- ‹ previous
- 2533 of 2823
- next ›
SOFA Update
SOFA UPDATE....Nouri al-Maliki tells AP that (a) a security agreement with the United States is critical, and (b) legal jurisdiction is the biggest remaining hurdle:
The most important hanging issue here is the immunity or the legal jurisdiction over the American troops because certain powers, political powers inside Iraq are getting ready to use this issue once it's — if it's — approved, as a vehicle to overthrow, to destabilize the entire political system in Iraq, to destabilize the government. They would use it as a vehicle to re-ignite public feelings inside the country.
We have proposed that the legal jurisdiction would be on one hand, on one side, with the Americans ... when the troops are performing military operations. When they are not performing a military operation, they are outside their camps, the legal jurisdiction would be in the hands of the Iraqi judiciary.
Translation: if we don't get civil jurisdiction over U.S. troops, the government will fall. It's too much of a hot button issue for guys like, oh, Muqtada al-Sadr, just to pick a name out of a hat.
This actually seems pretty doable to me. The trick is to write language that appears to give Iraq jurisdiction over soldiers who aren't performing military missions, but then define "military mission" in a way that effectively prevents Iraqi police from issuing anything more important than a parking ticket to U.S. troops. This would be accompanied by a tacit agreement with Maliki that they won't force the issue by ever actually arresting an American soldier in the first place.
Of course, if that's all there were to it, we'd already have an agreement. Still, it's hard to imagine that this issue can't be finessed fairly easily.
Just wondering, could the sticking point not be with the military, but with all the contractors that are there?
sofa king bullshit
This would be accompanied by a tacit agreement with Maliki that they won't force the issue by ever actually arresting an American soldier in the first place.
And this agreement might stand until the next election, when the people of Iraq vote Maliki out since he won't enforce laws against American. Then what is the plan, overthrow that new government?
define "military mission" in a way that effectively prevents Iraqi police from issuing anything more important than a parking ticket to U.S. troops.
Now will someone please explain to me why it is that U.S military personnel who commit crimes against Iraqis should not be subject to Iraqi civil jurisdiction?
Next talk radio meme:
"OBAMA WILL PUT AMERICAN SOLDIERS UNDER IRAQI CONTROL"
--to the same degree as will McCain if the agreement is signed, but the Harkonnans know their audience too well to burden them with complexity.
Kevin, you're getting very cynical today.
Serious question, because I honestly don't know. If I'm military stationed in, say, the UK, and I commit a crime against a British person, do I come under British civil law? If not, why not?
So why should Iraqis not be able to try American soldiers and contractors in their courts for crimes not committed in battle? It seems to me that, as usual, Americans want it both ways. We want to pretend that we are good guys, but we also do not want to be held to account when we are not good guys. We have seen this time and again with both contractors and soldiers in Iraq as well as in other conflict areas. Nothing changes or will change until Americans start being held accountable for crimes against humanity and illegal wars in the international courts. If our military courts martial resulted in what most of us would consider justice had our family members been murdered or injured then perhaps Iraqis would not be so sceptical or angry about this issue.
If I'm military stationed in, say, the UK, and I commit a crime against a British person, do I come under British civil law?
Actually, because of our SOFA with the UK, you probably could be charged under either UCMJ or British criminal law. This would also be true if a member of the US military committed a crime against another military person or family member off-post.
When I was stationed in Germany, it appeared that US military prosecutors and German civilian prosecutors negotiated who would try the case, based on things like ease of prosecution, maximizing penalties, whether the crime was committed against a German national, etc. But the German prosecutors would generally never concede jurisdiction in a capital case unless the US agreed to not seek the death penalty (since Germany has no death penalty).
If jurisdiction's a sticking point to any security agreement, what does that mean about Maliki's and the U.S.'s long term expectations concerning troops in Iraq? Can I read into this that no major player on any side of the Iraq war thinks Americans are coming home anytime soon? I mean, if the two sides thought a major drawdown would occur by 2010, would this still be such an issue?
I'm pretty sure that criminal laws apply to foreign military nationals who break them, especially when off duty. (The Marines who raped a young girl in Okinawa in 1995 would be an obvious example.) It seems to me that the major sticking points, as mentioned above, revolve around 1) the extent to which civilian contractors remain exempt from Iraqi law, and 2) when and how Iraqi criminal law applies to U.S. military personnel, whether on or off duty. The Iraqis know that they probably won't get anything when it comes to collateral damage and such while soldiers and Marines are carrying out operations, but if a car full of drunk off duty soldiers plows through a flea market and kills a half dozen innocent Iraqi bystanders, then they will be subject to local criminal laws.
In most of Iraq, the US military are always considered on a mission when off the bases.
In most of Iraq, the US military are always officially on a mission when off the bases.
Balenciaga replica handbags sale
ne quality bags of the best quality designer replica handbags manufacturers of watches Dior handbags handbag Shopping for less for diving. The Chloe handbags handbag Shopping for less new Rolex Oyster Gucci handbags designer handbag Perpetual Sea-Dweller Deepsea NEW Dior handbags handbag Shopping for less appearance the avant-garde Replica Leather bags Designer Handbag Ringlock Arrangement and NEW Dior handbags knockoffs new case architecture Prada handbags designer handbag that provides actual MiuMiu handbags handbag Shopping for less aerial baptize attrition Chanel handbags handbag Shopping for less at abundant depths.The Balenciaga handbags Giant Silver hardware knockoffs Ringlock arrangement has Replica Designers Handbags G181060-white Handbag knockoffs three features. The Chloe handbags knockoffs aborigina Dior handbag Lady Dior Patent Cannage Bag-White replica Mulberry Handbag 20051-SK Replica Thomaswylde handbags Designer Handbag cheap louis vuitton replica handbags Replica Monogram Mini Lin Designer Handbag Prada handbags handbag Shopping for less
Balenciaga replica handbags sale
rial quality lv bags baptize attrition at Dior-2009 handbag Shopping for less abundant depths.The Ringlock Dior handbags handbag Shopping for less arrangement has three Louis Vuitton Wallets designer handbag features. The aboriginal Thomaswylde handbags handbag Shopping for less is the aerial Loewe handbags handbag Shopping for less achievement arena set Thomaswylde handbags designer handbag central the average Chloe handbags knockoffs case amid the Louis Vuitton handbags handbag Shopping for less clear and the HERMES handbags handbag Shopping for less case back. This Valention handbags handbag Shopping for less arena resists the Prada Wallet-PD003-Bronzed astronomic burden that replica Replica Designers Handbags 189898 is exerted by Chloe handbags handbag Shopping for less baptize at acute Chanel Handbag 1335540-Brown depths. The additional YSL handbags handbag Shopping for less aff Chloe handbags handbag Shopping for less Chloe handbags Chloe Betty Louis Vuitton Wallets handbag Shopping for less buy desginer handbags