<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Iraqi forces detain seven Iranian agents in Iraq</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.davejustus.com/2008/10/21/iraqi-forces-detain-seven-iranian-agents-in-iraq/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.davejustus.com/2008/10/21/iraqi-forces-detain-seven-iranian-agents-in-iraq/</link>
	<description>None Sine Causa</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:56:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: probligo</title>
		<link>http://www.davejustus.com/2008/10/21/iraqi-forces-detain-seven-iranian-agents-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-817974</link>
		<dc:creator>probligo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davejustus.com/?p=3216#comment-817974</guid>
		<description>Yes,  interesting.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-10-15-us-security_N.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I was thinking that this was the part&lt;/a&gt; that you would have picked up on,  specially seeing that it formed the lead in the news down these ways.
&lt;blockquote&gt;U.S. agrees to limited Iraqi jurisdiction 

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq would have the first crack at prosecuting American troops and Pentagon contractors accused of major, premeditated crimes committed outside U.S. bases and when they were not on duty, under a draft security pact governing military operations here, Iraqi officials said Wednesday.
The draft also calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraqi cities by the end of June and withdraw from Iraq entirely by Dec. 31, 2011, unless the Baghdad government asks them to stay. The draft must be ratified by the Iraqi parliament before the current U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year.

But the most contentious portion of the agreement is a compromise formula over who has the right to prosecute American troops and contractors for crimes allegedly committed on Iraqi soil.

The U.S. had demanded exclusive jurisdiction. But the Iraqis insisted on a role in trying Americans as an affirmation of sovereignty.

&lt;b&gt;Under the compromise&lt;/b&gt;, the U.S. would have the right to try troops and contractors for alleged offenses committed on U.S. bases or during military missions, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to release the information.

But Iraq would have the primary right to try U.S. military personnel and Pentagon contractors for major, premeditated crimes allegedly committed outside American bases and when they were not on an authorized mission, the officials said.

In case American troops are arrested for such offenses, they would be transferred to U.S. custody but made available to Iraqi authorities for questioning and trial, the officials said.
...
However, the Iraqis have been enraged by a number of cases, including the 2006 rape-slaying of a 14-year-old girl and the murder of her family in Mahmoudiya south of Baghdad.

Four U.S. soldiers pleaded guilty or were convicted in military courts in the Mahmoudiya case. A former soldier, Steven Dale Green, was arrested in the case and is expected to stand trial in April.

The 22-year-old from Midland, Texas, faces a possible death sentence if convicted on 16 charges that include premeditated murder and aggravated sexual assault.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Of little effect?  No,  I think it quite an important concession,  &lt;b&gt;by the Iraqi government&lt;/b&gt;.  I have little doubt that their first draft was asking for right to prosecute US servicemen for crimes committed on duty.  In other words for what they might perceive as &quot;war crimes&quot;.

Like all compromise dealings,  you give in order to win somewhere else.  There is little doubt that that section would have been the first to have the red pen treatment.  

But at this stage the Iraqis have won the point...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes,  interesting.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-10-15-us-security_N.htm" rel="nofollow">I was thinking that this was the part</a> that you would have picked up on,  specially seeing that it formed the lead in the news down these ways.</p>
<blockquote><p>U.S. agrees to limited Iraqi jurisdiction </p>
<p>BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq would have the first crack at prosecuting American troops and Pentagon contractors accused of major, premeditated crimes committed outside U.S. bases and when they were not on duty, under a draft security pact governing military operations here, Iraqi officials said Wednesday.<br />
The draft also calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraqi cities by the end of June and withdraw from Iraq entirely by Dec. 31, 2011, unless the Baghdad government asks them to stay. The draft must be ratified by the Iraqi parliament before the current U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year.</p>
<p>But the most contentious portion of the agreement is a compromise formula over who has the right to prosecute American troops and contractors for crimes allegedly committed on Iraqi soil.</p>
<p>The U.S. had demanded exclusive jurisdiction. But the Iraqis insisted on a role in trying Americans as an affirmation of sovereignty.</p>
<p><b>Under the compromise</b>, the U.S. would have the right to try troops and contractors for alleged offenses committed on U.S. bases or during military missions, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to release the information.</p>
<p>But Iraq would have the primary right to try U.S. military personnel and Pentagon contractors for major, premeditated crimes allegedly committed outside American bases and when they were not on an authorized mission, the officials said.</p>
<p>In case American troops are arrested for such offenses, they would be transferred to U.S. custody but made available to Iraqi authorities for questioning and trial, the officials said.<br />
&#8230;<br />
However, the Iraqis have been enraged by a number of cases, including the 2006 rape-slaying of a 14-year-old girl and the murder of her family in Mahmoudiya south of Baghdad.</p>
<p>Four U.S. soldiers pleaded guilty or were convicted in military courts in the Mahmoudiya case. A former soldier, Steven Dale Green, was arrested in the case and is expected to stand trial in April.</p>
<p>The 22-year-old from Midland, Texas, faces a possible death sentence if convicted on 16 charges that include premeditated murder and aggravated sexual assault.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Of little effect?  No,  I think it quite an important concession,  <b>by the Iraqi government</b>.  I have little doubt that their first draft was asking for right to prosecute US servicemen for crimes committed on duty.  In other words for what they might perceive as &#8220;war crimes&#8221;.</p>
<p>Like all compromise dealings,  you give in order to win somewhere else.  There is little doubt that that section would have been the first to have the red pen treatment.  </p>
<p>But at this stage the Iraqis have won the point&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

