The provisions of the bill raise many questions, such as the definition of “state of emergency,” “the mechanism of dealing with the period of emergency” and “the way to end the state of emergency.”
The bill mixes between environmental disasters and terrorist threats in an open-ended text. In Article 2, Item 1, the bill conditions declaring a state of emergency on whether “the Iraqi people are threatened by a grave danger as a result of terrorist acts carried out by armed or unarmed groups.”
This text leaves the term “grave danger” open to interpretation, and the same case applies to later articles, which stipulate: “If there is a serious disorder or a serious threat to public security … or any military or non-military action that threatens the peaceful transfer of power in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, … or if there is an epidemic or a public disaster … or a declaration of war or a threat to declare war, … or if the state or any part of the state is exposed to any aggressive military action that threatens the integrity of Iraq.”
Iraq has been living under a terrorist threat for more than 10 years, and any terrorist movement is a “grave danger” that “threatens the peaceful transfer of power” because it is “a serious disorder to public security.” Those provisions apply to Fallujah today, and they also apply to Buhriz, Suleiman Bek, parts of Mosul and parts of Baghdad.
A generalized description is not a problem in itself, as long as the law itself requires the approval of parliament to declare a “state of emergency” as part of a joint request from the president and the cabinet.
May be it's not so bad for Iraq to have a supreme leader again parliament show no sign of doing what's need. Ten years on and day to day life for citizens has changed little except for some freedom of speech!