It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: US Legally Transfers Sovereignty to Iraq - Two Days Early

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   
In a surprise move, US officials have officially handed over power to the interim Iraq Governing Council today, two days ahead of schedule. An informal announcement came from Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, and it has been confirmed by Tony Blair. The two met earlier today in Istanbul, Turkey, during this week's NATO summit.
At 2:26am EST, the official transfer took place as Ambassador Paul Bremer signed the legal documents to transfer power. Bremer left Iraq "with his work boots on" around 4:30am EST.
 

Sky.com

The interim government will be led by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. The country will have full sovereignty, but will have several restrictions on a temporary basis. They cannot make long-term policy decisions and will not have any control over the more than 160,000 foreign troops who will remain in Iraq.

In related news, Iraq will be given legal control over ousted leader Saddam Hussein, but physical control will remain with the multi-national forces currently keeping him imprisoned. Hussein will appear before an Iraqi court in the coming weeks and be legally indicted by the country he once led. It is expected a death penalty will be handed down by the Iraqi judicial system.

Zebari cited the escalating violence in Iraq as one of the reasons for the move. "We will challenge these elements in Iraq, the anti-democratic elements, by even bringing the handover of sovereignty before June 30 as a sign we are ready for it," he said.

Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has stated the plan for a democratic election in January is still on track.

President George Bush has sent a letter to Iyad Allawi requesting requesting diplomatic relations with the government of Iraq. It is a largely symbolic move showing that the United States recognizes Iraq as sovereign.

Related News Stories:
BBC
Bloomberg
Timeline of Iraq's Sovereignty

Related ATSNN/TA Stories
Myths of the Iraq Handover


[edit on 28-6-2004 by Banshee]

[edit on 6-28-2004 by Valhall]

[edit on 6-30-2004 by Valhall]




posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Now that is strange. There would have to be a very good reason for bringing forward something that has been projected into the public consciousness to this magnitude. The violence may be alluding to the reason, but if that’s the only reason it smacks of desperation rather than resilience. Perhaps the capture the U.S marine has something to do with it? It is the policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but the beheading of a marine will, as is the fickleness of the simple morality of the general public, be elevated to higher degree of unacceptability than the other executions.

We remember the political ‘good day to bury bad news’ case of 9/11 don’t we?

Only supposition, but I wonder…

Wait and see what the announcements are I suppose.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   
theyre probably trying to trick the "terrorists/insurgents"

there is a story on www.news.com.au...



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Wow, i'd wager that we're going to see a plethora of killings today. It will be quite interesting to see how this unfolds. I don't quite see why they would rush into "handing over sovereignity" like this.... I agree with kegs, this may have something to do with the captured marine and some sort of negotiation, though I still expect the marine to be murdered even if this is the case.

-Attero



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   
That should really piss them off now. What a great move if this is true, so if the opposition had any big event planned for the handover day it just lost a lot of steam & potential media attention.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Re the kidnapped marine: MSNBC stated just now that there is another soldier who has been missing since April, whereabouts unknown. I doubt they would do this for a single soldier.

First order of business was said to establish some sort of justice in the neighborhoods where the terrorists and kidnap teams have operated with impugnity.

I hope it works to confuse the terrorists, and to our advantage.




posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Sounds like this was at a date and time of our choosing...again!!!

Yes this is a good strategy as the new ruling government in Iraq MUST have been ready to assume power a few days early....as if they were waiting untill the last second to have their governmental controls prepared.

This is also another good idea from the US/Coalition as it doesnt allow the insurgants the time they were planning for to conduct any kind of terrorism....suprise!!! Once again setting the tempo for major operations allows your forces more control and keeps your opponents reacting instead of coordinating.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Sounds like this was at a date and time of our choosing...again!!!


Exactly right. And they did it without a big ceremony (target).



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Well, this one caught me by surprise. I don't think we've made many good decisions regarding post-war Iraq, but this one seems pretty smart.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
joey



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:30 AM
link   
I don't really buy the reason that's it's to pre-empt a strike by the insurgents. I mean, what difference is it going to make if they still do what they were planning to do on the 30th (assuming they were) is it going to get any less coverage if successful? No. Is it still going to be connected to the handover? Yes.

What I could see is that perhaps this has been planned all along. That would make sense, but from how long ago? That BBC report now states that some reports suggest that ‘sovereignty’ has already been handed over. That would frustrate the insurgents if they were expecting it to be a big televised deal and they had something planned, but it still wouldn’t reduce anything they have planned.

Is the triumphalism of the insurgents making an a sucessful attack on the date of the handover what they're trying to avoid, instead of the attack itself?

I’m tired and still slightly drunk and I’m going to wait for more details on this. It doesn’t add up at all as of yet IMO.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
That BBC report now states that some reports suggest that ‘sovereignty’ has already been handed over.


It has been legally handed over, man.
Happened about half-hour, 45 minutes ago.

This is truly a historic day....it's not too often one really sees the "birth" of a nation!



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I am... almost shocked. This is a very intelligent move to make! I hope that this is a sign of an upswing in regards to the campaigns in the Middle East. By taking the initiative in this manner, I am sure the rearrangement of the terrorist's plans came out quite humorous at the moment: "We will be ready to make this hit on this person on this day, at this hour, once the shot goes out, have the... WHAT!! Today?!? Satan has lied again! They will pay!" I really doubt that is how it would come about, but humorous to consider nonetheless.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   

The move followed an urgent request from interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.



i wonder why he was in such a hurry?



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Congratulations, and Good luck To the Iraqi People.
(Just woke up and saw this, be back to edit later)



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Namehere, good point. That would suggest it wasn't a totally premeditated idea. What was it that was so urgent?

Banshee, the birth of a nation? Come on, that nation was born over 5000 years ago.

It's not a transfer to a sovereign government either. Check out my 'Myths of the Iraqi Handover' thread. *danger, shameless self promotion*



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
Banshee, the birth of a nation? Come on, that nation was born over 5000 years ago.

Okay, the re-birth of a nation?
It's been a shell of its historic self under Saddam's rule, and this legal transfer is a big step forward for them.


Originally posted by kegs
It's not a transfer to a sovereign government either. Check out my 'Myths of the Iraqi Handover' thread. *danger, shameless self promotion*


I agree, your thread was excellent!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   


By Banshee
Okay, the re-birth of a nation?


I can agree with that, if only because anything after Saddam could be considered a rebirth.

The other comment wasn't directed at you, but thanks for the complement! (and thanks for moving it by the way.)



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:20 AM
link   
That was a surprise.
I had to read the headline twice, then check the calendar.
Not that I don't trust....


I guess that means we are now assisting the Gov't of Iraq..Correct?
Now, they can ask us to do things FOR them.

I recall Bush saying that the US would LEAVE IRAQ, if we were asked.
We will probably be asked to leave. But not right away.

My gut says that we will be ASKED, by the IRAQI GOVT, to help take
care of a few lingering problems. Then we will be asked to leave.
And we will..
Brilliant.




posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Dear God in Heaven... is there a functional mind somwhere in the American government afterall?

Bush is countering the anticipated accussation that his administration failed to plan for post war Iraq and consequently failed in the development of the Iraqi government. It's pretty shrewd. He found a way to compensate for months worth of planning that was never done in only 2 days.

Mark my words, Bush or his administration will almost certainly use the phrase "not a day longer than was needed", and "because they are ready". This will prove that Bush is trying to do what I say he is.

At the same time though, we have to consider that the American media is almost as much on Al Qaeda's side as Al Jazeera, rather they know it or not. They would give 3 sentences about Iraqi Sovreignty, then they'd show 3 turks and a US Marine getting their heads sawed off, and they'd discuss that for 2 hours.
To make matters worse, Bush would probably say something stupid (if Al Gore didn't come out and beat him to it.) I can imagine either one of them threatening Al Qaida "if you hurt that Marine, heads are gonna roll!". We've really got to avoid something like that overshadowing the handover.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:29 AM
link   
I just heard Zarqawi was captured..

Flippin channels, heard it on Foxnews.

Do you think this handover was related?
A troublemaker in custody?

[edit on 28-6-2004 by spacedoubt]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join