Amnesty for terrorists seems like a bad idea to me, too:
As part of a plan to mend sectarian strife, Iraq’s prime minister has proposed extending amnesty to insurgents and opposition figures who have not been involved in terrorist activities.
Lawmakers are still trying to ascertain the details of the reconciliation plan that Nouri al-Maliki released on Sunday. It came out after a week of intense debate in Washington over the deployment of U.S. forces and political posturing on the war months before November’s elections.
Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said extending amnesty to anyone responsible for killing U.S. troops was “unconscionable.”
“For heaven’s sake, we liberated that country,” Levin said on “FOX News Sunday.” “We got rid of a horrific dictator. We’ve paid a tremendous price. More than 2,500 Americans have given up their lives. The idea that they should even consider talking about amnesty for people who have killed people who liberated their country is unconscionable.”
Well, shouldn’t we respect a sovereign nation’s right to govern as it wishes?
[Sen. John Warner, R-Va.] said the U.S. government will not dictate, but will consult with Iraqi officials on all aspects of the plan.
“I want the Iraqi people to take this decision unto themselves and make it correctly,” Warner said. “And I hope it comes out … no amnesty for anyone who committed an act of violence, of war crimes.”
What does the Prime Minister of Iraq say?
In presenting the plan to the Iraqi parliament, al-Maliki said Sunday that insurgent killers would not escape justice regardless of whether their victims were Iraqis or U.S.-led coalition forces.
“The launch of this national reconciliation initiative should not be read as a reward for the killers and criminals or acceptance of their actions,” he said.
I should hope not.
It’s exactly this kind of crap that strengthens my position that politicians are often parasitic opportunists.
I’ve been searching for details to this alleged “amnesty” plan and haven’t been able to find it. However, I have seen a quote from Harry Reid (D-NV):
“Despite the fact that we have now received two credible reports that the Iraqi government is actively considering giving amnesty to those who kill American soldiers, President Bush and the Republican Congress have refused to join with Senate Democrats to denounce this terrible policy, proposing instead that we ‘respect Iraqi sovereignty…”
However, an article from CNN says:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/25/iraq.amnesty/index.html
“Part of the strategy spells out “amnesty for all prisoners who were not involved in any terrorist activity, war crimes or crimes against humanity.”
NOT involved in any terrorist activity, etc. I think Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was right when he “said on ABC’s “This Week” said he does not believe the Iraqi government intends to grant amnesty to people who killed Americans.”
And here we have Democrats twisting what may be a pretty good idea for their political ends. This is why I don’t give a blank check to the Democrats.
Iraqis are not dumb. They would not grant amnesty to insurgents. The real trouble is in sorting out the terrorists from the innocent. In the fog of war, to use a cliche, I’m sure the Americans jailed some who are not terrorists or insurgents or war criminals. Heck, when the Americans arrested somebody, to know friend from foe sometimes they wrote on the foreheads of the detainees with a Sharpie. I think the Iraqis know this and want to clear their jails.
However, this is speculation. I don’t know what the Iraqi plan is and I don’t think the Iraqis quite know what the plan is.
Political opportunism of this stripe is pretty much a given, when you look at the state of American politics.
I think that Harry Reid is a little further out there than the average Democrat, though (as much as it pains me to say it). He’s singing to the base.
Capturing or killing every single member of the insurgency is going to be next to impossible. While I do think it was a little early to extend the olive branch, I can understand that it eventually has to be done.
At both political offices, I could see each group asking for poll numbers before heading to the press microphones. No one realizes that its leadership that wins the elections, not pandering.