Amnesty To Iraqi Insurgents

Iraq Expected to Offer Amnesty to Insurgents
Three U.S. Soldiers, Iraqi Civilian Killed in Iraq Attacks

BAGHDAD, Iraq (July 12) – Iraqi interim President Ghazi al-Yawer said his government will soon offer an amnesty to those who have fought against the U.S.-led coalition, a British newspaper reported Monday.

"We are offering an amnesty definitely, for people who have not committed too many atrocious acts,‘’ al-Yawer was quoted as telling The Financial Times. "Everybody except murderers, rapists and kidnappers.‘’

He said the amnesty would be offered within "a couple of days.‘’

The proposal was first mentioned earlier this month by a spokesman for interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, signaling the new government’s desire to distance itself from the 14-month U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.

Also, Iraq’s national security adviser, Mouwaffaq al-Rubaie, said Sunday the country would honor the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other international agreements banning the use of chemical and biological weapons.

"Iraq officially declares it will be a country free of any weapons of mass destruction,‘’ al-Rubaie said. "Iraq will never again resort to threatening its neighbors, as Saddam did.‘’

Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession of such weapons was one of President Bush’s declared reasons for invading Iraq. The hunt for weapons of mass destruction has proved largely unsuccessful.

On Sunday afternoon, a roadside bomb exploded as U.S. patrol passed in Samarra, a hotbed of violence 60 miles north of Baghdad, killing two soldiers and wounding three others, the military said.

Earlier, a U.S. convoy was attacked in Beiji, 90 miles south of the northern city of Mosul. After a roadside bomb exploded, an enemy vehicle raced toward the convoy and fired at the soldiers, who shot back and killed the driver, the military said.

A soldier and a civilian traveling behind the patrol were killed. A second soldier was injured and evacuated. Thick black smoke enveloped the area from an oil tanker set ablaze in the attack.

The deaths came a day after four U.S. Marines were killed in a vehicle accident near Camp Fallujah in western Iraq. At least 875 service members have died since the military operations in Iraq began last year, according to the U.S. Defense Department.

Of those, at least 651 died as a result of hostile action.

Also Sunday, insurgents fired mortar rounds at the Abu Ghraib prison, the center of a scandal involving alleged abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. guards. One person was injured.

The attack was the third by insurgents on the facility since a mortar attack on in April killed 22 Iraqi detainees and wounded over 100, the military said. Coalition forces are now holding over 2,300 Iraqis for taking part in activities threatening the coalition forces and their Iraqi allies.

Militants from a group calling itself The Iraqi Islamic Army-Khaled bin Al-Waleed Corps extended their deadline for the Philippine government to agree to withdraw its 51 peacekeepers. Initially, the group gave Manila until Sunday night to agree to a July 20 pullout or it would kill Filipino truck driver Angelo dela Cruz.

That July 20 pullout would be a month earlier than scheduled.

But the Philippine government said Saturday it was sticking to the scheduled Aug. 20 date because of "our commitment to the free people of Iraq.‘’ The government also said dela Cruz had been freed, but the militants denied that in a message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television.

On Sunday, the group said the government had until Tuesday to change its mind.

"There are good signals that the extension of the deadline has been given (for) another 48 hours,‘’ Labor Secretary Patricia Santo Tomas told ABS-CBN TV on Monday from Dubai, where she was accompanying dela Cruz’s wife and brother en route to Baghdad.

Philippine negotiators were working through mediators Sunday to try to free dela Cruz, a diplomat in Baghdad with knowledge of the situation said.

In a video purportedly from the militants broadcast Sunday on the Arab television station Al-Arabiya, a masked man holding a sword said dela Cruz will no longer be a hostage if the Philippines complies but instead will be held as a protected prisoner of war.

After Filipino troops leave, he would be released, the man said.

A militant deadline for two other hostages - Bulgarian truck drivers held by a separate group demanding the release of all Iraqi detainees - expired Saturday morning. The militants had threatened to execute the Bulgarians if the U.S. military did not release all Iraqi detainees by the deadline.

On Sunday, Bulgarian Foreign Minister Solomon Pasi said he had unconfirmed information the hostages were still alive.

Pasi appealed to the hostage takers, saying Islam calls for "mercy for the poor, the hungry and the sick.‘’ He said one hostage, Georgi Lazov, had diabetes, while the other, Ivaylo Kepov, had suffered a stroke.

The group holding the Bulgarians - the Tawhid and Jihad movement linked to Jordanian terror suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - also claimed responsibility for Thursday’s attack on a military headquarters in Samarra that killed five U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi National Guardsman.

To prevent the infiltration of foreign fighters, Syria and Iraq agreed to create a special force to patrol their 360-mile shared border, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh said Sunday in Damascus, Syria, after meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

07/12/04 05:31 EDT

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press.

I really do not understand how the new Iraqi govt. can offer amnesty to anyone who fought against the US-led coalition no matter how insignificant their crimes were. Many troops have died to help free Iraq from an evil dictator and I think offering the insurgents amnesty is a slap in our face. Is this the new Iraqi govt. way of thanking us if so it’s a disgrace.

It is an attempt to un-brainwash a brainwashed group of people. There is nothing wrong with it. They are not going to give amnesty to the hardcoe fundamentalists, but more likley their support networks who may or may not be totaly into the cause. I see no problem with this and it may even slow down the violence significantly. I’d say it is a good move, only time will tell though.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

Vegita I hope you are right but I think the question should be is how will the Iraqi govt know who were the lesser of the insurgents? Isn’t it possible that there will be some murders and rapists and kidnappers who will be given amnesty. I do see the point you are trying to make but i don’t think it’s a good idea. What does something like this do to the moral of the troops who are still over there?

This is so retarded it’s almost funny. This something out of the Vietnam War. Our boys are over thier getting shot in the back and our politicians (puppet regime) are stabbing them in the back. How do the troops tolerate this garbage?

As an Historian (amature) I can’t help but wonder how A MacArthur or a Patton would handle this mess.

For someone like myself who was for the war initially, I now can’t help but wonder what the hell we are doing over there in Iraq. Especially when things like this happen. Gas prices are high, the Iraqi’s aren’t accepting Democracy (they act as though they’d rather live under oppression)and our troops are fighting a war with one hand tide behind their back.

God bless our troops a thousand times over.

Dustin

Peroutka in 04

Maybe if the new Iraqi government continues to do things we don’t like, we should just take it over again!

Iraq is, or should be, it’s own country and it can do whatever the hell it wants to do. Suck it up. How the hell else can the government establish credibility and hence the ability to govern if it doesn’t distance itself from the obviously hated American presence?

Short of sponsoring terrorism and creating weapons of mass destruction, you should be happy they are starting to exert themselves. It hastens the day the troops can get the hell out of there, get out of harms way, altogether.

Amazing country America is. How many conquering infidels have ousted a dictatorship then turned around and given the country back to it’s people right afterwards, giving them the ability to make such decisions which we won’t agree with. Surely the Bush administration wouldn’t be actually allowing Iraq to govern itself?

Vroom, as someone who is constantly attacking our views, why does the little America to the north hate us so?

Slim,

I’m not attacking the US in my previous post… I just think some folks need to relax and let Iraq go it’s own way – whether it be amnesty or other decisions we don’t agree with.

Where do you get the idea that I have any hatred for the US myself? I could be wrong, but since people are dying trying to kill US soldiers I’m imagining they hate the US presence.

This has nothing to do with my own views.

The idea of a limited amnesty makes a lot of sense, especially for a new government trying to win over the populace. Just look back at our own history re: the Whiskey Rebellion [FYI, I am not analogizing the Whiskey Rebellion and the Iraq conflict - I’m showing how we used amnesty well as a new government]. The new government does not want to harden the opposition by coming off too harshly, and it gives lower-level people a reason to desert.

They’ve limited the offer to those who have not killed Americans. They should futher limit it so that it does not apply to any foreign nationals in Iraq (they may have done this, but I haven’t heard it yet - or it may be that way by definition). Also, I believe the amnesty is not a blanket amnesty for all crimes committed; it is an amnesty for being a resistance fighter after the toppling of the regime. Thus, criminals from the regime days could still be prosecuted.

All in all, I think it can be a good thing if it is properly executed.

As a British and American Studies student I’m sorry, I have to get a word in on this one. It is interesting that the Iraqi government is choosing this path, and not doubt it is a direct reaction the what many Iraqis feel has been a period of ‘out of the pan into the fire’. America, however, did reliquish power to Iraqis so she just has to suck it up. The obvious question being why not occupy and rule the place? It has been no suprise that America has from the start loathed the prospect of actually keeping troops to occupy Iraq- It is not an Imperial power, America does not posses an empire in the classic, Greek, Roman or British sense. Instead many would suggest America is the worlds hegemon, the principal function being to spread and underwrite liberal goverment and trade, for the benefit of America. A hegemon differs from an empire in that the states within are self governed, and (comparatively) coaxed via military and financial means to adopt American ways. An empire involves invading then occupying the state in question. Thus the Iraqis are going to do whatever they want and its always going to be difficult for America to stop them without another ‘in then out’ war to change them to a sympathetic government. It may seem like a step backward to many Americans to release these people, but some cultures are going to be less receptive to an American hegemon than others, but even so it would seem likely, looking at the past that a large deployment of troops in Iraq won’t last too much longer as they’ll be pulled back as quickly as possible.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

All in all, I think it can be a good thing if it is properly executed.

[/quote]

I hope for the sake of our troops that I’m wrong and what you’re saying is right.

Dustin

Peroutka in 04