So when I first heard this report…
Then I dug into the story and find that the immunity Bush is holding out for is immunity from Iraqi prosecution, as an early draft of the agreement under discussion holds that private U.S. contractors would be subject to Iraqi law. Now, I may not be a big fan of private military contractors (what a wonderful euphemism for mercenaries), but I'm going to agree that, while I think they need to be held accountable for their actions, it probably should be handled in US courts.
But I find it interesting how little of that was communicated in the headlines and newscasts I heard. Could be argued, I suppose, that a potentially inflammatory lead-in like that would make people WANT to read the story and get the details, so it could serve to make you more educated on the subject. But that's really putting a lot of faith in 21st Century human nature, and I simply don't have that kind of faith. Too many times, people hear the headline and "know" all they need to know to start ranting. (Hell, I'm sure I've been guilty of the same thing.) So I'm opting to believe they were going for the knee-jerk reaction. Controversy is always good for ratings, after all.
Makes me almost wonder how Fox News handled the story. Not enough to actually look it up, but enough to wonder.
US Pushes Troop Immunity, Flexible Deadline in Iraq PactMy first reaction was a simple 'what the fuck?' If we're supposed to be "the good guys" here, aren't we supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard (damning photographic evidence to the contrary aside). So shouldn't the concept of "immunity" run counter to that? Don't we need to step up and take responsibility for our actions in the region?
Then I dug into the story and find that the immunity Bush is holding out for is immunity from Iraqi prosecution, as an early draft of the agreement under discussion holds that private U.S. contractors would be subject to Iraqi law. Now, I may not be a big fan of private military contractors (what a wonderful euphemism for mercenaries), but I'm going to agree that, while I think they need to be held accountable for their actions, it probably should be handled in US courts.
But I find it interesting how little of that was communicated in the headlines and newscasts I heard. Could be argued, I suppose, that a potentially inflammatory lead-in like that would make people WANT to read the story and get the details, so it could serve to make you more educated on the subject. But that's really putting a lot of faith in 21st Century human nature, and I simply don't have that kind of faith. Too many times, people hear the headline and "know" all they need to know to start ranting. (Hell, I'm sure I've been guilty of the same thing.) So I'm opting to believe they were going for the knee-jerk reaction. Controversy is always good for ratings, after all.
Makes me almost wonder how Fox News handled the story. Not enough to actually look it up, but enough to wonder.
Comments