The Iraqi Government wants to prosecute Backwater employees in their courts...?

Question

Question Details: but they have no intrest in securing their own Country. Maybe it's me, but I just find this ironic. I don't know w whole lot about the Blackwater incident, but I do know that the Iraqi Government seems to be dragging behind on their role in re-forming their own Government. Seems to me they are more interested in prosecuting the people who are the only ones securing their country right now. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004...

Of course the military is there as well. My point is what has the Iraqi governement done for their country? They divided, want to believe their religious side is better than the other, they have made little progress in forming their army or securing their country...I just they are looking for publicity.

Answer 1

The U.S. has not given the Iraqi any kind of incentive or motivation to move forward politically and that is causing this slowdown because the U.S. is providing security and they can just go on vacation. They bear no responsibility nor any accountability. It's the U.S.'s fault for not forcing the issue. That's the only way I see.
I have heard about the Blackwater incident, from both sides. It looks like Blackwater is in the wrong due to arrogance and power hunger. I think they should be removed and punished severely for their actions.

Answer 2

Iraq is not dragging behind in its efforts to form government. Look at the history of creating governments. It takes time! A lot of it! It took America years to craft its own government. Post WW2 Japan and Germany took a long time to get back on their feet. Keep in mind all three of the situations I mentioned above did not contain any instances of sectarian violence / civil war. This would make the Iraqi's job even harder.

I can't say I know what happened involving Blackwater, because I don't. It's my opinion that they're up to no good, and at some points they must have indiscriminately targeted civilians, for no good reasons. Too many accusations are levied against them. Even if they aren't a bad organization, the Iraqis detest them so much that we can't possibly win their trust so long as they continue to operate in Iraq.

I'm sick of the "they have to protect the diplomats" argument. We are paying 5 to 10 times the cost for security guards when our military is perfectly capable of doing the job. Let's save money, and put that money to more troops to protect diplomats. This would aid the mission in Iraq by freeing up more money for an additional surge. I only want Iraq to succeed, and Blackwater is hampering that effort, in my opinion.

Answer 3

If Blackwater employees break the law, they should be prosecuted by the Iraqi courts. Blackwater's job is protecting VIPs in Iraq, mostly diplomats. If they are the ones securing Iraq, what is the military doing there?

Answer 4

Pulling Blackwater's license may be all the Iraqis can do. Should any Iraqis ever seek redress for the deaths of the civilians in a criminal court, they will be out of luck. Because of an order promulgated by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the now-defunct American occupation government, there appears to be almost no chance that the contractors involved would be, or could be, successfully prosecuted in any court in Iraq. CPA Order 17 says private contractors working for the U.S. or coalition governments in Iraq are not subject to Iraqi law. Should any attempt be made to prosecute Blackwater in the United States, meanwhile, it's not clear what law, if any, applies.

"Blackwater and all these other contractors are beyond the reach of the justice process in Iraq. They can not be held to account," says Scott Horton, who chairs the International Law Committee at the New York City Bar Association. "There is nothing [the Iraqi government] can do that gives them the right to punish someone for misbehaving or doing anything else."

L. Paul Bremer, then the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the initial occupation government of Iraq, issued CPA Order 17 in June 2004, the day before the CPA ceased to exist. "Contractors," it says, "shall not be subject to Iraqi laws or regulations in matters relating to the terms and conditions of their Contracts."

The Iraqi government has contested the continued application of this order, but because of restraints that inhibit the Iraqi government from changing or revoking CPA orders, Order 17 technically still has legal force in Iraq. Furthermore, as Peter W. Singer, an expert on private security contractors who is a senior fellow at the center-left Brookings Institute, points out, in order for the Iraqi government to prosecute those contractors, the U.S. government would have to accede to it. And that, Singer says, poses a whole new set of thorny questions.

"The question for the U.S. is whether it will hand over its citizens or contractors to an Iraqi court, particularly an Iraqi court that's going to try and make a political point out of this," Singer says. If the United States is not willing to do so because of concerns that the trial will be politically motivated, he adds, there's a new question at hand. "If we really say that openly, doesn't that defeat everything we heard in the Kabuki play last week with [General David] Petraeus and [U.S. Ambassador Ryan] Crocker, that everything was going great? What happens if we say, 'No, we don't think you can deal with this fairly in your justice system?'"

That leaves international and U.S. law. But international law is probably out. Even before the Bush administration, the United States had established a precedent of rejecting the jurisdiction of international courts. The United States is not, for example, a member of the International Criminal Court in the Hague. (In 2005, the government of Iraq announced its decision to join the court; it reversed that decision two weeks later.)

U.S. law, meanwhile, is hopelessly murky. More so than in any of America's previous conflicts, contractors are an integral part of the U.S. effort in Iraq, providing logistical support and performing essential functions that were once the province of the official military. There are currently at least 180,000 in Iraq, more than the total number of U.S. troops. But the introduction of private contractors into Iraq was not accompanied by a definitive legal construct specifying potential consequences for alleged criminal acts. Various members of Congress are now attempting to clarify the laws that might apply to contractors. In the meantime, experts who spoke with Salon say there's little clarity on what law applies to contractors like the ones involved in Sunday's incident, and the Bush administration has shown little desire to take action against contractor malfeasance.

Answer 5

Of course Iraq should prosecute anyone who murders their civilians. Have you bothered to research Blackwater's record over there? In over 80% of the "incidents" it was discovered that Blackwater had FIRED FIRST.

Yet their contract SPECIFICALLY spells out that they are to DEFEND, not engage.

I hope they FRY.

And by the way - hasn't the issue all this time been for Iraq to step up to the plate and make their own decisions?


Well here you go.

Answer 6

The Iraqi government wants to start holding to task the US military. But they can not do it, so they go for the nearest scapegoat which is Blackwater. They are American, kind of like the military so they want to go after them. Their job is protecting diplomats at all costs, not iraqi citizens. If they start prosecuting them for doing their jobs, they will leave the country and then Diplomats will be screwed.

Answer 7

those men are mercenaries! they're cowboys that are making scads of money doing the job that our infantrymen could be doing. They shoot first and ask questions later. that must be fantastic yet their movements replicate on our boys. The Iraqis hate them and pass that hatred to our infantrymen. they're doing a great deal of harm and are not answerable to any authority, Iraqi or U.S. A British contingent placed a clip on Youtube that exhibits them indiscriminately shooting Iraqi electorate. If the Iraqis do no longer punish them then we would desire to constantly. they're hurting the popularity of our infantrymen and the U.S. generally.

Answer 8

It's a sad situation. I wouldn't trust the Iraqi government as far as I could throw them. If the USA is going to let them start prosecuting Americans working to stabilize Iraq, we need to get all the Americans out of Iraq.

Answer 9

Figures.
Everybody criticizes the Iraqis for not forming a government quickly enough to stabilize the country, but as soon as they start to talk about prosecuting individuals for possible crimes committed in their territory, those same critical individuals throw up their hands in disbelief!

Answer 10

If the Blackwater employees broke any of Iraq's laws, they should be tried in Iraq. Apparently, some of the Blackwater employees are about as dangerous as some of the terrorists and kidnappers.