Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
"The Bush administration has decided to take the unusual step of bestowing on its own troops and personnel immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts for killing Iraqis or destroying local property after the occupation ends and political power is transferred to an interim Iraqi government, U.S. officials said."
Thanks, the opening paragraph is pretty conclusive.
*That'd be "As a legal basis, Iraq's transitional law, which was worked out between Bremer and the now-disbanded Iraqi Governing Council, may be considered too weak a foundation for granting immunity. Sistani argued against it because it was not the work of elected officials.
|
It was still the law at the time, sorry Mr Angry, but no matter how you like to paint it, it was created under Iraqi law, it was extended under Iraqi law, and it's still under Iraqi law.
I'm sure you'd prefer that US soldiers were tied up in trumped up court cases by corrupt members of the Iraqi police force, and hung just like Saddam, after all, you've made no attempt to hide what value you place on the lives lost over there.
Personally, in such a risky enviroment, I'd give every coalition worker the same protection.
Here you are on one hand saying that the Iraqi law wasn't valid enough to have this order, yet on the other you'd have that same "invalid" law used against coalition forces.
---------- Post added at 12:00 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004
John reid? " The services are "aware" of units being active.
I think that spells it out.
However, thats going off topic, sorry I went off topic.
|
You're aware of coalition forces being active in Iraq, but do you know exactly where they are?
See the difference between being aware of something, and knowing all the details.