Is the U.S. Military in Iraq? Apparently Not.
Two American citizens are being held by the U.S. military in Iraq, and are fighting being turned over to Iraqi courts, where they would face almost certain death. The Supreme Court is due to hear their cases tomorrow, and the excuse the Bush administration is using in favor of the turnover should be causing outrage on both the left and right.
Here’s a little noticed story that should make heads explode in both the left and right blogosphere. On Tuesday, the U.S. government will be arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court that the U.S. troops in Iraq are not under the control of the U.S. government, but rather (apparently) the United Nations. It’s all very confusing.
From the Wall Street Journal on 3/21 (behind the paying firewall):
The government cites a post-invasion Security Council resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq to assert that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and his troops serve in an international army that “is legally distinct from the U.S. military.” …
Huh?? So, what’s the case about that’s being argued before the SCOTUS all about, anyway? From Intel Dump:
In Friday’s Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin previewed the cases of Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Omar, two U.S. citizens now being held by the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, pending transfer to Iraqi authorities. Or are they? The key question in the case is whether these men are actually being held by the U.S. Government — or whether they are being held by a Multi-National Force, acting pursuant to a U.N. mandate, not subject to the jurisdiction of federal courts…
Here’s some background on the Munaf case. Essentially, Munaf faces execution in Iraq if he’s turned over to Iraqi authorities. Or does he? And, here’s some background on the Omar case. Like I said, all very confusing. Both Munaf and Omar may very well be “bad guys”, in fact, let’s stipulate for a moment that these U.S. citizens are guilty as charged. Their “bad guy” status isn’t what this is about.
Several things occur to me.
- Both Munaf and Omar’s attorneys will argue that their clients “fear being tortured if they are turned over to Iraqi authorities”. Such an argument was apparently sufficient for the attorney representing convicted airplane bombing terrorist Luis Posada Carriles to argue that he should not be deported from the U.S. to either Cuba or Venezuela to face charges. The Bush administration did not dispute the claim at Carriles’ immigration hearing, and Carriles was released, even though a preponderance of evidence exists that implicates him. He remains free in Florida. Luis Posada Carriles is not a U.S. citizen.
- American mercenaries employed by Blackwater, LLC massacred a bunch of people in Iraq last year. The Iraqi government demanded that the merc’s involved be turned over to the Iraq government for prosecution. The U.S. government refused, and presumably, all involved are now back on American soil, free and clear of any threat of prosecution or detention by either American or Iraqi courts. The excuse? As Americans, they were immune from prosecution by earlier Coalition Provisional Authority decrees.
- It’s hard to believe that heads aren’t exploding all over the conservative GOP universe with the Bush administration claiming that the U.S. military is under the jurisdiction of a U.N. mandate.
I’m not sure how the Bush administration’s lawyers can reconcile these apparent inconsistencies before the U.S. Supreme Court. I am sure, however, that with the current makeup of the court, Messrs. Munaf and Omar (both U.S. citizens) probably don’t stand much of a chance. Neither is it likely that any online conservative voices will take up their cause. The fact remains that this is a terrible precedent that the Bush administration is trying to set, whether or not Munaf or Omar are truly guilty of their alleged crimes.
and since bush has made it clear that we’re now a torturing nation (and damn proud of it he is) then will threat of torture be ruled out as a reason for asylum altogether? and we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all if their names were smith and jones either.
The rule of law under Bushism is a farce. Confusion doesn’t begin to describe this or a myriad of other situations. Just one in an endless series of so many loop-de-loopholes into which to tuck the facts, pull out whatever is convenient in the moment, and reassert that Bushist America is a land of men and not of laws. The question is whether the country will have the courage to assemble its own Truth and Reconciliation Commission to bring the lawbreakers to justice when (and if) Bushism ends.