Obama sending troops to Iraq without legal immunity

[Clocker]

Obama claims that we did not leave any troops in Iraq because they would not give those troops legal immunity for anything that happened. Now he is sending 300 "military advisers" without such immunity (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/23/obama-does-a-u-turn-on-immunity-for-u-s-troops-in-iraq.html).

President Obama pulled U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011 because he couldn’t get Iraq’s parliament to offer U.S. soldiers immunity from Iraqi prosecution. But now Obama is promising to send in hundreds of special operations forces based on a written promise that these soldiers will not be tried in Iraq’s famously compromised courts for actions they are taking in defense of Baghdad.

The U.S. military and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel have opposed sending any special operations teams to Iraq until there is a written agreement from Iraq’s government that they will not be prosecuted under Iraqi law. On Monday, the White House spokesman said those promises were provided in an exchange of diplomatic notes. The delay in getting that agreement is one of many reasons why the Pentagon and the White House were reluctant to support air strikes inside Iraq—despite lobbying from Secretary of State John Kerry and his aides.

“We remain confident that the military advisers will have the protections they need,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson for the National Security Council. “They are going to Iraq with the full support of the Iraqi government. We are working through the mechanism for assurances and we hope to [have it] resolved soon.”

[Robert Goren]

Legal immunity is the least of the problems these troops will have. The plain and simple truth is that it does not matter any way. Any deal made with current government is a waste of good toilet paper. The president was faced the choice of either sending these bodyguards in for our embassy personnel or closing down the embassy. I am not sure I would have made the same decision. It will be a miracle if one or more of them isn't killed.

[Clocker]

The president was faced the choice of either sending these bodyguards in for our embassy personnel or closing down the embassy.

Additional troops for embassy security were sent in a week or two ago. These are 300 additional troops, supposedly special forces, to train the Iraq army in counter insurgency. Speculation is that this also includes ground control specialists for future US air attacks.

[Greyfox]

CNN reported yesterday that a Status of Forces Agreement for legal immunity has been negotiated and signed with Iraq for the 300 military advisors who are going to Iraq.

[Greyfox]

CNN reported yesterday that a Status of Forces Agreement for legal immunity has been negotiated and signed with Iraq for the 300 military advisors who are going to Iraq.

" The United States has now received “acceptable assurances” on the legal protections the new military advisers there will have, and it came through a diplomatic note, rather than parliamentary vote, he said.

“Specifically, Iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis,”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/23/washington-shifts-accepts-iraqi-promise-of-immunity-for-u-s-military-advisers/

[Clocker]

CNN reported yesterday that a Status of Forces Agreement for legal immunity has been negotiated and signed with Iraq for the 300 military advisors who are going to Iraq.

According to the story linked above, the US and Iraq have exchanged "diplomatic notes" agreeing to the matter. What did not happen, and what we wanted in 2011, is legislation passed by the Iraq parliament.

Back in 2011, when the United States tried to negotiate for several thousand U.S. military personnel to stay in Iraq past the end of that year, the White House demanded Iraq’s parliament approve modifications to what is known as a status of forces agreement (SOFA) that included these kinds of legal protections.

[Robert Goren]

CNN reported yesterday that a Status of Forces Agreement for legal immunity has been negotiated and signed with Iraq for the 300 military advisors who are going to Iraq.I definitely oppose sending in "military advisors" with or without immunity.
As I said before any immunity deal struck with the Iraqi government is not worth anything. There is no reason to believe that current Iraqi leaders are going remain in power even if the Shiites are able keep control of the official Iraqi government.

[Tom]

“Specifically, Iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis,”

Oh boy!
How nice.

These idiots cannot protect themselves.
Our troops going in risk facing another Tet Offensive.
Our best course of action is o bomb the Iraqi oil fields and send those 300 to help kick start the Keystone Pipeline.

[Robert Goren]

" The United States has now received “acceptable assurances” on the legal protections the new military advisers there will have, and it came through a diplomatic note, rather than parliamentary vote, he said.

“Specifically, Iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis,”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/23/washington-shifts-accepts-iraqi-promise-of-immunity-for-u-s-military-advisers/ The current Iraqi government does not have the power enforce those protections.

[Greyfox]

I definitely oppose sending in "military advisors" with or without immunity.
.

I agree. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: