Iraq wants U.S. troops’ immunity from local law lifted
posted at 5:07 pm on July 11, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Justice for Haditha and Mahmoudiya — Baghdad-style.
They’re threatening to take it to the Security Council, where we’d have to choose between voting yes and handing over American soldiers or vetoing the proposal due to lack of confidence in the Iraqi judicial system. The same system, of course, that’s supposedly reliable enough to try Saddam Hussein.
The vote isn’t in doubt. We’d veto it, of course. But the squirm potential is off the charts, which is why it’s surprising that the nutroots isn’t pushing it.
Or maybe they are. I don’t know, I rarely read them except when they’re threatening Goldstein with death.
Which, come to think of it, makes “rarely” a poor choice of adverb in that sentence.
Anyway. Slate took up the non-immunity idea last month and hit upon the likely solution:
[W]e either believe in Iraqi institutions or we don’t. If something public and symbolic and substantive isn’t done to bring the Iraqi officials into this process of trying the culprits in the massacre ["Alleged" massacre. -- ed.], our project there is hopeless. So, if an all-out handover is impossible, perhaps we get to the bottom of the crime together. A joint U.S.-Iraqi investigative commission under the watch of the United Nations or the International Red Cross would be a start. The United States should also allow television coverage of whatever courts-martial result. That would at least offer Iraqis some evidence that justice was being done in this specific case, and that the institutions the Americans have been promoting around the globe are capable of being fair and equitable.
Maliki knows which way we’d vote if forced and the last thing he needs while he’s trying to assert his authority over the militias is a vote of no confidence by the U.S. The situation’s ripe for compromise: he gets Iraqi participation in the investigations/prosecutions, we get to avoid a showdown in the Security Council. So it is written, so it shall be done.
Speaking of non-immunity, guess who Army prosecutors are planning to call as their chief witnesses in the conduct-unbecoming case against refusenik moonbat lieutenant Ehren Watada. Can you hear Thomas Jefferson weeping softly in heaven? Bill Keller can.
Even money says one or both of them takes the contempt charge. A few weeks of jail is tough, but the ignominy of betraying the cause would last a lifetime.
Semi-random thoughts: Assuming Saddam is convicted and sentenced to death, what are the odds at this point that the sentence will actually be carried out? National reconciliation is Maliki’s top priority. If they put Saddam down, it risks alienating the Sunnis whom they’re trying to bring onboard.
On the other hand, would the Shiites ever forgive him if he commuted Saddam’s sentence to life?
They should have shot him the day they pulled him out of that hole. No questions asked. Any evidence beyond this is superfluous anyway.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
One word
NO
Defector01 on July 11, 2006 at 5:16 PM
“Iraq wants U.S. troops’ immunity from local law lifted”
An old Islamic saying comes to mind…somethig to the effect of, “You can wish in one hand and beat your wife with the other…” No, that’s not it…maybe it was, “You can wish in one hand and build IED’s with the other…” Hmmmmmm
BirdEye on July 11, 2006 at 5:20 PM
I see that defense counsel intends to argue First Amendment privilege regarding Wahtada’s statements to the press. Garcetti v. Ceballos categorically squashes that argument. The fun starts on page 11.
Kid from Brooklyn on July 11, 2006 at 5:39 PM
Hmmm… sooooo… they seem to think that we can fight THEIR insurgency, while following Civil Law?
And if its Sharia Law???
OUCH!
Bush needs to give their Pres a call…
Romeo13 on July 11, 2006 at 5:44 PM
no,no,no, its wish in one hand and shi’ite in the other.
Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)
Rowane
Rowane on July 11, 2006 at 6:16 PM
LOL…niiiiiiice…touche
BirdEye on July 11, 2006 at 6:32 PM
In an earlier thread about Watada, I said there was no chance at all that the army would convict him on the Contempt towards officials, and that it would be pled down. I made that prediction based that the charge was based off of his simple refusal to go to Iraq, because he believed that Bush was sending him to an illegal war. However, I just read the following in the link Allahpundit provided:
Based off of the use of the term “deception” to describe Bush and his actions, perhaps they do have a case for Contempt towards officials. In which case it looks like I could be wrong in my original assesment. So it goes. Which just sucks for Watada. Boo freakin’ hoo.
EFG on July 11, 2006 at 8:11 PM
The winners of wars get to make the rules.
I say “no.”
georgej on July 12, 2006 at 4:43 AM
What’s the difference between a liberator and an occupier? This is one of those situations where you are damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
This AM news: group on Iraqis on a bus, bus stopped, the Shiites and the Sunnis separated, the Shiites shot to death. So how do we define our “winning” in light of this sort of activity, which is increasing, not decreasing? (Is this a civil war? Does it look like a duck…)If these folks are determined to kill each other, who are we to stop them?
honora on July 12, 2006 at 3:29 PM
The winners of wars get to make the rules.
I say “no.”
georgej on July 12, 2006 at 4:43 AM
Uh, excuse me, if we are the winners in this context, that makes who the loser? Maliki? I’m so confused…
honora on July 12, 2006 at 3:32 PM
honora slyly sayz: “I’m so confused…”
Let me help you out, then.
Look at the model of post-WWII Germany and Japan.
It took our expressed assent under treaty before our troops became subject to local law enforcement jurisdiction in both formerly occupied countries.
This citizen and voter says we should *NOT* allow US troops to come under, or be subject to, the jurisdiction of Iraq civil or criminal law.
IF and ONLY IF, the United States enters into formal basing agreements with the government of Iraq, as we have with Japan, for example, then only at that time, should the question of subjecting American military personnel to Iraq law be raised.
And, given the tribal nature of the Iraqi people, their history and mindset, I’d still say no to any such treaty provision.
Saharia and tribal law does not provide sufficient guarantees of due process that is the halmark of our system of justice. Hence subjecting our military personnel to such is, and ought to be, a non-starter.
georgej on July 12, 2006 at 4:56 PM
At least if we turned over our soldiers to the Iraqis, we could be guaranteed a quick confession from them of their guilt with aljazeera there to film the event. And that is just bull#@%!. Tell the Iraqis to go pound sand until they reach some semblance of modern civilization and governance and security, they aint gettin any of our guys!!
gary on July 12, 2006 at 6:05 PM
georgej: with all due respect (sincerely) I think comparing this situation to post war Germany and Japan is illogical. First, we were clearly occupiers in G and J–we reject this nomenclature for our current situation in Iraq. And then there’s that “post-war” thing. I don’t begin to consider subjecting our troops to the vagueries of Iraqi justice. My point is this situation illuminates the awful situatiion we are in.
David Brooks has a very thoughtful article in the NYT today. He reflects that the period of toppling regimes and mass rallies is over (globally, i.e. Iraq, Russia, Indonesia) and now the hard part starts. What is particularly challenging about Iraq is that unlike some of the other nations in this segue situation, there is no cultural/political history of governing, and that in most cases (recently and arguably in the mid 1800s) even culturally homogeneous societies revert to a strong man–Putin ring a bell?–to restore order and national pride.
I am not doing the piece justice, makes you think.
honora on July 13, 2006 at 10:15 AM
Comment pages: