I love how they refer to this attempt to legitimize America's illegal occupation of Iraq as a "Security Agreement" ... Orwell would have gone insane in today's ridiculous political/media climate.
Sistani Rejects US-Iraq "Security Deal"
Alalam News Network, Iran
BAGHDAD, July 8, 2008 --The Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most revered Shiite leader in Iraq on Tuesday rejected any security agreement with US, stressing such deal will affect the country's sovereignty.
In a meeting with Iraqi national security adviser Muwaffaq Al-Rubaie who was briefing al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government's security efforts, and the talks on US security deal, Ayatollah said his country will not accept such a security deal which is seeking to justify the illegal presence of US military troops in the war-torn country.
Ayatollah Sistani's statements came after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Monday that Iraq was seeking a timetable for withdrawal of US troops as part of its negotiations with Washington on a controversial US security pact that guarantees long-term presence of the US troops in Iraq after the UN's mandate expires at the end of 2008.
It was the first time that al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable -- an idea opposed by US President George W. Bush.
(It's actually NOT the first time he has called for this. Shortly after Bush lied and said that he would pull the troops out after the Iraqis asked them to - no doubt assuming that any Puppet the US installed would be completely under their control - the Iraqis made their first of many such requests.)
The White House says it is not negotiating a "hard date" for a US pullout from Iraq despite Baghdad's call for a timetable as openly demanded by al-Maliki for the first time.
(Of course they're not. This illegal war was always about establishing a permanent occupation.)
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Monday that the US government was looking at conditions, and not calendars.
(Who cares what he said?)
Stanzel said talks between Baghdad and Washington were aimed at reaching agreement on a framework for future relations and on the arrangements that will govern the US military presence and not on a hard date for a withdrawal.
Iraq's parliament will insist on vetoing any security pact the government agrees with the United States and will likely veto the document if American troops are immune from Iraqi law, a senior lawmaker said on Tuesday.
The United States has accepted some key Iraqi demands, but it would be virtually unthinkable for it to allow US soldiers to be subject to Iraqi law.
(Not unthinkable, simply unthinkable for men who operate with the Rule of Law in Utter Contempt. War Criminals don't like the law ...)
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m45551&hd=&size=1&l=e
Iraqi lawmakers say U.S. demanding 58 military bases
By Leila Fadel, McClatchy Newspapers Mon Jun 9, 7:13 PM ET
BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would effectively hand over the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq . Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran .
"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir , a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq . "We were occupied by order of the Security Council ," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."
Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation upon two years of notice from either side, lawmakers said.
"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq ... if we come under aggression we should define it and we ask for help."
MORE:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080609/wl_mcclatchy/2962054
Agreement Lets US Attack any Country from Inside Iraq
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/400179.html
Alalam News Network, Iran
BAGHDAD, July 8, 2008 --The Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most revered Shiite leader in Iraq on Tuesday rejected any security agreement with US, stressing such deal will affect the country's sovereignty.
In a meeting with Iraqi national security adviser Muwaffaq Al-Rubaie who was briefing al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government's security efforts, and the talks on US security deal, Ayatollah said his country will not accept such a security deal which is seeking to justify the illegal presence of US military troops in the war-torn country.
Ayatollah Sistani's statements came after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Monday that Iraq was seeking a timetable for withdrawal of US troops as part of its negotiations with Washington on a controversial US security pact that guarantees long-term presence of the US troops in Iraq after the UN's mandate expires at the end of 2008.
It was the first time that al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable -- an idea opposed by US President George W. Bush.
(It's actually NOT the first time he has called for this. Shortly after Bush lied and said that he would pull the troops out after the Iraqis asked them to - no doubt assuming that any Puppet the US installed would be completely under their control - the Iraqis made their first of many such requests.)
The White House says it is not negotiating a "hard date" for a US pullout from Iraq despite Baghdad's call for a timetable as openly demanded by al-Maliki for the first time.
(Of course they're not. This illegal war was always about establishing a permanent occupation.)
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Monday that the US government was looking at conditions, and not calendars.
(Who cares what he said?)
Stanzel said talks between Baghdad and Washington were aimed at reaching agreement on a framework for future relations and on the arrangements that will govern the US military presence and not on a hard date for a withdrawal.
Iraq's parliament will insist on vetoing any security pact the government agrees with the United States and will likely veto the document if American troops are immune from Iraqi law, a senior lawmaker said on Tuesday.
The United States has accepted some key Iraqi demands, but it would be virtually unthinkable for it to allow US soldiers to be subject to Iraqi law.
(Not unthinkable, simply unthinkable for men who operate with the Rule of Law in Utter Contempt. War Criminals don't like the law ...)
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m45551&hd=&size=1&l=e Iraqi lawmakers say U.S. demanding 58 military bases
By Leila Fadel, McClatchy Newspapers Mon Jun 9, 7:13 PM ET
BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would effectively hand over the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq . Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran .
"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir , a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq . "We were occupied by order of the Security Council ," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."
Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation upon two years of notice from either side, lawmakers said.
"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq ... if we come under aggression we should define it and we ask for help."
MORE:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080609/wl_mcclatchy/2962054 Agreement Lets US Attack any Country from Inside Iraq
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/400179.html
