Comments (12)

Steve5117 wrote on November 12, 2007 3:01 PM:

Perhaps King George could issue a fiat putting all contractor employees into the US Military, effective retroactively to before the first contractor killing.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on November 12, 2007 3:01 PM:

Plan B will be gaining immunity in the U.S. to slaughter American citizens opposed to the Cheyney tyranny.

Michael wrote on November 12, 2007 3:06 PM:

It's mercenary immunity, not "contractor" immunity. Contractor is a euphamism for mercenary. Call them what they are, mercenaries.

Mary wrote on November 12, 2007 3:40 PM:

Well, here's another disaster no one mentions much.

Notice how the legislation is careful to say, "...in accordance with any valid legislation shall be canceled."

They aren't conceding that CPA Order 17 is valid legilsation.

So what if it is not? What if someone pushes on that string in an Iraqi or other court?

The reason I ask - that order is also the only thing I have ever heard of that gives a pretense of being a SOFA for Iraq.

As Order 17 goes, so goes not just contractor immunity but troop immunity. Not in the proposed legislation, but if someone pushes the issue in a court of law bc the legislation gets stalled.

TheraP wrote on November 12, 2007 3:50 PM:

Could Mary (or someone) elaborate on Mary's point. IANAL - and I'm lost. Clearly this is a crucial point. So, thanks.

Bob wrote on November 12, 2007 8:31 PM:

Everyone responsible for covering up Blackwater's illegal acts and interfering with the investigation should be impeached and prosecuted. If not now, then when this corrupt administration leaves office. Make Bush pardon his entire administration so his legacy as the worst President in history will be written in stone.

Mary wrote on November 12, 2007 10:16 PM:

TheraP

Generally, if one country (A)has troops in another country (B), not because A is at war with B, but because A has a base, is occupying (uh, strike that, make it "helping the domestic government"), then the only thing (legally - as opposed to practically) that keeps A's troops from being subject to B's courts of law for things like killings of civilians (think air strikes, roadblocks, Haditha, etc.) is a Status of Force Agreement (SOFA).

The US has SOFAs with countries where it has bases and as you probably know from reported cases now and then of rapes, murders and assaults allegedly commited by US troops, those SOFAs can be a touchy subject with the B countries.

The US has never entered into a SOFA with Iraq. Instead, we went from war/invasion footing, to the CPA (which was not really a national government - no one can really say what the CPA was legally - a "Bremmer & Bush make it up as they go along" is the best description.

So Bremmer's CPA Order 17, if you sift through it, does not just give immunity from Iraq law to contractors, but also the multinational forces. It is, basically, a kind of a SOFA, although by including contractors it goes way further than a SOFA.

When the CPA transferred authority to the Iraqi interim government (before the elections - the vaunted handover), it's pretty clear that no one really thought Order 17 (which purported to say it stays around until legislation specifically annuls it) had a way to become binding on the interim government.

As a result, they put together an interim administrative law code, which adopted CPA Orders and other things (like Khurdish law) and had the interim government adopt that code. IMO, that's the only way 17 stayed alive - otherwise it is just an "order" floating around by an amalgamation of non-Iraqis who were not elected that then left the country to the interim gov. But since the interim gov did adopt that administrative code (and through it Order 17) then the immunity from prosecution for TROOPS and contractors continued under that code.

However, it sure looks like when the Iraq Constitution was adopted - by the Iraqi people - several of the provisions of that Constitution are inconsisent with Order 17 and one of the sections of the Constitution specifically annuls that interim administrative code, except for two provisions that have to do with Kurdish law.

I'm not an expert, but as a legal (rather than practical or pragmatic) matter, it's really touch and go as to whether anyone could claim Order 17 is still around after the adoption of the Constitution. If it's not, then our troops are there with no SOFA. Technically - if there is no SOFA or something like Order 17 that operates as a SOFA, all the things the troops are involved in could be triable by Iraqi courts.

There was coverage at the time the Constitution was adopted and a domestic government voted in about getting a formal SOFA put in place, but Rumsfeld or someone at Pentagon or State (I can't remember without going back) said that they did not want the first acts of the new government have to be giving immunity to the US forces and contractors, so they just waffled and went with the concept that Order 17 was still in place.

One reason they may have done that is that a SOFA between the Shah of Iran and the US was such a huge sore spot in Iran and so successfully exploited by the Ayatollahs at the time, it partly lead to the overthrow of the Shah's government. Still - to this day we have no real, true, negotiated SOFA.

So if the legislation on withdrawing immunity for just contractors stalls, and someone pushes on the string, there might begin to be some legal proceedings somewhere challenging whether or not Order 17 is still in effect in Iraq after the adoption of the Constitution. If some court with color of jurisdiction were to decide that Order 17 is not "valid legislation" then that wouldn't just strip contractors - it would strip soldiers as well.

Of course, the reality is no one in Iraq is going to attempt that kind of thing IMO, but it sure is a lousey situation to leave so openended.

TheraP wrote on November 13, 2007 1:45 AM:

Mary, you are a gem! I truly have appreciated your posts of late. And your explanation above is extremely helpful. You may have uncovered a serious loophole here, which undoubtedly the Iraqis, who seem to be uniting around one theme for sure - and that is antipathy toward the US occupation - will exploit.

It is only just and right that they retain their sovereignty and that we leave them to it - now that the violence is abating especially.

Thanks and a handshake across the miles.

wordvarc wrote on November 13, 2007 2:07 PM:

.

Imagine the arrogance !!!

A 'sovereign government' wanting to have laws regulating the use of force by unregulated mercenaries shipped in by an occupying 'friendly' force!!!

.

v. popvli wrote on November 13, 2007 2:48 PM:

if they revoke immunity, and the contractors pull out en masse, it would likely end the war as we know it. things would change dramatically and within weeks after immunity is cancelled. anyone know where to find credible speculation as to what that picture would look like?

mkolb wrote on November 14, 2007 3:53 AM:

I'm guessing everyone would have to go. Aren't contractors handling all the supply chain things and cooking/serving all the meals, doing the laundry and the like.

I can't see the armed forces being aboe to pick up those chores quickly unless the Navy is brought in to do them.

Booger McSmoot wrote on November 14, 2007 8:01 AM:

Short Version:

Iraq Govt: "If I were you, I'd be..."
Mercenaries "Leaving? What a good idea!"