Iraq Cabinet Proposes lifting Immunity for Private Security Guards
The Iraqi cabinet has reported out draft legislation that will remove immunity from prosecution for private security guards such as those of Blackwater. The immunity was put into law by US viceroy Paul Bremer in 2003-2004 when the US was running Iraq as a colony. Such 'extra-territoriality' is common in a colonial situation, since it would be unseemly for 'natives' to sit in judgment of citizens of the metropole. Typically the first thing modern nationalist regimes like Egypt did when they moved toward independence of colonial powers such as Britain was to abolish extraterritoriality, i.e. laws shielding foreign residents from prosecution inn local courts. Extraterritoriality for US troops in Iran in the 1960s was one of Khomeini's complaints against the Shah. The Iraqi cabinet move is a step toward renewed independence and self-assertion for the Iraqi government vis-a-vis the United States. Now if only the al-Malik government could assert itself in, and provide services for, Iraq itself.
Sen. Pat Leahy is slamming the Bush administration for bestowing immunity on private US security guards in Iraq. Since Iraq's new law will not affect past infractions, the US courts are the only arena where murders might have been punished. Not likely.
Mark Kukis of Time in Baghdad asks if the recent horrific violence in Baquba (see below) is a signpost for the future. The US troop escalation can't last forever, and by this time next year there will be at most 130,000 US troops in Iraq. As the extra units are drawn down, will the violence start up again? Likely, yes.
Iran is denying that it has any role in killing US troops in Iraq. Since the Iranian regime has not been shy in claiming credit for, e.g., Hizbullah attacks on Israel, it is significant that it is going out of its way to deny the US allegations.
The Turkish military is still squeezing PKK guerrillas and trying to close off their escape routes in eastern Anatolia near the Iraq border.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/31/2007 02:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
5 Comments:
Anyone providing security to US representatives in Iraq would require some sort of legal immunity. Any motorcade or visit is vulnerable to ambush, bombing, or sabotage. The perpetrators will not wear any uniform, stand aside from a crowd, and say, "Here I am, the Villain." Classice "rules of engagement" would restrict one mortally. Sadly, the Hobbesian "all against all" climate gives greater odds of survival to the Eastwood "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. Of course, this entails pre-empting disaster by responding with fire, even when circumstances are vague. 5 thousand miles away, it seems like triger happy abuse. Accross the street, it looks like outright murder, even if the killed include some people who try to kill the unwanted occupiers. Worse yet, any foreign security guard who faces an Iraqi court will have a hard time getting an impartial hearing. Few witnesses, unless they are eager to die painfully, will attest that any of their neighbors migh have been up to no good.
Honestly, there is no way to avoid the trouble presented by the Blackwater incidents, short of getting out of Iraq, period. During a wind-down, whether quick or protracted, the problem could get even worse.
You say:” Now if only the al-Malik government could assert itself in, and provide services for, Iraq itself.” No chance! In fact things are going to get even worse (now the sword of the September US report is gone.)
In today's Sotaliraq.com there are reports on two statements of interest:
1) A letter from the new, Maliki appointed in clear violation of the Constitution, head of the anti-corruption office, addressed to the leaders of the US Congress. I very much hope will be published in English, at least for its entertainment value [now in Arabic at:]
http://www.sotaliraq.com/iraqnews.php?id=276
The guy is complaining about being treated like dirt by the US Embassy who do not even give him a security badge to allow him into his office (good for them) and defending the scum he is supposed to be watching over. Maliki's letter prohibiting the investigation of the top thieves in Iraq, including his own cousin as the ex-minister, which is undisputed except by Ms Rice and is in the public domain is ignored. He says allegations against Maliki are for the parliament only! He then holds the contradiction that there is corruption, but the officials are not corrupt. But he justifies it saying it is all America's fault. Then he attacks about the ex-head muttering some hilarious stuff about Pinochet and other South American dictators. Now, Maliki first said that the ex-head “may be tampered with some papers” then upped it by accusing him of assassinations no less.
2) The new Agriculture Minister. He is described as a technocrat, but in fact an ex-minister in Ja'fari's ruinous sectarian government. He proudly declares [in Arabic at:]
http://www.sotaliraq.com/iraqnews.php?id=258
that he aims for full self-sufficiency in all crops! A very stupid idea copied from Iran which is hurting their land; farmers; and economy.
We also have the news that the two new ministers were approved unanimously, yet opposed by the big Sadrists and Sunni blocs! Has anyone heard of a parliamentary vote where the voting result is in dispute? Apart from in Iraq that is.
Maliki seems to have come to the conclusion that he and the sectarian parties in general, have no long -term future in Iraq. So they better concentrate on the looting, for as long as they are allowed to maintain the current term.
"Sen. Pat Leahy is slamming the Bush administration for bestowing immunity on private US security guards in Iraq."
When did the State Department get the power to grant immunity to anyone? I'm not sure that they can grant immunity. I'll take Artios' position on this until someone who knows chimes in:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/
Muddle
So I just learned on CNN that the State Department offered immunity to the Blackwater guards. That they don't have the power to do it. That they did it anyway. That senior State people didn't sign off on this thing they didn't have the power to do. This thing they didn't have the power to do will inhibit any efforts to prosecute them.
I hope someone at the State Department offers to give me Martha's Vineyard! They may not have the power to do it, but once they do any efforts to take it away from me will be inhibited!
-Atrios 09:02
Comment s (259) Trackback (0)
The unanswered question, from the apparently one-sided Blackwater shootout last month that killed and wounded dozens, from the Haditha killing of more than a dozen women and children in their homes, is what are the rules we operate under?
The mutable rules of engagement (ROE) are classified, but the bottom line can be inferred from the comments used to justify a bad shoot. Blackwater says that it's guards felt threatened while driving the wrong way in a traffic circle, and responded to a perceived threat by clearing civilians and cars from the huge square, using automatic weapons fire and explosive rounds.
The Haditha defendants also stated the Marines felt threatened in the aftermath of a fatal IED attack, and so they attacked to eliminate the threat. No fighters or weapons were captured, no expended AK shells were found in the houses where civilians died, but the military court accepted the marines testimony. "I felt threatened' was sufficient defense for the shooting of unarmed prisoners, use of grenades and rifles on civilians trapped in their bedrooms.
This war is in a conquered country where most Sunni Arabs, and half the Shiites say they feel that attacks on the occupier (us) are justified. The perception of fear on the part of our 165,000 soldiers and 30,000 mercenaries makes nearly all killing on the part of our men justifiable.
ROE concerns can usually be resolved with a word about a feeling. Mr. Koch is correct in that.
I would ask our red-state war supporters to consider how the 1860 War of Northern Aggression story would have ended, if the occupation troops had spoken another language, and been armed with rapid-fire weapons?
It's going to be a very long war for some of our returning men and their families. They are our soldiers, in our service. Most have done the best they could for comrades, country, and contract. War changes men. This war will follow some home, and many of us will taste from that same tree of knowledge.
Things will get better for our guys, as Iraqis take over mine-clearing, search, siezure, and interrogation. Our combat role will increasingly shift to air attack and artillery fire against enemy buildings. Our casualties will fall to politically acceptable levels. Rules for indirect fire called in by US advisors will be classified, a matter for Iraqis to witness and justify.
Gen. Sherman pointed out, as his men left Atlanta for Charleston, that war is not nice, however noble the justifications.
To J. Koch who asked :
Worse yet, any foreign security guard who faces an Iraqi court will have a hard time getting an impartial hearing.
Because you think that those judged by the US are getting a fair trial ? As far as I know, almost all have been whitewashed, or only got very smal condemnations.
The problem with US ROE are that a) they are not disclosed; b) they are far too permissive, judging by their results; they allow the covering up of trigger happy troops (see recent testimonies appeared by troops disheartened by what they have seen)
Post a Comment
<< Home