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.

 

Sovereignty in Iraq? Don't Make Me Laugh.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Prisoner 27075 learns limits of sovereignty


Iyad Akmush Kanum, 23, learnt the limits of sovereignty on Monday when US prosecutors refused to uphold an Iraqi judges' order acquitting him of attempted murder of coalition troops.


US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions they were not bound by Iraqi law.


Please read the entire article. U.S. military forces are claiming they have the right to lock up anyone indefinitely, regardless of what any Iraqi judge says. I am sure Bush is aware of this situation, yet he can go on TV and say with a straight face that we have transferred real sovereignty to Iraq.




posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:49 AM
link   
What's more pathetic is that clown Paul Bremer who stated that "...American forces will remain immune from prosecution by Iraqi courts for crimes against Iraqi citizens or destruction of property..." [Harpers Weekly]

Don't you just love it!



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Boy you both are real clowns.

First a prisoner against American forces, is not subject to the law of any nation but America. So how does a nation not being able to free a prisoner of war against another nation, affect its soveriegnity?

"L. Paul Bremer, the American proconsul in Iraq, in one of his final acts before handing over "sovereignty" to Iraq's new interim government, decreed that American forces will remain immune from prosecution by Iraqi courts for crimes against Iraqi citizens or destruction of property."

That is the full quote from Harpers, I can't find anything that quotes what you said Merovingian so that means that Bremer didn't say that "exactly" that way.

Since I can not find what L. Paul Bremer's final acts really were...I'll have to assume this is unfounded doggy doo-doo.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Boy you both are real clowns.

First a prisoner against American forces, is not subject to the law of any nation but America. So how does a nation not being able to free a prisoner of war against another nation, affect its soveriegnity?

"L. Paul Bremer, the American proconsul in Iraq, in one of his final acts before handing over "sovereignty" to Iraq's new interim government, decreed that American forces will remain immune from prosecution by Iraqi courts for crimes against Iraqi citizens or destruction of property."

That is the full quote from Harpers, I can't find anything that quotes what you said Merovingian so that means that Bremer didn't say that "exactly" that way.

Since I can not find what L. Paul Bremer's final acts really were...I'll have to assume this is unfounded doggy doo-doo.


Great...another one of them Mason folk


Unfortunately your attempt to make a point worth considering has been lost. What the hell does your first sentence mean???

Second, the quote from Harper's you posted is more or less the identical quote that I posted. What do you mean you can't find what I quoted?? You just posted it! Also you will note that I posted it as "...text..." This attempts to relay to the reader that there is additional wording before and after the text. My attempt was never to hide anything or to misrepresent what this dirtbag politician was trying to say.

If you blindly accept that the US occupation of Iraq was justified, necessary, a 'good deed', an attempt to 'free the peoples', to bring democracy, then you have been fooled like so many others.

There will be no sovereingty within the confines of the borders of Iraq for the Iraqi people as long as there are American military personnel on the ground and this won't end anytime soon.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 02:18 AM
link   

US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions they were not bound by Iraqi law.


Sweet freedom for the Iraqis huh? Why is this being done?
They even said that the Abu Ghab prison would be demolished.
Looks like it's going to become a symbol of an oppressive regime once more. .



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Boy you both are real clowns.

First a prisoner against American forces, is not subject to the law of any nation but America. So how does a nation not being able to free a prisoner of war against another nation, affect its soveriegnity?


FreeMason, why do you find it necessary to insult other posters? Is that why you get those little red rectangles in your profile?

Since the occupation has ended, the category of prisoner of war no longer exists. Don't you recall the Red Cross saying that Saddam and other prisoners of war would have to be charged with a crime or released?

Did you even bother to read the Financial Times article? Mr. Kanum was tried in the Central Criminal Court and found not guilty by an Iraqi judge.


Faisal Estrabadi, an Iraqi lawyer, said yesterday after the refusal to release Mr Kanum: "If the Iraqi courts have acquitted an individual he must be released. Anything else is a violation of sovereignty."

"Iraq cannot be one large Guantnamo Bay."

He added: "The Geneva Conventions no longer apply as of 10.26 this morning. Under UN Resolution the occupation has ended and the laws of war no longer apply."



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   

"L. Paul Bremer, the American proconsul in Iraq, in one of his final acts before handing over "sovereignty" to Iraq's new interim government, decreed that American forces will remain immune from prosecution by Iraqi courts for crimes against Iraqi citizens or destruction of property."


That is not sovereignty in any definition of the word.

When foreign soldiers on your land can't be prosecuted for any crimes against your people, you are not living in a free country and I'm sure every Iraqi realizes this, whether or not FreeMason does.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo


"L. Paul Bremer, the American proconsul in Iraq, in one of his final acts before handing over "sovereignty" to Iraq's new interim government, decreed that American forces will remain immune from prosecution by Iraqi courts for crimes against Iraqi citizens or destruction of property."


That is not sovereignty in any definition of the word.

When foreign soldiers on your land can't be prosecuted for any crimes against your people, you are not living in a free country and I'm sure every Iraqi realizes this, whether or not FreeMason does.



Jakomo, not only are U.S. soldiers immune from prosecution by Iraqi courts, so are U.S. civilian contractors. According to Reuters


Iraq's former U.S. administrator Paul Bremer extended immunity from Iraqi prosecution to foreign troops and contractors the day before handing over to Allawi's government.

Officials with the now-dissolved Coalition Provisional Authority said Bremer signed revised Order 17 on Sunday after agreeing its contents with Allawi. The order remains valid until a transitional Iraqi government is elected in January.

Contractor immunity was highlighted by the abuse scandal at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison in which employees from two U.S. defence contractors were named. The pair are not covered by U.S. military law and their legal fate is not yet known.


Here is a pdf file of Revised Order Number 17. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I think it's funny the Iraqis are free, but can't tell the US to leave.




top topics



 
0

log in

join