Pacific Views

Well, Pardon Me

That John Negroponte, always with the magisterial pronouncements. How to make sense of this [emphasis mine]:

BAGHDAD, July 17 (AFP) - US ambassador to Iraq John Negroponte on Saturday said an expected amnesty for low-level criminals would help to unite the country, but it would not include those who harmed the US-led military here.

"The basic notion of an amnesty, to the extent that it involves reaching out to alienated elements of this society who might be willing to come back under the political tent, has a political logic to it that makes sense to me," Negroponte told a group of journalists at a lunch.

...A perception the law, due to be unveiled by the interim government imminently, would also pardon people who attacked US soldiers or other members of the large foreign military presence in the country was wrong, he said. ...

Okay, so no amnesty for anyone who's attacked U.S. troops. The ambassador has declared it to be true. The article continues:

...Iraq's interim President Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar said in an interview published on Monday that the government would offer an amnesty to insurgents who had fought US-led forces but were ready to lay down their arms.

"We are offering an amnesty definitely, for people who have not committed too many atrocious acts; everybody except murderers, rapists, and kidnappers," Yawar said in an interview with Britain's Financial Times newspaper. ...

But al-Yawar seems to be under the impression that insurgents who had attacked U.S. forces will be given amnesty. His lethal clause of exception seems to be murder, which is ambiguous under the circumstances. Does attacking U.S. forces, presuming that you killed some, count as murder under al-Yawar's understanding? Is Negroponte saying that only insurgents who were bad shots be allowed pardon?

It seems as though one of these men might be very confused about who will be getting pardoned and who won't.

Posted by natasha at July 19, 2004 07:04 AM | Iraq | Technorati links |