executive order #13303

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jul 29, 2003.

  1. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #1
    link

    translation: any action taken by any company or employee of a company participating in the iraq reconstruction shall be immune from prosecution. any associated funds may not be confiscated.

    ESPECIALLY IF IT CONCERNS OIL.

    why? because disruption of the oil is now a national emergency.
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #2
    Re: executive order #13303



    or the proceeds from oil sales are promised to someone else.
     
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #3
    Translation:
    Iraq's oil revenues will go to the reconstruction of Iraq, not to pay for the crimes of the previous Iraqi government. Don't think that you can file a lawsuit against Iraq and get paid from Iraqi oil revenues.
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #4
    i don't think that's what it means. i believe it's saying that if, say, chevron accidentally killed some iraqis in an equipment accident, they're immune from prosecution.

    or a more nefarious example -- iraqi oil workers are protesting something texaco is doing. texaco managers hire some guys to go in w/ M-16s and gun them down. the gunmen and managers are immune from prosecution.

    or some halliburton employees get drunk and rape a 13 year old iraqi girl. again, no repercussions.
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #5
    Now would that be revenues after Halliburton gets its cut? Would those rebuilding costs include all the damage done by the US troops? The cynical could see a perpetual rebuilding project with the military knocking 'em down and certain corporations being paid by oil sales to throw 'em back up. How long will it last?
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #6
    sure sounds like it.

    omg, friggin' genius! i'm already of the belief that bush & co. are gunning for permanent war, but now they've set up a system of permanent reconstruction, immune from prosecution. yes, build it up and knock it down, ad infinitum.

    so it's not so much about taking the oil, it's about taking the profits of the oil.
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #7
    zimv20,
    Do you really think that Texaco will be immune from prosecution if they murder a bunch of people? That Halliburton's rapists would not be brought up on criminal charges? That's absurd. IJ Reilly woud call it a straw man or "act of desperation."
     
  8. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    Since my name's been invoked here... I don't necessarily buy the Texaco murder scenario, but not because it's a straw man argument. A straw man argument is the fabrication of an easily-defeated debating point that your opponent has not actually made. For future reference.

    Incidentally, I hope your interpretation of what this executive order means is also not correct. Iraq has huge debts to other nations, which the US would like very much to erase, and it certainly would not promote international cooperation in Iraq for the US to make a power-play to control how all of Iraq's oil revenues are dispensed, if it's to the decided disadvantage of the debtor [edit: meant creditor] nations. I'm not certain this is happening, but I see indications that it is, which is troubling.
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #9
    the order classifies any threat to the rebuilding as a national emergency. further, any action taken to quell that threat is immune.

    i think it could easily be interpreted that murdering protesters furthered the rebuilding effort. perhaps i was too glib in the rape example, but i'm sure a company lawyer could come up w/ a reason to classify such an act immune under this order.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #10
    Maybe red herring is the more accurate term, although in this case the executive order is not making the argument that murder and rape are going to be excused (thus zimv20 is making an easily refutable point that the documnet he is criticizning did not make). It remains absurd to say that this executive order is going to excuse rape and murder, whether one characterizes it as a straw man, a red herring, of just garden variety hysteria.

    Here's a question for everyone. What would you do, if anything, to protect the oil revenues from garnishment etc.? There are may potential claims against them. Tortured POWs from the 1990-1991 action. Tortured and killed Iraqi citizens. Suits resulting from attacks on infrastructure etc. Let's see what kind of executive order you would write!
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #11
    I'd write one that said the oil revenues were totally under the control of the Iraqis. The new governing council should be making these decisions.
     
  12. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #12
    you are presupposing that all suits should be dismissed. should they?
     
  13. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #13
    This is definitely leading to the permanent colonization of Iraq. There is no way that gw & co. will allow the Iraqis to rule themselves if this is not continued. It is pretty scary that international law and human rights violations will take a back seat to US security . It is pretty funny that only oil was mentioned as though the rest of Iraq's economic output is worthless.
     
  14. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #14
    I'm not presupposing anything. I am asking what others would suggest doing to protect these assets, if anything.
     
  15. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    I would accept "red herring" as a characterization of the rape and murder argument. It's a distraction from what the executive order really means -- which, it seems to me, none of really can say with authority.

    I'm not sure by what power the President of United States gets to determine who is owed money by Iraq. From what I remember reading about this earlier, the largest creditor nations are Russia and France. I suspect that's what this executive order is all about because it fits into this larger picture. But I won't claim to know for certain at this point; I'd like to hear from someone with some ability to interpret the order and place it within a larger context.
     
  16. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #16
    set up a judiciary body to decide on a case by case basis.
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #17
    Like a military tribunal? ;)
     
  18. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #18
    I don't pretend to be that "someone" with the ability to interpret executive orders, but perhaps this is all about those debts owed to Russia and France. The US doesn't recognize the International Court, it controls the decisions inside Iraq, and now with this order does it prevent France or Russia from filing claims in US courts?

    I'm with you in not knowing where Bush gets off deciding something that should be decide by the Iraqis. The governing council is broader and more representative than I would have anticipated (kudos to Bush on this one) and if we really want to build a stable, independant Iraq then these decisions should not be made in the White House.
     
  19. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #19
    Right now, the coalition is the occupying power, and, as such, has responsibility for making these decisions. Yes, it probably does prevent France and Russia from filing claims in US courts. Good thing, too. France and Russia can deal with the new Iraqi government once it is in place. In the meantime, there's no need for the US to use Iraqi oil to pay Saddam's debts.
     
  20. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    What do you mean by "no need?"
     
  21. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #21
    I mean the United States should not decide to pay Saddam's debts to France and Russia at the expense of the new Iraq. Let the new Iraqi government work out those arrangements with its creditors when it is fully installed.
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #22
    If we are serious about building this new Iraq and have confidence in the governing council we brought about, then why should such an issue wait until a latter date? This is not a security issue that can only be handled by the military forces of the occuping powers. Unless there is some other claim by the US or US corporations I don't see the need to wait.
     
  23. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #23
    The "governing council" is barely able to organize itself at this point. I think you should re-think the idea that taking all the money out of Iraq isn't a security issue. Without this order, and with lawsuits and large judgements flying about like so much confetti, we would hear complaints about how the US was basicallly bleeding Iraq dry and should leave that money for the Iraqi people etc. etc.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #24
    Perhaps I don't fully understand what the role the US has in mind for this "governing council." If it is going to be the installation of stop signs in Bagdhad then that is one thing, but if it is to govern Iraqi society then it would seem this should be right up its alley. I have no interest in taking money that is needed for the rebuilding of Iraq and putting it in the hands of the French or the Russians. Both of those governments have stated their willingness to negotiate the debt. I just think it is up to Iraqi authorities to do so.
     
  25. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #25
    Perhaps you don't fully understand the role. I have read that it's role, in addition to spending money on reconstruction, will be to develop a new Iraqi constiution. In any event, there are no Iraqi authorities for France and Russia to negotiate with at this time. Maybe they will be able to do this with time.
     

Share This Page