If you had been President, would you have caved in to the Iraqi government’s demand that U.S. servicepeople in Iraq be subject to the jurisdiction of Iraqi criminal courts?
If you had been President, would you have caved in to the Iraqi government’s demand that U.S. servicepeople remaining in Iraq be liable to criminal prosecution in Iraqi courts?
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA Homepage
Curriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman
You seem to think that politics exists in a world of logic. Romney could reply that, no, he would not have caved in, and that he also would not have withdrawn U.S. troops. If pressed about the inconsistency, which he probably would not be, he could bluster that he would not allow Iraq to prosecute any American.
Silly. Our rules apply to others, not us. This is a feature, not a bug.
Not fair! He’s a Republican!
I think….
Had I been president, there would not be troops in Iraq. The question has no meaning in a sane world.
Had you been President in 2003, sure. But it’s a bit of a cop-out.
Yes, it is.
To answer it as things are - if we are an occupying army, then there is no need to accept it. If we aren’t an occupiers, then under what circumstances would we not be liable under Iraq’s laws - they are a sovereign nation.
I’m still trying to figure out how Repubs can argue that leaving Iraq is a defeat for us - makes no sense at all, but then what’s new.
Brad says:
“To answer it as things are – if we are an occupying army, then there is no need to accept it. If we aren’t an occupiers, then under what circumstances would we not be liable under Iraq’s laws – they are a sovereign nation. ”
Usually there’s a SOFA; at least there was one while I was stationed in Germany in the early 1980’s.
Brad’s cop-out is all too understandable. The invasion of Iraq was a huge strategic mistake, worst one (so far) of the 21st century, worst since (I guess) Vietnam. Republicans need to OWN this, & the rest of us need to never let them forget it. Good news is that with no SOFA there will be a near-total US withdrawal as advertised. The American people will NOT see this as a defeat, I believe.
The Democrats also need to OWN their complicity, not only with Bush’s invasion of Iraq, but with Obama’s current wars in seven Middle East countries, with Obama’s failure to prosecute Bush’s war crimes (which itself violates the Convention Against Torture), and with Obama’s own crimes and constitutional violations, including the torture of Bradley Manning, the numerous killings of civilians (including the assassination of American citizens) by drones, and the violations of the War Powers Act.
Oh Henry, you still think the Constitution is something other than toilet paper. So much to learn.