Legal minds, interpret this paragraph about our troops in Iraq.

[alfredo]

I asked my congressman for a copy of the Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Iraq. I was under the impression that to keep forces on the ground in another country, a SOFA was a requirement.

Is bush breaking the law?

[Robbien]

1. Yes, but they are immune from prosecution

The bombing of Fallujah and Najah is also against the law once sovereignity was handeded over to Iraq. There is also some question about our occupying the green zone.

There are probably dozens of things we are doing which is against the law which is why it was so important to get the immunity agreement signed.

[alfredo]

2. Immunity from Iraqi law is one thing, but

immunity from US and international law is another. Is bush breaking US and international law by not signing a SOFA?

[IkeWarnedUs]

3. I wouldn't call my mind legal, but . . .

It sounds like we granted ourselves immunity.

If Iraq were to somehow get a legitimate government and not a bunch of puppets with the US holding the strings, I don't see how this immunity could hold up.

In fact, I remember reading something around the time Iraq was given its "sovereignity". It was a discussion about precedents to show that the elected Iraqi government would not be obligated to honor certain contracts, treaties and other official agreements.

I'll see if I can find it.

[Gwerlain]

4. Washington Times, 23APR2004, off the UPI wire...

Excerpt:

"In the absence of a bilateral agreement that traditionally governs the presence of U.S. forces in a foreign country -- a status of forces agreement -- Pentagon and State Department officials this week pointed to a trio of documents that authorize U.S. forces to work in Iraq: U.N. Security Council Resolution 1511; the Transitional Administrative Law, the interim constitution known as the TAL, recently adopted by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council; and Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17."

The remainder of the article can be read here.

The opinion of the writer appears to be that it is traditional for the US military to operate under a SOFA, but not necessary, provided that alternative agreements are in place that provide for military operations. Or at least the writer believes that the unnamed "Pentagon and State Department officials" believe so.