I don't know why the American adminstration do not say that the immunity they want for their soldiers is an absolute immunity. They are only outside this immunity when the troops are off duty and off their military bases. In addition to that, the American military have the authority to determine whether their troops are on duty or not … It is like "entrust a cat with piece of meat" (Iraqi proverb).
Everyone knows that all the crimes that were committed by the troops were during their duty to keep security here and there! The troops are hardly leaving their bases off duty, or I can say they are not leaving them at all because they don't need to go out their bases.
The American negotiators should say that they want an absolute immunity and nothing less. They don't need to waste time and effort in worthless long sentences. As Iraqi I want transparency in this agreement. Iraqis want words that have specific meaning, no more no less.
No country should ever give permission to kill its people without consequences.
My question is: The immunity is for our soldiers, does this immunity also extend to the civilian contracters, who in my opinion seem to be more often at fault than the actual soldiers?
Posted by: Rebecca | October 27, 2008 at 07:34 AM
I can't speak for Iraqis but I would imagine that they are not so much worried about slapping the hand of a drunken soldier who punches a taxi driver, but are more concerned with soldiers who murder innocent civilians and babies. Remember Haditha: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13031
The American soldiers who murdered these people were tried by Americans and got away with, well, murder.
Posted by: Politics After 50 | October 26, 2008 at 02:19 AM
I'm an American and I feel our troops need to be able to defend themselves. But they also need, as representatives of the United States, be held to the highest standards of conduct. I'm suspicious of the need for immunity. Obviously they are in dangerous and threatening circumstances. But still, they need to be accountable for obvious infringements of decency, for allowing passions elevated in the heat of battle to cloud judgment and bring harm to any innocent iraqi citizens.
Posted by: Jeffrey Gene Johnson | October 26, 2008 at 12:16 AM
We can't let our soldiers have complaints lodged against them and be tried by Iraqi kangaroo courts. No occupying nation has ever allowed that. It is suicidal.
Time to get out. Split the country into three - Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan. Sell them all weapons. Make money and allies out of the deal instead of pouring trillions down a hole.
Posted by: Ellen Hunt | October 25, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Having been to Iraq and having some knowledge of the Iraqi justice system, I don't think American soldier would get a fair trial. I don't think Iraqis get a fair trial either.
Posted by: bohica | October 25, 2008 at 09:34 PM
I have mixed feelings about this. I lived in Korea for several years, and there were a few times that soldiers ran into trouble from Korean law enforcement unfairly. On the other hand, it was not unusual to read about a soldier from the 2nd ID getting drunk and doing something stupid and punching a taxi driver. So I was occasionally steamed that an American soldier who was there to defend the country was in trouble over trumped up chargers, but I was also a bit embarassed when they would do something stupid and then get away with it. Maybe the best solution is to withdraw them completely. Then we dont have to worry about those crimes in the first place. How long till the IA is ready to handle security you think?
Posted by: R M L | October 25, 2008 at 07:23 PM