Good article that changed my opinion on amnesty on insurgents

[Auntie Bush]

By TIMOTHY WILLIAM WATERS
Published: August 12, 2006

SGT. TERRY LISK of Fox Lake, Ill., died fighting in Ramadi, Iraq, on June 26, killed by a 120-millimeter mortar. The combat has been intense, and whoever killed Sergeant Lisk may already be dead. But if not, what should happen to him? The Bush administration knows: It wants him prosecuted.

But killing American soldiers in Iraq is an act of war, not a crime, and the United States is wrong to oppose amnesty for the insurgents there. Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, visited Washington recently to discuss his reconciliation plan, which includes an amnesty, but the United States insists that it must exclude insurgents fighting American forces. This may sound like patriotic support for our troops, but it harms Iraq’s hopes for peace.

Republicans and Democrats alike argue that amnesty encourages attacks on Americans, leaves crimes unpunished and dishonors those who died liberating Iraq. But these objections mistake the nature of amnesty, the incentives it creates and the costs we impose by opposing it.
Without amnesty, undefeated insurgents have no incentive to stop fighting, knowing that peace means prison. And amnesties work best when they are comprehensive. They can exclude dangerous hard-liners like Al Qaeda, but every exception creates a constituency against reconciliation, and if sizable forces are excluded, fighting will continue.

Amnesty may not stop violence, but it won’t increase it. Insurgents are already killing as many Americans as they can. Suicide bombers don’t care about immunity from prosecution.
Nor does amnesty mean impunity; when combatants commit war crimes, they can be punished, just like the former American soldier Stephen D. Green will be if he is found guilty of raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraqi and killing her family. Insurgents who torture Americans should not receive amnesty, but that’s no reason to lump all Iraqis together. We wouldn’t want all our warriors measured by Abu Ghraib.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/opinion/12waters.html?th&emc=th

[peacebird]

1. "We wouldn't want all our warriors measured by Abi Ghraib"

True. And the article is excellent food for thought.
Thank you for posting it!

[welshTerrier2]

2. totally agree with this

Iraq is in a civil war ... they like to keep using the term insurgents as if nothing has changed ... which side in the civil war are the "in"-surgents and which side are the "out"-surgents?

exactly whom do they plan to try and to prosecute if this idiocy ever ends?

and what's their standard for prosecution? killing Americans? how about Americans who killed Iraqis? i don't mean raped and murdered Iraqis ... just plain old combat ...

somehow it's OK for American soldiers to kill Iraqi soldiers but it's not OK for Iraqi soldiers to kill American soldiers ... if you're going to reach some kind of peace accord, what kind of nonsense is that?

and about this war crimes business ... the Geneva convention says it's a war crime to use white phosphorus ... it's banned ... the RAI news footage clearly showed the US used this banned substance in civilian areas ... it eats through the skin right down to the bone ... i trust the US military is compiling a list of names of all Americans involved in this heinous war crime ...

and what about flattening Falujah and Tall Afar and driving hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians from their homes ... Falujah is no more ... better start getting that list ready too ...

calling for a ban on amnesty for "insurgents" is something you say when you want the violence to continue ... and, therefore, it is a perfectly logical position only for the bush administration ...

[Auntie Bush]

5. Thank you. That was an excellent analysis of the situation. m/t

[sam sarrha]

3. was "War" actually declared..? was invading Iraq an 'Act' of war against

Iraq. SO wouldn't the people in Iraq who still didn't like Saddam, but didn't want to be invaded be defending their country..??:shrug:

this is all getting so confusing, i dont think it was thought out very well, some Moran must have started this crap during a drunken alcholic blackout..

[bowens43]

4. Of course they should have amnesty....

They did nothing more then you or I or any patriot would do if their country was invaded and occupied.
They not only have a right to kill americans, they have a patriotic duty to kill americans.

[Auntie Bush]

7. Miracles never cease...WE AGREE! Yippee! n/t

[KKKarl is an idiot]

6. ..

This is a tough one. But being opened minded I am open to any discussion concerning an opposing opinion. You do make a good point. I am going to study up on amnesty.