[2dogs]

Why are we allowing Iraq's U.N. ambassador to the U.N., Mohammed Al-Douri, to leave the U.S.?

Other than an article on WND today, I haven't heard any news people question this. Shouldn't he be held for possible war crimes trial? Why did the Administration argue in court to let him leave ?

How do you all see it?

[444]

This is off topic for this thread but I thought someone else might get a kick out of it also: http://64.39.15.171/

[Hkmp5sd]

Diplomatic Immunity.

[2dogs]

Diplomatic Immunity.

I know that would normally apply, but since he was a representative of a government that no longer exists, and former members of that government are being sought for crimes against humanity (I assume)- just how far will the "immunity" free ride get him?

Does he represent the country of Iraq (as he claims) or the (former) government of Iraq?

[Hkmp5sd]

Until someone claims to be in control of Iraq, the former government is still considered the actual Iraqi government. There hasn't been a formal surrender by whatever senior official still lives (and probably will not be), no interim government installed or a US/UK military government installed.

So Al-Douri is still officially the Iragi Ambassador to the UN.

He can still be held responsible for his actions, however. Once official war crimes indictments have been placed against Al-Douri, he can be arrested and placed on trial. Even if he is hiding in Syria, we can legally go in and snatch him and bring him back.

[2dogs]

Hkmp5sd

OK man, thanks for the info.:)

[Hkmp5sd]

There is a bright side to this, BTW. By taking him into custody overseas, he gets a free plane ride to Cuba and none of the US constitutional protections he would have had he been arrested here! :)

[4v50 Gary]

Let him go. It would be a bad precedent and violation of diplomatic protocol to arrest an ambassador. Besides, if he goes home, the "mob" will take care of him.