Iraqis lose right to sue troops over war crimes

[UpInArms]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1222998,00.html

British and American troops are to be granted immunity from prosecution in Iraq after the crucial 30 June handover, undermining claims that the new Iraqi government will have 'full sovereignty' over the state.

Despite widespread ill-feeling about the abuse of prisoners by American forces and allegations of mistreatment by British troops, coalition forces will be protected from any legal action.

They will only be subject to the domestic law of their home countries. Military sources have told The Observer that the question of immunity was central to obtaining military agreement on a new United Nations resolution on Iraq to be published by the middle of next month.

The new resolution will lift the arms embargo against Iraq, allowing the country to rearm its 80,000-strong army in readiness for taking over the nation's security once coalition forces finally leave.

<snip>

'It is taking the idea of diplomatic immunity and applying it to 130,000 troops. There is a danger that you are actually going from immunity to being able to act with impunity.'

...more...

[maddezmom]

1. I'd say unfreakingbelievable....but

sadly it's not. Wonder how the Iraqi's will respond? More street justice?

[zonmoy]

29. Unless

there is a way to charge them throught the international criminal court or some other court that can take the suit.

[mom cat]

33. The UN daily briefing does not mention this.

I thought that the UN was going to consider this tomorrow...thas is if they are still allowed to take votes.

[TahitiNut]

36. Anyone not subject to laws should not receive their protections either.

Thus, if occupation forces aren't subject to laws then nobody who kills them should be prosecuted. That's equity. That's justice.

[happyending]

2. sovereignty

definition - "Government free from external control"

[St. Jarvitude]

3. Disgusting

Even more arrogant statements of "We are above the law" by the * misadministration. First it was getting rid of the Geneva Convention, which is protection from criminal war crimes prosecution, and now we take away the last hope for these victims of horrible atrocities: the civil courts.

I am disgusted to be an American and have these things done in my name.

[Just Me]

4. THIS will not go over well,...with anyone.

Bullydome. Bad. The outrage will only rise with this on top of the abuses.

[aquart]

5. Another brilliant Bush idea.

Iraqi people! You're free! You have no rights!

[bullimiami]

7. No way

These "laws" that the illegal IGC and/or Viceroy Bremer came up with after an illegal war dont mean squat.

[markses]

12. They will have to scramble to make new laws for every new outrage

They are a disgrace to reason, and 300 hundred years of progress. They are feudal in character, throwbacks to the age of fiefdoms. The Bush regime is a despicable pack of scoundrels and murderers.

[Aidoneus]

6. that does leave one outlet, however

while the American & "Iraqi" puppet courts may be closed, Judges Kalashnikov & his deputy RPG-7 will remain available to hear cases.

[madrchsod]

8. is the un going to sanction

the ability of any nation to avoid criminal prosecution for war crimes? we will wait and see what the world does

[zonmoy]

30. exactly what will they be able to do

If they try anything through any organization that we are a part of our government will stop it. I doubt that any one nation will be able to do squat.

[northzax]

9. ahh, extraterritoriality

our old friend.

[daleo]

17. Yes, the trademark of world class imperialism

Throughout history.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. This is an outrage

It is now up to US and British courts to try those who have committed war crimes in Iraq to bring the criminals to justice. This not only incluses the lower enlisted who did the dirty work, but the highest ranking officials in the chain of command who signed the executive orders.

If the US and Britain cannot be trusted to bring the criminals to justice, then the ICC must be called in.

[zonmoy]

31. The icc will only work for england

we are not a part of it.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. The ICC will work. The framers of the Rome Statute weren't that stupid

Signing on to the Rome Statute is only one of several ways to get a case before the International Criminal Court. Obviously, that only involves nations that have good will in the first place.

However, the framers of the Rome Statute knew that the most like offenders (ironically, we are talking about Saddam, among others) were not going to sign on to the Rome Statute. They were the ones most likely to be prosecuted by any international court. The framers put in mechanisms by which such rogues could be prosecuted.

In 1998, no on ever thought that the occupant of the White House would ever be such a rogue. Nevertheless, that is the very set of circumstances with which we are dealing.

Please read articles 12 through 15 of the Rome Statute. In addition to the ICC having automatic jurisdiction over member states, such as Britain, the ICC
may gain jurisdiction if:

• A state party refers a case to the prosecutor;
• The crime is committed in the state or territory in which the offense occurred is a member state;
• The accused is a national of a member state;
• A nonmember state may request jurisdiction;
• The UN Security Council may refer the case to the prosecutor;
• The prosecutor may initiate proceedings before the ICC on his own accord with the Court's approval;
  

As it happens, American B-2 bombers were launched for operations in Iraq from Diego Garcia, a British air base in the Indian Ocean. Since Britain is a member state, the invasion of Iraq comes under the jurisdiction of the ICC for that reason.

In addition, any of the 95 member states could refer the case to the court or a prosecutor could initiate proceedings against Bush and his lieutenants.

There are ways, if there is a will.

[burrowowl]

37. OOOOOH!

"As it happens, American B-2 bombers were launched for operations in Iraq from Diego Garcia, a British air base in the Indian Ocean. Since Britain is a member state, the invasion of Iraq comes under the jurisdiction of the ICC for that reason.

In addition, any of the 95 member states could refer the case to the court or a prosecutor could initiate proceedings against Bush and his lieutenants.

There are ways, if there is a will."

Just hope it works. As to those who wonder why the U$ has never signed the ICC Treaty, well the U$ has been above the Law for a long, long time. Since before WWII and after WWII. In the belief (held only by the people, sheeple?) that the U$ doesn't do that sort of thing and if it does, well by-golly, the U$ is justified in doing so.

of course for anything of the sort (i.e. the U$ being indicted) to happen, other countries govs will have to be either and/or not be scared shitless of the U$ and their leaders not in the payola of the U$.

[markses]

11. They hate us for our litigiousness...

:eyes:

Royal Impunity shall not be breached by Colonial Subjects of His Majesty, by His Majesty's Declaration.

[burrowowl]

38. Would you believe that

the U$ has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined!?
Yes, it is true.

[Spazito]

13. This is crap and, it seems to me that it is an admission that...

war crimes have been committed or why else would they be requesting this. Seeing as the bush cabal walked all over treaties, laws, conventions that the US had signed on to, the Iraqis should just say, oops, we changed our minds, you can be tried in our country on war crimes. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, imo.

[Jacobin]

14. How convenient

[LizW]

15. I'm sorry to say

that this type of immunity is nothing new. It is part of Status of Forces Agreements with practically every country where we maintain a military presence. Chalmers Johnson describes these agreements in detail in The Sorrows of Empire. He says that these agreements are such a source of embarrassment to the countries that grant them to us, especially in the Islamic nations, that they are often kept secret. Johnson says this immunity is a hallmark of empires going back to China, and have their basis in racism. The idea is that "our" soldiers should not have to submit to the "barbaric" laws of the occupied country, and so we, the occupier, impose the grant of immunity.

Another outrage is that our military stationed in other countries under SOFA agreements often are exempted from that country's visa and immigration rules, so that a soldier charged with a crime can simply be whisked away out of the country before any charges can be brought.

[LiberalFighter]

20. I can understand the argument of barbaric laws but...

the Geneva Convention does not fall under that standard.

Likewise, the United Nations and other International organizations do not permit torture. Or do they?

Wasn't a U.S. soldier(s) charged with raping turned over to the Japanese government a while back? We have laws against rape in the U.S. the last I knew.

[Barkley]

35. Liz W, thanks for this information! -n/t

[riverwalker]

16. outrageous

So the US remains untouchable and above all known International Laws, yet Iraq still must pay a massive punishment meant for Saddam, while attempting to rebuild their country?

<<Iraq will be allowed to control its oil revenues, which will raise $48 billion a year within the next three years, although it will have to pay tens of billions of pounds in reparations imposed following the Gulf war. After the invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein's forces in 1990 and the subsequent war, the UN oversaw a reparations programme, mostly payable to the Kuwaiti government. Iraq has so far paid $18bn funded from its oil reserves.>>

[daleo]

18. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (literally)

"Order 17 refers to an agreement signed by the Coalition Provisional Authority giving American and British troops protection. That will now be extended to the new multinational force made up of British and American forces which will remain in Iraq at the invitation of the interim government."
...
"'It is taking the idea of diplomatic immunity and applying it to 130,000 troops. There is a danger that you are actually going from immunity to being able to act with impunity.'"

This handover will be a joke.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Things that make you go "Hmm."

The new resolution will lift the arms embargo against Iraq, allowing the country to rearm its 80,000-strong army...

I wonder who will get those arms contracts?

Hmm.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Will the Middle East form an alliance...

so they can protect themselves from gw*? In so doing, attack people like gw* and his cronies in retribution? Making it worse in the Middle East then it was before gw* invaded Iraq!

[maddezmom]

22. "Western Values" will invoke hollow laughter around the world

~snip~
Main opposition Conservative leader Michael Howard meanwhile warned Sunday that the US-led coalition had still not faced up to the damage done by acts of torture at Abu Ghraib.


In a BBC interview, he added: "We have to face up to the fact that that phrase 'Western values' is now going to invoke hollow laughter in the Arab world and in many others parts of the world because of what has happened."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1515&ncid=1515&e=4&u=/afp/20040523/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_britain_us_legal_040523165144

[dusty64]

23. Isn't this grand.

x

[mulethree]

24. You might sue in the US under US laws

This stuff is still illegal under the 'domestic law of their home countries'.

[saigon68]

25. I guess they will have to obtain an AK and use self-help

When there is no Court System to use--- men resort to self help.

If someone raped my daughter and there was no criminal or civil law I would use self-help.

IT WOULN'T BE PRETTY.

[Cocoa]

26. Americans are inherently good people

there shouldn't be any problem. /sarcasm of course.

[Jim__]

27. Priceless! n/t

[hippywife]

28. Maybe a group can

be formed to file a suit by U.S. citizens in U.S. courts for commiting war attrocities in our names.

Just a thought. :evilgrin:

[Disturbed]

32. Creating more enemies.

Iraqis will find their own methods of justice.
The Occupation will create more death.

As predicted before: Al Sistani is biding his time. The insurgency has been mild in comparison as to what I suspect will happen after the phoney transfer of "sovereignty".

[cap]

39. what about contractors????

will they have diplomatic immunity, too?

[gatlingforme]

40. Good question. I doubt they have the immunity but it would be

interesting to find out