The Iraqi government yesterday announced a plan to offer amnesty to insurgents who were not involved in "terrorism":
Maliki said the "reconciliation will be neither with the terrorists nor the Saddamists," referring to supporters of former president Saddam Hussein. The plan called for pardoning detainees "who were not involved in crimes, war crimes and crimes against humanity" and for forming committees to secure the release of innocent prisoners as quickly as possible.How this Iraqi government is exactly going to define "terrorism" is unclear. None of the articles I read could answer that very basic question.
The Iraqi government did define terrorism not too long ago -- in November of 2005. And, according to that definition, resistance against US forces was not considered terrorism. So, their definition of terrorism was specifically written to NOT include attacks on any soldier from the the United States:
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.If that definition of terrorism still holds, then George Bush's good friends -- the Iraqis to whom Bush paid that "surprise vist" just a couple weeks ago -- are giving amnesty to anyone who attacked and killed Americans. Attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces didn't count in November. The question for George Bush is whether they matter with the new Iraqi government now.
The attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.
