Well so much for 'full' sovereignty

[Gaard]

Prisoner 27075 learns limits of sovereignty

Prisoner 27075 learns limits of sovereignty
By Nicolas Pelham in Baghdad
Published: June 28 2004 19:57 | Last Updated: June 28 2004 19:57

Iyad Akmush Kanum, 23, learnt the limits of sovereignty on Monday when US prosecutors refused to uphold an Iraqi judges' order acquitting him of attempted murder of coalition troops.

US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions they were not bound by Iraqi law.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Prisoner 27075 learns limits of sovereignty

Prisoner 27075 learns limits of sovereignty
By Nicolas Pelham in Baghdad
Published: June 28 2004 19:57 | Last Updated: June 28 2004 19:57

Iyad Akmush Kanum, 23, learnt the limits of sovereignty on Monday when US prosecutors refused to uphold an Iraqi judges' order acquitting him of attempted murder of coalition troops.

US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions they were not bound by Iraqi law.

That prisoner 27075, what a whacky guy. I don't think POW's are controlled by local municipalities.

 

[DeeKnow]

so people actually thought that 'sovereignity' means they can decide things from now on ???

 

[daniel1113]

The man committed crimes against our military, not just Iraq. Therefore, the US military can hold him.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The man committed crimes against our military, not just Iraq. Therefore, the US military can hold him.

not if that nation was sovereign...

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The man committed crimes against our military, not just Iraq. Therefore, the US military can hold him.

not if that nation was sovereign...

Wasn't afghanistan sovereign? Didn't stop the US chasing after BL. You can't be a sovereign nation and have your citizens break the laws of other countries and expect that those other countries won't react simply because you say that it's ok. Iraq can't become sovereign and suddenly decide that all detainees in iraq should be let go and suddenly the US has to agree to that after shipping some bodies home that these guys killed.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The man committed crimes against our military, not just Iraq. Therefore, the US military can hold him.

not if that nation was sovereign...

I don't think thats correct.

 

[Genx87]

I dont think comitting an act of war is covered under the laws of a nation.

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The man committed crimes against our military, not just Iraq. Therefore, the US military can hold him.

not if that nation was sovereign...

Wasn't afghanistan sovereign? Didn't stop the US chasing after BL. You can't be a sovereign nation and have your citizens break the laws of other countries and expect that those other countries won't react simply because you say that it's ok. Iraq can't become sovereign and suddenly decide that all detainees in iraq should be let go and suddenly the US has to agree to that after shipping some bodies home that these guys killed.

that's being more than a little naive...

why don't you try going into Switzerland and grabbing Mark Rich? He stole hundreds of millions from the US and lives very comfortably in a small town not too far from me...

afghanistan was a tin-pot country that did not even grow bananas... so that doesn't really count

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The man committed crimes against our military, not just Iraq. Therefore, the US military can hold him.

not if that nation was sovereign...

Umm no. Iraq law doesnt apply to those captured by US military. US Military Law/Geneva Convention Laws apply to them.

Iraqi attacks US Military. US Military capture Iraqi. Doesnt matter if Iraq is sovereign, he commited acts against the US Military. Get it yet?

Now if he committed acts against Iraq, and was captured by US Military, Iraq would be the one charging him.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The man committed crimes against our military, not just Iraq. Therefore, the US military can hold him.

not if that nation was sovereign...

Umm no. Iraq law doesnt apply to those captured by US military. US Military Law/Geneva Convention Laws apply to them.

Iraqi attacks US Military. US Military capture Iraqi. Doesnt matter if Iraq is sovereign, he commited acts against the US Military. Get it yet?

Seems that the Iraqi courts beg to differ with your opinion. Of course all of this happened in the nation of Iraq a sovereign nation or maybe not so sovereign after all.

Now if he committed acts against Iraq, and was captured by US Military, Iraq would be the one charging him.

Unless the Iraqis tell us to leave and that we have no right to conduct military operations and withhold Iraqi civilians without their review and approval. Right now we are supposedly there under the guise that we are in Iraq at the Iraqis request. Or at least at the request of the Iraqi leadership which we appointed. LoL - Nice little arrangement ain't it. I mean we did hand over "sovereignty" of Iraq back to them right ? LoL - Sovereignty my ass, what a joke.