so if the amnesty doesn't apply to people who attacked u.s. forces, or anyone who committed any attacks against iraq forces, or terrorist attacks against civilians in iraq, is anyone eligible for amnesty?
i'm not commenting either way on the concept of having some sort of amnesty in iraq. sometimes an amnesty has helped bring about peace by encouraging insurgent groups to stop fighting. the down side is that it means killers get away, but i understand how a society can decide they are willing to pay that price in exchange for an end to war. on the other hand, sometimes when amnesty is extended peace doesn't follow. you end up paying the amnesty price with no peace to show for it. it's a hard call because you don't always know from the get-go whether the amnesty will pay off.
but if you're gonna go the amnesty route, it's gotta be a real amnesty. you can't just call something an "amnesty" and then exempt every crime you can think of from its terms. this iraqi amnesty is just an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. who doesn't want all the benefits of an amnesty (i.e. insurgents giving up) without any of the costs (i.e. letting the insurgents go)? but if you're not giving killers immunity then why would any insurgents give themselves up?
