The Sticking Point
Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the Bush administration still hasn't nailed down a security agreement with Iraq which would allow US troops to remain in that country beyond the end of the year, which is when the United Nations mandate for the occupation runs out. The sticking point? Immunity for US troops and security contractors from Iraqi law, which should come as no surprise. It has been sticking point in the negotiations right from the start.
This article in today's NY Times makes it clear that more is going on than just an insistence on asserting Iraq's right to enforce its own laws. President Maliki knows the Bush administration will soon end, and he's counting on getting a better deal from the next administration. He also knows he can't possibly get the agreement approved by the Iraqi Parliament if immunity is part of the deal.
Even so, the Iraqi stance certainly is understandable, given the last 5+ years of Blackwater, Abu Ghraib, and the shoddy treatment of Iraqi civilians by US forces.
The major remaining point of contention involves immunity, with the United States maintaining that American troops and military contractors should have the same protections they have in other countries where they are based and Iraq insisting that they be subject to the country’s criminal justice system for any crime committed outside of a military operation, the officials said. ...
Ali al-Adeeb, a member of the Dawa party and deputy head of Mr. Maliki’s political bloc in Parliament, spoke in an interview of repeated American offenses, both real and symbolic. He cited the use of palaces and cultural sites as American bases and headquarters, disrespect for Iraqi women during searches and killings of Iraqis who ventured too close to patrols.
He said the Iraqis were insisting on limiting immunity “because the Americans are moving about in a chaotic way in Iraq without consulting with the Iraqi government.”
He added, “They arrest whomever they want, and they commit all sorts of mistakes without being accountable.” [Emphasis added]
In other words, the US has been behaving as a typical occupying force without any restraints. Unfortunately (or, fortunately, in the Iraqis' view), at year's end, that behavior will no longer be shielded by the facade of international law. It's pretty hard to fault the Iraqis on their insistence that full immunity from the consequences of criminal behavior is off the table.
I just wish that our Congress would show such spine.
This article in today's NY Times makes it clear that more is going on than just an insistence on asserting Iraq's right to enforce its own laws. President Maliki knows the Bush administration will soon end, and he's counting on getting a better deal from the next administration. He also knows he can't possibly get the agreement approved by the Iraqi Parliament if immunity is part of the deal.
Even so, the Iraqi stance certainly is understandable, given the last 5+ years of Blackwater, Abu Ghraib, and the shoddy treatment of Iraqi civilians by US forces.
The major remaining point of contention involves immunity, with the United States maintaining that American troops and military contractors should have the same protections they have in other countries where they are based and Iraq insisting that they be subject to the country’s criminal justice system for any crime committed outside of a military operation, the officials said. ...
Ali al-Adeeb, a member of the Dawa party and deputy head of Mr. Maliki’s political bloc in Parliament, spoke in an interview of repeated American offenses, both real and symbolic. He cited the use of palaces and cultural sites as American bases and headquarters, disrespect for Iraqi women during searches and killings of Iraqis who ventured too close to patrols.
He said the Iraqis were insisting on limiting immunity “because the Americans are moving about in a chaotic way in Iraq without consulting with the Iraqi government.”
He added, “They arrest whomever they want, and they commit all sorts of mistakes without being accountable.” [Emphasis added]
In other words, the US has been behaving as a typical occupying force without any restraints. Unfortunately (or, fortunately, in the Iraqis' view), at year's end, that behavior will no longer be shielded by the facade of international law. It's pretty hard to fault the Iraqis on their insistence that full immunity from the consequences of criminal behavior is off the table.
I just wish that our Congress would show such spine.
Labels: Iraq War
posted by Diane at 3:52 AM
2 Comments:
Hello
I am removing you blog from my blog alerts, as you obviiously have great passion in expressing your own opinions and little interest in dialoguing with others who are sympathetic to your conclusions.
Good luck.
I read the same article this morning and I must say I can see the Iraqi point of view much more easily than the Bush Administration point of view. If Iraq is a sovereign country, as Bush and his people keep insisting, then why shouldn't they have jurisdiction over people who break their laws in their country?
You can't have it both ways. Either Iraq is a sovereign country (and then they can make these kinds of rules and order us out of there) or Iraq is an occupied possession (in which case the occupying power can claim such immunity and the right to stay there forever, but doesn't get the right to talk about "freedom" for the occupied country).
Post a Comment
<< Home