Comfy SOFA II

Praesis ut Prosis ne ut imperes
"Lead in order to serve, not in order to rule"

The nation is in a death struggle.
It must either become one vast slaveocracy
of petty tyrants,
or wholly the land of the free
--Angelina Grimke

Ranger Question of the Day:
George Bush ignored legal precedent in 2003,
so why is it relevant now? History has already
judged him, so why fudge the report?
_____________

The impending Iraq Status of Forces Agreement is characterized by the indeterminate pall in which this administration has swathed so many of its legal agreements.

What is a SOFA? A treaty? A non-binding agreement? This particular SOFA, along with many recent SOFA's, seems poised to slide through the system without congressional approval. The argument against requiring congressional approval says that these are military, therefore falling under the purview of the Commander in Chief.

However, this argument ignores the Constitutional requirements and the balance of powers. SOFA's are supposedly treaties; if so, they necessitate congressional approval. The NATO treaty mandates the SOFA with those affected nations. The SOFA's were not congressionally approved sulum because the foundation treaty was approved. It is a naive and false proposition that a SOFA with Iraq is only a military security arrangement. The SOFA in NATO requires:

• Host Nation (HN) law enforcement have the legal authority to assume control of any criminal event on a U.S./NATO post. This includes terrorist incidents that are simply criminal acts.

• U.S./NATO members are subject to HN laws and regulations

• U.S. military or MP's can neither arrest HN personnel nor try or imprison them. In fact, they can not even question them. This would be a HN function.

Then why is the U.S. trying to railroad Iraq into a SOFA that expresses exactly the opposite of U.S./NATO requirements? SOFA's based on normal international law and standards of conduct should be similar across the board, as mandated by the concept of nationhood, sovereignty and the rule of law.

If U.S. forces and contractors are not subject to Iraqi law and if Iraqis can be arrested, interrogated and imprisoned by U.S. military forces, then the concept of Iraqi sovereignty and nationhood is a fiction. Since it is a phony war, why not just admit Iraq is a phony nation?

Ranger wonders why the Bush administration is concerned with the idea of constructing a U.S./Iraqi treaty that they are calling a SOFA. When the UN mandate authorizing the continued U.S. occupation expires in December, what will be the big deal? The U.S. violated international law by invading in an aggressive, preemptive war -- why sweat the small stuff, now?

Contrary to Mike Mullen's line in the sand, if President Bush says we are staying, we will. Unless Congress cuts off war funding, who is gonna kick us out?