The U.S. has baseing agreements in many other countries Some anonymous U.S. officials and specialists who follow the war have argued they believe that parts of the agreement may be circumvented and that other parts may be open to interpretation, including: the parts giving Iraqi legal jurisdiction over United States soldiers who commit crimes off base and off duty, the part requiring for US troops to ob Iraqtaini for all military operations and the party that prohibits to launch attacks on other countries in Iraq.  For example, government officials have argued that the persecution of U.S. soldiers in Iraq could take three years, and by that time the United States will have withdrawn from Iraq under the agreement. In the meantime, U.S. troops will remain under the jurisdiction of the U.S. uniform code of military justice. Michael E. O`Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution research group, said there were “these areas that are not as clear as the Iraqis think.”  After the agreement was reached, more than 9,000 Iraqis gathered to protest in the eastern suburbs of Baghdad, Sadr City. Protesters burned an American flag and held banners saying, “No, no to the agreement.”  “We condemn and reject the agreement, just as we condemn any injustice,” Sheikh Hassan al-Husseini said immediately after the vote during weekly Friday prayers in Baghdad.  After the adoption of the agreement, Iraqi theologian, political leader and militiaman Muqtada al-Sadr called for three days of peaceful protests and mourning.  The great Ajatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani expressed reservations about the ratified version of the pact and stated that the Iraqi government did not have the power to control the transfer of US forces to and from Iraq, no control of deliveries, and that the Covenant granted US troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts.
He said that Iraqi rule in the country was not complete as long as American troops were present, but that the Iraqi people would eventually judge the pact by referendum.  Sistani considers the parts of the agreement a “mystery” and said that the pact offered “no guarantee” that Iraq would regain sovereignty.  Currently, multinational forces, international advisors and U.S. personnel are immune to the Iraqi legal process (PDF). The CPA 17 regulation, which granted immunity, was neither amended nor repealed by the Iraqi government following the dissolution of the provisional authority. In February 2008, Jennifer K. Elsea, a prosecutor with the Congressional Research Service, told lawmakers that law enforcement meant U.S. forces would not be forced to leave when the U.N. mandate expires.
But the Bush administration left no chance. In November 2007, President Bush and Mr. Maliki signed an agreement that outlines the political, economic and security issues that must shape relations between countries. However, the new security agreements are not subject to legal protection for non-military personnel. Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association, a trade group representing security companies, says the surveillance could lead some Western entrepreneurs to conclude that business in Iraq is too risky. “As one of our contractual partners said, we had all kinds of protective measures during the kinetic part of the war. Now that we are rebuilding, we do not have one. As the United States prepared to assume the presidency, the Bush administration put the finishing touches on long-term agreements with the Iraqi government, which should allow both countries to engage in legal, economic, cultural and security relations until President-elect Barack Obama`s first term.