So it is law, and January 1, 2009 is the date. In the meantime, maybe the DoS and DoD can answer these questions for those contractors operating in Iraq as we speak?
*****
Will there be retroactive application of criminal jurisdiction?(It is unclear whether Iraqi law will preclude ex post facto prosecutions based on allegedly criminal acts that occurred before January 1, 2009.)
The agreement includes language about the “parties” retaining their rights to legitimate self-defense as defined in applicable international law. “Parties” to the agreement only includes the US government and the Iraqi government, thus apparently excluding contractors from the right to self-defense. Will there be further guidance forthcoming as to contractors’ rights to self-defense, especially for those contractors who are required or authorized to carry weapons?
Will the 1934 extradition treaty with Iraq mean that US citizens now in the US will be extradited back to Iraq for trial?
Will contractor equipment in Iraq be subject to pre- or post-judgment attachment when a civil suit is filed against a contractor?
Will there be retroactive application of civil jurisdiction?
How will the statutes of limitations apply for tort and contract claims, and will this mean that contractors be sued on January 1, 2009 in Iraq based on occurrences in the past?
*****
All of these questions were asked at the briefing given by the DoD and DoS, by legal experts, and they had no answer! Amazing that we have gotten this far with this document, and these kinds of questions have not been answered. Talk about being thrown under the bus.
I suggest that if you are reading this, and you are a security contractor operating in Iraq as we speak, then ask your company to press the DoD and DoS about these issues. Or as a civilian, you can write the DoD and DoS and express your concern. –Head Jundi
——————————————————————–
Iraqi Parliament approves security pact
By Alissa Rubin, Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell
Thursday, November 27, 2008
BAGHDAD: The Iraqi Parliament ratified a long-delayed security agreement on Thursday that lays out a three-year timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
For Iraq and the United States, the pact’s passage through Parliament by a large majority ? more than 140 of some 200 lawmakers present voted in favor ? marks a watershed moment, heralding an increase in Iraqi sovereignty over American and other foreign troops on its soil.
The pact, which took more than a year to negotiate, consists of two documents: a Status of Forces Agreement defining the rules under which American forces will operate, and a wider Strategic Framework Agreement outlining a broad bilateral view looking toward the future.
Within minutes of the ratification, the American Embassy in Baghdad issued a joint statement of congratulation from Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General Ray Odierno, the overall commander of American forces in Iraq.
“We look forward to the ratification of this vote by Iraq’s Presidency Council,” the statement said. “Taken together, these two agreements formalize a strong and equal partnership between the United States and Iraq. They provide the means to secure the significant security gains we have achieved together and to deter future aggression. They establish a framework for cooperation in the fields of defense, political relations, economics, trade, culture, education, the rule of law, health, the environment and science and technology.”
The deal was backed by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and his Shiite-majority government, and was approved by the Iraqi cabinet on Nov. 16, but needed ratification by the 275-seat Iraqi Parliament.
That ratification on Thursday afternoon came after two weeks of intense and sometimes rowdy debate; the vote was delayed twice. The agreement was opposed to the end by legislators belonging to the political bloc of the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr.
On the final day, they disrupted proceedings during the reading of the agreement by banging on their desks and shouting, “Yes, yes to Iraq; no, no to the occupier,” and “No, no to the agreement.”
The Sadrists held a news conference in the Parliament building immediately after the vote, many of them wearing black sashes used by Shiites to indicate mourning.
Akeel al-Khazali read out a dismissive statement comparing the pact to historic treaties signed with Western powers during the colonial mandate era after the First World War. That theme has featured frequently at Sadrist rallies and speeches.
“The agreement was passed in illegal way,” he said. “The way was rapid and the representatives were forced. We have started the era of mandates, not the era of withdrawals.”
The new agreement comes into force when the United Nations’ mandate that currently governs the American troops expires on Dec 31. The new pact says all American combat forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30 next year and all American troops should be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.
However, Maliki’s government, or its successor, can negotiate a later, separate, agreement with the Americans allowing them to stay longer if it believes Iraq is not yet stable enough.
The pact gives Iraq considerable say in what operations American troops can undertake in the country, and sets limits on the Americans’ ability to search homes and buildings, and hold suspects that they detain.
The agreement also allows some foreign contractors to be tried under Iraqi law if they commit a crime, a clause aimed particularly at curbing the behavior of Western security contractors such as Blackwater. In a high profile incident last year, Blackwater shot into a crowd of traffic in Nisour Square in central Baghdad, killing 17 Iraqi civilians.
American troops will remain subject to American military law if they are on duty and on their bases, but could be prosecuted under Iraqi law if they commit heinous offences while off duty and outside their bases.
It was also initially opposed by many members of Parliament from Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority who were given leverage because the country’s most senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had indicated that he believed any final deal should achieve broad consensus among Iraq’s main ethnic and sectarian groups.
One concession obtained by the Sunnis in return for their eventual support was a post-facto referendum to test public support for the pact, to be held by the end of July next year. Rejection would trigger a mechanism by which Iraq could withdraw from the deal in a year.
“We insist on having a referendum because it is very important to know if our people support this or not,” said Saleem al-Jubouri, a Sunni lawmaker.
The government also promised to study proposals put forward by Sunni members of Parliament to address their long-standing grievances.