse (the old fashion version of 'militia') no habeas corpus.
are you catching my drift? or do you think iraqis deserve to be held to a lower standard then other combatants in this little american made fiasco?
innocent til proven guilty. ha
1 and you call yourself a queen. go read about the martyrdom of anthony bewely. one of the incidences that set off the civil war. they didn't call them 'terrorists' then, the big bad accusation was 'abolishionist'. you could get hung in some places just for preaching against slavery, or 'inspiring' slaves to be free.
face it. you don't know what kind of 'terror' these people are accused of do you? for all you know the people accusing them are agents of iran for christs sakes.
i'm not willing to throw away my morals for a 'suspect'. it makes us no better than those we came to 'liberate'.
another thing, they were terror suspects according to whom?????
ReplyDeletethe iraqi government? the ones whose interior ministry officials are being charged w/running death squads from the basement of the government buildings?
the place is infested w/crime much of it coming from inside the government.
i don't know all the answers, but i do know i am not willing to jump to any conclusions based on a wedding dress and allegations of 'terror' from those who could very well be state sanctioned terrorists themselves..