What is the law of the land in Iraq?

Since the invasion, there is no Iraqi law per se.

Members of the US military are subject to the Military COde of Justice.

The contractors in question could be subject to civilian U.S law if the prison is deemed a U.S. insituttion, but otherwise are essentially untouchable from a legal perspective.

 

To whom are you referring to as "mercenaries?"

 

Probably the contractors brought in for the purpose of military training, military action, or military interrogation.

Just a guess.

 

It is MacBeth's typical arrogant way of referring to the honest American men and women working in Iraq to help create a more stable environment and a better place to live. These people are making real sacrifices and some of them have lost their life. To refer to them as 'mercenaries' is incredibly tasteless and rude, not to mention condescending and pompous. Frankly, it's ignorant.

 

LOL!


Beyond the many problems with the world according to T_J, is this:


GIdget, I didn't call them mercenaries. I called them contractors. There are mercenaries among the contractors, but I don't broaden the brush.

Squashing this guy isn't even fun anymore...

 

What the civil contractors/mercenaries who murdered two Iraq prisoners was considerably more than rude, condescending and pompus. What would you call them?

 

Oh now you try to play word games with me MacBeth? Regardless of the name contractor or 'mercenary' as you tastelessly refer to them as, these people are making a huge sacrifice for America. They are going into Iraq -- a very dangerous place, during a time of war, and performing a service for America. It would behoove you to show these people more respect than what you currently have. I know, I know, they are helping to further the 'unjust war', but they are Americans working for America. Because of this, they deserve our respect and support in this their time of need.

 

The ones that murdered two Iraqi prisoners and tortured others were not making a contribution at all the country, and were in fact doing a huge amount of damage, both to the country, the armed services, the troops on the ground who are making a real sacrifice, and tarnishing the ideals we were supposedly fighting for. The next U.S. prisoner who gets captured will undoubtedly be in jeopardy of facing far worse treatment in retaliation for what these folks who made such a 'sacrifice for their country' did.

 

LOLOLOL!


BTW, the US Army refers to them as contractors, Gidg.

 

MacBeth, I see the point once again flies right over your head. No surprise. The contentious phrase is mercenary, as I pointed out in my last post (which you totally didn't grasp). It is clearly a pejorative. But thanks anyway for the non sequitor.

 

LMOA!!!


Skate, baby, skate!

 

Ho ho ho! I accept your unconditional surrender, once again. You've been on a roll lately MacBeth! First you just totally lay down your arms and give up by shouting insults in the other thread. Then you become ashamed and red-faced after referring to hard-working Americans as 'mercenaries', leading to your latest few nonsense posts. That's a nice pattern you have going there. You have shown lately that you are unable to engage me in debate without totally melting down on yourself. You're out of your league, young man.

 

Here's one law...
____________________

Executive order 13303 22.5.2003 a day that will live in infam

It is in this context that one should consider firstly the absurd (but none the less real ) Presidential Executive Order EO 13303 , signed with no fanfare by President Bush on May 22, 2003, immediately after "mission accomplished" (Hollow laughs not allowed) entitled, "Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest." It prohibits all judicial process -- including, but not limited to, "attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, [and] garnishment" -- with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and all interests in Iraqi oil products. ( in support of these actions the EO invokes the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). the National Emergencies Act; section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act (UNPA); and 3 U.S.C. 301. … it also refers to "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." The president simply declares this to be a "national emergency" and issues the blanket immunity. (Note that more recently on October 29th 2003 …. Because the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency first declared on November 14, 1994, ( By President Clinton) must continue in effect beyond November 14, 2003. Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938, as amended.)

The description of the of that last category — "all interests in Iraqi oil products" -- is deliciously vague and broad. It covers not only the oil and the interests, but also all "proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments . . .in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons."

Simply, this means that no court or litigant can touch any of the oil products, interests in them, or proceeds. And in effect, it also means that it is useless to sue any company or person to try to get any of this -- for even if a court were to issue an opinion saying you were entitled to it, that holding could never be enforced. (Indeed, the order explicitly says that a creditor cannot collect on a legally enforceable claim arising from Iraqi oil production.)

Unenforceable Torts

What else does EO 13303 do, besides making claims arising from Iraqi oil production unenforceable? Arguably, ( as m’learned friends would say), a plaintiff is prohibited from bringing a tort claim for damages caused by a company's negligence in a project arising from Iraqi oil.

So it appears that a US company (say, Halliburton), may have an accident claim from (say, a US citizen working for an independent subcontractor) and if the victim tried to sue in a U.S. court (say, in Texas.) That leads to an unfortunate anomaly.

That US worker injured in the US might get a multimillion-dollar verdict in the U.S. By going to Iraq, to work there, he may not be able to recover a dollar in court, and be at the mercy of (say), Halliburton's decision as to how much -- or even whether -- to compensate him.

So the EO appears to prevent ordinary tort suits, by ordinary Americans, (or indeed from any country) who happen to be working in Iraq to rebuild the country – as America has called upon them to do.

Such legal powers, established by Presidential fiat, are not entirely novel. For example, following the Iranian Hostage Crisis, President Carter blocked Iranian assets in the U.S. After he did, the Treasury Department limited judicial process with respect to any non-Iranian interest in property -- meaning that, if Iran owed you money, you were out of luck, even though you had nothing at all to do with the hostage crisis. President Reagan followed up with an executive order suspending the enforcement, in the United States, of all claims that were to be presented to the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal.

Subsequently the Supreme Court upheld the actions of both Presidents. But would the same result occur if the Court were to review President Bush's recent Executive Order?

So does the EO "divest the federal court of jurisdiction," or not? As our friends in pin stripes would say, Arguably, it does, for 2 main reasons.

It prohibits the transfer of Iraqi property, just as Reagan's claim suspension order did, it also goes further -- to prohibit process against persons, too.
Bush's EO, unlike President Reagan's does not only suspend claims -- it claims to extinguish them entirely. Claims cannot and do not exist. There is no alternative tribunal at which the claimant may find justice. He or she , like Bush’s Baghdad Thanksgiving turkey, is stuffed.
Why the EO ?

7 months later the rushed (but evidently well prepared) EO is domestic US law and order. Its apparent impact, is to shield US companies from suits brought by US citizens -- including accident victims who may have been grievously injured -- in US courts.

Why? Simply to lower the costs and problems arising from reconstruction, and let us note this carefully, not of the country but those relating to …" all interests in Iraqi oil products. "

If I was the executive of a US company (say Halliburton), it is as if the company have got a tax break for all my business in Iraq. Giving such tax breaks might -- or might not -- make sense. The US oil companies have had cancelled their civil and criminal liability abroad and domestically, as well as their normal liability for spending of US taxpayers' money.

As a tort victim, the perspective, is very different. Taxpayers may ante up for Iraqi reconstruction, tort victims, will pay even more. No wonder the South Korean surrogate Uncle Sams, after 2 dead and 2 severely wounded hi-tailed it back to Seoul, leaving the Power distribution system unfinished.

In short, the EO 13303 is a blank cheque for corporate pork-barrel spending and consequently a recipe for intensified conflict between the occupiers and the occupied.Not to mention the partners in the "coalition of the willing" if they can’t get their snouts in the trough.

Paul Begala an advisor to the previous President, (who was noted for a unique understanding of evidential law), exhibited a frightening view from the top, of this misuse of executive order authority "Stroke of a pen, law of the land, kind of cool." Dylan Thomas described it accurately in his war time lament, "The hand that signed the paper, felled a city, and ruin came…Great is the hand that holds Dominion over man by a scribbled name"

EO 13303 - US Corporates in Iraq: A Protected Species

Bush has granted Iraqi oil a lifetime exemption provided US companies are involved in the oil's production, transport, or distribution. This order applies to Iraqi oil products that are "in the United States, hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons." (Under US law, corporations are "persons.")

Jim Vallette, guru at the improbably named Sustainable Energy & Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. is reported as saying ," .. if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, anything they or anyone else does with it is immune from legal proceedings in the US. So if US oil companies around the world have problem – a massive tanker accident; an oil refinery explosion; using slave labour to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; lawsuits by current creditors or the next true Iraqi government demanding compensation – anything at all, is immune from judicial accountability.

"Effectively Bush has unilaterally declared Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of US oil corporations," Vallette added.

Again, in a report for the US Democratic legal think tank Government Accountability Project (GAP), the legal director, Tom Devine, said that in terms of legal liability, 13303 "cancels the concept of corporate accountability and abandons the rule of law . . . (It) is a blank cheque for corporate anarchy. Its sweeping, unqualified language places the industry above domestic and international law for anything related to commerce in Iraqi oil."

The best way to fight terrorism is to advance justice; and justice will not be possible as long as corporations, their assets, funds and profits are prioritized over people.

Edward Teague

 

(actually tearing up with laughter)


1. MacBeth simply repeats the laws as they apply, and refers to the "contractors" as "contractors".

2. Uncle Tim, refering to ANOTHER poster's post, asks who is being refered to as "mercenaries".

3. At the same time that Mac Beth is responding to UT's question about who could qualify as mercenaries, without, mind, calling anyone that, T_J responds to UT's question by saying that "mercenaries" is MacBeth's term, used to denegrate specific people, and that the word "mercenaries" is in itself objectionable...MacBeth having never used the term.

4. MacBeth points this out to T_J.

5. T_J responds that MacBeth is playing word games, and that the issue isn't terminology, as "contractors" is just as demeaning as "mercenaries".

6. MacBeth points out the inconsistency in T_J's position by merely replaying the conversation, and mentions in closing that "contractors" is a term used by the military itself.

7. T_J says that the term "mercenaries" is really the issue, and that Mac Beth missed the point.

8. MacBeth laughs and encourages T_J to keep on trying.

9. T_J declares victory.




LOLOLOL! This is too much. I swear somethimes this guy is pulling an Archie Bunker....

 

10) this thread has gone bonkers just like the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and.....