The info at the link you posted does nothing to address the legal options in the U.S.

Nevertheless, Bush had to be involved in some way with the legalities re: Order 17. As stated above, he knew about the order. Am I saying that Bush said, “give our troops and contractors immunity”? No, but that does not mean that he wasn’t involved in some manner with Bremer’s actions. It is unthinkable that he was not briefed on the order given its repurcussions, and all it would take is for Bremer to tell him the plans, and then have Bush say, “Ok, I’m in.” He is The Decider, after all. As I said, he had to have inquired, or known, about the legal options that could come about in the U.S. Also as I said, Condi recently admitted there was a loophole in the law regarding legal action in the U.S., and it is likely that they knew about it much earlier.

Lawyers, like everyone else, are going to have differing interpretations on laws. You’ve put up your lawyer, now here’s mine:

“Blackwater and all these other contractors are beyond the reach of the justice process in Iraq. They can not be held to account,” says Scott Horton, who chairs the International Law Committee at the New York City Bar Association. “There is nothing [the Iraqi government] can do that gives them the right to punish someone for misbehaving or doing anything else.”

This is from the Salon article I linked to above. Horton is also an adjunct professor of law at Columbia University where he lectures on international law and international humanitarian law.

Just for the record, what the Duke Lacrosse Rape hoax began with was this: According to court documents, a physician and specially trained nurse that found the alleged victim had “signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted” during an exam conducted after the alleged attack.

Sounds pretty open and shut, right? In fact, it turned out that there was never any actual medical evidence that Crystal Gail Mangum was raped. It turned out the examiner was a feminist ideologue who asserted, and continued to assert for over a year, that if a woman says she’s been raped then she’s been raped and that’s all that’s necessary. Even when the woman can’t even twice in a row get ANY of the details of her story straight.

That’s the fact of the matter. So at this point I’m not impressed by press quotes of medical personnel.

Link.

Link.

Comment by Kilo — December 11, 2007 @ 12:16 am

And you are so sure of that? You are full of sh_t. Read on if you think you can comprehend it.

L. Paul Bremer, then the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the initial occupation government of Iraq, issued CPA Order 17 in June 2004, the day before the CPA ceased to exist. “Contractors,” it says, “shall not be subject to Iraqi laws or regulations in matters relating to the terms and conditions of their contracts.”

(Source: Salon.com)

The Bush administration in 2004 also wanted to bestow 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.

(Source: Wash. Post).

How would Bush do this? By extending Order 17. Which means…surprise!…he knew about the order and its details. If he didn’t want our troops or civilians prosecuted in Iraq, you can bet that he or someone in the administration inquired about whether or not they could be legally tried in the U.S.; after all, why give them immunity in Iraq only to allow them to be prosecuted in America?

Bottom line, it took action by Congress to attempt to close this loophole; Bush wasn’t exactly knocking down the doors to the Capitol demanding that Congress fix it.

Finally, these words from a Salon.com article sums all this up quite nicely:

Under cover of war the Bush administration defends lawlessness. In the name of fighting terrorism it protects outlaws.

oops I mean Saying “its a rape case” does not preclude it being a civil case.

Your assertion that United States laws cannot reach those acts outside the united states is incorrect. In this case , it is correct, but you didnt make that narrow of a claim. YOu said “United States law doesnt apply outside the united states and bush has nothing to do with that fact” and I pointed out that you were wrong because the Bush adminsitration has acted in a way as to very intentionally and tactically ensure that those they hire are not subject to those existing united states laws which DO reach outside the united states.

this is what you said.

Rape could be both a civil case and/or a criminal case. Saying “its a rape case” does not preclude it being a criminal case.

Now if you would have said “this is not a criminal case, its a civil case”, then you would making an accurate, although fairly irrelvant statemetn.

Yet you seem to attack pretty much anyone who criticizes what the guy, or his cronies do. What do you stand for and what policies do you support then? Its pretty easy to attack with obtuse, obfusctory statements when you claim to stand for obsolutely nothing.

Nope, I’m about to graduate this friday. I’ll glady take a picture of myself at the ceremony holding up a sign that says “Kilo and Bush f@ck dogs” and post it here.

I asked for a single sentence and you give me paragraphs of BS.

> If I point out that US criminal law doesn’t extend beyond its borders I’m >expressing a partisan political belief am I

No, you’d just be completely wrong. US criminal and civil law does, selectively, extend beyond united states borders. You’d be wrong about that just like you were about your claim that “It’s not a rape case. It’s a civil case. It’s a civil case because there was no criminal jurisdiction over that company while operating in Iraq.”

no, you’d just be completely wrong.

You’re completely wrong. The bush administration has extended (selectively) american courts jurisdiction to certain acts commmited outside the united states.

Thanks to the bush administration, if you go to france and have sex with the 17 year old girl you’ve been legally porking in texas, you can be charged in an american court. However, they havent seen fit to extend their jurisdiction to peopel who say, go to a foriegn country and kill a 17 year old girl. Kinda funny, Bushies priorities, huh?

Do it again in one sentence.

> It’s also a noun.

you said rape wasnt a civil issue. it is.

>are you claiming you cannot distinguish between US legal jurisdiction and >that of a foreign country

your a master of obfuscation arent you? all I said was your assertion that rape was only a criminal issue was wrong. I wasnt discussing jurisdictional issues at all.

What he was trying to get at is that the guy you idiots love to defend and stick up for likes to french kiss people who run governments that lash rape victims. The subject of this thread is rape by employees of a Bush/Cheney croney company, so its entirely relevant. Their saying that anybody who defends bush, hallibortion, cheney, blackwater, or any of those other twisted monsters are just as sick as those people/companies are. You’ve claimed before you don’t support bush, but I think you’re a liar, and if its true, why don’t you come out and explain exactly what it is you stand for, so you can’t keep hiding behind your obsurdly obfuscatory “i didnt say that/you didnt say that/thats irrelevant” crap?

> We have to assume this is true just because the alleged
> victim says it is true?

Hahahaahahah. HAhahahaha. Ahhhhh. Hearing these arguments coming from people who insist that a brain-damaged, C student fratboy who just happened to win (allegedly) a national popularity contest should have the right to indefinitely detain and torture american citizens, or anyone else, based on no evidence whatsoever, is truly the depth of irony.

> Why don’t we wait for the results of the investigation before jumping to >conclusions?

Like waiting to see if the guy insisting that Saddam had mobile weapons lab was actually in Iraq at the time he claimed to see them? Or waiting to see if uranium documents are forged or not? hahahaha

You pack of idiots are the cheerleaders for the kings of acting on unsubstaniated allegations……should you begrudge us a few here and there?

For once in your miserable life can you plainly and straightforwardly explain to us the point of whatever it is your trying to get across?

and by the way moron, rape (i.e. assault) is a viable civil as well as criminal cause of action..