LAW FROM THE CENTER

Re: my post on the failure to negotiate a SOFA with the Iraqi provisional authority, Pershing6 comments:

Do you really think that a SOFA would have a whole lot of meaning prior to the transition of sovereignty? A SOFA is a treaty, and thus requires at least two sovereign parties. By agreeing to a SOFA now, the U.S. would basically be acknowledging that a de facto handover has already occurred.

Besides, I don't think the Iraqi Governing Council is going to allow U.S. personnel to be tried under Islamic law in the interim; at least not if they can help it. Of course there's always a chance that U.S. soldiers could fall into the hands of some rogue faction, but a SOFA won't prevent that.

As I replied to Pershing6, that's the argument the Coalition authority is making. But that misses the point of my argument. Instituting the SOFA now is not supposed to protect troops NOW...it's supposed to protect troops from a legal "no-man's land" between the time sovereignty occurs and that sovereign authority agrees on a SOFA. Since SOFAs are usually sticky subjects politically, they may take several months to institute. That leaves soldiers vulnerable for months. A SOFA is insurance against an event we hope will never come, but will be terrible for any soldier involved and highly embarrassing for the nation if it does come. While it may be nice to play nice with the Iraqis, the safety and rights of soldiers demand we negotiate and implement a SOFA now, BEFORE its needed.