Amnesty For Terrorists?

  •  June 20, 2006

Officials in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government announced an amnesty
plan for terrorists:

The plan, quickly and mysteriously released
and rescinded by the prime minister’s office last week, calls for a prisoner release
and pardons for those “not proven guilty in crimes and clear terrorist activities”
and a review of the process by which former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath
Party are removed from public life.

The plan includes an organization that has shades of South Africa’s Truth
and Reconciliation Commission or El Salvador’s Comisión
de la Verdad:

The amnesty plan, which apparently includes many insurgents who
have staged attacks against Americans and Iraqis, calls for the creation
of a national committee and local subcommittees to welcome insurgents and begin
a “truthful national dialogue in dealing with contradicting visions and stances,”
according to a version of the plan published in an Iraqi newspaper yesterday.

What seems oddest about this is that most domestic
opposition comes from Democrats on this issue. I don’t get it – they vociferously
opposed Bush’s de-Ba’athification
plan, and much of the Democrats’ leadership have been preaching cut-and-run
and other linguini-spined positions – so this sudden on-cue ‘tough guy’ approach
seems most out of character indeed. Perhaps, like a stopped clock, they occasionally
lurch into the truth in spite of themselves.

Crossposted from WILLisms.com

Tags:


«
»
  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Well, that is why the Democratic response to this mystifies me.

    If this can end the bloodshed, why not be in favor of it?

  • robert108

    The Dems are absolutely incapable of putting aside partisan politics, since that is all they have. They have put all their eggs in the one basket of hating the President and denying all the realities of what he has accomplished. Any one of a number of accomplishments, like victory in Iraq, shatters their entire agenda. They must resist the truth like grim death, and that will be their downfall.

  • http://igotthisblog.blogspot.com/ Seth Williams

    This is a good thing Ken. At the end of civil strif there needs to be a reconciliation. The Iraqi government is extending an olive branch, and we should applaud this necessary step towards the restoration of civil society. The alternative is a much higher body count.

  • Zsa Zsa

    Convincing the Dems to set aside partisan politics is a great concept. BUT, the Pelosi’s and many others would rather have Bush to blame for more deaths. That type of leadership is leading our country down the drain.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Well you are far more charitable than I am Rob.

    If they are fighting in Iraq, out of uniform, against the legitimately elected government there in any capacity, they are terrorists in my book.

  • diane

    Wow Khen, you’re all over the board today in this thread.

    Democrats feelings? So what. The point to the story in my mind is that Iraq is beginning to ‘feel its’ oats’. Speaking out for Iran’s rights to develop nuclear power. Calling themselves a friendly government to Iraq.

    Iraqis, as fractured and splintered religiously as they are, hate the U.S. and Bush more than eachother (or past history with Iran). And they want desperately for all this to end.

    They don’t like you, Khen. Look for more ‘emotional outbursts’ (as Maliki’s saying that U.S. military violence against civilians was becoming commonplace was called by a U.S. spokeshole the other day).

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    I gotta say though, coming so close after the death of Zarqawi, this seems to be the best possible timing to put something like this forward.

    The ‘insurgents’ have to be thinking that defeat looms for them, and this will be the best possible deal they could hope to get.

  • robert108

    The Dems are against it for partisan political purposes only.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Having said that, maybe this amnesty plan needs to be looked at.

    I am kinda torn as to whether it is a good idea or not.

  • Carrick

    I’m firmly on the side of the Iraqis granting amnesty to insurgents who fought against the US occupation. Like most of the Iraqi population, I draw the line at people who deliberately targeted civilians.

  • http://www.rea1001.blogspot.com/ EA

    Sad isnt it, there has to be amnesty, otherwise terror attacks cant happen, which then lead to further distrubution of power.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Ken, I think you’ve made a mistake here by failing to draw a line between insurgents and terrorists.

    Insurgents, to my mind, are those Iraqi citizens who have taken up arms against U.S./Iraqi government forces and have attacked our soldiers and other military targets.

    Terrorists, on the other hand, are the ones who have attacked civilians, taken hostages and engaged in other atrocities.

    All hostilities end with the two sides forgiving each other. As long as we’re not pardoning actual terrorists (and the quote you’ve included in your post clearly indicates that we’re not) then I don’t have a problem with this.

    It is the equivalent of letting the average German troop go back to his civilian life after WWII while holding those responsible for holocaust atrocities responsible for their actions.

    This is a pragmatic approach to peace in Iraq, and it should be embraced by all who want us to succeed there.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I think you should maybe take a look at it again. I understand where you’re coming from, but if some of these insurgents (note I’m differentiating from the terrorists as per my earlier definitions) will agree to lay down their arms and join the government in exchange for the Iraqi government letting by-gones be by-gones (and moving we Americans one step closer to getting to leave) I think we have to go for it.

    It’s just too good of an opportunity to pass up.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    The Dems are against it because it may result in a major step toward accomplishing our mission in Iraq, and they just can’t have Iraq coming off as a success under President Bush.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus