NEW YORK and WASHINGTON, June 10, 2004 - After securing a unanimous United Nations Security Council resolution supposedly granting "full sovereignty" to Iraqis, the United States is shifting its focus to winning a second decision that would protect its troops from possible war-crimes prosecution.

The original resolution granting immunity to US peacekeepers that was first adopted by the Security Council in July 2000 was renewed last year, and remains valid until the end of this month. The present resolution, which is a call for a second renewal, is due to come up for a vote before July 1.

"With a pliant interim government in Baghdad, this should not be a problem in Iraq," said an Asian diplomat. "But Washington obviously wants international legitimacy from the Security Council - and it may well get it."

China, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, has already expressed reservations. But, according to diplomatic sources here, the Chinese government may signal its displeasure by abstaining on the resolution, not vetoing it.

"The question is: Will the other 14 members of the Security Council allow themselves to be intimidated once again if the United States insists on a renewal?" asked Hans Corell, who until recently was the UN legal counsel. "Can they afford damaging their own reputation - and the council's? And can the United States afford continuing in this way when they need all the support they can get from the United Nations in other matters?"

The 15-member Security Council has already been accused of wilting under US pressure when it unanimously adopted a resolution on Wednesday endorsing the military occupation of Iraq.

The US attempt to seek exemptions from war crimes comes at a time when its soldiers in Iraq are accused of brutalizing and humiliating detainees in violation of Geneva Conventions that govern the treatment of prisoners of war, and include the prohibition of torture, rights to legal representation and family visits.

The military atrocities committed by US soldiers warrant war-crimes prosecutions, according to constitutional lawyers, but the United States cannot be hauled before the International Criminal Court (ICC) because it has refused to accede to the Rome Statute creating the ICC.

Exemption from war-crimes prosecutions would also nullify the very basis of the ICC.

"For someone who is a warm supporter of the United Nations, the ICC and the United States, it is obvious what must be done in this particular case. It is time to stop this nonsense," Corell said.

Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, said the Security Council has no authority to exempt the United States from the laws of war, including and especially the Geneva Conventions, since they constitute jus cogens - peremptory norms of international law that can never be derogated from.

"The adoption of such a second resolution by the Security Council would be ultra vires under UN Charter Article 24 (2), which requires that the Security Council 'shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations'," he said.

Even if passed, said Boyle, such a resolution by the Security Council would be null and void around the world, except perhaps before the ICC.

Meanwhile, lawyers for Iraqis tortured while in US custody have sued two private security companies for allegedly abusing prisoners to extract information from them with the goal of winning more contracts from the US government.

According to the class-action lawsuit filed on Wednesday by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and a Philadelphia law firm, the private security corporations named conspired with US officials to "humiliate, torture and abuse persons" detained by US troops in Iraq. The suit, which was filed in federal court in San Diego, California, names as defendants the Titan Corp of San Diego and CACI International of Arlington, Virginia, that company's subsidiaries, and three individuals who work for the firms.

Lawyers of at least nine Iraqi victims say they are seeking undisclosed compensation and to have the two companies barred from receiving future contracts from the US government. The suit accuses the companies of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging that they engaged in a wide range of "heinous and illegal acts in order to demonstrate their abilities to obtain intelligence from detainees, and thereby obtain more contracts from the government".

RICO enables persons financially injured by a pattern of criminal activity to seek redress through state or federal courts, and penalizes acts of "racketeering" and other serious crimes.

The lawsuit also charges that three individuals, Stephen Stephanowicz and John Israel of CACI Inc, and Adel Nahkla of Titan, directed and participated in illegal conduct at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"We believe that CACI and Titan engaged in a conspiracy to torture and abuse detainees and did so to make more money," said Susan Burke of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. "It is patently clear that these corporations saw an opportunity to build their businesses by proving they could extract information from detainees in Iraq, by any means necessary. In doing so they not only violated a raft of domestic and international statutes but diminished America's stature and reputation around the world."

A spokesperson for Titan said the company merely provided translation services for the US government in Iraq and was not in control of Iraqi prisoners.

"We believe the lawsuit is frivolous and we will defend against it vigorously, and we do not know of any government allegations on this issue nor have we heard of any government allegation or charge against the single former employee that is mentioned in the lawsuit," said Titan's Wil Williams. "We have never had control of prisoners or how they were handled."

While US soldiers have appeared responsible for the atrocities that began to emerge via still and video photos this spring, more recent pictures of the abuse of Iraqi detainees are bringing to light the role that the mostly unregulated private contractors working in occupied Iraq played in the interrogation of detainees.

Lawyers for some of the soldiers already tried in Iraq for abusing prisoners said they claimed to be acting in part under the instruction of mercenaries hired by the Pentagon as interrogators.

While seeking the exemption from the ICC, Washington has signed bilateral immunity agreements with some 75 countries that have agreed not to prosecute US soldiers on their soil. They range from Botswana and Chad to Sri Lanka and the Solomon Islands. But, according to the UN Treaty Section website, none of the bilaterals have been registered with the world body.

"It is a mandatory obligation imposed on all member states by the Charter that all treaties and agreements concluded by them be registered," said Palitha Kohona, head of the UN Treaty Section. "There are no exceptions to this requirement envisaged under the Charter. Article 102 seeks to ensure transparency with regard to all legally binding agreements concluded by member states. The fact that none has been registered so far seems to give rise to interesting legal implications," she said.

One speculation, according to a UN lawyer, is that the bilateral compacts are not being registered because the parties that signed with Washington do not consider them to be treaties. If that were the case, there would be doubts about their legally binding nature and their enforceability, he said.

"Of course a superpower could enforce bilateral obligations other than through legally available means. The tendency to resort to extralegal means is something that the international community should be concerned with," he said.

(Inter Press Service)

http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FF11Aa01.html