No immunity for security contractors in Iraq.
By on Aug 10th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
No immunity for security contractors in Iraq.
One of the most contentious issues surrounding a long-term U.S.-Iraq security agreement is whether private security contractors should receive blanket legal immunity from Iraqi laws. However, buried today in a Washington Post article, reporter Karen DeYoung reveals that negotiators have agreed that security contractors “would be subject to Iraqi law,” a setback for the Bush administration. Negotiators are still working out the dates for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. (HT: The Crypt)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
No immunity for security contractors in Iraq.
– - Retroactive?
August 10th, 2008 at 5:21 pmWar Criminals should never get away with impunity! That also goes for Bush, The facist pig: Dick Chenney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Gates, Perle, Feith, Yhoo, Wolfowitz, together with all the rest of that scum! HAGUE 2009!
August 10th, 2008 at 5:23 pmNo immunity for security contractors in Iraq.
That’s the way it used to be here for elected officials at one time…..
August 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pmMCMetal Says:
No immunity for security contractors in Iraq.
That’s the way it used to be here for elected officials at one time…..
Augusto Pinochet learned the hard way that Chile passing a law to make him immune to war crimes in Chile did not keep him from being prosecuted by other countries.
May Bush, Cheney and company find out the hard way as well….
August 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pmThere may be more justice in Iraq than here!
August 10th, 2008 at 5:42 pmAugusto Pinochet learned the hard way that Chile passing a law to make him immune to war crimes in Chile did not keep him from being prosecuted by other countries.
What’s more, passing such a law would clear the way for an international war crimes trial, because it would guarantee that the home country wasn’t going to prosecute the crimes. This is a key criterion to establish international jurisdiction.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pmNo immunity for contractors — how about no immunity for the employers of contractors: Bushies.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:44 pmJustice would be welcome, but it would be mortifying for us, if our own criminal cabal in the White House are not tried until an international court intercedes.
This would indeed be a huge setback for the fascist agenda to create a private army accountable only to the executive branch.
August 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm…buried today in a Washington Post article…
if it was buried, would that mean they are figuring on backing out of that “agreement”? …
i can’t imagine this going over well…
August 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pmTime to bring the Blackwater Boys back home! Just in time for hurricane season, too.
But, really, if they didn’t do anything wrong, why would they need immunity?
August 10th, 2008 at 6:05 pmPrivate security contractors may not have immunity, but contractors hired by the State Department may have Diplomatic Immunity, particularly if they are quartered inside the enormous US Embassy in Bagdad. I smell a loophole here. This may be their reasoning behind hiring through the State Dept all along.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pmDoes this “no immunity” apply to all past and present members of this Crooked Admin?
Or is Criminal Bush going to pardon everyone and himself?
August 10th, 2008 at 6:13 pm“long-term U.S.-Iraq security agreement”
What is that?
“Negotiators are still working out the dates for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.”
Who are these “Negotiators”?
August 10th, 2008 at 6:19 pmIt’s a shame the U.S. mercenaries would be subject to Iraqi law but the operators of U.S. law only know “nudge nudge, wink wink”.
The U.S. has become the laughingstock of the world.
Well done George, Dick, Condi, Alberto et al. Mission accomplished.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:19 pmThank goodness those who were depending on a permanent Republican majority to help them get away with murder and profiteering are going to be made to pay a price for their immoralities.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:23 pmWayne Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
No immunity for security contractors in Iraq.
That’s the way it used to be here for elected officials at one time…..
Augusto Pinochet learned the hard way that Chile passing a law to make him immune to war crimes in Chile did not keep him from being prosecuted by other countries.
May Bush, Cheney and company find out the hard way as well….
August 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I’m not much of an “outdoorsman” , in the true spirit of the word ; but I have heard that snakes are quite difficult to catch/nab…………..
August 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pmWayne said:
Augusto Pinochet learned the hard way that Chile passing a law to make him immune to war crimes in Chile did not keep him from being prosecuted by other countries.
May Bush, Cheney and company find out the hard way as well….
That would take care of those particular criminals, but until we develop the political fortitude to deal these issues ourselves, our democracy remains in jeopardy.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
August 10th, 2008 at 6:33 pmdixie blood Says: Who are these “Negotiators”?
Indeed. Has anyone4 read “Inside the Emerald;d City?” ( I haven’t to my shame , but I think that’s what it is called). Who’s left of the numbnutz who worked with Bremer? I’m guessing there are still plenty left–enough to maitain the debacle.
It’s a good question Dixie.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:40 pmAll these “setbacks” for the Bush administration, but he don’t care, because he isn’t going to experience the biggest setbacks of all, being impeached or tried for warcrimes, so what does he care?
August 10th, 2008 at 6:44 pmNo Immunity = No Contractors
No Contractors = No functioning Occupation
Timetables are starting to sound pretty good about now.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:48 pmFinally, Condi’s note came true:
Iraq is sovereign!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1399843/‘Mr-President,-Iraq-is-sovereign’.html
August 10th, 2008 at 7:32 pm“would be subject to Iraqi law,”
They have laws? Written by whom?
Do they have a Judge or court or somthing to help with these “laws?”
August 10th, 2008 at 7:38 pmsecurity contractors “would be subject to Iraqi law,” a setback for the Bush administration.
So,… this means if contractors are not allowed to break laws, behave in unlawful immoral behavior this is a set back for the Bush administration?
Doesn’t this speak for itself of what perverts we have in the White House?
August 10th, 2008 at 8:01 pmI would love to see those that have been harmed most be allowed to bring justice in their own way.
I say Let the Iraqi people punish the Bush Crime Family, in their own way and put it on CNN for all to see while we watch enjoying our popcorn. Name it Shock and Awe II.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:08 pmkeep in mind, application of Iraqi law may be a double-edged sword:
http://www.newsobserver.com/front/story/1112843.html
August 10th, 2008 at 8:12 pmhmm, I had a vision of rats leaving a sinking ship when I read this.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:45 pmIf one looks at how this administration has successfully circumvented the U.S. Constitution and all the laws of our land, everyone must know that they’ve included some carefully worded, obscure passages that give them all the “outs” they would need.
To suppose that BushCo would allow anyone to subject them to laws is ridiculous, and the Iraqis would be very wise to understand this in advance.
PEACE
August 10th, 2008 at 9:26 pmDumb Question: Wonder how a lack of immunity would influence the actions of KBR et al ?
August 10th, 2008 at 10:15 pmNot so in Afghanistan:
RALEIGH – To defend itself against a lawsuit by the widows of three American soldiers who died on one of its planes in Afghanistan, a sister company of the private military firm Blackwater has asked a federal court to decide the case using the Islamic law known as Shari’a.
Prince was asked to justify having a case involving an American company working for the U.S. government decided by Afghan law.
“Where did the crash occur?” Prince said. “Afghanistan.”
LINK
Shoe, meet someone else’s foot.
What a Goddamn traitor.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:19 pmWhat a slap in the face to a free nation to expect immunity from prosecution for criminal behavior. How did it ever get allowed that we would pay for bad behavior from our pseudo army and then impose this criminality on a country we are supposedly defending? We sure are not defending from the real threat.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:50 amTo suppose that BushCo would allow anyone to subject them to laws is ridiculous, and the Iraqis would be very wise to understand this in advance.
True and so very arrogant… and a good reason why we are hated by the terrorists.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:37 amSo they will be judged by Iraqi law? They will have to take responsibility for their foolish deadly insensitive actions. Now does this mean they are hanged or be-headed if found guilty?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:03 amI bet they would at least be afforded a lawyer.
What Badger said (#20)
August 11th, 2008 at 2:44 pm