Remiel Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 That link is to an article I read earlier today which is rather disturbing. Normally, this would of been better suited to U.S. Politics, but I had a question to go along with it. If one party is exempted from all laws pertaining to their actions, should others not also be exempted from the laws that protect the individual who has been given free reign? In other words, if a person is allowed to murder people without being governed by any law, should anyone else be allowed to kill them and also not be charged with a crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 That link is to an article I read earlier today which is rather disturbing. Normally, this would of been better suited to U.S. Politics, but I had a question to go along with it.If one party is exempted from all laws pertaining to their actions, should others not also be exempted from the laws that protect the individual who has been given free reign? In other words, if a person is allowed to murder people without being governed by any law, should anyone else be allowed to kill them and also not be charged with a crime? What link? Who is exempted from all laws pertaining to thier actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 Oops, this link, hehehe: http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnist...icle2611720.ece Should of been pretty obvious from the title though what I was referring to, at least for anyone who is following whats going on in Iraq. ( Cripes, I have had to edit this post twice because of weird spelling errors on my part; " think " instead of " link " and " little " instead of " title " . ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad_Michael Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 That link is to an article I read earlier today which is rather disturbing. Normally, this would of been better suited to U.S. Politics, but I had a question to go along with it.If one party is exempted from all laws pertaining to their actions, should others not also be exempted from the laws that protect the individual who has been given free reign? In other words, if a person is allowed to murder people without being governed by any law, should anyone else be allowed to kill them and also not be charged with a crime? Yes, an interesting, difficult and increasingly common dilemna. I just don't see how or why US hired mercenaries in Iraq are free of all laws (American and Iraqi). That smells bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 Oops, this link, hehehe: http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnist...icle2611720.eceShould of been pretty obvious from the title though what I was referring to, at least for anyone who is following whats going on in Iraq. Should have been but wasn't. according to the linked article: Paul Bremer - the first US viceroy to Iraq - issued Order 17, which exempted all mercenaries operating in the country from having to obey the law. He in effect gave these men a licence to kill - and they are using it, every day. (See order 17 here: CPA IRAQ) The CPA has, of course, ceased to function and legal power now resides in the Iraqi government. Wether the Iraqi government has or will or can rescind Order 17 of the CPA I do not know. According to Order 17 "Contractors" are subject to thier home state's laws. They are also subject to the whims of the ''Sending State'' and the Order 17 (Section 2 Iraqi Legal Process) 3. ...They shall be immune from any form of arrest or detention other than by persons acting on behalf of their Sending States, except that nothing in this provision shall prohibit MNF Personnel from preventing acts of serious misconduct by the above-mentioned Personnel or Consultants, or otherwise temporarily detaining any such Personnel or Consultants who pose a risk of injury to themselves or others, pending expeditious turnover to the appropriate authorities of the Sending State. So, if Order 17 still stands, the mercenaries are in fact subject to the rule of law...just not Iraqi Law. As such your question is flawed. You have assumed they are not subject to law - when they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Mind you, the 'Sending states' don't seem to have much interest in controlling or inhibiting the contractors from shooting at will. There are probably a few of these mercenaries being held for trial in the US or Britain or wherever - maybe, maybe not. The failure to reign in this shoot first attitude amongst not only the mercenaries but also the troops is what led the whole Iraqi thing to blow up in thier faces. Too much shooting whoever happens to even remotely resemble a threat. That and the high handed arrest everyone because everyone is a suspect. The recent saw about Rumsfeld's original plan having too few troops to evectively occupy the country is bunk. The Iraqis were, more or less, fairly content if insecure with the conquest. It was all the high-handed shit that sold the Iraqi's down the river. the CPA's order 17 was probably one of the stupidest things ever enacted. It is one of the key reasons the whole bringing-democracy-to-them went to shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.