Corner turned in Iraq?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Incidentally, Status of Forces Agreements based on all previous contexts fall way short of treaties, hence requiring no Congressional advice and consent.

The question is not whether Bush is acting within the technicalities of the law, but if he is acting wisely. Arguably, Bush didn't need that authorization vote from Congress before invading Iraq, either.

[oregonpackfan]

Oregon, it is clear now that NOTHING will happen without the support of the Iraqi people.

There are exciting, encouraging things happening in Iraq on the poltical front. And it may lead to a U.S. withdrawal. Or not.

Harlan,

With the latest Bush proposal, there are several features which many Iraqis find upsetting:

1. creation of 58 permanent bases in Iraq for American troops.

2. all of Iraqi airspace up to 30,000' would be under control of US forces.

3. granting of immunity for all US troops and private contractors. In other words, if a soldier or contractor commits a crime against an Iraqi civilian, he(she) will not be prosecuted no matter what the crime.

Iraqis need to assume ownership of their own country. Those three areas above would hinder, not help, that process.

[HarveyWallbangers]

3. granting of immunity for all US troops and private contractors. In other words, if a soldier or contractor commits a crime against an Iraqi civilian, he(she) will not be prosecuted no matter what the crime.

Can you imagine the mob mentality that would occur if an American soldier was charged in Iraq? There wouldn't be anything resembling a fair defense system for an American soldier in that case. This is a typical left-wing rant though. Also, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be prosecuted. We do have military courts, and people do get prosecuted quite regularly in them. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I bet most people that have served or have a close one serving in the military would agree. Actually, I think most Americans would agree--even many Democrats.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

3. granting of immunity for all US troops and private contractors. In other words, if a soldier or contractor commits a crime against an Iraqi civilian, he(she) will not be prosecuted no matter what the crime.

Can you imagine the mob mentality that would occur if an American soldier was charged in Iraq? There wouldn't be anything resembling a fair defense system for an American soldier in that case. This is a typical left-wing rant though. Also, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be prosecuted. We do have military courts, and people do get prosecuted quite regularly in them. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I bet most people that have served or have a close one serving in the military would agree. Actually, I think most Americans would agree--even many Democrats.

Harvey,

the issue isn't military..it is those private contractors. The aren't subject to the uniform code of conduct. They can act indiscriminately...and have.

This isn't some liberal issue...again, you try and negate a real issue by blaming it on liberals.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that a soldier of ours couldn't get a fair trial. If we are promoting democracy then let's promote it...stop hedging. Talk about prejudice..you aren't even willing to allow that the Iraqis could be fair...i think tex calls that the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Lastly, do you think the Iraqis will be happy if they see a prosecution that doesn't feel like justice. Just as you think they can't have a fair trial, i'm quite sure they feel the same..that a military trial won't be fair either..it will favor the soldier.

Or, by mob mentality..do you also include the way americans have acted towards those who appear to be suspicious middle easterners.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Oregon, it is clear now that NOTHING will happen without the support of the Iraqi people.

There are exciting, encouraging things happening in Iraq on the poltical front. And it may lead to a U.S. withdrawal. Or not.

Harlan,

With the latest Bush proposal, there are several features which many Iraqis find upsetting:

1. creation of 58 permanent bases in Iraq for American troops.

2. all of Iraqi airspace up to 30,000' would be under control of US forces.

3. granting of immunity for all US troops and private contractors. In other words, if a soldier or contractor commits a crime against an Iraqi civilian, he(she) will not be prosecuted no matter what the crime.

Iraqis need to assume ownership of their own country. Those three areas above would hinder, not help, that process.

It's funny, I heard an Iraqi government offical complaining about anti-U.S. parties in Iraq fear-mongering with leaked details of the ongoing negotiation. I won't go the full Tex route and refer to "anti-U.S. parties" in our country playing the same game, but the symetry is amusing.

Your or my analysis of the factors you cite above truly do not matter. They are just bargaining positions on the table, if they are even accurate. The Iraqi government is fully capable of negotiating in their own interests.

The United States has decreasing leverage over Iraq, that is as it should be. Iraq is sitting in the middle of a power struggle between the U.S. and Iran, so they have options. It's clear to me that the current Iraq government wants to continue close relations with the U.S. Good! And there will be plenty of elections upcoming, starting with next October, where the Government stance will be tested with the Iraqi people. There is a healthy opposition and debate going on in Iraq.

If the Iraqi people want us to leave, or we can't come to mutually acceptable terms, that is fine. It shows they have confidence in their own survivial. Good. We have other bases in the Persian Gulf, we'll be OK.

WE ARE WINNING THE POLITICAL BATTLE IN IRAQ!!!!!!! It looked like civil war two years ago.

I am thrilled. I was very downbeat 2005-2007 on Iraq, I thought a timetable for withdrawal was our least bad option. But things have turned, and dramatically so.

REAL democracy is happening before our very eyes. Why so glum, chum?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that a soldier of ours couldn't get a fair trial. If we are promoting democracy then let's promote it...stop hedging.

Tyrone, a little reality check. Freedom House rates the judicial system in Iraq as one of the worst in the world. Iraq is inching towards Democracy, but they have a long way to go.

No way in hell would we allow our soldiers to fall under their criminal system.

If there is no face-saving way to solve this problem, then we would just have to speed our exit from the country.

The negotiatons underway now are premature anyway, they aren't going to sign any longterm deals for a couple years, if ever.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that a soldier of ours couldn't get a fair trial. If we are promoting democracy then let's promote it...stop hedging.

Tyrone, a little reality check. Freedom House rates the judicial system in Iraq as one of the worst in the world. Iraq is inching towards Democracy, but they have a long way to go.

No way in hell would we allow our soldiers to fall under their criminal system.

If there is no face-saving way to solve this problem, then we would just have to speed our exit from the country.

The negotiatons underway now are premature anyway, they aren't going to sign any longterm deals for a couple years, if ever.

Harlan,

Super. But, you fail to address the major issue of private contractors..which we all know are a private army over there. Blackwater "troops" have committed crimes and there is no one that can touch them.

P.S. Maybe the soldiers shouldn't commit crimes. should i feel bad for them if they are treated less than fairly by any court systems? THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

Jeez, it feels great to be like tex.

[Harlan Huckleby]

P.S. Maybe the soldiers shouldn't commit crimes. should i feel bad for them if they are treated less than fairly by any court systems? THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

You've defined them as guilty criminals, which makes everything clearcut. But the rub is the justice system that determines their guilt or innocence.

You make a good argument, though, it's a hell of dilemma. The answer will have to be a face-saving compromise, not sure how they will construct it. Perhaps some appeals process with U.S. particiapation. Or maybe it is unbridgable and will be a factor that pushes us to withdraw.

Do you hope that the issue is resolved through creative negotiation? Or would you prefer that it remain an intractable problem that pressures the U.S. to withdraw?

[Freak Out]

You just have to love how some information gets handled.

Secret documents left on train

Published: Wednesday, 11 June 2008, 6:24PM

Secret Whitehall documents relating to al-Qaeda and Iraq were left on a train in London, it has emerged.

The Cabinet Office has confirmed that the Metropolitan Police has launched an inquiry into the incident, which occurred on Tuesday.

It is understood that the two documents - both marked "Secret" - relate to al-Qaeda in Pakistan and the security situation in Iraq.

A spokesman for the Cabinet Office said: "Two documents which are marked as 'Secret' were left on a train and have subsequently been handed to the BBC.

"There has been a security breach, the Metropolitan Police are carrying out an investigation."

The spokesman said the papers had been in the possession of a senior intelligence officer based in the Cabinet Office.

Asked how many people would have had access to the papers, he said: "'Secret' is a high classification so they would have had limited circulation."

The incident is the latest in a series of embarrassing losses of Government information, including the disappearance of personal details of millions of child benefit recipients on a disc sent through the post.

BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner said the documents were left in an orange cardboard envelope on a train from London Waterloo to Surrey by a "very senior intelligence official" working in the Cabinet Office.

Mr Gardner said the envelope was picked up by a passenger, who found it contained a seven-page document setting out the latest Government assessment on the Islamist terror network al-Qaeda, along with a "top secret and in some cases damning" assessment of Iraq's security forces.

The al-Qaeda document, commissioned jointly by the Foreign Office and Home Office, was classified "UK top secret", he said. It was so sensitive that each page was numbered and marked "For UK, US, Canadian and Australian eyes only".

The second document, on Iraq, was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence.

© Independent Television News Limited 2008. All rights reserved.

[Freak Out]

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
By Jane Corbin
BBC News

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

The BBC's Panorama programme has used US and Iraqi government sources to research how much some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While President George W Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president's Democratic opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman, who chairs the House committee on oversight and government reform, said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, it's egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run-up to the invasion, one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth $7bn that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

Missing billions

The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in west London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004.

He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2bn out of the ministry. They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top-class weapons.

Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.

Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq's Commission for Public Integrity investigated.

He said: "I believe these people are criminals.

"They failed to rebuild the Ministry of Defence, and as a result the violence and the bloodshed went on and on - the murder of Iraqis and foreigners continues and they bear responsibility."

Mr Shalaan was sentenced to two jail terms but he fled the country.

He said he was innocent and that it was all a plot against him by pro-Iranian MPs in the government.

There is an Interpol arrest warrant out for him but he is on the run - using a private jet to move around the globe.

He stills owns commercial properties in the Marble Arch area of London.

Panorama: Daylight Robbery will be on BBC One at 9pm on Tuesday 10 June 2008.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

P.S. Maybe the soldiers shouldn't commit crimes. should i feel bad for them if they are treated less than fairly by any court systems? THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

You've defined them as guilty criminals, which makes everything clearcut. But the rub is the justice system that determines their guilt or innocence.

You make a good argument, though, it's a hell of dilemma. The answer will have to be a face-saving compromise, not sure how they will construct it. Perhaps some appeals process with U.S. particiapation. Or maybe it is unbridgable and will be a factor that pushes us to withdraw.

Do you hope that the issue is resolved through creative negotiation? Or would you prefer that it remain an intractable problem that pressures the U.S. to withdraw?

Well, according to the Rats on this forum...being arrested means you musta done something. So, they are guilty...we are just determing how guilty...wow, it feels GREAT being like Tex.

I acknowledge your point about guilt vs. innocence..i guess the point will be that we will think the iraqi's will favor guilty..while they will see us as favoring innocent.

And, who will blame them as we can see from the way we've prosecuted guiltiy soldiers..and the complete lack of oversight of Blackwater.

Solving: I don't know. But, creative negotiations..is that code for us strong arming them? I don't see much negotiating on our side.

[bobblehead]

3. granting of immunity for all US troops and private contractors. In other words, if a soldier or contractor commits a crime against an Iraqi civilian, he(she) will not be prosecuted no matter what the crime.

Can you imagine the mob mentality that would occur if an American soldier was charged in Iraq? There wouldn't be anything resembling a fair defense system for an American soldier in that case. This is a typical left-wing rant though. Also, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be prosecuted. We do have military courts, and people do get prosecuted quite regularly in them. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I bet most people that have served or have a close one serving in the military would agree. Actually, I think most Americans would agree--even many Democrats.

Harvey,

the issue isn't military..it is those private contractors. The aren't subject to the uniform code of conduct. They can act indiscriminately...and have.

This isn't some liberal issue...again, you try and negate a real issue by blaming it on liberals.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that a soldier of ours couldn't get a fair trial. If we are promoting democracy then let's promote it...stop hedging. Talk about prejudice..you aren't even willing to allow that the Iraqis could be fair...i think tex calls that the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Lastly, do you think the Iraqis will be happy if they see a prosecution that doesn't feel like justice. Just as you think they can't have a fair trial, i'm quite sure they feel the same..that a military trial won't be fair either..it will favor the soldier.

Or, by mob mentality..do you also include the way americans have acted towards those who appear to be suspicious middle easterners.

You both make a good point, and it sucks that our military was depleted in raw numbers over the years. The rumsfeld small tactical army model was sweet til we decided to nation build, then the numbers just weren't there...result, pay blackwater to boost the numbers.

The only compromise I can see here is to make it clear to blackwater and any other contractor that they must follow the US military code of conduct or be subject to the military courts, take it or leave it. If they want the paycheck, they will agree, if not, we have to look elsewhere to boost the numbers. I don't think putting them under the jurisdiction of iraq would work, they would pack up and leave the country and we would be very short in numbers.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

3. granting of immunity for all US troops and private contractors. In other words, if a soldier or contractor commits a crime against an Iraqi civilian, he(she) will not be prosecuted no matter what the crime.

Can you imagine the mob mentality that would occur if an American soldier was charged in Iraq? There wouldn't be anything resembling a fair defense system for an American soldier in that case. This is a typical left-wing rant though. Also, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be prosecuted. We do have military courts, and people do get prosecuted quite regularly in them. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I bet most people that have served or have a close one serving in the military would agree. Actually, I think most Americans would agree--even many Democrats.

Harvey,

the issue isn't military..it is those private contractors. The aren't subject to the uniform code of conduct. They can act indiscriminately...and have.

This isn't some liberal issue...again, you try and negate a real issue by blaming it on liberals.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that a soldier of ours couldn't get a fair trial. If we are promoting democracy then let's promote it...stop hedging. Talk about prejudice..you aren't even willing to allow that the Iraqis could be fair...i think tex calls that the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Lastly, do you think the Iraqis will be happy if they see a prosecution that doesn't feel like justice. Just as you think they can't have a fair trial, i'm quite sure they feel the same..that a military trial won't be fair either..it will favor the soldier.

Or, by mob mentality..do you also include the way americans have acted towards those who appear to be suspicious middle easterners.

You both make a good point, and it sucks that our military was depleted in raw numbers over the years. The rumsfeld small tactical army model was sweet til we decided to nation build, then the numbers just weren't there...result, pay blackwater to boost the numbers.

The only compromise I can see here is to make it clear to blackwater and any other contractor that they must follow the US military code of conduct or be subject to the military courts, take it or leave it. If they want the paycheck, they will agree, if not, we have to look elsewhere to boost the numbers. I don't think putting them under the jurisdiction of iraq would work, they would pack up and leave the country and we would be very short in numbers.

I don't know the answer, but Blackwater, etc. must be held accountable to someone.

I do think Blackwater would allow themselves to be under iraqi jurisdiction....losing a few employees is just the cost of doing business. Guess i'm a cynic.

[bobblehead]

your a cynic, they wouldn't be able to do their job under iraqi jurisdiction, and it would pressure us to have our military under the same, that just won't happen. Our miilitary holds our boys accountable....too much sometimes considering it is war, and they would do a fine job holding blackwater accountable....a better job than has been done so far.

[texaspackerbacker]

If Blackwater and other contractors violate the rules of engagement or other American policies, they will be dealt with by our side.

Beyond that, they should have immunity. NO FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, not even a relatively friendly one that we installed and that is progressing toward decent representative democracy, should have any say over Americans acting within the constraints of American rules of engagement or policies. Allowing that would allow some other government to judge our rules and policies.

It would take a real America-hater to be in favor of that. Do I hear any of that sort of creature out there? That's a "dare" for you forum leftists. Any takers?