NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. military: Iraqi lawmaker is a Terrorist.
Story Highlights

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A man sentenced to death in Kuwait for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. and French embassies now sits in Iraq's parliament as a member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling coalition, according to U.S. military intelligence.

Jamal Jafaar Mohammed's seat in parliament gives him immunity from prosecution. Washington says he supports Shiite insurgents and acts as an Iranian agent in Iraq.

U.S. military intelligence in Iraq has approached al-Maliki's government with the allegations against Jamal Jafaar Mohammed, whom it says assists Iranian special forces in Iraq as "a conduit for weapons and political influence."


• Mohammed is also accused of attempting to kill a Kuwaiti prince
• Jamal Jafaar Mohammed's position gives him prosecutorial immunity

Sources: USgov/http://CNN.com
my2cents: its like Chirac.. he is got immunity.

Funny... I'm sure there are many Iraqis that would say the same about some of our elected officials...

And for the love of God, enough with the damned hash marks. It's just not cool.

for the love of God, enough with the damned hash marks. It's just not cool.cool?
I never see them as cool.
but they are here to stay.

Funny... I'm sure there are many Iraqis that would say the same about some of our elected officials...
I was thinking the same thing.

Oh the hypocrisy, it's like Hamas all over again. You must have democratic elections, but you also must only vote for those whom we like! I would say a fair deal of the Republicans are corrupt criminals too.

Not much of a death sentence, was it? :p

Why on earth does he he immunity from prosecution? If its in their constitution surely all that means is that the government gets to do whateveer they want. Not an ideal situation surely.

I would say nearly all Republicans are corrupt criminals too.

Fixed.

Why on earth does he he immunity from prosecution? If its in their constitution surely all that means is that the government gets to do whateveer they want. Not an ideal situation surely.

It's called Parliamentary Immunity. Many countries have it, among them France, the UK, Canada and Germany.

It's called Parliamentary Immunity. Many countries have it, among them France, the UK, Canada and Germany.And one wonders.. Why do the ones making the law need to be above it?

And one wonders.. Why do the ones making the law need to be above it?

So they can get away with breaking it, duh.

And one wonders.. Why do the ones making the law need to be above it?

I know that Germany decided to put it in place after the Nazi regime to make sure that members of parliament couldn't just be dragged off in the middle of the night and shot as traitors.

So it's mainly to protect the opposition, I guess.

Now, that doesn't mean that they're above the law as such. If there is substantial evidence that they are involved in crimes, parliament can suspend the immunity for one or more members. Tends to happen in Germany whenever there's a scandal of politicians accepting bribes and the like.

I know that Germany decided to put it in place after the Nazi regime to make sure that members of parliament couldn't just be dragged off in the middle of the night and shot as traitors.

So it's mainly to protect the opposition, I guess.I'd like to see a real-life situation where it makes a difference. But yea, the justification is similar around the world.Now, that doesn't mean that they're above the law as such. If there is substantial evidence that they are involved in crimes, parliament can suspend the immunity for one or more members. Tends to happen in Germany whenever there's a scandal of politicians accepting bribes and the like.And yet it does. My memory's fuzzy at the best of times, but I'm quite certain there's been at least a handful of incidents the past 15 years where German MPs seems to have gotten away with criminal conduct, because parliament wasn't inclined to open that can of worms. And the same goes for other, similar countries.

My point being that in practice, the system guarantees that you're not accountable to the law & your peers, but to a small group of coworkser you've usually known half your (long) life, and who usually happen to have a personal interest in avoiding making people in that position accountable for their actions. Fucking crooked, in other words.

I know that Germany decided to put it in place after the Nazi regime to make sure that members of parliament couldn't just be dragged off in the middle of the night and shot as traitors.

So it's mainly to protect the opposition
I see.

.. parliament can suspend the immunity for one or more members.interesting..
So if (a year ago) the Repubs wanted to settle a score with a particular member of the Dems.. All they need to do.. is to use their congress majority to suspend his immunity.

interesting..
So if (a year ago) the Repubs wanted to settle a score with a particular member of the Dems.. All they need to do.. is to use their congress majority to suspend his immunity.The process varies, so check the wiki before you jump to conclusions. But for what it's worth, you're probably correct.

My point being that in practice, the system guarantees that you're not accountable to the law & your peers, but to a small group of coworkser you've usually known half your (long) life, and who usually happen to have a personal interest in avoiding making people in that position accountable for their actions. Fucking crooked, in other words.I say: either give immunity or.. do not.

random immunity.. tht forces you to vote for salary increase all the time.. sucks.

I see.

interesting..
So if (a year ago) the Repubs wanted to settle a score with a particular member of the Dems.. All they need to do.. is to use their congress majority to suspend his immunity.

Not exactly sure what the process is in Germany, but no one party ever has an absolute majority.

Not exactly sure what the process is in Germany, but no one party ever has an absolute majority.your country your laws..thou shall not assume its the same everywhere
UK? AU?
for US and Canada.. we had elected majorities for most of my life.

your country your laws..thou shall not assume its the same everywhere
UK? AU?
for US and Canada.. we had elected majorities for most of my life.

What I was trying to say was : I'm not sure about the exact process to strip someone of their parliamentary immunity in Germany, but no party ever had an absolute majority there. The system doesn't work that way.

I wouldn't make assumptions about other countries ;)

I say: either give immunity or.. do not.

random immunity.. tht forces you to vote for salary increase all the time.. sucks.I'm not sure what you mean.

I at least partially agree however. Everything but diplomatic immunity is a fucking sham. There's no reasonable argument for exempting the cream of the ruling elite from the law.

your country your laws..thou shall not assume its the same everywhere
UK? AU?
for US and Canada.. we had elected majorities for most of my life.Heed your own words. If I had to guess, I'd say it'd require a certain, set majority vote. Probably 2/3rds. But again, check the wiki. I'd be surprised if the info wasn't there.

I wouldn't make assumptions about other countries ;)u r not one of US then :D

Heed your own words. If I had to guess, I'd say it'd require a certain, set majority vote. Probably 2/3rds. But again, check the wiki. I'd be surprised if the info wasn't there.

There's surprisingly little, unfortunately. About the German system, there's only one article in German, and that doesn't go into details about the processes involved.

u r not one of US then :D

Never have been, never will be if I can help it :D

Heed your own words. If I had to guess, I'd say it'd require a certain, set majority vote. Probably 2/3rds. I'd most likely ban all forms of immunity.

its like that in my "nationstate"..
Actually I would like them to include that "issue" in the NS simulation (game)

never will bereally?

Wouldn't you marry me.. and become my Lover?

*pulls the outrageous Diamond ring.. and the Porsche keys*

really?

Wouldn't you marry me.. and become my Lover?

*pulls the outrageous Diamond ring.. and the Porsche keys*

I don't care for diamonds and I don't like cars, sorry.

I won't marry you, but you can drop by whenever you happen to be in Ireland ;)

I won't marry you, but you can drop by whenever you happen to be in Ireland ;)WOOOHOHHHOO..
*checks the flightimes to Dublin *

I'd most likely ban all forms of immunity.There's a great many reasons to hold on to diplomatic immunity, but it boils down to it being safeguard against catastrophic fuckups. It's not bestowed to benefit the diplomats, but rather the reslationship between the countries. Other than that, I can only agree.

its like that in my "nationstate"..
Actually I would like them to include that "issue" in the NS simulation (game)You're one of 'them'. Go write up an issue & post it in the proper forum. Sounds like a good idea, by the way.

Wouldn't you marry me.. and become my Lover?I would, but alas, homos are't real humans in the US so it's not possible.

OK I'm joking. I'm never ever visiting that fucked up country.

I would...I am feeling so.. "accepted".. today.
must be my new Axe body spray.

Oh the hypocrisy, it's like Hamas all over again. You must have democratic elections, but you also must only vote for those whom we like!

There is a a huge, thick, black line between wanting the person in parliament to be our friend and agree with us all the time, and not wanting him to be a terrorist who has led to the deaths of U.S. soldier's and innocent civilians. The U.S. has a legitimate legal issue with this person.

I'd like to see a real-life situation where it makes a difference. But yea, the justification is similar around the world. The Nazis are a real life example. If you mean an example in normal life, laws who's purposes are to save the lives of the parliament members during a military coup don't have to have real concrete benefits every single day. They're purpose is very narrow. Whether the benefits during those times are worth the cons every other time is up to debate.

So if (a year ago) the Repubs wanted to settle a score with a particular member of the Dems.. All they need to do.. is to use their congress majority to suspend his immunity. Assuming the US congresspeople had immunity, and asuuming the suspending of such immunity required a simple majority or plurality, and not 2/3 or something, and assuming that a Democrat had actually committed a crime, then precisely.

Funny... I'm sure there are many Iraqis that would say the same about some of our elected officials...


That they are conspiring with terrorists? On what basis of proof? This relationship is hardly reciprocal.

and assuming that a Democrat had actually committed a crime, then precisely.whether the "crime" actually took place or not.. is besides the point.

Assuming the US congresspeople had immunity, and asuuming the suspending of such immunity required a simple majority or plurality, and not 2/3 or something, I was using the GOP as an example.. just an example.

Besides the GOP just lost the absolute control they had for so long.

The Nazis are a real life example. If you mean an example in normal life, laws who's purposes are to save the lives of the parliament members during a military coup don't have to have real concrete benefits every single day. They're purpose is very narrow. Whether the benefits during those times are worth the cons every other time is up to debate.The Nazis isn't a real life example, as the immunity was a response to what happened then. A real life example would have been if immunity had existed & actually stopped anyone from throwing their collective asses in jail/gallows or simply have them assassinated.